Hotel ownership employee views Erin Andrews video ... - Page 5

Mj12 · ‎03-09-2010

@SusieQ_2 wrote:
@chrystaltree wrote:
He isn't on the jury and he already tesitifed. Why the heck shouldn't he look at the video if he wanted to? How would that justify that obscene amount of money or any amount of money at all from the hotel? Perhaps I missed it but I still haven't seen any evidence showing that the hotel was responsible for the actions of the pervert or negligent in any way. Actually, considering the case, I would have assumed he would have seen the video before he testified. The jurors won't hear about it.
Am I the only one left shaking my head over that comment?

So here's a guy who represents a company that's in the middle of a trial where they're being sued for negligence and invasion of privacy, and he's seen in public watching the illegal video taken by a convicted felon with his dinner campanions, and you see no problem with that?

@SusieQ_2 - no, you aren't.

Noel7 · ‎03-09-2010

@Mj12 wrote:
@SusieQ_2 wrote:
@chrystaltree wrote:
He isn't on the jury and he already tesitifed. Why the heck shouldn't he look at the video if he wanted to? How would that justify that obscene amount of money or any amount of money at all from the hotel? Perhaps I missed it but I still haven't seen any evidence showing that the hotel was responsible for the actions of the pervert or negligent in any way. Actually, considering the case, I would have assumed he would have seen the video before he testified. The jurors won't hear about it.
Am I the only one left shaking my head over that comment?

So here's a guy who represents a company that's in the middle of a trial where they're being sued for negligence and invasion of privacy, and he's seen in public watching the illegal video taken by a convicted felon with his dinner campanions, and you see no problem with that?

@SusieQ_2 - no, you aren't.

*******************************

I agree. He was in a social setting, not viewing it in a courtroom or other setting where it would at least appear to be for studious reasons rather than prurient.

SusieQ_2 · ‎03-27-2012

How could he go on the stand and testify that this woman's life has not been compromised when he's engaging in the very activity that proves it has? Unbelievable.

KingstonsMom · ‎03-09-2010

@chrystaltree wrote:
He isn't on the jury and he already tesitifed. Why the heck shouldn't he look at the video if he wanted to? How would that justify that obscene amount of money or any amount of money at all from the hotel? Perhaps I missed it but I still haven't seen any evidence showing that the hotel was responsible for the actions of the pervert or negligent in any way. Actually, considering the case, I would have assumed he would have seen the video before he testified. The jurors won't hear about it.

@chrystaltree

I just have to ask, would you feel this same way, if your daughter was the one filmed nude, without her knowledge, the images shared worldwide and now one of the defendants is showing it in a public place, where a server and who knows who else could see it while they mocked her?

Just curious.....

You never know how strong you are until being strong is the only choice you have.

KingstonsMom · ‎03-09-2010

@SusieQ_2 wrote:
How could he go on the stand and testify that this woman's life has not been compromised when he's engaging in the very activity that proves it has? Unbelievable.

@SusieQ_2

So right!

I believe it was yesterday in trial (maybe the day before), that the Marriott's attorneys actually asked her if, if fact, that this nude tape had not helped her career!

She'd already testified that she lost her fiancee as a result.

As far as her career, I would be thinking that everyone is seeing the 'nude me', every time they look at me.

Personally, I feel really bad for her and if it were MY daughter this happened to, I'd want more than 75 Mil.......I'd want some body parts from the filmer, too!

But that's just me.......

You never know how strong you are until being strong is the only choice you have.

hckynut · ‎03-10-2010

I think Erin never mind

hckynut(john)

jaxs mom · ‎04-18-2012

@SusieQ_2 wrote:
@chrystaltree wrote:
He isn't on the jury and he already tesitifed. Why the heck shouldn't he look at the video if he wanted to? How would that justify that obscene amount of money or any amount of money at all from the hotel? Perhaps I missed it but I still haven't seen any evidence showing that the hotel was responsible for the actions of the pervert or negligent in any way. Actually, considering the case, I would have assumed he would have seen the video before he testified. The jurors won't hear about it.
Am I the only one left shaking my head over that comment?

So here's a guy who represents a company that's in the middle of a trial where they're being sued for negligence and invasion of privacy, and he's seen in public watching the illegal video taken by a convicted felon with his dinner companions, and you see no problem with that?

I'm not just shaking my head, I'm disgusted.

Don't Change Your Authenticity for Approval

Shelbelle · ‎03-09-2010

My daughter works for Marriott, she explained to me that this hotel is franchised owned, not a part of Marriott Corp, there is a difference.

chrystaltree · ‎05-10-2010

@KingstonsMom wrote:
@chrystaltree wrote:
He isn't on the jury and he already tesitifed. Why the heck shouldn't he look at the video if he wanted to? How would that justify that obscene amount of money or any amount of money at all from the hotel? Perhaps I missed it but I still haven't seen any evidence showing that the hotel was responsible for the actions of the pervert or negligent in any way. Actually, considering the case, I would have assumed he would have seen the video before he testified. The jurors won't hear about it.
@chrystaltree

I just have to ask, would you feel this same way, if your daughter was the one filmed nude, without her knowledge, the images shared worldwide and now one of the defendants is showing it in a public place, where a server and who knows who else could see it while they mocked her?

Just curious.....

That makes no sense whatsoever. Millions of people have seen thar video, thousands watch it every day now that the trial is underway. So, what difference could it possibly make if one more person saw it? His looking at is totally irrelevant to anything.

SusieQ_2 · ‎03-27-2012

"That makes no sense whatsoever. Millions of people have seen thar video, thousands watch it every day now that the trial is underway. So, what difference could it possibly make if one more person saw it? His looking at is totally irrelevant to anything."

He's not just "one more person." He's a defendant who represents a company that is currently involved in a law suit and is claiming Ms. Andrews was not compromised by his company's negligence. The very act that he and his pals are participating in second-hand voyeurism proves otherwise.