Irvin Press Conference Live - 3/14/2023

[khiladi]

What’s comical about Mike’s lawyer is that when Mike turns back and is “leering” at her, he says “she’s way gone” so as to deny any claim he was staring at her, while to begin his whole narrative of conspiracy he says that the lady saw Mike before he even enters the hotel and before she even makes her appearance on the video from all the way across the hotel at a diagonal angle, through that same bar and around a bunch of objects that block her vision, while her manager supposedly sees Michael Irvin from a place that is far more “way gone” than the lady is when Mike us “leering at her” (which you can’t even tell as she’s in the bar and the video has no view of where she even is) to hatch the conspiracy…

 

[CalPolyTechnique]

A lawyer on YouTube has been doing a great job discussing this case. In his latest update he looks at the video of the incident and points out all the inconsistencies in Marriott‘s statements which don’t line up with what we see on the video.

He goes on to ask his viewers to comment what their opinion is after watching the video themselves. The support for Irvin is overwhelming, which it should be since the video clearly shows two people enjoying their conversation.

I‘m confident a jury will feel the same way, and in a civil case it only takes a majority of the jury to decide the outcome.

Marriott and the accuser better get their checkbooks ready because they are going to end up paying Michael big money for damaging his reputation and career.

That guy is a complete moron.

It’s clear as day when he touched her elbow the first time she took a step back. He then reached for her (her hand or arm?) again and she put her arms behind her.

It’s absolutely comical when you hear folks say “oh, we’ll why didn’t she slap him…she didn’t look offended…she didn’t object…” She was at work, had a name tag on, she kept it professional.

What’s laughable is that if she did go into histrionics then folks would just pivot and say “look at this money grubbing *^+#% making a big deal outta nothing.”

NOBODY CLAIMED SEXUAL ASSAULT, so folks that keep droning on that are either sincerely dumb or willfully ignorant.

 

[JJHLH1]

That guy is a complete moron.

It’s clear as day when he touched her elbow the first time she took a step back. He then reached for her (her hand or arm?) again and she put her arms behind her.

It’s absolutely comical when you hear folks say “oh, we’ll why didn’t she slap him…she didn’t look offended…she didn’t object…” She was at work, had a name tag on, she kept it professional.

What’s laughable is that if she did go into histrionics then folks would say “look at this money grubbed making a big deal outta nothing.”

NOBODY CLAIMED SEXUAL ASSAULT, so folks that keep droning on that are either sincerely dumb or willfully ignorant.

Nah, it’s clear they were both enjoying their conversation, which is why it lasted so long.

She clearly didn’t want to disengage.

The YouTube lawyer poked lots of holes in Marriott’s case.

Here is just one example:

Marriott claimed in court filings that “Irvin attempted to grab the Victim’s hand again and said he was ‘sorry if he brought up bad memories’ for her. The Victim pulled her hand away and tried to back away from Irvin as he continued to move towards her.

Please show us where this occurred in the video.

If a moron YouTube lawyer, as you claim, is able to do this imagine what Irvin’s lawyer will be able to do.

 

[MarcusRock]

For future reference after pausing a YouTube video, select the Share button, click the Start at checkbox and select the Copy button. The copied YouTube link will begin at the desired video mark.

Whoa, never knew that. I just noticed that links had "&t=45s" after them to get to a certain point and would type that but this does it for you. Thanks!

 

[CouchCoach]

What are the facts then?

He encountered the woman and the video calls for interpretation and without audio is incomplete and shortly following that the woman reported the incident to her supervisor and Irvin was confronted and denied talking to anyone then admitted he'd had drinks so his memory was fuzzy.

The Marriott tells us that the NFL investigator arrived, talked to the woman, viewed the video and called for more NFL personnel, most likely decision makers. Irvin was escorted out by NFL personnel, not Marriott security.

Beyond this, everything is conjecture with the most critical questions to me involving the NFL/NFLN and their actions. How much did Irvin's call into 105.3 affect their decision to send him home?

If Irvin said what she said he said, I do not think the punishment fits the crime but without knowing what motivated the NFLN to send him home, we don't really know what is behind this and they have not been talking. Everything we've been told about their involvement has come from the hotel.

This situation is not filled with facts unless some change conjecture into their facts. There is far more that we do not know than we know or might ever know.

I think the dumbest thing in all of this is Irvin's call into 105.3, that will dog him in this procedure.

And his case is not against the hotel or the woman, it is against his employer but he isn't suing them because I think he knows the real reason they sent him home and that was of his own doing.

 

[MarcusRock]

LOL You live in a serious fantasy world. Pass him off to get Irvin out of there? You think she warrents extra security? Her? That hotel is not a motel 6 with a dive bar, it is a $290/night hotel. LOL So if you think that he could know something was wrong based off his spidey sense, then the guys that Irvin talked to definitly heard what was going on they were just as close. If he heard something that was outragous on the 2nd pass, he would not have left, he would have stayed there. But no he left and walked to the back of the bar. Why? Because he didn't hear anything.

I do have a different question for you. Since you say you've looked at body language research, when Mike is asked a question about what the two of them talked about at 28:00 of the below, he is initially facing the reporters and then as he starts to answer the question he then looks up at the screen behind him and then turns back to the reporter to finish answering. Of course you know I think he helped discredit his own witnesses with his answer but what do you make of him looking away to start his answer and then pivoting back to who asked it? What would the research say about that?

 

[MarcusRock]

What they did determine is that Irvin’s behavior caused them to be particularly cautious for their employer during the time Irvin would have been there, based on how he was acting, so they acted PRE-EMPTIVELY based on how Irvin acted AT THAT MOMENT.

This is a key statement. I have said this before but this happened on the Sunday night before the Super Bowl. Mike was going to be there at least another full week. Maybe if this happened Super Bowl night and Mike was going to check out the next day they'd have just buried it because he was leaving. But they had at least 6 more days of chances to guard against and that makes it a heftier risk assessment than if he checked out the next day.

 

[khiladi]

Nah, it’s clear they were both enjoying their conversation, which is why it lasted so long.

She clearly didn’t want to disengage.

The YouTube lawyer poked lots of holes in Marriott’s case.

Here is just one example:

Marriott claimed in court filings that “Irvin attempted to grab the Victim’s hand again and said he was ‘sorry if he brought up bad memories’ for her. The Victim pulled her hand away and tried to back away from Irvin as he continued to move towards her.

Please show us where this occurred in the video.

If a moron YouTube lawyer, as you claim, is able to do this imagine what Irvin’s lawyer will be able to do.

I don’t even think the lawyer touched the fact that Michael Irvin himself in his radio interview flat out admitted he was intoxicated and said he didn’t even know he talked to anybody. That lawyer just said Marriott claims he was intoxicated.

That’s how ridiculous Mike’s case is right now and how foolish people look for defending his position.

The main guy who is suing for 100 million dollars says he was drunk and had no clue he even talked to anybody that night. Let that sink in..

 

[CouchCoach]

This is a key statement. I have said this before but this happened on the Sunday night before the Super Bowl. Mike was going to be there at least another full week. Maybe if this happened Super Bowl night and Mike was going to check out the next day they'd have just buried it because he was leaving. But they had at least 6 more days of chances to guard against and that makes it a heftier risk assessment than if he checked out the next day.

And the "I'll come back when you're working" may have been an alarm for them. He may not have meant that as it sounds, threatening, but that is open to interpretation.

Security personnel are trained to pick up on people that might be intoxicated and the hotel lobby and bar were not busy so it would have been easy for them to focus in on him and I am sure some recognized him, like the security guard that walked up at the end and wanted a pic with him.

 

[JJHLH1]

Betchya if you look hard enough, you can find another ambulance chaser that disagrees with that lawyer.

Your defense should never start with "a lawyer on YouTube".

Can you show us a lawyer on YouTube who thinks Marriott has a strong case?

Or on Twitter?

The many comments I’ve seen on social media are overwhelmingly in support of Irvin.

This is important because this case will ultimately be decided by a jury. Public opinion is an indicator of what judgement might be rendered in a civil case.

 

[CouchCoach]

Can you show us a lawyer on YouTube who thinks Marriott has a strong case?

Or on Twitter?

The many comments I’ve seen on social media are overwhelmingly in support of Irvin.

This is important because this case will ultimately be decided by a jury. Public opinion is an indicator of what judgement might be rendered in a civil case.

No, I cannot because I do not look for or at lawyers on YouTube and I don't use Twitter. And I would not use a lawyer that is on either.

 

[JJHLH1]

No, I cannot because I do not look for or at lawyers on YouTube and I don't use Twitter. And I would not use a lawyer that is on either.

Haha, fair enough my friend.

 

[Miller]

Nah, it’s clear they were both enjoying their conversation, which is why it lasted so long.

She clearly didn’t want to disengage.

The YouTube lawyer poked lots of holes in Marriott’s case.

Here is just one example:

Marriott claimed in court filings that “Irvin attempted to grab the Victim’s hand again and said he was ‘sorry if he brought up bad memories’ for her. The Victim pulled her hand away and tried to back away from Irvin as he continued to move towards her.

Please show us where this occurred in the video.

If a moron YouTube lawyer, as you claim, is able to do this imagine what Irvin’s lawyer will be able to do.

Yes, let's all believe the YouTube lawyer when the video shows her stepping back twice as he reaches out or moves forward.

As I've said all along its up in the air but for people who are just heavy Irvin it is comical the lengths to try and disprove this could have happened with zero proof

 

[Reid1boys]

That guy is a complete moron.

It’s clear as day when he touched her elbow the first time she took a step back. He then reached for her (her hand or arm?) again and she put her arms behind her.

It’s absolutely comical when you hear folks say “oh, we’ll why didn’t she slap him…she didn’t look offended…she didn’t object…” She was at work, had a name tag on, she kept it professional.

What’s laughable is that if she did go into histrionics then folks would just pivot and say “look at this money grubbing *^+#% making a big deal outta nothing.”

NOBODY CLAIMED SEXUAL ASSAULT, so folks that keep droning on that are either sincerely dumb or willfully ignorant.

yep.... anybody that doesnt subscribe to your way of thinking is a "Complete Moron."

 

[MarcusRock]

A lawyer on YouTube has been doing a great job discussing this case. In his latest update he looks at the video of the incident and points out all the inconsistencies in Marriott‘s statements which don’t line up with what we see on the video.

He goes on to ask his viewers to comment what their opinion is after watching the video themselves. The support for Irvin is overwhelming, which it should be since the video clearly shows two people enjoying their conversation.

I‘m confident a jury will feel the same way, and in a civil case it only takes a majority of the jury to decide the outcome.

Marriott and the accuser better get their checkbooks ready because they are going to end up paying Michael big money for damaging his reputation and career.

What do biased mean? Lol.

This is YouTube where people post content for entertainment and views. Even assuming this guy is a serious lawyer, his thumbnail has "CANCELLED" next to a picture of Irvin. What type of emotion do you think that is meant to stoke? Emotion sympathetic to Irvin or against Irvin? If it's clearly one over the other, then it's biased before you even start. Again, Irvin's lawyer and this guy know what they're doing and who they're trying to cater to: anti-accuser backlash types

As for this video, I will say that if you break it down some things do look inconsistent from Marriott's order of placing things, yes. But the big takeaways from the press conference that this guy never addressed was that Mike seemed to confirm that it was the NFL that approached him about moving, not Marriott (Marriott said this) and that Mike also corroborated Marriott's claim that the woman didn't know him, which is why he told her to look him up and the shows he does. That latter statement directly disqualifies one of his witnesses' account that said she called out saying, "Hey Mike Irvin!" to start the conversation. How could she do that if she didn't know him? That is huge, bro. None of you pro-Irvins want to address that. I got crickets from the one I brought it up to yesterday and from no one else I mentioned it to.

Further, this guy didn't just use the plain video to tell the story, he uses Irvin's attorney's account. Therefore, he isolates one time the woman didn't step back after Mike approached and doesn't address that the woman backed up 5 or 6 times including 1 huge back-up at the start when Irvin's attorney said she never backed up ever in his first presser, uses Irvin's lawyer's "grazed her elbow" line from the 1st presser, lies and says there's nowhere in the video when the woman pulls her hand back when she did when Irvin laughed and tried to touch her and she pulled both her hands behind her stepped back and then did that "no" motion with both hands, lies and says Irvin never looked at the woman as she walked away (Irvin not only looked, but after saying stuff to security, walked towards the bar to look for her again when she was already walking out), questions Marriott's security as being potentially biased but would love to hear what he said about Irvin's witnesses who just took a pic with him, mentions that Mike took questions after the presser and didn't mention the question about what they talked about that aligned with Marriott and disqualified his own witness account.

This is why you never let others tell you how to think. They can leave stuff out and color what's there and send you on your emotional rollercoaster to do what they'd like you to do: publicize their thoughts as truth. See cable news for reference. We can all find echo chambers for ourselves if we look. Think for yourself and do your own non-emotional detecting or you'll be marching to someone else's agenda like most do.

 

[CalPolyTechnique]

Nah, it’s clear they were both enjoying their conversation, which is why it lasted so long.

She clearly didn’t want to disengage.

The YouTube lawyer poked lots of holes in Marriott’s case.

Here is just one example:

Marriott claimed in court filings that “Irvin attempted to grab the Victim’s hand again and said he was ‘sorry if he brought up bad memories’ for her. The Victim pulled her hand away and tried to back away from Irvin as he continued to move towards her.

Please show us where this occurred in the video.

If a moron YouTube lawyer, as you claim, is able to do this imagine what Irvin’s lawyer will be able to do.

Ah, “it’s clear.”

No, neither you or I know what was said to determine if the convo was “pleasant” or not.

Where’s the proof, lool?

The video.

2:13 then 2:17 where he tries reaching out again and she steps back and puts her arms behind her back.

 

[MarcusRock]

Here is just one example:

Marriott claimed in court filings that “Irvin attempted to grab the Victim’s hand again and said he was ‘sorry if he brought up bad memories’ for her. The Victim pulled her hand away and tried to back away from Irvin as he continued to move towards her.

Please show us where this occurred in the video.

It is literally at 0:02 of the video you posted. The woman takes her hands from in front of her to behind her as Irvin tried to touch her.

Think for yourself.

 

[DallasEast]

This video interaction is subjective. The prosecution and defense arguments and counterarguments will mirror what is being said ad nauseam within these threads in my opinion if the case goes to trial.

A Duke Law School article stated most federal and state civil trials end in plea bargained settlements.

My question is whether Michael Irvin wants his name cleared by either an out of court settlement or a not guilty trial settlement sustained by his lawsuit? Irvin can use the latter and boast he got paid AND proved his innocence.

The former would suggest Marriott wanted the negativity surrounding the trial to disappear via a smaller settlement. Irvin can still brag that he made Marriott admit nothing happened between the employee and him BUT what if the out of court settlement did not include a public apology as one of its terms? Detractors would still claim Marriott did not admit to falsely accusing him of harassment.

Just my opinion but methinks Irvin will remain steadfast and demand a jury verdict under any-and-all circumstances. It would be a longer and harder road to reach a resolution but it would be the legal determination for clearing his name, which he has said is his ultimate end goal.

 

[sacase]

I do have a different question for you. Since you say you've looked at body language research, when Mike is asked a question about what the two of them talked about at 28:00 of the below, he is initially facing the reporters and then as he starts to answer the question he then looks up at the screen behind him and then turns back to the reporter to finish answering. Of course you know I think he helped discredit his own witnesses with his answer but what do you make of him looking away to start his answer and then pivoting back to who asked it? What would the research say about that?

His chest is open and not covered he is not in a defensive position and he is directly facing the person answering the question. He is speaking directly with confidence. He is looking directly at the person asking questions. It's hard to fully say because you can't see the screen to see what may have got his attention on there. If you look at NLP it is thought that looking up and to the (their left) left indicates a person recalling something. While up and to the right indicates accessing the creative side of the brain to form a lie. More recent research has called that into question though. But these are typically eye movements not full moving of the head like in the video.

 

[CouchCoach]

This video interaction is subjective. The prosecution and defense arguments and counterarguments will mirror what is being said ad nauseam within these threads in my opinion if the case goes to trial.

A Duke Law School article stated most federal and state civil trials end in plea bargained settlements.

My question is whether Michael Irvin wants his name cleared by either an out of court settlement or a not guilty trial settlement sustained by his lawsuit? Irvin can use the latter and boast he got paid AND proved his innocence.

The former would suggest Marriott wanted the negativity surrounding the trial to disappear via a smaller settlement. Irvin can still brag that he made Marriott admit nothing happened between the employee and him BUT what if the out of court settlement did not include a public apology as one of its terms? Detractors would still claim Marriott did not admit to falsely accusing him of harassment.

Just my opinion but methinks Irvin will remain steadfast and demand a jury verdict under any-and-all circumstances. It would be a longer and harder road to reach a resolution but it would be the legal determination for clearing his name, which he has said is his ultimate end goal.

Marriott has to be careful of how this is viewed by their employees. I do not see any apology coming from them.

This is he said/she said and if they settle, they're admitting either the woman was not truthful or her manager went Barney Fife.

And you can bet by now employees within the group know who this woman is and those within the hotel know quite a bit about her unless she's brand new. And for all we know, she could be in training.