Irvin Press Conference Live - 3/14/2023

[Diehardblues]

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.

I’ll be shocked if this ever goes to court. Irvin’s lawsuit was to try and influence public opinion.

And if the NFL or the networks get involved his broadcasting career is certainly over.

I’d advise him to let this fade on its own . The longer it drops off the storyline the better chance he has of the public forgetting it. Maybe the networks will even let him come back in some capacity next season.

But if he continues this push then while he might receive a settlement of some kind which I doubt when a judge or jury hear her complaint and language he used , he’ll never work again on either of these networks. Maybe he already knows this. And he’s just trying to pick up some change?

 

[Creeper]

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?

No, it does not excuse Irvin for any inappropriate comments. But, if they are in a relationship then you can see how Irvin's lawyers would use that to their advantage arguing the video shows the woman was apparently fine with the conversation and it was not until she went off camera with the hotel manager did it become an issue. It is a he said - she said so lawyers will look for any advantage to either sway the jury or obtain a settlement.

 

[Creeper]

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.

If you are asking me what I think, the answer is I don't know what to think. If I could question the two witnesses, I would ask them what specifically they heard, and saw and from what vantage point. The guy with the white hat was right there in the entryway where it appeared the woman was as Irvin turned towards her. I would ask him what he heard while he was entering the doorway.

But as I have been saying over and over again, none of this matters. All that matters is did Irvin say or do anything that a reasonable person would consider offensive enough that the Marriott contacted his employers. No one knows the answer to that question other than Irvin and the woman. The video dies not show a woman who appeared offended at that time, but that really proves nothing. She might have just not reacted to the comments even if she was offended. But still, what prompted the Marriott to contact Irvin's employers? Do they do that for every rowdy drunk that stays at their hotel?

The other thing would be, what did the Marriott employees communicate to the NFL, and is it roughly equivalent to what the woman's story has been. Did the Marriott embellish or exaggerate the story?

 

[Creeper]

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.

Agreed. It is automatic they will looking into her background to see if she has a history of complaints. Again, it doesn't matter to the case but it is an edge if they can get the judge to allow it into evidence.

This case is going to disappear quietly. The judge will slow walk it and encourage the two sides to settle. Or he will just dismiss it. Usually it is the woman who files the case against the man, but apparently she is not interested in seeking charges against Irvin, which again makes me wonder why would the hotel take the step of contacting Irvin's employer? A sloppy drunk makes an off-color remark to a woman. Seems like they would kick him out of the hotel, and let it go.

 

[Reid1boys]

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?

lets assume Irvin didnt say anything inappropriate....... Youd rather eat cat **** than assume that.

 

[MarcusRock]

If you are asking me what I think, the answer is I don't know what to think. If I could question the two witnesses, I would ask them what specifically they heard, and saw and from what vantage point. The guy with the white hat was right there in the entryway where it appeared the woman was as Irvin turned towards her. I would ask him what he heard while he was entering the doorway.

But as I have been saying over and over again, none of this matters. All that matters is did Irvin say or do anything that a reasonable person would consider offensive enough that the Marriott contacted his employers. No one knows the answer to that question other than Irvin and the woman. The video dies not show a woman who appeared offended at that time, but that really proves nothing. She might have just not reacted to the comments even if she was offended. But still, what prompted the Marriott to contact Irvin's employers? Do they do that for every rowdy drunk that stays at their hotel?

The other thing would be, what did the Marriott employees communicate to the NFL, and is it roughly equivalent to what the woman's story has been. Did the Marriott embellish or exaggerate the story?

Yes, the guy in the hat was the best witness to the start of the convo. He also appeared to look over to them before any of the others which prompted the Philly witness to look over the one time he did. He hasn't gone public but maybe he'll show up in the trial. He'll be asked about who motioned to who first and what was said to start things up. Logistics appears to show it was Irvin which would be in direct contrast to the two public witnesses who were shielded from seeing that unless someone was loud with their greeting plus the evidence to this point that leads to her not knowing who Irvin was.

If you are asking why Marriott told the NFL, their report is that the NFL asked to be informed of any problems with their guests because they were paying for the block of rooms. Should be easy enough to prove if in email form. Marriott allowed them to review their documents I'm guessing (which culminated in their decision he should leave) but state they allowed the NFL to view the tape and interview the employee themselves and then left the "move" part to the NFL, which Irvin confirmed in this latest presser. So it's Marriott's document trail and reporting procedures that'll come under scrutiny, yes.

 

[CouchCoach]

Agreed. It is automatic they will looking into her background to see if she has a history of complaints. Again, it doesn't matter to the case but it is an edge if they can get the judge to allow it into evidence.

This case is going to disappear quietly. The judge will slow walk it and encourage the two sides to settle. Or he will just dismiss it. Usually it is the woman who files the case against the man, but apparently she is not interested in seeking charges against Irvin, which again makes me wonder why would the hotel take the step of contacting Irvin's employer? A sloppy drunk makes an off-color remark to a woman. Seems like they would kick him out of the hotel, and let it go.

That's the question to me, why not just move him and be done with it?

Either they contacted the NFLN to let them know they were moving him and the NFLN decided to question why and wanted specifics so they weren't actually reporting him or they had been asked to contact his employer if anything out the unusual arose.

There was absolutely no good reason to report his behavior to his employer even if they were paying for the room. The only plausible reason, from the lawyer's viewpoint, was to purposefully try and get Irvin in trouble with his employer.

 

[Diehardblues]

lets assume Irvin didnt say anything inappropriate....... Youd rather eat cat **** than assume that.

Why would we assume that?

I wish our HOF receiver wasn’t a frikin womanizing POS. But not all of our favorite players are role models.

 

[Diehardblues]

No, it does not excuse Irvin for any inappropriate comments. But, if they are in a relationship then you can see how Irvin's lawyers would use that to their advantage arguing the video shows the woman was apparently fine with the conversation and it was not until she went off camera with the hotel manager did it become an issue. It is a he said - she said so lawyers will look for any advantage to either sway the jury or obtain a settlement.

Of course. Irvin is looking for any angle.

Unfortunately for him , he didn’t even recall any of the conversation .

 

[Diehardblues]

That's the question to me, why not just move him and be done with it?

Either they contacted the NFLN to let them know they were moving him and the NFLN decided to question why and wanted specifics so they weren't actually reporting him or they had been asked to contact his employer if anything out the unusual arose.

There was absolutely no good reason to report his behavior to his employer even if they were paying for the room. The only plausible reason, from the lawyer's viewpoint, was to purposefully try and get Irvin in trouble with his employer.

I wouldn’t assume the a Marriott had motive other than to move him. I’d believe Irvin wasn’t willing to leave until the NFLN representative showed up.

 

[Diehardblues]

Yes, the guy in the hat was the best witness to the start of the convo. He also appeared to look over to them before any of the others which prompted the Philly witness to look over the one time he did. He hasn't gone public but maybe he'll show up in the trial. He'll be asked about who motioned to who first and what was said to start things up. Logistics appears to show it was Irvin which would be in direct contrast to the two public witnesses who were shielded from seeing that unless someone was loud with their greeting plus the evidence to this point that leads to her not knowing who Irvin was.

If you are asking why Marriott told the NFL, their report is that the NFL asked to be informed of any problems with their guests because they were paying for the block of rooms. Should be easy enough to prove if in email form. Marriott allowed them to review their documents I'm guessing (which culminated in their decision he should leave) but state they allowed the NFL to view the tape and interview the employee themselves and then left the "move" part to the NFL, which Irvin confirmed in this latest presser. So it's Marriott's document trail and reporting procedures that'll come under scrutiny, yes.

I think that’s probably right. They left the actual moving him part to a representative of the NFLN.

 

[Diehardblues]

Agreed. It is automatic they will looking into her background to see if she has a history of complaints. Again, it doesn't matter to the case but it is an edge if they can get the judge to allow it into evidence.

This case is going to disappear quietly. The judge will slow walk it and encourage the two sides to settle. Or he will just dismiss it. Usually it is the woman who files the case against the man, but apparently she is not interested in seeking charges against Irvin, which again makes me wonder why would the hotel take the step of contacting Irvin's employer? A sloppy drunk makes an off-color remark to a woman. Seems like they would kick him out of the hotel, and let it go.

What if he wouldn’t leave the hotel? Maybe that’s why they contacted the NFL?

 

[MarcusRock]

What if he wouldn’t leave the hotel? Maybe that’s why they contacted the NFL?

It doesn't seem so from their account. They say they investigated, made a determination they wanted him to leave but didn't move on that decision, then called the NFL to do their thing and let the NFL handle it from there including telling him they (the NFL) were moving him (because they were paying I imagine).

 

[Diehardblues]

It doesn't seem so from their account. They say they investigated, made a determination they wanted him to leave but didn't move on that decision, then called the NFL to do their thing and let the NFL handle it from there including telling him they (the NFL) were moving him (because they were paying I imagine).

I understand but why did they need the NFL to move him unless he didn’t want to leave when they told him?

 

[MarcusRock]

I understand but why did they need the NFL to move him unless he didn’t want to leave when they told him?

They say they didn't tell him. I assume it was just cleaner to let the payer handle it so it's not actually them going through a formal expulsion. Plus perhaps doing it this way was a better chance of keeping things quiet with such a high profile guest with no record of a formal expulsion on the books? They are an NFL sponsor so the NFL is probably wanting to be cooperative as well.

 

[Diehardblues]

They say they didn't tell him. I assume it was just cleaner to let the payer handle it so it's not actually them going through a formal expulsion. Plus perhaps doing it this way was a better chance of keeping things quiet with such a high profile guest with no record of a formal expulsion on the books? They are an NFL sponsor so the NFL is probably wanting to be cooperative as well.

That makes sense. Then why are some questioning the motive or necessity of why hotel contacted the NFL?

 

[MarcusRock]

That makes sense. Then why are some questioning the motive or necessity of why hotel contacted the NFL?

I'm not sure unless they think it's the hotel being an unauthorized tattle tale. According to Marriott, the NFL told them to let them know if there was a problem with a guest. If that's true, there was, and they did which is allowed in their reporting procedures someone posted. Assuming that's all true and Marriott charted it like they should have according to their own reporting rules I can't see how they're on the hook for anything unless their investigation/reporting was sloppy. Then Irvin's fight would be with the NFL which is sticky because he's still employed by them at this point. But if they let him go, they'd settle with him and he can sue them if he doesn't like the settlement.

I think people wanting to see Irvin beat this know this case is slipping from him at least at this point and are looking for any kind of daylight including introducing the unlikely scenario that Marriott trumped up accusations to the NFL (basically, conspiracy) or trying to grab on to Irvin's lawyer's diversionary tale (IMO) of the manager and woman being lovers (lol) or the woman being "in trouble" and thus she made up a story with Irvin as an excuse to save herself (even though security personnel were there to observe a lot of it). I mean, Irvin himself just discredited a friendly witness and corroborated several of Marriott's accounts of the situation with just this last presser notwithstanding the drinks and can't remember comment. Irvin's lawyer at least sensationalized the footage this last presser and flat out lied several times in his previous presser while pushing the "sexual assault" angle that no one accused Irvin of. People who have the truth on their side don't need to do that.

 

[GMO415]

Did he find a time machine and he's entering the draft? Otherwise I'm not interested.

 

[CouchCoach]

Does it make sense that the NFL would tell the Marriott to notify them if any of the guests they were paying for gave them any problems. What are their employees Animal House wannabes?

Now, I could see them telling the Marriott that to cover specific employees and one thing none of us knows is the relationship between Irvin and the NFLN. They know his history and his history with them.

If Irvin did say what she says he said, think this is the first time? If what the hotel is saying is true and it was the investigator and NFL personnel that took this over, doesn't that raise questions about this specific employee of the NFLN and what they know?

His lawyer has kept a safe distance from the NFL and NFLN and their actions in this and I'd bet in 99 cases out of 100, the hotel deals with the guest, they do not call their employer.

Something is just not right about this.

 

[Creeper]

That's the question to me, why not just move him and be done with it?

Either they contacted the NFLN to let them know they were moving him and the NFLN decided to question why and wanted specifics so they weren't actually reporting him or they had been asked to contact his employer if anything out the unusual arose.

There was absolutely no good reason to report his behavior to his employer even if they were paying for the room. The only plausible reason, from the lawyer's viewpoint, was to purposefully try and get Irvin in trouble with his employer.

There are a lot of unanswered questions that I am sure will be answered in time. I am surprised at the Marriott but not surprised with the NFL. Again, the Zeke case showed to me the NFL does whatever it wants whenever it wants and there really are no rules they have to follow.