As expected, Cowboys Hall of Fame receiver Michael Irvin released on Tuesday the surveillance video secured from Marriott through legal action in Texas.
Michael Gehlken of the Dallas Morning News has posted the full video.
Along with the video, Irvin’s lawyers gave those attending the press conference a presentation with 20 bullet points that raised questions about the incident.
It would make sense to review the Marriott employee’s account (as provided last Friday by Marriott’s lawyers) while watching the video. Reasonable minds may differ as to whether the characterization does or doesn’t mesh with Marriott’s version.
That’s a potential problem for Irvin, frankly. He’s accused of making lewd comments to the employee. He has admitted that he had been drinking. If the employee has told a consistent, unimpeachable story to Marriott management and NFL representative(s) who investigated the situation, it could be difficult to prove that her explanation fails to match the video.
There’s a separate question as to whether hotel management and/or the NFL overreacted to the situation. But Irvin isn’t arguing that. He’s denying that he said what she claims he said. If a jury believes her testimony (and that won’t be known until after she testifies in court), Irvin could be facing an uphill climb.
The discovery process will be critical in this case. Is there evidence of shifting stories and conflicting accounts, or is everything that was said, that was heard, and that was reduced to writing the same?
Here’s why I’ve been wondering about the hotel’s case. Marriott’s stubborn refusal to produce the surveillance video — capped with a blatant violation of a federal court order — has created the impression that Marriott has something to hide. If Marriott had just produced the video and the employee’s version, a much different vibe would have been created.
That’s the key going forward. Will Marriott unveil a bulletproof body of evidence that meshes with the video, or will it eventually seem that a story was concocted to mesh with the video — after a story that conflicted with the video evidence was told?