Easey Street Murders: Trial confirmed, but with a change in charges

Speaker 1 Hey, I'm Sana Qadar, and I host All in the Mind on ABC Radio National. It's a show where we investigate why people behave the way they do.

Speaker 1 But there's some perspectives we don't often hear about, like what makes people cross the line into criminal behavior?

Speaker 2 Are they evil or are they damaged? Are they both?

Speaker 1 Join me for Criminal Psychology, a special series diving into some of these questions. Hear it now on the ABC Listen app.

Speaker 1 ABC Listen. Podcasts, radio, news, music and more.

Speaker 2 It's been almost 50 years since Suzanne Armstrong and Susan Bartlett were killed in their Collingwood sharehouse.

Speaker 2 This week, a magistrate has confirmed the accused murderer will have to stand trial in the Victorian Supreme Court. I'm Stephen Stockwell.
Welcome Welcome to the case of the Easy Street Murders.

Speaker 2 Police said the killings were the worst that encountered.

Speaker 1 The crime baffled investigators and gripped the state.

Speaker 2 The Easy Street murders have always been a priority for Victoria Police.

Speaker 1 After a breakthrough arrest, Victoria Police are closer to solving one of the state's oldest cold cases.

Speaker 2 There is simply no expiry date on crimes that are as brutal as this.

Speaker 2 It has been a very big week in the committal hearing of Perry Corumbalis. ABC reporter Alexandra Alvaro was there alongside me.
Alex, have you recovered yet?

Speaker 1 No, I'm still reeling. I felt like it was such a slow burn that last day in court.
We had delays to the start. And then by the end of the day, it just felt like everything happened all at once.

Speaker 2 Yeah, I mean, it was a big moment. And I mean, these murders, these Easy Street murders really did rock Melbourne in the 70s.
They've been unsolved for so long.

Speaker 2 You know, these two women, Suzanne Armstrong and Susan Bartlett, both in their 20s, murdered in the sharehouse they lived in in inner-city Melbourne. And yeah, no resolution for so long.

Speaker 2 Then we had the charging of Perry Krumblis with murder. And then this whole committal process has been about working out if there is enough evidence for him to face a murder trial over these deaths.

Speaker 2 You know, this is a really big ask, Alex, but can you wrap up everything we've heard this week in 60 seconds or so?

Speaker 1 Okay, so the first thing we heard was evidence from three police officers, three detectives who visited the crime scene back in the 70s.

Speaker 1 They were questioned over the handling of exhibits, whether they were wearing gloves, how those exhibits were handled. We heard from Ron Idles and

Speaker 1 he is a pretty famous detective here in Victoria, but back when all of this happened he was just a constable and he talked about this chance interaction that he had with Perry Krumblis.

Speaker 1 We heard from Stuart Bateson, another police officer.

Speaker 1 He was tasked with keeping the cold case ticking over in the 90s, and he spoke about how he kind of went about ruling out different persons of interest.

Speaker 1 We heard some DNA evidence, and then finally we heard from the informant, the lead detective in the case, and then we had a decision. Perry Krumblis was ordered to stand trial.

Speaker 2 Thank you, Alex.

Speaker 2 Yeah, ordered to stand trial on two counts of murder, the murder of Suzanne Armstrong and Susan Bartlett, but not on the carnal knowledge charge that was related to Suzanne Armstrong.

Speaker 2 That was basically the equivalent rape charge in 1977, the time that Perry Crumblis is alleged to have committed these offences.

Speaker 2 That won't be continuing to trial. And I mean, the reasons behind that we'll get to later in this episode.
And I mean, I actually found them quite shocking.

Speaker 2 So I'm really keen to talk to you about them, Alex.

Speaker 2 But, I mean, before we get there, the reason that they don't continue is really related to the era this happened in in 1977 and you know in in the other episodes we've done with this I've actually spoken a lot about the policing at the time and we learned a lot about what policing what this era was like in in Melbourne and I mean we also heard more about that in this stage of the committal as well and I wonder if you can take us to what we heard about how this crime was investigated at the time so on Monday we heard from three police officers homicide squad detectives who visited the scene

Speaker 1 We heard from Terry Purtin and a lot of the questioning with these three police officers was around police processes,

Speaker 1 around the wearing of gloves especially. So Mr.
Purtin was asked whether he saw officers wearing gloves. He said he didn't remember that.

Speaker 1 And then we heard from Colin Favor, another homicide squad member.

Speaker 1 He told the court he wasn't wearing gloves at the crime scene and neither was one of his colleagues, but he said that they probably had gloves in their kits.

Speaker 1 And then we heard from another former officer, Peter Hiscock, and he said that we didn't have gloves back in those days. So that seemed to conflict with what his colleague had said.

Speaker 1 And then it was suggested to him by defence that exhibits from the scene were all jumbled and put into one bag.

Speaker 1 Mr. Hiscock said that it was the case that they would have been separated, but when he was pressed on that, he said, well, he didn't actually have any memory of individual bags.

Speaker 2 Yeah, we had these photos being being shown to each of these men. It was like these, these kind of five photos.

Speaker 2 And even magistrate Sonnet, who was overseeing this, joked that, you know, these five photos are going to be pretty well known by the end of the committal process because they were shown to everyone.

Speaker 1 It was like. Everyone except us.

Speaker 2 Sort of peering from the room.

Speaker 1 Were you trying to get a glimpse of them too? I was squinting, but they were in black and white.

Speaker 2 Black and white, you know, quite grainy from what I could see anyway. And so, yeah, you've got these various photos.

Speaker 2 And yeah, you know, you can't, well, at least from where I was, you couldn't tell much about what was happening with that.

Speaker 2 And I mean, it was interesting the way that Dermot Dan was questioning these witnesses. He's the defence barrister for Perry Corumboulos, who is, you know, the accused in this commital process.

Speaker 2 And Dermot Dan really zeroing in on what you're talking about here, Alex, with the gloves, you know, or really getting to the way that evidence was handled and all of that kind of stuff in that area.

Speaker 2 And yeah, interesting that none of them kind of seem to remember or even sometimes have gloves at that stage.

Speaker 1 Yeah, and I think this centers around really what the defence wants to highlight here.

Speaker 1 We know that from the start of this committal process, they want to zone in on contamination and degradation of this DNA evidence, and these questions go to the heart of that.

Speaker 2 Yeah, that the DNA evidence in this is a really kind of crucial part. It's the kind of the key element that the prosecution says links Perikrimbilis to this crime.
And we'll get into

Speaker 2 some more detail around that DNA evidence a bit later in this episode. But first, Alex, we also heard this week about how Perry Krimbulis first crossed paths with police.

Speaker 2 And this was almost kind of

Speaker 2 completely unrelated. A few days after the murders, just a random traffic stop.

Speaker 1 Yeah, and it was so interesting how this was described essentially as

Speaker 1 what I thought was a chance meeting. So we heard from Ron Idles,

Speaker 1 who, as I said, was a homicide squad detective, a very famous homicide squad detective. But back then, he was young.
He was a constable. He was on the beat.

Speaker 1 And he was doing these routine random checks on cars that were passing in Collingwood and he pulled over Perry Crumblis and he said that he'd known him because he was, you know, a member of the public that he'd seen around before.

Speaker 1 He said that he didn't really see anything unusual about him. He didn't have any scratches or anything on the parts of his body that he could see.

Speaker 1 He said he searched his car, he said it was neat. And he looked in the boot.
And that's where he found a knife, which he seized.

Speaker 2 Right. And so what happens to this knife? This knife goes away, gets tested? What goes on there?

Speaker 1 There wasn't much independent memory of what he did with the knife, with what Mr. Idles did with the knife, but he said he probably would have taken it back to the office.

Speaker 2 The version from Ron Idles was kind of fascinating. And this, yeah, the way that, you know, he kind of ends up crossing paths with Periquumbulis in this situation seems so random.

Speaker 2 And then now is such an important part of what we've been exploring through this committal process.

Speaker 2 I mean, as well as Periquumbulus, Grimbalis, we've heard a lot about other suspects around the time.

Speaker 2 And now we heard, you know, in the last kind of lot of episodes we did on this, we talked a bit about John Grant. Now, this guy was a journalist.

Speaker 2 He was staying in the house next door to the Easy Street murders house at the time that those murders happened.

Speaker 2 We were also introduced to another guy this week, Alex, a guy called Ian Lloyd, who Hiscock knew.

Speaker 2 Now, this is one of the police detectives at the time, and he used to be a cop himself, this Ian Lloyd guy.

Speaker 2 And Hiscocks did not have a good relationship with this man.

Speaker 1 No, so what he said about Ian Lloyd was that, as you say, he used to be a police officer. He was forced to resign over a burglary.

Speaker 1 He had been also approaching female drivers and then having tickets dismissed in exchange for sexual favours.

Speaker 1 He was also a roof plumber who was working on roofs close by to the Easy Street house.

Speaker 1 And Hiscock said his evidence was that he had a very strong dislike for Ian Lloyd. He said that he was working part-time in his in-law's hotel.
He caught him breaking in. They had a huge fight.

Speaker 1 He disarmed him.

Speaker 1 And so Peter Hiscock said, I kept an extraordinarily close tabs on him.

Speaker 2 And Hiscock seemed to retire from the police not too far after these murders, like within the kind of five or 10-year period after the murders.

Speaker 2 So he wasn't actively involved in the investigation, but he did seem to keep a pretty close eye on it. You know, we've got this bloke here, Lloyd.

Speaker 2 He also said when he was, you know, giving evidence in this committal process that he really strongly believed that John Grant was the man who was responsible for the murders for quite a long time.

Speaker 2 And it wasn't until

Speaker 2 he started hearing about DNA evidence, when he was talking to people involved in the investigation, that that really kind of started to change his mind.

Speaker 2 So, it seems like he was kind of still in the loop, you know, in contact with old colleagues and the like.

Speaker 1 Definitely. So we also heard that he had kept in contact with someone called Stuart Bateson, who was another witness that we heard from.

Speaker 1 And as I say, Stuart Bateson was tasked with keeping that cold case sticking over and doing further investigation.

Speaker 1 And he was actually informed by his cock on a few of a few things because he had been following this so closely as well. So

Speaker 1 Stuart Bateson's evidence was that he had seven persons of interest that he managed to rule out through DNA testing, and they included Ross Hammond, the Woodards, Ian Lloyd, John Grant, and that was all done via DNA testing, he said.

Speaker 2 Yeah, and the Woodards, you know, we spoke about them in the last lot of episodes that we did.

Speaker 2 If you haven't listened to them, jump on the ABC Listener, go back and have a listen to them and catch up. But the Woodards, one of them had been on a date with Suzanne Armstrong.

Speaker 1 That's right, a blind date.

Speaker 1 And then if we're going back to Ross Hammond as well, an acquaintance. He was described as an acquaintance of Ms.

Speaker 1 Bartlett, the person who police thought or said at the time owned that footprint on her bed.

Speaker 1 So, yeah.

Speaker 2 Yeah, right. And I mean, you're talking about Bateson here.
He's the guy who kind of ends up kind of with carriage of the case through the kind of the 90s.

Speaker 2 And something I found really, you know, really interesting insight through this committal process is the way, the carriage that different people have had of this case at different times and the number of people involved in it all and all the evidence.

Speaker 2 You know, we're talking about evidence tracking and handling and one of the people that we've heard from uh i think this was on uh maybe tuesday afternoon um was the basically the property manager at uh victoria police he's the guy who's looking after all of the exhibits tracking everything um and i was what a job

Speaker 2 imagine how huge that library is oh it'd be gigantic and he was talking about like the different storage spaces they had as well you know there's this one here i look after there's this one here that i look after all of that uh talking about the spreadsheet that he had uh to manage everything this is the people know the way to my heart is through a spreadsheet.

Speaker 2 So

Speaker 2 I was really locked into this. And yeah, some of the things, the detail that he had about the movement of exhibits was kind of fascinating.

Speaker 1 And the different systems used to track exhibits as well. So there was talk about this system called EMU and how that then migrated into a different system, how they came to be computerized.

Speaker 1 Because of course, back when these murders happened,

Speaker 1 exhibits were tracked, you know, by hand with labels. Now it's all on computers.

Speaker 2 Yeah, and I mean, there's so much to track right? Like there's all of these different bits and pieces, everything that's got to be followed along.

Speaker 2 And Alex we also got pretty deep into the DNA evidence around this case that is being presented by the prosecution and we got into that through a Victoria Police forensic officer.

Speaker 2 Where did we go with this? What were we looking at and hearing about here?

Speaker 1 Yeah so Kate Bradley she's a biologist and she conducted testing or oversaw the conducting of testing on multiple samples that were collected from the crime scene all those those years ago.

Speaker 1 She was asked about vaginal samples that were taken from both of the women.

Speaker 1 She agreed that there was no female DNA profile detected on those swabs, which you would expect from a swab taken from that place on the body.

Speaker 1 She suggested that's probably due to degradation, which, as we have said, is something that the Defence is really zeroing in on.

Speaker 1 But there was a male source detected on Ms. Armstrong's sample and Mr.
Corumblis couldn't be excluded. In fact, it was said that when compared to DNA of Mr.

Speaker 1 Corumblis, you were 650 million times more likely to observe those results if the accused was the source. Right.

Speaker 1 So Ms. Bradley kind of added a little bit of context around that.
So she said, essentially, sperm has more of a hardy outer cell.

Speaker 1 So yeah, that was kind of the line of questioning when it came to DNA.

Speaker 2 And we were talking about the knife that Ron Idles took from pericorumbolis. Did that get tested as well?

Speaker 1 So yeah, Ms. Bradley did speak about that knives and there are a few knives floating around when it comes to this case.
So in 2018, eight samples were taken from that knife for DNA analysis.

Speaker 1 And in respect to seven of the eight,

Speaker 1 no DNA profile could be obtained at all.

Speaker 1 And then in relation to number eight, there was a very partial DNA profile that was obtained.

Speaker 1 So Kate Bradley was essentially asked by Dermot Dan, you know, you can't establish that there's any blood on the knife. She said that was correct.

Speaker 1 You can't establish a link between the knife and the Easy Street murders. Is that correct? And she said, Well, I couldn't establish any DNA profiles.

Speaker 1 It's not really my job to establish a link between a crime scene and a knife.

Speaker 2 Very diplomatic answer in, you know, what at times can be, you know, pretty full-on questioning by defense barristers in the room.

Speaker 2 And, you know, they're really kind of diving into detail and trying to pull bits and pieces apart.

Speaker 2 And, Alex, speaking of the DNA, there's kind of three key people, you know, as well as Perry Coromboulos, who are kind of considered suspects or persons of interest around that time.

Speaker 2 I mean, there's a number, but there's three that come up specifically in this moment. That is John Grant.

Speaker 2 Now, he is the journalist who was staying next door to the Easy Street murders house the night of the murders. There's another bloke, Hammond.

Speaker 2 His footprint, police say, was found inside Susan Bartlett's bedroom. And then there is also Lloyd, and this is the former police officer.

Speaker 2 Alex, what did we hear about them being ruled out or maybe not?

Speaker 1 So what we heard from Ms.

Speaker 1 Bradley, the biologist, was that in terms of these three people, she couldn't find any information that confirmed that they'd been compared to DNA from the crime scene and excluded.

Speaker 1 In other words, ruled out.

Speaker 2 Right, okay. Yeah, and we got into quite deep kind of like evidence tracking, DNA record, this woman who's been analysing all the DNA.
We get to the penultimate moment of the committal hearing.

Speaker 2 This is the informant, the lead detective on the case.

Speaker 2 And I was really looking forward to this moment because I felt like we were going to get this picture of how the investigation, its current form, had unfolded. And we really didn't get that.

Speaker 1 It was pretty short, wasn't it? I was also expecting it to kind of be a bit more drawn out.

Speaker 1 But there were some other lawyers sitting at the bar table and they actually interrupted three times on my count

Speaker 1 just before a discussion was about to happen saying, oh, there's a PII issue there. And you might remember what PII is from another episode we did.
So PII stands for public interest immunity.

Speaker 1 So government bodies can apply to keep certain things secret, keep them from being disclosed, because they believe it would be detrimental to the public interest.

Speaker 1 So the reason could be a covert operative or something about police methodology that they just don't want out there. I'm not saying that that's what's at play in this case.

Speaker 1 We don't know what the PII issue is in relation to this case, but there's obviously been a successful claim made, it seems. And yeah, there were three times where these lawyers stood up and butted in.

Speaker 1 And at one point, Dermot Dan said, oh, I'm snooked there too.

Speaker 1 So he was obviously getting a little bit frustrated in relation to that as well.

Speaker 2 Yeah, so I meant that Paul Rowe, who, you know, is the detective kind of leading this case,

Speaker 2 didn't end up talking anywhere near in as much detail as what I was expecting.

Speaker 2 And And, you know, the kind of takeaway from his evidence was the, you know, this really tense exchange about the kind of the DNA records excluding those other three suspects we've just talked about, Grant, Hammond, and Lloyd.

Speaker 1 Yeah, so there was a bit of a tense exchange between him and the magistrate where he was being asked by defence about

Speaker 1 whether there was this kind of back and forth as to whether there was written record that some of these people that we'd mentioned, some some of these persons of interest, had been excluded.

Speaker 1 And he was kind of saying, you know, I know that they'd been excluded, but in the end he had to accept that there was no written record in the biology file that they had been excluded, which was the biologist's testimony, really.

Speaker 1 That was her evidence.

Speaker 2 Yeah, it really swung around and kind of was used against the informant quite quickly by Dermot Dan. And yeah, the exchange really was quite tense.

Speaker 2 You know, he was trying to clarify the question from Dermot Dan and yet end up with Magistrate Sonnet kind of interjecting and saying, no, you're being asked this.

Speaker 2 This is the question you need to answer. And he kind of had to concede that, no, that DNA evidence, excluding those men,

Speaker 2 doesn't exist.

Speaker 1 On the DNA file, at least.

Speaker 2 Yeah, and so he was kind of pointing to emails or something.

Speaker 1 Yeah, he was saying that, you know, that is what he knew to be true and that that was evident through, I think he'd made reference to emails. But yeah, he did concede that it wasn't on the DNA file.

Speaker 2 Yeah, and then Alex, at this point, the evidence concluded. This was, you know, the informant, Paul Rowe, was the last prosecution witness.
The defence didn't put anyone up.

Speaker 2 And so we get to this really important part of the committal process.

Speaker 2 And this was a really quite dramatic moment because Defence Barrister Dermot Dan, the man representing Perry Crumblis, called for the dismissal of the carnal knowledge charge. What was happening here?

Speaker 1 So the carnal knowledge charge is what would be known today as a rape charge.

Speaker 1 And from the legal argument that took place, we learned that it all really hinged on the alleged timing of sexual interference with Suzanne Armstrong. So did it happen before or after she died?

Speaker 1 The implication being that if all the evidence leads to the interference happening after death, then the charge doesn't stand.

Speaker 1 So magistrate Sonnet was asking the prosecutor, what is the piece of evidence that the jury can rely on to say it happened before death? He said, we haven't seen any.

Speaker 1 And the prosecutor, Zubin Menon, said that their case theory is essentially that Perikrumblis desired sexual gratification, but not with a dead person.

Speaker 1 And he also said that, you know, Suzanne Armstrong could have been in a state of dying. She could have been unconscious.

Speaker 1 But to say a person who entered the house waited until someone died and then to interfere with the body, he said, that is unrealistic.

Speaker 2 And what evidence did we hear the other side? What evidence was Defence relying on to suggest that the carnal knowledge of Suzanne Armstrong happened after her death?

Speaker 1 So defence argued that we'd heard evidence from one of the prosecution's own witnesses, Adrian Donoghue, an experienced homicide squad detective from the 70s who visited the crime scene.

Speaker 1 He said, Mr. Donoghue said that Ms.
Armstrong was found in a pose that you'd expect to see, a classic pose, he said, that you'd expect to see with a post-mortem rape.

Speaker 1 And I am about to get a bit graphic here, so just a content warning,

Speaker 1 that her legs were open and her 90 was pulled above her breastbone.

Speaker 2 Yeah, and we also heard in the court as well that, you know, a kind of equivalent charge for

Speaker 2 that happening after someone's death now would be interfering with a corpse. But, you know, in 1977, that charge didn't exist.

Speaker 2 This legal argument, argument, you know, was quite tense.

Speaker 2 It was a really kind of full-on exchange in the courtroom with magistrates on it questioning and challenging the prosecution on their approach.

Speaker 2 And then he kind of took his time to kind of consider his decision. And I was expecting him.
He said, I'll be back in 15 minutes.

Speaker 2 And I was expecting that he would go away and he'd come back with a decision on, you know, this carnal knowledge charge, if it would continue, what he was going to say around the timing of it.

Speaker 2 He came back in the room and then made a call on everything.

Speaker 1 The entire committal process. He essentially committed Perry Kromblis to trial on those two murder charges, but the rape charge was dismissed.

Speaker 2 What were his reasons for not committing him to stand trial on the Carnal Knowledge charge?

Speaker 1 Well, essentially, what magistrate Sonnet was saying is that there wasn't enough evidence for

Speaker 1 that charge to stand or for a jury to convict on that charge.

Speaker 1 And he sided with defence in terms of what they were saying about Adrian Donahue, the homicide squad detective's evidence about that classic post-mortem pose.

Speaker 2 Yeah, and then we had magistrate Sonnet turning to Perry Crumblis and asking him how he would be pleading in relation to the two murder charges and listing them one after the other.

Speaker 2 And we heard Perry Crumblis

Speaker 2 say, I think for the first time in court, not guilty would be his plea in relation to both of them.

Speaker 2 And then the whole process kind of wrapped up.

Speaker 2 You know, Magistrate Sonnet thanked the parties for being there, thanked everyone involved, and also made a special mention to the families of Suzanne Armstrong and Susan Bartlett, acknowledging that it would have been really hard for them to hear some of the evidence that we heard spoken about through this committal hearing.

Speaker 2 And I mean, certainly that conversation, Alex, that we had at the end of the committal was, you know, it would have been really difficult for them to hear.

Speaker 2 And that acknowledgement from Brett's Sonnet, hopefully,

Speaker 2 would have been welcome for them.

Speaker 2 Alex, I do want to talk about the next stages of this in just a moment, but first I want to get to some of the questions that have been sent into the case of inbox, the case of abc.net.au.

Speaker 2 And this is quite a poignant question. This one is from Justine.

Speaker 2 And Justine writes, Hello, Stephen, Alexandra, thank you so much for your coverage of the Easy Street murders case and the cases you've covered in the podcast over this year.

Speaker 2 I've enjoyed following them. How come the Easy Street committal hearing was split into two sittings? Is it because they found extra information that they needed time to research?

Speaker 2 Or was it always going to be split?

Speaker 1 Yeah, I mean the committal hearing was always put down for five days, but it was delayed. And when organising these things, the parties have to come together.

Speaker 1 And when I say the parties, I mean the lawyers, the magistrate,

Speaker 1 and they have to consider when everyone's free at exactly the same time, which can often be really tricky. Magistrate Sonnet kept referring to the fact that he had a very full and busy schedule.

Speaker 1 And Dermot Dan had another case he was working on as well. And so that's the reason it was split over two periods.

Speaker 2 Great. Thank you, Alex.
And that is a wonderful question, Justine, as well. And I mean, the timing issue,

Speaker 2 you know, that I really started to get a bit nervous actually on Wednesday when we were in this because there were delays starting the hearing because Perry Crumblis hadn't been transferred to the magistrates' court for that to begin.

Speaker 2 And we worked right up to the end of the day with this decision being made, Alex. I think another 15, 20 minute delay and we would be going back for another day.

Speaker 2 And who knows when we would get to that? Because, yeah, everyone's very busy. Everyone has things booked in weeks in advance.
Please keep your emails coming. Get in touch, the case of at abc.net.au.

Speaker 2 And while I have your ear on communications and thoughts and feelings, we are running a listener survey at the moment.

Speaker 2 I would love it if you could jump into the link in the episode description and click through and tell us a bit about how you listen to the case of, why you listen, what sort of things you enjoy on the pod, because we really want to kind of tailor this to be what you enjoy and what you want it to be.

Speaker 2 So while you're clicking this link, Alex, what is happening next?

Speaker 1 So we heard in court that the next time we'll see Perry Krumblis will be at a directions hearing in the Supreme Court. So now that Mr.

Speaker 1 Krumblis has been committed to stand trial, it does move to a higher court, the Supreme Court. That directions hearing will be in mid-December.

Speaker 1 And usually at a directions hearing, the parties get together and talk about the next steps.

Speaker 2 Yeah, you're going to be heading along? I will. Great.
Well, I'll try and squeeze in there as well.

Speaker 2 And then we can, you know, if there's things we can talk about, we'll be back here on the case of updating you in the case of the Easy Street murders.

Speaker 2 If you are interested in following along and keeping up to date with all this, I highly recommend you grab yourself the ABC Listen Apps. The best way to listen to the case of.

Speaker 2 And when we drop little episodes that might come out of nowhere or appear when there's a development, that's the place that's going to be the easiest to find them.

Speaker 2 And in that listener survey, I mentioned, I know you all know that I'm a fan of the ABC Listen app. You will be asked if you listen on the ABC Listen app.
So I'll know.

Speaker 2 But don't worry, I won't be too worried if you are using a different podcast app, provided you are rating and reviewing the case of. So it makes it easy for other people to find us.

Speaker 2 I'll be back in your feed next week with the case of Toya's murder. We're expecting the evidence in that trial to wrap up early next week and then closing addresses.

Speaker 2 So if you haven't been following along, I'd highly recommend jumping into those episodes so you can be up to speed as the trial reaches this critical stage.

Speaker 2 Alexandra Alvaro, ABC reporter, thank you so much for joining us on the case of.

Speaker 1 Thanks, Docie.

Speaker 2 It's my pleasure. We'll be back in your feed soon.

Speaker 2 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.

Speaker 2 Our executive producer is Claire Rawlinson, and this episode was produced on the land of the Wurundjeri people.