In an odd, nasty way, murder cases are easier to stomach than sexual assault-- the victim can't re-tell and re-live the crime. Listening to someone describe an alleged attack is far harder to take than it is to see cold, clinical autopsy photos.

Today, after things got put off in the Steffen case, I went downstairs to check in on People vs. Paul Wesley Baker. It was a rough day on the witness stand.

Deputy DA Nicole Flood called Baker's ex-wife, (she gave her name in court, but given the subject matter, I'll leave it out), who offered an hour-and-a-half of memories about their troubled relationship. She met him by chance, dated for a few years and moved in together.

"He was young, strong, good-looking, very outgoing," she testified. "He was, socially, very interesting."

But he also had a temper, fueled by his drinking. He punched her in the face when she left him, she testified, then kicked her in the leg on a separate occasion. He spit in her face, choked her, insulted her and threw a vase at her when he erroneously believed she was seeing another man.

But she loved him, tried to work things out and took him back on numerous occasions. When you hear all his alleged misdeeds laid out in court, it's hard to understand why she stuck with him, but this isn't uncommon. We've probably all been in relationships that we regretted later, but seemed like they'd improve at the time. Perhaps not to this extreme, but I don't think it's as surprising that she stayed with him, even after the violence began.

The morning testimony culminated with an emotional remembrance of an alleged assault in 1989. The two had been out at a bar, shooting pool, and Baker allegedly became enraged over her accidental contact with the bartender. He accused her of having an affair, took her home and forced her to have sex. She cried her way all through the testimony, describing the intense violence and eventual alleged sodomy.

"I told him no," she said. "He was very aggressive. He wasn't open to reasoning. He was going to do what he was going to do."

This is not to say Mr. Baker's guilty of the acts she described -- he's innocent until the jury decides otherwise. But, as the flinching jurors definitely noticed, you can't help but feel the emotion as she digs up these dark wounds of the past.

And, to make it worse, the normal business of the court's going on while she's on the stand. She's remembering this terrible alleged crime all while the baliffs are getting radio calls, the clerk's phone is ringing, people are coming in and out, and I'm in the corner taking notes. Somehow, the mundane setting makes the acts described seem even more horrible.

I didn't get a chance to stick around for the cross examination, but the defense attorney, Norman H. Kallen, noticed me on the way out to lunch and gave me a grim smile.

"This will give you plenty of tabloid fodder," he said.

Indeed it did-- but I hope I didn't tell it that way.