02-18-2011, 02:47 PM
Quote:i am family. i was told that she had no shirt on. maybe i misunderstood or they were referring to johnny. i will try to ask again, but some questions are just too sensitive or inappropriate to ask
Then we shouldn't even be talking about her pants or no pants! If you know that for a fact. See what I mean about all this info being wrong? We've had pages of "they're not gonna say she had no pants on" ....I brought up the no pants because people were stating it as FACT that she didn't. And it appeared to be untrue when her uncle came out and said that she was found in her uniform.
Now, you're saying that it was her top, not her pants and that means that *shudder* Maytee was actually right in her last 911 call when she said she only had pants on.
There is nothing seedy or perverted in talking about her state of dress or undress in my opinion. I think her uncle talked about it because it was important for him to let people know that this attack happened quite quickly after Lisa got off work, not at 2 in the morning, cuz she was still in her uniform. That establishes a timeline of sorts. Her not having a top on makes perfect sense to me because I have stated before, when my daughter was a waitress, she would walk in the door, drop her purse, and as she was walking out of the room she would be pulling her shirt off, cuz it STUNK of booze and food. If Lisa didn't have a top on, it doesn't immediately imply a sexual assault to me(Is that why people are getting all huffy about the no pants/shirt thing?) ...it implies that she pulled her shirt off (like my daughter) and the attackers came in shortly thereafter.
There is no disrespect or innuendo implied from ME, whether or not she had pants/shirt on or off. I was just trying to deduce the FACTS, and at the time, I believed the uncle over Maytee. I believe the uncle establishing or implying that the attack was around 11 PM or shortly thereafter. THATS why it was important to me to know whether it was true or not.