Only in America: Baby-Shaking Nanny sues Hidden Camera Maker
 

http://www.wbir.com/news/archive.aspx?storyid=35220

"Nanny arrested in baby-shaking case sues hidden camera maker

A former nanny arrested after a hidden camera caught her appearing to shake a baby she was caring for is suing the camera system's manufacturer.

Charges were dropped against Claudia Muro because of questions about the accuracy of the camera in the 2003 incident involving the five-month-old infant in Florida. The footage was broadcast across the country.

In her lawsuit against Tyco Fire and Security, Muro claims distorted camera footage wrongfully led to her arrest. The suit seeks unspecified damages.

When they dismissed the charges last March, prosecutors said experts they'd consulted concluded the footage was not reliable because its tape was time-lapsed -- meaning the movements that appeared to be shaking might not have actually been as violent as they appeared. "

I love America! Only here can you sue people for suing hot coffee on your lap, sue the owner of the house that you broke into because you broke your leg while breaking and entering and now suing the makers of hidden cameras because it helped expose you shaking a kid violently. Thanks America! :321GFY

I sued the one and only crook who ever broke into my house, for the damage he caused to my baseball bat.

Fucker's head caused dents in it, he left teeth embedded in it, bloodstains... it's totally unuseable now.

I won a huge settlement.

Only in America are you INNOCENT until proven guilty supposedly

"When they dismissed the charges last March, prosecutors said experts they'd consulted concluded the footage was not reliable because its tape was time-lapsed -- meaning the movements that appeared to be shaking might not have actually been as violent as they appeared. "

Next time try READING.

litigious happy society.....

Fuck that shit. If you thought someone did you wrong you'd sue.

Look, as much as I love shaking babies, I just can't condone what this bitch did. So what if the fucking tape was time lapsed? The family obviously suspected something because they setup a fucking camera system to try to catch the fat cow doing something to their kid. They had to have caught something pretty convincing on tape for it to go this far in the legal system, but being that this happened in Florida I'm sure the fat ass whore found a nice lawyer who was willing to defend her.

Did you actually read the quote that you quoted? 'meaning the movements that appeared to be shaking might not have actually been as violent as they appeared'. So evidently she was shaking the baby, just not shaking it 'violently' enough :) So remember next time people: A little kid fucking pisses you off? Don't be afraid to shake it... just don't do it too hard.

have you ever watched a time lapse footage ? everything looks horrible violent and distorted , your reading a quote from a newspaper , you should know that the media likes to use word games , so while they do say "he movements that appeared to be shaking might not have actually been as violent as they appeared" , it could've been read out in the court as " she was simply picking the baby up , the time lapse on the camera made it look like shaking"

setting up a vid cam means fuck all , shit i have security cameras in my house indoors and out , not because i have been broken into or suspect that i ever will be broken into , but its there for security just in case , same could be said for the hidden cam setup

They had to have caught something pretty convincing on tape for it to go this far in the legal system

prosecution thought that they did get footage , but defence knocked it down due to the make of the camera , prosecution just did a shit job in the investigation process

time lapse frame rate compared to normal
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...ankTimelin.png

These people setup the cams because they suspected the baby being 'tortured' by the fat ass whore. From the footage seen they say that she was shaking the kid... just not violently enough. But like I said, I can completely understand why she would want to shake the kid, I get turned on from doing it myself, but this fat bitch should be shaken by an even BIGGER fat bitch just so I can take vids of it and churn out a couple of kickass movies, Fat Bitches Gone Wild: SHAKE DAT BITCH HARDER VOLUME 01-02.

dont worry shell end paying the lawyers fees out of pocket. People can do what they want in there homes.

You can sue for anything here. It doesnt mean you will win : )

how is that even fucking possible?

she was in the wrong!

no she wasn't in the wrong
Charges were dropped against Claudia Muro because of questions about the accuracy of the camera

And yet they continued to leave the baby in her care. Sorry if I suspected someone of doing something to my baby I wouldn't let them continue to watch my baby.

Its sad that there are lawyers so hard up for work they do crazy stuff like this.

quite easy to prove. You setup the cam and record a similar action. You setup a normal good speed video camera and record the footage on both. I can easily see why it would appear the way it did. Whats this have to do with America again? Oh ya forgot you hate America. You read alot for hating books...

I've seen the video on TV, and it's pretty clear she did nothing wrong.

troll alert

Up here in the North land you actually have to prove damages to even get a sniff of a courtroom. Now this lady, it would seem, is arguing that but this case wouldn't see daylight here and for good reason.

To put it as simply as possible, you cannot sue *anyone* for something that led to your being charged with a crime *unless* you can prove willful intent. For example, a cop plants evidence against you, comes out in the trial and you're found innocent. Yes, you can sue.

On the other hand, something like this cannot be litigated as the company obviously had no malicious intent. Another e.g. would be a complainant destroying evidence that would have implicated you (for whatever reason, perhaps it implicated them as well) - and assuming you're found innocent/charges dropped, etc. due to this.

Of course, you could speak to a civil lawyer here and they may something different, but essentially it's akin to suing someone for *helping* you get off the charges. After all, if the camera worked properly she may have been found guilty.

this was all over news.. only in US this can be made such big deal..