Justin Dilosa and Carol McHenry on trial for the murder of Danielle Easey in 2019

The Crown Prosecutor has asked the jury to find verdicts of guilty for both accused in the murder trial of Danielle Easey, and that neither was “solely responsible”.

Tributes at the scene where Danielle Easey was found wrapped in plastic. Pictures by Peter Lorimer

A jury has been told of the significant alleged lies and “level of deceit” shown by both accused on trial for the murder of young mum Danielle Easey in 2019.

In his closing address in the NSW Supreme Court on Tuesday, Crown Prosecutor John Stanhope said there was a lot of evidence regarding Justin Henry Dilosa and Carol Marie McHenry that didn’t make sense, and should be rejected by the jury.

The ex-partners have both pleaded not guilty to murder and are placing the blame on each other.

Carol McHenry is on trial for the murder of Danielle Easey. Credit: Facebook

Justin Dilosa is also on trial for the murder of Danielle Easey. Credit: NSW Police.

Dilosa admitted to the jury he did wrap Ms Easey’s body in plastic and dumped it in a creek at Killingworth, west of Newcastle, after claiming McHenry had killed her, by stabbing and beating the young mum to death at McHenry’s Narrara home on August 17, 2019.

McHenry has pleaded guilty to being an accessory after the fact the murder, pointing the finger at Dilosa after she told police she was “petrified” of him and was too scared to come forward after what he had done.

Mr Stanhope told the court it sounded “far-fetched” that Dilosa had gone to the lengths of wrapping Ms Easey’s body on behalf of McHenry.

And that told the court that Dilosa was “back and forward” about taking responsibility for the alleged murder.

“He accepts responsibility if he is being treated well, he doesn’t accept responsibility if he isn’t being treated well,” Mr Stanhope said.

Danielle Easey was stabbed and beaten to death before her body was wrapped in plastic and dumped in a creek.

“Crown says you’d reject that it’s inherently implausible.”

The Crown Prosecutor also detailed the number of versions McHenry had given to police about what had happened to Ms Easey, questioning her credibility.

“There’s a level of deceit. You have to think carefully about anything McHenry says,” he pressed.

He said the Crown case was that McHenry had lied to police in saying she was scared of Dilosa and had been acting out of fear.

“Stark contrast of how she is behaving in the lead up,” Mr Stanhope said.

He said not only did she remain in his company on a number of occasions after Ms Easey’s death, McHenry had also gone back to Dilosa’s Cardiff home.

“If you were petrified of this man could you behave in such a way. Is it consistent with someone being petrified? I suggest to you its not,” he said.

The Narrara home where police allege Danielle Easey was murdered. (AAP Image/Sue Graham)

In summary, Mr Stanhope asked the jury to find verdicts of guilty for both accused, and not accept that either was “solely responsible” for Ms Easey’s murder.

Late in the afternoon, McHenry’s defence barrister Tony Evers also began his closing address.

He claimed that Dilosa had to “create a scenario” of the alleged murder weapon, the knife, and his evidence that he was covering for McHenry.

“Evidence was brazen. Mr Dilosa wants everyone to see what he is doing,” Mr Evers said.

“There’s no reason to provide that information unless you want people to know.

“A convenient story he knows will fit in.”

Mr Evers also pointed out McHenry continued to see Dilosa, despite knowing what he did, because “that’s how people respond”.

“That’s the way she responded, she appeased Mr Dilosa. Might make it less likely he’d harm you, more likely to keep you safe, may not be a courageous way to behave but its predictable for a human way to behave,” he said.

In regards to McHenry’s alleged lies told to, police highlighted by the Crown, Mr Evers said his client didn’t “deal well with police” due to past experiences, but her final evidence was consistent with the rest of the evidence given in the trial.

“Look where she finished, what she ultimately told police,” he explained.

“It’s all forensic evidence linked to Mr Dilosa.”

The trial continues.