[nemo]

Would be worth searching for 'Craig Murray Crank' since the guy posts a lot of conspiracy theories that are way off the deep end. You can trust the kooks if you like, but you should try to become familiar with the extent of their unhinged-ness.

Rationalwiki has its own biases but gives helpful context and evidence illustrating Murray's crankery.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Craig_Murray

[Canada]

Rationalwiki says of Murray:

- claims the perpetrators of the Salisbury poisoning aren't the Russians

- has been in disputes with a British newspaper editor and an Uzbek businessman over blog posts or articles

- some vague accusations that he may hold antisemitic views

Is that it, or is there something else?

I understand that he is biased, as both an open supporter of the accused and also because of what happened when he was ambassador to Uzbekistan, which definitely explains his interest in this particular case: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Craig_Murray#Ambassador_to_Uzb...

None of the above makes me think that I shouldn't take what Murray writes about this particular court proceeding seriously.

Is there some argument that I'm missing here, some reason that can be described without relying on mere name calling and innuendo, that suggests that Murray is lying about what's going on here and I should therefore just ignore him?

[mattatkeyboard]

Yeh I agree.

He veered off into that Salisbury thing and I agree with him about the quality and some of the stretches made in the BBC output but not his conclusions. Other things are too off piste for me too...

However that does not mean to say his observations are void. I believe he is writing the facts as he sees them (and not fiction), of course there is opinion mixed in...