Overview of The Easy Street Murders — Episode 7: "Arrested, Extradited, Charged"
This episode updates a nearly 50‑year cold case: the 1977 murders of Suzanne Armstrong and Susan Bartlett (the “Easy Street” murders). It covers the surprising 2024 arrest overseas of a man accused of committing the crimes as a teenager, his extradition to Melbourne, the charges laid, and the legal process now unfolding — with particular attention to the role DNA evidence and old investigative records may play.
Key developments (what happened)
- In late 2024 Australian media reported the arrest of a dual Greek–Australian man named in reports variously as Perry Kurumbilis / Karumbulis (name appears with multiple spellings in public transcripts) at Rome’s Leonardo da Vinci Airport. The arrest was publicly reported on 21 September 2024.
- He was detained at Rome’s Regina Coeli jail and agreed to extradition to Australia, reportedly saying he wanted to “explain everything” while otherwise exercising his right to remain silent and maintaining his innocence.
- A charge sheet signed in May 2020 alleged the accused murdered Suzanne Armstrong and Susan Bartlett between 10–13 January 1977 and raped Suzanne. The accused was about 17 at the time of the alleged offences.
- The accused returned to Melbourne and was formally charged on 4 December 2024 at the Melbourne Magistrates’ Court (Court 1). Detective Paul Rowe, who signed the earlier arrest warrant, accompanied him to Australia and was present in court.
- A committal mention was scheduled for 26 February (end of February) — the next public court step.
Background of the case
- Victims: Suzanne Armstrong and Susan Bartlett, two young women who shared a small workers’ cottage at 147 Easy Street in Collingwood; murders occurred in January 1977.
- The case remained unsolved for decades. In 2017 a A$1 million reward and a fresh inquiry renewed scrutiny of suspects; the accused’s name re‑surfaced among about 130 people re‑examined from the original dossier.
- The accused was a local teenager in 1977 — a student at the same school where Susan Bartlett taught — and lived near the victims’ cottage.
Evidence and forensic issues
- Investigators are reported to be relying on DNA evidence in the prosecution’s case — a scientific tool unavailable to investigators in 1977.
- Legal and forensic challenges likely to be focal points:
- Chain of custody and storage of biological samples collected in 1977.
- How the samples were taken originally and whether modern testing was applied appropriately.
- Defence will demand full disclosure of expert files, lab notes, raw data and methodology behind any DNA analysis — potentially hundreds of pages of material.
- Precedents show DNA can be fallible and has been the subject of dispute; prosecutors will likely seek corroborating evidence beyond DNA where possible.
Legal process explained (what to expect next)
- Presumption of innocence applies; prosecution bears the burden to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
- Brief of evidence: prosecution must serve a comprehensive brief to the defence (statements, police notes, expert reports, exhibits). Defence can request further underlying material and investigative files.
- Form 32: defence may file requests to call and cross‑examine specific witnesses at committal; the magistrate will decide which witnesses can be cross‑examined and why (identification issues, relevance, etc.).
- Committal mention (scheduled late Feb): typically short and administrative, setting disclosure and witness issues; may lead to a full committal hearing or be followed by an election to go straight to trial in the Supreme Court.
- Timeframe: these matters are not quick. Typical expectation from charge to trial in serious matters can be around 18 months; committal hearings can be months away to schedule and trials take further time. A committal hearing could be months down the line; trial likely even later.
Notable voices and quotes
- Host/narrator: Helen Thomas provides the update and frames the case as a near‑miraculous legal development after decades.
- John Silvester (The Age): first to report the arrest.
- Andrew Rule (Herald Sun): “I’m moderately stunned that it has… it’s an amazing turn of events” — underscores how rare such breakthroughs are in decades‑old cold cases.
- Public defender (reported): the accused said he wanted to “explain everything,” but otherwise remained mostly silent and claimed innocence.
- Tony Isaacs (senior criminal lawyer): explained disclosure, the brief of evidence, Form 32 mechanics and stressed the presumption of innocence and long timelines in major criminal matters.
What to watch next (likely milestones)
- Service of the full brief of evidence to the defence (expected after committal mention).
- The committal mention (scheduled 26 February) — will set disclosure orders, witness lists, and whether a committal hearing will proceed or the accused elects to go straight to the Supreme Court.
- Defence requests for forensic disclosure (expert files, chain‑of‑custody documentation).
- Any decision to fast‑track or to hold preliminary cross‑examinations in the Supreme Court.
- Scheduling of a committal hearing or trial dates — likely months to a year+ away.
Implications and key takeaways
- Arrest and extradition of a suspect nearly five decades after the murders is highly unusual and newsworthy.
- DNA evidence may be central but will face intense scrutiny because of the age of the samples and historic collection/storage practices.
- Defence will extensively probe investigative records, experts’ files and chain of custody — the prosecution must produce comprehensive disclosure.
- The legal process will be deliberate and lengthy; a final resolution (trial verdict) is not imminent.
- The case highlights how advances in forensic science and renewed investigative efforts (including reward campaigns and cold case reviews) can reopen old files — but also how such evidence must survive rigorous legal testing.