This is a fairly interesting Victorian murder case and seems to be well researched, but I found the way it was written very irritating - to the point where I almost gave up.
First of all, it needed professionally editing and proof-reading to eliminate the typos and minor mistakes before publication, such as "1900's", and "Shortly after the jury left, the undertaker, Mr Middleton, the undertaker, arrived".
But my main gripe is that the author has chosen to embellish a factual account with her own "literary" touches. Instead of simply telling us what the different characters said, almost every single piece of dialogue has people frowning, rubbing chins, stroking beards, looking sternly etc etc. For example: "As Linton, the magistrate, listened to Stevenson he subconsciously stroked at his own long white beard while gazing up at Stevenson's beard, as if weighing up whose was the most luxuriant". This is all made up stuff in a non-fiction book, and there is lots and lots of it!
The problem is that not only does it read like second-rate fiction, it left me wondering what I actually could believe - the last thing I want to feel when reading a "true" story. At one point she claims jury members sat up late into the night discussing the case in their hotel and implies that they got drunk and came to court with hangovers the next morning. I'm pretty sure this was fabricated. The problem is, I just don't know - which to me in a non-fiction crime book is an unforgivable crime itself!