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

[Captain-Crash]

 

[Rayman70]

 

[speedkilz88]

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

From what I gathered they didn't hear the conversation. But they did say she approached him and introduced herself and that he kept his hands on his shirt. It appeared to at least one of the witnesses that it was a fan interaction and lasted at best 30 seconds and then he shook her hand and left. And she returned to the restaurant or bar.

 

[Flamma]

Unless someone leaks it, we may never know what he said that bothered her.

 

[conner01]

And their side may include a lot more information than simply that video. Everyone is assuming that video is the only interaction and the only reason that he was thrown out of the hotel.

That could be a valid point. Was that the only interaction? I can’t imagine a 1 min conversation could be that big a deal
But at some point we will know I guess

 

[conner01]

Unless someone leaks it, we may never know what he said that bothered her.

Doubt we ever hear. Not likely there was audio
I assume this was from security caneras

 

[buybuydandavis]

Scorched earth time.

Time to make the rubble bounce.

 

[CouchCoach]

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.

It is the only interview so far in this and his lawyer is going to struggle with this. Nobody but Irvin and his lawyer has commented on this.

The NFLN can do whatever they want, what exactly would Irvin sue them for? They are his employer and he doesn't have a "right" to be on the SB coverage. They didn't suspend him or even dock his pay to my knowledge. They do not even consider themselves a party to this, it's between Irvin and the woman and hotel group.

And how did the hotel harm him? They didn't go public, they simply informed the payer of the hotel room what was happening.

The only people that have gone public are Irvin and his mouthpiece, as if he needs one.

Many think he's going to prevail, primarily because they want him to, but that is highly unlikely. It is his lawyer's burden of proof she lied about what he said and he can't even defend himself because of what he already told the media, that's my point. He can't take that back or all of the sudden have memory recovery because a judge or jury isn't buying that. Off the cuff or not, that was a damning statement he made and he has little chance of winning.

 

[CouchCoach]

Do we even know if the hotel was throwing him out? The first reports said they were moving him. To where, it didn't say and then this moves to a ban from all properties.

In order for them to ban him from all properties, they would have to feel something really wrong was said to the employee, almost to the call the cops point, imo. There is no verfication the hotel threw him out or banned him that I've seen. The NFLN is the one that made the call to send him back to Dallas.

And the NFLN isn't admitting he did anything wrong, the situation was going sideways and they made the right call to just remove what they could from the situation, him. As far as we know, the NFLN is just waiting for the smoke to clear to put him back in his old spot.

 

[Captain-Crash]

It is the only interview so far in this and his lawyer is going to struggle with this. Nobody but Irvin and his lawyer has commented on this.

The NFLN can do whatever they want, what exactly would Irvin sue them for? They are his employer and he doesn't have a "right" to be on the SB coverage. They didn't suspend him or even dock his pay to my knowledge. They do not even consider themselves a party to this, it's between Irvin and the woman and hotel group.

And how did the hotel harm him? They didn't go public, they simply informed the payer of the hotel room what was happening.

The only people that have gone public are Irvin and his mouthpiece, as if he needs one.

Many think he's going to prevail, primarily because they want him to, but that is highly unlikely. It is his lawyer's burden of proof she lied about what he said and he can't even defend himself because of what he already told the media, that's my point. He can't take that back or all of the sudden have memory recovery because a judge or jury isn't buying that. Off the cuff or not, that was a damning statement he made and he has little chance of winning.

but he's my favorite player. *wipes tears away*

 

[visionary]

It is the only interview so far in this and his lawyer is going to struggle with this. Nobody but Irvin and his lawyer has commented on this.

The NFLN can do whatever they want, what exactly would Irvin sue them for? They are his employer and he doesn't have a "right" to be on the SB coverage. They didn't suspend him or even dock his pay to my knowledge. They do not even consider themselves a party to this, it's between Irvin and the woman and hotel group.

And how did the hotel harm him? They didn't go public, they simply informed the payer of the hotel room what was happening.

The only people that have gone public are Irvin and his mouthpiece, as if he needs one.

Many think he's going to prevail, primarily because they want him to, but that is highly unlikely. It is his lawyer's burden of proof she lied about what he said and he can't even defend himself because of what he already told the media, that's my point. He can't take that back or all of the sudden have memory recovery because a judge or jury isn't buying that. Off the cuff or not, that was a damning statement he made and he has little chance of winning.

Reading through your post it is pretty clear you have already made up your mind and your bias is showing. It is also very clear what is wrong with the American justice system as highlighted it in completely ridiculous statement from you “it is his lawyers burden if proof she lied about what he said”

That is totally crazy. She is the accuser and it is her burden of proof that he said it. Clearly you believe in “guilty until proven innocent “ the new American way

 

[Flamma]

Many think he's going to prevail, primarily because they want him to, but that is highly unlikely. It is his lawyer's burden of proof she lied about what he said and he can't even defend himself because of what he already told the media, that's my point. He can't take that back or all of the sudden have memory recovery because a judge or jury isn't buying that. Off the cuff or not, that was a damning statement he made and he has little chance of winning.

He doesn't have little chance of winning, he has zero chance of winning. It's not even a he said she said. It's a she said and he doesn't recall. All the witnesses and video of what wasn't said doesn't help him.

 

[Flamma]

That is totally crazy. She is the accuser and it is her burden of proof that he said it. Clearly you believe in “guilty until proven innocent “ the new American way

It never works that way. The burden of proof lies with the person suing, not the defendant. If she sued him, then she would need to prove it.

 

[Captain-Crash]

 

[CouchCoach]

Reading through your post it is pretty clear you have already made up your mind and your bias is showing. It is also very clear what is wrong with the American justice system as highlighted it in completely ridiculous statement from you “it is his lawyers burden if proof she lied about what he said”

That is totally crazy. She is the accuser and it is her burden of proof that he said it. Clearly you believe in “guilty until proven innocent “ the new American way

You obviously do not know much about how the civil legal system works, it is incumbent on the plantiff, which she is not. She doesn't have to prove anything, she did not bring the suit. Irvin must not only prove she is lying but intended to do him harm. So, look it up and tell me how ridiculous that statement is.

However, one thing you are right about is that I believe Irvin said whatever she says he said because of his history, which is the main reason I do not like him. Sorry to the Irvin lovers because of his totally amateur bias in broadcasting gives you warm fuzzies but he is a total clown and I hope he does get fired. I might actually watch NFLN on a pregame again.

 

[Captain-Crash]

You obviously do not know much about how the civil legal system works, it is incumbent on the plantiff, which she is not. She doesn't have to prove anything, she did not bring the suit. Irvin must not only prove she is lying but intended to do him harm. So, look it up and tell me how ridiculous that statement is.

However, one thing you are right about is that I believe Irvin said whatever she says he said because of his history, which is the main reason I do not like him. Sorry to the Irvin lovers because of his totally amateur bias in broadcasting gives you warm fuzzies but he is a total clown and I hope he does get fired. I might actually watch NFLN on a pregame again.

 

[CalPolyTechnique]

Lool, this is all just public posturing by Irvin’s legal team for optics. The $100M is intended to intimidate, cause the woman to pause and put a chilling a effect on defending her claim.

Further, the demand by Irvin’s legal team for the video in reality serves no purpose but to sway misinformed public opinion. From my understanding the woman never claimed Irvin physically assaulted her, so the tapes will show nothing. Irvin’s legal knows this. What we don’t know is exactly what the conversation was between Irvin and the woman was. Even the witnesses claiming it appeared to be a normal interaction don’t know what’s said and that’ll be exposed if it goes to trial.

 

[CouchCoach]

Lool, this is all just public posturing by Irvin’s legal team for optics. The $100M is intended to intimidate, cause the woman to pause and put a chilling a effect on defending her claim.

Further, the demand by Irvin’s legal team for the video in reality serves no purpose but to sway misinformed public opinion. From my understanding the woman never claimed Irvin physically assaulted her, so the tapes will show nothing. Irvin’s legal knows this. What we don’t know is exactly what the conversation was between Irvin and the woman was. Even the witnesses claiming it appeared to be a normal interaction don’t know what’s said and that’ll be exposed if it goes to trial.

His lawyer came on strong out of the gate to try and minimize what Irvin had already told the media. He's hoping he can play the big tough talk game and if it was just the woman and not a major corporation, he might stand a chance but they acted on the woman's account of what transpired and they are going to back her all the way. They care a hell of a lot more about their thousands of female employees than a nuisance lawsuit.

Marriott's attorneys are probably laughing their butts off at Irvin's media comments once he returned to Dallas. Be fun for this to go to court and see his lawyer try to wiggle out of that.

 

[Flamma]

You obviously do not know much about how the civil legal system works, it is incumbent on the plantiff, which she is not. She doesn't have to prove anything, she did not bring the suit. Irvin must not only prove she is lying but intended to do him harm. So, look it up and tell me how ridiculous that statement is.

However, one thing you are right about is that I believe Irvin said whatever she says he said because of his history, which is the main reason I do not like him. Sorry to the Irvin lovers because of his totally amateur bias in broadcasting gives you warm fuzzies but he is a total clown and I hope he does get fired. I might actually watch NFLN on a pregame again.

Yeah, the burden of proof is only required under some form of legal action. In this case, she's the defendant, not accuser. I'm not even sure if she has to say what offended her. That's subjective. And since my second favorite Cowboys WR of all time said he didn't remember, had a few drinks, she's got the entire English language at her disposal.

 

[visionary]

You obviously do not know much about how the civil legal system works, it is incumbent on the plantiff, which she is not. She doesn't have to prove anything, she did not bring the suit. Irvin must not only prove she is lying but intended to do him harm. So, look it up and tell me how ridiculous that statement is.

However, one thing you are right about is that I believe Irvin said whatever she says he said because of his history, which is the main reason I do not like him. Sorry to the Irvin lovers because of his totally amateur bias in broadcasting gives you warm fuzzies but he is a total clown and I hope he does get fired. I might actually watch NFLN on a pregame again.

You are right
I forgot Irvin brought the suit