Video: TMZ: Alleged Witnesses In Michael Irvin Incident Recount Story, Back Hall of Famer

[cowboys5xsbs]

 

[cowboys5xsbs]

Irvin is about to make bank off of this

 

[plasticman]

Perhaps we should allow the dust to settle before rendering any opinion. No doubt, there will be several facts still not revealed.

 

[CWR]

Shame on anyone who was throwing shade at one of my all time favorite Cowboys. I'll admit I was concerned, but na, I wasn't going to pile on him before I heard the story. I'll also admit I'm overly eager to have his name cleared, but when a man goes out and helps you get 3 superbowls as well as still being 100% in our corner it's hard not to like him. Life long Cowboy great, #88.

 

[MarcusRock]

Irvin is about to make bank off of this

Yeah, we'll see. As I said in another thread about these two witnesses, unless they knew exactly what was said I don't think they help all that much unless something physical was being assumed which it wasn't from the beginning. I wish the interviewer had asked directly about if they heard what Irvin was talking about with the woman exactly, but if they said they didn't hear (which it seems like they didn't) then it makes their exclusive less weighty, so I get it.

As for why I don't think the witnesses help all that much, I think people are assuming if something weird was said that it has to be reacted to in the moment (as the interviewer implied). Sometimes it takes time for a person to process how much a comment actually bothered them and then they go through their stages of dealing including deciding on doing something about it. Add to this that these witnesses took pictures with Irvin so they're not so much "independent witnesses" that happened to be passing by who didn't know who he was and just reported on what they saw. It could be assumed they think they "owed him one" for him doing them a solid, plus the power dynamic of him being a celebrity and a potential benefit for "having his back."

So I don't think they're as helpful as everyone thinks unless there's audio of the conversation someplace. In the end, they'll settle but I hope it goes to court because I want to hear the dirt.

 

[CTcowboy203]

I can’t say what did or didn’t happen but any good lawyer is going to say that these men who took pictures with Irvin are clearly fans of his and may not be to be taken with 100% truth. As they could be biased. 2nd guy even says he’s at a bar drinking- which again a lawyer can pick apart.

Not saying Irvin’s guilty at all.

 

[Ranching]

Shame on anyone who was throwing shade at one of my all time favorite Cowboys. I'll admit I was concerned, but na, I wasn't going to pile on him before I heard the story. I'll also admit I'm overly eager to have his name cleared, but when a man goes out and helps you get 3 superbowls as well as still being 100% in our corner it's hard not to like him. Life long Cowboy great, #88.

Got to meet him once....he had security around, but when he was told we were coaches, he welcomed us and was very cool...I hope the best for him..I hope the best for the young lady, if he did anything wrong....we'll see

 

[nightrain]

I can’t say what did or didn’t happen but any good lawyer is going to say that these men who took pictures with Irvin are clearly fans of his and may not be to be taken with 100% truth. As they could be biased. 2nd guy even says he’s at a bar drinking- which again a lawyer can pick apart.

Not saying Irvin’s guilty at all.

The Guy from Philly? Nah.

 

[DallasEast]

A $100 million lawsuit is a sobering countermeasure. And sobering is a severe understatement.

It would not surprise me if Marriott and other corporate entities within the industry institute some new policies or modify current ones regarding employee and celebrity interactions in the future. Does not matter whether Irvin wins, ends up with a lesser settlement or have the suit thrown out of court. Companies will actively seek to mitigate any future legal expenses for defending against such cases and the hundreds of millions of dollar threats attached to them.

 

[Coogiguy03]

When he said I HAD A FEW DRINKS, my head fell to my lap! Come on play maker!

 

[ThatJerryKid]

If Michael Irvin turns out to be 100% innocent, the NFL Network should be ashamed of themselves. And it would be interesting what happens if they ask Irvin to come back at some point. I hope he tells them to F off.

 

[Cowpolk]

Yeah, we'll see. As I said in another thread about these two witnesses, unless they knew exactly what was said I don't think they help all that much unless something physical was being assumed which it wasn't from the beginning. I wish the interviewer had asked directly about if they heard what Irvin was talking about with the woman exactly, but if they said they didn't hear (which it seems like they didn't) then it makes their exclusive less weighty, so I get it.

As for why I don't think the witnesses help all that much, I think people are assuming if something weird was said that it has to be reacted to in the moment (as the interviewer implied). Sometimes it takes time for a person to process how much a comment actually bothered them and then they go through their stages of dealing including deciding on doing something about it. Add to this that these witnesses took pictures with Irvin so they're not so much "independent witnesses" that happened to be passing by who didn't know who he was and just reported on what they saw. It could be assumed they think they "owed him one" for him doing them a solid, plus the power dynamic of him being a celebrity and a potential benefit for "having his back."

So I don't think they're as helpful as everyone thinks unless there's audio of the conversation someplace. In the end, they'll settle but I hope it goes to court because I want to hear the dirt.

As a witness he was probably told to not reveal anything until show time

 

[JBS]

Irvin is about to make bank off of this

Not really

 

[CWR]

Yeah, we'll see. As I said in another thread about these two witnesses, unless they knew exactly what was said I don't think they help all that much unless something physical was being assumed which it wasn't from the beginning. I wish the interviewer had asked directly about if they heard what Irvin was talking about with the woman exactly, but if they said they didn't hear (which it seems like they didn't) then it makes their exclusive less weighty, so I get it.

As for why I don't think the witnesses help all that much, I think people are assuming if something weird was said that it has to be reacted to in the moment (as the interviewer implied). Sometimes it takes time for a person to process how much a comment actually bothered them and then they go through their stages of dealing including deciding on doing something about it. Add to this that these witnesses took pictures with Irvin so they're not so much "independent witnesses" that happened to be passing by who didn't know who he was and just reported on what they saw. It could be assumed they think they "owed him one" for him doing them a solid, plus the power dynamic of him being a celebrity and a potential benefit for "having his back."

So I don't think they're as helpful as everyone thinks unless there's audio of the conversation someplace. In the end, they'll settle but I hope it goes to court because I want to hear the dirt.

For me, it was good to know there was nothing physically inappropriate. I am suprised they would pull him off the air based on allegations of an "inappropriate conversation." Maybe they have something more concrete. In any event, from the outside looking in this doesn't seem to add up to anything illegal or physically abusive, and that is a good starting point. I'm not excusing saying something offense or lewd to an unwelcoming young woman either. However, words are still words in my outdated opinion and this whole incident looks blown out of proportion.

 

[MarcusRock]

As a witness he was probably told to not reveal anything until show time

I don't think they're "official" witnesses yet otherwise Irvin's lawyers would tell them not to do TV interviews so they don't get into trouble like Irvin did with his words. TMZ just wanted them for their story and grabbed them early.

 

[MarcusRock]

For me, it was good to know there was nothing physically inappropriate. I am suprised they would pull him off the air based on allegations of an "inappropriate conversation." Maybe they have something more concrete. In any event, from the outside looking in this doesn't seem to add up to anything illegal or physically abusive, and that is a good starting point. I'm not excusing saying something offense or lewd to an unwelcoming young woman either. However, words are still words in my outdated opinion and this whole incident looks blown out of proportion.

Any number of things could have been at play here which is why I want a court case to air all the dirt. As I said in the other thread maybe the employee didn't know the hotel would kick Irvin out and it's become more than she bargained for. She could have been a hottie and Irvin did say something, and because she's a hottie, managers at the hotel wanted a chance and played overzealous white knight to get in her good graces. Maybe NFLN only needed to hear that Irvin got kicked out of the hotel and that was good enough for them. So many possibilities but everything hinges on what was said and I think it's unlikely that any audio exists so there'll just be this rumor haze.

 

[buddieluver]

Yeah, we'll see. As I said in another thread about these two witnesses, unless they knew exactly what was said I don't think they help all that much unless something physical was being assumed which it wasn't from the beginning. I wish the interviewer had asked directly about if they heard what Irvin was talking about with the woman exactly, but if they said they didn't hear (which it seems like they didn't) then it makes their exclusive less weighty, so I get it.

As for why I don't think the witnesses help all that much, I think people are assuming if something weird was said that it has to be reacted to in the moment (as the interviewer implied). Sometimes it takes time for a person to process how much a comment actually bothered them and then they go through their stages of dealing including deciding on doing something about it. Add to this that these witnesses took pictures with Irvin so they're not so much "independent witnesses" that happened to be passing by who didn't know who he was and just reported on what they saw. It could be assumed they think they "owed him one" for him doing them a solid, plus the power dynamic of him being a celebrity and a potential benefit for "having his back."

So I don't think they're as helpful as everyone thinks unless there's audio of the conversation someplace. In the end, they'll settle but I hope it goes to court because I want to hear the dirt.

I saw the video of Irvin talking to her the guy in the interview was about 3-4 feet away from Irvin and watching the conversation the entire time.

 

[The Quest for Six]

When he said I HAD A FEW DRINKS, my head fell to my lap! Come on play maker!

a few too many drinks since he couldn't even remember the conversation or contents of the conversation

 

[rags747]

Yeah, we'll see. As I said in another thread about these two witnesses, unless they knew exactly what was said I don't think they help all that much unless something physical was being assumed which it wasn't from the beginning. I wish the interviewer had asked directly about if they heard what Irvin was talking about with the woman exactly, but if they said they didn't hear (which it seems like they didn't) then it makes their exclusive less weighty, so I get it.

As for why I don't think the witnesses help all that much, I think people are assuming if something weird was said that it has to be reacted to in the moment (as the interviewer implied). Sometimes it takes time for a person to process how much a comment actually bothered them and then they go through their stages of dealing including deciding on doing something about it. Add to this that these witnesses took pictures with Irvin so they're not so much "independent witnesses" that happened to be passing by who didn't know who he was and just reported on what they saw. It could be assumed they think they "owed him one" for him doing them a solid, plus the power dynamic of him being a celebrity and a potential benefit for "having his back."

So I don't think they're as helpful as everyone thinks unless there's audio of the conversation someplace. In the end, they'll settle but I hope it goes to court because I want to hear the dirt.

So a woman talks to you for 45 seconds and says that she wants to bed you and then disappears into the elevator. Would this cause you a lot of distress Or would you be able to move on?

 

[Fla Cowpoke]

The witness says the conversation looked jovial, that they were laughing and it ended with a handshake. How is this gonna come out that he said something so offensive?