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.