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

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Status
Not open for further replies.
NV’s parents believe wholly in her innocence
IMOO NV's parents will protect her in anyway whatever. Most parents feel like they owe it to their children to protect them, it's instinctive. Unfortunately, sometimes parents don't know whom they raised until their child is an adult. I hope that investigation's access to NB's medical records will give more answers to what really happened that day.
 
IMOO NV's parents will protect her in anyway whatever. Most parents feel like they owe it to their children to protect them, it's instinctive. Unfortunately, sometimes parents don't know whom they raised until their child is an adult. I hope that investigation's access to NB's medical records will give more answers to what really happened that day.
Yes, I would agree that her parents’ support doesn’t indicate innocence, which is why I cited the Pamela Smart case. You can be guilty and still have your family proclaiming your innocence, even decades after conviction as in the aforementioned case.
 
I agree with many posts above: at this point we do not have near enough information to know one way or the other what happened to those twins. Both the prosecution and the defense know way more than we do.

The discovery process should be moving forward, so the defense isn’t even privy to all the prosecution’s evidence yet. It’s easy to jump to conclusions one way or the other and I am just waiting to see if this goes to trial or will there be a plea.

PS: I think the way the media has distorted the information about NV allegedly having a prior record (when that really only applies if she is found guilty of torture and child abuse of Avi) does a huge disservice to the whole case. Reading comments on articles and on other sites, there are many in the public who believe NV is guilty in multiple previous cases and the records are sealed. Of course, they are ready to convict without a trial. All IMO.
 
True, it’s pretty much par for the course.
Agree. I do wonder if NV might have communicated with her own father ( a cardiologist though, not a pediatrician) about Avi’s injuries. I don’t know how close they were, but she might have texted with her dad about what was going on once the parents had taken Avi to the ER. Just for friendly advice or support.
 
Agree. I do wonder if NV might have communicated with her own father ( a cardiologist though, not a pediatrician) about Avi’s injuries. I don’t know how close they were, but she might have texted with her dad about what was going on once the parents had taken Avi to the ER. Just for friendly advice or support.
It’s possible. And I’m sure as a prominent physician (albeit not a pediatrician) he has some opinions on the injuries, since his daughter’s life is now at stake.
 

A Ph.D. student is accused of murdering an infant boy and abusing his twin brother while babysitting for a family friend in Pittsburgh.

View attachment 513025
I dont understand why people do things like this. I mean, I know the reasons are pathological, but still in my mind I have to ask: why would you choose to be in a position where harm to a weaker person is possible? Nothing and no one MADE her be there. Those little baby boys are so darling; I'm sorry for what she did to them...
 
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.
How is it known that the DA is using twisted logic to seek the death penalty? I missed that info somewhere.
 
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.


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.

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:


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
MOO, this article and my prior post bears repeating. Imagine if the expert doctors and prosecution are wrong?

Mark Freeman, a Pennsylvania-based lawyer who has litigated 20 cases of shaken baby syndrome, said that the decision to charge Virzi did not surprise him, because health professionals and forensic experts were now so quick to see child abuse.

“The idea that an injury is likely the result of child abuse is deeply embedded — it’s been taught for so long,” he said. “And a lot of doctors are not familiar with the newer literature which shows how unlikely it is that such injuries are from deliberate acts.”

[...]

Freeman said he would immediately seek a second opinion on the verdict of a skull fracture, saying that he very often found the initial conclusion was wrong.
"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."

It has really not been proven in a court of law that those injuries were intentionally done as abuse or torture. You might be surprised that child abuse experts are sometimes not as sure as they sound. They still could be proven wrong. If she is found to be guilty of abusing those precious infants, yes lock her up, although IMO, I still don't think this is a DP case.

Today, this woman's life is balanced on a see saw of opinions at this point. I mean if she is somehow found innocent of intentionally abusing the twins, her life will still not be the same. She was negligent at the very least. But now her name and reputation is marred by the implications she had a criminal history when she doesn't at this point.

The twisted logic maybe because of the State's stated intentions. I don't know why the Prosecution announced it's DP intentions as they did. People already mistakenly got the idea she has a significant criminal history of felony convictions, and in reality at this point, her attorney said no criminal history. She isn't some hardened criminal, but it just seems like the Prosecution is going to go after her like she already is. She has no prior criminal history per her attorney.

All MOO and BBM.
 
Last edited:

It has really not been proven in a court of law that those injuries were intentionally done as abuse or torture. You might be surprised that child abuse experts are sometimes not as sure as they sound. They still could be proven wrong. If she is found to be guilty of abusing those precious infants, yes lock her up, although IMO, I still don't think this is a DP case.

Today, this woman's life is balanced on a see saw of opinions at this point. I mean if she is somehow found innocent of intentionally abusing the twins, her life will still not be the same. She was negligent at the very least. But now her name and reputation is marred by the implications she had a criminal history when she doesn't at this point.

The twisted logic maybe because of the State's stated intentions. I don't know why the Prosecution announced it's DP intentions as they did. People already mistakenly got the idea she has a significant criminal history of felony convictions, and in reality at this point, her attorney said no criminal history. She isn't some hardened criminal, but it just seems like the Prosecution is going to go after her like she already is. She has no prior criminal history per her attorney.

All MOO and BBM.
I'm not so sure about the injuries to the twins genitalia. Couldn't that have happened while she was at the store? I may have missed it, but was it fresh blood? Maybe that's why she sent the picture, so by the time he got to her, it would have had time to dry? But the head injury, wasn't she the only one there at the time? If it was an accident, why didn't she just say that? Wasn't she the only one there with the other twin? How did she possibly think she wouldn't be blamed, what could she have been thinking? And, with both twins severely injured on the same day, with her only visiting, how did she think she could do this? It just doesn't make any sense, although I have no other possible scenarios, does anyone else? This is MOO, she may not have done anything, although I don't know how. Katt MOO
 
After much thought, my conclusion is that the genital injuries must be egregious and plainly intentional, and/or the head injury to Leon must be obviously caused by a weapon or greater force than simply falling. Seeking the DP makes no sense otherwise. The case is more likely to result in a not guilty verdict

ETA meant to reply to @Curious Me
 
After much thought, my conclusion is that the genital injuries must be egregious and plainly intentional, and/or the head injury to Leon must be obviously caused by a weapon or greater force than simply falling. Seeking the DP makes no sense otherwise. The case is more likely to result in a not guilty verdict

ETA meant to reply to @Curious Me
I agree. There might be fuzzy areas between accidental injury and abusive injury but I don’t think these are in that fuzzy area. I think the medical professionals could tell. There are some injuries that couldn’t be accidental to a baby that’s too young to move around on its own. I mean I think JMO iiuc that someone could fall down the stairs or faint or something while holding their baby and that the injuries would not be so awful to point to abuse. Like even accidents that would scare the heck out of most parents aren’t going to be as severe as an abusive action. That’s how the doctors can tell the difference. JMO, I’m not that kind of doctor and not claiming any expertise. But from what I’ve learned through like PSA type stuff, you really cannot hurt a baby that badly on accident (unless you’re like in a car accident or something).
 
I agree. There might be fuzzy areas between accidental injury and abusive injury but I don’t think these are in that fuzzy area. I think the medical professionals could tell. There are some injuries that couldn’t be accidental to a baby that’s too young to move around on its own. I mean I think JMO iiuc that someone could fall down the stairs or faint or something while holding their baby and that the injuries would not be so awful to point to abuse. Like even accidents that would scare the heck out of most parents aren’t going to be as severe as an abusive action. That’s how the doctors can tell the difference. JMO, I’m not that kind of doctor and not claiming any expertise. But from what I’ve learned through like PSA type stuff, you really cannot hurt a baby that badly on accident (unless you’re like in a car accident or something).
True as far as it goes, but the defense is arguing that since 2001 there has been a marked bias and incentives toward viewing injuries as stemming from child abuse, and in many cases proven wrong. This is the crux of the defense, and there will be expert testimony.

We don’t know if it’s the case here, but that will be the argument.
 
After much thought, my conclusion is that the genital injuries must be egregious and plainly intentional, and/or the head injury to Leon must be obviously caused by a weapon or greater force than simply falling. Seeking the DP makes no sense otherwise. The case is more likely to result in a not guilty verdict

ETA meant to reply to @Curious Me
It's me again, but I just thought of this. If they do offer her a plea deal and she takes it, then it appears that she must be guilty, right? How would she prove her innocence if it never goes to trial? Isn't that how it works, they offer a plea, she takes it and that's the end. If she really didn't do it, why would anyone take a deal? If she did it and it goes to trial she could possibly offer some extenuating circumstances that resulted in the injuries. It seems to me, either way, she would be better off having a trial, no? MOO. Thanks. KATT
 
It's me again, but I just thought of this. If they do offer her a plea deal and she takes it, then it appears that she must be guilty, right? How would she prove her innocence if it never goes to trial? Isn't that how it works, they offer a plea, she takes it and that's the end. If she really didn't do it, why would anyone take a deal? If she did it and it goes to trial she could possibly offer some extenuating circumstances that resulted in the injuries. It seems to me, either way, she would be better off having a trial, no? MOO. Thanks. KATT
If she is innocent and her defense believes she is, it would be wrong to take a plea deal.
 
True as far as it goes, but the defense is arguing that since 2001 there has been a marked bias and incentives toward viewing injuries as stemming from child abuse, and in many cases proven wrong. This is the crux of the defense, and there will be expert testimony.
Yeah, I’m interested to learn more about that. I think regardless of where someone puts the subjective threshold, there’s still going to be an objective threshold at some point too just based on physics, right?
 
After much thought, my conclusion is that the genital injuries must be egregious and plainly intentional, and/or the head injury to Leon must be obviously caused by a weapon or greater force than simply falling. Seeking the DP makes no sense otherwise. The case is more likely to result in a not guilty verdict

It's me again, but I just thought of this. If they do offer her a plea deal and she takes it, then it appears that she must be guilty, right? How would she prove her innocence if it never goes to trial? Isn't that how it works, they offer a plea, she takes it and that's the end. If she really didn't do it, why would anyone take a deal? If she did it and it goes to trial she could possibly offer some extenuating circumstances that resulted in the injuries. It seems to me, either way, she would be better off having a trial, no? MOO. Thanks. KATT

I'm not a lawyer.

I think that in the absence of very incriminating evidence, there is no reason she should take a plea deal. She has no record to weigh against her in sentencing and she can afford top defense.
 
Depending of the height of the surface it’s placed on, the bouncer seats can absolutely cause a skull fracture if they fall. Honestly I don’t think we know exactly what she told LE about where the seat was— we’ve also heard it might have been a bassinet or Moses basket. I don’t know if her story was changing or why 3 different possibilities have been reported.

Also, I think it’s easy to be intimidated when questioned by the police— which NV agreed to do without a lawyer to protect her interests. I’m not saying she’s innocent vs guilty, just that I would need more information. IMO.

“The hazard patterns related to these incidents (485 of the 874) were mainly due to infants falling while in bouncers or from a bouncer placed in hazardous locations, such as kitchen countertops, tables and other elevated surfaces. Falls resulted in concussions and skull fracture to babies. These types of injuries can lead to brain damage and long-lasting health effects.”

 
Last edited:
I wondered if she fell asleep w Leon in her arms or lying on her chest, and he slipped away from her. Some states have prosecuted parents who rolled over on their kids while co-sleeping. Accidentally falling asleep while holding a sleepy baby is not the same as intentionally climbing into bed to co-sleep with a baby but she may not have thought of that while in a panic over hurting the baby.

A Moses basket has pretty good sized walls. I don’t see how a baby could roll out of one while it is stationary; even if the bouncy chair was in the basket, while the basket was on a table or couch. But I can see how a baby could be dropped out of one being carried by the handle, baby being top heavy, could just slide out head first if it is a smaller basket & not properly balanced or weighted.

Yes, as far as we know. Mom was napping, NV offered to change Ari’s diaper. She took him to the changing area in the hall near the bedrooms, out of dad’s view & sent a picture of his genitals to dad.
Just want to add that my daughter rolled out of a Moses basket when I was carrying it from one room to the next, one of the handles gave out and she rolled from the basket to the floor (carpeted), she cried, obviously and I took her to emergency, to be sure, but she was totally fine. I'd say it was about 20 inches she fell.
 
Just want to add that my daughter rolled out of a Moses basket when I was carrying it from one room to the next, one of the handles gave out and she rolled from the basket to the floor (carpeted), she cried, obviously and I took her to emergency, to be sure, but she was totally fine. I'd say it was about 20 inches she fell.
My mom was changing my diaper when I was an infant and i rolled off the bed. I’m clearly (maybe up for debate lol) ok. Heard that story my whole life that I always kept a hand on both my daughters while changing them.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
161
Guests online
237
Total visitors
398

Forum statistics

Threads
608,943
Messages
18,247,951
Members
234,512
Latest member
aammmaaayyyaa
Back
Top