Different perspectives
So where are we now?
Well, read the documents for yourself on the web. But already this evening divergent interpretations are emerging.
At Westminster, opposition critics are particularly keen to seize upon the suggestion that the then Foreign Office Minister Bill Rammell had indicated to Libya that neither the Prime Minister nor the Foreign Secretary wanted Abdelbaset al Megrahi to die in prison.
At Holyrood, the somewhat different opposition wants to focus upon the actions of the Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill.
The element I would note en passant is the absence so far of any concrete link between these two events: UK Government positioning and Scottish Government action.
Firstly, the Westminster perspective. Today's documents confirm what we knew: that the UK Government was anxious to improve relations with Libya in order, among other things, to strengthen global security.
The initial aim of excluding al Megrahi from the emerging prisoner transfer agreement was dropped in pursuit of that wider interest. But UK Ministers stressed at all points that this was one for the Scottish Government.
Translation? We, the UK Government, want to placate the Libyans. That means no exclusion for al Megrahi. But there's a fall back: you, the Scottish Government, can say no to prisoner transfer.
We learn today that Kenny MacAskill mentioned to Al Megrahi in Greenock prison that prisoner transfer would require the abandonment of outstanding legal proceedings.
Opponents translate that as: drop your appeal and you are on your way home.
Not so, says the minister. He was merely stating the facts, accompanying them with a statement that he would require to take all elements into consideration.
In the event, he said no to prisoner transfer - but sanctioned release on compasionate grounds.
Which leaves us where? Influential interests - certainly including the Libyans and conceivably including the UK - wanted a resolution to the al Megrahi applications for release in order to improve relations between London and Tripoli.
But how was that translated into action? Did Kenny MacAskill comply via compassionate release rather than prisoner transfer?
He and his UK counterparts are adamant that there was no such deal - and there is no document in today's dossier which confirms otherwise.
Did Kenny MacAskill, then, release Al Megrahi because he knew, in advance from another meeting held by his officials, that the Libyan was prepared to abandon his appeal in return for prisoner transfer?
Again, there is no concrete evidence to that effect. And, again, the Minister is adamant that he acted from mercy, rejecting prisoner transfer.
More tomorrow.
I'm 
Comments
or to comment.