Michael Irvin witness more in depth interview

[Reid1boys]

He must be a liar though... I mean he was in abar yet said he does not drink. I am not sure I can trust this guy though.... he looks a little shady.

 

[MarcusRock]

Sorry, but this lawyer is a biased joke. We covered this from someone else who posted his slanted one-sided take as "proof" of "something." Even here he only talks up Irvin's lawyer's side and makes leading questions and favorable assumptions to "help" this witness.

As for this witness, he claimed the woman went up to Mike and said, "Hey Michael Irvin" in his initial TMZ interview (LINK). No such thing here though. Why's that? Because the video proves he didn't see squat of their initial encounter because of the pillar he was walking behind but also because he was constantly staring at his phone from when he walked in from outside all the way to his seat and then throughout Irvin's talk with the women. He looked at them once apart from his phone all other times.

Not only that but Marriott said the woman didn't know Irvin and Irvin said to look him up on the internet, and at his press conference Irvin himself (now remembering the convo) said she didn't know much about football so he was telling her to look up the shows he does. Why would she need to look up the shows he does if she knew him and called out his name? This witness is discredited, big time. Attorney MarcusRock on the case. Lol.

 

[cristglo]

We can all agree to disagree. lol Did Michael do anything that was inappropriate maybe but not enough to be removed from his job or the embarrassment of being removed from the Hotel? This witness is very reliable and clear whether you feel he was led or not. It's not just him it's the other eye witness backs the story.
As far as her saying she didn't know Michael How do you know that she isn't lying? If you've watched Michael over the years you will see he is a touchy loud personality that rubs a lot of people wrong.
I do feel that Irvin probably said something to the fact about her being attractive when he slaps himself. That was not said to her but still don't feel that any of this warrants him being pulled from the job.
Michael touches her arm several times and even though it was a laughing moment he shouldn't have done it. Again none of these warrants the events that took place.
I also want to throw in that Michael was not drunk having a few drinks does not constitute being intoxicated.

Not once in this video does it show Irvin assaulting her or even harassing her. This is what Marriot claimed he did thus his removal.
Nothing on this Video backs any of this up.
How do you know that she wasn't in trouble with her manager and her coming up with this story to keep her out of trouble?
None of this really matters because when the day ends its He said She said and Michael has more witnesses to back his story. Where is hers? Has anyone come out that supposedly saw her upset?

 

[Coogiguy03]

Point is he had some drinks, I'm not a drinker at all. I've seen people that have been drunk and know that you can say anything. I'm not doubting something sexual could have been said, I'm just not!

 

[Cowpolk]

I hope Marriot Motel Becomes Irvin Inn soon And the woman needs to lose her job. Now

 

[MarcusRock]

This witness is very reliable and clear whether you feel he was led or not. It's not just him it's the other eye witness backs the story.
As far as her saying she didn't know Michael How do you know that she isn't lying?

This witness has been discredited, bro. I explained this to you before but people don't want to see it because they don't want to see it. The other eyewitness saw even less of their initial encounter and all of them were on their phones as Irvin and the woman talked. The other witness was even showing them things on his phone. How do I know the woman isn't lying? Because Mike himself corroborated Marriott's story about her not knowing him in his press conference as I stated above. It doesn't add up. The Philly witness either "misremembered" which is why he didn't dare say the same thing about her calling Mike's name here or is flat out lying to back Irvin. I'm no lawyer but a real one would rip this guy a new one in court.

Not once in this video does it show Irvin assaulting her or even harassing her. This is what Marriot claimed he did thus his removal.

Marriott never claimed assault, only harassment. Irvin's team is the one who mentioned assault so they could claim "victory" that the video never showed assault. It was never accused in the first place. Falling for the okie doke just like they want you to.

I said it before when this biased YouTuber was brought up and I'll say it again: think for yourselves. This dude is trying to rope in the emotional, anti-accuser types over this topic (with his "cancelled" thumbnail wording) and leaves a ton of things out so he can get clicks from people needing an echo chamber. Those needing the echo chamber know Irvin has huge holes in his case when it comes to this video at least. It literally went almost exactly how Marriott laid out the scenario physically, right down to Irvin slapping himself and needing to be shown which way the elevators were.

 

[Smith22]

This witness has been discredited, bro. I explained this to you before but people don't want to see it because they don't want to see it. The other eyewitness saw even less of their initial encounter and all of them were on their phones as Irvin and the woman talked. The other witness was even showing them things on his phone.

Funny you tell people to think for themselves yet you act as if your view of each witness is the gospel.....

Either way, I find it pretty piss poor that the NFL and Marriott didn't take the time to interview any of the gentlemen that were literally right there.

 

[Ranching]

Point is he had some drinks, I'm not a drinker at all. I've seen people that have been drunk and know that you can say anything. I'm not doubting something sexual could have been said, I'm just not!

Well, this explains it! LOL!

 

[Sydla]

This witness has been discredited, bro. I explained this to you before but people don't want to see it because they don't want to see it. The other eyewitness saw even less of their initial encounter and all of them were on their phones as Irvin and the woman talked. The other witness was even showing them things on his phone. How do I know the woman isn't lying? Because Mike himself corroborated Marriott's story about her not knowing him in his press conference as I stated above. It doesn't add up. The Philly witness either "misremembered" which is why he didn't dare say the same thing about her calling Mike's name here or is flat out lying to back Irvin. I'm no lawyer but a real one would rip this guy a new one in court.


Marriott never claimed assault, only harassment. Irvin's team is the one who mentioned assault so they could claim "victory" that the video never showed assault. It was never accused in the first place. Falling for the okie doke just like they want you to.

I said it before when this biased YouTuber was brought up and I'll say it again: think for yourselves. This dude is trying to rope in the emotional, anti-accuser types over this topic (with his "cancelled" thumbnail wording) and leaves a ton of things out so he can get clicks from people needing an echo chamber. Those needing the echo chamber know Irvin has huge holes in his case when it comes to this video at least. It literally went almost exactly how Marriott laid out the scenario physically, right down to Irvin slapping himself and needing to be shown which way the elevators were.

I really haven't followed this all that closely so I don't know the nitty gritty details.

But when people say "he didn't assault her" knowing that Marriott or the victim never claimed assault, that's quite the strawman and really calls into question how honest the poster is being here with this.

 

[MarcusRock]

Funny you tell people to think for themselves yet you act as if your view of each witness is the gospel.....

Either way, I find it pretty piss poor that the NFL and Marriott didn't take the time to interview any of the gentlemen that were literally right there.

I don't act like anything. I opine. If folks have a counter-argument, I welcome it because I love a good debate and this case is providing plenty during the offseason. I also don't deny the truth I can see with my own eyes whether here or with controversial plays during the season. So again, if this witness isn't discredited by Irvin's own words, show me how. When taking a viewpoint requires ignoring plain evidence to the contrary, it's a slant. And I'm all over a slant like a DB with max wingspan wearing stickum. Lol.

 

[MarcusRock]

I really haven't followed this all that closely so I don't know the nitty gritty details.

But when people say "he didn't assault her" knowing that Marriott or the victim never claimed assault, that's quite the strawman and really calls into question how honest the poster is being here with this.

Well, that's Irvin's team's okie doke. They know the target audience they're after and so does this YouTuber, deception or not. Just get people in their feels and you're on your way. I said it in another thread but Irvin's lawyer at least sensationalized the footage this last presser and flat out lied several times in his previous presser while pushing the "sexual assault" angle that no one accused Irvin of. People who have the truth on their side don't need to do that.

 

[StarGazer1]

Unlike you I'm a virgin!!!!

Are you braggin' or complainin'?

 

[Creeper]

First, this guy is a very credible witness. Not only is he articulate but he does not offer more information than he witnessed. For example, he says he didn't notice the manager. Had he said he did, it would seem odd that he was focusing on Irvin and the woman, while at the same time noticing the manager's behavior.

Having said that, his value as a witness is somewhat limited by the fact that he did not hear the conversation between Irvin and the woman. He is basing his opinions on body language and apparent demeanor of Irvin and the woman. But was can see this for ourselves in the video. However, his testimony regarding the reaction of the woman is somewhat relevant since he claims he did not notice a change in her mood after the conversation. Also, he stated several times Irvin emphasized he was tired and wanted to go to bed for the night. This too may be helpful to Irvin because it is circumstantial evidence Irvin was on on the prowl for women at the time he entered the hotel.

One thing that I am curious about. This witness claims after the conversation the woman went back to work as if nothing had happened. Yet we know the manager took her aside somewhere for some reason. This is a bit of a contradiction Marriott's attorney's may drill down on.

It is also interesting that he said Irvin did not appear drunk, even though Irvin said he was drunk. Of course Irvin could have been exaggerating the level of inebriation. In my past there were times when I had a few but I was able to carry on a lucid conversation with people so this may not be a big deal.

One major point in Irvin's favor is neither the NFL or ESPN interviewed this guy. If the NFL sent an investigator to the hotel, why wouldn't they look for witnesses in what is clearly a he said - she said case? Even if this guy knows nothing, the NFL should have at least asked him what he knows. Maybe they interviewed other witnesses?

I don't drink anymore. I gave it up years ago after being diagnosed with Chronic Kidney Disease. Yet I have gone to bars with my friends. They drank, I had something without alcohol. So that is not a big deal to me.

I want to hear from the other guy in the white hat. I think his testimony will be more relevant. I want to hear from the NFL and ESPN. I also want to hear from Marriott's employees who were on the scene that night.

I still think this case will eventually be settled or dismissed. I don't think a jury will be able to determine who said what. And I also think it may not matter. If the NFL testifies that they didn't draw any conclusion from their investigation but decided Irvin should be put on ice as a precaution in case more facts came to light they would be well within their rights to do so. They can do what they want with their employees. We have seen that before.

 

[ChuckA1]

I wasn't there and based on this and other threads, the video "proof" can be interpreted different ways. Either way, it just seems the penalty doesn't fit the crime.

 

[Cowboysheelsreds058]

Saw were the Marriott was distancing themselves from the Renaissance hotel there in AZ on YouTube.

 

[Reid1boys]

Point is he had some drinks, I'm not a drinker at all. I've seen people that have been drunk and know that you can say anything. I'm not doubting something sexual could have been said, I'm just not!

I guess you just dismissed the non drinking WITNESS that spent several minutes with Irvin that said he was not intoxicated in the slightest.........smh

 

[Reid1boys]

Funny you tell people to think for themselves yet you act as if your view of each witness is the gospel.....

Either way, I find it pretty piss poor that the NFL and Marriott didn't take the time to interview any of the gentlemen that were literally right there.

that guy is nuts... this witness is about as credible as a witness as you could possibly have. Doesnt drink, Eagles fan, spoke with irvin for minutes just prior to the exchange, within earshot.... what more could you want?

 

[Reid1boys]

on.

It is also interesting that he said Irvin did not appear drunk, even though Irvin said he was drunk. Of course Irvin could have been exaggerating the level of inebriation. In my past there were times when I had a few but I was able to carry on a lucid conversation with people so this may not be a big deal.

Not once did Irvin say he was "Drunk."He said he had a few drinks... I can have 5,6 drinks over the course of several hours and not even have a buzz.

 

[Creeper]

Not once did Irvin say he was "Drunk."He said he had a few drinks... I can have 5,6 drinks over the course of several hours and not even have a buzz.

I thought he said he had enough alcohol so that he could not remember the conversation with the woman? Perhaps he did not use the word drunk but he certainly implied he was drinking tot he point of losing clarity in his memory.

 

[Coogiguy03]

I guess you just dismissed the non drinking WITNESS that spent several minutes with Irvin that said he was not intoxicated in the slightest.........smh

That could not be telling the truth