The evidence presented, all of which is circumstancial, and much of what would never be admissable (hearsay, hypothesise etc) in a court of law. It is a reasonable theory, but their arguments are not by definition, evidence.

I agree that if true 'evidence' such as surveillance tapes came into play then that would alter things (and I made this point in my original post).

I doubt it is in Harrah's interest to establish definitively that their was a major error on the part of their employees.