So now we’re told there’s a tape after all? 

After two weeks of being told that there was no tape, it turns out (according to Review-Journal columnist John L. Smith) that an employee of the Hughes Center took a tape from the surveillance cameras of the most infamous parking garage since Watergate and plopped it into a safe. 

A tape that supposedly sheds new light on the allegations dogging U.S. Rep. Jim Gibbons, who’s been accused of assaulting cocktail waitress Chrissy Mazzeo after a night of drinking at nearby McCormick & Schmick’s. 

 A tape that may be able to prove or disprove the wildly conflicting stories. A tape that, Smith’s sources say, shows neither Gibbons nor Mazzeo in the garage on the night in question, which calls her account – or the tape itself – into question. 

But there are some preliminary questions first: Who put the tape in the safe, and why? Why were Metro Police told the cameras at the Hughes Center were not recording that night? Why did the police department not investigate that angle sooner, especially since Mazzeo directed them to look at the tape as proof she was telling the truth? Did someone who works at the Hughes Center, its property manager, or anyone else order the tape to be concealed? Did anybody from the Gibbons campaign have anything to do with the tape’s disappearance? And if it supposedly exonerates him, why? Why did the tape surface now, the week before Election Day? 

And is this the actual tape of the night in question, or not? 

Although Republicans and Gibbons are declaring vindication, a lot of questions have to be answered. And here’s another: Why would Mazzeo tell her attorney, Richard Wright that she wants to press charges in the matter if the tape proves she’s wrong? Wright insists without equivocation that if the tape is from the camera in the location Mazzeo reported she was assaulted by Gibbons, at the time she says she was assaulted, it will show the assault.

But the reports we’ve heard so far suggest that it doesn’t. Yet Mazzeo is going forward anyway. Why? Her critics say she’s “troubled” or needs professional help. But another possibility exists, doesn’t it? That she’s telling the truth, and that she’s undeterred by reports of the tape’s contents because she knows what really happened? After all, Wright has no doubt explained to her that filing and pursuing a false police report could result in Mazzeo being charged with a crime herself, or being sued by Gibbons. And let’s not forget she was the one who directed police to the cameras in the first place.   

Gibbons may yet be vindicated in this incident, and Mazzeo proven a liar. But before that happens, there are plenty of questions left to be answered. And the ball gets rolling this morning, as Wright has said Mazzeo will sign the complaint that will kick off a renewed investigation.  But while we’re on the subject, how about some Gibbons-related Quick Hits from last week and this weekend? Here we go! 

• Quotable: “I think a lot of people are really appalled at the conduct of the media.” — State Sen. Bob Beers.

This just shows how ill-suited Beers is to the role of intellectual gigolo that the Republican Party has forced upon him. He never would have said things like this back when he was only representing himself and his ill-fated TASC initiative in his quest for the Republican nomination to be governor. (Then again, we’re pretty sure Beers wouldn’t have found himself in the same spot as Gibbons did, either.) 

Oh, not for nothing, senator but it was Gibbons who was accused of assaulting a woman in a parking garage after a night of drinking. But it’s the media that you think is appalling people? Give us a break. 

• “Asking Gibbons the same questions every day in a different city is really distracting to his campaign. And it doesn’t provide voters with anything new.” — Republican consultant Ryan Erwin 

Well, and we’re just spitballing here, but if Gibbons would actually answer the questions, perhaps he wouldn’t get asked the same thing all the time. To expect the media not to ask is simply not being realistic, when this is clearly a story that won’t go away. 

Oh, and not for nothing, but it’s not the media’s job to make sure that Gibbons is focused on his campaign. It’s the media’s job to find out what’s going on, and tell that story. From where we sit, the media has done a pretty good job overall on that. 

• Quotable: “It’s been my experience in these type of things: the less said, the better.” — R&R Partners’ Pete Ernaut  Really? And just how many gubernatorial candidates accused of assault has Ernaut represented? 

• What was Jane Ann Morrison thinking?  Her Saturday column on the Gibbons-Mazzeo matter was truly unbelievable, and we’re not just talking about her use of the phrases “fun and games, slap and tickle, kissy face” to refer to sex.  After Morrison referred to Mazzeo as a “hottie,” we were worried. After Morrison said Mazzeo was “easily manipulated and not very smart” we were concerned. But after she said that “The pictures [of Mazzeo at her news conference] have caused countless men to consider the allegations against Gibbons and say to themselves: ‘There but for the grace of God go I,’” we were convinced we’d read one of her worst columns. 

But hey, as a man, who are we to say that Morrison was blaming the victim and engaging in rank stereotyping? That’s why we were glad to see that we weren’t the only ones who read this piece and gagged. 

A blogger who goes by the name Myrna the Minx summarized our thoughts nicely. You can find them here. 

• Speaking of the R-J, possibly the weirdest thing to happen in the media last week was when political reporter Molly Ball rhetorically shoved Mazzeo up against the book-lined wall of Wright’s office and told her she had two choices: When she and Gibbons were in the garage, Ball asked, “…did you think he wanted to rape you or kill you?” 

Seriously. 

Objection, your honor! Leading the witness! And being stupid! 

• Rarely do you see a correction to a clarification that itself was incorrect. But that was the unhappy place that the R-J found itself, after trying to say that Mazzeo had made a “provably false” statement at her Wednesday news conference. 

At that news conference, Mazzeo was asked if anything like this had ever happened to her before, or had she ever made charges and withdrew them before. She said no.

But the intrepid R-J dug up a domestic violence complaint from Laughlin, in which Mazzeo reported she was assaulted by her boyfriend. Ah, ha! Says the R-J! A “provably false” statement. 

But not so fast: Mazzeo was asked at her news conference if anything like this had ever happened to her before. “Anything like this” was clearly a reference to an attempted sexual assault, which is what she said happened with Gibbons. The R-J grudgingly acknowledged as much in a “clarification” on Friday, which apologized for the mistake in the paper “Wednesday.” (Actually, the news conference happened on Wednesday, and the error appeared in Thursday’s paper.) 

But even that proved problematic, in that the “clarification” said it was Mazzeo’s lawyer who’d said she was the victim of the Laughlin domestic violence complaint. On Saturday, we learned that was wrong, thanks to “an editing error.” 

To date, the correction to the clarification that was itself mistaken has not been corrected. So, we’ll just cross our fingers and pretend it’s all good. And the bottom line? The only probably false statements have shown up in the R-J’s correction box.