
Evidence given for her prostitute status, besides the admittedly 
questionable claim of the man on trial included:

1. Prior employment in a number of massage parlors, with women who
claimed that she worked as a prostitute;

2. Walking around a truck stop at 4:00 AM wearing a lace miniskirt,
a halter top, and no underwear of any sort;

3. Not having a purse or other I.D. with her.

Not enough to convict her, but enough to create reasonable doubt
whether a rape actually took place, or theft of services.

Are you just ignorant, or lying again?


The accounts on the evening news indicated that they claimed self-
defense, and the judge agreed that they were so operating.
