Irvin Press Conference Live - 3/14/2023

[PA Cowboy Fan]

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

If I was being insulted by anyone I'd be damned if I would stay for 2 minutes and engage that person. I would leave...call out for help...act mad. She does none of those things. Anyone that sees anything in that video already has an agenda against Mike because there is nothing there.

 

[Blackrain]

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

Exactly brother The manager or the security guard could have gone to her aid if she was being treated with vulgar language or in an improper manner.

I'm kind of thinking the manager didn't get involved because he didn't want to discipline her in front of Michael Irvin and make Mike feel like because he talked to her she was getting disciplined so he let it go until she was finished but you could see he was visibly displeased that she was not responding to him.

 

[Blackrain]

If I was being insulted by anyone I'd be damned if I would stay for 2 minutes and engage that person. I would leave...call out for help...act mad. She does none of those things. Anyone that sees anything in that video already has an agenda against Mike because there is nothing there.

All True my cowboy brother that video shows no inappropriate behavior. She actually kicks up her heels like she's giddy

Some on here obviously dislike Michael Irvin and want to pass judgment

 

[GimmeTheBall!]

People here making excuses for the lascivious train wreck called Irvin should be ashamed. Hasn't Irvin done enough in the realm of scissors, hos and drugs? Still, his supporters put him on a pedestal. Sickening, blokes, just sickening.

 

[DandyDon52]

This whole thing is like a episode of twilight zone lol, we need rod serling to make a comment on it.
have fun speculating on this, but none of you have enough information to figure it out correctly.
They should air the trial on hbo as a pay event lol, they might make a lot of $.

 

[sacase]

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.

Since you want to call me out. Go do a little research and you will see everything I posted about body language was correct. Please share contradictory sources if you find them. But you won't.

 

[DandyDon52]

Some on here obviously dislike Michael Irvin and want to pass judgment

and some love him and will go out of their way to prove he is totally innocent.
Meanwhile none of you have enough info to actually decide or prove anything.
I am fine letting irvins lawyers defend him, and will just wait and see how it all turns out.
The whole thing is a bit of a joke, a bad joke.

 

[sacase]

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.

Your whole argument centers around security knowing there was a potential issue between the woman and Mike. That is something they could nt have known at all. The security guy was only around for the first 10 seconds of the encounter. He would not have known anything in those 10 seconds. Plus much of the convo he was far away had his back turned or had no line of sight. That's poor security work. They should not break line of sight. I doubt that person was even security to be honest. Probably just another employee. You are making wild assumptions that don't make sense. Keep building your fantasy story.

 

[MarcusRock]

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.

Hey, no disrespect either. I like a good discussion. No need for any of us to take this personal. Like someone else said this is fun to parse back and forth.

Yes, she could have taken a more direct path into the bar. It could have also been that she was avoiding that manager. But she loops around not even looking at Mike. If she did call out to Mike, why not do it before looping into the bar? At one point she's right in his sight as she's walking around the pillar. Why walk in, then wait before saying "Hey Michael."? Wouldn't it make more sense to see him, wait at the bar entrance and then say hello, I'm a fan. Her intention was to go into the bar. Now we get to the witnesses. Both Marriott and Mike say that she didn't know football or him. How could she say his name if she didn't know him? The witnesses called it a "fan encounter." She wasn't a fan per Marriott, and "not much a fan of football" according to Mike. If she wasn't a fan, what would she know about an ex-player and why would Mike feel the need to tell her about his ESPN show and to look him up if she already knew who he was? Of course she'd know him because she called his name. Doesn't add up.

As for the witnesses, they were behind the 2nd pillar coming in. One guy is immersed in his phone, not even looking anywhere else. None of them could see a forst meeting in the slightest. Could they have heard if she was loud and called to him? Sure. But that doesn't explain Mike's need to explain who he was and what he did if she supposedly already knew his name. The Aussie said she went up to Mike. There is no possible way he saw that from behind a pillar. I think he assumed because it appeared the woman was walking towards Mike at one point as she looped around the pillar, but he clearly didn't see their greeting and neither did Philly guy.

 

[MarcusRock]

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.

I only watch the video playing by itself. That's why I purposely give timestamps from the end of the press conference because Irvin's lawyer is going to say what he wants you to believe. The video with no commentary to lead you is best.

The woman disappears behind the pillar at 35:27. Pause there and tell me where the witnesses are compared to where they had been. They are in zero position to see them have a first meeting unless that had happened while everyone was to the right of the pillars. We see that she didn't engage him then, when it would have made the most sense. She sees him and continues arcing around the pillar. Why not say hi when she sees him out in the open? Doesn't add up if she approached him.

 

[MarcusRock]

Since you want to call me out. Go do a little research and you will see everything I posted about body language was correct. Please share contradictory sources if you find them. But you won't.

I did yesterday with the clear "no-no" gestures twice that you dismissed as only 5% of a "she welcomed it" conversation. Why couldn't it have been pleasant until then? Because then that makes it a net-negative conversation when you start talking about your junk in her no matter how nice you've been until then. 5% of a convo that bad makes it a bad convo. Clearly not the same thing but it's like using a "I smiled at him for 30 minutes before I stabbed him for 2 minutes" defense.

 

[MarcusRock]

Your whole argument centers around security knowing there was a potential issue between the woman and Mike. That is something they could nt have known at all. The security guy was only around for the first 10 seconds of the encounter. He would not have known anything in those 10 seconds. Plus much of the convo he was far away had his back turned or had no line of sight. That's poor security work. They should not break line of sight. I doubt that person was even security to be honest. Probably just another employee. You are making wild assumptions that don't make sense. Keep building your fantasy story.

Couldn't have known? It was a clear attempted pick-up by Mike. You didn't need audio to see that. The first security guy was around for way more than 10 seconds in two separate passes and that's more than enough time to hear what that attempt was. Lol @ break line of sight. Wasn't that from "The Bodyguard," lol? Did Mike have a knife out? There was no immediate danger of any kind of an assault until Mike started touching and she did the "no-no" gestures. Security broke it up soon after that. They did their jobs and got the statement data they needed to back the accuser's account. That's why I speak of what their training was that none of us have an idea about. If they break it up too early, you don't get Mike's statement and slapping himself. Mike mentioned "security" according to Marriott's account and still provided those statements and actions. That's on him. You also want to make sure Mike isn't actually guilty of anything and that it stays harmless. It didn't which is why they stepped in.

 

[Vtwin]

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.

Ok. You just go with that. Any port in a storm, eh Captain?

 

[FVSTONE]

Live look at the press conference held by Irvin's team. Video is expected to be shown. What's interesting already is before the press conference starts they have a video snippet up on the screen that says it's 20 seconds long. I hope there are more snippets of the encounter because I was expecting an end to end play unless they are going to do a play-by-play or something. We'll see.

I watched and listen to Michael's attorney as he interduce two gentlemen who said they were there when Micharl stopped and had a conversation with a Marriott female employee. Both men said Michael didn't do or say anything that should have upset this woman, but after watching the bad video neither man was close enough to hear anything. In the video Michael was talking and touching the woman as she was backing up. I have to admit that if Michael did say something crude to this woman you couldn't tell by her actions because she never pushed him or tried to walk away. This is going to go down as a she said or he said case in which a jury is going to have to make a call that will be on a gut feeling...............

 

[sacase]

I did yesterday with the clear "no-no" gestures twice that you dismissed as only 5% of a "she welcomed it" conversation. Why couldn't it have been pleasant until then? Because then that makes it a net-negative conversation when you start talking about your junk in her no matter how nice you've been until then. 5% of a convo that bad makes it a bad convo. Clearly not the same thing but it's like using a "I smiled at him for 30 minutes before I stabbed him for 2 minutes" defense.

But you have no idea what the gesture was in response to. He could have asked her if she wants to go take a Pic with him and she declined. It's a palms down gesture by the way and it is a dominate gesture. Again go research and learn. Talking about no-no like you are 5. None of her body language indicated fear. All of it indicates confidence. Again go look it up and research it and prove I am wrong. Like I said you won't.

 

[sacase]

Couldn't have known? It was a clear attempted pick-up by Mike. You didn't need audio to see that. The first security guy was around for way more than 10 seconds in two separate passes and that's more than enough time to hear what that attempt was. Lol @ break line of sight. Wasn't that from "The Bodyguard," lol? Did Mike have a knife out? There was no immediate danger of any kind of an assault until Mike started touching and she did the "no-no" gestures. Security broke it up soon after that. They did their jobs and got the statement data they needed to back the accuser's account. That's why I speak of what their training was that none of us have an idea about. If they break it up too early, you don't get Mike's statement and slapping himself. Mike mentioned "security" according to Marriott's account and still provided those statements and actions. That's on him. You also want to make sure Mike isn't actually guilty of anything and that it stays harmless. It didn't which is why they stepped in.

I posted the time stamps. Its 10 SECONDS. I have far more training in this stuff than they do I promise you that. But let's talk common sense. First. How are you going to even know something is wrong when the two people haven't even engaged yet. The gray shirt walked out just behind her. Is he some kind of AI with predictive analysis?

Next, he was next to them for the first 10 seconds of the convo. Again nothing crazy happened at this point. He moves away to a point he is far away. Can't see and can't hear. If he was going to get statements how could he? He couldn't hear anything.

Breaking line of sight, if I am doing surveillance I can't break line of sight because the person I am watching might act once LOS is broken. Common sense.

By the time grey shirt and black shirt come bcak its at the end of the convo, which you can see concluding. She gestures to them as if to say I think they want a picture which Mike ends up doing with the guy.

 

[Rockport]

Nope, not yet because nothing has really changed except that face slap Irvin gave himself was on the video as reported by the security guy. I believe he said just what she is alleging and I also believe he didn't think it was that bad, typical Irvin behavior. And I have seen men do far worse than that over the years so I do not think the punishment fit the crime but Irvin might have brought this upon himself after the altercation.

Rocky, I am used to egg on my face, it's like I wear a chicken for a hat, turned backwards of course to represent Texas pickup drivers and Romo. I just let that egg slide off into a bowl to make French Toast.

And until I can confirm Irvin's call into 105.3 didn't trigger the send home, he's still a moron and opened his own can of worms.

And if I were to apologize, who would I apologize to? It's an opinion based on what I know and/or suspect about him and when this started, there was far more that we didn't know.

Just like some of you assuming she was a gold digger, hooker or skank but unless Irvin is a skank hunter, he wanted to hit that.

That’s my whole point. You’re basing your judgement on nothing. No facts. And all the circumstantial evidence points to his innocence. Who knows if he said what he supposedly said. But if he did, it’s nothing for him to get fired over IMO.

 

[acr731]

People here making excuses for the lascivious train wreck called Irvin should be ashamed. Hasn't Irvin done enough in the realm of scissors, hos and drugs? Still, his supporters put him on a pedestal. Sickening, blokes, just sickening.

You're not wrong. I wonder why Jerry gets a pass, though. All the photos that surfaced of him on the party bus. The drunken videos. Its a very long laundry list of immoral behavior. If you could get Jerry to give you an honest answer he would probably say he has no idea how many illegitimate children he has.

 

[Birch_Wood]

They don't have audio do they? If not, then they have nothing. It's he said, she said. He probably said something he shouldn't have, why you ask. Go google Michael Irving and assault. The boy gets around. The 90's, 2010, 2017, etc. But this current situation lacks teeth.

 

[MarcusRock]

But you have no idea what the gesture was in response to. He could have asked her if she wants to go take a Pic with him and she declined. It's a palms down gesture by the way and it is a dominate gesture. Again go research and learn. Talking about no-no like you are 5. None of her body language indicated fear. All of it indicates confidence. Again go look it up and research it and prove I am wrong. Like I said you won't.

You're right, I have no idea what her demonstrative no-no gestures were in response to. I do know that they each happened after Irvin touched her and she pulled away and stepped back each time. So yeah, she was having a grand ol' time I'm sure. And no one declines taking a picture that way, lol. Stop. It doesn't matter if she was confident or not. She was clearly uncomfortable a few times as evidenced by backing up a good 5 or 6 times during the conversation (I charted them for a poster earlier). And none of her appearing confident or not warrants the comment she allegedly received. So she was well within her rights to report it. And no I'm not going to look up hand gesture body language, unless there's a category for female bar staff dealing with potential tipsy ex-football player patrons. Then it might be dialed down enough to try to get inside someone's head to say how they felt or what they should or shouldn't have been comfortable with.