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.
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.