Jurors deciding the fate of seven-year-old Victoria Stafford's alleged killer twice asked the judge for clarification on the definition of sexual assault during their deliberations Friday.

The jury first asked a question about sexual assault around 3 p.m., asking the judge if forcibly removing a child's underwear would mean someone is guilty of the crime of sexual assault.

To that question, Superior Court Justice Thomas Heeney answered yes, because removing a child's underwear involves some force and it violates the integrity of the child.

Then, after breaking for dinner, the jury came back with a second question about sexual assault, asking the judge whether they could consider a count of sexual assault, as well as a count of sexual assault causing bodily harm.

The judge said that was a possibility. There could be a sexual assault charge, or there could be a sexual assault causing bodily harm charge.

The questions about sexual assault were part of four queries the jury posed to Justice Heeney during its second day of deliberations into the first-degree murder trial of Michael Rafferty.

Rafferty is charged with first-degree murder, sexual assault and abduction in relation to Stafford's death. He pleaded not guilty to all charges.

Friday morning, the jury asked to again see video in which Rafferty's former girlfriend described the alleged crimes of kidnapping, rape and murder to police in graphic detail.

In the video, McClintic tells investigators how Rafferty allegedly raped and murdered the eight-year-old girl -- whose death McClintic later claimed she was actually responsible for.

The video was from a six-hour interview McClintic did with police on May 24, 2009, six weeks after her disappearance and murder in Woodstock, Ont.

The request from the jury came just a few hours into their first full day of deliberations Friday, a day after the judge finished giving them his final instructions.

In the video, McClintic describes watching Rafferty sexually assault Tori, then kill her, saying she had to turn away at times because the scene was so horrific.

McClintic later changed her story, however, saying that in fact she had delivered the fatal blows. She said she flew into a murderous rage when memories of her own abuse as a child were triggered by witnessing the assault.

McClintic has already pleaded guilty to first-degree murder in her own trial.

The jury, consisting of nine women and three men, was sequestered Thursday after hearing from 62 witnesses over the course of the two-month trial.

Once the jury was sequestered, many disturbing details about the investigation into Tori's death were publicly revealed for the first time, along with an interrogation video.

Over the course of the trial, what the jury did not hear was that when Rafferty was arrested outside a Woodstock, Ont., health club in May 2009, police seized his car and found a BlackBerry and laptop inside.

Police eventually got a warrant to search the Honda Civic, but a separate warrant for the electronics was never requested.

That meant that evidence found on that computer and phone was off limits for prosecutors, including searches for the terms "underage rape" and the fact the movie "Karla" was accessed.

Child pornography was found on a separate hard drive but it was also disallowed from court due to the lack of proper warrants.

Rafferty's lawyer Dirk Derstine on Friday told CP24's Sue Sgambati that the evidence was obtained illegally, and therefore could not be included in the trial.

However, he said he can appreciate why some observers are outraged that jurors don't have a complete picture of the accused.

"It always looks hard on one level and I understand why it might be, and frankly if I were on the other side of the fence I might be shocked too," Derstine said.

He added that the defence also had evidence it was prevented from including in the trial.

Jurors also never saw the police interrogation video of Rafferty because the judge thought it would be prejudicial.

The video shows Rafferty the month after Tori disappeared. He sits in the corner of a room, wrapped in a yellow blanket, occasionally crying when officers are outside the room.

He says again and again that he didn't kill anyone.

"I didn't do anything," he tells Det. Staff Sgt. Chris Loam of the Ontario Provincial Police.

"Well, that's not entirely true," Loam says.

"That is entirely true that I didn't do anything," Rafferty says.

The judge ruled that the video could unduly influence the jury.

CTV's legal analyst Steven Skurka said that represented a victory for the defence, because the jury could have been influenced by the fact detectives appear so confident about his guilt during the interrogation, even comparing Rafferty to Paul Bernardo.

The Crown has maintained that Rafferty and McClintic, his former girlfriend, kidnapped Tori outside her school, then drove her to an isolated area where she was raped, then killed with a hammer.

When asked how he could defend a client like Rafferty, Derstine said he was simply doing his duty as a defence lawyer.

"You represent someone because it's your job to represent them. It's never asked of a surgeon whether or not you check that everyone is a nice guy when they come in after an accident," he said on Friday.

"If we are not to take certain cases, who exactly is supposed to take them? The system works best when everybody works hard and achieves fair goals through the adversarial system."