-
Nanny sues hidden camera maker
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.
More, here: http://www.comcast.net/news/national...cvqh=itn_nanny
-
Re: Nanny sues hidden camera maker
Screw that. If I ever employed a nanny, she could bet her ass she'd be recorded every second she was with my kids. She's only pissed because she got CAUGHT shaking that little baby.
Quote:
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.
Oh? So she was shaking the baby "lovingly" and not violently then? Grrr.
-
Re: Nanny sues hidden camera maker
It means that she may not have been responsible for hurting the child. That is a really big difference, and consumers should know if the camera is distorting what they think they are seeing. If you time lapse a "jiggle" to quiet a crying baby, or to burp it, it could probably look like a violent shaking.
I am actually of that variety of people that doesn't believe we should be running around secretly recording each other. If people have so little faith in the process of interviewing and references and their own ability to select a candidate, that's fine - what is wrong, then, with simply openly installing a camera system and warning the employee that she is being watched? It seems more sensible and efficient to STOP her from shaking or hurting the baby than catch her afterwards.
-
Re: Nanny sues hidden camera maker
I've seen the video. And then watched as they recorded someone smoothly moving a basketball, when played back it looked as though the ball was shaking. I don't know but the ball thing really made me question if in fact she really did shake the baby. If I recall right there were no injuries to the baby(?) Either way it's a messed up situation.
-
Re: Nanny sues hidden camera maker
Oh yes its the camers fault wtf ! Just turn off the camera and slap the shit outta the nanny ! Your so fired !!
-
Re: Nanny sues hidden camera maker
Yeah, fortunately the baby suffered no injuries. MIRACULOUSY.
Wanna see the video? Click
Time-lapse or not, She WAS shaking that baby. It's bullshit that the charges were dropped after her serving 2 1/2 years.
For the record, I would let them know that cameras were installed and have them sign something saying that they know about it. But you can be damn sure they'd be recorded and watched. You can't be too cautious where your kids are concerned.
-
Re: Nanny sues hidden camera maker
I don't know - I watched it, and I don't see it as being THAT obvious. I mean, it doesn't look great, and I've never shaken a baby so I don't have excellent knowledge on what that would look like. But I have burped and jiggled and held squirmy, crying babies, (I worked in an infant daycare) and I think it could look like that, if it was filmed in a certain way. Personally I think it is bullshit that if you are using videotape as evidence that you don't take the trouble to get GOOD evidence. I mean - why not just get a decent webcam?
-
Re: Nanny sues hidden camera maker
I have two children, and never shook them/burped/jiggled them like that. My children weren't small babies and I wasn't "uptight" or overly cautious. That looks like ABUSE.
-
Re: Nanny sues hidden camera maker
It looks like the head is going way to far back for her not to be shaking it. Need a frame of reference.
As far as no injuries I'm not surprised. As part of her CPS training in Harris Co (Houston, TX) my wife was shown a hidden video of a woman's boyfriend repeatedly punching, slapping, shaking violently, and throwing (across the room) a baby . They asked the class what kind of injuries do you think the baby sustained? The class went off as expected: broken bones, internal bleeding, shaken baby, etc.
The instructor tells the class, just minor bruising. There are two reasons they show the video. One, if a baby went through that with just bruises, imagine what it takes to cause shaken baby. Two, Illustrate how important investigating a minor injury could be.
-
Re: Nanny sues hidden camera maker
Quote:
Originally Posted by lunchbox
As far as no injuries I'm not surprised. As part of her CPS training in Harris Co (Houston, TX) my wife was shown a hidden video of a woman's boyfriend repeatedly punching, slapping, shaking violently, and throwing (across the room) a baby.
I think I'm going to be sick. Grrr!
-
Re: Nanny sues hidden camera maker
Yeah I've seen my kids fall/trip/tumble down stairs, and emerge without a scratch or bruise. Both as kids (now 4 & 6) and as babies. (They are dare devils at times, I'm not a child abuser!) No injuries does not mean no abuse, and vice versa.
-
Re: Nanny sues hidden camera maker
i can't get the video to play??
-
Re: Nanny sues hidden camera maker
It took a few minutes to load for me, Sassy, even with the high-speed connection. Try and reload it if it's been more than a few minutes.
-
Re: Nanny sues hidden camera maker
still won't work..it just sits there idol with the news station graphic
-
Re: Nanny sues hidden camera maker
Mmmm, I'm skeptical of that video too. Doesn't look like a good quality image so I'd have a damn hard time convicting someone with such poor evidence. Sometimes I think people are a little too eager to assume guilt in such cases.
-
Re: Nanny sues hidden camera maker
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jenny
I am actually of that variety of people that doesn't believe we should be running around secretly recording each other. If people have so little faith in the process of interviewing and references and their own ability to select a candidate, that's fine - what is wrong, then, with simply openly installing a camera system and warning the employee that she is being watched? It seems more sensible and efficient to STOP her from shaking or hurting the baby than catch her afterwards.
I think you're partially correct here. Installing a camera and telling your employee they are on camera is proactive. Taping them without their knowledge is reactive. If they had told the nanny she was on camera then the shaking would have never taken place and this would have never been an issue. By taking a reactive choice, they have evidence that the nanny did the crime but the crime had to take place to begin with and it could have been prevented.
As for your statement about checking references etc., that's a joke. Most employers nowadays will almost never give a negative reference for fear of being sued.
-
Re: Nanny sues hidden camera maker
^^But if she really wasn't shaking the baby to begin with, and the camera is just crappy enough to make it appear that way, it's a bit of a moot point. I think if you're gonna get a camera, you should get one that shows REAL TIME images, not time lapsed, and good picture quality.
I agree it's best to be up front with people about it, so you may prevent any potential abuse before it starts.
-
Re: Nanny sues hidden camera maker
Quote:
Originally Posted by lunchbox
It looks like the head is going way to far back for her not to be shaking it. Need a frame of reference.
Yes, but babies do always just sit still to be jiggled or burped (or shaken). They writhe and wriggle and, in fact will move their own heads. Screaming babies can look like they are having convulsions. With a camera like that, innocent behaviour could look really bad. Of course, entirely guilty behaviour could also look bad. But knowing that the camera is "lapsing" I wouldn't think that is adequate to convict her of criminal charges, and you don't really need a reason to fire her.
-
Re: Nanny sues hidden camera maker
that video made me so sick and angry!!!!! first of all, even with the "lapse" u can absolutely tell that a baby is not supposed to be jerking THAT BAD!!!!! i mean it was just way too horrible to be a burping. and the part where is showed them in the kitchen, why in the world would the girl be throwing the baby up and dropping her for no reason other than to hurt her....look at the expression on the nanny's face while she is doing all this....u can tell it is out of anger ....that is just my opinion...gosh that is just sick
-
Re: Nanny sues hidden camera maker
Am I crazy- it looks to me like she's playing with the baby. The shake where she;s on the couch, she starts tickling the baby afterwards...it looks loving to me. And the 'slamming on the kitchen floor' one looks like a game of airplane or something.
Granted, she's being too rough. But I really don't think it's fair to accuse her of abuse just based on those videos.
-
Re: Nanny sues hidden camera maker
A pal of mine has a baby, and when we see him we play a game that involves holding him and then tipping him WAAAY down backwards.... then pulling him up.... then tipping him WAAAAY down backwards and then.... (you guessed it) pulling him up! (The whole process is VERY surprising to him, and he laughs and laughs). There is certainly no abuse, no pain, no careless treatment and no potential for injury. However, if you videoed with a time lapse camera... I cringe to think what it would look like. We do another one where we lift we WAAAY up over our heads... and then bring him back down. That would probably look like we were throwing him.
-
Re: Nanny sues hidden camera maker
I think they should have installed camera of a good quality. The camera I use to spy on my nanny have a better quality then, what was shown on the video. If they live in hollywood they can afford a better carmera. I have a sign on the side of my door. Once you enter you are under surveillance! Wethier or not any one choose to believe it or not! That protects me from any law suits. Just in case the nanny or other people she had brought into the house. Cannot say they was not warn about being tape. I have had one to many bad babysitters. I just do not trust anyone with my child.
-
Re: Nanny sues hidden camera maker
^ good idea LC I like your idea of having the surveillance sign on your door. I know that if I was to ever hire a nanny you can be pretty dang sure that I would install camera's also. I wouldn't trust anybody around my child not nowadays anyway.
As for the video yes the quality wasn't great but it was clear enough to show that you do not handle a baby that way. It definitely looked as if she was shaking the baby.
Seraya.
-
Re: Nanny sues hidden camera maker
Eh, kinda funny. I said to my ex after this came out, and it was explained it was a time lapsed video, that I bet she's gonna sew the camera company, and voila. She is. Nuff said.
No, wait. HOAX! If I thought my baby was being harmed, I wouldn't install cameras Id keep my baby with me!!
-
Re: Nanny sues hidden camera maker
Exactly HOW timelapsed is this? Because, really... babies heads turn at the oddest of angles for no reason. It's not like they can hold them up. o.O