Irvin Press Conference Live - 3/14/2023

[CowboyFrog]

I agree that Irvin's history shouldn't be considered and that this should be taken as an independent, isolated situation. I don't know what happened when Marriott investigated whether they looked up his history or not. I do think it'll come up in court, which again I think is unfortunate, but that's where it'll go in that arena. It's not part of my analysis but the law world can be slimy where exoneration can be buried and clear non-guilt can be alleged to leave in the hands of a jury. Imperfect system.

Ooh for sure and it will be "Striken from the record" like they can make jurors unhear it I still dont think this is going to trial though, again to me that video showed some wierd things going on between the employee's I'm sure MI's team has some pretty good PI's that are diggin for gold also. I wouldnt be shocked if it comes out the conversation was flirty between them and again that makes MI a bad husband for sure but he probably doesnt need to lose his jobs over it.

 

[MarcusRock]

Here is the image:

ugh... it didnt upload correctly.. Ill try later

She CLEARLY has her head slightly turned to the right. Irvin is turned harder to the right towards the guy he is walking back into the hotel with. That is not open for debate. You say she was looking the other way.... nope.

As far as the slaps... I did think as described by Marriott that would be a tough one, but after the video... nah. I was in a bar last week. Sitting with a friend and the bartender has on a very revealing outfit and I turned to him where only he could hear and was like damn... that is distracting. Guys say stuff to each other.... no telling what exactly what was said.... but it is not as described by Marriott. Again, I await hearing the guy Mike was talking to when those slaps occurred as well as the manager. That will clear up a lot IMO.

Number 1, post video. A still shot doesn't cut it here just like with a holding call. We're talking about motion here. It's 35:24 of the video link below. Blow it up to full screen. Note that you're now you're moving to "slightly" from full-on looking at Mike.

Not as described by Marriott? The account says slaps himself 3 times while saying things of course video won't reveal. Mike slaps himself 3 times. You mentioned the slaps being there as hefty evidence with no mention of audio, which we knew we'd not hear. So now you're pivoting when it actually shows up on video? Just asking.

 

[Smashin222]

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.

You're projecting your own misogynistic attitudes and insecurities on to her. Pretty transparently too.

If she was planning to make money on this, don't you think she would have gone to his room with him like he asked? This is the lamest shakedown attempt I can think of, and that tells me a lot about the limits of your imagination.

 

[Smashin222]

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.

The accuser in this instance is actually Irvin. He has the burden of proof in court.

Nobody claimed an assault took place. It's insane that has to be repeated so many times.

 

[Reid1boys]

Number 1, post video. A still shot doesn't cut it here just like with a holding call. We're talking about motion here. It's 35:24 of the video link below. Blow it up to full screen. Note that you're now you're moving to "slightly" from full-on looking at Mike.

Not as described by Marriott? The account says slaps himself 3 times while saying things of course video won't reveal. Mike slaps himself 3 times. You mentioned the slaps being there as hefty evidence with no mention of audio, which we knew we'd not hear. So now you're pivoting when it actually shows up on video? Just asking.

Freeze at 22:04 of the video and look where Mike is and where he is looking and look at her and where she is looking. She is looking right at him.


Yes, I pivoted because I guess I was expecting those slaps to be more in line with Marriott's description..... he was off to the side with another guy and she was long gone with the manager. I could totally see a guy doing that and saying to the other guy... damn, she was fine. Again, Ive already been on record as saying with seeing the video, there is not much he could say in this particular setting that would make me think he should be fired. He has no work relationship with her, he isnt her superior... he is just a man that could have been trying to pick up an employee..... who cares. It isnt how I operate, but if it is how he does... again, who cares.


Now if this were a co-worker of his and they were at work and he said something similar to what is reported, he would and should be fired. At a hotel bar... nah.
Do not take my words as accepting Marriotts depiction of events... that video doesnt look bad to me in the slightest...... and because of HER reactions and body language. There really isnt much else to say on this top and video.

 

[CouchCoach]

That's a fair assessment of the situation. I don't think the question is whether he should be removed from the hotel. I think the question is should you be removed from your job based on an accusation with no proof.

Irvin hasn't been removed from his job and we do not know the weight of the accusation vs him breaking his own story to the public.

Would anyone here argue that once he did that radio call in, the NFLN had no choice? If you can't argue that then it stands to reason that radio call in was the trigger to send him home. And we don't know if he was asked to lay low and not talk to anyone and didn't follow orders.

It was in the best interest of the NFLN to keep this quiet and let him go about his duties, if the hotel had decided their part in this was over once he was out of the hotel. The NFLN had to scramble in SB week to get his segments covered and that could not have been easy.

If y'all haven't heard the radio call in, the 105.3 guys are in the dark on all of this and he breaks the story to them and mentions he is "hiding out" waiting so it is a pretty good assumption he has not been informed he is heading home and he makes no mention of that in the call.

So either they hadn't decided on what to do with him or just hadn't told him yet but as of Wednesday morning, he was still in AZ.

 

[Smashin222]

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.

It's so sad to see fellow Cowboys fans coping so much over something they should have 0 investment in.

The actual fight is between Irvin and the NFL but nobody wants to talk about the fact that it was the NFL that asked the hotel to contact them if any misconduct occurred, the NFL conducted the investigation and the NFL chose to remove him from their coverage.

I'd be interested to see the # of women who read her body language as "grand ol time" I'd bet the number is pretty low.

 

[Vtwin]

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?

You did? I just reread your reply and your going to have to point out where you admitted it was plausible. You immediately went into your schtick about what was more plausible. Is that half arsed, back handed comment your idea of admitting it is plausible?

Either scenario is equally as plausible given the evidence we have seen. We know so little about this. Your guesses and assumptions based on you analysis of the evidence are still just that. Guesses and assumptions.

 

[Smashin222]

OK, I'll address this sidetrack away from the point I was making.

To be clear, I am not nor have I ever justified or condemned anything related to this episode.

Having said that, and absent of any authority position the accused holds over the accuser such as in this case, I am firmly in the camp of "sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me".

IF the alleged comments were made as reported, my stance would be that Irvin may have certainly been inappropriate BUT... so what. She was never in any danger whatsoever. Irvin took his shot in graphic fashion which could be viewed as inappropriate, then they parted ways. Irvin went to his room, slept it off, completely forgetting about the exchange while she called in the Calvary to address this horrible attack on her. This entire dog and pony show is because an allegedly drunk playboy allegedly said something that apparently hurt the feelings of a fragile little flower.

I'm trying to think of any woman I know who would respond this way in the same alleged situation. I can't think of one. Some might just exit the encounter, some might give him a piece of their mind, a couple might slap his face, some might blush and be flustered, a couple might smile and tell him she'll be up later to make sure he has enough towels.

None of them would play the victim card and probably all of them would forever talk with pride about the time Michael Irvin hit on them.

Both much ado about nothing, and unfortunately a sign of the times.

Some might be obligated to make a report to their employer if a guest has promised to find them and harass them again later in the week....

Or did you forget about that part?

 

[Vtwin]

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?

I asked you a direct question which you still haven't really addressed directly.

 

[MarcusRock]

Freeze at 22:04 of the video and look where Mike is and where he is looking and look at her and where she is looking. She is looking right at him.


Yes, I pivoted because I guess I was expecting those slaps to be more in line with Marriott's description..... he was off to the side with another guy and she was long gone with the manager. I could totally see a guy doing that and saying to the other guy... damn, she was fine. Again, Ive already been on record as saying with seeing the video, there is not much he could say in this particular setting that would make me think he should be fired. He has no work relationship with her, he isnt her superior... he is just a man that could have been trying to pick up an employee..... who cares. It isnt how I operate, but if it is how he does... again, who cares.


Now if this were a co-worker of his and they were at work and he said something similar to what is reported, he would and should be fired. At a hotel bar... nah.
Do not take my words as accepting Marriotts depiction of events... that video doesnt look bad to me in the slightest...... and because of HER reactions and body language. There really isnt much else to say on this top and video.

Not what was stated. The other person said as she was disappearing behind the pillar she was looking in Mike's direction. She made an arc to enter the bar so at one point of course her head would be facing him but she continues her arc towards the bar and never breaks the arc to look in Mike's direction indicating she's alluring him or about to talk to him. Otherwise she would motion to him when she was facing him during that arc, correct? Instead she keeps going.

The slaps were in line with Marriott's description. They say the slaps happen with another employee there and after the woman had walked away and he said "She bad. She bad. I want to hit that." The audio you can't hear, did the physical part happen including another employee being there? The should be be fired thing is another topic. We're talking (and you were talking) about what the video would show. Did it show what Marriott claimed? Below is the link to their PDF claim. Page 4.

https://www.fox4news.com/news/michael-irvin-super-bowl-misconduct-allegation

 

[Blackrain]

If you make a move on someone while at their workplace, then you are sexually harassing someone. That's the risk you take approaching someone at their job. Don't want to take that risk? Don't hit on people who are trying to work.

That seems reasonable to me, because people who are at their jobs just want to work and go home, not deal with your hormones and ****** personality.

By the same token if you don't want to be hit on at your job do your job when your boss is calling you don't stand and have a conversation for 2 minutes with somebody and flirt with them.

She could have shaken hands and left it at that or taken a quick selfie but no she chose to have a long engaged conversation against her bosses wishes who was pacing and visibly pissed off

She was not in any way cornered and could have terminated the conversation at any time and going back to her job but she chose to take it on for almost 2 minutes this is completely her fault

 

[Smashin222]

First of all we do have some alleged info from Marriott to what the employee complaint was said . Have you not seen those ?

And Irvin hasn’t specifically denied he said any of those accusations or cat calls, etc.

He and his lawyer in press conference yesterday said they deny sexual assault which I agree after watching video. But even Irvin couldn’t recall everything from their conversation which is likely where the potential inappropriate verbiage or cat call was used .

He and his lawyer also deny that a murder took place, that Irvin did not in fact rob a bank that night and that he was not illegally flying a helicopter in restricted space. I'm sure they'll find some other stuff to deny that nobody accused them of.

 

[MarcusRock]

You did? I just reread your reply and your going to have to point out where you admitted it was plausible. You immediately went into your schtick about what was more plausible. Is that half arsed, back handed comment your idea of admitting it is plausible?

Either scenario is equally as plausible given the evidence we have seen. We know so little about this. Your guesses and assumptions based on you analysis of the evidence are still just that. Guesses and assumptions.

When you present 2 views and ask which is more plausible, you are saying both are plausible but asking which one is MORE plausible. Your answer after having to ask a second time because you avoided the first ask is "neither." So who is MORE likely to be dodging what the evidence of the tape shows? Thanks for playing. Lol.

 

[Blackrain]

Not what was stated. The other person said as she was disappearing behind the pillar she was looking in Mike's direction. She made an arc to enter the bar so at one point of course her head would be facing him but she continues her arc towards the bar and never breaks the arc to look in Mike's direction indicating she's alluring him or about to talk to him. Otherwise she would motion to him when she was facing him during that arc, correct? Instead she keeps going.

The slaps were in line with Marriott's description. They say the slaps happen with another employee there and after the woman had walked away and he said "She bad. She bad. I want to hit that." The audio you can't hear, did the physical part happen including another employee being there? The should be be fired thing is another topic. We're talking (and you were talking) about what the video would show. Did it show what Marriott claimed? Below is the link to their PDF claim. Page 4.

https://www.fox4news.com/news/michael-irvin-super-bowl-misconduct-allegation

The slaps have nothing to do with the girl she's gone Long gone and if Michael lost his job or is on trial for saying a girl was pretty after she walked by and is 20 yards away then I guess we all should lose our jobs because I can't think of any guy who hasn't said that at some point in time.

It can't have offended her because she's not there

 

[CowboyFrog]

Some might be obligated to make a report to their employer if a guest has promised to find them and harass them again later in the week....

Or did you forget about that part?

That would be easy to show in the video if she actually went straight to her manager to report this harassment and the promise to come back, in the video she actually tries to go by her manager and really is trying not to even look at him as he basically calls her to his office which then makes her turn around and follow him. So in the video the female employee was so distraught after the conversation she does these things clearly

1. actually laughs and jokes with MI during the conversation
2. doesnt pull away from handshakes nor the arm touching
3. carries this conversation for well over a minute as MI is "saying things that make her distraught"
4. keeps staying out of the sight of her manager which she cant wait to go and report this to
5. Shakes his hand as he apparently says "I will be back again to find you"
6. Tries to go back to her station and actually passes her manager trying not to make eye contact with him

now again we dont have audio but do any of these action on the camera concrete point out she was distraught and seeking fellow employees for help or her manager to report this conversation?

 

[CouchCoach]

You did? I just reread your reply and your going to have to point out where you admitted it was plausible. You immediately went into your schtick about what was more plausible. Is that half arsed, back handed comment your idea of admitting it is plausible?

Either scenario is equally as plausible given the evidence we have seen. We know so little about this. Your guesses and assumptions based on you analysis of the evidence are still just that. Guesses and assumptions.

Who's assumptions are not that with the unknown in this?

Everything here is based on assumption and interpretation.

The only difference is some of us choose to ignore Irvin's past history with this exact thing and others have that as their main thinking in this. If I didn't know Irvin's past and some things about when he was at ESPN Radio, I wouldn't have had such a heavy lean from the beginning in this.

 

[Blackrain]

She made the call to try to humor a drunk guest in the hopes that he would go away when she clearly indicated she wasn't interested. Instead he kept touching her and offered his dick to her.

Again, you underestimate how much the women around you humor you I guess.

And she made a bad call and it's her fault and her boss was trying to tell her she was making a bad call she was supposed to be doing her job not fraternizing with the customers and he made that perfectly clear.

She had every chance to say hi and cut it short but she chose to carry it on.

 

[CouchCoach]

The slaps have nothing to do with the girl she's gone Long gone and if Michael lost his job or is on trial for saying a girl was pretty after she walked by and is 20 yards away then I guess we all should lose our jobs because I can't think of any guy who hasn't said that at some point in time.

It can't have offended her because she's not there

The slaps only validate part of the hotel's story in this.

 

[Reid1boys]

Some might be obligated to make a report to their employer if a guest has promised to find them and harass them again later in the week....

Or did you forget about that part?

yep..... again, convince any REASONABLE person from watching the video that
1) He was harassing her
2) He actually made a threat to her.

Her actions play a part in determining what his actions would or would not be construed as.