It seems like, at this point, the burden is on Gawker to disclose what they've altered.
How was the skin advertisement applied? Tattoo? Who was advertising on this man's skin? Did the presence of the fungal infection violate the terms of the advertising agreement, precluding Slevin from recieving payment? Why would anybody advertise on a man in solitary confinement, with presumably no receptive audience to the advertisement?
The numbers just don't add up.