Prosecutors Seek Death Penalty Against Idaho Mom Accused Of Murdering Twin Toddlers

00:00:02
Speaker 1: Hey there, folks. It seems like there's been a lot of conversation in the country lately about women and the death penalty and women killing their children. Well, we have a case in Idaho, folks, that is bringing those two conversations together. Robe, this story is going to be a big one in the country for many, many months to come. The trial is a little way down the road, but they want to execute a woman in Idaho.

00:00:29
Speaker 2: That's right. 23-year-old Andrea Shaw. And this story is truly fascinating because, yes, prosecutors have just announced that they are seeking the death penalty against this mother. She is accused of murdering her 18-month-old twin toddlers back in 2025. But she has a very different version of events than what prosecutors are offering.

00:00:57
Speaker 1: This is a There's a lot here that this is not a case or situation that involves mental illness. She's not making that claim at all. But Robes, the conversation around this one is going to be about vaccines and the harm they could possibly do to children. She is saying vaccines killed her babies.

00:01:19
Speaker 2: That is exactly what she's saying. And the prosecutors are saying that they believe that this young mother is smothered her children to death. So here's what happened.

00:01:32
Speaker 1: Wait, don't they say it? They are saying there is no other thing that could have happened but suffocation to these kids.

00:01:40
Speaker 2: The quote from the prosecutor is suffocation is the only conceivable explanation for their deaths based on the autopsy results. That is what they have said. But this all took place May 1st, 2025. The twins were found dead in their shared bed in And yes, the autopsy, prosecutors say, revealed symptoms consistent with smothering, okay? But she has a very different version of events. She claims that her twins became sick and died after they got the flu vaccine and other routine childhood vaccines. They'd been vaccinated eight days before their deaths. And this is interesting. On the day of their vaccinations, she actually took her twins to the emergency room because she said they were lethargic and they felt feverish. The ER doctor checked out the twins, gave them Tylenol, gave them popsicles, and sent them home.

00:02:40
Speaker 1: Yeah, just a little diarrhea. It'll work itself out.

00:02:43
Speaker 2: Exactly. And look, I know that when my kids, I don't know if you remember this too, but when my girls were babies, yes, some of the vaccinations, they would get a little feverish. And the The pediatrician would warn you, hey, they might get a little fever, just give them some Tylenol, they'll be okay. So it all seemed fairly standard. Now, the other interesting part about this, a few days after the twins died, prosecutors say that Shaw went onto her computer and started searching up vaccines. And she went on an internet show by the Children's Health Defense. Does that sound familiar? It's an anti-vaccine group that was founded by our current Health and Human Services Secretary, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. So they claim that she was looking for an excuse, basically, by making these searches a couple days afterwards. She, I'm sure, would maintain that she was doing it to try to understand why her children died.

00:03:40
Speaker 1: Yes, that's an easy response to come back with.

00:03:44
Speaker 2: It doesn't seem like some damning smoking gun that she went online to make these searches. But look, a grand jury looked at the evidence. and indicted her on murder charges in July. However, her folks, her defense attorneys, claim that the grand jury proceedings themselves were filled with prosecutorial misconduct, and they want the charges thrown out. It's a very serious situation. So why the death penalty? Prosecutors claim, because this is like She's claiming there's a natural cause. There's a reason why her kids died, and it wasn't anything to do with her. They're claiming there were four aggravating factors. They say more than one murder was committed. Obviously, we know both of the kids died, so that makes sense. They say that the killings were especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel. They say the defendant showed utter disregard for human life and that she would likely pose a continuing threat to society if she were allowed to die. I guess, go free. So that is why they claim they are seeking the death penalty. However, the defense is, yes, filing a motion to dismiss. And their big issue is that they say the coroner found the cause of death to be undetermined, but consistent with hyperthermia or overheating. So there's this notion that they were hot. They were too hot and they died, she claims, from a fever. I don't know how they possibly figure this out because The defense is also saying the pathologist who examined the twins said their causes of death were undetermined. So look, it's confusing. If you have an undetermined cause of death that points to smothering, that seems like a high bar.

00:05:31
Speaker 1: But what if the coroner is saying that it was overheating? I mean, how do you explain that then? Didn't you just say that the coroner is the one that said that? They got too hot.

00:05:41
Speaker 2: This is what the defense attorney is claiming that the County coroner found the cause of death to be undetermined. The prosecutors say, um, um, they'll get their language specifically that the autopsy revealed symptoms consistent with smothering and that suffocation is the only conceivable explanation. It sounds a little bit like what happened with Nolan Wells, where they kind of ruled out everything else. And they say the only explanation for Nolan Wells was drowning because they ruled everything else out. It sounds like the autopsy is showing symptoms consistent with, but the official cause of death is hard to determine. All right.

00:06:21
Speaker 1: That makes sense. Yes.

00:06:22
Speaker 2: So look, this is going to be interesting because here's what the defense is saying. They don't have a motive. They don't have a backstory. They don't have a confession. They don't have any of that. So how do they prove that she murdered her children? And then to think that that's what they're saying and that the prosecution went so far as to say, not only can we prove it, we're actually going to seek the death penalty against this woman. That seems like a very big difference of opinion.

00:07:00
Speaker 1: Well, I guess it should be at this point. They're doing battle in court. They'll be doing battle in the public, but you don't, Robes, go for the death penalty unless you are. That's pretty serious stuff.

00:07:15
Speaker 2: Exactly.

00:07:16
Speaker 1: That suggests to me they got the goods and they know they got the goods. You don't mess around with the death penalty on a maybe or my evidence isn't that strong. So it That is the one thing, I haven't heard all that evidence, but that is the one thing I have heard in this whole story that makes me think they have a strong case.

00:07:33
Speaker 2: Especially considering, yes, the fact that we just have gone through this Krista Pike botched execution. We've just gone through this Lindsay Clancy triple murder trial where you're seeing a woman, a mother, who jurors are struggling with whether or not to convict her. Now that, of course, was mental illness, but still you would think there is a hesitancy. among jurors, just maybe nationally here, to not only convict a mother of murdering her kids, but to then have her face the death penalty, you're right. It seems like in this time, given recent events, this wouldn't necessarily be the wisest strategy if you're looking for a win here as a prosecutor.

00:08:18
Speaker 1: Well, it is if you got the goods. And I say it is if.

00:08:23
Speaker 1: Well, you have maybe in Idaho very few cases that come across your desk that are death penalty cases. Two babies are dead. If you think this woman strangled them both, suffocated them both in their own beds in this manner that you described, yeah, well, show me a better death penalty case. If that's what they believe, evidence-wise, we're just... Rose, it was different with the Lindsay Clancy case. We heard all. We have the knowledge of everything that woman went through. We have the knowledge of all that evidence. Maybe we'll see something here. But until we do, it's hard to form, to get an idea of, because the two sides just don't make any sense to be that far off in what they're arguing. Death penalty and vaccine. Something you did was so bad that we're going to give you the death penalty. But the other side is saying that's too far off.

00:09:23
Speaker 2: And I'm struggling with this. What do you make of this? Because we haven't had this conversation yet. What do you make of the fact that she took her kids to the emergency room because she was worried about them because they felt hot? They felt like they had a fever.

00:09:41
Speaker 1: Defense attorney is going to go crazy with that. What else does that show other than she's a concerned mom? that even when it's nothing, she went to the emergency room. Even when the doctor told her they might have fever and this might be normal, she still was so concerned about her kids that she took them.

00:09:58
Speaker 2: And what would the prosecution then say? That this was all a massive, premeditated, double murder where she knew she was going to blame the vaccines? Aha, here's my idea. they're going to get so sick over the next week that they're going to die from this vaccine or these vaccines that they just received. I'll take them to the emergency room to make it look like I care, but also to establish that I was already concerned about their health or wellbeing after they had these vaccines. So if I take them to the emergency room the day they got their vaccines, then when they die a week later, when I kill them, All have proof.

00:10:36
Speaker 1: That's a lot. That's twisted.

00:10:37
Speaker 2: That's my point.

00:10:38
Speaker 1: That's a lot.

00:10:39
Speaker 2: That's my point. But that would have to be what the prosecution is going to say because why, how could you say a woman on one day is so worried about her kids that she takes them to the emergency room and a week later decides to smother those same kids?

00:10:54
Speaker 1: That is possible. That may be what the prosecutor is going to argue. Just because she was in this headspace on that day doesn't mean that eight days later something was different.

00:11:02
Speaker 2: No.

00:11:04
Speaker 1: But they might know something else in between. What other correspondence do they have? What was she Googling? Who was she talking to? How was she... I don't know. But vaccines and the other question there is explaining... I know they're twins. They got the same vaccines, I guess. But to think that they died the exact same time of what?

00:11:24
Speaker 2: See, and that's the other thing. Of what? How do two... Yes, I know they're identical twins. Yes, I know they share DNA. But how.

00:11:32
Speaker 2: I can't imagine a scenario in which two individual babies die at the same time, even if they share DNA, from vaccines.

00:11:45
Speaker 1: The defense is going to have to get a doctor to explain how that might be medically possible or even medically likely that because they're twins, it's the same dose. Because as a juror, you're really telling me that they died at the exact same time, or maybe even within, I guess, hours of each other would have to be. Maybe that's the explanation.

00:12:07
Speaker 2: That doesn't make any sense. You and I obviously know people who've had twins. One has cancer, one doesn't. There are plenty of medical issues that will happen to one twin, and the identical twin won't have it. So it would seem so far-fetched that two infants would die on the same, just say the same night. As one another from vaccines.

00:12:32
Speaker 1: Doctors are going to have to explain that. They're going to have to get a doctor to say why that's possible. Otherwise, let's wrap this up.

00:12:39
Speaker 2: Right, because look, and the defense is saying that the grand jury, but here's the thing, this is their big issue. This is why they're filing to dismiss the charges, because they say the grand jury wasn't told about the coroner's official cause of death, which was undetermined, but consistent with hyperthermia or overheating. But I never believed that it was ever a part of a grand jury proceedings for the prosecution to present an alternative theory or to present even what the defense could possibly be. That isn't something that typically is a part of a grand jury proceeding. It is one-sided almost always, correct?

00:13:14
Speaker 1: Yeah, but why wouldn't they be told about the coroner's report?

00:13:17
Speaker 2: Well, that's why they're saying it was prosecutorial misconduct because they did not give grand jurors the full picture. They did not provide the grand jury with the coroner's finding that the cause of death is still undetermined.

00:13:32
Speaker 1: Yeah, so it was, and again, we're going to the Nolan Wells thing because the most recent autopsy reports we've been looking at, and his, they still don't know, and the grand jury moved on in that case with a lot more to do with, but yes, I guess it's possible for it to be undetermined by a coroner, but still enough circumstantial evidence and everything else around that points still to the same person.

00:13:58
Speaker 2: Correct, you can be convicted of murder when there isn't even a body found. They're just someone's missing and you can still be convicted of murder. So I guess that makes sense. But the prosecutors actually addressed this overheating thing in court documents that they filed. They say, prosecutors said that this was kind of bizarre. I know it gets hot in Idaho. This was May, I said, of 2025. Prosecutors said the temperature in the twins' room would often reach 100 degrees. I don't know how they knew this, maybe.

00:14:35
Speaker 1: Prosecutors said this?

00:14:36
Speaker 2: Yes. But the children survived high temperatures before. I guess they didn't have AC. And they said there has been, they can show that there were plenty of times where the twins slept and woke up and were perfectly fine when the room was as hot as 100 degrees. And their other issue is because the coroner, I don't know what the time of death is. I didn't see the official one, but they They have an estimated time of death and they say it did not correlate with the peak temperatures of that day. So it wouldn't even make sense. They were saying that the room wouldn't have been that hot. And that's the hottest that they know it was.

00:15:11
Speaker 1: I thought they were arguing the vaccine caused the fever.

00:15:13
Speaker 2: Well, that is what she is claiming. That is what the defense is claiming. But so they're saying that there's no other medical explanation. There's no other explanation. environmental explanation that would say, oh, see the kids, it just got too hot and the mom didn't realize how hot the room was.

00:15:28
Speaker 1: But dying from a fever is different from dying from whatever thermia. The overheating.

00:15:32
Speaker 2: I don't know if they can determine, but they just said there was hyperthermia. At least the results of the autopsy showed that was a possible that led to the death. But this is really a strange story. And right now she's being held behind bars without bond. November 4th is where the defense motion to dismiss will be heard by a judge. But yeah, they're calling this that there were improprieties in front of a grand jury. And so here's exactly what the defense said. I'll give you the quote. Meaning that they have to be truthful in front of a grand jury and that they have a duty to provide exculpatory evidence. which is evidence giving the grand jury any reason to believe that this person is not guilty, some other reason that these deaths could have occurred outside of murder, and the prosecutor did not do that. I'll be honest, I did not know that that was something that a prosecutor had to provide to a grand jury.

00:16:34
Speaker 1: Alternate theories of the crime? You're supposed to just present evidence, I thought. Again, I don't understand these proceedings apparently that well.

00:16:41
Speaker 2: Very secretive.

00:16:44
Speaker 1: Or that defense attorney could just be playing a public game.

00:16:48
Speaker 2: You knew that there was evidence that showed this might not be murder, and you didn't provide it to the grand jury. I would think that would make sense. If I'm a prosecutor, why would I give a grand jury, who I'm hoping will bring indictments and instead say, but here are some possible other theories about this.

00:17:05
Speaker 1: Well, if you have, well, theory is one thing, but exculpatory evidence is another. That's different.

00:17:09
Speaker 2: That's true, okay.

00:17:10
Speaker 1: So which one is he suggesting, though?

00:17:12
Speaker 2: He's saying it's exculpatory evidence.

00:17:14
Speaker 1: Okay, now that's different.

00:17:15
Speaker 2: Because he's specifying that the, he's saying, and he's asking for transcripts from the grand jury, but I don't think that that's, I don't know if it's provided to the defense attorney. Obviously, that's not for public consumption, but he is claiming and pointing the finger at prosecutors for deliberately withholding evidence the county coroner's cause of death. So that'll all be meted out in November. The trial right now is set for January of 2027. And you brought up some really interesting points about the state. We're talking about Idaho. Idaho has not executed someone since 2012, but they tried to in 2024.

00:17:56
Speaker 1: Yeah, dude got Krista Pike before we knew about Krista Pike.

00:18:01
Speaker 2: Right.

00:18:02
Speaker 1: They messed him up.

00:18:03
Speaker 2: Isn't that so interesting?

00:18:04
Speaker 1: They messed him up.

00:18:05
Speaker 2: So this is 2024 Thomas Creech.

00:18:08
Speaker 1: She got Creeched, I guess we should say.

00:18:10
Speaker 2: She got Creeched. He is the longest serving death row inmate in the state of Idaho. He has been on death row since 1981. Do that math. And so they were maybe following in the footsteps of Florida and said, you know what? We need to start creating some justice in from For folks who've been waiting for a long time. By the way, there were only eight people on Idaho's death row. So I guess maybe they were thinking, let's start from the oldest and work our way up. So in 2024, they tried to execute him. The execution team failed after eight attempts to find a vein to start the IV. So everyone's in the death row chambers. He's on the gurney, strapped down. They've got the medical team there. And everyone's watching. It's funny, we didn't report on this. I don't know that we were even... I don't know if we were focused that much on these botched executions. You can look back and see lethal injection is a troubled and difficult, apparently, way to kill someone, although we feel better because it's clean and there's a needle and it looks medical and it doesn't feel icky or violent. But there has been... I mean, it's crazy now that we start to go back and look at these. But yes, 2024, eight times they tried to kill him and they finally just gave up. And so it was just this year, July 1st, the Idaho Congress, their state legislature, they enacted July 1st, 2026. They changed their primary execution method to....

00:19:51
Speaker 1: The one that works every time.

00:19:53
Speaker 2: Firing squad.

00:19:54
Speaker 1: Every time.

00:19:55
Speaker 2: Firing squad. So now in the state of Idaho, the main or the primary method of execution is firing squad. The secondary or backup method is now lethal injections. So with eight people on death row, they have now cleared the way because that was their big hangup. That was their big hiccup for, I guess, successful executions by beginning with the firing squad.

00:20:20
Speaker 1: I didn't see it. I haven't rescheduled Creech yet.

00:20:22
Speaker 2: I haven't seen that rescheduled yet. Right now, again, eight on death row. Interestingly, one of the inmates on death row is a woman, Robin Rowe. She has been on death row since 19... 93.

00:20:35
Speaker 1: What are the chances that your last name is Roe?

00:20:39
Speaker 2: On death row?

00:20:40
Speaker 1: What are the chances?

00:20:41
Speaker 2: That does seem quite odd. Yes, but the last execution, successful execution, was in 2012. That is, what, 14 years ago? The last time the State of Idaho. So you think, look, up until July 1st, where they changed the method of execution, I'm thinking most of those folks sitting on death row felt like they just probably had upgraded accommodations and they were going to die in prison.

00:21:07
Speaker 1: Got some time here. They never get it together. Legislature, you know how politicians are. They can't act quickly. Wait, what? The firing squad? It works every time. It works every time. They have the numbers on this we've talked about. There's a percentage of botched executions for every method except firing squad. Zero percent botched. Works every time. Every time. How are folks going to feel about sending a woman to a firing squad, though? Is that going to be any different? Are we going to get that far? Baby, this is all, this changes the thing a little bit. And did you say the guy, Creech, was the longest one they have?

00:21:46
Speaker 2: Yes.

00:21:47
Speaker 1: He's also probably the baddest dude on death row there. This is a serial killer. This is a guy who's convicted of, I think it was two murders, but he's confessed to 40 murders. This is a bad dude.

00:22:01
Speaker 2: And he killed his cellmate, too.

00:22:02
Speaker 1: Oh, yeah. He ended up.

00:22:04
Speaker 2: He killed his cellmate.

00:22:05
Speaker 1: Yes.

00:22:05
Speaker 2: He killed his cellmate.

00:22:07
Speaker 1: He ends up on death row. He gets off death row, right? And then he gets back on because he killed somebody in prison. That's right. But he has confessed. This is, I believe, serial killer. So they're struggling even to kill that guy. They tried and tried and tried. Eight times.

00:22:22
Speaker 2: And look, there have only been three... Executions since 1977 in the state of Idaho.

00:22:29
Speaker 1: We don't have good practice at this.

00:22:31
Speaker 2: So yes, you get a medical team. They haven't done anything like this in 14 years. They couldn't get it done. And so all of a sudden, the Idaho state legislator has to figure it out. But no, they got together. They got this thing passed. And look, I also wanted to point out, this one really jumped out at me. I forgot. There is a very notorious and notable inmate who on death row in Idaho he was just sentenced to death in 2024 does this name ring a bell Chad Daybell he murdered his first wife and his second wife Lori Vallow that ring a bell this is the doomsday killer so he was just this local wannabe pastor doomsdayer and started saying that that his second wife's children had the devil in them they they believe they yes they killed these children they think they threw them off a cliff when they went hiking just this horrific story that made national headlines. So he just got put on death row two years ago. So the idea of him going in front of a firing squad, I feel like a lot of people might applaud. He is a child killer. Shoot him.

00:23:44
Speaker 1: Shoot him. I don't know what the, you know, I didn't see, or at least, um, I know South Carolina was the last firing squad, excuse me, execution that we had. I know their method, how that process works. I don't know how Idaho does theirs.

00:24:00
Speaker 2: Well, you know what, since they just enacted this, maybe they don't even know how they're doing it yet, but they're trying to figure it out and get their ducks in a row and start actually, look, I think you have these states where, we talked about California, they have I don't even know how many people on death row. Hundreds.

00:24:15
Speaker 1: Hundreds and hundreds.

00:24:17
Speaker 2: But when you're in a state that hasn't followed through on the sentencing, and they only have eight in their death row chambers right now, I guess soon to be nine. But the fact that you'd feel comfortable.

00:24:31
Speaker 1: Potentially soon to be.

00:24:32
Speaker 2: Potentially soon to be. You're right. You know what? Potentially soon to be.

00:24:35
Speaker 1: You went past charges, the trial.

00:24:37
Speaker 2: The charges might even get dismissed in November.

00:24:40
Speaker 1: You got her on death row already.

00:24:41
Speaker 2: Please, please, please. If prosecutors have their way, there will be a ninth person. But how interesting to think in a state. where let's just say Shaw gets put on death row, she's convicted, she's sentenced to death, in a state that would only have nine death row inmates, two of them would be female, that is bizarre and very unusual.

00:25:05
Speaker 1: Those percentages would be high. What is it in the country, the percentage? I can't remember. This is more than 10%, which is more than the national average.

00:25:12
Speaker 2: Absolutely. Right now in the United States, there are 45 women on death row compared to thousands of male inmates on death row yes so it's a exceptionally small percentage um but lisa montgomery was the last biological woman to be executed she was put to death in january of 2021 and this is in indiana by the way and it's not a state we talk about much when it comes to the death penalty but.

00:25:43
Speaker 1: I think they have one left on the books this year.

00:25:45
Speaker 2: Oh, really? Okay. So there'll be another potential Indiana. But she was convicted of strangling a Missouri woman in 2004 and then taking her unborn baby. So a very heinous crime. But it took her, what, 18, 17 years from the time she was convicted?

00:26:05
Speaker 1: That's pretty quick.

00:26:06
Speaker 2: Exactly. To then being... executed in the state of Indiana with lethal injection. So look, it's just interesting with everything that's happened with botched executions. And now we're going back and seeing how many other ones there were that maybe weren't as highly publicized, maybe locally they were known, but not nationally. And now you've got Indiana, sorry, you've got Idaho doing the firing squad. And we've got this firing squad execution on a federal level happening in December of against the Ford hood shooter mass shooter. I am just curious with the Krista Pike and other plenty of other recent botched lethal injections. Tennessee had another one this year. Are we going to start to see states that are pro death penalty switch? Maybe not Florida. They've got their shit together. It seems like, but switch from lethal injection to firing squad. Can our country stomach that?

00:27:00
Speaker 1: Why not? Why not? The federal government has this method of execution. Utah has it. Idaho has it. South Carolina just used it not too terribly long ago. Can we not stomach it? Sounds fine. Put a needle in their arm and they go to sleep. The other method requires three people to stand behind a wall, stick their rifles through a hole, and aim at a five-inch target on someone's heart. Can you stomach that?

00:27:26
Speaker 2: That'd be hard to watch.

00:27:29
Speaker 1: Can you stomach that? But the needle in the arm and going to sleep is fine. A few gasps, right?

00:27:34
Speaker 2: That's not easy to watch either when it doesn't go well, when it doesn't go smoothly, when it takes too long.

00:27:39
Speaker 1: Which seems to be about 50-50 these days.

00:27:42
Speaker 2: I mean, yes, there was a moratorium on lethal injections for a period of time because there were so many, many executions that were, they didn't necessarily not go through, but they took long. There was audible pain being expressed that people who were witnessing these executions were witnessing. and then giving press briefings about. And yes, that is hard. I don't think no matter how awful a criminal is, how awful a murder was, it's still, I would hope, I would hope that it would be difficult for any human being to witness someone suffering, even an awful person, even an evil person.

00:28:23
Speaker 1: So it's a firing squad suffering.

00:28:26
Speaker 2: I don't think so. And so then it's about our suffering. It's about our level of tolerance. It's not about the inmates.

00:28:33
Speaker 1: Because this should be blanket across the country. Firing squad has never failed. This is done. So what's the holdup? If the Supreme Court says it's legal and we want the death penalty, what is our problem with the method of death? We're not talking about chopping heads off. We're not talking about burning bodies. We're talking about quick, boom. And it always works. Is that the issue, Rogues? Because only three states use it. Is that it? We just can't stomach the idea of shooting somebody. Yes.

00:29:00
Speaker 2: And what about, you pointed out, shooting a woman. 23-year-old woman. Obviously, I'm leaping ahead. She hasn't even been to trial yet. But let's just say she's convicted. How do we feel? She's 23. Like, my, our oldest daughter is 23, about to turn 24. I look at her and I see a kid. And I'm not saying you're not criminally responsible at that age. Obviously, you're an adult. She had two children. But still, this is a young mother.

00:29:29
Speaker 1: Yeah, Jerry's going to have a hard time looking at her and wanting to shoot. It just, it's so violent. Hell, the president, they stopped the Nadal Hassan execution from live streaming it because we don't want people to see us shooting a guy.

00:29:43
Speaker 2: In a wheelchair. Yes. And I think, look, it's just, that's why I'm so shocked that prosecutors went from charging her to saying, and yes, Hell yes. We're seeking the death penalty. And this all comes at a time where that state has been hyper-focused on how they're going to execute inmates. Their method of execution has been making headlines in that state. So this has been on the radar for folks. So these prosecutors know by saying we're going to seek the death penalty, it isn't what it may have been a few years ago where people thought they're not going to kill her. It's going to take decades and they still haven't figured it out.

00:30:22
Speaker 1: They want attention? They don't want attention to the matter?

00:30:25
Speaker 2: It's making headlines. And in a year where we have had plenty of headlines about women killing their children, this is certainly going to be something that everyone is going to watch.

00:30:36
Speaker 1: They have to prove the vaccine thing because there's no other theory she's given. She can't come back and say it was an accident. She can't come back and say anything else. She has to prove that a vaccine killed these two kids on the same night that Within hours or minutes, do they have time of death? Do they have any separation that you've seen in the time of death?

00:30:53
Speaker 2: I didn't see that, but that's going to be really hard to get your head around because if they died relatively at the same time, sharing the same bed, eight days after they had a flu vaccine, and we're talking like the standard, whatever, 18 months old, I think it's like the MMR.

00:31:10
Speaker 1: Oh yeah, this isn't COVID stuff.

00:31:11
Speaker 2: Widely known, safe and effective vaccine.

00:31:15
Speaker 1: Two kids.

00:31:17
Speaker 2: At the same time.

00:31:19
Speaker 1: They're going to have to bring a doctor in to explain how that's not only possible, but even likely. You're going to have to. Roe says no. How late was she out that night? There's always some suggestion. She came home almost stumbling in from a night out. Roe stays in.

00:31:37
Speaker 2: She's 23, right? That would read. But we will keep our eye on this story because this is going to be a big one in November as prosecutors continue their push to Seek the death penalty against Idaho mom, 23 year old Andrea Shaw. We always appreciate you. I'm Amy. That's TJ. We'll see you soon.