[Superstev]

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?

[dighton]

Searched the phone book for video aces. Your ads impressed me.

[Bonaparte]

If they're not video cameras, then what are they?

Which specific "nanny cam" model did the Schwarz family use?

[Sunnyvale CA Eng.]

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.

[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.

Partial video of the incident

[Bush2000]

Dude, it's not that complicated: This is child abuse.