What specific claims has Craig Murray made disputing the Skripal poisonings?
Executive summary
Craig Murray publicly disputed the official UK account of the March 2018 Skripal poisoning by advancing several specific alternative claims: that Israel or UK state actors (including Porton Down) were more plausible perpetrators than Russia, that official CCTV and phone-timeline evidence was misrepresented, and that Yulia Skripal or other non-Russian actors might have been responsible [1] [2] [3]. Critics and mainstream reporting say many of Murray’s assertions misstate or exaggerate the evidence—examples include errors about CCTV and phone-disconnection reporting and selective use of sources [4] [5].
1. Murray’s core alternative suspect claims: Israel and state labs, not Russia
Murray repeatedly argued that the swift attribution to Russia was unjustified and that other state actors were more plausible, explicitly suggesting Israeli security services could have motive and capability to damage Russia’s reputation [1]. He also highlighted the proximity of the Porton Down defence laboratory to Salisbury to imply that a UK lab — or contamination from it — could explain the nerve agent, urging scepticism about the presumption of Russian culpability [5] [2].
2. Challenges to the evidence timeline: CCTV and mobile phones
Murray has promoted a reconstructed timeline that disputes where the Skripals were and when they were contaminated. He asserted that CCTV footage and reports showed the Skripals moving around Salisbury that morning (used to argue they could not have been poisoned at home) and that their phones were switched off for hours — claims he treated as undermining the official narrative [6] [2]. Journalists and later inquiries have flagged inaccuracies in Murray’s presentation of CCTV and phone reporting, noting some of those details originated from a single tabloid source and that police never stated certain CCTV claims that Murray implied [4] [6].
3. Accusations of evidence fabrication or concealment by authorities
Murray has accused UK authorities of misdirection and selective disclosure, arguing Whitehall phrasing and release choices were used to “cultivate a deception” and that the government withheld or muddied key evidence about how the attack happened [7] [2]. OpenDemocracy and Murray himself emphasise that Porton Down’s statement — that it could not link the agent’s origin to Russia — undermined the government’s early phrasing and warranted deeper scrutiny [7].
4. More controversial suggestions: Yulia Skripal as a possible perpetrator
In later writings Murray floated a contentious hypothesis that Yulia Skripal herself might have been responsible for contamination — a proposal he framed as speculative but which media note as a striking departure from mainstream accounts [3]. That idea has not been accepted by official investigators and is highlighted in coverage as an example of Murray’s provocative alternative theorising [3] [8].
5. Reception and critiques: factual errors and conspiracy labels
Multiple outlets and commentators documented factual problems in Murray’s claims. Reporting pointed to instances where Murray asserted CCTV showed both suspects at the same spot at the same time (an overstatement of what the footage shows) and where he relied on tabloid reporting for claims about phone disconnection — steps critics say amount to overstating the evidence and fueling conspiracy theories [5] [4]. New Statesman and other analysts also linked parts of the counter-narrative to antisemitic or conspiratorial tropes when Israel was suggested as the culprit [9].
6. What the sources do and do not say
Available reporting establishes that Murray systematically questioned the official attribution to Russia, proposed alternatives including Porton Down and Israel, flagged alleged anomalies in CCTV/phone timelines, and later suggested Yulia might have been involved [1] [2] [3]. Sources document critics pointing to factual mistakes and selective sourcing in Murray’s account [4] [5]. Available sources do not mention independent forensic proof presented by Murray that conclusively identifies an alternative perpetrator, nor do they show official investigators accepting his alternative claims (not found in current reporting).
7. Why this matters: narrative control and public trust
Murray’s public profile as a former diplomat gave weight to his scepticism and amplified debate about evidentiary standards and state secrecy [7]. His claims illustrate how contested interpretations of limited public evidence can polarise discourse: some defenders view his work as necessary sceptical inquiry [7], while critics see it as promoting misinformation and factual errors that complicate public understanding of a lethal attack [4] [5].
Limitations: this account draws only on the provided material and therefore cannot speak to claims or evidence outside these sources; any definitive forensic developments not present in the cited reporting are not covered here (p1_s1–[1]1).