Irvin Press Conference Live - 3/14/2023

[sacase]

Friendly, cordial AND also two distinct "no-no" motions from her which are defensive at least. I've been explaining and re-explaining the friendly, cordial part almost since the beginning of this case.

What I also want to see is if a jury believes Irvin's side of the story is credible given he's publicly said he didn't remember having the conversation or what was said before magically remembering it today while kinda corroborating what Marriott says he said about her not knowing him or about football and that Irvin said she should check him out. Also, that Irvin's lawyer has now told two outright lies in back-to-back press conferences and that this video pretty much went down exactly how Marriott says it did compared to Irvin's side saying the woman had never backed up or that the witnesses said the woman approached Mike when it was clearly the opposite here. You present this to any person who doesn't know Mike or anything about this case from the top and see who they'd be more apt to believe.

Ok let's go with your "no no" gesture. It lacks a lot of context, it could be him making a joke to her and her clairifying something or slow down, wait, etc. Context is important with that gesture. But I can give you three gestures that she uses that are positive.

Much of the time she is standing with he hands in front of her in a relaxed position. This is typically an ideal position to keep her hands. Its hard to tell but if she had a limp wrist if could signifiy interest in him. While using that pose, she often repeats a palms up gesture, which is a submissive geture as well as one that conveys open and honesty. So she has now shown two submissive getures. The third one she uses is her hands behind her back. She is holding one hand with the other which signify's confidence and dominence. So two submissive positive gesture and one gesture in which she feels confident. Also both handshakes she uses a dominent handshake by keeping her hand over the top.

 

[Flamma]

I was just waiting for the part when he slaps himself 3 times in the face.

 

[MarcusRock]

Michael Irvin hasn’t even walked in the door when the lady makes her presence in the video. How is he in her line of sight and and how does she know Michael Irvin is going to be coming in stumbling drunk at that very moment that she could time her entrance with his to “hatch her conspiracy” with the manager, who has no view himself to Irvin outside the hotel? And why on earth, if she was hatching a conspiracy take a position with a whole bar and restaurant in front of her and not the other side?

The question is what video are you watching.

The major point that no one has mentioned is that this video now discredits the 2 TMZ witnesses, particularly the Aussie guy in the green shirt whom you see is behind a pillar when Irvin makes a bee-line for the woman. So how he can say that she walked up to him is absurd. If the Philly guy is the one in the hat, the woman crosses in front of him on her path so there's no way "she called out to him" or "went up to him" as either of them reported. If the Philly guy is the one not wearing the hat, as the woman turns the corner he is following the Aussie guy while looking at his phone. That guy too saw nothing, even less so than the Aussie guy. That one checks his phone all the way to his seat, so he's not even aware of the conversation going on out in the lobby. So to me, Marriott has witnesses, including security personnel and Irvin has himself who initially said there was no conversation, then did and also said he couldn't remember the conversation but now does.

 

[khiladi]

The major point that no one has mentioned is that this video now discredits the 2 TMZ witnesses, particularly the Aussie guy in the green shirt whom you see is behind a pillar when Irvin makes a bee-line for the woman. So how he can say that she walked up to him is absurd. If the Philly guy is the one in the hat, the woman crosses in front of him on her path so there's no way "she called out to him" or "went up to him" as either of them reported. If the Philly guy is the one not wearing the hat, as the woman turns the corner he is following the Aussie guy while looking at his phone. That guy too saw nothing, even less so than the Aussie guy. That one checks his phone all the way to his seat, so he's not even aware of the conversation going on out in the lobby. So to me, Marriott has witnesses, including security personnel and Irvin has himself who initially said there was no conversation, then did and also said he couldn't remember the conversation but now does.

I’m just sitting here, like what are these dudes defending Mike, who has also apparently flip-flopped from his radio interview, even talking about. It’s Irvin that is suing. She basically told her employer what happened and left it at that. She hasn’t sued for anything, though she probably now has a case herself for defamation, as Mike’s lawyer is out here in public trying to argue for a conspiracy by the manager and her to do something that hasn’t been done…

 

[MarcusRock]

Marcus I was leaning towards irvin was guilty, but this video doesnt show anything that suggests misconduct of any kind.
The only way to prove sexual harrasment is if they have audio of what was said.
It also looks like she stopped and waited for him, and initiated the conversation.

I dont think she liked him touching her, that explains the step back and hands behind her back, but I am the same way.
So that means little.
She seemed to me to enjoy the encounter.
The manager guy is the one who seems upset with her .

If the nfl pulled him due to this video only, then that is a little bizarre.
based on this alone, he should get his job back.
there is no way to prove either way without audio.

If it doesn't have audio, of course it's not going to show misconduct because the misconduct was in the audio. What it does show is whose side is consistent. If you know what the two sides claimed before today, one side looks cleaner than the other when it comes to consistency of claims. One side's claims had elements disproved. Again if you know the entirety of the claims made, those answers are very clear. The case now moves to Marriott's reporting, the NFL's piece to this and other things.

 

[doomsday9084]

The video just looked like cringey flirting by Irvin. A little too touchey. That said, if this is where the bar is set nowadays for losing your job . . . wow.

 

[MaineBoy]

No Agenda here, I've watched and listened to plenty of body language experts and based on that body language, hers tells a lot, no woman who said what was said to her would stand there and not do something other than tilting her head, clearly laughing, hands crossed in front of her, then behind her back, shake hands kick her foot up if she was distressed from comments Irvin made....

Your whole premise here is based on you knowing, somehow, that “no women” would…. The problem is that you don’t know THIS women. Speculation, Counselor.

 

[MarcusRock]

Ok let's go with your "no no" gesture. It lacks a lot of context, it could be him making a joke to her and her clairifying something or slow down, wait, etc. Context is important with that gesture. But I can give you three gestures that she uses that are positive.

Much of the time she is standing with he hands in front of her in a relaxed position. This is typically an ideal position to keep her hands. Its hard to tell but if she had a limp wrist if could signifiy interest in him. While using that pose, she often repeats a palms up gesture, which is a submissive geture as well as one that conveys open and honesty. So she has now shown two submissive getures. The third one she uses is her hands behind her back. She is holding one hand with the other which signify's confidence and dominence. So two submissive positive gesture and one gesture in which she feels confident. Also both handshakes she uses a dominent handshake by keeping her hand over the top.

LOL. Now this is the best one I've read today. If the "no no" gesture lacks context, so does this body language analysis. Body language wise, she also couldn't wait to get out of there and the security personnel helped her with that. Or was that a signal for Mike to chase her like a cheetah chases a field mouse?

 

[MarcusRock]

I’m just sitting here, like what are these dudes defending Mike, who has also apparently flip-flopped from his radio interview, even talking about. It’s Irvin that is suing. She basically told her employer what happened and left it at that. She hasn’t sued for anything, though she probably now has a case herself for defamation, as Mike’s lawyer is out here in public trying to argue for a conspiracy by the manager and her to do something that hasn’t been done…

Oh if there was flip-flopping from Marriott, you think there wouldn't be "outrage" all over the place? The behavior here is similar to a holding call on Zack Martin. It just can't be true so create whatever you need to believe that it was a crooked call. Heck, forget Martin, try any call against us. Lol.

 

[Flamma]

The video just looked like cringey flirting by Irvin. A little too touchey. That said, if this is where the bar is set nowadays for losing your job . . . wow.

There is no bar. It all depends on your employer. Had that been a worker at a construction site, nothing would be done. But when you're a public figure, you have to be careful.

 

[Vtwin]

For some reason the woman stopped behind the pillar. The guy that walks through the same entry right after her disappears behind the pillar then immediately reappears as he passes through.

It is immediately after she steps behind that pillar that Irvin appears to move towards her.

Either she stopped and got Irvin's attention or Irvin said something from a distance which caused her to stop walking and turn her attention to him.

I don't think either of those possibilities can be ruled out no matter much you want one or the other to be true.

 

[CouchCoach]

Well, the problem with that is Marriott in their filing place the date of Irvin's removal from coverage at 1 day before Irvin's radio interview. So according to that filing, he was removed before the radio interview took place.

Yes, on Tuesday the investigator arrived and called other NFL personnel to escort him out, according to the hotel. Where they took him is anybody's guess but he was still in AZ Wednesday morning, hiding out.

 

[CouchCoach]

Well Irvin's team stated that she never backed up and she did several times. They also said that she approached Irvin but he clearly called to her to start the conversation. "Upset" could have been those "no-no" motions she did with her hands twice. Those weren't jovial motions in a conversation. They looked defensive to me. Irvin's witnesses weren't even paying attention half the time either and were certainly far enough away that they didn't hear anything.

Marriott said Irvin approached her first. They said he did touch her which he did and I don't think those were a big deal. They say security did become trained on them at one point, which they did and caused Mike to back off. They also say that another employee, one of the security guys I think approached Mike and asked to take a pic with him, which he did, then showed Mike the elevators which he did and was in direct conflict to Mike's witnesses that said Mike just went to the elevators after talking to the woman.

But tell me how Irvin's side was more accurate in case I missed a few details.

That's the guy that said Irvin said "I'd like to hit that" a couple of times and then face slapped himself.

 

[rnr_honeybadger]

And this right here gents is why you don't hit on random chicks regardless of the venue.

 

[CouchCoach]

I was just waiting for the part when he slaps himself 3 times in the face.

That is at the end when he agrees to have his pic taken with the employee.

 

[DanTanna]

What payday? She didn't file a lawsuit. She reported his behavior in private to her employer who then, at the NFL's request, reported it to the NFL who took the action that Irvin is pissed about.

Stop saying **** like this.

LOL. You think she needs to file a lawsuit the next day hahahahaha. If this wouldn't have blown up you can bet she'd file a civil suit for $500K for emotional distress, missed time at work, and a sprained arm.

 

[Reid1boys]

What video are you watching?

1. At the moment of the clap at 22:20, Irvin (and the woman) are very much in the manager's line of sight.
2. If she is entering the bar, she sure took a strange course to do so. This isn't a movie set. There is literally no wall on the camera's side of the bar. If she was entering the bar, why would she go all the way around to the front entrance.
3. Irvin never speeds up... he has a drunken gait from the moment he enters the hotel through the whole thing

1) people are using alternative facts here... that manager starts to clap at almost the exact same time Irvin and the female engage in conversation.
2) She clearly leans around the pilar to see which way Mike is going, then moves in his direction when she sees him on that side.
3) Irvin never stumbles, leans... nothing at all to say a "Drunken gait."
4) What is very clear is the manager is not happy with HER. If these employees had heard these comments made, especially the security guy that was walking around the bar and the manager, why didnt they intervene at that exact moment.

I can promise you if what Irvin is accused of saying was uttered to any female that I was in a group with and I heard it, I would IMMEDIATELY have stepped right in the middle of them and said, who man, that **** is way out of line and walked my friend away from him. Did I miss that part of the video?

Im till waiting on someone to show me the employees that approached Mike and the lady that clealry could see she was uncomfortable to intervene. Where ar ethey???/ Taking the selfie with him and then shaking his hand as they pointed out which way the elevator was? Someone tell me at which minute mark I can find these co-workers at?

 

[CouchCoach]

Will be interesting to see how much "I will come back when you're working" plays into this because I think that was one of the times she used the waved hands "no" gesture.

If they viewed that in a threatening way, they were within their rights to eject him. His lawyer may or may not try to explain that away but he will need the help of his client who all of the sudden recovers his memory and it was all about football.

That's what you say after talking to someone about football, "I'd like to hit that".

I'll bet he's used Wilt Chamberlains' line with women in hotel lobbies with success. Can't win'em all.

 

[MarcusRock]

Yes, on Tuesday the investigator arrived and called other NFL personnel to escort him out, according to the hotel. Where they took him is anybody's guess but he was still in AZ Wednesday morning, hiding out.

Marriott says the investigations happened on Monday, Irvin was taken off of coverage on Tuesday, and then Wednesday he went on the radio. So Marriott claims that the radio interview was after the NFLN decision to remove him. So while it didn't factor in to getting him removed from coverage it did blow up any chance of keeping it hushed.

 

[CouchCoach]

Marriott says the investigations happened on Monday, Irvin was taken off of coverage on Tuesday, and then Wednesday he went on the radio. So Marriott claims that the radio interview was after the NFLN decision to remove him. So while it didn't factor in to getting him removed from coverage it did blow up any chance of keeping it hushed.

I have not read that timeline and if you listen to the radio call in, he was still in limbo about what was happening.

Why would Marriott know or care if he'd been taken off the air? They just wanted him out of their hotel but I believe that happened on Tuesday.