Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Nanny Sues Hidden-Camera Manufacturer
http://www.comcast.net ^ | 6 14 06 | Associated Press

Posted on 06/14/2006 6:53:25 AM PDT by freepatriot32

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.


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Extended News; US: Florida
KEYWORDS: 2manylawyers; bocaraton; camera; florida; floriduh; fortlauderdale; hidden; hiddencam; lawsuit; manufacturer; nanny; nannycam; sues; tortreform; tortreformnow; tyco

1 posted on 06/14/2006 6:53:27 AM PDT by freepatriot32
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: freepatriot32

Is this suggesting that the broadcast was not the source of the tort? How can the manufacturer be held responsible for what the buyer did with the property?

Knock, knock??


2 posted on 06/14/2006 6:56:45 AM PDT by BelegStrongbow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freepatriot32

We knew this was coming.


3 posted on 06/14/2006 6:59:35 AM PDT by BunnySlippers (We want our day: A day without hearing SPANISH ...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BelegStrongbow
How can the manufacturer be held responsible for what the buyer did with the property?

Happens all the time, sadly.
4 posted on 06/14/2006 7:01:26 AM PDT by P-40 (Al Qaeda was working in Iraq. They were just undocumented.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: BunnySlippers

Yep, and next will be the book about the suit about the hidden-camera manufacturer. And then after that will be the movie about the book about the suit...


5 posted on 06/14/2006 7:01:56 AM PDT by C210N (Bush SPYED, Terrorists DIED!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: freepatriot32

Oh jeeze, I definitely have to start a "Stupidity out of Florida" ping list.


6 posted on 06/14/2006 7:13:09 AM PDT by Havok (I like meat, guns, and comic books. Am I a bad conservative?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freepatriot32
I find this interesting. These parents hire a nanny, install nanny cams because they do not trust the nanny.

A hidden camera will not stop mistreatment only aid in the prosecution of the offender.

If the parents are that concerned maybe someone should have stayed home with the children to begin with.
7 posted on 06/14/2006 7:17:57 AM PDT by Kimmers
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kimmers
If the parents are that concerned maybe someone should have stayed home with the children to begin with.

How would they have made the payments on their new BMWs???

8 posted on 06/14/2006 7:21:05 AM PDT by Onelifetogive (Freerepublic - The website where "Freepers" is not in the spell checker dictionary...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: freepatriot32

The critical missing piece of information is whether or not the infant suffered any sort of injury or trauma, and that should have been determined by any medical examination, either by the child's pediatrician or via hospital records.

This doesn't pass the sniff test, IMHO.


9 posted on 06/14/2006 7:26:35 AM PDT by mkjessup (The Shah doesn't look so bad now, eh? But nooo, Jimmah said the Ayatollah was a 'godly' man.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freepatriot32
This kind of crap would come to a screeching halt if companies victimized by these gold diggers would counter sue, and go for the financial jugglers of these sewer rats.
10 posted on 06/14/2006 7:33:15 AM PDT by demkicker (democrats and terrorists are intimate bedfellows)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: demkicker

Tort reform = loser pays.


11 posted on 06/14/2006 7:35:32 AM PDT by Protagoras ("A real decision is measured by the fact that you have taken a new action"... Tony Robbins)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: FreePatriot; All

This is the reason for tort reform.

This is 100% an intimidation suit.

Keep in mind if there are punative damages the state gets a significant piece of that award.

The camera maker's attorney fee award should be charged to the plaintiff lawyer PERSONALLY.


12 posted on 06/14/2006 7:37:00 AM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freepatriot32
Is this the crazy broad who was seen shaking the little kid, then slamming her several times on the floor?

I wonder if she had an explanation for the full body slams? Lens malfunction making objects look more wobbly from a distance or something?

13 posted on 06/14/2006 7:38:28 AM PDT by RepoGirl ("Bobby, if you weren't my son... I'd hug you...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kimmers
If the parents are that concerned maybe someone should have stayed home with the children to begin with.

This is exactly why my child will never be in day care.

14 posted on 06/14/2006 7:38:44 AM PDT by gieriscm
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: freepatriot32

Uhhhh, so the fact this Nanny's handa and the baby's shoulders were shown to be eight inches behind the baby's bend over head on one frame and then eight inches in front of the baby's bent back head in the next means absolutely nothing?

Why not sure George Eastmann's estate for inventing the camera? How about John Logie Baird's estate since it was shown on a TV?


15 posted on 06/14/2006 7:39:14 AM PDT by SengirV
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gieriscm

I have always said you can't pay someone to love your children.

I am also aware that single parents need daycare...



16 posted on 06/14/2006 7:44:40 AM PDT by Kimmers
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Protagoras

In Florida there are many areas of law where the user pays the lawyer fee.

The problem is that it DOES NOT MATTER AGAINST A PENILESS PLAINTIFF.

This is a suit the lawyer should never have taken. What this is about is extending the "proximate cause" concept to absurdity. (ie suing a ski mask maker for a bank robbery)

The goal here is to force a settlement and use the PR to push BIGGER suits for the law firm.

If people want to be USEFUL, file "friend of the court" memoranda when the camera company files a motion to dismiss.


17 posted on 06/14/2006 7:55:06 AM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: freepatriot32
He said there should be a warning to the consumer about the images.

"Warning: There is a hidden camera above this warning label. The images it takes may..."

Absurd...

18 posted on 06/14/2006 8:00:41 AM PDT by AmericaUnited
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freepatriot32

The lawyers bringing this case to court should be disbarred.


19 posted on 06/14/2006 8:03:09 AM PDT by samtheman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RepoGirl
"I wonder if she had an explanation for the full body slams?"

Given that it was time-lapse, she wasn't "slamming" the child on the floor -- in reality, she was gently lowering the child to the floor, raising the child, then gently lowering the child to the floor, over and over.

That's her story and she's sticking to it.

20 posted on 06/14/2006 8:55:03 AM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: samtheman

Cases like this could easily be dismissed, but the people who know how to do this are lawyers, who don't make any money by doing that.


21 posted on 06/14/2006 8:55:49 AM PDT by norraad ("What light!">Blues Brothers)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: mkjessup

It was proven that the infant did not suffer any injury or truma.

The problem was that the time lapse aspect of the footage turned the picture of a nanny playing with the baby into a picture of someone abusing the baby.

The nanny has a case, but not against the camera manufacturer. I think the couples attorney (or prosecuter), who should have done a better job of checking it out before filing with the court.

This has been a miscarrage of justice thus far.


22 posted on 06/14/2006 9:05:32 AM PDT by Balding_Eagle (God has blessed Republicans with really stupid enemies.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
in reality, she was gently lowering the child to the floor, raising the child, then gently lowering the child to the floor, over and over.

Ah! I gotcha--it was just a fun game she and the little tot were playing, and that dang nanny cam malfunctioned and made it look bad.

And when we saw the kid's neck whipping back and forth, in reality, the child was just performing several advanced yoga moves designed to over extend the neck. Gotcha!

Dang technology! ;-)

23 posted on 06/14/2006 9:12:47 AM PDT by RepoGirl ("Bobby, if you weren't my son... I'd hug you...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Havok

"Oh jeeze, I definitely have to start a "Stupidity out of Florida" ping list."

Here's one for you, I posted it on another thread earlier today:

"Early this morning I was listening to KRLD radio in Dallas, they were discussing the Mav's game with another station in florida. They were talking about how the Florida people were all dressed in white. The florida DJ (a woman) made the comment, "we were dressed in white because we wanted to look like the Ku Klux Klan so the Mav's would feel at home." What the hell was that supposed to mean????"


24 posted on 06/14/2006 9:15:56 AM PDT by tuffydoodle (Shut up voices, or I'll poke you with a Q-Tip again.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: BelegStrongbow
Is this suggesting that the broadcast was not the source of the tort? How can the manufacturer be held responsible for what the buyer did with the property?

What you need to know is that the system didn't record at a real-time rate of 30 frames per second, but at something like 5 frames a second. So everything looked exagerrated and outrageously violent.

I saw a re-enactment of this specific case on a Court TV show a couple of months ago. They showed somebody in a split-screen of 5 frames per second and 30 frames per second doing simple stuff like picking up a doll and putting it in a crib, and it showed exactly how false this "evidence" was.

Yes, I say the camera/recorder manufacturer is solely responsible for her imprisonment.

25 posted on 06/14/2006 9:40:41 AM PDT by jiggyboy (Ten per cent of poll respondents are either lying or insane)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: freepatriot32
For a while I would of welcomed any lawsuit against X10 cameras and their annoying popups.

Heck, I would of welcomed a nuclear strike on their headquarters.

26 posted on 06/14/2006 9:44:20 AM PDT by avg_freeper (Gunga galunga. Gunga, gunga galunga)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tuffydoodle; Joe Brower

Maybe the Texans can wear pink tutus to make the South Florida fruitcakes feel at home.


27 posted on 06/14/2006 9:45:11 AM PDT by stainlessbanner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: freepatriot32

I bet the nanny is pretty shook up!


28 posted on 06/14/2006 9:47:23 AM PDT by Revolting cat! ("In the end, nothing explains anything.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All

Ok found a link for a basis of my earlier post:

=======

The only new development was that an actual expert pointed out that time lapse video had been snapped- off at between four and seven images a second, compared to 60 images on a television-quality tape, creating a herky-jerky illusion.

''There was no assault,'' said Grant Fredericks, a former police officer and a noted instructor in forensic video analysis. ``It was so obvious to me and obvious to any forensic video analyst who looked at the tape.''

Indeed, an expert hired by the Broward state attorney's office came to the same conclusion.

http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/columnists/fred_grimm/14147087.htm


29 posted on 06/14/2006 9:49:47 AM PDT by jiggyboy (Ten per cent of poll respondents are either lying or insane)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: BelegStrongbow

"How can the manufacturer be held responsible for what the buyer did with the property? "

Same argument applies to firearms... or anything for that matter...


30 posted on 06/14/2006 9:51:45 AM PDT by MD_Willington_1976
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: stainlessbanner

LMAO! Too bad the Texas DJ's didn't think of that one.


31 posted on 06/14/2006 10:12:06 AM PDT by tuffydoodle (Shut up voices, or I'll poke you with a Q-Tip again.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Havok
I definitely have to start a "Stupidity out of Florida" ping list.

That would be the busiest ping list on FR.
32 posted on 06/14/2006 11:09:06 AM PDT by BJClinton (There's plenty of room for all God's creatures, right next to the mashed potatoes.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: tuffydoodle

The Texas DJ should have told the Florida DJ they can wear white to the wake after the Mavericks bury the Heat and win the NBA championship!


33 posted on 06/14/2006 12:21:11 PM PDT by TexanByBirth (Tired of high gas prices, then kick an environmentalist!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Havok

Just the other day there was some judge on the west side of the state who decided to have his two presenting attorneys settle their case using rock-paper-scissors.


34 posted on 06/14/2006 6:32:22 PM PDT by getmeouttaPalmBeachCounty_FL ( **Hunter-Tancredo-Weldon-Hayworth 4 President** I get it, Glenn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson