Words carry different connotations to different people. For me, proof beyond a reasonable doubt IS "damning proof." Others may feel differently but for me, damning proof does NOT mean proof beyond any doubt.
While I agree knowledge of motive is not essential, to convict on any of the charges I'm pretty sure I'd have to be fully convinced the babies' injuries were done intentionally or knowingly by NV. And having an examining doctor say the injury to LK was not "natural" or "accidental" certainly wouldn't be enough for me to convict of homicide without strong medical evidence from other sources. While the examining doctor(s) must be heard and their credibility judged, other experts will play a big role too.
I feel the same way about the assault charges as it seems by PA law (see link below) those require that the person intentionally or knowingly did the act. So it's not a matter of some sort of "involuntary" assault (although "extreme recklessness" could be involved.) So I don't think jurors ought to convict if they feel NV must have been involved "somehow" but they aren't sure how. Personally I am not persuaded that since LK was hurt, then the injury to AK must have been intentional abuse. Nor do I think NV ought to be convicted merely because if she didn't do it, who did? (It seems to me without knowledge of any real evidence, that's where the public case against NV stands right now-- if not NV, then who?)
Title 18
www.legis.state.pa.us
NV is also charged with child endangerment. That's a bit murkier to me. I'm NOT suggesting the parents ought to be charged. But I could see situations arising where a parent MIGHT be charged with child endangerment if he/she left a child with an unsuitable person.
The definition of child endangerment in PA [bold added by me]:
"...a parent or any other person, who violates duty of protection, support or care and thus knowingly endangers the child’s welfare is guilty of child endangerment."
Thus it seems clear the person must have known she/he was endangering the child. Examples from the link below include DUI with child in car, maintaining a "squalid" home, leaving a child unattended in a car...
What are the Penalties for Child Endangerment in Pennsylvania?
Don't know what the penalties are for child endangerment in Pennsylvania? Read on, then contact a skilled York County, PA misdemeanor lawyer to learn more.
www.islawyers.com
I'd have to be convinced NV had intent or knowledge to convict here. While some may argue leaving LK unstrapped in a bouncer chair automatically endangered him and NV should have "known better," that's a real stretch for me. She just met the children that day or the day before. She is childless herself. She may never have seen a bouncer chair before.
We also don't know if the parents' usual practice was to use the bouncer chair's strap. And many people commenting on WS have argued LK couldn't have rolled himself out of a chair like that at 6-weeks old even if he was unstrapped. So if he did, in fact, roll out, should NV have known that was a possibility even though it sounds like nobody else knew? It's hard for me to see how she should have known. Others have argued that a chair like that should never be put anywhere but on the floor. We don't know where the chair was typically placed (nor do we know for sure where it was when LK supposedly fell out) but in my experience, unlike older children who are starting to crawl or are pulling up on furniture, 6-week old babies are NOT put on the floor routinely. So if the family's usual routine was to use those chairs say, on a low coffee table in front of the sofa, and that's where the chair was when LK fell, does that make NV guilty of endangering him?
We don't know what the evidence is for any of the charges. It may be very strong but personally I do not believe that simply because the state is seeking the DP for homicide, they must have a slam-dunk case with very strong evidence. I think the reasoning given to justify the DP is quite iffy (using AK's injuries as evidence of NV's past pattern of criminal behavior) & don't think we can make any assumptions about the evidence. And the justification for the DP is not evidence/proof itself.
We don't really know much of what NV said to LE or what she said to the parents (at any time that day.) We also know very little of what the parents have said to anybody. And it's possible some of what we think we know has been reported inaccurately. For example, it's been reported NK told 911 LK fell out of his bassinet. It's also been reported she told the parents that when she called them at the hospital before calling 911. We can't know what she really said vs what people heard vs what reporters think she said. At any rate, we have no sworn testimony nor have we heard the recording of the 911 call. And we know the parents weren't out on a "date night" when either child was injured. But that is what was reported earlier. We also know the parents married in August 2023. So the idea NV came all the way from the West Coast to babysit so they could celebrate their wedding anniversary in June 2024 (as has been reported) is just plain silly. Finally, I think it's quite possible some of what we think we know about the circumstances leading NV to photograph AK's injury may not be accurate either.
Further, we pretty much know nothing about how the twins' were typically cared for. That matters, not to blame the parents, but because IF NV was continuing with the usual care, and something unexpected DID happen, it's hard for me to see NV's actions as criminal.
MOO
