by any contrary evidence. Being implausible and being untrue are not the same thing. It is plausible that Willis has a habit as an adult to pay cash when the option is available. I know people who 1) don't use credit cards, and 2) don't want their banking info exposed by using a debit card. So they carry cash to use in every transaction where cash can be used.Using cash is an accepted means of engaging in commercial transactions. Until COVID you never saw retail establishments that were "cashless". The fact that smart phones have created a variety of non-cash forms of payment does not undermine the idea that some people still prefer to use cash.That said, if this was a criminal case and there was a requirement to undermine her testimony on a "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard, her implausible testimony -- in the absence of any contrary evidence -- would be enough to establish reasonable doubt. But I think the standard for DQ here is much lower -- not "proof beyond a reasonable doubt." On that basis, even without contrary evidence, I do not think there is any barrier to the judge rejecting her testimony as not credible under all the circumstances present -- mainly because it is self-serving and not corroborated.