What do you think?
Rate this book
Who Killed Scott Guy?: The case that gripped a nation
Journalist Mike White's book titled Who Killed Scott Guy? is an account of the successful defence of murder accused Ewen Macdonald.
Macdonald was acquitted of shooting dead his brother-in-law Scott in July 2010.
The book details the crime scene, the work of the defence team, holes in the police case and the resulting trial. It includes excerpts from Macdonald's diary, and states the jury got it right.
The book also describes how Macdonald's former friend and hunting mate Callum Boe told police: "I think that Ewen Macdonald shot Scott Guy, and that's just spinning in my head. And it's just a theory, that is, like my gut is telling me that."
Macdonald was acquitted of shooting dead his brother-in-law Scott in July 2010.
The book details the crime scene, the work of the defence team, holes in the police case and the resulting trial. It includes excerpts from Macdonald's diary, and states the jury got it right.
The book also describes how Macdonald's former friend and hunting mate Callum Boe told police: "I think that Ewen Macdonald shot Scott Guy, and that's just spinning in my head. And it's just a theory, that is, like my gut is telling me that."
- GenresTrue CrimeNonfiction
302 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2013
14 people are currently reading
66 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 16 of 16 reviews
July 18, 2017
A young man is gunned down at the gateway to his farm, a clear suspect emerges but is he truly guilty?
Probably. A better title for this book would have been 'Why doesn't Mike White just marry Ewan MacDonald if he loves him so much?'
The murder of Scott Guy is an event in New Zealand that gripped the country. I watched the news about the trial of Ewan MacDonald for the murder like everyone else and was certain that the jury got it wrong. So I was intrigued to find this book about the case that claimed there was a lot more to the story than the public new.
Admittedly, I learnt a lot of new facts from this book that put serious doubts into MacDonald's guilt. The writing style was clear, thorough and interesting. The problem with the book is it is so far biased to MacDonald's side. White takes every possible to disparage the police, the media, the judicial system and anyone who even suggests MacDonald's guilt.
Don't get me wrong, I think the jury probably made the right decision. There wasn't enough evidence to defy reasonable doubt. My problem is that the whole book is weighted towards the cops being dishonest scumbags and MacDonald's legal team righteous superheros.
The book does a good job of showing that it would have been dificult for MacDonald to commit the crime and that there was other possible suspects. But the outright assertions of innocence have been far from proven.
Time and again White down plays the string of crimes that MacDonald commited as cruel pranks. A good part of the book is White trying to justify these crimes and suggest that you can't link them to the murder. On many occassions he asserts that these were non violent actions and only property was damaged, which suggests that beating calves to death with a hammer is a non violent action.
There is even a chapter spanning multiple pages that tries outright to prove that it would have been difficult if not impossible for MacDonald to have committed the crime. If there was any sembalence of objectivity to the book White could have devoted a chapter to all of the obvious reasons why MacDonald is the logical suspect.
The series of crimes MacDonald committed aren't the minor events that White tries to paint them as. They are aggressive, revenge attacks committed by a man who thought he was bulletproof. When White says that MacDonald had nothing to gain by killing Scott, that applies to all of the crimes he committed. There was no profit in any of them, they were about hatred, revenge, causing others pain and intimidation. The cops didn't have tunnel vision, they had a clear picture of a man who is an obvious psycho. Arson, poaching, butchering animals with a hammer, dumping thousands of litres of milk, causing extensive damage to the murdered man's home and writing threatening and obscene grafiti on the side it. Did I miss anything?
There is a clear pattern in those actions. Someone does something Ewan MacDonald doesn't like, he retaliates in disproportinate ways, not for gain but for the sole purpose of revenge. There is no big leap from vicious acts of vandalism, animal cruelty and sabotage to murder, it clearly fits the same pattern. And these are only the crimes that we found out about, crimes that MacDonald vehemently denied until it became apparent that he had been caught.
While I can't say for certain that Ewan is the killer, I think he is very likely the culprit. Yes it is possible that it was a robbery gone wrong, a disgruntled employee or someone else with a grudge. The cops weren't crazy for their actions, Ewan had motive, opportunity, access to a firearm, knowledge of the victim's routines, a history of vindictive behaviour, had committed acts of vandalism towards the victim before and a clear hatred of the victim.
In fact, White was so assured of Ewan's innocence right from the start of the book that I was just waiting for the missing piece of evidence or alternate suspect or alibi or anything. It never comes, there are some questions about how MacDonald could have done it but in general he is still the obvious suspect. There just isn't enough evidence to convict him.
This would be a good book if there was any balance to it. White is welcome to his opinion that MacDonald is innocent, but he could have at least entertained the possibility of guilt for the sake of the reader.
Probably. A better title for this book would have been 'Why doesn't Mike White just marry Ewan MacDonald if he loves him so much?'
The murder of Scott Guy is an event in New Zealand that gripped the country. I watched the news about the trial of Ewan MacDonald for the murder like everyone else and was certain that the jury got it wrong. So I was intrigued to find this book about the case that claimed there was a lot more to the story than the public new.
Admittedly, I learnt a lot of new facts from this book that put serious doubts into MacDonald's guilt. The writing style was clear, thorough and interesting. The problem with the book is it is so far biased to MacDonald's side. White takes every possible to disparage the police, the media, the judicial system and anyone who even suggests MacDonald's guilt.
Don't get me wrong, I think the jury probably made the right decision. There wasn't enough evidence to defy reasonable doubt. My problem is that the whole book is weighted towards the cops being dishonest scumbags and MacDonald's legal team righteous superheros.
The book does a good job of showing that it would have been dificult for MacDonald to commit the crime and that there was other possible suspects. But the outright assertions of innocence have been far from proven.
Time and again White down plays the string of crimes that MacDonald commited as cruel pranks. A good part of the book is White trying to justify these crimes and suggest that you can't link them to the murder. On many occassions he asserts that these were non violent actions and only property was damaged, which suggests that beating calves to death with a hammer is a non violent action.
There is even a chapter spanning multiple pages that tries outright to prove that it would have been difficult if not impossible for MacDonald to have committed the crime. If there was any sembalence of objectivity to the book White could have devoted a chapter to all of the obvious reasons why MacDonald is the logical suspect.
The series of crimes MacDonald committed aren't the minor events that White tries to paint them as. They are aggressive, revenge attacks committed by a man who thought he was bulletproof. When White says that MacDonald had nothing to gain by killing Scott, that applies to all of the crimes he committed. There was no profit in any of them, they were about hatred, revenge, causing others pain and intimidation. The cops didn't have tunnel vision, they had a clear picture of a man who is an obvious psycho. Arson, poaching, butchering animals with a hammer, dumping thousands of litres of milk, causing extensive damage to the murdered man's home and writing threatening and obscene grafiti on the side it. Did I miss anything?
There is a clear pattern in those actions. Someone does something Ewan MacDonald doesn't like, he retaliates in disproportinate ways, not for gain but for the sole purpose of revenge. There is no big leap from vicious acts of vandalism, animal cruelty and sabotage to murder, it clearly fits the same pattern. And these are only the crimes that we found out about, crimes that MacDonald vehemently denied until it became apparent that he had been caught.
While I can't say for certain that Ewan is the killer, I think he is very likely the culprit. Yes it is possible that it was a robbery gone wrong, a disgruntled employee or someone else with a grudge. The cops weren't crazy for their actions, Ewan had motive, opportunity, access to a firearm, knowledge of the victim's routines, a history of vindictive behaviour, had committed acts of vandalism towards the victim before and a clear hatred of the victim.
In fact, White was so assured of Ewan's innocence right from the start of the book that I was just waiting for the missing piece of evidence or alternate suspect or alibi or anything. It never comes, there are some questions about how MacDonald could have done it but in general he is still the obvious suspect. There just isn't enough evidence to convict him.
This would be a good book if there was any balance to it. White is welcome to his opinion that MacDonald is innocent, but he could have at least entertained the possibility of guilt for the sake of the reader.
April 30, 2014
As the blurb puts it "Scott Guy was a good man, a great dad, a salt-of-the-earth farmer who was gunned down at his front gate for no conceivable reason." "His death enthralled us, partly because it was so inexplicable, but also because there were no obvious suspects."
It's embarrassing that when a book like this comes along, you realise that for a case that gripped the nation of New Zealand, there's been little or no information about it in these parts. And that's particularly disappointing when you think of the forensic detail thrown at us from other parts of the world - I mean New Zealand is our nearest neighbour and this is such a very sad story.
Handled with great delicacy, Mike White has written an analysis of the case, the death of Scott Guy, his life and the charging and acquittal of his brother-in-law Ewen Macdonald. He also provides glimpses into the devastation of the lives of everyone around Guy and Macdonald, and the mess that both families are left trying to negotiate.
It also provides a telling portrayal of a defence team - in particular the barrister Greg King who successfully defended Macdonald, and the particularly devastating outcome for him. Must admit, this reviewer found herself genuinely distressed at the fate of Mr King.
The blurb for this book finished with the line "By the end you'll know everything the jury did - and much more." Alas there still has been no successful prosecution over the death of Scott Guy, and WHO KILLED SCOTT GUY? provides the reader with a very clear picture of how that must feel for everyone involved. Highly recommended if for no other reason than this is an extremely well written, well researched, well told story.
http://www.austcrimefiction.org/revie...
It's embarrassing that when a book like this comes along, you realise that for a case that gripped the nation of New Zealand, there's been little or no information about it in these parts. And that's particularly disappointing when you think of the forensic detail thrown at us from other parts of the world - I mean New Zealand is our nearest neighbour and this is such a very sad story.
Handled with great delicacy, Mike White has written an analysis of the case, the death of Scott Guy, his life and the charging and acquittal of his brother-in-law Ewen Macdonald. He also provides glimpses into the devastation of the lives of everyone around Guy and Macdonald, and the mess that both families are left trying to negotiate.
It also provides a telling portrayal of a defence team - in particular the barrister Greg King who successfully defended Macdonald, and the particularly devastating outcome for him. Must admit, this reviewer found herself genuinely distressed at the fate of Mr King.
The blurb for this book finished with the line "By the end you'll know everything the jury did - and much more." Alas there still has been no successful prosecution over the death of Scott Guy, and WHO KILLED SCOTT GUY? provides the reader with a very clear picture of how that must feel for everyone involved. Highly recommended if for no other reason than this is an extremely well written, well researched, well told story.
http://www.austcrimefiction.org/revie...
January 15, 2015
I think a lot of people followed the Scott Guy case with intense interest – good looking farm bloke gets gunned down in his own driveway, beautiful wife and family, stolen puppies – and a jealous brother-in-law – all the makings of a good murder mystery. The tragedy here though, is that a loved father, son and brother was killed. And when brother-in-law, Ewan Macdonald’s criminal antics became public knowledge – we all knew straight away without a doubt whodunnit. So how did the jury get it so wrong? Or did they?
Journalist Mike White followed the defence team for over a year and was present at the trial of Ewen Macdonald. In “Who killed Scott Guy?”, White leads you through the investigation, describing what he thinks happened on that fateful day. One thing that struck me about this book – MacDonald was the logical culprit according to the police, so he was the only person they really investigated. But murder is not a logical act, so why use logic to solve the crime? White explains the “leaps of logic” that would have had to have occurred for MacDonald to have been the perpetrator - and for me those “leaps” explain why the jury got it so right. Gripping.
Journalist Mike White followed the defence team for over a year and was present at the trial of Ewen Macdonald. In “Who killed Scott Guy?”, White leads you through the investigation, describing what he thinks happened on that fateful day. One thing that struck me about this book – MacDonald was the logical culprit according to the police, so he was the only person they really investigated. But murder is not a logical act, so why use logic to solve the crime? White explains the “leaps of logic” that would have had to have occurred for MacDonald to have been the perpetrator - and for me those “leaps” explain why the jury got it so right. Gripping.
March 12, 2017
Really enjoyed this book! - it was very hard to put down! Very well written - goes into incredible detail about all aspects of the case from what the Guys' life was like before the tragedy right through to when Scott was found and the whole aftermath and trial - right up to the date Ewen was released on Parole in late 2015. Also gives background and details on the defence lawyers including detail about Greg King's life and career and his death etc. You felt like you were reading a full account of the whole saga - and being walked through all the the info the jury heard and the thoughts and feelings of all parties involved. Highly recommended reading.
June 9, 2017
I'd give it a 3.5 if I could. Not for any obvious flaws- it's a very readable account of the murder investigation and trial. It was interesting to get a more full account of the evidence involved, and a thorough rundown of how the trial played out. I really liked the author's obvious empathy to the late Greg King, and I enjoyed reading it. The reason it doesn't get higher is because it wasn't particularly thought-provoking or contain any real surprises, and I was hoping it would.
October 18, 2020
Like everyone in New Zealand, I followed the news of Scott Guy’s killing and subsequent trial. I came into the book convinced that Ewen had done it, but I really was unaware of all the details that came out in the book. It’s a tragic tale especially knowing that now 10 years on we still don’t have an answer.
June 30, 2018
Great book that gave a bit more incite into some of what the jury heard and we haven't.
May 18, 2023
Extremely well written
August 28, 2025
Was a good read. Did enjoy but for me was a bit one sided.
August 26, 2020
Written by a senior writer at North & South, this book carries all the similarities of this magazine’s style of writing: efficient writing and a deep familiarity with middle-class pakeha ideals and world views. It was well paced, well written and shed interesting light on the case. It wasn’t neutral though, which was at times frustrating and the writer often seemed more preoccupied by the lead defence lawyer than anything else. But if you like homegrown true crime, it could be a bit of you!
October 12, 2013
Just when you think there's nothing more to discover about the Scott Guy case you find out there's more. What a gripping read. A fascinating behind-the-scenes look at how the defence manages a high profile case.
July 14, 2014
A well-written account of the case and trial and some of the fallout. White provides analysis too - some interesting insight to take us away from the mindless twitter updates and grab-at-emotion news footage that was offered primarily to stir the pot.
September 25, 2013
Great telling of the Scott Guy saga, certainly changed my perspective on the case.
March 8, 2014
great read, so the question is where and who and why havn;t they got the killer yet?
April 13, 2014
A must for kiwis, really opened my eyes around justice in this country and introduced me to another man to admire, just so sad he left the world early
October 6, 2016
Interesting read. Don't think it changed my mind about how I feel about this case.
Displaying 1 - 16 of 16 reviews