Michael Irvin witness more in depth interview

Reid1boys

Well-Known Member
Messages
12,863
Reaction score
10,912
That could not be telling the truth
ahhh..... so a witness that has zero to gain here, does not know either party and you quickly say HE could maybe not be telling the truth. Yet yoy assume everyting that has come from Marriott or the employee is 100% accurate????

So if the other 2 guys that took pictures with Mike outside, and the last guy that supposedly is a Marriott employee all say Mike did not appear intoxicated to them, would they all be "Not telling the truth?"

Does the video show a guy stumbling in his walking?
 

MarcusRock

Well-Known Member
Messages
14,946
Reaction score
17,472
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?
You could want for a witness to not change his story. Why does no one address what I say clearly discredits him? If you have to ignore facts to say your story is legit, your story is not legit.

I'm not nuts, I'm simply right. Just like when I break out video and pull the rulebook. Even then people just repeat their spiels to hope it'll become truth by repetition. Lol.
 

Reid1boys

Well-Known Member
Messages
12,863
Reaction score
10,912
You could want for a witness to not change his story. Why does no one address what I say clearly discredits him? If you have to ignore facts to say your story is legit, your story is not legit. I'm not nuts, I'm simply right. Just like when I break out video and pull the rulebook. Even then people just repeat their spiels to hope it'll become truth by repetition. Lol.
because we get sick of you assuming things you want and dismissing other stuff. Im not sure why I answered you. We have discussed it enough.... you and myself, that is. No need for more.....
 

glimmerman

Well-Known Member
Messages
30,561
Reaction score
30,276
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.
A lot of money up. It’s he said she said. If he loses his job he will file against NFLN. Guessing this is why he isn’t letting it go. If he is “proven” innocent he either keeps his job or sues.
 

MarcusRock

Well-Known Member
Messages
14,946
Reaction score
17,472
because we get sick of you assuming things you want and dismissing other stuff. Im not sure why I answered you. We have discussed it enough.... you and myself, that is. No need for more.....
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.

And yes, you don't want to answer me because it was you that said if the video comes out and it's true Irvin slapped himself like Marriott said he did, he'd be "cooked." Then when the evidence showed he did and you were asked about your comment you changed your story, saying things were "different." So yeah, you do keep your distance for obvious reasons.
 

Haimerej

Well-Known Member
Messages
5,083
Reaction score
6,776
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.
Not to mention she's looking straight ahead as she walks behind the pillar, not looking at Mike.
 

gtb1943

Well-Known Member
Messages
6,350
Reaction score
6,563
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.

And yes, you don't want to answer me because it was you that said if the video comes out and it's true Irvin slapped himself like Marriott said he did, he'd be "cooked." Then when the evidence showed he did and you were asked about your comment you changed your story, saying things were "different." So yeah, you do keep your distance for obvious reasons.
Your so called questions are actually statements of your so called 'facts' that you want people to blindly go along with.

Bottom line here is that the so called evidence does not line up with what Marriott claimed. You hate Irvin; we get that. Now you are in mourning because you GOT NOTHING.
 

Smith22

Well-Known Member
Messages
6,689
Reaction score
1,327
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.
My guess is they didn't step away, they simply put you on ignore because you come across as a pompous donkey.
 

Haimerej

Well-Known Member
Messages
5,083
Reaction score
6,776
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
The guy who never met Mike before and doesn't know his baseline. What are we to make of Mike saying he didn't remember because he had some drinks?
 

MarcusRock

Well-Known Member
Messages
14,946
Reaction score
17,472
Not to mention she's looking straight ahead as she walks behind the pillar, not looking at Mike.
That's the other thing people need to ignore to keep their story going. If you recognize the guy and are looping around the pillar, why would you not wait at the entrance of the bar and let him keep walking towards you or walk straight to him to say hello to him if it was your plan to engage him and not dip behind the pillar not looking only to turn then and call out? And why did he shake her hand if it was her wanting to meet him because she knew who he was? None of it adds up to what this witness initially said. And the data was allegedly fresher in his mind then. More questions you won't see addressed.
 

MarcusRock

Well-Known Member
Messages
14,946
Reaction score
17,472
Your so called questions are actually statements of your so called 'facts' that you want people to blindly go along with.

Bottom line here is that the so called evidence does not line up with what Marriott claimed. You hate Irvin; we get that. Now you are in mourning because you GOT NOTHING.
You mad? Lol.

The people who got nothing are the ones who make this about me rather than addressing the points I make for obvious reasons. You in particular, fanboi. Forget whatever scars you bear at my expense. Get in the ring and discuss the points instead of yapping complaints from the sidelines like a toy dog.
 

MarcusRock

Well-Known Member
Messages
14,946
Reaction score
17,472
My guess is they didn't step away, they simply put you on ignore because you come across as a pompous donkey.
Could not care in the slightest if that's the case. Admitting the point / silence is the same. Kudos to those that can admit points though. That's rare.
 

glimmerman

Well-Known Member
Messages
30,561
Reaction score
30,276
The guy who never met Mike before and doesn't know his baseline. What are we to make of Mike saying he didn't remember because he had some drinks?
Was the worst thing he could have said IMO. He calls into a radio show and talks about it before it even gets out. I think he has been in a mess over something like this before. Maybe he said something wrong or maybe she was trying to set him up. For all we know she made an offer to him and he shot her down and after she walked away he is slapping himself in the face to stay strong and not cheat on his wife. Or could be the other way around.

She was obviously not supposed to be in the bar area. That’s why the manager was so mad. My wife was director of security for a Disney resort for years. When celebs come in they frown on employees bothering them. But there is usually one or 2 that don’t listen. They get written up. She seemed like she wanted to get in his eye sight but was hidden from our view. Then stepped out in hall way to be in camera view and away from people that could hear. She didn’t seem offended by anything he said but could have been acting professional except the little foot kick at the end. Who knows.
 

Reality

Staff member
Messages
31,165
Reaction score
72,320
CowboysZone ULTIMATE Fan
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.
 

MarcusRock

Well-Known Member
Messages
14,946
Reaction score
17,472
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.
I don't think it's anti-Irvin bias to examine what's out there to this point to determine what's true. And what's out there are two press conferences by Irvin's lawyer and this video they've wanted out there and Marriott's motions, one of which described their account of the situation. If you're more public, what you say is going to be scrutinized more (especially if you lie while doing it). I said if Marriott defied the judge's order on releasing the video they should get slapped for that and they did. Now that it's out it needs to be picked apart for supporting or working against the two accounts.

For this witness, video proves he didn't see what he said he saw (the woman walking up to Irvin). Plus, Irvin's own statement corroborated what Marriott said about the woman not being familiar with him and proves the witness didn't hear what he said he heard (the woman calling out Irvin by name to start the convo). Again, I'm no law guy but if you misremembered something this bad you could have easily misremembered other things. And this guy is apparently involved in media so that might be a motive to be "out there" with this.

For Marriott's part, I too have said that now this case comes down to their reporting by their own rules and whether it was sloppy or not. As soon as that's out there, it can be picked apart for what it was. All we have at this point is that Marriott claims the NFL asked them to alert of any problems with their guests. Is that customary in the industry is a good question that someone else asked and I agreed with that needing to be answered. But beyond the overview of what happened, we're only at the point of seeing the video and what it says about the two accounts out there so far. And I think I've done pretty well considering there are those who'd rather discuss me than the case, lol.

As for the Target example, is that in my contract while I'm at work for my employer that I have a behavior clause that could allow 3rd parties to monitor me? If I were a driver it could while I'm out driving for the company. What do media folk have in their contract clauses about "conduct detrimental" or asking other parties? I've said that I think Irvin's fight is with the NFL but is it in his contract that they could ask others to report on bad behavior? Would like to see the contract. The NFL isn't a defendant that I know of so can it even come out this trial?
 
Last edited:

DandyDon52

Well-Known Member
Messages
22,623
Reaction score
16,514
Marriott never claimed assault, only harassment
My take on it is they claimed he verbally harassed her.
And since there is no audio we can never know what was said.
It would be inappropriate behavior for a tv personality connected to espn and nfl network, and the nfl itself , if it was true.

The nfl and espn are the ones that " punished him " by removing him from hotel, and from his jobs, marriott etc had nothing to do with that.
They were protecting their image just in case it was true. The nfl removed him as they thought he might be having a "CTE " event so moved him
to another hotel and had people observing him.

The thing I still find odd is the manager guy calling the girl to him then taking her somewhere. that was odd, because he was too far
away to hear anything unless irvin was talking loud enough for him to hear.

She walked out supposedly to go to work in bar area? took a odd route to right of pillar only to go back inside, why not go to left of pillar??
Then she never gets to where she was going because manager guy takes her somewhere.

The other thing is if irvin isnt a little drunk, why does he not know where the elevators are?? A 10 year old could find the elevators lol.

However as I said before neither side can prove their case if their is no audio. Or a different camera that shows the event much better and closer.

I wonder if Irvin somehow made goodell or some bigshot mad (in some other instance) and so they set this up to tarnish him and get him off espn and nfl network.
It does kinda look like a setup, and Irvin fell for the bait quite easily lol.
 

DandyDon52

Well-Known Member
Messages
22,623
Reaction score
16,514
To be clear, I am not dismissing what she is claiming
Do we really know what "she" is claiming ?? We have not heard from her or even seen any text of her actual claims.
Was she told to make this complaint? She has been isolated for her protection, and I get that (crazy irvin fans) and media.
But to me she didnt look offended, was going back to work, until the manager guy took her aside to do what??

Without audio we cant know what was said, but I think the woman could be being blamed unfairly, and something else was afoot.

If a woman was really offended would she not go to her manager to tel him? and she didnt do that, he called her over and took her somewhere.
There are signs that point to this whole thing being set up , and someone with some clout wanted to do this to Irving.
Maybe for some other incident where he made the wrong person mad at him.
 

MarcusRock

Well-Known Member
Messages
14,946
Reaction score
17,472
My take on it is they claimed he verbally harassed her.
And since there is no audio we can never know what was said.
It would be inappropriate behavior for a tv personality connected to espn and nfl network, and the nfl itself , if it was true.

The nfl and espn are the ones that " punished him " by removing him from hotel, and from his jobs, marriott etc had nothing to do with that.
They were protecting their image just in case it was true. The nfl removed him as they thought he might be having a "CTE " event so moved him
to another hotel and had people observing him.

The thing I still find odd is the manager guy calling the girl to him then taking her somewhere. that was odd, because he was too far
away to hear anything unless irvin was talking loud enough for him to hear.

She walked out supposedly to go to work in bar area? took a odd route to right of pillar only to go back inside, why not go to left of pillar??
Then she never gets to where she was going because manager guy takes her somewhere.

The other thing is if irvin isnt a little drunk, why does he not know where the elevators are?? A 10 year old could find the elevators lol.

However as I said before neither side can prove their case if their is no audio. Or a different camera that shows the event much better and closer.

I wonder if Irvin somehow made goodell or some bigshot mad (in some other instance) and so they set this up to tarnish him and get him off espn and nfl network.
It does kinda look like a setup, and Irvin fell for the bait quite easily lol.
Well we knew it was only a verbal thing from the beginning because Irvin said so on the radio interview he did. I think his lawyer tried to say assault to distract from that to make it seem like an unjust accusation while at the same time drawing in those who haven't been paying attention as part of an anti-accuser backlash wave to boost Irvin's image rehab. I do think Irvin is suing the wrong party but if he still works for the NFL and is being paid by them then that gets messy. I think Marriott is only on the hook if their reporting is messy.

Yes, audio would be the door slam shut piece of evidence we want but the only one with a case to prove is the plaintiff. So far, did the video more closely match one's side than the other's? I think if you have to avoid inconsistencies or things that happened altogether to say you have a case, that speaks to a weak case so far.

This is the first I've heard about CTE, lol. And I doubt there is a conspiracy to do Irvin in. There'd be better ways to go at it than this, plus they got a sponsor involved so that would be doubly messy.
 
Top