What claims did craig murray make about the skripal poisoning and their sources?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Craig Murray has publicly called the official account of the 2018 Salisbury Novichok attack a “hoax,” arguing the Skripals have not been seen publicly since 2018, that official forensic and witness accounts are unreliable, and that alternative explanations (including state manipulation) better fit the evidence; Murray’s claims appear primarily on his personal website and at events he cites as supportive [1]. Major mainstream inquiries and reporting, including the UK public inquiry chaired by Lord Anthony Hughes, conclude GRU officers acted on instructions authorised at the highest level and place moral responsibility on Vladimir Putin [2] [3] [4].
1. What Craig Murray actually asserted — core claims and phrasing
Craig Murray labels the Skripal case “The Skripal Novichok Hoax,” asserting publicly that Sergei and Yulia Skripal “have not been seen publicly since shortly after the 2018 Novichok poisoning,” that their whereabouts are secret under UK protection, and that significant elements of the official narrative are suspect [1]. Murray presents the event as staged or misrepresented by authorities and highlights perceived gaps — for example, questioning Porton Down’s findings and suggesting public scepticism at meetings where he spoke [1]. His platform for these claims is his personal website and public talks referenced on that site [1].
2. Evidence Murray points to and its provenance
Murray’s account relies on a mix of public absence (the Skripals’ lack of public appearances), sceptical audience reactions at local meetings, and his interpretation of gaps in official reporting — e.g., perceived inconsistencies around CCTV, mobile-phone activity, and the Skripals’ movements that critics have also noted in media coverage of the inquiry [1] [5]. These are largely circumstantial items; the sources Murray cites are his own reporting and attendee accounts rather than forensic or classified material [1].
3. How official inquiries and mainstream reporting contradict Murray
The UK public inquiry chaired by former Supreme Court judge Anthony Hughes concluded it was “certain” that a team of GRU military intelligence officers attempted to murder Skripal and that the operation “must have been authorised at the highest level, by President Putin” [2] [4]. Major outlets (Reuters, NBC, AP, BBC, Guardian, Sky, Al Jazeera) summarize those findings: Novichok was applied to Skripal’s door handle, the same agent poisoned others in Amesbury, and the inquiry attributed responsibility to Russian state actors and sanctioned the GRU [2] [3] [6] [5] [4] [7]. These reports describe forensic and investigative steps the inquiry evaluated, which directly contradict the “hoax” framing Murray promotes [2] [5].
4. Where Murray’s critiques overlap with mainstream reporting
Some of the factual observations Murray emphasises—questions about CCTV gaps, mobile-phone timelines, sightings of Skripal’s car, and procedural failings in the protection of Skripal—also appear in mainstream coverage and in the inquiry’s documents as items meriting scrutiny [5]. The Guardian and BBC note such anomalies and record that the inquiry heard classified evidence in private sessions, indicating there are investigatory details beyond public reporting [5] [8]. Those overlaps do not equate to agreement on causation or responsibility.
5. Alternative narratives and who advances them
Beyond Murray, the Russian government and state-friendly outlets have argued the incident was staged by UK authorities or manufactured to blame Russia; Moscow officially denies involvement and calls the inquiry politically motivated [9] [10]. The inquiry chair and Western media reject those lines and present the GRU-attribution conclusion and subsequent UK sanctions as the official outcome [2] [11].
6. Assessing methods and credibility — what the sources show and don’t
Murray’s claims rest largely on his interpretation of public absence and perceived inconsistencies reported anecdotally on his site and at meetings [1]. The public inquiry and multiple international news agencies relied on forensic work, classified evidence presented in private hearings, and legal-style findings; they reached the opposite conclusion, identifying GRU involvement and high-level authorisation [2] [3] [6]. Available sources do not mention Murray presenting new forensic data that overturns the inquiry’s findings [1] [2].
7. Why this matters — stakes and implicit agendas
Murray’s narrative feeds a broader sceptic and conspiratorial current that questions official accounts of state wrongdoing; Russian state media and diplomatic channels amplify alternative explanations that serve Moscow’s geopolitical interests by undermining Western accountability claims [9]. Conversely, the inquiry’s conclusions have driven official policy responses—sanctions on the GRU and diplomatic actions—so disagreement is not merely academic but affects geopolitics and public trust [11] [6].
8. Bottom line for readers
Craig Murray frames the Skripal case as a hoax based on public absence, perceived gaps, and local scepticism published on his website; mainstream investigations, led by Lord Hughes’s public inquiry and widely reported in Reuters, BBC, NBC and others, conclude GRU operatives carried out a Novichok attack authorised at the highest level [1] [2] [3]. Readers should weigh Murray’s interpretive, circumstantial claims against the inquiry’s detailed findings and reporting that cite forensic and classified evidence [2] [5].