Hans Blix's appearance before the Chilcott Inquiry has been covered a number of ways, but most media chose to highlight Blix's scepticism about the existence of WMD in Iraq and his belief that an invasion required a second UN resolution to make it legal under international law.  

Britain's Daily Mail follows that general line, and opens with: 

?Tony Blair was told by Hans Blix one month before the Iraq War that he was unlikely to ever find weapons of mass destruction.

How to explain, then, the apparently opposite interpretation of Blix's testimony by the Financial Times, expressed in the headline:

Blix told Blair Iraq may have illegal weapons

Is the inference here that Blair was following Blix's advice when he decided to support invasion? The opening paragraph maintains the theme, while introducing the tiniest modifier:

Hans Blix, former UN chief weapons inspector, told Tony Blair one month before the Iraq invasion that he thought Saddam Hussein may still have illegal weapons in spite of his growing doubts on the matter.

Or perhaps the FT wishes to suggest that so-called "illegal weapons" are a sufficient  cause for war, even if they are not WMD?

Meanwhile, the New York Times glides by questions of legality and accountability, focussing instead on Hans Blix's apparent "disdain for President George Bush and his top aides".