Pod Insights The Case Of 02 Maree Crabtree | Mother vs daughter About this episode Maree Crabtree's daughter Tara gave critical evidence in the murder case — but she did so with one condition.
Brisbane court reporter Talissa Siganto explains what deal was done in order for Tara to turn crown witness.
If you have any questions you'd like Talissa and Stocky to answer in future episodes, please email [email protected] mailto:[email protected] .
The Case Of is the follow-up to the hit podcast Mushroom Case Daily, and all episodes of that show will remain available in the back catalogue of The Case Of.
Transcript 0:00 Speaker 00 How reliable is your memory of a crime scene? And can those memories be manipulated?
0:05 Speaker 01 Connected to wrongful convictions?
0:08 Speaker 02 How a memory works can be damaging for a justice system and for the integrity of a justice system.
0:14 Speaker 00 This is Sana Kadar from All in the Mind. If you are a fan of true crime, you should check out our new series, Forensic. It's about the quirks and curiosities of our weird human brains. Search for All in the Mind on ABC Listen or wherever you get your podcasts.
0:30 Speaker 03 ABC Listen. Podcasts, radio, news, music and more.
0:46 Speaker 04 Standing guard as she said she watched her mum poison her brother, you might wonder why Tara Crabtree wasn't on trial. So how did she end up protected? I'm Stephen Stockwell. This is the second episode of The Case of Marie Crabtree.
1:01 Speaker 05 The 59 year old was accused of killing her son and staging it as a suicide.
1:06 Speaker 06 In photos, Marie Crabtree smiled and posed with her children, but police allege she killed to receive life insurance payments. She allegedly told a friend, I want to put something in his drink so he won't be here.
1:18 Speaker 07 We will be alleging these are premeditated, direct acts of murder.
1:22 Speaker 05 All I'm willing to say at this stage is that Ms Crabtree intends on vigorously defending the charges.
1:29 Speaker 04 At the end of Marie Crabtree's murder trial, the jury found her not guilty. But the evidence they heard over the five weeks before that, the drama, the concessions offered to key witnesses, the alleged eyewitness accounts made for an incredible trial and covering all of that was the ABC's court reporter in Brisbane, Delissa Siganto. Delissa, thank you for joining us again for The Case of.
1:49 Speaker 02 Stocky, hello again.
1:51 Speaker 04 In our last episode, you left us wondering what the crucial concession offered to Marie Crabtree's daughter was. She was a key witness, but how involved in what happened to Jonathan did she say she was?
2:05 Speaker 02 Yeah, so the jury is told Tara Crabtree was part of this plan to allegedly kill her brother very early on. And that's never in contention. It's actually one of the standout pieces of the trial because on the very first day during those opening addresses, jurors were told, even though Tara admits to being involved, she has blanket immunity, which means she can just never be prosecuted for being involved in her brother's death.
2:35 Speaker 04 Is something like that unusual?
2:37 Speaker 02 Yeah, it's not something that happens very often here in Queensland. It was explained to the jury, it's an incredibly exceptional power that the Attorney General has, the ability to grant someone, and it's a power that's very rarely exercised.
2:55 Speaker 04 Does this mean that Tara says she was complicit in this alleged killing?
3:00 Speaker 02 It means basically that someone can be involved in the case, they can be an accomplice, which generally here in Queensland, you can be charged with the same crime. So she could have been facing murder as a party to the offence. But it means that in exchange for her cooperation with the prosecution of her mother, even though she was involved, and it's accepted that she was involved, she's legally protected.
3:29 Speaker 04 And Talissa, I mean, you mentioned here that this was explained to the jury right off the bat. How was it explained to them? What were they told?
3:36 Speaker 02 So as part of this deal, Tara Crabtree had to testify truthfully against her mother at both the committal hearing and the trial. And effectively, anything that she said during her evidence, that couldn't be used against her in any other prosecution, even though it implicates her, as we said. In other circumstances, she could be charged, but in this case, she can't be.
4:03 Speaker 04 Right, and this was something that, you know, if it was given for the committal process and also for the trial, was given months, years before she's actually in court talking through all of this.
4:12 Speaker 02 Yeah, it's something that would have been offered to her probably during the investigation stage after she first went to police. Now, we don't know exactly when that happened, but we do know that the committal was in 2021. So it had to have been between 2019 and that date.
4:27 Speaker 04 Gotcha. And I mean, now we know that this is something that, you know, Tara has, basically. She can speak very freely. There's, there's no kind of, there's nothing coming for her in this situation. What did she say she saw the night that she said her, her mother killed her brother?
4:44 Speaker 02 So Tara Crabtree claimed she was at home with her mother that night. She said that they were in the kitchen and while Jonathan was in his room, she said that Marie Crabtree told her to go and keep a lookout in the hallway. And she said Marie then starts to make this deadly concoction.
5:03 Speaker 04 Right, so she's there keeping watch, knowing full well what her mother's doing in this situation.
5:09 Speaker 02 Absolutely. She alleged from where she was standing, she had one eye on her brother's door and she could also see everything that was going on in the kitchen. She said she watched as her mother crushed up a myriad of prescription painkillers with a hammer. She then says that her mother put those crushed up tablets alongside multiple bottles of liquid pain medication as well into a blender. She said that her mother then starts to cut up some fruit. She remembers there being watermelon, mango, pineapple. It all gets put into the blender and it's blitzed up. And then she alleges that her brother comes out of his room and that's when her mother hands him two cups of this smoothie and he takes them back to his bedroom.
5:54 Speaker 04 Right. What does Tara say happened after Jonathan drinks the smoothie?
5:59 Speaker 02 Well Tara said not long after Jonathan went back to his room, she goes to her room to watch TV, but she says very quickly she starts to hear him. She says she hears loud noises coming from his room, moaning and groaning. She says he was gasping for air at some points and to her it sounded like he was really struggling. This went on until the early hours of the next morning. She alleged Marie told her during this time to just ignore it and not help her brother. She claimed Marie said that if she did help him, that Marie would be arrested and that Tara would be placed in a group home or sent to live with her father and that they would lose everything.
6:39 Speaker 04 Right. And to the soon our last episode, we started with the triple O call that Marie Crabtree made, sort of saying that Jonathan was unwell, that he needed help. Is that something that happens the following morning?
6:51 Speaker 02 Yeah, so Tara wakes up, she says during her evidence, and that her mother comes to her and says that her brother is dead. She says that she's quite shocked by this. She then says that Marie allegedly says to her, if the police come to their house that day, she has to lie to them and she has to tell them that he likely committed suicide.
7:13 Speaker 04 Right, okay. So Tara, as we talked about, seems kind of pretty involved in this process. She has that immunity. At this point, she's in her mid twenties as well. What did she say about why Marie said she did this?
7:27 Speaker 02 So Tara claimed her mother had convinced her that this was something that they had to do. She said Marie allegedly told her that Jonathan's violent outbursts were just getting too much and that Jonathan would actually end up killing them. So she was telling Tara allegedly that this was for their safety. She testified that her mother also allegedly said that once he was gone, they'd have more peace, they'd have a better life without him. And she also claimed that her mother said that he was a financial burden on both of them.
8:00 Speaker 04 Jonathan dies that night. What happens to Tara after, after he dies?
8:08 Speaker 02 So not long after Tara actually leaves the family home, she spends a significant period of time in hospital, she does have health issues. She said this was very distressing for her, this period, she was pretty desperate to go back home and it was during this time Marie learns she's under investigation. Tara testified that Marie allegedly tells her to lie to authorities and basically just say anything to get her out of hospital and also ensure that Marie herself is protected. Now Tara accepts that, you know, she did do this and she does continue to tell police at the time that it was her brother who killed himself.
8:52 Speaker 02 Now, some time later, we know that she changes this story and the defence really grills her on this.
8:58 Speaker 04 Yeah, because, you know, this seems like a pretty compelling story that you've laid out here, Tullis, that Tara Crabtree has told the court, but, I mean, there's always two sides to this evidence and, you know, you mentioned, you know, in the openings of this, the defence was going to challenge this. Where did they go with it? How did they challenge Tara's evidence?
9:18 Speaker 02 Well, from the get-go, Angus Edwards, Marie's lawyer, tells the jury Tara is a liar. During his cross-examination, Tara just about admits this at one point herself. He highlighted that she hadn't told police this version of events until years after her brother's death and Tara accepted that that was the case, but she also said at the time that she told half-truths and half-lies. She said this was because she was under the control of her mother, but she also said that she was scared. She said she'd watched a lot of crime documentaries and she knew she could be charged. Now, Mr Edwards put it to Tara that she lied for a different reason.
9:58 Speaker 04 Right. What was that reason?
10:01 Speaker 02 So he said her motivation for coming forward all this time later was because she had found out through a friend that her mother was purportedly making attempts to try and gain ownership of the home that she had part-owned, Tara had part-owned with her brother, and was trying to get her kicked out of the property. Now Tara accepted she did have that conversation with her friend, but she flatly denied that this was the reason that she went to police.
10:28 Speaker 04 Okay, and so she stands by this story, that her mum allegedly laced this movie with prescription drugs?
10:35 Speaker 02 Yeah, that's right. She doubles down, saying her claims were not false. Mr. Edwards did not hold back when he was questioning her. But Tara was also not backing down during her testimony. At times, both were quite combative. Some of the key things she was challenged on was the fact that there were inconsistencies with parts of her testimony, particularly what she told police happened versus what she said at an earlier committal hearing and then what she was saying during the trial.
11:05 Speaker 04 Right. Interesting the way that paristers will kind of really zero in on what someone said at stage X, stage Y, and pull apart what that could mean and why they might have done that. I mean, what were some of the inconsistencies that Angus Edwards was highlighting?
11:21 Speaker 02 So one of the key things that Tara really struggled with on the stand were the specific amounts of drugs she alleges her mother put into the blender and the types. So she'd given differing quantities and brands over the years. And ultimately, she said during the trial, she just couldn't really recall exactly how much. But she said she knew it was a lot. She was also questioned about a claim she made to police when she eventually spoke to them. She had told them at the time of her brother's death that she'd made the triple zero call, and she told police this was because her mother had told her to do so, because it would look less suspicious if she was the one to do it. But of course, we know because we heard that triple zero call played during the trial, it was actually
12:06 Speaker 02 Marie who made that call. So when she was asked about this inconsistency, her only answer was that she thought it was her.
12:13 Speaker 04 Right, okay. Did Angus Edwards also challenge the immunity that had been offered to Tara?
12:18 Speaker 02 Absolutely. Mr. Edwards put it to her that she knew she would be in breach of her immunity agreement if she didn't continue with this story that her mother was allegedly responsible for her death. He accused her of practising that story over the years. He also highlighted the fact that she had conversations with friends about this concession. Some text messages were shown to the trial where she'd said to one person in 2020 Too that no matter what I say, I am immune. And that she didn't care if her mother even got off at trial. Or that if she looked like a liar during her evidence. She said all that mattered was that she got the house at the end of it.
12:59 Speaker 04 And so, you know, Tara's telling this story, do we also hear from, from some of these people who Tara's allegedly spoken to about some of this stuff?
13:06 Speaker 02 Yeah, so a number of Tara's friends were called to give evidence and they were asked about the interactions that she had with them. Most of them spoke online, using social media. Uh, some of those friends were people that Tara had actually instructed to delete messages. That were sent between them, talking about her mother's alleged involvement in the case. During Tara's evidence, she was asked why some of those messages were deleted, particularly ones back in twenty twenty one during the committal process. And Tara said that, uh, she often deletes her messages and she didn't want her friends getting caught up in the case. And she said there was no ulterior motive for asking her friends to get rid of those messages.
13:50 Speaker 02 She just didn't want to get them involved and didn't want to lose any friendships.
13:55 Speaker 04 Hmm, okay, um, I mean, Talisa, Tara Crabtree in this trial is giving evidence against her mum. Marie Crabtree, who's accused of killing her brother, Jonathan Crabtree. How was she giving evidence, you know, her mum is, you know, in the dock, in the room, what was all this like?
14:13 Speaker 02 Well, this is another interesting aspect of this trial. Unlike the majority of people who were called, uh, to give evidence, they would normally sit in the witness box inside the same courtroom. Tara was allowed to give her evidence from a completely different room in the court precinct. And she was questioned via video link. This was because, uh, before the trial, she was declared a special witness. And basically this gave her, uh, certain provisions which you normally wouldn't see. It's usually reserved for child victims or victims of sexual assaults. So one of those provisions included an obstructed view, so she couldn't even see her mother while she was giving evidence on video. Um, and the jury wasn't present, it was all recorded in closed court.
14:58 Speaker 02 And then it was played back to them a few days later.
15:01 Speaker 04 Right, okay, so this all happens without the jury, they spend, I assume, the whole time in the jury room, just sitting patiently and waiting. And then, what, they just watch the video back?
15:10 Speaker 02 Yeah, so they're actually sent home. They weren't even required to be sitting that, those two days that she gives evidence. It's explained to them straight away when they come back in that the evidence was pre-recorded. They don't go into too much detail about why that is, that just the fact that this is something that happens sometimes in trials. And the sheer fact that it was done this way doesn't need to be considered by them in any particular way. And then they spend, yeah, the next several hours across two days watching that evidence back.
15:40 Speaker 04 Right, yeah. And just to clarify, when, you know, you've got a special witness like this and this evidence is being adjuiced, you know, while being filmed, is it still the same process? You know, it's still the prosecutors and the defence barristers just kind of asking questions, getting those answers back? There's nothing else special or different about that process?
15:57 Speaker 02 Yeah, so there's no real difference, aside from the fact that she's not physically in the room.
16:02 Speaker 04 Yeah, got it. Tara's not in the room with her mum giving this evidence, but, I mean, Marie Crabtree is in the dock and would have been able to watch all of this. How was she?
16:15 Speaker 02 Well, we obviously weren't there during the time that the evidence was actually recorded, so we can't say exactly how she was responding in real time. But when it was replayed, she remained pretty calm. She just had her head down for most of the recording when it was being played. There are little screens inside the defendant's dock, so for the most part she was just watching what her daughter was saying.
16:39 Speaker 04 Talissa, Tara's obviously a really key witness in this trial. She's someone who says she saw what her mother did as she was preparing the smoothie for Jonathan, that, you know, the prosecution was saying is what killed him. You know, we know now that that's not the argument that the jury kind of brought. They found Marie not guilty. And just as this case is getting set to close, there's a piece of evidence that we haven't talked about at all yet that appears and... Almost turns this whole case on its head.
17:10 Speaker 02 Yes, it was the very final witness that gets called. It's a police officer who went into the search of the house. Now, what makes this evidence so interesting, I think, is because no one was expecting it. I certainly wasn't and it almost just got glossed over. It was not brought up in either opening addresses and I think it really did leave the jury with some pretty important questions at the end of the trial.
17:37 Speaker 04 Yeah, I couldn't believe it when you mentioned it to me, Talissa. And we'll have all the details of that, all the legal argument surrounding it in our next episode. We'll get you back on The Case of Marie Crabtree on Thursday. Thank you so much for joining us for this episode.
17:52 Speaker 02 Stocky, thank you for having me.
17:54 Speaker 04 We'll both be back in your feed on Thursday this week. Make sure you grab ABC Listen, it's the best place to listen to The Case of. Our episodes appear slightly before they appear anywhere else, so get around that. And if you are using a different podcast platform, leave us a rating or a review because it makes it much easier for people to find us. Back in your feed on Thursday.
18:20 Speaker 04 The Case of is produced by ABC Audio Studios and ABC News. This episode was reported by Talissa Siganto and presented by me, Stephen Stockwell. Our supervising producer is Greg Muller and our executive producer is Claire Rawlinson. This episode was produced on the land of the Turrbal, Yagura and Morangirri people.
Previous Isla Bell: Why her alleged murder case collapsed Next 03 Maree Crabtree | What did the note mean? Page updated October 30, 2026 · transcript and summary are machine-generated