What am I dismissing? I never dismiss and address all asked of me even if concessions need to be made by me. I simply want the truth no matter what it is. Why do people get mad when you point out irregularities that if reversed, they'd ride 'til the cows come home as absolute proof? You and the other pro-Irvins love to make this about me instead of actually addressing the questions I bring up. Because you know they're good points and can't gainsay them. At least others have the decency to step away when shown the truth and not continue the charade because they can't admit a good point.
I am genuinely someone who does not care either way who is right as long as the truth comes out.
That said, I can objectively see how your anti-Irvin bias is just as bad as the pro-Irvin bias exhibited by other people.
I have my opinions, but they are based on what we know so far.
I believe the witnesses saw what they saw. That does not mean they know what was said or know the whole story as it is just their reiteration of what they saw from a distance. Given that neither is a Cowboys fan though, I do tend to believe their descriptions of what they saw (not heard of course).
As someone watching this story unfold, it does make me question why the guy in this interview keeps putting himself in the spotlight. At some point, that increases the odds he will say something contradictory or he might exaggerate in some way that the defense can use to discredit him.
I get why Irvin was removed from the hotel. If an employee tells their supervisor that a customer/client said something vulgar or offensive to them, I fully expect the supervisor to act on that information and request the person leave the premises.
I do not get why the hotel felt the need to contact the NFL immediately, especially when the police were not contacted nor a criminal complaint filed.
The fact that the hotel proactively took that action makes them liable unless they can prove (or convince) a judge/jury that what was allegedly said was in fact actually said and that it was bad enough to warrant contacting the NFL.
I mean think about it .. how would you feel if you were in Target and you bumped into someone and Target called your employer and told them you were assaulting people in the store and then it became national news with your face plastered on countless sites under a negative headline and your employer suspended you?
It seems to me that immediately evicting him from the hotel and even banning him from staying there in the future would have been the best way to handle the situation.
To be clear, I am not dismissing what she is claiming, but Marriott proactively contacting the NFL, especially that quick, seems excessive considering the employee was not affected or impacted enough to file a criminal complaint.