Suspect the trip to Durham was not about childcare, even at the time

That it was a post-event rationalisation, a plausible nod-along lie to gain the cover of sympathy

A line was needed that matched the facts that would emerge, would be (arguably) lawful, and would get nod-along sympathy

The childcare story is the result

Most plausible explanation for what happened then, and since

Cummings' own account far less plausible

Every problem for Cummings and Johnson flows from maintaining the "childcare" story

Further trips, unfairness to the public who followed rules, no childcare actually provided, etc

Simplest explanation: never about childcare in first place

But they are now trapped in the lie

The problem now for Cummings and Johnson is that conplex, contrived and improvised explanations often keep coming apart when properly scrutinised or when there is new evidence

And new complex contrived and improvised explanations have to be posited, and posited, and posited

The "conspiracy theory" here is Cummings' own: an elaborate attempt to explain away unwelcome events, depending on number of assertions being true

A simpler approach is that it was never about childcare, that was an excuse subsequently adopted

Then available facts make sense

This is not to give a positive explanation for what Cummings did

It is to say that the explanation he has so far offered is less plausible than the explanation that that story is a fabrication

And that is why I hold the suspicion stated at the head of this thread