She has never said anything public, only to her employer allegedly and they went with it from there. Per Mike himself, he stated the hotel told him he said something to her. So with no witnesses who heard anything that we know of, what was claimed to be said and actually said is a mystery. Don't know how you prove something if the reality is not audibly documented someplace.
Free PR?? Marriott was already ORDERED by the court to turn over the video. This isnt about what they want to do or do not want to do. And you are right... she had a moment to process who she had spoken to. The tape will speak volumes regardless of what is heard, and that is why we have juries.
There are 3 witnesses who said they were right there. They said nothing happened.
Kinda true, in a defamation of character the plaintiff must show proof they caused his character harm with an unture statement...if the court hears it they will have 2 choices : rebuttal with proof it was not untrue or take the verdict....
They were ordered in a separate court and then it got moved to federal court so they held on until a new order. It's legal custom to only turn over evidence when directed according to what folks say here. I'm no law guy but I am uber logical and logic would dictate the same thing when someone is suing you to better their position, especially in an image rehab case. Why help them rehab an image at your expense? Screw that. Speak when spoken to (and only if you have to) and turn over evidence only when you are directed to. Again, the tape will speak volumes to those looking for a reaction in the moment to say, "Ah ha!" when a reaction in the moment isn't even necessary as people laugh off offensive and even threatening stuff all the time. It's not straight line here unless we hear actual audio.
They said it appeared nothing happened visually. This was not about a physical event but an audio event and the witnesses have not said they heard the contents of the discussion because they were at a distance. Same variance I mentioned applies unless there's actual audio. Without it no one has a strong position either way.
Say it
How do you know they weren't drunk at the time this happened and two already admitted to being fanboys and getting their pics with him. And they cannot say what was said and this is all about what was said.
and people also always go and think for a few hours and then change what was said or happened to benefit them in some way. Like I said... this is why we have juries.
You are wrong... go watch this video and start listening at the 2:35 mark where the witness is asked if he heard hat was said. He makes it very clear what happened.
wrong... they never said they were fanboys. They were there on business. Again, watch starting at the 2:35 mark.
Ironic isn't it? He won't say it because it's not acceptable here, but he thinks it's fine and dandy if "Mike" said it to a woman at her job.
That's exactly what Irvin did.
Nope.
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.
But they can ban him from all Marriott properties. Doesn't sound right. We don't own the property but we ban you from all our properties.
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?"
oh, ok... so you guarantee you know what they heard and didnt here? bahahahhahahahhahahahahahahhah
