Quote Originally Posted by Dan Druff View Post
Quote Originally Posted by LLL View Post
And her testimony continues:

12:44 p.m. ET: Defense attorney Kirk Nurmi is asking Arias about the Valentine's Day gift Arias received from Alexander in 2007. Arias says it was a package of three pieces of boys' underwear with different Spider-Man prints on them.

12:49 p.m. ET: Arias said the underwear confused her, but she gave him the benefit of the doubt. She thought it was some kind of "trend." Alexander told her that he wanted her to wear the Spider-Man underwear.

12:51 p.m. ET: The Spider-Man underwear did not fit Arias' body. She had to make alterations to them be able to put them on. Arias said Alexander told her it was hot when she put them on.
http://www.hlntv.com/article/2013/02...ay-4?hpt=hp_t4
WHY IS THIS SHIT PART OF THE TESTIMONY?

This should be considered irrelevant to the case and never part of a defense.

Unless the victim was committing illegal sexual acts (bestiality, child molestation, unwanted spousal rape, etc), it should not matter at ALL what the victim found "hot", even if some of it was weird.

You would be hard pressed to find any adult male that doesn't have some sexual desire that is slightly out of the mainstream.

If you don't like your husband or boyfriend's sexual fetishes, there is an easy solution -- leave him. These are not ever justification for any sort of violence.

I can actually have sympathy for the battered woman who snaps and shoots her husband after years of physical abuse, even if not in direct self defense. I'm not saying that should be excused, but I can understand it. I can see it being used as a mitigating factor to consider during sentencing and to downgrade a first-degree murder charge. However, sexual desires should NOT be admissible in situations like this. It will also open up a huge can of worms to where basically any woman can fish out something "perverted" her husband said/did, and then use it as an excuse for killing him, claiming "sexual abuse".

Terrible.
She's trying to save her life. Completely understandable but I don't see how they are going to work any of this in as self-defense. She's going to have to flat out say that he attacked her the day that she killed him. Apparently the jury is starting to show signs of her testimony being a bit much. Who knows maybe they aren't so dumb after all.

Will be nice to see how composed she is during cross examination.

Another highlight from today's testimony:

On Monday, she described an encounter with Alexander in May 2007, about a year before his death, when she was sleeping in his bed and awoke to find him having sexual intercourse with her.

"He was on top of me, and had already penetrated and started having sex with me," Arias said.

She said she didn't tell him to stop but the sex made her uncomfortable because she felt it violated the teachings of the Mormon church, which discourages sex before marriage.

Defense attorney Kirk Nurmi asked why she felt the sex while she slept was OK.

"I felt like I was partially responsible because I went to sleep next to him. I was wearing a T-shirt, cute shorts," Arias said. "I just felt like being in his bed, sleeping there, it wasn't entirely his fault, like maybe it was invited."