Irvin Press Conference Live - 3/14/2023

[PA Cowboy Fan]

Yeah he could have been talking about anything with that guy he was walking with it didn't necessarily have to pertain to the girl but yeah he's under a microscope at all times and that's a tough situation for anyone.

I will just go on record as saying I didn't see anything in that video that showed me that he behaved inappropriately, or in a disrespectful sexual manner if anything I believe she perpetuated the conversation rather than abruptly closing it if she had been offended.

Also for an offense grave enough to make him get thrown out of the hotel I would have certainly thought the security guard who was only steps away would have been alerted and he would have been escorted out for whatever he was doing somehow she did not become offended until the next day this is concerning

She probably got in trouble by her boss for engaging the guests like that and made up a story. Who knows? There is absolutely nothing in that video thats damaging to Mike. And if we didn't know that was MI and we saw that video I doubt anyone would have thought anything of it. She's laughing and talking. It looks like they're joking. She shakes his hand and they depart. Nothing to see here.

 

[Blackrain]

She probably got in trouble by her boss for engaging the guests like that and made up a story. Who knows? There is absolutely nothing in that video thats damaging to Mike. And if we didn't know that was MI and we saw that video I doubt anyone would have thought anything of it. She's laughing and talking. It looks like they're joking. She shakes his hand and they depart. Nothing to see here.

That's a good point she may have gotten reprimanded by her boss and used Mike as a scapegoat to try and exonerate herself for not listening to him and doing her job

 

[Vtwin]

Some women might do that and you not being a woman does not count.

Since we don't know her position we do not know if her reporting it was personal or she felt if Irvin would do that, what else is he capable of and she doesn't know him, according to him he told her to look him up on Google. And said he'd be back.

What if he did that to another female guest and it got out it wasn't the first time in that hotel? Think they are liable not addressing that when they could have?

While this is not sexual assault, could Irvin have been pegged as a sexual predator because that was a predatory thing to say to a stranger. That isn't come up to my room for a drink.

I've seen some guys say "well, the woman has the choice to walk away" but why should any woman have to make that choice? If he said that, that is not a come on line, that is the pure definition of sexual harassment.

And just how many women do you know that are OK with a total stranger putting their hands of them within 1.5 minutes of the conversation starting? You think that's OK? Go ahead and try that a few times but have a good dentist.

I didn't say that because I would act that way, that everyone else should too. The point was, simply taking it for what it was and moving on with your life was a perfectly good option.

I could "what if" the hell out of this too. What if she was the predator who made this all up after her advances were turned down? I'm not actually doing that, but just pointing out that "what iffing" our way through this is just ridiculous speculation.

There is no difference in motive and intention between "you're very pretty, would you like to come up for a drink", and "have you ever had a black man inside you". Yes, one is much more palatable to the sensitive but at the end of the day the motive and intentions are exactly the same. They. Are. Just. Words.

Why should a woman have to make that choice? Seriously? I can certainly understand some women not wanting to have to make that choice, but come on man. We could go all week going back and forth about what choices should anyone have to make. Having to "make that choice" is as much a first world problem as I've ever seen. If her job choice has her interacting with customers at a time of day when many will be partying then maybe she should choose a different position.

I don't know any women who would react in fear about being briefly touched on the shoulder or elbow during a short encounter in a very public place. I'm not a toucher, (although I had to learn to be a hugger) but some people are. Women and men. Whether it is ok or not is up to the recipient but it is not a mortal crime to touch a persons shoulder or elbow.

The bottom line is, if the conversation ended and both parties went on their way, nobody sufferers in any way, no kittens or puppies get killed. Everyone lives happily ever after.

Turning this into what it is over some vulgar words and a touch on the elbow is ridiculous. No matter how "inappropriate" we FEEL it is.

 

[Blackrain]

The security guard also has to consider what she might or might not want to do about it as far as reporting or not. As I mentioned yesterday, nothing physical was going to happen. Security patrols the bar for that reason. So she could rest assured of that. But if someone is going to make comments, you don't interrupt those in case you need to be a witness for a statement later. So as long as nothing appears to be getting physical, you let them talk because you might need evidence for later. You see though that as Mike kept creeping up on her (look at where they start and where they end up - that's all Mike moving forward and her backing up) one security guard did make himself obvious and then it stopped before anything else could happen. But they had enough alleged evidence in case a report was filed, and she did.

I didn't say the security guard should have butt it in I said if she was being verbally assaulted or insulted or being talked to in an inappropriate manner she should have asked the security guard to remove Michael from the situation but she didn't she perpetuated it I've said it over and over again and you can't dispute it she carried on the conversation and ended it with a handshake Even with her boss trying to get her attention and pacing angrily

 

[CowboyFrog]

So what do you also think of Post# 426?

https://cowboyszone.com/threads/irvin-press-conference-live-3-14-2023.509023/page-22#post-12664721

I think they are not affiliated with either side...I mean like you said about the Marriott employee, why would they lie?

 

[Reid1boys]

Kept going as in continued her arc before she disappeared behind the pillar. She doesn't reappear because it is much more likely that Mike called to her. Even her body language as she reappears is a "yes, can I help you?" posture. That's her job, actually. You don't do that if YOU call out. You'd be the one trying to shake his hand and saying you're a big fan, etc. right? That is much more likely than she waited and went, "Hey Mike Irvin" like that witness stated whom I've basically disqualified in this very thread with my Scooby detective skills because she didn't know who he was by Marriott's account and basically by Mike's own admission yesterday. But it's Mike offering the introduction.

You edited out my question about the slaps which YOU made a big deal about. Here it is again:

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

lol..... damn, you are amazing at body language reading. You are like Keanu Reaves from the Matrix... you see all, right though the pillar and can sense she was talking to mike as a staff member would do... like can I help you sir...lol.

I answered your question about slaps, I didnt edit.

 

[Vtwin]

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.

The reply you quoted was directed at MR. He had stated that clearly Irvin approached her, and not the other way around as was reported. I pointed out that we can still not be sure of this based on the video, and that he was forming his conclusion based on his assumption that she did not "approach" him in the time she was hidden from view, and that she clearly stopped walking for some reason. It's one thing to speculate based on assumptions but its quite another to draw conclusions based on assumptions.

MR has also been adamant that he is not weighing Irvin's history in this.

That's the context my comment was made in.

 

[Reid1boys]

More they don't know what to say so ignore it and let TMZ run with it. I am sure some of those guys are friends of Irvin's so they can't take up for him because other than being sent home, what has happened to him? Still has his job as far as we know and didn't lose any money and he's not a good endorsement candidate.

And Irvin isn't part of the NFL as far as they're concerned, he's broadcasting.

so you can speak for them??? Irvin isnt a part of the NFL...lol... uhm, ok, sure thing.

Dont know what to say? that is their job.. to have opinions. Did they talk about Watson's accusers?

 

[Vtwin]

I'm in over my head but you use a long diatribe to detract from the fact that you avoided a question while projecting that I avoided a question I literally built into my ask. Now I know to spell it out and not assume you understand. Glad you finally answered the second time though after that other long-winded distraction attempt. Scooby taught me very well what to look out for. Lol.

I didn't avoid anything. I sincerely thought you were joking because it was a ridiculous question that made no sense in the context of our back and forth. I tried to explain that in my long diatribe but reading to understand apparently isn't your thing.

I'm going to extend this diatribe a bit to acknowledge this beauty.
"I literally built it into my ask...." lolol

You must be a used car salesman.

 

[Blackrain]

This girl had a lot of options first of all she didn't have to engage Michael at all her boss was beckoning her to do her job.

Second she didn't have to shake his hand twice.

Third she could have made it a very short interaction took a picture and moved on with her work.

Fourth if she was being insulted or verbally assaulted in any way she didn't have to perpetuate the conversation.

Fifth if she felt Michael was behaving inappropriately there was a security guard circling them the whole time he could have been brought in to remove Michael.

Fifth if some travesty of justice occurred she sure seemed very giddy kicking her foot and shaking hands with him to end the conversation..

What very well could have happened was she was reprimanded or written up for being insubordinate and not coming when she was called by her boss. This is why a day later Michael Irvin was made the scapegoat for her mistake and poor choices

 

[sacase]

That's a good point she may have gotten reprimanded by her boss and used Mike as a scapegoat to try and exonerate herself for not listening to him and doing her job

I am leaning towards this now. Seems most reasonable.

 

[JJHLH1]

See Post #426 of this thread, Page 22. I literally discredited these witnesses myself. You think a lawyer for the hotel is going to do any less in court? Here's a link.

https://cowboyszone.com/threads/irvin-press-conference-live-3-14-2023.509023/page-22#post-12664721

These witnesses aren’t discredited in the slightest.

What the witnesses reported in the TMZ interview lines up remarkably well with what we see on the video, and they did this from memory without the benefit of seeing the video, which was released a month later.

They have no reason to lie and perjure themselves to help Michael Irvin.

The jury will almost certainly weigh their testimony high, since they are 3rd parties who have no stake in the outcome, unlike Marriott, the accuser, and Irvin.

The eyewitnesses were in a perfect position to see who initiated the contact since they walked into the lobby with him and both state it was the woman who approached Irvin and started the conversation by saying, “Hey, Michael Irvin”. That’s a huge problem for Marriott and the accuser.

Both of the witness testimonies also align with each other.

Both witnesses come across as being intelligent, well-spoken, and truthful. I’m confident a jury will feel the same way.

Importantly, the Eagle’s fan said he felt sick when he found out the accusation was the event he witnessed because according to him it was all fabricated.

 

[CowboyFrog]

I am leaning towards this now. Seems most reasonable.

The problem with this is we dont know if this is her or who, I'm not going to hang her out yet. Again MI and the female employee could've been having a flirty convo...this manager seems WAY TOO INTO what she was doing... it may come out she didnt want any of this and it was force played and got way out of her control by others in the managment of the hotel.

 

[CouchCoach]

so you can speak for them??? Irvin isnt a part of the NFL...lol... uhm, ok, sure thing.

Dont know what to say? that is their job.. to have opinions. Did they talk about Watson's accusers?

Just because he works for the network, he is not any more a part of the NFL than Bradshaw, Cowher or any other person that works for the broadcasting companies.

I do not recall them talking about Watson's accusers all that much and his situation isn't in the ballpark with Irvin's.

 

[Reid1boys]

Just because he works for the network, he is not any more a part of the NFL than Bradshaw, Cowher or any other person that works for the broadcasting companies.

I do not recall them talking about Watson's accusers all that much and his situation isn't in the ballpark with Irvin's.

who owns the NFL Network? where is it Irvin worked?
Talking heads talk about anything that will get them viewers. They are staying aawy from this. I wonder why?

 

[MarcusRock]

what about Marriott getting slapped around by the judge? Much more telling.

Why u so mad, fanboi?

You missed my posts on that because you were too busy sniping from the sidelines like a chihuahua instead of mixing it up. Why don't you? Lol.

 

[MarcusRock]

There is absolutely nothing in that video thats damaging to Mike.

Except the part that dispels what his lawyer has said and backs Marriott's account almost entirely. Yup, cleaner than hotel sheets!

 

[Blackrain]

The problem with this is we dont know if this is her or who, I'm not going to hang her out yet. Again MI and the female employee could've been having a flirty convo...this manager seems WAY TOO INTO what she was doing... it may come out she didnt want any of this and it was force played and got way out of her control by others in the managment of the hotel.

How could it be forced when she initiated the conversation?
How could it be forced when she had every opportunity to end the conversation and continued even as she could see her boss was getting more and more agitated with her.

Michael even put his back against the wall and she had every opportunity to walk away and get back to her work and didn't do it she was in no way pinned in a corner or put upon by Michael in any way to continue the conversation she did it completely of her own volition.

The only thing that was confrontational in this video was the interaction between her and her boss.

 

[Reid1boys]

These witnesses aren’t discredited in the slightest.

What the witnesses reported in the TMZ interview lines up remarkably well with what we see on the video, and they did this from memory without the benefit of seeing the video, which was released a month later.

They have no reason to lie and perjure themselves to help Michael Irvin.

The jury will almost certainly weigh their testimony high, since they are 3rd parties who have no stake in the outcome, unlike Marriott, the accuser, and Irvin.

The eyewitnesses were in a perfect position to see who initiated the contact since they walked into the lobby with him and both state it was the woman who approached Irvin and started the conversation by saying, “Hey, Michael Irvin”. That’s a huge problem for Marriott and the accuser.

Both of the witness testimonies also align with each other.

Both witnesses come across as being intelligent, well-spoken, and truthful. I’m confident a jury will feel the same way.

Importantly, the Eagle’s fan said he felt sick when he found out the accusation was the event he witnessed because according to him it was all fabricated.

nah.... the only ACTUAL witnesses that have actually come forward have a depiction of events that goes so far against what our cowboys zone experts say happened.... so dont believe your own eyes. Michael approached her, Michael did exactly what Marriott claims, He was clearly intoxicated as he can hardly walk, he grabbed her arm, he did everything but pull her clothes off. Those actual witnesses..... they are clearly fabricating this story.

 

[CowboyFrog]

How could it be forced when she initiated the conversation?
How could it be forced when she had every opportunity to end the conversation and continued even as she could see her boss was getting more and more agitated with her.

Michael even put his back against the wall and she had every opportunity to walk away and get back to her work and didn't do it she was in no way pinned in a corner or put upon by Michael in any way to continue the conversation she did it completely of her own volition.

The only thing that was confrontational in this video was the interaction between her and her boss.

Im talking about everything after the conversation, again in that video she didnt seek out the manager he was waiting on her to call her back to his office, she tried to just walk by the manager and didnt say a word. We 100% agree on where the confrontation was.