Thread 23 : 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 22 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?

Links to threads 18-20 can be found in the OP of Thread 21: https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/5460943-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?

Thread 22:www.mumsnet.com/talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/5470952-thread-22-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?

Most recent:

• Salt Path: A Very British Scandal, available on Sky Documentaries and NOW TV, 15th December 2025
• ‘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
• Observer Newsroom: The Real Salt Path Story, Thursday 8th January 2026

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. For over 6 months we have done amazingly well together for 22 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.

After 22,000 posts there are still new things to look out for on the path:
Podcast series (7 episodes) from The Observer's award-winning Investigative Journalist Chloe Hadjimatheou, 13th January 2026.
The Walkers: The real Salt Path | The Observer

After listening to some of The Walkers: The real Salt Path podcast episodes from The Observer today my thoughts are even more with the victims. I also believe that the publishers, agent and prizegivers must now act and be seen to act.

Please start each post with the podcast episode you are commenting on, for clarity and to help others avoid spoilers if they wish to do so. Many thanks.

As always, keep to the path, no saltiness, eat fudge and drink cider.

NO POSTS PLEASE UNTIL THREAD 22 IS FULL

Ah - but Sacha Lamb is writing about trans community in context of Sacha Stone?

Thank you!

Whatever it is, i don't think it is relevant to the Salt Path

Looks that way, agree, although the lie about six months to live coincidental.

The problem is Sally can still stay silent about being the author. Sally can say nothing or say someone else wrote the book, Sally is saying nothing, no more denials. She can just sit this out, pseudonymity is a protection, you are not supposed to be able to find out what the authors name is. You can't try to find out an authors real identity, by using lawyers and comparison of writing, if they haven't done anything. You could engage lawyers if there was for instance, libel involved, you would have to have a copy of HNTDDD and then find something

If Sally had received a prize for HNTDDD, it would be awarded in her pseudonym if she wished, authors who use pseudonyms, receive prizes. We looked at this a lot at one point, authors can have their pseudonym used in the court, or their real name could be used. It depends what action is being taken against them. Or they could be taking action against somebody else, using their pseudonym.

If the CB prize people want to take the prize away on the basis that TSP wasn't Sally's first book, because they believed she was the author of HNTDDD. I don't know how they could prove that legally, it might be that there is a way for them to take the prize, as suggested by @YourMoneyforFrothingandYourChipsforFree , on the basis that TSP, has been discredited. In the same way that sports, or other awards have been taken from people. I don't think that we have looked into this before, so I'm going to have a look.

@Vroomfondleswaistcoat, if you set up your own publishing company as well, we won't be able to out you :)

I have a question about 'due diligence'. What is the point if no action is then taken to someone who has lied and rendered your diligence - indolence?

The publishers and the film company have both issued statements declaring their 'due diligence' and then a wall of silence.

A quick note for users who signed up to The Observer £1 for a month deal. If you cancel your auto-renew now, you can still use the account up to the renewal date but you won't be charged again (I saw posts about people being charged on other offers through different vendors).

That's a fair enough question in the circumstances.

I suppose we're back to the issue of the standard publishing contract making it clear that the onus is on the author who is declaring that the text of a memoir is substantially true, bar some disguisings of identity and circumstance, ie PRH are just saying 'SW told us this was true, so we're not legally liable.'

Not clear how they would hold up legally, as PRH aren't being threatened with legal action, and it's also not clear what the basis of a legal case against SW by them would be, as the books made them a lot of money, so they can't claim loss of earnings. 'Damage to credibility/reputation'? Sure, but surely the first thing to do there would be to publicly rebrand TSP as fiction and/or cancel OWH, or issue a statement that apologises?

I can't imagine UK readers bringing a class action suit against PRH, as was threatened by US readers of A Million Little Pieces. Exactly what would be the basis?

I've just had a quick look at discredited authors having their prize removed, it seems to have happened numerous times over the years. Sometimes the scandal around the book has tainted the prize, so the author receives no credibility from it. Maybe this could be the way forward for the CB prize people.

Just forget the prize money, remove the prize.
I don't know about this due diligence either @BewilderingBrandy.

Thanks for the reminder, @RainyTuesdaysAndSunnyWednesdays! Done.

Thanks for thinking it through. I think we're in a different position than initially as we're 6 months on with an increasing case against the author. It is just the phrase 'due diligence' is obviously a legal term but, in my opinion, it has brought those involved into some disrepute. The US did not buy the film rights, etc.

Thank you @AbovetheVaultedSky, I think the conclusion reached in the past, was that PRH had made too much money, to want to take any action. Do we know any more in connection to, the niece having taken her concerns to PRH ?

Thanks so much - I have clicked: Disable Renew. Has that done it, please?

Doesn't it?! I took one look and my first thought was that they'd pitched it there purely for a photo opportunity...what with the strategically placed rucksacks too 😉

I think the podcast says 'Anne' phoned the PRH offices twice, and got through to the general switchboard, and just got transferred around between people inconclusively. I can imagine what happened -- no one knew how to deal with someone phoning and saying 'One of your best-selling memoirs is a pernicious lie!' and various editorial assistants were just trying to move it on to someone else's desk, without knowing whether this was a crank call or what.

Though I'm not entirely sure what 'Anne' could have done differently, realistically, as an individual with only some old letters and the printout of an unsigned email.

I mean, PRH's only action since the first Observer story last July has been to say that appropriate due diligence was done and that they were postponing the release of OWH because of authorial distress. And that was after a serious investigative journalist published a well-evidenced story in a major newspaper. The most 'Anne' would probably have got, probably, even if she kept calling, is a letter to say 'Thanks for your communication. We are confident that we did appropriate due diligence and have an authorial warranty that the events of TSP took place as she remembers them.'

Same with the police stations she called, reporting historical crimes whose victims are dead, and for which there's only circumstantial evidence.

In the interests of accuracy (ha!) I don't think Moth is peeing in that photo at Penlee Point. I think his hands are in his pockets and he's taking in the view. But I entirely agree that the whole thing looks staged. Clean and shiny tent, rucksacks in the foreground, landmark in the background. Was it someone here who did a brilliant analysis of the kit appearing in photos and noted discrepancies in the colour of SW's rucksack? How does this one in the photo with a yellow base fit in with the pretendy timeline?

I too invested in this, aren't I.

The grotto is dog walking central, and there is a very close car park. Don't believe for a minute that they camped there.

Should do, I received an email shortly after saying my subscription would end on 13th Feb (or 30 days on from whatever date you took the subscription out).

2016 possibly. Different from the rucksack photos in 2013 when you factor in Moth's green khaki trousers vs the camo ones he wears in 2013 IG photos and the FAC photo from Aug 2015

The moral of this story is, ‘If you’re going to fake a 630- mile walk, take care of the details!’

Is it possible that TW thought that, in wearing combats and T-shirts rather than his preferred tweed shorts, natty jackets and cravats, he was dressing as a dying, homeless man dragging himself on a walk towards redemption would dress?

Absolutely. Sorry, my brain takes a long time to come on line in the mornings! I am completely with it now (but give it half an hour and I'll be away again...)

Thank you @AbovetheVaultedSky, what a shame that the niece wasn't taken seriously. She could have told PRH Tim and Sally's names, I wonder if she managed to, or if she tried and got knocked back. She could have told them a lot of things if they had listened to her, the niece has given Chloe a huge amount of information.

Here's a thought or five. [EDIT: Spoiler Alert EP6]

The confession letter suggests Tim made an investment using half of their capital (which i assume was half the sale income of Forest Row). This was then lost and forced them to move to Wales and buy a dilapidated farmhouse because was all they could afford.

So what was their original plan? To buy a bigger house in the Burton area while Sally finished her court clerk traineeship? If so, where did they expect to live with 2 very young kids while they house hunted? Why did they sell up Forest Row and Tim sink half the money into a property company instead of using it to buy a new house in the area?

As per usual, it makes no sense.

But they end up in Wales and buy the farmhouse with the remaining money they had. So how does Tim then have the luxury to volunteer at the NT garden while Sal must look after an 18 month old and a 3 year old in a ruin with no support network of friends and family? Who is working? Tim eventually gets a paid position that according to Sal was less than the dole. How did they then have the funds to renovate the house "stone by stone, slate by slate." Remember, this is early 90s at least a decade before any known thefts took place.

So, could the real investment have been the farmhouse itself? Could Tim have been the one to sink half their money into buying it against Sal's wishes? But it was his dream, and she'd do anything for Tim. Perhaps the other half of the Forest Row money allowed them to survive on part time jobs and low incomes for a few years and do up the house and even host their family. Then by early 2000s, the pot was empty and Sal started writing cheques.

I could be wrong of course and just speculation. But I was just pondering on the nonsense to try to find some kind of plausible reality.

@YourMoneyforFrothingandYourChipsforFree I was wondering whether it was the same old story - ie an ‘investment’ which was actually repaying money taken from embezzlement / fraud / local debts in Burton of some kind. The fact that it ties up with what is suggested to be a very quick decision to move to Wales (scarpering?) in tandem with the fact that SW’s mum had always refused to talk about the circumstances by which SW left the job at the courts, as if she were ashamed of the reason, also tends to lend weight to this type of situation…

On a different note, I haven’t seen the article that was supposed to be written by Phoebe - I thought @DisappointedReader mentioned it had been bumped to today, digital only? Has anyone seen it?

If Tim was a master plasterer, why didn't he just do plastering jobs to bring in money?