Craig Murray admitted that his position on the whole affair is indeed biased, but that he would try to report the facts fairly.
I think he is doing a good job of that, though of course, how can we really know?
Please name an alternate source of complete, detailed, factual reporting of this "public" hearing.
The fact that you (or anyone) probably cannot, says quite a lot in itself.
(but the other comment by jonathanstrange hints that you are not alone, so maybe my writing style could use some improvement)
To the contrary, even so I'm sure that Murray is on Assage's side, he still manages to write a factual report.
To his honor, it is quite easy to make the distinction between the facts reported and Murray's opinion.
And it's based on the facts only (as included in the reports written by Murray) that I'm myself horrified by how the trial is unfair and full of procedural mistakes against Assange.
This is not the work of a dispassionate observer.
As above, please name a 'fairer' source.
You probably cannot, because this is not an impartial, and certainly not 'public', process.