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

[Diehardblues]

And by "contact" you mean they shook hands and parted ways.
Why try to jumble things up? "Oh, something was said. It HAS to be bad."

It doesn’t have to be bad. But there was a complaint . And the accused admitted he’d been drinking and couldn’t recall exactly. And he has sexual abuse history.

 

[CouchCoach]

Because anything involving misconduct and a woman is going to be guilty until proven innocent in today's times. Probably not a PC thing to say. But everything involving women these days are like this. It seems especially for anything with ties to the Cowboys. Where is the nfl punishment for tyreke Hill fir what he did to his wife. They even had a call with him and his gf, with him telling yeah B you better be scared if me. That should tell you all you need to know about the nfl

This isn't the NFL but NFLN dealing with this. Since Mariott is a sponsor, I am sure they've heard from the execs about how to make this end well.

 

[Diehardblues]

The hotel has a protocol to follow in these situations. How many female employees with the Marriott hotels do we think have heard inappropriate comments from male guests? We do not know if this is a first time for this woman.

Right. And HR responds to all complaints .

Throw in this celebrity has sexual abuse history. Admitted he’d been drinking and couldn’t recall. The video established they had some contact. It doesn’t matter what was said . It was enough for her to complain. HR has to respond .

 

[RoboQB]

It doesn’t have to be bad. But there was a complaint . And the accused admitted he’d been drinking and couldn’t recall exactly. And he has sexual abuse history.

So, maybe don't run up to a celebrity with a sexual abuse history at 11pm while
he's headed to an elevator and his room. He's probably been drinking...duh... lol

Unless, maybe there's an alterior motive. He's made himself an easy target.

 

[CouchCoach]

Right. And HR responds to all complaints .

Throw in this celebrity has sexual abuse history. Admitted he’d been drinking and couldn’t recall. The video established they had some contact. It doesn’t matter what was said . It was enough for her to complain. HR has to respond .

If what Irvin is saying he said to hotel security is fact, what are they supposed to do? He's admitting he can't remember and using drinking as an excuse. Think that's a first for them?

The Marriott Group employs thousands of women and I'd bet all of them are following this and happy their company is backing their employee.

 

[CouchCoach]

So, maybe don't run up to a celebrity with a sexual abuse history at 11pm while
he's headed to an elevator and his room. He's probably been drinking...duh... lol

Unless, maybe there's an alterior motive. He's made himself an easy target.

Target for what? He's the one that filed the lawsuit.

 

[RoboQB]

Target for what? He's the one that filed the lawsuit.

A target for those with alterior motives, of course.
Are you going to pretend no woman has ever set a guy up?
It happens regularly. It's happening right now, somewhere.
Let's not pretend the world is nothing but rainbows and unicorns.

He's a target due to his past actions. An easy target because he's still a
public figure. He's still a public figure, probably, due to debt accrued from
his past actions... lol.

I'd be sitting in my mansion or my mini-yacht if I were a former athlete.

 

[MarcusRock]

Does it look like I know? Again yes he said he didn't remember, but there are third parties who said he didn't do anything. And having that party on your side is big. There are 3 witnesses. The 2 guys and the camera. The camera shows video, the witnesses provide context to that video. That's why they haven't released it. Don't let people or don't try to be smarter than what's been released. Because so far everything that's come out is in Irvin favor.

You said "they claimed misconduct" then went on to talk about video showing something. The only thing out there is Mike saying the hotel said it was about what he said to someone. The 3rd parties didn't hear what was said. They gave an account of what they saw. So again, what video can show "Mike didn't do anything" if there's no audio and Mike is stating this is about what was said?

 

[Staubacher]

Target for what? He's the one that filed the lawsuit.

Exactly. The level of ignorance on this thread is nuts.

I have a good friend in the hotel industry. She's attractive but happily married and not at all a flirt. But they are trained to be cordial and polite in all situations in public and around the guests.


And yes she confirmed female employees get hit on a lot at hotels. Men thinking they're in a porno and those women are just waiting for them lol

Marriott has strict protocols in place for these situations. It's hard to believe the one sided explanation from Jerrah's fix-it man that they rousted Irvin out of bed Gestapo style with no context.

 

[Staubacher]

A target for those with alterior motives, of course.
Are you going to pretend no woman has ever set a guy up?
It happens regularly. It's happening right now, somewhere.
Let's not pretend the world is nothing but rainbows and unicorns.

He's a target due to his past actions. An easy target because he's still a
public figure. He's still a public figure, probably, due to debt accrued from
his past actions... lol.

I'd be sitting in my mansion or my mini-yacht if I were a former athlete.

It's "ulterior" and the fact it happens sometimes somewhere means absolutely nothing here. It works the other way around also.

Sticking to what we do know about this case, there is absolutely no indication this woman has sought any money, publicity, attention or anything else from this.

 

[Haimerej]

Because anything involving misconduct and a woman is going to be guilty until proven innocent in today's times.

Tell that to Tara Reade.

 

[LatinMind]

This isn't the NFL but NFLN dealing with this. Since Mariott is a sponsor, I am sure they've heard from the execs about how to make this end well.

I think Marriott is going to owe Mike some money

 

[LatinMind]

You said "they claimed misconduct" then went on to talk about video showing something. The only thing out there is Mike saying the hotel said it was about what he said to someone. The 3rd parties didn't hear what was said. They gave an account of what they saw. So again, what video can show "Mike didn't do anything" if there's no audio and Mike is stating this is about what was said?

All I said was the video shows something, because it's video. And if it showed Mike doing anything wrong you can believe that would've been released a long time ago because of Mike's past. If you win public opinion your likely to guarantee conviction today.

 

[CouchCoach]

I think Marriott is going to owe Mike some money

They could settle to make it go away but then how does that look to their employees? Of course, it could look like they backed their employee but the he/said/she said wouldn't stand up so they settled to move on.

But, don't you think the Marriott's attorneys are going to ask the jurors this question? Since neither Marriott nor the woman made this public and even attempted to keep it quiet once it was out there and Michael Irvin is the one that went public with this, how did they do harm to him? In fact, if not for his media interviews, we might not even be here today because we had no intent to do any harm to him or his career. This was over the day it happened as far as we were concerned.

Who has caused the most damage? The woman, hotel, NFLN or Irvin?

 

[TwoDeep3]

Irvin couldn’t recall what was said because he said he’d been out drinking . He remembered that. And he recalled a handshake .

Video surveillance most likely isn’t going to reveal audio but can view any physical expressions , physical contact, etc.

Most importantly it establishes there was a personal contact which could support her claims . Imagine how sketchy it would be without video surveillance they even made contact.

And that’s probably all the hotel needed to respond to the complaint. That there indeed was contact and Irvin admitted he’s been drinking and couldn’t recall exactly the confrontation . That’s enough for HR to take action.

The hyperbole in your comment here reminds me of The Tattler.

Been out drinking. He did admit that, but that doesn't mean much. Have you ever met someone in passing that you did not know before? Did you recall their name the next day? Or even later that night? Forty-five seconds for a man who is glad-handed by people every where he goes when it is in relationship to professional football occurs to me a chance encounter which would be difficult to remember. Especially since he had met fans just moments before who wanted pictures with Irvin. My opinion is this would be so commonplace that celebrities put it in autopilot and just smile throughout the process, giving little thought to their paths crossing.

And after hearing the stories of how rude fans can be by stepping into a celebrities personal space without permission, I find people like Irvin, who is a pretty gracious individual with his time amongst fans, to be a man of tolerance.

Personal contact which COULD support her claims. Or, it could also not support her claims.

They even made contact. So in three distinct places in this loose paragraph you have mentioned contact, personal contact and confrontation.

No where do you make a comment that she might be a Karen, or perhaps someone targeting a celebrity.

Nor did you make your comment here, or elsewhere in this thread neutral to lead people to believe Irvin might be innocent of these claims. Or that you entertain the idea he is innocent in this country until a day in court proves different.

Nina Shahravan claimed Irvin held her down as Erik Williams and another man raped her. Remember that? At that time a "journalist" wrote an article - read opinion piece - for The Virginia Pilot periodical stating that Royce West, the attorney for Irvin, who claimed Irvin and Williams names should never have been made public until facts were gathered.

The journalist - ANN SJOERDSMA - stated this set back women for decades, just stating the "defendant" should have the same rights as the plaintiff in situations like this.

After the dust settled, Shahravan recanted her statement.

So here we are some twenty or more years later, and the mud slung at Irvin, who never was taken to court, still has to sit through accusations, and perhaps people of low character trying to get to a settlement without actually lawyering up for a trial. So Irvin carries the scarlet A of never being believed he is innocent.

Was he in a hotel room with two paid women and another man snorting cocaine and cheating on his wife in the 1990's? Yep. Will he forever be tainted by that incident, and never be seen as a man who turned his life around?

It appears for some people posting here and in other threads, that day will never come.

I don't know all the facts in this case. I don't presume to know what is what. But I do find the rush to judgment for some, and the timber of your comments in this thread surely paints you in that corner, to be premature, clearly biased, tinged with an élan of "gotcha," which this society finds as sport for those finding themselves in the news.

 

[RoboQB]

It's "ulterior" and the fact it happens sometimes somewhere means absolutely nothing here. It works the other way around also.

Sticking to what we do know about this case, there is absolutely no indication this woman has sought any money, publicity, attention or anything else from this.

Also, no indication Irvin did anything wrong.
I like "alterior". Gonna stick with that.
Everybody is changing words and meaning these days.
So that one is mine.. lol.

 

[Staubacher]

Also, no indication Irvin did anything wrong.
I like "alterior". Gonna stick with that.
Everybody is changing words and meaning these days.
So that one is mine.. lol.

There's lots of indication he did something wrong. Eviction from the hotel and sent home from his job are indicators.

 

[MarcusRock]

All I said was the video shows something, because it's video. And if it showed Mike doing anything wrong you can believe that would've been released a long time ago because of Mike's past. If you win public opinion your likely to guarantee conviction today.

Video shows something but unless there's an audio track it doesn't actually show much at all as this situation is about audio per Mike himself. Same goes for witnesses not hearing specifics about the audio. The only thing that could be about "anything wrong" has to do with audio. So again, what will video show in regards to what this situation is actually about (audio)?

 

[Diehardblues]

The hyperbole in your comment here reminds me of The Tattler.

Been out drinking. He did admit that, but that doesn't mean much. Have you ever met someone in passing that you did not know before? Did you recall their name the next day? Or even later that night? Forty-five seconds for a man who is glad-handed by people every where he goes when it is in relationship to professional football occurs to me a chance encounter which would be difficult to remember. Especially since he had met fans just moments before who wanted pictures with Irvin. My opinion is this would be so commonplace that celebrities put it in autopilot and just smile throughout the process, giving little thought to their paths crossing.

And after hearing the stories of how rude fans can be by stepping into a celebrities personal space without permission, I find people like Irvin, who is a pretty gracious individual with his time amongst fans, to be a man of tolerance.

Personal contact which COULD support her claims. Or, it could also not support her claims.

They even made contact. So in three distinct places in this loose paragraph you have mentioned contact, personal contact and confrontation.

No where do you make a comment that she might be a Karen, or perhaps someone targeting a celebrity.

Nor did you make your comment here, or elsewhere in this thread neutral to lead people to believe Irvin might be innocent of these claims. Or that you entertain the idea he is innocent in this country until a day in court proves different.

Nina Shahravan claimed Irvin held her down as Erik Williams and another man raped her. Remember that? At that time a "journalist" wrote an article - read opinion piece - for The Virginia Pilot periodical stating that Royce West, the attorney for Irvin, who claimed Irvin and Williams names should never have been made public until facts were gathered.

The journalist - ANN SJOERDSMA - stated this set back women for decades, just stating the "defendant" should have the same rights as the plaintiff in situations like this.

After the dust settled, Shahravan recanted her statement.

So here we are some twenty or more years later, and the mud slung at Irvin, who never was taken to court, still has to sit through accusations, and perhaps people of low character trying to get to a settlement without actually lawyering up for a trial. So Irvin carries the scarlet A of never being believed he is innocent.

Was he in a hotel room with two paid women and another man snorting cocaine and cheating on his wife in the 1990's? Yep. Will he forever be tainted by that incident, and never be seen as a man who turned his life around?

It appears for some people posting here and in other threads, that day will never come.

I don't know all the facts in this case. I don't presume to know what is what. But I do find the rush to judgment for some, and the timber of your comments in this thread surely paints you in that corner, to be premature, clearly biased, tinged with an élan of "gotcha," which this society finds as sport for those finding themselves in the news.

I’m sure Irvin the choir boy is completely innocent and this Marriott employee was waiting all night for her 45 seconds of fame. Lol

 

[RoboQB]

There's lots of indication he did something wrong. Eviction from the hotel and sent home from his job are indicators.

Lmao.
For what?
An accusation?
Eye witnesses said nothing happened out of the ordinary.
But that's not enough for you.