Irvin Press Conference Live - 3/14/2023

[MarcusRock]

Seems like we are not watching the same video. The woman enters the video from the lower left corner as Irvin and the guy with the white hat are coming in the hotel doors. She turns and enters the bar and is hidden behind some kind of pillar as the guy with the white hat is just entering the bar with Irvin about 5 ft behind him. Since Irvin came into the hotel with the guy in the white hat, Irvin could be following the guy with the white hat as he turns towards the bar. You are assuming Irvin started the conversation because you see him turn towards the entrance to the bar area. But that is not on the video. You cannot see the woman as Irvin turns into the bar. When she steps out to the right she and Irvin are already conversing. You cannot see who initiates the conversation.

Besides, it is not relevant. Even if Irvin walked up to her and started the conversation it's not a crime, or offensive. If every guys who started a conversation with a woman in a bar lost his job an awful lot of men would be unemployed right now. Her words in her accusation matter.

And sorry, the burden of proof in this country is always on the accuser. In this case Irvin has filed a suit claiming she defamed him be telling his employer he assaulted her. If this video is supposed to back up her claim then she has a loser case. If Irvin did not assault her that would be defamation, and he suffered damages because he was taken off the air for Super Bowl week. The video does not show an assault of any kind. The question still remains, why did ESPN take Irvin off the air? If it was because the woman and the hotel claimed he assaulted her then Irvin has a good case for defamation based on this video.

Irvin was not following the guy with the hat. Watch his trek as he comes in. He's completely headed to the elevator away from them until he notices the woman and changes trajectory solely because of her and even speeds in her direction. That IS significant because according to Irvin's lawyer the woman purposely approaches Mike for the purpose of interacting with their group when actually she looped around without even looking in that direction. It's also significant because Mike's witnesses say she went up to him to start a conversation. That's debunked here by their paths. She was always going the way she was and can't see behind the pillars in between her and Mike to even know he's coming in at the time she's walking that way. His witnesses everyone was touting take a major hit here as none of them are able to even see their first interaction from behind the 2nd pillar plus they weren't even paying attention to the interaction as it went on.

There was no assault alleged by the defense. Ever. Those were Irvin's lawyer's and Irvin's words. Sexual harassment is what's in the hotel's claim.

The only things left to debate in this case are Marriott's reporting and the NFL's involvement but the video that was supposed to exonerate Irvin here literally follows Marriott's account of the situation down to Irvin slapping himself 3 times and showing the woman doing things that Irvin's team says she didn't do (probably not starting the conversation and backing up several times as Mike moved forward to her). Not a good look for them which is why "the angry manager" is the new distraction narrative. When your story morphs and uses overdramatization tactics there's typically a reason for that.

 

[Smith22]

Irvin was not following the guy with the hat. Watch his trek as he comes in. He's completely headed to the elevator away from them until he notices the woman and changes trajectory solely because of her and even speeds in her direction.

Noticed you have implied numerous times that Irvin sped in her direction.

1) We must be watching different videos because from the moment Irvin enters the lobby his walking pace never changes, and remember, according to the Marriott he is clearly intoxicated.

2) With the pillar in the way, I don't know how either party can claim to know who engaged the conversation.

3) At any time during that 2 minute conversation, the woman had a manager and security steps away yet never felt the need to draw their attention to the situation, or simply walk away from Irvin and towards them.

4) She is seen on film with the manager immediately after this "traumatizing experience" yet didn't file a report until the following afternoon despite her fear of possibly seeing Irvin again.

 

[cristglo]

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:


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.

Did you watch the video? Irvin didn't seek her out it was the opposite. Irvin never said he was drunk either.
Her station was at the bar yet if you look at the beginning of the video she avoids going straight to the bar but walked clearly toward Irvin and even hesitated between the columns then she walks back in view shaking Irvins hand.

I do see her moving back from Irvin as he was getting close but she appears to laugh while they are talking.
What was up with the Mgr it to me looks like he was stalking her.

 

[cristglo]

The question is still what did he tell the NFL? What did the NFL investigation conclude and based on what evidence? Why did ESPN decide to remove Irvin from the Super Bowl broadcasts? As I said, if the NFL watched the video and concluded it didn't matter but they didn't want to risk bad publicity, then Irvin has no case. The NFL acted on their own.

Im still wondering why No one has brought up Irvins bosses and their part in this

 

[cristglo]

I am an attorney and you just do nothing but talk nonsense and deal in made up stories. You just said the “video certainly doesn’t back that up” Really, you got that out of the video vs Irvin’s words. Which were…

https://nypost.com/2023/02/08/michael-irvin-revealed-super-bowl-incident-in-bizarre-interview/amp/

“There is a lot going on. I don’t know if you guys heard or not… Sunday night … This is tripping me out… I don’t remember it, but I guess when I came in, they asked [what I did] and I said, ‘I just went straight to the room,’” the Hall of Fame wide receiver said. “But I guess I had met somebody in the lobby. Talked to somebody in the lobby for about a minute and then I went to my room. And then after I got up there and got to work, they said tomorrow they had to move me in the hotel. I said, ‘Move me in the hotel for what?’

“So they moved my hotel, and I said, ‘What’s going on, guys? What’s happening? Why are are we moving hotels?’ They said, ‘Well, last night you walked in, you talked to somebody.’ 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. I don’t know what — they didn’t show it to me. They told it to me. I didn’t see it… But that’s why they moved me, because I guess the girl said I said something to her within that minute that we talked, and so they moved me.”

The hosts then acknowledged that there was no media coverage of the incident at the time of the interview.

“That’s exactly what’s happening and why I’m kind of hiding to wait and see how everything comes down, you know, in this world here,” Irvin said. “It was a minute meeting somewhere in the lobby. I don’t even remember it really because I had a few drinks, to tell you the truth… but that’s what they said.”


So you don’t think saying I didn’t remember it because I had a few drinks isnt drunk? You just black out and don’t remember on a few drinks? You had to have people show you a video to remember because you weren’t intoxicated and said “I didn’t talk to anybody”?

It was SB weekend he is covering it with thousands of fans talking to him You really expect him to remember everyone he talked to and what exactly he talked about? Yes, he was drinking and how much he consumed while he was out at dinner can be confirmed. None of the witnesses said he was intoxicated don't you think they would have noticed he was drunk? Them showing Irvin a video to promt his memory of a 2-minute conversation while he had been working all-day talking to many people Isnt an admission of his guilt

Also does the above quotes fit the narrative from today where Mike says straight out that his conversation was about football with her and how she could learn from watching his shows. What? On the radio above how does that fit? Their lawyers are going to be all over that because one is a lie.

 

[sandbridge77]

If this goes to trial, a jury will decide the outcome, who will they believe, the person whose story changed from I went right to my room, don’t remember because I had I few drinks, to we were discussing football or the person/ hotel whose story hasn’t changed?

Not sure the video helps either party significantly so it will come down to who the jury believes.

I’m not sure you could get a jury to actually agree to a verdict based on what we know, it would probably be split on opinion just like this board.

It will be interesting to watch it play out.

 

[cristglo]

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.

Finally someone who makes sense lol

 

[Cowboysfandarin]

The video shows nothing so the only thing the defense, the Marriott and the young woman have to go on is what was said. And since there’s no audio its a moot point. My gut feeling tells me Irvin was definitely hitting on her. He had been drinking, probably wanted some company in his room for the evening, and he may have said some inappropriate stuff. But? We will never know. And let’s be real, this is something women learn to deal with and she dealt with it. End of story. Clearly she wasn’t interested as she stepped back twice. As men are we not allowed to ever make a move on women at all anymore? It’s just such a joke anymore. If the women are into you, you’re good to go. If you take that risk. If they’re not? Then somehow you’ve assaulted them by simply showing interest. Lol that’s where we’re at in this society.
This case is moot and over. Mike should get his job back asap.

 

[Vtwin]

Irvin was not following the guy with the hat. Watch his trek as he comes in. He's completely headed to the elevator away from them until he notices the woman and changes trajectory solely because of her and even speeds in her direction. That IS significant because according to Irvin's lawyer the woman purposely approaches Mike for the purpose of interacting with their group when actually she looped around without even looking in that direction.

You're leaving out a significant detail.

As the woman began to enter the bar area she disappeared behind the pillar. For some reason she stopped. The guy who entered the same area about a step behind her immediately reappeared as he passed through the opening, yet she did not, indicating she stopped walking. It was during this sequence that Irvin's path changed to approach her. Then she moved back into view and their conversation continued.

How do explain this? Did she stop and turn to get Irvin's attention? Did Irvin say something to get her attention causing her to stop?

She could very well have "approached" (that is a figurative term in this case not to be taken literally) Irvin by turning back towards him and getting his attention which caused him to change course and approach her.

It's is interesting that someone so involved in analyzing the evidence hasn't analyzed this important detail.

 

[khiladi]

Did you watch the video? Irvin didn't seek her out it was the opposite. Irvin never said he was drunk either.
Her station was at the bar yet if you look at the beginning of the video she avoids going straight to the bar but walked clearly toward Irvin and even hesitated between the columns then she walks back in view shaking Irvins hand.

I do see her moving back from Irvin as he was getting close but she appears to laugh while they are talking.
What was up with the Mgr it to me looks like he was stalking her.

1. Yes, I watched the video and no, that’s not what happened. She was walking into the bar and Irvin came in drunk in the hotel and was moving one direction, saw her and went to her and she turned around and went back to him and they started talking.

2. Yes, per Michael’s Irvin’s own words he was drunk to the point he claimed he didn’t know he talked to anybody until they showed him the video.

"I don't remember, but I guess when I came in [to the hotel], they [the NFL Network] asked, 'Well, what did you do [last night]?'" Irvin said on the radio show. "I said, 'I went straight to the room.'"

"And that's why I'm just kind of hiding and waiting to see how everything comes down," he said. "It was a minute meeting somewhere in the lobby. I don't even remember it really because I had a few drinks to tell you the truth."

https://www.wfaa.com/amp/article/sp...otel/287-fdefde9a-73a5-4e69-b820-ed29e20068bd

Again, how is this so hard to comprehend? The lady hasn’t sued Irvin or asked for anything. She reported a problem, the hotel told the NFL Network and they removed him from the broadcast, but he gets to keep his job.

It’s Irvin and his lawyer who are making fools of themselves not letting this die down and pursuing a fruitless lawsuit while re-writing narratives.

If anything, they are giving grounds to the lady to sue for defamation.

 

[khiladi]

Seems like we are not watching the same video. The woman enters the video from the lower left corner as Irvin and the guy with the white hat are coming in the hotel doors. She turns and enters the bar and is hidden behind some kind of pillar as the guy with the white hat is just entering the bar with Irvin about 5 ft behind him. Since Irvin came into the hotel with the guy in the white hat, Irvin could be following the guy with the white hat as he turns towards the bar. You are assuming Irvin started the conversation because you see him turn towards the entrance to the bar area. But that is not on the video. You cannot see the woman as Irvin turns into the bar. When she steps out to the right she and Irvin are already conversing. You cannot see who initiates the conversation.

Besides, it is not relevant. Even if Irvin walked up to her and started the conversation it's not a crime, or offensive. If every guys who started a conversation with a woman in a bar lost his job an awful lot of men would be unemployed right now. Her words in her accusation matter.

And sorry, the burden of proof in this country is always on the accuser. In this case Irvin has filed a suit claiming she defamed him be telling his employer he assaulted her. If this video is supposed to back up her claim then she has a loser case. If Irvin did not assault her that would be defamation, and he suffered damages because he was taken off the air for Super Bowl week. The video does not show an assault of any kind. The question still remains, why did ESPN take Irvin off the air? If it was because the woman and the hotel claimed he assaulted her then Irvin has a good case for defamation based on this video.

No, this is his it works..

The evidence shows her walking into the bar.

The evidence shows Irvin going one direction and then pursuing the lady.

The evidence at most circumstantial points to Irvin following her.

Irvin’s own statements have flip flopped, as he said he was drunk and had no idea he even talked to anybody on his radio interview.

Irvin’s lawyer is trying to paint a narrative now of a conspiracy and jealousy, even though all the hotel did was notify Irvin’s employer that one of their employees felt unsafe based on Irvin’s actions. It is Irvin that is suing the hotel.

she never claimed sexual assault and that’s a patent lie by Irvin’s legal team, meaning they are the ones lying. And this isn’t a criminal court case, this is a private company taking care of its employees. Private companies RESERVE the right to remove guests based on perceived actions by customers, as long as they aren’t discriminatory.

You defenders of Irvin can even keep the issues straight.

 

[phildadon86]

You're leaving out a significant detail.

As the woman began to enter the bar area she disappeared behind the pillar. For some reason she stopped. The guy who entered the same area about a step behind her immediately reappeared as he passed through the opening, yet she did not, indicating she stopped walking. It was during this sequence that Irvin's path changed to approach her. Then she moved back into view and their conversation continued.

How do explain this? Did she stop and turn to get Irvin's attention? Did Irvin say something to get her attention causing her to stop?

She could very well have "approached" (that is a figurative term in this case not to be taken literally) Irvin by turning back towards him and getting his attention which caused him to change course and approach her.

It's is interesting that someone so involved in analyzing the evidence hasn't analyzed this important detail.

Are you surprised? Look at the poster.

The guy who claims to be objective lol.

 

[khiladi]

I didn’t say he was in her line of sight. I said she and Irvin were in the manager’s line of sight when he clapped.

So not only are you watching imaginary videos, you’re reading imaginary posts.

The manager is pursuing her before Irvin is even in her sight. He is going to her irrespective of Irvin is even in the picture as far as he is concerned.

What is imaginary is you trying to concoct some narrative based on a clap that this was some conspiracy and not her boss trying to get her attention to do something, while that narrative (which you clearly ignore) requires both the manager and the lady have some sort of ESP to know Michael Irvin is coming in drunk at that very moment that they have to concoct this conspiracy to get Irvin in trouble..

That’s a completely clown take and is based on real imagination.. it’s clear whose concocting nonsense..

 

[DallasEast]

Click here for an understanding of sexual harassment

Click here for an understanding of sexual assault

Marriott claims Michael Irvin sexually harassed its employee.

Irvin has a legal right to defend himself. However, it is either an accidental or purposeful self-motivation for Irvin, his legal counsel, or anyone else on Earth to falsely claim Marriott said a sexual assault occurred.

 

[Mk2_Cowboys]

It’s hard to believe anyone is still arguing on behalf of the Marriott or the woman after seeing the video . It’s impossible to believe that if she felt threatened she would smile shake his hand and laugh as she walks away . This has become ridiculous and is devastating to women who legitimately were assaulted or harassed.

 

[khiladi]

If the lady felt she was verbally sexually harassed, she sure didn't show it. Why didn't she scream, slap, push/shove and walk away fastly motions on video? Instead, she laughed, shook hands more than once and nonchalantly walked away very cool as if nothing bad happened or bothered her. Unless there is voice recording of their conversation, Michael Irvin should be able to win his case.

Have you ever watched a sexual harassment training video from your employer? Every one I’ve watched, the de-escalation happens by a third party who happens to enter the room when the conversation is taking place. The girl could be intimidated and just acting the party, trying to get out of there as soon as possible.

 

[Vtwin]

It’s hard to believe anyone is still arguing on behalf of the Marriott or the woman after seeing the video . It’s impossible to believe that if she felt threatened she would smile shake his hand and laugh as she walks away . This has become ridiculous and is devastating to women who legitimately were assaulted or harassed.

This is the real importance of this conversation.

 

[khiladi]

Irvin was not following the guy with the hat. Watch his trek as he comes in. He's completely headed to the elevator away from them until he notices the woman and changes trajectory solely because of her and even speeds in her direction. That IS significant because according to Irvin's lawyer the woman purposely approaches Mike for the purpose of interacting with their group when actually she looped around without even looking in that direction. It's also significant because Mike's witnesses say she went up to him to start a conversation. That's debunked here by their paths. She was always going the way she was and can't see behind the pillars in between her and Mike to even know he's coming in at the time she's walking that way. His witnesses everyone was touting take a major hit here as none of them are able to even see their first interaction from behind the 2nd pillar plus they weren't even paying attention to the interaction as it went on.

There was no assault alleged by the defense. Ever. Those were Irvin's lawyer's and Irvin's words. Sexual harassment is what's in the hotel's claim.

The only things left to debate in this case are Marriott's reporting and the NFL's involvement but the video that was supposed to exonerate Irvin here literally follows Marriott's account of the situation down to Irvin slapping himself 3 times and showing the woman doing things that Irvin's team says she didn't do (probably not starting the conversation and backing up several times as Mike moved forward to her). Not a good look for them which is why "the angry manager" is the new distraction narrative. When your story morphs and uses overdramatization tactics there's typically a reason for that.

It still amazes me that Irvin defenders can’t comprehend the basic fact that the video supports more the narrative of “Mariott” than Irvin and his lawyers flip-flopping and bizarre conspiracy narrative, which damages their credibility.

That’s the whole point.

 

[CouchCoach]

All those who condemned him on day 1, like @CouchCoach, sure do have egg on their face. Will they apologize?

Nope, not yet because nothing has really changed except that face slap Irvin gave himself was on the video as reported by the security guy. I believe he said just what she is alleging and I also believe he didn't think it was that bad, typical Irvin behavior. And I have seen men do far worse than that over the years so I do not think the punishment fit the crime but Irvin might have brought this upon himself after the altercation.

Rocky, I am used to egg on my face, it's like I wear a chicken for a hat, turned backwards of course to represent Texas pickup drivers and Romo. I just let that egg slide off into a bowl to make French Toast.

And until I can confirm Irvin's call into 105.3 didn't trigger the send home, he's still a moron and opened his own can of worms.

And if I were to apologize, who would I apologize to? It's an opinion based on what I know and/or suspect about him and when this started, there was far more that we didn't know.

Just like some of you assuming she was a gold digger, hooker or skank but unless Irvin is a skank hunter, he wanted to hit that.

 

[khiladi]

http://serve360.marriott.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/Harassment-Policy-Prevention-2020.pdf

A violation of Marriott’s Harassment Prevention Policy is grounds for disciplinary action up to and including termination. Hotels may remove and ban a guest for conduct that is offensive or abusive to or poses risk to the safety of associates, including sexual harassment. In addition, managers who fail to promptly address complaints of harassment from their associates are subject to discipline.

Marriott has found that maintaining robust harassment policies, procedures, and training coupled with effective complaint investigation creates an environment where associates feel comfortable coming forward without fear of retaliation. As a result of Marriott’s “Respect for All” culture, most harassment complaints that the Company receives are promptly and effectively investigated and resolved at a very early stage. In all cases, Marriott’s objective is to promptly remedy the harassing behavior, and address the complaint in a manner that is intended to ensure that the reported harassment does not happen again. By actively investigating, remediating and supporting individuals who come forward and report harassment, Marriott strives to address problematic behaviors before they become severe and disruptive to the workplace.

Anybody that thinks a company doesn’t have the right to act the way this company did, as far as protecting their employee is concerned, doesn’t know what they are talking about.