Following the release of these statements, BBC statements: Full text, by the BBC on 20th July 2003 many commentators stopped asking the fundamental question, "Who was The Real Source for Andrew Gilligan's assertions on the Radio 4 Today Programme?".
Were those commentators making a big mistake in stopping asking that fundamental question?
Was it intended that they should make precisely that mistake?
Richard Sambrook claimed that David Kelly was "the principal source" but his statement does little or nothing, so far as I can see, to clarify which aspects of Andrew Gilligan's claims may fairly be attributed to David Kelly.
Nor does Richard Sambrook's statement exclude the possibility that the most controversial aspects of the Gilligan claims came from The Real Source rather than from David Kelly ("The Seeming Source").
Let's hypothesise that the BBC statement had the effect of concealing the existence of "The Real Source".
Do any aspects of the David Kelly chronology come into sharp focus?
One oddity that suddenly may make sense is the bizarre expulsion of David Kelly from Kuwait on 19th May 2003. What seems bizarre might suddenly make sense - The Real Source needed David Kelly to be in London to be The Seeming Source for Andrew Gilligan.
It might also cast new light on the "notes" of what David Kelly supposedly said on 22nd May 2003 to Andrew Gilligan but which were found in Andrew Gilligan's electronic organiser dated 21st May 2003. One can hypothesise that Gilligan and The Real Source discussed on 21st May 2003 what David Kelly was supposed to say the following day.
With the Foreign Affairs Committee (on 15th July 2003) and the Intelligence and Security Committee (on 16th July 2003) clearing David Kelly of being "the source", there emerges a very real risk that The Real Source will be searched for and maybe exposed.
But who might he or she be?
Someone with substantial political / intelligence clout.
Could someone in the UK arrange for David Kelly to be expelled from Kuwait? They could, if they have sufficient clout.
Could someone arrange for David Kelly to be murdered? They could, if they have sufficient clout.
If this hypothesis is correct then it explains the "need" to murder David Kelly on 17th July 2003. I acknowledge that the hypothesis contains many speculative elements but what other hypothesis explains the need for the murder of David Kelly on 17th July 2003?
If The Real Source exists then he / she is not a small player.
In all likelihood if some, in due time, take a fall for the murder of David Kelly or the subsequent conspiracy to conceal that murder then it won't be The Real Source.
People like The Real Source always elude responsibility.
But, with a great deal of luck, it's just possible that the Real Source might be exposed. There may be a first time even for something so improbable.