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

[SMK777]

I wonder if the police have been able to collect any information from the baby monitor system referred to in the PCA.

I think (but I could be misremembering) in the case of Chris Watts there was a recording stored on theirs.

That would certainly be helpful. It’s a shame they didn’t have some cameras set up in the apartment.

 

[momsof3]

RSBM

I think it's safe to assume that she told them it was on the floor because -

a/ police provided the measurement from the highest point of the seat to the floor,

b/ police mentioned padding underneath the bouncer which would be irrelevant if the bouncer was not sitting on the padding,

c/ there is no mention in the PCA of the bouncer being used on a different surface/at a greater height, and she was unable to provide a plausible explanation for the extent of the injuries (such as he fell from a greater height).

That is not to say that the bouncer was on the floor, but IMO it would have been mentioned along with all these other pertinent details if she had said that in her police interview, or since.

Just to be devil's advocate here (I am completely on the fence FWIW), in my opinion the complaint should be viewed with some skepticism for the following reasons: seeking the death penalty seems like an over-reach to force a plea deal; and the prosecution was playing a bit fast and loose by relying on a conviction (not yet obtained) to say there was "felony conviction" and that was a DP enhancement (the felony conviction is entirely hypothetical here).

Also, I am an attorney and while attorneys have a duty of candor to the court (what they say/write must be true) all of what is said is technically truthful - the bouncy seat was 18 inches high and there was padding underneath - the implication that the bouncy seat was on the floor on padded material is just that, an implication.

MOO! As I stated above, I am absolutely on the fence but I am SO glad that this defendant has a high powered legal defense and isn't, for example, an au pair with a language barrier and limited means. That means that our system of justice should work.

 

[Arkay]

For people who think she should have taken AK to his dad after finding his injuries - think that through. She would want to rediaper him to avoid potential mess. Then take him to his dad. Then they'd either have to return to the hallway changing area or undiaper AK somewhere else so his dad could look at the injuries.

Easier to send a photo and wait for the father to come to her.

Thinking it through…

IMO since the dad was home, I would think the best course of action would be to use that same phone with which she took a picture of Ari’s wounds and instead just CALL the dad and tell him there’s an emergency and to come right now.

Maybe it’s just me but I don’t want to find myself snapping a picture of the baby’s private area. Call the dad, let him race over to the baby and let HIM take the pic if he felt it was necessary.

Although I wouldn’t even want a picture like that on the phone, it feels like a violation, and once it’s in the Cloud who knows if some pedophile could hack it some day.

JMO

 

[DoctorRose]

Thinking it through…

IMO since the dad was home, I would think the best course of action would be to use that same phone with which she took a picture of Ari’s wounds and instead just CALL the dad and tell him there’s an emergency and to come right now.

Maybe it’s just me but I don’t want to find myself snapping a picture of the baby’s private area. Call the dad, let him race over to the baby and let HIM take the pic if he felt it was necessary.

Although I wouldn’t even want a picture like that on the phone, it feels like a violation, and once it’s in the Cloud who knows if some pedophile could hack it some day.

JMO

That’s a good point. I understood why she didn’t leave baby on the changing table to go get dad or call for him and risk waking up mom. But calling on the phone would be reasonable. If I were a parent receiving the picture through a text I’d be like what the heck just tell me to come over there.

 

[Tortoise]

Just to be devil's advocate here (I am completely on the fence FWIW), in my opinion the complaint should be viewed with some skepticism for the following reasons: seeking the death penalty seems like an over-reach to force a plea deal; and the prosecution was playing a bit fast and loose by relying on a conviction (not yet obtained) to say there was "felony conviction" and that was a DP enhancement (the felony conviction is entirely hypothetical here).

Also, I am an attorney and while attorneys have a duty of candor to the court (what they say/write must be true) all of what is said is technically truthful - the bouncy seat was 18 inches high and there was padding underneath - the implication that the bouncy seat was on the floor on padded material is just that, an implication.

MOO! As I stated above, I am absolutely on the fence but I am SO glad that this defendant has a high powered legal defense and isn't, for example, an au pair with a language barrier and limited means. That means that our system of justice should work.

I agree, to us it's an implication, but I don't think it's a document worded to disguise the truth. They know what she said about that, and we've only seen snippets; it could be stated in a part of the document not shown in the video.

I am not really following your point concerning skepticism about the document because of their intention to seek the death penalty.

Regarding the death penalty, that would only be sought in the event that she is convicted on all the offences/counts alleged. While it may be a plea-bargaining tool, I see no difference between this and say Chad Daybell's death penalty for committing multiple murders, which was dependent on him being found guilty of all the crimes at the same trial.

JMO

 

[SMK777]

Just to be devil's advocate here (I am completely on the fence FWIW), in my opinion the complaint should be viewed with some skepticism for the following reasons: seeking the death penalty seems like an over-reach to force a plea deal; and the prosecution was playing a bit fast and loose by relying on a conviction (not yet obtained) to say there was "felony conviction" and that was a DP enhancement (the felony conviction is entirely hypothetical here).

SNIPPED FOR FOCUS
Very much in agreement with this, as well as the rest of the post.

 

[Curious Me]

Just to be devil's advocate here (I am completely on the fence FWIW), in my opinion the complaint should be viewed with some skepticism for the following reasons: seeking the death penalty seems like an over-reach to force a plea deal; and the prosecution was playing a bit fast and loose by relying on a conviction (not yet obtained) to say there was "felony conviction" and that was a DP enhancement (the felony conviction is entirely hypothetical here)... snipped to reply

Thank You for weighing in, @momsof3. I agree with you, and have stated before that going for a DP case has seemed like a tool for coercion towards a plea deal further down the line. Using future convictions to enhance going for a DP case seems wrong. It's outrageous that this has become a DP trial when it could turn out both were non-abuse incidences.

Her attorney said NV doesn't have any criminal history and she's already been made out to sound like she does, in the way they stated it. It's not as though it's clear how these incidences happened yet. Scary. As you said, good thing NV has a "high powered legal defense and isn't, for example, an au pair with a language barrier and limited means." ​

 

[Curious Me]

...I see no difference between this and say Chad Daybell's death penalty for committing multiple murders, which was dependent on him being found guilty of all the crimes at the same trial.

I see the difference in that they found dead bodies on Chad Daybell's property, and had quite a bit of evidence to support what he did was intentional. There was a timeline and deaths that kept happening. His wife for one.

Whereas, MOO, the charges in this case could easily become lesser charges, more towards negligence.

This is just my lay person's take on Prosecution going for the DP conviction. I'm not seeing the same type of iron-clad evidence to support going into a DP case for NV. I think medical experts from both sides will get into a "he said she said" battle leaving jurors in an emotional turmoil because it's a DP case, and there will be reasonable doubt by jurors, and it could even become a mistrial. All MOO

It's a relief to know she has a very capable attorney, and may choose to fight these charges and not take any plea deals. ​

 

[gremlin444]

They lived in an apartment per media reports. I also am curious she did not call him in or bring the baby to him but created a record of the image. All of this is so very odd. MOOO.

Thinking back to when my kids were infants, I wonder if dad wasn't in the shower.

Possible scenario: babies are napping. Mom goes to nap. It's summer, they went on an afternoon outing, and it's likely that Dad hadn't had a chance to shower that morning (I remember how hard it was to get a shower in those early weeks, and I only had one infant at a time to deal with). Dad goes to take a quick shower, one of the babies wakes and starts fussing, and NV volunteers (as worded in the reports) to change his diaper so Dad can hop in the shower. By the time the diaper is off, Dad is in the bathroom with the water running. NV isn't going to leave the diaper off until Dad is able to come look, so she takes a quick photo and sends it before cleaning the baby up with wipes and proceeding with the diaper change.

 

[Tortoise]

I see the difference in that they found dead bodies on Chad Daybell's property, and had quite a bit of evidence to support what he did was intentional. There was a timeline and deaths that kept happening. His wife for one.

Whereas, MOO, the charges in this case could easily become lesser charges, more towards negligence.

This is just my lay person's take on Prosecution going for the DP conviction. I'm not seeing the same type of iron-clad evidence to support going into a DP case for NV. I think medical experts from both sides will get into a "he said she said" battle leaving jurors in an emotional turmoil because it's a DP case, and there will be reasonable doubt by jurors, and it could even become a mistrial. All MOO

It's a relief to know she has a very capable attorney, and may choose to fight these charges and not take any plea deals. ​

The post I was replying to was about the prosecution relying on a conviction not yet obtained, which was the same in the Daybell case.

The issues you raise are different issues.

At this stage, with the waiver of the preliminary hearing, we can't judge how strong the case is, but there is a high bar that needs to be reached to obtain guilty verdicts. If jurors have reasonable doubts she won't be convicted.

 

[SMK777]

Thinking back to when my kids were infants, I wonder if dad wasn't in the shower.

Possible scenario: babies are napping. Mom goes to nap. It's summer, they went on an afternoon outing, and it's likely that Dad hadn't had a chance to shower that morning (I remember how hard it was to get a shower in those early weeks, and I only had one infant at a time to deal with). Dad goes to take a quick shower, one of the babies wakes and starts fussing, and NV volunteers (as worded in the reports) to change his diaper so Dad can hop in the shower. By the time the diaper is off, Dad is in the bathroom with the water running. NV isn't going to leave the diaper off until Dad is able to come look, so she takes a quick photo and sends it before cleaning the baby up with wipes and proceeding with the diaper change.

Yes, that’s certainly a plausible scenario.

 

[LifeIsAMystery]

Thinking back to when my kids were infants, I wonder if dad wasn't in the shower.

Possible scenario: babies are napping. Mom goes to nap. It's summer, they went on an afternoon outing, and it's likely that Dad hadn't had a chance to shower that morning (I remember how hard it was to get a shower in those early weeks, and I only had one infant at a time to deal with). Dad goes to take a quick shower, one of the babies wakes and starts fussing, and NV volunteers (as worded in the reports) to change his diaper so Dad can hop in the shower. By the time the diaper is off, Dad is in the bathroom with the water running. NV isn't going to leave the diaper off until Dad is able to come look, so she takes a quick photo and sends it before cleaning the baby up with wipes and proceeding with the diaper change.

I mean it's all speculation but IMHO there was no need to take a photo at all. She could merely bring the baby to his father, who would want to look at him with his eyes anyway. No need to memorialize an image when the father is feet away, not overseas. JMOO.

 

[Arkay]

to change his diaper so Dad can hop in the shower. By the time the diaper is off, Dad is in the bathroom with the water running. NV isn't going to leave the diaper off until Dad is able to come look, so she takes a quick photo and sends it before cleaning the baby up with wipes and proceeding with the diaper change.

SBM

Anything is plausible, but IMO this scenario is not likely.

I’m sure dad wouldn’t take the phone into the shower with him, so it’s not really a timesaver to text him a picture of his son’s private area.

I understand NV not wanting to leave the baby without a diaper on, but the injury wouldn’t disappear by the time the father toweled off and got dressed, so imo she could have waited until he saw it in person when she would then remove the diaper.

JMO

 

[charminglane]

Speculation of a shower.
Time for alone time with baby.
Cries muted by sound of water to dad.
Perfect opportunity.
IMO, this is a sick woman.

 

[gremlin444]

I understand NV not wanting to leave the baby without a diaper on, but the injury wouldn’t disappear by the time the father toweled off and got dressed, so imo she could have waited until he saw it in person when she would then remove the diaper.

I was thinking of the fact that the reports mention blood in the diaper. Which would usually translate to blood on the baby's skin/genitals, whether the blood was from a UTI or injuries. If he's just gone into the shower, I could see the thought pattern being of not wanting to re-diaper the baby in a clean diaper while leaving blood on the skin while waiting for Dad to be done with the shower, so documenting what was seen since it would not look like that by the time Dad came to check it out.

Personally, I don't feel NV is innocent, but I was positing reasons why she "just wouldn't take the baby to show Dad" as many people were asking.

 

[SMK777]

I think if you look at her as guilty (which I often think she is) then her actions, such as sending the phone photo to the dad, would seem to have sociopathic causes. If you think of her as innocent (which I also sometimes think she is) then those actions would have more genuine explanations.

It’s very difficult for me not to waver back and forth as we await further information and evidence.

 

[Mauig’ma]

I think if you look at her as guilty (which I often think she is) then her actions, such as sending the phone photo to the dad, would seem to have sociopathic causes. If you think of her as innocent (which I also sometimes think she is) then those actions would have more genuine explanations.

It’s very difficult for me not to waver back and forth as we await further information and evidence.

I agree there’s too many unknowns to be told yet

 

[Kittybunny]

Personally, I don't need to twist myself into pretzels to try to find narratives for her innocence, as I'm sure that her defense team is very busy doing that, and if she's responsible for this horrible crime, I certainly don't plan to give them any ideas. Schrager is a highly competent defense attorney who will provide her the most vigorous defense. No doubt they will be bringing up all the possibilities being discussed here.

In general, I tend to believe prosecutors have the evidence they need to move to a case they can prove beyond a reasonable doubt. They charged her rather quickly. I believe that if the situation was really ambiguous, the investigation would have gone for much longer. While I do agree that we don't have all the information, there are some things that I find a bit of a stretch to explain away. The first is that the PCA indicates bouncer seat was 18 inches off the floor. I admit I might be biased because I'm from Pittsburgh, but I find it hard to believe that investigators would overlook noting that the bouncer seat was on a table of any other height because it would provide a plausible explanation for injuries that could cause death. The PCA also says that she couldn't explain the severity of baby Leon's injuries.

While I agree that the whole thing with the picture of the genitals and that the mother was asleep when presumably these injuries happened is odd, there could be alternate scenarios - she could have done the injuries earlier when she was alone with the baby, she could have covered his mouth nose with her hand or with a pillow, the mom was exhausted and/or heard something and thought it was normal crying. Or she had her own twisted motives for doing it the way she did. We only know a bit yes - and I tend to believe that what we don't know, but investigators and prosecutors do, is only more damning.

Perhaps because I followed the Lucy Letby trial meticulously, I am more inclined to believe that she has committed these crimes. Letby managed to kill seven newborn babies and injure 6 others before people could believe that she could be capable of such a thing. It's very rare, yes, that someone who has no criminal record, who is a woman, who is educated, who is nice, harms babies who are not their own (abuse by moms and stepmoms is so common it's not even funny), but sociopaths come in every shape and color. People have mentioned a few odd things about NV, but no one could find much of anything negative to say about Lucy. As bland as bland can be, with evil lurking in her heart. Terrifying, really. We prefer our monsters to look like it and act like it, right?

 

[SMK777]

Personally, I don't need to twist myself into pretzels to try to find narratives for her innocence, as I'm sure that her defense team is very busy doing that, and if she's responsible for this horrible crime, I certainly don't plan to give them any ideas. Schrager is a highly competent defense attorney who will provide her the most vigorous defense. No doubt they will be bringing up all the possibilities being discussed here.

In general, I tend to believe prosecutors have the evidence they need to move to a case they can prove beyond a reasonable doubt. They charged her rather quickly. I believe that if the situation was really ambiguous, the investigation would have gone for much longer. While I do agree that we don't have all the information, there are some things that I find a bit of a stretch to explain away. The first is that the PCA indicates bouncer seat was 18 inches off the floor. I admit I might be biased because I'm from Pittsburgh, but I find it hard to believe that investigators would overlook noting that the bouncer seat was on a table of any other height because it would provide a plausible explanation for injuries that could cause death. The PCA also says that she couldn't explain the severity of baby Leon's injuries.

While I agree that the whole thing with the picture of the genitals and that the mother was asleep when presumably these injuries happened is odd, there could be alternate scenarios - she could have done the injuries earlier when she was alone with the baby, she could have covered his mouth nose with her hand or with a pillow, the mom was exhausted and/or heard something and thought it was normal crying. Or she had her own twisted motives for doing it the way she did. We only know a bit yes - and I tend to believe that what we don't know, but investigators and prosecutors do, is only more damning.

Perhaps because I followed the Lucy Letby trial meticulously, I am more inclined to believe that she has committed these crimes. Letby managed to kill seven newborn babies and injure 6 others before people could believe that she could be capable of such a thing. It's very rare, yes, that someone who has no criminal record, who is a woman, who is educated, who is nice, harms babies who are not their own (abuse by moms and stepmoms is so common it's not even funny), but sociopaths come in every shape and color. People have mentioned a few odd things about NV, but no one could find much of anything negative to say about Lucy. As bland as bland can be, with evil lurking in her heart. Terrifying, really. We prefer our monsters to look like it and act like it, right?

Yes, I will admit, if you start to look at this case through the Lucy Letby lens, it begins to look very worrisome.

There are prosecutors who rush to judgment or overcharge, but this may or may not be the case here.

The fact that the second baby was fatally injured right after the first baby was treated is very concerning. Either she is extremely unlucky, or she was on some kind of sociopathic binge.

I’m trying to suspend judgment at this point, but still find myself tipping back and forth about NV as either sociopath or victim of extreme misfortune. Your own thinking may be perhaps clearer than my own.

NV’s parents believe wholly in her innocence, but then so did Pamela Smart’s. Time will tell all.