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

[Sydla]

we understand a con job when we hear 1.

Maybe it is. Maybe the "victim" is out for a pay out. I've never suggested any outcome here. Frankly it sounds exactly like a shakedown based on the snippets of information we've gotten from the press.

That doesn't change the facts here that the NFL Network has a fiscal responsibility here and that they don't have to give any host "due process" while working through a controversy. It's telling that Irvin hasn't filed suit against the NFLN (and apparently has stated he has no ill will towards NFLN for what they did). He and his attorney understand the realities of the situation and that networks simply have to protect their brands and that means taking hosts/analysts off air while controversial situations get worked out.

You are simply just whining at this point.

 

[Rayman70]

He railroaded himself. Up until that call in, he was still in AZ, evidently hiding out, and the NFLN hadn't done anything which is really strange. What were they doing?

BS. He has the same rights we have. He has every right to be there. I imagine they knew before the call and was already notified by them. The call was the next morning. He was getting ahead of the story but he probably shouldn't have talked about it.

 

[Rayman70]

And one of the witnesses is a life long Eagles fan that grew up hating Michael! Even he says Michael did nothing wrong.

its looking really good for him.

 

[MarcusRock]

I gave you an example. Multiple actually.

Godwin vs Gallup to be precise.

But hey. Ignorance is bliss.

You havent analyzed anything. Otherwise you would realize this is nothing more than a he said she said and a girl whos blowing things way out of proportion because its 2023 and thats the norm now. People get offended if you look at them the wrong way.

However every single one of your posts has a sense of wanting Irvin to "pay for what he did" Its laughable.

Show. Me. The. Posts. Godwin vs. Gallup doesn't tell me anything. I've opined on several Gallup plays that I remember.

And the bold in your post isn't biased at all, eh? Even with no public information out there as to what was allegedly said. You're following form, bro. Accusing bias to cover your own bias. And yet you think you see clearly enough that your last sentence is true? Something's laughable alright.

 

[Rayman70]

Maybe it is. Maybe the "victim" is out for a pay out. I've never suggested any outcome here. Frankly it sounds exactly like a shakedown based on the snippets of information we've gotten from the press.

That doesn't change the facts here that the NFL Network has a fiscal responsibility here and that they don't have to give any host "due process" while working through a controversy. It's telling that Irvin hasn't filed suit against the NFLN (and apparently has stated he has no ill will towards NFLN for what they did). He and his attorney understand the realities of the situation and that networks simply have to protect their brands and that means taking hosts/analysts off air while controversial situations get worked out.

You are simply just whining at this point.

thats the only conclusion we can draw thus far. I agree. The other side hasnt been forthcoming in this entire thing.

 

[Rayman70]

Yeah, all of those.

In the coverage of the story, point out what has been inaccurate in the reporting on the story? Give me real examples.

Yes, standard practice in situations like this is to take on air talent off the air if they are involved in a controversy. This has happened everywhere from news stations to sports networks.

that he was drunk. I heard 1 media guy say or strongly imply he may have been drunk. Thats not been proven true.

 

[MarcusRock]

Oh you poor poor thing.

I couldn't care less about Irvin and/or how this drama turns out. I am not pro-Irvin or anti-Irvin. You will never believe that because it destroys your ridiculous stance that "only Irvin lovers" would argue with you. If that happens you will then have to admit that maybe there is something to these criticisms coming at you.

My interest in these types of threads is to see how us dumb humans react to these events and to each other. You have shown yourself to have taken a side, while denying you have taken a side, all the while making post after post in thread after thread "examining the evidence" of which there is none, then loudly proclaiming that anyone who sees things differently is simply an emotional Irvin fan defending their idol.

The tail is wagging the dog.

There's no evidence? Witness accounts don't count? Lol. Dumb humans, you say? I've got plenty of stuff out there I've analyzed. How about actually debating it? But just like with everything else, folks like to scoff from the sidelines, offering nothing as to what's actually going on. But you can tell us how your psych paper turned out when you're done.

 

[CouchCoach]

To be fair we dont know it was the female employee who blew things out of proportion, it could very well be the manager and thats probably more whats going to be argued...whats was said vs the actions taken mostly by the manager as a representative of Marriott. The female employee could come out and say "Irvin kinda creeped me out and i said that to the manager and without my knowledgde he put these actions in motion." not saying thats what happened but anything is possible without the audio.

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?

 

[CouchCoach]

its a nice break from the war that rages on the other 75% of the threads here for sure.

But we have managed to kick up a skirmish about this in every thread about it.

 

[CowboyFrog]

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?

Its the call to his employer also, again i lean more towards this manager may be more at fault as the information comes out... but yeah we got very little to go on so far.

 

[CouchCoach]

thats the only conclusion we can draw thus far. I agree. The other side hasnt been forthcoming in this entire thing.

Rayman, they're defendant in a civil case, they're not going to be forthcoming. This is not criminal law but an elective lawsuit filed against them and their lawyers are doing their job complying when forced to.

Irvin's lawyer has to show intent on the part of the woman and hotel to do him harm.

 

[CouchCoach]

Its the call to his employer also, again i lean more towards this manager may be more at fault as the information comes out... but yeah we got very little to go on so far.

Would be nice to know who made the call to the NFLN. It is possible that some junior manager Barnie Fifed this.

But the first thing I want to know is why did she approach him in the 1st place? And what exactly is her position within the hotel?

 

[CouchCoach]

Hey, has this press conference happened?

 

[MarcusRock]

To be fair we dont know it was the female employee who blew things out of proportion, it could very well be the manager and thats probably more whats going to be argued...whats was said vs the actions taken mostly by the manager as a representative of Marriott. The female employee could come out and say "Irvin kinda creeped me out and i said that to the manager and without my knowledgde he put these actions in motion." not saying thats what happened but anything is possible without the audio.

And the audio's the thing. Mike has said from the beginning that the hotel told him he said something to an employee. No one's heard their total conversation, not even the witnesses. But even so, surely Marriott has reports of what was alleged and I'm assuming those documents were also to be turned over to Irvin's team unless that also wasn't turned over. Today's press conference only focused on the video which most already knew wasn't going to show anything without audio.

 

[CowboyFrog]

Would be nice to know who made the call to the NFLN. It is possible that some junior manager Barnie Fifed this.

But the first thing I want to know is why did she approach him in the 1st place? And what exactly is her position within the hotel?

exactly, lots of pieces missing still

 

[CowboyFrog]

And the audio's the thing. Mike has said from the beginning that the hotel told him he said something to an employee. No one's heard their total conversation, not even the witnesses. But even so, surely Marriott has reports of what was alleged and I'm assuming those documents were also to be turned over to Irvin's team unless that also wasn't turned over. Today's press conference only focused on the video which most already knew wasn't going to show anything without audio.

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..

 

[MarcusRock]

Hey, has this press conference happened?

Over and done with. Nothing we didn't already know regarding the things out there but Irvin's team said Marriott only let them view the video, not turn it over to them as the judge stated they had to. Nothing on the other items like reports, etc. that were supposed to also turned over. They had those same TMZ witnesses on the phone that only stated the same things they stated before. The only things new were that Irvin's lawyer stated the accuser came from behind the front desk to approach Irvin as the group of folks came in from outside from taking photos, that they were obstructed behind a pole as they started to talk, that the conversation lasted about a minute and a half, and that Irvin touched her 4 times (2 hand shakes at the start and end, a touch on the elbow as they talked, and a glancing touch of her elbow as he leaned forward laughing one time).

 

[Reid1boys]

This situation is about what was said. As I mentioned with the witnesses brought up, a person does not have to react in the moment to an offense, particularly when there's a power dynamic at play. Sometimes the only objective is to just get out of there as quickly as possible, including having a jovial and polite conversation, and think about what to do later. It might have even been why the encounter was as brief as it was. This is a point I've repeated over and over and never had addressed. Again, this case is about what was said per Mike himself, so the thing that will lend the most weight to any argument one way or the other is what was said. How something "looks" from a distance without what was said doesn't add as much as people claim it does.

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.

 

[Vtwin]

There's no evidence? Witness accounts don't count? Lol. Dumb humans, you say? I've got plenty of stuff out there I've analyzed. How about actually debating it? But just like with everything else, folks like to scoff from the sidelines, offering nothing as to what's actually going on. But you can tell us how your psych paper turned out when you're done.

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.

 

[Reid1boys]

Over and done with. Nothing we didn't already know regarding the things out there but Irvin's team said Marriott only let them view the video, not turn it over to them as the judge stated they had to. Nothing on the other items like reports, etc. that were supposed to also turned over. They had those same TMZ witnesses on the phone that only stated the same things they stated before. The only things new were that Irvin's lawyer stated the accuser came from behind the front desk to approach Irvin as the group of folks came in from outside from taking photos, that they were obstructed behind a pole as they started to talk, that the conversation lasted about a minute and a half, and that Irvin touched her 4 times (2 hand shakes at the start and end, a touch on the elbow, and a glancing touch of her elbow as he leaned forward laughing).

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....