That is not to say the book - the result of White's coverage of Ewen Macdonald's trial for the murder of his brother-in-law, Feilding farmer Scott Guy, and his exclusive access to the defence team led by the late Greg King in the year leading up to it - is in any way a letdown. Rather, it is a compelling and concerning account of the crime, the court case and the questions that remain to cloud them.
Few emerge unscathed from the telling.
The public appetite for the case undoubtedly fed some of the sensationalised coverage, but accounts of articles focusing on whether the then Anna Macdonald (she has since reverted to her maiden name Guy) was wearing her wedding ring in trial appearances at the expense of effective coverage of critical evidence - and in one case breaking a suppression order which could have jeopardised the trial - do not paint some media in a flattering light.
The pressure on police to solve the case was immense. But what emerges is a picture - from the defence angle - that, having ''got their man'' (referred to by police as the most ''logical'' culprit, particularly after revelations of his previous offending emerged), ''evidence'' was found to fit the gaps and rationalise the inconsistencies, rather than it appearing there was compelling evidence against Macdonald in the first case.
The issues are familiar to many: jealousy and frustration over the farm and workloads, previous crimes against family and neighbours, stolen puppies and a pair of dive boots on which the case ultimately hinged.
The book shows the Crown's case was circumstantial, and the defence found flaws in every issue raised.
White describes how the jury's decision to acquit Macdonald seemed shocking to the public at the time. He suggests that was because the public was not privy to many of the details exposed in the court case, which is what he has sought to do in the book.
White shows there were other compelling suspects and leads which the defence believed were never or not convincingly investigated by police and says examples of police mistakes suggested ''sloppiness or at least a questionable approach''.
The police investigation was led by Detective Inspector Sue Schwalger, who maintains it was ''thorough and professional'' and if new evidence emerges it will be examined. White says the fact the police consider the case closed indicates their continued belief in Macdonald's guilt.
One thing that is beyond doubt is how fortunate Macdonald was in his defence team, led by King. In many ways, this book acts as a tribute to King; his perseverance and tireless work, his charisma and oratory, and his utmost belief in the right of everyone to a good defence and a fair trial.
The book describes how inequitable the resources are for the Crown and the defence and the struggles King's team had to represent their client, including accessing prosecution documents and fighting for funding.
According to King: ''The gap between the resources available to the prosecution and the defence has never been greater in New Zealand than it is today and the risk of injustices is absolutely raised.''
The words are chilling in light of developments in the Mark Lundy case and other controversial ones, including those of David Bain, Arthur Allan Thomas and Teina Pora.
So the questions remain: the one posed by the title and the motive for the killing; whether new evidence will come to light and police reopen the investigation; whether we can have faith in their processes and our judicial system; how much the case contributed to King's untimely death; and how, in the wake of such appalling circumstances, three families can continue with their lives.
In the light of the coroner's findings released last week, a clearer but nonetheless tragic picture emerges about King. In the case of the Macdonalds and particularly the Guys - who have lost a much-loved son, father and husband and are still awaiting closure and justice - the answer seems the only clear one: with amazing dignity, courage and compassion.
- Helen Speirs is ODT books editor.
