Updated Easey St Murders Collingwood * ARREST MADE

[Satan]

Police have arrested a man in Italy over the 1977 murders of Suzanne Armstrong and Susan Bartlett in their Easey Street home. He fled Australia in 2017 after he became aware he was a suspect.

The man fled to Greece and couldn’t be arrested because local laws meant charges must be laid within seven years of the offence.

Police have waited those 15 years for him to leave Greece so he could be arrested. They will now seek to extradite him to Melbourne to face the charges.

A police spokesperson confirmed a 65-year-old dual citizen of Australia and Greece was arrested at an airport in Rome in the early hours on Friday.


For you russian bots , long unsolved double murder in Melbourne

 

[RichmondVFA]

I find the whole calmly washing up part astounding with a small house with a shared wall. Must have been a huge amount of noise. Probably only dumb luck that maybe the people on one side were out and the old lady accross the lane might not have had great hearing.

For all the perpetrator would know the police could have been called and on their way after the noise or neighbours could have come to check.

 

[DeliveryProblems]

The cops had tunnel vision, apparently homicide was convinced Grant the crime reporter was responsible.

Given Grant had an association with Julie Garciacelay who disappeared in 1975, presumed murdered, they probably thought it was too much of a coincidence that now they had two murdered women and he was staying over in the house next door when it happened.

Yes, much like the early William Tyrrell investigation.

 

[Bunk Moreland]

As an FYI I think prosecuting this today would be just as difficult

DNA - yeah ok I had sex with her but I left her alive

Knife - I said I found it and I have an alibi

Alibi - I stretched the truth and said I was with my mates longer because I didnt want them to know I was with the chick

Alibi witnesses - If they recant the question is why not anytime in the last 47 years why you didnt come forward. Are they alive to recant?

This is not a slam dunk - unless there is stuff we are not aware of

Not a slam dunk

But possibly a strong case

His DNA at the scene means he was there.

If they can confirm it was the murder weapon he was found with, then…

Reasonable doubt may be difficult to establish.

 

[DeliveryProblems]

Not a slam dunk

But possibly a strong case

His DNA at the scene means he was there.

If they can confirm it was the murder weapon he was found with, then…

Reasonable date may be difficult to establish.

They don't have his DNA

 

[Bunk Moreland]

They don't have his DNA

They have a relative’s - as good as.

And they can get his soon.

Refusal to test will not look good for him.

My view: he’s screwed. Behind bars now and will die there.

 

[Bumpswithagrin]

I find it intriguing a 17 year old still attending school can buy a car, let alone also be pulled over obviously without a drivers license to be searched for drugs and have a bloodied knife found without being considered a high suspect, regardless of an unproven alibi.

So do I.

All I was trying to say was that back in the 70s lots of kids could drive before they were 18 and some did and got away with it. Also that it was possible you could have a car before you turned 18, my brother bought a car before he got his licence as he had a part time job while at school and old crappy cars were cheap (No, he didn't drive unlicensed).

I had the impression this guy was not the academic type so I am more surprised that he's still at school at 17. Again, back in those days a lot of kids left school at 15 if they weren't planning to go to university.

 

[MC Extra Dollop]

You need to read the facts which you obviously have not. If you're in possession of a knife with blood on it that you claimed to have found by looking over a bridge in the darkness of night you are suspicious straight away. These 'police techniques' are why it became a cold case.

Updated - Easey St Murders Collingwood * ARREST MADE

Police have arrested a man in Italy over the 1977 murders of Suzanne Armstrong and Susan Bartlett in their Easey Street home. He fled Australia in 2017 after he became aware he was a suspect. The man fled to Greece and couldn’t be arrested because local laws meant charges must be laid within...

www.bigfooty.com

The police were suspicious. He was questioned "exhaustively". He had what appeared to be an airtight alibi for where he was at the time of the crime and an explanation that appeared reasonable about how he came across the knife, both of which apparently stood up under intense questioning. So police focused on other lines of enquiry.

For whatever reason (no-one's denying that a lot of gaps need to be filled with what happened and why during the investigation), the police were primarily focused on the people that they could confirm had been in the house around the time of the murders or after. That's fair enough to me on face value. You can't put round the clock surveillance on every young punk who has a knife in his car a fortnight after a crime has been committed in the area. Given the sexual element of the crime, there are a lot of question marks for me about how a youth with the background of Karoumblis (that we know at this stage) was capable of it and how he apparently hasn't done anything even remotely on that level ever since.

But naturally, it's going to be interesting to find out more about PK's answers in the original interview and if/how he's remained on the radar of the investigators since then.

 

[MC Extra Dollop]

I find the whole calmly washing up part astounding with a small house with a shared wall. Must have been a huge amount of noise. Probably only dumb luck that maybe the people on one side were out and the old lady accross the lane might not have had great hearing.

For all the perpetrator would know the police could have been called and on their way after the noise or neighbours could have come to check.

Yes that's remarkable to me too. Like, a teenager (or more than one) breaks into a house to commit a burglary and is surprised/frightened by the occupants of the house being there, so they snap and kill them to evade capture... a horrendous crime, sure, but not like we haven't read similar stories dozens of times before. But for the offender to take the time (presumably in an unfamiliar house) to sexually assault one of the victims and to wash up afterwards in such a densely-populated area... that seems extremely weird to me, especially considering the arrested man appears to have lived a relatively quiet life ever since.

 

[Hojuman]

Did the family move to Greece not long after and he came back a few years later ?

 

[MC Extra Dollop]

Did the family move to Greece not long after and he came back a few years later ?

I could well be wrong, but my understanding is:

1974-77: Karoumblis family living in Melbourne; PK living in Greece with relatives for a period before joining family in Melbourne.

1977-1980: Karoumblis family (including PK) living in Melbourne.

Approximately 1980: Karoumblis parents sell house in Bendigo Street and move to Greece.

2017: PK moves to Greece.

 

[Bumpswithagrin]

Interesting article here from The Age which is critical of people spreading misinformation that spreads some misinformation itself (it says that the journalist John Grant lived next door when he only crashed there one night after a drinking session).

However it does name the tobacco salesman as Russ Hamilton and reveals that he was married at the time and also seeing Bartlett. This is interesting because I cannot fathom how he couldn't have seen Bartlett's body in the hall. I think maybe he did but didn't want to get involved with the police as he was married and was worried his wife would find out as a consequence.

"Police also spoke with Russ Hamilton, a married cigarette salesman, who had been in a brief relationship with Bartlett and had stayed at the property just days before her murder. He was immediately cleared of any involvement."​

Misinformation falsely linked motor racing legend to Easey Street murder probe

Unfounded tip-offs wasted police time, wrongly pointing the finger at dozens of men in the case, including late motor racing legend Peter Brock.

www.theage.com.au

 

[Bumpswithagrin]

The entire case to me is intriguing. The fact that 2 people entered the premises ( assuming after the murders took place) to which none of those persons saw a dead person in the hallway, is truly bizarre. Surely dead bodies start to smell after a day or so, particularly after 87 total stab wounds with blood everywhere through the hallway, on top of one of them stepping into blood on the floor as well without noticing anything. Cmon....

It was January too and around 40 degrees apparently so, yeah, must have been some smell surely.

 

[takethepowerback]

You are now the Police Prosecutor - prosecute the case.

Give us step by step of what you would have done

Given the era and police techniques available

Remembering double jeopardy laws exist

Remembering carrying a knife wasnt actually a criminal offence

Go

You're jumping a step ahead. The problem wasn't double jeopardy laws, or that there wasn't enough evidence to prosecute...Because they didn't get the far. They had tunnel vision for some other people, believed this kids story, and ruled him out. What if they had pushed him harder? Pushed the parents? (they sold up and went to greece a few months later, did they know something?) pushed those giving the alibi, so and so on. Could something else have turned up if PK wasn't ruled out?

I remember listening to this homicide detective talk once, I can't remember the analogy exactly, something to do with parachutes...but anyway it was along the lines of the importance of keeping an open mind, and not ruling anything out - if you begin with a bias, you've already tainted the investigation.

 

[takethepowerback]

So, accused was pulled over and was found with a knife which in turn had human blood sample of A positive ( common in 1/3 of humans) which happen to match 1 of the victims. Blood type of victim number 2 must have different as there has been been no reporting of the fact that as to why there wasn't a second blood type found on the knife. I find this quite peculiar. Maybe the knife found in question in the boot of the car isn't the murder weapon at all. The suspects alibi could have been seen as plausible back 47 years ago, hence he wasn't charged .

From 1977 .. ''The knife had been wiped clean. But scientists found blood inside the knifes brown plastic handle'' the article also notes, ''Inspector Noel Jubb said that it was possible that the blood from Miss Armstrong's wound had cleared away any trace of Bartlett's blood.''

Is PK claiming to have found the knife between 10:30pm-11pm the night of the murder a bit of a sign that he knew when the murder took place?

 

[Bumpswithagrin]

In Broady we had " skinny rib " cardigans & jumpers.
Different suburbs, different names.

Interestingly that film is made by Greg Macainsh of Skyhooks fame.

 

[GreyCrow]

You're jumping a step ahead. The problem wasn't double jeopardy laws, or that there wasn't enough evidence to prosecute...Because they didn't get the far. They had tunnel vision for some other people, believed this kids story, and ruled him out. What if they had pushed him harder? Pushed the parents? (they sold up and went to greece a few months later, did they know something?) pushed those giving the alibi, so and so on. Could something else have turned up if PK wasn't ruled out?

I remember listening to this homicide detective talk once, I can't remember the analogy exactly, something to do with parachutes...but anyway it was along the lines of the importance of keeping an open mind, and not ruling anything out - if you begin with a bias, you've already tainted the investigation.

I agree.

But given the timeline and the need to solve the case as quickly as possible - how does a young punk with a knife ( two weeks after ) fit into it once you establish the alibi?

Should they have dismissed him? In hindsight no but I dont think it was a terrible call

 

[Bumpswithagrin]

I find the whole calmly washing up part astounding with a small house with a shared wall. Must have been a huge amount of noise. Probably only dumb luck that maybe the people on one side were out and the old lady accross the lane might not have had great hearing.

For all the perpetrator would know the police could have been called and on their way after the noise or neighbours could have come to check.

In the podcast by Helen Thomas the granddaughter of the old lady across the lane does indeed say she had poor hearing. All I can think of regarding the people next door is that they'd all been drinking so may have been in the kind of drunken sleep where you wouldn't hear anything. Also, you'd have to assume that Bartlett at the very least would have screamed given they said she fought for her life.