Surveillance tapes have surfaced
, two weeks after police were told no such recordings existed from the security cameras in the parking garage where the Nevada GOP's gubernatorial hopeful allegedly assaulted a cocktail waitress.
Curiously, the candidate, Rep. Jim Gibbons (R-NV) -- whose camp has worked furiously to bury the story -- is loudly and publicly pushing for the tapes to be released.
Why? Gibbon's spokesman said that the tapes show that neither Gibbons nor his accuser, Chrissy Mazzeo, was even in the parking garage. "We've been told. . . [that the tapes] prove that Jim Gibbons was never in that garage, and interestingly, neither was she," Robert Uithoven said.
That's curious, since Gibbons has already admitted
to being in the parking garage with Mazzeo, according to the Las Vegas Sun
. No one appears to have pushed the campaign on the apparent contradiction.
Regardless, the Gibbons camp is clearly excited about these tapes. "On Monday morning, I intend to file an emergency motion to compel the Metropolitan Police Department to produce 18 hours of videotape in their possession,"his lawyer, Donald Campbell, told
the Associated Press.
"It is imperative that these tapes get released soon," [Nevada GOP chief Paul] Adams said in a statement quoted
by the Las Vegas Review-Journal
. "Jim Gibbons' name has been dragged through the mud in the past two weeks. . . . [The police department] has an obligation to give Gibbons the opportunity to clear his name."
Despite numerous articles on the topic, no one has attempted to provide any explanation as to why it took two weeks for the tapes to surface. Mazzeo's lawyer, Richard Wright, is guarded
about the existence of authentic surveillance tapes. He says his client will ask to have the matter investigated by the county district attorney.
: At least one version of a story why the tapes went missing for two weeks has surfaced. In yesterday's Las Vegas Review-Journal
, columnist John L. Smith divulged
that he had "learned" from an anonymous source or sources that "The tapes never left the possession of the Hughes Center security office and had remained locked in a safe on the premises since shortly after police began their abbreviated investigation of the alleged incident. . . . An unidentified employee removed the tape, placed it in the safe and remained silent about its existence until it became evident that failing to produce it could be considered concealing evidence and obstructing a police investigation."