News: PFT: Marriott tries to dismiss Michael Irvin's lawsuit, claims he made "harassing and inappropriate comments"

[MarcusRock]

It did not have to be a "scene" in order for the guy to have heard the conversation. You can hear without listening and we all know there are words in a conversation which convert us from overhearing to listening intently. Had Mike uttered one of those "trigger words" everybody within earshot would have gone on high alert looking for what happens next. Absent those words it becomes just a "polite, friendly conversation" that nobody gives a second thought 10 seconds after it ends. However had the opposite been true and there HAD been some acrimonious or improper words uttered dudes would have remembered ALL the details. And in fact would have spent the next half hour or so asking one another "Can you believe he said that? Can you believe she didn't slap him or kick him in the nuts?"

Well if you hear without listening or not intently, then you didn't hear everything and can't say that you did hear everything. Marriott's lawyers would be all over that one. Mike could have whispered the offensive part (because he knew it might be a trigger word(s) to which she just laughed off. Would it still look like a polite conversation in that case? Sure it would. Or the witness could have been listening for reactive words from her and didn't hear any, which again, if she didn't react in the moment, she would not have uttered. It still would have appeared to be a polite conversation.

I mention a "scene" because the witness was giving a description as if from a distance, so his speech and what he was "looking for" or didn't notice reflected that. If you're at a distance, you probably didn't hear everything which is why there were no details from him. These guys could have been plants from Irvin's team and didn't mention details on purpose but come court time there will need to be details or they're not offering a whole lot by what we know at this point.

 

[Reid1boys]

I heard these already and assessed them. The interviewer asked point blank if the guy heard what was said and he responded with "it was a positive, polite, friendly conversation." That's not an "I heard exactly what was said and here it is ...," it's an observation of how the conversation appeared which implies distance. The interviewer again asked if anything inappropriate was said and the guy does say, "No, not at all. There was a little bit of laughter, obviously a jovial conversation. Nothing untoward for me to actually take notice of what was going on." Wait. If he wasn't taking notice, how could he then have heard everything if he wasn't already taking notice. Again, the guy goes into a descriptive account rather than an "I heard everything" plus was looking for a scene to erupt to determine if Mike had done anything wrong. Again, I keep saying that a scene did not have to take place right then and there and that this was all about what was said, not the appearance of how things were said. Overall, this is a descriptive account of someone not within earshot but just observing an interaction from a distance.

If I'm Marriott's lawyers, the first thing I'm asking him is if he heard all the details of the conversation and to recount them. If not, then I zero in on his "No, not at all." statement to ask how he could make that determination when he didn't hear all the details of the conversation. Another thing the video can show is just how far away these witnesses were to determine if they could have possibly even heard what was said considering how many others were in that lobby and what was going on nearby.

no kidding... the guy that asked him wasnt a lawyer, he was a TMZ reporter. You are right, when a lawyer gets this, they will be specific. But because the guy didnt say EXACTLY word for word what was said you are quick to dismiss him. How much more clear does he need to be when he sad the conversation was polite and cordial? or does the guy then need to clarify what he means by polite and cordial? In court, yes, to TMZ, no.

 

[Diehardblues]

Let’s hope we don’t see Irvin on NFL network anymore. He was one of the reasons I stopped watching.

One of our greatest receivers but a blatant Homer analyst.

 

[MarcusRock]

no kidding... the guy that asked him wasnt a lawyer, he was a TMZ reporter. You are right, when a lawyer gets this, they will be specific. But because the guy didnt say EXACTLY word for word what was said you are quick to dismiss him. How much more clear does he need to be when he sad the conversation was polite and cordial? or does the guy then need to clarify what he means by polite and cordial? In court, yes, to TMZ, no.

I'm not dismissing but simply analyzing what's out there. If he didn't put details out there then that needs to be pointed out as well as how he described things, which appears to be from a distance. A polite and cordial appearance without hearing exactly what was said does not confirm an actual polite and cordial conversation as I've pointed out with her not needing to react in the moment. That is what I'm saying.

 

[T-RO]

Hope mike wins. Get that $$ from them my man.

I don't. Mike's got plenty of money. Don't care squat about Mike's pocketbook nor a flying rat's *** about Marriott's profits.

All this stuff does is drive up prices for consumers.

 

[Flamma]

No, Irvin just needs to show that they made reckless claims to his employer. They would need to prove that the claims were true.

I'm not following here. The people being sued never have to prove anything. All Irvin has to do is prove that more likely than not, the girl is lying. Get the 6 jurors, or however many there are, to believe she's lying. That's it.

 

[Captain-Crash]

I don't think this is about that. I think this is about him clearing his name for what sounds like an apparently and allegedly false accusation that was levied against him. I think that it's important that the truth about what happens comes out.

his dumb *** was moved because he's a pos. His name is crap, how do you clear that?

 

[RustyBourneHorse]

His legal team is Booger's lawyer and he did not show up until Irvin was back in Dallas. No lawyer worth his salt is having his client talk to the media, especially a loose cannon like Irvin.

This is a textbook he said/she said except for one thing, the plantiff said he didn't remember what he said on that call in to the radio show, no way any lawyer, even a bad one, is telling his client to do that.

Once the lawyer showed up, not another peep out of Irvin. Personally, I think the damage is done with Irvin talking before the lawyer got involved.

Perhaps, but, at the same time, I think it's odd that Marriott is stalling like they are with the video in terms of turning it over to the lawyers. They have a court order to turn it over, and they're stalling. That is suspicious to me in terms of what they have or not.

 

[RustyBourneHorse]

his dumb *** was moved because he's a pos. His name is crap, how do you clear that?

With what evidence? And 1. His name is fine and 2. It's a phrase that means make it clear that he didn't do what he's accused of. Last I checked, innocent until proven guilty. We don't know what happened on either side, but the evidence seems to be leaning towards Michael in terms of whose case is holds more water (to use a "My Cousin Vinny" reference). To me, the hotel's story doesn't hold water at the moment. Firstly, the witnesses say that the person of interest allegedly approached Michael. Michael and the witnesses allege that nothing out of the ordinary took place. So, unless evidence comes back, such as the video that the hotel is stalling on, to show Michael being at fault, I'd say the evidence so far is on Michael's side.

 

[Captain-Crash]

yeah, if Jeffery Dahmer was a great tight end who won three super bowls with the cowboys some homers would be saying, "I didn't see him eat anybody, I hope Jeffery sue's them into the poor house. Jeffery was one of my favorite players. I still have his atey ate number jersey." smh

 

[RustyBourneHorse]

Apparently he did sound off on 105.3 before consulting his legal team. As the lawsuit came later.

To be honest, I don't know what he said on 105.3. But, as I was saying to Crash, the evidence that I've seen so far leans in favour of Michael.

 

[RustyBourneHorse]

yeah, if Jeffery Dahmer was a great tight end who won three super bowls with the cowboys some homers would be saying, "I didn't see him eat anybody, I hope Jeffery sue's them into the poor house. Jeffery was one of my favorite players" smh

That's irrelevant. If the evidence showed that Michael did the activity that allegedly got him removed from the broadcasts, then I'd be saying that he should be held accountable. However, the evidence that I've seen and the behaviour of Marriott with them stalling seems to be indicating that Michael's case holds more water. Think about it logically. If you're a business, and you're being sued over a spat, wouldn't you turn over the evidence if it was clear that it would prove your case? The fact that we're nearly a month later the fact that Marriott is still stalling tells me that their case doesn't hold water.

 

[Captain-Crash]

To be honest, I don't know what he said on 105.3. But, as I was saying to Crash, the evidence that I've seen so far leans in favour of Michael.

the idiot doesn't know what he said to her. smh. "he's my favorite player" smh.

 

[Captain-Crash]

That's irrelevant. If the evidence showed that Michael did the activity that allegedly got him removed from the broadcasts, then I'd be saying that he should be held accountable. However, the evidence that I've seen and the behaviour of Marriott with them stalling seems to be indicating that Michael's case holds more water. Think about it logically. If you're a business, and you're being sued over a spat, wouldn't you turn over the evidence if it was clear that it would prove your case? The fact that we're nearly a month later the fact that Marriott is still stalling tells me that their case doesn't hold water.

which part of he doesn't know what he said to her isn't understandable?

 

[RustyBourneHorse]

which part of he doesn't know what he said to her isn't understandable?

Perhaps, but wouldn't the tape show what was said to her? That's the evidence that I need to know. If he said something that egregious to where he was allegedly benched, then 1. Logically, the reaction of others would indicate it and 2. The tape would show exactly what he said.

 

[Staubacher]

That's irrelevant. If the evidence showed that Michael did the activity that allegedly got him removed from the broadcasts, then I'd be saying that he should be held accountable. However, the evidence that I've seen and the behaviour of Marriott with them stalling seems to be indicating that Michael's case holds more water. Think about it logically. If you're a business, and you're being sued over a spat, wouldn't you turn over the evidence if it was clear that it would prove your case? The fact that we're nearly a month later the fact that Marriott is still stalling tells me that their case doesn't hold water.

They're not stalling. They kicked him out and notified his employer. Your hero was stalling, hiding out in his own words and then with an asinine explanation. Now he has scummy Jerrah's fix it man trying to clean up his mess.

 

[Staubacher]

Perhaps, but wouldn't the tape show what was said to her? That's the evidence that I need to know. If he said something that egregious to where he was allegedly benched, then 1. Logically, the reaction of others would indicate it and 2. The tape would show exactly what he said.

How would a security videotape show audio??

 

[Captain-Crash]

Perhaps, but wouldn't the tape show what was said to her? That's the evidence that I need to know. If he said something that egregious to where he was allegedly benched, then 1. Logically, the reaction of others would indicate it and 2. The tape would show exactly what he said.

how do you know it wasn't the tape or some other time? If he can't remember, I would say he threatened to kill me and throw me in a dumpster. How's he going to prove he didn't say that. "well, I can't remember what I said, I was too drunk to remember" lol, "I got his autograph and he's my hero"

 

[MarcusRock]

Perhaps, but, at the same time, I think it's odd that Marriott is stalling like they are with the video in terms of turning it over to the lawyers. They have a court order to turn it over, and they're stalling. That is suspicious to me in terms of what they have or not.

I wouldn't call it suspicious. If someone is trying to score money off you for something you know they did but are trying to make you look like the bad party here, why would you give information to help them determine their next steps quicker? They need the video to plot next steps in an image rehab case. Delaying keeps the current data out there longer (Mike saying he didn't remember due to drinking). Irvin's lawyer can frame it like the hotel is guilty for not producing it but they are one-dimensional at this point and you want to keep them there for as long you can before you're forced to give it over.

 

[RustyBourneHorse]

They're not stalling. They kicked him out and notified his employer. Your hero was stalling, hiding out in his own words and then with an asinine explanation. Now he has scummy Jerrah's fix it man trying to clean up his mess.

He's not my hero. I wasn't quite old enough or aware of sports enough when his career was finished as a player. I'm just trying to afford him due process. If the evidence shows that he did say or do something wrong, then fine, he should be held accountable. But if not or if it was a misunderstanding, then that's why I'm trying to afford due process and hear both sides of the story before I draw a conclusion about one way or the other. For me, from what I've seen, I think it leans in his side, but I could be wrong. I'm just trying to understand both sides.