PA - infant Leon Katz murdered, twin injured, allegedly by babysitter, Pittsburgh- June 24, 2024

[steeltowngirl]

Bolded by me
I would agree that would be far more likely, than going back to investigate and charge the parents.

I would hope that police already ruled out the parents prior to charging NV. NV admitted to LK’s injury happening while in her care, and the parents were not home. Her defense may try to say another injury happened earlier while LK was with his parents, but I doubt they will try that approach. Blaming the parents wouldn’t sit well with a jury. If anything, defense will likely argue for it having been an accidental injury.

jmo

 

[Kittybunny]

This is a theoretical question. If NV goes to court and is found not guilty, then that leaves the question of who did it, and there is only one basic alternative that we are aware of. Do the police keep investigating to find out what happened. I know they can only try NV once for the same crime, and she has the right to a speedy trial. There doesn't seem to be any one left other than the parents, and I don't know how that could even work. However, if it isn't NV and no one else was there, do they leave the baby with the parents, and just move forward like they don't know who did it, and "oh well". I mean, basically, could they leave the baby in the care of the people who possibly caused the death of the other twin? Who is taking care of that twin now, do we know. This is just a thought I had, and I hope it was okay to post. I would like to know the opinion of other posters. Thank You. MOO. Katt

There are 2 primary ways she could be found not guilty, depending on her defense strategy. One is the one you present above, which is basically a SODDI defense (some other dude did it), which essentially says, yes it was murder but she didn’t do it, it was someone else, probably the parents. IMO, there’s little chance of them going this route, given that the parents were not there when baby Leon died. Maybe, with the other twin if the cases are separated, but it’s risky. In this case if investigators believe it and there was evidence, they could pursue charges, if it turns out she had a visitor no one knew about. (Highly unlikely to me, they should know that before charging)

The other way she could be found not guilty would be if her defense can prove or at least introduce enough doubt that this was even a homicide - just a tragic accident, nothing to see here folks, and certainly no one to charge. It’s likely an uphill climb, but as evidenced by the discussion here, many people don’t want to believe it’s murder so there’s always a chance some jurors will feel the same.

Edited to add: Or what Steeltowngirl said! Great Pittsburgh minds think alike

 

[steeltowngirl]

MOO but I think if LE or social workers had anything to show even possible involvement of the parents that the living baby would have been removed from their custody that night. I don’t know what LE has but I think it is more than the doctors’ conclusions that it was abuse as that doesn’t give any indication as to who committed the abuse. I don’t know what they have but I really think they have something that tells them conclusively that it was NV and that it was intentional.

I won’t be surprised if a mental illness defense is used in this case. I think they have evidence - whatever it is - and I think that NV will admit to what she did but will use mental illness as the reason she could not stop herself from doing it. I think that PA has both an insanity defense and a guilty but mentally ill defense. I think the insanity defense would require showing she didn’t know what she was doing was wrong and I do not think that is possible. But the guilty with mentally ill can be shown by establishing a mental illness and that she couldn’t stop herself even though she knew it was wrong. Either one can get treatment in a mental health facility instead of prison and would take death penalty off the table if successfully presented.

I don’t think that NV can successfully defend against whatever evidence it is they have simply by saying I didn’t do anything to the first baby and it was an accident with the 2nd one. It really wouldn’t take much evidence at all to overcome that position. And I think the lawyer saying something along the lines of his client is distraught because these were her friends instead of she didn’t intentionally hurt either child and her heart breaks for their parents is a hint that a mental illness defense could be forthcoming.

Agree. A mental illness defense is the most likely. Non-jury trial.

jmo

 

[*LD*]

Am I the only one wondering if there may have been a video camera in the babies’ room? Perhaps just wishful thinking but it seems to me that either the state put the death penalty in play in hopes of taking it off the table for a plea deal OR they have more conclusive evidence than what we’ve heard come out that the doctor(s) said. If there was a camera, it’s reasonable that the parents would not have reviewed the footage before they took the first baby to the ER but likely reviewed it or turned it over to law enforcement after the death of the 2nd baby. It might explain why they used the term torture more than just the doctor’s conclusions that it was abuse without knowing specifically what was done to the children. Just a possibility I’m throwing out there because it keeps popping in my head - not anything I’ve read or seen anything about anywhere.

This would make sense and why police would say she has a proven history of assault on minors. Thank you for this thought!

 

[aafromaa]

You're one of the few bringing it up, @aafromaa. It would make sense if there were baby monitors that record. I see what your getting at that the DP was suddenly put on the table. I thought of nanny cams, but haven't heard a hint of whether they had any camera type devices set up. Twins, you want to hear them from another room, and now days they have recording capabilities. I brought my kids up in another time, so don't know a great deal about the baby monitors or nanny cams being used now days. Would they have monitors in rooms other than just a bedroom? ​

I suspect that instead of what we think of as nanny cams with a monitor placed elsewhere that if they used cameras in today’s technology they probably have apps on their phones or tablets for monitoring in whatever room they might go to or even while away from home for that matter - but I also suspect that neither the father or mother had their apps on at the time the first baby was injured. The mom was napping and the dad could have been watching tv or playing video games or doing dishes or laundry or whatever while NV changed the baby. They weren’t thinking that their friend was going to hurt their children so no need to monitor while she was in there with them…if in fact they have them - remember I’m just speculating - have seen no reports of cameras or monitors.

 

[aafromaa]

This would make sense and why police would say she has a proven history of assault on minors. Thank you for this thought!

Hadn’t really thought about that part of it - but as I understand it, there has to be a conviction of prior assault to use that as an aggravating factor when seeking the death penalty - so they’d still have to get the conviction on the assault on the first child in the guilt phase before being able to use it as a factor in the guilt phase. Seemed odd to me that they would be so sure of getting that conviction that they would list it as an aggravating factor before trial. Honestly it made me wonder if there might be something in her background that we don’t know about - perhaps a juvenile conviction as a teenager that would have been sealed or something - but I think that those can be unsealed to reveal patterns in some situations - so maybe it is only a reference to the conviction of assault of the first child but I’m not really sure that it would qualify as a prior act if it happened the same day as the injuries that took the life of the 2nd child. But I am not a lawyer so what do I know lol

 

[Curious Me]

I suspect that instead of what we think of as nanny cams with a monitor placed elsewhere that if they used cameras in today’s technology they probably have apps on their phones or tablets for monitoring in whatever room they might go to or even while away from home for that matter....snipped to reply​

True, cameras in every room connected to a person's phone is very common in today's world. My son can check his whole house and garage when he's at work or far away on vacation.

If that's the case, that they have video of NV abusing either twin, then it will go very quickly towards the Prosecution's conviction goals. Also, if that is the case, then her defense attorney will probably advise her to just take a plea deal.

I don't think they did have cameras set up, but we'll see. They would've checked them to see how their other little infant baby was doing. I think the parents would've checked if they had phone connected cameras to house because it isn't that quick usually waiting in the hospital emergency dept. They would've caught her napping while the baby wasn't in a secure place and one of them would've rushed home or called her to wake NV up. Just MOO though.​

 

[aafromaa]

True, cameras in every room connected to a person's phone is very common in today's world. My son can check his whole house and garage when he's at work or far away on vacation.

If that's the case, that they have video of NV abusing either twin, then it will go very quickly towards the Prosecution's conviction goals. Also, if that is the case, then her defense attorney will probably advise her to just take a plea deal.

I don't think they did have cameras set up, but we'll see. They would've checked them to see how their other little infant baby was doing. I think the parents would've checked if they had phone connected cameras to house because it isn't that quick usually waiting in the hospital emergency dept. They would've caught her napping while the baby wasn't in a secure place and one of them would've rushed home or called her to wake NV up. Just MOO though.​

I wondered whether they might check a camera while at the ER too. I probably would have but it may depend on how the baby they were with was acting during the wait times at the hospital. Was he sleeping or was he requiring comforting and holding and if one parent was holding and comforting him, would the other pull up the camera app? Again, I probably would have but I don’t know what these parents were dealing with or what may be going thru their minds at the time. I haven’t been able to determine whether the hospital discussed the possibility of abuse with them at all while they were there with the first baby. If so they could have been dealing with that and not had an opportunity to look at cameras but on the other hand if the hospital told me they suspected abuse and I knew it wasn’t me or my spouse the first thing I would think of was NV at the house with my other baby and you’d better believe that I would have pulled up that camera and watched like a hawk until I could get back there to my other child. In fact, I would have called 911 and told them there was a suspected abuser at my house with my other child and asked them to go there immediately and protect my child until I could get there. But if no one said anything about the first child being abused until after the 2nd child was injured then I would think my friend is watching my other baby so I’m going to stay focused on this one and might not have checked the camera.

We just don’t know enough about any details to know much about this case yet but I’m not quite ready to rule out the possibility that video is involved.

 

[Curious Me]

...They weren’t thinking that their friend was going to hurt their children so no need to monitor while she was in there with them…..

You don't think the parents started to have a tiny bit of suspicion waiting at the hospital with AK who had mysterious injuries that couldn't be easily explained, perhaps injuries that they knew he didn't have before NV was with him?

I wonder if they had suspicions before what happened to LK? I wonder if they voiced anything to the doctors about suspicions of their close friend. Seems like they were at the hospital for five hours and had to explain to doctors how AK got those injuries, but as soon as LK's fall then they and doctors suspected NV then of harming AK as well. What about before? ​

 

[aafromaa]

You don't think the parents started to have a tiny bit of suspicion waiting at the hospital with AK who had mysterious injuries that couldn't be easily explained, perhaps injuries that they knew he didn't have before NV was with him?

I wonder if they had suspicions before what happened to the LK? I wonder if they voiced anything to the doctors about suspicions of their close friend. Seems like they were at the hospital for five hours and had to explain to doctors how AK got those injuries, but as soon as LK's fall then they and doctors suspected NV then of harming AK as well. What about before? ​

That’s what I’m saying…we don’t know enough about the timeline to know what they were thinking and when. I will say that if I had any suspicion about NV before leaving for the hospital that both babies would have went with me and that didn’t happen. And if I had any suspicion at any time while at the hospital - no matter how slight - one of us - me or my husband - would have left the other with the baby and been back at that house immediately. I don’t know at what point they went from what is wrong with our baby to what did someone do to our baby. I’m not sure if they recognized what they saw as injuries someone caused or perhaps thought it was disease that no one did anything intentionally or unintentionally. And I don’t know if the doctors told them their suspicions of abuse while the first child was being examined/treated or only after the 2nd child was injured. It sure seems to me that the doctors would have had to tell them what they thought happened during their time there with the first child but it doesn’t appear that it threw up flags for them the way it would for me if they were told this on the first visit. I can’t understand that so I have to wonder whether or not that was even discussed prior to the 911 call about the other baby.

 

[Curious Me]

I want to know more about this felonious history! Was she considered a juvenile when other incidents occurred? Is that why they haven't been found?

'The defendant has a significant history of felony convictions involving the use or threat of violence to the person. The victim was a child under 12 years of age.'

Further details of these previous convictions were not shared. A public records check for Virzi only showed up details of the charges she faces over Leon's killing.

Woman accused of murdering friends baby faces death penalty

Nicole Virzi, 29, has been accused of murdering six-and-a-half-week old Leon Katz and injuring his twin brother while she babysat that them at the family's Pittsburgh home.

www.dailymail.co.uk

The District Attorney’s office provided four reasons for seeking the death penalty in their notice. Those reasons were:

1. The defendant committed the killing while in the perpetration of a felony.
2. The offense was committed by means of torture.
3. The defendant has a significant history of felony convictions involving the use or threat of violence to the person.
4. The victim was a child under 12 years of age.

Prosecutors seeking death penalty in case against woman accused of killing baby in Shadyside

Prosecutors are seeking the death penalty against a woman who was charged in the killing of a 6-week-old baby.

www.wpxi.com

There isn't a felonious history IMO. It's my belief that some are taking what was said in the article out of context. I pointed all that out in this post:

PA - infant Leon Katz murdered, twin injured, allegedly by babysitter, Pittsburgh- June 24, 2024

The DA says "and the defendant has a significant history of felony convictions involving the use or threat of violence." What is that all about? eta: Ohh, apparently this has something to do with thinking ahead towards the sentencing phase. It's all very confusing.

www.websleuths.com

The most important part of the article I quoted in my linked post above was:

Although Ms. Virzi does not have a criminal history, if a jury finds her guilty of the charges <snip>

The source to keep things together: DA seeks death penalty against San Diego woman accused in Shadyside newborn's death

"Although Ms. Virzi does not have a criminal history, if a jury finds her guilty of the charges against her in this case, those convictions will count as a criminal history for the purpose of sentencing."​

DA seeks death penalty against San Diego woman accused in Shadyside newborn's death

The Allegheny County District Attorney’s Office will seek the death penalty against a California woman accused of killing her friend’s newborn...

www.post-gazette.com

MOO, this article and my prior post bears repeating. Imagine if the expert doctors and prosecution are wrong? Lawyers to seek death penalty for student accused of killing friend’s baby

​

This would make sense and why police would say she has a proven history of assault on minors. Thank you for this thought!

We've discussed this before. Her attorney stated she has no prior criminal history. If you read the Prosecution's reasoning you'll understand that they're going to try to use her convictions in this case and call them prior as reasoning to go for a DP sentence.

MOO, it's not ethical. They should've have stated their goals to the public making her sound like a hardened criminal already. As far as we know, no criminal history and a dedicated student in town for less than a week. Everybody deserves a fair trial and presumed innocence until proven guilty. ​

 

[Kemug]

It seems to me that the very least that will happen is that NV will be charged with negligence in the case of Leon's death. It was certainly nothing less.

 

[Kemug]

I should think that the friendship between NV and the parents is well and truly over.

 

[Tortoise]

but I’m not really sure that it would qualify as a prior act if it happened the same day as the injuries that took the life of the 2nd child.

snipped by me for focus

JMO but I think if the two alleged assaults on two babies happened in a single continuous episode of violence they wouldn't distinguish them as prior and later acts, but given there was at least 5 or 6 hours or more separating the incidents, with appropriate behavior demonstrated between the two, which there evidently was, for her to text a photo with concerns to the father and for the parents to happily leave LK in her care, and given that these alleged assaults were concealed (in other words it was (IMO if charges proven in court) calculated and devious behavior to have no witnesses) the act of alleged abuse on AK would qualify as a prior.

 

[SMK777]

I would hope that police already ruled out the parents prior to charging NV. NV admitted to LK’s injury happening while in her care, and the parents were not home. Her defense may try to say another injury happened earlier while LK was with his parents, but I doubt they will try that approach. Blaming the parents wouldn’t sit well with a jury. If anything, defense will likely argue for it having been an accidental injury.

jmo

Definitely agree.

 

[SMK777]

I should think that the friendship between NV and the parents is well and truly over.

I can’t see how after such a nightmare with disastrous consequences, they could maintain a friendship. After 5 years of knowing her, that night must have shocked them to their core. They surely regret her coming to Pittsburgh. The whole story is surreal because of what happened with the second baby, and how it ended. If it had been only the first incident, some understanding might have been conceivable.

 

[SMK777]

MOO, it's not ethical. They should've have stated their goals to the public making her sound like a hardened criminal already. As far as we know, no criminal history and a dedicated student in town for less than a week. Everybody deserves a fair trial and presumed innocence until proven guilty.

Agreed; it actually makes their case seem weaker, and not stronger, to use such a machination.

 

[ChatteringBirds]

think they have evidence - whatever it is -

Is that a gut feeling, or is there something specific that leads you to think there is crystal-clear (if that's what you mean?) evidence?

 

[steeltowngirl]

I can’t understand that so I have to wonder whether or not that was even discussed prior to the 911 call about the other baby.

I’d really like to hear the 911 call. May have to see if it can be located…..

 

[ChatteringBirds]

I speculate there were no nanny-cams or similar footage, because I think that would have come out by now.

But I think maybe there were conversations between the parents and N., and interviews with LE, that the prosecution believes piece the case together, along with the medical evidence.

However, just speculation -- her defense will introduce potential accidental causes for the first baby's injuries, just as people have tried to do here. And they may have an expert willing to testify Leon's injuries could have occurred from an accidental fall.

They might go for reasonable doubt on the worse charges and time-served plus probation for what they claim was an accident.