Easey Street Murders: The case against Perry Kouroumblis

Speaker 1 For decades, a mystery has haunted Tamworth. Mark Anthony Haynes's body was discovered on an isolated stretch of train tracks.
No one talked about it because he was just another little black fella.

Speaker 1 An ABC True Crime podcast was followed by a fresh inquest. Trump is just holding their breath.
If he didn't do it directly, he knows what happened.

Speaker 1 With the truth closer than ever, hear the whole story now. Search for Unravel Blood on the Tracks.
It's on the ABC Listen app or wherever you get your podcasts.

Speaker 2 ABC Listen. Podcasts, radio, news, music and more.

Speaker 1 The case against the accused in a decades-old double murder has been put before a Melbourne court, and we've got all the details. I'm Stephen Stockwell.
Welcome to the case of the Easy Street Murders.

Speaker 1 Police said the killings were the worst that encountered.

Speaker 2 The crime baffled investigators and gripped the state.

Speaker 1 The Easy Street murders have always been a priority for Victoria Police.

Speaker 2 After a breakthrough arrest, Victoria Police are closer to solving one of the state's oldest cold cases.

Speaker 1 There is simply no expiry date on crimes that are as brutal as this.

Speaker 1 We were in the magistrates' court yesterday for the first day of the committal hearing of Perry Korumbulis and I was joined in that room. Just a seat next to me was ABC reporter Alexandra Alvaro.

Speaker 1 Alex, a lot of court watchers yesterday. Yeah, it was a packed room.

Speaker 1 Yeah, only a couple of seats spare and as I mentioned the first day of Perry Korumblis' committal hearing, it was a day, Alex, not without its challenges in more ways than one.

Speaker 1 Can you wrap up what we heard on that first day in about 60 seconds or so?

Speaker 2 Certainly. So the first thing we dealt with was a suppression application.

Speaker 2 Defence wanted to prevent media from reporting on some of the specifics around around the DNA evidence, which we learned the prosecution is actually relying very heavily on as it makes its case.

Speaker 2 So we, the media, lawyered up, we fought it, and we won. So now we can report on all of the proceedings in their entirety.
And then next we heard the prosecution's openings.

Speaker 2 We learned that prosecutors have this DNA evidence that they say links Pericoromblis to the crime scene. This is based on the analysis of samples nearly half a century old.

Speaker 2 And then we got into the witnesses. We heard from an ex-love interest of one of the women, his brother, who at the time both of them were questioned over the murders.

Speaker 2 And then we heard from the neighbour of the women who made the grim and very sad discovery of their bodies.

Speaker 1 Thank you, Alex.

Speaker 1 Yeah, the detail of kind of how the women were found in the evidence that we heard towards the end of the day was, you know, quite confronting.

Speaker 1 And just the timeline that unfolded throughout all the stories that we heard throughout the openings and the evidence of the witnesses kind of really painted a picture of what had unfolded in the days around the murder of Suzanne Armstrong and Susan Bartlett in 1977.

Speaker 1 The suppression chat that you mentioned at the start of that rap as well, I mean, that was really interesting. We actually learnt a lot about this case from that.

Speaker 1 And I'm really keen to come back to that at the end of this episode to talk through kind of what that means.

Speaker 1 I really wasn't expecting kind of such candor in this process.

Speaker 1 I mean, used to trials where it's all quite structured and a lot of conversation between the bar table and the magistrate in all these processes.

Speaker 2 Yeah, I guess we learned a little bit about the inner workings, essentially, and I'm really excited to be able to share that with all of you.

Speaker 1 Yeah, absolutely.

Speaker 1 Before anything started, before anybody kind of entered the room, certainly the magistrate entered the room, Perry Crumblis walked in into the dock and we got our first look at him for these proceedings.

Speaker 2 Yeah, he was wearing a grey suit, a tie, his glasses, he was shaven and he didn't really give much away. He sat quietly and looked completely calm to me, really.

Speaker 1 Yeah, really still.

Speaker 1 Very still. Barely moving.
I only saw him look at the kind of the gallery once throughout the day.

Speaker 1 And I will say, I've been reading the ABC articles on this case and on the reporting over the last couple of years. And he looked much better than

Speaker 1 he does in some of those photos.

Speaker 1 And yeah, we ran through some of the charges in this as well. So he's been charged with two counts of murder and one count of carnal knowledge, which is related to the alleged rape in this situation.

Speaker 1 Do we know how he's going to plead?

Speaker 2 So he hasn't entered a plea yet, and that's not unusual. Usually that happens after the committal process.
But his defence lawyer did flag that he had plans to plead not guilty

Speaker 2 and indicated also that he may seek to have that carnal knowledge without consent charge, the rape charge, dismissed.

Speaker 1 Yeah, right.

Speaker 1 Yeah, again, interesting, the kind of the conversations and this sort of insight into the process, sort of going, yeah, look, we're going to look at having this dismissed towards the end of this process from his barrister, Nermit Dan.

Speaker 2 Which is super useful for us because we know exactly where this is going now. Exactly, yeah.

Speaker 1 And being able to say as well, even at this point, look, we're expecting him to plead not guilty, is useful information.

Speaker 1 Because as you say, that's not something that happens in this process, it's something that happens a bit later in all of these stages.

Speaker 1 We then had magistrate Sonnet, the magistrate who's overseeing this matter, come into the room with a wry smile, one of many wry smiles that he would wear throughout the day.

Speaker 1 And then after we got through that suppression chat, we were into the openings. What did we learn in those openings?

Speaker 2 So it was essentially a timeline on how the prosecution saw the events unfolding in 1977. So it's alleged that in January 1977, Perry Cromblis entered the home of the women on Easy Street.

Speaker 2 He murdered them. He inflicted multiple stab wounds to the women.

Speaker 2 We learned a little bit about Perry Korumblis, that he lived with his parents less than 300 meters down the road from the women, but the prosecution said he had no relationship to them. Right.

Speaker 2 The women were last seen on the 10th, according to these openings, and their bodies were discovered on the 13th of Jan.

Speaker 1 And as they're going through this, you know, we haven't gotten into any of the kind of details of this.

Speaker 1 And before they even got to the detail of, you know, how the bodies were discovered, what police found at the scene, I was really surprised because Magistrate Sonnet kind of jumped in and was like, just so you all know, there's some kind of confronting detail coming up.

Speaker 1 And I mean, that's a warning for you as well listening here. There is some kind of confronting detail of how these women were found and the injuries that they had and the state of the house.

Speaker 1 But is that something you've seen before?

Speaker 2 It's not, but it makes complete sense to me. There were family members of the women present in the courtroom and also on the link.

Speaker 2 And I thought it was a really human thing to do, especially given some of the details that we're about to discuss.

Speaker 1 Yeah, what did we get into? What did the police find when they went into the house?

Speaker 2 So it was neighbours that discovered the women's bodies. And

Speaker 2 there were photographs taken of the crime scene at the time. So we're kind of going through what was contained in those photographs.

Speaker 2 It was said that Susan Bartlett was found face down, her head towards the front door. She was clothed.

Speaker 2 Suzanne Armstrong was found facing upwards on the floor of the front bedroom her 90 had been pulled up her legs were open there was a pool of blood under her head and there was blood on the walls and on a towel on a lamp according to the post-mortem 29 stab wounds had been inflicted to Suzanne Armstrong 55 to Susan Bartlett

Speaker 2 And on the 18th of January, prosecutors say, so not long after the women's bodies were found, it's alleged that Mr.

Speaker 2 Kromblis was spoken to by police near the crime scene, and it's alleged that a knife was found in his boot and that he gave conflicting or differing accounts of where he'd gotten it.

Speaker 2 And then some time passes according to this timeline that prosecutors were running us through. There's further DNA analysis done on the samples that were found at the crime scene over the years.

Speaker 2 And then in 2017, Mr. Koromblis leaves for Greece.
Prosecution alleges that police had asked him for a DNA sample, that he originally agreed, and then he refused, and then he left for Greece.

Speaker 1 Yeah, right. And I mean, when you're talking about the DNA samples, the testing that's done, and you're saying some time has passed.
I mean, quite a bit of time has passed, right?

Speaker 1 Like we're talking decades between, you know, these crimes occurring in 1977 and some of that testing started. I think it was like 98 where they did a little bit more testing and something like that.

Speaker 1 And then in the 2010s, 2017, 2018, around that.

Speaker 2 Yes, and it's amazing that

Speaker 2 police at the time had the foresight to take these samples because I don't think there's much that they could have done with them given the technology that they had back then.

Speaker 2 But now, of course, we're able to run all of these advanced tests. And

Speaker 2 as I said, this is what prosecutors are now relying on to make their case.

Speaker 1 Yeah, it was interesting.

Speaker 1 I mean, thinking about the differences in policing, we were talking before we hopped in to the studio today about the blood types that the prosecution said were observed in the house and on the various blood samples that they'd taken.

Speaker 1 You know, one blood sample is A, one blood sample is O, and, you know, I think it's just a really interesting insight into kind of how policing was done at the time.

Speaker 1 And Alex, the way they got the DNA samples for Pericrumbulus, or the way that they, you know, initially tied him to this. The story behind that's pretty interesting too, right?

Speaker 2 It is. So, as I said, he'd left for Greece in 2017.
In 2018, his brother gives police DNA voluntarily, his brother Antonios.

Speaker 2 And then the next month, they get DNA from Perry Krumblis' car, and that sample was from a tissue. And they compare this to DNA samples from the scene that they'd originally got.

Speaker 2 And it's this analysis that the prosecution alleges ties him to the crime scene.

Speaker 1 And DNA evidence we're expecting will form quite a big part of this case. We'll talk why a little bit later in this episode.

Speaker 1 But Alex, it was really interesting to hear the prosecution alleging in their their opening, you know, how likely it was that the pericrimalis was the source of some of that DNA.

Speaker 2 Yeah, this was quite technical. And I hope this is fleshed out more because this was really explained in mathematician terms and we are mere journalists.
So it was a bit difficult to follow.

Speaker 2 So for example, it's alleged sperm was found on Ms.

Speaker 2 Armstrong's body and the prosecution alleges that when compared to the accused, the results were such that you're 650 million times more likely to observe those results if the accused is the source.

Speaker 2 Right. So that's a little bit difficult to get your head around, isn't it? And they ran through the different samples.

Speaker 2 So the prosecution says there was a DNA sample taken from the carpet from beneath one of the women and that the results were such that you're 1,000 times more likely to observe those results if the accused is the source.

Speaker 2 One of the numbers was 100 billion if the accused was a contributor.

Speaker 2 So that's kind of how we followed that evidence through.

Speaker 1 Yeah, it'll be interesting to see if we hear from

Speaker 1 other DNA experts to get some more detail and context on this as well as.

Speaker 2 And hopefully it's not made more confusing.

Speaker 1 Fingers crossed.

Speaker 1 After we had the prosecution opening, we then had the defence opening, Dermot Dan, KC, jumping up.

Speaker 2 Where did he take us? Yeah, so he wasn't really required to give a formal opening as such, but he outlined where the defence would kind of be going, a roadmap, he called it.

Speaker 2 He sees the primary issue in this case as

Speaker 2 it's an issue around identity. And he said that there were a lot of other people investigated, that there was an alternate suspect interviewed in 1977.
He said that that would be explored.

Speaker 2 And he also said there were issues around the DNA evidence, issues around the reliability of that evidence. As we say,

Speaker 2 these are decades-old samples. He wanted to explore issues around contamination, degradation.

Speaker 1 And yeah, getting an insight into kind of how the the defense of Perry Crumblers will run at a stage like this is really interesting.

Speaker 1 You know, this idea that, you know, they're going to look at other suspects at the time.

Speaker 1 Yeah, it'd be interesting to see how that unfolds. Once we got through all this, into the witnesses, we had the first witness up, Barry Woodard.

Speaker 1 He had been on a date with Suzanne Armstrong in the kind of, you know, days, weeks before she was found dead. He joined via a video link.
And this was not without its challenges.

Speaker 1 As I'm sure most of you have experienced previously, someone in their 80s using video conferencing software, it's not always a smooth run.

Speaker 2 And the court is not immune.

Speaker 1 It was,

Speaker 1 you know, there is this light and shade that we get in courtrooms.

Speaker 1 And, you know, we've had this morning in the court of this really heavy scene being spelt out, explained to us, talked through the evidence that's going to be presented.

Speaker 1 And then we have Barry joining on a link. And, you know, even with all of that, the kind of the giggles in the room as he, you know, struggled to hear the magistrate and the barristers.

Speaker 1 It was kind of awkward at times, right?

Speaker 2 Oh, it was. And I say this with so much respect and understanding, but Barry is now a man in his 80s.

Speaker 2 He was appearing on video link, as you say. He was having trouble hearing.

Speaker 2 It took a long time for him to be sworn in because he couldn't properly hear the oath or the affirmation that he was meant to repeat.

Speaker 2 And the magistrate was making a point of it because it has to be repeated to the T.

Speaker 2 So those were some of the difficulties that we were encountering earlier in the day.

Speaker 1 Yeah, even the conversation, you know, when someone's sworn in, they're given the option of an oath or an affirmation and apparently not quite understanding the difference between what they were and all of that.

Speaker 1 And it came down to...

Speaker 2 As a lay person, and that's so normal.

Speaker 1 Yeah, and I actually really appreciated how magistrates on it kind of ended up resolving that. And it was like, are you a man of God? Do you go to church?

Speaker 1 It's like, no, he's like, okay, you'll do an affirmation. And then we were away.
And I think...

Speaker 1 This is something we're probably going to see a lot through this trial, the age of the people who were, you know, witnesses to this around at the time.

Speaker 1 You know, most of them are now going to be in their 70s, 80s, if not older. So we'll see that, that unfold.

Speaker 2 That test of memory.

Speaker 1 Yeah.

Speaker 1 And, you know, something else, Alex, you predicted this the other day, explaining that what we'll see throughout this committal process is the prosecution often referring to documents that we don't have access to.

Speaker 1 And this happened immediately with Barry, where, you know, the prosecution said, have you got your affidavit? Yep. Great.
Have you got your statement? Yep, it's all here. Are you okay with that?

Speaker 1 Everything's fine there. Yeah, that's okay.
And then that was it. They were done.

Speaker 2 Straight into cross-examination after that.

Speaker 1 Yeah. And what stuck out to you from Barry's evidence?

Speaker 2 So Barry's evidence is that he'd known Suzanne Armstrong, one of the women, for three to four weeks. They'd been on a blind date.

Speaker 2 She'd also gone to his sister's house for dinner. And then he didn't really hear from her and he'd repeatedly tried to call her.

Speaker 2 And then the day before the women were discovered in their home dead, he went to the house trying to find Suzanne, he says. He went to the front door.
He called out, nothing.

Speaker 2 And he'd come with his brother. They went around the side of the house, he says.
They went to the back door. He noticed that the kitchen light was on,

Speaker 2 but still nothing.

Speaker 2 No sound, no stirring. And so they wrote a note.
with a phone number on it. They left it in the kitchen and they left.

Speaker 1 Yeah.

Speaker 1 And I mean, this is Barry kind of being talked through through his statement by the defence barrister Dermot Dan, who was kind of interrogating things, checking things, asking him questions about what happened.

Speaker 1 And, you know, a lot of, is this how you remember it, was the way it was framed. And Barry, in a lot of cases, didn't seem to remember.

Speaker 2 He didn't. And he was really honest about that.
He said, you know, we're going back 50 years and I'm an old man. I just don't know.

Speaker 1 There was a point where he was talking about the, you know, the statement that he made.

Speaker 1 And Dermot Dan was saying, oh, look, have you said this did you do this and he's like if it's in the statement I said it if I said it in there I said it I don't lie

Speaker 1 which was you know it was nice to hear him sort of expressing himself in that way yeah and again we're talking about those moments of light and shade he was talking about the the police interview that he was you know he took part in at the time you know late 70s and you know who was in the room he's like sometimes there were two police officers sometimes there were four and if there was four I had to make sure my my legs were under the table because otherwise they'd kick me

Speaker 1 and then he was asked, wait, kick you or the table? And he's like, oh no, kick me. And there was a bit of a chuckle from the room as we reflect on the policing tactics of the late 70s.

Speaker 2 And that's where we really learned that at the time, Barry was a suspect.

Speaker 2 And

Speaker 2 he was being accused by police of having carried out. these murders.
And

Speaker 2 it was put to him at the time, according to this cross-examination, you know, you killed these two girls. There's no doubt about it.
Every detective on on the case knows it's you.

Speaker 2 And to that, Barry said, you know,

Speaker 2 yes, I heard the officer say that, but that's a lot of bulldust, which I think is a perfect way of describing something that's nonsense and something, it's a phrase that I'll be using more often.

Speaker 1 Absolutely.

Speaker 1 After Barry was in the witness box, we then had his brother stepping in.

Speaker 1 And that kind of just backed up a bit of Barry's story, right?

Speaker 2 Yeah, his brother Henry, he gave similar evidence about them going to the house and leaving the note.

Speaker 2 And he said that he was also questioned by police at the time about having carried out those murders.

Speaker 1 Yeah. And I mean, someone who we learnt a lot from yesterday about the kind of the timeline, what was happening on Easy Street at the time was Janet Powell, one of the neighbours.

Speaker 1 So she was living in the house next door to 147. They shared a wall as well.

Speaker 1 What did we hear about, you know, her kind of life in the days leading up to it, what she saw, and then how her and her housemate discovered the scene?

Speaker 2 So initially she said that she saw the women's dog roaming the streets.

Speaker 2 She recognised the dog and she brought it into her home because she couldn't find the women. But she left a note at their door essentially saying, I've got your dog.

Speaker 2 And then she got into how she discovered the women's bodies. So she said that she heard the cries of Suzanne Armstrong's baby boy and she went to investigate.

Speaker 2 She too went around the side of the building after she wasn't successful in getting their attention at the front door. She walked into the home with her housemate and

Speaker 2 again, they didn't see anything in the kitchen.

Speaker 2 Her housemate started walking down the hallway and she said to her, don't walk any further because she discovered Susan Bartlett's body at the front door.

Speaker 1 God.

Speaker 1 And what happened after that?

Speaker 2 Well, she says that they grabbed the baby, they ran out of the house, and they called police straight away.

Speaker 1 Yeah. And yeah, I guess that leads to kind of the investigation that we've been hearing so much about over the last

Speaker 1 day. I mean, Janet was the last witness of the day, so we wrapped up after she finished.
We ran a little bit longer with her, so it was a later finish yesterday in court.

Speaker 1 But I want to come back, Alex, to the suppression argument that we heard at the start of the day. This was all around the the defence wanting to suppress the DNA evidence or parts of the DNA evidence.

Speaker 2 Yeah, so the defence wanted to have two specific elements of the DNA evidence suppressed, where the DNA was taken from and the DNA ratio. So they were those numbers that we were talking about before.

Speaker 2 And the basis, they said, of this suppression order that they were seeking was because

Speaker 2 these elements would be a substantial risk to the proper administration of justice if they were out there.

Speaker 1 And I mean, you say proper administration of justice. Does that mean people are going to hear that? And then if they're on a jury, they could never make a sort of impartial decision?

Speaker 1 Is that the kind of the thought process here?

Speaker 2 Exactly. So they said that essentially they wanted to have this information excluded from trial

Speaker 2 for those reasons that we spoke about earlier, the reliability of this evidence, essentially. And so effectively what they were saying is it may never make its way in front of a jury.

Speaker 2 But if the details are published by the media at at this point, then they're never going to be able to get that information out of their minds.

Speaker 2 And as we know, when a jury is considering their verdict and considering the evidence before them, they can only consider what has been put to them.

Speaker 2 They need to block everything that they've heard about the case in the media or on the streets, talking to other people. They need to put it out of their mind.

Speaker 1 Yeah, and I mean, in the end, the suppression application was rejected. I mean, do we know why?

Speaker 2 No. So it was refused, but the magistrate didn't share his reasons for that decision in court.

Speaker 1 Right. Okay.

Speaker 1 And I'm, you know, with a lot of these things, often we get reasons later down the line and things like that. It's not a secret thing.
As we were talking about, a lot of this isn't for the media.

Speaker 1 Yeah, it's for the parties. And so as long as they've got all the details, that's the kind of important part with this.

Speaker 1 I mean, it was interesting hearing the argument as this was unfolding, basically giving us a sense of place for where we are. I mean, this is a process where,

Speaker 1 you know, the evidence is being tested to see if there's enough for it to get to trial. And while Dermot Dan, KC, was saying he was worried that this might poison a jury,

Speaker 1 might complicate it if it ever got to a trial, there was a discussion being had around the table where if the DNA evidence was ruled out, we've got a sign of how heavy a DNA evidence case this is, the DNA evidence is ruled out, it might not make it to trial at all.

Speaker 2 And the prosecution was also being a little bit reserved about what information they gave to the defense about what the other strands of evidence they had was, which was interesting in itself.

Speaker 1 Yeah, yeah, I'm sure we'll, I mean, we won't hear too much about some of that in this process, but, you know, if this gets to a trial, we'll get into some more of that there.

Speaker 1 And I mean, yeah, interesting sense of place for where we are in this process to it, this committal hearing.

Speaker 1 And I mean, we're already getting a lot of questions sent through to the case of at abc.net.au, our email address.

Speaker 1 And one of them fits in quite nicely with the kind of the timing and where we're up to here. It's from Shannon in Melbourne.

Speaker 1 And Shannon writes, hi, thanks for keeping me company through my morning coffee. I have a couple of questions.
How long will the Magistrates Court take to decide if there's evidence for trial?

Speaker 1 I know timelines change, but roughly, and if it does go to trial, are we hearing that in the next six months or is it bottom of the barrel?

Speaker 2 So it's a great question. So obviously we're back in court today.
We'll hear a bit more evidence and then there'll be a bit of a break. The next time we're in court is in November.

Speaker 2 So the dates of the committal hearing have kind of been split. There are three more days put aside at the end of November to continue hearing this committal.

Speaker 2 And then

Speaker 2 usually at the end of that process, the magistrate will take some time to consider his decision.

Speaker 2 That can take a couple of weeks. And then, after that, in terms of heading to a trial, if the magistrate decides there's sufficient evidence to do so, that's anyone's guess.

Speaker 2 Sometimes the wheels of justice turn quite slowly, but we were given a little bit of an indication during that suppression chat that we heard.

Speaker 2 Our lawyer, the lawyer acting for us,

Speaker 2 said that he doesn't see how this could progress to trial in a six-month period.

Speaker 2 So I think from that we can probably predict that it will be more than six months before we see this go to trial, if that's the decision that's made.

Speaker 1 Thank you, Alex. Great question, Shannon.
So thank you for writing in. Another one here, Alex, from Karina in Adelaide.

Speaker 1 Karina writes, Howdy, I thoroughly enjoy listening to the case of I can't wait till a new episode drops. You're so informative.

Speaker 1 After listening to the latest episode, I was wondering how can Perry Corumbulus afford such high-profile representations such as Dermot Dan and Bill Dug. We know Aaron Patterson was loaded.

Speaker 1 Is this Perry fella too? What's his background? What did he do for a living? Did he make a lot of money here, back in Greece, or both? Wow.

Speaker 2 I actually don't know the answer to that question. I don't know what Mr.
Corrumbulis does for work.

Speaker 2 Sometimes people or an accused person can be eligible for legal aid. It means that they get assistance in terms of the financials around their legal assistance.

Speaker 2 I don't know if he's a legal aid client or if he's funding it himself.

Speaker 1 Thank you, Alex. And thank you, Karina, as well.
Both great questions that we've been sent to the case of at abc.net.au.

Speaker 1 If you use a smart device of any kind, you can actually put us in your contact details and then you can talk to the faceless person in your phone and dictate your messages to us.

Speaker 1 I will say, Alex, I will be outrageously disappointed if someone hasn't already started drafting us an email asking what type of dog was found at the front of the house of Susan Bartlett and Susan Armstrong.

Speaker 1 So we'll do a bit of research and I'm sure we'll be able to answer that one in our next episode.

Speaker 1 Alex, what are you up to today?

Speaker 2 I'll be furiously taking notes in court today and we'll be able to bring you the details of what happened in the next episode.

Speaker 1 Thank you very much. Yeah, we'll be back in your feed on Tuesday next week with a wrap of the committal so far in this sort of first section of it.

Speaker 1 We'll be taking a look at kind of what comes next, how this moves, how this evolves over the next little while. That's all happening before we move on to our next case.

Speaker 1 That is going to be the trial of Rajwinda Singh in Cairns. He's been accused of the murder of Toy Accordingly in 2018.
He has pleaded not guilty. We'll have more on that in your feed next week.

Speaker 1 We're also expecting news on James Bissakis's parole application as well in the next couple of days. So we'll be keeping an eye on that.

Speaker 1 If you've been following the case of Snowtown Parole, there were some pretty significant developments in that last week.

Speaker 1 So we're keeping an eye on it and we'll bring you an update as soon as we've got one. Make sure you've got yourself the ABC Listener.

Speaker 1 Our episodes pop up there before they pop up anywhere else and it puts you in a wonderful spot to be first in line when we have any of those details.

Speaker 1 The case of the Easy Street Murders is produced by ABC Audio Studios and ABC News. It's reported by Alexandra Alvaro and presented by me, Stephen Stockwell.
Our executive producer is Claire Rawlinson.

Speaker 1 Thank you to senior lawyer, our legal queen, Jasmine Sims, for her legal advice, to the Victorian Newsroom, and to Audio Studios manager Eric George.

Speaker 1 This episode was produced on the land of the Wurundjeri people.