Andrea Saferes (4:59)

If you take your own life, you can't have your funeral in the Greek church. And the priest made it known to everybody that Louisa didn't take her own.

Julie Koehler (5:08)

Life and that's why she was in that church.

Andrea Saferes (5:10)

You can't be in that church if you'd taken your own life.

Julie Koehler (5:15)

Experts such as Andrea Sophiers also appear to agree suicide should be off the cards.

Andrea Saferes (5:22)

It's very, very, very rare that people tortoisely are able to drown themselves. They usually have to put rocks in their pockets or they'll swim out really, really far to deep water where they don't have the strength to come back, or they'll jump off a bridge where they get injured and then they, they can't stay out to drown yourself. First of all, if it really was shallow, it makes no sense accidentally that you drowned herself and it makes even less sense suicidally. It, it's very hard to drown yourself in water that you can obviously stand up in.

Julie Koehler (5:56)

So then, if Louisa didn't leave one of the final messages in her journal predicting death, then who had it was, after all, on the same page Joe had written his message on. We don't know if police asked Jo about who wrote that message, but what I can tell you is when they sent the handwriting away for further examination, the results of who the mystery author was were inconclusive.

Andrea Saferes (6:21)

Nothing adds up when it comes to this incident.

Julie Koehler (6:25)

Louisa, she wouldn't take her own life.

Andrea Saferes (6:27)

She was probably too proud for that.

Julie Koehler (6:30)

With the journal providing no further clues in this final episode, it's now time to reflect on everything we've learned about Louisa's life and the circumstances leading up to her tragic death. To this day, Louisa's brother Tass remains haunted by the same recurring questions. The where, how and why Louisa ended up in Darebin Creek. If faced with such a tragedy in your own family, would you be able to accept the void of not knowing the answers to these questions? When a police investigation, an autopsy and the coroner's findings all fail to reasonably explain what Louisa was doing in the creek before her death, should the family feel satisfied that there's nothing else that can be done, Tass will keep being haunted by these questions. And if this also resonates with you, then perhaps this helps you understand why a typically private person like Tass has chosen to share his sister's story so publicly. Through the time I've spent with Tass, it's clear that major holidays or the times families would typically come together serve as an emotional reminder to him of Louisa's absence. I know this because it was on Christmas Eve when Tas first reached out to me, asking for help in his own words.

Tas (Louisa's brother) (7:52)

There's a lot that I've put back on myself. You know, I have a lot of regrets. I feel many, on many occasions that, you know, I just have a bit of. A bit of a sook that, you know, that I just didn't do enough to try and help her more, to just keep her still alive, to keep her here, you know, just keep her intact.

Julie Koehler (8:16)

For family members who have also experienced loss through tragedy, Tas's sentiments likely strike a chord. The weight he bears shouldn't be his to carry, yet he shoulders it nonetheless. Now, as he raises his own children, he always reminds them about their Auntie Louisa and their beautiful grandmother Helen, who. Who passed away two years before Louisa from an asthma attack.

Tas (Louisa's brother) (8:40)

Even now, they ask about Louisa. And it wasn't that long ago, really, that the older one asked, what happened to Louisa? What happened to your mum? Guess the older they get, the more they start understanding.

Julie Koehler (8:54)

Now, by assisting Tas in helping to take over this investigation, we've been able to revisit the details, scrutinise the evidence and unearth new leads. Have we in fact uncovered a different version of events that might explain how Louisa ended up in Darebin Creek? More importantly, is this evidence compelling enough to ask the coroner to revisit their findings and hold an inquest into her death to fully examine all possibilities? As we know, Louisa's cause of death was consistent with drowning, yet her manner of death remains inconclusive. Although the coroner didn't completely rule out the possibility of suicide, the police in their summary focused on a rather familiar trope, a woman burdened by a troubled past. Put simply, Louisa's history of drug use and presumed depression are quickly pointed to by the police as reasons she might have ended up in the creek. This perspective, while convenient, risks oversimplifying her story and glossing over her efforts to escape a relationship rife with allegations of both verbal and physical abuse. We can't forget that this is the same woman who, as a 13 year old girl, played an instrumental part in planning a daring escape from Libya with her mother and sister.

Andrea Saferes (10:19)

She never, ever sat there rocking back.

Julie Koehler (10:22)

And forth over it, crying or kneeling over and acting like the sky was falling. That was not Louisa. Louisa was resilient. One instance where I believe her strength was misinterpreted relates to her journal entries in the police summary to the coroner. They stated her entries and I quote, became negative around September 2011, with Louisa stating fuck the world and other negative comments. First, the assertion that her entries turned negative in September, a month before her passing, is misleading. While a calendar in her journal had dates crossed off up till September 9, her last journal entry was in July, not September. This discrepancy incorrectly suggests she was making negative posts so close to her death. Secondly, the selected quote fuck the world is taken out of context. The complete entry reads fuck the world before it fucks you. Never give up. This, rather than conveying negativity, actually demonstrates her resilient nature. By omitting the second part of this sentence, it suggests a despair she simply did not express. I am concerned that given the coroner mentioned this misrepresentation in their findings, they would not have known the full context and it may have influenced their conclusions. There are some issues with attributing her death to the possibility she was depressed and dealing with mental health struggles, as medico legal death investigator Andrea Saferes puts it.

Andrea Saferes (11:56)

One of the problems too is that when you look at suicide indicators, some of those things are consistent with someone who's having an intimate partner abuse relationship. So when the doctors look at it and go, oh, well, she was depressed. Well, if you're in a bad relationship and you're not depressed, there's something wrong with you.

Julie Koehler (12:16)

So while authorities refrained from dismissing Louise's death as suicide, they were quick to dismiss foul play. But how did they arrive at this conclusion? Is there other evidence we haven't been able to access? And what about our recent discovery regarding the lowered water levels in Darebin Creek? Was Louisa incapacitated upon entering the water? And if so, how? In the words of Dr. Thomas Young.

Andrea Saferes (12:44)

This is a big synthesis. You're putting things together. It's like a jigsaw puzzle where you've got all the pieces that are spread apart and you take the time and you see what fits and what doesn't fit, one piece at a time, and the jigsaw puts forth an image. This is what this is like. You're putting things together, comparing bits and pieces of things, seeing what fits and what doesn't fit. But if you end up calling it consistent with drowning, that's like you've just taken the whole jigsaw puzzle and said, ah, we're done with this, and then you just pull the whole thing apart, put it back in the box.

Julie Koehler (13:20)

So let's try to put more pieces of this jigsaw together and see what image comes back. Perhaps one of the biggest issues in this case is the time it took to not only locate Louise's body after she went missing, but also the period of time it took for police to formally identify her. To recap, a critical aspect of this case is the troubling eight day gap between Louisa last being seen alive and the discovery of her body in the creek. This period is vital to consider as the onset of decomposition, particularly in water, could have obscured key forensic evidence that may have helped confirm her cause of death. So what did this delay cost the investigation? The unfortunate reality is we simply don't know. The second delay is something we discussed right back in episode one, the time it took for police to formally identify Louisa. As we've learned, two days before Louisa's body was found, her brother Tass had reported her missing to police. It was that same officer who spoke to Tass, who also attended Darebin Creek the day Louisa's body was found. It was also that same officer who was tasked to try and identify her body. However, at no stage did this officer appear to make the connection between Tas reporting Louisa missing and a body found 450 metres from her home. To be clear, at the time TAS reported her missing, no official missing persons report was ever filed. However, this officer did write information about Louisa down and appears to have made some inquiries about her. He even gave TAS his card.

Tas (Louisa's brother) (15:08)

It's mind boggling actually to think that he didn't do that, that there weren't any further investigative practices undertaken to see exactly who Louisa is. I'm sure if they punched in something, her name in the computer in the system, something would have come up.

Julie Koehler (15:22)

So after the eight days that had passed before Louisa's body was found, it would be another eight days on top of that before police finally identified her. What did these 16 days total cost the investigation Was CCTV footage in and around Louise's home in Darebin Creek overwritten during this time? Were items that may have been discarded in or around the creek washed away? Well, we can't answer that, but it does highlight an issue with the initial response. Looking closer at this initial response, there's also an aspect of concern. When police were first called to Darebin Creek, according to statements from the attending detectives, they quickly concluded the circumstances of this body being found was not suspicious. This also meant that the homicide squad did not attend. So to make this judgment, what training did attending officers at the scene have when it came to bodies and water expert Andrea Zafirs?

Andrea Saferes (16:27)

There's no training. Police and death investigators are not trained on how to look for signs of homicide and drowning. It's not their fault. They are not trained. So if there was a motor vehicle accident, you're going to have a crash reconstructionist go to the scene if there was a fatality, and that crash reconstructionist probably has a minimum of 300 hours of training and hundreds of hours of on the job experience. You know, if there's the same thing, if there's a fire, a body found in a fire, and you can ask them this, right? If there's a body found in a fire, the detective isn't processing the scene. The crime scene people are not the ones that are really going to find out what's going on on the scene. It's the fire investigator, who again, has hundreds of hours of training. If you have a plane crash, same thing. If you have an officer involved shooting, you know, there are people that do shooting, reconstruction. But when it comes to water, which is just as complicated as those other scenes, there is no investigator that comes to the scene that specializes in water. And the detectives have been given zero training on how to process that scene. Their crime scene people have been given zero training and how to process the scene of a creek.

Julie Koehler (17:43)

We will be back after a short break. You know those cravings that hit you out of nowhere? Charred steak tacos, silky mushroom risotto or a perfect summer salad. When the craving hits, cookunity delivers. Made with real ingredients and no shortcuts. Get ready to eat meals delivered directly to your door. All tailored to your lifestyle, dietary needs and cravings. Get what you're craving. Go to cookunity.com crave or enter crave before checkout for free. Premium Meals for life. That's cookunity.com crave in addition to training provided to those first on scene and the detectives, Andrea also raises a valid question as to whether domestic violence advocates were consulted throughout the investigation process and.

Andrea Saferes (18:37)

What training have they had in intimate partner violence? You know what's so frustrating is most victim advocates, I'd say over 90% in the States are women and these detectives are typically male. And there's still so much prejudice. You know, they'll talk to a, you know, a guy who does officer involved shootings or crash reconstruction or this or that. But what could they possibly learn from a victim advocate because they're the homicide detective, they need to sit down with the victim advocate.

Julie Koehler (19:06)

I can't answer if police received appropriate training for dealing with bodies and water. We did ask Victoria police though, whether they consulted a domestic violence advocate after Louisa's death and they told us that the Darebin Family Violence Unit was consulted. But we don't know how that impacted on the investigation or what their involvement was throughout the process. What we do know is that a detective at the initial scene at Darebin Creek took only about an hour to declare the death of the then unidentified Louisa as non suspicious. In response to our questions about this decision to declare no suspicious circumstances, the police told us that the Victoria Police Homicide Squad was consulted on the night Louisa was found in the creek and and during the investigation. The available evidence is insufficient to determine suspicious circumstances in this case and fails to meet the legal standard for the arresting or laying of any charges for any person. This was a critical and early call in the investigation. What were the consequences? For example, the police also confirmed that Louise's house and car were not forensically examined, presumably because no suspicious circumstances were detected. Revisiting the police brief of evidence. By all accounts it was comprehensive and the coroner was particularly complimentary of this. But it's the same brief where key concerns have been identified that don't appear to have been followed up or seem to have been glossed over because they don't quite fit with the narrative put forward. If there are no suspicious circumstances, are we satisfied there is a reasonable explanation that her death in a relatively shallow creek was caused by misadventure? Personally, I believe the question is no longer how did Louisa drown? Instead, the question that needs to be asked is why didn't she just stand up and walk out? The answer to this may be that Louisa was unable to do so because she was already incapacitated when she entered the water. But how is this possible if her autopsy showed no signs of natural disease, injury or trauma? Let me be absolutely clear. This podcast is not suggesting Jo, or anyone else for that matter, is responsible for what happened to Louisa. However, in preparing this podcast, we. We've formed the view that there is a need for a complete reassessment of this case. An inquest is essential to delve deeper into this. There's still information we haven't accessed, as well as identified inconsistencies in witness statements that need to be tested. But before this can happen, and as with any investigation undertaken, it's essential to review our findings first, we need to revisit our primary objective. One of the more pressing questions TAS had from the outset was to understand how Louisa came to enter the creek to begin with. This continues to be a difficult question to answer as rather than just discount theories, I believe we've added to them. So let's work through this. Remember, these are like jigsaw pieces we're trying to put together. Firstly, at the time of Louisa's death, Jo was still facing a charge of assault against her after an incident dating back to June, despite police being unable to speak with Louisa. Police had visited her home on two occasions in the months leading up to her death. This was all part of an initiative with the Family Violence Unit to speak with individuals identified as being at risk and to prevent further incidents of family violence from happening. In the months, weeks and days prior to her death in October, it's understood Louisa had openly spoken with friends and family about wanting to leave her relationship. Then, on the day Louisa went missing, she had spontaneously tried to leave the country by going to the airport. When she was unsuccessful, she returned home and Jo was made aware of this attempt to leave. Around 8:44pm on the night she was last seen alive, Louisa made a phone call from her neighbours and was overheard asking Joe where he was. Toxicology then suggests at some point close to her death, she consumed cannabis. Later that night, Joe claimed to police, he returned home and he and Louisa argued. Shortly after, he Claimed she ran out the front door. After Louise's alleged run out the door, Joe claimed he was able to see her right down the end of the street headed towards the creek, her robe illuminated by the street light. But through our own recreation we've been unable to see from one end of this street to the other. During the early hours that Louisa was missing, Joe claimed he was sleeping. Yet phone records appear to suggest he rang George at 2am According to Tess, Joe's account he was sleeping appeared to satisfy police as the aspect of Joe.

Tas (Louisa's brother) (24:33)

Was conveyed to me from the police that they believe that he had a strong alibi. So that's why they ruled him out. He had a strong alibi. I remember them saying that. So that's why he wasn't a person of interest.

Julie Koehler (24:46)

As such, sometime overnight or in the morning, Louisa entered Darebin Creek. At that time, our inquiry suggests that the creek's water levels would have only been up to roughly Louisa's knees or to her upper thighs. Despite the shallow depth, she was unable to get out and her death was attributed to drowning expert Andrea Saferes.

Andrea Saferes (25:10)

When people drown accidentally, there are reasons for it. And what was the reason that she drowned accidentally? It wasn't freezing cold water that caused her to, you know, have a cardiac arrhythmia. It wasn't fast moving water that trapped her underneath a rock in an overlage. She didn't have a massive head trauma that she slipped and fell and became unconscious underwater. She wasn't entangled in fishing line, she wasn't intoxicated, she didn't have a cardiac problem. That and the fact that her lungs are keep going back, the fact that her lungs are normal weight, there's no, there's no evidence of drowning there. I mean, why is she dead?

Julie Koehler (25:51)

I'm asking that exact same question. But let's continue. The morning after Louisa went missing again, Jo claimed he was sleeping. He states he woke up, tried to look for Louisa in the house, then wrote in her journal about his feelings towards George. He then claims he walked the dog to the creek despite Joe's claim he was asleep. A witness reported seeing Louise's car missing around 7:45am and another neighbour reported seeing Jo driving it in the morning. Did Jo forget to mention these events or are the two witnesses recalling the wrong days? And if the witnesses were correct, where was Jo driving to at that time? Fast forward eight days and Louise's body was discovered in the creek by strangers. During that eight day period she was missing. It appears only Jo had knowledge about Louisa's Link to the creek. We know he claimed he only saw her dressing gown in there and not her body. But the question remains, if he was close enough to see, without needing to look further, that it was Louisa's robe, somewhat submerged and no doubt discoloured, how could he not see that it was wrapped around a body? And given she had gone missing, why did he never go back to investigate further, as Tess states, that actually came from him?

Tas (Louisa's brother) (27:17)

Because when I was calling it during the day that she went missing, goes, yeah, yeah, you know, gone. I've gone looking for her. Can't seem to. Couldn't seem to find her. I go, jo, you need to find. You need to ring up her mates and friends and start asking a question, finding her. And he went as far as saying that he actually walked all the way down to the end of the creek. He saw something in the water, so he saw a pink rope, but never really went any closer to investigate it. He just saw it from a distance, and he assumed that she just threw her robe off and just threw in the water. But little did he know that that was actually her lifeless body still in that water, still in that robe and that gown. So it's crazy. It's a story that's definitely come out of his mouth.

Julie Koehler (28:06)

And finally, we have her cause of death. We've heard differing opinions about the term consistent with drowning. If drowning is a diagnosis of exclusion, then what was consistent with it? Is it just that she was found in the water, or was it the assumption that there were high water levels on that day, an assumption we've now called into question? We have established there were no witnesses who saw her either enter the water or struggling in it, nor did there appear to be any typical signs of drowning on autopsy. Added to this roughly 10 years either side of her death, there were examples of males who had also been found in similar circumstances as Louisa. Yet instead of their deaths being recorded as consistent with drowning, both of their deaths were recorded as unascertained. Reviewing the cause of death is important. If Louisa's death was determined to be unascertained rather than consistent with drowning, then that also suggests the possibility Louisa may have already been incapacitated, even deceased, on entry to the creek. So how's your jigsaw coming together now? Is the image from these pieces creating the same picture that's been presented to the coroner? You may have more questions, and so do I. If this is a tragic case of misadventure, then it would appear Louisa either fell into the creek without sustaining injury and became unconscious or possibly experienced some kind of psychosis causing her to enter the creek and pass out, unable to get out. What do we make of the apparent inconsistencies in witness statements, her history of domestic violence and the mysterious crossed out journal entry mentioning death just above Jo's writing? Is there something to be read into these factors or are they just distractions? We've been unable to clarify exactly what Jo wrote in Louisa's journal the morning she went missing, other than it appears to have involved his feelings towards George. Apparently, it was Jo who volunteered the journal to police. However, at no point did Jo appear to admit to making a 2am phone call to George on the night Louisa went missing. A call in which George claims Jo was verbally abusive towards him. To refresh your memory, Louisa was purchasing drugs from George. That does not appear to be in dispute. We've heard though, that on Louise's final day, Joe broke George's car window. And there appears to be two narratives as to why he would do this. Jo's explanation is that Louisa divulged she'd performed oral sex on George under duress in exchange for drugs. Jo broke the window to show Louisa she didn't need to be scared of George. Once they got home, however, Jo would then break up with her. Despite this version Jo gave Louis, both Jo's friend and George provided a different account. In their statements to police, they alleged Jo was a mixture of upset and angry at Louisa because he suspected she had willingly engaged in sexual acts with George. Given these different accounts, finding out what Jo wrote about George in Louisa's diary may be of benefit. We're no closer to finding out what he wrote. Aside from confirming, police still have that page in their evidence storage. And just another reminder, George denies any suggestion that he and Louisa were intimate. He claims they were friends and that she always paid for any drugs obtained with cash. So whether any sexual activity between Louisa and George ever took place by consent or not is unclear. What is clear is that in both narratives, Jo believed sexual activity had occurred, which appears to be the catalyst for Jo calling George at 2am the night Louisa went missing to verbally abuse him. But let's say the version of events where Louisa was scared of George is accurate. Why then would Joe also say in his police statement that when Louisa went missing, he thought she may have, and I quote, done the bolt and run off with George? Why would Jo think Louisa would run off with George if he was also claiming Louis Louisa was scared of him? It just doesn't appear to make sense. It's at this point that we would have included an interview with Joe. His memories are important and of course, we have a number of questions we would have liked to have asked him. Unfortunately, he declined to participate in this podcast. While nothing further should be read into this, it was also around the time of trying to speak with him that I received a voicemail on my phone. I'm about to play you this message, but I think it's important I clarify what you're about to hear first. The message was made by an individual who's impersonating a police officer and suggesting I stop the investigation. While this individual is someone we have linked to Jo, there is no suggestion Jo had knowledge of this call. This is the original voicemail I received. It's been edited to remove Jo's full name.

Andrea Saferes (33:29)

Hi, this is Constable Tappas from Reservoir Police Station. I'm just ringing up in regards to an illegal investigation you got going on Jo. Can you cease that operation, please, and or call back? Thank you.

Julie Koehler (33:44)

So why was I being told to stop my inquiries? Attempts were made to contact this individual on the number he rang on. However, he hasn't contacted us back. And for the record, let it be known that impersonating a police officer is a criminal offence. This individual may not have been a genuine police officer, but we have posed a number of questions about this case to the actual investigating officers and received responses to some which we've incorporated into this podcast. The police stand by their investigation. Despite this response from official channels and our perseverance to continue the investigation to uncover the truth, remains steadfast. Speaking with Louisa's friends, such as Indigo, they continue to believe more information is out there. They want the support, but feel exhausted by their attempts to date. I'll be honest with you, Julie.

Andrea Saferes (34:40)

You're like the last chance, then you just give up.

Julie Koehler (34:43)

To Tas, Louisa's brother, to their mother, Helen, who fought tirelessly to provide Louisa with a better life, and to everyone who loved Louisa, we owe them the full truth about what happened. So now I'm calling on you, our listeners, to help amplify Louisa's story, talk about Louisa, share her story, and join all those who shared their memories of her in continuing to pursue the truth. Let's make sure that Louisa's voice, though silenced, continues to be heard. We owe this not just to Louisa, but to every other woman whose stories never made the headlines. Tas, Louisa's brother, wholeheartedly agrees.

Tas (Louisa's brother) (35:29)

Justice for Louisa. That's it. That's what I'm wanting to achieve. Simple. It's got nothing to do with me. I mean, as far as what I want, it's for Louisa.

Julie Koehler (35:39)

If you know anything that could shed light on how Louisa came to be in the creek, please reach out. You can contact the podcast@contactasefilepodcast.com this podcast is dedicated to the memory of Louise's mother, Helen. Her relentless dedication to her children has been a driving force throughout this podcast. From Libya to Australia, she fought for her children all the way.

Tas (Louisa's brother) (36:07)

It was my mother's dream for her story to be. It's giving me goosebumps, to be honest, because I. I clearly remember that this story needs to be told of what, you know, we've gone through, what I've gone through as part of my mum. And to think that it's somewhat happening here. It's. It's. Yeah. Yeah.

Andrea Saferes (36:26)

Okay.

Tas (Louisa's brother) (36:27)

All right, let's do this.

Julie Koehler (36:29)

And remember, this isn't the end. We're just getting started. Casefile presents Troubled Waters is written and produced by Julia Robson and Clare McGrath. Audio production by Mike Megus Audio editing by Anthony Telfer Special thanks to Dr. Thomas Young and Andrea Saferes. If you need any support regarding any of the topics raised in this podcast, please reach out to services such AS Lifeline on 1311, 1400 RESPECT, or the Men's Referral Service on 1300, 766. 491 listeners outside of Australia should refer to their local services.

Tas (Louisa's brother) (37:25)

ACAST powers the world's best podcasts.

Julie Koehler (37:29)

Here's a show that we recommend. Hello, this is Jessie and Lenny Ware from Table Manners, a podcast direct from our dining table where we talk all things food, family, growing up, and everything in between. And everything in between. This season, we've had Reese Witherspoon reveal the greatest cookie recipe. We had Gary Oldman, who's freshly knighted. Sir Gary Oldman. Sir Gary Oldman. We did some singing with Gloria Estefan and Jeremy Allen White has shared some culinary stories with us. And it's not just this series. We've had plenty of other brilliant guests where you can listen back to all the episodes. People like Cher, Dolly Parton, Kate Winslet SA Paul McCartney, John Legend, Benny Blanco, and Selena Gomez. We've had them all and we fed them very well. Come and listen to Table Manners, the podcast with me, Jesse Ware and Lenny Ware. Acast helps creators launch, grow and monetize their podcasts everywhere. Acast.com.