Irvin Press Conference Live - 3/14/2023

khiladi said:
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.
Click to expand...
That video did not exonerate Irvin as his supporters would like but that won't stop them.

I remember seeing at least one say if that triple face slap is on that video, he's cooked. I guess we can assume that security guard was not lying about what he saw and heard?

I have gotten a kick out of all of our resident forensic body language readers telling us she was having a grand ole time until the mean ole jealous manager stepped in.
 
This event occurred in 2023. Keep comments involving Irvin's legal concerns to the current one.
 
CouchCoach said:
That video did not exonerate Irvin as his supporters would like but that won't stop them.

I remember seeing at least one say if that triple face slap is on that video, he's cooked. I guess we can assume that security guard was not lying about what he saw and heard?

I have gotten a kick out of all of our resident forensic body language readers telling us she was having a grand ole time until the mean ole jealous manager stepped in.
Click to expand...
Do you get the same kick out of the resident body language readers telling us she clearly was disturbed?
 
Creeper said:
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.
Click to expand...

This, h—- she was enjoying every minute of that conversation per her body language giggling like a teenager, she never once backed up and her boss seemed like he was jealous or wanted her back to work. A judge would look at this video and come to the conclusion she was enjoying this by all means.
 
CouchCoach said:
Inclusive for either side but that won't stop us.

One thing I did find interesting was the manager that was watching the interaction did not like it but was that jealously or was he already pissed at her and she was off talking to Irvin instead of what she was supposed to be doing?

Did he take her back to the office to further reprimand her and to get him off her case she tells him about the encounter with Irvin. The manager, already in a mood, overreacts and gets security involved and wheels start rolling.

The interaction between the manager and the employee will call for a deposition for him as well as some others that might know about the "relationship" between he and the woman.

Irvin's lawyer doesn't have to prove Irvin did not say what she said he did if he can blame all of this on the overreaction of that manager.

And, of course, we'd like to know what caused the NFL to respond by calling others to help escort Irvin out of the hotel.

Was her no-no-no hand gesture when he mentioned he would come back when she was working? Because that can be interpreted as a threat.
Click to expand...
I can agree with Irvin and his attorney there didn’t appear to be any sexual assault from the video.

It appears the complaint from employee released a few days ago from Marriott ( below)

Irvin then asked the Victim whether she knew anything about having a ‘big Black man inside of [her].’

https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.c...el-irvin-his-lawyer-calls-them-total-hogwash/

is only about inappropriate behavior and possibly sexual intent which is at least rude and potentially enough to have him removed from hotel.

We have had some fans call this simply a “ cat call” but I’m not sure that’s how I’d describe. And I doubt a jury in Arizona would as well.

As I suspected the complaint is the smoking gun. The video only supports there was contact and appears enough time for Irvin to exchange his cat calls .

Nothing criminal but again probably enough for hotel to take action and the NFL to pump the brakes especially with his history.
 
Cowboysheelsreds058 said:
This, h—- she was enjoying every minute of that conversation per her body language giggling like a teenager, she never once backed up and her boss seemed like he was jealous or wanted her back to work. A judge would look at this video and come to the conclusion she was enjoying this by all means.
Click to expand...
Until they hear her testimony .
 
Vtwin said:
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.
Click to expand...
Let’s assume for the sake of argument she did approach him, does that justify his language and alleged cat calls to her?
 
Smith22 said:
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.
Click to expand...
1. As soon as he changes his direction from walking straight, noticing her to angling towards her to intercept her. Clear as day. I didn't even notice this until someone else pointed it out so it's not even my theory.

2. The woman turned the corner, didn't appear to even look Irvin's way and was walking into the bar with the manager on the other side trying to get her attention. The only thing that would have stopped her would be Irvin calling out to her. Logic. Otherwise, she stopped behind the pillar, ignored her manager on the other side, turned to Irvin and called him over while he was already on his way to the elevators and she was already angled to go inside the bar. Which is the more plausible scenario?

3. She works in hospitality. If Irvin did call to her, maybe he needed something like a drink or something else. You ask if there's anything a guest might need and then get it or direct them to it. Logic. And if security is hovering, the chances of something going down are low versus no one being around. So would you be more or less comfortable with those optics despite an alleged horndog guest trying to get at you? Again, this is hospitality so you don't cause a scene and security eventually made themselves known to end it. Maybe they have procedures for that very thing. Probably not the first time they've had people trying to talk to staff, being a bar and all, which is probably why they're stationed there. Logic.

4. Again the straight-lined thinking that she had to react in the moment. She didn't have to. She wanted to end the talk, the manager wanted her attention and she probably thought about what to do later. If you read Marriott's account, this happened towards the end of her shift. So she finished, came back the next morning and reported things. The trumped up "traumatizing experience" is nowhere in any account.
 
Smith22 said:
From what we've been told, it was one over the top thing he said, unless you consider him referencing seeing her later in the week as a cat call.
Click to expand...
Depends on exactly where that comment was placed within the conversation.

That comment has several possible applications including a threat on how it was used.
 
CouchCoach said:
Depends on exactly where that comment was placed within the conversation.

That comment has several possible applications including a threat on how it was used.
Click to expand...
Right

And I’d suggest the video confirms there was enough time to exchange these “ cat calls” and potential threats .
 
khiladi said:
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.

image5-2.jpg
Click to expand...
You need verbal recordings. If not, anything can be assumed or made up from either party.
 
khiladi said:
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.
Click to expand...
You are jumping to conclusions that are not supported by the video. You claim he is "pursuing" the woman because he turned towards the entrance to the bar, but as I indicated, the guy with the white hate who Irvin came in with turned to the bar as well. Irvin could have been following him. It is also possible she called out to him. You cannot see the woman at the point Irvin approaches the entrance to the bar. Inference is not evidence or proof. It is certainly not enough to meet the preponderance requirement for a civil matter or the beyond reasonable doubt standard for a criminal matter.

If I was Irvin's attorney I would argue that it makes no sense that he pursued her, assuming the lawyers for the hotel try to make that argument. He had never seen her before so why would he he pursue her at first sight like that? Is that a reasonable conclusion?

But again, it is irrelevant. Even if you conclude that he did turn to go talk to her, that is a far cry from sexual assault or offensive behavior.

And this not a case about a private company taking care of its employees. They can kick Irvin out just for being drunk or disorderly, or making a mess of his room. This case is about the hotel taking the extra step of calling the NFL and filing a complaint with them. It is about the damages Irvin incurred for lost of work and any possible reputational damage based on the claims of the hotel and the woman. If those claims are false, Irvin should win damages.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Staff online

Members online

Total: 3,623 (members: 45, guests: 3,578)

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
464,124
Messages
13,790,123
Members
23,772
Latest member
BAC2662
Back
Top