context oh clueless one. Look at what we know, look at witness statements.... look at the video that has been put online..... use all of that, not some crazy story you have in your mind.
Lets just say that the employee didnt even file a complaint.... was in casual conversation with the woman and she told a manager... yeah, that Michael Irvin guy asked me to come up to his room and he wanted to have sex with me.... and she left it at that. THEN the hotel kicks mike out, calls NFL Network and the rest followed..... I would agree with you. BUT, if she said Mike said this and mIke said that and it turns out he didnt..... she is gonna lose her arse in court also. Again, all of this is speculation on everyone's part until we here FACTS.
and if he was a Bengal he would have never been suspended.
The video is online? Where?
there was video I think was taken by one of the three guys that shows irvin standing there with a drink in his hand, 2 ladies at a table .... it is NOT the video from marriott. There wa sno audio in what I saw
No, you missed my point. I quoted two of your posts. In the first you chide another poster for bias and worthy of being kicked off a jury for this case while minutes earlier you made a biased post worthy of you being kicked off a jury for this case, hence the politician quip. But ah well. You're free to believe whatever you wish as I wasn't commenting on what you said but in the context of other things you said.
Whether Irvin initially remembered who she was after probably meeting people all day is not the issue. That hotel contacted the NFL Network and/or ESPN and told them something that caused them to remove Irvin from the Superbowl coverage.
That’s arguable . But no doubt it would have helped not being on a team at the time with so many problem players and an owner who wasn’t as cooperative .
Of course false claims would be liable. I’m just not sure why we’d believe this employee would out of the blue manufacture total false claims.
Facts? All we are going to hear, if we hear anything, is what she said he said and him trying to deny it the best he can.
How do you know what was communicated to the NFL Network or ESPN? You don't. All of this will come out during discovery. Why people keep speculating based on their biases is beyond me.
I do not know and have stated that. I was addressing those that have insinuated the hotel ratted him out when they've said nothing except for their lawyers to add harassing to inappropriate.
And speculating based on our biases is what we do. You've only been here for 500 posts, wait, you'll see.
Look again at my join date before you tell me how long I have been here.
Mr. Irvin, did why is it today you say you do in fact remember what you said that night, but when you went on that radio show you said you did not remember?
I assumed you joined just recently because of your post count, wrong on my part to assume. But if you've been here for a while, then you know we speculate, and a lot of that is based on biases against the Joneses, Prescott and now, Irvin.
If that’s the case then his argument will be in shambles.
I am actually quite the opposite. You will not find a single post of mine that says Michael did nothing. I have no clue. I do find it unlikely based upon the length of their interaction and the ACTUAL witness comments on the situation. I am an absolute believer in the right to withhold judgement on people until they have their day in court. That was the same for Zeke, Jerry and anyone else that has accusations slung at them.
not even close. What is said in court is quite different than what is said in public and rightfully so. Out in public people just talk. They arent questioned and they arent under oath.
LMAO, Reid! Do you really think any lawyer is going to suggest his client go on a radio call in show, especially a loose mouth like Irvin? He didn't have the lawyer set up at the time of the call in is my guess. And the first thing this lawyer did was shut him up. We haven't heard a peep from him since but I think the damage is already done.
