I read Ewald's account as set out in the link given above and think it should, at least in part, be treated at it's face value.
Let's look at what he says:
1. The Stearman belongs to TCT.
Why should he lie about that? What does he gain? Absent other proof, I would be inclined to believe him, although the B in a B accounts don't seem to show it as an asset, so I presume that means that she owns it personally?
2. He says the TCT did all the flying using conventional navigation techniques e.g following roads etc.
How do we know she didn't?
The anecdotal evidence we have read earlier in this thread of difficulties she may have had navigating in the UK of course can have had no bearing on that.
3. He admits that he was in the plane for at least part of the journey(s) but claims he was just a passenger. Although many here may not believe that, who can say for sure that he isn't telling the truth? Why would he lie if ownership of the aircraft and the risk really was hers alone?
4. All of that suggests that there really is no story here, and that Ms Curtis-Taylor has nothing to hide and that there is nothing for which she needs to apologise.
Except that, despite all of this, she still refuses to provide direct answers to the three simple questions that remain before her.
Given the above: why is she so reticent, I wonder???