This is one of the cases of potential cases of miscarriages of justice which Conan Doyle chose to investigate at the turn of the 20th century. Unlike the contemporary cases of George Edalji and Oscar Slater, though, this was already a 40 year old case. Mrs Emsley was a rich widow who had made her money through property management in the London East End of the mid 19th century. A sometime employee of hers, a plasterer James Mullins, was tried, convicted and hanged for her murder. The evidence was very largely circumstantial and even the trial judge was doubtful, saying "If you can even now make it manifest that you are innocent of the charge, I do not doubt that every attention will be paid to any cogent proof laid before those with whom it rests to carry out the finding of the law", though to no avail. Mullins had first drawn attention to the crime by accusing a cobbler John Emms of the murder and accusing him of concealing possessions belonging to the victim. Conan Doyle's conclusion is slightly ambiguous; he says that Mullins "was very likely guilty", but that the evidence was largely circumstantial, could point to other conclusions, and that the case cried out for the need for a Not Proven verdict, as in the Scottish judicial system. Unfortunately, this short book is nearly wholly a transcript of the actual trial, which is repetitive and not well set out here. No rating, as there is very little original material here.