I can see how Krien is heavily influenced by Helen Garner, but her writing just isn’t in the same standard as Garner.

There is a lot of bias in her sympathies that I think clouds her view of the facts, and frankly I think she’s biased herself the wrong way. She touches on this as an issue in her writing, but an acknowledgment isn’t enough for me. Not in this case. The ending is also too inconclusive for me.

I would recommend reading still, it’s very well researched. But her writing and her interpretation of both the case and the additional research left me disappointed.