No, you don't understand, it has nothing to do with her taking the stand as to whether or not said evidences was introduced....her priors are not admissible, period. You keep trying to conflate your emotions and what YOU saw on TV with matters and rules of law.
The jury did not see the same things you did! Nor did you see the same things that they did!
The jurors, meanwhile, were a pack of morons.
No, they followed the rule of law, the prosecutors failed to meet their burden.
Look, I know this is an emotional case, we all saw the beautiful little girl with her hand under her chin with big wide eyes. We all know she died at the hand of an unfit mother and want someone to pay the price....no matter what.
It's the what that we have to define if we're going to live in a lawful society.
Shall we convict on emotions or law, what do you want?
The lack of convictions and justice lays solely with the prosecutors who tried for the headlines instead of focusing on justice of what they could prove, period.
Please stop lecturing me. In fact, you seem fairly emotional yourself about this case.
I’m glad you think that Casey Anthony got a fair trial. Happy Days for you. I, on the other hand, seeing all the circumstantial evidence produced IN COURT, feel she got away with murder. PERIOD.
In all my times at jury duty, not once has the defendant taken the stand. No problem; his right. But afterwards, the defense or state has always thanked us and eventually it comes out that defendent had done some major prison time for some other related crime. Often the juror feels like they’ve been had. (Don’t lecture me on this either, please). It is not a perfect system (as proven in the Anthony case) and sometimes it is downright faulty.