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

 

[Matt Stevic]

Even commerical DNA tests can determine the likely relationship of the match (e.g. brother, uncle, cousin etc) and I'm sure the cops have better analysis...

The "other PK"? Wasn't he just a cousin they tracked down in Greece to get a quote from? Seemed to me he lived and grew up Greece. Wild theory to mention him because they share a name..

Yep that's exactly it. I can't imagine the two cousins had much to do with each other.

Family and friends react to arrest of Easey St murder suspect Perry Kouroumblis

Perry Kouroumblis was apprehended in Rome over the 1977 Easey Street murders of Susan Bartlett and Suzanne Armstrong.

greekherald.com.au

 

[Kurve]

Even commerical DNA tests can determine the likely relationship of the match (e.g. brother, uncle, cousin etc) and I'm sure the cops have better analysis...

The "other PK"? Wasn't he just a cousin they tracked down in Greece to get a quote from? Seemed to me he lived and grew up Greece. Wild theory to mention him because they share a name..

DNA testing can easily distinguish between cousins, if it sometimes comes down to siblings where there's a need to work out exactly which one it is.

We'll have to wait to find out exactly how many samples the police have that might tell more of the story but I'm thinking atm, they've got semen from Armstrong's body and the bedroom carpet, same on a facecloth that was found in a drain near the house, potentially blood in the bathroom if he is of the same type A as Armstrong and Armstrong or Bartlett's DNA on the knife.

If so, that's a lot of evidence.

 

[Earls Smother]

Andrew Rule said something about him being questioned exhaustively and “vigorously” or some similar term - not sure if that was code for the cops kicking the shit out of him during questioning, perhaps - it wouldn’t have been unheard of given he was a known local crim.

Anyway, he was questioned thoroughly, apparently, and it produced nothing.

No DNA of course

Alibi

No motive

No witnesses

Nothing tying him to the scene

Reality is they had nothing

Without DNA he’d have gotten away with it.

Ideally, as soon as it was possible, every last piece of evidence and every person in every unsolved case should have been DNA tested. They haven’t got the resources to do it. They didn’t get around to this case until 2017. That’s when they nailed him.

Agree with this summary, but I think there is one other basic step that could have been taken in 2017.

Having worked for customs/immigration, there are a number of people held up departing the country due to agencies placing them on alert (passport flagged). The vast majority of these were/are for family law court matters - Dad is prevented from nicking off with the kids overseas without permission. The AFP attend, make sure all is in order and off they go (usually).

The number of people who are of interest in a murder case is relatively small. The number who refuse an initial DNA swab would be very, very small. How hard would it be to have them flagged for intervention if they try to flee the country? Particularly if they are known to have dual citizenship or an ability to live overseas via their parents or grandparents.

If a bloke is asked to submit to a DNA test and he says "not now but I'll come and do it in a few days", wouldn't you look into the likelihood of him doing a runner? Oh, he has a Greek passport, maybe we will take a simple measure as a precaution.

Imagine if he had turned up at Tullamarine 2 days after agreeing to the test, with a one way ticket to Athens? Would have saved a hell of a lot of time and effort, along with further evidence of a guilty mind.

 

[Bunk Moreland]

Agree with this summary, but I think there is one other basic step that could have been taken in 2017.

Having worked for customs/immigration, there are a number of people held up departing the country due to agencies placing them on alert (passport flagged). The vast majority of these were/are for family law court matters - Dad is prevented from nicking off with the kids overseas without permission. The AFP attend, make sure all is in order and off they go (usually).

The number of people who are of interest in a murder case is relatively small. The number who refuse an initial DNA swab would be very, very small. How hard would it be to have them flagged for intervention if they try to flee the country? Particularly if they are known to have dual citizenship or an ability to live overseas via their parents or grandparents.

If a bloke is asked to submit to a DNA test and he says "not now but I'll come and do it in a few days", wouldn't you look into the likelihood of him doing a runner? Oh, he has a Greek passport, maybe we will take a simple measure as a precaution.

Imagine if he had turned up at Tullamarine 2 days after agreeing to the test, with a one way ticket to Athens? Would have saved a hell of a lot of time and effort, along with further evidence of a guilty mind.

Hold him to what end, however?

I think you can legally refuse a DNA test?

So there wouldn’t be grounds to restrict his passage?

Surely he’d end up being released anyway, and all that’s doing is letting him know you’re highly suspicious of him, which would encourage him to be even more careful.

I think of you war game the whole thing, without a legal order for an DNA test, all you can really do is hope for a slip-up. Which they ended up getting.

 

[Earls Smother]

Hold him to what end, however?

I think you can legally refuse a DNA test?

So there wouldn’t be grounds to restrict his passage?

Surely he’d end up being released anyway, and all that’s doing is letting him know you’re highly suspicious of him, which would encourage him to be even more careful.

I think of you war game the whole thing, without a legal order for an DNA test, all you can really do is hope for a slip-up. Which they ended up getting.

That makes it interesting. I know the laws have changed a bit around getting DNA.

I found this quickly, but did it apply in 2017?

Testing Suspects

The Act provides for the testing of suspects. A suspect is defined in section 3(1) as:
(a) a person whom a police officer suspects on reasonable grounds has committed an offence;
(b) a person charged with an offence;
(c) a person who has been summoned to appear before a court in relation to an offence alleged to have been committed by the person; or
(d) a person who has been served with an attendance notice issued under section 100AB of the Justices Act 1902 in relation to an offence.

If he was detained at the airport departing on a one way ticket, he would logically fit a) above, given what they already had on him. He could then be arrested on suspicion, held and tested I would assume?

I'm by no means a legal expert and you could be right, pending the law at the time.

 

[GreyCrow]

Testing Suspects

The Act provides for the testing of suspects. A suspect is defined in section 3(1) as:
(a) a person whom a police officer suspects on reasonable grounds has committed an offence;

I think this is the relevant bit

They were only eliminating POI not targetting

Slight difference but it would be why they didnt hold him

 

[GrayRanga]

Hold him to what end, however?

I think you can legally refuse a DNA test?

So there wouldn’t be grounds to restrict his passage?

Surely he’d end up being released anyway, and all that’s doing is letting him know you’re highly suspicious of him, which would encourage him to be even more careful.

I think of you war game the whole thing, without a legal order for an DNA test, all you can really do is hope for a slip-up. Which they ended up getting.

Yep.

My understanding is, that unless other legislation applies. such as those relating to driving a motor vehicle, you do not have allow access to or supply fingerprints or any other personal information involuntarily without a warrant issued by a Court or have been charged

Your house cannot be searched without a warrant, but your car can.

International movement can be restricted for custody cases or Child Support because there is either a Court Order for custody in one person's name or a debt to the Commonwealth

At the time he did the runner they were working through the possible suspects list. Obviously not too high in that list; 130 or so had already been tested (?)

So the cops interview him and refer to the interview post offence and tell him they're tidying up loose ends by eliminating suspects

He says' "Can't do it this week, got jobs backed up, Can I make an appointment for Monday at 9 am"

Police leave, having an agreement that he will attend to the test like all the others that have preceded.

Unfortunately, he flies out in Friday (?)

What has he done wrong?

He hasn't been charged with a crime and as Monday hasn't occured yet so he hasn't broken the appointment

 

[Earls Smother]

I think this is the relevant bit

They were only eliminating POI not targetting

Slight difference but it would be why they didnt hold him

Agree that was their intention initially, but you don't test someone for no reason.

By presenting at the airport he is giving police further grounds. His intent to depart in a hurry would mean they would be targetting him. The whole dynamic would change and they would have grounds to arrest him.

 

[Earls Smother]

Yep.

My understanding is, that unless other legislation applies. such as those relating to driving a motor vehicle, you do not have allow access to or supply fingerprints or any other personal information involuntarily without a warrant issued by a Court or have been charged

Your house cannot be searched without a warrant, but your car can.

International movement can be restricted for custody cases or Child Support because there is either a Court Order for custody in one person's name or a debt to the Commonwealth

At the time he did the runner they were working through the possible suspects list. Obviously not too high in that list; 130 or so had already been tested (?)

So the cops interview him and refer to the interview post offence and tell him they're tidying up loose ends by eliminating suspects

He says' "Can't do it this week, got jobs backed up, Can I make an appointment for Monday at 9 am"

Police leave, having an agreement that he will attend to the test like all the others that have preceded.

Unfortunately, he flies out in Friday (?)

What has he done wrong?

He hasn't been charged with a crime and as Monday hasn't occured yet so he hasn't broken the appointment

My question there would be, how many refused the initial test? I imagine he was in a small minority.

If someone refuses a simple test, I would ask "why"? It's a lot more hassle to have to attend at another time surely?

No problem with him being allowed to do it another time, it would only be his presentation at the airport in the interim, that should IMO have rung alarm bells.

 

[GreyCrow]

Agree that was their intention initially, but you don't test someone for no reason.

By presenting at the airport he is giving police further grounds. His intent to depart in a hurry would mean they would be targetting him. The whole dynamic would change and they would have grounds to arrest him.

He was one of many people with an alibi.

I am sure they were concerned when he didn't show but he would have been low on the poi list

I think once they completed all their poi tests they put it through gedmatch and were pleasantly surprised to see a connection to a poi who failed to show up

I think you're over estimating the judicial powers available

 

[Earls Smother]

He was one of many people with an alibi.

I am sure they were concerned when he didn't show but he would have been low on the poi list

I think once they completed all their poi tests they put it through gedmatch and were pleasantly surprised to see a connection to a poi who failed to show up

I think you're over estimating the judicial powers available

I'm really just applying Devil's Advocate analysis. Most of these long term unsolved cases will have a sliding doors moment, probably more than one.

They had 130 poi's. They'd ruled out the top 10 I think, other than maybe 1 or 2 deceased. Most of the rest would have agreed to the test immediately, no problem, on to the next one. If someone refused, it's not difficult to have a quick look at their circumstances. A father with 2 kids, a pregnant wife and no overseas connections, is low risk to abscond.

An unmarried guy with no dependents and a foreign passport, is clearly higher risk. It's not a difficult or lengthy process to place someone on alert. If they can do it for Family Law, why wouldn't they for murder? There are no judicial requirements in this case, simply a liaison between 2 LE agencies. The judicial stuff would come later, when they have the extra evidence of an attempt to flee the country in a hurry.

 

[GrayRanga]

My question there would be, how many refused the initial test? I imagine he was in a small minority.

If someone refuses a simple test, I would ask "why"? It's a lot more hassle to have to attend at another time surely?

No problem with him being allowed to do it another time, it would only be his presentation at the airport in the interim, that should IMO have rung alarm bells.

Ringing alarm bells is not a crime.

At the time he left Australia, he had not commited any crime in the eyes of the Law (I know, I know but until and if he is convicted, he is an innocent man)

He hadn't been charged for this offence and therefore would't have fallen within the criteria you posted above

Until the Police can convince a Court to Order that he should be detained for the purposes of obtaining a DNA sample, he doesn't have to give it.

Until the Police can convince a Court to Order that his movements should be restricted he is free to move around and even attend an international point of departure

In both cases, the Rules of Natural Justice apply and he must be given the opportunity to defend himself before judgement is made

The police didn't have enough evidence to charge him

The Court system processes exists to protect individuals from the arbitrary and capricious actions of those in power

 

[Earls Smother]

Ringing alarm bells is not a crime.

At the time he left Australia, he had not commited any crime in the eyes of the Law (I know, I know but until and if he is convicted, he is an innocent man)

He hadn't been charged for this offence and therefore would't have fallen within the criteria you posted above

Until the Police can convince a Court to Order that he should be detained for the purposes of obtaining a DNA sample, he doesn't have to give it.

Until the Police can convince a Court to Order that his movements should be restricted he is free to move around and even attend an international point of departure

In both cases, the Rules of Natural Justice apply and he must be given the opportunity to defend himself before judgement is made

The police didn't have enough evidence to charge him

The Court system processes exists to protect individuals from the arbitrary and capricious actions of those in power

Do you think they would have if he was fleeing the country on a one way ticket, with the DNA test pending?

I agree that they wouldn't have without that.

Being a suspect in a murder case is grounds for intervention at an airport - not immediate arrest, but a phone call to detectives A and B to see what they think. People are placed on alert for suspicion of carrying more than $10,000 in cash out of the country.

 

[TheGreatBarryB]

Interesting. Italian authorities said they were notified day before Rome arrival. So adds to the lured claim

Easey Street murder suspect ‘lured to Rome in a trap’

Perry Kouroumblis went to Rome from his home in Greece for a potential property deal before being arrested, his family says.

www.theage.com.au

The prime suspect in the Easey Street murders, Perry Kouroumblis, was lured to Rome for a potential property deal before being arrested on his arrival, his family says.
His brother, Andreas Kouroumblis, who shared a house with Perry in Athens, said Perry did not travel to Italy as a tourist. “I can only say it was a trap,” he told this masthead.

Perry Kouroumblis says he wants to return to Australia to clear his name.
Andreas declined to give any more details about the alleged deal.
But his other brother, Tony Kouroumblis, confirmed from Melbourne on Tuesday that Perry had been approached by a Greek-Australian investor, who had shown interest in buying or investing in one of the family’s properties in Greece.

He said the investor had invited Perry to come to Rome to discuss the deal.
“He met him about three months ago and then arranged [for him] to go to Italy,” Tony said on Tuesday. “Totally set up.”

This masthead has not confirmed the identity of the mystery investor. Border police said Perry Kouroumblis, 65, appeared to be alone when he was arrested at Rome’s Fiumicino Airport on September 19.
A Victoria Police spokeswoman would not say if the force had any role in the alleged plot to lure Kouroumblis out of Greece.


“A 65-year-old dual citizen of Australia and Greece was arrested at an airport in Rome by local authorities on Thursday evening, 19 September. A charge and warrant was in place for his arrest. The man remains in custody, and Victoria Police will now work to seek his extradition,” the spokeswoman said.
Fernando Speziali, chief commissioner of border police at Fiumicino Airport, said that after receiving an Interpol alert on September 18 – a day before the arrest – police began monitoring flights.

Chief Commissioner Fernando Speziali, head of the police unit at Fiumicino Airport in Rome.
“We received a report from Interpol, which had received information from our Australian colleagues, indicating the possible arrival of a wanted man coming to Italy from Greece,” Speziali told this masthead.
“The name was provided and, together with Interpol, we started to check and monitor all the flights from Greece,” he said.

Speziali said five officers were sent to check passengers as soon as they disembarked from Perry’s Athens flight – which landed at 12.30pm on September 19 – because it was in the Schengen Area that allows passengers to move freely between countries, including Greece and Italy.
“We stopped all the individuals who in some way corresponded to the age or the characteristics of the individual sought by the Australians until we spotted a passenger with a Greek identity card,” he said.

Easey Street double murder suspect Perry Kouroumblis in the late 70s, when he would have been a teenager.
“He had been identified as Perry by the Australians, and we identified him as Perikles. Then we escorted him to our offices, photographed him, took his fingerprints and discovered that he was the person of interest to the Australians.”
Speziali said Kouroumblis did not look like a businessman. He told police he was a tourist, but they did not question him further about why he was in the Italian capital.

“We have no particular interest in investigating the reason for his visit, unless we are specifically requested to do so by foreign authorities,” Speziali said. “He said he came for tourism.”
Speziali said Kouroumblis was “passive” when approached by officers and did not resist arrest or try to flee.

Perry Kouroumblis, the prime suspect in the Easey Street murders, is being held at Regina Coeli, one of Italy’s most overcrowded and violent prisons.
“He was neither co-operative nor did he resist,” he said. “He closed in on himself, he did not share any information.”
Kouroumblis, a dual Greek and Australian citizen, is now in Regina Coeli prison awaiting extradition to Australia after telling a Rome court he would not contest the request.

He left Australia for Greece in 2017 after being asked by cold-case homicide detectives to take a DNA test for their investigation into the rape and murder of Suzanne Armstrong and the murder of Susan Bartlett in January 1977.
No charges have been laid over their deaths and Kouroumblis maintains his innocence.

Susan Bartlett (top) and Suzanne Armstrong were killed in their Easey Street, Collingwood, rental in 1977.Credit:Stephen Kiprillis
He had been working as a welder and living with his brother in the Greek capital before his arrest.
Kouroumblis could not be extradited from Greece because of the country’s statute of limitations, which requires charges to be laid within 20 years of the alleged offence. That provision does not apply in Italy, so police were able to arrest him as soon as he touched down.

Attempts through diplomatic channels to have him returned to Melbourne previously failed, leading him to be put on an international watch list.

​

Serena Tucci, the court-appointed lawyer representing Kouroumblis, said last week he had told her he had come to Italy “for professional reasons, work-related reasons”.
“That’s what he told me,” she said. “Only for a few days and then to return to Greece, and he did not expect this arrest, that’s for sure.”
Tucci said her client had been shocked at his arrest and was finding his detention challenging, particularly because he did not understand Italian, and had no family members in Rome.

He is being held in one of the country’s most notorious prisons. Inmates rioted for the second time in months last week and set fire to mattresses in their cells. Tucci said Kouroumblis was not affected by the riots but was relying on prison volunteers for clothing and towels.
Victorian authorities have 45 days from the date of his apprehension to prepare an extradition application.

The home in Athens where Perry Kouroumblis was living before his arrest.Credit:Nine News
Homicide squad detectives are expected to travel to Rome from Melbourne as part of that process, which could result in Kouroumblis returning to Australia by November.
A spokesman for the Italian justice ministry declined to comment on the case on Monday.

 

[GrayRanga]

Do you think they would have if he was fleeing the country on a one way ticket, with the DNA test pending?

I agree that they wouldn't have without that.

Being a suspect in a murder case is grounds for intervention at an airport - not immediate arrest, but a phone call to detectives A and B to see what they think. People are placed on alert for suspicion of carrying more than $10,000 in cash out of the country.

Reportedly, he was a dual citizen of both Greece and Australia.

Did he have two passports?

Was the Greek one in his Greek name and the Australian one in his Anglisized name?

Which passport did me travel on when he left Australia?

A couple years ago my daughter was working in the UK and her flatmate was Czech/Australian dual citizen. She travelled to and from the UK on her Australian passport with its slightly anglasized named because all her qualifications and registrations were in that name.

The rest of the time she travelled on her Czech/EU documentation to travel waltzing through Immigration whilst my daughter waited and waited

 

[GrayRanga]

Being a suspect in a murder case is grounds for intervention at an airport - not immediate arrest, but a phone call to detectives A and B to see what they think. People are placed on alert for suspicion of carrying more than $10,000 in cash out of the country.

Carrying more than $10000 in cash is against Commonwealth Law the Federal Police have the right to detain and charge the person under C'wealth legislation.

Again, what law did the suspect in this matter breach for him to be charged and detained by either the Victorian of Federal police?

 

[Bont the Lord]

Interesting. Italian authorities said they were notified day before Rome arrival. So adds to the lured claim

Easey Street murder suspect ‘lured to Rome in a trap’

Perry Kouroumblis went to Rome from his home in Greece for a potential property deal before being arrested, his family says.

www.theage.com.au

I would have thought the fact he purchased a ticket may have been the catalyst but I like your theory. Good on Vic Police if they have lured him out of Greece.

 

[Earls Smother]

Reportedly, he was a dual citizen of both Greece and Australia.

Did he have two passports?

Was the Greek one in his Greek name and the Australian one in his Anglisized name?

Which passport did me travel on when he left Australia?

A couple years ago my daughter was working in the UK and her flatmate was Czech/Australian dual citizen. She travelled to and from the UK on her Australian passport with its slightly anglasized named because all her qualifications and registrations were in that name.

The rest of the time she travelled on her Czech/EU documentation to travel waltzing through Immigration whilst my daughter waited and waited

I'm not sure what you're getting at?

An alert would match on the DOB and any version of the name that was close. The authorities would then verify whether they had the right person. Close matches are dismissed regularly.

 

[Earls Smother]

Carrying more than $10000 in cash is against Commonwealth Law the Federal Police have the right to detain and charge the person under C'wealth legislation.

Again, what law did the suspect in this matter breach for him to be charged and detained by either the Victorian of Federal police?

Suspected murder perhaps. He can be held without being charged immediately.

People get pulled off flights for a number of reasons and may not end up formally charged.