Omar Mateen’s Firearm License Psych Evaluation Faked? Doctor Says She Never Signed Off On The Killer

The doctor listed on Orlando nightclub shooter Omar Mateen’s psych evaluation claims that she never saw the killer and that she didn’t even live in Florida during the time that the security company claimed she passed him for firearm clearance. The security company, G4S, provided the State of Florida with a psychological evaluation clearance for Omar Mateen when they submitted his paperwork for a license to carry a firearm as a security guard. However, the doctor listed on the paperwork says no evaluation took place and that she never cleared Mateen for a firearm license.

The Daily Mail reports that Dr. Carol Nudelman, a psychologist, was under fire after it was revealed that she was the medical professional that signed off on Omar Mateen’s psychological evaluation back in 2007 which was used to secure his firearm license. However, Dr. Nudelman says that she never saw Mateen and that she didn’t even live in Florida when G4S claimed she cleared the killer.

Paperwork filed by the large security firm G4S indicated that Mateen was cleared for firearms use as a security guard by Nudelman in 2007. However, in light of the Pulse Nightclub shooting in Orlando, it was revealed that the psychologist never evaluated Mateen for mental clarity and sanity. The doctor says that she didn’t even live in Florida at the time of Mateen’s supposed evaluation and that she wasn’t performing work for the security company which, at that time, was referred to as Wackenhut.

“What I do know is that in September 2007, I was not living or working in Florida, I was not performing any work for Wackenhut, and I did not administer any type of examination to Omar Mateen.”

Following the revelation that Nudelman did not perform the psych evaluation, G4S responded by noting that the doctor was listed due to a “clerical error” and that Mateen was evaluated by a different doctor but did not provide a name. The company has also revealed that in 2013, Mateen made “inflammatory comments” that resulted in his transfer to an unarmed position. However, the company did not revoke his security guard firearm license or take away his company-issued firearm.

According to NBC News, the “inflammatory comments” made by Mateen involved making angry rants in which he claimed he would kill people. A fellow employee, Daniel Gilroy, called Mateen a “ticking time bomb” and says that his reports of concerning comments made by Mateen were repeatedly ignored by G4S. In fact, Gilroy says he specifically asked to be transferred because he didn’t want to work with Mateen, but was denied. As a result, Gilroy says he chose to quit working for G4S.

“Gilroy said, he quit rather than have to face Mateen, who he said threatened him in a barrage of angry text messages even after he left the job.”

Though G4S claims that there were no other complaints by fellow employees against Mateen, FBI Director James Comey says that co-workers claimed that Mateen had told him that he had family connections to al Qaeda and Hezbollah and that he hoped the FBI would raid his home so that he could be a martyr.

“Mateen claimed to have family connections to terror groups al Qaeda and Hezbollah, and that he hoped law enforcement would raid his home ‘so he could martyr himself.'”

In fact, it was these al Qaeda remarks that ended with Mateen’s removal from armed duty to a non-armed position at a gated retirement community. G4S did report the startling comments to the FBI who questioned Mateen about the statements, but no ties to the groups were uncovered. G4S says that the move was not made out of concern and that Mateen was never barred from carrying a weapon with their company and likely had one in his car. A spokesperson for the company even acknowledged that Mateen would have still been considered for armed positions within the company.

“It’s not as if a decision was taken that he was never again going to be given an armed position.”

Should G4S be required to provide proof of Omar Mateen’s psych evaluation clearance given that the State of Florida was given improper documentation? If it is discovered that G4S does not have the proper items on the gunman should the company be evaluated further by the state for discrepancies?

[Image via police handout]