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

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
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.
 
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.
Right, because NV’s attorney has stated repeatedly that she has no criminal history.
 
Death Penalty case! The news article cites other similar cases, one in particular where the defendant was facing a DP sentence, and took a plea deal accepting a sentence of LWOP. I'm guessing that's what they're moving eventually towards offering her a plea deal.

August 23, 2024

Police said Ms. Virzi had no “plausible explanation” for the severity of Leon’s injuries. She told them he’d been acting normally and was sitting in his bouncer seat when she fell asleep for a time, according to the complaint. She awoke and went to the kitchen to get a bottle, she said, when she heard the baby screaming.

<modsnip: Snipped to comply with copyright>​
Who in the heck falls asleep whilst a baby is in a bouncer seat!!! Especially when you’re babysitting a friend’s baby. This would have been a huge red flag to po,ice I assume.
 


LE is using the word “torture.”

It’s unbearable to imagine.

IMO child abuse does not suggest only long-term. Once is enough to be abuse.

I do not believe that TWO babies being spontaneously injured on the same day is coincidental. If you’ve had children, or have taken care of children, a six-week old would barely have the muscular strength or control to launch himself out of a baby seat.

Clipped by me and agree completely... a 6 week old is like a squirmy piece of sausage in a blanket. They barely can move themselves.

DM says:

'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. "

This means there is a REAL history. A "significant" history. Of FELONY convictions. To a victim (of unknown age?)

......That have been cleanly covered up or erased from the records possibly due to daddy's prestigious titles.

When teaching spin/cyclebar classes, I guess one doesn't need to be livescan fingerprinted? Since kids don't take those classes? I know Lifeguards and Camp Counselors do....
 
Last edited:
Clipped by me and agree completely... a 6 week old is like a squirmy piece of sausage in a blanket. They barely can move themselves.

DM says:

'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. "

This means there is a REAL history. A "significant" history. Of FELONY convictions. OF THREATS TO A CHILD.
......That have been cleanly covered up or erased from the records possibly due to daddy's prestigious titles.

When teaching spin/cyclebar classes, I guess one doesn't need to be livescan fingerprinted? Since kids don't take those classes? I know Lifeguards and Camp Counselors do....
I'd want to have another source re: this the DM is not an error free source. MOOO.
 
I'd want to have another source re: this the DM is not an error free source. MOOO.
Looks like DM pulled it directly from local news. To me it looks like for #3 the victim may or may not be under 12 years old.... but there Is a HISTORY of Felony Convictions. Wth!?!?!?!


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.
 
Local Pittsburgh news.

“Torture” stated by the District Attorney as one of the reasons to seek the DP.

Your link refers to reasons to seek the DP in this case re: 3 & 4, not OTHER child victims of hers previously for which she was convicted of felonies that do not come up in records searches bc don't exist. I think they misunderstood the point of the DA. MOOO. People in the DM are on about maybe she has sealed juv records, etc., but, I think was poor wording and the implications are in error. MOOO. Seek the DEATH PENALTY IF she is CONVICTED of crimes against these twins.
 
Last edited:
3 The defendant has a significant history of felony convictions involving the use or threat of violence to the person.

Yes, according to the D.A., and since it says felony CONVICTIONS, IMO this cannot pertain just to these upcoming charges. She hasn’t, of course, been convicted of these crimes as she hasn’t yet been on trial for the Katz twins.

ETA: particularly noting that the D.A. used the phrase “significant history.” So something in the PAST, something from earlier, something either involving threat or use of violence.

The D.A., I’m sure, has access to this history and is not sensationalizing, as might be the case for the Daily Mail or any other media. This is the serious stuff, not looking for clicks.

IMO
 
Last edited:
The "history of felony convictions" is new to me... convictions plural. This is major imo.
How was this not disclosed earlier?
Against children, who?
The poor parents of the babies, unthinkable.
The DA was talking about the sentencing phase FOR THIS CASE if she is convicted. The DM misunderstood or misinterpreted although they admit that no record of such convictions can be found. Because it doesn't exist. Poor wording and the DM goes for clicks. JMOOO. The DA was enumerating the basis for seeking DP at sentencing if convicted, not describing her priors. It was not disclosed prior bc not factual re: this defendant. But, if one day it is, re: these twins, that is how they intend to pursue DP at sentencing.
 
DM says: '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. "

This means there is a REAL history. A "significant" history. Of FELONY convictions. To a victim (of unknown age?)

......That have been cleanly covered up or erased from the records possibly due to daddy's prestigious titles.

When teaching spin/cyclebar classes, I guess one doesn't need to be livescan fingerprinted? Since kids don't take those classes? I know Lifeguards and Camp Counselors do....
IMO the bolded and underlined (by me) quote has been taken out of context. If you look at the link below, it's talking about what aggravating factors Pennsylvania law prosecutors can cite for the death penalty.

In the case of Ms. Virzi, the DA’s office cited four: the defendant committed the killing while in the perpetration of a felony; the offense was committed by means of torture; the victim was under 12 years old; and the defendant has a significant history of felony convictions involving the use or threat of violence.

Then it goes on to say....

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.

IOW... the 1st paragraph isn't 100% of what Virzi did as stated on the paragraph above. But it appears it was by means of torture, considering what she did to his twins genitals, and the infant was definitely under 12 yrs old.

More info here: DA seeks death penalty against San Diego woman accused in Shadyside newborn's death.
 
Last edited:
It's misleading the way they're listed, and makes people think all four reasons apply to seeking the DP in this particular case, but they don't.

I am providing a link to this quote, (as others should be providing a link), because yes, it is confusing, and needs to be interpreted carefully. IMO, not all the reasons need apply to the charges in this case.

MOO, maybe #2 and #4 meet the requirements. I guess #1 could apply if they lump the two incidents together. #3 doesn't apply, AFAIK, as her attorney stated no prior criminal history. As someone here pointed out, the word "torture" carries a lot of weight. The facial scratches and genital injuries to the one twin seems to be what LE is considering torture.

1724633874125.png They sell baby protective scratch gloves. I know babies do scratch their own face sometimes, but it's probably nearly impossible for them to reach towards their genital area. Anyways, I can't imagine how her defense attorney can spin it to make those injuries be normal.
________________________________________________
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.
 

Staff online

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
124
Guests online
3,411
Total visitors
3,535

Forum statistics

Threads
602,746
Messages
18,146,367
Members
231,521
Latest member
BEllis9801
Back
Top