Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
The Salt Path - the truth
Comments
-
Chris_from_Sidcup said:Have they actually paid back any of the money they owe?
The Observer allege:
She stole £64k over a few years from her employer.
They borrowed money off a relative of her husband to pay the employer back with the deal being the employer drops the criminal complaint.
The relative added hefty interest onto the borrowed money, and they eventually owed the relative £150k. The relative's company went into administration and the debt was called in to help pay that firm's creditors, so they 'lost' their house paying that £150k off.
But the original employer did get the money, and the house paid off the loan taken out to pay off the employer (although I guess no guarantee the house covered the full amounts owed).
The sob story in the book about them losing the house was that it was a bad investment, not that it was essentially the eventual consequences of her allegedly stealing thousands of pounds from her employer.
6 -
Of course, I doubt they've paid back the benefits they got whilst having a walking holiday, others I suspect they got whilst working cash in hand on a farm halfway through the book, gone back and paid the campsites they stayed at without paying, paid the shopkeeper she stole from....4
-
North Lower Neil said:Chris_from_Sidcup said:Have they actually paid back any of the money they owe?
They allege she stole £64k from her employer.
He borrowed money off a relative (with their house as collateral) to pay that back with the deal being the employer drops the criminal complaint.
The relative added hefty interest onto the borrowed money, and they owed the relative £150k. The relatives company went into administration and tbe debt was called in so that's how they 'lost' their house.
But the original employer did get the money, and the house paid off the loan.
The sob story about them losing the house was that it was a bad investment, not essentially the eventual consequences of her allegedly stealing thousands of pounds from her employer.4 -
EveshamAddick said:
it has taken until a high profile film adaptation is launched for this 'truth' to come out - coincidence?
The memoir was published 7 years ago, has been awarded all manner of accolades. Seems hard to believe that any offended or defrauded party hasn't been aware of the Winns' version of events and their resulting profile. Also hard to imagine that Penguin and the film's producers didn't do their own due diligence, given the contentious starting point for the whole story.
One thing of which we can be sure is that lawyers will be enriching themselves, whatever the 'truth'.
1 -
The books were written under a false name.0
-
0
-
"Moth" to a flame.0
-
Billy_Mix said:EveshamAddick said:
it has taken until a high profile film adaptation is launched for this 'truth' to come out - coincidence?
The memoir was published 7 years ago, has been awarded all manner of accolades. Seems hard to believe that any offended or defrauded party hasn't been aware of the Winns' version of events and their resulting profile. Also hard to imagine that Penguin and the film's producers didn't do their own due diligence, given the contentious starting point for the whole story.
One thing of which we can be sure is that lawyers will be enriching themselves, whatever the 'truth'.
Lawyers don't enrich themselves. They are dependent on clients to instruct them.5 -
Moths a funny name for a man. Is it short for Caterpillar?3
-
usetobunkin said:Moths a funny name for a man. Is it short for Caterpillar?1
- Sponsored links:
-
usetobunkin said:Moths a funny name for a man. Is it short for Caterpillar?0
-
usetobunkin said:Moths a funny name for a man. Is it short for Caterpillar?
Maybe thought it was a name you can pass off as a childhood nickname that stuck etc without people thinking too much of it or considering if you've changed your name.0 -
Billy_Mix said:EveshamAddick said:
it has taken until a high profile film adaptation is launched for this 'truth' to come out - coincidence?
The memoir was published 7 years ago, has been awarded all manner of accolades. Seems hard to believe that any offended or defrauded party hasn't been aware of the Winns' version of events and their resulting profile. Also hard to imagine that Penguin and the film's producers didn't do their own due diligence, given the contentious starting point for the whole story.
One thing of which we can be sure is that lawyers will be enriching themselves, whatever the 'truth'.1 -
The housing issue never stacked up from day one. The local authority would have been obliged to house them if the facts were as presented.2
-
The Rest Is Entertainment cover it well in this weeks podcast.2
-
Airman Brown said:The housing issue never stacked up from day one. The local authority would have been obliged to house them if the facts were as presented.4
-
An Interview with the writer was broadcast on ABC radio National in Australia. My wife fell for it, said "there's hope for us yet".
I listened while walking the dog.
Came back saying I did not believe a word...
Branded as cynical something full of something else due to my somethingthm being out of control.
Having a nice few days...10 -
EveshamAddick said:Airman Brown said:The housing issue never stacked up from day one. The local authority would have been obliged to house them if the facts were as presented.1
-
Enjoyed the book and the film. Just really needs to be seen as fiction not a memoir. I liked the nature and atmosphere the book portrayed1
- Sponsored links:
-
kimbo said:Enjoyed the book and the film. Just really needs to be seen as fiction not a memoir. I liked the nature and atmosphere the book portrayed3
-
kimbo said:Enjoyed the book and the film. Just really needs to be seen as fiction not a memoir. I liked the nature and atmosphere the book portrayed
Too busy whinging and claiming people had called her old again.3 -
More detailed riposte
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c89eq12qvl5o
- evidence of medical diagnosis for moth
- they lost their house to a bad property investment ( not paying back a family member to pay off former employer)
- admits liability with previous employer (mutual agreement signed by both parties)
- since book advance, tried to find those they owed money to and pay them back
- uninhabitable ground in France is true (and were not marketable to sell)
I am not saying I believe all the above, but they do have a response to the allegations they would be fairly simple to dispute.1 -
Winn said Cooper promised to eventually pay the money back, and the couple asked for it to be returned in 2008. Instead, she said, Cooper offered them a loan through his company, assured against their home, with 18% interest, which he said he would cover.
I can’t see the logic?
"Yes I know I owe you money but can I not pay you properly and place a charge against your home?"
'Oh yes, that sounds absolutely fine.'1 -
BalladMan said:More detailed riposte
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c89eq12qvl5o
- evidence of medical diagnosis for moth
- they lost their house to a bad property investment ( not paying back a family member to pay off former employer)
- admits liability with previous employer (mutual agreement signed by both parties)
- since book advance, tried to find those they owed money to and pay them back
- uninhabitable ground in France is true (and were not marketable to sell)
I am not saying I believe all the above, but they do have a response to the allegations they would be fairly simple to dispute.
If they previously stayed in France before, how were they then not able to? - being able to stay there and being able to sell the land is 2 different things.
If he had a terminal illness, why were they not automatically re-housed in Wales?
I think someone who finds it so easy to make up a load untruths would have little problem coming up with a response - whether that is robust or not is another matter. This may not be relevant but compulsive liars believe themselves, which is why they can be so convincing. Look at the mushroom poisoner in NZ, her responses remind me of the 'real Martha'.
I wonder how hard they 'tried to find those they owed' and what, if any evidence3 -
North Lower Neil said:Winn said Cooper promised to eventually pay the money back, and the couple asked for it to be returned in 2008. Instead, she said, Cooper offered them a loan through his company, assured against their home, with 18% interest, which he said he would cover.
I can’t see the logic?
"Yes I know I owe you money but can I not pay you properly and place a charge against your home?"
'Oh yes, that sounds absolutely fine.'
And on the stealing point, she makes no admission or claim either way, but says the parties agreed that she should pay (or repay) some money. Because that's what you do if you're totally innocent, you just pay people money you don't owe.1 -
PrincessFiona said:BalladMan said:More detailed riposte
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c89eq12qvl5o
- evidence of medical diagnosis for moth
- they lost their house to a bad property investment ( not paying back a family member to pay off former employer)
- admits liability with previous employer (mutual agreement signed by both parties)
- since book advance, tried to find those they owed money to and pay them back
- uninhabitable ground in France is true (and were not marketable to sell)
I am not saying I believe all the above, but they do have a response to the allegations they would be fairly simple to dispute.
If they previously stayed in France before, how were they then not able to? - being able to stay there and being able to sell the land is 2 different things.
If he had a terminal illness, why were they not automatically re-housed in Wales?
I think someone who finds it so easy to make up a load untruths would have little problem coming up with a response - whether that is robust or not is another matter. This may not be relevant but compulsive liars believe themselves, which is why they can be so convincing. Look at the mushroom poisoner in NZ, her responses remind me of the 'real Martha'.
I wonder how hard they 'tried to find those they owed' and what, if any evidence2 -
PrincessFiona said:BalladMan said:More detailed riposte
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c89eq12qvl5o
- evidence of medical diagnosis for moth
- they lost their house to a bad property investment ( not paying back a family member to pay off former employer)
- admits liability with previous employer (mutual agreement signed by both parties)
- since book advance, tried to find those they owed money to and pay them back
- uninhabitable ground in France is true (and were not marketable to sell)
I am not saying I believe all the above, but they do have a response to the allegations they would be fairly simple to dispute.
If they previously stayed in France before, how were they then not able to? - being able to stay there and being able to sell the land is 2 different things.
If he had a terminal illness, why were they not automatically re-housed in Wales?
I think someone who finds it so easy to make up a load untruths would have little problem coming up with a response - whether that is robust or not is another matter. This may not be relevant but compulsive liars believe themselves, which is why they can be so convincing. Look at the mushroom poisoner in NZ, her responses remind me of the 'real Martha'.
I wonder how hard they 'tried to find those they owed' and what, if any evidenceIf these new facts are also bullshit then any decent journo will find them out again, so hopefully they have now provided enough rope to hang themselvesThe medical point is an interesting one. I had never heard of Moths condition previously (I am not saying that is surprising) but are there lots of people out there with the condition for years before diagnosed. She does say that he did not got through the full diagnosis procedure which is not ‘one test’ but a series of staged tests before diagnosis.0 -
Lincsaddick said:
2 -
The letters are odd - not least because they're all dated after the walk (2013) and the oldest, 2015, suggests that the doctor thinks it's most likely CBS/CBD but wants to send him for an MRI.
The one in 2019 says he's been under review for 'some years' and it might be something different.
But the 2025 "did you know they're in a film?!" letter does seem to confirm a bit more, so if he's ill that's a shame and if hes done better than most with CBD/CBS, good luck to him.
In terms of the rest of it, she's very unlucky that she couldn't prove that £64k was missing due to 'mistakes'. Or that they were definitely right about the court case, and the charge they they agreed to on their home (in case they didn't pay back a loan) definitely shouldn't mean they lose their house (to pay back the loan). Very unfortunate woman, all of this might have been avoided with a good filing system it seems.3