PA - infant Leon Katz murdered, twin injured, allegedly by babysitter, Pittsburgh- June 24, 2024 #2

[ChatteringBirds]

I’m honestly not convinced that the statements attributed to Nicole should be taken at face value

Quote snipped by me.
Your post is well written.

However even without the alleged confession, you have one babysitter and one baby with unusual injuries and another who has died.

Does it matter whether the motive includes the details in the alleged confession?
Or if the motive was more about resentment at being the babysitter for the happy couple and completely losing her self control?

There is still a very injured baby and a deceased baby, confession being the literal truth or not.
(IMO it is probably true. It fits what happened to the babies and explains the kind of person who would do this.)

 

[NorthernThinkerDownSouth]

Thank you for replying so quickly! I was just drafting a follow up post. Please see it here

Following up on my earlier post about the interrogation, I also want to explain why I’m not convinced this is a simple “open-and-shut” murder case, even taking the medical findings seriously. I’m not claiming anyone is innocent — just that there are enough unanswered questions to make me think this case is far more complex than the public narrative suggests.

Here are some things that stand out to me:

1. There’s no clear motive

One thing that keeps nagging at me is that there’s no publicly known motive for intentional harm here. This wasn’t a stranger, or someone with a feud, or someone with something to gain. By all accounts, she knew the family, spent time with them, and was trusted with the children. Motive isn’t required legally, but in rare and extreme cases like this, its absence creates a real question of why.

2. Her background doesn’t match the accusation

She was a PhD student, no criminal record, no history of violence, no documented pattern of aggression toward children. Cases where someone with this profile suddenly escalates to intentional lethal violence against an infant are exceptionally rare. People can snap, but statistically, this profile doesn’t fit typical offenders in deliberate infant homicide cases.

3. She reported both injuries immediately

If someone intended harm, the last thing they usually do is:

• alert the parents right away
• call 911
• bring attention to the situation immediately

Yet that’s exactly what happened — in both incidents involving the twins. That behavior is much more consistent with panic, confusion, or believing something accidental happened.

4. She stayed with the injured child at the hospital

Again, this is not typical of someone who intentionally inflicted harm. She accompanied the injured child, stayed through treatment, didn’t run, didn’t hide. That’s inconsistent with a deliberate crime.

5. The claim that she “confessed” seems less straightforward

People keep repeating that she “confessed,” but as in my previous post this happened after an extremely long interrogation, and after she had been emotionally deteriorating for hours. People experiencing shock, panic, or fear sometimes make irrational decisions without it implying guilt. This needs context, not assumptions.

6. The medical evidence is not as black-and-white as it appears

Infant injury interpretation is one of the most controversial areas in forensic medicine. Experts regularly disagree on:

• timing of the injuries
• mechanism (short fall vs. impact vs. medical vulnerability)
• whether associated findings indicate abuse
• whether certain trauma markers could be due to infection, inflammation, or medical procedures

For example, genital injuries in infants have multiple potential causes, including infection and irritation — and early news reports mentioned no detailed explanation of what the actual findings were. The fall explanation may or may not hold up, but until independent experts weigh in, the medical picture is not settled.

7. We don’t know whether any injuries predated the babysitting period

None of us have access to the twins’ complete medical histories. Timing of infant injuries is notoriously hard to determine with precision. It is entirely possible some findings predate the time she was with them. That doesn’t blame anyone — it just means the medical timeline may not be as clean as the media suggests.

8. “Parental abuse” is NOT what I’m suggesting — just that alternative timelines must be considered

To be clear: I am not suggesting the parents harmed the babies. I’m saying that timing in infant head trauma cases is frequently ambiguous, and assuming all findings occurred within a narrow window can be a mistake without expert review. This is simply standard due diligence in forensic pediatrics.

9. Her behavior is more consistent with panic than malice

Everything about her actions — calling for help, reporting injuries, staying present, showing distress, cooperating initially — looks more like someone overwhelmed and frightened than someone with murderous intent.

That doesn’t prove innocence. But it absolutely complicates the narrative of deliberate violence. Bottom line this doesn’t look like a classic murder case. It looks like a complex situation involving

• ambiguous medical evidence
• an unusually long and problematic interrogation
• a confession that may not be reliable
• lack of motive
• behavior inconsistent with intentional harm
• unanswered questions about timing and mechanism

It’s still possible the prosecution is right — but based on everything publicly available, it’s also very possible the situation isn’t nearly as clear-cut as the article made it seem.

For me, this is exactly the kind of case where reasonable doubt is not just possible — it’s actually the responsible position until all evidence is presented

 

[NorthernThinkerDownSouth]

I think it’s important, especially in a case like this, to remember how many times infant deaths have been misinterpreted or misdiagnosed, and how often early narratives turn out to be incomplete or outright wrong. Two well-known examples are Amanda Brumfield and Brooke Skylar Richardson, both of whom were publicly condemned early on, only for later expert analysis to undermine the central claims against them.

In Amanda Brumfield’s case in Florida, she was convicted of manslaughter after prosecutors insisted that a fall from a playpen could not have caused a child’s head injury. Years later, independent medical experts demonstrated that short falls can in fact produce the exact injuries seen in the child, and Brumfield was ultimately released because the original medical assumptions were flawed. Her case is a reminder that statements like “a fall can’t cause this” are not always supported by evolving forensic science.

The Brooke Skylar Richardson case in Ohio is another cautionary example. Skylar was interrogated for hours, told misleading medical information, and eventually made statements the public interpreted as a confession to killing and burning her newborn. By trial, expert testimony showed the baby was stillborn and there was no evidence of burning at all. What looked like a damning confession in the media unraveled completely once the full context and scientific evidence were examined. The public narrative was dramatically different from the courtroom reality.

There are also several infant-injury cases where convictions were overturned because medical interpretations changed or were shown to be incomplete. Adrian Thomas in New York confessed after a long interrogation to harming his infant, but the child’s death was later proven to have resulted from infection, not trauma, and the confession was ruled coerced. Other cases, like those of Patrick Gaughan in Texas and Renée Bailey in New York, show that short falls once deemed “impossible” by certain experts were later accepted as medically plausible. Across multiple jurisdictions, courts have reversed shaken-baby or abusive head trauma convictions once biomechanical experts and updated medical research were considered.

These examples matter because they show how easily early interpretations — whether medical or based on an interrogation — can mislead even seasoned investigators and prosecutors. Infant head trauma, injury timing, and genital findings are areas where experts frequently disagree, and where second opinions can change the entire understanding of what happened. When you combine that uncertainty with a long, high-pressure interrogation (as described in the Omnibus Motion), it becomes much harder to treat any confession as unquestionably reliable.

None of these comparisons prove what happened in this case. But they do show that initial narratives in infant deaths have been wrong many times before, that forensic medicine in these situations is far from absolute, and that confessions obtained after extended interrogations deserve scrutiny rather than automatic acceptance. For me, this history is a strong reason to be cautious and to wait for full evidence, full expert review, and full context before reaching firm conclusions

 

[steeltowngirl]

Thank you for replying so quickly! I was just drafting a follow up post. Please see it here

Following up on my earlier post about the interrogation, I also want to explain why I’m not convinced this is a simple “open-and-shut” murder case, even taking the medical findings seriously. I’m not claiming anyone is innocent — just that there are enough unanswered questions to make me think this case is far more complex than the public narrative suggests.

Here are some things that stand out to me:

1. There’s no clear motive

One thing that keeps nagging at me is that there’s no publicly known motive for intentional harm here. This wasn’t a stranger, or someone with a feud, or someone with something to gain. By all accounts, she knew the family, spent time with them, and was trusted with the children. Motive isn’t required legally, but in rare and extreme cases like this, its absence creates a real question of why.

2. Her background doesn’t match the accusation

She was a PhD student, no criminal record, no history of violence, no documented pattern of aggression toward children. Cases where someone with this profile suddenly escalates to intentional lethal violence against an infant are exceptionally rare. People can snap, but statistically, this profile doesn’t fit typical offenders in deliberate infant homicide cases.

3. She reported both injuries immediately

If someone intended harm, the last thing they usually do is:

• alert the parents right away
• call 911
• bring attention to the situation immediately

Yet that’s exactly what happened — in both incidents involving the twins. That behavior is much more consistent with panic, confusion, or believing something accidental happened.

4. She stayed with the injured child at the hospital

Again, this is not typical of someone who intentionally inflicted harm. She accompanied the injured child, stayed through treatment, didn’t run, didn’t hide. That’s inconsistent with a deliberate crime.

5. The claim that she “confessed” seems less straightforward

People keep repeating that she “confessed,” but as in my previous post this happened after an extremely long interrogation, and after she had been emotionally deteriorating for hours. People experiencing shock, panic, or fear sometimes make irrational decisions without it implying guilt. This needs context, not assumptions.

6. The medical evidence is not as black-and-white as it appears

Infant injury interpretation is one of the most controversial areas in forensic medicine. Experts regularly disagree on:

• timing of the injuries
• mechanism (short fall vs. impact vs. medical vulnerability)
• whether associated findings indicate abuse
• whether certain trauma markers could be due to infection, inflammation, or medical procedures

For example, genital injuries in infants have multiple potential causes, including infection and irritation — and early news reports mentioned no detailed explanation of what the actual findings were. The fall explanation may or may not hold up, but until independent experts weigh in, the medical picture is not settled.

7. We don’t know whether any injuries predated the babysitting period

None of us have access to the twins’ complete medical histories. Timing of infant injuries is notoriously hard to determine with precision. It is entirely possible some findings predate the time she was with them. That doesn’t blame anyone — it just means the medical timeline may not be as clean as the media suggests.

8. “Parental abuse” is NOT what I’m suggesting — just that alternative timelines must be considered

To be clear: I am not suggesting the parents harmed the babies. I’m saying that timing in infant head trauma cases is frequently ambiguous, and assuming all findings occurred within a narrow window can be a mistake without expert review. This is simply standard due diligence in forensic pediatrics.

9. Her behavior is more consistent with panic than malice

Everything about her actions — calling for help, reporting injuries, staying present, showing distress, cooperating initially — looks more like someone overwhelmed and frightened than someone with murderous intent.

That doesn’t prove innocence. But it absolutely complicates the narrative of deliberate violence. Bottom line this doesn’t look like a classic murder case. It looks like a complex situation involving

• ambiguous medical evidence
• an unusually long and problematic interrogation
• a confession that may not be reliable
• lack of motive
• behavior inconsistent with intentional harm
• unanswered questions about timing and mechanism

It’s still possible the prosecution is right — but based on everything publicly available, it’s also very possible the situation isn’t nearly as clear-cut as the article made it seem.

For me, this is exactly the kind of case where reasonable doubt is not just possible — it’s actually the responsible position until all evidence is presented

Any thoughts on how Leon died and the other twin was injured?

 

[NorthernThinkerDownSouth]

Any thoughts on how Leon died and the other twin was injured?

My suspicion is two fold

1. Leon suffered the fall as described by Nicole. Being a twin and possibly premature he was more vulnerable to being serious injured by short falls.

2. Ari suffered from a circumcision infection. The family is Jewish and almost certainly both boys are circumcised

I emphasis these are my theories. We need more hard evidence all round

 

[Tortoise]

6. The “childhood harming kids” narrative is a big red flag

A lot of people took this part of the article very literally. But dramatic, emotional “origin story” admissions often show up in false confessions because the person is:

• overwhelmed
• trying to give interrogators something
• accepting suggested narratives
• losing their grip under fatigue

These kinds of statements almost never emerge in the first hour. They emerge at hour 10, 11, 12 — just like here.

RSBM

What examples do you have of suspects falsely confessing to acts of harm they perpetrated in the past, which they weren't suspected of and weren't being questioned about?

 

[Gemmie]

I want to share a perspective that I don’t think has been fully discussed here yet. After reading both the TribLive article and the full Omnibus Motion, I’m honestly not convinced that the statements attributed to Nicole should be taken at face value. At the very least, I think this interrogation has a lot of the same features that have shown up again and again in well-documented false confession cases. A few things that really stood out to me:

1. The interrogation was extremely long

We’re not talking about a 1–2 hour interview. According to the motion, she was in police custody for around 13 hours. Almost all proven false confessions come after long, drawn-out interrogations, especially when the person is exhausted, scared, or mentally vulnerable. After 6 hours, reliability drops off a cliff. At 13 hours? It’s a huge red flag.

2. She invoked her rights, and questioning continued

This is important. The motion says she asked to stop and asked for a lawyer. That alone can taint everything that comes afterward. When someone is deprived of their rights and still questioned, the odds of a reliable, voluntary confession go down dramatically.

3. The “we have cameras” claim looks like a bluff

The article treats this as if police had damning surveillance. But according to the motion, the “cameras” were baby monitors. Police are allowed to lie during interrogations, and they often do. False confession cases are full of “we have evidence you don’t know about” tactics.

4. The emotional collapse matters

The motion describes crying, distress, isolation, cold temperatures, long gaps with no human contact, panic, etc. This is the textbook psychological environment where false confessions happen. Most people imagine they’d be strong under pressure. But every major false confession case involves someone who thought the same — until they broke down.

5. The most extreme statements came only at the end. This is almost exactly the pattern seen in cases like:

• Melissa Calusinski
• Brendan Dassey
• the Central Park 5

The early hours involve denials or confusion. The dramatic, self-incriminating material shows up after exhaustion, fear, and hopelessness take over. This is not my opinion — this is a documented pattern in forensic psychology.

6. The “childhood harming kids” narrative is a big red flag

A lot of people took this part of the article very literally. But dramatic, emotional “origin story” admissions often show up in false confessions because the person is:

• overwhelmed
• trying to give interrogators something
• accepting suggested narratives
• losing their grip under fatigue

These kinds of statements almost never emerge in the first hour. They emerge at hour 10, 11, 12 — just like here.

7. The Brooke Skylar Richardson comparison is key

That was a case I followed closely, and it has some striking similarities:

• young woman
• vulnerable mental state
• long interrogation
• misleading claims by investigators
• statements that snowballed into a so-called “confession”
• a public convinced she was a monster
• later evidence showing the confession was wrong

The public narrative was completely different from what experts later agreed on. Her supposed “confession” didn’t hold up in court at all. I’m not saying this case is identical — but the parallels are hard to ignore.

8. Confessions alone are not reliable evidence

People forget that about 20–25% of exonerations involve false confessions. And many of those confessions were as detailed and emotional as this one sounds. Human beings can be pushed into saying things that don’t reflect reality — it’s uncomfortable to accept, but it’s true

Welcome to WS @NorthernThinkerDownSouth! GREAT first post!

 

[steeltowngirl]

I think it’s important, especially in a case like this, to remember how many times infant deaths have been misinterpreted or misdiagnosed, and how often early narratives turn out to be incomplete or outright wrong. Two well-known examples are Amanda Brumfield and Brooke Skylar Richardson, both of whom were publicly condemned early on, only for later expert analysis to undermine the central claims against them.

In Amanda Brumfield’s case in Florida, she was convicted of manslaughter after prosecutors insisted that a fall from a playpen could not have caused a child’s head injury. Years later, independent medical experts demonstrated that short falls can in fact produce the exact injuries seen in the child, and Brumfield was ultimately released because the original medical assumptions were flawed. Her case is a reminder that statements like “a fall can’t cause this” are not always supported by evolving forensic science.

The Brooke Skylar Richardson case in Ohio is another cautionary example. Skylar was interrogated for hours, told misleading medical information, and eventually made statements the public interpreted as a confession to killing and burning her newborn. By trial, expert testimony showed the baby was stillborn and there was no evidence of burning at all. What looked like a damning confession in the media unraveled completely once the full context and scientific evidence were examined. The public narrative was dramatically different from the courtroom reality.

There are also several infant-injury cases where convictions were overturned because medical interpretations changed or were shown to be incomplete. Adrian Thomas in New York confessed after a long interrogation to harming his infant, but the child’s death was later proven to have resulted from infection, not trauma, and the confession was ruled coerced. Other cases, like those of Patrick Gaughan in Texas and Renée Bailey in New York, show that short falls once deemed “impossible” by certain experts were later accepted as medically plausible. Across multiple jurisdictions, courts have reversed shaken-baby or abusive head trauma convictions once biomechanical experts and updated medical research were considered.

These examples matter because they show how easily early interpretations — whether medical or based on an interrogation — can mislead even seasoned investigators and prosecutors. Infant head trauma, injury timing, and genital findings are areas where experts frequently disagree, and where second opinions can change the entire understanding of what happened. When you combine that uncertainty with a long, high-pressure interrogation (as described in the Omnibus Motion), it becomes much harder to treat any confession as unquestionably reliable.

None of these comparisons prove what happened in this case. But they do show that initial narratives in infant deaths have been wrong many times before, that forensic medicine in these situations is far from absolute, and that confessions obtained after extended interrogations deserve scrutiny rather than automatic acceptance. For me, this history is a strong reason to be cautious and to wait for full evidence, full expert review, and full context before reaching firm conclusions

Thanks - I plan to read up on the cases you noted. Interesting fact I just found out- Amanda Brumfield is the estranged daughter of Billy Bob Thornton.