You have a creative take. I showed you two body language poses that she used throughout 95% of the coversation that shows she is open and engaged. One was submissive and one was confident and dominant. You are trying to use a minor gesture that took up less that 2 seconds of the whole conversation as your justifcation that it was a negative encounter. LOL Security didn't do anything.
Here is a breakdown for you. The convo starts at 23:11:58. From 23:12:08 to 23:13:39 no one was really in position to hear the conversation. Maybe the other table could have heard a little depending on the background noise and if they were paying attention. On the video time of 23:13:39 you can see black shirt and grey shirt pass by each other and there is an exchange of a message. The female employee points both guys out as if saying I think they want to get a picture with you.
Gray shirt walked out just behind her when she came into the camera. There was no encounter yet so he had nothing to be watchful for. The conversation started at 23:11:58. Gray shirt walks away at 23:12:08. He was present for the first 10 seconds of the conversation. That's it. Until 23:13:39 which is a minute and half later, he was not in a position to hear the coversation, so again, he could not have known anything was wrong. 23:13:39 both black and grey shirt pass each other and exchanged a message. this was the next time they were in position to hear anything. The conversation was already wrapping up at this point. The female employee points them out as if to say they want to take a picture with you, which he obliges. The manager, black shirt, and grey shirt were in no position to hear any part of the coversation past the first 10 seconds. They had no indication that anything was wrong. So that blows you theory out of the water that they interviened to help her. They physically could not have known anything was going on.
Yeah, I'm not being creative, I'm just quoting facts here. I think you're the one needing to make leaps to get to a point. Those "no-no" gestures each came after Irvin touched her and she stepped back each time. That's not minor, that's major. Those were clearly unwanted and when security approached she couldn't wait to pass him off on them. Even if it was only 5% of the interaction, it now colors the entirety of it. The security folks knew what was up. You didn't need to hear what was happening to know that a pick-up was in process and that she was not receptive but trying to be professional. Again, this isn't security's first rodeo at a hotel bar I'm sure an who knows if they have protocols for such a thing to protect staff from these things keeping them from their work or from threats.
You've been one of the more sensible ones to debate this from what I've seen, and respectful too, which I appreciate, but today was not a good day for Irvin. It would take creativity to believe that it wasn't. Besides the morphing, evolving story from his side, this video backs Marriott's account almost to a T, physically at least. It also discredits Irvin's witnesses who clearly didn't hear anything, weren't paying attention for almost all of the encounter, and didn't even see how the two came to be talking to each other in the first place like at least one of them claimed.
I've said before that I have compassion for Irvin in this situation and I continue to. I don't blame him at all for shooting his shot but he may have gotten entangled going a little too far.
