Fwiw, current hypothesis

1 Cummings statement was reverse-engineered to explain away actual/potential adverse evidence and stay within law/guidance

2 That statement was latest in sequence of improvisations

3 Trip to Durham and/or Barnard Castle never had a reasonable excuse

This hypothesis has been set out more succinctly by leading law and policy commentator @PaddyMcGuinness https://twitter.com/PaddyMcGuinness/status/1265314862491631617

Longer-term followers will remember that both in NightJack/Times and with "David Rose" it was the (increasingly) reverse-engineered explanations to explain away things that had a far simpler explanation that meant both stories could not be sustained

Both then crashed down

This, from 2012 by me at @NewStatesman on Nightjack, sets out how from careful readings of witness statements etc, it could be established that a Times reporter hacked a police officer's email account and then, in effect, for a court to be misled: https://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/media/2012/04/times-nightjack-hack-leveson