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

[redabby]

SBM
Yes, it’s the fact that the skull fracture was so severe as to be fatal, that gives stern pause. Unless at that age it can happen by accident. I have heard numerous accounts, even within my own family, of infants rolling off changing tables and beds, and although distressing, the outcomes were not fatal. As you state, we need more details , information, and expert opinions.

Many years ago I read a terribly tragic story of a very premature baby whom had fought for life. The baby girl now being at home, but obviously very delicate still, was at a nursery whilst her mother was picking up a sibling I assume when a 3 yr old child unrelated to the family picked her up and dropped her. Sadly the baby girl died. Although the baby girl may have been more delicate than baby Leon, it does show a baby can die from a low height.

 

[SMK777]

Many years ago I read a terribly tragic story of a very premature baby whom had fought for life. The baby girl now being at home, but obviously very delicate still, was at a nursery whilst her mother was picking up a sibling I assume when a 3 yr old child unrelated to the family picked her up and dropped her. Sadly the baby girl died. Although the baby girl may have been more delicate than baby Leon, it does show a baby can die from a low height.

That’s tragic, and does indeed indicate what might happen in a fall from a low height.

 

[Gemmie]

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

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. ​

A BIG Thank you, @Curious Me, for continuing to make sure this bit of misinformation about NV having a felonious history (she doesn't) not grow legs and run! I love how you're staying right on top of that. So on behalf of all of us...



Source

 

[steeltowngirl]

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

Ethics aside, DP charges are locally controversial. The Allegheny County DA has been incumbent since 1998, and is known to be tough on crime, and seeks DP in cases, despite no executions in the state of PA since 1999.

https://www.post-gazette.com/opinion/editorials/2024/08/27/leon-katz-death-penalty-nicole-virzi-zappala/stories/202408270015

 

[billyzkid]

I am starting to believe she is just a terrible babysitter combined with atrocious luck - one in a 100 million. I want there to be guilt, someone to blame, but it just doesn’t add up. My gut tells me the first baby was somehow injured on its own, and the second was a terrible accident. I think they will find her guilty of involuntary manslaughter.

 

[katsrfun]

Hello, I asked this before, but maybe I was not clear. What if NV goes to a jury trial and they find her not guilty. She will be let go, and whoever killed that twin will be walking around. If she did it, that's it, no double jeopardy. If the parents did it, they will continue to care for the twin that is alive with no consequence. How can that be? Kind of like OJ, found not guilty and whoever killed those two people is just walking free (unless it was OJ and he is dead now). This confuses me; why don't they look for whomever is a murdered, rather than give it up when the main suspect is found not guilty? Thanks. Katt

 

[SMK777]

I am starting to believe she is just a terrible babysitter combined with atrocious luck - one in a 100 million. I want there to be guilt, someone to blame, but it just doesn’t add up. My gut tells me the first baby was somehow injured on its own, and the second was a terrible accident. I think they will find her guilty of involuntary manslaughter.

I’ve had the same intuition. Don’t know why, I just do.

 

[SMK777]

Hello, I asked this before, but maybe I was not clear. What if NV goes to a jury trial and they find her not guilty. She will be let go, and whoever killed that twin will be walking around. If she did it, that's it, no double jeopardy. If the parents did it, they will continue to care for the twin that is alive with no consequence. How can that be? Kind of like OJ, found not guilty and whoever killed those two people is just walking free (unless it was OJ and he is dead now). This confuses me; why don't they look for whomever is a murdered, rather than give it up when the main suspect is found not guilty? Thanks. Katt

Because NV would likely still be guilty of some kind of involuntary reckless negligence. Just not intentional abuse and murder. She would still be the guilty party, but of much lesser, involuntary behavior.

 

[steeltowngirl]

Hello, I asked this before, but maybe I was not clear. What if NV goes to a jury trial and they find her not guilty. She will be let go, and whoever killed that twin will be walking around. If she did it, that's it, no double jeopardy. If the parents did it, they will continue to care for the twin that is alive with no consequence. How can that be? Kind of like OJ, found not guilty and whoever killed those two people is just walking free (unless it was OJ and he is dead now). This confuses me; why don't they look for whomever is a murdered, rather than give it up when the main suspect is found not guilty? Thanks. Katt

If a jury found her not guilty of murder, they were not convinced that she did it on purpose. I am unsure how it works at trial, but a jury may have the option to find her guilty of a lesser charge. If not, then she could be acquitted, like OJ and Casey Anthony were.

The state charged NV, they have evidence against her only; there would be no reason to continue to look for another suspect. She admitted to the baby being injured while in her care. She says it was an accident. The hospital said the fatal injury was intentional and abuse, so the prosecutor is charging her with murder.

It is one of the dangers of potential overcharging, IMO. The state will need to prove BARD to a jury that LK’s death was not accidental, was intentional, and that NV was the culprit. As mentioned by others, manslaughter and/or negligence might be the more accurate charges.

We will need to hear more at trial - if the case goes there. A plea could happen instead. Or charges might be dropped upon review of evidence. I don’t think that’s likely, though.

jmo

 

[SMK777]

If not, then she could be acquitted, like OJ and Casey Anthony were.

If this occurs, then as @katsrfun has said, it would open the question of who harmed both infants, one fatally? But because she was alone with Leon, it would seem counterintuitive to look at the parents, unless it could be shown that the injury occurred earlier. Seems really, really unlikely.

 

[steeltowngirl]

If this occurs, then as @katsrfun has said, it would open the question of who harmed both infants, one fatally? But because she was alone with Leon, it would seem counterintuitive to look at the parents, unless it could be shown that the injury occurred earlier. Seems really, really unlikely.

I might be missing something here.
I’m focusing first on the deceased infant, for the purpose of sorting this out.

We know the baby was fatally injured.
Was it an accident or murder?
And under whose watch at the time?

If LK was fatally injured by NV, she can be factually guilty, yet still legally acquitted. She could also be factually innocent (accident), yet convicted.

If the baby was injured by someone else, that needs to be sorted out NOW. Did NV say someone else may have injured the child? I was under the impression that she made the call to 911 and stated the baby had fallen. It’s not yet been revealed why she’s pleading not guilty, but my guess is she says it’s an accident, but evidence shows it was abuse.

If NV thinks this happened prior to her babysitting, that should and would be investigated - including looking at the parents. It would be ludicrous to wait for an outcome of a trial to speak up.

The only reasonable way I can see this being done by someone else is if NV was lying and knew someone else injured the child and she covered up for them with an accident story. Which backfired spectacularly.

jmo

 

[steeltowngirl]

I will share my experience on a jury for a child abuse case. This was decades ago. I was much younger and somewhat oblivious to the world’s cruelty.

The case I was on was for a Chinese woman who was accused of abusing a toddler - beating the child to the point of paralysis and blindness. She stated that the child had rolled off the bed. The neurosurgeon from Pittsburgh‘s Children’s Hospital at trial described the injuries in a manner that showed it was undeniably abuse. There was no way the child could’ve fallen off the bed. The neurosurgeon described the injuries as similar to the impact of a car crash, or being dropped from a second story window. The surgeon said that the child was likely picked up and head-slammed into a wall to have caused such an injury.

The woman that was on trial stated that she was alone when it happened, and that her husband was out of town. He did have proof. He had a motel receipt from another state. Well, it turned out that the woman on trial waited over 12 hours before calling for help for the child, and they were able to prove that those injuries were not consistent with just having happened. During the trial when this was described, people on the jury were stunned by the neurosurgeon’s description and pictures. I personally slumped in my seat, it was that bad. Recess was called, and we left the room.

When we returned, the defendant was not in the room any longer. When her lawyer apparently told her that it was clear that this was no accident and it was clear that she would be convicted - only then did she admit to her attorney what actually happened and that it was her husband who had beaten the baby. She didn’t call for 12 hours to allow him time to distance and have an alibi. That was actually suspected all along - that she was covering up for her husband, as was tradition in her culture. The woman had also been abused by her husband.

They could not go after the husband, as by the time trial came, he had already gone back to China. As he was a Chinese national, he could not be brought back to the United States for trial, so the decision was made by the judge to drop the charges against the woman and to deport her back to China.

It was a very sad case.

I hope NV isn’t covering for someone else, and I pray the parents aren’t at fault and blaming her.

Some here think it’s possible the hospital has it wrong and the injuries to LK could have been caused by a fall. I am biased, as I believe Children’s Hospital wouldn’t make such an egregious call, potentially putting a young woman behind bars for life. But I’m open to the possibility.

 

[acutename]

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

I am still curious how NV came to visit at this time- did she volunteer to help out? Did the parents say they were working hard to keep up with the twin care and needed help? I know lots of families in which some one does show up to help with baby care- grands, sisters, friends etc.

 

[Mack the Knife]

I am starting to believe she is just a terrible babysitter combined with atrocious luck - one in a 100 million. I want there to be guilt, someone to blame, but it just doesn’t add up. My gut tells me the first baby was somehow injured on its own, and the second was a terrible accident. I think they will find her guilty of involuntary manslaughter.

If a jury found her not guilty of murder, they were not convinced that she did it on purpose. I am unsure how it works at trial, but a jury may have the option to find her guilty of a lesser charge. If not, then she could be acquitted, like OJ and Casey Anthony were.

The state charged NV, they have evidence against her only; there would be no reason to continue to look for another suspect. She admitted to the baby being injured while in her care. She says it was an accident. The hospital said the fatal injury was intentional and abuse, so the prosecutor is charging her with murder.

It is one of the dangers of potential overcharging, IMO. The state will need to prove BARD to a jury that LK’s death was not accidental, was intentional, and that NV was the culprit. As mentioned by others, manslaughter and/or negligence might be the more accurate charges.

We will need to hear more at trial - if the case goes there. A plea could happen instead. Or charges might be dropped upon review of evidence. I don’t think that’s likely, though.

jmo

I’ve mentioned before that I think charging her with first degree murder and saying they’re seeking the death penalty is likely a tactic to try and secure a conviction, just for a lesser charge.

Ignoring that hypothesis though, I’ve been trying to ask myself what it would take for me to find NV guilty of first degree murder. Assuming the general facts we’ve heard so far about this case are true, I think something shocking would have to come out. Perhaps some unknown history of NV being violent or hating children. Or some incriminating texts. Or a revelation of some dispute between her and the Katz parents. Something that I think, for now, there is no reason to believe exists.

I think it is very unlikely prosecutors will be able to prove first degree murder beyond a reasonable doubt. Though juries don’t necessarily take “beyond a reasonable doubt” to mean the same thing I do.

 

[SMK777]

I might be missing something here.
I’m focusing first on the deceased infant, for the purpose of sorting this out.

We know the baby was fatally injured.
Was it an accident or murder?
And under whose watch at the time?

If LK was fatally injured by NV, she can be factually guilty, yet still legally acquitted. She could also be factually innocent (accident), yet convicted.

If the baby was injured by someone else, that needs to be sorted out NOW. Did NV say someone else may have injured the child? I was under the impression that she made the call to 911 and stated the baby had fallen. It’s not yet been revealed why she’s pleading not guilty, but my guess is she says it’s an accident, but evidence shows it was abuse.

If NV thinks this happened prior to her babysitting, that should and would be investigated - including looking at the parents. It would be ludicrous to wait for an outcome of a trial to speak up.

The only reasonable way I can see this being done by someone else is if NV was lying and knew someone else injured the child and she covered up for them with an accident story. Which backfired spectacularly.

jmo

Yes, agree with all. I only mentioned the (admittedly far-fetched) idea that the skull fractures might have occurred earlier than the fall because it had been posed hypothetically by others. But it doesn’t really make sense. I don’t know if NV or her attorneys ever raised the issue.

 

[Tortoise]

The thing is juries aren't allowed to speculate. They can't for instance wonder if she might have dropped him, or if his seat wasn't where she said it was and he was put somewhere precarious higher up. If they have her saying the seat was on the floor and it's demonstrated from photos of the scene to have been sitting on a soft surface, they will have to be guided by the experts' opinions on the forces and momentum and surfaces that would have created the skull fracture and the locations of his brain bleeds.

I think it's reasonable to assume that she has been given many opportunities to admit that her first account was untruthful and that something happened accidentally through her error or inexperience. The only alternative would then be that with the extent of his injuries, in the absence of admission to neglect or error, he didn't roll out of the bouncer onto a padded surface, but was deliberately harmed. The alleged non-accidental injuries to his twin earlier in the day compounds this theory.

I do also wonder whether he may have injuries in more than one area of his brain, showing a swinging movement rather than a one-sided impact. But we will have to wait to see what evidence they present.

JMO

 

[SMK777]

The thing is juries aren't allowed to speculate. They can't for instance wonder if she might have dropped him, or if his seat wasn't where she said it was and he was put somewhere precarious higher up. If they have her saying the seat was on the floor and it's demonstrated from photos of the scene to have been sitting on a soft surface, they will have to be guided by the experts' opinions on the forces and momentum and surfaces that would have created the skull fracture and the locations of his brain bleeds.

I think it's reasonable to assume that she has been given many opportunities to admit that her first account was untruthful and that something happened accidentally through her error or inexperience. The only alternative would then be that with the extent of his injuries, in the absence of admission to neglect or error, he didn't roll out of the bouncer onto a padded surface, but was deliberately harmed. The alleged non-accidental injuries to his twin earlier in the day compounds this theory.

I do also wonder whether he may have injuries in more than one area of his brain, showing a swinging movement rather than a one-sided impact. But we will have to wait to see what evidence they present.

JMO

It’s interesting that NV’s attorney insists that she denies any wrongdoing, that the public doesn’t have the full story, and that she’s eager to tell the truth in court. We will have to wait and see what they are planning to set forth as the “true” narrative.

I would agree that the fact that not one baby, but two babies, were injured— one fatally while she was alone with him, the other also while she alone was tending to him — really makes for a difficult situation in absolving her.

 

[Tortoise]

It’s interesting that NV’s attorney insists that she denies any wrongdoing, that the public doesn’t have the full story, and that she’s eager to tell the truth in court. We will have to wait and see what they are planning to set forth as the “true” narrative.

I would agree that the fact that not one baby, but two babies, were injured— one fatally while she was alone with him, the other also while she alone was tending to him — really makes for a difficult situation in absolving her.

Standard defense lawyer speak, IMO. One would hope that she already told the truth and that there isn't a version that differs wildly from what she already told police when given the opportunity. Otherwise there could be credibility issues for her. JMO.

 

[SMK777]

Standard defense lawyer speak, IMO. One would hope that she already told the truth and that there isn't a version that differs wildly from what she already told police when given the opportunity. Otherwise there could be credibility issues for her. JMO.

I guess that’s true: Basically the typical statement from the defense. As she pleaded not guilty, it’s necessary to speak along these lines.

Law enforcement said that she couldn’t explain Leon’s fatal injury, but I imagine she and her legal team will try and create something that raises reasonable doubt. There was a recent case in Nebraska where a babysitter was accused of killing an infant. Because the infant had more than one skull fracture, it was argued that it could not be caused by a simple accident such as a fall.

Leon I believe had only one skull fracture, causing multiple brain hemorrhages.

Their biggest battle will be trying to proclaim the defendant’s innocence in light of two separate babies with 2 separate injuries while being tended to by her alone.

 

[steeltowngirl]

Yes, agree with all. I only mentioned the (admittedly far-fetched) idea that the skull fractures might have occurred earlier than the fall because it had been posed hypothetically by others. But it doesn’t really make sense. I don’t know if NV or her attorneys ever raised the issue.

I see what you mean. Actually, I think I was among those who floated a theory that the skull fracture may have happened earlier, based on my own juror experience where that is what had happened, and a defendant was covering for her husband with an accident story.

The OJ acquittal was mentioned upthread. There, grown adults were the victims, and the idea that ‘someone else did it’ was possible. There was not any doubt about whether the victims were murdered. There was no accident.

If NV were to be acquitted - to me, it would be more similar to the Casey A acquittal. Jurors were left with doubt about how Caylee died, as defense brought in the accident theory. In LK’s death, the state will work to prove intentional abuse killed LK. Defense will likely dispute, and say a short fall could result in infant death.

It could be possible that LK’s head injury occurred earlier in the day, but that would mean a second injury happened while he was in NV’s care. Huge coincidence. For a jury to acquit NV, yet also believe that LK was intentionally injured earlier by someone else, they’d have to believe in coincidences. Intentional injury earlier, then an accident while in NV’s care, later.

More likely would be an acquittal based on the jury believing there was just one accidental fall, per NV’s claim. If a jury believes the state’s evidence that intentional abuse killed LK, they won’t acquit her due to supposing someone else injured him - unless defense goes with that unlikely theory. Doubtful that defense will point to the parents as suspects. If there’s a yet unknown third party that had contact with LK, the parents or NV would identify that person. Unless they were covering for someone. Again, unlikely, when the death penalty is on the table.

jmo