Speaker 1: Arrested, extradited, charged. For four decades, these three words were
Speaker 1: almost impossible to imagine in terms of Susanne Armstrong and
Speaker 1: Susan Bartlett's murders. The fact that a sixty five year
Speaker 1: old man would be arrested in Rome late in twenty
Speaker 1: twenty four and extradited to Melbourne to be charged with
Speaker 1: their double homicide was surely the stuff of a TV
Speaker 1: crime show or an over the top murder mystery. But
Speaker 1: a man is now accused of the killings, allegedly a
Speaker 1: murder and rapist at just seventeen years of age. Fact
Speaker 1: again seems stranger than fiction.
Speaker 2: If someone that offered odds against that happening, you know,
Speaker 2: any time up until it happened, I would have said
Speaker 2: one hundred thousand to one, just astonishing against it.
Speaker 1: Welcome to the Easy Street Murders Episode seven. Arrested, Extradited, Charged.
Speaker 1: My name's Helen Thomas, and let's update this saga that
Speaker 1: started forty eight years ago. News of the stunning development
Speaker 1: in the cold case became public just after nine am
Speaker 1: on September twenty one, twenty twenty four. Perry Crumblus, a
Speaker 1: dual Greek Australian citizen had been arrested at Rome Airport,
Speaker 1: reportedly after Terpol was contacted by Australian authorities and a
Speaker 1: long term watch by Melbourne detectives. Greek law had prevented
Speaker 1: extradition from Athens, where he'd been living, as the alleged
Speaker 1: defenses had occurred more than twenty years ago. Veteran crime
Speaker 1: reporter John Silvester was first to report the arrest in
Speaker 1: The Age newspaper that Saturday morning. Rival mass heads and
Speaker 1: broadcast networks quickly followed up on the breakthrough and it
Speaker 1: became signific news around Australia and the world. Andrew Rule,
Speaker 1: senior crime reporter with The Herald's son, has been covering
Speaker 1: the case for decades.
Speaker 2: I was not working in Melbourne in nineteen seventy seven
Speaker 2: when it happened, but I took a huge interest in
Speaker 2: it even then because one of those victims, that is
Speaker 2: Susan Armstrong, had a connection with my family.
Speaker 3: My mother knew her parents, and it.
Speaker 2: Didn't always sort of struck us that it was a
Speaker 2: little bit close to home. So I took an interest,
Speaker 2: and as a police reporter in the nineteen eighties, naturally
Speaker 2: I came to write about easy Street fairly regularly. So
Speaker 2: I've had a big interest in it for a long time.
Speaker 4: And did you ever think it would come to this?
Speaker 1: Did you ever think that after this length of time
Speaker 1: this matter could even be brought to court as it
Speaker 1: is now.
Speaker 2: I'm moderately stunned that it has, that someone's been arrested,
Speaker 2: that it will apparently go to court. It's an amazing
Speaker 2: term of events, because these things accasionally happened, but it's.
Speaker 3: Not the way that better, is it?
Speaker 2: Usually these old cold cases remain that way.
Speaker 4: So what did he do when he read that breaking
Speaker 4: news story? In the age, I.
Speaker 2: Might have called to the office at the Herald Son
Speaker 2: and I sat down and wrote a place basically off
Speaker 2: the top of my head, because I know pretty well
Speaker 2: facts as the matter, backgrounding it for people so that
Speaker 2: they can recall exactly what happened when and who's heaven
Speaker 2: the zoo, Because of course it's so long ago that
Speaker 2: I'd say anyone younger than sort of fifty five really
Speaker 2: has no first hand memory of it happening. It's ancient
Speaker 2: history for two generations. For the generation that's now leaving
Speaker 2: school and going to university, and probably their parents, they
Speaker 2: don't really know anything about it except what they've read
Speaker 2: and heard second hand over time.
Speaker 1: Within days of his arrest at Rome's Leonardo da Vinci
Speaker 1: Airport and subsequent detention in the city's Regiina Charley jail,
Speaker 1: Perry Carumbolus agreed to be extradited to Australia. At the time,
Speaker 1: public defender Serena Tucci told the media that Corumbalus said
Speaker 1: he wanted to return to quote explain everything unquote, describing
Speaker 1: him as distressed, surprised, and worried about his arrest. According
Speaker 1: to the Age, the lawyer said Corumblus told authorities he'd
Speaker 1: cooperate with the extradition, saying he had exercised his right
Speaker 1: to remain silent other than to say he was innocent
Speaker 1: and give his consent for extradition. It's been alleged that
Speaker 1: DNA evidence may be put before the jury, a scientific
Speaker 1: tool police didn't have when the two suits were killed
Speaker 1: back in nineteen seventy seven.
Speaker 2: We don't want to speculate. Let's speak hypothetically here. Let's
Speaker 2: not talk about this case, Let's talk about a similar case.
Speaker 2: I think DNA has been shown to be fallible several
Speaker 2: times in this state alone. People have been locked up
Speaker 2: on bungled DNA evidence before for serious crimes, and therefore
Speaker 2: I think that the bench the judiciary will be reluctant
Speaker 2: to see someone convicted on DNA alone, and that that woman,
Speaker 2: the prosecution and the police will be working very hard too.
Speaker 2: I would imagine look for other corroborating evidence if there
Speaker 2: is any.
Speaker 3: That's a big if, Helen.
Speaker 1: What we do know is that Perry Crumblis was a
Speaker 1: student at the same school in Collingwood where Susan Bartler taught,
Speaker 1: and he and his family didn't live far from the
Speaker 1: Little Worker's cottage that she shared with Susanne Armstrong at
Speaker 1: one four seven Easy Street. The teenager was not listed
Speaker 1: on the homicide squad's original list of eight persons of interest. Nevertheless,
Speaker 1: his name remained in the file, and when a million
Speaker 1: dollar reward was offered for information in twenty seventeen and
Speaker 1: a fresh inquiry launched, he came under scrutiny, along with
Speaker 1: one hundred and thirty others in that old dossier. Three
Speaker 1: years later, a charge sheet and warrant to arrest was
Speaker 1: signed by Detective Paul Rowe on May nineteen, twenty twenty,
Speaker 1: alleging Pery Courumblis had murdered Susan and Suzanne Quote between
Speaker 1: the tenth day of January and the thirteenth day of
Speaker 1: January nineteen seventy seven. It also alleged that he had
Speaker 1: carnal knowledge with Susanne Armstrong without her consent during that
Speaker 1: same period, and stated the accused resides overseas, is avoiding
Speaker 1: apprehension and his extradition will be sought. At three twenty
Speaker 1: three pm on December fourth, twenty twenty four, Corumbalus entered
Speaker 1: Court Room Number one in Melbourne's Magistrates Court, charged with
Speaker 1: the murders of the two young women. Detective Roe had
Speaker 1: traveled back with him to Australia on his extradition flight
Speaker 1: and was in court that afternoon too, alongside members of
Speaker 1: the Armstrong and Bartlett families. Perry Courumblis is due to
Speaker 1: appear again at the end of February for what's called
Speaker 1: a committal mention. Prominent criminal lawyer Tony Isaacs has an
Speaker 1: expert perspective of the legal process now unfolding.
Speaker 5: Helen, I understand that mister Corumbolus is facing a committal
Speaker 5: mention hearing at the Magistrate's Court in late February. He
Speaker 5: was charged and brought before the court in December. Once
Speaker 5: the prosecution charge a person, they are entitled to the
Speaker 5: presumption of innocence and the burden of proof rests with
Speaker 5: the prosecution. And these are phrases that people hear about.
Speaker 5: They see these sorts of things on the TV, and
Speaker 5: they are real. They are doctrines in our criminal justice process.
Speaker 5: So the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that mister
Speaker 5: Coronblis is guilty of the murders. Mister Coronbalis does not
Speaker 5: have to prove anything. What the defense does is raises
Speaker 5: a reasonable doubt and doesn't have to do anything more.
Speaker 5: The prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he's guilty.
Speaker 3: I should say I know that for mister Coronblis.
Speaker 5: I know nothing about the case, and I'm only talking
Speaker 5: in general terms about process.
Speaker 1: The next step in this process involves a brief of
Speaker 1: evidence being given to the defense team.
Speaker 5: The brief of evidence includes all of the evidence on
Speaker 5: which the prosecution seeks to rely to prove its case
Speaker 5: beyond a reasonable doubt, and mister Cromlis is entitled to
Speaker 5: the brief of evidence because of disclosure rules. An accused
Speaker 5: person is entitled to know the case against them, and
Speaker 5: that would include statements by civilians, statements made by police,
Speaker 5: statements made by experts, a transcript of any record of interview,
Speaker 5: and copies of any exhibits that are being relied on
Speaker 5: by the prosecution. So all of that is given to
Speaker 5: the defense lawyers who would then be asking, typically for
Speaker 5: disclosure of further material, which is really everything behind the
Speaker 5: statements that are given. It would include the whole investigative
Speaker 5: file and all the data held by Victoria Police. For example,
Speaker 5: a police officer will have made a statement. The defense
Speaker 5: would most likely then say, well, we want all of
Speaker 5: the notes and diary entries and running sheets filled in
Speaker 5: by that police officer during the investigation, which is what
Speaker 5: leads up to the person making the statement. So the
Speaker 5: defense would want all the background to that being, all
Speaker 5: of the notes, probably want all of the correspondence between
Speaker 5: police officers and witnesses and police officers between each other.
Speaker 5: The expert reports would be statements, but there would be
Speaker 5: notes and files behind them that again the defense would
Speaker 5: call for.
Speaker 4: And they're entitled to see.
Speaker 5: Yes, yes, So I understand, for example, in this case
Speaker 5: that the scientist who has analyzed the DNA samples and
Speaker 5: provided the report. There expert report, their whole file will
Speaker 5: be required, all of their notes and their complete analysis,
Speaker 5: which could run for hundreds of pages.
Speaker 3: To do a complete DNA analysis.
Speaker 5: Going back, because this was nineteen seventy seven, probably it
Speaker 5: would either be in the form of blood of a
Speaker 5: suspect or seminole fluid. In this instance, I understand there
Speaker 5: is an allegation of a rape. Because it was nineteen
Speaker 5: seventy seven, there were not sophisticated methods of taking DNA
Speaker 5: because it was simply not used in criminal prosecutions. So
Speaker 5: how the DNA was taken, how it was stored, how
Speaker 5: it's been examined, the chain of process of handling the samples,
Speaker 5: all of those things would be asked for by the
Speaker 5: defense and examined by the defense. So after the brief
Speaker 5: is served in mid January, the defense would seek a
Speaker 5: lot of material from the prosecute. In this instance, the
Speaker 5: homicide squad would know what the defense wants and they've
Speaker 5: probably provided it. They're probably giving it with the brief.
Speaker 1: Another formal move in this case involves a document known
Speaker 1: as a Form thirty.
Speaker 5: Two before the committal mentioned in late February, a document
Speaker 5: known as a Form thirty two.
Speaker 3: Is filed by the parties.
Speaker 5: It's created by the defense seeking to call witnesses at
Speaker 5: a later committal hearing. You don't have an automatic right
Speaker 5: to call all of the witnesses. The defense has to
Speaker 5: establish for each witness that it wants to cross examine
Speaker 5: an issue or issues from that witness's statement that are
Speaker 5: issues in the case identification. For example, so a police
Speaker 5: officer might have come to the crime scene and done
Speaker 5: certain things, so there might be issues of examination of
Speaker 5: the crime scene. And in the Form thirty two, if
Speaker 5: you want to cross examine the police officer, you have
Speaker 5: to identify the issues you want to ask about the
Speaker 5: relevance of that person's evidence to the issues, and why
Speaker 5: it's justified to ask.
Speaker 3: That person questions.
Speaker 5: At a committal, a magistrate is not going to simply
Speaker 5: allow the defense to call all of the prosecution witnesses.
Speaker 5: There would be in this case dozens and dozens of witnesses,
Speaker 5: so you have to justify why you want to call them.
Speaker 5: So the prosecution you file the form of the prosecution,
Speaker 5: who then respond by saying whether they object to any
Speaker 5: of these witnesses being cross examined, and then a magistrate
Speaker 5: determines which witnesses can be cross examined, and at that
Speaker 5: point it becomes administrative again in determining how long a
Speaker 5: committal hearing would take and then booking it in according
Speaker 5: to availability of court time and availability of witnesses, etc.
Speaker 3: Etc.
Speaker 1: In other words, after waiting nearly fifty years for justice
Speaker 1: for Susan Bartlett and Susanne Armstrong, the matter won't be rushed.
Speaker 1: That's reassuring. But what timeframe are we looking at? How
Speaker 1: long will this case take? Tony Isaacs, who's been practicing
Speaker 1: criminal law in Melbourne for more than forty years, maintains
Speaker 1: that doctrines in our criminal justice process are sacrisanct, and
Speaker 1: that includes criminal mentions.
Speaker 3: They're generally short.
Speaker 5: If the defense are requiring ten witnesses, there might be
Speaker 5: objections to two of them and that would be discussed
Speaker 5: in court before the magistrate. Committal mentions can sometimes be adjourned.
Speaker 5: For example, all of the disclosure material may not have
Speaker 5: been served, but given that this is a very old matter,
Speaker 5: I would think that the prosecution would have this material
Speaker 5: ready to go.
Speaker 1: Isaac's expects this matter will follow the traditional route to
Speaker 1: a committal hearing.
Speaker 3: It looks as so that's the process for this case.
Speaker 5: But there is a process where persons charged with murder
Speaker 5: can opt to fast track their hearing into the Supreme
Speaker 5: Court and skip the committal process, and they can cross
Speaker 5: examine some witnesses before a judge separate to the trial,
Speaker 5: so that you would have a mini committal if you like,
Speaker 5: or a committal in the.
Speaker 3: Supreme Court, and it can't be done until after the
Speaker 3: service of the brief, So we have to wait and
Speaker 3: see on that one.
Speaker 1: Can I just ask you finally, if say this matter
Speaker 1: does go to a committal hearing in the magistrate's court,
Speaker 1: how long does that run?
Speaker 5: Well, it could be that it would take six months
Speaker 5: or more to book it in because you've got to
Speaker 5: wait for availability of court time. Let's say it was
Speaker 5: booked for a five day hearing. The court's got to
Speaker 5: find five days, and for it to find five days,
Speaker 5: it might be six or eight months away. It's a
Speaker 5: high profile case, it might get some priority, but I
Speaker 5: would think a committal would be much later this year
Speaker 5: if that's the way they go. An accused person does
Speaker 5: not have to run a committal hearing. They can come
Speaker 5: to the committal MENSI and say we're not going to
Speaker 5: have a committal, We're just going to go straight to
Speaker 5: trial and the Supreme Court.
Speaker 4: And if that happened, could that happen this year?
Speaker 5: That would be a matter for the registrars and the
Speaker 5: people running the Supreme Court list It's possible, but probably not.
Speaker 3: There would be a lot of trials in front of it.
Speaker 1: In other words, no matter what happens from this point
Speaker 1: going forward, say, from the committal mentioned at the end
Speaker 1: of February, this matter is not going to be over quickly,
Speaker 1: I guess, nor shouldn't they.
Speaker 3: No, no, it won't be over quickly.
Speaker 5: I mean typically we say to clients who come into
Speaker 5: our office, if they're charged with indictable offenses that are
Speaker 5: going to end up in a trial in the county
Speaker 5: or Supreme Court, from the time they charged, they're probably
Speaker 5: eighteen months away from their trial date.
Speaker 1: When Perry Crumblus walked into Court one in early December
Speaker 1: last year, he moved slowly and looked tired, probably not
Speaker 1: surprising given the long flight from Rome that had landed
Speaker 1: less than twenty four hours before, and having been formally
Speaker 1: interviewed by detectives earlier that day before being charged. Sitting
Speaker 1: between two security officers and behind glass, he watched Magistrate
Speaker 1: Leon Fluxman intently, not looking at Susan's brother Martin or
Speaker 1: Suzanne's sister Gail, who were seated behind the prosecutor. Did
Speaker 1: he notice the young TV reporters taking notes on their
Speaker 1: phones at the back of the court, or the soft
Speaker 1: whisper of other journalist's laptop keys. Was he aware this
Speaker 1: deceptively low key proceeding held the keen focus of international
Speaker 1: news outlets. When asked if he understood his remand conditions,
Speaker 1: Corumbalus nodded twice and answered quietly yes. The accused and
Speaker 1: his defense lawyer Bill doug Will returned to the Melbourne
Speaker 1: Magistrate's Court on Wednesday every twenty six