Nobody Should Believe Me - Season 5 Breakdown with Detective Mike Weber

Episode Date: March 6, 2025

To officially wrap up season 5, we’ve brought in our friend, Detective Mike Weber, to discuss his thoughts on the police investigation into Sophie Hartman. He walks listeners through the extensive police reports and analyzes the evidence collected, including Sophie’s journal entries. Andrea and Detective Mike discuss the complexities surrounding child abuse cases, particularly the influence of family court decisions and the challenges faced in prosecuting these cases. *** Links and Resources: 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. First of all, thank you so much for all of the incredible feedback on season five. I've gotten so many comments and emails about this season and especially about my interview with Chalice Howard that aired last week as our unexpected episode 9. So I wanted to tell you I have been sharing all of these nice messages with Chalice and she said that you are such a lovely group of people and I could not agree more. She also wanted me to tell you that she is so grateful for how this episode landed and peace and blessings to you all.

Today we've got a bonus episode with friend of the show, and of course my co-author on my new book, The Mother Next Door, Detective Mike Weber, breaking down some elements of the Sophie Hartman case that we didn't get to in our episode with the other detective Mike, Michael Lee, because some of that documentation came in later in the game.

And that is Adventures in Foyer Request for you. A reminder that we've got our season five mailbag episode coming up, so get your comments and questions in now. You can email us or send us a voice memo at hello at nobody should believe me dot com. Again, that's hello at nobody should believe me dot com. Or if you're listening on Spotify, you can leave a question in the comments and we will grab it. We are hard at work right now on our season six,

which is set to air later this spring. And I know I always say this, but we have really never done anything like this one on Nobody Should Believe Me. So all I can say is buckle up. In the meantime, we've got a whole new batch of Case Files episodes for you. We are going to be covering a couple of cases that are in the headlines right now. We'll be

doing some follow-up on previous seasons, and I'll also be doing some fun crossover episodes with other podcasters I love, so stay tuned for all of that. As always, if you would like to support the show, you can subscribe on Patreon or Apple Podcast, you'll get ad free listening as well as some great bonus content from this season, and my twice monthly subscriber show, Nobody Should Believe Me After Hours with Dr. Bex. This month, Bex and I are going to be covering The Anatomy of Lies, which is the documentary about the Elizabeth Finch case, so you won't want to miss that. And if you are a subscriber, you will get every episode of season six on the day that it launches.

If monetary support is not an option, we have a free tier of Patreon where you can listen to some select episodes and of course, rating and reviewing on Apple and leaving comments on Spotify, as well as telling others about the show are great ways to help. Your support is how I keep making this show as an independent podcaster, and I am deeply grateful to all of you. Now on with the show. FanDuel Casino's exclusive live dealer studio has your chance at the number one feeling, winning, which beats even the 27th best feeling, saying I do. Who wants his last parachute? I do.

Enjoy the number one feeling. Winning in an exciting live dealer studio exclusively on FanDuel Casino, where winning is undefeated. 19 plus and physically located in Ontario. Gambling problem? Call 1-866-531-2600 or visit connectsontario.ca. Please play responsibly.

You hear that? Pfft. Ugh, Please play responsibly. You hear that? Paid. And done. That's the sound of bills being paid on time. But with the BMO Eclipse Rise Visa card, paying your bills could sound like this. Earn rewards for paying your bill in full and on time each month. Rise to rewards with the BMO Eclipse Rise Visa Card. Terms and conditions apply. Hey Mike.

Hey Andrea, how are you? I'm hanging in there, how are you doing? I'm good, I am in the great white north and just enjoying a little vacation on my time away from work. Is your time away from work, is permanently time away from work? Is it not? Now you are officially retired. I am officially retired, but that doesn't mean I'm not going to work.

It's just kind of shifting to a another aspect and another part of the career. I don't see myself ever not working ever. Yeah. You'd probably, you'd probably be kind of a menace if you weren't working. I don't know where all that Mike Weber energy goes. You're not working. Yeah, that's fact. Yeah, so Mike, we will have you back on to do your,

Mike Weber tells all, or tells some post retirement special, but today you're gonna talk to us about the Sophie Hartman case, which we just covered in season five of the podcast. And yeah, you have reviewed a whole bunch of documentation in this case. You've listened to the season. Um, we spoke to another one of our APSAC colleagues, also a detective Mike, a detective Michael Lee, um, about this case as well. But, um, yeah, we're, we're excited to have you on

to just kind of do a little bit of a debrief on this case and get your thoughts on it, because this was one of the more extensive and thorough police investigations I've really ever seen on one of these cases. And yeah, we're just curious to know your thoughts on this. Yeah. And you know, I've read through the entire police report. And really the only thing that I see missing in this is, and there could be many, many reasons for this.

You know, the detective actually preserved the social media records when the case first started. I didn't see anywhere where they were, they were obtained by warrant. But that can be- Well, actually though, Mike, I do, I do have an answer to that. Oh, okay. Good. Yeah. So they, I believe, because I was, I was in communications in the public record department. There is, I think, so much evidence from the social media that that has just not yet been, they have not yet had the ability to like, redact that and, well, which exists somewhere. I think she did get

that. I just think that's not available yet. This record request is still open. And there was also quite a lot of video evidence, which I think is, I would imagine, extremely time intensive to readact. Yeah, that's, I mean, it kind of struck me odd that that I didn't see that in her report. But again, we may not, I was just about to say we may not have everything. And we certainly don't know everything. Everything else was done just what she should have done. She got her devices. She found her actual journals. Something I noticed was in Detective O'Rourke's interview with the gym teacher, the gymnastics, to be very clear, teacher in her supplement supplement was the gymnastic teacher that said that the victim had told

her when she approached the victim about joining the gymnastics program, the victim had told her, no, I'm no good. I'll never be good enough. And that is, I mean, you see the same thing in Sophie writing about herself. And you just wonder how much of this abuse That is, I mean, you see the same thing in Sophie writing about herself. And, you know, you just wonder how much of this abuse, you know, is multi-generational. I'm not a psychologist,

but I just found it very striking that Sophie's writing that she's not good enough. And now her daughter is now writing that her daughter is not good enough. Yeah. And so you're talking about her older daughter, M's gymnastics coach was interviewed by the police and we did not really get into this during, during the show. And that gymnastics coach had a number of interesting observations. One of the interesting observations in there was that for some periods of time, I think this was during COVID while this was happening, during whatever phase of COVID where we were sort of, you could get, you could be somewhat in

person, but it was still somewhat limited that she would, that Sophie would sometimes leave both of her daughters at the gym for periods of time. And that both this coach and some of the parents at the gym had noticed there was a huge discrepancy in her younger daughter C's actual physical abilities versus what Sophie was saying they were. Right. That is striking and it's really sad because I think that really gets to,

you know, as we talk about, obviously, the criminal investigations are very focused on usually acts of physical harm, right? But then that really speaks to the psychological damage that this abuse does of telling someone that they can't do something, that they'll never be able to do it and sort of having this doom and gloom picture of that person's future. Yeah. When we talk about the evidence in this case, it's really, really strong. It's circumstantial.

But when you deal with falsification cases, they're all going to be circumstantial. And you have to put every piece of the puzzle together. Her statements that would be admissible at trial, and I'm going to clear, let me put an asterisk by this, in the state of Texas, I'm going to clear, let me put an asterisk by this, in the state of Texas, I'm going by Texas law, Sophie's statements in her journals about pinching and hitting her children and how she's a bad person for doing that would absolutely

be admissible because that goes to show the relationship between the suspect and the offender. I say absolutely admissible by law, That depends on what judge you get. Depends on the judge's relationship with the defense attorney. Is the judge going to go by the law or is the judge going to try to even out the trial and make things fair for – make it a 50-50 proposition for each side. And I've seen both of those things happen. Go ahead. And back to this question about the journalists, because I was really interested to talk to you about this.

And actually, when we had Detective Michael Leon, we had not yet received this part of the public records request. So, regretfully, we did not get to talk to him about this piece of it. But these journal entries, I mean, for me, I'd never seen anything like this in case files where we had so much that was in a presumably unguarded kind of moment

of a really direct line into the thoughts of a perpetrator. We often have plenty in their narrative, right? But it's like a public narrative. So you sort of assume anything that's on their social media or that they're doing in the actual media, which we have plenty of that, Sophie too, right? But it's like a public narrative. So you sort of assume anything that's on their social media or that they're doing in the meat in the actual media, which we have plenty of that Sophie to write, she's on the local news, she's social media a lot. But you sort of assume that that's like a performance, right? And then this to have this sort of

interior view was very different. And I wonder, like, yeah, what did you think of this collection of Sophie's musings and what stuck out to you about those? You know, of course, you know, the major thing that stuck out is how she calls herself. I remember she said pathological or what word she used, but a pathological liar, basically.

And, you know, that's something I've gotten in interviews with several offenders and it's really the one true thing I think that I get out of interviews I mean I get a lot of minimization right I get a lot of admissions but never a whole true confession out of those writings that's the thing that really struck out to me. She calls herself an habitual liar, I believe. Which interestingly enough, Jessica Jones did the same thing. Oh, come on. I think it's compulsive. Is it compulsive?

But yes. Yeah. Anyway, same idea. Yeah, that really struck out to me. And obviously all of her admissions about her illness, her own illness falsifications, which showed just a pattern of behavior. I'm not an attorney. I'd be interested to see what an attorney had to say about those being admissible, specifically an attorney from the state of Washington. I think you may have problems getting them in the guilt-innocence portion of trial, but they would absolutely come in in punishment phase.

Interesting. Yeah. I was going to ask you actually if you thought, like how you thought these would have played at trial. The main thing they would have done is there was no way her defense attorney would let her take the stand because she makes one statement that she's an honest person. She makes one statement that I don't honest person, she makes one statement that I don't lie about anyone's health or I don't lie about health. She makes that statement on the

stand under cross-examination, that comes in, right? Those statements from her journal come in. So, and people mess up whenever they're under cross-examination all the time because they don't know. They don't know the legal system. No matter how much you coach them as a defense attorney, when they get up there, you never know what they're going to say. And it would have kept her absolutely from testifying at the minimum. But one of the things she says in the journal is, you know, we need a feeding tube. I need to push for this. So know, we need a feeding tube. I need to push for this. So she can't, those journals again, eliminate the defense of just saying, well, you know, I'm just following what the doctors tell me to do. My children are six and two, and both of them perennially have no appetite for actual meals,

while having a bottomless appetite for snacks. Snacks before dinner? Yes. After dinner? Also yes. Actual dinner? No ma'am. So with the snacks in our house doing such heavy lifting, I am so glad I have Thrive Market, my go-to online grocery store for getting all of my healthy essentials delivered. Thrive has so many on-site filters that make it simple to shop by your needs. Whether it's gluten-free snacks, high protein meals, or non-toxic cleaning products with brands that you won't find in regular grocery stores. I filter for high protein snacks to keep both me and my kids going. My new favorite thing on Thrive is their righteous felon beef and

turkey sticks. My kids also love their bare apple chips. Because did we buy a food dehydrator? Yes. Is it still in the box? Also yes. I also feel good about shopping with Thrive Market because they seek out the highest quality brands that follow ethical practices and strict quality standards. They also now accept Snap EBT and offer free memberships for low-income families through their Thrive Gives program. Love that. Ready to make the switch? Go to thrivemarket.com slash nobody for 30% off your first order, plus a free $60 gift. That's T-H-R-I-V-E market.com slash nobody, thrivemarket.com slash nobody. And remember that shopping our sponsors help support the show.

With tons of free reality shows, you are totally free to watch what you love on Pluto TV. And for me, that's Dance Moms, Bar Rescue, The Challenge, and Jersey Shore. All totally free on Pluto TV. Stream now, pay never. So her chronicles of C's actual sort of health journey, those would have likely been admissible in court, you think? Yeah. Yeah, and I mean, those are the most striking to me because, yeah, they do really show evidence of the planning

and this sort of, you know, I think between that and the internet search history that they found, you do really, it really does paint this picture of someone making and executing a plan and she expresses frustration with the doctors that don't want to go forward and she talks about, you know, help the doctors be brave enough to see the truth about C's health beyond the facade of how cute she is. And it's like, it's very striking that she's pushing this narrative of her daughter being so much sicker than anyone else thinks she is. And then there's all of this stuff about death. And that to me is just so striking given that we know she's writing this in the context of not having

been told by a medical professional that her child is going to die. And she's talking about having these conversations with God where God says, give see to me and talking, recounting conversations that she's having with her daughter about her going to heaven and etc. And that to me, I feel like even if you're sort of giving this the most generous read of whatever sort of explanation you could come up with of, oh, this is an anxious parent, this is a parent who really thinks she's doing the best for her child, I just don't see how you explain that away. Right. I don't either. And it's funny the way she, depending on who she's talking to, the way she tries to kind of couch that, right? I mean, she'll, some people she'll say outright terminal. Some people she'll say, well, we just never know how long she's going to live.

And then in her journal, she's wanting to give this child to God. And she's just all over the place, which is what you see in these cases. It really strikes a chord with me from what I've seen in past cases. It certainly seems to me looking at this case, and this is one of, again, an extremely thorough investigation that Detective O'Rourke did. And kind of like no notes on that, right? I mean, really did. Like, it seems like really she went above and beyond. Now that I know that she has a Facebook record, she did everything right. I can tell you where this case really went wrong, and that's where we see cases go wrong all the time.

You know, they separated the child when the child was inpatient at Seattle Children's. Child was recovered, was healthy, had no episodes, was doing great. And then family court places her with family members who do not believe that the offender is guilty. And this, you cannot do this in these cases. And look, that's not fair to Sophie's sister and Sophie's mother either, right? Because it is their daughter, they're going to be biased, they're going to have that internal bias to believe their daughter has not done this. And they may think they see things that are simply not

there, even if they're trying to be as honest as they possibly can, because Sophie is in their ear. So if you can't have contact with the victim, she can have contact with her mom and her sister all day long. And they're going to be looking for any little thing in this child in order to justify what Sophie has done. So that is that, again, and we see it all the time,

family court is terrible at understanding what this is and what to do about it. And you cannot make that placement with a family member that does not believe this is occurring. You will have failure every single time. Yeah, and two questions about that, or one observation, one question. I am curious, because something that's come up

in another case that we're working on is that there was eventually a family placement, but before that, for a period of time, they were placed with a medical foster parent. Because one of the things, if you have a child that has a really severe medical condition, is that it is not safe to place them with someone who isn't a very experienced caretaker. So obviously they would have given Sam and Sophie's mother Anne some guidance on what came up with the medical, but it was interesting reading between the lines of some of these reports that were in the second investigative summary about them reporting medical issues with C. And it strikes me that what we know from when C was discharged after the first shorter period of separation from Sophie while she was in the hospital is that she was physically doing really

well, right? That she was not, if she had been extremely medically fragile, presumably they would not, they either wouldn't have discharged her or they would have discharged her to a medical foster family, is that right? If she's ready for discharge, she would not necessarily go to a medical foster family, that's the court's decision on where the child goes

once she's ready for discharge. But I mean, this child did not have any symptoms while in the hospital and no symptoms. One thing, I hate to see this, but I know why they do it, but they left the feeding tube in even though she had shown she could eat with no issues. And when you do that and you release back out, now you're leaving access to an offender. Right? CPS is not sitting on the doorstep making sure that Sophie is not coming over to the house. Right? She did have visitation that was only supervised by some private company that they hired and

then also her mom and sister. Even I was reading in the investigative summary that on one of these instances, she brought food with her. And that just made me want to bang my head against her wall. And again, it just goes to show how lost family court is on this. You don't allow them to bring anything. I mean, Sophie could have poisoned food to cause symptoms. She could have been medicating the food. And the thing is about dystonia, which

is one of the main complaints by Sophie, you can also get dystonia through massive medications that you don't need. I've recently had that in the case. So all of that, I mean, it just, the family court handling of this was just butchered beyond belief. And I don't blame a CPS investigator for that. Who I blame for that is family court judges or CPS attorneys who did not bring the proper evidence

to family court judges to make a decision. And you know, we see it all the time. You know, I yelled and screamed at the top of my lungs about it. And CPS in my state doesn't seem to care. So I really don't know what to do about it. Yeah, and I think to your point about putting the mom and the sister in a really difficult position, because I think we both understand why kinship placements are preferred in a lot of situations, right? You're absolutely traumatizing a kid,

even if it needs to be done. It is traumatic for a kid to be taken away from their parents, and that is a hugely stressful and difficult situation and very sad. And if you can have them with people that they know and love, rather than people who are strangers, obviously that's preferable. But it creates so many issues in these cases, and in particular, then it puts the people who are doing that supervision in an impossible situation

because that's going to cause a lot of conflict with the parent if they are not being the maximally deferring to that parent. And you can see in this report how it read to me that Sam and Anne seemed very anxious about C's health. There was like an instance of them calling an ambulance for what turned out to be a behavioral episode and just this kind of like, well, we need a specific contact

at the hospital and just making this kind of like, well, we need a specific contact at the hospital and just making these kind of like, somewhat outrageous seeming requests. And I sort of assumed that that was coming from, from Sophie. They may not be necessarily actively lying to the police, but they are not seeing things clearly. And in fact, that was pointed out by Dr. McAtee when he said, if this child is placed with a maternal grandmother, if she's not able to clearly evaluate what's happening, that's going to be a huge problem.

Right. And it may not even be anything intentional. And another thing, another issue you brought up, we don't have the medical records, but I didn't see anything noted in Detective O'Rourke's report about the days that the victim was in the hospital after separation. There was no defiance issues. There was no issues like that at all.

So why is she now having defiance issues when she's in her placement home? Could it be that a six-year-old has no other way to act out when she knows that things are happening that should not be happening to her? And again, is Sophie telling him to give her medication? What is going on? It's very easy for Sophie to direct care. Very easy for munch house and by proxy, by proxy to happen in these cases when you place with a family member

that believes that their daughter could never do this. And that seems to be kind of where Sophie's mom kind of ends up on this. Yeah, it certainly sounded that way from her interview. And, you know, again, this is a really direct parallel, not surprisingly, since they had the same attorney, since my sister was working on this case. This is a direct parallel to the placement decision that happened in my niece's case,

where she was placed with my sister's in-laws, who were making no secret of the fact that they did not find these accusations credible and told the police that they felt like it was a witch hunt. That should eliminate them from placement right there. Right, and they admitted that they were letting my sister be there for 11 hours a day or something like that. And that's just not, you know, there's no way

that that's safe and we don't know, you know, what all was happening in this case, but certainly Anne has, did not then, and none of her family members have ever given any indication that they think that this was anything other than a false accusation. So I think that inability to protect the girls, even if their intentions were good, is really notable. And you know, if you have a family member that you know is protective, yeah, sure, that is a proper placement, right? Derek Jones is a good example.

That was a proper placement. He was protective of his children. He did not let her around them. But the health and safety of the child has to come first. And I don't know what we have to do to drive that through family courts head on these cases. We have made some progress in my county with family court, but it's very dependent on who the judge is still to this day. And across the country we are not making that progress. And that is something that I don't know how you change it. You know, they say all the

time the last two articles in the Juvenile and Family Court Journal on this abuse were in 1990, and so they are just lost. And I wish they would seek education on this. I've gone down that road and just hit dead ends every time I try. Yeah, so I mean, I do think that there is a possible role for, you know, prosecutors in these cases to be themselves better educated and able to educate judges when it comes to that. And in

this case, you know, we have this sort of interesting chain of events, right, where Sophia is charged. right, where Sophie is charged. And the detective consulted with the DA before that charge. Right. So they they said, yes, we are going to take this case. Go ahead and get the warrant. Got it. So does that not always happen? It does not. It's very dependent on from agency to agency on whether that occurs. Interesting. So that is kind of all systems go if the DA says, so like you take this step, you get this warrant, we're going to do something about it basically.

If you take the case, you shouldn't just then throw your detective in the grease. And when things get hard, say, oh, well, you know, family court didn't do the right thing, so we're not going to go forward with prosecution. But that's what appears to have happened in this case. So they absolutely had the criminal laws available to them to hold her accountable. They just chose not to. With the FIZ loyalty program, you get rewarded just for having a mobile plan. You know, for texting and stuff.

And if you're not getting rewards like extra data and dollars off with your mobile plan, you're not with Fizz. Switch today. Conditions apply. Details at fizz.ca. Rider, wave, set, move out. Yeah!

Riding a bike in the ride to conquer cancer is like being part of humanity's greatest. The money you raise, the time you spend, the energy that you give is helping people live, is giving people hope and that's just so beautiful. Care of the fire for cancer research. Join the ride at ridetoconquer.ca. You know, something I was speaking to a former prosecutor from this area, and we were talking about why all this sort of complicated constellation of reasons that these cases are so challenging. And one of the things that he brought up was cost. Yeah, absolutely.

So, you know, these are expensive cases at court. I think there is this completely divorced from reality assumption that, you know, the state has endless funds with which to pursue child abuse charges. And that is not the case. I understand where these are costly to try. And that makes sense. And I think a certain amount of, you know, realism and living in the world that we wish that, you know, that didn't come into play. And of course, it does. But I think that there's sort of a piece we're not looking at of what is the cost, like what is the actual financial cost of letting them go? Because number one, they turn around and wage these lawsuits. And it has really struck me covering so many of these cases over the years, what an absolute resource black hole these perpetrators are because they are taking up money and resources that are meant for legitimately sick children. And they're taking up space. You know, there are, there are, we know how imperfect these systems are. And there are parents who should, you know, get their children back. And it's like,

those things get shoved down on the docket. And it's they take up judges time, they take up, you know, I mean, they take up an unspeakable amount of resources. And so letting them carry on with that. And in fact, I think in many instances, adding fuel to the fire of, oh, now you can go on and say you were falsely accused of abuse and become the victim there and you have a new lawsuit and you have a whole new project. It really unleashes this absolute sort of, just like vector of resources that is kind of unmatched. And I think like you see it in this this case with Sophie and the fundraising and you see this in some element of this in all cases. I think there's just an element where these

people are really grifters at the end of the day. Yeah. I say all the time that they're at their core, they're con artists. It's just a different type of con. You talk about the resource suck of what the offender's taking up for other children. The cost to the child. This is a child that's going to be abused the rest of their childhood. If this is occurring, that's going to happen. Then probably about 80 to 90 percent of my cases are Medicaid cases.

This is also a cost to the public. It is an extreme cost to the public. And it can, I mean, it is an extreme cost to the public. You know, these cases can get over a million dollars, easily over a million dollars in Medicaid costs to the taxpayers. And so you have all of that. So when you make that decision as a prosecutor, you're basically protecting yourself over all of those other things. Yeah. And I've thought a lot about in this case in particular, so you have, you know, which is a pretty common pattern that, you know, you have a child that has one in a million

rare neurological disorder and they're seeking treatment from. And so basically, you know, by saying, and it's a false setup of does the child have the disease or not that will determine whether abuse is happening, right, because the child could have, she could have AHC does not negate the possibility of abuse. After reading Dr. Wainwright from children's that she does not have AHC, I feel pretty comfortable saying that in all likelihood she does not have AHC, but having gone through this case and having it

dismissed, that appears to have reinforced Sophie's narrative. And she has an accomplice in this, unfortunately. So Mike, you and I talk a lot about how there is a lot of misunderstanding about what the culpability of doctors in these cases is. Because you can get into this situation where people have asked you, well, what do you want me to do? Charge the doctors and then you explained how this law,

the law of parties works, where you're convincing someone else. So then it can be quite complicated. And so a lot of times, the doctors are victims as well. They have been used and it's horrible for them. They experience a lot of betrayal trauma. They end up being sued and dragged through the mud in the media. So the doctors in these cases can really go through a lot.

And the good doctors, unfortunately, the ones who get it the worst are the ones who reported, the ones who really step to the parent become the focus of that ire. And then there are doctors, unfortunately, who are a problem. And I fear we have one in this case because there's the question of this doctor, Dr. McCauley from Duke. And he, you know he had only seen the child a few times, but he was the one who gave this diagnosis of AHC. And then he spoke to the police on a number of occasions and said, I did not spend that much time with this child.

I know Dr. Wainwright from Children's, the neurologist. I would defer to him. He's an excellent doctor. I had helped to work with him some day. He trained at Duke. I would defer to him on the differential an excellent doctor. I'd help him to work with him someday. He trained at Duke. I would defer to him on the differential of whether this is an AHC case and whether this is Munchausen by proxy.

So he said all of that. And now somehow, C is back being treated at his clinic, which we know because Sophie posted a picture of Dr. Mercati with his arm around her daughter on social media in his clinic. And that is very distressing how a doctor would have those conversations with the police and then continue to treat this child for a condition that he... I can't find any plausible reason why he would not understand that this child doesn't have this

disease. So I did send him a letter and sent him just to make sure that he was aware of that sort of affidavit and that give him a little refresher on his conversations with the police. So I mean, what do we, how are we to think about the doctors that do end up playing a role in these cases such as this. Well, and what is his understanding of what happened? Is he being told, because the detective, once she gets a lawsuit filed, she's not going to talk to anybody. So, is he being told, well, she was found innocent, they messed up? What is he being told?

What is his mental culpability? And I would have no problem ever filing a criminal charge on a doctor. I do not care what your status is, and I never have. That is actually mentally culpable for the abuse of a child. I would have zero problem doing that. But you have to determine what's the culpability.

And then also what we don't know is, okay, she's being seen at his clinic, but have they now backed off doing anything invasive with her? Or are they continuing to do invasive procedures? Well, as far as I know, she still lives here and he is in North Carolina. So this is like a, you know, and we know this from talking to her friend, Chalice, that this was like this sort of pilgrimage they made every year, right? To go do a day at the clinic and do whatever they do there. I don't know that it involved, at least from what we saw their previous visits, that it involved any invasive procedures. So I had sort of, you know, as I was thinking about why this doctor would still be treating this child. And I mean, so

for one thing, you're right. He might not have known. He might have gotten one story from the parents. And now if I were a doctor in that situation and I knew the treating neurologist at Seattle Children's, I would probably pick up the phone. But- But if the lawsuits filed, is that treating, is his legal team gonna allow him to talk

to that other doctor now? That's a very good point. And I'm not, I am not defending a doctor here. No, no, no, no. These are good questions. I actually, I don't, the point of this is not to, the point of this is not to be an attack on Dr. McAtee. I am trying to sort through sort of what could possibly be going on with this doctor. And it was very, he was very clear that his entire diagnosis

was made based on the history provided by Sophie because she did not have the gene mutation, you know, that he said, I believe he said like it's in 80% of the kids and then 20% of the kids don't have it. She did not. I have fears about that 20% No sure. After seeing this. it. She did not. Right. I have fears about that 20% factor. No, sure.

But, um, but- Those are certainly our equal thoughts there. And, you know, it's an easy diagnosis for offenders to run to because, you know, there is no hard and fast diagnosis and all of it relies so much on history. Right. And so she was talking about her having these episodes and you don't necessarily catch that, much like epilepsy or something like that where you don't necessarily catch the episodes.

So yes, he did confirm that this was a clinical diagnosis, yes, when he talked to the police. And going back to Sophie's writings, you know, she says in her writings, one of the notes that really struck me is the note about the gene mutation and the fact the child didn't have that gene mutation and how she could lead, you know, she could be this special child that God can help the medical professionals determine, you know, all these new things. Just kind of lead to a scientific breakthrough. Yes, lead to a scientific breakthrough.

And I mean, that's obviously, to me, that just shows that pattern of her continually pushing for things. And I thought that was a pretty striking entry also. Yeah, and it really also is this sort of grandiose story about, because I think like, you know, we understand that these perpetrators know what they're doing and that they are culpable and that they are aware of their actions. And at the same time, I think something that Sophie's journal entries really give us insight into is that they are telling themselves a story about what they are doing and why. There was a lot of religious framing of she's going to bring souls to God and the harvest and that kind of thing. And then also with the, you know, she's going to bring so much insight to the doctors and lead to scientific breakthroughs

and that kind of thing. So you can sort of see her finding this very odd way to justify her behavior. But if we go back to Dr. Makati for a moment, you know, this is sort of a new insight for me because I have in general been defensive mostly of the doctors, right? Because I think we see the doctors getting so beat up and we see the doctors getting so pilloried. And so I think I sort of have this natural defensive position of, oh, it's not the doctor's fault, right? But then I really am increasingly seeing

that doctors really can be part of the problem. Yeah, so there's the possibility that Dr. Mercati just didn't know the outcome of this and that he was told by Sophie that it was all a mistake and whatever, and he just went with that and that's fine. So, you know, now I have emailed him and sent him that sworn affidavit, so now he knows. So now he has the information, right?

But I think it just strained credulity to me that someone would have all those conversations with the police, because he talked to the detective multiple times, and that they would have those conversations with the police and then not sort of see the red flags after that. And then I think to the question of like, you know, there was a question of like, well, maybe they are sort of aware that there might be a problem here and they are sort of continuing to see the child

to monitor them, right? So that is one possibility. However, in this case, because he sees her once a year at a clinic that's specifically for a thing that she doesn't have, that sort of doesn't make sense. And so what I worry about, and what I said to Dr. Mercati in this letter, is even if you are not doing invasive procedures,

you are co-signing that parent's story about what is going on with their child's health. You're doing it in front of their child and you're also doing it publicly because she is posting a picture of you standing in your clinic, you a doctor who is best known for treating this specific disorder. You are posting a picture of you and her child online that is is telling the child, that is telling other people who may question that diagnosis, that that's real. I'm also very concerned about the people who provided funding for Sophie to take these visits.

So you're telegraphing to all of these people, I approve this message. So that is continuing harm. Right. Right. Yeah. And the psychological harm to the child of going to the doctor just all the time and being continued to be told that she has something that she doesn't have. The only grace I can give him is if he's trying to control it. And if I was in his shoes, I would discontinue care. I would fire her as a patient, and not have her come back to the clinic. But what education does he have on this? Right? Because pediatricians aren't required to learn anything about medical child abuse,

anywhere that I'm aware of. In Texas, they don't have to take any CLEs on this abuse. They probably don't get it in any CLEs on this abuse. They probably don't get it in medical school unless they take a child abuse class. People who listen to this podcast will know more about this abuse than a pediatrician who doesn't. That's just a sad state of where we're at educationally here. What would really concern me is if the hospital, if Duke Children's is now advertising her or using her in promotions or anything like that, because then you get into a whole other ethical

situation. We can go back to the Olivia Gantt case in Colorado Children's and kind of that mess that they got into with that. And human nature is human nature. If you think that doesn't affect things, well, it does. It shouldn't, but it does. Well, and I also worry about, I think, and I think this is a dynamic that we're aware of and that is a concern regardless, but I think, you know, doctors are human beings

and they are susceptible to the rest of the human things that people with human things that we are. And it is threatening, I think, for any doctor to entertain the possibility that they have been used to abuse a child. That's a horrible thing. And I think that that may cause in some certain physicians, a certain amount of denial, even if they are faced with compelling evidence. And I wonder if this is specifically perhaps a bit potent for someone who studies something that

is so rare that they have a very small population of people that they're treating for this disorder overall. Because if it's thousands of patients out of your sort of sample size or 100,000s of patients, right? Well, that doesn't necessarily interfere with your work or your research. And I worry that like, if you have the sample size of 10, and one of them turns out to be an abuse case, that that could be just sort of psychologically threatening in a way that it might not be for like a general pediatrician. Again, this is just full on a theory, but I worry about doctors that study rare diseases

being targeted by these perpetrators because I think they are. Oh, absolutely. Yeah, absolutely they are. And I worry about them being susceptible because of some of these other factors. I mean, is that a concern that you share? Oh, those are two very valid concerns. And I think if you talk to some other members of the committee, they will back those concerns up.

They want their child to not only be medically fragile, but also to be very specially medically fragile in a lot of cases. And what's better than that than an extremely rare disease that hardly any children have, right? It's always the worst of the worst, right? And so yeah, these doctors are highly susceptible to this. And again, they don't have any training on medical child abuse. And it goes back to

the old medical adage, you know, when you hear hoof prints, you know, think a horse, not a zebra. And unfortunately, a lot of the very specialist doctors who deal with these very rare conditions often think they found the zebra when, you know, it's just a big old horse with medical child abuse on its side riding their way. There's an image. Yeah. Well, Mike, any other kind of final thoughts on this case and what we can learn from it? You know, I just wish prosecutors offices would seek education on this and learn how to address these cases so they're not intimidated by everything when it comes to them. And God please, family court judges, I don't know that we have any listen to this show,

but talk to your organizations. Get a training on this abuse. It certainly doesn't have to be me. There are plenty of other people with the impressive letters behind their name that your organization may want to bring in that can train on this. Any member of the committee for sure. Yeah, we got PhDs for gates guys. We can send them. Right. Get training on what you should do on these cases because to be very blunt, you're doing a terrible job by these children, family court judges. To be very

blunt. Again, I'm talking nationwide. We've gotten better in Tarrant County. We're far from great, we're far from good, but we're better with some of our judges. So I want to give them that grace. But overall, as a nation, family court judges are doing terrible on this abuse. Yeah. All right. Well, Mike, we're going to talk to you again about a bunch of other things coming up on the show. Oh, yes.

And thank you so much for being with us and congratulations on your new life as a published author. Mike And thank you for kind of helping me along to that published author status. Andrea Dunlop You got it. All right, thanks, Mike. 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.