Well, even if it's not the case (and it may not be) there are interesting parallels:
1.) The murders were shockingly brutal
2.) Lizzie Borden's main defense was that an intruder did it
3.) She was a well-to-do, fair, christian woman and nobody believed she was capable of such a crime
4.) It was all circumstantial
5.) Her testimony was shot full of holes; she denied trying to buy poison from the pharmacist that said she did, she burned a dress a couple days later and denied it, she told stories that didn't fit the physical evidence, etc.
6.) She retained super-high priced lawyers for her defense
7.) The public was obsessed with the case and the media followed it passionately
8.) There was no obvious motive
9.) The evidence seemed to point everywhere and nowhere
Forgot one:
Well, even if it's not the case (and it may not be) there are interesting parallels:
1.) The murders were shockingly brutal
2.) Lizzie Borden's main defense was that an intruder did it
3.) She was a well-to-do, fair, christian woman and nobody believed she was capable of such a crime
4.) It was all circumstantial
5.) Her testimony was shot full of holes; she denied trying to buy poison from the pharmacist that said she did, she burned a dress a couple days later and denied it, she told stories that didn't fit the physical evidence, etc.
6.) She retained super-high priced lawyers for her defense
7.) The public was obsessed with the case and the media followed it passionately
8.) There was no obvious motive
9.) The evidence seemed to point everywhere and nowhere
10.) It was a murder, if she was in fact guilty, of an immediate family member