Irvin Press Conference Live - 3/14/2023

[DallasEast]

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.

Marriott would be forced to issue a public apology if it is a condition of a guilty verdict and the company loses any subsequent appeals.

 

[MarcusRock]

So I can do better than a counter-witness. I can disqualify this one.

Here's where this witness' account falls apart and tell me what you think about this. Number 1, this witness could have only been the one in the hat, which would make him the Philly fan, because he turns into the bar just after the woman does on the same side and is at least near the initial encounter. But the Philly fan is the one in the black shirt who comes inside the hotel last who is checking his phone because per his account, he got a picture of Mike. The Aussie witness is obviously wearing the green shirt. The Aussie witness and the Philly witness are behind the 2nd pillar at the time Mike and the woman start talking to each other so they can't see a dang thing about who said what to whom. The Philly guy is checking his phone and does so all the way back to his seat and from my knowledge, never looks at them talking but correct me if I'm wrong. Below is the pic they got, arrow on the Philly guy witness.

Further, Marriott's account is that Mike asked if she knew him and she said no so Mike said to check him out on the internet. Yesterday, Mike says they were talking about football and that she didn't know much about it so Mike said to look at the shows he does like First Take, etc. If she knew him enough to say "Hey Michael Irvin," why would Irvin need to tell her about the shows he does? If she knows him, she knows he's not a current player and that his only involvement with football is pretty much on those sports shows that Irvin feels the need to inform her about.

So did I just disqualify this witness here for all to see? Tell me what you think.

@Creeper, busy day yesterday between work and this but I never saw your reply to this. Are you going to comment?

 

[tyke1doe]

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.

Better hope Giants, Eagles are Commander fans aren't on the jury.

 

[Blackrain]

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.

She was at work she had a name tag on but she didn't keep it professional.
If she kept it professional she would have excused herself quickly after shaking hands and saying hi and got back to work like her boss wanted her to.

But she chose to have a couple minute conversation with a celebrity. There was nothing professional about her then decided much later that somehow she'd been offended.

 

[Creeper]

@Creeper, busy day yesterday between work and this but I never saw your reply to this. Are you going to comment?

I was a bit tied up yesterday too so I did not see your reply.

But here is my answer, the witnesses claim they saw/heard the conversation between Irvin and the woman. One stated he heard her call out to Irvin. Marriott's attorneys can try to impeach them using the argument you used but if the two men maintain their story then it is up to the jury to decide if they are telling the truth or not. There are two of them so it will be hard to claim they are both lying. No doubt they will be deposed and questioned about the circumstances to determine how credible they are.

You mention that Marriott claims Irvin asked the woman if she knew him. Did Marriott hear that conversation or are they repeating what the woman told them? If they heard the conversation them they are a counter witness to Irvin's witnesses. If they are repeating what the woman told them, then it is still a he said, she said. Irvin's witnesses would carry more weight because they claim to have seen/heard the conversation first hand and are not repeating what someone told them.

Honestly, at this point I think Irvin has a very weak case, but he has a case. It depends on what the NFL and ESPN have to say. As I have said, if the Marriott lied or exaggerated the case to the NFL and ESPN, and ESPN suspended Irvin based on false or exaggerated statements, Irvin can win. But as you know most of these cases are settled out of court, usually because the judge will push for a settlement to avoid a trial. In all likelihood we will hear the case has been settled with the conditions sealed and both sides will claim they were right.

 

[CouchCoach]

I was a bit tied up yesterday too so I did not see your reply.

But here is my answer, the witnesses claim they saw/heard the conversation between Irvin and the woman. One stated he heard her call out to Irvin. Marriott's attorneys can try to impeach them using the argument you used but if the two men maintain their story then it is up to the jury to decide if they are telling the truth or not. There are two of them so it will be hard to claim they are both lying. No doubt they will be deposed and questioned about the circumstances to determine how credible they are.

You mention that Marriott claims Irvin asked the woman if she knew him. Did Marriott hear that conversation or are they repeating what the woman told them? If they heard the conversation them they are a counter witness to Irvin's witnesses. If they are repeating what the woman told them, then it is still a he said, she said. Irvin's witnesses would carry more weight because they claim to have seen/heard the conversation first hand and are not repeating what someone told them.

Honestly, at this point I think Irvin has a very weak case, but he has a case. It depends on what the NFL and ESPN have to say. As I have said, if the Marriott lied or exaggerated the case to the NFL and ESPN, and ESPN suspended Irvin based on false or exaggerated statements, Irvin can win. But as you know most of these cases are settled out of court, usually because the judge will push for a settlement to avoid a trial. In all likelihood we will hear the case has been settled with the conditions sealed and both sides will claim they were right.

I am shocked that you let other matters take precedence over this thread. Shame on you.

I agree, I think this all goes away soon and we will know little beyond what we know now.

ESPN didn't suspend Irvin, he does not work for them. They just cancelled his appearance on a show. I do not think they are liable for anything.

As far as what the NFLN has to say? Very little and Irvin doesn't want them to say anything because they can use the call into 105.3 as their reason for sending him home and no one, including his lawyer, could argue that wasn't the appropriate action once that went public.

 

[Creeper]

I am shocked that you let other matters take precedence over this thread. Shame on you.

I agree, I think this all goes away soon and we will know little beyond what we know now.

ESPN didn't suspend Irvin, he does not work for them. They just cancelled his appearance on a show. I do not think they are liable for anything.

As far as what the NFLN has to say? Very little and Irvin doesn't want them to say anything because they can use the call into 105.3 as their reason for sending him home and no one, including his lawyer, could argue that wasn't the appropriate action once that went public.

Were there appearance fees involved? Irvin just needs to show he was damaged in some way. He will claim some kind of financial harm and probably lay it on thick with reputational damage. Like I said, I don't think he has a great case from what we know today. But he has a case if Marriott exaggerated the story when they spoke to the NFL. This will get settled with both sides claiming victory.

 

[CouchCoach]

Were there appearance fees involved? Irvin just needs to show he was damaged in some way. He will claim some kind of financial harm and probably lay it on thick with reputational damage. Like I said, I don't think he has a great case from what we know today. But he has a case if Marriott exaggerated the story when they spoke to the NFL. This will get settled with both sides claiming victory.

Hasn't come to light about compensation from ESPN and they've been quiet about this.

If the Marriott's story is fact that the investigator came to the hotel and interviewed the woman, watched the video and then called for more NFL personnel to come on the scene, that makes it look like the NFL made its own decision.

The NFL and NFLN have been totally silent about this. If this goes to trial, they know they will be involved and called to testify, deposed at the least. And maybe Irvin's lawyer doesn't want them on the stand and the subject of that call into 105.3 examined.

So, his lawyer uses his interpretation of that video to try and sway public opinion in hopes that the other parties just want this to go away and he can claim some kind of victory for his client.

However, I do not see an apology being part of the deal because it is crucial that they back their employees. Unless they feel this manager overstepped his authority and they can or discipline him, then they have a scapegoat other than the woman.

 

[DallasEast]

Were there appearance fees involved?

Not sure about appearance fees but we will pay for lodging. You will be staying at a Motel 6 instead of a Marriott though. One word of caution. Tom Bodett says they will leave the light on for you.

They do not always leave the light on for you.

 

[CouchCoach]

Not sure about appearance fees but we will pay for lodging. You will be staying at a Motel 6 instead of a Marriott though. One word of caution. Tom Bodett says they will leave the light on for you.

They do not always leave the light on for you.

The roaches will stay in hiding if they do.

 

[Creeper]

Hasn't come to light about compensation from ESPN and they've been quiet about this.

If the Marriott's story is fact that the investigator came to the hotel and interviewed the woman, watched the video and then called for more NFL personnel to come on the scene, that makes it look like the NFL made its own decision.

The NFL and NFLN have been totally silent about this. If this goes to trial, they know they will be involved and called to testify, deposed at the least. And maybe Irvin's lawyer doesn't want them on the stand and the subject of that call into 105.3 examined.

So, his lawyer uses his interpretation of that video to try and sway public opinion in hopes that the other parties just want this to go away and he can claim some kind of victory for his client.

However, I do not see an apology being part of the deal because it is crucial that they back their employees. Unless they feel this manager overstepped his authority and they can or discipline him, then they have a scapegoat other than the woman.

The manager is an interesting character in this case. His behavior during the conversation was a little weird. It could be nothing. Irvin's lawyers pointed it out which means they suspect something, or they are just planting a seed. The speculation, without evidence, is he may have some kind of relationship with the woman. It will be blockbuster if it turns out to be true.

 

[CouchCoach]

The manager is an interesting character in this case. His behavior during the conversation was a little weird. It could be nothing. Irvin's lawyers pointed it out which means they suspect something, or they are just planting a seed. The speculation, without evidence, is he may have some kind of relationship with the woman. It will be blockbuster if it turns out to be true.

For sure but we still do not know anything about this woman. We don't know her position, tenure or if she was a problematic employee that the manager had to stay on.

You can bet the farm TMZ has been trying to find employees of the hotel to talk. And nothing would be better than to have this manager all Ernest T. Bass over Helen Crump.

If I am his lawyer, I would prefer the woman being a problematic employee because I can make the case she lied to take the light off her and shift it to Irvin. I feel the lawyer has to discredit the woman because if Irvin said what she's saying he said with that "I'll come back when you're working" the manager acted accordingly to protect the employee.

 

[MarcusRock]

I was a bit tied up yesterday too so I did not see your reply.

But here is my answer, the witnesses claim they saw/heard the conversation between Irvin and the woman. One stated he heard her call out to Irvin. Marriott's attorneys can try to impeach them using the argument you used but if the two men maintain their story then it is up to the jury to decide if they are telling the truth or not. There are two of them so it will be hard to claim they are both lying. No doubt they will be deposed and questioned about the circumstances to determine how credible they are.

You mention that Marriott claims Irvin asked the woman if she knew him. Did Marriott hear that conversation or are they repeating what the woman told them? If they heard the conversation them they are a counter witness to Irvin's witnesses. If they are repeating what the woman told them, then it is still a he said, she said. Irvin's witnesses would carry more weight because they claim to have seen/heard the conversation first hand and are not repeating what someone told them.

Honestly, at this point I think Irvin has a very weak case, but he has a case. It depends on what the NFL and ESPN have to say. As I have said, if the Marriott lied or exaggerated the case to the NFL and ESPN, and ESPN suspended Irvin based on false or exaggerated statements, Irvin can win. But as you know most of these cases are settled out of court, usually because the judge will push for a settlement to avoid a trial. In all likelihood we will hear the case has been settled with the conditions sealed and both sides will claim they were right.

From what you posted and said it "put this to rest," one witness was very specific that she knew him and called to him by name (after walking past his path not looking at him, but that's another matter). Marriott's account is that he asked her if she knew him and she said no and he told her to look him up on the internet. This could be the woman's AND the undercover security that hovered at the start of their convo. Irvin himself basically corroborated that story at the presser saying she "didn't know much" about football and that she should look up the shows he does. So how would she call to him by name if Irvin is telling her about the shows he does? He's not a current player. That is huge. I mean, do you not think that is a problem? This guy you presented either "misremembered" or is flat out lying. Of course the jury will decide but I'm asking you what you think about those optics since you brought him up.

Besides both not being in the line of sight of their first meeting, the witness that reports she called to him was last in the door and was checking his phone all the way back to his seat. He turns to look at Irvin's convo once (after the hat guy does) so that's how he knows they're there but otherwise is entirely on his phone and looking at Aussie witness' phone. None of them reported words of the conversation, only appearance. We know Philly guy was hardly paying attention and Aussie guy was further away and also on his phone showing them things.

I agree that now this comes down to Marriott's documentation/reporting and interaction with the NFL but as to what Marriott put out there about having the NFL take care of things after their investigation, Mike also confirmed that at his press conference and refutes that he was "woken up in the middle of the night" by Marriott security as was reported. Again, huge from a credibility standpoint on Irvin's team. Doesn't help that Irvin's lawyer told a lie to start the previous press conference. Very weak case indeed. I too think there'll be a settlement but I surely want to see this go the distance, especially if more information comes out since things are inconclusive at the moment and we're just piecing together things from what's public at this point.

 

[CouchCoach]

From what you posted and said it "put this to rest," one witness was very specific that she knew him and called to him by name (after walking past his path not looking at him, but that's another matter). Marriott's account is that he asked her if she knew him and she said no and he told her to look him up on the internet. This could be the woman's AND the undercover security that hovered at the start of their convo. Irvin himself basically corroborated that story at the presser saying she "didn't know much" about football and that she should look up the shows he does. So how would she call to him by name if Irvin is telling her about the shows he does? He's not a current player. That is huge. I mean, do you not think that is a problem? This guy you presented either "misremembered" or is flat out lying. Of course the jury will decide but I'm asking you what you think about those optics since you brought him up.

Besides both not being in the line of sight of their first meeting, the witness that reports she called to him was last in the door and was checking his phone all the way back to his seat. He turns to look at Irvin's convo once (after the hat guy does) so that's how he knows they're there but otherwise is entirely on his phone and looking at Aussie witness' phone. None of them reported words of the conversation, only appearance. We know Philly guy was hardly paying attention and Aussie guy was further away and also on his phone showing them things.

I agree that now this comes down to Marriott's documentation/reporting and interaction with the NFL but as to what Marriott put out there about having the NFL take care of things after their investigation, Mike also confirmed that at his press conference and refutes that he was "woken up in the middle of the night" by Marriott security as was reported. Again, huge from a credibility standpoint on Irvin's team. Doesn't help that Irvin's lawyer told a lie to start the previous press conference. Very weak case indeed. I too think there'll be a settlement but I surely want to see this go the distance, especially if more information comes out since things are inconclusive at the moment and we're just piecing together things from what's public at this point.

Yep, this gets settled our fun is over here and I am as bored as a sloth watching "The English Patient".

 

[MarcusRock]

For sure but we still do not know anything about this woman. We don't know her position, tenure or if she was a problematic employee that the manager had to stay on.

You can bet the farm TMZ has been trying to find employees of the hotel to talk. And nothing would be better than to have this manager all Ernest T. Bass over Helen Crump.

If I am his lawyer, I would prefer the woman being a problematic employee because I can make the case she lied to take the light off her and shift it to Irvin. I feel the lawyer has to discredit the woman because if Irvin said what she's saying he said with that "I'll come back when you're working" the manager acted accordingly to protect the employee.

Yeah, the problematic employee thing would have to be the angle because I mean if you look at them two, is it believable that they're dating? Stranger things have happened, to me personally, so I'm one to talk. Lol. People's minds go straight to the romance angle the same way people's minds went straight to "sexual assault" in this case.

As for their interaction, you can see that after she left Irvin, she went to turn right after passing the witnesses' table and that manager told her to come with him instead. This is why I think she took the outside path into the bar, to possibly avoid him and blend back in to the place.

 

[sandbridge77]

If this woman lied to get out of trouble, she sure had an interesting choice of words to use for an excuse

 

[Diehardblues]

You can bet the farm TMZ has been trying to find employees of the hotel to talk. And nothing would be better than to have this manager all Ernest T. Bass over Helen Crump.

If I am his lawyer, I would prefer the woman being a problematic employee because I can make the case she lied to take the light off her and shift it to Irvin. I feel the lawyer has to discredit the woman because if Irvin said what she's saying he said with that "I'll come back when you're working" the manager acted accordingly to protect the employee.

The other part of her complaint the Marriott shared that Dallas paper printed along with “ I’ll come back when you’re working” as part of that disclosure is potentially more damaging inappropriate sexual content which probably spurred her complaint that alarmed the Hotel Mgmt and Networks.

 

[Diehardblues]

Yeah, the problematic employee thing would have to be the angle because I mean if you look at them two, is it believable that they're dating? Stranger things have happened, to me personally, so I'm one to talk. Lol. People's minds go straight to the romance angle the same way people's minds went straight to "sexual assault" in this case.

As for their interaction, you can see that after she left Irvin, she went to turn right after passing the witnesses' table and that manager told her to come with him instead. This is why I think she took the outside path into the bar, to possibly avoid him and blend back in to the place.

I’m not sure why sexual assault was ever used? And it’s one aspect I agree with Irvin and his attorney as the video clears him of any physical sexual assault .

This appears to be nothing more than inappropriate sexual content exchanged. No criminal laws broken . The content of the words Irvin used are the smoking gun which alarmed the reaction by the hotel Mgmt and the NFL.

 

[Diehardblues]

Yep, this gets settled our fun is over here and I am as bored as a sloth watching "The English Patient".

While Irvin’s actions weren’t criminal they were inappropriate sexual content based on the employees complaint.

My first thought with the language used is it’s not the first time he’s used that cat call. And some women or fans might be attracted, intrigued or turned on by it. This employee wasn’t.

 

[Diehardblues]

The manager is an interesting character in this case. His behavior during the conversation was a little weird. It could be nothing. Irvin's lawyers pointed it out which means they suspect something, or they are just planting a seed. The speculation, without evidence, is he may have some kind of relationship with the woman. It will be blockbuster if it turns out to be true.

Let’s assume for the sake of argument the Mgr wasn’t pleased that the female plaintiff went out of her way to encounter Irvin. We can even assume they had a potential situation , relationship , history , etc but I’m not sure that would justify Irvin’s inappropriate sexual language.

Unless Irvin’s gets a pass for any fan who approaches him to meet , greet, take a pic, selfie , etc as fair game to make cat calls and pick up lines which are sexually inappropriate?