Irvin Press Conference Live - 3/14/2023

[tyke1doe]

Proud? Nope, but clearly part of life. If men didnt hit on woman, none of us would be here. In today's world, Im not sure how a guy is supposed to ever go on a date with a woman without risk of being accused of doing or saying something inappropriate. I think Ca was trying to get something passed that REQUIREd permission to be given before people have sex. I could be wrong, but I do think I remember hearing that at some point.

What do you mean "hit on"?
Nothing I've ever said to a woman I'm interested in or not interested in could ever be construed as inappropriate.
And that's because I don't talk that way.
If anything, women later have told me they wish I had said something more.

I understand women can lie. But I also understand that men can frame their words in a way that they're not uttering inappropriate speech.
We can't let men off that easy. We've been getting away with inappropriate conversation and passing it off as "innocent" since the beginning of time.
And women are now saying, "Enough is enough!"
We're living in different times. Get used to the differences or get accused.

 

[CouchCoach]

I have to think you are referencing me since I just said something somewhat related. What's the matter, you don't have the intestinal fortitude to call me out directly?

What have I said that makes me a "supporter"? (Hint, the answer is nothing)

I also didn't say "she" or "should be proud". You aren't understanding what you are reading.

I'll give you credit for somewhat engaging. Your cohorts CC and MR just go into hiding rather than address the tough question.

What tough question am I avoiding? What are you talking about?

 

[FTWayne]

I think the head slapping aligns more with what Marriott is saying.

 

[Vtwin]

What tough question am I avoiding? What are you talking about?

A couple general questions that are specific to a couple of the points you have leaned on HARD throughout this as well as the post I quoted this morning. You may have missed it in all the hubbub, I understand that... but... you have a history over the years of ducking some legitimate counter arguments on other non-football related topics.

And you know how it goes... history means everything! lol

 

[Diehardblues]

No but i also dont think every pearson is honest in the world, again your taking a hard stance that it was how the Marriott said it was and you have the same word from one side to go off of that you do that the other side is saying they didnt say it..Do you know the Marriott employee's sayign this? Do you know they are honest people? Again the system needs to play out.

No,we only know Irvin’s history.

 

[MarcusRock]

Here is the statement from a witness to the interaction:

“We walked back to go into the bar, [Irvin] went straight to go to his hotel room, and I guess somebody that worked there, I don’t know if it was a waitress or a bartender I guess came up and said, ‘Hey Michael Irvin.’ And he said, ‘Oh, nice to meet you, I’m Michael’ and shook her hand. The crazy part was it was like a 30-second interaction. It could’ve been a minute. I didn’t really think much of it ‘cause it was just a fan kind of thing.”

What the video does not show is the woman at the point where Irvin turns towards the entrance to the bar. This witness claim she called out to Irvin, which is why he turned towards her. This witness refutes the idea that Irvin turned to her on his own. So let's put that to rest now unless you can provide a witness statement that counters this witness.

So I can do better than a counter-witness. I can disqualify this one.

Here's where this witness' account falls apart and tell me what you think about this. Number 1, this witness could have only been the one in the hat, which would make him the Philly fan, because he turns into the bar just after the woman does on the same side and is at least near the initial encounter. But the Philly fan is the one in the black shirt who comes inside the hotel last who is checking his phone because per his account, he got a picture of Mike. The Aussie witness is obviously wearing the green shirt. The Aussie witness and the Philly witness are behind the 2nd pillar at the time Mike and the woman start talking to each other so they can't see a dang thing about who said what to whom. The Philly guy is checking his phone and does so all the way back to his seat and from my knowledge, never looks at them talking but correct me if I'm wrong. Below is the pic they got, arrow on the Philly guy witness.

Further, Marriott's account is that Mike asked if she knew him and she said no so Mike said to check him out on the internet. Yesterday, Mike says they were talking about football and that she didn't know much about it so Mike said to look at the shows he does like First Take, etc. If she knew him enough to say "Hey Michael Irvin," why would Irvin need to tell her about the shows he does? If she knows him, she knows he's not a current player and that his only involvement with football is pretty much on those sports shows that Irvin feels the need to inform her about.

So did I just disqualify this witness here for all to see? Tell me what you think.

 

[DallasEast]

Irvin and his team know what they're doing. They're trying to tap into the anti-accuser angst that says no one can do anything anymore and that liars fabricate things against you when you're just minding your business talking about your junk. Popular theme among sports folks and the case interest is primarily among sports media so pander to the popular thought among that audience in the hopes their emotion makes them forget that this was about what was said, not a physical thing.

Not sure anyone would agree that Irvin and his legal counsel are unaware of their strategy. Irvin was there. And his legal counsel will defend him in the most logical fashion available to them.

While it is true I stated 'Irvin, his legal counsel, or anyone else on Earth', my post's intent was directed solely at certain posters within these CowboysZone conversations repeatedly stating assault occurred instead of harassment. In other words, they are the 'anyone else on Earth' I was referring to.

 

[Reid1boys]

From what it showed with her kicking her leg and all she was giddy to be talking to a celebrity all while her manager was ticked off she was wasting company time

Heck don't we have a lip reader here at the forum that can tell us exactly what was said by zeroing in on the two while they were talking

just follow along with the 3 amigos in here... they will tell you exactly what that "Scum," MI was saying.

 

[sandbridge77]

Over 22 pages and 400 posts and no one has changed anyone’s opinion. I guess no one here was the star of their debate team. Lol

 

[MarcusRock]

dont need to know exactly what was said. He bdy language tells me enough of the general TONE of the conversation. I keep asking this question and nobody is answering.

Marriott says other employees sensed how uncomfortable she was due to this interaction and they came to her rescue to end the conversation. Where is that in the video? Who are these employees? Where are these employees?
The security guy??? lol, you must be kidding.

Some of you in here says Mike sees the employees come over and he ends the discussion... that is absolute garage also. It is amazing how some of you see the boogie man in every slight step, every hand movement, or every elbow touch that takes place.

Did you miss the post I made to you yesterday addressing the questions you say no one is answering? I answered them yesterday. Never saw a reply from you on this or a few posts since the video broke.

 

[Reid1boys]

I am objective about what happened but yes, I would like to watch the NFLN without that loud mouthed amateur ruining it.

I think he said what they are alleging but that itself does not warrant him losing his job.

Until proven otherwise, I think him breaking his own story and saying what he did got him into more hot water with the NFLN than the hotel encounter.

Fair enopugh... and if this actually goes to court, we will surely find out how it all went down. IM thinking court TV's ratings would be pretty high if this was on TV. Although I dont think they do civil trials.

 

[MarcusRock]

You conveniently skipped the part about how she for some reason very clearly stopped instead of continuing on her path into the bar area. Why did she do that? Are you saying that she stopped in her tracks because Irvin, from a distance, said something to cause that?

We can't see anything of her actions when she disappears briefly behind the pillar. It is not until after she disappears that Irvin seems to notice her, or at least to change his course towards her. We do know that she aborted her mission to walk into the bar area because she didn't even take the two steps required to reappear on the other side of the pillar.

It is entirely plausible that she did stop, turn and engage. Is it not?

I don't know man. I've been out of the game, so to speak, for over 25 years, but back when I was an all pro player I used to chuckle at the extent some women would go to be noticed while trying real hard to look like they weren't trying. lol Hell, I've listened to them council each other on how to get some dude's attention without looking like they were interested.

I acknowledged her stopping to call out to Mike as plausible. I asked YOU which was more plausible of her calling to him or him calling to her which you conveniently skipped answering in all your words here. So which was MORE plausible given what I posted prior?

 

[CowboyFrog]

No,we only know Irvin’s history.

So you would say you're opinion on what happened would be one sided because of the only history you know is on one side? Again I too do not know what was said as no one seems to have concrete evidence to turn this case, BUT I do believe everyone including people who have done wrong in the past (what 90% of the population) have the right to defend thier character if they believe they have been wrongly accused of something. The system we use is of proof not "We will take your word for it", this doesnt mean anyone is "OK" with Females getting "Cat called" it does mean we require you to back up accusations of character if the other party is disputing it in a civil suit.

 

[Blackrain]

just follow along with the 3 amigos in here... they will tell you exactly what that "Scum," MI was saying.

Yeah brother I'm waiting for the word for word playback of exactly what was said I'm sure that video could be enhanced and blown up to where someone who was credible in lip reading could pretty much tell us the exact conversation

That is if there's not audio already

 

[MarcusRock]

I have to think you are referencing me since I just said something somewhat related. What's the matter, you don't have the intestinal fortitude to call me out directly?

What have I said that makes me a "supporter"? (Hint, the answer is nothing)

I also didn't say "she" or "should be proud". You aren't understanding what you are reading.

I'll give you credit for somewhat engaging. Your cohorts CC and MR just go into hiding rather than address the tough question.

Lol @ hiding. Thread I started and probably the most posts in here. How about you answer my question you avoided and then we can talk about hiding?

 

[Reid1boys]

What do you mean "hit on"?
Nothing I've ever said to a woman I'm interested in or not interested in could ever be construed as inappropriate.
And that's because I don't talk that way.
If anything, women later have told me they wish I had said something more.

I understand women can lie. But I also understand that men can frame their words in a way that they're not uttering inappropriate speech.
We can't let men off that easy. We've been getting away with inappropriate conversation and passing it off as "innocent" since the beginning of time.
And women are now saying, "Enough is enough!"
We're living in different times. Get used to the differences or get accused.

before you make comments like that to me... know who you are talking to . Ive been with my wife for 36 years and been married 34 years. Ive never "Hit on," nor spoken inappropriately to any woman in my entire life. It is simply not who I am.

BUT, you dont need to speak a "Certain," way for someone to accuse you of something.

Example, I coached for 20 years. I always tried to get my OF to understand that just because a player was on 2nd and was going to score didnt mean they throw it to home on a ball hit to the OF. Sometimes you simply can not get an out and the player is going to score. I exaggerated stuff when I speak in order to make my point. I would say hey, on a ball hit here and it took you this long to get to the ball, a kid in a wheel chair could score from 2nd on that play, so why are you throwing it home and allowing the other player to advance to 2nd base?

Now I had used that saying for 16 years and NEVER did any person confuse what I was saying.... until I was hired to take over a team that was really bad and my job was to make them better. Sr. players didnt get the playing time they thought they "Deserved," so they took that expression and complained that I was making fun of people with disabilities....... my father was a double amputee, I was doing no such thing. I was actually making fun of incredibly foolish softball players throwing it to a base where they had no play.

Now before someone starts popping off about how I interacted with players... Ive been to over 15 former players weddings including 2 out of state. My relationship with players was great.... they knew what my point was, but they still tried to twist it into something bad.

 

[MarcusRock]

Valid point, we know nothing about the woman, the manager or anyone else involved in this.

However, I do know more than I want to know about Irvin and this incident fits his pattern.

So, with only part of this known, I tend to believe the woman but it doesn’t really matter because I am not on the jury and have no responsibility in this but to have fun with, yet another, off season gift from the Cowboys organization.

Some people obviously didn't get the "fun" memo. Lol.

 

[MarcusRock]

I think the head slapping aligns more with what Marriott is saying.

The entire video does.

 

[Reid1boys]

I acknowledged her stopping to call out to Mike as plausible. I asked YOU which was more plausible of her calling to him or him calling to her which you conveniently skipped answering in all your words here. So which was MORE plausible given what I posted prior?

dont know what you posted, but it is more plausible she called to him. Watch her walk behind the pillar... she had plenty of time to come out the other side of the pillar and be back within view of the camera but she never reappears on the other side. Mike hasnt even seen her yet, watch as she is about to disappear her head is looking to the right, right at Mike, Mikes head is looking to the right, more to the guy that he just took pictures with... he hasnt even seen her yet. Then you see her reappear on the same side of the pillar she disappeared from camera view.... It would appear to me she stopped, waited a split second for mike to get there, doesnt actually turn, but steps backwards or slightly lateral sideways to engage Mike in conversation.

Had she just kept walking as she turned behind that pillar heading into the bar, she would have came out the other side. But she doesnt, she immediately stops and waits.... so enough already about Mike practically falling over himself to get to her.

 

[MarcusRock]

dont know what you posted, but it is more plausible she called to him. Watch her walk behind the pillar... she had plenty of time to come out the other side of the pillar and be back within view of the camera but she never reappears on the other side. Mike hasnt even seen her yet, watch as she is about to disappear her head is looking to the right, right at Mike, Mikes head is looking to the right, more to the guy that he just took pictures with... he hasnt even seen her yet. Then you see her reappear on the same side of the pillar she disappeared from camera view.... It would appear to me she stopped, waited a split second for mike to get there, doesnt actually turn, but steps backwards or slightly lateral sideways to engage Mike in conversation.

Had she just kept walking as she turned behind that pillar heading into the bar, she would have came out the other side. But she doesnt, she immediately stops and waits.... so enough already about Mike practically falling over himself to get to her.

Lol @ "I didn't even see your options but I know the answer." Below is what I posted. You need to blow your video up to full screen. Her head is looking solely in the direction she's going as she disappears behind the pillar, not at Irvin. She stops because most likely Mike called to her. I just disqualified the witness that claims she said "Hey Michael Irvin" when BOTH parties, including Irvin himself says she didn't know who he was so Mike said to check out the shows he does. BOTH parties say this. The spin job you're doing since yesterday is legendary. Only the pro/against side for whom the video looks worse needs to do this, especially you in particular who is avoiding your own words that if Mike slapped himself on video, he was cooked. You said this and now you avoid it. Why?

Explained it this morning. What's more plausible? Her angle is clearly taking her into the bar without even looking Irvin's way. The manager on the other side is clearly trying to get her attention. More attention towards the bar. Irvin is headed to the elevators and leaving his group he took pics with. He sees her, changes his angle and makes a bee-line for her, also speeding his gait to get there. She would have to stop and turn towards him to call out when her path and head weren't even looking in his direction and the manager on the other side is directly in her view trying to get her attention. This isn't a beyond a reasonable doubt criminal case. This is a civil case. What's more likely if a person is on a jury seeing this? More likely. Eh?