TO: Defense Counsel for Ashley Thornhill

RE: Ashley Thornhill; SS# 467-46-8026; DOB: 07/01/65

DATE ISSUED: 5/10/01

At your request, I have performed an Independent Medical/Psychiatric Evaluation of Ashley Thornhill in my office on April 15, 2001. The purpose of this evaluation was to determine the psychological profile of Thornhill following the death of a coworker for whom Thornhill is alleged responsible. I have reduced my findings into the report below.

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

Thornhill is accused of killing Mr. Wendell Tucker on March 15, 2001. A grand jury indictment led to Thornhill being held without bail. Shortly after the arrest, I was asked to perform this evaluation.

EMPLOYMENT HISTORY

Thornhill has been employed with Tucker, Roberts, and Payne for the past 10 years. Mr. Wendell Tucker, senior partner for the firm, is Thornhill’s direct supervisor.

MENTAL STATUS EXAMINATION

Current General Observations
Thornhill was well dressed, well groomed, and presented with a somewhat aggressive affect. Thornhill understood that we were meeting for the purposes of evaluation, and not for the purposes of treatment. The subject agreed to the non-confidential nature of this procedure, and signed a release to that effect. Thornhill was cooperative with the interview. Thornhill’s mood was unremarkable. Thornhill’s speech was goal directed and coherent with no evidence of a formal thought disorder. Thornhill’s reality testing was grossly intact.

GENERAL INTERVIEW

I began the interview section by asking about Thornhill’s family history. Thornhill’s family was clearly dysfunctional. Both parents were alcoholics, which led to economic problems when they had to change jobs. Their attitude towards both work and mood altering drugs explains the substance abuse by the siblings. Thornhill apparently avoided this family tendency because of a strong desire “not to be like my parents.” Thornhill also expressed no interest in maintaining any relationship with the siblings because “they are just like my parents”. Thornhill feels that the dead parents and dead sister “got what they deserved” when they died from lung cancer, an auto wreck and a heroine overdose respectively. Thornhill reported but one lasting friendship from school. Thornhill did show interest in having a family at some point in the future, but felt that any steps in that direction would have to wait until Thornhill made partner at a prestigious advertising firm. Thornhill had no real friends amongst co-workers. The logic was that it would be foolish to even attempt to form such a bond, “since we are all fighting each other for the same partnership slot.” Thornhill didn’t believe in “wasting time” on friends or family until economic security could be attained - which Thornhill felt would come with a partnership in an advertising firm. I finished the interview section of my evaluation by asking about the events of the night of March 15, 2001. Thornhill answered in what seemed to be a frank and open manner. I was particularly struck by the subject’s willingness to admit gladness that Mr. Tucker had “gotten his,” even though Thornhill recognized that regardless of the outcome, partnership in the firm would now be an impossibility. Thornhill seemed not to be worried about the outcome of the trial, stating that no jury “would believe that I would be so stupid as to kill him in the office. If I was going to kill Tucker, I would have done it somewhere else, like on the golf course, so the police would have to look into all the people he cheated over the years.” Thornhill went on to say that if it weren’t for the arrest, “partnership would be an easy gain, without Tucker.”

I appreciate your referring this patient to me for evaluation. I trust that this report will be of some help to you. Please call me if you have any further questions.

Sincerely yours,

Dana Chambliss, M.D.