News: PFT: Judge finds Marriott blatantly violated court order

[kskboys]

it doesnt become what her motive is... it comes down to is it true or not. WITNESSES strangely were never mentioned for her until yesterday.

At this point, the Marriott appears to be very very shady.

 

[kskboys]

Poor Michael. Nowadays you shant even tell a woman how much she is desired and how much of a man he can be. No leering, no dirty talk, no propositions. The world is no fun, Michael.

The wifey could sue me many many times over!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[sacase]

If his lawyer is smart, he will make it much more about the hotel's response and leave her out of it. Unless he has to prove she's lying to the jury, then it becomes what's her motive?

Motive is not something he has to prove. Why do you keep saying that? Go look up the elements.

 

[cristglo]

They have been added pieces to it as they go public. First it is inappropriate and they add harassing to that and then they get specific with what he said and have a witness to the end of the conversation.

What did the investigator from the NFL find that warranted the decision to escort him out of the hotel? And according to the new timeline decided pretty quickly, Tuesday, to send him home but as of that call into 105.3 Wednesday morning, Irvin didn't know or he wasn't forthcoming with it.

And let's not forget this was SB week for the NFL and NFLN and no one was in the mood to handle this stuff.

The added information contradicts the eyewitness
According to the witness, the said they shook hands and she walked back behind the counter.
In her statement to Marriot, two co-workers saw the look on her face and went to her. If all of her statements were correct why delay it? The Video was in a public place so no rights were violated.
My theory is this was an overblown reaction that they had to find a way to spin it.

 

[cristglo]

Read the accounts again CC. There were 2 interactions according to Marriott. Irvin's witnesses said Mike was headed to the elevators and a woman called to him and Mike walked back. Marriott claims Irvin called to the accuser to talk to her and then they moved to an area in the lobby. Then they say a second staffer walked to Mike to talk to him and then Mike went to the elevators. So according to Marriott, there's video of 2 separate encounters with staff in a short period. Someone is being shady/not forthcoming with their side of events for sure.

I will have to go back and read this I must have missed the two videos of the encounter. Wonder why his witness didn't see this if it all happened in 1:15?

 

[cristglo]

Well, I suppose that's a start. Here's my counterargument. One of the witnesses, I think it was the Australian, said that he did not hear anything derogatory.



Perhaps but that doesn't change the timeline that he turned down a drink from the witnesses, who then took a picture with him, and then the alleged victim approached him, is how I understand the timeline. The question then is what was said. One of the witnesses says that he didn't think anything that was said was derogatory. I don't know what was said, but the witness thinks that whatever was said wasn't vile, so, I'm inclined to think that it may have been either a miscommunication or she took something he said way out of proportion. Either way, I'm doubtful that it was anything rising to level of harassment.

Just wanted to add to the harassment
In order to be harassed it has to be more than one incident.

 

[cristglo]

so police are called..... exactly what would they do? What crime do you think was committed? Ifs and butts... or something like that......

If they had him removed because they felt she was threatened by the statement I will come back when you are at work then police should have been contacted as a view threat.

 

[DandyDon52]

I will have to go back and read this I must have missed the two videos of the encounter. Wonder why his witness didn't see this if it all happened in 1:15?

cristi, is that irvin in your avatar ??
put that on a t shirt and send it to him. He can wear it at his next PC.

Unless he can clearly prove he didnt, his TV days are over.

 

[DandyDon52]

ahhh.... lets at least get it straight for those casually observing.

Irvin's lawyer said Mike had a water in his hand in the HOTEL LOBBY when all of this went down. They didnt say at anytime he drank water all night. Get it right if you are going to relay what others said.

with all the lies and speculation, I doubt anyone has it "right"
At the first of all this mike had a few drinks, and that usually refers to liquor not water.
Then later it was he was only drinking water.

 

[DandyDon52]

well what else could have happened besides what I described? It had to ONLY BE WORDS, because NOBODY, even Marriotts own lawyers have said Mike groped or fondled her. So this much I think we can all agree on, there was zero sexual touching that took place. Would you agree with that? If so, then all that leaves are words, and this conversation was 90 seconds long..... what else could he have said that is any worse than what I described? And all that is, is a man trying to pick up a woman. Hardly a crime.

I forget now but in the 2nd Marriot release they said he grabbed her arm.
now is it a crime ? .......no
can it get him fired from tv job ......yes
And I dont make the rules, that is just how it is when you work for big networks. better stay squeaky clean !

 

[gtb1943]

I forget now but in the 2nd Marriot release they said he grabbed her arm.
now is it a crime ? .......no
can it get him fired from tv job ......yes
And I dont make the rules, that is just how it is when you work for big networks. better stay squeaky clean !

no evidence at all that he grabbed her arm but you seem to think there is

 

[CouchCoach]

it doesnt become what her motive is... it comes down to is it true or not. WITNESSES strangely were never mentioned for her until yesterday.

Lots of things weren't mentioned until they decided to talk.

Motive matters to people because they need to have a plausible why. What would she have to gain by lying about it?

The lawyer is trying to make Irvin out to be the only victim in this, he's goes after her, now there are two and which is the more sympathetic and easier to pull for by the public? And this is all about the public and their perception.

And Irvin did himself no favors with that press conference, even to other black people that might be sympathetic.

 

[sacase]

Lots of things weren't mentioned until they decided to talk.

Motive matters to people because they need to have a plausible why. What would she have to gain by lying about it?

The lawyer is trying to make Irvin out to be the only victim in this, he's goes after her, now there are two and which is the more sympathetic and easier to pull for by the public? And this is all about the public and their perception.

And Irvin did himself no favors with that press conference, even to other black people that might be sympathetic.

To prove prima facie defamation, a plaintiff must show four things: 1) a false statement purporting to be fact; 2) publication or communication of that statement to a third person; 3) fault amounting to at least negligence; and 4) damages, or some harm caused to the reputation of the person or entity who is the subject of the statement.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/def...ma facie defamation,entity who is the subject

No where in there does it mention motive.

 

[Captain-Crash]

at this point, irvin seems to be very, very, very, very shady. Can't remember what he said, he proclaim he was drinking, was in hiding and told the victim he would return later to find her. nope, nothing to see here, just the usual harassment from somebody who thinks he's special.

 

[speedkilz88]

with all the lies and speculation, I doubt anyone has it "right"
At the first of all this mike had a few drinks, and that usually refers to liquor not water.
Then later it was he was only drinking water.

Mike had drinks with a dinner he had with former safety Michael Brooks at a restaurant. He then spoke to fans at the hotel bar where he only drank club soda and refused free drinks that were offered telling them he had to work in the morning.

 

[Merlin]

Irvin did himself no favors with that press conference, even to other black people that might be sympathetic.

Now you know how Black people feel? Please stop!

 

[CouchCoach]

Talk about an unforced error by a big corporation. 88 is due a pay day here and apology from those losers at the NFL.

Certainly makes this more interesting with the NFL sending their investigator and then calling for a NFL escort for him.

What do they suspect? What do they know? Are they keeping him on ice awaiting the outcome and how this all looks?

At no time during the pc's with his lawyer and/or Irvin has what been said by either Irvin or the woman been addressed. The touching was addressed and seems to be something to watch.

Have you asked yourself why? Why hasn't anything in the form of a defense been mentioned by the plaintiff and his lawyer about what Irvin remembers about what was said? Is he going to continue the approach of amnesia about the entire encounter? They talk all around it but not about it.

 

[CouchCoach]

To prove prima facie defamation, a plaintiff must show four things: 1) a false statement purporting to be fact; 2) publication or communication of that statement to a third person; 3) fault amounting to at least negligence; and 4) damages, or some harm caused to the reputation of the person or entity who is the subject of the statement.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/defamation#:~:text=To prove prima facie defamation,entity who is the subject

No where in there does it mention motive.

Not talking about the technical aspects of the suit, I am talking about the human side and humans ask why a lot more than who, what, where, when and how.

Anyone sitting on that jury would wonder why would she lie about this, what does she have to gain?

And they will consider the character and pasts of these individuals.

 

[Reid1boys]

Lots of things weren't mentioned until they decided to talk.

Motive matters to people because they need to have a plausible why. What would she have to gain by lying about it?

The lawyer is trying to make Irvin out to be the only victim in this, he's goes after her, now there are two and which is the more sympathetic and easier to pull for by the public? And this is all about the public and their perception.

And Irvin did himself no favors with that press conference, even to other black people that might be sympathetic.

what was this woman's motive?
false claims

 

[Reid1boys]

I forget now but in the 2nd Marriot release they said he grabbed her arm.
now is it a crime ? .......no
can it get him fired from tv job ......yes
And I dont make the rules, that is just how it is when you work for big networks. better stay squeaky clean !

can we agree there is a difference between grabbing and touching someone's arm? Not saying which happened here, but a difference , yes?