True Crime Personality and Psychology
True Crime Psychology and Personality is a podcast that profiles criminal personalities, discusses personality disorders, and examines real life events from a scientifically informed perspective.
Want more mental health content? Check out our other Podcasts:
Mental Health // Demystified with Dr. Tracey Marks
Cluster B: A Look At Narcissism, Antisocial, Borderline, and Histrionic Disorders
Here, Now, Together with Rou Reynolds
Links for Dr. Grande
Produced by Ars Longa Media
Learn more at arslonga.media.
Produced by: Christopher Breitigan and Erin McCue
Executive Producer: Patrick C. Beeman, MD
Legal Stuff
The information presented in this podcast is intended for educational and entertainment purposes only and is not professional advice.
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
[00:00:00] Pulling up to Mickey D's just for drinks? Oh yeah, that's me. Nothing extra, just
[00:00:06] perfection and a straw. Coming in hot for the coldest cups on the block. Because
[00:00:13] there are drinks. Then there are drinks from McDonald's. Mix things up with any
[00:00:19] sized lemonade or sweet tea for $1.49. Perfect with our classic fries. Price and This is true crime psychology and personality, where we discuss the pathology behind some
[00:00:42] of the most horrific crimes and those who committed them from a scientifically informed perspective.
[00:00:49] I'm Dr. Todd Grande. I have a PhD in counselor education and supervision, and I'm a licensed professional counselor of mental health.
[00:00:58] Dr. Todd Grande, that's my YouTube channel.
[00:01:01] Today's question is, can I analyze the case of Bryn Spetcher? First, I'll look at the background
[00:01:06] of this case, move to the timeline of the crime, then offer my analysis. Bryn Spetcher was born
[00:01:13] on January 25, 1991. She had a hearing impairment from birth and used hearing aids. Bryn earned a
[00:01:20] doctorate in audiology from Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis.
[00:01:26] In November of 2017, she moved to Thousand Oaks, California and worked as an audiologist
[00:01:32] for UCLA Health.
[00:01:34] Sometime around early May 2018, Bryn met a man named Chad O'Melia at a dog park.
[00:01:41] Chad was originally from Santa Clarita, California and lived in a condominium in Thousand
[00:01:46] Oaks. He worked at an accounting office and wanted to become a certified public accountant someday.
[00:01:53] He was described as a daily smoker of marijuana. Now moving to the timeline of the crime.
[00:01:59] On May 27, 2018, Bryn Specher arrived at Chad O'Melia's condominium sometime around
[00:02:06] 10 or 10.30 pm.
[00:02:09] During Brynn's visit, Chad smoked marijuana out of a bong.
[00:02:13] Again, this was a common behavior for Chad.
[00:02:16] He was a big fan of marijuana.
[00:02:18] Brynn indicated that she wanted some marijuana as well.
[00:02:21] After smoking some, she did not believe that she was feeling the effects.
[00:02:30] To remedy this perceived problem, Chad retrieved more of the drug for Bryn.
[00:02:38] Just after 1 a.m., now on May 28, the police responded to a report of a disturbance at Chad's condominium. When they entered his residence, they found Bryn holding an eight-inch knife and slashing her own face and neck.
[00:02:46] They deployed a taser and struck her repeatedly with a baton in order to persuade her to drop
[00:02:52] the knife. Bryn appeared to be impervious to pain. Eventually, the officers were able to take her
[00:02:58] into custody. In the condominium, they found 26-year-old Chad O'Melia. Bryn had stabbed Chad 108 times and killed him.
[00:03:08] In addition to attacking Chad, Bryn attacked and seriously injured her own dog.
[00:03:14] The dog survived the attack.
[00:03:16] On May 31, 2018, while Bryn was still in the hospital, she was arrested and charged with
[00:03:22] second-degree murder.
[00:03:24] On June 7, she was released on bail.
[00:03:27] The case took a long time to work its way through the court system.
[00:03:30] A mental health expert working for the defense claimed that Brin's
[00:03:34] homicidal actions were the result of cannabis-induced psychosis.
[00:03:39] Brin said that after the second hit on the Bong,
[00:03:42] she started to hear and see things that weren't there,
[00:03:44] and she had an out-of-body experience. She believed that she was dead and that she had to
[00:03:49] stab Chad to bring herself back to life. In a surprising twist, the state agreed with the
[00:03:55] conclusion of the defense and reduced Bryn's charges from second-degree murder to involuntary
[00:04:01] manslaughter. Instead of facing up to life in prison, she was only looking at a
[00:04:06] maximum sentence of four years. Bryn took her case to trial. On December 1, 2023, she was found
[00:04:13] guilty of involuntary manslaughter. The judge decided that Bryn would not be relocating to
[00:04:18] prison. She was sentenced to 100 hours of community service and to two years of probation. If she violates
[00:04:26] the conditions of her probation, she could go to prison for up to four years. The judge
[00:04:32] defended his decision to grant a very light sentence. He believed that after Bryn smoked
[00:04:37] marijuana, there was nothing that she could do to stop the killing. He said, quote, It
[00:04:42] was clear that she had no control of her faculties and never intended to cause any harm.
[00:04:46] All of the medical experts agreed, including the expert called by the district attorney's office, unquote.
[00:04:54] At her sentencing, Bryn stated that she wished she had known more about the dangers of marijuana.
[00:04:59] She said, quote, had I known, I would never have smoked it that night or at all.
[00:05:05] Unquote.
[00:05:06] Now moving to my analysis.
[00:05:09] There is no question that Brynn was at least guilty of involuntary manslaughter.
[00:05:13] However, some people believe that she was actually guilty of second degree murder.
[00:05:18] They believe the state made a mistake in reducing her charges.
[00:05:22] The state of course disagrees.
[00:05:24] They were pleased with the involuntary
[00:05:25] manslaughter conviction and they were not seeking anything more serious. They took the unusual move
[00:05:31] of siding with the defense. Usually the state is more interested in prosecuting defendants,
[00:05:36] however if the defendant is not guilty of a crime the state should not pursue charges. Maybe
[00:05:42] the state was trying to obtain a just outcome.
[00:05:45] This brings me to the question, was Bryn guilty of murder? Let's take a look at the evidence
[00:05:50] both for and against the idea that Bryn was guilty, starting with the inculpatory factors.
[00:05:55] There is no question that Bryn stabbed Chad 108 times, and this behavior resulted in his death.
[00:06:01] Chad did not provoke Bryn. He did not threaten her. This was not an act of
[00:06:06] self-defense. Chad was a victim in this case. Bryn went to Chad's home, knowing that he was
[00:06:13] a frequent marijuana user. There is no evidence to support Bryn's claim that she was forced,
[00:06:18] coerced, bullied, or intimidated into using marijuana. When she smoked marijuana with Chad the first time that
[00:06:25] night, she did so voluntarily. What changed during the second time? Now all of a sudden,
[00:06:31] Chad was forcing her to smoke? Her argument just doesn't make any sense. The evidence supports the
[00:06:37] idea that Bryn voluntarily used the drug. Therefore, she was responsible for her behavior afterward,
[00:06:42] regardless of her level of control. Her level of
[00:06:46] control beforehand is what's important. It's just like a situation where somebody becomes intoxicated
[00:06:52] in a bar and kill someone with a bottle or a chair. They may not be acting intentionally in
[00:06:58] the moment they killed the person, but they acted intentionally when they drank the alcohol.
[00:07:03] Voluntarily using substances does not give someone a license to kill,
[00:07:07] or even a license to get reduced charges.
[00:07:10] The marijuana used by Bryn and Chad was purchased at a local dispensary.
[00:07:15] There were no other reports of cannabis-induced psychosis or homicide.
[00:07:19] Maybe Bryn simply wanted to stab Chad, and the marijuana had nothing to do with it.
[00:07:24] She pretended to be psychotic, knowing the marijuana had nothing to do with it.
[00:07:25] She pretended to be psychotic, knowing this was her only chance of escaping criminal responsibility.
[00:07:31] Most people who become psychotic primarily represent a danger to themselves.
[00:07:35] Bryn not only became psychotic, she just happened to have a delusion that she needed to stab
[00:07:40] her lover to death.
[00:07:42] Mental health clinicians declared that Bryn had cannabis-induced psychosis,
[00:07:46] but there is no way they could know this for sure. One instrument used in the assessment process
[00:07:51] was the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory, or MMPI. Research has demonstrated
[00:07:57] that this test cannot be relied upon to detect if a person is faking mental health symptoms.
[00:08:03] Moving to the exculpatory factors, mental health experts declared that Bryn was suffering
[00:08:08] from cannabis-induced psychosis at the time of the killing.
[00:08:12] One clinician who watched the body camera footage said that Bryn appeared to be possessed.
[00:08:17] Bryn harming herself with a knife is an unusual behavior, which would be difficult to fake.
[00:08:23] Most people trying to cover for a murder
[00:08:25] would not be inclined to do that.
[00:08:28] Furthermore, Bryn clearly liked her dog, yet she attacked the dog as well.
[00:08:33] She appeared to be impervious to pain, which is consistent with psychosis.
[00:08:38] Bryn claimed that Chad pressured her into smoking the marijuana.
[00:08:41] He may have filled the bong with more potent marijuana than Bryn used the first time.
[00:08:46] Although no physical evidence was found
[00:08:48] to support this claim,
[00:08:49] it does make sense under the circumstances.
[00:08:52] Bryn didn't feel the effect from her first use of the drug,
[00:08:55] so now Chad was looking to give her something stronger.
[00:08:59] Bryn said that she only used marijuana
[00:09:01] on eight occasions in her life
[00:09:03] and only felt the effects one time
[00:09:04] prior to smoking with Chad. If there was cannabis-induced psychosis, perhaps it
[00:09:09] was not a foreseeable consequence based on her history with the drug. Brynn had a reason
[00:09:15] to believe that her reaction to the drug would not involve a break from reality or stabbing
[00:09:20] people. Based on her history, Bryn did not appear to be particularly irresponsible
[00:09:25] with her drug use. For example, one of Bryn's friends said that Bryn actively avoided marijuana
[00:09:31] as a teenager. And a man that Bryn dated from 2014 to 2017 said that in 2015 he was with
[00:09:39] Bryn on a camping trip in Washington state. she smoked marijuana for the first time and decided
[00:09:45] that she did not like the drug.
[00:09:48] When considering all the evidence, do I think that Brynn was guilty of murder?
[00:09:51] No, in my opinion, she was not guilty of murder beyond a reasonable doubt, but I do think
[00:09:56] she was guilty of involuntary manslaughter.
[00:09:59] The state made an appropriate decision in this case as far as reducing the charge, but
[00:10:04] that doesn't address the
[00:10:05] issue of sentencing. The judge was very lenient in this case. Bryn should have at least served
[00:10:11] some time in prison. I think what happened in this case is that the question about cannabis-induced
[00:10:16] psychosis became the focus instead of whether Bryn voluntarily used marijuana. It is reasonable to believe that Bryn was psychotic
[00:10:26] because of her cannabis use,
[00:10:28] but did she use the drug of her own volition?
[00:10:31] The evidence supports the theory that she did.
[00:10:34] Therefore, prison time would have made sense.
[00:10:37] Chad's father was worried that the judge
[00:10:39] has granted people a license to kill.
[00:10:42] This is an accurate and legitimate concern.
[00:10:45] This brings me to the question, is it safe for people to use marijuana or has its legalization
[00:10:51] in many areas created a false sense of security? Here's what the research tells us.
[00:10:57] Marijuana is the most consumed illicit drug in the world. Over 26% of adults will use
[00:11:03] the drug at some point during their lifetime.
[00:11:06] Marijuana use can lead to aggressive behavior, it can cause or exacerbate psychosis, 15%
[00:11:14] of cannabis users identified psychotic-like symptoms, and psychotic symptoms are twice
[00:11:19] as common in young adults who use cannabis. Marijuana frequently produces paranoia
[00:11:25] and has repeatedly demonstrated devastating effects
[00:11:29] on mental health, especially for people
[00:11:31] who have preexisting mental disorders like social anxiety,
[00:11:34] major depressive disorder,
[00:11:36] and post-traumatic stress disorder.
[00:11:38] These research results are a reminder
[00:11:40] that just because something is legal
[00:11:42] does not mean it is safe.
[00:11:44] Now moving to my final thoughts. Historically, individuals who have committed offenses during
[00:11:49] cannabis-induced psychosis have experienced a much greater chance of avoiding criminal responsibility
[00:11:54] because of the idea that the psychosis was not foreseeable. The case of Bryn Spetcher is a great
[00:12:01] example of this. When will the dangers of marijuana use be taken seriously?
[00:12:07] How many more people like Chad O'Melia will have to die before society declares the effects
[00:12:12] of marijuana as foreseeable?
[00:12:15] If people want to use the drug, that is their choice.
[00:12:18] But marijuana use should not grant permission to avoid the consequences of homicidal behavior
[00:12:24] or any criminal behavior.
[00:12:34] This has been True Crime Psychology and Personality from Arzlonga Media. This content
[00:12:40] is for educational and entertainment purposes only. Arurs Longa, VITA Brevis.
[00:12:47] Everybody in your crew identifies as either Big Mac Burger, McNuggets, or Mc Crispy Sandwich.
[00:12:59] But you're the Filet-O-Fish sandwich all day.
[00:13:02] That crispy fish, that savory tartar sauce,
[00:13:05] that melty cheese, that pillowy bun.
[00:13:07] Yeah, you get it, every time.
[00:13:10] And if you love the Filet-O-Fish,
[00:13:12] right now you can catch two of the classics
[00:13:14] you love for just $6.
[00:13:16] Limited time only.
[00:13:17] Price and participation may vary.
[00:13:18] It cannot be combined with any other offer.
[00:13:19] Single item at regular price.
[00:13:21] Ba-da, ba-ba-ba.