My Fox Boston - Many people are calling Casey Anthony OJ II. But I say, we need to go even further back, to Lizzie Borden, to understand this acquittal. Hear me out (we'll get to that Bob).
Wow, when I first heard that head line last night, I was like, "hmm, I wonder where he's going with this." And now after reading his piece, I'm still like "hmm, where's he going with this." I know its the job of crime reporters to dig up sensational headlines and and glamour cases to capture the publics attention, but shouldn't they be at least somewhat based in fact? This most recent Bob Ward column just wreaks of a super outlandish headline just to draw hits to the website. I mean his basic argument can be widdled down that both Lizzie Borden and Casey Anthony were young girls accused of murder who were eventually acquitted despite being guilty in the court of public opinion...could the same not be said for any woman found innocent of murder charges? Lets hear him out:
-On August 4, 1892, Lizzie Borden's father, Andrew, and her step mother, Abby, were bludgeoned in their Fall River, MA home - You're right, they are similar! Casey was accused of killing her toddler child and Lizzie of bludgeoning both of her parents! I can't believe the similarities, its like a copy cat murder!
-In 1892, just before the murders, Lizzie tried to buy a form of cyanide from a druggist, she was turned away. In 2008, we had Google searches for chloroform in the Anthony home when only Casey had access to a computer. - Seemingly similar, except I never really bought into the chloroform argument. Plus, trying to buy cyanide directly before your parents were gruesomely killed is a bit of a stronger link than googling chloroform at some point prior to your daughter disappearing. Do you know how fucked I'd be if I was ever charged with a crime and someone checked my google history? There's all sorts of weird shit in there, I'm just a curious guy. Not to mention that we're talking about her toddler of a daughter here, I'm fairly certain she didn't need chloroform to over power her. Not saying it doesn't look sketchy as hell, just saying its not exactly attempting to purchase and illegal and deadly poison in person shortly before your parents are found dead.
- And in both highly watched trials, both Borden and Anthony were acquitted quickly; Lizzie's jury came back in 90 minutes, Casey's just over ten hours. In the face of such seemingly overwhelming evidence, both trials ended with acquittals. - Well Bob, now you're saying things, I'd love to know how people were watching the Lizzie Borden trial across the nation in 1892, fairly certain Court TV didn't have live coverage. And I'm also pretty sure that any news on the trial would have reached other parts of the country via newspaper days after the fact. Not exactly the same as today where at any given moment you could receive tweets on the case like "Casey's tits look particularly perky today."
-In Lizzie Borden's trial, the all male jury admitted it could not conceive of a woman committing such a brutal murder. Add to the fact that a conviction would send Lizzie Borden to the gallows in an age before endless appeals, made it impossible that Lizzie Borden would ever be convicted. We don't know why Casey Anthony's jury refused to convict her for Caylee's death. But remember, Casey like Lizzie, was facing the prospect of death if convicted of First Degree Murder. - Exactly, we don't know, but I'm inclined to give the jurors the benefit of the doubt that they probably weighed the actual evidence, not the sensational headlines, and came to a decision. She didn't have an all male jury, and it's not uncommon for women to be convicted of crimes this day and age. Basically there is no relation between the outcome of Borden's and Anthony's case.
