That seems quite a strong view so I assume you're au fait with what she's done - are you able to enlighten me? I'm still struggling to find any clarity on it.
I think she has aware of - not personally responsible, but conscious of and happy to allow - efforts by a loose group of senior SNP and SG figures to 'get' Salmond.
'Getting' him, in this case, was not about manufacturing complaints, but attempting firstly to decide the results of the investigation in advance (investigating him using a policy that hadn't been enacted and that he wasn't allowed to read, as well as rewriting the policy on the fly to ensure that the overseeing and investigating officers were agreeable to this aim), and then secondly attempting to cover up this improper behaviour by refusing to submit documents to either their own lawyers or to a court armed with a warrant during the judicial review, and then thirdly attempting to cover up this second round of improper behaviour by privately pressuring the crown office and police scotland into pursuing a criminal case (and so delaying the judicial review) based on additional complaints that they went on an internal fishing trip for via email, at least one of which appears to have been false.
The Murrell messages appear to back this up.
I think the start of this process was conducted largely in good faith - I don't think anyone disputes that the initial complainants were telling the truth, and I think the policy was being drafted (initially, at least) for noble ends.
What I think Nicola did in all this was initially take an awkward meeting with an old friend, realise it was political kryptonite, and then wave through her senior cabal to make sure she was distanced from this and that he was buried. I think she's lied to Holyrood and to this committee about what she knew, when, and who she spoke to about what.
I think documents have been withheld from the judicial review and from this committee to prevent exposure of a) her knowledge of the process, b) the decision-making process for the policy and the judicial review, c) the basis for extending the challenge to the judicial review, and d) who was leaking to the papers to get Salmond in trouble ahead of time.
If this set of beliefs is correct - and I recognise this is a multiplying set of ifs and maybes - a bunch of people have done dreadful things, some of which are illegal. What's potentially provable is documents being intentionally withheld and whether she's lied to Holyrood about the meetings with Aberdein and Salmond. The latter is the equivalent of Al Capone being done on tax evasion - it doesn't prove all or even most of what you think has happened and it's nowhere near the scale of those acts, but it's connected, and it's the smoking gun.