I have no idea if the convicted in this book is guilty or not because the author wasn’t really interested in the case. As much as the author claims to be unbiased, they are wrong. It’s clear the author didn’t like the convicted. Over and over we are told how the convicted is a pain to the author. The author goes on to say that the convicted woman’s claims couldn’t possibly been true. Obviously the author isn’t familiar with southern backwoods small town. The convicted feels she was set up due to a lawsuit she took out against the sheriffs department. Is it the most likely explanation? Probably not. But it’s actually plausible. Even if it’s not the case and convicted actually did the crime, the author whined so much that the case was lost in the book. Also, the author was quick to point out when the convicted filed her sexual harassment lawsuit that the sheriffs office claimed the convicted also said inappropriate things. The author implies that means something. If the female did participate it could mean many things including that she was working in an office of a male dominated job and was trying to fit in. Don’t dismiss her claims of harassment just because she might have said things. Until you’ve been in such a situation you have no clue what it’s like.