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

[CouchCoach]

All I need is a picture of the woman and the hotel manager that decided to remove him
and I can tell you everything that happened.
People act like these people are professionals. Ha!
Multi-colored hair, multiple face pearcings, pronouns, etc.
A hotel manager, even in Marriott's, isn't necessarily our best citizen.

You know nothing about either one and you're off the rails with hair color and piercings and how many hotel managers do you know?

At least Irvin has history which brings about doubts that he is the innocent party here.

If all you need is pictures of the woman and manager, you must be the guy they were talking about that judges books by looking at the covers.

Might interest you to know that some of the most heinous monsters of our time looked very normal, like Ted Bundy. He was so handsome women couldn't think he was that creature. Dahmer looked pretty normal on the outside too.

And it's piercings, pearcings are fruit.

 

[Diehardblues]

Post #179
You mockingly called him a choir boy and said the girl was just waiting for her 45 seconds
of fame. Pretty much summed up that you're thinking he did "something" wrong.
Without evidence.

That was sarcasm. And why I added the LOL.

Why on earth with his history wouldn't you be thinking he might have acted inappropriately , especially someone with his history and to boot been out drinking.

And the hotel and NFL felt the situation called for action. That’s what I’m basing my assumptions on. They saw and heard enough to take action. That speaks volumes .

 

[CouchCoach]

Non-drinkers always think drinkers are drunks.
Not everyone that drinks acts like they're in Animal House.
The man is an adult. He walked across the lobby.

And said he couldn't remember what was said using had a few drinks as an excuse. Non-drinkers don't usually use that.

 

[RoboQB]

And said he couldn't remember what was said using had a few drinks as an excuse. Non-drinkers don't usually use that.

Right. Irvin is not a non-drinker. Sheesh.
I never said he was.
Someone was implying Irvin was drunk because he said he had some drinks at dinner.

 

[Captain-Crash]

And said he couldn't remember what was said using had a few drinks as an excuse. Non-drinkers don't usually use that.

yep, sometimes when I drink too much sweet tea I get where I can't remember anything. Often times I get thrown out of this house for no reason. sheesh, the neighbors usually back me and tell me mean stories of my wife going to church on Sundays.

 

[RustyBourneHorse]

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.

Yes, but I think the delay shows, imo, that it may be in his favour. If he really did something wrong, they'd have released it by now. My guess is that they settle with him getting a decent sum of money and a public apology.

 

[speedkilz88]

FYI on the drinking. In an article that can't be posted here, Irvin said he had dinner (and drinks) at a restaurant (not at the hotel) with former safety Michael Brooks. Then when he was at the hotel (according to the witnesses) he declined free drinks and said he was drinking club soda because he had to work in the morning.

 

[RoboQB]

That was sarcasm. And why I added the LOL.

Why on earth with his history wouldn't you be thinking he might have acted inappropriately , especially someone with his history and to boot been out drinking.

And the hotel and NFL felt the situation called for action. That’s what I’m basing my assumptions on. They saw and heard enough to take action. That speaks volumes .

Then they should release the video to Irvin's legal team.
But they won't. Does that not speak volumes?

 

[Captain-Crash]

rusty better be glad he hasn't worn a female horse costume to a Marriot that irvin has stayed at

 

[Diehardblues]

That was sarcasm. And why I added the LOL.

Why on earth with his history wouldn't you be thinking he might have acted inappropriately , especially someone with his history and to boot been out drinking.

And the hotel and NFL felt the situation called for action. That’s what I’m basing my assumptions on. They saw and heard enough to take action. That speaks volumes .

Then they should release the video to Irvin's legal team.
But they won't. Does that not speak volumes?

No, that’s normal legal procedure.

There been no legal charges made against Irvin.

 

[BoyzBlaster]

Um, what is Irvin's "history"?

Cocaine and hookers. Fighting. Weed.

Did you include the FALSE rape allegation in that history as well?

And does Irvin's criminal past mean that he's more likely to be inappropriate with some female hotel staffer? How so??? Which part of his history would indicate this???

Your White Knighting is actually hilarious.

Did you make a bet with someone about how many times you could randomly say "White Knighting"?

 

[BoyzBlaster]

Tell that to Tara Reade.

Or Stormy Daniels.

 

[BoyzBlaster]

You know nothing about either one and you're off the rails with hair color and piercings and how many hotel managers do you know?

At least Irvin has history which brings about doubts that he is the innocent party here.

If all you need is pictures of the woman and manager, you must be the guy they were talking about that judges books by looking at the covers.

Might interest you to know that some of the most heinous monsters of our time looked very normal, like Ted Bundy. He was so handsome women couldn't think he was that creature. Dahmer looked pretty normal on the outside too.

And it's piercings, pearcings are fruit.

We can probably just do away with the whole jury system period and instead send this guy pictures of all the accused. Of course all the women will be found guilty, but no system is perfect.

 

[Staubacher]

We can probably just do away with the whole jury system period and instead send this guy pictures of all the accused. Of course all the women will be found guilty, but no system is perfect.

I think it got pulled, but he even blamed it on a gay manager. Earlier someone said it was a manager in love with the woman.
As with all conspiracy theories, it's hard to keep up.
All we need to know is some lying woman, a manager with an agenda, a large international hotel chain, and the NFL Network all conspired to frame and "cancel" poor little Mikey.

 

[BoyzBlaster]

I think it got pulled, but he even blamed it on a gay manager. Earlier someone said it was a manager in love with the woman.
As with all conspiracy theories, it's hard to keep up.
All we need to know is some lying woman, a manager with an agenda, a large international hotel chain, and the NFL Network all conspired to frame and "cancel" poor little Mikey.

The level of hostility towards women in some of these posters is legitimately frightening. I am guessing there are some really sad stories as to why.

 

[sacase]

I think it got pulled, but he even blamed it on a gay manager. Earlier someone said it was a manager in love with the woman.
As with all conspiracy theories, it's hard to keep up.
All we need to know is some lying woman, a manager with an agenda, a large international hotel chain, and the NFL Network all conspired to frame and "cancel" poor little Mikey.

Just like all the comments that he's a very drunk, he's a sexual predator, he has a "history", suprised I haven't seen he's a thug.

Only thing that anyone can say is that there was very brief encounter of under a minute in which a woman approached him. He was removed from the room very early in the morning and told that there was a video of his interaction with a woman in which he said something and he was banned from the property. Those are the only facts anyone can say, everything else on both sides is pure speculation.

Put it like this, how many of you would be comfortable if you were removed and banned from a hotel and told you said something to a woman but they won't tell you what or show you the video of the interaction. Wouldn't that raise some suspicion on your end? Then how would you feel if you employer removed you from a once in a lifetime opportunity that would raise your status because of said interaction that you don't even know what was said. You would be ok with that? Seriously?

I'll offer one more speculation. Maybe he was banned from Marriott properties back in 1996. Maybe this woman approached him and told him that he was not allowed to be on Marriott Properties due to him being arrested at a Residence in in 1996 with the drugs and "topless models". Maybe the NFLN was mad that he didn't tell them that he wasn't allowed to be there.

 

[Bullflop]

Whoa -- Michael Irvin hasn't had this much publicity since he stabbed that guy with the scissors!

 

[RoboQB]

Whoa -- Michael Irvin hasn't had this much publicity since he stabbed that guy with the scissors!

When you're a scrub offensive lineman, you don't get to have your fro trimmed
before an all-pro WR like Michael Irvin...lol/jk

 

[Bullflop]

When you're a scrub offensive lineman, you don't get to have your fro trimmed
before an all-pro WR like Michael Irvin...lol/jk

Obviously, Irvin sure thought so . . . and Jerry generously paid off his fine for him, as the story goes.

 

[MarcusRock]

Just like all the comments that he's a very drunk, he's a sexual predator, he has a "history", suprised I haven't seen he's a thug.

Only thing that anyone can say is that there was very brief encounter of under a minute in which a woman approached him. He was removed from the room very early in the morning and told that there was a video of his interaction with a woman in which he said something and he was banned from the property. Those are the only facts anyone can say, everything else on both sides is pure speculation.

Put it like this, how many of you would be comfortable if you were removed and banned from a hotel and told you said something to a woman but they won't tell you what or show you the video of the interaction. Wouldn't that raise some suspicion on your end? Then how would you feel if you employer removed you from a once in a lifetime opportunity that would raise your status because of said interaction that you don't even know what was said. You would be ok with that? Seriously?

I'll offer one more speculation. Maybe he was banned from Marriott properties back in 1996. Maybe this woman approached him and told him that he was not allowed to be on Marriott Properties due to him being arrested at a Residence in in 1996 with the drugs and "topless models". Maybe the NFLN was mad that he didn't tell them that he wasn't allowed to be there.

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.