I am uncertain why cozy mystery authors feel the only way to write a "mystery" novel is to limit the assailant to only three to four mostly unimportant scenes and call that evidence. It doesn't do anything except frustrate the reader because you can't put two and two together for something you have little to nothing to go on. Honestly, Harper as the killer would have been a better mystery to write. Who it actually was was a long stretch and an info dump at the end. If there had been a foreshadow of the evidence being missing from the killer, then you could say it was a miss on the reader's part, but it wasn't. The idea is to hide the important details in mundane details that way they're just easy to miss, not non-existent.

The paranormal and Cora subplots were good ideas with no clean follow through. Half the time Madeline is just shown selling a couple of tickets to patrons for the museum and then having one conversation with another person and then the day is over. For something as foreign as a paranormal museum that we spend a lot of time in we don't get to see or learn much about it even though she is literally taking inventory of everything in it.

The pacing here was just too slow and the transitions weren't quite smooth between scenes. And the romance injections were just awkward. Clearly something was "sparking" with the detective, but only Mason really seems to be the guy? This needed more character build and one or two subplots removed to focus the novel. It's just all over the place.