NorthernThinkerDownSouth
Active Member
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2025
- Messages
- 15
- Reaction score
- 100
Thanks for the thoughtful reply, I genuinely appreciate the respectful tone.First let me say I appreciate your thoughtful posts and I do understand that you don't want to see an innocent person get convicted of crimes they did not commit. I took a similar stance in the beginning of this case, but now I have to trust there must be some damning solid evidence to charge her with actual murder and even consider the DP. At this time, we can only go by what we know so far and most people are bothered by the coincidences of this case- both twin harmed and NV near or involved at both changing events.
Of course this is just my observation as I look at the picture of the twins, I'd say they look like they're healthy and thriving, and they don't look underweight for their age. It's more likely they were healthy than suffering any underlying conditions.
Besides, LK had head injuries after being with NV, not anything to do with being preemie or any underlying illness. The parents left their child with NV and he died from a head trauma. That was the major event. As for the other twin, if there was a circumcision infection that was causing bleeding and blood spots in the diaper, I'm sure the parents would've noticed it before NV got there. Why would it suddenly scare them to the point it they rushed to the emergency room with that twin?
Look at the photo of the twins in the links below. Do they look to be suffering underlying conditions? JMO, but it seems more logical to assume they were doing fine and having regular check ups with a pediatrician. MOO, it just seems more likely that the major event might be that NV came to visit.
The parents look so happy and relaxed in the photos I've seen of them with their twins.
Chilling relationship between twin boy's murder suspect and grieving mum
Nicole Virzi, a PhD student alleged to have killed the infant son of Ethan Katz and Savannah Roberts, has been revealed as a close family friend who was trusted by the couple, a GoFundMe allegedwww.themirror.com
I agree that the coincidences in this case are troubling, and I completely understand why many people feel the way you do. But I want to push back gently on the idea that we can determine the twins’ medical robustness simply by looking at photographs or by assuming they must have been perfectly healthy because they looked normal and were smiling.
Infants can appear outwardly “healthy” while still having vulnerabilities that are invisible in photos: clotting issues, subclinical infections, metabolic instability, complications from birth, positional vulnerabilities, earlier minor head impacts, oxygenation problems, or complications from recent procedures. These are not wild hypotheticals, they are all documented in pediatric medicine. A baby can look completely fine in every picture and still have an underlying condition that makes them much more fragile than they appear.
As for the head injury question, you are assuming the diagnosis itself is simple and settled. I have been following the shaken baby/abusive head trauma controversy for some time now, and I am struck by how similar this situation is to other cases where the initial medical interpretation was later seriously questioned, such as the cases of Audrey Edmunds, Tonia Miller and Kim Hoover Moor. In those kinds of cases, doctors originally felt the findings clearly pointed to abuse by the last caregiver, only for later experts, courts or appeals to say that the science was not nearly as clear-cut as first claimed. That is exactly why a deeper and more independent review of the medical evidence is so important here before we start drawing firm conclusions.
I also followed the Brooke Skylar Richardson case very closely, and that was highly revealing for me in terms of how “confession” style statements can be shaped by pressure, suggestion, fear and misunderstanding. At one point the public was absolutely convinced that she had essentially confessed to monstrous acts. Once everything came out in court, that narrative did not hold. It taught me to be extremely cautious about treating dramatic-sounding statements from an interrogation room as the final word on what really happened.
On top of that, the medical evidence in cases like this rests on science that is constantly evolving. Pediatric forensics, head injury mechanisms, oxygen deprivation, and timing of findings are fields where new research and disputes are still emerging. There is no murder weapon here, no DNA tying someone directly to an act, no single piece of absolutely infallible physical evidence. What we have, at least from what is public so far, is an interpretation of medical findings and a set of statements taken under stressful circumstances. That combination can look convincing at first glance, but history shows it has sometimes led to very serious miscarriages of justice.
A case that often comes to mind for me is the 1997 Massachusetts case involving British nanny Louise Woodward. A baby in her care died from a skull fracture and brain bleeding, and she was initially charged with second-degree murder. After extensive expert disagreement about the medical findings, the judge ultimately reduced the conviction to involuntary manslaughter, and she was sentenced to time served. What stands out is how one of the key medical experts for the prosecution later publicly stated that he would not give the same testimony today because the scientific understanding of infant head injuries has changed so dramatically. He explained that newer MRI technology and more advanced research revealed multiple medical conditions — including infections and in-utero strokes — that can mimic what was once assumed to be “shaken baby” or abusive trauma. That shift in understanding shows just how fluid and evolving this area of medicine truly is
Regarding the timing of symptoms or diaper findings, it is also not safe to assume that parents would necessarily spot every subtle sign immediately. With very young infants, diaper changes are constant, and small amounts of blood, irritation or unusual discharge can easily be mistaken for normal post-procedure healing or mild irritation until something more dramatic happens. That does not blame the parents at all, it just reflects how easily early signs can be missed in real life.
None of this proves what happened in this case. But it does, in my view, show that the “they looked healthy in photos, therefore no underlying issues and the answer must be obvious” argument is not a reliable way to approach something this medically complex. We need a much deeper investigation and much more detailed medical scrutiny before we start treating any conclusion as settled.
Ultimately, I think many of us share the same basic goal: to avoid condemning someone based on assumptions, coincidences and first impressions, and to wait until the full medical evidence, expert testimony and legal arguments are properly examined. That is why I am committed to keeping an open mind until everything is actually on the table
And to be completely fair, I’m willing to acknowledge that maybe I am looking at her too sympathetically. I’ve followed enough criminal cases over the years to learn — sometimes the hard way — that rushing to judgment can lead people badly astray in both directions. It is absolutely possible that Nicole is guilty. If stronger evidence comes to light or if the medical findings ultimately point clearly in that direction, I will accept that and adjust my view accordingly.
But we are not at that point yet. Right now, we’re still dealing with partial information, evolving interpretations, and an investigation that isn’t complete. Until the full picture is visible, I think caution is the most responsible position for anyone to take.
You can read a good link about how difficult these cases can be here: https://www.npr.org/2011/06/28/137454415/the-child-cases-guilty-until-proven-innocent
