News: PFT: Michael Irvin's lawyer is "mad" that Marriott refuses to produce surveillance video

[CouchCoach]

I do have compassion for Mike's situation. When I brought up the actual timeline yesterday, a few days had passed before his radio interview so he had been in limbo as to what was going to happen. Not sure NFLN had already told him he was definitely going to be off the air though because he didn't say that. He implied a holding pattern. Two days was more than enough time to settle it though so I get his impatience. So it does have me leaning towards the interview revelation being planned by he and his lawyer to maybe hurry things along. Not sure about that strategy but okay.

The "I was drinking and can't remember" thing was a blunder though. On the surface I don't give that statement much weight because he said it in a joking, off-the-cuff manner so I don't think he was even being serious but any opposing lawyer will seize on that. Not sure if a lawsuit was planned at that point or they had to file one later to save face because I've been of the opinion that it was a PR move the whole way. The other complexity is did the NFLN take him off the air before or after the initial interview to set this lawsuit thing in motion. Just very messy out the gate and a failure to communicate, possibly lawyer-directed.

I don't think the lawyer was involved until after he did the media interviews after returning to Dallas. No lawyer is going to have his client talk to the media.

He is suing the woman and hotel and claiming damage to his reputation but which entity really affected that in the public's perception? The woman makes the accusation of inappropriate behavior and her employer backs her (she said) and NFLN sends him home and he's off the most important week of the season (he said).

Perception wise, which of them looks like they believe her story? The hotel only moved him. The fact that they did not suspend him works well in his favor because they can claim, under the circumstances, they felt he would have a difficult time doing his job.

We do not know what the NFLN knew and when they knew it but if this happened Sunday night and he was doing his "hiding out" interview with 105.3 Wednesday morning, what the hell was NFLN doing? Do we know if even they've seen this video?

The "can't remember, had a few drinks" might have been a throwaway but I agree, it will not be to the hotel's lawyers. Their defense is everything Irvin did with the media after the incident.

 

[sacase]

I don't think the lawyer was involved until after he did the media interviews after returning to Dallas. No lawyer is going to have his client talk to the media.

He is suing the woman and hotel and claiming damage to his reputation but which entity really affected that in the public's perception? The woman makes the accusation of inappropriate behavior and her employer backs her (she said) and NFLN sends him home and he's off the most important week of the season (he said).

Perception wise, which of them looks like they believe her story? The hotel only moved him. The fact that they did not suspend him works well in his favor because they can claim, under the circumstances, they felt he would have a difficult time doing his job.

We do not know what the NFLN knew and when they knew it but if this happened Sunday night and he was doing his "hiding out" interview with 105.3 Wednesday morning, what the hell was NFLN doing? Do we know if even they've seen this video?

The "can't remember, had a few drinks" might have been a throwaway but I agree, it will not be to the hotel's lawyers. Their defense is everything Irvin did with the media after the incident.

Why do you keep talking about public perception as if that has any bearing on the case. It does not. For defimation he has to prove that she or the hotel communicated a known lie to a third party (NFLN) that's it. Public perception doesn't matter. The damages are obvious. Anyone in the media knows how prestigious it is to cover the Superbowl. To act like it is not, is being willfully ignorant. He is also suing for tortorious interference. This is why he wants to video and he wants the names of the people involved so he can get exatcly what they said by whom to who, and then show that it is a known lie.

 

[CouchCoach]

Why do you keep talking about public perception as if that has any bearing on the case. It does not. For defimation he has to prove that she or the hotel communicated a known lie to a third party (NFLN) that's it. Public perception doesn't matter. The damages are obvious. Anyone in the media knows how prestigious it is to cover the Superbowl. To act like it is not, is being willfully ignorant. He is also suing for tortorious interference. This is why he wants to video and he wants the names of the people involved so he can get exatcly what they said by whom to who, and then show that it is a known lie.

Tell that to Irvin's lawyer, who is doing his best to sway public perception since he took the case. Who do you think he's talking to?

Was he getting paid extra for the SB and they decided not to pay him that?

A known lie? When he can't even remember what he did say? "Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, my client cannot remember what he said but he did not say what she said he said".

 

[Starforever]

Being moved and sent home from championship; are not indications of any wrongdoing. They are perceived notions that something MAY have occurred.

 

[Jfconrow]

What the heck is going on? He got banned from Marriott hotels for talking to someone in the lobby for 45secs? Don’t you think that’s a little overkill. Then they tattle-tailed to the NFL. I don’t care if he called her a fat ugly slug or propositioned her, that’s no reason to be escorted out of your hotel, fired, and all this. I’m glad he’s suing them.

 

[Kevinicus]

Tell that to Irvin's lawyer, who is doing his best to sway public perception since he took the case. Who do you think he's talking to?

Was he getting paid extra for the SB and they decided not to pay him that?

A known lie? When he can't even remember what he did say? "Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, my client cannot remember what he said but he did not say what she said he said".

As far as the known lie part. It would be known to the people making the claim whether or not it was a lie. That's what is relevant as far as that goes.

 

[sacase]

Tell that to Irvin's lawyer, who is doing his best to sway public perception since he took the case. Who do you think he's talking to?

Was he getting paid extra for the SB and they decided not to pay him that?

A known lie? When he can't even remember what he did say? "Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, my client cannot remember what he said but he did not say what she said he said".

Honestly you are being willfully ignorant and Intintionally building BS strawman arguments. What matters is what she told the manager and what the manager told the NFL. Then after that is know that will determine what was said during their interaction. Again I find it hard to believe he said something in 45 seconds that was so offensive that it caused him to be kicked out and banned. What's funny about this, is you have created all these stories about him but haven't offered up one speculation about what is so offensive that it would cause him to get kicked out. But I get it, you dislike him based or stories you have heard.

Also as I said before, working the SB is high profile. It raises his status in the media. He was denied that. He doesn't need monetary compensation to have suffered injury.

 

[Creeper]

Clearly, Marriott wants to keep Irvin and his lawyers in the dark. Didn't Irvin say he was a bit tipsy and doesn't remember exactly what happened?

 

[Floatyworm]

There is a reason Marriott won't produce the video. Eventually we will all see why. Until then it's wait and then wait some more. Irvin will get his day in court. It just won't be as soon as he likes. Which sucks for him.

That video will disappear in 30 days....that's how hotel video systems work....

 

[CouchCoach]

Honestly you are being willfully ignorant and Intintionally building BS strawman arguments. What matters is what she told the manager and what the manager told the NFL. Then after that is know that will determine what was said during their interaction. Again I find it hard to believe he said something in 45 seconds that was so offensive that it caused him to be kicked out and banned. What's funny about this, is you have created all these stories about him but haven't offered up one speculation about what is so offensive that it would cause him to get kicked out. But I get it, you dislike him based or stories you have heard.

Also as I said before, working the SB is high profile. It raises his status in the media. He was denied that. He doesn't need monetary compensation to have suffered injury.

We do not know who she told or what she said and what was said was they moved him. If they moved him to another property, how could he be banned? Since the hotel has not said anything, there are just assumptions going on now.

We do not know if the manager of the hotel told the NFL anything. We do not know the chain of events except, according to Irvin this happened on a Sunday night and the next thing known is that he's breaking the story on 105.3 Wednesday morning with his hiding out comment. Where Irvin was and what took place between him and NFLN is unknown as is any interaction between NFLN and the hotel.

Could it be his lawyer is grandstanding as far as what was done to Irvin, doing a little spinning since he knows he will be the only one talking? We have seen no verification of this banning from all properties. In order for that to take place, don't you think he would have to do something worse because all they did was move him. Like maybe threaten her and if that was the case, the cops would have been involved.

I do not think we will ever know what Irvin actually said to her anymore than we will know if Elliott lost it and hit his girlfriend. We only know what we think; we do not know.

Maybe all he did was ask her up to his room and she thinks that's inappropriate. I don't unless he attached some "payment" to that. She can just say no thanks or I have a date with sacase later and he's not the sharing kind.

 

[CouchCoach]

That video will disappear in 30 days....that's how hotel video systems work....

Not with the first judge ordering it presented to the plaintiff. That is considered evidence by the court.

 

[gtb1943]

We do not know who she told or what she said and what was said was they moved him. If they moved him to another property, how could he be banned? Since the hotel has not said anything, there are just assumptions going on now.

We do not know if the manager of the hotel told the NFL anything. We do not know the chain of events except, according to Irvin this happened on a Sunday night and the next thing known is that he's breaking the story on 105.3 Wednesday morning with his hiding out comment. Where Irvin was and what took place between him and NFLN is unknown as is any interaction between NFLN and the hotel.

Could it be his lawyer is grandstanding as far as what was done to Irvin, doing a little spinning since he knows he will be the only one talking? We have seen no verification of this banning from all properties. In order for that to take place, don't you think he would have to do something worse because all they did was move him. Like mayube threaten her and if that was the case, the cops would have been involved.

I do not think we will ever know what Irvin actually said to her anymore than we will know if Elliott lost it and hit his girlfriend. We only know what we think; we do not know.

Maybe all he did was ask her up to his room and she thinks that's inappropriate. I don't unless he attached some "payment" to that. She can just say no thanks or I have a date with sacase later and he's not the sharing kind.

You clearly have made up your mind; the 50 or so posts in this threat you pretty much made that clear.

 

[gtb1943]

Tell that to Irvin's lawyer, who is doing his best to sway public perception since he took the case. Who do you think he's talking to?

Was he getting paid extra for the SB and they decided not to pay him that?

A known lie? When he can't even remember what he did say? "Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, my client cannot remember what he said but he did not say what she said he said".

Wow the arbiter of all has spoken!

 

[TwistedL0g1k]

Irvin must have countless encounters with people. He has folks approaching him every time he is out in public. It's not at all surprising that he doesn't remember what was said during a brief encounter with a complete stranger- whether or not he had been drinking.

One does not need to remember what was said, to know what was not said.

 

[Calvin2Tony2Emmitt2Julius]

There is a reason Marriott won't produce the video. Eventually we will all see why. Until then it's wait and then wait some more. Irvin will get his day in court. It just won't be as soon as he likes. Which sucks for him.

Doesn't Irvin have the right to a speedy trial ?

 

[CouchCoach]

You clearly have made up your mind; the 50 or so posts in this threat you pretty much made that clear.

So far into this without much information, yep, I am leaning in her direction because of him. Can't have 50 posts without some sort of opinion on this.

 

[CouchCoach]

Doesn't Irvin have the right to a speedy trial ?

He hasn't been charged with anything, it is his suit.

 

[CouchCoach]

You clearly have made up your mind; the 50 or so posts in this threat you pretty much made that clear.

Does it really matter if anyone has made up their mind unless they're on that jury?

Ya see, I love this offseason shenanigans action with Dalrymple going upskirt on the boss' daughter and Spielberg in the cheerleaders' locker room, Booger and strippergate and then we got Booger and new daughter and we've had more than our share of extracurricular activities with the players.

This is harmless stuff because it really doesn't matter but it gets the Irvinites all crazy and they play the "rush to judgment card" and who really cares? We're not judging anything and there are no prizes for guessing right or wrong.

I am just enjoying these Irvin threads because they're not about something Booger said or Dak Prescott.

 

[Captain-Crash]

Does it really matter if anyone has made up their mind unless they're on that jury?

Ya see, I love this offseason shenanigans action with Dalrymple going upskirt on the boss' daughter and Spielberg in the cheerleaders' locker room, Booger and strippergate and then we got Booger and new daughter and we've had more than our share of extracurricular activities with the players.

This is harmless stuff because it really doesn't matter but it gets the Irvinites all crazy and they play the "rush to judgment card" and who really cares? We're not judging anything and there are no prizes for guessing right or wrong.

I am just enjoying these Irvin threads because they're not about something Booger said or Dak Prescott.

settle down, you are hurting the Irvin worshipper group. sheesh

 

[Calvin2Tony2Emmitt2Julius]

He hasn't been charged with anything, it is his suit.

OK Thanks