A cleaner accused of the "ferocious" bashing murder of a 92-year-old client had no motive and no history of violence, her lawyers have argued in a bid to see her convicted of the lesser charge of manslaughter.
Hanny Papanicolaou admits attacking Marjorie Welsh at her home in Sydney's inner west on January 2, 2019, but has pleaded not guilty to murder.
She instead contends she's guilty of manslaughter on the basis of substantial impairment due to abnormality of the mind.
The Crown has rejected this plea.
A trial in the NSW Supreme Court has heard Papanicolaou jumped the back fence and allegedly hit Ms Welsh with her walking sticks so forcefully they broke, and smashed heavy ceramics down upon the defenceless woman.
The elderly woman was also stabbed in the lower chest and abdomen.
She died six weeks later in hospital.
The crown case is Papanicolaou wanted to rob Ms Welsh after learning she had come into millions from the sale of a property.
The trial has heard evidence Papanicolaou, a regular gambler, had lost $430 from poker machines in under an hour the morning of the attack and was left with just $11 in her bank account.
But in summing up his case for the jury on Monday, Papanicolaou's barrister argued the incident was "wholly unexplained, irrational (and) inexplicable".
Tom Quilter rubbished the prosecutor's theft theory, saying there is "simply no evidence" Papanicolaou actually stole anything substantial.
That's despite the jury hearing evidence that cash, a handbag, a ring and an expensive watch were inside the house.
Additionally, Papanicolaou knew Ms Welsh's daughter - another client who lived only 600m away - had left cash at her house for the cleaner to collect.
"You are left, I suggest, not with a compelling narrative that this was some sort of theft gone wrong, but rather that theft actually played no part in this whatsoever," Mr Quilter said.
He also pointed to evidence given at trial that Papanicolaou had never been violent before.
Even the victim, when interviewed by police after the attack, had said she had "never seen anything but kindness" from Papanicolaou and that she thought they were "good friends".
Ms Welsh had been asked if she could think of any reason for the attack.
"It would be of peace to my mind if I could," she had replied.
"I think she's demented," Ms Welsh told police in answer to another question.
Papanicolaou has given evidence that she felt increasingly isolated in an unhappy marriage, and was struggling with a newborn baby, had become deeply depressed and escaped her problems through gambling around the time of the attack.
Mr Quilter also cited evidence given by a psychiatrist that the incident was so "extraordinarily out of character" that it would take a severe form of mental illness to commit.
"You might have some doubts," he told the jury.
"But it's not about whether you're satisfied beyond reasonable doubt. The standard is ... is it more probable than not (that she was substantially impaired by mental illness)?"
However, the crown prosecutor earlier argued that Papanicolaou did not exhibit the mannerisms of someone who was depressed, and had never disclosed her feelings to anyone before the attack.
The trial continues.
