Stumpokapow
listen to the mad man
You are entitled to believe what you want, but The Star and Gawker are profiting off this without any concrete evidence.
This is a misleading assessment of the situation. Based on their reports, they do have concrete evidence--their experience of researching and personally watching the tape. It is not that they do not have concrete evidence, it's that you are not able to verify that evidence to your satisfaction.
This is not a state of confusion, this is either factually true or a massive and deliberate campaign of lies made up whole cloth to smear the mayor. There's no in-between. It's not second-hand reporting. It's not something getting lost in the chain of communication. It's not iffy. They are unambiguous about what they researched, what they saw, and how they saw it. That's as concrete as it gets.
If the tape doesn't exist, if they made it all up, by all means, what you're saying is correct (and everyone involved needs to be sued into oblivion). But if the tape does exist and everything they say appears on it is true, then the fact that the tape is not public should not prohibit them from speaking about it. Wouldn't you agree? It's not Schroedinger's cat.