I read a Lloyd and Hill mystery previously and liked it. It is a good thing I did not read this one first or else I would have probably not read another. One of my biggest complaints with mysteries is when the author lets you get inside the head of the murder but you - the reader - don't know it. It seems to me when that happens the author is using a cheap trick to confuse the reader. Give me the facts. Tell me the story and if I guess who did it, well then dear author you did not do you job. Or maybe you did if that was your intent, the point is when I get a glimps inside the private thoughts of characters I don't want to see surprise and questions and impulse reactions when the person is the murderer and knows very well what happened and WHY. Bothers me. Up until the moment I realized I had been deceived I liked it okay. I may have given it two stars. Maybe. One other thing I don't like is when animals narrate. The duck should have been interviewed? or was it a bunny? She finished almost every chapter with trees or animals or something 'thinking' if only the police would interview me or something. I thought it was distracting. I still may read another Lloyd and Hill because I did like the other one I read and perhaps it just gets better, it couldn't get worse.