I almost forgot. A few comments on your remarks about the video evidence are in line. First, your statement that the waiters’ accounts cannot be used to support what is independently evident on the video merely because “it was not the scene of a crime” have absolutely no basis in either logic or Wikipedia guidelines. To conclude that a person’s statements must have been made under oath before they can be used to corroborate anything – let alone an event that is independently captured on film (and which lends credibility to the waiters’ accounts itself) – is nothing short of a fiction. I strongly recommend that you re-read WP:CITE and WP:RS. I haven’t dug around for mainstream media outlets reporting the news or the video and its authenticity for that matter (primarily because I just don’t care enough at the moment), but rest assured that if they have or do, I will recognize – compliant with Wikipedia guidelines – any Wikipedian’s citation of it. In fact, I’m likely to support its authenticity on its own accord, though I’m still debating the matter. Best, J.M.