News: Judge Orders Hotel to Give Michael Irvin Video Footage and Accuser Name in Alleged Misconduct Case

[CouchCoach]

You are right...Unless she was recording on her phone in secret, no one will ever know. Obviously, no crime was committed. If a handshake was all that
physically occurred, the hotel will be in hot water.

In a civil suit, the defendant doesn't carry the burden of proof, the plaintiff does and his lawyer would have to prove intent and we do not know anything about the woman involved in this. Hell, look back on the Irvin threads and you'll see she was drunk, a hooker, a gold digger and skank, just to highlight a few, without knowing anything about this woman.

The hotel was acting in the best interest of their employee and their lawyers will back that up with an Employee Manual and protocols for this very thing.

And let's not forget Irvin's interviews upon his return to Dallas where he said he told them he didn't remember because he'd had a few drinks. What is the hotel to do with that information?

Just how many times has a hotel had to handle something like this? A business that probably employs more women than men that caters to a predominantly male clientele away from home. What could go wrong?

 

[CouchCoach]

Policy may be solid, but people run it and make the decisions and I’m sure there are a lot of dumb, inexperienced managers in the hotel world working the night shift. The fact that they kicked him out so fast with no police involvement is what looks suspicious. This still looks like a ‘Karen’ response to me. We’ll see….

So far, there's nothing that should involve the police or he might really have a case as no crime was committed.

I do not see their rapid response as suspicious and think they make this call a lot more than we know. I think they have a by the numbers protocol for their managers.

The NFLN was informed because they are paying for the room, not to get Irvin in trouble with them.

Since we know nothing about the woman, you could be right. She might deem "inappropriate behavior" completely different but she also might be thinking of the other females that her business is responsible for and felt she had a responsibility to report it.

And I admit it, because of Irvin's history, the benefit of the doubt does not come easy for me.

 

[kumizi]

All I know is that if I were a wealthy celebrity, my security goons wouldn't let a bimbo get within 100 yards of me without them being literally on top of us recording and filming every word spoken, especially an employee. My secret service would have me surrounded. Like stay away from Michael he ain't given no autographs golddigger!!! SCRAM!! And THEN my lead would complain to management about a bimbo employee approaching my employer for no reason related to her job.

How is she a gold digger? As far as I know, she didnt sue Irvin for money. She reported him for inappropriate behavior and had him kicked out of the hotel.

She might be wrong in all of this but I dont see how shes the gold digger. He's the one suing for $100 million.

 

[erod]

All we know for sure is this.

Irvin has a very long and sordid history of this kind of behavior multiple times in multiple places.

Everybody knows this.

The NFL Network wasn't going to risk their Super Bowl week's coverage over a set analyst. They're all irrelevant in the end.

Nobody really cares about Irvin anyway but Irvin.

We'll soon know if she has an ulterior motive.

 

[CouchCoach]

All we know for sure is this.

Irvin has a very long and sordid history of this kind of behavior multiple times in multiple places.

Everybody knows this.

The NFL Network wasn't going to risk their Super Bowl week's coverage over a set analyst. They're all irrelevant in the end.

Nobody really cares about Irvin anyway but Irvin.

We'll soon know if she has an ulterior motive.

I don't know if we'll know a lot more than we do now. There is no motivation for the woman or the hotel to make anything public.

She is a woman that has accused a man of inappropriate behavior and the hotel is bound to protect her identity, if they can.

And on that list of people that do not care about Irvin, put the hotel group first, they care about the thousands of women they employ. How many times do we think they have to deal with a male guest that has a few drinks and says something to a female employee?

Man, I spent a lot of years as a road warrior and some of the strongest power drinking goes on in hotel bars.

And here's a little bit of connected information from CC's memory full of useless things. Know what entity created the term "Happy Hour"? Yep, a Marriott Food and Beverage manager and they had a rep for years with having the best happy hours in the business. They actively grew that business after creating that.

 

[Rayman70]

She has done nothing but report this to her employer, she did not file the suit and so far, there is no apparent motive for her to fabricate this story.

Rayman, do you think the network would try and set up their own employee? Think the NFL even cares about Irvin? And the Jones family has nothing to do with this.

yes I do. If he has been a thorn in their side behind closed doors all along and MAYBE this has been coming to a head. We cant rule it out. I still think they jumped the gun.

 

[MarcusRock]

Im just sayin, somebody is lyin.

Or maybe neither of them is according to what they "feel."

 

[Flamma]

Maybe he really can't remember what he said to her? I doubt it but I don't know what state he was in at the time.

What I find interesting is that by all accounts she approached him. There's usually a different set of expectations as opposed to the other way around. If you know what I'm getting at here. This is the one inconsistency I see with a lot of cases like this.

 

[Rayman70]

Or maybe neither of them is according to what they "feel."

feelings means squat. was a crime committed is the issue.

 

[MarcusRock]

Does anyone here think Irvin's comment about not being able to remember because he had a few drinks was lost on the NFLN? That alone might be their reason for removing him from coverage as that is hardly a solid defense.

CC, I know you continue to push this even after I've mentioned it to you but Irvin made that statement after he was already excused from coverage. We have no idea what was said when the NFLN told him. Irvin being flabbergasted in his interview leads me to believe that very little was said. That's logical because the NFLN in excusing him had to be prepared for any law action coming from Irvin's direction too. So under lawyer advice, I'm sure they knew to say as little as possible unless they asked for a statement from him and that became his story to stick to. It sounded off the cuff in the interview though.

 

[MarcusRock]

feelings means squat. was a crime committed is the issue.

For maybe the 100th time on this topic, a crime didn't have to have happened for all of this to unfold the way it has.

 

[Rayman70]

For maybe the 100th time on this topic, a crime doesn't have to have happened for all of this to unfold the way it has.

in this scenario, I will tell u, he will win and shouldn't lose his gig because of a false accusation which will bare itself out. This will end badly for THEM, not him. This has 2 do with right and wrong.If SHE had anything, we would have already seen it leaked. NFL network and ESPN better grab their check books and pens. Lets see what happens.

 

[Rayman70]

For maybe the 100th time on this topic, a crime didn't have to have happened for all of this to unfold the way it has.

bs. They are searching as we speak 2 see if their was a crime or if they can create a crime. They can't thus far. This a shakedown 101 class and she gets failing grades. They need 2 so the lawyers can get paid as well. No crime, no money. Simple.

 

[Rayman70]

For maybe the 100th time on this topic, a crime didn't have to have happened for all of this to unfold the way it has.

0 $$ then. Just watch.

 

[TwoDeep3]

No it's not. He has 3 witnesses and video plus camera shots that more than prove his case. Marriott, the hotel manager and the waitress will pay hefty.

Did these witnesses hear the conversation? I heard their comments and both said they watched the exchange, but did not hear the conversation.

If not then she can claim he asked her to perform dirty and disgusting acts on him. But then she will need to prove that

 

[Flamma]

Did these witnesses hear the conversation? I heard their comments and both said they watched the exchange, but did not hear the conversation.

If not then she can claim he asked her to perform dirty and disgusting acts on him. But then she will need to prove that

You would be right. I don't think anyone knows what was said. But remember, she doesn't have to prove anything. She's not suing anyone.

 

[MarcusRock]

0 $$ then. Just watch.

You respond to my same post 3 separate times to talk about what you hope for and you say that feelings mean squat? They sure as Hades do when discussing this, that's for sure.

 

[Rayman70]

You respond to my same post 3 separate times to talk about what you hope for and you say that feelings mean squat? They sure as Hades do when discussing this, that's for sure.

law matters. Not her feelings. Thats inadmissible in court. Unless he asked to pay her for sex, Because THAT is a crime, (she never filed a complaint ) she has no case. HIS FEELINGS don't matter either.

 

[Rayman70]

watch how fast she gets sued by her own lawyers after she loses. THEY WANT PAID TOO.

 

[Rayman70]

You respond to my same post 3 separate times to talk about what you hope for and you say that feelings mean squat? They sure as Hades do when discussing this, that's for sure.

man, much respect. Your a longtime poster on here as myself. Not trying to cause friction. But I am wondering why he isn't afforded the same benefit of justice as SHE? Law should be a factor. She can be butt hurt elsewhere. UNLESS we don't have all the facts. That may be it.