Official Michael Irvin* Sues Marriott for $100 Million

LOL I didn’t see anything untoward in that video, in fact, the female seemed like she was fully in control of the situation. Her body language showed that she was calm and confident and in control.

Without an actual transcript, that video proves nothing other than they had a brief and apparently pleasant conversation. There’s no other interpretation that can be derived from it.
 
Advertisement
He then “slapped himself in the face three times, saying ‘keep it together Mike.’”


see that sounds fake to me. we all know michael irvin doesnt do four-word pump-up speeches.

So it does appear as though he slapped himself in the face a few times near the end of the video, but the woman had clearly already left the area.
 
So it does appear as though he slapped himself in the face a few times near the end of the video, but the woman had clearly already left the area.
Exactly — and then the video cuts off before what actually happened next: Michael Irvin delivered a hair-raising 14-minute self pump-up speech that left him self motivated to file a $100 million lawsuit.
 
As usual, the truth is somewhere in the middle. Clearly the Marriott story isn't fully accurate. The leering accusation is ridiculous. But I don't like that he reached out to touch her, at all, and then her body language pulled away, she took a step back. Then he went in to touch her again, sort of bent, weird, and after that she throws up her arms and gives kind of a polite "no" sign by waving them back and forth. He also said that she came up to him, right? But it looked like he saw her and got her attention, kind of encouraged her to step out of the lounge, and started the conversation. She didn't seem like she was in any rush to get away from him, though.

My guess is he happily flirted with her, maybe even lightly propositioned her, hardly a crime, she declined while keeping it light, and she's trying to blow that up into a thing.
Completely disagree, nothing of the sort happened. I doubt he flirted with her at all . If he did no reason for him to not say he did in case what was said was heard which he believed it was . Not everything is in the middle ; this lady is 100% full of ****.
 
Completely disagree, nothing of the sort happened. I doubt he flirted with her at all . If he did no reason for him to not say he did in case what was said was heard which he believed it was . Not everything is in the middle ; this lady is 100% full of ****.

"Nothing of the sort happened."

Vs.

" I doubt he flirts with her at all."

Also,

"If he did..."

Have to pick just one. :)

So if you read my post again, I said that what Marriott is saying vs. what Michael is saying, that the truth is probably in the middle. I think there is evidence that they've (Marriott legal and Michael/legal) both made false statements tbh. Go back and review what they've all said since this started.

And while you're reading my post, make sure you read the last line, where I say she is trying to turn something innocuous into something it isn't, and yes, I think, in my opinion, (enough qualifiers?) that he was probably flirting, based on his body language, as one does. And as I also said, that's not a crime. So I think one would conclude that I too, agree, that this young lady is full of ****.
 
Advertisement
Nothing you've said is factually inconsistent with what Miller and Miles have claimed.

And yet...maybe it's all self-serving lies, which deserve to be scrutinized and tested with further questioning and investigation.

1. "The player in question was always going to pick up the others from the club". Yeah, that's not what happened. Miller was actually WITH THEM at the club, or at least outside the club before the others got into the club. Miller chose not to wait in line, and instead went to a nearby restaurant. Now, since Miller's car was ONE (of two, because Jaden Bradley also drove his gun-free car) used to get to the club, it is entirely possible that this consideration of "you can't bring the gun into the club" was discussed and/or known to Miller prior to the incident happening. So, yeah, not as much of an open-and-shut "Miller knew nothing" assertion as you seem to think it is.

2. "The player in question was already on his way to pick up the others (again that was always the plan), and that is when the text was sent, while he was already driving." Again, this is a statement that you seem to want to believe because of the false storyline that has been circulated. You can say "the player in question" all you'd like, but it's Miller. And Miller was not "already on his way to pick up the others", and it was not "always the plan" and there is no proof that the text was sent "while he was already driving". HOW BIG DO YOU THINK TUSCALOOSA IS? HOW BIG DO YOU THINK THE STRIP IS (it's maybe 5 blocks long)? Miller drove. Jaden Bradley ALSO drove his own gun-free car. And Miller was IN LINE at the club before walking to a nearby restaurant because he didn't want to wait in line. Miller didn't go to freaking Birmingham. There was no plan for Miller to drive back and pick up anyone, because he was nearby, PLUS Jaden Bradley had a (gun-free) car. Yes, there was a plan for some to drive home with Miller BECAUSE IT WAS HIS CAR and he should have been at the club with the rest of the party, if not for his impatience with waiting in line. The murder happened a block or two from the club. This wasn't a case of Miller having to drive a great distance or for a long period of time to pick them up, and there was at least one other driver (Jaden Bradley) with a car.

3. Miller parked his car around 11:30 PM in an alley behind "The Houndstooth", a bar on the north side of University Boulevard, across from the "Twelve25" sports bar on the south side of University Boulevard. Everything that happened (from the parking to the club to the shooting) from 11:30 PM until the murder at 1:45 AM happened within an approximate two block radius. There was no "long drive" that Miller took. Nothing about "he can't read a text in his car while driving". While Miller is going to say he never saw the text, HE WAS NEARBY. It is beyond dispute whether Miles sent a text asking him to bring the gun. What IS disputed (no matter what you choose to believe) is whether Miller actually read the text AND responded to the text accordingly.

4. Once again, Miller didn't drive all the way to Birmingham and back between 11:30 PM and 1:45 AM. Miller didn't want to wait in line at the club. He went to a nearby restaurant for food and/or beverages which didn't involve him waiting in line. Miller wasn't "at home". Miller wasn't "hours away". Now, we can all debate what I'm about to say, but here's the thing. I've gone out to restaurants/bars/clubs with college friends thousands of times. Often in a group where one person drives. And if the INTENT is just to leave a place and go home, you meet at a spot OR AT THE CAR, get in, and drive home. BUT THAT'S NOT WHAT HAPPENED.

5. Miller got a text to "bring the bone" (gun) while he was sitting at a nearby restaurant. And rather than say "no" or "WTF" or "I'll meet you at the car, let's not do something really stupid", he got in his car and drove ONE BLOCK to the murder scene. ONE BLOCK. That's not a "pick me up at the club" situation. That's a "bring the bone when the bone is in the BACK SEAT" situation. Miles sent the "when can you pick me up" text at 1:02 am. Miles sent the "how long you goin be" text at 1:10 am. Miles and his group didn't even leave the club until 1:36 am. And then at 1:38 am, Miles sent the "bring the bone" text, because guys were "faking". And Miller's car made its one-block-journey arrival at 1:43 am.

6. Now, you can choose to cite the whole "legal owner of the gun" thing all you'd like. But if this really WAS a "pick me up" text, and not a "bring me my gun" text, then Miller expects Miles to get in the car and leave. He doesn't sit around waiting for Miles to rummage around in the back seat "looking for God knows what hint-hint". The reality is that Miller sat there as things were said such as "the heat is in the hat" and "is there one in the head" (references to the gun and whether it was loaded) and Miles moved his girlfriend out of the way of what was about to happen. Now, nobody disputes that Miller stayed in the car. Nobody disputes that Miller didn't touch the gun. But Miller delivered the gun and allowed it to be taken out of the car after having been sent a text to bring the gun (all of ONE BLOCK). So, yeah, this is an area for inquiry that doesn't require an investigating officer to accept everyone's accounts at face value.



So, yeah, if you are truly curious about "the steps that Miller could have taken to prevent this" or "how is Miller responsible in any way", you can use the real facts to ask some good follow-up questions. Who knows, maybe it is absolutely true that Miller had NO IDEA of what was happening. But based on what? Because he said so? His statements are the definition of motivated self-interest. But it certainly warrants an investigation.

The real problem here, AT THIS TIME, is not whether Miller committed any crimes are not. The REAL PROBLEM is that it is not being investigated with any sort of vigor. The police have accepted AT FACE VALUE Miller's denials without bothering to consider whether he has every motivation to lie and minimize his involvement. There are many additional questions that could/should be asked, and verification of every aspect of the story with things such as video surveillance, receipts, and eyewitness accounts.

Unfortunately, those things take some time. But that's not my fault or anyone's fault. Someone died, and that death should be investigated with more effort and a certain amount of intellectual skepticism, particularly when one or more of the involved parties has already lied multiple times since the murder.


View attachment 232835

Your HONOR, I am going to need a recess….



Excellent rebuttal Counsel Original
 
Your HONOR, I am going to need a recess….



Excellent rebuttal Counsel Original


No problem, sir.

I just want to be clear, if anything I said seemed to reflect on you, I apologize. I have been bothered by the very "summary" way in which the facts of the case have been presented previously, so I wanted to be clear that I'm not criticizing you personally.

It's definitely a sad case when you read all the facts, because the SUBSTANCE of what happened (a guy was dancing in front of someone else's car) should never have escalated to someone being killed.

But I'm troubled by when people immediately accept ANY "one depiction" of the story, whether that is the story the police tell, or the story that someone involved tells. Certainly, those accounts are important, but we also need to fact-check those stories against video or other timeline-oriented elements that can fill in the blanks and rebut any self-serving testimony.

I don't know if Miller IS responsible for anything, and I certainly don't know that he will be convicted of any crime. But I think there are enough valid questions TO BE INVESTIGATED related to his involvement that could certainly give rise to sitting him down instead of letting him play basketball games. For now.

That is all.
 
Completely disagree, nothing of the sort happened. I doubt he flirted with her at all . If he did no reason for him to not say he did in case what was said was heard which he believed it was . Not everything is in the middle ; this lady is 100% full of ****.

How are you asserting what happened definitively and as a matter of fact, if even Michael himself doesn't recall what was said?

Anyways, I think some of you are discounting this woman simply because the target is a Cane. The fact is, she doesn't have much to gain financially. I don't know the law in Arizona but I'm not aware of any theory of liability that would permit a hotel employee to recover from her employer or a guest if a guest said something untoward. Hotels are not guarantors of a guest's conduct.

I mean, I guess if a hotel ignored a complaint and something happened then maybe, but that's not the circumstance here.
 
How are you asserting what happened definitively and as a matter of fact, if even Michael himself doesn't recall what was said?

Anyways, I think some of you are discounting this woman simply because the target is a Cane. The fact is, she doesn't have much to gain financially. I don't know the law in Arizona but I'm not aware of any theory of liability that would permit a hotel employee to recover from her employer or a guest if a guest said something untoward. Hotels are not guarantors of a guest's conduct.

I mean, I guess if a hotel ignored a complaint and something happened then maybe, but that's not the circumstance here.

Perhaps you mistook this page for MarriottInsight.com…
 
How are you asserting what happened definitively and as a matter of fact, if even Michael himself doesn't recall what was said?

Anyways, I think some of you are discounting this woman simply because the target is a Cane. The fact is, she doesn't have much to gain financially. I don't know the law in Arizona but I'm not aware of any theory of liability that would permit a hotel employee to recover from her employer or a guest if a guest said something untoward. Hotels are not guarantors of a guest's conduct.

I mean, I guess if a hotel ignored a complaint and something happened then maybe, but that's not the circumstance here.


I want to be very clear. I have never asserted "this woman is insane, nothing happened, Michael never did anything wrong".

But I definitely question whether anything was said (and it certainly appears that no PHYSICAL action was done) that was so harmful to this woman that she needed to get her employer involved, particularly in a way that caused the employer (Marriott) to share details with Michael's employer. REGARDLESS of whether "tne NFL has a contractual relationship with Marriott".

I grew up in Orlando, the "service industry" is a very big source of employment, between hotels and restaurants and theme parks. You can throw a pebble and hit someone who has a few dozen stories of poorly behaved guests on vacation or convention or celebration.

Regardless of what was said, or if Michael said something highly sexualized, it was still an interaction that was brief, apparently one-time (without additional allegations saying otherwise), and did not seem to result in subjecting the person to any humiliation in front of other people.

At the end of the day, I still think Marriott is in the wrong. Not because of what Michael said, or might have said, but because of the overreaction and the unnecessary sharing of information with the NFL.

That's it. I'm not pointing a finger at the woman. I'm pointing a finger at Marriott.
 
No problem, sir.

I just want to be clear, if anything I said seemed to reflect on you, I apologize. I have been bothered by the very "summary" way in which the facts of the case have been presented previously, so I wanted to be clear that I'm not criticizing you personally.

It's definitely a sad case when you read all the facts, because the SUBSTANCE of what happened (a guy was dancing in front of someone else's car) should never have escalated to someone being killed.

But I'm troubled by when people immediately accept ANY "one depiction" of the story, whether that is the story the police tell, or the story that someone involved tells. Certainly, those accounts are important, but we also need to fact-check those stories against video or other timeline-oriented elements that can fill in the blanks and rebut any self-serving testimony.

I don't know if Miller IS responsible for anything, and I certainly don't know that he will be convicted of any crime. But I think there are enough valid questions TO BE INVESTIGATED related to his involvement that could certainly give rise to sitting him down instead of letting him play basketball games. For now.

That is all.
Oh nah brother. No offense taken at all. It was in good fun for me. You are right. I simply ran with the story as given. I did not do any further research, such as how far away he was, that he was actually on line before getting impatient and some other details you presented. It was good to know. Not sure if those details change anything but i agree that it is definitely not beyond questioning and or investigating.
 
Advertisement
I want to be very clear. I have never asserted "this woman is insane, nothing happened, Michael never did anything wrong".

But I definitely question whether anything was said (and it certainly appears that no PHYSICAL action was done) that was so harmful to this woman that she needed to get her employer involved, particularly in a way that caused the employer (Marriott) to share details with Michael's employer. REGARDLESS of whether "tne NFL has a contractual relationship with Marriott".

I grew up in Orlando, the "service industry" is a very big source of employment, between hotels and restaurants and theme parks. You can throw a pebble and hit someone who has a few dozen stories of poorly behaved guests on vacation or convention or celebration.

Regardless of what was said, or if Michael said something highly sexualized, it was still an interaction that was brief, apparently one-time (without additional allegations saying otherwise), and did not seem to result in subjecting the person to any humiliation in front of other people.

At the end of the day, I still think Marriott is in the wrong. Not because of what Michael said, or might have said, but because of the overreaction and the unnecessary sharing of information with the NFL.

That's it. I'm not pointing a finger at the woman. I'm pointing a finger at Marriott.
She was probably uptight and Marriot probably didn't need to get the NFL involved. But, at the same time, and I know you can appreciate this, big corporations get sued when they don't do appropriate investigations into allegations of misconduct.
 
Completely disagree, nothing of the sort happened. I doubt he flirted with her at all . If he did no reason for him to not say he did in case what was said was heard which he believed it was . Not everything is in the middle ; this lady is 100% full of ****.
to be fair, michael irvin* has said he doesn't remember much about what he told her, so he's unsure of whether he even flirted with her.

agreed, that she is 100% full of richard crap. this is not a good video for marriott.
 
No problem, sir.

I just want to be clear, if anything I said seemed to reflect on you, I apologize. I have been bothered by the very "summary" way in which the facts of the case have been presented previously, so I wanted to be clear that I'm not criticizing you personally.

It's definitely a sad case when you read all the facts, because the SUBSTANCE of what happened (a guy was dancing in front of someone else's car) should never have escalated to someone being killed.

But I'm troubled by when people immediately accept ANY "one depiction" of the story, whether that is the story the police tell, or the story that someone involved tells. Certainly, those accounts are important, but we also need to fact-check those stories against video or other timeline-oriented elements that can fill in the blanks and rebut any self-serving testimony.

I don't know if Miller IS responsible for anything, and I certainly don't know that he will be convicted of any crime. But I think there are enough valid questions TO BE INVESTIGATED related to his involvement that could certainly give rise to sitting him down instead of letting him play basketball games. For now.

That is all.
Enjoyed your earlier presentation of the facts. Miller and his attorney have done well to distance him from any charges, and perhaps deservedly so. Again, it's a horrific story. Very sad.

What's particularly troubling is Alabama's handling of the situation. Ok, Miller didn't commit a crime and whether he violated a university policy is probably also debatable. But if I understand the facts correctly, the incident happened Jan. 15 and Alabama officials - if you believe them - didn't learn until a Feb. 21 pre-trial hearing that the gun used in the murder was brought to the scene in Miller's car. Don't buy that he was clueless about it, either. Even so, university and athletic officials - coaches or whomever - presumably sat Miller down and interviewed him. If so, they either didn't ask the right questions or Miller didn't come clean or tell the whole story. And if he lied or told a BS story, then crazy that Alabama's best player and future NBA lottery pick never missed a minute of playing time.
 
Back
Top