Did you miss the post where I analyzed what the witness actually said? He only described the interaction, not the actual conversation contents. He was asked point blank if he heard what was said and the witness goes on to describe "a pleasant conversation." He saw the conversation, he didn't hear it based on his own words. Would love to see if he can eventually cite specifics because that's what this case is actually about.
Good point.........I think if it was just a sexual comment like, "you got a nice arse" or something like that, she would just tell him to get lost and walk away.
I dont need to see your analysis, I watched the video of the witnesses actually talking, and like I said, he wasnt in a courtroom. He was speaking to a TMZ reporter. Did the tmz reporter press him for more specifics? Did the reporter say... well what exactly did Mike say?
My analysis goes deeper than the surface, so yeah you do need it. I don't care who was questioning him and if that's the defense for lack of specifics, that's telling. He was given plenty of room to cite specifics and never did with 2 separate promptings. He clearly didn't hear what was said which is why he only described what was seen and mentioned that there was nothing for him "to actually take notice of what was going on." Are those the words of a person who is right up on people listening to their entire conversation or from a distance looking for some kind of raucous and noticing none? Are you not able to make these types of deductions on your own or do you need this spelled out for you?
yep he's a pos. Yep they moved his ******* just for the fun of it.
There's no "altercation" to be seen on video. How many times does this have to be repeated??
Well the witnesses that are out there already didn't appear to hear the contents of their conversation. At least they didn't divulge in interviews. So it seems to me they were at a distance which the video would also show. And again, Irvin said that Marriott objected to things he allegedly said to their employee. No one had reported anything physical from the start. So the video isn't going to show what he said unless there's accompanying audio and there's not going to be anything physical because no one has claimed that so far. I can already see that if the video is released and doesn't show a physical confrontation that people who want Mike to win this will try to claim victory with that when this whole thing is about what was said. Mike's lawyers want that too. That's why if you're Marriott, you hold on to that video until you're forced to turn it over like we discussed before.
There is no evidence that Irvin has been banned from Marriott hotels.
At this time, he has not been fired and don’t know if he was docked any pay because NFLN has been totally silent.
speaks volumes about what? That Mike is paid to entertain people? He knows football and he talks football, but he is unique and there is nobody like him. The fact he has been on NFL network this long, and is constantly brought on to other shows also speaks volumes.
There is no doubt Mike was and is being paid by his employer. He has a contract and as of right now there has been no porof , hearing, nothing to offer he was in violation of his contract. So until the NFL network actually does something besides take Mike off the air, he will still be getting paid.
from the witness statements, the interaction was like 45 seconds. Im not thinking that was long enough to have a nice hello, and then go immediately into hey lets have sex, followed by threats if she said anything. Mike isnt a rookie at this thing.... and to do that right out in public? Come on. The witnesses even said that Mike offered to take pics but made it clear they needed to step outside to take the pics. Im not sure why, but maybe out of respect for the people in the hotel.... it wasnt like he was falling over drunk. This whole story stinks to high heaven.
wow... talk about arrogance... well Ill feel you in on something. I actually have a degree in criminal justice and went to McGeorge School of law... so please spare me with your deep analysis. The FACT is this was not a court room, there was no questioning by a lawyer, just a witness giving an account of what he saw while NOT being pressed for details. So get off your legal soap box to which you already admitted you are no legal scholar.
no, they moved him to kill any controversy around the super bowl week by just moving him to a corner and then figuring things out later. This is COMMON among any entity that works in the public eye and wants top avoid issues for them by any action of an employee.
For all we know, his being off the air may have to do with what happened Wednesday morning more than Sunday night at the hotel.
You just placed him in same entertainment category as Stephen A. Only some Cowboy fans are interested in one of their own presenting an overly homeristic or unbiased viewpoint.
It doesn’t really matter. Pay while on suspension is fairly normal procedure as Reid alluded to.
