Craig Murray disputes sktipal sturgess poisonings
Executive summary
Craig Murray has long disputed the official UK account that Russia’s GRU poisoned Sergei and Yulia Skripal in Salisbury and that discarded novichok later killed Dawn Sturgess; he has argued alternative scenarios and questioned key elements of the story [1] [2]. Multiple recent public inquiries and major news outlets — including reports concluding that GRU officers acted and that Putin "must have" authorised the operation — reaffirm the UK finding that Russian agents were responsible and that the discarded novichok caused Sturgess’s death [3] [4] [5].
1. Craig Murray’s position: systematic scepticism, published and persistent
Craig Murray publicly challenged the UK government’s narrative from early on, publishing detailed posts titled “The Holes in the Official Skripal Story” and advancing alternative theories — including speculation about other actors or procedural failures — on his blog and forums [2] [6]. Murray has specifically questioned photographic evidence, movements attributed to the two Russian suspects, and whether the physical trail of contamination fits the official account [1] [2].
2. The government and inquiry findings: GRU culpability and moral responsibility
A British public inquiry chaired by former Supreme Court judge Anthony Hughes concluded that a team of GRU military intelligence officers attempted to assassinate Sergei Skripal, that they discarded a bottle containing novichok which later caused Dawn Sturgess’s death, and that President Vladimir Putin “must have” authorised the operation — findings reported by Reuters, The Guardian and the New York Times [3] [4] [5]. The inquiry said the contaminated perfume bottle had enough poison to kill thousands and described the action as “astonishingly reckless” [3].
3. Points Murray raises that the public record documents as unresolved or contested
Murray and others have pointed to apparent gaps: why only certain people were affected at the Skripal scenes, the missing chain-of-evidence around the alleged sealed container, the “missing 33 minutes” from CCTV, and differences between public dramatizations and witness timelines [2] [7] [8]. Major outlets and the inquiry have examined those issues — for example the inquiry addressed questions about how the bottle was handled and whether the public health response could have been different — but some detailed forensic or timeline uncertainties remain the subject of debate in reporting [7] [9].
4. Evidence and institutional weight favoring the official finding
Multiple institutions converged on the same conclusion: police charged three Russians in absentia and the inquiry linked the novichok used to GRU operatives and to Russian state decision-making; mainstream outlets summarized the inquiry’s certainty that the operation was state-authorised and that the discarding of the bottle linked the two incidents [10] [3] [11]. These are not solitary claims but cross-checked findings reported by Reuters, BBC, The Guardian and others covering the inquiry [3] [4] [11].
5. Alternative explanations and where they appear in reporting
Murray has proposed alternatives — from misidentification of suspects to other state actors — and questioned motive attributions [1] [2]. Fringe outlets and commentators have amplified those viewpoints and dramatized inconsistencies [8] [12]. However, the inquiry’s published conclusions and mainstream reporting treat those alternatives as insufficient to overturn the body of evidence attributing responsibility to GRU officers and to state direction [3] [4].
6. What the reporting does not say (limits of available sources)
Available sources do not mention any published, independently validated forensic evidence that conclusively identifies a non-Russian state actor as responsible, nor do they report any court conviction of the named Russian suspects in a competent jurisdiction; instead they report charges in absentia and inquiry conclusions [10] [3]. Detailed rebuttals to every point Murray raises are not comprehensively catalogued in the supplied reporting; some tactical or procedural criticisms he makes were discussed in inquiry testimony but not all were framed as dispositive [2] [9].
7. Why this matters: public trust, intelligence secrecy and competing agendas
The Salisbury-Amesbury events sit at the intersection of national security secrecy and public accountability. Murray’s scepticism highlights how gaps or secrecy in official responses create space for alternative narratives [2]. Conversely, the inquiry’s strong language about state responsibility reflects the judgment of security and judicial authorities and carries diplomatic and legal consequences; mainstream outlets have echoed that institutional finding [3] [5]. Readers should weigh Murray’s documented critiques [2] against the inquiry’s cross-agency conclusions [3] and note that different actors have distinct incentives: whistleblowers and commentators seek to expose errors, while state inquiries balance transparency with classified intelligence.
Conclusion: Craig Murray remains a prominent, documented sceptic of the official Skripal narrative [1] [2]. The most authoritative public reporting and the UK inquiry, however, find that GRU officers smeared novichok on Skripal’s door, discarded a contaminated bottle that later killed Dawn Sturgess, and that the operation was authorised at senior levels — claims reflected across Reuters, The Guardian, BBC and other mainstream sources [3] [4] [11].