Irvin Press Conference Live - 3/14/2023

[khiladi]

His history has nothing to do with this case. Bringing up past stuff is an extreme hater. The fact that you couldn't wait to bring up all of his past which is irrelevant to this is an EXTREME HATER. I need to say it louder for you so you can understand and hear from the rear. Clearly you are a person that has never like Michael Irvin. You are right up there with the Marriot in judging a person and jumping to conclusions.

It absolutely does have everything to do with it in the court of public opinion and if you had a choice of leaving your daughter alone with a guy like Irvin..

It has nothing to do with being an extreme hater and I loved watching Michael Irvin catch dimes from Aikman

But I don’t worship Michael Irvin nor is he an example I take for ethical behavior.

 

[mldardy]

This lawyer is creating a false narrative, it’s comical. It’s amazing to me folks on this forum are actually regurgitating his garbage.

This guy literally claims that she is the one that tried to initiate conversations with Michael Irvin as “she looks around the pole to see if Michael is still coming”.

He tries to substantiate this in the premise that, otherwise she would have entered the bar from the side she entered the video from.

Of course the lawyer has no clue where the lady was before she entered into the video and he basically ignores all the furniture that’s in the way of that side.

Yet what is CLEAR AS DAY is:

1. Her “manager” claps to her before Irvin is even in the picture

2. She’s not even looking at Irvin and is entering the bar

3. Irvin actually sees her and speeds up while she is looking the other way heading into the bar and HE INITIATED conversation with her, so the lady turns around and starts talking to him, as any hotel employee would do when a customer calls them, as it’s the service industry.

You are such a hater. Just say it 'I hate Michael Irvin' and be done with it. The lawyer created a narrative that lead to Michael shaking hands and laughing with the woman too didn't he?

 

[mldardy]

It absolutely does in the court of public opinion.

It absolutely does not and court of public opinion doesn't matter except for you.

 

[Calvin2Tony2Emmitt2Julius]

Both sides seeing what they want lol

Yup! I am on the michael side of things and even I can see, the video can be seen as supporting her claim. It can also be seen as supporting Mike's

Question I have is where's the crime ? Let's stipulate that Michael said something totally disgusting. Does that amount to anything but a catcall ?

 

[khiladi]

I didn't get anything out of that video... If they don't have audio, or some supporting witness that heard it. I am guessing, nothing is happening with this.

That’s the whole point. It’s Irvin and his lawyer trying to drag this out.

1. The hotel just followed protocol.
2. The NFL Network just took him off Super Bowl coverage, but he still had a job.

 

[sacase]

The guy at 2:30 here is security. If that's not hovering, what is?

I think he was there for like 12 seconds. Go look at my breakdown. I have time stamps

 

[khiladi]

It absolutely does not and court of public opinion doesn't matter except for you.

It absolutely does which is why you snipped out the part of leaving your daughter alone with a guy like Irvin.

 

[CowboyFrog]

Again, as I have been saying from the beginning, including when you were trumpeting the witnesses that I showed you with their own words didn't hear anything and the video back that up as they are hardly even watching the conversation, a person does not need to react in the moment. They can be professional, cordial, and even jovial to get themselves out of a situation to get on their way. No one I said that to addressed that, including you. Probably because it's true. I even gave a scenario where if a big boss makes a public joke at one's expense, a lower employee might keep it together for the moment not to escalate and then deal with it later.

You yourself said that any video showed better show the woman backing up and show Mike slapping himself 3 times. Both were shown on this video. But now that's insignificant to you? If so, why would that be?

It doesn't show MI slapping himself and pointing while watching her walk off, it also doesn't show her trying to get out of the conversation at all, nor does it show her seeking out her manager to report this... it does show him touching her arm and her not moving back at that point it also shows them having a real conversation not a SHORT one with MI dictating it, it also showed her making a joke and laughing with him...again without audio for sure its harder but this does not show the context the Marriott was trying to paint these gestures..to me it looks like they made this report after and are trying to make it fit the video... you can clearly see MI is talking to a diferent person facing another direction as he was slapping himself and how without hearing it would it not look like a diferent conversation? She also clearly passed by the manager almost not wanting to look at him as he basically called her to his office. Context and timeline do matter.

 

[khiladi]

I think he was there for like 12 seconds. Go look at my breakdown. I have time stamps

The lawyer says Irvin and they lady were talking for a LONG TIME, meaning he was trying to project the idea that she wasn’t in anyway threatened.

 

[mldardy]

That’s the whole point. It’s Irvin and his lawyer trying to drag this out.

1. The hotel just followed protocol.
2. The NFL Network just took him off Super Bowl coverage, but he still had a job.

Marriott kicked him out of there hotel and cost him his job. They smeared his name and reputation. He and his lawyer have every right and cause to drag this out. Are you serious right now? Goodness might it (you) stop already.

 

[FoxF]

Bottom line, there is nothing definitive in that video and is all speculation. It's he said - she said.

 

[Reid1boys]

You’re shaking your head that you said..”the only one leering is the manager?” Reading is Fundamental..especially your own posts

no kidding thats what I said.. I used the exact words they used to describe the manager. Somehow you found that to be a misleading statement... but not so much with how they described Mike looking at her/...... again, its lost on some of you unless it is spelled out.

 

[mldardy]

It absolutely does which is why you snipped out the part of leaving your daughter alone with a guy like Irvin.

It absolutely does not.

 

[Creeper]

No one grabbed her. Except Irvin

Grabbed as in took her aside.

 

[Reid1boys]

Bottom line, there is nothing definitive in that video and is all speculation. It's he said - she said.

and the video clearly shows a woman that is not upset at anyting he said..... that is pretty evident to most.... accept those that wanted Mike to get nailed. But have at it.

 

[Diehardblues]

Yup! I am on the michael side of things and even I can see, the video can be seen as supporting her claim. It can also be seen as supporting Mike's

Question I have is where's the crime ? Let's stipulate that Michael said something totally disgusting. Does that amount to anything but a catcall ?

I don’t recall anyone claiming there was a crime . I agree with Irvin’s side in that it’s evident no sexual assault occurred.

But inappropriate sexual content while not against the law could get you booted from a bar or hotel.

And a “catcall” from a celebrity with his history might be enough. See ya Mike..

 

[khiladi]

Marriott kicked him out of there hotel and cost him his job. They smeared his name and reputation. He and his lawyer have every right and cause to drag this out. Are you serious right now? Goodness might it (you) stop already.

No, he was asked by the Network to move yo another hotel.

And the Network took him off from Supet Bowl coverage while he still had a job and is being paid.

And Mike went on the air and tried to play damage control, but burned his own self:

"Sunday night... when I came into the hotel, they asked what I did and I said, `I just went straight to the room,"' Irvin said during the "Shan & RJ" show. "But I guess I had talked to somebody in the lobby for about a minute, and then I went to my room. And after I got off the air [the next day], they said, 'come on, we got to move you to another hotel.'

"I said: 'I didn't talk to anybody. I went straight to the room.' And then they showed it on camera that I did talk to somebody. I talked to this girl for about a minute. They didn't [show me the video]. They told me [that I was on the video talking to her]. I didn't see it. ... I guess the girl said I said something to her within that minute that we talked, and so they moved me."

https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/texas/n...owl-coverage-after-incident-at-arizona-hotel/


And the more his lawyer talks, the more it shows how much like clowns they are acting.

Mike himself says point blank he was drunk and didn’t even think he spoke to anybody that night, but when he was shown the video he had to admit he did talk to somebody.

and that video shows him trying to make conversation with a lady that works at the hotel that is walking faced in the opposite direction of him.

 

[mldardy]

No, he was asked by the Network to move yo another hotel.

And the Network took him off from Supet Bowl coverage while he still had a job and is being paid.

Because of the complaint/accusation by Marriott which led to him getting kicked out. Not being on air for the Super Bowl cost him his job for that week. Someone refuses to pay attention.

 

[PhillyCowboysFan]

Lol, BS.

If he said what was claimed, that’s grounds for firing.

So how does the accuser prove what is claimed without a witness hearing they commits or an audio recording. In this case, they can’t terminate without proof.

Management will have to do their due diligence investigation and if nothing is proved, they will document that an accusation was made and they must keep the two parties separate while employed.

This is so hard as an employer. Ask me I have first hand knowledge!

 

[Diehardblues]

Marriott kicked him out of there hotel and cost him his job. They smeared his name and reputation. He and his lawyer have every right and cause to drag this out. Are you serious right now? Goodness might it (you) stop already.

All they did is remove him from the hotel after the complaint of inappropriate sexual remarks .

Is “ do you like black men inside of you “ inappropriate. From a celebrity with his history. Probably so but I can see how some might think it’s normal catcall. Lol