News: PFT: Judge finds Marriott blatantly violated court order

[RustyBourneHorse]

Dam, this is legit?

If there are other hotel employees that can corroborate this, Irvin is done.

Highly doubt it. Consider the source. From what I've heard, he did not consume alcohol. In fact, he allegedly refused an alcoholic beverage from one of the two eyewitnesses because he had work the next morning. So, if he wasn't having alcohol from the witnesses, why would he have had alcohol a few minutes before? The logic does not fit.

 

[RustyBourneHorse]

And yet here we are, the argument returns, and no one I see in this thread ever questions if this might have been the woman and her friend concocting this story from whole cloth.

My suspicions are the legal team and Irvin were not going to tip their hand in case this went to trial. Thus they didn't show the video.

Marriott is the deep pockets in this case and since Irvin went after them, the idea she suddenly had a witness that was not heretofore mentioned, it lends a pall over this entire thing for me.

I don't believe this will see a court of law. A settlement will be arranged. If so, the ones seeking the settlement will demand the case stay closed to the public. If there is not a subsequent law suit by the woman against Irvin, that will tell the take.

Exactly, I expect there will be a settlement reached soon.

 

[JJ1986]

This is now reading like a romantic novel:

“Irvin also reached out and touched the Victim’s arm during this conversation without her consent, causing her to step back, becoming visibly uncomfortable,” the filing continued. “Irvin then asked the Victim whether she knew anything about having a ‘big Black man inside of [her].

 

[CouchCoach]

According to you. And we already know how you feel. How do you know what kind of drinks he had or if they had any alcohol? Could have been beer or root beer. You don't know.

According to me? He was moved Monday morning and showed up on 105.3 Wednesday morning, that is according to the released information and we know when he did the stroy break on 105.3 and what was said.

Last time I looked beer was alcohol, root beer, not alcohol.

I have no idea what he did, he's the one using that as his excuse for not remembering. But it will not surprise me if the Marriott lawyers find out exactly what he had and how many. Don't you think his lawyer was a little too emphatic on him drinking water at the hotel? Just like he was on Irvin touched her "briefly".

And so far, neither Irvin or his lawyer has addressed what was said in the 1.5 minute conversation that doubled in time and the number of touches from the previous statement.

Man, I haven't hidden what I think because I could easily see Irvin pulling that and more. However, that does not mean I know he did anything. However, when he hasn't said what he said, how can he say he didn't say that to her?

We can all speculate with every new release of information because none of us is going to be on the jury and it does not matter what we think.

 

[kskboys]

This thread is becoming a carbon copy of Dak threads. Simple reiterating previously stated ideas and beliefs.

Quite simply, this is now a waiting game. No use pretending to know something. We don't.

 

[RustyBourneHorse]

So hotel employees back it up, but the two witnesses for Mike said they were only feet away from the interaction say no such thing happened.. is he "done?"

Exactly, and, from what I read in the OP's article, the defence, in this case, Marriott has clearly violated a federal court order by not turning over the video. If this is the case, then I think that hampers the case that Marriott is trying to claim. It shows a lack of transparency towards a court and, as the case is currently in discovery, they must turn the evidence over to the plaintiff side. As they have not complied, allegedly, as of yet, I think the side of Irvin is looking a bit stronger. Yes, I know the tape won't show the audio. However, it's the fact that Marriott is allegedly not showing transparency that I think would hamper their credibility in making the argument of whatever it is that Irvin is accused of doing. That's at least where I stand with my opinion based on where things are at the moment.

 

[RustyBourneHorse]

and if they didnt make it up, its going to be CLEARLY in that video. Its that simple. And Marriott has plenty of reason to make stuff up. They are trying to save face. It wasnt corporate that kicked Mike out, it was some low level manager.

And the low-level manager, I'd presume, would probably have been let go if their claim is as weak as it seems to be given that they are allegedly stonewalling the release of the video.

 

[CouchCoach]

Highly doubt it. Consider the source. From what I've heard, he did not consume alcohol. In fact, he allegedly refused an alcoholic beverage from one of the two eyewitnesses because he had work the next morning. So, if he wasn't having alcohol from the witnesses, why would he have had alcohol a few minutes before? The logic does not fit.

Because after one has been drinking, it is customary to drink water to help flush the system and address dehydration to try and prevent hangover.......or so I've been told. Bunch of whiskey swilling louts, if you ask me.

If he lied about having drinks as his excuse to 105.3, what is he really hiding? If they discovered he'd had no alcohol that night yet used that as an excuse for memory lapse, would that not be a red flag?

Can he take the stand and say what he did say that night? Because neither he nor his lawyer has even broached that subject.

 

[Merlin]

According to me? He was moved Monday morning and showed up on 105.3 Wednesday morning, that is according to the released information and we know when he did the stroy break on 105.3 and what was said.

Last time I looked beer was alcohol, root beer, not alcohol.

I have no idea what he did, he's the one using that as his excuse for not remembering. But it will not surprise me if the Marriott lawyers find out exactly what he had and how many. Don't you think his lawyer was a little too emphatic on him drinking water at the hotel? Just like he was on Irvin touched her "briefly".

And so far, neither Irvin or his lawyer has address what was said in the 1.5 minute conversation that doubled in time and the number of touches from the previous statement.

Man, I haven't hidden what I think because I could easily see Irvin pulling that and more. However, that does not mean I know he did anything. However, when he hasn't said what he said, how can he say he didn't say that to her?

We can all speculate with every new release of information because none of us is going to be on the jury and it does not matter what we think.

My point was that drinks don't have to mean alcohol. People just assume that he was drunk. He could have had drinks that morning for all I know.

The witnesses have not described him as intoxicated to the best of my knowledge. Marriott is the only one that has and those allegations were not revealed until after the comments he made at his press conference. It was almost as if they were responding to that and not the night in question.

 

[kskboys]

Exactly, and, from what I read in the OP's article, the defence, in this case, Marriott has clearly violated a federal court order by not turning over the video. If this is the case, then I think that hampers the case that Marriott is trying to claim. It shows a lack of transparency towards a court and, as the case is currently in discovery, they must turn the evidence over to the plaintiff side. As they have not complied, allegedly, as of yet, I think the side of Irvin is looking a bit stronger. Yes, I know the tape won't show the audio. However, it's the fact that Marriott is allegedly not showing transparency that I think would hamper their credibility in making the argument of whatever it is that Irvin is accused of doing. That's at least where I stand with my opinion based on where things are at the moment.

Although I'm still refusing to take sides until I know more, I agree that at present The Marriot is not looking good in this case.

 

[RustyBourneHorse]

strangely, you seem to skip right over the part where the judge blasted Marriott for failing to follow along with his orders. If there are multiple videos, that would be covered in the judges order. Spin it how you want, Marriott looks foolish in this up to now. That video is going to come out tomorrow.... ah damn, even though the female employee may show her face. Apparently the judge didnt buy any of the garbage that was spewed on here in the past few days.

Not only that, but even if the tape(a) aren't going to show the audio, wouldn't it still be in Marriott's interest to turn the tapes over? Especially if they have a valid accusation of Michael Irvin? Yet, they've not turned the tapes over, and this is despite a judge's order. To me, Marriott's credibility in this matter is falling because they are not showing transparency in a situation where they were ordered to turn over potential evidence, which they'd have to do during discovery. Unless they have a stronger case, I think Marriott will probably settle and should settle the case.

 

[CouchCoach]

This thread is becoming a carbon copy of Dak threads. Simple reiterating previously stated ideas and beliefs.

Quite simply, this is now a waiting game. No use pretending to know something. We don't.

I beg your pardon, I have used pretending to know things to navigate these boards for decades.

And now at least we know what they say he said, just haven't heard from the other side about what he did or didn't say.

 

[RustyBourneHorse]

Although I'm still refusing to take sides until I know more, I agree that at present The Marriot is not looking good in this case.

Exactly. If the evidence was against Michael, I'd be saying so, and he even said during his press conference that he'd serve whatever consequence of an action that he actually did do, but he doesn't know of what they are accusing him. Plus, the actions of Marriott at this moment show to me that, whatever it is that they accused him of is flimsy at best. So, for now, I'd argue that Irvin has the stronger case unless Marriott can show proof.

 

[CouchCoach]

My point was that drinks don't have to mean alcohol. People just assume that he was drunk. He could have had drinks that morning for all I know.

The witnesses have not described him as intoxicated to the best of my knowledge. Marriott is the only one that has and those allegations were not revealed until after the comments he made at his press conference. It was almost as if they were responding to that and not the night in question.

I expected them to respond to the comments made in that pc and the fact he opened up Jim Crow, they responded with a black man coming onto a white woman. This has already gone places it should never have tread.

 

[kskboys]

Exactly. If the evidence was against Michael, I'd be saying so, and he even said during his press conference that he'd serve whatever consequence of an action that he actually did do, but he doesn't know of what they are accusing him. Plus, the actions of Marriott at this moment show to me that, whatever it is that they accused him of is flimsy at best. So, for now, I'd argue that Irvin has the stronger case unless Marriott can show proof.

Not only am I completely against any sort of abuse of women, I am absolutely incensed by it.

Up to this point, I have seen zero evidence that it happened in this case. Still waiting.

 

[CouchCoach]

Exactly. If the evidence was against Michael, I'd be saying so, and he even said during his press conference that he'd serve whatever consequence of an action that he actually did do, but he doesn't know of what they are accusing him. Plus, the actions of Marriott at this moment show to me that, whatever it is that they accused him of is flimsy at best. So, for now, I'd argue that Irvin has the stronger case unless Marriott can show proof.

Well, now he knows what they are accusing him of doing and saying.

 

[kskboys]

I expected them to respond to the comments made in that pc and the fact he opened up Jim Crow, they responded with a black man coming onto a white woman. This has already gone places it should never have tread.

That was disgusting by Irvin. Where was his publicist when he was going on about that unrelated diatribe? Ick.

 

[CouchCoach]

Not only am I completely against any sort of abuse of women, I am absolutely incensed by it.

Up to this point, I have seen zero evidence that it happened in this case. Still waiting.

You may never see conclusive evidence but they are now trying it in the court of public opinion. And you may never see that video.

 

[Merlin]

Well, now he knows what they are accusing him of doing and saying.

Let's see if the video supports any of this. The video they didn't turn over to the defense when the judge ordered.

 

[CouchCoach]

That was disgusting by Irvin. Where was his publicist when he was going on about that unrelated diatribe? Ick.

Yeah, I was a little shocked he took it in that direction and I would have liked to have seen the faces of the reporters when he started down that path.