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

[Jarntt]

What he actually said was he’d been out drinking all night .

He might have also said that. Here is the quote I was referring to:


“I don’t even remember it really because I had a few drinks to tell you the truth,” Irvin said.

 

[Merlin]

That was my point earlier. I’ve said all along I’m Switzerland and this thread is stupid because sitting on our hands and waiting is the best way to deal with it. You and others said the delay was proof. All o was saying is “we know nothing” because it’s fed through sources and even mentioned negotiations. Thsts it. People are digging heels on made up scenarios

No I said the judge ordered them to turn it over and they didn't. If you are going to quote, please be accurate.

Maybe you should take your own advice because you haven't done that. You commenting just like everyone else.

There's a hearing Friday because Irvin's attorney filed an emergency motion.

If you were Switzerland, you wouldn't be commenting all over what you say is a stupid thread.

 

[Miller]

I know exactly what he was saying... you are obviously confused. Coach was being specific about what Irvin said, and those words contradict the spin on those words that diehard was saying.

Coach was someone who actually knew what Irvin said and it in no way could be construed as saying he had been out drinking all night.

That was the worst babble I’ve ever heard. To quote Billy Madison “Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul”

He literally said he couldn’t remember what was said because he was drinking.

Irvin said he had just gotten back from having drinks with former Cowboys safety Michael Brooks. He admitted that he is unsure of what was said during the brief conversation because he had been drinking.

“It was a minute meeting somewhere in the lobby. I don’t even remember it really because I had a few drinks to tell you the truth,” Irvin said.

 

[Diehardblues]

I’m confused on your position here. His quote was he had been out drinking as an excuse to not remembering what happened. At that time or “all night” has no bearing

I was just trying to recall exactly what he said. The fact he admitted he’d been out drinking and couldn’t recall what was said was damaging enough.

Adding “all night” doesn’t really matter. But it illustrates how we can be mistaken with our takes from what was actually said. I stand corrected. Thanks to Coach.

 

[Miller]

No I said the judge ordered them to turn it over and they didn't. If you are going to quote, please be accurate.

Maybe you should take your own advice because you haven't done that. You commenting just like everyone else.

There's a hearing Friday because Irvin's attorney filed an emergency motion.

If you were Switzerland, you wouldn't be commenting all over what you say is a stupid thread.

No you literally insinuated not turning it over meant something. You’re spinning now

 

[Miller]

I was just trying to recall exactly what he said. The fact he admitted he’d been out drinking and couldn’t recall what was said was damaging enough.

Adding “all night” doesn’t really matter. But it illustrates how we can be mistaken with our takes from what was actually said. I stand corrected. Thanks to Coach.

Gotcha! Thanks Diehard!

 

[SpaceCowboy99]

All this back and forth nonsense. I will just make a prediction:

There is nothing incriminating on that video.
It's her word against his.
The NFL and ESPN live in a woke world where they overreact so they don't upset the 2%.
Irvin is going to settle for an amount less than 100 but more than 30 and he will get it.

I don't care one way or the other but I do think it's pure nonsense that a guy has to walk around with his hands in his pockets and try and not be overly friendly in case a crazy woman is having a bad day.

This would have never happened if the roles were reversed.

 

[Miller]

I’ve said my say and am out. I’m going back to my original post today….I don’t get the dug on heels debate because we don’t have enough info on either side. Too much misinformation and posturing both ways. I’ll wait for more. Respect y’all

 

[Merlin]

No you literally insinuated not turning it over meant something. You’re spinning now

It did mean something. Maybe you can't figure that out because you believe anything the media says that supports your biased position.

 

[MarcusRock]

I don’t know what happened but you are saying today that the delay in the video was evidence. Tonight the news is reporting Irvin was invited to watch the video and that that they are trying to protect the privacy of those on the video working with with judge. Man I swear an attorney on line said that earlier….mmmm

That would be MarcusRock, Esq. thank you very much. Lol.

There is a letter from Marriott's lawyers dated 3/3/23 that told Irvin's lawyers that they were going to send all the reports and their witness accounts to Irvin's team on 3/6/2023. In that letter, they extended an invite to Irvin specifically and his team (maximum of 3 people total) to come to a law office to view the video on the morning of 3/7/2023 but said Irvin's team couldn't take the video or make a copy. Only Irvin's team of lawyers showed up saying they asked for copies which were denied. Marriott's lawyers said they'd ask Marriott about providing a copy only under a protective order and said Irvin's team did not respond to their contact about that. So Marriott is asking the judge that if they have to actually provide a copy that it be given under said protective order to be used for any trial only and not disclosed to the public. This is contained in both these court filings made today I posted earlier.

IRVIN'S MOTION FILED TODAY

MARRIOTT'S RESPONSE TO IRVIN'S MOTION TODAY

 

[DandyDon52]

the video WILL be released. A judge has already ordered them to release it. They are gonna get bit... slapped pretty soon over this lack of listening to the judge.

And yes, we do know what happened. How many times must you hear 2 grown men tell you exactly how the conversation went?????

the video will not be released to the public. at least not by marriot.
thats why they would not give a copy out to his lawyer.
It will be available in court, and could be a closed court.

So Marriott is asking the judge that if they have to actually provide a copy that it be given under said protective order to be used for any trial only and not disclosed to the public

 

[DandyDon52]

they wont be able to protect her when this goes to trial, and she shouldnt be protected. You gonna make claims against someone, you arent going to hide for long. She wasnt raped or sexually assaulted, so why does she get to stay anonymous?

because crazy fans of irvin might pose a danger to her.
She wont be anonymous in court, this is really none of the public's business, it will be handled in court in private.

 

[MarcusRock]

the video will not be released to the public. at least not by marriot.
thats why they would not give a copy out to his lawyer.
It will be available in court, and could be a closed court.

So Marriott is asking the judge that if they have to actually provide a copy that it be given under said protective order to be used for any trial only and not disclosed to the public

Yeah, I don't think the video will come out to the public either even though I want to see it. The judge already stated that Marriott's concern for the employee's privacy was "well-founded" which is why he told them when he gave the original order to "produce" the video, reports and witness accounts that they could redact her name in any reports AND use reasonable means to protect her identity. Marriott cited that last part to justify not turning over a copy of the video but say they "produced" it per the order which didn't require giving a copy. I actually said they'd use the "reasonable means" leeway with the video but thought they'd blur her out of it when they used it to not provide a copy instead. Tomato-ToMAHto. I was right. Lol.

 

[DandyDon52]

There is this question about the timing of this to me. This happens on Sunday night and he gets moved Monday morning, does his radio thing Wednesday morning and then he gets sent home. What was the NFLN doing for 48 hours?

I think that radio call in was the trigger because of the "can't remember because I had a few drinks" and the "hiding out" which one of the radio guys used after Irvin said it. Irvin also admitted to breaking his own story on 105.3 to them and I don't think that sat well with the network people. They weren't probably in a great mood anyway with all 32 of their owners in town and having to deal with this.

How was he going to do his job with that out there and 2000 media people in town? He wasn't so they made the easy choice, just send him home.

I think the call in was a big mistake on his part but I think he might have matched that with the press conference Jim Crow reference to him being lynched. That is not going to sit well with a lot of people. I do not think that was his idea, his lawyer's probably, but a really bad idea.

good point, if the radio show let everyone know what was going on, for sure the media there would have jumped on it.
So he could have got himself knocked off the SB .
And I agree this presser could be a mistake too, it certainly didnt help.

Jim Crow reference.......I was surprised by that, thinking what is he doing? That sort of made him look desperate.

I also remember reading he said he had a few drinks, which is a reference to liquor not water lol. And now they want us to believe
he only had water.
It will all get sorted out without me or others here lol. I am content & curious to see what the end result is.

 

[Jake]

When he compared being sent home from covering the SB, as a wealthy black man with highly-paid attorneys - to a lynching - Irvin lost my support.

That's an asinine analogy, and an insult to every black person who lost a family member to an actual lynching - a horrible, unjustifiable death.

I don't care how many SBs he helped Dallas win, I don't care how many fan boys blindly support anything he says, it's an absurd analogy deserving of ridicule.

If this post makes you mad, you should take a good, hard look in a mirror. As should Michael Irvin.

Yes, it's frustrating to be accused of something you don't think you did. But to use lynching as your defense, before going home to your fancy residence, is shameful.

If this still makes you mad, I don't care. Put down the pom poms, be an adult, and think about the comparison he made. If you still don't get it, may God help you.

 

[Beast_from_East]

Marriott is about to get slapped by a judge real soon. If the judge ordered the video turned over and and documents, emails or texts related to this incident to also be turned over and Marriott thinks they can disobey the judge, they are about to realize soon they are not named T....

Well, it depends.

Marriott did allow opposing counsel to view the video and they might argue to the judge that release of the video could affect the privacy rights of individuals in the video, such as minors or other employees not related to the case.

Same thing with documents, HR complaints that contain employee files or identifying information could be an issue for public release, that is why a lot of the times information such as names and employee records might be released with redacted information, basically all blacked out.

Will be up to the judge obviously. People also need to keep in mind that this is a civil lawsuit seeking monetary damages, its not a criminal case and neither Marriott nor any of their employees are on trial here. The burden of proof lies solely with Irvin and his legal team to prove Marriott intentionally and maliciously sought to destroy Irvin's reputation and that all of their actions were guided by this one singular purpose with no other reason being possible.

Its a very high bar to prove a defamation case in civil court.

 

[Beast_from_East]

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.

In my opinion, Irving really screwed up his whole case by going on the radio and admitting that he had been drinking and didnt remember what he said.

The witnesses have all admitted they dont know what Irvin said, just what the conversation "looked like". The video as well just shows a 1.5 min conversation, but has no audio to prove what Irvin did or did not say.

At this point, there is no way to prove what Irvin did or did not say and even Irvin admits he does not remember the conversation because he had been drinking, according to his own words on the radio. He should have never went on the radio and said anything.

 

[Beast_from_East]

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.

Yeah, that was way over the top.

You have a multi-millionaire celebrity suing a multi-million dollar corporation for even more millions and you equate that to black men being hanged in the South during the Civil rights era.

 

[Beast_from_East]

I think he knows exactly what he said and he's not coming forward with that.

I would like to see the video for one particular part. This second time he touched her other elbow and was bent forward laughing, was she laughing too?

If it is one thing that all of mankind should have learned from the MeToo movement is do not touch women without permission. Some are OK and some are not even borderline OK about that. Our mouths can get us in trouble but we only got one of those, watch those hands.

Exactly..........the fact that Irvin actually did touch a part of her body besides her hands does start to question if this actually is just about a verbal comment.

I was under the impression that there was no physical contact besides a handshake, but apparently that is not the case.

Touching a woman pretty much anywhere, besides a handshake, without express permission is a big NO NO in this day in age.

 

[Cowpolk]

I was just trying to recall exactly what he said. The fact he admitted he’d been out drinking and couldn’t recall what was said was damaging enough.

Adding “all night” doesn’t really matter. But it illustrates how we can be mistaken with our takes from what was actually said. I stand corrected. Thanks to Coach.

It is all she said he said But I think Irvin is gonna come out of this with lots of spare pocket change