Nobody Should Believe Me - Justina Pelletier Part 2 with Beau Berman (rebroadcast)

Episode Date: January 2, 2026

In part 2 of Andrea’s Justina Pelletier coverage, she’s joined by Beau Berman, the reporter that broke this story. *** On this show we talk a lot about how Munchausen by Proxy cases are covered in the media, and today we’re getting the inside scoop from the reporter who broke one of the most high profile MBP stories. Beau Berman began covering the Justina Pelletier case back in 2013 as a young reporter and watched over the years as the case evolved and got stranger and stranger. He tells Andrea about how the story came across his desk and the complexities of trying to keep the balance on both sides while dealing with HIPAA. He reflects on his time with the Pelletiers and his thoughts on the case more than a decade after covering it.  *** Links/Resources:  Listen to Justina Pelletier Part 1: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/case-files-02-justina-pelletier-part-1/id1615637188 Listen to Justina Pelletier Part 3: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/case-files-04-justina-pelletier-part-3-with-beau-berman/id1615637188 Listen to Justina Pelletier Part 4: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/case-files-05-justina-pelletier-part-4/id1615637188 The Battle for Justina Pelletier: https://www.peacocktv.com/watch-online/tv/the-battle-for-justina-pelletier/5657866397468499112 Read about Justina Pelleiter in The Boston Globe: https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2020/01/12/pelletier/0I2dQrYlZFJ9tNzscaXdAO/story.html Join Patreon for a look at Andrea and Dr. Bex’s previous coverage of the Justina Pelletier case: https://www.patreon.com/collection/507935 Preorder Andrea's new book The Mother Next Door: Medicine, Deception, and Munchausen by Proxy Click here to view our sponsors. Remember that using our codes helps advertisers know you’re listening and helps us keep making the show! Subscribe on YouTube where we have full episodes and lots of bonus content. Follow Andrea on Instagram for behind-the-scenes photos: @andreadunlop Buy Andrea's books here. To support the show, go to Patreon.com/NobodyShouldBelieveMe or subscribe on Apple Podcasts where you can get all episodes early and ad-free and access exclusive ethical true crime bonus content. For more information and resources on Munchausen by Proxy, please visit MunchausenSupport.com The American Professional Society on the Abuse of Children’s MBP Practice Guidelines can be downloaded here. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

True Story Media Hello, it's Andrea Dunlop, and this is Nobody Should Believe Me case files. Today, we are continuing our conversation about the Justina Pellateer case. So if you haven't listened to the previous episode where I break the case down with Dr. Beck's, I encourage you to listen to that first, though we do briefly recap the case at the top of today's episode. Today, I get a chance to talk to Bo Berman, the reporter who broke this story about his coverage of the case and his time with the pilleteers. I spend a great deal of time every day, pretty much, thinking about how Munchausen by proxy

is covered in the media. So I was so grateful to Bo for coming on to talk to us about his experience covering one of the most high-profile cases. And what he has to say is fascinating. And thank you for all of the amazing feedback you sent us on our in-between season. format. We are working diligently on season five, and let me tell you, it is a dozy. I am so happy to be here with you each week while that is coming together. Let us know if there's anything you want us to tackle here on case files by shooting us an email at hello at nobody should believe me.com.

You can find even more by subscribing on Apple Podcasts or joining our Patreon. We also have a free tier of Patreon where you can listen to select bonus episodes, and for the meantime, I'm going to make all of our previous coverage of the pelletier case free over there. So if you want to come down the rabbit hole with us, that is where you can do that. As always, if monetary support is not an option, please leave us five stars on Apple or Spotify or share the show with a friend. It all really helps. Now, here's part one of my conversation with Bo Berman. Are you thinking about starting a podcast? I hope that you are. And here's why. Number one, most of you are women and we really need more women in podcasting. This gender disparity is something

our industry is grappling with right now. I know shocking that men are a little more assured that their voices matter. Can't imagine why that is. Number two, I hear from a lot of you. So I know how smart, thoughtful, and interesting you all are. I am truly honored to have the audience I have. Your takes are consistently good. So go get them on the mic. Number three, podcasting is so much fun. My particular niche is challenging in many ways, but I really love this job. And while the podcasting industry is crazy, it is generally crazy in a pretty fun way. And there are so many people out there who are making exciting, wonderful, unique, weird stuff that finds a passionate audience in podcasting in a way that just wouldn't be possible in other mediums. Now, I know it can be

pretty daunting to dive in, but I am here to help with that. I have a new podcasting app called podcaster pro with studio.com that can help you with everything. I built this extremely interactive app with the studio team, and it doesn't just tell you what to do. It also gives you feedback on everything from your show concept to your episode outlines, your budget, your episodes, all of it. It's going to help you not only launch your show, but grow your audience and work towards monetizing. This is designed to help you with the creative and the business aspects of podcasting. Really, it's everything I wish I had when I was starting out. And I designed this coach to be a little Andrea in your pocket, helping you every step of the way. So if starting a podcast or growing and monetizing your existing podcast is on your list for 2026, there is no better time to sign up because Studio is running a site-wide holiday promo. Right now through January 2nd, you will get 20% off your subscription. Amazing. A subscription would also make a great gift if someone in your life is an aspiring podcast. you could throw it in with a sure microphone and make it magical. So you can check out the app by

heading to studio.com backslash Andrea. That's studio.com backslash Andrea. Happy podcasting. Hey, it's Andrea. It's come to my attention that some of you have been served programmatic ads for ice on my show. Now, podcasters don't get a lot of control over which individual ads play and for whom on our shows, but please know that we are trying everything we can to get rid of these by tightening our filters. And if you do continue to hear them, please do let us know. In the meantime, I want it to be known that I do not support ICE. I am the daughter of an immigrant.

I stand with immigrants. Immigrants make this country great. Well, thank you so much for being with us, Bo. And I'd love to start off if you could just tell us who you are and what you do. And so I guess in this case, what you did in the past in relation to this case. Thanks for having me on the podcast. So my name is Bo Berman. I spent 11 years as a television news reporter working for CBS affiliate in Texas and a Fox affiliate in Connecticut and an ABC affiliate in Pennsylvania. So I was sort of a hybrid. I was like what they would call a general assignment reporter working on your day-to-day stories, but then also an investigative reporter and spent a number of years working on investigative reports. Some in Texas that led to the changing or creation of a a new state law to make things safer. And then in Connecticut, in 2013, is whenever I was the first reporter, I guess, in the world to break the story of Justina Pellateer and her situation with the

Boston Children's Hospital and everything that followed with that. So I had an 11-year career as a journalist, and I'm no longer doing that, but might again in the future. But yeah, so that's kind of my quick backstory. Yeah, fantastic. And so I realized this is an extraordinarily complex case, but could you give us just a brief overview of the Justina Pellateer situation and specifically how it came to your attention? So Justina Pellateer was a teenage girl living in a town called West Hartford, Connecticut, and it is an extremely complicated case. But I guess in a nutshell, she had faced health issues for a long time since she, basically since birth. I mean, her parents had sought treatment on her behalf, you know, with various doctors.

And then when she was 13 or 14, I think 14, some of her more severe stomach and health issues cropped up again. And they sought care for her out of state in Massachusetts where she had seen a specialist before. And she was admitted to Boston Children's Hospital where, you know, one of her specialists had transferred to, and before she was able to see that specialist, a team of other doctors saw her, examined her, and determined that they thought the course of action the prior specialists were taking was wrong and basically diagnosed her with somatoform disorder, which in a nutshell was saying that the health conditions that her parents thought she was facing and that she thought she was facing were more so of the mental

variety and there was a possibility of Munchausen by proxy and they basically created a new care plan for her and the parents fought this. Justina didn't like this and the hospital, you know, contacted the Department of Children and Families who swooped in and, you know, within a few days took custody of her, got an emergency custody order from a judge. The judge was sort of evaluating, okay, I have these parents who are acting crazy and, you know, like losing control of their promotions versus a Harvard-affiliated hospital. I'm going to trust the hospital on First Blush. And, you know, the parents lost custody of Justina. And I think in most cases, someone might assume, okay, that might have lasted for a few days or a few weeks or maybe a month, but it ended up

turning into a 15-month saga that captured, you know, national media attention. And I firmly believe that if it happened in 2024, it would have been splashed across, you know, front pages of newspapers and all over cable news, but given that it was like 2013 and Twitter and social media wasn't as big, it didn't quite get as much coverage as I honestly expect it would have gotten now with TikTok and everything. But that being said, it still did get a lot of coverage, you know, People Magazine and the Dr. Phil show and things of that nature. And so, yeah, I first heard about the story in kind of a weird way. I was a news reporter at the Fox TV affiliate in Hartford, Connecticut, and had been there for about two years and had developed like a little bit of a

friendship with one of the meteorologists at the station, and we would go out and grab a beer sometimes or a coffee or whatever. And he walked up to my desk one day because he didn't sit far away and said, hey, I have kids and the teenager who is our babysitter said that her sister is like stuck in a hospital or something. It's really strange. And it just seems like it might be a good story for you. I know it sounds kind of crazy. I don't care what you do with it, but she's just really emotionally distressed about her sister's situation. And she gave me her mom's phone. number and I just thought, you know, if you're up for it, you might give them a call and look into it. It may end up being nothing. It might just be too weird for us to cover, but I thought

you should look into it. So I think I waited a few days and I eventually called Linda Pellateer Justina's mother and I still have my notebook from that day in August of 2013 where I took the initial notes of this call and that's how I found out about it. And so I scheduled an interview for like a few days later. I think it was a Friday with the family and I went to their home in West Hartford with a news photographer. And, you know, that was where I first learned about the whole situation. And it blew my mind. It just really blew my mind. I just couldn't believe what was happening. It seemed almost fabricated, but it wasn't. And I just, you know, very quickly, it was extremely intrigued and knew that this story had to get out to the public because I knew right

away that, you know, the world would be as intrigued as I would if they knew about this. Because it was just so hard to believe from almost every angle. And it was very unclear, who was a in the right and who is in the wrong. Well, I mean, my first instinct as a human being was to feel sorry for the teenager, the child, in this situation. You know, secondary to that, my job, my livelihood was to find, produce, create, publish, fascinating, interesting stories that deserve to be told and settled or figured out by the officials, you know, public officials. And I sort of just thought that if the parents were lying or bad people, you know, bad guys, then I was basically getting an exclusive interview with a criminal family, which, you know, would be a crazy news

story. And I thought a much bigger story would be if they were completely telling the truth and the good guys, then you had a vast, you know, sort of strange, tangled conspiracy with Harvard affiliated hospital and the state and, you know, a lot of government officials. And I just knew that either way, this was something that had to be told. And we can get into which, which side of that you may have eventually landed on. But yeah, I mean, so obviously your instincts were right. And I agree with you that I think that if this happened in the in today's landscape, it would be a bigger story. In fact, I don't know if you followed this story at all, but with the Mike Walski story, in fact, we did see it blow up in a much sort of shorter timeline and in a pretty big way. And I think

social media was a part of that. It sounds like your instincts were really telling you this was going to be a big story. Were you surprised at all at how this blew up and sort of how fast it became a national story? Or did you kind of know that this was going to be a big deal? So yes and no. Like I'm bad at many things in life, but one thing I'm good at is investigative journalism and having an instinct and a hunch for when a story is going to blow up. And I just knew it. And I had to fight and fight and fight to even cover this story because there was a legal side to it. I mean, I was based, you know, received a phone call from the hospital, Boston Children Hospital spokesperson saying, well, you should stay away from this. I don't think, you know,

your TV station wants to deal with, you know, the repercussions of your possible misleading reporting. You know, he seriously said something to that extent, almost threatening a lawsuit, essentially. And my bosses, you know, were wary of it. You know, I was like 26 years old at the time or 27 and kind of junior sort of, even though I had had had a lot of success. And I was relatively new to the TV station. And so they had to place a lot of trust in me that, you know, my vetting process of the parents and all the facts and the paperwork was legitimate.

it. And, you know, a lot of times for a TV station, especially a struggling one, because we were not like the number one rated station, it's kind of easier to coast a little bit and not take on things that could involve you in a lawsuit or, you know, put you at risk. And so I got a lot of pushback. And so the story almost never aired. And in fact, some other competing stations had learned about it first, actually. And I learned that from the parents, but they didn't run the story because it was too complicated. It was a lot of work. It was happening out of state. So it required countless trips to Boston from Connecticut, which is not far, but it just still presents a logistical challenge. But I just knew it. I just knew based on what I saw that this was going

to captivate anyone who learned about it because it had every element that a big story has. It had emotion. It had the life and death consequences. It involved parental rights. It involved government, possible government overreach. And these are things that, you know, people have very strong opinions about and get fired up about. But I still was surprised, though, like how fast it went. And again, I mean, if it happened now, oh my goodness, it would have went so much faster. But even back then, it did, it was trending on Twitter at one point, which, you know, to me was a big deal because I kind of like lived on Twitter. And, you know, Free Justino was it was a trending hashtag nationwide. You know, the fact that they were on like Fox News National being interviewed

by Megan Kelly within weeks after the story that I did, you know, aired was really surreal to me. And then when they were on the Dr. Phil show, you know, come March, it was really surreal. But by then, the whole thing, I thought it was going to keep getting bigger and bigger and it eventually kind of cooled off a little bit. But yeah, it was one of those things where you're thinking, like, how does the world not know about this? Like, how is somebody not stepping in and doing more to figure this out, get to the bottom of this? Yeah, I mean, and I understand, like, being a person that reports on these cases, and you're right, these stories do have all of these incredibly captivating elements for all. the reasons that you said and the media can be extremely reticent in reporting on them, sort of for better or worse, I guess.

One of the biggest challenges reporting on these stories before they go to something like a trial, right, where that rarely happens in Munchaus and cases, obviously this was the family suing the hospital, but is that you really can't get very much medical information except for what the family is giving you. I mean, so did that give you pause when you were going into this that, like, frequently in these stories and in some of your reporting, the phrasing is, well, the hospital didn't comment or the hospital refused to comment. And of course, like, the hospital can't comment, right, because of HIPAA. I mean, there's only so much information they can give you. And so, you know,

what ends up happening in so much coverage of these cases. And there has been a lot of coverage in the last couple of years from people like Mike Hicksenbog about sort of, quote, false accusations or stories that are presented as such. And the only thing the hospital says is the PRE sort of, we did do the best for our patients kind of statement. Again, what you said, you know, there's a story of parents losing custody of their children, especially if that's a sick child, that's inherently just emotionally explosive, right? And so to sort of have that and then have this sort of void on the other side, I mean, were you concerned about that going in at all? For sure. I think it's a fantastic question. So there's this inherent imbalance that's going

to happen in a story like that that is basically out of your control. So for me, as a journalist, that would never be a reason not to cover something. That is the prerogative of the hospital. and it's on them, you know, to figure out a way to convey their side of the story without, you know, jeopardizing a potential legal case or saying the wrong thing or violating HIPAA. And HIPAA is extremely important. I'm glad the government, the country has that law. That being said in my 11-year career as a journalist, I saw people claim, you know, HIPAA reasons for not saying things many, many, many times more than I can count, and many of those times they were not applying the rule

correctly, the law correctly. They were saying, there's no way we can comment because of HIPAA. And then the next day, there would be a motorcycle crash of someone, you know, like a prominent figure. This is just an example. They would provide details. And it's like, well, in that case, it was not applied correctly across the board. And so I guess what I'm saying is it was used as a blanket excuse to not give information, even in situations where they legally absolutely could have given information. Now, I'm not saying that was the case here. year. But it definitely gave my TV station, my employer, some pause. And I speak to a journalism and communications class at Cornell University each fall and each spring. I know a professor

and he invites me in as a former journalist to speak to the class about the complexities and you know, just behind the scenes look at careers and communications and journalism. And so I usually discuss the Justina Pellateer case. And I get that question from students a lot after they watch the first story on it. They say, well, it seems a little like almost biased. Like, you know, why did the hospital not say anything? And, but you have all this, you know, video interviews with the parents where they're crying and it just feels a little imbalance. Like, how did you navigate that? And again, the answer is, as a journalist, there's not much you can do. But what you, you know, what you can do is reach out to the other side as many times as possible, you know, with advance notice, give them months to figure out a response or decide to respond or not respond, which I did. And the other thing you can do is seek like third parties to, you know, comment about the overall broad situation, which we did in this case. So the very first report we did on this, we went to Mass General Hospital. And this was before the story had ever been published. It hadn't blown up yet. And so they were willing at that point to comment on just generally

speaking, you know, mitochondrial disease and custody battles and the sort of vague and gray area nature of this type of diagnosis, Munchausen by proxy. And therefore, you have at least like the perspective of a doctor, of a hospital to inject into this so that it's not just the family versus a silent hospital. That being said, it's a fantastic question. And yeah, I mean, you put yourself at risk of looking a little bit biased, even though you are not actually biased. And then you want nothing more than both sides of the story. I will tell you that from my perspective, and I have had some doctors really bravely come on and talk to me in as much detail as they possibly can about a case. I think most hospitals and especially being big

institutions that deal with really sensitive things and rely on fundraise. I mean, there's all kinds of reasons that they would be very reticent to talk to the media, especially about a specific family, a specific case, you know, that kind of thing. And I think that's all really warranted. And, you know, given the media climate around the sort of medical kidnapping narrative, I think it would probably behoove them, or at least some of these organizations like American Academy of Pediatrics or like, you know, some of these bigger, to really give some deeper commentary on this and specifically address it even without revealing specifics about a case. And so, you know, hospitals are part of the community and

they have a relationship with the community. So I think some communication from them is when there's a concern in the community is really warranted. So I think that's, a really good point as well. Reproductive care is so important, and did you know that one in four people who can get pregnant will have an abortion? Abortion is an extremely common experience that deserves non-judgmental, compassionate, and personalized care. Our sponsor, CAREFM, gives folks a choice about what type of abortion care works best for them. They have in-person locations with private entrances in Atlanta, Chicago, and the Washington, D.C. areas, and they offer medically supported

abortion pills by mail in 20 states. So whether you're looking for supportive in-person care or care in the privacy of your own home, they've got you. Getting abortion pills by mail from CAREFM is simple. You just fill out an online order form and a licensed provider will review your medical history and if you're eligible, your medication will be shipped to you in a couple of days. And you'll get guidance from CAREFM on the process from start to finish with instructions, reminders, and answers to all of your questions whenever they come up 24-7. Whichever kind of care you're looking for, Kara Fem will support you every step of the way. You can learn more at carefm.org. That's C-A-R-A-F-E-M.org. Do you know what I'm wearing right now? A beautiful

cashmere hoodie from Quince. Do you know what I got my mom and my mother-in-law for Christmas? Kashmir sweaters from Quince. Do you know what I got my husband last Christmas? You guessed it. Quince is rightfully famous for their Mongolian cashmere sweaters because they do not disappoint. This time of year is dreary and it really helps to put on something. that feels cozy and polished enough to make you feel like you can leave the house if you must, which we must. Quince's cashmere sweaters, which I have four of in various styles, are great for workwear, which I'm back on because I have an office now, very exciting, and also as a layering piece. So you can throw them on for a nice little walk to get some fresh air during that small

window when the sun is up. And speaking of layers, Quince has you covered from top to bottom. They have perfect teas, tanks, long sleeve shirts, and outerwear. I'm currently on the wait list for the mixed media down and cashmere jacket. I got to put in a call. I want that thing so bad. If you've been listening for a while, you know that I love Quince and what's not to love. Everything is made from premium materials in ethical, trusted factories, and then priced far below what other luxury brands charge. So refresh your wardrobe with Quince. Don't wait. Go to quince.com slash Believe for free shipping on your orders and 365 day returns. Now available in Canada, too. That's Q-U-I-N-C-E dot com slash believe to get first.

free shipping and 365 day returns, quince.com slash believe. And remember that shopping our sponsors is a great way to support the show. So you reported on this case for quite a long time, you know, and then obviously you were one of the voices in the Peacock documentary about this case, and which I found to be actually pretty well balanced. And obviously that was after the trial, right? So I wonder, kind of for you, you're going into this case and you're thinking, well, like, whoever's right in this case, it's a huge story. And I wonder, like, how did your sort of looking back on this whole time? Like, how did your understanding of what was happening in this case evolve over that time, especially as we went through trial and you did hear all of those doctors give a lot of details? Because that is the one area where then you're going to hear a lot of the details is if people are on the stand, right? HIPAA doesn't apply in that case. I have a few things to say about this. Early on, my My only, like, personal concern, again, was for the health and the safety of the child, right, at stake in the case. And it sounds like cold or something. You know, as a journalist, like, I don't have a dog in the fight, right?

So I'm just trying to get to the truth. That's my angle. And people often ask you that, well, what's your angle? And I do think some journalists, like, have an angle on things, right? Of course. I know better now. I was a little naive, you know, 12 years ago I would really defend all journalists at all times. And since then, I've learned that not all are acting in good faith.

I felt that whatever the truth was would, you know, quote, set you free. Like, would either help Justina or either way it would help her. So if the truth was that her parents were abusing her, that would help her if it got out. If the truth was at the hospital was crazy and had ulterior motives, that would help her. But in terms of like the evolution of my opinion on it, I talk about this like in my off time with family members or friends or something like that. And I didn't know what to think. I mean, I had never covered a story in my life where I had less of a gut instinct of who was right and who was wrong. and it would switch on an almost daily basis.

I would, you know, think like, oh, these parents are crazy. Like, this is so sad what they're doing to her. I wouldn't report that, but I would be thinking that privately. And I really wouldn't let that bleed into the coverage. But, like, you know, in my home life, I would be thinking, wow, this is crazy. And then the next day, I would see something else that would make me think, oh, my God, you know, this is the hospital doing this. I can't believe this. You know, I had dozens of voicemails from people nationwide telling me, oh, you need to hear my story.

I'm in Phoenix, Arizona. and I have a situation just like this, or I went through this five years ago with my cousin or my daughter or my son, you know, the fact that I was interviewing attorneys in New England, in the Boston area who were saying, no, no, no, no, this is not the only case. That's what you need to understand, Bo. This is not the only case. Like, this has happened before a manifesting a slightly different way, but this is not the only time this has happened involving this hospital. I didn't know what to make of it, right? Luckily, as a journalist, I kind of had the privilege of being able to just put things out there and kind of seeing what happened, you know, as long as they were

accurate. And you're right, I did cover this for a long time. I had never covered any story this long ever before. I haven't since then. I covered it for like nine or 10 months, you know, on an almost like on a weekly basis, if not daily. So I did know it inside and out. You know, I had like a really good line to the family, almost too close to the family to the point where people thought I was like in cahoots with them or something, which I absolutely, you know, I wasn't. But they just trusted me a lot. You know, I think I treated them fairly and was someone who listened to them with open eyes, heart, whatever you want to call it. And so they would call me a lot and tell me things that they probably weren't even supposed to. And I didn't report

on all of it because I just, we just couldn't. But to the question of, you know, how did it evolve my feelings on it of who was right, who was wrong? I stopped covering it in 2014 because I, you know, after she came home, the story kind of died down at that point. We did a few follow-ups of, you know, six months later, how was she doing or how was the family feeling? We covered her birthday party and her sort of welcome home party, but then I moved out of state into a different TV station and the story was irrelevant at my new station, which was local news in a different state. So I stopped covering it. I tried to follow the story in my personal life. So I wasn't there for the trial. I didn't cover the trial. You know, and that came years later. I started working on a book

about it, which I have never published. I'm still in the process of that and would love to. But but just haven't been able to. But anyway, so watching the documentary, actually, where they got into the trial was really my first, like, in-depth glimpse at what came out in the trial, or the final stuff, at least. And I didn't know what to make of it.

I mean, the way the documentary painted it, you know, based on the testimony, uh, did not look great for the parents, I think, you know, at the end, it really didn't. That being said, just knowing what I know, what I covered for all those months, I still am not ready to, to say who, who is correct definitively. it's still just too murky for me.

So I still would not say, okay, the parents are guilty, you know, I mean, they haven't been charged, right? They've never been charged with any crime, to my knowledge. No, they haven't. But, yeah, I mean, it didn't make them look good at the end. I'll say that much. Yeah. I mean, did you have any familiarity with Munchausen by proxy medical child abuse going

into your reporting on this case? No, I didn't. I did not. I'd heard of it. I've heard the term, right? But, like, very limited. So, no, I had never, like, directly covered this before. So I did a lot of research, but yeah, no, I was not experienced in this matter.

You covered this intensely during a specific period of time and then the trial happened long after. I've read like the Boston Globe's reporting on this. I didn't do a full sort of primary source deep type mostly because I couldn't find that much. It's harder to get these records from Boston. Was there anything in particular that, you know, from the hospital's testimony or from like that side that was presented during the trial, that really like shocked you? You know, I'm a little foggy on it. I apologize because I haven't watched the documentary since it came out, which was like December 2022. I think that the expert that the hospital side, that the guy they brought in was it from Canada.

It was like one of the last people who testified was the most like damning thing towards the Pellateers, meaning the parents, you know, side of the story. I don't remember the exact details, but I just remember some of that testimony myself thinking, I hadn't heard that before. Right, where he went down basically like all of the different tests that you do for mitochondrial disorders, which is sort of a broader category than it's often presented. But, you know, the muscle biopsy test and the this and sort of went down this whole list of things and that Justina Pelletier had tested negative for all of those. And that was an incredibly compelling piece of testimony to watch. Yeah, it really was. The parents always had sort of like a counterpoint to a lot

of this stuff. And so they were like, well, we did do a muscle biopsy on Jessica. You know, justina's older sister, one of her older sisters. And she did have evidence of mitochondrial disease is what they had told me, you know, and what there was some paperwork showing. But again, that's not the same as doing it on the patient in question. I thought that was really compelling testimony. Again, it wasn't enough for me to fully 100% full stop say, okay, you know, all these years later, the parents were 100% wrong. The hospital was 100% right. It just wasn't quite enough. That being said, it did, you know, kind of tilt me more towards that direction of thinking, this is really questionable now for the parents, you know, maybe more than ever before. I had any question.

their side of the story. I'm not saying all of these things to sort of try and convince you one way or the other, but mitochondrial disorders come up a lot in Munchausen cases. And of course, as you mentioned, you know, you are hearing from other people saying, oh my gosh, the same things happened to us. I have a little bit of a different opinion on what that relationship is. And we can talk a little bit about mitoaction.org. I know you interviewed a couple of protesters that were associated with that group. I've done a little digging into that group, you know, where people say, oh, all of these parents whose children have mitochondrial disorders are being investigated. I think the relationship goes the opposite way, which is that I think this is something that

unfortunately is exploited by a lot of offenders. And it's because it's one of those things, you know, I'm not a doctor, but I have a talk to a lot of them and did talk to a doctor about mito. And one of those things where, again, it's like a spectrum of disorders that's related to the mitochondria, the powerhouse of the cell, the only thing any of us remember from biology class, or at least in my case. You know, that can sort of affect anything, right? It can affect any symptom.

But for my understanding of it, I mean, number one, they're relatively rare. And it isn't something where it would be mild until someone's 15 and then suddenly become extremely severe, which is, of course, what the Pellateer is, the presentation of it that they presented with Justina. It also really caught my attention in the documentary when they pointed to the expert, expertise of, Dr. Bowles, who was the person who did the genetic sequencing that said that Justina Pellitier had extremely rare form complex mitochondrial disorder. Dr. Bowles is extraordinarily notorious in Munchausen community because he shows up as an expert witness all the time. And it is my opinion on him that he is one of these doctors, which unfortunately there are a small handful of them that will give this diagnosis to just about any parent who's pursuing it. There is so much context.

You know, for me, certainly, like, I don't refer to myself as a journalist. I think I do a lot of journalistic work and I certainly do a ton of research and I have my fact street because I also cover a lot of litigious people. So that would not behoove me to do otherwise. But of course, I do have a very close connection to this and it is an area. I do sort of have a dog in the fight for lack of a better term. I wonder also just, you know, you spent so much time with this family. And as you said, you were sort of one of their most trusted sources. I mean, just what was your impression of them? You talked a little bit about this in the documentary. It sounded like it was a pretty intense environment. And now granted, like you obviously are meeting these people

at an extremely stressful juncture in their life. So giving some grace to that. But I mean, what were the pelleteers like? Yeah, I can get into that. I just want to just for a second revisit the what we were just talking about. I don't remember the part about Dr. Bowles. I mean, that certainly sounds questionable if that was the person who, you know, was doing the genetic sequencing. I think part of what made me for so long give the family a lot of grace, let's say, you know, to borrow your word, is that it was a doctor from Tufts University Medical Center who diagnosed her, you know, Dr. Mark Corson, who I talked to on the phone, but he was adamant that the call remain off the record. So I still have my notebook, my written notes from a call with him,

and, you know, he was very convincing talking with him. And Tufts is like a very, very reputable institution. That was what really for so long gave a lot of credence to their side of the story is like, she does have a diagnosis from Tufts, you know, and I've seen the paperwork. Yeah, I mean, it's not really my place, you know, be it then or now to give a judgment on this just because it's just not my place. You know, I'm not the judge. I'm not the jury. I am a journalist. Now, again, if I find, you know, 100% compelling evidence, you know, that says it one way or the other, then it's also not my job to, like, play it neutral, right? Like false both sidesism situation.

But again, I haven't covered it, you know, directly for many, many years. I don't feel that it's appropriate for me to say, you know, so-and-so is guilty or this is the, you know, the other thing I just wanted to say was, you know, in my opinion, the parents sort of actually didn't. I think the way you characterize it as them saying that it kind of flared up or suddenly got worse when she was 14 or 15 was not entirely accurate because, and this actually maybe doesn't make them look good at all, but they were having operations done on her throughout her life, you know, where she, I forget what it was called, she had a port into her stomach, you know, and that was the thing where I always went back to if they were wrong and this was all being done in vain for no reason, then that was like 100% medical child abuse of like one of the worst varieties of her being physically cut open surgically for something that was unnecessary would be heart-wrenching and like disgusting behavior these are the things that were in my mind of like on one side Tufts university doctor who I spoke with personally who was very convincing diagnosed her with mitochondrial disease

disorder and and then on the other hand if he was wrong then she's being cut open surgically for no reason so that's what I was weighing you know without being an expert in medicine with never having covered Munchausen by proxy ever before. I'll get back to your question. So the first time that I met the family and subsequently, it again was really hard to balance because you're meeting someone, which is on like the worst day of their life, basically, or the worst year of their life.

And so it's hard for me to say how I would be acting. I have a daughter now, which I didn't then. And if she was taken away from me, when I was convinced that I was doing the right thing, I would probably be acting pretty outlandish, you know, pretty crazy. I might be yelling. I might be with my temper. And that's how they were. So I was in their living room and the parents were kind of snapping at each other a little bit and you could tell everybody was on edge. That being said, they were also like, or at least the dad, Lou Pellateer was like

kind of lighthearted though, like strangely at the same time and like cracking jokes and like talking about his muscles and his football days and this and that. It just struck me as like a very odd family. Although I had known families like kind of sort of like this growing up where it's just the way they are. The upstairs of the house was very organized and, like, clean and neat, but the downstairs, like, really smelled like dogs, and there were, like, ice skates everywhere, and it was, like, pretty disheveled. But it just, it struck me as just, like, a family.

Like, it was, like, four daughters. It was just, like, that's kind of life how it is. And, you know, they've been living on the road, like, traveling to Boston every three days for, like, all these months by the time I met them, like, six months or something. It all sort of, like, oh, this is plausible of, like, they're a normal family. But that being said, like, I did think they're, they were strange. After meeting them, I walked out thinking, okay, they're probably guilty

of whatever they're being accused of because they're acting so crazy. You know, they're just so weird. That being said, they were always very nice. Like, so if they hear this, I feel bad. They're hearing me call them weird. They were also very nice. You know, they were nice people. They were kind to me. They would always offer me a drink or, you know, a glass of water and say, sit down, make yourself comfortable. The part that was a little strange was like their lack of boundaries. They would call me late at night anytime, you know, in the early in the morning and treat me as if I their confidant or even their attorney. And I was not, you know, that. And I would tell them that point blank, you know, I need to remind you that I am a neutral party. I would just say I'm not

a friend. I'm not an enemy. I am a neutral party here. I'm a journalist. And I would advise you not to maybe confide things in me that you don't want to be reported because anything you say is on the record unless you say off the record to me explicitly. And I was just surprised that sometimes they would sort of violate a lot of like what to me seemed like common sense norms. And boundaries, mostly in their communications with me, but never really amounted to anything because I was ethical and didn't really use things against them or for them, but it was just surprising. And I left the first meeting with them thinking, whatever it is they might be accused of, they're probably guilty because they're so, they just seemed unhinged. As I reviewed

paperwork, I saw another side to it. And as I conducted more interviews, no, I wasn't, I was never like fully convinced where I said, okay, they're exonerated. This is over. I love them. They're perfect. It was never that, but it was like enough evidence on both sides that I was like, I just don't feel comfortable personally making any sort of judgment, not even that that's my job anyway, but like I just was never convinced. And I totally understand your point, which is that just because there's other people saying, oh, this happened to me, this happened to me, it doesn't prove anything. That doesn't mean that like, oh, this is a conspiracy or the hospital's always wrong. It might just be that offenders gravitate towards using this disease as sort of like

their excuse or their crutch or their fallback or whatever, I totally get that. That's not lost on me. And that also, you know, certainly crossed my mind as I was covering this that, you know, there can be two reasons for a cluster of something and maybe it was the bad reason, right? That's my commentary on it. Well, I'm so glad you brought up Dr. Mark Corson because that was one of the things while I was watching this that really gave me pause as well, right? Because I think one reason that these cases, whether they're being played out in a civil suit like this, or whether it's in family court or in a criminal context, you know, with a medical child abuse accusation is that judges can often see these as like doctor versus doctor, right? So I always

find it's really important to sort of talk about like, which doctor? What are their credentials? And so, yeah, you're right. I mean, Dr. Mark Corston is a much more convincing figure than someone like Dr. Bowles, who I believe Dr. Bowles, they just brought in as like an expert witness. I don't know that he was ever part of justine his care team. But yeah, the Dr. Corson, thing was so interesting. And then there was that whole sort of back and forth over whether Justina could go see Dr. Corson or, and then it sounded like Dr. Corson maybe was actually pretty reticent to get involved after it became a shelter case, which I completely understand and is a very sensible thing probably of him to have done. But yeah, I agree with you that that

previous diagnosis from Tufts did certainly add some complexities to it. And I don't think, you know, something I always try and watch out for myself. I mean, this certainly has innumerable red flags for Munchausen by proxy. Now, I can't say for sure, right? I don't have, like, the necessary information to be able to do that. And to your point also with, like, you're right that she had had a long history of health issues, including some very serious surgeries that preceded her admission to Boston Children's. I think what I was sort of more responding to, which is not on you at all or on them at all, is sort of like what you saw a lot of, I think, in the presentation of this case or the way it was covered across various media outlets was the image of Justina Pellateer

ice skating and then juxtaposed with the image of Justina Pelletier in horrific pain. And I think like that to me is very striking because of what mitochondrial disorders, when they are very severe, you wouldn't see someone ice skating one day and then completely debilitated shortly after or within the span of a year or a couple of years. So yeah, yeah, that's that's, that's kind of more what I was getting out with that. Yeah, I totally hear you on that and understand. That was probably my fault, actually. I could take responsibility for that. Just because, and what I mean by that is that, you know, my original cut on this story, like the first report on this was nine minutes long. And you saw that Peacock did like four, 40 minute, if not an hour long episode. So

that's like four hours of programming to explain this. I was trying to explain the whole thing. Granted, it was a little earlier in the timeline, but I was trying to explain the whole thing in nine minutes versus four hours. And my boss has said, this cannot be longer than four minutes. So I cut five minutes out of it. And what happens when you do that is you're cutting some corners. My goal in showing like the ice skating and also the medium that I work in was so visual that I needed to be able to like communicate something without writing it all out in 10 pages of, you know, newsprint or something. So I think like the goal in showing the ice skating clip was just that like there were instances in her before where she was like at least healthy enough to do

some things. And then, you know, the video from the hospital of the wheelchair and her hair's falling out, you know, it was reality that that, but she looked at, but the question was always like, but like, when did that switch happen? And like, how healthy was she really? And I do agree with you that like the way that was presented made it look a little bit. Like, this was the before times. This is the after times. Thanks a lot, Boston Children's Hospital for ruining our daughter's complete life. It was like slightly misleading just because, but the reality was that, If you sat down and talked to the parents, they would be like, oh, no, no, no. Like, the ice skating thing was something that, like, was a small part of her life.

But sometimes she couldn't do it. She missed, you know, dozens of meets and competitions and practices because of her health issues. So it was like a glimpse into, like, what she could do sometimes. But I didn't have time to explain all that in a four minute story. So, and that's partially my fault and partially the fault of the media industry and part, you know, so it's like, that's a much bigger, like, question. But I'm glad you brought that up because I'd be the first one to admit that, like, that, can, you know, paint a little bit of the wrong picture. So it was not to say that she was in perfect health before the hospital, but it was to say that like there were glimpses of

health or there were moments of, you know, a better life, so to speak. But there were also plenty of moments that they fully admitted where she had been in a wheelchair at times before that. But it wasn't always, which I understand sounds weird and sounded weird to me too. But I don't know how that disease works. I don't really know how any disease works, right? Because I'm not a doctor or a physician. So, you know, it's complicated. And I mean, I understand the limitations of, especially something like, you know, nightly TV news report, you can't necessarily get in every nuance that you would like to. My sort of response to that, and I think also the sort of the collective picture that the pelleteers have painted and continued to paint of Justina's sort of variability and health, and this is something that comes up a lot in these cases where they have simultaneously the most severe version of this daughter. it's also the most rare that doesn't show up on any of the usual tests, and it also can be the

most variable. So you have, on this day, they're ice skating, and on this day they're hospitalized, and then they're both in a wheelchair, and they can ride a horse, and it's a constellation of symptoms that doesn't make any medical sense with mitochondrial disorder or really, like, anything else. And so it's not that, you know, these things don't exist, and there are medical mysteries, that mitochondrial disorders are something that are being studied a lot, and how does the mitochondria effect, given that they're in every cell? how might they be related to this, that, and the other thing, but sort of the presentation that

they're giving doesn't fit any known, you know, information about mitochondrial disorders. It's unbelievably complex, you know. Did you, so you interviewed some protesters outside of the courthouse while you were doing your reporting. And what was that scene like? And what were your impressions of talking to those folks, some of whom were other parents who said they'd had similar situations with their children who also had mito or other rare diseases. You mentioned hearing from a lot of parents, but what was your experience kind of talking to some of those protesters? It was interesting. I had covered like a lot of protests in my day, so to speak, as a journalist. It reminded me of other ones in some ways. It was a little surprising that I drove

up there for that first court hearing, expecting no one to be there, really, I think, as I remember, because usually court hearings don't have a crowd, you know, or protesters, especially something like this, where it's not like a policy issue. It was more of just like a personal issue it felt like for one family. But, you know, there were these groups, you know, Facebook groups at the time of parents who heard about it somehow or family was involved with. And that made sense that people wanted to come support or they felt like it was a policy issue because it was, you know, the government overreaching or what have you. And so, you know, it was a passionate group of people. A lot of them wanted to tell me their story of their child or someone they knew, they had signage, you know, all these like

homemade signs. It felt pretty grassroots. You know, it didn't feel like it was some like national organization that was paying people to be there or something like that. It felt legit, you know, in terms of like these are just grassroots people for the most part. It was interesting because I think in any situation, everyone has like a little bit of their own agenda, you know, whether it's to like help the family, get their own story out. So there was like this guy there. I remember named Kevin Hall who was like part of the like Boston anti-psychiatric associate. or something and he wanted to talk and which was a little weird it was like what like how are you connected you know and so he wanted to get his two cents in there what was his angle was it the sort

of question of the somatoform disorder and like i mean i'm trying to think of what angle is psychiatric and antipsychiatric person could have it was the smatic so the beta five thing yeah as far as i can remember it was the smatoform situation of people telling you it's like in your head or something like that but it was it was a little strange like it felt a little like a different tangent you know, off on a tangent. I don't even fully remember why I interviewed him, I guess. I mean, I was surprised. There was a mom there from Justina's hometown,

which is also the town I lived in, West Hartford, Connecticut, who drove up, you know, and who heard about it on the news. So this actually must have been after the first report. Yeah, it was because the first report happened and then the first hearing was after it. And so that was the other way people heard about it actually come to think of it was because they had seen the report and follow-ups and stuff on national or whatever. The people, just a number of people who, you know, were there to support, basically.

And so I think because they were outside and making a lot of noise, they became part of, like, an ancillary part of the story. And it wasn't really meant to serve as evidence that the family was right or not. But in some sense, it did, like, back them up a little bit just because it was other people saying, like, wait a minute, you know, just because they might be acting a little weird, doesn't mean they're wrong. And, you know, there are other cases of these medical mysteries and arguments. And I don't know what else to make of it. It was just people who supported them after seeing the news story. Yeah. Have you perused mitoaction.org at all? Not since like 2014.

There were two groups. There was one in Pittsburgh, which is ironically like the city I was born, you know, where I'm from, that's a mitochondrial awareness group. And then there was the mitochondrial awareness group. Which I think was the one in Austin or somewhere else who I think I interviewed. And then I think the one in Pittsburgh like didn't want to get involved. Interesting. It at arm's length, I want to say. Or like early on was involved and then like stepped back from it.

But no, I have not really peruse their website for, you know, over a decade. Yeah, and obviously, like, this is much more top of mind for me because I've been researching this. But you might want to go look at it just out of your own interest, especially if you are thinking about writing a book on this. It contains a lot of very specific information about what to do if you're being investigated for medical child abuse and specifically what to take off of your social media and what to say to doctors and what not to say to doctors. And it's pretty alarming, actually. and I sort of dug into some of the people who appear to have founded it. And anyway, it might be a worthwhile rabbit hole if you're so inclined.

I have trouble keeping myself out of rabbit holes. So that's just me. Yeah, that's interesting. It sounds like potentially very, like, devious, right? Like, potentially on one hand, it could be like telling people how to orchestrate a cover-up, right? Or get away with a crime. 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 Karmouche.