Looks like Barclays may be more innocent than its detractors might have us believe.
Banks tend to know more than the Bank of England about market conditions! They are very good at making flow calculations.
It would appear market rates at the time were not reflecting market conditions because of secret "lender of last resort" operations by the Bank of England and also because of competition between banks duping each other into believing what they wanted others to believe!
In terms of the 'real' situation the level of Barclays rates may have been more representative! If you don't want to lend to a bad bank you will not offer a lower rate, or the going rate at which some of the banks are receiving funds secretly from the Bank of England. Secret interventions are not conducive to normal operations of a financial market and hense dealers would guess at what flows were secretly coming into the market. There are many shades of meaning to the idea that banks are in trouble or short of funds. Competition by more desperate operators than moves rates can mean that a bank is unwilling to deal or delaying a deal because it has guessed the situation and has adopted any number of tactics that offer a better outcome.
Rates are sampled and a delaying or pushing forward of transactions can alter levels especially when dealers don't trust the 'normality' of the flows into and from the market.
Also, it has now to be shown that traders were actually and unequivicably able to influence the reporting of rates. This is actually more difficult than it sounds.
Competitive game theory level tactics are not going to be revealed in a public enquiry.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2012/07/08/libor-scandal-the-smoking-gun-showing-the-authorities-knew/