This tweet by @bbclaurak becomes more fascinating as one looks at the statement of Cummings

Not even an open tweet, but using the "source" to contradict a breaking story

The "source" however is contradicted by Cummings statement

Was source wrong, or did the story "develop"? https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/1263914724305055745

There seems to be, on the basis of various documents/statements in the public domain the strong possibility that key parts of the Cummings statement were improvised in the days before so to explain (away) emerging facts

Any other explanation is more complicated to match evidence

Either:

- 22 May ''source" was correct and Cummings statement wrong

- 22 May ''source" was wrong and Cummings statement correct

or

- both 22 May ''source" and the Cummings statement were both wrong, perhaps successive post-event attempts to explain (away) emerging facts

Hmm

The "source" was sufficiently solid for @bbclaurak to not only tweet but to contradict a breaking story by another journalist on a point of detail

So Cummings or someone in position to know detailed facts

But Cummings statement contradicts "source" also in detail

Only one simple explanation

The story changed between what @bbclaurak tweeted (in good faith - this thread is not an attack on her) and the statement

If so, why?

Presumably the "parents" explanation no longer worked, hence the switch to sister/niece being available

The simplest explanation for known facts is that the "source" (who must have been sufficiently solid to explain @bbclaurak's tweet) improvised a story, and then realised that story itself had problems, and so changed it

No other explanation is as simple, and thereby as credible

The other explanations:

- the "source" was not solid, but if so, @bbclaurak would not have tweeted

- the source was solid, but that would not explain why it was then contradicted by Cummings in his statement

Applying Occam's razor leads to both statements being improvisations

But if this is correct, that in turn means as late as 23 May there was not a settled and credible story in place about Durham trip

Only when Guardian/Mirror story broke were attempts made, at speed, to improvise story - and story then played catch up, to match emerging evidence

That is it for this evening, from me

Hoping to post the full analysis tomorrow, other things permitting

Good night, and thank you all for following

The statement to @bbclaurak is 22 May

The Number 10 statement of 23 May then contradicts this, see https://twitter.com/PickardJE/status/1264126625362448385

Then the Cummings statement of 25 May further contradicts the "source"

If 22 may source was "close" to Cummings, why did story change in just three days?