Irvin to have 7am Wed press conference - Video in post 113

[Reality]

To be fair, we don't really know anything. What he said to her, what she said to her supervisor and whoever else was involved from the hotel in this decision.

And why move him? Where did they move him, to another Marriott property? Does that look like they're trying to out him to the public?

The only evidence presented "so far" seems to support Irvin's claim.

As I said in a previous thread, it really depends on whether what was alleged to have been said happened outside of the interaction everyone is focused on.

Based on the video description (by Irvin's lawyer, but only because Marriott will not release it), it would seem that nothing bad happened during the interaction between Irvin and the woman in the hotel lobby.

Since that interaction appeared to be cordial and end with a handshake, it would also seem to rule out any previous interaction. That means unless there was a second interaction between Irvin and the woman after that public lobby interaction, the evidence would seem to support Irvin's claim.

At this point, either Marriott realizes they severely overreacted/mishandled this situation and they are doing everything they can to stall the process or they have additional evidence of something happening outside of the interaction in the lobby.

Hopefully the Judge will force Marriott to release and/or reveal more details soon, because the longer this goes on, it is looking more and more like Irvin was targeted. If there is evidence that proves otherwise, Marriott should release it.

 

[MarcusRock]

I feel thats the general direction Irvin's lawyers will go (completley guessing though) is what was documented as being said vs what the female employee ends up saying was said vs the actions taken by the manager including removing him with security and calling his empoyer...we dont know and may never know exactly how it went down but as a employer there are some serious concerns i would have about how the actions took place...the first one me and my HR team would be asking about is, if his actions were bad enough to remove him from the hotel why did you not call the police....who knows the manager may have consulted his HR department before taking action..

Someone posted Marriott's reporting procedures and when managers receive a report of an incident, they're basically required to do "something" or they could get in trouble. But if it doesn't happen often there's always the possibility that a manager has to ask, "how am I supposed to do this?"

 

[Merlin]

Hey, has this press conference happened?

Almost two hours ago. Most people are referring to what happened in the press conference. https://www.cbsnews.com/texas/video...ons-nonsense-in-emotional-press-conference/#x

 

[nightrain]

Max, if this would teach the country a lesson, I would chip in and Help Marriott pay.

The country, most likely, doesn't care.

Hell, most of the country stopped paying attention to the NFL after the SB.

ESPN and NFLN could use the lesson. They really hung Michael out to dry. I wonder if they even did any investigating themselves before taking him off the air.

 

[MarcusRock]

you can say a victim doesnt have to react at that moment, but a jury of REASONABLE individuals would look at a video if her smiling and laughing with him and say... nah, no way lady. I aint buying it. You cant twist yourself into a pretzel all you want to get to the end result you want(which is Irvin guilty of somethin) but reasonable, non Irvin haters will not do the same.

It ain't twisting to suppose how an opposing counsel would approach evidence like that. When the witnesses first came out I even said this looks good for Irvin but ... and then brought up the point that I did because no one could point to what was said which Mike himself said was what Marriott told him the issue was. So again, it's not a result I want but I don't straight line accept anything without looking into it either. I mean, do you not remember trying say that the witnesses heard what was said and then I showed you by their own words that they didn't and only were describing what they saw? Today again, they stated what they saw at a distance. For what reason did you say they heard what was stated and that it was nothing? Was it for an end result you wanted or were you just mistaken?

 

[CowboyFrog]

Someone posted Marriott's reporting procedures and when managers receive a report of an incident, they're basically required to do "something" or they could get in trouble. But if it doesn't happen often there's always the possibility that a manager has to ask, "how am I supposed to do this?"

Thats exactly what we teach, do not make a snap decision, consult HR, if they are not available then you have supervisors to contact. One thing that some dont realize is you can get in trouble for handling situations diferent between locations as a chain...Again i dont know the exact way it went down but as an Employer i have some real questions about how it was handled.

 

[Reid1boys]

Well said.
The truth is NONE of us know the facts of what happened. It’s why we should always presume innocence until the evidence in court and/or a jury says otherwise. The court of public opinion is always in session and almost always lacking all the facts.

Even Jerry’s recent legal problem brought forward by a woman accusing him of groping and kissing her. None of us have all the facts. Jerry deserves to be considered innocent until his day in court shows otherwise.

I will say however people saying this woman suing JJ is “just a money grab” have apparently not noticed that the judge in this case reviewed the evidence and said it was enough to have it go forward to trial. He could have dismissed it. It may be a money grab, but a judge has said there is at least enough there for a trial.

you are aware it doesnt take much for a case to move forward, yes? But you somehow that in and of itself tilts the scales in favor of the accuser....smh

 

[CowboyStar88]

You didn't get it, but not surprised.

Oh I got it. However the 09 was changed to 88 when we drafted Bryant. But go on.

 

[Miller]

It ain't twisting to suppose how an opposing counsel would approach evidence like that. When the witnesses first came out I even said this looks good for Irvin but ... and then brought up the point that I did because no one could point to what was said which Mike himself said was what Marriott told him the issue was. So again, it's not a result I want but I don't straight line accept anything without looking into it either. I mean, do you not remember trying say that the witnesses heard what was said and then I showed you by their own words that they didn't and only were describing what they saw? Today again, they stated what they saw at a distance. For what reason did you say they heard what was stated and that it was nothing? Was it for an end result you wanted or were you just mistaken?

I'd drop it Marcus. I understand and agree with everything you are saying but people here want to always worship the player and automatically call it a money grab. I just wrote a few pages back there are procedures and due diligence people must follow. Doesn't matter. Today's press conference under the umbrella of "what his attorney saw" still doesn't change the narrative that we don't know a thing.

 

[CalPolyTechnique]

I'd drop it Marcus. I understand and agree with everything you are saying but people here want to always worship the player and automatically call it a money grab. I just wrote a few pages back there are procedures and due diligence people must follow. Doesn't matter. Today's press conference under the umbrella of "what his attorney saw" still doesn't change the narrative that we don't know a thing.

I 100% have no dog in the race one way or the other, for or against Irvin.

What you said is spot on though. Folks will take what’s said by Irvin’s attorney as gospel and be swayed by all the optics done for legal posturing.

 

[Merlin]

I'd drop it Marcus. I understand and agree with everything you are saying but people here want to always worship the player and automatically call it a money grab. I just wrote a few pages back there are procedures and due diligence people must follow. Doesn't matter. Today's press conference under the umbrella of "what his attorney saw" still doesn't change the narrative that we don't know a thing.

We know that the judge ordered Marriott to turn over the video and other records by 5 pm yesterday. They didn't do that. Most likely, Irvin's attorney will file an emergency request now. If the video actually showed that Irvin did something wrong, they would have probably already turned it over.

 

[CalPolyTechnique]

you are aware it doesnt take much for a case to move forward, yes? But you somehow that in and of itself tilts the scales in favor of the accuser....smh

I’m not swayed bro. You’ve done an excellent job of portraying her as a money grubbing leach. Team Irvin broskis!

 

[MarcusRock]

The video from the bar and the witness accounts are the only evidence there is. That was known at the time this "story" broke and nothing new has been offered as evidence.

Anything else you have "analyzed" is at best speculative.

There is literally nothing to debate. The video gives us nothing. The witness accounts only tell us there "appeared" to be nothing confrontational about the short interaction. We don't even know if the "crime" even occurred during that interaction.

We know nothing about what happened yet there are people here, including you from what I have observed, who have "analyzed" him to being guilty based on nothing more than their personal feelings about him and his history.

Even if there was actually something to debate, I bet there are very few who would bother to debate someone who has shown they will just label the person as a blank-hater, or a blank-lover, or a blankity blank blank, or whatever defensive strawman gaslighting technique they choose to use when they are being proven wrong.

So there was evidence like I stated and not "none" like you stated just previously. So you stand corrected.

Your first 3 paragraphs are literally what I've been saying throughout all these threads so you're clearly not following if you think anything's "off" about what I've been saying.

And in that theme of not following or even knowing what in Hades you're talking about, I have never talked about Irvin's history and even told a poster that I disagreed with the notion of declaring him likely of any wrongdoing based on what he's done in the past because it follows the "an ex-con did something so he must be guilty" mob mentality and that this is its own situation. So you're just all kinds of bat-spit crazy on this one including not even knowing who you're addressing. Maybe if you actually lent something to the discussion instead of playing porch dog yapper, you'd know this. Unless, that evidence goes against the case you're trying to build here and is "inconvenient" and thus you ignore it. I mean, since you've been following things and all. Stupid people you say? No kiddin'. Lol.

 

[Cowboysheelsreds058]

I am for due justice, if you did the crime you must do the time but if things are not that way then justice must be given out the other way too. I always stay in the middle till see what plays out, not saying someone is guilty because of things happening in the past ( that is no different than labeling all people because of some). Seen that up and close before with people in the workplace.

 

[Reality]

It ain't twisting to suppose how an opposing counsel would approach evidence like that. When the witnesses first came out I even said this looks good for Irvin but ... and then brought up the point that I did because no one could point to what was said which Mike himself said was what Marriott told him the issue was. So again, it's not a result I want but I don't straight line accept anything without looking into it either. I mean, do you not remember trying say that the witnesses heard what was said and then I showed you by their own words that they didn't and only were describing what they saw? Today again, they stated what they saw at a distance. For what reason did you say they heard what was stated and that it was nothing? Was it for an end result you wanted or were you just mistaken?

The fact that the interaction in the lobby ended with a handshake is a big factor for me. If Irvin had said something offensive or inappropriate, I cannot imagine the other person willingly shaking his hand.

I am not pro-Irvin or anti-Irvin on this, and when I first heard about it, I assumed it had to be true given Irvin was pulled from everything during Super Bowl week.

I get that Marriott being on the other end of a lawsuit is reluctant to comment on it, but their refusal to produce the evidence that has been court-ordered really undermines their credibility at this point.

As I keep mentioning, maybe there was a second interaction later and that is where whatever happened occurred.

If that is not the case though, I would say right now Marriott is reacting like they are guilty of mishandling the situation or at least less-than-confident of their part in all of this.

 

[CowboyFrog]

The fact that the interaction in the lobby ended with a handshake is a big factor for me. If Irvin had said something offensive or inappropriate, I cannot imagine the other person willingly shaking his hand.

I am not pro-Irvin or anti-Irvin on this, and when I first heard about it, I assumed it had to be true given Irvin was pulled from everything during Super Bowl week.

I get that Marriott being on the other end of a lawsuit is reluctant to comment on it, but their refusal to produce the evidence that has been court-ordered really undermines their credibility at this point.

As I keep mentioning, maybe there was a second interaction later and that is where whatever happened occurred.

If that is not the case though, I would say right now Marriott is reacting like they are guilty of mishandling the situation or at least less-than-confident of their part in all of this.

The thing they have done that kinda shows where they think they are is when they tried to get it dismissed by saying "We are there in name only not backing the action", now no doubt that is a lawyer driven tactic to try and cut this short but it also kinda says..."Hey blame the people at the hotel we lease our name to them"...so while its probably a common tactic it doesnt portray big confidence in the way the employee's acted.

 

[Reality]

I'd drop it Marcus. I understand and agree with everything you are saying but people here want to always worship the player and automatically call it a money grab. I just wrote a few pages back there are procedures and due diligence people must follow. Doesn't matter. Today's press conference under the umbrella of "what his attorney saw" still doesn't change the narrative that we don't know a thing.

To be fair, if Marriot would adhere to the court-ordered release of the video then there would likely be more clarity.

The fact that they are ignoring the court, the one they requested and received a transfer of the case to, along with the non-NFL fan and the Eagles fan both supporting Irvin's side description-wise of the interaction in the lobby, really makes Marriott look like they did something wrong here.

I know it is easy to lump everyone that disagrees with your opinion into one bucket, but I assure you I have no sympathy for atheletes who assault women and given Irvin's questionable past, I think it is reasonable to wonder if something did happen.

So far though, the information that has been released seems to lean toward Irvin's claims, and the only reason more information has not come out is because Marriott is refusing to provide it, which presents as questionable.

 

[big dog cowboy]

Playmaker isn't sueing for enough!

 

[Miller]

We know that the judge ordered Marriott to turn over the video and other records by 5 pm yesterday. They didn't do that. Most likely, Irvin's attorney will file an emergency request now. If the video actually showed that Irvin did something wrong, they would have probably already turned it over.

That's speculation. There may be many other factors....privacy of others in the video, security, etc.

 

[Merlin]

That's speculation. There may be many other factors....privacy of others in the video, security, etc.

It's not speculation. The judge ordered it. You are speculating.