I have been writing about Andrea Shaw, the Idaho mother who blames vaccines for her twin children’s deaths, but instead has been arrested and charged with their murder. I’m not going to repeat my analysis since it would be repetitive.

Mother Jones also wrote an in-depth review of the whole situation, including the cast of characters who seem to be trying to defend Shaw and blame vaccines. They wrote:

The case has already generated nationwide press coverage and offers an unusually detailed look at how the anti-vaccine movement recruits parents and then uses those parents to market its claims to the public. Less than a week after their twin toddlers were discovered lifeless in bed, Andrea and Nathaniel sat for an interview with Children’s Health Defense (CHD), the anti-vaccine organization previously chaired by HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. They appear to have been connected with CHD via another anti-vaccine activist, registered nurse Angela Marie Wulbrecht, who, according to court documents and public comments she’s given, got involved in the case just days after the twins died.

This post includes some comments from Professor Dorit Rubinstein Reiss, who has previously written about Andrea Shaw and her lawsuit with Children’s Health Defense.

About the case against Andrea Shaw

Here are some comments from Professor Reiss shared in an email about the legal case against Andrea Shaw:

1. The fact that the defense here provided affidavits from the mother-in-law and from an anti-vaccine nurse from California (not Idaho) but none from a doctor is interesting. The nurses quoting Dr. Ryan Cole, an anti-vaccine doctor, doesn’t solve that. Could they not find a doctor to testify in support? 
2. I wonder who is paying the lawyer. If Children’s Health Defense is paying and conditioning it on arguing vaccines caused the deaths, I’m concerned. Because I can see arguments like “the mother had a blackout, so it was not premeditated” helping here, and if the defense is not allowed to raise them, that’s an issue. 
3. I’m wondering about the legality. Idaho law allows first-degree murder to be brought for either premeditation or aggravated assault on a minor. So if she attacked them in a loss of temper and they died, that could be first-degree murder. And the prosecution documents mention that. But they also mention premeditation, which is a whole different ballgame. I didn’t see much evidence of premeditation in the prosecution’s submission, and I’m wondering: do they have it? Or will they argue aggravated assault? 
4. We don’t know what happened. But one possibility is that the children had that mild vaccine reaction, and the mother saw a chance to blame vaccines – is that the premeditation? And if so, is there evidence of this?

I do not know what happened. As I see it, there are three options – and none need the vaccine connection, which I think is really unsupported here:

1. The twins died from something else – bad sleep conditions combined with a disease. The mother is innocent and grasping at vaccines in the hope that that will get her the most support. 
2. The mother killed the twins by suffocation – in a blackout, impulse, something crashing in her, but not premeditation.
3. There was premeditation.

Summary

As you can tell, there is a lot more to this case than appears on the surface. Of course, more information will be heard in a potential jury trial. But it’s clear that the police and prosecutors in this case have evidence that it wasn’t vaccines, or they would not have pursued the indictment and arrest.

If the prosecution’s case is weak or doesn’t convince a jury, you know that Children’s Health Defense and the anti-vaccine world will explode with “see, it’s the vaccines.” That will become the new trope that floods the internet for years.

Of course, I don’t think courts can legitimately determine whether vaccines caused the twins’ death, but I am assuming the police and prosecutors have more evidence to support the charges against Shaw that will clarify the facts.

As Professor Reiss points out, there is a lot we don’t know. We will get more information once the trial begins and the prosecution lays out its case.

Unfortunately, the outcome of this case may impact CHD’s lawsuit against the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), in which Shaw is a key figure. If Shaw is found not guilty, Children’s Health Defense will use this case to support its claims against AAP.

The deaths of Shaw’s twins are tragic. It’s too bad that they are a key story in the anti-vaccine movement, but here we are.

Help the Skeptical Raptor keep writing these types of articles

There are four ways you can help contribute to keeping this website running at full speed:

1. GoFundMe.
2. Subscribing via Patreon.
3. Buying your favorite stuff on Amazon.
4. Sharing this article on Social Media.