The Crown has closed its case in the Red Fox Tavern murder and aggravated robbery trial, disputing the alternative defence theory of who is responsible.
A man with name suppression and Mark Joseph Hoggart have been on trial in the High Court at Auckland since early February.
The Crown alleges they were the two heavily disguised intruders, clad in balaclavas and gloves, who burst in through a back door of the Maramarua tavern on the Labour Weekend of 1987.
The prosecution case says Christopher Bush was fatally shot after he stood up from his bar stool before his three staff members were tied up and just over $36,000 was stolen.
Manukau Crown Solicitor, Natalie Walker, closed the prosecution's argument today after outlining much of the case yesterday.
"Thirty-three years later the question of whether the game is up is yours and yours alone," she told jurors.
The Crown case alleges that it was the unnamed defendant who pulled the trigger of a sawn-off double-barrelled shotgun, slaying the 43-year-old father of two.
"Mark Hoggart was his loyal lieutenant," Walker said.
"Members of the jury, the Crown says the evidence shows the right two men are on trial and you can be sure of their guilt."
In her final address Walker said it seemed likely the defence would claim "tunnel vision" had caused the police investigation to "unreasonably" focus on the two defendants.
She rebuffed the defence theory that Lester Hamilton was actually one of the culprits behind the fatal robbery.
The unnamed defendant's lawyer, Christopher Stevenson, earlier said that Hamilton had been planning to rob the tavern, later telling "all and sundry" that he had done it.
"It just doesn't make sense that Mr Hamilton is one of the offenders and indeed he couldn't have been," Walker said.
It simply did not stand to reason when his alibi was considered, she said.
"The alleged confessions he made can't be true."
They were either fabrications made by an unreliable source seeking a benefit of some sort or they were examples of his character traits, she said.
"His tendency to brag, embellish and run his mouth off."
She called the body of evidence relating to him a "collection of distraction and red herring".
The jury has heard evidence Hamilton was planning a number of robberies and burglaries with a "rotating cast of associates".
Walker said the words of some of those associates had initially made Hamilton a "prime suspect" but there were multiple statements and they were inconsistent.
In the end there was agreement on one thing, that the plan they had discussed regarding the Red Fox tavern was abandoned by the group, she said.
Their discussions also did not resemble the facts of this case, as they had talked of a different day and entering Bush's home to take his wife hostage, she said.
The picture that emerged was that these were "small time crooks" with heads filled of elaborate schemes they were never going to be organised enough to pull off, she said.
Hamilton was also already embroiled in another "much more complex criminal enterprise" planned by other associates at the time, she said.
"The defence theory about Mr Hamilton can and must be put to one side."
In Walker's final address today she also argued there had been a marked change in the financial position of the defendants after Bush's death.
"The crown says there is irresistible evidence that before Labour Weekend they effectively had no money but that after Labour Weekend they suddenly had cash to burn."
Defence lawyers, who are expected to start closing their case tomorrow, have repeated throughout the trial that the wrong men have been accused.