Introducing: Nobody Should Believe Me — The Catalyst | EP 1

Summary

Betrayal Weekly

Introducing: Nobody Should Believe Me — The Catalyst | EP 1

Release Date: May 25, 2026

Host: Andrea Dunlop (with guest attorney Ethan Shapiro)

---

Episode Overview

This episode launches Season 7 of “Nobody Should Believe Me,” featured on Betrayal Weekly, and dives deep into the complex story of Maya Kowalski, exploring the aftermath of her family's explosive lawsuit against Johns Hopkins All Children’s Hospital. The main focus centers on the intersection of child abuse allegations, parental rights, and the evolving media narrative—highlighting how the well-documented abuse endured by Maya was reframed in the public eye as a case of “medical kidnapping.” Host Andrea Dunlop is joined by Ethan Shapiro, attorney for the hospital, to unpack how media portrayal, courtroom decisions, and internet-fueled conspiracy theories created widespread misconceptions about the case, and to discuss the real legal and child protection issues at stake.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Introduction to the Maya Kowalski Case

• Background: The Kowalski lawsuit became national news when Maya’s story was covered in New York Magazine, followed by the widely watched Netflix documentary “Take Care of Maya.”
• Narrative Shift: Andrea reflects on reading the original reporting and feeling the story was misunderstood (“I remember reading this article… thinking, I don’t think this reporter understands what actually happened here.” [03:02])
• Purpose of This Season: The podcast aims to clarify misconceptions and unravel the real facts behind the headlines, particularly regarding Munchausen by proxy abuse.

2. The Reality of Medical Child Abuse

• Evidence of Abuse: Andrea recounts the serious, well-documented medical child abuse Maya was subjected to—numerous ketamine infusions, dangerous experimental treatments, and her mother’s pursuit of a “terminal” diagnosis ([04:39]–[07:40]).
• Host Quote:

  “What actually happened to Maya Kowalski is that she was the victim of extremely well-documented Munchausen by proxy abuse.”
  — Andrea Dunlop [04:39]

3. Deconstruction of the Lawsuit

• Legal Claims: The Kowalski family brought forward claims from medical malpractice to intentional infliction of emotional distress after Maya was sheltered at the hospital and separated from her mother ([08:40]).
• Interview with Ethan Shapiro: Shapiro explains why the hospital followed mandatory reporting statute in good faith, and why the appellate court vacated the $261 million verdict ([09:09]–[10:09]).
• Notable Quote:

  “The appellate court sided with my client… finding that the hospital complied in good faith with the mandatory protection statutes…”
  — Ethan Shapiro [09:16]

4. Legal & Social Implications

• Parental Rights vs. Child Protection: Discussion about the tension between empowering parents to make medical decisions and the hospital’s responsibility to intervene in cases of clear abuse ([11:46]–[13:49]).

  “Hospitals are not Burger King. You can’t walk into a hospital and have it your way… especially on behalf of a vulnerable child.”
  — Ethan Shapiro [22:10]

• Broader Impact: The Kowalski case inspired copycat lawsuits, fueling a “medical kidnapping” conspiracy narrative ([13:49]–[15:30]).

• Host Reflection:

  “Medical kidnapping is deeply entwined with the idea that Munchausen by proxy isn’t a real form of abuse, that every allegation is necessarily false, a witch hunt against caring moms…”
  — Andrea Dunlop [13:49]

5. Child Abuse Pediatricians and Mandatory Reporting

• Hospital’s Unique Position: Shapiro explains how hospitals are uniquely positioned and obligated to shelter and protect children under court order ([14:34]–[16:12]).
• Judicial Process: There are extensive due process protections and investigative procedures before removing a child from parents ([49:20]–[52:34]).
• Notable Insight:

  “There’s this perception that a doctor… can pick up the phone and… within moments the child is taken away. That’s not how it works.”
  — Ethan Shapiro [49:20]

6. Media Misrepresentation and Storytelling Asymmetry

• Imbalanced Narratives: Andrea discusses how the documentary allowed plaintiffs to tell a moving story with photos, videos, and 911 calls, while the court restricted the defense from presenting critical evidence ([31:23]–[32:27]).
• Defense Frustration:

  “It was frustrating to some degree that that report felt necessary… to rebut insinuations of these false allegations.”
  — Ethan Shapiro [30:33]

7. Consequences & Chilling Effect on Child Protection

• Impact on Mandatory Reporting: Shapiro recounts how the verdict (before being vacated) made other doctors fearful of reporting abuse—worried about lawsuits, public shaming, and professional ruin ([40:29]–[43:31]).

• Powerful Quote:

  “Imagine if you’re on the front lines… and you are pausing… If it happens in a case that’s that obvious, then what happens on the cases that are more on the margins?”
  — Ethan Shapiro [40:29]

• Host’s Critique of Media:

  “Munchausen by Proxy cases are particularly easy to misrepresent in the media because of how misunderstood this form of abuse is.”
  — Andrea Dunlop [47:28]

8. Systemic Issues & Case Study Expansion

• Media’s Expansion to New Families: The documentary and subsequent reporting presented several families as alleged victims of Dr. Sally Smith, painting a nationwide crisis of doctors’ overreach ([54:41]–[57:13]).
• Example Sound Bite:

  “She’s evil. She’s a liar. She’s a malpractice valley.” — John Stewart [59:03]

9. Reflections on Justice, Children’s Rights, and Societal Values

• Rights of Children: Andrea and Ethan reflect on society’s reluctance to fully recognize children’s rights and the assumption that being with a parent is always best ([63:15]–[63:50]).
• Closing Challenge:

  “Parents have extraordinarily strong rights in this country and children are the ones that have very, very limited rights.”
  — Ethan Shapiro [63:15]

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• Andrea Dunlop:

  “People believe their eyes. That’s something that is so central to this topic because we do believe the people that we love when they’re telling us something.” [07:58]

• Ethan Shapiro:

  “Our system is set up where we have parents be the natural guardians… But it doesn’t give the guardian the unfettered right to demand treatment that medical providers know to be dangerous.” [22:10]

• On the Chilling Effect:

  “If you don’t call in something that’s setting off your alarm bells, how do you know that’s not the fourth or fifth time that child’s confided…?”
  — Ethan Shapiro [49:20]

• On Narrative Control:

  “Biota’s absence from this story is what really allowed it to take off. [She] was a complicated person… But in the retelling, Beata is flattened into an archetypal, self-sacrificing, heroic mother.”
  — Andrea Dunlop [39:05]

• Emotional Testimony:

  “She is illegally kidnapped numerous children… She has literally killed people. She has freaking abused children.”
  — John Stewart confronting Dr. Smith [59:16–59:41]

---

Key Timestamps

• 02:26 — Introduction of Maya’s story and initial media coverage
• 04:39 — Detailed review of medical facts and abuse allegations
• 08:40 — Legal context: Kowalski lawsuit allegations and dismissals
• 09:16 — Attorney Ethan Shapiro explains appellate court’s reasoning
• 13:49 — Rise of the “medical kidnapping” narrative and online conspiracy
• 14:34 — Hospitals’ unique role in child abuse reporting
• 22:10 — Who has the final say in children’s medical decisions?
• 31:23 — Disparity in courtroom storytelling and evidence restrictions
• 40:29 — The deterrent effect on mandatory reporters
• 49:20 — Explanation of child protection investigative process
• 54:41 — Docuseries expands focus to other families, claims of systemic doctor abuse
• 59:03 — John Stewart accuses Dr. Sally Smith outside the courtroom
• 63:15 — Reflections on the power imbalance between parental and child rights

---

Summary & Takeaways

• The episode critiques how a grim case of child abuse was reframed by both legal teams and the media as “medical kidnapping,” sparking a wave of copycat lawsuits and a dangerous chilling effect on child protection professionals.
• Through in-depth legal and journalistic analysis, Andrea Dunlop and Ethan Shapiro demonstrate the critical importance of understanding both the facts of individual cases and the broader child protection system—while confronting damaging misinformation.
• The narrative repeatedly stresses the cost children pay when systems built to protect them are threatened by misplaced protection of parental rights or sensationalist media coverage.

---

If you’re looking for a season diving deep into the messy, controversial, and often misunderstood intersection of child protection, parental rights, and media misrepresentation—this episode sets the tone for a raw, evidence-driven exploration.

Transcript

[Andrea Dunlop]

This is an I Heart podcast. Guaranteed human. Do you like breathing in propylene glycol? How about formaldehyde? Yeah.

[Ethan Shapiro]

No.

[Andrea Dunlop]

That's why you need to use Pura to make your home smell amazing. Choose from hundreds of gorgeous premium fragrances from the brands you love, with no parabens, phthalates or any of that other gross stuff. Just pure, beautiful scents. And Pura Diffusion technology adapts automatically to deliver a perfect, subtle fragrance in any room. Sophisticated and safe. That's PURA. Visit PURA.com to learn more

[Ethan Shapiro]

during Memorial Day at Lowe's Shop Household must haves for less. Save $80 on a Char Broil Performance Series 4 Burner Grill to chef up something special, plus get up to 45% off. Select major appliances to keep things fresh. Our best lineup is here at Lowe's. Lowe's we help you valid through 527, while supplies last selection varies by location. See lowe's.com for details.

[Andrea Dunlop]

Visit your nearby Lowe's

[Ethan Shapiro]

Amazon Health AI

[Andrea Dunlop]

presents Painful Thoughts I I can't stop scratching my downtown. Mm, yeah, but I'm not itching to

[Ethan Shapiro]

go downtown and tell a receptionist I'm

[Andrea Dunlop]

here to talk about my downtown. Some things you'd rather type then say out loud.

[Ethan Shapiro]

There's no question too embarrassing for Amazon Health AI. Chat your symptoms and get virtual care 24. 7 Health care just got less painful. You're listening to a podcast, so you're

[Andrea Dunlop]

doing something else too.

[Ethan Shapiro]

Like maybe scrolling home listings on Redfin,

[Andrea Dunlop]

saving places you like without thinking you'll

[Ethan Shapiro]

get them, because that's what house hunting has become. But Redfin isn't built for endless browsing.

[Andrea Dunlop]

It's built to help you find and own a home. Redfin agents close twice as many deals as other agents, which means when you find a place you love, you've got a real shot at getting it. Redfin helps turn saved listings into real addresses. Get [e-mail], own the dream. Please note that this show discusses child abuse, which may be difficult for some listeners. For resources about abusive head trauma, go to shakenbaby.org take care of Maya Trial

[Ethan Shapiro]

New details as well, in the Take Care of Maya trial well, Maya Kowalski and her family have waited now five

[Andrea Dunlop]

years to hear a verdict in their $220 million lawsuit against Johns Hopkins All Children's Hospital under the conduct of Johns Hopkins All Children's Hospital, in fact, harmed Maya Kowalski. What happened to Maya? That was the question posed by Diane Neary in her viral feature for New York magazine that ran in the fall of 20. There was that headline along with a close up of Maya Kawalski's eyes. I remember reading this article long before I'd end up reading thousands of pages of court documents, medical records, testimony and police records about the case and thinking, I don't think this reporter understands what actually happened here. And then of course, there was the Netflix film.

[Ethan Shapiro]

No matter what we did, the court sided with the hospital staff.

[Andrea Dunlop]

Judges don't care about evidence. Get to the truth by accepting what's in front of you without questioning it. And I realized that this was a lot bigger than just the Kowalskis. How many times are you allowed to be wrong and destroy lives before they say, okay, that's enough? These families walked in hoping for help for their child and some of them walked out in handcuffs. And this was followed by a high profile court battle. Nobody Should Believe Me had been on the air for about a year at this point. And this was the biggest story about Munchausen by proxy since Gypsy Rose Blanchard. So I felt like I needed to address it. I pulled in some experts for a roundtable discussion about the film.

[Ethan Shapiro]

My impressions were it was a huge opportunity lost. What they could have done is looked at the actual issues in this abuse they could have looked at. You know, in this case there was a.

[Andrea Dunlop]

And that was all I originally planned to do, but everyone else just kept getting it so wrong. But it is not the person who's doing the medical record review's job to interview every doctor. It's to look through those records. And that's how you put one of those. How do you get that?

[Ethan Shapiro]

Why do you believe that that's the case?

[Andrea Dunlop]

If she is making. If she is the sole person making the recommendation to the judge, the judge is relying on. She was not the sole person. She was not the sole person. I'm sorry. There was affidavits and testimony, numerous other doct testimony in the court. What actually happened to Maya Kowalski is that she was the victim of extremely well documented Munchausen by proxy abuse. In the year preceding her fateful hospitalization at Johns Hopkins, all children's Maya Kowalski was subjected to 55 infusions of ketamine, a powerful drug that can cause hallucinations, memory loss and bladder issues, among other side effects. Her treatment course also included a highly experimental five day ketamine coma in Mexico. Dr. Fernando Cantu, who performed the treatment, told Maya's parents that the procedure had a 50% chance of death. Maya was pulled from school wheelchair bound and dangerously underweight. Her mother, Biota Kowalski, an infusion nurse by trade, administered Ketamine, Dilaudid and other drugs orally, intramuscularly and into Maya's port at home, often against a doctor's orders. Biota talked online and elsewhere about Maya's impending death and pushed to get her daughter labeled as terminal and attempted to seek out hospice care despite the fact that complex regional pain syndrome isn't a terminal diagnosis. And that diagnosis was handed out to Maya by a dubious doctor after three world class hospitals diagnosed her with conversion disorder. On October 7, 2016, when Maya was hospitalized with reports of excruciating pain. 20 Biota told staff at Johns Hopkins All Children's that if they refused to administer the unheard of amount of ketamine she was requesting that they, quote, might as well consult hospice so she can finally get enough medication and just let her die. So how did such a clear and obviously life threatening case of abuse get twisted into a story about evil doctors kidnapping a child? What was going on here? Once I started pulling at this thread, I couldn't stop stop the case and the civil trial consumed my life for months. We just recapped this case in a miniseries, by the way. If you don't have time to listen to the previous 18 episodes I made about this, I ended up covering the trial as it unfolded over eight weeks, ending in a jury awarding the Kowalskis $261 million. And two years later, the story continues to unfold. Late last year, a Florida appeals court vacated the verdict and the Kowalski's request to reconsider the appeal decision was denied. And as all this has been playing out in court, the impact of Kowalski v. Johns Hopkins has been felt far and wide because as reporter Daphne Chen said in the trailer you just heard, this has always been bigger than just the Kowalskis. Kowalski lit the match, and no matter what ultimately happens in their court battle, the fire won't easily be contained. People believe their eyes. That's something that is so central to this topic because we do believe the people that we love when they're telling us something. If we didn't, you could never make it through your day. I'm Andrea Dunlop. Welcome to season seven of Nobody Should Believe Me. The Kowalski's legal battle had already been going on for years by the time the story got traction in the media. Jack Kowalski filed his original lawsuit in October of 2018, two years almost to the day after Maya was originally hospitalized with the defendant, Johns Hopkins All Children's.

[Ethan Shapiro]

So the original lawsuit against Johns Hopkins All Children's Hospital brought by the Kowalski family alleged a lot of Things, some of which were dismissed before trial. The original lawsuit brought claims for everything from malicious prosecution for the hospital and their health care providers, calling the Department of Children and Family Services, reporting suspicions of medical child abuse and neglect.

[Andrea Dunlop]

We spoke to Ethan Shapiro, an attorney for Johns Hopkins All Children's, about how this court case and its aftermath have played out.

[Ethan Shapiro]

The counts that survived included everything from medical malpractice for the alleged misdiagnosis of medical child abuse, the alleged failure to give what we consider to be extreme doses of ketamine and other dangerous drugs. There were allegations of battery and there were allegations of, of intentional infliction of emotional distress, some of which the family alleged caused the mother to commit suicide, as you saw from the appellate court ruling. The appellate court sided with my client, Johns Hopkins All Children's Hospital, ultimately finding that the hospital complied in good faith with the mandatory protection statutes and were not liable as a matter of law or as a matter of fact, for the unfortunate death of Mrs. Kowalski.

[Andrea Dunlop]

There were two possible far reaching issues with the Kowalski verdict had it withstood appeal. One is the potential legal precedent set by allowing a family to claim damages against an institution for a suicide. And the other, of course, was holding the hospital liable for reporting abuse.

[Ethan Shapiro]

The attempts to hold healthcare providers liable for mandatory reporting under Chapter 39 are rare, but not unheard of. In fact, if you looked at the published decisions, a lot of them are for the flip side, where, you know, for example, a parent whose child was ultimately abused or harmed is suing a state agency or a mandatory reporter for failing to report suspected abuse. Think, for example, you know, in the case of a contested divorce where a child reports symptoms of sexual abuse to a teacher and the teacher doesn't bring that forward. You could see a situation where the other custodial parent finds out about that and then would have a lawsuit or potential prosecution against a mandatory reporter. Now, all of that being said, we've seen a spate of these lawsuits more in frequency since the Kowalski case, since the movie, and since the fact that it survived the initial motions to dismiss based on the statutory immunity. How often do we see these types of cases go to trial? Incredibly rare. And I think they're going to become more rare now that the second District Court of Appeal has reaffirmed statutory rights and immunities for mandatory reporters.

[Andrea Dunlop]

The Kowalski lawsuit and its imitators position this legal battle very clearly as a parents rights issue, claiming that, quote, Dr. Smith and Johns Hopkins, all children's knowingly and recklessly violated Jack and Beada's constitutional right to make medical decisions for their child by refusing to discharge Maya following repeated requests from Jack and Biota, and by conspiring to abuse a process and legislative provisions designed to protect children from imminent harm. And while some of the counts of the lawsuit, such as conspiracy, malicious prosecution, and the first and Fourteenth Amendment claims were or dismissed before trial, the spirit of these claims remained. The plaintiff's story was that the doctors had conspired to separate Maya from her mother. They'd known their abuse claims were fake and they made them anyway. And their wanton disregard for this family had driven Biota Kowalski to take her own life. And these claims have served as inspiration for a number of other lawsuits around the country against child abuse pediatricians and hospitals from San Diego to Minnesota to Pennsylvania. According to these lawsuits, doctors aren't just making mistakes. They're all powerful entities who are conspiring to remove children from their innocent parents for their own financial gain and career advancement. The terminology varies depending on the venue, but there is in fact a name for all of medical kidnapping. Like any other conspiracy theory, it's hard to trace the exact origins of the term medical kidnapping, but it appears to have gained a foothold in parents rights focused Internet spaces sometime in the 2000 and tens and gained significant traction during the highly publicized Justina Pelletier case, a precursor lawsuit involving Munchausen by proxy. Medical kidnapping is deeply entwined with the idea that Munchausen by proxy isn't a real form of abuse, that every allegation is necessarily false, a witch hunt against caring moms, and that CPS workers and physicians are hiding behind their legal immunity protections. This concept has even deeper Internet origins than medical kidnapping itself, going back to the Mothers Against Munchausen allegations website which popped up in the late 90s. Medical kidnapping, like so many things, is a fringe idea that has migrated from the dark corners of the Internet into mainstream publications such as the New York Times and ProPublica People magazine, where Take Care of Maya producer Katelyn Keating worked when she discovered this story published an article in November of 2025 titled where is Maya Kowalski Now? All about her life after getting medically kidnapped 10 years ago. This was weeks after the verdict was reversed. So how did we get here and how did hospitals become such a target?

[Ethan Shapiro]

So hospitals are in a very unique situation for children that are at risk for suspicions of neglect or abuse, because often healthcare workers are the frontline defense in being able to diagnose it and being able to report it. If you think of a situation where a child would come into A hospital with an unexplained fracture that couldn't be a result of anything other than trauma, and potentially trauma in an area that couldn't be explained. In the absence of intentional abuse, the healthcare worker would be the one that would be in the best position to make that call of reasonable suspicion to the Department of Children and Families. Now, in that unique situation where the child's an inpatient in the hospital already, the easiest thing for the courts to do to try to find an immediate safe placement for the child before the court can figure out whether one of the custodial parents or perhaps a grandparent or a relative could be fill in that role, is to shelter the child immediately at the hospital. So hospitals are put in sort of a precarious position that other mandatory reporters don't have to deal with. Think firefighters, teachers. In some states, journalists are never going to be in the situation that the person making the report may also be the person required by order of the court to provide safe shelter to the child in the short and the medium term.

[Andrea Dunlop]

And does a hospital, once a child is sheltered there, does a hospital have any choice about whether or not to keep that child there under the law?

[Ethan Shapiro]

No. The hospital is required to follow the court order, just as anyone would be required to follow the court order. Now the hospital can make recommendations as to what they believe is in the best interest of the child from a medical standpoint, for whatever medical treatment is necessary. And if you remember back to the Kowalski case, once all children's reasonably believed that Maya would have benefited from, you know, intensive inpatient or outpatient psychotherapy to treat whatever her pain syndrome was, they made a recommendation to transfer to Nemours Hospital in Orlando, who are experts in that, so they can make recommendations. But absent an order from the court releasing the jurisdiction, the hospital has to keep the child in custody. Amazon Health AI presents painful thoughts.

[Andrea Dunlop]

Why did I search the Internet for answers to my cold sore problem? Now I'm stuck down a rabbit hole filled with images of alarmingly graphic sores in various stages of ooze. I can clear my search history, but

[Ethan Shapiro]

I can never unsee that. Don't go down the rabbit hole. Amazon Health AI gets you the right care fast. Healthcare just got less painful since he got out. Bad things keep happening. Cape Fear, a new series, is streaming June 5 on Apple TV. Why would I want to hurt you? Starring Academy Award winner Javier Bardem. Why?

[Andrea Dunlop]

And Academy Award nominee Amy Adams. He's coming after my family.

[Ethan Shapiro]

Kate Fear. Streaming June 5th on Apple TV. Hello, hello, this is Malcolm Glebel from Smart Talks with IBM. Today, we're diving into a fascinating conversation with Stefano Pallard, head of fan development for Scuderia Ferrari hp.

[Andrea Dunlop]

Your pronunciation is strongly American. It's more Scuderia Ferrari.

[Ethan Shapiro]

I'm still working on rolling my R's, but what I was able to learn from Stefano was the importance of engaging the Tifosi, the Ferrari superfans in the digital age.

[Andrea Dunlop]

Ferrari fans and super fans want to be part of something, want to belong to something. So they want to be part of a community and ultimately they want to

[Ethan Shapiro]

be part of a winning team. You've got Ferrari, which has a long history, design history, and now you're interacting in a kind of digital space. I'm curious how you balance those two traditions.

[Andrea Dunlop]

When it comes to fan engagement, it's really digital technology. And digital channels, are they enabled to create a deeper connection with our fans?

[Ethan Shapiro]

To learn more about how Ferrari and IBM are using technology to build deeper connections with fans, visit IBM.com Ferrari Life's non stop work Family workouts True nature meets New York strip steak. Richly seasoned, pre cooked perfection that melts in your mouth. 30 years supplying the finest steakhouses heat in 4 minutes. No stress, just nourishing joy. Head to TrueNatureMeats.com code free meat for 20% off plus free New York strip Texas smoked brisket and Mediterranean chicken with code free [e-mail] There are many worthwhile

[Andrea Dunlop]

critiques about how child protection is handled in the US and we're going to dig into those this season. But and sorry if this is a spoiler, there is no evidence that doctors are conspiring to kidnap children or even making a significant number of incorrect abuse diagnoses. So why has this idea gotten so much traction? What is this actually about?

[Ethan Shapiro]

I think what the plaintiff ultimately wanted to try was a civil rights case. And Andrea, when you spoke earlier about this, you know, influx of what's been called generously, a parents rights movement, which is always in tension with what may be best for the child. This case was, in the plaintiff's mind, one of those cases in the forefront. They brought constitutional actions that were dismissed. I mean, you heard the backstory from the Kowalskis escaping a communist system with the implication to only find themselves at the center of a deep state conspiracy amongst multiple actors to harm Maya and target the mother for reasons that were never fully explained, at least not with evidence. And as the second District said, there was no evidence of any intent directed at Jada Kowalski whatsoever. But that was certainly what they wanted to put in front of the jury. And that was certainly one of the things that they thought that they could exploit for the purpose, from my perspective, of drumming up your emotions.

[Andrea Dunlop]

The plaintiff's lawyers and the Netflix film told an emotionally evocative story about a suffering family. But by leaving out so much crucial information, that story obscured a very big question. What would have happened if there hadn't been a report? What if Beata had been allowed to carry on? Should parents just be allowed to give their children 50 to 100 times the recommended dose of ketamine and subject them to experimental procedures that carry a 50% risk of death? According to Jack Kowalski's post verdict comments in the press, yes, parents have rights

[Ethan Shapiro]

and they make the decision for their children.

[Andrea Dunlop]

Ethan disagrees.

[Ethan Shapiro]

So hospitals are not Burger King. You can't walk into a hospital and have it your way and demand medical care that is wildly outside accepted medical standards. You can't do it for yourself and it's going to draw extra scrutiny. If you're going to demand it on behalf of a vulnerable child or a vulnerable adult that truly cannot consent on their own behalf, and that's fine. Our system is set up where we have parents be the natural guardians of the children who are empowered to make reasonable medical decisions. Just the same way that you can be appointed to be the medical guardian for somebody who becomes old and infirm. But it doesn't give the guardian the unfettered right to demand treatment that medical providers know to be dangerous. You know, there are protocols and pathways for the safe treatment of chronic regional pain syndrome, for the safe treatment of conversion syndrome of factitious disorder. And none of them call for doses of ketamine that I think the evidence showed were 23 milligrams per kilogram per hour, which is more than what you need to anesthetize a 2,000 pound horse. So the parents have rights to direct reasonable medical care, but they don't have an unfettered right to direct and demand dangerous medical care.

[Andrea Dunlop]

The question of what rights children should have as human beings isn't a new one. And the tension between children's rights to be safe and cared for and their parents rights to make decisions on their behalf is something that hospitals have always been caught in the middle of.

[Ethan Shapiro]

Hospitals have been dealing with this for years. There are religious sects that do not believe in blood transfusions. So hospitals have attorneys on standby that they call at 2 in the morning to say we have a child here who's been in a horrific accident. The, the child's bleeding out. The only way to survive is to transfuse blood. And the parents are saying that they object on religious and moral grounds. We file motions with the court, we wake up the judge in the middle of the night, we get an order from the judge for immediate blood transfusions, and we transfuse the child to save the child's life above what the parents wishes are. That's the tension in society where you know, your religious rights and your rights to direct medical care. We've decided as a society end when it's going to jeopardize the life of a child. So it's not a new concept. It's not a new concept in the law, and it's not isolated to cases like this.

[Andrea Dunlop]

Halfway through the trial, just as the defense was going up, Judge Hunter Carroll ruled to dramatically limit testimony pertaining to Munchausen by proxy abuse. This was baffling, given that the abuse was the reason Maya had been separated from her parents in the first place. Not to mention the fact that the plaintiff had already been allowed to assert in their opening statement and had one witness testify that Biota Kowalski did not have Munchausen by proxy, which they framed as a psychological condition rather than a form of abuse.

[Ethan Shapiro]

So I'm certainly not here to, you know, criticize tough decisions made by the trial court on evidence, but to your question about whether this particular issue broadened the mother's psychological diagnosis, there could be ways you could start the trial and go through the entire trial where that becomes less of an issue. However, if the plaintiffs are permitted to stand up an opening argument and talk about how the collective they set about to destroy this family with an erroneous diagnosis of Munchausen by proxy, or to talk about how even though Johns Hopkins All Children's Hospital made the reasonable medical choice to try to escalate Maya's condition, whatever it may be to the specialists at Nemours, that the family objected to that because of this erroneous diagnosis of medical child abuse from Munchausen by proxy. That, from my perspective, necessitates the defense to be able to justify to the jury that's not heard this testimony for several weeks to justify that that diagnosis or that working diagnosis, whether it appears in the medical record or on medical billing, was made reasonably. And I think the question that you're getting to next is if that's true, then why didn't we, watching this trial, get to see all of Sally Smith's detailed report that the hospital relied on in part in arriving at similar diagnoses

[Andrea Dunlop]

And I think, you know, importantly, with the framing of this. Right. The question is whether there was, number one, cause for concern to make that immediate call. And then was there evidence of abuse that necessitated this separation period and her being sheltered in the hospital? And in fact, there was extensive evidence. And so that's the, the question. However, the plaintiff did have several witnesses testify that Beata, including Dr. Chopra, who is not an expert on this, that Biata Kowalski did not have Munchausen by proxy. And so they were permitted to testify, as you said, like in the negative, that this was an outrageous allegation and that, you know, Biata was a caring mother who was making appropriate medical decisions. So there was evidence allowed to be presented about Munchausen by proxy by the plaintiff. Can you talk about the decision that the trial court made halfway through the trial when it was the defense's turn to present?

[Ethan Shapiro]

So from my perspective, sitting at counsel table, it appeared the court wanted to refocus the trial on the remaining allegations. Medical malpractice, intentional infliction of emotional distress. And I think there were some battery allegations in there as well. And the court central question was what does the mother's state of mind or whether she suffers from the psychological diagnosis have to do with whether the hospital provided medically acceptable care to Maya Kowalski in the abstract? That's a completely fair question. Right. Because if you take it one step back further, my client's position from day one was whether this is CRPS or whether it's factitious disorder or conversion disorder or psychological pain response, the treatment for this is still not wild doses of ketamine. They're enough to anesthetize the horse. Now back to your question. You know, in real time, from my perspective, and it's just mine at defense counsel table, we felt it necessary to paint the full picture for the jury. So we didn't look like monsters that were coming up with this diagnosis to target the family. But in the abstract, that was the way the court was looking at the question in real time. And certainly that affected the presentation of evidence after that.

[Andrea Dunlop]

Yeah, because while there was quite a lot of evidence that was admitted at trial and during the pre trial period, I mean, this has been one of the benefits as a journalist about reporting on this case, is that we just have so much information to work with. There are only pieces of that that were actually presented at trial. I don't think Bianna's blog was ever presented at trial, which was a pretty strong piece of evidence. And so this, this trial court decision made it so that certain things that even were available to the public were not available to the jury. And then it also meant that the one piece of documentation that really tied all of this together from the person who had, you know, the highest level of expertise about child abuse and. And who had reviewed thousands of pages of medical records, and that would be Dr. Sally Smith's report. And that was never admitted into evidence. That remains private and sealed to this day.

[Ethan Shapiro]

It does, yes. Her report is confidential. I mean, the lawyers have seen it because we had the potential to introduce it into evidence. So I know what it says. Obviously, Dr. Smith knows what it says. The family knows what it says. The family did not want the jury to see it for understandable reasons. But ultimately, the court made the decision that the court made based on what I told you. That was what I understood to be the court's logic. You know, the court certainly had their reasons for following it. They were understandable to me in a vacuum. You know, it was. But again, it was frustrating to some degree that that report felt necessary, from the defense's perspective, to rebut insinuations of these false allegations or that they came out of nowhere. They were introduced by the plaintiff.

[Andrea Dunlop]

You know, as someone who tells stories for a living about abuse and specifically about this abuse, you have to really tie it together. It's not well understood. It's not easy for your average juror to understand exactly what the harm was to this child and what the danger that she was in. But, you know, just in terms of, like, the asymmetry in the storytelling that you have the plaintiff able to tell this very dramatic story, which they did with all kinds of tactics. Right. They had a lot of pictures. They played the 911 call. They had videos of the family. They had videos of Maya in pain. You know, they used a lot of elements to tell this story. Sort of did that decision kind of hamstring the defense's ability to tell a story that actually put the focus back on Maya.

[Ethan Shapiro]

Yeah, perhaps. So, again, from the hospital's perspective, and maybe let me take it a step back from that, and this is me talking, right, from my perspective, but it's based on a lot of conversations with healthcare providers. A parent coming in with a different belief of what their child has is not uncommon, and most healthcare providers are not offended by that. Like healthcare providers are human medicine is an art and a science. You have a constellation of symptoms, and sometimes reasonable people can disagree. That's why they call it a standard of care, not necessarily one, you know, correct diagnosis in every Circumstance. And where am I going with this, Andrea? So think about it this way. If somebody comes into a hospital or a doctor and says, I think my child's got irritable bowel syndrome, and what really helps them is if I give them, you know, an insurer and two Tylenol when they complain, the doctor could tell you, based on my test and based on my clinical diagnosis and the symptoms, I don't think your child has that. But if that's the only treatment you're recommending for what you think the diagnosis is, we're not calling DCF on you because you're not putting the child in danger. So merely because the hospital has a difference that, you know, we, we don't think. And when I say we, I'm speaking on behalf of basically every certified medical professional with the exception of Kirkpatrick and Hannah. We don't think Maya has CRPs, says Lurie's Hospital in Chicago, says Tampa General Hospital, says all Children's Hospital, and says everyone else in between, they're not calling dcf. The call was based on the fact that you're hearing evidence of immediate threat to Maya's life and either from the drugs that are being given or what the mother is saying that she's going to do if you don't put my child in a propofol or a ketamine induced coma. So, you know, going back to your initial question of, you know, how does this affect the presentation of evidence? I think it affects it to the degree that this is not just about a parent disagreeing with what the diagnosis is and, you know, portraying this as, oh, you Ivy League people up in your tower think you know what's best for my child. The imminent danger that a child could be in if the parents fervently believe and are disregarding medical advice from several world class and local providers is where the context needs to come for the jury to understand ultimately why the hospital was making reasonable decisions both in their medical care and their recommendations for future care.

[Andrea Dunlop]

Yeah. So take us to the verdict. What ultimately was the verdict and the award in this case?

[Ethan Shapiro]

Gross verdict I believe was for 261 million. That was set aside slightly by the trial court on some post trial motions. That verdict has been completely vacated or erased by the second District Court of Appeal finding there were multiple errors in the way that the chapter 39, the statutory immunity was ultimately applied. So right now there is no verdict against my client and no judgment that we're liable for. Amazon Health AI presents Painful Thoughts why

[Andrea Dunlop]

did I search the Internet for answers to my cold sore problem. Now I'm stuck down a rabbit hole filled with images of alarmingly quite graphic sores in various stages of ooze. I can clear my search history, but

[Ethan Shapiro]

I can never unsee that. Don't go down the rabbit hole. Amazon Health AI gets you the right care fast. Healthcare just got less painful since he got out. Bad things keep happening. Cape Fear, a new series is streaming June 5th on Apple TV. Why would I want to hurt you? Starring Academy Award winner Javier Bardem

[Andrea Dunlop]

and

[Ethan Shapiro]

Academy Award nominee Amy Adams.

[Andrea Dunlop]

He is coming after my family.

[Ethan Shapiro]

Cape Fear, streaming June 5th on Apple TV. Hello, hello, this is Malcolm Glabel from Smart Talks with IBM. Today. We're diving into a fascinating conversation with with Stefano Pallard, head of fan development for Scuderia Ferrari hp.

[Andrea Dunlop]

Your pronunciation is strongly American. It's more Scuderia Ferrari.

[Ethan Shapiro]

I'm still working on rolling my R's, but what I was able to learn from Stefano was the importance of engaging the Tifosi, the Ferrari superfans in the digital age.

[Andrea Dunlop]

Ferrari fans and super fans want to be part of something, want to belong to something. So they want to be part of a community and ultimately they want to

[Ethan Shapiro]

be part of a winning team. You've got Ferrari, which has a long history, design history, and now you're interacting in a kind of digital space. I'm curious how you balance those two traditions.

[Andrea Dunlop]

When it comes to fan engagement, it's really digital technology. And digital channels, are they enabled to create a deeper connection with our fans?

[Ethan Shapiro]

To learn more about how Ferrari and IBM are using technology to build deeper connections with fans, visit IBM.comferrari craving bold authentic taste without kitchen chaos. True nature meets Hawaiian Kahlua. Pork delivers slow roasted tenderness with smoky tropical notes. Pre cooked perfection. 30 years supplying the finest restaurants, chances are you've already had their pork heat in 2 minutes. Shred for plates or bowls, complaints turn to second helpings and laughter. Real meat, real flavor. Go to TrueNatureMeats.com code free meat for 20% off plus free New York strip Texas smoked brisket and Mediterranean chicken with code free [e-mail].

[Andrea Dunlop]

I've thought a lot about why the Kowalski story took off the way it did and how such a well documented abuse case got laundered to the extent of a sympathetic Netflix documentary and a quarter billion dollar verdict in court. It certainly doesn't hurt that Maya is a beautiful white girl with a dead mother, a sort of true crime Disney princess. But I think Beata's absence from this story is what really allowed it to take off. Biota Kowalski was a complicated person in real life, someone capable of subjecting her daughter to unfathomable abuse. She said she would put her daughter on hospice and let her die. I have no reason to believe that she wasn't serious about that threat. But in the retelling, Beata is flattened into an archetypal, self sacrificing, heroic mother, the one people want to believe in. And because she wasn't around to complicate this picture, the filmmakers and lawyers got to make her into whatever they wanted. And of course, Maya and her younger brother are incredibly simple, empathetic figures. They've lived through a multitude of traumas in their young lives. But the idea that the doctors were the cause of these traumas, rather than the intervention that likely saved Maya Kowalski's life, is counter to reality. But I have a strong sense that most people watching the film and cheering on the initial jury decision don't have any idea what this verdict actually meant.

[Ethan Shapiro]

From my perspective, had this verdict remained, this would have continued to be a massive chilling effect on the ability of mandatory reporters to report their suspicions of medical child abuse, physical child abuse, mental child abuse or neglect without the fear of being prosecuted in a civil court, being prosecuted in the court of public opinion, and potentially having your life and your finances and your professional license ruined. And unless you're on the front lines of this. I represent hospitals for a living. So I have a lot of people call me with questions. What do you think in this scenario? And I remember one that really haunted me. It was about two weeks after the verdict and I had a client, a doctor, call me who was an ER physician and said, I have a child in here, she's an 11 year old girl, she's got a severe vaginal infection. And the person who's posing as the parent doesn't seem to speak the same language as her, right Flashing red lights for child trafficking and sexual abuse. And her question was, if I call this, do I have to attach my name to it? Which in Florida, Florida you do if you're a health care provider, can that be discoverable and can I be sued? And the answer to all of those questions are yes, yes and yes. And you know what I have to explain in this, While you can be sued, one would hope that given the fact that you have what I think is more than a reasonable suspicion, that should you be sued, we'd be able to get the case dismissed right away. Which always leads to the next question, then, what happened in Kowalski. Right. And I'm not trying to make it so simple to say that, you know, there's no scenario that any mandated reporter could step above or beyond the bounds of immunity, even though I believe in the second District, seem to agree that the evidence was that all children complied in good faith with their mandatory reporting obligations. But imagine if you're in that situation on the front line of protecting children, and you are pausing, and that's what I'm talking about in terms of the chilling effect. If it happens in a case that's that obvious, then what happens on the cases that are more on the margins and when the statute is written where these people can be prosecuted for failure to report a suspicion, not a substantiated belief, but a suspicion, then I think from my perspective for those two years, the chilling effect was very real.

[Andrea Dunlop]

Much of the media surrounding these cases emphasize the idea that doctors and child abuse pediatricians are rushing to judgment. Diane Neary, the journalist I mentioned up top, recently did a season of serial called the Preventionist where she hammered her argument against child abuse pediatricians with these words in the series finale. I'm saying even one pause, one wait a second, might be the difference between a family staying together or being broken apart. But as Ethan says, there's a very real cost to that pause, and children are the ones who pay it. We don't have to guess what happens when doctors start ignoring warning signs of abuse. The deaths of Olivia Gant and Colin McDaniel tell us how that story ends, how Maya's story could have ended. The fate of Justina Pelletier, whose parents lawsuit was the precursor to the Kowalskis, shows yet another possible path. The Pelletiers lost their lawsuit against the hospital, but they did get their daughter back. Now in her 20s, she is deeply impacted by her ongoing health issues. It seems very unlikely that she will ever live an independent life. So the big question now is, did the appeal, which barely made a blip in the media, put us back on the right track?

[Ethan Shapiro]

The 2nd District's decision in favor of my client was, from my perspective, very well written, very lengthy, very thorough analysis of the way the lot is right now. I believe that is going to be a vindication of the rights and duties of mandatory reporters so long as they're staying within the law, complying in good faith with their rights and obligations under the law. So my optimistic view of this is that the decision in favor of my clients is going to vindicate the rights and responsibilities of all mandatory reporters. Now, the attack for which those of us and I put myself in that camp, believe that the law should remain broad, that we would like to, you know, we would like the state to be aware of reasonable suspicions of abuse, the vast majority of which are screened out without any action or any interference of parents rights. But I think if there's going to be an attack from the camp that believes these laws are too restrictive, that parents should have closer to unfettered rights to make decisions of their child, even if from the mind of a reasonable person, that those decisions are harming a child, I think you're going to see the attacks at the legislative end because from the court's perspective, they're interpreting the law as it's written. If you read the 2nd district's opinion in favor of my clients, they're doing an excellent deep dive into here's what the statute says, here's what the entire statutory scheme is. And based on our interpretation of the statute, here's what the decision should ultimately be in favor of Johns Hopkins All Children's Hospital. And if people want to undo that, it's not going to be by bringing case after case. It's going to be lobbying for legislators to roll this back. It could be rolled back with something as simple as changing the criteria of mandatory Reporters have to report a reasonable suspicion. You could change that definition to say they're only required to report substantiated complaints that are verifiable through a panel of three medical experts. That would make the standard for a report so infinitely high, it would only catch those that are so egregious. These are societal questions. And for the past 60 years, society has decided to cast this net very broadly. You're at the front line of this, Andrea, and if you're sensing a sea change, you should be alarmed.

[Andrea Dunlop]

As Ethan indicates, I've been keeping an eye on the shifts in these conversations around doctors, abuse and parental rights. In fact, it's baked into my origin story. My sister Megan Carter was covered in Mike Hixenbaugh's series Do no Harm, along with a whole host of other families who claim to have been falsely accused of abuse by doctors. And Hickson Bogg isn't alone. Similar stories have made the pages of USA Today, the New York Times serial podcast, New York magazine, and this one really hurt ProPublica. And as I've tracked these stories, I've noticed a trend. While cases of false accusations of Munchausen by proxy often make big headlines, as they did in the Justina Pelletier case and the Maya Kowalski case, there are a bunch of other Cases being ushered in with them that are seemingly much more straightforward physical abuse cases. Munchausen by Proxy cases are particularly easy to misrepresent in the media because of how misunderstood this form of abuse is. If you leave enough context out, you can frame a perpetrator as a heroic, embattled mom, especially because perpetrators themselves, themselves have often put in years of work to build that image. By the time these false accusation stories end up in the press, the media coverage of their cases becomes another part of their whole grift, another opportunity to play both the victim and the martyr, to pull one over on not just the journalist, but their entire audience. And Munchausen by Proxy stories are by their very nature difficult to unravel and get to the bottom of. It's also really important for anyone reporting on child abuse to understand how these systems actually work, because that pause that journalists like Neri are asking for, it's already happening. There already are systems in place to rule out abuse and protect families from being unduly separated from their children, but that part doesn't make such a juicy headline.

[Ethan Shapiro]

So this is my personal opinion on this. It's the same when you watch Law and Order and they skip jury selection because it's boring and long. And, you know, all of a sudden you've got a jury and you're starting. But that's kind of one of the most important elements of, of this. And until you do it, you don't really realize how much goes into that process. This is the same with the due process rights. After a call is made and there's this perception that, you know, a, a doctor or a, any mandatory reporter can pick up the phone and call the suspicion of abuse or neglect, and within moments the child is taken away from the parents. That's not how it works. There are, as there were in Maya Kowalski's case, there's an investigation. There has to be a well documented file that is brought before a judge who's going to look at that at multiple stages, the emergency stage. Is this an emergency where the child's at imminent risk, where I have to put a shelter order in place because there's obvious signs of abuse, neglect, sexual abuse, or someone threatening to take the child into hospice to put them under? Is this a situation where, you know, I can do something temporary by saying, like, you know, here's an injunction against giving this medication, but everybody cool off and come back in a week. And, you know, the child's going home with the parents. And so your listeners have to remember that there's A lot of due process. And from my experience, and I will admit I don't have a lot of experience in front of the dependency court, but from my, what I would admit to be somewhat limited experience, the judges are very reluctant to start interfering with parents rights unless they have to. The other thing I would tell you is, yes, I can completely understand a situation of a mandatory report order, thinking, okay, the child has confided in me that, you know, dad spanks them. Right? Something that I think reasonable minds in society can think. There's degrees of that. And maybe I don't spank my kids, but we're not going to start separating every child from their parent who gets a swat on the butt, even if I don't think that's appropriate behavior. But if you don't call in something that's setting off your alarm bells, how do you know that's not the fourth or fifth time that child's confided in somebody? Why wouldn't you let the agencies that are, that are trained to track these think, huh, that's the fifth time now that I've got a call from five different teachers saying that that kid was subject to some type of corporal punishment at home that made the child uncomfortable, maybe we should investigate this, because these kids now come forward five times. And so that's the type of thing that when you get rid of the reasonable suspicion standard, you're also getting rid of the ability of trained professionals to track whether there's a pattern that may, in isolation, not seem threatening to the welfare of a child or a vulnerable adult, but over time lets them track potential problems.

[Andrea Dunlop]

Do you think that medical professionals would still report if they weren't required by law, but they knew that they would be protected by the law?

[Ethan Shapiro]

In my experience, having gone through this, perhaps the most heroic thing that I've heard from my clients that participated in Maya Kowalski's case who were raked over the coals in the court of public opinion, raked over the coals in a biased movie that gave no effort to give context, intentionally concealed deposition testimony that would have put the hospital in a much more favorable light, were dragged into a forum and subject to intense public scrutiny. When you ask them, was this worth it, their response is, if it helped a child get onto a road where they detox from drugs that could have potentially killed them, put a child on the road where they're running, where they're back in school, where they're able to maximize their potential, I would do it again. So, you know, when you say all health care providers, you know, of course there are some that are going to wash their hands of the situation. But when you really look at the people that have dedicated their lives to pediatrics, they're not in it for the money. There are much more lucrative areas of medicine that people could go into. I am optimistic that if you tweaked the law, you would still get a lot of people on the pediatric side that would err on doing what they needed to do to protect the child, so long as they knew that they had statutory protections should their reasonable suspicion be opposed by somebody.

[Andrea Dunlop]

Sometimes Munchausen by proxy cases come to a head in a dramatic moment the way that Maya's case did. But it's always preceded by a pattern of abuse over time. But so many cases in these compendiums of falsely accused parents are not Munchausen by proxy cases, but cases of abusive head trauma, a form of child abuse that, unlike Munchausen by proxy, involves a specific incident and about which there is a huge degree of medical and scientific consensus on how to diagnose. So how were these stories ending up in the same bucket as Munchausen by Proxy? Though the Kowalski case is the main focus of Take Care of Maya, the film widens its lens to four other families who claim they've also been falsely accused of abuse by the child abuse pediatrician, Dr. Sally Smith. And as the credits roll, a montage of families from around the country plays. These parents also say they've been falsely accused by doctors. Here's reporter Daphne Chen in Take Care of Maya. It was January 2019 when I hit publish on that piece about the Kowalski family and I kind of thought I'd move on to the next thing. But that was when the call started coming in and the email started coming in and I realized that this was a lot bigger than just the Kowalskis. I'm sitting at my desk and I start hearing from more and more families, people who had gone to the doctor for help for their kids and then became the target of the system. These families walked in hoping for help for their child and some of them walked out in handcuffs. And this helps frame Jack Kowalski's legal crusade as addressing a systemic injustice. He's not just dragging his traumatized children through a highly publicized years long legal battle for a payday. He's there on behalf of all falsely accused parents who've been victimized by the system. Here's Viviana Graham, one of the other parents featured in the film.

[Ethan Shapiro]

This young girl, Maya, represents hope for

[Andrea Dunlop]

all of us in bringing Sally Smith down. Bringing the System down. This is the framing throughout the varied media stories and lawsuits around the country. Out of control child abuse pediatricians. Falsely accusing parents is a systemic issue that needs reform. I started off reporting on the Maya Kowalski case from the outside, following the trial and reading huge piles of legal documents. But then midway through my reporting, I got a voicemail.

[Ethan Shapiro]

Hi, Andrea, this is Patrick. I am Dr. Sally Smith's son.

[Andrea Dunlop]

The media at this time was excoriating Dr. Sally Smith, the child abuse pediatrician in the Maya Kowalski case, calling her vile names and and criticizing every minute of tape from her depositions. Seemingly every family who'd ever been involved in a case that she'd provided an evaluation for sprang forth to claim that it was not their children who'd been the victims, but they themselves, innocent parents who'd suffered at the hands of Dr. Smith. I was the lone voice in the media who seemed to understand that far from being the villain of the Maya Kowalski story, Sally Smith, along with the care team at Johns Hopkins, all children's, had been one of its heroes. People were not happy with me for this take. In fact, my reporting on Dr. Smith landed me my very first death threats. After the trial was over and the quarter billion dollar verdict rendered, I flew down to Florida to interview Dr. Smith. By the time I sat down with her, I knew the Kowalski case up, down and sideways. And of course, this was Munchausen by proxy, my area of expertise. Expertise. But I became curious about the other four families in Take Care of Maya who were alleging that they were victims of Dr. Smith. There was one story that really stuck with me, in particular that of the sole male voice in this cohort, a Florida man named John Stewart, who claims he was falsely accused of the murder of 15 month old Nolan Kelly. Here he is in Take Care of Maya. I spent over 300 days in jail before they finally dropped the charges. They ruined my life because of it. In addition to his fleeting sound bites in the film, John inserted himself into the courtroom drama by showing up on the day Dr. Sally Smith testified he confronted her outside of the courthouse and filmed the aftermath, which was shared on TikTok.

[Ethan Shapiro]

She's evil. She's a liar. She's a malpractice valley.

[Andrea Dunlop]

She freaking charged me with a crime that I did not commit. The medical evidence clearly shows that I was innocent and she has never been held accountable. She's freaking medically kidnapped Maya Kowalski.

[Ethan Shapiro]

She needs to be held held accountable. The fact that you as a deputy

[Andrea Dunlop]

are not arresting her disgusts me and disturbs me on every level. She has killed people.

[Ethan Shapiro]

She has literally killed people. She has freaking abused children. She has harmed children. I am replaced reporting this to you. I want her arrested for that. Please arrest her for that.

[Andrea Dunlop]

She is illegally kidnapped numerous children.

[Ethan Shapiro]

She has illegally imprisoned numerous parents without any medical evidence, and she has not been held accountable. And I'm begging anybody in law enforcement

[Andrea Dunlop]

to do their job and hold that

[Ethan Shapiro]

evil psychopath, narcissistic scum bag accountable.

[Andrea Dunlop]

There were almost no details in the film about what happened to Nolan Kelly or any of the other children. But on my way to interview Dr. Sally Smith two years ago, I read the media coverage of John's case. The most thoroughly reported account of John's case was in the Sarasota Herald Tribune. It featured four pictures of John, two of which showed him in his military uniform. There's only one picture of Nolan. He's standing outside with one of his siblings, pantsless as one year olds often are. He has adorable tufts of curls and his big dark eyes look up into the camera. I had so many questions about what really happened to Nolan. I was overwhelmed by sadness reading about it. He'd been 15 months old when he died, a month younger than my own son was then. The part of me that was curious to know more was drowned out by the part of me that couldn't bear to. So I let it go. Until two years later, I got a message.

[Ethan Shapiro]

Well, I was actually watching Dateline, and a show about Dr. Vega being involved came on. And I was like, you know, I started. So I started. I started thinking about some things, but so then I asked them, you know, about my case in particular, ChatGPT, and

[Andrea Dunlop]

it brought up your podcast.

[Ethan Shapiro]

So I looked at it, listened to

[Andrea Dunlop]

it, and saw that. I felt that you were basically defending Sally Smith erroneously. So, yeah, so that's why.

[Ethan Shapiro]

That's why I reached out to y',

[Andrea Dunlop]

all, because I didn't feel that.

[Ethan Shapiro]

That it was right that she basically

[Andrea Dunlop]

got to lie again. Coming up this season on Nobody Should Believe Me.

[Ethan Shapiro]

I think inevitable conclusion that this is

[Andrea Dunlop]

not accidental trauma in the child. The ME ruled this a homicide, right?

[Ethan Shapiro]

Yes. Correct.

[Andrea Dunlop]

One of the main problems with the system is that it is focused so much on poor people that it ends up really missing serious cases of abuse.

[Ethan Shapiro]

Then the question is, just because something makes sense, is it true?

[Andrea Dunlop]

These things that they introduce as speculative

[Ethan Shapiro]

is just to throw off the court.

[Andrea Dunlop]

The court is not a medical arena. It's a legal arena.

[Ethan Shapiro]

Reviewed thousands and thousands and thousands of

[Andrea Dunlop]

pages of documents about this child and ended up up producing a 45 page report delineating all of the different ways

[Ethan Shapiro]

that there was evidence of medical child

[Andrea Dunlop]

abuse in the case. The arguments were the exact same tactics I had spent two years exploring with vaccines. I didn't have to go through the whole, let me look into this because I recognized them. I think he knows exactly what happens. I think blacking out is just a cop out excuse. He knows what he did is horrific. I mean, just watching him, I think he's a dangerous person. And I think, frankly, if you put this on the airways, you may escalate it.

[Ethan Shapiro]

Parents have extraordinarily strong rights in this country and children are the ones that have very, very limited rights. Come on. I mean, that's, if you can't get

[Andrea Dunlop]

your mind around that, like there's, there's

[Ethan Shapiro]

no point in even talking anymore. Seriously, the assumption that being with a parent is always going to be the best solution, it will always feel wrong to me. I, I will always grieve that I didn't get those years in a situation away from my parents.

[Andrea Dunlop]

Nobody should believe me is written, reported and executive produced by me, Andrea Dunlop. Our co executive producer is Mariah Gossett. Our editor is Greta Stromquist. Story editing by Nicole Hill. Research and fact checking by Erin Ajayi Additional research by Jessa V. Randall Mixing and engineering by Robin Edgar. Our production manager is Nola Carmouche. Music from Blue Dot Sessions, Sound Snap and Slipstream. Special thanks this week to Ethan Shapiro.

[Ethan Shapiro]

This is Osvar Losin from Tech Stuff

[Andrea Dunlop]

and I want to tell you about

[Ethan Shapiro]

Keeper Security because unlike built in password managers, Keeper works across platforms which allows you to securely share information with your family, with your colleagues, with your friends. And I personally store things like passport and credit card details so I'm not scrambling every time I travel, which makes my life more efficient. And when you're busy, but also focused on security like I am, that is absolutely critical. Keeper is offering a 50% discount on personal or family subscriptions using the promo code [e-mail] at checkout this is Jacob Goldstein from what's yous Problem? When you buy business software from lots of vendors, the costs add up and it gets complicated and confusing. Odoo solves this. It's a single company that sells a suite of enterprise apps that handles everything from accounting to inventory to sales. Odoo is all connected on a single platform in a simple and affordable way. You can save money without missing out on the features you need. Check out odoo@o-o o.com that's o d

[Andrea Dunlop]

o o.com Most dog food brands don't really want you seeing how their food is made. Just food for dogs is the opposite. They actually invite you in. You can walk into any of their kitchens and see real human grade ingredients like chicken, beef, carrots and peas being prepared right in front of you. It's real food made in real kitchens. Nothing is hidden behind labels and that kind of transparency says a lot. Nothing to hide, everything to love. Go to justfoodfordogs.com and get 50% off your first order. If you're feeling off fatigue, mood changes, skin shifts, yet your labs say everything's normal. You're not alone. Meet Oestra from Inner Balance, the first all in one prescription strength bioidentical hormone cream that's natural and effective and only takes one drop, 10 seconds a day. Oestra replaces five to six products women typically use to treat symptoms and is third party tested to ensure the highest quality. Visit innerbalance. Com today to start feeling like yourself again. That's innerbalance. Com. This is an iHeart podcast. Guaranteed Human.