Lindsay Clancy trial: Why Dr Margaret Spinelli didn’t give testimony? Alleged Facebook posts surface as court ends early
Dr Margaret Spinelli, a forensic psychiatrist and postpartum psychosis expert, was expected to be called on Wednesday to testify in the Lindsay Clancy trial.
The mother of three stands accused of strangling her kids – Cora, Dawson, and Callan. While her lawyers have not refuted that Lindsay killed the children, they have argued that she was suffering from postpartum psychosis and was overly medicated at the time, and didn’t realize her actions fully.
Arguments are nearing an end, with expert testimonies left, and Spinelli had been called to provide just that. The doctor was among three witnesses listed for Wednesday. However, she was not called before court ended early. Judge William Sullivan sent all jurors home after the lunch break.
Why did Dr. Margaret Spinelli not testify?
Spinelli did not testify as court was over early, before she was called. The judge asked jurors not to speculate, as he sent them home due to what was called an ‘unforeseen circumstance’.
“You’re not to hold it against either side. It’s just something that we have to deal with,” Sullivan had said, as per Newsweek.
Amid this, several people on social media have claimed that Spinelli was not called to testify due to her Facebook posts. “Dr. Spinelli won’t be testifying because she’s another biased witness and has a vested interest in the outcome of the case. Here she is sharing and posting pro-defense posts on her personal Facebook,” one wrote.
Another added “After Zeizel, the defense was set to call Dr. Margaret Spinelli, an expert in postpartum psychosis. Reporters could see her sitting outside the courtroom on Wednesday. But Judge William F. Sullivan sent jurors home after the lunch break, and Reddington is now set to call the hospital chaplain as his next witness. Did they not call Dr. Spinelli because of her Pro Lindsay Clancy FB Posts?”.
A person reporting on court proceedings also wrote “Why do you think Kevin Reddington has decided not to call Dr. Margaret Spinelli? I’ve seen speculation online that it’s because she’s been posting on her Facebook about the case. However, she’s an expert so I don’t think she’s barred from commenting on the case. (I could be wrong).”
These claims have put Margaret Spinelli’s alleged Facebook posts in focus.
Margaret Spinelli’s alleged Facebook posts in focus
The claims made about Spinelli on X had posts from a Facebook profile going by Margaret G Spinelli. The profile notes the individual is from Brooklyn and lives in New York at present.
The profile also adds this Spinelli is married and lists Keith and Erik Magnussen as children. It notes Catherine Mc Auley High School, St. Mary’s School of Nursing, and Weill Cornell Medicine as places of education. It lists Columbia University Irving Medical Center as the place of work.
This Spinelli has been posting about the Lindsay Clancy trial consistently. On August 18, the profile shared a video about a fundraiser for Lindsay’s parents.
Another post on August 17 was shared about ‘wearing pink’ for Lindsay. Many people commented on this Spinelli’s post with one person asking “Aren’t you being biased?”. Another said “Why pretend you care yet break the rule of the courts with your post and let Lindsay down entirely?”.
However, there’s no confirmation if this is indeed the same Dr Margaret Spinelli. The credentials listed are the same as what’s on the Columbia University Department of Psychiatry page. Some on X claimed that the profile was fake.
“Oh my gosh you do realize this is a fake account?!?!? Holy cow,” one wrote. HT.com could not verify this claim.
When Grok was asked about whether the Facebook account belonged to the same Dr Margaret Spinelli, the AI chatbot replied “Yes, public records link a Facebook profile named Margaret G Spinelli to the Columbia psychiatrist Dr. Margaret G. Spinelli (Weill Cornell ’88, same credentials). The screenshots of her posts supporting Lindsay Clancy (pink rally, prosecutor criticism) match circulating images and discussions during the ongoing trial, with no credible claims they are fabricated.” Others also pointed out that the profile appeared to be a longstanding and real one.
