Skip to comments.
Defense: No Abuse On 'Nanny Cam' Video
nbc ^
| 10/23/03
| nbc6 news team
Posted on 12/07/2003 11:12:23 PM PST by Superstev
FORT LAUDERDALE, Fla. -- Defense attorneys for a nanny accused of abusing a 5-month-old girl disputed the prosecutions claims in a bond court hearing Thursday, saying a videotape purporting to show the abuse shows no such thing. feedRoom
Nanny Accused Of Abuse Defended
Claudia Muro, 29, faces four counts of child abuse for allegedly violently shaking and striking the infant daughter of a Hollywood couple.
On Thursday, defense attorneys said Muro did not abuse the girl, and that the tape -- the prosecution's key evidence -- proves nothing.
(Excerpt) Read more at nbc6.net ...
TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Government; Miscellaneous; News/Current Events; Technical; US: Florida
KEYWORDS: nanny
A video misinterpreted has an innocent person behind bars still. I am a videographer and these new nannycams are not video cameras. These cameras can't show real movement unless they are real video cameras. It's like a cartoon. When this is so obvious to anyone with a video background, why is this woman still in jail?
1
posted on
12/07/2003 11:12:24 PM PST
by
Superstev
To: hellinahandcart; Devil_Anse
Searched the phone book for video aces. Your ads impressed me.
2
posted on
12/07/2003 11:20:42 PM PST
by
dighton
To: Superstev
If they're not
video cameras, then what are they?
Which specific "nanny cam" model did the Schwarz family use?
3
posted on
12/07/2003 11:28:12 PM PST
by
Bonaparte
To: Superstev
I agree to a certain extent. The image quality from the nanny cams is usually quite poor. One could certainly question actions in court if the lighting is poor, subject is too far from the camera, the actions were discrete, no audio, etc... The nanny cams have caught several child abusers when the evidence was quite clear but in certain cases the images are subject to interpretation.
There have been many convenience store robbers let go because the video image from the store camera was of such poor quality due to old cameras, old reused tapes, poorly setup cameras, etc. Some banks are getting the idea however, I was in a Bank of America branch a few days ago and counted 13 cameras just looking at the teller row. They also had a large flat screen monitor hanging down that shows the image from one of the cameras. I work in video also and was impressed with the image quality on the monitor.
To: Sunnyvale CA Eng.
Wave of the future.
5
posted on
12/08/2003 3:59:59 AM PST
by
samtheman
To: Superstev
I only got to see parts of the video, but if the woman isn't purposely abusing the child she is badly mistreating her. The shots of the sitter on a chair "shaking" the baby is frightening. Watching the range of motion, you can see the baby's head go way back. There is no way you can do that to a 5 month old without risking serious injury.
Partial video of the incident
6
posted on
12/08/2003 4:02:18 AM PST
by
TomB
To: dighton
Thanks! *I* searched the phone book for stand-up comics, b/c YOUR antics impressed ME!
To: TomB
"I only got to see parts of the video, but if the woman isn't purposely abusing the child she is badly mistreating her. The shots of the sitter on a chair "shaking" the baby is frightening. Watching the range of motion, you can see the baby's head go way back. There is no way you can do that to a 5 month old without risking serious injury."
Thanks for the link--you're right. The baby's head whips back and forth; it almost looks as if her head hits her back a couple of times. Horrific.
To: proud American in Canada
I'm not defending child abuse so don't take this the wrong way.
My only concern here is what is the actual speed of these frames? I mean I can easily see where it can be interpreted that the child is being abused, but if these are being taken at 1 second or even .5 second intervals then this very well may be completely innocent.
I would definitely have to have some good technical testimony regarding this video system before I could send someone to jail based on what I've seen here.
9
posted on
12/08/2003 6:53:30 AM PST
by
Ispy4u
To: Ispy4u; proud American in Canada
My only concern here is what is the actual speed of these frames? I mean I can easily see where it can be interpreted that the child is being abused, but if these are being taken at 1 second or even .5 second intervals then this very well may be completely innocent. It isn't the speed, it is the position of the head. A 5 month old's neck muscles are not developed enough to support it well enough for the head to be moved like that
10
posted on
12/08/2003 9:54:41 AM PST
by
TomB
To: TomB
I agree the position is very bad. I would never hold one of my children like that.
I'm just not sure that it is intenional abuse in the manner of shaking. It could very well be a stupid person playing with a 5 month old. But if it is shaking there is a special place in hell for folks who do that.
11
posted on
12/08/2003 10:03:47 AM PST
by
Ispy4u
To: Superstev
Dude, it's not that complicated: This is child abuse.
12
posted on
12/08/2003 3:12:24 PM PST
by
Bush2000
To: Sunnyvale CA Eng.
i'm glad to see there is still interest in this horrible situation. If I haven't said, this before I've been editing videos since 1986,studied tv production in college and now live in Los Angeles. In the 90's this would never be possible, because the cameras we're larger, non-digital, and shot in true real-time. When technology has shown us advances in almost all areas of life, it would sound odd, that a technological advancement would be a set-back. Well, the invention of digital cameras have advanced us in ways such as editing, special effects, size and portability. The camera the Schwartzes used was a digital camera, that is able to conserve space or "taping time", so well that it can record 24-48 hours before even running close to running out of space. It does this, by not recording every frame. In fact the camera only tapes when there is movement. What this means is that, when the nanny left the screen, the camera stopped and started as she came in view. The baby shaking scene was, so far from the sensor, that the camera was basically flickering. The camera couldn't tell if someone was in the shot or not. An excellent example of this would be a digital phone versus a home phone. Anyone who has ATT, T-mobile should know about dropped calls or choppy calls. A real video camera would show all frames such as the one in Van Nuys at the court house.
13
posted on
12/11/2003 7:52:50 AM PST
by
Superstev
(innocent)
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson