Michael Irvin witness more in depth interview

CowboyFrog

Well-Known Member
Messages
12,334
Reaction score
11,287
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.
this is kinda where Im at also, everyone is pointing at her, hell this could be the manager's doing we dont know.
 

Haimerej

Well-Known Member
Messages
5,083
Reaction score
6,776
She was obviously not supposed to be in the bar area.
This is nothing but a lawyer's storytelling.

We have no idea why the guy was "upset." Maybe he was finishing his shift and had to tell her something. We don't even know if he was upset. He could be... flamboyant... iykwim.

Further, Mike said he had to tell this girl what shows he was on. There's absolutely nothing in the video showing she even acknowledged him. She's looking straight ahead as she disappears behind the pillar. I don't buy the, "she wanted to meet a celebrity," thing. He's as much a celebrity as any other person the NFL put up in that hotel for the week.
 

Diehardblues

Well-Known Member
Messages
58,152
Reaction score
38,759
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.
Great questions.

What if Irvin wasn’t willing to leave on his own? And why NFL representatives were called in. And they may have already been there in hotel.

There’s so much we don’t know. We’ve only seen a couple excerpts from complaint which appeared very damaging sexual innuendos which are too graphic to provide which most would see as inappropriate, especially from a personality and man like Irvin.

Was any of this really enough to take the action they did. Or is this more about Irvin having a watch on him. Did the NFL already have a warning out on Irvin in case he had any missteps as such. And the Marriott was instructed to contact them if were any situations . We really don’t know anything.

But if everyone sees these excerpts we’re unable to share here then I think more would at least be understanding why the hotel and NFL hit the caution button with Irvin’s history until a further investigation was conducted.
 

CouchCoach

Staff member
Messages
41,122
Reaction score
74,959
CowboysZone ULTIMATE Fan
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.
The most interesting part of that to me it was the hotel's lawyer that brought up the NFL being contacted and sending their investigator and everything that followed. They felt they were doing the right thing.

This cannot be the customary practice of this hotel or they would not still be in business. Even the police do not notify the employer without extenuating circumstances for people they arrest.

So, I am left with one of three scenarios. The NFL had a standing order with every hotel to be called under any circumstances involving their employees or Irvin refused to leave and they called in his employer because they are paying for the room.. The third is they called to report the room change and the NFL decided to drill down on the reason, then got involved.
 

CouchCoach

Staff member
Messages
41,122
Reaction score
74,959
CowboysZone ULTIMATE Fan
When Irvin first became aware of what the hotel was doing, what do you think he did?

He's got people at NFLN and if some got wind of this, they would have called him.

What if the NFL investigator came to see if she could help him? What if once she discovered this was he said/she said and watched the video, thought the best thing was just to remove him from the situation. But she did call others in on this because I do not think she had the authority.

If I could ask the NFLN/NFL one question, it would be when did you decide to send him home and why?

I know, broken record here, but that call in broke the story, the woman and hotel weren't talking and the NFL still hasn't said anything. The NFL could use his call in as the justification for sending him home with nothing decided about guilty or not. They may not see the crime if he said what she said he did, the crime to them was going public.

Think a jury would blame anyone but Irvin for that? Few knew until he decided to break his own story and used drinking as an excuse for not knowing. And you can bet the Marriott lawyer will ask Irvin about who the "we" was when he mentioned hiding out to wait and see what's happening. Was that "we" Irvin and the NFL trying to run damage control?

And the other thing, among many, that we do not know is did they tell him to lay low until they could figure this out and he weirded out with that crazy call in and this blew up in his face?

Is that why he and his lawyer have steered way clear of the NFL in this? They may already have their built in defense if he decides to sue them.
 

Reality

Staff member
Messages
31,165
Reaction score
72,320
CowboysZone ULTIMATE Fan
The most interesting part of that to me it was the hotel's lawyer that brought up the NFL being contacted and sending their investigator and everything that followed. They felt they were doing the right thing.

This cannot be the customary practice of this hotel or they would not still be in business. Even the police do not notify the employer without extenuating circumstances for people they arrest.

So, I am left with one of three scenarios. The NFL had a standing order with every hotel to be called under any circumstances involving their employees or Irvin refused to leave and they called in his employer because they are paying for the room.. The third is they called to report the room change and the NFL decided to drill down on the reason, then got involved.
All of those are possible :D

And any of them would help Marriott quite a bit.
 

LovinItAll

Well-Known Member
Messages
1,766
Reaction score
1,842
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.


What? Dude said he was there for a meeting. He was in an open lobby/bar at a hotel. I don’t drink, but it’s absolutely a place that I would be in if I was staying in the hotel.
 

Reid1boys

Well-Known Member
Messages
12,863
Reaction score
10,912
What? Dude said he was there for a meeting. He was in an open lobby/bar at a hotel. I don’t drink, but it’s absolutely a place that I would be in if I was staying in the hotel.
Im sorry, we havent met. Let me introduce myself. My name is sarcasm, Mr. Obvious Sarcasm.
 

DandyDon52

Well-Known Member
Messages
22,623
Reaction score
16,514
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.
irvin brought up the cte in the 2nd presser where they showed the video I think.
He said the nfl thought he might have cte issues.
 
Top