Prosecutors Seek Death Penalty for Mom Accused of Murdering Twins Who Died 8 Days After Vaccines

Idaho prosecutors will seek the death penalty for Andrea Shaw, a young mother charged with murdering her twin toddlers, dramatically raising the stakes in a criminal case that has drawn national attention.

In a notice filed late last week in Idaho’s Third Judicial District Court, Payette County Deputy Prosecuting Attorney Ryon Sirucek identified four statutory aggravating factors that prosecutors intend to use to justify capital punishment if Shaw is convicted of first-degree murder.

Under a law that took effect in July 2026, firing squads are Idaho’s primary method of execution. The legislation followed a botched 2024 attempt to execute a 73-year-old man by lethal injection.

Prosecutors must prove at least one statutory aggravating circumstance before Shaw can be considered eligible for the death penalty. If Shaw is convicted, a jury would determine whether those circumstances exist.

According to the filing, prosecutors identified four aggravating circumstances: that Shaw allegedly committed two murders at the same time; that the murders were “especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel, manifesting exceptional depravity”; that she exhibited “utter disregard for human life”; and that her conduct demonstrates a propensity to commit murder that would make her a continuing threat to society.

Shaw was indicted by a grand jury and arrested on June 30 for allegedly deliberately suffocating her twins, who died on May 1, 2025. Prosecutors allege Shaw killed the children while they were sharing a bed. Her trial is scheduled to begin Jan. 11, 2027.

Shaw, who pleaded not guilty, has consistently denied the allegations. She suggested that her twins’ deaths may have been caused by the vaccines they received at a routine doctor’s appointment just over a week before they died.

According to court documents filed by her defense, Shaw took the twins to the emergency room on April 24, 2025, the day after they received routine vaccinations, because they were lethargic and their lips had turned blue.

The treating emergency room physician diagnosed both children with a “post-immunization reaction,” the filing states.

The children remained ill in the days leading up to their deaths, and Shaw repeatedly sought medical advice.

Neither the police nor the prosecution have publicly outlined the evidence they believe supports their claim that Shaw deliberately killed her toddlers. The grand jury indictment is sealed and not publicly available, and the coroner reports have not been released.

Shaw’s bail was initially set at $2 million. A district judge in Payette County, Idaho, later revoked the bail, which is discretionary in capital cases.

Keep reading

Idaho’s Landmark Medical Freedom Act Survives First Legal Challenge

A federal judge last week upheld the Idaho Medical Freedom Act, ruling that daycares cannot require children to receive vaccines or other medical interventions. Attorney General Raúl Labrador said the ruling confirms that “parents make medical decisions for their children. A daycare does not.”

A federal judge has upheld Idaho’s new medical freedom law, ruling that daycares cannot require children to receive vaccines or other medical interventions as a condition of attendance.

Chief U.S. District Judge Amanda K. Brailsford last week dismissed a lawsuit brought by a Boise-area daycare and three parents who challenged the Idaho Medical Freedom Act. The act, signed into law in April, prohibits most medical mandates, including vaccines.

Brailsford rejected the plaintiffs’ claims that the law is unconstitutionally vague, violates parents’ rights or infringes on the daycare’s First Amendment rights.

Leslie Manookian, president of the Health Freedom Defense Fund and author of the law, said the ruling confirmed what she intended the law to do.

“Medical freedom, the right to make one’s own medical choices, is such a sacred and basic human right it astounds me that anyone could see otherwise,” Manookian told The Defender.

She said the law “protects an individual from public and private actors bullying, coercing and intruding into their personal and private medical choices or punishing them for their choices.”

Manookian also said she was “delighted that the federal court interpreted the law … as a safeguard against overreach” by government and private actors, including daycares.

‘A daycare does not’ make medical decisions

Idaho Attorney General Raúl Labrador, whose office defended the law, said the ruling confirms that parents — not businesses — are in charge of their children’s health.

“Parents make medical decisions for their children. A daycare does not,” Labrador said in a Sept. 22 statement. “The Legislature protected that choice in the Medical Freedom Act, and the court upheld it.”

Labrador added that daycares can continue telling parents what they believe about vaccines and health, but “they cannot turn a child away because of a parent’s medical decision.”

The attorneys representing Le Soleil Child Care LLC and the parents said they may appeal.

“Our clients are obviously disappointed by the district court’s ruling and the narrow manner in which it interpreted the right at issue,” attorney Andrea Carone said in a statement to the Idaho Statesman.

Carone argued that the law leaves daycares unable to take what the plaintiffs consider “reasonable steps” to protect children from diseases that vaccines can prevent. She called it “a clear public health issue” that the Idaho Legislature must address.

Keep reading

Idaho’s Landmark Medical Freedom Act Survives First Legal Challenge

A federal judge has upheld Idaho’s new medical freedom law, ruling that daycares cannot require children to receive vaccines or other medical interventions as a condition of attendance.

Chief U.S. District Judge Amanda K. Brailsford last week dismissed a lawsuit brought by a Boise-area daycare and three parents who challenged the Idaho Medical Freedom Act. The act, signed into law in April, prohibits most medical mandates, including vaccines.

Brailsford rejected the plaintiffs’ claims that the law is unconstitutionally vague, violates parents’ rights or infringes on the daycare’s First Amendment rights.

Leslie Manookian, president of the Health Freedom Defense Fund and author of the law, said the ruling confirmed what she intended the law to do.

“Medical freedom, the right to make one’s own medical choices, is such a sacred and basic human right it astounds me that anyone could see otherwise,” Manookian told The Defender.

She said the law “protects an individual from public and private actors bullying, coercing and intruding into their personal and private medical choices or punishing them for their choices.”

Manookian also said she was “delighted that the federal court interpreted the law … as a safeguard against overreach” by government and private actors, including daycares.

‘A daycare does not’ make medical decisions

Idaho Attorney General Raúl Labrador, whose office defended the law, said the ruling confirms that parents — not businesses — are in charge of their children’s health.

“Parents make medical decisions for their children. A daycare does not,” Labrador said in a Sept. 22 statement. “The Legislature protected that choice in the Medical Freedom Act, and the court upheld it.”

Labrador added that daycares can continue telling parents what they believe about vaccines and health, but “they cannot turn a child away because of a parent’s medical decision.”

The attorneys representing Le Soleil Child Care LLC and the parents said they may appeal.

“Our clients are obviously disappointed by the district court’s ruling and the narrow manner in which it interpreted the right at issue,” attorney Andrea Carone said in a statement to the Idaho Statesman.

Carone argued that the law leaves daycares unable to take what the plaintiffs consider “reasonable steps” to protect children from diseases that vaccines can prevent. She called it “a clear public health issue” that the Idaho Legislature must address.

Parents don’t have ‘right to compel a third party to conform’ to their views

The Idaho Medical Freedom Act prohibits businesses, schools and government entities from requiring specified medical interventions as a condition of receiving services, employment or access to certain facilities.

The lawsuit centered in part on what the law means by a “medical intervention.” The law defines the term as a medical procedure, treatment, device, drug injection, medication or medical action used to diagnose, prevent or cure disease, or to alter a person’s health or biological function.

Le Soleil argued that definition was so broad that it could cover routine health and safety practices, including handwashing and sending sick children home. Brailsford rejected that interpretation.

Keep reading

Idaho Sheriff’s Office Claims It Might Have Solved Infamous ‘Tylenol Murders’ Case

An Idaho sheriff’s office believes that a man who died in a Boise church 44 years ago could be linked to the 1982 case in which several people were killed after taking tampered Tylenol.

The Ada County Sheriff’s Office said that a man who killed himself inside a Boise Catholic church was Dr. Mathew Betkouski, according to a news release. When the man was found in December 1982, he had no ID, only a large amount of cash and a typed letter with a false name.

Sheriff’s office cold case Detective Tim Cooper began looking at the case in 2019. He determined through photos and DNA that a Florida man who disappeared in 1982 and Betkouwski were one and the same.

Betkouski, who had worked in two drugstores in college, had discussed the use of cyanide to kill without being detected.

The 1982 Tylenol killings involved cyanide being substituted for the medicine in several Tylenol capsules. Seven people were killed in the Chicago area before the product was pulled from shelves.

Dr. Park Dietz, a forensic psychiatrist, said that by 2021, he believed Cooper was making connections that linked Betkouski to the Tylenol case.

More details will be released on the “Unsolved Mysteries” TV series episode titled “Unmasking the Tylenol Killer.”  The show will appear Oct. 9 on The Roku Channel.

Keep reading

In-N-Out Burger Shooter: Why Has No Motive Been Reported?

It’s now been eight days since 24-year-old Chad Williams walked up to a brand-new In-N-Out Burger in Twin Falls, Idaho — the place had barely finished its grand opening, having only cracked its doors on July 24 — and turned a fast-food parking lot into a crime scene. He killed three people, including employee Ashley Garibay, and wounded seven more before putting a bullet in himself after roughly 90 minutes of chaos. Wikipedia has assembled the fullest timeline so far, and it’s worth reading in full if you can stomach it.

Here’s what we actually know, stripped of the speculation everyone’s been layering on top of it:

Williams pulled up to the drive-thru payment window and shot Garibay first. He then pulled forward, parked, got out, and shot Christopher Claunch, who was sitting in another car, minding his own business, ordering a burger like everyone else that day. Former Twin Falls police officer and former Idaho state trooper Austin James Scott ran toward the gunfire to confront him — Williams shot and wounded Scott too, forcing him to retreat. Williams then doubled back to the payment window and opened fire on employees who were trying to keep Garibay alive. His handgun jammed at some point in all this, so he calmly walked back to his own car, grabbed a rifle, and picked up right where he left off. It took an armed bystander named Lane Koehn, along with return fire from other citizens, to finally drive him off. He shot himself before police ever got a hand on him.

What we still don’t have, eight days later, is the “why.” And that gap is where everyone’s imagination has gone to work overtime.

Police Chief Matthew Hicks says detectives are confident Williams acted alone and that his family is cooperating fully with the investigation. Beyond that, the well runs dry. 

Williams attended the College of Southern Idaho from 2022 to 2023 and left without a credential — he’d also held a student government position there, one from which he was booted in February 2023, roughly 10 months before he stopped showing up at CSI altogether. Nobody’s saying why he got the boot, and nobody’s saying why he left. Funny how that particular detail hasn’t made it into any official statement yet. A former dorm hallmate who considered Williams a genuine friend, one Elijah Moseley, called him “an introvert” and “a pretty chill guy” who never once seemed alarming. Which tells us exactly nothing, as I dug into a few days back — plenty of perfectly ordinary introverts never shoot up a drive-thru, and plenty of people who eventually do exactly that spend years looking completely unremarkable right up until the moment they don’t.

In the lack of information, I have a couple theories that are admittedly as thin as the data is, but I’ll toss ’em out anyway:

The timing — going from handgun to jammed handgun to full rifle, mid-attack, without hesitation — makes me wonder if this started as something absurdly small. The place had only been open a matter of days. New staff, new systems, plenty of room for a botched order. 

Thing is, if Williams snapped over something as petty as a screwed-up burger from a crew that hadn’t found its rhythm yet, that alone doesn’t explain a man showing up already armed and ready to escalate to a rifle. Something else had to be sitting underneath that, whether it was medication, a breakdown building for weeks, or some other pressure nobody’s disclosed. Call it a hunch, and weigh it accordingly.

I’ll also cop to my own first instinct, which came up before any of all that, since I try not to pretend I didn’t have one. 

Given the run of recent shooters where the shooter was trans and on meds, and where that detail eventually surfaced days into coverage, my gut went there initially, too. At this point, I’m not ruling it out entirely, but nothing in the reporting on Williams points that direction, and the longer this drags on without that detail surfacing, the less I’m inclined to keep leaning on it. 

At this point, I find myself circling a different, equally unproven idea instead: that Williams may have known his first victim, Ashley Garibay. If the pictures do her justice, she was a rather pretty girl, I must say.  The idea here is that she was specifically targeted rather than randomly chosen. That’s speculation and nothing more, and I’ll say so plainly, rather than dress it up as something sturdier.

Finally, I observe that In-N-Out opened a new place in Colorado as well, back in 2020, which prompted lines of 12 to 14 hours. In-N-Out has been going through a fairly large expansion over the last few years. In-N-Out opened its first two Colorado locations — one in Aurora, one in Colorado Springs — on Friday, November 20, 2020. The Aurora location, near a shopping mall, saw demand so extreme that the drive-thru line stretched 1.5 to 2 miles, wrapped around the mall property twice, and backed up nearby highways. Aurora police initially estimated a 12-hour wait, then revised it up to 14 hours. I’ve seen that phenom myself during a local opening of a Chick-fil-A, which was so huge it required three local police cars to keep traffic moving off the main road the place was on. Estimates in that case were a couple of hours. Which leads me here: The In-N-Out in Twin Falls had just opened a few days before the incident, which makes me wonder if the situation there wasn’t similar in its drive-thru. Interesting that this didn’t get mentioned.

Keep reading

Idaho: Previously deported Mexican national charged with repeated sexual assault of young child

A previously deported Mexican national is facing multiple felony charges in Idaho following allegations of repeated sexual abuse involving a young child over a span of five years, state and federal law enforcement authorities confirmed.

The suspect, identified as 48-year-old Jose Oliver Mendoza-Colindres, was taken into custody after an investigation led by local law enforcement revealed a pattern of abuse that began when the victim was just 3-years-old.

The exact relationship between Mendoza-Colindres and the victim has not been publicly disclosed by law enforcement or in charging documents.

The investigation unfolded after deputies from the Jefferson County Sheriff’s Office attended a forensic interview at a child care center in Pocatello. During the disclosure interview, the underage victim detailed multiple instances of sexual abuse purportedly committed by Mendoza-Colindres between the ages of 3 and 8.

“I’m showing you my love,” Mendoza-Colindres reportedly told the young child during the abuse.

According to Border Hawk, in 2020, the victim’s father even caught him sexually abusing his child during a party. “A physical altercation involving the child’s mother ensued,” the outlet noted.

“Court documents state the victim’s parents did not report the incident because they were unsure if the victim would remember the incident at her age and did not want to traumatize her. In addition, documents state the victim’s parents were concerned about the victim’s father’s immigration status,” as reported by East Idaho News.

Following the victim’s account and subsequent preliminary findings, law enforcement moved swiftly to arrest the suspect. Mendoza-Colindres has since been formally charged in Idaho state court with one count of sexual abuse of a minor under the age of 16 and two counts of lewd conduct with a minor under the age of 16.

According to records released by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Mendoza-Colindres has a history of illegal entries into the United States.

Federal records suggest that he first entered the U.S. illegally through Texas in 2002 and was formally deported back to Mexico. However, Mendoza-Colindres later re-entered the country unlawfully near California in 2007 and remained in the U.S. undetected until his recent arrest in Idaho.

On July 26th, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) lodged an immigration detainer with Idaho detention authorities, formally requesting that state officials hold Mendoza-Colindres and notify federal agents prior to any potential release.

DHS officials emphasized that since local jurisdictions in Idaho actively cooperate with federal immigration detainers, ICE intends to assume custody of the suspect to pursue deportation proceedings once state criminal charges and any resulting judicial sentences are fully resolved.

Mendoza-Colindres remains in custody awaiting further court proceedings on his state felony charges.

Keep reading

What a Landmark Case in Britain Could Mean for Mother Charged in Idaho Twins’ Deaths

When Angela Cannings’ child died in 1989, doctors concluded the 13-week-old baby girl tragically succumbed to sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS).

By the time two more infants — one in 1991, the other in 1999 — died, suspicion replaced sympathy.

Prosecutors alleged the English mother had suffocated her two sons. To make their case, they relied on prominent pediatric experts who testified that multiple unexplained infant deaths in one family were extraordinarily unlikely to occur naturally.

In 2002, a jury convicted Cannings of murder, and she was sentenced to life in prison.

Less than two years later, the England and Wales Court of Appeal overturned the convictions in a decision that fundamentally changed how British courts view expert medical testimony in unexplained child death cases.

Ruling continues to influence legal discussion decades later

The ruling in Cannings’ case continues to influence legal discussions more than two decades later because it established an enduring principle. Namely, when respected medical experts fundamentally disagree about the cause of a child’s death, and there is no compelling independent evidence of homicide, criminal convictions should not rest on disputed scientific opinion alone.

The Court of Appeal had ruled prosecutors should not proceed when reputable experts disagree about the cause of death and there is no other compelling evidence.

That principle has resurfaced in legal commentary as prosecutors in Idaho pursue murder charges against Andrea Shaw, accused of killing her 18-month-old twin toddlers.

The 23-year-old mother was arrested more than a year after her fraternal twins, Dallas and Tyson, were found dead in their home on May 1, 2025, eight days after receiving their 18-month vaccines.

Shaw spoke with CHD.TV days after the tragic 2025 incident, saying at the 18-month mark, the twins received their hepatitis A, DTaP and flu shots. Shaw said she told the pediatrician she was concerned about the flu shot because there was a history of adverse reactions to the vaccine on the father’s side of the family. However, the doctor assured her it was safe for the twins.

Within 24 hours, Shaw took the twins to the emergency room after they both became lethargic, their lips turned blue and they experienced digestive issues. Medical records confirm they were diagnosed with “post-immunization reaction.”

After administering Tylenol and observing the twins as they ate popsicles, doctors sent them home. Shaw told CHD.TV that days later, she discovered both children dead in their beds. “They looked as if they had gone in their sleep,” she said.

Shaw pleaded not guilty, and her attorney said the children died from medical complications rather than homicide. Prosecutors contend the twins were intentionally suffocated. On Tuesday, a district judge in Payette County revoked Shaw’s $2 million bail.

Shaw’s next court date is scheduled for August 18.

Keep reading

Biden Judge Blocks Idaho Law Criminalizing Transgender Bathroom Use

A federal judge on Tuesday blocked Idaho’s law that criminalized transgender bathroom use.

US District Judge Amanda Brailsford, a Biden appointee, issued a preliminary injunction blocking Idaho’s H.B. 752, which banned transgender people from using restrooms that did not match their biological gender.

Idaho’s law, which was set to go into effect on July 1, threatened to jail transgender people for five years if they broke the law.

The ghouls at the ACLU celebrated the judge’s ruling.

“This ruling means trans folks in Idaho can continue participating in public life without the threat of being arrested for using the bathroom,” said Paul Carlos Southwick, ACLU of Idaho Legal Director. “Trans Idahoans have been understandably anxious about the disruption this unconstitutional law would cause in their daily lives. This ruling will relieve that anxiety for our trans friends and neighbors.”

“This decision provides significant protections for transgender people in Idaho from the efforts of state politicians to force them out of public life altogether,” said Barbara Schwabauer, senior staff attorney for the ACLU’s LGBTQ & HIV Project. “No one should be forced to choose between the threat of arrest for being themselves in public or the threat of harassment and violence for acting the way the state wants them to be. The preliminary injunction is a vital first step as we continue to challenge this gross violation of privacy and fundamental equality until the law is blocked for good.”

“Our Constitution provides critical protections against laws that are unclear and that call on officers to make arbitrary judgments about how to enforce them, especially when the law threatens imprisonment,” said Kell Olson, Counsel with Lambda Legal. “The court recognized that threat in providing relief to plaintiffs today. This ruling will allow transgender people throughout Idaho to find and use a public restroom, without the fear of arrest looming over them, while we continue the longer fight to permanently defeat this discriminatory law in court.”

Keep reading

More States Enact New Laws Curbing Teachers Unions

New organized labor reforms signed into law by Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis last week require a majority of members to be present for teachers union certification or recertification votes, increase fines for illegal strikes, and establish merit-based pay for educators.

In Idaho, after July 1, teachers unions will be prohibited from collecting dues directly from members’ paychecks, using paid time off for union activities, or recruiting new members during school hours.

A similar law in Arizona, which also bans teacher strikes and prohibits organized labor members from using any school property—even email addresses—for union activities, will be decided on by voters in the November election.

“They can’t consume taxpayer-funded resources during the school day,” said Rusty Brown, special projects director for the Freedom Foundation policy organization, which assisted state legislators with those measures and helps teachers opt out of union membership.

These ideas are expected to gain ground throughout the nation in the months and years ahead, Brown told The Epoch Times.

Individually, the Freedom Foundation’s Teacher Freedom Alliance has so far helped more than 272,535 teachers opt out of union membership, including more than 50,000 in 2025 alone, according to data provided to The Epoch Times. This includes educators in red and blue states.

At the state level, Oklahoma lawmakers have advanced legislation that would allow teachers to withdraw from a union at any time and would terminate “closed shop” provisions that prevent teachers from accessing alternative labor or professional organizations, such as the Teacher Freedom Alliance.

Brown calls this an “equal access and an end to a monopoly and captive audience bill.” Alternative organizations can offer teacher liability insurance and other benefits at a fraction of the price that traditional unions charge, he said.

Brown said he believes that the legislation could pass before Oklahoma’s session ends later this month, but the member withdrawal proposal probably won’t go through this session.

Alabama state lawmakers will consider legislation similar to Oklahoma’s next session, he said.

Keep reading

Idaho Bans Mandatory Digital ID With New Privacy Law

Idaho just became one of the few states to draw a line against mandatory digital identification. Governor Brad Little signed Senate Bill 1299 on April 1, 2026, and the new law does something genuinely unusual in American state politics right now: it pushes back against digital ID rather than pushing it forward.

We obtained a copy of the bill for you here.

The bill creates Section 67-2364 of the Idaho Code, prohibiting government entities from requiring “any person to obtain, maintain, present, or use digital identification.”

Approximately three-quarters of US states are currently offering or developing electronic driver’s licenses. The national momentum is clearly toward digital ID systems, with states like Arkansas, Texas, Georgia, and Utah all advancing their own versions in 2025 alone. Idaho is swimming against that current.

The bill, introduced by Senator Tammy Nichols, goes further than a simple opt-out. It prohibits public entities from denying, delaying, conditioning, or reducing “any service, benefit, license, employment, education, or access based on a person’s refusal or inability to use digital identification.”

That second clause, “or inability,” protects people who can’t use digital ID, not just those who won’t. Anyone without a smartphone, without reliable internet, without the technical literacy to navigate a digital wallet, keeps full access to government services. Physical, non-digital identification remains “valid for all governmental purposes” under the law.

The bill also addresses what happens when someone voluntarily shows a digital ID during a government interaction. A government entity cannot “require a person to surrender, unlock, or relinquish control of a personal electronic device for identity verification.” Handing your phone to a police officer or a clerk at the DMV is not the same as handing them a laminated card.

A phone contains your messages, your photos, your browsing history, and your location data. Presenting a digital ID “shall not constitute consent to search or access any other contents of a device.”

That’s a Fourth Amendment protection written directly into a state statute.

Keep reading