Irvin Press Conference Live - 3/14/2023

[MarcusRock]

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

What you call perpetuating the discussion someone else could say is trying to maintain professional composure. Again, I don't know what their security protocol is so I am only speculating, but unless security hears something that could lead up to an assault, they're not going to intervene immediately based on what I've told you already. Perhaps the training is to let security know discretely or if you see them hovering, to know that they will intervene before something gets out of hand. So that could be why she carried on the convo because security was clearly monitoring the situation already. You do see that as Mike continued to creep up, one finally does make himself clearly known and Mike stops. But by that point they had plenty of data if a report was to be filed. It was filed and that's why we had the data to look for in the video. And it showed up minus the words said. So unless you know what that security protocol is and how staff are directed to act when security is nearby, we can't say how someone "should" have reacted because it might be against that protocol they were trained in. I suspect it'll come out during the trial and I want to hear it so I can come back here and say I was right .... again. Lol.

 

[Creeper]

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.

True, he is accusing the hotel of defamation. From the Legal Information Institute: "To prove prima facie defamation, a plaintiff must show four things: 1) a false statement purporting to be fact; 2) publication or communication of that statement to a third person; 3) fault amounting to at least negligence; and 4) damages, or some harm caused to the reputation of the person or entity who is the subject of the statement."
2 and 4 and indisputable. 1 is the key question and I think 3 will be fairly easy to prove as well.

As I have been saying, this case is going to hinge on two things. 1. What and why did the Marriott communicate to the NFL and was it materially true? We do not know the specifics of this. 2. Why did ESPN decide to remove Irvin from the broadcast of the Super Bowl coverage? Was it based on specific direct or indirect statements from the hotel or was it out of caution until an investigation could be completed? If the NFL or ESPN acted on statements that were not true Irvin wins his case most likely.

Right now this is a he-said, she-said case. But Irvin has at least 2 witnesses who have stated that they didn't see anything that could be considered offensive behavior from Irvin and saw them laughing and joking, which is corroborated by the video. At least one of the witnesses was sitting 10 to 15 ft from where Irvin and the woman were talking. Both witnesses stated that the conversation appeared jovial, and they saw nothing that could be construed as offensive. The video does appear to corroborate their story since it shows Irvin and the woman laughing it up at one point in the conversation. So unless she can impeach his witnesses it is a she said, he-said and he-said and he said.

Remember, this is not just a woman publicly complaining Irvin did something. The Marriott contacted his employer, or the employer of his employer and got him suspended. But it is possible the Marriott heard the woman's complaint and exaggerated it when communicating with the NFL. This is why it will be very important to hear from the NFL and the Marriott employees who spoke.

Finally, watch the hotel employee who took the woman aside after the interaction with Irvin. Irvin's attorneys will likely investigate this guy and depose him. I think they know something about him and are not yet ready to reveal it.

I have a more general question. A drunk guy walks into the lobby of the hotel where he is saying and he gets a little rowdy. Does the hotel call the guy's employer and file a complaint? I don't know the answer but I am curious if this was some rando and not Irvin would the Marriott have filed a complaint with guy's employer?

 

[MarcusRock]

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

I didn't say anything about the Marriott employee. She could very well be lying for a number of reasons. These guys clearly are lying if they're saying they saw her come up to Mike because she didn't and they were obstructed to their meeting to boot. Why would they lie? They just took a picture with a celebrity who was nice to them. To ingratiate yourself to a celebrity is a thing fanbois and fangirls want to do if they get the chance. Plus, they got on TMZ and up until yesterday, had been centerpieces in this case for Mike's side. Sweet if you want your 15 minutes. But video AND the words of Mike himself just busted them. Mike backed up Marriott's claim yesterday and hung his witnesses out to dry at the same time. The tape don't lie. When you see it, can either of those witnesses see Mike and the woman going up to one or vice versa from where they are in the lobby?

 

[Creeper]

There are 2 more people that we need to hear from... actually we need to hear from the woman also. But it will be very interesting to hear the managers explanations for his actions. Why did he clap at her? Why did he stand there "Leering," at Mike and the woman with his hands on his hips? Why did he go into the bar area and stand there for the remainder of the conversation looking back and forth between mike and the lady and the TV. It appears he is clearly watching them and waiting for the woman to get back to work. Why did the manager IMMEDIATELY proceed towards the woman the exact second the conversation ended and why did he take her off into some other area? What did the woman say to you during YOIUR conversation with her immediately after you removed her from the bar area. Lastly, have you and woman X ever been involved in anything other than a work relationship?

Next, the guy that spoke to Mike as soon as the woman walked away. What was said at that time? If you heard Mike say something so rude and you were cowrokers, were you concerned for her as Marriott has claimed? If you were concerned for her why did you go take a selfie with Mike? Lastly, were you offended when Mike got really close to you in order to take that selfy?

I am not ready to draw any conclusions about the hotel employee guy but your questions are kind of where Irvin's attorney's are going I think. I think they believe the woman was fine with the way the conversation went until that manager guy took her aside and spoke with her.

So yeah, he will certainly be deposed and investigated. But they need to talk to the NFL and get statements from them about who they spoke with at the hotel and what they were told specifically. The same goes for ESPN.

 

[MarcusRock]

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.

I'm no more amazing than the body language expert we had here the other day that said she had open hands posture and was welcoming the whole way, wanting Mike to chase her like a leprechaun chases gold. Still my favorite post in the whole thread .... until I disqualified those witnesses today. Did you see that? I was no fan of TO but damn I love me some me. Lol.

 

[cristglo]

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.




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.

Sorry bro you are the one that can't comprehend but its ok LOL

 

[CouchCoach]

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?

May be because they've been down this road and it's not a big story. If he hadn't been a Cowboy, we wouldn't have even discussed this.

 

[MarcusRock]

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.

Okay, so a question that ends in which is more plausible now sounds like I put lol on the end of it and that's why you avoided answering it. Got it. Glad that got cleared up (sarcasm, sarcasm - don't want to be misunderstood and all). Lol.

 

[cristglo]

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.

According to him we cant comprehend LOL

 

[Blackrain]

What you call perpetuating the discussion someone else could say is trying to maintain professional composure. Again, I don't know what their security protocol is so I am only speculating, but unless security hears something that could lead up to an assault, they're not going to intervene immediately based on what I've told you already. Perhaps the training is to let security know discretely or if you see them hovering, to know that they will intervene before something gets out of hand. So that could be why she carried on the convo because security was clearly monitoring the situation already. You do see that as Mike continued to creep up, one finally does make himself clearly known and Mike stops. But by that point they had plenty of data if a report was to be filed. It was filed and that's why we had the data to look for in the video. And it showed up minus the words said. So unless you know what that security protocol is and how staff are directed to act when security is nearby, we can't say how someone "should" have reacted because it might be against that protocol they were trained in. I suspect it'll come out during the trial and I want to hear it so I can come back here and say I was right .... again. Lol.

If she was trying to maintain professional composure she would have excused herself and gone over to see what her boss wanted.
Again I am not saying that security should have done anything I am saying if she was being mistreated in any way shape or form there was security there to go to.

Obviously she didn't care how staff was to be directed because her boss was directing her to come over to him and stop engaging in the conversation and she ignored him.

I don't care about being right I care that Michael Irvin is one of the last true cowboy fans that doesn't care about his affiliation with the network doesn't try to be unbiased and just supports the Cowboys fully no matter what at all times.

I'm in his corner till he's proven guilty.
Unfortunately due to the rules of the forum if you're not right no one can call you out on it anyway so it's pretty much a win for you no matter what

 

[MarcusRock]

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.

Lol. They hoped we wouldn't see this video so we could clearly see that they had zero line of sight to the initial meeting. One dude was looking at his phone all the way back to his chair and then some. No reason to lie? A celebrity just did them a solid with a photo. And now, 15 minutes of fame are here unitl opposing counsel gets ahold of them.

You're just going to ignore the fact that both Marriott and Mike himself said the woman didn't know him which is why Mike told her to look him up on the internet. How could she then say his name to greet him? If she knows him, what would be the need to look him up or see about what he does? She'd know that already.

Their testimonies align because they were sitting at the same table and not independent of each other. Did you not see them in the picture together?

I get needing to keep to your story but any lawyer will shred their testimony. I'm being tame in what I'm pointing out. I'm sure there's way more. I need to start a podcast called, "I'm no a lawyer guy but ... "

 

[cristglo]

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 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.


Not only that if you watch the video when she comes from the corner instead of taking the path directly to the bar she walks around to where Michael is coming down the hall as she goes out of view you don't see her then she pops back around How can anyone not see that? lol

 

[Vtwin]

Okay, so a question that ends in which is more plausible now sounds like I put lol on the end of it and that's why you avoided answering it. Got it. Glad that got cleared up (sarcasm, sarcasm - don't want to be misunderstood and all). Lol.

What are you even talking about?

I asked if each scenario was possible. You (apparently) answered that by asking a question. Not sure why you didn't just give a straight forward answer, then ask your question. Actually I do know why. It's obvious.

Questions:
Are both of the scenarios I presented plausible. ME- Yes. YOU- ?
Is one scenario more plausible than the other. ME-No. YOU- ?

Is that easy enough for you to understand or are you going to keep playing semantics with your word salads?

 

[MarcusRock]

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.

You gonna address what I posted, Reid? Remember, the witnesses were your star players who heard everything before I showed you with their own words that they didn't hear the conversation and only described what they saw. I never got a reply to that post back then when I showed you. Now I'm discrediting them completely. Nothing to say?

 

[MarcusRock]

What are you even talking about?

I asked if each scenario was possible. You (apparently) answered that by asking a question. Not sure why you didn't just give a straight forward answer, then ask your question. Actually I do know why. It's obvious.

Questions:
Are both of the scenarios I presented plausible. ME- Yes. YOU- ?
Is one scenario more plausible than the other. ME-No. YOU- ?

Is that easy enough for you to understand or are you going to keep playing semantics with your word salads?

The semantics here is from you. And it's cover for avoiding my question before answering it the second time I asked. Not the first time you've avoided (the last one was a 3-fer) so there's that.

 

[PA Cowboy Fan]

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

I don't know what you're seeing. I've watched it 4 times and I see nothing but 2 people talking and laughing.

 

[cristglo]

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?

No disrespect man I enjoy your post.
my question is if you look at the video where she comes in from the left she had two opportunities to go to the bar instead she walks all the way around and then turns into the bar where she goes out of sight. The two witnesses the guys from the bar said in their statements that she yelled out to him Hey Michael and he stopped. That's why I have a hard time believing that he sought her out it looks like the other way around.

 

[cristglo]

If she continued to do her job like she should have been doing while she was on the clock and like her manager obviously wanted her to be doing by clapping his hands trying to get her attention to get back to work there wouldn't have been a problem.
She chose to put her job on hold even though her manager was calling her and pacing back and forth angrily to interact with a celebrity and did so for almost 2 minutes not just a quick high shake hands or a selfie chose to have a full-blown conversation.

She made the choice The converse with the celebrity over continuing to do her job it is her fault.

Not only that Why didn't the mgr go to her he was watching her almost the whole time if she was expressing concerns and being assaulted

 

[CowboyFrog]

I didn't say anything about the Marriott employee. She could very well be lying for a number of reasons. These guys clearly are lying if they're saying they saw her come up to Mike because she didn't and they were obstructed to their meeting to boot. Why would they lie? They just took a picture with a celebrity who was nice to them. To ingratiate yourself to a celebrity is a thing fanbois and fangirls want to do if they get the chance. Plus, they got on TMZ and up until yesterday, had been centerpieces in this case for Mike's side. Sweet if you want your 15 minutes. But video AND the words of Mike himself just busted them. Mike backed up Marriott's claim yesterday and hung his witnesses out to dry at the same time. The tape don't lie. When you see it, can either of those witnesses see Mike and the woman going up to one or vice versa from where they are in the lobby?

Umm yeah one was maybe 2 foot from him and the other was 5 on the left look at MI's lawyers video discription at 1:20 of it, yeah they certainley were close enough to see how it started. What did Irvin say that left them to dry? Maybe i missed it, really asking.

 

[GimmeTheBall!]

Anyone here, in a corporate or even smaller place, would be laid off if even asking someone for a date.
If Irvin even made an improper suggestion he should be rebuked at the minimum.