Lawrence Taylor: I'm Innocent Because All I Did With My Underage Hooker Was Punch the Clown

Paragon of Virtue.

Actually, Lawrence Taylor isn't claiming this; a colleague of his young hooker friend is saying it. (And, I wonder, how much money changed hands from lawyer-to-fixer-to-pimp-to-hooker to have her say it.)

The 16-year-old hooker allegedly blurted it out after she left a Rockland County hotel room where Taylor paid her $300.

"She starts explaining that it was weird because she didn't even have sex," the pal told investigators, according to the source.

"When she got back in the car, she wasn't mad or anything like that. She was like, 'Wow' - she got paid $300 and didn't have to have sex with him."

The hooker, though, says they did have sex.

Since, I take it, the definition of the charge against him (3rd degree rape, I think) includes as an element actual sex, you know what we got right here?

We've got Clinton/Lewinsky redux, sorta.

I didn't have sex with her, Your Honor.

I had sex near her.

Wasn't in her.

Adjacent, yes.

Inside, no. That would be wrong.

There's an important legal distinction, Your Honor.

Thanks to rdbrewer.

Oh: A commenter says "I thought he rape-raped her," based on the first reports, and that's what I thought too. Or rather, I wasn't sure if it was a rape-rape or stat-rape charge.

Stat rape, it turns out.

posted by Ace at 08:16 PM

| Access Comments