and like I just told someone else....he never once said he was drunk, and Id bet my life those witnesses will testify he wasnt drunk. You guys try to act like his brief words to some reporter were like being cross examined under oath.
you keep saying "No one knows," what was said..... stop saying that. It is not a fact no on eknows what was said.
again.... some of you take his interview with some reporter about this incident as like it was in some court room. This is some jovial tye interview... Mike kind of laughing about the whole thing, kind of like friends would say... hey, yea I had a few...LOL, CHUCKLE, LAUGH. Hardly the seriousness that you would be telling that story if you were under oath in a court room.
Do we know for certain the inappropriate behavior was against this employee which reported it?
Man oh man. Dude, the word drunk is irrelevant. Michael himself said he drank enough alcohol that it impaired his ability to remember the conversation. Try to elevate and follow the pertinent info.
So this is interesting that Irvin's team has all the reports of the incident and Marriott's witnesses' accounts but didn't mention what the allegation was exactly, especially as to any words exchanged. Just today Irvin's lawyer said that they didn't know who the accuser was or what Irvin was accused of "until just yesterday" but didn't specify what that was exactly at this press conference while he and Mike asserted that Marriott isn't telling anyone what Mike is accused of. Wouldn't the reports they received show that along with witness accounts? And why didn't they say what it was if they now know? Irvin's team also says the NFL has a copy of the video but Marriott seems to indicate the NFL doesn't have a copy and would only give out copies under a protective order. Both parties debate Rule 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to interpret in their favor, of course.
Weird indeed. Just goes to show, In the morning they yell hosanna, Later on they yell CRUCIFY. Mike never came off as the most eloquent brother in the world, but mush mouth ? He'll never see the post from this person
Given that the hotel showed Irvin's lawyer the video, it would imply that the interaction in the lobby is the one in question.
Of course not. The DA wasn’t interested in justice being meted out. He was interested in furthering his career.
They close by saying if they have to produce a copy, they want to do it under a protective order only for use in the case with no public disclosure allowed.
It is perfectly understandable why they would want to protect the identity of their employee. First, she is an employee of theirs so they probably don't want her career ruined especially if they don't feel she did anything wrong. Second, you can take a look at some of these posts over the last few weeks and see what happens to any woman who comes forward with claims like these. There are people calling her every name in the book without knowing anything about her and wanting her (and I quote) sued into poverty, life destroyed etc. Yes of course there are women that have made false claims, but there are also myriads of women who are terrified to come forward because they see what happens to anyone who tries to take on rich and powerful abusers. It's why this judge agreed with protecting her identity. It's common practice.
So evidently a couple of palms were touched and a couple of elbows were touched. Is that the reason why someone would be told to move out of a hotel and be prevented from working? Maybe Irvin said something to the girl. Since when do words cause so much damage to a normal human being That a person again has to be fired from his job? The girl at some point has to come forward and advise what the problem is.
My take on it is that they dont want any video being released for public consumption.
That's up to the judge, not them. You assume the video was sent to the NFL. Where's your source on that?
Her identity WILL come out so that whole protecting our employee crap is just that
If they sent the video to the NFL, that sounds very much shaky as regards legality.
