Tape of nanny is misleading, attorney says (Idiot claims tape is speeded up)

On Tuesday, a lawyer for a nanny accused of violently handling a Hollywood infant said a videotape of the caregiver and the child, which has aired repeatedly on television, is misleading.

Fort Lauderdale attorney Allison Gilman said that slowing the tape, which shows Claudia Muro, 29, shaking the 5-month-old back and forth so aggressively that the baby's legs and arms whip back and forth, would likely show Muro ''playfully'' treating the infant.

After seeing the tape, Hollywood police charged Muro with four counts of felony child abuse. According to the child's parents, the child has undergone a battery of tests and appears to be uninjured.

With the help of news partner WFOR CBS-4, The Herald tried to examine the tape as the attorney suggested.

But the tape does not play like a movie with smoothly flowing images. Shot through cameras concealed in the living room and kitchen, it is more like a surveillance tape with occasional pauses. The automatic clock at the bottom of the picture indicates that the events shown on TV were recorded in real time.

Slowing the tape or speeding it up still shows Muro lifting the baby under her armpits and whipping her back and forth repeatedly. When the tape is paused and the baby's face is shown, her mouth is open, her eyes squinting.

Dr. Walter F. Lambert, medical director of the University of Miami's Child Protection Team, has viewed the footage.

During his career, Lambert has seen scores of incidents of Shaken Baby Syndrome, which the American Academy of Pediatrics defines as violent shaking of an infant with symptoms ranging from irritability, tremors, and vomiting to seizures, coma, and death. Such neurological changes are caused by the destruction of brain cells secondary to trauma, lack of oxygen to brain cells, and brain swelling.

''If people felt that the shaking [in the video] is violent, and it was, imagine how hard someone must shake a baby to cause Shaken Baby Syndrome,'' said Lambert.

``I saw the tape, and the worst thing I saw were the possible impact injuries. You do not pick a baby up and slam the baby down. That's not play. That's not how you play with a 5-month-old. [Gilman] can say whatever she likes, but any prudent person watching that tape knows that's excessive.''

According to the National Center on Shaken Baby Syndrome in Ogden, Utah, there were about 1,300 incidents in 2002 involving physically traumatized infants. That is a rough number because it applies only to cases reported by hospitals and child-abuse organizations. In many instances, injuries resulting from shaking are not recorded as Shaken Baby Syndrome but categorized by the injuries themselves.

Lambert noted that the video shows Muro grasping the baby under the armpits as she shakes it.

''She was holding the child by the trunk, and when that happens people tend to squeeze the ribs and cause rib fractures,'' he said. ``With the extremities moving back and forth, that can cause fractures.''

Amy Wicks, spokeswoman for the National Center on Shaken Baby Syndrome, said the Muro video has been the main topic of industry chat rooms.

'This is the first case we've seen in a long time where a `nanny cam' caught the images so clearly,'' she said.

Muro will remain in the North Broward Detention Facility until her Oct. 23 bond hearing. Immigration officials could deport her to Peru because she has lived without proper documents in the United States since 1997, Gilman said. But deportation before her case is over is unlikely.

According to Gilman, Muro does not have children with husband Joseph Brooks of Miami Beach, whom she married 15 months ago. The nanny had just begun to apply for U.S. citizenship when she was arrested last Friday.

Gilman also said that Muro worked for a North Miami family for two years before she was hired by the Schwartzes five months ago.

Gilman would not give the couple's name, but said the man is a doctor and his wife plans to attend the bond hearing to support Muro. They were on the reference list given to the Schwartzes, the attorney said.

It was unclear whether the North Miami couple hired Muro through All In One Services of Sunny Isles Beach, the same agency the Schwartzes used.

A woman at the business who would only give her first name, Gabby, told The Herald on Tuesday that the temporary employment agency's owner was out of town and unavailable for comment.

I see what you're saying, and I agree to a certain extent, but I don't believe it applies in this situation. From what has been described, you'd have to believe that the video was tampered with to believe she didn't do it. The absence of injuries in and of itself doesn't mean the baby wasn't shaken, dropped or slapped. It's just a question of degree.

You'd have to believe the video was tampered with to believe that what people see on the video isn't what actually happened. As for weird angles, the parents didn't have control over where the nanny stood or sat in relation to the cameras. Any reasonable person who has handled a baby can tell the difference between holding a baby up in the air and jiggling him to make him laugh or smile, and shaking the baby so hard that his head flops back and forth.

I haven't seen the video, but there's a screen capture in the first post that shows that the video is in color, not black and white. And it looks as though every one who has seen it is left in no doubt as to what is going on.

Also, you'd have to be some sort of expert to tamper with security video and not have someone discover that it's been tampered with.

To be fair, though, if I was a juror I'd like to see a video of an entire day, to see the abuse incidents in context along with everything else that happened that day.

From what I've read so far on this case, if the woman didn't abuse the baby, then the video was tampered with; that's the bottom line. And in the absence of compelling evidence to prove tampering, such a defense would not fall within the realm of reasonable doubt, emphasis on the word "reasonable".

It's more the problem of having this evidence played, and replayed, and replayed on television long before a jury is seated, that bothers me. The worst monster can get a fair trial so long as people haven't made up their minds before they witness the trial AND they are smart enough to weigh the evidence AND expert testimony about the evidence.

i know it's been a while since this nanny story and most people don't care about it anymore, but there is an innocent human being behind bars still. I am a video proffesional and can assure you that this tape is not what it seems to be..The attorney may of used the wrong words in describing this tape, but has the right idea. The fact is your perception is not reality, because of missing frames.. If their lies anymore interest in this please let's do something about it. The true horror here is how new technology in the wrong hands is dangerous.

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.