Thread 21 : To feel disappointed - and now disgusted too - after reading this in The Observer about the author and her husband from The Salt Path book and film?

[DisappointedReader]

NO POSTS PLEASE UNTIL THREAD 20 IS FULL

The Observer's original exposé: The real Salt Path: how a blockbuster book and film were ...

First thread: To feel disappointed after reading this in The Observer about the author and her husband from The Salt Path book and film? | Mumsnet

Links to threads 2-16, the other 20 Observer articles and videos to date, Raynor Winn/Sally Walker's statement, our timeline and sources can all be accessed in the OP and first few posts of Thread 17: https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/5403285-thread-17-to-feel-disappointed-after-reading-this-in-the-observer-about-the-author-and-her-husband-from-the-salt-path-book-and-film?

Thread 18: https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/5422393-thread-18-to-feel-disappointed-after-reading-this-in-the-observer-about-the-author-and-her-husband-from-the-salt-path-book-and-film?

Thread 19: www.mumsnet.com/talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/5437058-thread-19-to-feel-disappointed-after-reading-this-in-the-observer-about-the-author-and-her-husband-from-the-salt-path-book-and-film?

Thread 20: https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/5454438-thread-20-to-feel-disappointed-after-reading-this-in-the-observer-about-the-author-and-her-husband-from-the-salt-path-book-and-film?

New posters joining us in the genuine spirit of our civil discourse are welcome. It would be helpful to get the background from at least some of the Observer exposé items before posting.
To all - Please be extremely cautious when it comes to naming or implicating people and addresses not in the public eye or with no direct connection to the story, and around the understandable health speculations, especially where details are unclear or still emerging. Remember, even Hollywood rabbits attract the odd flea. Please do not engage with drive-by scolders and ploppers who seem to have their own agenda and seek to derail. Avoid @'ing and quoting them as - from experience - this will only encourage them back to the threads. Over 5 months we have done amazingly well together for 20 very interesting, very serious and very silly threads so far. I can't be here as much as I'd like so all help with keeping our discussion walking along in our usual reasonable and respectful fashion is very welcome.

Keep to the path. No saltiness. Our Cardboard Mascot Our Simon has had his head stuck back on and is wearing a very fetching tinsel boa. The charabanc is bedecked with fairy lights and very well stocked up. May the seasonal fudge and mulled cider be with you one and all. 🎅🌲🎁❄️🎄

These threads are the gifts that keep on giving:
New:

• Salt Path: A Very British Scandal, available from Monday 15th December Sky Documentaries and NOW TV
• ‘Don’t look for the money. I’ve taken it all’: Salt Path author Raynor Winn’s ‘confession’ that she stole from her family | The Observer

Up and coming:

• Observer Newsroom: The Real Salt Path Story, Thursday 8th January 2026 6.30-7.30pm. More information and to book via this link observer.co.uk/our-events/the-real-salt-path-story
• Podcast series from The Observer's award-winning Investigative Journalist Chloe Hadjimatheou
• BBC Documentary (NB Not involving Our Chloe)

*MNHQ correcting above 'Documentary' to 'Podcast' at request of author

NO POSTS PLEASE UNTIL THREAD 20 IS FULL

So, this makes EVERYTHING (!) fall apart? The whole premise for walk etc (?) What am I missing?

She could claim she got an earlier diagnosis - or what she took for an earlier terminal diagnosis - at another apt, suggesting ‘be careful on stairs’ she decided NOT to share? When light shone on walking book in crate & family friend dispute made homeless? Just to play devil’s advocate for a moment.

If you are right WHY is this not a big klaxon headline from Chloe & others who dispute? It’s missed by practically everyone who disputes.

I think CH and the Observer legal team must feel pretty certain that the multiple family testimonies and the supporting documentation of the letters and typed 'confession' will stand up in court if necessary, if SW were to initiate legal action -- I assume this must have involved ascertaining that the family members in question were prepared to appear in court to stand over their allegations. I mean, I assume their defence would be 'It's not libel because the allegations are substantially true, or the Observer had credible reason to believe, on balance, that they were substantially true for the following reasons etc etc'.

I assume that, in a legal situation, a handwriting expert would be called to compare samples of SW's handwriting with the handwritten letters and would make a professional judgement about whether the handwriting was a match. Harder to prove that a typed or word processed document was written by someone, as the days of those handy typewriters with a misaligned W are long gone, so I suppose they would have to go with trying to establish its provenance.

SW said in her second statement that she didn't 'write the letter' suggesting she stole from family, presumably referring to the typed statement, rather than the other letters. So presumably, given the tone of her statement, she would be claiming someone within the family forged it to cause trouble?

Then again, if the Walkers are going to bring a legal case against The Observer for spreading their 'misleading narrative', shouldn't they be getting on with it? She was being advised by lawyers according to her first statement last summer, which refers to 'ongoing' legal advice, but there's no mention of legal recourse in her December statement...

She can't claim a prior appointment, there is no evidence, in the book she clearly states it is a consultant not a GP that diagnosed Moth.

But isn’t the BIG question re: the timing of ‘routine apt that turned out to be anything but? IF no ‘careful on the stairs you’re terminal’ in 2013 or whenever walk was, it means the whole house of cards falls. Doesn’t it? Not really homeless, no long walk, bit of gammy leg but pores over suffering & heroism of enduring terminal status on walk
to JI etc?

Ah but some facts changed she said in last rebuttal (?) cos privacy?

I can see the logic/truth in what you say. but why is there no main focus here by Chloe etc as yet if so?

It’s poss though, devil’s advocate again, she’s got evidence not yet shared?

Then again, if the Walkers are going to bring a legal case against The Observer for spreading their 'misleading narrative', shouldn't they be getting on with it?

Cases for defamation must be brought within 12 months of the date that the defamation occurred. There is still time for the Walkers to initiate proceedings in 2026.

I know what you are saying @PinkPanther57 , it's true that in the 2015 consultation certain information was not given by Tim to the consultant, but the evolution of Tim's health condition is, the consultant was privy to Tim's past medical history.

So this is the smoking gun & it’s a huge cock up by Sal this is all 2015 - not before - Sal, who was reduced to producing ‘medical evidence’?

As not jumped on by Chloe or prominently flagged what are we missing? Medical stuff regardless of date effectively a shield?

@Freshsocks especially telling if there’s any real proof the ‘careful on stairs’ convo in 2015.

My feeling is, CH is building her case, showing how deceitful Salray is, then she is going to use the medical evidence, consultation and diagnosis. There is no mention of being careful on the stairs at the 2015 consultation, I rented a house once and the landlady told me to be careful on the stairs, and to be especially carefully when drunk :)

Thanks.

The ‘careful on stairs’ was the trigger for the walk, an indication no more could be done as Moth terminal. So if this happened earlier at a medical apt it’s Sal’s proof & truth.

If someone is feeling a bit dizzy, or in anyway out of sorts, you would say be careful on the stairs, I say it so many times to my loved one's. Why did Salray make such a big thing about it? She has since used it as a reinforcement of, Moth's incapacity and vulnerability, also to insinuate a callous attitude by the consultant, Salray has also used it in a heartless way herself. There is no evidence of any other or earlier consultation, being told to be careful on the stairs, does not equate to a terminal diagnosis. I don't know how she would try to explain it if pressed @PinkPanther57 .

In TSP, Moth was telling surfers he was dying. In reality, his son tells us, in his Facebook, Tim was surfing at Newquay that summer.

She’s said at interview it was an indication of palliative care only ‘go home & take it easy’ & they were blindsided into pilgrimage walk as this was only a routine apt, so they thought, but happened with an unexpected terminal diagnosis. If happened in 2013 it backs all up.

There’s a lot of wriggle room here I fear. Paxman style getting to facts needed.

I just think it's yet more proof she's unusually dreadful at dialogue.

It's literally impossible to imagine anyone actually saying any of the things SW gives them to say, from the consultant/s to the 'You're not ill enough' tight-pony-tailed woman in the council offices to the 'Ew! Horrible, drunk tramp cluttering up the pavement!' of the yacht-jacketed woman to the 'You're SO OLD!' comments from everyone on the path to the weird 'undercover SA' stuff to the Parsons' musings about B and Bs and getting your roots done, gal, to the blind seer to 'Anna' offering them her flat.

Nor do I believe for a second that literally the first thing that the PRH editor said to her at their first meeting, when they were still bidding for TSP, was 'We need to change that title'.

Not to mention SW's own favourite conversational tics, as depicted by SW -- she's either saying 'You're WRONG! You're SO WRONG!' to a judge or a consultant, or she's saying 'Let's have tea!' at random moments.

Yes @PinkPanther57 direct questions would be great, but Salray is never going to agree to be grilled. The questioner would have to state again that only a consultant neurologist can diagnose this condition, and there is no evidence of any earlier consultation. What does, be careful on the stairs even mean? I hope Tim isn't going to take a nasty fall, it sounds very Agatha Christie, I would be very careful around the stairs if I were Tim.

@FierceSilent I think she ‘hears’ her worst fears & foolish hopes no matter what the reality is.

When was this & when did he tell Bill (was it Bill)? He had only very limited time left making him cry.

July 2013 was the surfing with son.

I think Oct 2021 was the conversation between Tim and Bill.

So, this was 2013. I think they had a brainwave, as we’ve said before, after the 2015 medical apt. They retrofitted & beefed up. To my mind that’s almost as bad as the ‘Canoe 2’ if so.

Poss even morally worse as it gave the terminal with Moth’s apparent condition false hope & a sense they were total failures to lack his/the requisite will to permanently reverse their illness.

Totally agree @FierceSilent, very good compilation of some of the terrible things Salray has said.
I watched half of the film yesterday, I couldn't watch the whole thing, I will attempt to watch the rest later. I can't believe how awful it is, there is no sense to it, seeing JI dragging his leg is just unbelievable, when we see Tim doesn't drag his leg. I think Salray excused it by saying, it was a typical symptom of CBD/CBS and that is what JI is portraying.

SalRay62 - 15/07/2013 10.31

The sound of the waves was unmistakeable, the wind blew my hair, and the sun was burning my head. I couldn't find a sunhat and suncream is too expensive. Now where was I? Well, here I am in Cornwall which for all the tourists cluttering up the beach, looks great. But, I've been ground into the dirt again through no fault of my own.

At least I've got some time to think while Tim is surfing with Tom. Some time to read, I couldn't afford a new holiday book, so as it's the south west and I don't know the area, I thought I'd re-read 500 Mile Walkies. I know that I can write now and I got a lot of positive comments, from family and friends about my Welsh novel, sorry to say the raffle didn't get thousands buying the book. Anyway, that was the amateurish marketing not my writing.

Actually, a new scheme is starting to form as I read about this coast path. Good, I've got a pen and I'm starting to underline some of his ideas ....

On a coast doc where Sal features, she explains Moth had to demonstrate his exact leg drag to JI etc & they had to repeat. GA was a bit less effusive on the pair by the end of press releases & IMO the penny had begun to drop a bit.

I think the duplicitous pair got the wind up themselves a bit hence Moth’s ‘rare good days’ & star guest pre recorded appearances. Any ‘ill’ act likely rumbled by actors & potentially good investigative journos.

I suppose the date of the bailiffs kicking them out of the house is a matter of record and has been duly noted - so Sal can't get away with claiming that she 'reset' the date of the walk to 2013 simply so that she could maintain a running joke about Lovely Simon? And that it all REALLY happened in 2015?

If the house repossession is DEFFO 2013 and with the dates of the letters DEFFO being 2015 then Chloe has her bang to rights. If there's any wiggle room on any of it then Sal can always plead 'changes for the purposes of narrative'. That's why Chloe has to nail down all the dates before she raises this in her podcast. Everything has to be cast iron.