February 10, 2025 • 17 mins
Nearly 48 years after Susan and Suzanne were fatally stabbed, there's a stunning development in the cold case. Helen Thomas has more...
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:02):
Arrested, extradited, charged. For four decades, these three words were
almost impossible to imagine in terms of Susanne Armstrong and
Susan Bartlett's murders. The fact that a sixty five year
old man would be arrested in Rome late in twenty
twenty four and extradited to Melbourne to be charged with
their double homicide was surely the stuff of a TV
(00:24):
crime show or an over the top murder mystery. But
a man is now accused of the killings, allegedly a
murder and rapist at just seventeen years of age. Fact
again seems stranger than fiction.
Speaker 2 (00:38):
If someone that offered odds against that happening, you know,
any time up until it happened, I would have said
one hundred thousand to one, just astonishing against it.
Speaker 1 (00:52):
Welcome to the Easy Street Murders Episode seven. Arrested, Extradited, Charged.
(01:13):
My name's Helen Thomas, and let's update this saga that
started forty eight years ago. News of the stunning development
in the cold case became public just after nine am
on September twenty one, twenty twenty four. Perry Crumblus, a
dual Greek Australian citizen had been arrested at Rome Airport,
reportedly after Terpol was contacted by Australian authorities and a
(01:37):
long term watch by Melbourne detectives. Greek law had prevented
extradition from Athens, where he'd been living, as the alleged
defenses had occurred more than twenty years ago. Veteran crime
reporter John Silvester was first to report the arrest in
The Age newspaper that Saturday morning. Rival mass heads and
broadcast networks quickly followed up on the breakthrough and it
(01:59):
became signific news around Australia and the world. Andrew Rule,
senior crime reporter with The Herald's son, has been covering
the case for decades.
Speaker 2 (02:09):
I was not working in Melbourne in nineteen seventy seven
when it happened, but I took a huge interest in
it even then because one of those victims, that is
Susan Armstrong, had a connection with my family.
Speaker 3 (02:23):
My mother knew her parents, and it.
Speaker 2 (02:27):
Didn't always sort of struck us that it was a
little bit close to home. So I took an interest,
and as a police reporter in the nineteen eighties, naturally
I came to write about easy Street fairly regularly. So
I've had a big interest in it for a long time.
Speaker 4 (02:41):
And did you ever think it would come to this?
Speaker 1 (02:44):
Did you ever think that after this length of time
this matter could even be brought to court as it
is now.
Speaker 2 (02:50):
I'm moderately stunned that it has, that someone's been arrested,
that it will apparently go to court. It's an amazing
term of events, because these things accasionally happened, but it's.
Speaker 3 (03:01):
Not the way that better, is it?
Speaker 2 (03:02):
Usually these old cold cases remain that way.
Speaker 4 (03:06):
So what did he do when he read that breaking
news story? In the age, I.
Speaker 2 (03:11):
Might have called to the office at the Herald Son
and I sat down and wrote a place basically off
the top of my head, because I know pretty well
facts as the matter, backgrounding it for people so that
they can recall exactly what happened when and who's heaven
the zoo, Because of course it's so long ago that
I'd say anyone younger than sort of fifty five really
has no first hand memory of it happening. It's ancient
(03:34):
history for two generations. For the generation that's now leaving
school and going to university, and probably their parents, they
don't really know anything about it except what they've read
and heard second hand over time.
Speaker 1 (03:48):
Within days of his arrest at Rome's Leonardo da Vinci
Airport and subsequent detention in the city's Regiina Charley jail,
Perry Carumbolus agreed to be extradited to Australia. At the time,
public defender Serena Tucci told the media that Corumbalus said
he wanted to return to quote explain everything unquote, describing
him as distressed, surprised, and worried about his arrest. According
(04:12):
to the Age, the lawyer said Corumblus told authorities he'd
cooperate with the extradition, saying he had exercised his right
to remain silent other than to say he was innocent
and give his consent for extradition. It's been alleged that
DNA evidence may be put before the jury, a scientific
tool police didn't have when the two suits were killed
back in nineteen seventy seven.
Speaker 2 (04:35):
We don't want to speculate. Let's speak hypothetically here. Let's
not talk about this case, Let's talk about a similar case.
I think DNA has been shown to be fallible several
times in this state alone. People have been locked up
on bungled DNA evidence before for serious crimes, and therefore
I think that the bench the judiciary will be reluctant
(04:56):
to see someone convicted on DNA alone, and that that woman,
the prosecution and the police will be working very hard too.
I would imagine look for other corroborating evidence if there
is any.
Speaker 3 (05:09):
That's a big if, Helen.
Speaker 1 (05:12):
What we do know is that Perry Crumblis was a
student at the same school in Collingwood where Susan Bartler taught,
and he and his family didn't live far from the
Little Worker's cottage that she shared with Susanne Armstrong at
one four seven Easy Street. The teenager was not listed
on the homicide squad's original list of eight persons of interest. Nevertheless,
(05:33):
his name remained in the file, and when a million
dollar reward was offered for information in twenty seventeen and
a fresh inquiry launched, he came under scrutiny, along with
one hundred and thirty others in that old dossier. Three
years later, a charge sheet and warrant to arrest was
signed by Detective Paul Rowe on May nineteen, twenty twenty,
(05:54):
alleging Pery Courumblis had murdered Susan and Suzanne Quote between
the tenth day of January and the thirteenth day of
January nineteen seventy seven. It also alleged that he had
carnal knowledge with Susanne Armstrong without her consent during that
same period, and stated the accused resides overseas, is avoiding
apprehension and his extradition will be sought. At three twenty
(06:18):
three pm on December fourth, twenty twenty four, Corumbalus entered
Court Room Number one in Melbourne's Magistrates Court, charged with
the murders of the two young women. Detective Roe had
traveled back with him to Australia on his extradition flight
and was in court that afternoon too, alongside members of
the Armstrong and Bartlett families. Perry Courumblis is due to
(06:41):
appear again at the end of February for what's called
a committal mention. Prominent criminal lawyer Tony Isaacs has an
expert perspective of the legal process now unfolding.
Speaker 5 (06:52):
Helen, I understand that mister Corumbolus is facing a committal
mention hearing at the Magistrate's Court in late February. He
was charged and brought before the court in December. Once
the prosecution charge a person, they are entitled to the
presumption of innocence and the burden of proof rests with
(07:14):
the prosecution. And these are phrases that people hear about.
They see these sorts of things on the TV, and
they are real. They are doctrines in our criminal justice process.
So the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that mister
Coronblis is guilty of the murders. Mister Coronbalis does not
have to prove anything. What the defense does is raises
(07:37):
a reasonable doubt and doesn't have to do anything more.
The prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he's guilty.
Speaker 3 (07:46):
I should say I know that for mister Coronblis.
Speaker 5 (07:48):
I know nothing about the case, and I'm only talking
in general terms about process.
Speaker 1 (07:56):
The next step in this process involves a brief of
evidence being given to the defense team.
Speaker 5 (08:01):
The brief of evidence includes all of the evidence on
which the prosecution seeks to rely to prove its case
beyond a reasonable doubt, and mister Cromlis is entitled to
the brief of evidence because of disclosure rules. An accused
person is entitled to know the case against them, and
(08:23):
that would include statements by civilians, statements made by police,
statements made by experts, a transcript of any record of interview,
and copies of any exhibits that are being relied on
by the prosecution. So all of that is given to
(08:43):
the defense lawyers who would then be asking, typically for
disclosure of further material, which is really everything behind the
statements that are given. It would include the whole investigative
file and all the data held by Victoria Police. For example,
(09:06):
a police officer will have made a statement. The defense
would most likely then say, well, we want all of
the notes and diary entries and running sheets filled in
by that police officer during the investigation, which is what
leads up to the person making the statement. So the
(09:26):
defense would want all the background to that being, all
of the notes, probably want all of the correspondence between
police officers and witnesses and police officers between each other.
The expert reports would be statements, but there would be
notes and files behind them that again the defense would
call for.
Speaker 4 (09:47):
And they're entitled to see.
Speaker 5 (09:49):
Yes, yes, So I understand, for example, in this case
that the scientist who has analyzed the DNA samples and
provided the report. There expert report, their whole file will
be required, all of their notes and their complete analysis,
which could run for hundreds of pages.
Speaker 3 (10:10):
To do a complete DNA analysis.
Speaker 5 (10:13):
Going back, because this was nineteen seventy seven, probably it
would either be in the form of blood of a
suspect or seminole fluid. In this instance, I understand there
is an allegation of a rape. Because it was nineteen
seventy seven, there were not sophisticated methods of taking DNA
because it was simply not used in criminal prosecutions. So
(10:37):
how the DNA was taken, how it was stored, how
it's been examined, the chain of process of handling the samples,
all of those things would be asked for by the
defense and examined by the defense. So after the brief
is served in mid January, the defense would seek a
(10:58):
lot of material from the prosecute. In this instance, the
homicide squad would know what the defense wants and they've
probably provided it. They're probably giving it with the brief.
Speaker 1 (11:09):
Another formal move in this case involves a document known
as a Form thirty.
Speaker 5 (11:13):
Two before the committal mentioned in late February, a document
known as a Form thirty two.
Speaker 3 (11:20):
Is filed by the parties.
Speaker 5 (11:23):
It's created by the defense seeking to call witnesses at
a later committal hearing. You don't have an automatic right
to call all of the witnesses. The defense has to
establish for each witness that it wants to cross examine
an issue or issues from that witness's statement that are
(11:47):
issues in the case identification. For example, so a police
officer might have come to the crime scene and done
certain things, so there might be issues of examination of
the crime scene. And in the Form thirty two, if
you want to cross examine the police officer, you have
to identify the issues you want to ask about the
(12:07):
relevance of that person's evidence to the issues, and why
it's justified to ask.
Speaker 3 (12:14):
That person questions.
Speaker 5 (12:15):
At a committal, a magistrate is not going to simply
allow the defense to call all of the prosecution witnesses.
There would be in this case dozens and dozens of witnesses,
so you have to justify why you want to call them.
So the prosecution you file the form of the prosecution,
who then respond by saying whether they object to any
(12:37):
of these witnesses being cross examined, and then a magistrate
determines which witnesses can be cross examined, and at that
point it becomes administrative again in determining how long a
committal hearing would take and then booking it in according
to availability of court time and availability of witnesses, etc.
Speaker 3 (12:55):
Etc.
Speaker 1 (12:57):
In other words, after waiting nearly fifty years for justice
for Susan Bartlett and Susanne Armstrong, the matter won't be rushed.
That's reassuring. But what timeframe are we looking at? How
long will this case take? Tony Isaacs, who's been practicing
criminal law in Melbourne for more than forty years, maintains
(13:19):
that doctrines in our criminal justice process are sacrisanct, and
that includes criminal mentions.
Speaker 3 (13:26):
They're generally short.
Speaker 5 (13:27):
If the defense are requiring ten witnesses, there might be
objections to two of them and that would be discussed
in court before the magistrate. Committal mentions can sometimes be adjourned.
For example, all of the disclosure material may not have
been served, but given that this is a very old matter,
I would think that the prosecution would have this material
(13:51):
ready to go.
Speaker 1 (13:53):
Isaac's expects this matter will follow the traditional route to
a committal hearing.
Speaker 3 (13:59):
It looks as so that's the process for this case.
Speaker 5 (14:02):
But there is a process where persons charged with murder
can opt to fast track their hearing into the Supreme
Court and skip the committal process, and they can cross
examine some witnesses before a judge separate to the trial,
so that you would have a mini committal if you like,
or a committal in the.
Speaker 3 (14:22):
Supreme Court, and it can't be done until after the
service of the brief, So we have to wait and
see on that one.
Speaker 1 (14:28):
Can I just ask you finally, if say this matter
does go to a committal hearing in the magistrate's court,
how long does that run?
Speaker 5 (14:37):
Well, it could be that it would take six months
or more to book it in because you've got to
wait for availability of court time. Let's say it was
booked for a five day hearing. The court's got to
find five days, and for it to find five days,
it might be six or eight months away. It's a
high profile case, it might get some priority, but I
(15:00):
would think a committal would be much later this year
if that's the way they go. An accused person does
not have to run a committal hearing. They can come
to the committal MENSI and say we're not going to
have a committal, We're just going to go straight to
trial and the Supreme Court.
Speaker 4 (15:15):
And if that happened, could that happen this year?
Speaker 5 (15:18):
That would be a matter for the registrars and the
people running the Supreme Court list It's possible, but probably not.
Speaker 3 (15:25):
There would be a lot of trials in front of it.
Speaker 1 (15:27):
In other words, no matter what happens from this point
going forward, say, from the committal mentioned at the end
of February, this matter is not going to be over quickly,
I guess, nor shouldn't they.
Speaker 3 (15:38):
No, no, it won't be over quickly.
Speaker 5 (15:41):
I mean typically we say to clients who come into
our office, if they're charged with indictable offenses that are
going to end up in a trial in the county
or Supreme Court, from the time they charged, they're probably
eighteen months away from their trial date.
Speaker 1 (15:58):
When Perry Crumblus walked into Court one in early December
last year, he moved slowly and looked tired, probably not
surprising given the long flight from Rome that had landed
less than twenty four hours before, and having been formally
interviewed by detectives earlier that day before being charged. Sitting
between two security officers and behind glass, he watched Magistrate
(16:21):
Leon Fluxman intently, not looking at Susan's brother Martin or
Suzanne's sister Gail, who were seated behind the prosecutor. Did
he notice the young TV reporters taking notes on their
phones at the back of the court, or the soft
whisper of other journalist's laptop keys. Was he aware this
deceptively low key proceeding held the keen focus of international
(16:42):
news outlets. When asked if he understood his remand conditions,
Corumbalus nodded twice and answered quietly yes. The accused and
his defense lawyer Bill doug Will returned to the Melbourne
Magistrate's Court on Wednesday every twenty six
Arrested, extradited, charged. For four decades, these three words were
almost impossible to imagine in terms of Susanne Armstrong and
Susan Bartlett's murders. The fact that a sixty five year
old man would be arrested in Rome late in twenty
twenty four and extradited to Melbourne to be charged with
their double homicide was surely the stuff of a TV
(00:24):
crime show or an over the top murder mystery. But
a man is now accused of the killings, allegedly a
murder and rapist at just seventeen years of age. Fact
again seems stranger than fiction.
Speaker 2 (00:38):
If someone that offered odds against that happening, you know,
any time up until it happened, I would have said
one hundred thousand to one, just astonishing against it.
Speaker 1 (00:52):
Welcome to the Easy Street Murders Episode seven. Arrested, Extradited, Charged.
(01:13):
My name's Helen Thomas, and let's update this saga that
started forty eight years ago. News of the stunning development
in the cold case became public just after nine am
on September twenty one, twenty twenty four. Perry Crumblus, a
dual Greek Australian citizen had been arrested at Rome Airport,
reportedly after Terpol was contacted by Australian authorities and a
(01:37):
long term watch by Melbourne detectives. Greek law had prevented
extradition from Athens, where he'd been living, as the alleged
defenses had occurred more than twenty years ago. Veteran crime
reporter John Silvester was first to report the arrest in
The Age newspaper that Saturday morning. Rival mass heads and
broadcast networks quickly followed up on the breakthrough and it
(01:59):
became signific news around Australia and the world. Andrew Rule,
senior crime reporter with The Herald's son, has been covering
the case for decades.
Speaker 2 (02:09):
I was not working in Melbourne in nineteen seventy seven
when it happened, but I took a huge interest in
it even then because one of those victims, that is
Susan Armstrong, had a connection with my family.
Speaker 3 (02:23):
My mother knew her parents, and it.
Speaker 2 (02:27):
Didn't always sort of struck us that it was a
little bit close to home. So I took an interest,
and as a police reporter in the nineteen eighties, naturally
I came to write about easy Street fairly regularly. So
I've had a big interest in it for a long time.
Speaker 4 (02:41):
And did you ever think it would come to this?
Speaker 1 (02:44):
Did you ever think that after this length of time
this matter could even be brought to court as it
is now.
Speaker 2 (02:50):
I'm moderately stunned that it has, that someone's been arrested,
that it will apparently go to court. It's an amazing
term of events, because these things accasionally happened, but it's.
Speaker 3 (03:01):
Not the way that better, is it?
Speaker 2 (03:02):
Usually these old cold cases remain that way.
Speaker 4 (03:06):
So what did he do when he read that breaking
news story? In the age, I.
Speaker 2 (03:11):
Might have called to the office at the Herald Son
and I sat down and wrote a place basically off
the top of my head, because I know pretty well
facts as the matter, backgrounding it for people so that
they can recall exactly what happened when and who's heaven
the zoo, Because of course it's so long ago that
I'd say anyone younger than sort of fifty five really
has no first hand memory of it happening. It's ancient
(03:34):
history for two generations. For the generation that's now leaving
school and going to university, and probably their parents, they
don't really know anything about it except what they've read
and heard second hand over time.
Speaker 1 (03:48):
Within days of his arrest at Rome's Leonardo da Vinci
Airport and subsequent detention in the city's Regiina Charley jail,
Perry Carumbolus agreed to be extradited to Australia. At the time,
public defender Serena Tucci told the media that Corumbalus said
he wanted to return to quote explain everything unquote, describing
him as distressed, surprised, and worried about his arrest. According
(04:12):
to the Age, the lawyer said Corumblus told authorities he'd
cooperate with the extradition, saying he had exercised his right
to remain silent other than to say he was innocent
and give his consent for extradition. It's been alleged that
DNA evidence may be put before the jury, a scientific
tool police didn't have when the two suits were killed
back in nineteen seventy seven.
Speaker 2 (04:35):
We don't want to speculate. Let's speak hypothetically here. Let's
not talk about this case, Let's talk about a similar case.
I think DNA has been shown to be fallible several
times in this state alone. People have been locked up
on bungled DNA evidence before for serious crimes, and therefore
I think that the bench the judiciary will be reluctant
(04:56):
to see someone convicted on DNA alone, and that that woman,
the prosecution and the police will be working very hard too.
I would imagine look for other corroborating evidence if there
is any.
Speaker 3 (05:09):
That's a big if, Helen.
Speaker 1 (05:12):
What we do know is that Perry Crumblis was a
student at the same school in Collingwood where Susan Bartler taught,
and he and his family didn't live far from the
Little Worker's cottage that she shared with Susanne Armstrong at
one four seven Easy Street. The teenager was not listed
on the homicide squad's original list of eight persons of interest. Nevertheless,
(05:33):
his name remained in the file, and when a million
dollar reward was offered for information in twenty seventeen and
a fresh inquiry launched, he came under scrutiny, along with
one hundred and thirty others in that old dossier. Three
years later, a charge sheet and warrant to arrest was
signed by Detective Paul Rowe on May nineteen, twenty twenty,
(05:54):
alleging Pery Courumblis had murdered Susan and Suzanne Quote between
the tenth day of January and the thirteenth day of
January nineteen seventy seven. It also alleged that he had
carnal knowledge with Susanne Armstrong without her consent during that
same period, and stated the accused resides overseas, is avoiding
apprehension and his extradition will be sought. At three twenty
(06:18):
three pm on December fourth, twenty twenty four, Corumbalus entered
Court Room Number one in Melbourne's Magistrates Court, charged with
the murders of the two young women. Detective Roe had
traveled back with him to Australia on his extradition flight
and was in court that afternoon too, alongside members of
the Armstrong and Bartlett families. Perry Courumblis is due to
(06:41):
appear again at the end of February for what's called
a committal mention. Prominent criminal lawyer Tony Isaacs has an
expert perspective of the legal process now unfolding.
Speaker 5 (06:52):
Helen, I understand that mister Corumbolus is facing a committal
mention hearing at the Magistrate's Court in late February. He
was charged and brought before the court in December. Once
the prosecution charge a person, they are entitled to the
presumption of innocence and the burden of proof rests with
(07:14):
the prosecution. And these are phrases that people hear about.
They see these sorts of things on the TV, and
they are real. They are doctrines in our criminal justice process.
So the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that mister
Coronblis is guilty of the murders. Mister Coronbalis does not
have to prove anything. What the defense does is raises
(07:37):
a reasonable doubt and doesn't have to do anything more.
The prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he's guilty.
Speaker 3 (07:46):
I should say I know that for mister Coronblis.
Speaker 5 (07:48):
I know nothing about the case, and I'm only talking
in general terms about process.
Speaker 1 (07:56):
The next step in this process involves a brief of
evidence being given to the defense team.
Speaker 5 (08:01):
The brief of evidence includes all of the evidence on
which the prosecution seeks to rely to prove its case
beyond a reasonable doubt, and mister Cromlis is entitled to
the brief of evidence because of disclosure rules. An accused
person is entitled to know the case against them, and
(08:23):
that would include statements by civilians, statements made by police,
statements made by experts, a transcript of any record of interview,
and copies of any exhibits that are being relied on
by the prosecution. So all of that is given to
(08:43):
the defense lawyers who would then be asking, typically for
disclosure of further material, which is really everything behind the
statements that are given. It would include the whole investigative
file and all the data held by Victoria Police. For example,
(09:06):
a police officer will have made a statement. The defense
would most likely then say, well, we want all of
the notes and diary entries and running sheets filled in
by that police officer during the investigation, which is what
leads up to the person making the statement. So the
(09:26):
defense would want all the background to that being, all
of the notes, probably want all of the correspondence between
police officers and witnesses and police officers between each other.
The expert reports would be statements, but there would be
notes and files behind them that again the defense would
call for.
Speaker 4 (09:47):
And they're entitled to see.
Speaker 5 (09:49):
Yes, yes, So I understand, for example, in this case
that the scientist who has analyzed the DNA samples and
provided the report. There expert report, their whole file will
be required, all of their notes and their complete analysis,
which could run for hundreds of pages.
Speaker 3 (10:10):
To do a complete DNA analysis.
Speaker 5 (10:13):
Going back, because this was nineteen seventy seven, probably it
would either be in the form of blood of a
suspect or seminole fluid. In this instance, I understand there
is an allegation of a rape. Because it was nineteen
seventy seven, there were not sophisticated methods of taking DNA
because it was simply not used in criminal prosecutions. So
(10:37):
how the DNA was taken, how it was stored, how
it's been examined, the chain of process of handling the samples,
all of those things would be asked for by the
defense and examined by the defense. So after the brief
is served in mid January, the defense would seek a
(10:58):
lot of material from the prosecute. In this instance, the
homicide squad would know what the defense wants and they've
probably provided it. They're probably giving it with the brief.
Speaker 1 (11:09):
Another formal move in this case involves a document known
as a Form thirty.
Speaker 5 (11:13):
Two before the committal mentioned in late February, a document
known as a Form thirty two.
Speaker 3 (11:20):
Is filed by the parties.
Speaker 5 (11:23):
It's created by the defense seeking to call witnesses at
a later committal hearing. You don't have an automatic right
to call all of the witnesses. The defense has to
establish for each witness that it wants to cross examine
an issue or issues from that witness's statement that are
(11:47):
issues in the case identification. For example, so a police
officer might have come to the crime scene and done
certain things, so there might be issues of examination of
the crime scene. And in the Form thirty two, if
you want to cross examine the police officer, you have
to identify the issues you want to ask about the
(12:07):
relevance of that person's evidence to the issues, and why
it's justified to ask.
Speaker 3 (12:14):
That person questions.
Speaker 5 (12:15):
At a committal, a magistrate is not going to simply
allow the defense to call all of the prosecution witnesses.
There would be in this case dozens and dozens of witnesses,
so you have to justify why you want to call them.
So the prosecution you file the form of the prosecution,
who then respond by saying whether they object to any
(12:37):
of these witnesses being cross examined, and then a magistrate
determines which witnesses can be cross examined, and at that
point it becomes administrative again in determining how long a
committal hearing would take and then booking it in according
to availability of court time and availability of witnesses, etc.
Speaker 3 (12:55):
Etc.
Speaker 1 (12:57):
In other words, after waiting nearly fifty years for justice
for Susan Bartlett and Susanne Armstrong, the matter won't be rushed.
That's reassuring. But what timeframe are we looking at? How
long will this case take? Tony Isaacs, who's been practicing
criminal law in Melbourne for more than forty years, maintains
(13:19):
that doctrines in our criminal justice process are sacrisanct, and
that includes criminal mentions.
Speaker 3 (13:26):
They're generally short.
Speaker 5 (13:27):
If the defense are requiring ten witnesses, there might be
objections to two of them and that would be discussed
in court before the magistrate. Committal mentions can sometimes be adjourned.
For example, all of the disclosure material may not have
been served, but given that this is a very old matter,
I would think that the prosecution would have this material
(13:51):
ready to go.
Speaker 1 (13:53):
Isaac's expects this matter will follow the traditional route to
a committal hearing.
Speaker 3 (13:59):
It looks as so that's the process for this case.
Speaker 5 (14:02):
But there is a process where persons charged with murder
can opt to fast track their hearing into the Supreme
Court and skip the committal process, and they can cross
examine some witnesses before a judge separate to the trial,
so that you would have a mini committal if you like,
or a committal in the.
Speaker 3 (14:22):
Supreme Court, and it can't be done until after the
service of the brief, So we have to wait and
see on that one.
Speaker 1 (14:28):
Can I just ask you finally, if say this matter
does go to a committal hearing in the magistrate's court,
how long does that run?
Speaker 5 (14:37):
Well, it could be that it would take six months
or more to book it in because you've got to
wait for availability of court time. Let's say it was
booked for a five day hearing. The court's got to
find five days, and for it to find five days,
it might be six or eight months away. It's a
high profile case, it might get some priority, but I
(15:00):
would think a committal would be much later this year
if that's the way they go. An accused person does
not have to run a committal hearing. They can come
to the committal MENSI and say we're not going to
have a committal, We're just going to go straight to
trial and the Supreme Court.
Speaker 4 (15:15):
And if that happened, could that happen this year?
Speaker 5 (15:18):
That would be a matter for the registrars and the
people running the Supreme Court list It's possible, but probably not.
Speaker 3 (15:25):
There would be a lot of trials in front of it.
Speaker 1 (15:27):
In other words, no matter what happens from this point
going forward, say, from the committal mentioned at the end
of February, this matter is not going to be over quickly,
I guess, nor shouldn't they.
Speaker 3 (15:38):
No, no, it won't be over quickly.
Speaker 5 (15:41):
I mean typically we say to clients who come into
our office, if they're charged with indictable offenses that are
going to end up in a trial in the county
or Supreme Court, from the time they charged, they're probably
eighteen months away from their trial date.
Speaker 1 (15:58):
When Perry Crumblus walked into Court one in early December
last year, he moved slowly and looked tired, probably not
surprising given the long flight from Rome that had landed
less than twenty four hours before, and having been formally
interviewed by detectives earlier that day before being charged. Sitting
between two security officers and behind glass, he watched Magistrate
(16:21):
Leon Fluxman intently, not looking at Susan's brother Martin or
Suzanne's sister Gail, who were seated behind the prosecutor. Did
he notice the young TV reporters taking notes on their
phones at the back of the court, or the soft
whisper of other journalist's laptop keys. Was he aware this
deceptively low key proceeding held the keen focus of international
(16:42):
news outlets. When asked if he understood his remand conditions,
Corumbalus nodded twice and answered quietly yes. The accused and
his defense lawyer Bill doug Will returned to the Melbourne
Magistrate's Court on Wednesday every twenty six
Popular Podcasts
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com