Is former Ambassador Craig Murray a media seeking liar or just a pathetic researcher?

(Update March 16, 2013) Since I wrote this article exposing Craig Murray as a serial liar and inventor of stories he has responded in typical Craig Murray fashion. In a comment on his blog he says that he will never ever back up his claims. (Makes sense since it is impossible.) In a silly attempt to save his lying face he is doing what he can to censor me, making it impossible for me to comment on his blog from my IP address. So much for openness and freedom of speech.

pinnoccioPinocchio is a fictional character and the main protagonist of the 1883 children’s novel “The Adventures of Pinocchio”, by Carlo Collodi, an Italian writer, and has since appeared in many adaptations of that story and others. Carved by a woodcarver named Geppetto in a small Italian village, he was created as a wooden puppet but dreamed of becoming a real boy. He has also been used as a character who is prone to telling lies and fabricating stories for various reasons. Pinocchio is known for having a short nose that becomes longer when he is under stress, especially while lying. His clothes are made of flowered paper, his shoes are made of wood and his hat is made of bread.

Craig Murray is a former British Ambassador and wanna-be protagonist of the coming novel “The Adventures of Julian Assange”. He calls himself a “Former Ambassador, Human Rights Activist” and a defender of free-speech. He prides himself of being a formidable textual analyst who can interpret police reports like nobody else.

In this article I will take a closer look at Craig Murray’s claims and his so called “textual analysis” capability in order to evaluate his claims. What his hat is made of I don’t know. I only know that what’s inside it isn’t functioning very well. Something the British Foreign and Commonwealth Office found out a long time ago.

Craig Murray’s false claims

comment-gr-1Craig Murray has in two articles, here and here, in September of 2012 made a series of false claims. Since some of his claims were really silly I wrote a comment. Click picture to read it.

I wanted Craig Murray to either back up his claims with facts or simply just admit that he got it wrong. Today, some 160 days later, he still has not managed to back up his claims. The reason given, he has been “very busy”. Just as busy as Julian Assange claimed to be when Jemima Khan asked him to address the legal points made by the New Statesman’s legal correspondent, David Allen Green. If the master is busy, so is the puppet.

Textual analysis Pinocchio style

Craig Murray want us to believe he is a great textual analyst. He has read the translated police interview with Sofia Wilén, one of Julian Assange’s accusers, and made some “brilliant observations”.

craig-1Craig Murray is of the opinion that the police interrogator, Irmeli Krans, has falsified what Sofia Wilén actually said and replaced it with her own words. According to Craig Murray:

“For me the Krans voice shines through in the above “Wilén” statement most clearly in this (frankly irrelevant) statement:
There was semen on the bed sheets, she thought it was disgusting.”

craig-2In a later comment Craig Murray develops his idea:

“I would argue strongly that a distaste for heterosexual relations is manifest throughout the account she [Irmeli Krans] wrote and which Wilen refused to sign, of which I have highlighted:
“There was semen on the bed sheets, she thought it was disgusting.”
Wilén had had long term relationships with men. It is improbable she found semen on the bedsheets unusual, yet alone disgusting.”

I have read the original police interview in Swedish and I have not noticed any “distaste for heterosexual relations”. I have also read the English translations without finding any “distaste for heterosexual relations”. How come this “great textual analyst” comes to this conclusion?

Well, it is not easy. You have to do some inventive work. Fabricate stuff. First you have to declare the police interrogator Irmeli Krans a “lesbian-feminist campaigner”. Then you have to get into a homophobic state of mind, add some misogyny and claim that women in general and lesbians in particular are liars and cheats who only are interested in making false claims in order to  put innocent men behind bars. It is only then you can claim that the “lesbian feminist campaigner” Irmeli Krans is falsifying Sofia Wilén’s police interview based on these words:

Wilén had had long term relationships with men. It is improbable she found semen on the bedsheets unusual, yet alone disgusting.

If I understand Craig Murray correctly, all heterosexual females think semen on the bedsheets are a decorative part of a home. Lesbians, on the other hand, find semen on the bedsheets disgusting. What really shines through is Craig Murray’s ill-concealed hatred for lesbians.

craig-3When I asked Craig Murray for proof that Irmeli Krans is a lesbian he responded:

“It actually makes no difference at all whether Irmeli Krans is a lesbian or not. There is however a great deal of material on the net that indicates that she is

If it does not make any difference whether Irmeli Krans is a lesbian or not, why is Craig Murray accusing Irmeli Krans to have a “distaste for heterosexual relations”. And if Irmeli Krans is a heterosexual, most certainly she is, why is it that she has a “distaste for heterosexual relations” and Sofia Wilén, another heterosexual, does not? In fact Irmeli Krans has had a much longer relationship with men than Sofia Wilén has.

Craig Murray doesn’t do any “textual analysis”. He is simply a homophobic bigot with a monumental hatred for lesbians. He is into lesbian bashing, a favorite sport for long nosed bigots pretending they are real men.

craig-4In a later comment Craig Murray goes on:

“You state that you cannot see any particular use of emotive or biased language against Assange in the statement Krans wrote. I would say that shows you are completely hopeless at textual analysis. Indeed you make numerous statements with an air of great authority, which all evaporate upon inspection.”

Craig Murray believes he is a master of “textual analysis” and that I am “completely hopeless at textual analysis.” So let’s examine Craig Murray’s “textual analysis”.

Checking Craig Murray’s textual analysis

Craig Murray claims that Anna Ardin was present during Sofia Wilén’s police interrogation, the one that Irmeli Krans conducted. He also claims that Sofia Wilén’s statement alleging rape was drawn up by Irmeli Krans in Anna Ardin’s presence suggesting there is some kind of lesbian-feminist conspiracy behind the accusations. Let’s look at his reasoning.

What we know from the police documents is that two women, Anna Ardin and Sofia Wilén”, arrived at Klara Närpolisstation around 2 pm on 20 August 2010 to report Julian Assange. After a brief conversation with the officer in charge, Linda Wassgren, the women were separated. After one on one conversations Linda Wassgren came to the conclusion that the women had been sexually assaulted and a formal investigation was initiated. Some time after this decision Sofia Wilén was interviewed.

craig-6Now let’s look at the great “textual analyst” at work. In the Detention Memorandum there is an interview with Donald Boström. Two paragraphs from this interview is on the left, click to have it enlarged. Donald Boström states that Anna Ardin told him “I filled in with one sentence” and “it became [a matter for investigation] and thus became a formal complaint, even though we had not filed a complaint.”

Craig Murray’s interpretation of the two paragraphs is that Anna Ardin was present all the time during Sofia Wilén’s interrogation:

“That does seem to indicate very plainly that Anna WAS in the room when Sofia told police her story – I can see no other possible interpretation.”

How are these sentences to be interpreted? Anybody with a little understanding of English realizes that Anna Ardin said something and then “it became [a matter for investigation]”. The police decided to make it a matter for investigation after Anna Ardin’s uttered her words. It is evident that her words were from very early on and important for Linda Wassgren’s decision to separate the two women and start one on one conversations with them. A decision that subsequently led to the decision to start a formal investigation and later an interrogation of Sofia Wilén and an arrest of Julian Assange.

Craig Murray’s interpretation, that Anna Ardin was present during Sofia Wilén’s interrogation, is not only wrong. It is proof that he is void of textual analysis capability. His conclusion is proof that he is a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices. Police documents confirm that Anna Ardin was not present at the police station while Sofia Wilén was interviewed. And she was not present when Irmeli Krans finished documenting the interview.

Craig Murray, the self-proclaimed “great textual analyst”, cannot even interpret two paragraphs correctly. It is not likely that he can interpret what is in a 100 page police report. 

craig-5When I ask Craig Murray to back up his claims what does he do? First he states he is “very busy” and it is not possible for him to back up his claims. And when that does not help he threatens to edit me out:

“If you prefer to keep up the unconstructive criticism we are going to start editing you out.

So much for freedom of speech. You are allowed to comment on Craig Murray’s blog if you agree with him. But as soon as you ask for facts supporting his weird claims you are regarded “unconstructive” and you are threatened with being edited out.

Craig Murray’s fourteen false claims

Most of Craig Murray claims are false. After a meeting with the Truth Fairy it was discovered that Craig Murray has a monumental difficulty separating truth from fabrication. He was regarded unfit as an Ambassador and sacked. How he became an Ambassador in the first place is still a mystery that is being investigated in the British Foreign and Commonwealth Office.

It has been suggested on Craig Murray’s blog that he is not a serial liar. That he has just been misinformed by a great number of his sources. I am not sure if this is true since he has not revealed his sources. Some of his claims are new to me indicating that he is the original fabricator. Below I will quickly run through his fourteen false claims:

  1. “Sofia Wilén refused to sign her statement”
    Sofia Wilén did not sign her statement at the time of the interview. There is nothing that suggests “she refused to sign her statement”.
  2. “Sofia Wilén have not signed her statement to this day”
    She was re-interviewed on 2 September 2010. It is most likely that she signed her statement at that time. The signature is not important until the case goes to trial.
  3. “The prosecutor told the British High Court that Anna Ardin and Irmeli Krans were witnesses to Sofia’s interview.”
    It is a completely ridiculous to try to make us believe that the Swedish prosecutor has told the High Court that Sofia Wilén’s interview was witnessed by Anna Ardin and the police interrogator Irmeli Krans. The interrogator doubling as witness. Craig Murray has not in 161 days provided any proof of his silly claim
  4. “Anna Ardin did not take Sofia to the nearest and best police station.”
    I think Craig Murray is geographically disadvantaged. Anna Ardin and Sofia Wilén went to the nearest and best police station. I know the geography of Stockholm very well indeed. Please note that I sometimes drive a taxi and I know my ways around town. For a more detailed explanation check this.
  5. “Rather than see another officer, the two women waited two hours until Krans came on duty.”
    Donald Boströms statement and police officer Linda Wassgren’s memorandum proves this claim false.
  6. “Anna Ardin was present throughout Krans’ interview of Wilen”
    We’ve dealt with this above. Police documents prove that Anna Ardin was not present at the police station at the time for Sofia Wilén’s interview.
  7. “Anna Ardin did not report Julian until two days after she had sat through Wilen’s interview with her friend Krans.”
    Anna Ardin reported Julian Assange on 20 August. The same day as Sofia Wilén reported him.
  8. “The Klara Närpolisstation does have video-taping facilities.”
    According to the officer in charge of Klara Närpolisstation, the station lacks video-facilities.
  9. “Rape trials in Sweden are held entirely in secret.”
    No trials in Sweden are in secret. Rape trials are public and so is the verdict. Parts of a rape trial may be behind closed doors. Mostly the hearing of sensitive evidence.
  10. “Sofia Wilén’s statement alleging rape was drawn up by Irmeli Krans in Anna Ardin’s presence.”
    Anna Ardin was not present at the police station when Sofia Wilén was interviewed and she was not present when Irmeli Krans documented the statement.
  11. “Anna Ardin discussed with Julian Assange his desire for sex with Sofia Wilén”
    Nothing in the police file supports this claim.
  12. “Anna Ardin took Sofia Wilén to her campaigning feminist friend, policewoman Irmeli Krans, in order to twist Sofia Wilén’s story into a sexual assault”
    The interview with Sofia Wilén is not twisted. The only thing twisted is Craig Murray’s view of the interview.
  13. “Sweden has astonishing “second-wave feminism” rape laws.”
    Craig Murray is obviously not familiar with Swedish rape-laws. In fact they are much less severe than the English laws. Many acts that are punishable with severe sentences in England are not even criminalized in Sweden.
  14. “Some days later than 22 August (25): Anna Ardin produces a broken condom to the police as evidence.”
    The condom was collected by police officer Sara Wennerblom at 6:12 pm on August 21. The same day as Anna Ardin was interrogated.

Conclusion

The Julian Assange case has really opened my eyes. There are many so called “Human Rights Lawyers” and “Human Rights Activists” that make false claims. They do their best to misrepresent facts. Craig Murray is not the only one. Michael Ratner, Jennifer Robinson, Bianca Jagger, Geoffrey Robertson, Mark Stephens, Marcello Ferrada de Noli, Israel Shamir, Glenn Greenwald are some other ones. Then there are other people like Naomi Wolf, Michael Moore, John Pilger, Tariq Ali, Helen Bergman, Rick Downes, Brita Sundberg-Weitman, Justice4Assange and lots and lots of others that also make false claims. Claims that are not supported by facts.

craig-clark-2Clark, Craig Murray’s Moderator, writes on 15 September 2012:

“I suspect that you have decreased your credibility with Craig by accusing him of lying. Craig is rightly proud of his honesty. When he was told by the British government to keep quiet about torture in Uzbekistan, Craig refused. He was then falsely accused of professional misconduct, including sexual allegations. He was sacked, he suffered a breakdown and his career was ruined. Craig has suffered greatly for his honesty.”

If a man is “rightly proud of his honesty” one would assume that such a man would back up his claims when asked to do so. Not Craig Murray. Still after 160 days he remains silent.

In a second comment, craig-clark-1Clark the moderator goes on:

“I’m sorry, but I will not ask Craig to respond; please be patient. …..  Also, I would not pressure Craig to respond because I think it is better if he checks his sources and considers their meaning thoroughly; we should not pressure him to respond before he is fully prepared and has sufficient time to reply thoughtfully.”

How long time does Craig Murray need to check his sources and back up his claims? Obviously 160 days is not enough. Does he need 365 days? 3 650 days? Or 36 500 days? It is evident that he can write articles filled with lies, made up stories and hatred for the women involved in the Assange case at the blink of an eye. But to back up his claims takes forever. And he is a man that is supposedly “rightly proud of his honesty.”

In an article from 19 April 2009 Craig Murray explains his view on young women:

“When I see a young woman, my mind instantaneously runs a sexualized check on her physical appearance and, if I find that appealing, I start acting in the way I can best calculate to enhance my chances. All that happens more or less subconsciously, or at least without any need for conscious initiation on my part.

I always rather presumed that all heterosexual men went through the same process all the time. Apparently I may be wrong.”

I do not know what happens in Craig Murray’s mind when he sees a young woman. What is much more interesting is the young woman’s view of him. Is he regarded as a warm, affectionate, respectful and lovable old man? Or is he regarded as a creep?

“I accept that it may appear that I pay more attention to sexual attributes than is the accepted norm.”

“I also have to face the fact that I have told many lies to people in my love life, yet I am almost pathologically honest in any other context.”

“My entire adult life I have suffered from what used to be called manic depression, and now is known as bipolar disorder.”

“I now know that my presumption that most men think about women just like me might well be wrong.”

“I am not sure that I even really believe in “Bipolar infidelity”. But I will remember the phrase, “I suffer from hypersexuality.” Sounds like a brilliant chat up line… “

From what former Ambassador Craig Murray writes about the Assange case there is no doubt that is a media seeking liar and a pathetic researcher. He is a spineless creepy homophobic misogynistic rape apologist with strong anti-feminist views. And that he has to face the fact that he has told many lies, not only in his articles about the Assange case.

It’s interesting that he still thinks of himself as a “Human Rights Activist”. To me he is just another creepy bigot that is supporting Julian Assange.

Bigot: “a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially: one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance”.

 

4 thoughts on “Is former Ambassador Craig Murray a media seeking liar or just a pathetic researcher?

  1. This article is simply horrible because it descends into the most childish form of personal insults. You don’t have to look beyond doctored pictures to see that; and it is a shame because some of your points are (probably, because I don’t know) factual corrections of oft-repeated details of the case.

    Getting facts right is important. But everybody also makes inferences based on facts, and providing that process is made explicit, it is perfectly justified and necessary. Thus Murray is quite correct to write: “Wilén had had long term relationships with men. It is improbable she found semen on the bedsheets unusual, yet alone disgusting.”

    Finally, I don’t think even Craig Murray’s political opponents in Britain regard him as dishonest. His unusual honesty about his sexual feelings should be to his credit, and not trigger a string of abuse.

    You would be better off arguing your points, rather than penning poisoned diatribes against those who get things wrong or with whom you disagree.

  2. Hi Goran. Long time, no read. Now i know why – you’ve spent three months writing this drivel. Love it. You should become a comedic writer for one of those awful American sitcoms that get cancelled before the end of its first season run. Also really enjoyed your emails to that horny, weird chick – what’s her name? You know the emails, the ones about your bent penis. Did you ever get to nail her?

  3. Goran

    No wonder you were edited. I know Craig personally, and while he does have his faults, he is nothing but honest in his beliefs.
    The above article is merely a mean attack on him, and should be regarded as such.

  4. Anyone who knows anything about this case or about Craig Murray will immediately recognise that what ‘Rudling’ is saying is utterly false. The only intriguing question is WHY he chooses to publish this rubbish.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


*