Pod Insights The Case Of 03 Maree Crabtree | What did the note mean? About this episode A strange note found in Jonathan Crabtree's rubbish bin was one of the final pieces of evidence the jury saw.
ABC Brisbane court reporter Talissa Siganto reveals what it said, and the role it may have played in the jury finding Maree Crabtree not guilty of murdering her son.
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 Hey there, Sana Khadar from All in the Mind here. If you're a true crime fan, you should check out our new series, Forensic. It's all about the psychological tools and tricks that are used to investigate crime. Want to hear more? Search for All in the Mind on ABC Listen or wherever you get your podcasts.
0:23 Speaker 01 ABC Listen, podcasts, radio, news, music and more.
0:39 Speaker 02 After weeks in court, the final witness in Marie Crabtree's trial revealed a strange piece of evidence, something that could have been the final piece of the puzzle. I'm Stephen Stockwell, this is the third episode of The Case of Marie Crabtree.
0:53 Speaker 03 The 59-year-old was accused of killing her son and staging it as a suicide.
0:58 Speaker 04 In photos, Marie Crabtree smiled and posed with her children, but police alleged she killed to receive life insurance payments.
1:05 Speaker 05 She allegedly told a friend, "I want to put something in his drink so he won't be here."
1:10 Speaker 06 We will be alleging these are premeditated, direct acts of murder. All I'm willing to say at this stage is that Miss Crabtree intends on vigorously
1:17 Speaker 02 defending the charges.
1:20 Speaker 02 Marie Crabtree was accused of killing her son. A jury found her not guilty, and I've been wondering whether the evidence that is the focus of this episode is what turned the case. It was a moment that you could have missed if you weren't paying attention, and therefore it was the ABC's court reporter in Brisbane, Talissa Siganto. Talissa, thank you for joining us.
1:38 Speaker 07 Stocky, hello, thanks for having me again.
1:40 Speaker 02 It is our pleasure. This trial was about whether or not Marie Crabtree killed her son, whether she poisoned a smoothie that she made for him, or whether he killed himself. And when that's the question, this final piece of evidence seems pretty crucial.
1:54 Speaker 07 Yeah, right at the end of this trial, the jury was told about a discovery which was made in Jonathan's room after his death. Inside a bin was a crumpled up handwritten note. That note was shown to the jury and it was read out aloud. It said, "Hey mum, my Brian keeps telling me to do this. I want you, Marie, to have my share of the H." So the note ends on just that single letter.
2:18 Speaker 02 And by Brian, are we kind of assuming he means brain?
2:23 Speaker 07 I mean, that's the inference, if you ask the defence. The prosecution says it's simply incomplete and indistinct, so there's just no way to know.
2:33 Speaker 02 Yeah, and is this a suicide note? Is it a scrawl? Like, what are we looking at here?
2:38 Speaker 07 Well, yeah, it depends who you ask. As I said, the prosecution doesn't think it's anything of significance. There was clearly spelling and grammatical errors, which didn't make sense. For the defence, though, they say it was clearly a final letter to his mother stating his wishes before he dies.
2:55 Speaker 02 Yeah, wow, it's, yeah, such a kind of incredible item to be presented to a jury towards the end of this trial. I mean, Elizabeth, before we dive into kind of how this came up, how it was discussed, can you remind me of the motive here? Was the suggestion from the prosecution that Marie wanted to take the house that her son Jonathan owned with her daughter Tara?
3:16 Speaker 07 So, it was put to the jury that Marie was motivated by money. We've talked in the other episodes already about the fact that she was also on trial for fraud. That was in relation to making a claim on his death insurance. The situation with the house was talked about multiple times throughout the trial. We heard Tara and Jonathan owned the house. Marie didn't have any claim to it, she wasn't on the title. So although this wasn't put forward as a key motivation for this alleged murder, it was definitely suggested by the prosecution that Marie was going to be able to benefit from the fact that he was no longer going to be around.
3:55 Speaker 02 And, I mean, this note, when you consider the motive that's being presented by the prosecution, seems so crucial. And especially considering the not guilty verdict now as well. I mean, how was this presented in court?
4:08 Speaker 07 It was actually barely touched on at first. It was introduced when the prosecution called its final witness, who was a detective. He was being asked about the things he found in the house during a search. So there was a number of photographs that were shown to the jury, we saw receipts. There was a bus ticket, I think some fast food packaging. Then right at the bottom, underneath, some rotting fruit scraps. The detective said that he found this note. So the prosecution labelled it writing on a piece of paper. That's how it was, you know, put to the jury. The police officer briefly commented that investigators had considered the note, but ultimately they came to the conclusion it wasn't relevant.
4:48 Speaker 02 Right. Surely the defence had a lot of questions about it.
4:53 Speaker 07 Well, Marie's lawyer wasn't even able to question him about the note for a couple of days because only a few minutes into the cross-examination of him, there were objections from the prosecution about the line of questioning in relation to something else. So that then led to a couple of days of legal argument, which included nutting out some issues surrounding the note and how that was analysed by a handwriting expert. And at one point, it was actually flagged more witnesses could potentially be called. It was quite a dramatic sort of end to what was supposed to be a relatively quick witness on the stand. And the prosecution, yeah, was quite vocal about this being a real problem for them so late into the trial.
5:34 Speaker 02 Right, yeah. I mean, how tense did things get between the barristers? You've got the prosecution barristers, you've got the defence barristers at the bar table. Long trial, you know, four or five weeks. How were they at this point?
5:45 Speaker 07 Look, it did get a little testy when the jury left the room that day. And it certainly wasn't the first time over the five weeks that they had conflict. It's not particularly unusual for there to be disagreements between legal parties during a murder trial. This one specifically was very large, very complex. The judge made that point many times whenever issues were raised from either side. He could also sense the tension, once he made a joke and suggested that, you know, they needed to go to therapy. But these are two very experienced lawyers. They're professionals, Stockin. At the end of the day, they both had a job to do and their teams worked together to do that.
6:25 Speaker 02 Yeah, absolutely. And, I mean, they worked their way through this legal argument about the evidence from this police witness who's, you know, presented this note. On one side, it is a scribble found at the bottom of a bin. On the other side, on the defence side, it is a suicide note. What happens after all this legal discussion? The jury come back days later, does the note get explored in more depth?
6:45 Speaker 07 Well, after all that, again, it was only just touched on really briefly. It actually doesn't get stuck into again until the closing arguments. Both the defence and the prosecutors do bring it up then.
6:59 Speaker 02 Okay, so we've got this police witness who's kind of introduced the note. They've talked about it briefly. What else did they get into?
7:07 Speaker 07 So in the cross-examination, this detective also spoke about finding plastic syringes, there were needles and a blood vial near Jonathan's bed as well. And the jury was told later that it was accepted by prosecutors and by the defence that the DNA from that blood vial did match Jonathan's. However, it couldn't be determined when that blood might have been drawn. Now, this evidence was pretty interesting because the blood was tested and it was found to contain a mixture of prescription medications, including oxycodone, which we know is what caused Jonathan's death.
7:43 Speaker 02 Hmm. What did we hear broadly about the cause of Jonathan's death as well? I mean, prosecution cases, is that the smoothie that Marie prepared is what killed him? What did the court hear?
7:55 Speaker 07 So how he died was never contested. He had toxic levels of that powerful opioid in his system. The way this interacted with his body was explained a little during the trial. He actually became unwell and was vomiting and then that went into his lungs. And that triggered a type of pneumonia, which is what ultimately caused his death.
8:15 Speaker 02 Right, okay. Such a kind of dramatic way to end a trial, Melissa, with this note. I mean, the last thing we've got in the jury's mind is, you know, the note, the idea that Jonathan Crabtree may have injected himself. And this is the point where, you know, trial kind of reaches this crescendo. The jury has heard all of the evidence over the last, in this case, five weeks. And this final moment, the closing statements from the defence and the prosecution, kind of wrapping that up, is when we really learn what breadcrumbs they've been laying down over the course of that entire trial, the questions they've been asking around specific evidence. I mean, with these moments coming towards the end of the trial, how did the prosecution wrap all of this up?
8:53 Speaker 07 Well, the prosecution spent most of its final arguments really just trying to defend Tara and her evidence, saying, you know, she was honest and reliable. They really wanted the jury to see past those inconsistencies we spoke about in the last episode, which was raised by the defence in her cross-examination. They said she only got minor details wrong and it was on pretty inconsequential. Things, they said for the most part she'd provided a consistent account of what she said happened.
9:23 Speaker 02 Hmm.
9:23 Speaker 07 Uh, and reminded the jury that people do forget things, this happened a long time ago. Um, and that actually just made her more genuine. They rejected this idea Jonathan might have overdosed himself. And as for that note, the prosecution said it could not at all be considered a suicide note or a type of will, uh, because it didn't explicitly say he would do anything. Um, they said the wording was strange, the phrasing was strange and parts of it were indistinct. Um, it was even suggested that all of the note wasn't written at the same time. Ultimately, the prosecution said the jury should doubt who wrote it, when it was written, and they just need to disregard it.
10:02 Speaker 02 Okay, and I mean Tara Crabtree, Marie Crabtree's daughter, we spoke a lot about, as you mentioned, Talissa, in our last episode as well. You know, Tara Crabtree's evidence was that she watched guard, basically, while Marie Crabtree prepared the smoothie, that was her evidence to the court during, during this trial. Um, and again, as we spoke about in the last episode, that was challenged really heavily by the defence barrister in this trial. The way that Angus Edwards went about these final statements to the jury was kind of on par with just how strange this whole trial had been as well. What happened, Talissa?
10:34 Speaker 07 Well, it certainly wasn't boring, stocky, I will say that. And look, this is the place where defence lawyers usually bring their A games, and Angus Edwards didn't disappoint. His closings went for several hours and as you say, he really narrowed in on Tara. He said her story was just completely fabricated and there was other evidence in the trial that disproved a lot of what she had to say. Um, at one point, he put it to the jury that it was possible that Tara killed her brother uh, alone, and he called her cunning, he said she was devious, and, and he said that she had the most to gain from his death. He spoke about her legal protection from prosecution, he said, uh, her immunity allowed
11:19 Speaker 07 her to just walk away completely untouched. Um, he even asked a rhetorical question, have the prosecution made a deal with the devil? At other points in the closings, he compared Marie to Lindy Chamberlain. That was in response to the prosecution claiming she reacted callously to her son's death.
11:37 Speaker 02 Right. He spent all of this time, Angus Edwards, building this case, you know, kind of focusing on Tara. You know, whether or not you can trust Tara, maybe she was involved in this somehow. Was that his final pitch to the jury, that it was Tara that they should be looking at?
11:52 Speaker 07 I mean, the short answer to that is no. It isn't the defence's job to convince a jury something specifically happened. He even said, we don't know what happened, but he said there are several rational possibilities that could fit with the evidence. He actually said the most likely scenario was that Jonathan did overdose himself. He reminded them of the fact that Jonathan's friends gave evidence during the trial and said he'd struggled with addiction and depression for years and that he had a pattern of self-harm and obviously access to medications that, you know, could kill him. And of course, he spoke about the note and he said it shows that he was suicidal.
12:33 Speaker 07 He tells the jury that they should question why the prosecution chose to wait so long to introduce this note. He accused them of trying to hide it. Mr Edwards said all of this was more than enough for jurors to be able to find there was plenty of doubt.
12:49 Speaker 02 Yeah, and that's it. All they need to, all they need is reasonable doubt that Marie Crabtree has committed these acts and, you know, they'll find their way to a, to a not guilty verdict. You know, we do have the judge's directions following the, the closing statements, closing arguments from the barristers. And look, there's a lot going on in this trial, Talissa. How did the judge prepare the jury for their deliberations?
13:10 Speaker 07 Well, it was thorough, as they always are. There was a lot to get through, as you say, in terms of summarising the evidence and explaining how they were to consider it. The judge also spoke about the note and he spoke about Tara's immunity and they were warned that they, they do need to scrutinise things in a certain way. So they were left with a lot to discuss in that jury room.
13:30 Speaker 02 Yeah, and, I mean, such a long closing, such a long trial as well. And while we know where the jury went now, they found their way to, to not guilty. They, they did have trouble almost immediately, right, Talissa?
13:42 Speaker 07 Yeah, pretty soon after they retired to deliberate, it was within a couple of hours, they came back with their first note. They asked the judge, what do we do if we can't come to a unanimous decision? So they were clearly already having a challenging time. The judge said it was unusual for them to have come back so early to say this. Um, he wasn't prepared at that point to give what is known as a black direction. He did a good job of explaining to them, you know, this was a very long trial and they had a lot of evidence to sift through and it was very likely that they'd hit fatigue points. You know, we have to remember they had two days, two full days of closing arguments, then on top of that, the judge's directions.
14:24 Speaker 07 And then, of course, the five weeks of evidence and, you know, 60 plus witnesses. So he sent them home for the night, which I'm sure they were, they were glad to, they were glad to be having a rest and then they were back again for another day of deliberations.
14:40 Speaker 02 And Talissa, you've mentioned the, the black direction there. Am I right in thinking that's basically just like, you know, a direction from the judge which says, come on guys, you need to sort this out?
14:50 Speaker 07 Effectively, so after eight hours of deliberating, they can be given a more formal direction. Just to say, you know, it's important that you go into the juror room and really consider this evidence as a whole and try and come to a unanimous decision. It's very similar to what they're told at the beginning of their deliberations, but there is an official direction that they can be given. Basically, they just need to take their time and not try and rush to a verdict.
15:19 Speaker 02 Okay, great. Thank you, Talissa. I mean, we do know that after deliberating for a couple of days, the jury did return a verdict. They landed on not guilty for Marie Crabtree. And in our first episode, right at the end, we talked about how there was something that made you wonder whether Tara was the turning point in the jury's decision making. What was it that made you think that?
15:41 Speaker 07 So there was a second note to the judge on the second day of deliberations, which did point to this idea that they were probably struggling with the consideration of Tara's evidence. They asked if they could watch a large portion of her testimony again. And this does happen sometimes in, in trials at the end when juries are deliberating, they want to see some things again. This took some hours, so there was a number of things that they wanted to re-listen to that she said. They were eventually sent home again at the end of that day, um, and they did tell the judge that they were well entrenched in their deliberations. Um. They said that they just don't think that they can come to a unanimous decision.
16:26 Speaker 07 Um, we know ultimately, as you said, they did come to their verdict on the third day they deliberated, so we can probably safely assume that evidence they re-watched did help them get to that decision.
16:37 Speaker 02 Yeah. What do you think about the impact of that note that we started talking about at this episode? Is that something that the jury would have been weighing up, or was it a bit of a red herring?
16:49 Speaker 07 I think it certainly would have left them with a lot to think about. It was interesting to me that it wasn't brought up earlier in the trial. Even the judge commented on the fact that it wasn't raised during the opening addresses, um, when the jury wasn't present. But look, Stocky, the, there was so much that came out during this trial. The jury had to consider a lot. I don't envy them. It was a very big task. So they did a pretty good job of working through that and getting to the verdict in the time that they did.
17:16 Speaker 02 Yeah, and I think as well, you know, what I find myself thinking about in this instance is just the bar for beyond reasonable doubt. You know, the, the evidence we've talked about, the evidence from Tara, the note, um, some of the things that they also heard from that police witness at the end. I mean, beyond reasonable doubt is a very high bar. And when you have all that kind of in your mind and you've got to think about that, maybe that bar is just too far to reach.
17:39 Speaker 07 Yeah, quite possibly. I mean, there's a lot of things that get put to a jury and we have to remember jurors are just, you know, members of the public. They're not like, um, myself who is in a courtroom every single day. Um, and I only have really a baseline understanding. I'm not a lawyer. Um, however.
18:00 Speaker 07 It goes even further when you have a jury who comes in and they're having to be explained what the four elements of murder are and things like that. So it's a lot for them to take in, on top of all of this quite harrowing sometimes, evidence as well.
18:14 Speaker 02 Yeah, exactly. It's a very confronting process, hearing about, you know, the death of a young man and the, you know, kind of the laundry, the dirty laundry of the people involved in this kind of being aired, you know, these messages, these conversations that you never think will be kind of discussed in public, coming back and being talked about in these spaces is, it's a lot. And, you know, the jury has to sit there, has to absorb all of that and then make a decision at the end of it. And in this instance, they've made the decision that Marie Crabtree is not guilty of the murder of her son Jonathan Crabtree. Where's Marie Crabtree now?
18:44 Speaker 07 Well, we know she's out in the community. She was found not guilty and she was able to leave court. As far as we know, she's still in Queensland, living here and listening to the podcast, apparently.
18:55 Speaker 02 Yeah, we, we actually had an email to [email protected] from someone who appears to be Marie Crabtree, saying, "We're doing a good job." So that's one for the resume, Talissa. If you have any questions as well you'd like to get in touch with, Curiosities Statements, you can email us, [email protected] . And maybe at some point, if we get lots of questions, we can drag Talissa back into the studio for another one of these episodes. Talissa, thank you so much for joining us for this, for taking us into the courtroom for the trial of Marie Crabtree and explaining so much of the strange occurrences throughout that trial.
19:29 Speaker 07 Thank you for having me.
19:31 Speaker 02 Make sure you grab ABC Listen to keep up to date with the case of. Tell your friends, drop it in your group chat. We'll actually be back in your feed tomorrow. We have an update on the case of the two intruders. There were a couple of things in that trial that we were still restricted from telling you. Those restrictions have been lifted. So I'll have an episode with James and Liz for you in the feed tomorrow. And next week, the coronial inquest into the death of Desi Freeman and to the police officers that he shot and killed, Neil Thompson and Vadim Devat-Hodat, will start in Melbourne and we'll be taking you inside them as well.
20:07 Speaker 02 The Case Of is produced by ABC Audio Studios and ABC News. This episode was reported by Tylissis Sagunto and presented by me, Stephen Stockwell. Our supervising producer is Greg Muller and our executive producer is Claire Rawlinson. Thank you to senior lawyer, our legal queen, Jasmine Sims, to the ABC newsroom in Brisbane and also to our audio studios manager, Eric George. This episode was produced on the land of the Turrbal, Yagura and Morunjuri people.
Previous 02 Maree Crabtree | Mother vs daughter Next UPDATE: The Two Intruders | A second sting and a cancer diagnosis Page updated October 30, 2026 · transcript and summary are machine-generated