If "justthefacts" was actually intimately involved with this case, I doubt he/she would be blabbering all over FFXU. That would not be a smart move.

bothsides? Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I can't imagine the mom to the victim would be
> associating with "Just the Facts", if he/her are
> also associating themselves with Marlow, being it
> is apparent "Just the Facts" is very TEAM MARLOW.
> How are you in communications with both sides?
> Will you or have you testified, too? Or, are you
> making some of this stuff up? Just doesn't make
> sense.


Then I am sorry you can't fathom it. And again, I am not on a side except justice, truth and the process. I have merely not convicted Marlow before the trial. I don't "associate" with the mother, I know her and have spoken to her briefly. But by all means, assume whatever you like. It doesn't matter to me because you and the lynch mob are characters in a cartoon.

Stabitha Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If "justthefacts" was actually intimately involved
> with this case, I doubt he/she would be blabbering
> all over FFXU. That would not be a smart move.


Unless I am Marlow's lawyer or the prosecutor, or some kind of witness, I don't see why it would be an issue? Everything I have "revealed" has been said in open court. I haven't revealed the names of the victim nor her mother. If I was "team Marlow" then I would do anything and everything to make her look bad, no? I just want people to stop saying things that aren't true. Talking shit about things they don't know about. How about we wait until the trial to convict a man? That's been my point from day one.

If you weren't so involved, why would you be talking to the victims detective? I doubt he would be giving up his time to sit with you unless you had some insight to something that would be beneficial to his case. And then you claim you talk to the perpetrator's lawyer and detective. The only way you can talk to Marlow is behind glass. So, that means you are taking the time out to visit him in jail. That to me is TEAM MARLOW.

Justthefacts Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
It
> doesn't matter to me because you and the lynch mob
> are characters in a cartoon.

And the cartoon is called "The World According to Justthefacts" and you are the lead looney tune!

Justhefacts has to be a brother or sister who is pro Marlow from day 1. He should not be convicted if this because he is the victim. The man is just trying to hold him back. No one is being fair because he is black. Justhefacts hS hinted to this several times just waiting to pounce the race card. Even when convinced of this crime Justhefacts will be saying Marlow is innocent.

I wonder if justthefacts has contacted Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson aka the Black KKK yet?

bothsides? Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If you weren't so involved, why would you be
> talking to the victims detective? I doubt he
> would be giving up his time to sit with you unless
> you had some insight to something that would be
> beneficial to his case. And then you claim you
> talk to the perpetrator's lawyer and detective.
> The only way you can talk to Marlow is behind
> glass. So, that means you are taking the time out
> to visit him in jail. That to me is TEAM MARLOW.


He's not "the victim's detective." He is the detective in charge of the STATE's case. His job is to ascertain the facts. He isn't the cheerleader for the victim, he is there to find the truth. Maybe that's why you can't comprehend that Marlow is innocent until he is found guilty in court.

Dumbass Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Justhefacts has to be a brother or sister who is
> pro Marlow from day 1. He should not be convicted
> if this because he is the victim. The man is just
> trying to hold him back. No one is being fair
> because he is black. Justhefacts hS hinted to this
> several times just waiting to pounce the race
> card. Even when convinced of this crime
> Justhefacts will be saying Marlow is innocent.


Yes, because Marlow has so many siblings. If he is innocent, then Marlow is a victim. If he is not, then he isn't a victim. His innocence or guilt comes via trial. See how that works? And I haven't mentioned a single time that I thought Marlow was being railroaded because he is black. Lastly, I don't know how many times I have to repeat the same thing. If Marlow is guilty, then he is a criminal and will rot in jail. I will never speak to him again. The only thing I am affording him is the benefit of a trial, like I would give to anyone else.

Stabitha Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I wonder if justthefacts has contacted Al Sharpton
> and Jesse Jackson aka the Black KKK yet?


And why would I do that?

You claim you have seen the evidence and it is less than what people are told? So, are you saying the victim's statements are lies? My guess is, the only evidence you have seen, just like everyone else, is what was brought up in the hearings and written in the newspaper. (I don't think they are giving you any extra privileges to their case, being you are just a Marlow supporter.) The lead Detective clearly stated that Marlow wiped his phone clean of all content. That in itself is a guilty of something move. If he had nothing to hide, he wouldn't have worked on his phone knowing the police were going to take it. You know the big evidence won't come out until the trial.

Justthefacts Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Stabitha Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I wonder if justthefacts has contacted Al
> Sharpton
> > and Jesse Jackson aka the Black KKK yet?
>
>
> And why would I do that?

Saving the race card to be played later?

wondering? Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You claim you have seen the evidence and it is
> less than what people are told? So, are you saying
> the victim's statements are lies? My guess is, the
> only evidence you have seen, just like everyone
> else, is what was brought up in the hearings and
> written in the newspaper. (I don't think they are
> giving you any extra privileges to their case,
> being you are just a Marlow supporter.) The lead
> Detective clearly stated that Marlow wiped his
> phone clean of all content. That in itself is a
> guilty of something move. If he had nothing to
> hide, he wouldn't have worked on his phone knowing
> the police were going to take it. You know the
> big evidence won't come out until the trial.



First, I didn't claim I saw "all" evidence. Second, yes, not only seen what was presented during the hearings, I've spoken to Marlow and his lawyer. Do you not think they are privy to what the prosecution has?

As far as his phone being clean, what happens when you download new IOS to an iphone? What happens when you lose your phone and have to get a replacement? I am not saying this is what happened to Marlow in this case, I am just showing you that there are a few reasons why a phone could be "wiped." And let's say for the sake of argument that it was wiped, is that illegal? Is that a crime? Something else you want to convict him of? As has been stated before, they have her phone and whatever was on there. They also have the records from the phone company. The only thing that could be "missing" because he "wiped" his phone is this so called photo he asked for. Even in that case, an erased phone isn't going to hide it. It can be retrieved in most cases. So yeah, while it makes things sound more nefarious, it really means nothing that the detective claimed Marlow's phone was "wiped." Also, he didn't know the police were going to take his phone ahead of time. He was called in for an interview and it was taken from him. He had no idea why he was even called in. He went in voluntarily as well. Why would someone who "knows he is guilty" even bother going in without a lawyer? I mean, he's smart enough to "wipe" a phone yet not smart enough to get a lawyer when he knows he's in trouble?

Make up your mind. Either he's some kind of criminal mastermind or a complete imbecile.

Stabitha Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Justthefacts Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Stabitha Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > I wonder if justthefacts has contacted Al
> > Sharpton
> > > and Jesse Jackson aka the Black KKK yet?
> >
> >
> > And why would I do that?
>
> Saving the race card to be played later?

The only one concerned about race seems to be you. Race may or may not be a factor in this case. I can't read people's minds and there's no evidence that race is a factor so I have no need to claim it.

I can almost guarantee he definitely knew why he was called in. He has had all of this tucked in his brain for over a year. I don't think he realized the magnitude of evidence that still remained and with no past criminal history, he probably felt he was in the clear of a lawyer. Bringing a lawyer could be looked at as guilt. I find it ironic of how "close" you are to Marlow and this whole investigation, but you will ditch him like a hot potato on his verdict. Wondering if you told him that face to face?

Justthefacts Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I've spoken to Marlow and his
> lawyer. Do you not think they are privy to what
> the prosecution has?

Why on earth would the defendant's lawyer talk to you about the evidence? There is something called atty client privacy and I dont see how that would include you, unless his lawyer is a complete shithead.

Justthefacts Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> > Make up your mind. Either he's some kind of
> criminal mastermind or a complete imbecile.

Well, there's your answer. Only a complete imbecile would have naked pictures of a 12 yr old on his phone.

As far as his phone being clean, what happens when you download new IOS to an iphone? What happens when you lose your phone and have to get a replacement? I am not saying this is what happened to

What happens when you are guilty and you want to hide evidence? You clear your text messages so no one can read them but the victim still has them. Updating phone does not clear text out. Your reaching for reasons to help your butt buddy Marlow

wonder? Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I can almost guarantee he definitely knew why he
> was called in. He has had all of this tucked in
> his brain for over a year. I don't think he
> realized the magnitude of evidence that still
> remained and with no past criminal history, he
> probably felt he was in the clear of a lawyer.
> Bringing a lawyer could be looked at as guilt. I
> find it ironic of how "close" you are to Marlow
> and this whole investigation, but you will ditch
> him like a hot potato on his verdict. Wondering
> if you told him that face to face?


Your guarantee means jack shit. I've already asked Marlow if he knew why they called him in, he said no. There goes what you know in one little sentence. How is it "ironic?" If he is a convicted pedophile it wouldn't be in my best interest to openly associate with him. That's just life. He knows this. If he wanted to call me or have me visit I would do it because he is still a friend. And it is a problematic issue I would have to think harder on at the moment. I know what I want to do and what I should do, but who knows exactly what will happen if he is convicted. Either way, I am still of the feeling he is not guilty so it's something I don't have to worry about at this time.

Dumbass Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> What happens when you are guilty and you want to
> hide evidence? You clear your text messages so no
> one can read them but the victim still has them.
> Updating phone does not clear text out. Your
> reaching for reasons to help your butt buddy
> Marlow



Sure, that's one OPINION. That's all it is, OPINION. You treat opinion like fact though, so it's no wonder that particular opinion would be the one you'd use. All you have in the fact category is that his phone was supposedly "wiped." How and why it got that way is a matter of OPINION.

Stabitha Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> Why on earth would the defendant's lawyer talk to
> you about the evidence? There is something called
> atty client privacy and I dont see how that would
> include you, unless his lawyer is a complete
> shithead.


Thanks for your opinion. His counsel seems competent to me though.

Stabitha Wrote:

> Well, there's your answer. Only a complete
> imbecile would have naked pictures of a 12 yr old
> on his phone.



Did he? Proof?

Justthefacts Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Stabitha Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> >
> > Why on earth would the defendant's lawyer talk
> to
> > you about the evidence? There is something
> called
> > atty client privacy and I dont see how that
> would
> > include you, unless his lawyer is a complete
> > shithead.
>
>
> Thanks for your opinion. His counsel seems
> competent to me though.

That still doesnt explain why you would be privy to information shared between Atty/Client. Unless you are a family member, which would negate every single fucking thing you have written here.

Stabitha Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> That still doesnt explain why you would be privy
> to information shared between Atty/Client. Unless
> you are a family member, which would negate every
> single fucking thing you have written here.


You know "attorney" and "client" are two people, correct? On top of that, I never said exactly what the attorney has said, merely that I have spoken to her and her investigators.

Justthefacts Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Stabitha Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> >
> > That still doesnt explain why you would be
> privy
> > to information shared between Atty/Client.
> Unless
> > you are a family member, which would negate
> every
> > single fucking thing you have written here.
>
>
> You know "attorney" and "client" are two people,
> correct? On top of that, I never said exactly
> what the attorney has said, merely that I have
> spoken to her and her investigators.

Duh? That's what the / was for!

So now youre going to start backpedaling? What do you and his Lawyer discuss.....the weather? The economy?

Stabitha Wrote:

> Duh? That's what the / was for!
>
> So now youre going to start backpedaling? What do
> you and his Lawyer discuss.....the weather? The
> economy?



Backpedaling from what? What did I say the lawyer and I spoke about? Please tell me.

You are dense. I asked you.......WHY would the defendants Lawyer discuss anything about the case with you with YOU?

You seemed all too anxious to tell us you have had "discussions" with the lawyer and investigators.

WHY WHY WHY would they be talking to you about this case.

Simple question. Can you provide a simple answer?

since so many people seem to need desperately to know who 'justthefacts' is - think about it - it is the parent of one of the teammates of the alleged victim. those girls played and trained together for years. the parents get to know each other pretty well. it becomes a familiar and comfortable relationship. So comfortable and familiar that parents then let their 12 year old daughters travel alone with their coaches and/or trainers. It happens all of the time. If you have a daughter and she is training or being coached by a male - do yourself a favor - be present - be visible - don't get too comfortable.

not that it matters, but you just may be on to something.

Stabitha Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You are dense. I asked you.......WHY would the
> defendants Lawyer discuss anything about the case
> with you with YOU?
>
> You seemed all too anxious to tell us you have had
> "discussions" with the lawyer and investigators.
>
> WHY WHY WHY would they be talking to you about
> this case.
>
> Simple question. Can you provide a simple answer?

It is so easy to answer this. Justthefacts = Marlow´s wife who thinks he hasn´t done anything wrong and is being falsely accused. That´s why justthefacts knows so much and has in fact talked to both Marlow and his lawyer. I regocnise the way she writes, very easy to know who she is.

Well if this is true, then she better STFU and stay off of here because she could very well be called as a witness when this goes to trial.

Stabitha Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You are dense. I asked you.......WHY would the
> defendants Lawyer discuss anything about the case
> with you with YOU?
>
> You seemed all too anxious to tell us you have had
> "discussions" with the lawyer and investigators.
>
> WHY WHY WHY would they be talking to you about
> this case.
>
> Simple question. Can you provide a simple answer?


You're asking me to answer a question that's suited for the lawyer and the investigators. I don't know WHY WHY WHY they would or would not do something.

let me solve this riddle Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> since so many people seem to need desperately to
> know who 'justthefacts' is - think about it - it
> is the parent of one of the teammates of the
> alleged victim. those girls played and trained
> together for years. the parents get to know each
> other pretty well. it becomes a familiar and
> comfortable relationship. So comfortable and
> familiar that parents then let their 12 year old
> daughters travel alone with their coaches and/or
> trainers. It happens all of the time. If you
> have a daughter and she is training or being
> coached by a male - do yourself a favor - be
> present - be visible - don't get too comfortable.


Wrong. I have discussed who I am and I am not sure why the obsession?

easy answer Wrote:

> It is so easy to answer this. Justthefacts =
> Marlow´s wife who thinks he hasn´t done anything
> wrong and is being falsely accused. That´s why
> justthefacts knows so much and has in fact talked
> to both Marlow and his lawyer. I regocnise the way
> she writes, very easy to know who she is.



Wrong again. You guys can't read what I wrote throughout the thread?

Stabitha Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Well if this is true, then she better STFU and
> stay off of here because she could very well be
> called as a witness when this goes to trial.


I doubt very much I'd be call to testify in the trial except as character witness for the girl or Marlow. I wasn't present during the alleged crimes nor had any knowledge of them.

Justthefacts Wrote:
---------------------
> I doubt very much I'd be call to testify in the
> trial except as character witness for the girl or
> Marlow. I wasn't present during the alleged
> crimes nor had any knowledge of them.

So you know the girl (alleged victim) as well?

Interesting... Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Justthefacts Wrote:
> ---------------------
> > I doubt very much I'd be call to testify in the
> > trial except as character witness for the girl
> or
> > Marlow. I wasn't present during the alleged
> > crimes nor had any knowledge of them.
>
> So you know the girl (alleged victim) as well?


Met her and her mother a few times at different gyms. Known Marlow for a long time.

Justthefacts Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Interesting... Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Justthefacts Wrote:
> > ---------------------
> > > I doubt very much I'd be call to testify in
> the
> > > trial except as character witness for the
> girl
> > or
> > > Marlow. I wasn't present during the alleged
> > > crimes nor had any knowledge of them.
> >
> > So you know the girl (alleged victim) as well?
>
>
> Met her and her mother a few times at different
> gyms. Known Marlow for a long time.


What do you know about them? I guess really the question is, how well do you know them and what have you heard from others?

Interesting... Wrote:

>
> What do you know about them? I guess really the
> question is, how well do you know them and what
> have you heard from others?



What is it you're trying to get at? I'd rather not discuss anything about the alleged victim or her mother. I am not claiming to be great friends or anything and I have only seen them once after all this started, which is where we had a short conversation.

I am sure that the alleged victim and her mother both would like for you to SHUT THE F UP about the case. seriously - just shut up already. We get it - you think you know the truth - whatever - stop trying to convince people to share your view. You can believe whatever you want to believe - and the rest of the people will believe what they want to believe.

trust me Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I am sure that the alleged victim and her mother
> both would like for you to SHUT THE F UP about the
> case. seriously - just shut up already. We get
> it - you think you know the truth - whatever -
> stop trying to convince people to share your view.
> You can believe whatever you want to believe -
> and the rest of the people will believe what they
> want to believe.



I don't care if people believe what I believe. People obviously believe what they want. I don't claim to know the truth either. I am merely stating that Marlow gets a trial. But I am glad we have people here like you who are here to put ME in their place and let others just make up whatever they want about Marlow, the girl and this case. You keep up the good work.

Justthefacts Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Stabitha Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > You are dense. I asked you.......WHY would the
> > defendants Lawyer discuss anything about the
> case
> > with you with YOU?
> >
> > You seemed all too anxious to tell us you have
> had
> > "discussions" with the lawyer and investigators.
>
> >
> > WHY WHY WHY would they be talking to you about
> > this case.
> >
> > Simple question. Can you provide a simple
> answer?
>
>
> You're asking me to answer a question that's
> suited for the lawyer and the investigators. I
> don't know WHY WHY WHY they would or would not do
> something.

Nice deflection.

Obviously, you are related to the accused in some fashion because I can think of no other rational reason why they would even have a discussion with you.

You honestly are saying you dont know why they would talk to you?

You are completely full of shit.

Stabitha Wrote:

>
> Nice deflection.
>
> Obviously, you are related to the accused in some
> fashion because I can think of no other rational
> reason why they would even have a discussion with
> you.
>
> You honestly are saying you dont know why they
> would talk to you?
>
> You are completely full of shit.



Just like with the case, you have no idea what you're talking about. I am not related to Marlow. I've said who I am several times. I am not sure why you're so angry or continuing to make shit up. It must be a game for you?

They asked me questions. They told me what they could about various things. It's not a hard concept to grasp.

Im hardly angry. Just annoyed by your BS.

Please link the post that you claim identifies who you are.

And since you have claim to have no relevant relation to the case, I guess I could call his lawyer and have a discussion about the case since I dont either? According to you, lawyers just speak to random people about cases involving their clients.

Stabitha Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Im hardly angry. Just annoyed by your BS.
>
> Please link the post that you claim identifies who
> you are.
>
> And since you have claim to have no relevant
> relation to the case, I guess I could call his
> lawyer and have a discussion about the case since
> I dont either? According to you, lawyers just
> speak to random people about cases involving their
> clients.


You are angry. Annoyed is good enough of a description though.

You're right, you can call his lawyer and discuss it if you want. I bet they won't discuss much with you, if anything. I never said I was random or had no connection to the people involved. I said I had no relevance to the CASE. I didn't witness anything nor did I have any information about the CASE. I could only speak to them about what I know about the people involved.

What's your endgame here? What is it you're trying to say? What is it you want?

If you have no relevance or knowledge, how are you so sure he's not guilty?

What is your relationship to the "people involved" that the lawyer would want your input?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/21/2013 12:17PM by Stabitha.

Stabitha Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If you have no relevance or knowledge, how are you
> so sure he's not guilty?


Because that is how our system works. Innocent until PROVEN guilty. He hasn't had a trial yet.

Stabitha Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> What is your relationship to the "people involved"
> that the lawyer would want your input?


I am not going to get into details. I am a basketball trainer in Northern VA. I've known Marlow a long time. Worked with the girl in the past.

I like how you conveniently ignore the questions you cant answer.

Well fine, have fun in your dreamland. You come on here purporting to have knowledge about this case, but when called on the carpet you deflect and deny.

You should work for Obozo!

Justthefacts Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Stabitha Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> >
> > What is your relationship to the "people
> involved"
> > that the lawyer would want your input?
>
>
> I am not going to get into details. I am a
> basketball trainer in Northern VA. I've known
> Marlow a long time. Worked with the girl in the
> past.

Finally after 50 posts you fess up.

So, basically you are a close friend of the defendant. Makes sense now why you would be saying the things you say.

Now was that difficult?

Stabitha Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I like how you conveniently ignore the questions
> you cant answer.
>
> Well fine, have fun in your dreamland. You come on
> here purporting to have knowledge about this case,
> but when called on the carpet you deflect and
> deny.
>
> You should work for Obozo!


You're unhinged. You just claimed you weren't angry yet now you're bringing up Obama in a disparaging remark? What for? And what questions haven't I answered? I thought I did a good job providing answers to what I could. Sorry they weren't good enough for you.

Stabitha Wrote:


> Finally after 50 posts you fess up.
>
> So, basically you are a close friend of the
> defendant. Makes sense now why you would be saying
> the things you say.
>
> Now was that difficult?


What are you talking about? Please go back and read this thread because you apparently have no idea how to read if you are trying to claim you have. I have repeated the same things over and over about my relationship with Marlow. Obviously if he is going to see me or talk to me from jail I would have to know him in some way? Did I ever deny that I did? Your a troll of utmost proportion.

See above....all you had to do was say youre the defenadants bud and this would have ended long ago.

Case closed.

Stabitha Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> See above....all you had to do was say youre the
> defenadants bud and this would have ended long
> ago.
>
> Case closed.


It wouldn't have started if you had actually read the thread. Way to go Sherlock. You've pointed out your own ineptness.

Why should I read 5 pages of posts when I could just go to the source....YOU!

Youre the one who dragged this out for days.

Like I said, youre his buddy and that explains everything. You are going to take his word over the victim, witnesses, and the cops. That's how the world works. No mystery there.

One thing I am suprised about is I didnt know "friends" could visit/communicate with inmates awaiting trial. I thought that was restricted to family and lawyer.

Justthefacts Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Interesting... Wrote:
>
> >
> > What do you know about them? I guess really the
> > question is, how well do you know them and what
> > have you heard from others?
>
>
>
> What is it you're trying to get at? I'd rather
> not discuss anything about the alleged victim or
> her mother. I am not claiming to be great friends
> or anything and I have only seen them once after
> all this started, which is where we had a short
> conversation.

Just curious, maybe your a good contact for the detectives to talk to. Granted you might not know much about the case, but you might know someone (or several someones) that could answer some more questions about the case.

For example, did anything like this happen when you coached with this particular alleged victim or anything similiar? Maybe something with the alleged victim with another coach?

if 'justthefacts' is another trainer in NOVA, he must be jumping for joy - he just picked up a ton of clients!

Stabitha Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Why should I read 5 pages of posts when I could
> just go to the source....YOU!
>
> Youre the one who dragged this out for days.
>
> Like I said, youre his buddy and that explains
> everything. You are going to take his word over
> the victim, witnesses, and the cops. That's how
> the world works. No mystery there.
>
> One thing I am suprised about is I didnt know
> "friends" could visit/communicate with inmates
> awaiting trial. I thought that was restricted to
> family and lawyer.


Wrong again. I have listened to what he has to say. I believe what he has to say. I have taken what he said and what the lawyer said, added to that my experiences in the world of training and coaching, added to that the story the prosecution has tried to weave and the evidence they have claimed they have (at least what they've shown in court and to Marlow's lawyer.) I have taken all that and formulated an opinion. It doesn't make it true. If you had bothered to read the thread, you wouldn't be looking foolish. Again, my opinion is separate from the plain and simple fact that Marlow hasn't been convicted of anything. He hasn't had a trial yet. I say all this knowing the girl hasn't shown me anything (in the little I know of her) that would make me think she is making all this up out of thin air. Doesn't mean she isn't making it up. Doesn't mean I think she is. I honestly don't know. From what I have seen and heard, there seem to be inconsistencies in the case the prosecution has presented. Inconsistencies in her story. Again, my opinion.

That said, if I had spoken to Marlow and what he said didn't jive. Or the lawyer said "we're going to take a deal" or "we think he's guilty", or I merely felt that the evidence shows without a doubt that he did what he is accused of, I wouldn't have spoken to him or had any involvement at all with him or his lawyer. I am a responsible and pragmatic person. I have a family. I have no reason to associate with someone I believe to be a pedophile, friend or not. If he is found guilty and the evidence is clear, then I again feel that I would disassociate myself with him. And yes, it is a tough thing. Until you're here, you have no idea what the thoughts are that I have to contend with.


Again, the trial will tell a lot. It will decide a lot. It will decide the fate of the two people involved and it will decide the fate of a lot of the relationships those two have. Hopefully the trial will show us the complete and total truth and everyone can get some closure. Even the trolls on here just randomly making comments and having no clue what they are talking about.

Interesting... Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> Just curious, maybe your a good contact for the
> detectives to talk to. Granted you might not know
> much about the case, but you might know someone
> (or several someones) that could answer some more
> questions about the case.
>
> For example, did anything like this happen when
> you coached with this particular alleged victim or
> anything similiar? Maybe something with the
> alleged victim with another coach?


The fact of the matter is, and will always be, I never saw anything out of her that would lead me to believe she is a bad kid or would do something like this. I also have never seen anything out of Marlow or heard anything that would lead me to believe he is capable of this. That said, I've heard rumors about both. They are nothing more than rumor though. People who tend to dislike the girl, talk smack about her. People who dislike Marlow, talk smack about him. I've known Marlow way longer and know more about him so obviously the opinion I form of him is more relevant in my world.

well well well Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> if 'justthefacts' is another trainer in NOVA, he
> must be jumping for joy - he just picked up a ton
> of clients!


I am getting no joy out of any of this.

but you are getting lots of clients!

Why have you chosen to be the defendants advocate on this forum? If anything, I would think you would keep your fingers idle on internet media until this matter is resolved in court.

You would never be classified as an unbiased observer.

well well well Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> but you are getting lots of clients!

None of my current clients are Marlow's or have ever worked with him. There's no shortage of clients in the DC area.

Stabitha Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Why have you chosen to be the defendants advocate
> on this forum? If anything, I would think you
> would keep your fingers idle on internet media
> until this matter is resolved in court.
>
> You would never be classified as an unbiased
> observer.


I wouldn't say I am his advocate. If you don't notice, this thread started with the incredibly stupid observation that male coaches shouldn't coach or train females. It morphed from there with people making false statements about Marlow or the case that I didn't mind talking about because, why not? I am not losing or gaining anything by doing it. I am merely an advocate for the process and I would like to know the truth before condemning a person. Chances are, if this thread came up and it wasn't Marlow, I'd still be commenting because the thread was nonsense.

wow - this thread did morph into quite a mess. the only fact that I CAN agree with is that it was an incredibly stupid observation or statement that male coaches shouldn't coach or train females. that is about the only thing on this thread that I can wholeheartedly agree with.

Some of your statements:

"What you believe isn't fact. If they add more charges, then they have strong evidence. If they find more girls, they have strong evidence. Right now, they are fishing because of the weakness of their evidence"

"Nobody knows exactly what they have. At this point, you can deduce they probably have no photos of the victim from his phone or computer because he was never charged with possession of child pornography, just solicitation. That probably means they either have text messages from him to her or they are just using her word."

"I wish people would stop saying his bond is proof of anything. He is not given bond because of the CHARGES only. And by the way, CHARGES doesn't mean he is guilty either."

"Great. He has been around my family a great deal. So I guess it's time for you to let it go?"

"I am not saying she's lying at all. I am also not saying Marlow is lying. Therein lies the difference. We don't have a complete picture of the actual evidence. Her word is indeed evidence, but is there ANYTHING to back it up? There were claims of a photo, where is this photo? Why hasn't he been charged with possession of said photo? All the charges against Marlow are based (so far) on her allegations"

If these statements don't come across as you being the defendants "internet advocate", then you need some serious mental health therapy.

Like many have said, I think you would be wise to just stop posting about this and in fact if I were you, I would go back and delete every post you made.

Stabitha Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Some of your statements:
>
> "What you believe isn't fact. If they add more
> charges, then they have strong evidence. If they
> find more girls, they have strong evidence. Right
> now, they are fishing because of the weakness of
> their evidence"
>
> "Nobody knows exactly what they have. At this
> point, you can deduce they probably have no photos
> of the victim from his phone or computer because
> he was never charged with possession of child
> pornography, just solicitation. That probably
> means they either have text messages from him to
> her or they are just using her word."
>
> "I wish people would stop saying his bond is proof
> of anything. He is not given bond because of the
> CHARGES only. And by the way, CHARGES doesn't mean
> he is guilty either."
>
> "Great. He has been around my family a great deal.
> So I guess it's time for you to let it go?"
>
> "I am not saying she's lying at all. I am also not
> saying Marlow is lying. Therein lies the
> difference. We don't have a complete picture of
> the actual evidence. Her word is indeed evidence,
> but is there ANYTHING to back it up? There were
> claims of a photo, where is this photo? Why hasn't
> he been charged with possession of said photo? All
> the charges against Marlow are based (so far) on
> her allegations"
>
> If these statements don't come across as you being
> the defendants "internet advocate", then you need
> some serious mental health therapy.
>
> Like many have said, I think you would be wise to
> just stop posting about this and in fact if I were
> you, I would go back and delete every post you
> made.


I stand by everything I said. Sorry you don't like it. Maybe YOU should leave the thread?

It's got nothing to do with me liking it or not.

You stated above..."I wouldnt say I am his advocate"

I just wanted to expose your lie!

Stabitha Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It's got nothing to do with me liking it or not.
>
> You stated above..."I wouldnt say I am his
> advocate"
>
> I just wanted to expose your lie!


Great. Now expose the lies of the people making racist or sexual comments? Comments about a photo that doesn't exist? Why are you selective in trying to admonish me and ignore everything else in this thread? You're comments about me mean nothing.

So the photo doesnt exist, the girl is lying, the cops and prosecutor are racist, it's all a vast conspiracy against Mr. Marlow because ____________

Please fill in the blank

>I am not going to get into details. I am a basketball trainer in Northern VA. I've known Marlow a long time. Worked with the girl in the past.

>None of my current clients are Marlow's or have ever worked with him. There's no shortage of clients in the DC area.

You claimed you trained the girl in the past, even though she was one of Marlow's clients? Did you really train her, too?

'justthefacts' should be reamed 'justmakingishup'

Justthefacts Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Interesting... Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> >
> > Just curious, maybe your a good contact for the
> > detectives to talk to. Granted you might not
> know
> > much about the case, but you might know someone
> > (or several someones) that could answer some
> more
> > questions about the case.
> >
> > For example, did anything like this happen when
> > you coached with this particular alleged victim
> or
> > anything similiar? Maybe something with the
> > alleged victim with another coach?
>
>
> The fact of the matter is, and will always be, I
> never saw anything out of her that would lead me
> to believe she is a bad kid or would do something
> like this. I also have never seen anything out of
> Marlow or heard anything that would lead me to
> believe he is capable of this. That said, I've
> heard rumors about both. They are nothing more
> than rumor though. People who tend to dislike the
> girl, talk smack about her. People who dislike
> Marlow, talk smack about him. I've known Marlow
> way longer and know more about him so obviously
> the opinion I form of him is more relevant in my
> world.

Thank you. I'd like you to contact this number 703-777-0475 and ask to speak to Detective J.S. Cichocki. He is actively investigating the case, and needs some clarification on some things that were said by some others in the case that didn't seem to line up with some of the facts in the case. I think you might be able to clear up some "confusion" on some facts and you can remain anonymous.

claim Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Did you
> really train her, too?

Hmmmmmmmm...tag team?

>On THIS particular subject though, I PAINFULLY know more than you. I have spoken to Marlow's lawyer and her private investigator. I have been to both bond hearings and the preliminary hearing. I have spoken to Marlow. I have spoken with the girl's mother (I've known her for 5 years as well.) I have spoken with the police detective in charge.
>He hasn't had a trial yet. I say all this knowing the girl hasn't shown me anything (in the little I know of her) that would make me think she is making all this up out of thin air

I thought you didn't know the victim very long? In this past post you said you've known her and the mom for 5 years. The next post you say, you don't know her. Which one is it? Not long or long?

Re: i have a question

Posted by: Justthefacts ()

Date: August 08, 2013 03:27PM


hoops parent Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> total nightmare all the way around - my son and
> his friends are all stunned - including some girls
> that were on his current team. Everyone is really
> in shock.

I've known him for 25 years. He has his faults, but no way does anyone I know think he did this. We all recognize he COULD be guilty. But there is just no way from our history with him do we think he is capable of this. It's one of the biggest shocks of my life for sure.


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

Sooooooooooooo, you have known him for 25 years............and who is the "we" don't believe he is capable of doing this.

You lose credibility when you lie.

Just dosclose your relationship to the perp.

I think justthefacts has finally wised up and is keeping quiet, which would be the intelligent thing to do. Time will tell, I could be wrong.

claim Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> I thought you didn't know the victim very long?
> In this past post you said you've known her and
> the mom for 5 years. The next post you say, you
> don't know her. Which one is it? Not long or
> long?


5 years isn't long compared to the 20+ I've known Marlow. And I only knew them in passing, from AAU tournaments, training, etc. It's not the same. First time I ran into them was around 4 or 5 years ago. No, I don't have exact dates. Could have been less than that. Apologies if I made it seem more than it really is. Wasn't my intention.

do the math Wrote:

>
> Sooooooooooooo, you have known him for 25
> years............and who is the "we" don't believe
> he is capable of doing this.
>
> You lose credibility when you lie.
>
> Just dosclose your relationship to the perp.



What? What exactly are you asking? Where did I lie? I've disclosed my relationship several times. Why don't you disclose your relationship with the victim? The perp? Anyone relevant?

Stabitha Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I think justthefacts has finally wised up and is
> keeping quiet, which would be the intelligent
> thing to do. Time will tell, I could be wrong.



Why would I keep it quiet? What the hell do I have to hide?

Stabitha Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So the photo doesnt exist, the girl is lying, the
> cops and prosecutor are racist, it's all a vast
> conspiracy against Mr. Marlow because
> ____________
>
> Please fill in the blank


Now admonish yourself for making all that crap up.

claim Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> You claimed you trained the girl in the past, even
> though she was one of Marlow's clients? Did you
> really train her, too?


None of your business really. But since you care so much, Marlow was present when I worked with her and her team. You guys never give up do you? What's the point of questioning me with all this? Certainly has nothing to do with the thread.

well well well Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 'justthefacts' should be reamed 'justmakingishup'


Yep. Made it all up. You've broken the case.

Interesting... Wrote:

>
> Thank you. I'd like you to contact this number
> 703-777-0475 and ask to speak to Detective J.S.
> Cichocki. He is actively investigating the case,
> and needs some clarification on some things that
> were said by some others in the case that didn't
> seem to line up with some of the facts in the
> case. I think you might be able to clear up some
> "confusion" on some facts and you can remain
> anonymous.



He already has my number. Thanks for the concern though.

Justthefacts Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Interesting... Wrote:
>
> >
> > Thank you. I'd like you to contact this number
> > 703-777-0475 and ask to speak to Detective J.S.
> > Cichocki. He is actively investigating the
> case,
> > and needs some clarification on some things
> that
> > were said by some others in the case that
> didn't
> > seem to line up with some of the facts in the
> > case. I think you might be able to clear up
> some
> > "confusion" on some facts and you can remain
> > anonymous.
>
>
>
> He already has my number. Thanks for the concern
> though.

Okay good.

I suppose you heard, being you are so "in the know", that YOUR main man was indicted on 5 charges by the Grand Jury yesterday. (I doubt you would let the rest of us in on that, being it wouldn't make you look so good.)

>And I only knew them in passing, from AAU tournaments, training, etc. It's not the same
>Marlow was present when I worked with her and her team

So you worked with the victim, but yet you claim you only have seen her in passing. See you have lots of conflicting statements. Just sayin'

updates Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I suppose you heard, being you are so "in the
> know", that YOUR main man was indicted on 5
> charges by the Grand Jury yesterday. (I doubt you
> would let the rest of us in on that, being it
> wouldn't make you look so good.)

What were the charges?

updates Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I suppose you heard, being you are so "in the
> know", that YOUR main man was indicted on 5
> charges by the Grand Jury yesterday. (I doubt you
> would let the rest of us in on that, being it
> wouldn't make you look so good.)


Been on the road since last Thursday. Haven't spoken to Marlow since then. So no, I hadn't heard anything yet. I will ask around though. Maybe you'd like to share what you know instead of criticizing me?

justsayin' Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> So you worked with the victim, but yet you claim
> you only have seen her in passing. See you have
> lots of conflicting statements. Just sayin'



You can nitpick the facts all you want. It's pointless to share anything in here because you guys will over analyze it to death. Believe whatever you want. I've been as forward and up front as I care to be at this point.

updates Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I suppose you heard, being you are so "in the
> know", that YOUR main man was indicted on 5
> charges by the Grand Jury yesterday. (I doubt you
> would let the rest of us in on that, being it
> wouldn't make you look so good.)


So I can confirm that more charges were added. Don't know what they were yet nor do I know what caused these charges to be added. Guess I will hear at some point. Definitely dims the outlook for a positive outcome for Marlow.

Justthefacts Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> updates Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I suppose you heard, being you are so "in the
> > know", that YOUR main man was indicted on 5
> > charges by the Grand Jury yesterday. (I doubt
> you
> > would let the rest of us in on that, being it
> > wouldn't make you look so good.)
>
>
> So I can confirm that more charges were added.
> Don't know what they were yet nor do I know what
> caused these charges to be added. Guess I will
> hear at some point. Definitely dims the outlook
> for a positive outcome for Marlow.



Actually, haven't confirmed more charges or what they are yet, just heard there were more. (Just making sure I am not blasted for saying something wrong in here)

well, I appreciate any accurate info that can be shared. for what it's worth.

hoops parent Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> well, I appreciate any accurate info that can be
> shared. for what it's worth.


From two different sources I am told they are additional charges implying more incidents of the same nature. Nothing new really, just more of the same. Doesn't help his case though.

with new alleged victims? oh my, this is just so horrible.

hoops parent Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> with new alleged victims? oh my, this is just so
> horrible.


No, same victim, additional times alleging the same activities.

thanks - I appreciate your sharing what info you have.

I always thought that having sexual favors from consenting girls turning 18 was a benefit of being a coach? Are they adults? Can they agree to have a physical relationship with another adult? What happens if the girl assaults the male coach?

My female high school trainer groped the shit out of me (I am male) while getting my leg wrapped for a pulled hamstring. Should I sue the school?

hoops parent Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> thanks - I appreciate your sharing what info you
> have.


It isn't all that much and if you notice, people knew before I did.

PGevn Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I always thought that having sexual favors from
> consenting girls turning 18 was a benefit of being
> a coach? Are they adults? Can they agree to have a
> physical relationship with another adult? What
> happens if the girl assaults the male coach?
>
> My female high school trainer groped the shit out
> of me (I am male) while getting my leg wrapped for
> a pulled hamstring. Should I sue the school?

The child in this instance was 12. And no, in a lot of school districts, teachers can not have such encounters with students, no matter what the age.