Matthew Farwell’s twin testifies in murder trial; Mom charged after claiming kids died from vaccines

Hello and welcome to the sidebar presented by True Crime News, taking you inside the courtrooms of high-profile and notorious cases from across the country. I'm your host, Joshua Ritter. I'm a criminal defense lawyer based in Los Angeles and previously an LA County prosecutor for over a decade. We are recording this on Tuesday, October 27th, 2026. In this week's episode, continuing coverage of the Matthew Farwell trial. This week, his fraternal twin brother took the stand under full immunity to discuss both his and his brother's misdeeds. Plus, trial is now underway for Andrew Griffin, a man accused of setting his former business partner's house on fire after murdering both his previous partner and his wife. The opening statements parade a nefarious cast of characters before anyone steps foot on the witness stand. But first, a young mother claims both her 18-month-old twins had fatal interactions with routine vaccines. The prosecution, however, claims Andrea Shaw murdered her children. I'm flying solo this week, so let's jump right in.

First, out of Pyet, Idaho, a 23-year-old mother claims routine vaccines, flu being one of them, killed her 18-month-old twins. Andrea Shaw has maintained vaccines killed her twins since the moment she discovered them deceased in their shared bed on May 1st, 2025. Just days after their death, she and her husband Nathaniel went on the internet show Children's Health Defense to spin their vaccination narrative. The twins were born in late 2023 and according to to Shaw spent 77 days in the NCIU. The family said the twins were healthy before receiving routine flu and DTAP vaccinations in April 2025. The day after the vaccines, Shaw took her twins to St. Luke's emergency room because they were lethargic and feverish. According to court records, they were sent home with Tylenol and a popsicle. Eight days after the emergency room visit, Andrea Shaw claimed she discovered her twins dead. The Payatt Police Department continued to investigate the deaths, interviewing both Andrea and her husband, Nathaniel Shaw. In January of 2026, the Shaws filed a civil lawsuit along with the Children's Health Defense against the American Academy of Pediatrics, claiming they defrauded the American public in regard to the safety of vaccinations.

Ultimately, Payet police arrested Andrea in July of 2026, charging her with two counts of first-degree murder. According to CNN, the arrest occurred 5 days after she had just given birth to her most recent child. Prosecutors have stated the autopsies revealed signs of smothering and suffocation. Just last week, Payet County prosecutors applied for the death penalty on four conditions. More than one murder was committed. The killings were especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel. The defendant showed a disregard for human life. And the defendant would pose a continuing threat to society. Shaw's trial is set for January 2027 and she is being held without bond. Shaw and her attorney Joe Filicetti maintain her innocence and claim no murder occurred. This case is um obviously going to be emotionally difficult for jurors to sit through. But what you have to imagine is the question that is going to be um most on their minds I think is going to be why did it take the time that it did to determine that the children's death the twins death was not uh by result of vaccinations but instead was by result of smothering or strangulation as according to the prosecutors. You would imagine this this would be something that would be immediately apparent after having conducted an autopsy. I'm no doctor, but you would imagine they'd be

able to perform some sort of exam to immediately realize that a child had lost its life because of smothering that did not line up with what the mother said took place. The other thing that's interesting about this is that you're not just talking about one child. You're talking about two children who die at exactly the same time. That seems incredibly suspicious. Again, I'm no doctor, but when you think about the idea even if the vaccines had caused their death, and I realize that they are twins, but you would imagine that there would be some difference in time from their reaction to those vaccines if the vaccines had in fact been the cause of death. I imagine these are things that are going to be thoroughly explored by the prosecution through their own experts, through the medical examiner, and hopefully explaining this to jurors. And it at to me in my view more circumstantial evidence that in fact they died at the hands of their mother than rather by the vaccines. We it reminds us of a case that is recently been in the news and and and a a topic of much conversation with Lindseay Clancy. We have to imagine what kind of an effect will Lindsey Clancy have over this trial. What what what way could that be lingering in the back of juror's minds? Now, one thing as a prosecutor I would certainly want to do is uh question jurors about this during voadier to make sure that they understood that we're not dealing with the same facts and circumstances here.

This is not a case where there she's claiming any kind of postpartum stress. This is not a case where there's any kind of mental health issues at play, but this is a case where she's simply saying that she did not do this, that this is the result of medicine and science failing the children rather than her taking her own children's life. Another thing at play here to add to all the mix of what jurors are going to have to wade through is the idea that she had another child. If it is in fact the prosecution's contention that she took the the the death took the the lives of her two children, why motive is not something the prosecution ever has to prove. But in a case like this, you have to imagine that they're going to they're going to need to give some answer to jurors. Why would a mother do this? Well, could it be stress? Could it be uh she didn't want to have children? All of those might make some sense. Not necessarily a sense in the in the term that we understand it, but sense in the in the in the um respect that it at least provides some sort of motive for jurors to understand why she did the horrific thing that the prosecutors are claiming that she did. If that is true, she's also having another child. And that seems to complicate that narrative for prosecutors. if this was a mother who simply didn't want to be a mother or was stressed out over the situation, why was she then uh having another child?

All of these things again have to do with motive that the prosecution doesn't have to answer, but you would expect in a case like this, they would need to provide something for jurors to hang their hats on. And then finally, uh you have this civil lawsuit in the midst of all of this. The defense is going to lean into this one heavily and say, "Listen, not only is the state going after this mother who's grieving an incredible loss, think about the emotion of all of that, an incredible loss according to the defense. But now the state is trying to prosecute her for it. She took this so seriously, what had happened to her children, that she in fact sued. According to the prosecution, how are they going to deal with this?" I imagine they're going to say that listen, as part of her charade, as part of her cover up, she was so deeply embedded in this story that this was some sort of vaccination gone wrong in two separate children here at the same time that she was willing to to sue over it to cover up her own tracks. It's an interesting kind of um outlier uh uh an unknown factor and we'll have to see how jurors respond to all of this. And then finally um it's the decision of the state to pursue the death penalty which I have to say I find

a little curious maybe even a little troubling in this case. Not that they doesn't fit the the the qualifications for pursuing the death penalty. You have more than one death, double homicide. You have victims who are especially vulnerable. You have the callousness that they talk about. Um all of it qualifies. It's horrific. And in no way am I making these comments to say that this is not the kind of case that you would expect them to pursue the death penalty over. But it is a kind of case where you can again invoking the idea of Lindsey Clancy see where jurors may perhaps question a mother doing this perhaps sympathize with a mother. Um not to mention the idea of pursuing the death penalty against a female who's committed no other crimes in her life that we know of. It makes it, I think, that much more complicated for jurors uh to to pursue the death penalty in this type of a case. Again, in no way am I saying that that that a person who commits this type of crime is not worthy of going to prison for the rest of their life, but I think that this might be a situation where the prosecution might be inviting more trouble for themselves than is worth it to pursue the death penalty in a case like this. But it is early on.

We're going to have to continue to see how this plays out. Remember with the death penalty case as well, it's just going to take that much longer to get to trial with all the added litigation uh leading up to that trial. So, a remarkable turn of events in that case and we will continue to keep our eyes on it. But in the meantime, let's move to Belmont, Idaho, where 34year-old Andrew Isaac Griffin is charged with two counts of aggravated murder. two counts of aggravated murder with a firearm and aggravated arson. He is accused of killing his former business partner, 52-year-old Thomas Strusen, and his wife, 49-year-old Angela Streussen. Both responders came to fight a fire on Trails End Drive on the morning of September 21st, 2021, and discovered two bodies inside. When the coroner arrived, both victims had visible gunshot wounds. Angela was shot three times in the head and Thomas was shot twice in the face and once in the back of his right shoulder. Thomas partnered with Andrew Griffin in a TMEX restaurant Salsa Joe's with what is said to have been an over $100,000 investment. The restaurant opened in May 2021, just 5 months before Belmont County Sheriff's Office first investigated Andrew Griffin. Detectives thought it was a dead end. His phone pinged in an entirely different state, Oklahoma, at the time of the murders.

After what prosecutors called a rogues gallery of possible suspects, the attention came back to Griffin and possible link to a mystery phone. This phone pinged near the Stersonen's home and called Griffin's best friend, who was in Oklahoma the morning of the murder. The digital footprint of the mystery phone brought back enforcement to Griffin. It was purchased in Illinois on September 19th and was only active until the afternoon of the 21st. When the phone was turned off, it had made a path toward Oklahoma, where prosecutors say Griffin's best friend, Brett Cole, was holding Griffin's registered cell phone. On February 18th, 2025, Andrew Griffin was arrested in Hawaii and extradited to Ohio. After plea negotiations failed, his trial began this week. Tired of the delays, prosecutors agreed to no longer pursue the death penalty. In opening statements, Bonmont County Assistant Prosecutor Joe Vav Vavra said money and revenge were Griffin's motive, claiming a witness heard Andrew Griffin say, quote, "Well, I had to go get my money and I killed two people." Prosecutors also told the jury that victim Thomas Strson was not the most likable person, stating he was unfaithful to his wife and not the most honest businessman. But reminding the jury not liking him because of those things doesn't mean he should be murdered. Griffin's defense attorney argued during opening statements that the prosecution has bought and paid for the witness's

testimony. He claimed there is zero proof against his client. The defense referred to Griffin's ex-wife as an angry ex-wife. However, the biggest bombshell was the the was he called his client's best friend a child rapist. The witness, Brett Cole, who who ties Griffin to the mystery phone, has in fact been convicted of two counts of aggravated sexual abuse and one count of abusive sexual contact. The trial continues this week. This one, another difficult one for prosecutors. Remember, there's no DNA, there's no fingerprints, there's no uh forensics, no smoking gun type of piece of evidence that links him to this crime. There's only this mystery phone. So, a lot is uh hinging on that phone and how jurors will receive it. I'll tell you this, though. There's something about juries, and I think it's it's natural for all of us, but we like to solve mysteries.

Jurors like to feel like they're part of the detective work, the the what it took to piece a case together. The cases that I've experienced where jurors are most engaged are cases where you can unfold for them the investigation and they themselves feel like they are part of solving this crime and whether or not it points to the defendant. And in a case like this where you have no other obvious piece of evidence, no eyewitness, no videotape, no forensics, no no confession, and you're relying on this one remarkable piece of evidence that does seem to point towards one individual. Jurors dig into that, add to that the idea of motive, the idea that who else would want these people dead? who else would want this one particular person dead? And I think you start to understand that the case might not need uh well maybe it would it would certainly benefit from the physical evidence, but they might not need the physical evidence to get them over that beyond a reasonable doubt hump. Um then there's the problem of these witnesses.

one, uh, you have the prosecution's kind of star witness, as it were, uh, being this friend of the defendant, the person who was holding the phone, who's got a a very checkered background, got problems himself, has convictions himself. The defense has not been shy about the idea that they're going to attack him and attack his credibility as well. They should, by the way, as well as with well within their rights to go after the credibility of any person who takes the stand. Any person who takes the stand is open to criticism about their veracity and about their moral character. And if you can bring that up in front of jurors, it's certainly something that jurors need to consider in evaluating the truthfulness of each witness who testifies. And so, they're going to do that. I think the way the prosecution best handles this is the way that we've already seen them attempt to handle this with the victim itself and that is to get out in front of it.

That is to steal this the thunder from the defense. Don't Last thing you want to do is let that be a surprise question on cross. Last thing you want to do is let is go through your entire examination of a witness who's got all sorts of character problems themselves and never acknowledge it and leave it to the hands of the defense attorney on cross-examination to bring all of that up, it adds to the impact of all of it. But if you bring it up during direct and you take the sting out of it and you acknowledge it and give them that witness uh some friendly confines in which to make those admissions, yes, I was convicted for that. Yes, it involved this type of a crime. Uh yes, that was a very long ago and I was I'm a very different person and none of that changes the testimony that I'm giving here today. the defense is still going to bring it up on cross-examination, but it's just not going to have the impact that it would otherwise. Same thing to do with the victim in this case. It's a strange thing for the defense, uh, I think, to go after the character of the victim and then at the same time say that their client didn't do it. But perhaps what they're doing is laying the basis for somebody else did it.

Obviously, we're talking about a murder here. There's no accidental death. So, someone is responsible for this. according to the defense, it's just not their client, the person sitting next to them. So maybe their their idea is that if we if we make it sound like this person could have picked up enemies along the way from anyone given his business dealings, um then maybe their client isn't the person who they should be looking at. And that is going to be an argument and something the prosecution will need to deal with and my why it's probably smart for them to acknowledge that again upfront rather than let it come out through the defense. So, a very interesting case. We'll see how much um mileage they can get out of this phone. I got to tell you, those pieces of evidence where someone has done everything possible to cover their tracks and then there's one thing that they left missing. Those types of cases not only are a a challenge, but I think are the most interesting to me and I think in the hands of a skilled prosecutor can probably be very effective. Add to that what I would argue is consciousness of guilt type behavior of leaving the country, ending up in Hawaii. We'll see how it all works out as this case continues on this week. But finally, we move to Boston, Massachusetts. We have been covering the case of former police officer Matthew Farwell, who's been charged with killing Sandra Birmore.

Farwell maintains his innocence and prosecutors seek to not only prove he killed Birmore instead of her taking her own life, but that he did so to stop her from revealing other criminal acts. 23-year-old Sandra Burmore was found deceased in her apartment on February 1st, 2021. Her death was originally ruled self-inflicted, but an investigation would reveal much more about Sandra's life. An affair between Sandra and Farwell came to light along with allegations of grooming her since she was 15 in the police explorers program. The web of law enforcement entanglement brought the federal authorities in to take over. Prosecutors posit that Sandra wanted Farwell to be in their child's life and was willing to threaten him with the allegations to make it happen. They claimed that threat led Farwell to strangle Sandra and then stage her home as a death by suicide. Farwell has admitted to the affair, but claims he did not kill Sandra. This week, Matthew Farwell's twin brother, William Farwell, took the stand, telling the jury he was testifying with a grant of immunity. When asked about the immunity, he said he was he he was so it was so he wouldn't be charged for sexual encounters while he was on duty. So far, his testimony has included a few details of his own sexual relationship with Sandra Burmore. He claims it began in 2018 after Sandro was of age. Before the jury was adjourned for the day, Williams said he didn't know about Matthew's

relationship with Sandro when his began. All right. A lot going on in this case. It seems like every day that passes, we hear about some new wrinkle, some new piece of drama and chaos taking place and surrounding Sandra Birmore and her life. Well, first let's talk about this grant of immunity. what does it mean and how will jurors actually um respond to it? A grant of immunity, first of all, uh what we're usually talking about is what's called use immunity. Not just general blanket immunity, but use immunity. Meaning anything that this witness would testify to cannot be used against him. They cannot use the words out of his own mouth to prosecute him. That's different from saying, "We're never going to prosecute you for any crimes whatsoever related to what you're testifying to." It means we're not going to prosecute you based on what you tell us. What it essentially does, by the way, this witness and most witnesses who testify under a grant of immunity do not want to testify. In no way is this a benefit to them to be given immunity. It is it is a solution to a problem. The problem for the prosecution being that this witness could refuse to testify because they've got a fifth amendment right. The prosecutions could subpoena them, bring

them in to court and and ask them questions and they could say this witness in particular could say, "I can't testify because if I do, I could subject myself to prosecution." And then you've got you get no testimony out of them. Therefore, they don't want to be on the stand. So to compel them to take the stand, you grant them immunity so that there is not a fifth amendment issue at play and then you can get their testimony. It's not in any type of way. I think what the that it's how it's sometimes viewed is as if it's some sort of great coup real real trick on the part of this witness testifying. It's not. Believe me, they don't want it. They don't want to. He doesn't want to testify at all. So, he's granted immunity, meaning he's gonna have to get up there, talk about the horrible things that he's done. He won't be prosecuted for those things as long as he's honest. But my question is this, how is this moving the ball for the prosecution is starting to become a curious point to me. Um, I think they're doing further to explain more about Sandra Burmore and who we knew, what we knew about her. I think that with some of these witnesses, remember now this is now the second man who has testified under immunity about having a sexual relationship with Sandra Birmore in addition to Matthew Farwell. Um, I think

it gives them an understanding of one, they're trying to establish that she was happy about her pregnancy, looking forward to her life, no clear signs of a person who is attempting to take her own life. Because remember, this case is doubly difficult for the prosecution because not only do they have to prove that Matthew Farwell committed murder, they have to prove that there was a murder to begin with. Most cases, you don't deal with that. Most cases you start out with the idea that there's a clear murder and then you establish who it was that committed it. Here they have to go one step further and establish that there was a murder at all because the defense's contention is that it was suicide. And that is not only just their argument, but something backed up by the original medical examiner's opinion on this case was that it was a case where she took her own life. So, I think the prosecution is trying to as much as they can fill in the pieces and paint a picture of who Sandra Burmore was and why she wasn't a person who would take her own life. But my fear is this.

the more that we learn about the chaos of Sandra Burmore's life, a young woman, um, groomed, I think absolutely, but then even after she reaches the age of adulthood, still pursuing sexual relationships with sever with now we know of three different married men who are older than her. Uh, some knew about each other, some did not. Uh she claims that she was pregnant by Matthew Farwell when in fact we find out she was she had become pregnant by another man. Again, in no way am I trying to cast any kind of um shame upon her in this case, but what I am saying is that in the hands of the defense, they're trying to paint a picture. They're trying to portray Sandra Burmore as a woman on the brink of [sighs] disaster, of a young woman whose life was falling apart, of a young woman spinning out of control. And it's starting to look like some of that might be true.

Not very financially stable, had just recently moved into a place of her own. Photographs of that apartment showed that it was in somewhat disarray. And she had a very complicated and chaotic life when it came to men. And is that the type of person that might make this kind of a tragic decision? That's certainly what the defense would argue. And I think this case um because there is no forensic evidence that is that one piece that would clearly establish this is not only a murder but that Matthew Farwell committed it. You can say, "Well, there was DNA on the strap." Well, he had been to her apartment several times. Not all that helpful. Uh he was the last person to see her. They admit that. Then in the hands of the defense, they argue, well, that is what pushed her over the edge is that last conversation. I think a as as bizarre as it might be, this case might come down to some expert helping to explain for jurors what would and do we ever see situations where a person can take their life without any kind of note left behind, without any kind of clear signs that this is what they intended to do, seemingly out of the blue like this, or is this just something that doesn't happen?

Um, Matthew Farwell, obviously a bad human being, cheating on his wife, uh, grooming a a a a a girl when she was just a child, many different, committing the crimes of having, you know, sex while he was on duty. Horrible human being. And it will be interesting to see whether or not that is enough for jurors to believe. Is he this as bad a human being that could actually commit this type of crime and then show up the next day to the birth of his own child. Really, really horrific case. But we're going to have to leave it there for now as that case continues and we will continue to follow it for you. But that is our show this week. As always, uh we'd like to thank our listeners and viewers for tuning in. I'm your host Josh Ritter. You can find me on Instagram and Twitter at Joshua Ritter ESQ. And if you want to hear my thoughts and coverage on even more true crime cases, you can check out my YouTube channel, Courtroom Confidential. And you can, of course, find all of our sidebar episodes wherever you get your podcast.

And we would love to hear from you if you've got questions or comments you'd like us to address. Please tweet us your questions with the hashtcn sidebar. And thank you for joining us at the True Crime News Sidebar.