Nanny Sues Hidden-Camera Manufacturer

[Brutuskend]

Nanny Sues Hidden-Camera Manufacturer
By Associated Press
4 hours ago

FORT LAUDERDALE, Fla. - A nanny who was arrested after police viewed hidden camera video recordings that appeared to show her shaking a 5-month-old baby is suing the recording system's manufacturer.

Claudia Muro, 32, alleges that distorted camera footage wrongfully led to her arrest and imprisonment. She was arrested in October 2003 and spent two years awaiting trial before prosecutors dropped the case because of concerns about the tape.

The footage was broadcast on television around the country.

The lawsuit was filed against Boca Raton-based Tyco Fire & Security, according to a report in the South Florida Sun-Sentinel. The lawsuit seeks unspecified damages.

Broward County prosecutors in March said experts they had consulted concluded the footage was not reliable as evidence because its videotape was time-lapsed, meaning that the movements that appeared to be rough shaking might not have been as violent as they appeared.

Robert McKee, Muro's civil attorney, told the Sun-Sentinel that the footage was misleading and caused his client to spend a long time in jail. He said there should be a warning to the consumer about the images.

Messages left by The Associated Press early Wednesday for McKee and Allison Gilman, Muro's criminal defense attorney, were not immediately returned.

Nor was a message left for the communications department of Tyco. A company official had told the Sun-Sentinel it does not discuss pending litigation.

 

[DBL]

sounds like it could have some merit. How could you possibly tell exactly what was going on if there was a significant time lapse?

 

[dbk]

FL again!!

 

[iroast]

Originally posted by: DBL
sounds like it could have some merit. How could you possibly tell exactly what was going on if there was a significant time lapse?

 

[NatePo717]

I think we should wipe out the entire populace of Florida to help cleanse the world of their stupidity.

 

[jamesbond007]

He said there should be a warning to the consumer about the images.

I don't get this. It's a video recorder right?

Either way, 2 years in prison is NOTHING. If it were 10 or 20, I'd think otherwise.

The bitch doesn't seem to get that you DON'T SCREW with other peoples' kids. Capiche?

 

[dquan97]

Originally posted by: ornament
FL again!!

Crazies unite!

 

[Ika]

I remember some girl sued a photographer (successfully, i might add!) for taking her picture without her knowledge. She was sitting on a public building's front steps. and it wasn't anything dirty, just a normal picture.

/random

 

[Amused]

I know this case.

The camera sucked. It recorded an image every second or so. The nanny was playing with the baby, lifting it up, and down, forward and back. With the stop action video it looked like she was shaking the baby. People recorded themselves doing the same thing she claimed to have done and it turned out the same way: looking like a violent shaking.

The truly absurd thing about this case is this: The parents continued to slander the poor girl even after it was proven the video was extremely flawed.

She should be suing the prosecutors and parents. The video manufacturer isn't really at fault here.

 

[AndrewR]

Originally posted by: DBL
sounds like it could have some merit. How could you possibly tell exactly what was going on if there was a significant time lapse?

Uh, no. The camera manufacturer made a time-lapse recording device. So, by your reasoning, they are somehow responsible for this woman being in jail for two years? She should be suing the police department or the government entity which kept her in jail, not the manufacturer of the camera. That's ridiculous.

 

[DBL]

Originally posted by: AndrewR

Originally posted by: DBL
sounds like it could have some merit. How could you possibly tell exactly what was going on if there was a significant time lapse?

Uh, no. The camera manufacturer made a time-lapse recording device. So, by your reasoning, they are somehow responsible for this woman being in jail for two years? She should be suing the police department or the government entity which kept her in jail, not the manufacturer of the camera. That's ridiculous.

What part of "could have some merit" is hard to understand? What if the camera company marketed the product to parents with the specific purpose of watching your nanny? Then I'd say she has a pretty strong case.

 

[JDrake]

link to video?

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: iroast

Originally posted by: DBL
sounds like it could have some merit. How could you possibly tell exactly what was going on if there was a significant time lapse?

Her beef shouldn't be with the camera manufacturer then

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: guoziming
I remember some girl sued a photographer (successfully, i might add!) for taking her picture without her knowledge. She was sitting on a public building's front steps. and it wasn't anything dirty, just a normal picture.

/random

How is that possible? You have no expectation of privacy in public.

 

[DBL]

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: iroast

Originally posted by: DBL
sounds like it could have some merit. How could you possibly tell exactly what was going on if there was a significant time lapse?

Her beef shouldn't be with the camera manufacturer then

Sure it could depending on how the camera was marketed. Don't you remember those X1 ads?

 

[DurocShark]

Originally posted by: DBL

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: iroast

Originally posted by: DBL
sounds like it could have some merit. How could you possibly tell exactly what was going on if there was a significant time lapse?

Her beef shouldn't be with the camera manufacturer then

Sure it could depending on how the camera was marketed. Don't you remember those X1 ads?

Then I should have sued X1 because none of my recordings hat the hot chicks they showed in the ads?

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: jamesbond007
He said there should be a warning to the consumer about the images.

I don't get this. It's a video recorder right?

Either way, 2 years in prison is NOTHING. If it were 10 or 20, I'd think otherwise.

The bitch doesn't seem to get that you DON'T SCREW with other peoples' kids. Capiche?

damn you are a retard. really you are.


its not really a video recorder. more like a digital camera. it takes a picture every second. not a few a second like a real video recorder. there was proof that the recorder was not accurate. people were shown picking up and playing with the child and it looked as if they were abusing the child.

2 years in prison is NOTHING? you are a fvcking retard. 2 YEARS. thats a lot of time to spend in prison when you did nothing wrong because of faulty evidance.

 

[Bootprint]

Originally posted by: jamesbond007
He said there should be a warning to the consumer about the images.

I don't get this. It's a video recorder right?

Either way, 2 years in prison is NOTHING. If it were 10 or 20, I'd think otherwise.

The bitch doesn't seem to get that you DON'T SCREW with other peoples' kids. Capiche?

So you're willing to do 2 years in prison for no reason? With the case dropped that's pretty much what happened.

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: guoziming
I remember some girl sued a photographer (successfully, i might add!) for taking her picture without her knowledge. She was sitting on a public building's front steps. and it wasn't anything dirty, just a normal picture.

/random

How is that possible? You have no expectation of privacy in public.

eh? yeah that is nuts. how was she able to win? as i said in other threads there are to many stupid people being on jury's

 

[buck]

Originally posted by: ornament
FL again!!

lol

 

[Presence]

Originally posted by: jamesbond007
He said there should be a warning to the consumer about the images.

I don't get this. It's a video recorder right?

Either way, 2 years in prison is NOTHING. If it were 10 or 20, I'd think otherwise.

The bitch doesn't seem to get that you DON'T SCREW with other peoples' kids. Capiche?

How freaking retarded can you be?

2 yrs in prison nothing? Lets see how you fare being in prison for two yrs. She didnt screw with anyone's kid. The images were time lapsed. Im not sure you know what that means considering how much of a fvck tard you are.

Hope you get 1 yr in prison one day and get some proper anal violation and lets see how you feel about this.

 

[xSauronx]

Originally posted by: JDrake
link to video?

:laugh:

 

[purbeast0]

suing the camera manufacture = BS

suing the parents or whoever was in charge of her getting locked up = OK

 

[Mo0o]

Germany or Florida!

 

[homestarmy]

Originally posted by: ornament
FL again!!

Yep, we don't take none of that nanny-cam bullshit here! If we want to shake or slap the ****** out of your kids, we'll do it!