The story
“The society woman believed that the workingman was the thief, and the case of circumstantial evidence was sufficient to make the police agree with her. The workingman was repairing a leak in the bathroom that opened off her boudoir. The woman entered her room, and in taking off her veil snapped the catch of her necklace. She was about to fix it when her baby entered the room, and she dropped the jewels on her dresser to play with the baby for a moment, and give the child a box of candy. Then she crossed to her desk telephone, turned when the nurse entered to take the child out, and could swear later that the nurse was not near the dresser. A few moments later she turned around in time to see the workingman dash across the room and out. She walked over to the dresser and her necklace was gone.
“That was the story she told the police, and it was absolutely true in every detail. The workingman was arrested and denied his guilt. He explained his hasty departure by saying that he had a sick wife and that when he left home he told his little girl where he would be during the day and to summon if her mother grew worse. From the window he saw his daughter in the street, and fearing the worst, had rushed out. Like the statement of the woman, his story was absolutely true. But she was believed, while he was cast into a cell. The daughter of the prisoner found the thief when the police were all at fault. It was the baby, and the little girl proved it. Still, as the culprit really didn’t know what she was doing and was too small to even spank, she escaped punishment. The case, however, taught the mother that sometimes even the clearest of circumstantial evidence is faulty.”
Summary from The Moving Picture News · 17 February 1912
