Book excerpt: Long before the Casey Anthony trial that captivated the nation at the end of the 2000s, there was a very famous case that strikes an incredible resemblance. The trial of Alice Crimmins was the main talk in the 1960s as it divided the country into two opposing sides. While the Casey Anthony trial was very straightforward because of the numerous evidence that pointed in the direction of her guilt, Alice Crimmins's case lacked the physical proof that could link the woman directly to the murders of her own kids. Regardless of this, the prosecution put her on trial, and they won. It was a different time when women and mothers were supposed to behave in an acceptable way. Alice didn't fit the norm, and she quickly rose up as the number one suspect even though it was unclear if she had any involvement in the deaths of her two kids. She was judged by everyone because of her lifestyle and the fact that she had an estranged husband. But was Alice Crimmins really guilty of the crimes? Or was the investigation sidetracked by the prejudice?