
Uncle Craig. Dobby’s dad. Registered Nurse. @theRCN member. Views=own; RT≠agreement.
Glasgow, Scotland
Joined June 2010
- Tweets75.6K
- Following3.7K
- Followers10K
- Likes87.6K
Imagine making your entire mission in life to be stripping the rights of 0.5% of the population.
The biggest threat against all women, including transwomen, is men.
Imagine putting all that effort into fighting against male violence against women.
#TransRightsAreHumanRights
Craig Davidson RN (Adult) (he/they) retweeted
The Clancy trial is another example of how you just never know what a jury cares about. We thought the jury would want detailed expert testimomy to navigate the mental health issues and that Reddington's rather surface level examination of his experts would be a problem. Turns out the jurors were glad he didn't spend more time on experts and instead focused on how good a mom she was. Who knew?
Craig Davidson RN (Adult) (he/they) retweeted
It seems the only person following the instructions on the Lindsay Clancy jury was the holdout. We learned today from another juror that after watching a video of Clancy with one of the doctors, he expressed doubt...as to Murder 1. As the judge instructed, the proper thing to do at that point was to consider Murder 2 and manslaughter, which expressly allowed the jury to consider Clancy's mental illness as mitigating her culpability. But the other 11 didn't want to do that. They wanted to go straight to NGRI. The holdout should be praised for staying strong and following the instructions given to him.
Craig Davidson RN (Adult) (he/they) retweeted
11 people voted based on "compassion" and how they "felt".
1 person tested the evidence and concluded that the prosecution had proved their case, maybe not beyond all doubt, but at least beyond reasonable doubt.
11 people couldn't understand why he would do such a thing; why he refused to take on their personal opinions and outside testimony or consider the weight of her actions more heavily than the weight of her 'good character' witnesses - then accused him of 'not providing single piece of evidence' to back his decision.
11 people made an emotional decision.
And 1 person made a rational one.
Juror: He took the exercise band out of the bag, grabbed an empty water bottle, and tied the band around the water bottle and pulled it.
Interviewer: Did he explain why he did that?
Juror: No. He might have, I’m not entirely..uh, I think I was just so shocked that he did that. Like…
It is silly for this juror to pretend that he doesn’t understand why the lone juror grabbed the exercise band during deliberations.
The obvious reason, I’m guessing, that he did it is to see if the murder weapon is something that is a quick trigger action that someone can do when they “snap,” or if it required a long drawn out use of force.
Craig Davidson RN (Adult) (he/they) retweeted
Wow…a former nurse who gets it and refuses to be beguiled by the same Lindsay psychopathy…nicely said 😎
Craig Davidson RN (Adult) (he/they) retweeted
There's nothing wrong with jurors convincing other jurors to change their votes during deliberations. There's something deeply wrong with jurors from a hung jury and mistrial then trotting out to reporters to dump all over fellow jurors who were not convinced.
Craig Davidson RN (Adult) (he/they) retweeted
It's actually crazy to see all of these jurors coming out to give "exclusive" interviews. Yet, the one holdout juror seems to have zero desire to have any camera-time
Craig Davidson RN (Adult) (he/they) retweeted
Lindsay Clancy Juror Traumatized by an Exercise Band on a Water Bottle
This is one of the fundamental problems I see with this jury.
They didn’t just find the evidence disturbing. They seemed to want to avoid the visceral reaction that came with actually thinking through what happened to Cora, Dawson, and Callan.
Part of the evidence addressed how the exercise bands were placed around each child’s neck and how long those actions would have taken. That evidence was uncomfortable because it forced jurors to visualize the killings in concrete terms.
That evidence was central to evaluating her actions and state of mind.
In this interview, this male juror seems appalled, almost traumatized by seeing an exercise band wrapped around a water bottle during deliberations. Framing his actions as though something was wrong with him.
I understand why that image could be disturbing. What I struggle with is the apparent shift in perspective.
The discomfort shifted the jurors away from what Cora, Dawson, and Callan experienced to Lindsay's trauma from the act.
And when the lone juror continued focusing on the brutality of their deaths, his inability to simply “get past it” became a source of frustration for the jurors.
But maybe the problem wasn’t that he focused on the evidence. Maybe the problem was that the others didn’t want to give that evidence the same weight.
Several jurors have said the holdout didn’t focus on evidence like the others did. But that does not mean he ignored the evidence. By their own accounts, he was focused on the actual manner in which the children were killed: the bands, the sequence, the time involved, and the brutality of the acts.
That is evidence. They may not have liked the conclusion he drew from it, but that is very different from saying he wasn’t considering the case.
What I keep hearing in these interviews is frustration that he would not move past the killings and toward the framework the majority had accepted.
But in a murder trial, the killings are not something jurors are supposed to emotionally bypass because they are difficult to think about.
The discomfort is part of confronting the evidence.
Cora, Dawson, and Callan were not secondary. What happened to them was central to determining Lindsay’s mental state, intent, and criminal responsibility.
If there is another trial, the prosecution needs to understand this dynamic. They need to introduce Saathoff’s reasoning earlier and reinforce it throughout the trial.
There were time constraints. Lindsay made decisions. She moved from one child to the next. She did not hesitate when they struggled, and she did not stop.
The defense gave jurors a framework for viewing those actions through psychosis. The prosecution needed an equally clear framework for why the sequence, persistence, decision-making, and response to resistance could support a different conclusion. xitter.cf/itskikidanger/status/2…
The more I hear from jurors in the Lindsay Clancy case, the more troubled I become.
The jurors were supposed to be the fact-finders on a very specific legal question: did the Commonwealth prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Lindsay Clancy was criminally responsible for killing Cora, Dawson and Callan?
This was not a referendum on women’s health, post-pardum depressed, if she should have returned to work after 18 weeks, or whether Patrick was sufficiently supportive or encouraging. Those may be important discussions but they were not the legal question before this jury.
Today I watched an interview with one of the jurors and heard her say that she found Lindsay “not guilty by reason of mental illness.”
Read that again.
“Not guilty by reason of mental illness.” That isn't even a legal standard in Massachusetts.
Mental illness alone does not relieve someone of criminal responsibility. Mental illness was never really in dispute in this case. The question the jurors were instructed to decide was whether, because of mental disease or defect, Lindsay lacked the substantial capacity to appreciate the criminality or wrongfulness of her conduct or to conform her conduct to the requirements of the law.
A juror saying she found Lindsay “not guilty by reason of mental illness” sounds like the quiet part being said out loud. It suggests that at least this juror may have substituted a broader belief about mental illness for the actual legal test she was instructed to apply.
And when you combine that with another juror's reasoning that Lindsay “had to have snapped,” I find it deeply worrisome. A jury can't begin with a loving mother couldn't possibly do this unless she snapped and then work backward from that belief to a verdict. The evidence is supposed to lead to the conclusion, not the other way around.
This is what scares me about the future of high-profile trials in Massachusetts. Social media turns cases into causes and cultural referendums long before jurors ever deliberate. Sympathy, personal experience and emotion becomes intertwined with the evidence until jurors begin deciding what they believe should be just rather than answering the legal question the judge actually gave them.
Jurors are not legislators, advocates and they don't get to rewrite the legal standard because another standard feels more compassionate.
They are the fact-finders. Their obligation is to follow the court's instructions and apply the law to the evidence.
Cora, Dawson and Callan deserved that. Every future victim and defendant who enters a Massachusetts courtroom deserves it too.
Craig Davidson RN (Adult) (he/they) retweeted
Well that marked the end of our brief two years as a serious country again. Well done everyone.
Back to vibes, shits and giggles it is.
Britain is done.
I am ashamed.
Craig Davidson RN (Adult) (he/they) retweeted
I cannot disagree with anything @JohnSlinger says here, and others share our views.
No one should be led to believe that most Labour MPs want to oust a sitting Labour PM, they don’t. We want stability, delivery and focus on what we were elected to do.
'My intern had a more in-depth application process than Andy Burnham faces to be PM.'
@JohnSlinger tells @Lewis_Goodall the former Manchester Mayor's route to 10 Downing Street 'is an absolute farce'.
Craig Davidson RN (Adult) (he/they) retweeted
It's all fun for these BBC rats. Meanwhile, millions of ordinary Brits are going to suffer because these rats helped create the chaos.
Craig Davidson RN (Adult) (he/they) retweeted
What people seem to forget is that Keir Starmer is actually very well respected on the world stage.
The thought of Andy Burnham rocking up to a G7 meeting and anyone taking him seriously is wild.
Craig Davidson RN (Adult) (he/they) retweeted
Andy Burnham hasn’t been in parliament for years. No involvement in international politics, failed twice to lead the Party.
He is extremely out of his depth and under qualified to just walk into number 10.
What he and his associates are doing is reckless.
Craig Davidson RN (Adult) (he/they) retweeted
"How on earth have have we ended up in this position?" asks Laura Kuenssberg, who along with Chris Mason, Henry Zeffman and co, have pushed long and hard for us to wind up in exactly this position
#bbclaurak
#BBCBreakfast
Craig Davidson RN (Adult) (he/they) retweeted
I kinda feel sorry for him. He's quietly and competently getting on with fixing broken Britain. He's just not charismatic. Has tried to avoid angering either political side and ended up aggravating both and the right wing media has easily eviscerated him
Craig Davidson RN (Adult) (he/they) retweeted
A STRANGE KIND OF FAILURE
NHS waiting lists falling.
Workers' rights strengthened.
Rail nationalised.
Immigration down.
Child poverty down.
Pensions protected.
Yet we're told this is failure.
The irony is obvious.
If this is what failure looks like, what exactly would success have looked like?
#Labour #KeirStarmer #UKPolitics
If Keir Starmer does resign, history will look back on his reign and scratch its head as to why the hell he was so hated.
On paper, he's probably delivered more to working British people in such a short time than any PM for decades.
After inheriting an absolute mess: NHS waiting lists fallen. Worker's rights improved. Rail operators nationalised. Improved relations with EU and improved UK's global reputation. Removed non-dom tax status. Halved childcare costs. Boosted state pensions. Lowest homicide rate in 50 years. Lifted 550k children out of poverty. Immigration vastly reduced.
We are in the age of billionaire funded misinformation, whose sole purpose is to topple democratically elected leaders, and insert leadership that favours the wealthy elites over the working people. Looks like the game plan is working...
Craig Davidson RN (Adult) (he/they) retweeted
My sense is that, unpopular though Starmer undoubtedly is, much of the electorate are not happy with the prospect of a Prime Minister being overthrown by a combination of a media frenzy, desperate Labour MPs, and the personal ambition of Andy Burnham.

























