Ewen Macdonald is not guilty.
In the eyes of the jury, and in mine.
We will never know what reasons the jury had for their decision. Their deliberations are private, always will be, and rightly so.
But having sat in court for every day of the month-long hearing (bar one, out of sickness) I can say what evidence they didn't consider, simply because it wasn't presented.
First, no witness to say they saw who shot Scott Guy in the early hours of 8 July 2012.
No DNA evidence worth the candle; only possible traces (along with other people's) on the farm shotgun that could have got there before or after the murder.
No murder weapon; only the Crown claim that the farm shotgun could not be excluded as the weapon. Along with any other 12-gauge shotgun in the country.
Increasingly, as the trial went on, no motive. As Ewen Macdonald himself pointed out during his police interview, if he was aggrieved at how little work Scott Guy did on the farm, what sense did it make to kill him? As a result, he was working harder than he ever had.
No forensic evidence. Not a labrador puppy hair, not a fingerprint, not a fibre. Even the dive boot evidence - meant to be a Crown trump card - was inconclusive.
The Crown placed much emphasis on Ewen Macdonald allegedly saying Scott Guy had been shot when everyone thought his throat had been cut. But only one witness could recall it, and that was after his arrest, with the benefit of long hindsight.
The defence didn't call many witnesses. They didn't have to. They had only to put doubt in the minds of the jury, and they did that at every key point in the trial.
Ewen Macdonald didn't take the stand to protest his innocence. Again, he didn't need to. By the time the defence began, it was clear that the trial was going his way.
So what of the man in the dock?
A man of average build and appearance, Ewen Macdonald spent much of his time with his eyes down. Reportedly on the advice of his legal team, he took copious notes. Intentional or not, this served the purpose of preventing cameras getting clear shots of his expression.
When he did look up, he often seemed nervous, especially at the start of the day. His eyes darted from side to side, and he had a habit of rolling or licking his lips. In no way did this convey anything other than an awkward man facing the scrutiny of the court, media and public gallery.
Famously, his composure did break as his wife Anna described their idyllic life before the murder. I was sitting two metres away, close enough that I could have passed him a box of tissues, as he sobbed. There is no doubt in my mind that his distress was genuine.
So too was Kylee Guy's. Scott Guy's widow could barely contain her grief, bursting into tears within minutes, once within seconds, of taking the stand. Glamorous, well dressed and groomed, much of her evidence was given in pin-drop silence. She was a movie-star witness in a trial that was too unbelievable for the movies.
Anna Macdonald cut a very different figure. Despite the almost unimaginable situation of having her husband accused of her brother's murder, she was often light-hearted and endearingly self-deprecating. At times it was hard to believe she was giving evidence, as she laughed and joked in the witness box.
The two lawyers at centre stage were also a study in contrasts.
Greg King, Ewen Macdonald's ebullient lawyer, carried himself with a swagger and a smile that extended to court staff, reporters, witnesses and the public.
He told me two weeks into the trial that he was supremely confident. The conversation was off the record but he won't mind me repeating it now that he's a winner.
He told me the Crown's case was "non-existent" and he had never been more confident of an acquittal.
That was evident throughout the trial, as he turned Crown witness after witness to his advantage, dismantling and raising doubts about their evidence.
It's hard to imagine anyone who enjoys the audience as much as Greg King.
In court at intervals he would pace to one side, mentally rehearsing his examination of the next witness. Frequently, he would stray to the press bench to make quips and asides.
Often, he actively sought out reporters to canvass their opinions. One time he playfully threw punches at me over a line in a story that he hadn't liked. Despite being a non-smoker, he would often be found in the "smokers' corner" outside court chatting to journalists, with his stainless steel coffee cup in hand.
By contrast, prosecutor Ben Vanderkolk cut a more reserved figure. Tall and immaculately dressed, he carried himself with aloofness and dignity. In repose his face had a glum set, but in a more relaxed mood the clouds lifted and he flashed a brilliant smile.
Surprisingly, for a man of his experience and position, he also frequently seemed tongue-tied in court, often having to re-phrase his questions, occasionally with a self-conscious chuckle.
His finest moment was in his closing argument, appearing calm, thorough and composed for the first time since the opening day.
Much has been made of the crowds that came to the court. By consensus, there'd been nothing like it in recent memory. I covered the Scott Watson murder case from the South Island, and never came to court, but reporters who were in court for that famous case say that was the only one that came close.
As momentum built during the trial, it was not unusual to find 100 people waiting for seats in the public gallery. I asked several what the appeal was; most agreed that it was the "family feud" aspect of the case.
Others were law students, coming for a lesson they could never get in the lecture room.
Some brought children, some had taken annual leave.
Several compared the case to a Shakespearean plot. It was an analogy that's easy to understand. The wise ruler trying to keep the peace between the two warring heirs.
Even the Crown used the term the "flaw of fairness" in Bryan Guy; that in trying to treat both men equally a tragic situation developed.
Ewen Macdonald remains in custody. So he probably will for some time, as he pays the price for the crimes of arson, vandalism and poaching that he's admitted committing.
But whatever else he may be, he will never carry the tag of murderer. And that, to my mind, is entirely correct. Justice has been served.
Read more Simon Bradwell opinion here