News: PFT: Judge finds Marriott blatantly violated court order

[Merlin]

You may never see conclusive evidence but they are now trying it in the court of public opinion. And you may never see that video.

Irvin's attorney already said he was releasing it this week.

 

[CouchCoach]

Let's see if the video supports any of this. The video they didn't turn over to the defense when the judge ordered.

That video, promised by the plantiff's lawyer, will be most interesting, if we get to see it. The lawyer saying he doesn't know when he will release it signals me we will not see it. If it doesn't clearly refute these new allegations, it doesn't help him.

And now we know what the hotel meant by adding harassing to the allegations, if this is true.

Let's assume the hotel employee witnesses are lying. They actually comment on things that could clearly be seen on that video, him moving toward her, her backing up, him grabbing her hand to shake it and the Slappie. They are describing actions and if none of those are present on that video, this fish really stinks.

 

[CouchCoach]

Irvin's attorney already said he was releasing it this week.

I missed that, last I heard, he wasn't saying.

 

[CowboyFrog]

I beg your pardon, I have used pretending to know things to navigate these boards for decades.

And now at least we know what they say he said, just haven't heard from the other side about what he did or didn't say.

Irvin said he didnt do anything wrong..no way he is saying that what they said he said wasn't wrong..lol, i think they are saying he didnt say that.

 

[RustyBourneHorse]

Not only am I completely against any sort of abuse of women, I am absolutely incensed by it.

Up to this point, I have seen zero evidence that it happened in this case. Still waiting.

I'm that same way. I absolutely abhor the abuse of women. However, there must be evidence of it imo.

 

[CowboyFrog]

I'm that same way. I absolutely abhor the abuse of women. However, there must be evidence of it imo.

we built a complete legal system on the fact you need to prove things, and so far there are big questions in everything that the Marriott side has done and said, if what they have said is true then in my opinion they have not helped themselves with how it was handled. If Irvin in fact told her he would be back in the context of what was said that would be a police matter...if the manager would have simply called the police this would be a completley diferent case.

 

[MarcusRock]

I said 2 nights ago that Marriott was about to get B slapped by the judge. I actually had others trying to explain away what Marriott did....lol. Exactly what I said was gonna happen, happened. People were arguing the judge agreed with Marriott about keeping the face of the accuser out of the public.... dont know where they possibly got that from, but the judge apparently didnt buy that either. Read what the judge said... he smacked Marriott right across the face with his response yesterday.

They got it from the judge's ruling to turn over the evidence when he said it was "well-founded" that the accuser's safety could be at risk which was what Marriott claimed in their filing to prevent turning over stuff with her name, etc. on it. So the judge said her name could be redacted from reports AND that "reasonable measures" could be taken to protect her identity. I wondered about whether they'd blur her face in video given that order. Marriott messed up by not just turning it over that way. They should have listened to me.

 

[gtb1943]

They got it from the judge's ruling to turn over the evidence when he said it was "well-founded" that the accuser's safety could be at risk which was what Marriott claimed in their filing to prevent turning over stuff with her name, etc. on it. So the judge said her name could be redacted from reports AND that "reasonable measures" could be taken to protect her identity. I wondered about whether they'd blur her face in video given that order. Marriott messed up by not just turning it over that way. They should have listened to me.

Why should they? No one else does.

 

[MarcusRock]

If there is no face slapping by mike to himself(in the video)... they are done.

If there is, you think Mike's lawyers are going to show that part? They are going to edit to show what looks favorable to their camp. This is why I wondered before if Marriott is going to counter in public with "other" video that Irvin's team is in possession of but won't air out to the public because it doesn't suit their case. I'm wondering if Marriott could be setting up for the okie-doke, making Irvin's team play their hand first and then countering after Irvin's team takes a stance publicly.

 

[kskboys]

You may never see conclusive evidence but they are now trying it in the court of public opinion. And you may never see that video.

I'm kinda thinking we never will.

IMO, Marriot should have already settled this. Unless there really is a smoking gun against Irvin.

 

[CowboyFrog]

If there is, you think Mike's lawyers are going to show that part? They are going to edit to show what looks favorable to their camp. This is why I wondered before if Marriott is going to counter in public with "other" video that Irvin's team is in possession of but won't air out to the public because it doesn't suit their case. I'm wondering if Marriott could be setting up for the okie-doke, making Irvin's team play their hand first and then countering after Irvin's team takes a stance publicly.

not a lawyer but, if they have that evidence I would think it would be part of "Turn the video evidence over to the other side", They could do it but it would come with court problems...they may think its worth it.

 

[MarcusRock]

But here's the 64K question. Did the hotel share all of these new details about the two employee witnesses and what they said transpired with the NFLN? What does the NFL know and when did they know it?

Read Marriott's filing from yesterday. They lay out the timeline according to them. The incident was Sunday, the accuser reported it on Monday morning, Marriott interviewed the accuser, reviewed video and determined Mike should leave the hotel but didn't tell him. They then called the NFL on Monday, the NFL sent their investigator on Monday night to interview the accuser, review the video, and then called other NFL personnel who came to tell Mike he had to leave and escorted him out at about 10pm Monday.

They also state that the NFL decided to remove Irvin from coverage on Tuesday and then Mike went on the radio on Wednesday morning. They also pointed out the drinks comment about not remembering and that the only touching was a handshake.

https://www.fox4news.com/news/michael-irvin-super-bowl-misconduct-allegation

 

[stiletto]

According to PFT, pretty specific things Marriot is saying about what Irvin said to the woman. If he really did, he's just guilty of being a complete and total idiot. Words are not a crime and Marriot wrecking his career over a mild drunk act of saying something completely gross is crazy.

 

[MarcusRock]

Man if what the allegations of what was said are true as an employer I am really concerened now, how did you not call the police when a drunken patron basic says "I am going to stalk you" to a female employee. The video should show Irvin slapping himself I would think and her pulling away and him trying to regrab her...I would think this would be easy to prove if it happened how they said. If Irvin's lawyers saw this video and it showed this I have a hard time seeing how they are not moving to another plan.."Releasing this video to the public" would be the worst move they could make if this happened.

That's why I think they are going to release "A" video to the public. Marriott is now claiming 2 interactions with hotel staff around the time of the incident. The obvious question now is which interaction did Irvin's witnesses describe? Irvin's witnesses say that Mike interacted with someone (supposedly the accuser) and then went to the elevators to go upstairs. Marriott says that the 2nd interaction (not with the accuser) ended with him heading to the elevators to go upstairs. People are missing these details because they're so locked in to a side and running with it. You gotta ask questions where there's gaps.

 

[MarcusRock]

Highly doubt it. Consider the source. From what I've heard, he did not consume alcohol. In fact, he allegedly refused an alcoholic beverage from one of the two eyewitnesses because he had work the next morning. So, if he wasn't having alcohol from the witnesses, why would he have had alcohol a few minutes before? The logic does not fit.

You're missing the story Irvin himself put out there. He was out with a former Cowboy earlier in the night for dinner and then came back to the hotel where all this stuff went down in the bar/outside/lobby there. Irvin is the one who claimed he had alcohol, most logically at that dinner he spoke of before coming back to the hotel. His lawyer mentioned water at the press conference to detract from that data Irvin put out there himself.

 

[CowboyFrog]

That's why I think they are going to release "A" video to the public. Marriott is now claiming 2 interactions with hotel staff around the time of the incident. The obvious question now is which interaction did Irvin's witnesses describe? Irvin's witnesses say that Mike interacted with someone (supposedly the accuser) and then went to the elevators to go upstairs. Marriott says that the 2nd interaction (not with the accuser) ended with him heading to the elevators to go upstairs. People are missing these details because they're so locked in to a side and running with it. You gotta ask questions where there's gaps.

yes and to me thats a question thats on the whole thing not just one side, here is my question, why show a video that is not of the interaction your talking about? If they showed Irvin's lawyers a video that is not of the case then what are they doing? If Irvin's lawyers have seen the video of the interaction that Marriott is describing then they are in fact diggin a deeper hole for thier client...Now Marriott is not in good grace with the bench either from basically dismissing a bench order...they very well may be playing a great game of setting a trap or they could be posturing because this whole thing was handled very wrong by a couple of employees and now they are trying to lessen the backlash/money. If they have video of what they are describing this is a very easy case with probably a repremand to an employee on "You call the police the next time" and Irvin is cooked..nothing they have done so far speaks to this though.

 

[Rockport]

Hmm. I was told it wasn't a big deal.

https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.c...y-violated-court-order-in-michael-irvin-case/

All you yahoo’s that immediately crapped on Irvin when this first came out should be ashamed of yourselves. Regardless of what happens.

 

[CouchCoach]

Read Marriott's filing from yesterday. They lay out the timeline according to them. The incident was Sunday, the accuser reported it on Monday morning, Marriott interviewed the accuser, reviewed video and determined Mike should leave the hotel but didn't tell him. They then called the NFL on Monday, the NFL sent their investigator on Monday night to interview the accuser, review the video, and then called other NFL personnel who came to tell Mike he had to leave and escorted him out at about 10pm Monday.

They also state that the NFL decided to remove Irvin from coverage on Tuesday and then Mike went on the radio on Wednesday morning. They also pointed out the drinks comment about not remembering and that the only touching was a handshake.

https://www.fox4news.com/news/michael-irvin-super-bowl-misconduct-allegation

That timeline differs from the initial one. In fact, a lot of things differ from the initial release.

The investigator from the NFL reviews it and calls in other NFL personnel that tells him he has to leave and they escort him out of the hotel? First I;d heard they were that involved early on in his removal.

Doesn't it seem odd there's nothing filed against the NFL or NFLN? They review the video and interview the woman, they escorted him out and sent him home. However, as far as we know did not suspend him or dock his pay and that doesn't speak to what they think.

 

[kskboys]

yes and to me thats a question thats on the whole thing not just one side, here is my question, why show a video that is not of the interaction your talking about? If they showed Irvin's lawyers a video that is not of the case then what are they doing? If Irvin's lawyers have seen the video of the interaction that Marriott is describing then they are in fact diggin a deeper hole for thier client...Now Marriott is not in good grace with the bench either from basically dismissing a bench order...they very well may be playing a great game of setting a trap or they could be posturing because this whole thing was handled very wrong i said.

That is what I'm inclined to think, that Marriott is now in a "lessen the damage" mode. The way they're acting screams guilt, or no case or weak case or something like that. I'm pretty sure that they desperately want this to go away.

Still not taking sides, BTW. Just conjecture.

 

[MarcusRock]

Exactly. If the evidence was against Michael, I'd be saying so, and he even said during his press conference that he'd serve whatever consequence of an action that he actually did do, but he doesn't know of what they are accusing him. Plus, the actions of Marriott at this moment show to me that, whatever it is that they accused him of is flimsy at best. So, for now, I'd argue that Irvin has the stronger case unless Marriott can show proof.

Again, consult the evidence. Marriott did turn over the reports and their witness accounts to Irvin's team this past Monday. They held that screening of the video on Tuesday morning and then Irvin called the press conference on Wednesday. So Irvin's team knew for 2 days what he was accused of exactly. That was one of the questions I had after their press conference when I predicted they'd make it about a physical encounter when Mike himself said previously it was about what he supposedly said to the accuser that got him in trouble. So to say they had no idea what Mike was accused of was true in the immediate aftermath of the incident but they knew for 2 days at the point they were saying this at the press conference.