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

[CouchCoach]

Not really.

This is a wealthy celebrity involved in a frustrating legal battle. Comparing it to a lynching - which was an absolutely horrific practice - was a ridiculous thing to say.

If his attorneys advised him to say that then he needs better attorneys.

That part really made me cringe. That's like someone saying "I spent a night in jail and know what death row is about".

Irvin may hear from same family and friends about using something so horrific in a civil suit. The fact that he is a multimillionaire celebrity makes it worse.

 

[MarcusRock]

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.

This is why I mention the power dynamic. I posted this story a few times so you might have seen it.

You're at a big company gathering and one of the big bosses cracks a joke at your expense that annoys you to the point where if a friend had done it, you'd let him have it. Are you going to go at that big boss with the whole company watching, including his buddy the CEO? If the big boss approaches you to say in front of everyone, "I was just kidding" and goes to shake your hand then and there, are you going to refuse to embarrass him right back in front of everyone? Heck, maybe later though you'll file an HR harassment claim against him. But why not tell him then and there you plan on doing that? That's called a power dynamic that forces you to stay cool in the moment and plot what to do later. Was that a possibility for the woman in this case? Not absolutely true, but possible?

So yes, she could have willingly been pleasant, shook his hand and also been offended at something he said along the way including not even realizing until later. I don't know how likely this is versus an in-the-moment reaction but it depends on the person. The additional incident evidence angle is a possibility too because holding back makes Irvin's team have to act first and then hit them with what they're not prepared for.

As for Marriott and the video/records, I don't think we know yet that they've officially denied turning over the evidence. If they did file for an extension or appeal, etc. by yesterday's deadline but did allow Irvin's lawyer to view the video beforehand or after, Irvin's team surely won't put that out there. I didn't hear Irvin's lawyer expressly say they defied the order today and if Marriott did, he surely should have been screaming about it. So that I will wait on but it does look bad if they outright defied the order and they should be disciplined for it.

 

[Miller]

Not really.

This is a wealthy celebrity involved in a frustrating legal battle. Comparing it to a lynching - which was an absolutely horrific practice - was a ridiculous thing to say.

If his attorneys advised him to say that then he needs better attorneys.

Yeah and Michael isn't an easy client....radio interview and now comparing this to a lynching. Ugh

 

[nightrain]

They could just blur them out

Yup, Marriott will likely have to be shown the way. Doesn't seem like Marriott is acting in good faith with this incident.

 

[Merlin]

Yeah and Michael isn't an easy client....radio interview and now comparing this to a lynching. Ugh

I doubt he just made that up without discussing it with his attorney. They are litigating this in the public opinion realm since Marriott refuses to release the video or records. And Marriott looks bad so far. And I would imagine they know more. Irvin's attorney appears to be quite confident right now. That could change of course.

 

[gtb1943]

Thank you.

After watching that, I am wondering why was that called? It seems calling out the Marriott in a pc isn't as effective as getting the judge to force them but he only made them let them view it. For some reason, the judge agreed not to let the public see it.

So she came from behind the desk and approached him, for what reason? The conversation took 1.5 minutes but we know nothing of what it was about.

Not only have we not heard from the hotel what it was about but nothing from Irvin. Not one bit of that conversation was mentioned by Irvin and that's what this is all about. If they're using that pc for pr, shouldn't Irvin had said something about that that conversation was about?

And spinning this in the Jim Crow direction was bad but I will give him a pass on that because that stinks like the lawyer came up with that.

His lawyer emphasizes Irvin was drinking water. Then why did he use that lame "had a few drinks" excuse on the radio call in? He made it look like that was the reason he could not recall the conversation when the fact that he does encounter a lot of different people in his job and has lots of conversations because that is his personality would be easily believable.

So far, ain't nobody tellin' the whole truth.

nothing to this post not involving unreasonable hate for Irvin.

Bottom line is that anymore really inflammatory press conferences are the rule. Don't think much of that but then I don't think much of the entire justice and legal profession

Marriot is NOT looking good; and more and more this looks like a female feminazi action that the hotel stupidly bought off on

 

[Miller]

I doubt it either but that is a lot to handle and in my book I would never tell a client to go there. To me that is a bad look. I'm not sure too many people out there compare not turning over the video and a lynching.. with his background. Know the audience. Not sure it is the proper way to go about it. I would have started with his livelihood vs that route. As I've said all along I think there are many layers that will come out so just sitting on my hands waiting.

 

[Reid1boys]

It is indeed odd that they defied a court order if the video would support their actions. It's also possible that Marriott's attorneys and Michael's are negotiating something to make the matter go away, and today's presser was legal posturing to put pressure on Marriott.

Honestly, none of us really know anything at this point. I'm hoping the truth comes out, whatever it is, but the wheels of justice often move slowly.

Michael's attorneys made it very clear... they arent negotiating anything with Marriott. They have basically had no contact with them.

 

[CouchCoach]

As I watched that, the question just kept coming up, "Irvin, what did you say to the woman"? He never even got close to saying anything about what was said or why she approached him from behind the desk.

That's why he wasn't taking any questions. His lawyer knew what every reporter would ask.

 

[Reid1boys]

I didn’t say that at all. I literally said, “Jerry deserves to be considered innocent until his day in court shows otherwise.” Smh.

and you followed that up with the following:

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.


That insinuates that since the judge said it should move forward... well , there is SOMETING there.

 

[Reid1boys]

As I watched that, the question just kept coming up, "Irvin, what did you say to the woman"? He never even got close to saying anything about what was said or why she approached him from behind the desk.

That's why he wasn't taking any questions. His lawyer knew what every reporter would ask.

yawn

 

[CouchCoach]

So, first this isn't about touching, only the handshake took place and now there are 4 touches in 1.5 minutes. The handshakes were voluntary on the woman's part, the elbow touches were not.

Question for the guys. You meet a woman in a professional setting, how many times are you touching her in 1.5 minutes?

Notice the lawyer emphasizing "briefly" when discussing Irvin's penchant for putting his hands on people. And he is right, Irvin has that habit. It's the reason Steve Young left the panel and went on location at ESPN.

I think this may be about not only what was said but what was said when he put his hand on her elbows. People can be funny about their space. He may have meant nothing, just being himself, and she thought he was a space invader.

 

[Merlin]

As I watched that, the question just kept coming up, "Irvin, what did you say to the woman"? He never even got close to saying anything about what was said or why she approached him from behind the desk.

That's why he wasn't taking any questions. His lawyer knew what every reporter would ask.

Why would his attorney allow him to answer questions? Make it make sense. Lol. We know where you stand regardless of the facts.

 

[CouchCoach]

nothing to this post not involving unreasonable hate for Irvin.

Bottom line is that anymore really inflammatory press conferences are the rule. Don't think much of that but then I don't think much of the entire justice and legal profession

Marriot is NOT looking good; and more and more this looks like a female feminazi action that the hotel stupidly bought off on

Summarize it with that lame "I hate Irvin" stuff, pretty lazy.

 

[Staubacher]

I doubt it either but that is a lot to handle and in my book I would never tell a client to go there. To me that is a bad look. I'm not sure too many people out there compare not turning over the video and a lynching.. with his background. Know the audience. Not sure it is the proper way to go about it. I would have started with his livelihood vs that route. As I've said all along I think there are many layers that will come out so just sitting on my hands waiting.

This hotel was the official NFL hotel for the Super Bowl. Somehow they were run by Jim Crow segregationists targeting and trying to lynch one innocent black man when the guest list likely included many people of color. Ridiculous.

But the presser was all for PR and emotional appeal and boy did they lay it on thick.

Having read and posted Marriott’s official policies on such matters, I have yet to see where they have done anything beyond follow their protocol which includes discretion and privacy. And having been sued for $100 million they are proceeding thusly.

We got Irvin's lawyer interpretation of what happened (or didn't happen). Even in that, the interaction lasted Ionger than what had been breathlessly reported as 45 seconds. And it did include some physical contact, which again is described by the guy trying to earn himself 33 million dollars, and in addition physical assault has never been alleged.

Not much more than that learned today as we still are only hearing one side

 

[Bobhaze]

and you followed that up with the following:

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.


That insinuates that since the judge said it should move forward... well , there is SOMETING there.

Yes. That is true. Doesn’t mean he’s guilty. It means a judge saw enough to warrant a trial. Are you upset with facts? I have said numerous times JJ is innocent until proven otherwise. What else are you seeking? Have you already passed judgement on this case yourself?

 

[CouchCoach]

Why would his attorney allow him to answer questions? Make it make sense. Lol. We know where you stand regardless of the facts.

Because his attorney knows what the question is, what did he say? The lawyer and Irvin talked all around the conversation but not about it.

 

[MarcusRock]

Oh my, you poor poor thing!

In the big picture sense, there is nothing to debate. I do not stand corrected.

You may be mistakenly thinking my thoughts are coming from this one thread. That is not the case. I find you guys fascinating and have been munching away on my popcorn throughout all the threads. You've been called out on your obvious leanings by more than just me. I know exactly who I am addressing.

What can be "lent to the discussion" beyond making the same simple point regarding the very limited evidence we have, over and over and over and over and over and over and over again?

I did try and take the discussion a little deeper by asking what he possible could have said that warranted such action. Where is the line between uncomfortable, and harassment to the extent of warranting such action?

That's the most interesting thing we can discuss about this, at least as of now. I've asked it in multiple threads and for some reason nobody wants to go there. lol

So yea. You really aren't seeing the big picture from inside your bubble.

You: there's no evidence
You Later: The only evidence is ...

You just did a 180 in plain sight and are now avoiding it while trying to change the subject. What was that about being defensive again?

And no mention of you being completely wrong about me saying Irvin is guilty because of his past indiscretions and instead defending him in that regard. Not surprising in the least. Convenient though.

You also want to claim someone is making a strawman argument but your claim to being accurate is because "someone else also said so?" Oh my ironic stars! I'd say that's a bandwagon logical fallacy but what bandwagon? More like a skateboard. So basically you're claiming a Like Button Legitimacy to Argument stance. Wow. Lol. Ooooh, give this deep thinker some room here everyone. He's about to really make some revelations. Lol.

 

[Merlin]

Because his attorney knows what the question is, what did he say? The lawyer and Irvin talked all around the conversation but not about it.

Lol. No. Doesn't make sense. Marriott made the allegations anyway. They are not talking or turning over any evidence despite a court order.

 

[CouchCoach]

Why would his attorney allow him to answer questions? Make it make sense. Lol. We know where you stand regardless of the facts.

What facts were revealed except he touched her 4 times and the conversation lasted 1.5 minutes?

I didn't see any facts to sway me either way.

I think he said something that set her off. Now, whether that is bad enough to warrant being removed is different.