Psychological Evaluation of Neil Gillespie

Bloomfield Psychological Services
Forensic and Clinical Psychology
Serena Lurie Bloomfield, Ed.D. Stephen I. Bloomfield, Ed.D.

Licensed Psychologist Licensed Psychologist
FL License # PY4692 FL License # PY4901
MA License # 3957
April20,2022
The Honorable Peter Brigham

Circuit Court Judge
Fifth Judicial Circuit
Marion County Judicial Center
110 N.W. First Avenue
Ocala, FL 34475
/
RE: State of Florida v. Neil Joseph Gillespie, Defendant

In the Circuit Court, Fifth Judicial Circuit
In and For Marion County, Florida
Case No.: 2019-CF-4193; 2020-CF-2417; 2021-CF-172
Dear Judge Brigham:
Pursuant to an Order of the Court, I conducted a Psychological Evaluation Assessment and

Examination of the Defendant, Mr. Gillespie. The purpose of the evaluation was competence. I
was unable to see him via electronic means at the jail and apparently he informed me that you
released him ROR and he immediately called me to continue the evaluation.
I evaluated the Defendant in accordance with the Provisions of Rule 3 .210 and 3 .211 of the
Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure to determine whether the Defendant is competent to
proceed for the purposes indicated int his Order pursuant to the criteria set forth in Florida
Statutes 916.12 and Rules 3.210 and 3.211, that is whether the Defendant has sufficient present
ability to consult with his lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understanding and whether
he has a rational, as well as factual understanding of the proceedings against him.
In that regard I was provided with a good deal of information which included State Attorney's
information for two counts: unlawful interception of oral communication; unlawful disclosure of
oral communication:
• Probable Cause Affidavit
• Mailing and Billing Address: 94 San Juan Drive, Ponte Verde, FL 32082 • (904) 448-1519 • [email protected] ,
Page 2970
• Warrant Service
• State Attorney's information for robbery by sudden snatching and battery
• Warrant Service.
Mr. Gillespie himself sent me a packet of information while he was incarcerated which included
the following:
• Order on Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

• Order on Motion for Nels on Hearing
• Handwritten note, letter from Mr. Gillespie indicating what he enclosed
• A certified copy of Motion to Withdraw Hearing transcribed from digital recording
• Court minutes (several copies and pages)
• Handwritten Motion for Nelson Hearing
• List from Mr. Gillespie of his medical and psychological conditions
• Handwritten notice to Judge Peter Brigham re: Competency Evaluation; ROR Motion
• Acknowledgement of new case (Neil J. Gillespie versus Billie Woods, Sheriff)
• Order on Motion to Rescind Order appointing Dr. Tonie Werner to do a competency
evaluation and Order compelling Defendant to do a competency evaluation and Order
compelling Defendant to appear for evaluation
• Recorder telephone conversation between Defendant and his attorney, Zachary Phillips,
transcribed from digital recordings.
As I listed earlier Mr. Gillespie provided me with his medical history (partial) which included
past surgery and treatments, as well as medical conditions which list Posttraumatic Stress
Disorder (PTSD) ICD-9-CM Code 309.81.
This is related to panic attacks, a 1988 mugging and his trauma regarding a cleft pallet as a child.
Also listed are Anxiety Disorder due to medical condition 293.89; Anxiety State Unspecified
300.00; Dysthymic Disorder (Chronic Depression) 300.4; Depression/Depressive Disorder
296.3/311; Brain Tumor, head Injury from a mugging in 1998; History of Head Injury
Unspecified.
Also Mr. Gillespie provided a list of his medications which are lengthy some of which he is not
taking at this time. He has been prescribed medications for psychological conditions but at this
moment is not taking them.
As soon as Mr. Gillespie was released from incarceration he called me to set up an appointment.
We did that and the evaluation took place on April 18, 2022. I provided Mr. Gillespie, his
attorney and the Court with verification of him presenting and participating in that evaluation.
I conducted various tests of mental control and mental status.
Throughout the course of the evaluation there were no limitations that were obvious during the
interview process. He did not use any unusual kinds of logic or strange associations. There was
2
Page 2971
no psychosis or organicity. He showed an average number of thoughts which were neither
speeded nor slowed and his thinking seem normal from the perspective of productivity,
relevance, and coherence.
Based upon mental status there were no limitations in any of the domains assessed by my
examination. There is no evidence or signs of a thought disorder or a major cognitive behavioral
disorder, no such signs or symptoms were elicited. He showed no abnormalities of thought,
affect, or behavior and no gross abnormalities. I did not find any unusual kinds of logic or
strange associations. There were no obvious indications of psychosis or organicity and no
hallucinations in any field. He experienced thoughts in a spontaneous and normal manner while
remaining lucid and coherent. There was no indication of disordered mentation in the form of
incoherent or incomprehensible speech. His speech was relevant, spontaneous, and productive.
He showed an average number of thoughts which were neither speeded nor slowed. His thinking
seemed normal from the perspective of productivity, relevance, and coherence. He presented his
thoughts in an appropriately paced, understandable, and relevant fashion. His thoughts were
coherent well organized and relevant to the subject at hand. He reached the goal of his thought
process without introducing any irrelevant material. His train of thought was goal directed,
relevant, logical, coherent, focused, without digressions. There was no tangentiality,
circumstantiality or distractibility. His speech was relevant, appropriate, without evidence of
unusual ideation.
He showed no obsessions or phobias, ideas of reference, hallucinations, delusions, and faulty

perceptions, and perceptual disturbances, misrepresentations of consensual reality or psychotic
distortions.
Mr. Gillespie was affable and cooperative, interactive with me and showed no deficits. He is not
on any pain medication.
Years ago he took SSRT. He has never been married and does not have any children.
He was released ROR. We talked about his various cases and medical history and we reviewed
the competency issues.
In my opinion Mr. Gillespie is Competent to Proceed.
I. Appreciation of the charges or allegations (FS 916.12(3)a): He explained to me in detail the

charges against him involving recording a phone call. He did tell me that his own phone presents
a caveat that phone calls would be recorded and I called him and heard that caveat. He also
described the sudden snatching and battery and his relationship with Ms. Thomas.
He seemed acceptable in this regard.
2. Appreciation of the range and nature of possible penalties if applicable which may be
imposed in the proceedings against the defendant (FS 916.12(3)b): He understands he could
receive up to five years for each offense. The best outcome would be for the charges to be
Page 2972
dropped. He also indicated there was an incident in jail where he had to defend himself against
another inmate.
3. Appreciation of the adversarial nature of the legal system (FS 916.12(3)c): He was able to
provide an elaborate explanation of the role of his attorney, his previous attorneys, the role of the
State Attorney, the role of the Court, the role of the jury if there is a trial and the protocols
regarding a trial.
4. Capacity to disclose to his attorney facts pertinent to the proceedings at issue (FS 916.10(3)d):
He is able to provide rational, lucid and coherent information regarding the instant offenses
without difficulty and could do same with his attorney. He is able to contribute to his defense
without difficulty.
5. Ability to manifest appropriate courtroom behavior (FS 916.12(3)e): He shows that he can
manifest appropriate courtroom behavior and is able to do so without difficulty.
6. Capacity to testify relevantly and coherently (FS 916.12(3)±): I believe he could be cross-
examined and provide information regarding cross-examination of witnesses.
He described his time in jail, losing weight, some of his medical illnesses subsiding because he
lost over 100 pounds. He described his relationship with Ms. Thomas and he could do so with his
attorney.
In that regard it is my opinion that pursuant to the criteria set forth in 916.12 Florida Statute and
Rules 3.210 and 3.211, that Mr. Gillespie has sufficient present ability to consult with his lawyer
with a reasonable degree of. rational understanding and has a rational, as well as factual
understanding of the proceedings against him specifically the six listed in the Court.
It is my opinion that he is Competent to Proceed and nothing impairs his ability to proceed with
his case.
Ifl can provide additional and/or clarifying information, please feel free to contact me.
Very truly yours,
Page 2973
8tep/r.en. 'l. JJloomfi.eld., ~d..J).
Stephen I. Bloomfield, Ed.D.

Licensed Psychologist
SIB/tk
cc: Doyle Gary Lashley, Jr. Esq.

([email protected])
Office of the State Attorney

([email protected])
Neil Joseph Gillespie
Page 2974

Psychological Evaluation of Neil Gillespie

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Psychological Evaluation of Neil Gillespie

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Psychological Evaluation of Neil Gillespie

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Bloomfield Psychological Services

Forensic and Clinical Psychology

Serena Lurie Bloomfield, Ed.D. Stephen I. Bloomfield, Ed.D.

The Honorable Peter Brigham

RE: State of Florida v. Neil Joseph Gillespie, Defendant

Dear Judge Brigham:

Pursuant to an Order of the Court, I conducted a Psychological Evaluation Assessment and

• Probable Cause Affidavit

• Order on Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

I conducted various tests of mental control and mental status.

He showed no obsessions or phobias, ideas of reference, hallucinations, delusions, and faulty

In my opinion Mr. Gillespie is Competent to Proceed.

I. Appreciation of the charges or allegations (FS 916.12(3)a): He explained to me in detail the

He seemed acceptable in this regard.

He seemed acceptable in this regard.

He seemed acceptable in this regard.

He seemed acceptable in this regard.

He seemed acceptable in this regard.

He seemed acceptable in this regard.

Very truly yours,

Stephen I. Bloomfield, Ed.D.

cc: Doyle Gary Lashley, Jr. Esq.

Office of the State Attorney

Neil Joseph Gillespie

You might also like