"They "(the Police) "point out that the evidence would have to have been planted within 23 days, requiring knowledge of all the evidence to come - including Megrahi, whose existence was then unknown. "
penultimate paragraph "Lockerbie Conspiracy Theory is Dismissed" by Magnus Linklater
The former Editor of the "Hitler Diaries" Magnus Linklater and now mouthpiece for the Lord Advocate wrote an article for The Times "Lockerbie Conspiracy Theory is Dismissed" (or rather the Crown Office are sticking to their conspiracy theory!)
As can be seen from the above CIA cable on the 22/12/88 (the day after the bombing) Megrahi's existence was known to the CIA and presumably to the British Secret Service MI5 who had taken over responsibility for Malta from MI6 in the aftermath of the the interception of the "Eksund" (which had begun its journey in Malta.) The cable describes Megrahi as an ESO officer and notes he was met by Fhimah so apparently they were under surveillance. (How else would they know Fhimah was there?) Did they wave goodbye to Megrahi and Fhimah as they left the airport or did they have them under surveillance until ESO officer Megrahi left Malta? This is rather important as this is the day Megrahi supposedly purchased the Malta clothing!
The claim Megrahi's existence was unknown is a lie.
Why the evidence of the MST-13 timer would have to be planted within 23 days (presumably when the item of "cloth" or "debris" the fragment of grey Slalom shirt actually was or was purportedly recovered) escapes me. The first evidence of the existence of this item extracted from the Slalom shirt is the famous page 51 of Dr Hayes notes dated 12th May 1989. However as pointed out in my article "Hear No Evil, see No Evil, Speak No Evil" Dr Hayes sketched the five constituent sheets of exhibit PT/2 on this note. On the first photograph of PT 35(b) apparently taken on the 22nd May 1989 (but no earlier) PT/2 has yet to be dissected. The Forensic Document Examiner commissioned by the SCCRC indicated that page 51 had been inserted out of sequence and we do not know how many versions of page 51 there had been. What is important is that Dr Hayes claimed at Camp Zeist that he had simply made a mistake in renumbering his notes. (and Alan Feraday claimed to have witnesses the removal of these exhibits from the fragment of shirt!)
The SCCRC did not notice the discrepancy between page 51 and photograph 117 and neither did the anonymous, and manifestly incompetent silk (allegedly) commissioned by the Lord Advocate to review the SCCRC's findings.
PT/2 is in itself pretty incredible supposedly having come from the same manual as the exhibit known as the "Horton Manual." How did it survive the explosion? The original photograph of the Horton Manual was omitted from the RARDE photographic report, which of course the SCCRC (and the Lord Advocate's "silk") never noticed!
One can see the train of thought behind Mr Linklater's article. Is it credible that someone could skilfully insert the MEBO fragment, together with the clump of five tiny pieces of the radio-cassette manual into the collar of the grey slalom shirt then carelessly discarded for it to be recovered and these planted exhibits to be extracted 5 months later? Well no it isn't but as page 51 of Dr Hayes notes are backdated there is no credible evidence they were actually recovered from the Slalom shirt rather than simply being created and falsely "discovered" to implicate the politically convenient suspects.