Case Files 04: Justina Pelletier Part 3 with Beau Berman

True Story Media.

I'm Andrea Dunlop, and this is Nobody Should Believe Me case files.

Thanks for being with us today.

This is the third part of our conversation about the Justina Pelletier case.

If you have not listened to parts one and two, please go do so.

Today, I'm back with the second half of my interview with Bo Berman, the reporter who broke this story.

We are picking back up with our conversation about mitoaction.org.

This organization builds itself as a support group for parents dealing with mitochondrial disease, but it also appears to have a strong focus on protecting parents from, quote, false accusations of medical child abuse.

This was a really fascinating part of my conversation with Bo.

As always, if you'd like to support the show, a great way to do that is by subscribing on Apple Podcasts or on Patreon.

You get ad-free listening plus two bonus episodes a month with me and Dr.

Becks.

And we also have a free tier on Patreon where we release certain episodes from behind the paywall periodically.

Right now, I am making all of our coverage of the Justina Pelletier case free to listen to.

If you would like to get in touch, the best way to do that is to shoot us an email at hello at nobodyshouldbelieveme.com.

And if you or someone you know is a victim or survivor of Munchhausen biproxy abuse, you can find help at munchhausensupport.com.

Links to both can be be found in our show notes.

And with that, here is the rest of my interview with Bo Berman.

If you just can't get enough of me in your ears, first of all, thank you.

I have a job because of you.

And secondly, did you know that I have a new audiobook out this year?

The Mother Next Door, which I co-authored with Detective Mike Weber, is available in all formats wherever books are sold.

It's a deep dive into three of Mike's most impactful Munchausen by proxy cases, and I think you'll love it.

Here's a sample.

When Susan logged in, what she discovered shocked her to the marrow of her bones.

Though the recent insurance records contained pages and pages of information about Sophia, there was nothing about Hope.

Susan dug deeper and looked back through years of records.

There wasn't a single entry about Hope's cancer treatment.

For eight years, the Butcher family had lived with a devastating fear that their beloved daughter and sister was battling terminal cancer.

For months, they'd been preparing for her death.

But in that moment, a new horror was dawning.

For nearly a decade, hope had been lying.

Your sausage mcmuffin with egg didn't change.

You receipt it.

The sausage mcmuffin with egg extra value meal includes a hash brown and a small coffee for just $5.

Only at McDonald's for a limited time.

Prices and participation may vary.

I have a detective that is an expert on medical child abuse cases who does a lot of reporting with me.

And, you know, he looked at it and he said, part of this, at least in the state of Texas, you would be committing a crime if you followed this advice because it was, you know, and it just, a lot of it was just very striking.

I mean, having covered a lot of these cases, you know, saying things like, be sure to celebrate your child's wins on social media as well as their rough days, because that will be used against you if you don't appear to be celebrating their health.

And I'm like, you know, you're a parent as well.

Like, is that something that you would need to be told?

I mean, it just, it really rang again, being very, very deep in this and looking at a lot of these cases, you know, talking about make sure there are other people caring for the child, because if it's only the mom, they'll hold that against you.

And I was like, well, that's good advice in terms of just like having people care for the child.

But again, like, this doesn't seem like something that, you know, it was all very much framed in like, here's how not to get accused of medical child abuse.

And I just sort of think about it.

If I found a site

that was for fathers in custody battles and the entire focus of the site was how not to get accused of sexually abusing your children, I would have a pretty strong opinion about who that site was for.

You know, and it didn't include a lot of information about medical stuff about mitochondrial disorder.

It's very focused on the elements of the medical, of all the false accusations that are happening with medical child abuse.

So it's it's very striking.

And of course, when I saw the people pop up in the documentary, I was, you know, yeah, I think it's, I mean, it's hard for me to comment on without having looked at it recently or seeing this myself.

I think, yeah, I mean, at first blow, it sounds like kind of, it sounds strange.

It sounds, you know, a bit suspicious.

I think, you know, throughout this entire thing, I really, really push myself to remain open-minded as much as possible.

I mean, I've seen other situations, let's put it this way, let's just step aside from mitochondrial disease and from, you know, parental custody cases.

But I've seen other things in life, right?

Where like certain systems are set up in in a way that they do sometimes err on one side or give judgments predominantly 80% of the time to mothers or to fathers

in legal systems or just the default thinking in society is a certain way.

And so, I mean, I could like make the argument that like, oh, I see what they're doing here.

They're realizing that like the system is set up this way that

it hasn't caught up to the science or something.

And we're trying to help people.

So I guess the question I would ask, like, so just to have the conversation, let me ask you something, even though you're the host here.

Do you think there are any cases where parents are falsely accused of Munchausen by proxy or, you know, medical child abuse?

I think there are because I think everything happens that could happen, right?

My of my colleagues, so I'm part of the Munchausen by Proxy Committee on the American Professional Society on the Abuse of Children.

And that is like a concentration of, you know, some most of the best experts in the country and really in the world.

And one of my colleagues has seen one

that went sort of that went all the way to the courts, right?

Not something where there was suspicion and then it was cleared up, right?

That's a different thing.

If there's a suspicion, and it like one of my other colleagues has an example that, you know, she worked as a psychiatric nurse for 30 years and has a law degree and is an incredible expert.

Actually, New Yorker, she was in the Peacock documentary.

They talked to her briefly.

She always talks about this case where the child's ears were bleeding and it wouldn't clear up and it wouldn't clear up and it was suspicious for Monchasen by proxy, right?

They suspected the mom

was causing it.

And so they did a trial separation and it continued.

And so right away they knew, okay, the mom is not causing this.

And they determined that this child did have a rare disorder.

And in fact, his sibling had died.

And that was one of the things that was a red flag, right?

If you see that another, there's been a sibling death in the family, that's also a possible red flag for Monchasin by proxy.

So to me, that's not a false accusation, right?

That's doctors acting on a good face suspicion and then clearing it up.

There's only one case that I've heard about from my entire committee colleagues where it actually went to court and there was a separation.

And that's Dr.

Mark Feldman, who's a very well-known expert.

And he feels strongly that that was not a case of munchausen by proxy.

I can't remember all the specifics of it, but I mean, to say it's vanishingly rare, I mean, and on the other side, the number of cases that all of my colleagues have worked on and that I know about that are cases where the parents were guilty and the evidence was extremely compelling, where they got their children back or didn't face any consequences or both, are too numerous to count.

And it's a problem of underdiagnosis, not overdiagnosis.

And unfortunately, the media, the reigning media narrative right now is one of overdiagnosis.

And in fact, that's spilled out into other things like broken bones and abusive head trauma with the Take Care of Maya movie.

And that case, there was a whole bunch of parents that came in.

And I did some digging on some of the other parents that were in the movies and read their police reports.

And they found, like, there's another well-known expert, I can't remember his name, Dr.

Schaefer, who is in the 5% of the medical establishment who does not believe that abusive head trauma exists.

And he testifies in court that it doesn't exist.

So basically, any parent that can afford him can.

And this Viviana Graham, who was one of the parents featured in Take Care of Maya, that was the doctor on her case.

And so he's had his testimony excluded many times using what's called the Dobert motion, which is where they basically decide someone is not a credible expert.

So they're going to throw their testimony out because he's just in such the minority of the medical community.

Obviously, most people accept that it used to be called shaken baby syndrome.

It's now referred to as abusive head trauma, but it's, you know, it's the most common form of death for children under two.

It's very sad.

It's very common.

And there's a huge pushback on that right now.

And you see, you know, all of this sort of, when I look at this case, you know, I really see the precursor to what's happening now with this really conspiracy theory of medical kidnapping.

I'll tell you, Bo, like sometimes people really think I'm sort of defending these systems.

I'm not.

Like these systems are a mess.

Like DCF, the way the police handles these cases,

even within hospitals, you know, I think there are a lot of problems.

There are a lot of families that are removed from their children unfairly.

And I think that those have more to do with sort of neglect cases.

And, you know, I interviewed an expert on this this last season, and we were talking about like 70% of child removals don't happen because of abuse allegations.

They happen because of neglect.

And so that's families that don't have resources or they're getting removed because of medical neglect when really that family just doesn't have access to good medical care.

And those cases are really sad and deserve attention.

Those are not the cases that people are talking about when they're talking about medical kidnapping.

That is really the conspiracy theory that in like a case like the Pelletiers or the Kowalski case, where it's not just a hospital, it's like multiple hospitals conspired against us because of course the Pelletiers were reported by another hospital.

That's also incredibly common where you see when you actually peel it back, it's like it's not just one doctor that has it out for you.

It's not one hospital that is, you know, has a problem.

It's like, okay, so all of these hospitals are coordinating with each other.

to get a DCF order to shelter your child for what aim?

Like, what does the hospital gain from that?

And that's not to say hospitals are perfect or they never make mistakes, but like, I think there is this really strong narrative of like

the people were difficult.

And so they snatched their child, right?

Like, and Lou Pelletier, to be honest, he sounds like kind of a nightmare.

I mean, he was yelling at people and berating people and calling.

I mean, he called the police, right?

I mean, that's what happened when the shelter order happened was because he called the police and said they're trying to kidnap my child.

I mean, he sounds like a difficult guy and certainly is a capital C character, as you said.

You know, when I talk to like, especially like pediatric emergency room physicians, if they called DCF every time a parent was being difficult or acting wild, they would be doing it all day long because lots of parents act not themselves when their child is in distress or if they don't feel like the doctors are listening to them or what have you.

I mean, that's just a very regular occurrence.

And these are professionals who deal with that every day.

They're not going to put themselves through keeping a kid under shelter without strong evidence of abuse, really.

Yeah, yeah.

All that makes sense.

Yeah.

Yeah.

So I wanted to ask you about the Martin Gotzfeld, the hacker, kind of angle of this whole case.

I thought this was a very curious element of the whole thing and was just sort of interested in your impression of him and what his motivations might have been.

I mean, I read the Rolling Stone article about him.

I think, to be frank, I think maybe they overplayed him in a little bit of a heroic way, but I believe he recently was released from prison.

I mean, that was just kind of a wild element to that story.

What are your thoughts on him?

Yeah, I mean, mean, I think he kind of comes into the situation out of left field.

He was not directly involved whatsoever, had no familial friendship, any connection to the family, to the hospital, even.

I've never met him.

I have spoken extensively with his partner, you know, over the phone and through emails.

And he wrote me a letter from prison with his situation or his side of the story, whatever.

You know, I mean, again, so a lot of my knowledge is probably similar to yours in terms of, you know, the Rolling Stone article.

And then I sort of suspect that the documentary kind of blossomed out of that Rolling Stone article as opposed to blossoming out of Justina's actual story.

And, you know, the whole Martin Gottsfeld thing is like a tangent sort of to the story.

I mean, it's, it's not the main thrust of it.

It definitely makes it more like sexy, so to speak, you know, for a documentary or even a news report.

It happened, you know, quite a while, or at least the Rolling Stone article came out quite a while after I, you know, had already stopped like reporting actively on this case the pelletier story um you know based on what i know from the rolling stone article this is an individual who felt you know maligned by the system overall and and by adults and by authorities and by you know there were some allegations of abuse uh that he was abused when he was younger and he as an outsider seeing national media coverage of this situation with Justina, you know, without being on the inside of it, felt that she was being wronged in some way way by being held at the hospital, you know, ostensibly against her will, or at least against the parents' will, for sure.

We don't know if it was against her will.

It may or may not have been.

But,

and, you know, he took dramatic action and he just happened to have these bizarrely advanced skills for hacking.

And so, as you learn in the documentary, he, you know, hacked the Boston Children's Hospital computer system and, you know, prevented them from receiving donations for quite a while.

And they allege that it was in the hundreds of thousands of dollars that they lost and disrupted the entire hospital, could have endangered other children, maybe did endanger other children.

And I would probably agree with you that he's cast a little,

cast in a light of a little too heroically, both in the Rolling Stone article and in the documentary, with the amount of kind of attention he gets and sympathy.

Um,

you know, I think he was someone who didn't have all the information.

And granted, like most people didn't have all the information.

You know, I think the thing is, like, you know, most people in society were not experts, right?

Whether it's a local news reporter or, you know, a mom or a dad watching the TV stories are not experts in Munchausen.

They're not experts in mitochondrial disorder.

So you're going a lot, as you do in life, on

signaling mechanisms.

Do the parents seem crazy?

Does the hospital seem legitimate in their actions?

Do you know, and you're not necessarily, no one can really draw, I mean, except for you, maybe who's like dedicated, you know, part of their life to this, but like most people can't, and to some extent me back then, but most people can't drop everything and pull up police reports and doctor's notes and this and that and fully weigh it.

So again, so that all of that is just to say that this guy became convinced that this 14-year-old girl was being wronged, possibly abused by the hospital.

The irony is she might have been being abused by her parents.

And that's why she was in the hospital.

You know, like that's why the hospital was holding her is because they allege that she was being abused by doctors and by her parents' volition.

And he took this extreme action, which ended up becoming very,

maybe salacious is the wrong word, but it was just very, like, very odd.

The whole story of Martin Gotsfeld was like unbelievable.

It was like something that if it was in a Hollywood movie, you would be like, well, this is corny.

This is stupid.

This doesn't even make sense.

Like,

too much.

Like, not even a thread line connecting this, like, that this random computer hacker who like went to high school with Mark Zuckerberg, you know, finds out about this and decides to hack the hospital.

I mean, what an extreme measure and really like ruined his life essentially.

I mean, from like an outside perspective, it certainly seems that way, given that he spent several years in like a federal prison.

I have also heard that he's been released at this point.

So again, this goes back to like purely selfishly as a news reporter, it was kind of great for anyone covering the story because it gave it this very bizarre twist and turn.

If I had a child in that hospital, I would be very upset at this person, obviously.

Yeah, I mean, I don't know what else to say about it.

I mean, the fact that they, you know, fled the FBI, went to Florida, purchased a speedboat on Craigslist, ended up in Cuba, you know, interviewed by government officials and then dismissed and sent back into a storm, got picked up by a Disney cruise ship, were given Mickey Mouse t-shirts, I believe, you know, to stay warm, and then were apprehended by the FBI in the port of Miami or whatnot.

It reads like a horrible, you know, B-grade movie.

And it was all, it's all true.

I mean, the story of what he did and his girlfriend, his wife did, you know, in terms of with him.

So, yeah, I don't know what to make of it.

I mean, I do think it made for a compelling Rolling Stone article.

It definitely made the documentary more interesting.

They devoted basically an entire episode of the series to it, which is a little misleading just because this really was like a tangent to the whole story.

But, you know, it was one of the more like enthralling episodes of the documentary and of the story itself because the story really is just about a teenage girl and her family in a hospital.

So yeah, anyway, it was it was quite interesting.

It's such a strange element of the story.

And like, I don't know if the same is true for you, but like reading, you know, David Krishner's article in Rolling Stone and like then watching, you know, the documentary coverage of it and just doing like a little more digging on Martin, like, I really vacillated between

feeling some sympathy for him and then just being like, dude, like make one right decision in this whole string of like terrible, terrible decisions, right?

He just kind of appreciated this because I always think about, you know, what motivates people to do something that is an extreme action, especially when, as you said, he had nothing to do with the case.

And like they gave some context of, you know, he came from an abusive house.

And then also, I believe his grandfather was like abused in an orphanage in, I think, Bangladesh where they were from.

And so I was like, maybe he has some ideas about sort of like institutional abuse that's this really like plugged into.

And I appreciate they gave that context.

And I believe he thinks he was doing doing the right.

And then from there, it's like he just sort of got more and more grandiose, right?

Of like, I have to do this.

I'll take.

And then when it gets to sort of the trial for him, and I'm like, I don't really think he deserved to be in prison for 10 years, which is what I believe he served in the end.

But then he's completely unrepentant in court and he's saying he's going to do it again.

So I was like, well, that's just not the move, buddy.

Like, they're not going to, you know.

And I think he really got a bit high on the idea of being the savior of Justina Pelletier in a way that like, I'm like, you know, this behavior is actually sort of concerning because you seem like you don't have any concept of maybe why you shouldn't have done this.

So yeah, he's a curious character.

In these turbulent economic times, the last thing any of us need to worry about is unexpected fees and other nonsense from our banks, which is why I love Chime.

Chime understands that every dollar counts.

That's why when you set up direct deposit through QIIME, you get access to fee-free returns like free overdraft coverage, getting paid up to two days early with direct deposit, and more.

Something I love about QIIME is their 24-7 customer service.

Having a banking issue is extremely stressful, especially when you run a business.

And I want to talk to a person right now when I have one.

I also travel a lot for work these days and with QIIME, I have access to 47,000 fee-free ATMs nationwide.

47,000?

That's so many.

QIIME is banking done right.

Open a checking account with no monthly fees and no maintenance fees today.

Work on your financial goals through Chime today.

Open an account at chime.com/slash nobody.

That's chime.com/slash/nobody.

And remember that shopping our sponsors is a great way to support the show.

Chime is a financial technology company, not a bank.

Banking services and debit card provided by the Bankor Bank NA or Stripe Bank NA, members FDIC.

Spot me eligibility requirements and overdraft limits apply.

Timing depends on submission of payment file.

Fees apply at out of network ATMs, bank ranking, and number of ATMs, according to U.S.

News and World Report 2023.

Chime checking account required.

September is here, and you know what that means.

Sowetaweather is coming.

If you've been listening to the show for a while, you know that I love Quince.

And if you know me in real life, you also know that I love Quince because even when I'm off the clock, I talk about this brand.

Quince has an amazing array of products from jewelry to footwear to bedding, but they are known for their sweaters.

Sweaters is where they shine.

I get so many compliments on my Quince cashmere sweaters.

I was wearing one once while I was actively buying a Quince gift card for my daughter's teacher.

And the checkout person said, I've been wanting to try this brand.

I heard about them on a podcast.

And I was like, I'm wearing Quince.

I have a podcast.

You got to try Quince.

This is, by the way, a 100% true and fact-check story.

Quince is known for their famous cashmere.

They also have cotton and merino wool sweaters, cardigans, and dresses, all for a fraction of the price you'd pay for this quality anywhere else.

And don't even get me started on their beautiful coats.

They've got wool coats, dusters, capes, puffers, trenches, leather bombers, and embarrassment of riches.

Keep it classy and cozy this fall with long-lasting staples from Quince.

Go to quince.com/slash believe for free shipping on your order and 365 day returns.

That's q-u-in-ce-e.com slash believe to get free shipping and 365-day returns.

Quince.com slash believe.

And remember that shopping our sponsors is a great way to support the show.

Have you kept in touch with the Pelletiers at all?

Do you hear from them at all?

I do not, you know, make any effort to actively keep in touch with anybody who I've ever covered

as a subject of a news story.

Well, active or passive efforts, I would say.

That being said, I have received

some like outreach from the family over the years.

And mostly it's been essentially like attempts to alert me of, you know, something that's, to something that's going on in their situation or with Justina.

and basically seek like either counsel or help drumming up more media coverage.

And I've just, you know, tried to politely let them know that I'm no longer like a practicing, you know, news reporter.

I mean, not really a practicing journalist either at this point, although I, you know, do have ambitions of releasing a book on this topic of like their case, you know, specifically.

But

yeah, so they've reached out a couple of times, not anytime recently.

The last time was probably

three or four years ago, which, you know, even that being said, was a long time after they had known me to be in their life, so to speak, as a journalist.

And that's much closer to like when their court case was happening.

So that was.

Yeah, it was closer to when the court case was happening.

That's correct.

Yeah.

I mean, one thing I'll say is that, you know, they

had a lot of conviction to the very end that they would be exonerated in their civil trial, which they were not.

Or not exonerated, but like, you know, because they were never like really charged with a crime, but that they would be victorious.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Like metaphorically be exonerated, we'll put it that way in their civil trial, which they were not.

They, you know, I think Martin Gotzfeld was almost the definition of conviction.

You know, in conviction, someone could be convicted towards something in a good way or a bad, you know, whether it's a good ideal or moral or a bad one.

And, you know, people can make up their own minds about, like you said, about, you know, whether he's a sympathetic character or an evil character and all of this.

If one thing, he did not lack conviction in that, you know, to the point where he clearly deeply inside, well, it seems, believes in what he did and stands by it.

And, you know, like you said, says he would do it again.

And that's someone who believes deeply in what, you know, what they believe in, for better or worse, right?

But yeah, so I haven't really heard from the family anytime recently, a few years ago.

And to me, it just spoke to the fact that they still did not have any sense of like boundaries or like sort of the way things usually work with journalists and things like that.

One of the stranger things about this whole situation, which I haven't really talked to anybody, anybody about, including, I'm trying to think if I told the documentary crew this or not.

I don't think it ever came up.

Was that towards the very end of my coverage of the case and right before Jessina came home in June of 2014, the last couple months, the Pelletiers

out of nowhere had this advisor who came into the picture.

And I'm actually blanking on his name right now.

I have it in my notes, but, and he was just sort of this like quiet behind the scenes advisor is probably the best word to call him or counsel.

He was not an attorney.

And I don't remember how they found him.

how he came into the picture, why they trusted him so much.

But he would be around like during interviews.

He would be at their house sometimes he would call me and like start telling me things um

and he basically felt like a like a spokesperson you know like a pr person public relations and he he was pretty like charming you know pretty like seemed relatively savvy and somewhat like charming so to speak and that's probably the mark of a good pr person but one of the strangest things is As it was all wrapping up and I was basically done covering it, like I think I told them at one point, like, okay, like you can stop calling me.

Like, I'm no longer reporting on this so you're kind of doing it for no reason at this point I was like I am gonna write a book about this I hope to but other than that there's no real real reason to like be calling me so much and I remember him saying well do you want me to act as your literary agent and I was like

I was like that would be like wholly inappropriate given that you're completely biased in this.

Number two, are you a literary agent?

And he was like, no, but I own a publishing company or something to that effect in Boston.

And he's like, I know what they do.

I can basically do it.

And it was just very strange to me.

So that was a whole thing.

You know, some other red flags about the whole situation were some of the people, you know, the family got involved with who, to me, just didn't seem like very.

intelligent politicians.

I'll put it that way.

You know, whether it was the Mike Huckabees of the world or the Michelle Bachmans, they just didn't strike me as the most logical or intelligent politicians, but they definitely glommed onto the case and, you know, made the family feel special and heard, which, and that was one of the things is they, they, so, so often to me, honestly, being on like, to some extent, the inside of like, well, just being inside their house and getting to know them to some extent was that they just didn't strike me as nefarious.

Like, as much as I wanted to find that smoking gun of like, oh my God, they're doing this on purpose.

They're terrible people.

And maybe, you know, if Munchausen has a psychological condition, then maybe there would never be that, you know, smoking gun gun or maybe it wouldn't manifest as being done on purpose.

But they mostly just seemed inept, like kind of like they had no one to talk to and no one would listen to them.

And they were just kind of clueless about a lot of things.

And that's my hunch, my assumption was like, just based on like who I saw that they sought for counsel and accepted as their sort of leaders throughout this whole saga.

It seemed like somebody who was just desperate for like attention.

And that probably fits in with, you know, a symptom of, you know, a marker of Munchausen, but, you know, desperate for attention, but then also like

just looking for guidance, you know, like, and not sure who to go with and just accepting whoever showed up at their door for help.

Yeah, and just sort of chaotic, sounds like.

Yeah.

Yeah.

I mean, do you know anything about how Justina is doing?

today after all of this?

You know, so I think at some point, like years ago, after I was done covering the case, like maybe one of Justina's sisters added me as like a Facebook friend.

And I think I, you know, accepted the friend request thinking like this is probably harmless because I'm no longer involved in this case.

And if I'm going to write a book about it, it probably helps me to, you know, keep some contact with them, I guess.

I've, I've seen like a few photos of her over the past few years, but I do not know how she's doing specifically.

And I haven't had like, any communication with them for a few years, you know, outside of like a phone call a few years ago where they called me and talked for a while, but I don't even remember, you know, the nature of it really.

So, no, I don't know.

I mean, I know that she my understanding is she's alive and that she is living with the family, I believe.

I don't know that for sure.

I vaguely remember seeing some like photos of her on horses again.

Yeah.

So, yeah, I mean, I gather she had a stroke a couple of years ago that then led to some more debilitating stuff.

And I believe, I believe it was since the trial that she had her colon removed.

So she's had some pretty serious health stuff since she's been back with her family.

And I mean, I certainly think, you know, one of the things that struck me that came out during the trial when Lou was describing this situation to the media.

And one of the things that took off, and I think one of the things that sort of snagged Marty Gotzfeld was this idea that like she was being tortured there or she was debilitating.

You know, she was really like backsliding while she was at Boston Children's.

And, you know, what we figured out when they were able to testify was that actually that was one of the longest periods in her life that she had not been extremely heavily medicated and didn't undergo any invasive procedures.

And that to me is very striking because that's a true separation test, which is one of the most compelling pieces of evidence you can have in these cases.

And also, I think there were just a couple of details when they were talking about doing her like occupational therapy while she was there, because that's, you know, if you some suspect someone has somatiform disorder or conversion disorder,

I think they're, they're pretty similar, if not the same thing, where, yeah, it's the physical manifestations of a psychological, you know, condition.

Is they were describing that she couldn't brush her teeth.

They were having to reteach her to brush her teeth.

And I just thought, like, that's very striking for a 15-year-old.

Like, again, how do you have a 15-year-old that is ice skating at one point can't brush their teeth?

They didn't really talk that much about sort of her arms or anything.

And so I just, those details did really, really stuck with me.

I worry about, I worry about her, I guess is my last sort of thing.

Yeah, yeah.

I mean, just on the point of the teethbrushing and stuff like that, I mean, you know, one thing I noticed from the get-go was how like infantilized she was in her demeanor.

I mean, I'd never met her until the day she came home, but just through photographs and stories and things they said.

She was very like, I think that's a word, infantilized, you know, like an infant, you know, like very treated like a baby and like acted like a child, you know, like someone who was not 14.

And now she's what, in her early 20s.

And

I don't know about her life right now.

I think it is extremely like striking and, you know, suspicious that she's had this stroke and the colon removed, if that's the case, you know, or another major medical intervention, whatever it is, since coming home from the hospital.

I think that...

Well, it's first of all, sad for her, number one, but number two, doesn't bode well in terms of the parents making a case that, you know, this was all on the hospital and this was all Boston children's fault and bad doctors and some secret plan to research her or whatever they accused them of.

It doesn't look good, right?

Like you said, the fact that she had at least some semblance of stability in her health while she was there in the hospital, comes home and then has these major things that she's undergone.

And so I think it's like worth discussing, you know, she came back home.

So number one, why did they ever let her go back home?

This is just me playing like devil's advocate, like, just thinking this through.

Not again, like, I literally have no stake in this, but I'm just wondering, like, why did they let her go home?

You know, could have been partially my fault, you know, media pressure, I guess.

But, you know, we've been covering this for a long time and would present, you know, many sides of it, even people who said, you know, even evidence indicating that maybe she should be in the hospital.

So I'm just wondering, why was she let go to begin with to go back home?

And then furthermore, this is public.

Like, you know, that she's had this stroke and it was in the docuseries.

I've heard some of this stuff, which I hadn't recalled until you said it, but now it reminds me of that.

So if that's the case, if she had her colon removed, you know, what doctor is doing that, willing to do that, number one, without like asking a lot of questions?

And number two, why haven't officials stepped in?

Because it's not that big of a secret if we all know about it.

It was in a docu-series to possibly take custody.

I mean, now she's an adult.

So I guess that's part of the issue.

But there's still such a thing as like abusing somebody, right?

Whether they're a child or an adult or someone like being held captive, or you know, whatever you want to call it.

Maybe it's a lot harder.

Maybe that's the answer to my own question once the person's an adult.

You know, maybe the last opportunity to intervene would have been when she was a teenager before she turned 18.

And maybe now it's too late.

Anyway, these are all just questions I have, you know, now that I'm not directly involved in this.

And

yeah, it's very sad and/or, you know, and simultaneously kind of fascinating of what's going on now at this juncture.

And is anybody looking out for her?

You know, if assuming the parents aren't, which maybe they are, but like if they're not doing the right things for her, then is anybody out there able to advocate for her?

Yeah, I mean, it's certainly complicated.

And I have have many of those same questions.

And, you know, I think.

From my perspective, from again, and this is just from watching, you know, watching and reading about the case, you know, it does seem like public pressure certainly played into the decision for DCF to get her transferred elsewhere and eventually sent home, right?

I mean, you wish that agencies and officials would always do the right thing that's best for the child, regardless of the political climate and the pressure from whomever, but of course that's not true.

These are human beings of their own interests making decisions.

I think that's just the reality.

I'm very curious about why there was never a police investigation, because certainly something that meets this level and where you have a child who's sheltered for that long, there certainly should have been a police investigation.

And to my knowledge, there wasn't.

So that is, that's like a whole other question, right?

Because custody is one thing, but like there's all kinds of things that you can find out in a police investigation that you, you can't in DCF and vice versa.

So there always should be both working together.

This podcast is sponsored by Squarespace, the all-in-one website platform designed to help you build your career.

Whether you're brand new or looking for ways to grow your business, Squarespace has everything you need to find customers, get paid, and streamline your workflow.

I love it when brands that I already use and like sponsor the show, and I've been using Squarespace for years.

As both my team and my husband can attest to, while I have many other gifts, being tech savvy isn't one of them.

And usually asking me to do something like create or update a website would make me want to jump out a window.

But Squarespace is so intuitive and they offer an array of beautiful design templates and AI tools that help you create the website you want.

They also have an incredible suite of new tools and features that I didn't even know about, but am very excited to try.

They've got everything from monetization and invoicing to analytics, email campaigns, and built-in appointment scheduling.

If you have a small business in a creative industry like I do, packaging this all together is a dream, especially if you are also a person who perpetually has about 27 tabs open.

Squarespace brings together so many elegant, easy-to-use tools, I just cannot recommend it enough.

So if you want to up your game and support Nobody Should Believe Me, you can head to squarespace.com backslash backslash nobody for a free trial.

And when you're ready to launch, use offer code nobody to save 10% off your first purchase of a website or domain.

Do you remember the first thing you ever got paid to do as a kid?

Your first job?

Mine was weeding for my neighbors, for which I got paid $5 and a package of Oreos.

I was thrilled.

Now I weed my garden to relax, so times change.

With my daughter heading into first grade and growing up so fast that if I keep talking about this, I'm going to cry, we want to make sure that she's learning life skills in addition to what she's learning at school.

And we've been loving using Acorns Early with her.

Acorns Early is the smart debit card and money app that grows kids' money skills as they grow up.

You can use the in-app chores tracker to help them make the connection that money does not just come from mom, dad, and the tooth fairy.

And then kids can spend what they've earned with their very own customizable debit card, which is some real big kid business, if you ask my daughter.

And with Acorns early spending limits and real-time spend notifications, parents always stay in control.

Ready to teach your kids the smart way to earn, save, and spend?

Get your first month on us when you head to acornsearly.com backslash nobody or download the Acorns Early app.

That's one month free when you sign up at acornsearly.com backslash nobody.

Acorns Early card is issued by Community Federal Savings Bank, member FDIC, pursuant to license by MasterCard International.

Free trial for new subscribers only, subscription fees starting from $5 per month unless canceled.

Terms apply at acorns.com

That's something I've always wondered too, you know, be it back in 2012 or 13 or 14 or 15, any of those years,

or even now-ish, you know, is it, I don't know if that's possible, but yeah, I've just wondered why if there's people out there who, you know, I mean, there's certainly enough evidence that, well, it strikes me as something that, you know, potentially there could be cause to look into it.

It's, it's a tricky thing.

I mean, it's not like a situation where, you know, she comes into the ER with like a broken facial bone and it's like, oh, this is abuse.

You know, this whole medical child abuse allegations are different in that people aren't used to spotting them.

They are a gray area, you know, appear that way.

And so, I mean, you know more about it than I do, but complicated to investigate.

And like you said, a lot of these fall back on agencies who, you know, evaluate things somewhat politically.

Do we want to get involved?

Is she at an immediate risk of death or immediate harm?

Yeah, it's a big question, though, is like, if these parents were being accused of medical child abuse, and that's a really big question that goes back to 2013.

Why were they not investigated criminally?

And I say that as someone who, you know, maybe they would have been exonerated, right?

Like maybe the, maybe it never would have amounted to any charges, or maybe there would have been charges and they would have been found not guilty.

Or maybe a police investigation could have unearthed some speculation here, but something in their home that indicated, oh, wait a minute, this definitively, you know, a note to themselves or, you know, who knew a diary entry, whatever, you know, something that would have indicated more clear-cut one way or the other, either innocence or guilt.

And that never happened.

And I do wonder why.

The reality is there are many places that don't understand that it's a crime.

They see it as, you know, as you said, like there's a huge misconception about this being primarily a mental illness question.

And while there is an underlying diagnosis in the DSM, I don't think it's particularly helpful.

I think we need to focus on the fact that it is a crime.

And it's not, you know, as kind of came up before when you were talking about Linda and Lou.

And I mean, Lou is very fascinating to me because I'm always interested to know how fathers, 96% of my children by proxy perpetrators are mothers.

And I'm always interested to know how fathers react.

And this is a case where a father like really doubled down, tripled down, really made it also his business to sort of defend the family for whatever reasons he had for doing that.

And it's not a situation where someone's confused about what they're doing.

They are aware of their behavior.

It's characterized by intentional deception.

So it's very, very separate from like a parent who is anxious and who gets a hold of a doctor that gives them advice that they take sort of in good faith.

And there are these, or someone that is having, you know, suffering from postpartum psychosis and is having actual delusions about something happening to their children.

Those things happen also.

They're just very, very distinct from this form of abuse, which is why I think it's so important.

to focus on the fact that it is abuse.

Yeah, that's interesting.

I didn't know that, actually.

I'll admit that.

So one thing I'll say regarding Lou Pelletier, Justina's father, based on my experience, you know, around him and being around the family, is that he did really seem, out of the entire family, the most to enjoy the attention that came from the media coverage.

And he would, you know, kind of chuckle about like, oh, you know, Megan Kelly, I mean, this is the bright lights.

This is Broadway.

This is New York City, you know, type of thing.

you know, in one breath, and the next breath be, you know, be talking about, you know, how angry he was about what was happening to his daughter.

I mean, it seemed like somewhat plausible that someone could reasonably act that way, but it was like a little bit weird to me that, you know, in one breath, he was really sad and angry.

In the next breath, he was like excited about the bright lights and Megan Kelly.

And I mean, I got the sense that he was a big, like, possible Fox News viewer.

And so that's why he was so excited.

But like another time,

I remember being in an elevator at the TV, my TV station, coming up to do like a follow-up interview.

And he was like, you see this phone number right here?

And I said, oh, who is that?

And he was showing me like his phone contact, you know, list.

And he was like, that's Alan Dershowitz, big attorney.

You ever heard of him?

And I was like, I have.

He was like, it's right here in my Rolodex.

You know, I just had a call with him earlier today.

So there was something about him that, you know, liked the cause celebrity, you know, of the ordeal, which was like a little strange.

Cause like if you were, you know, truly concerned about your child, I think you either would, number one, not care about any of that or two, you would secretly, like internally care, but kind of hide it.

Like, you know, you'd be be like, oh, this is cool, but like, I don't want to show that because I'll look like a crazy person if I'm excited about the attention I'm getting.

So that really struck me.

Now, Linda didn't really seem to care that much about the attention.

She was always like sobbing or like seemed really shaken and like distressed and just emotional.

Sometimes she would say something like, oh, that's a really big deal.

You know, we're going to be on Dr.

Phil.

Can you believe it?

But she was much less so concerned about celebrity, about attention.

But Lou, very concerned about it, very like excited about it.

But I didn't know what to make of it because sometimes it just seemed like kind of chummy as if I was like, I don't even know how to put it, like a neighbor or a friend or something who he would brag to about.

Like it just, yeah, I don't know.

It seemed more like oblivious to like how this made him look than like, again, nefarious or like, I didn't know.

It was another very odd wrinkle to the whole situation.

Yeah, I mean, and I think we can leave room for the fact that parents that are in a situation like this, you you know, and I also am in the position of talking to, you know, most of the people I talk to, I'm talking to them about the very worst thing that ever happened to them in their lives.

And I'm immensely like admiring of people that are vulnerable enough to share their story publicly.

I think that can help other people.

I think that that can really help educate.

I think all kinds of good things that can come from that.

And I think it can feel very validating to have someone listen to you.

And certainly if you're a Fox News lover, having Megan Kelly validate and listen to your story would certainly like, I think anyone can understand that even if it's bad circumstances, that could feel good.

And you're right.

It's a little, it's a little odd.

And I think to, you know, to the degree that you're like, Lou did come across as like pretty ready for his moment in the spotlight.

Like, and then that was a little, yeah, it was a little off putting.

It was a little off putting.

You hit the nail on the head there.

And that's really what I chalked it up to was that this was like extreme validation for them after months.

Cause, you know, what sometimes people I don't share about the backstory or they don't know is that, you know, this happened initially in February of 2013.

I didn't, you know, walk into their lives as a news reporter until August of 2013.

So, you know, six months had gone by of no validation essentially.

And, you know, I was one of the first people who just would even listen to them and like take notes on what they were saying at a bare minimum.

So, and then, you know, the fact that I worked at a Fox affiliate, I think, you know, was something they were really excited about just from like a personal standpoint.

So yeah, I think you're exactly right.

It was extreme validation and simultaneously, it was still a little weird of just how excited he was.

But that's, that's really how I like felt about a lot of this whole situation was that, and again, I don't want to like dumb it down to like, you know, do like both sidesism necessarily because I'm aware that it can be problematic.

But I will say that like, I'm a firm believer that like two things can be true at once, if not three, if not four.

And I think society a lot of times loses sight of that.

This was one of those examples where it was simultaneously understandable that they felt validated and he felt excited because his like favorite, you know, news network was covering his story, his situation.

But it was also really weird.

Yeah.

And I always worry specifically where this plays in with Munchausen by proxy cases in particular, because attention is such a huge part of the motivation for doing these things.

And so, and I, again, I think you did responsible reporting on this case and kept it balanced.

And as you said, like I once believed too, that very strongly that most journalists were, you know, like

staying neutral and had their ethics in place.

And I've seen some very, what I consider really unethical reporting on this topic, not the Pelletiers specifically.

I think actually most of the reporting, I mean, the Boston Globe did a series on this that was very well balanced as well.

But, you know, more recent cases like My Kicks and Bogs Do No Harm series, where

they are really, to my mind, playing into the perpetrator's narrative.

And again, I I say perpetrator because I've looked into a bunch of these cases, you know, way too strongly, right?

And the risk that you can take is that you are actually becoming part of the abuse.

If you are too strongly coming down on the side of the perpetrator when the evidence saying something else, then

you're becoming part of the exploitation of those children.

And especially, you know, you see some of these news articles with a whole bunch of pictures of the kids in the hospital.

And like, I think there's some really horrifying media coverage on this topic.

That's all just to say.

I really appreciated your coverage on this topic.

And thank you so much for coming in to talk to me about it.

Is there anything that I should have asked you that I didn't or just anything else you want to say about the case?

Well, I guess a final thought is that just in response to what you had just said, was that it can be problematic if especially if like a lot of local news reporters and stations are not given the time to delve into something appropriately.

And so if they do a one-off story about a local girl, tonight, a local girl is in the hospital accused, you know, and her family says it might not, you know, it's, it's the hospital's fault.

And then they never follow up on it, right?

And, you know, that can be super problematic.

You know, looking back on it, I think that, you know, the coverage that I did was fair and reasonable, you know, given the information that we were able to obtain.

And, you know, we went pretty far to try to flush it out as much as possible.

But I could certainly envision instances where, you know, a one-off or even like just two stories are done.

I mean, we did like over 30 or 40 in a row.

You know, for example, with the Pelletier case, the first conversation I had with them, and I started Googling like their situation, like this must have been covered already and saw that they were doing like a fundraiser for Justina and had like little like Livestrong style like bracelets for her with butterflies on them.

And it struck me as like very strange.

Like if she was kidnapped, so to speak.

why would you just be doing like this little fundraiser that felt kind of very lighthearted and fun, so to speak.

And so I guess what I'm trying to say is that if a TV station or a newspaper covered that without doing enough research, it could be misleading and, you know, potentially damaging.

I agree with that.

And so, yeah, I think, I do think that journalistic coverage of these types of cases does deserve as much research as possible and an open mind, but also

the willingness to not engage in false equivalency.

And I don't, you know, again, I don't think that my coverage did that.

And I think, you know, perhaps if I covered it 10 years later with the availability of more social media and other things, you know, it might look a little different.

But again, I think part of the issue on this too, and the issue with many news stories is that people are not necessarily inherent experts in the matter they're covering.

So they're, you know, as a reporter, you're kind of becoming a mini expert on something very quickly, as best as you can, and going, you know, trying to present as much fact or just information as you can that's that's vetted and

true on a micro level, but you might not be getting into like to the macro issues of the situation as much as you possibly could.

So yeah, it was nice to see the documentary done on this case.

And I do think it was, it was something that was quite an important case.

And it remains to be seen what's going to end up happening with Justina's life.

Well, thank you so much for being with us, Bo.

And do keep me posted on your book.

I don't know if you know this, but my whole background is in book publishing and I'm an author myself.

So would be happy to talk to you about that and would just love to hear.

And if that's coming out, then we'll have you back on the show.

It would certainly be interesting to our audience.

Yeah, thanks a lot for your time and having me on the podcast.

Nobody Should Believe Me case files is produced and hosted by me, Andrea Dunlop.

Our editor is Greta Stromquist, and our senior producer is Mariah Gossett.

Administrative support from NOLA Carmouche.

For quality window treatments, trust Rebart's Blinds Shades and Shutters.

Specializing in Hunter Douglas custom blinds and smart shades, Rebarts combines style, comfort, and automation to enhance any space.

The blinds and shades solution for your home is just a free consultation away.

Visit rebarts.com to schedule your free in-home consultation today.

Mention Spotify for 25% off.

That's 25% off mentioning Spotify at Rebart's.

You're juggling a lot.

Full-time job, side hustle, maybe a family.

And now you're thinking about grad school?

That's not crazy.

That's ambitious.

At American Public University, we respect the hustle and we're built for it.

Our flexible online master's programs are made for real life because big dreams deserve a real path.

Learn more about APU's 40-plus career-relevant master's degrees and certificates at apu.apus.edu.

APU, built for the hustle.

You want your master's degree.

You know you can earn it, but life gets busy.

The packed schedule, the late nights, and then there's the unexpected.

American Public University was built for all of it.

With monthly starts and no set login times, APU's 40-plus flexible online master's programs are designed to move at the speed of life.

You bring the fire, we'll fuel the journey.

Get started today at apu.apus.edu