Troubled Waters – Episode 8: The Breakthrough

Podcast: Troubled Waters (Casefile Presents)
Date: June 16, 2024
Host: Julia Robson
Featured Contributors: Indigo (friend), Kaz (neighbour), Andrea Safares (forensic expert/voice), Professor Kerry Carrington

Overview

This pivotal episode explores new evidence and expert analysis that fundamentally challenge the initial conclusions drawn from Louisa Ioannidis’s mysterious 2011 death. Host Julia Robson revisits the circumstances around Louisa’s body being found in a shallow creek, contending police findings with insights from forensic specialists and fresh environmental data. The episode deepens doubts about the case, emphasizing inconsistencies, potential investigative oversights, and the glaring question: could Louisa have drowned in such shallow water without outside involvement or incapacitation?

Key Discussion Points & Insights

Revisiting Jo’s Statements & Timeline

• Jo (Louisa's partner) claimed to have searched for Louisa on the morning after her disappearance, reporting her pink dressing gown floating in the creek but not investigating further.
• Over the following days, Jo persistently contacted Louisa’s friends, allegedly seeking her whereabouts while mentioning the robe in the water.
• Question raised: Why did no one else follow up on this sighting or physically check the creek? (03:10–05:00)

Neighbourhood Witness Accounts

• Kaz, the neighbour, says Jo was a private person, not usually seen outside during the day. She did not recall seeing Jo walk the dog that morning, something she would have noticed as out of character. (04:05)
  • Kaz: “You never saw him out the front washing the car or taking the rubbish out or doing some weeding... If he was coming in, he’d drive straight in the carport and be straight inside the house.” (04:13)
• Kaz observed that Louisa’s car was in the carport the night she vanished but had disappeared by about 7:45 a.m. the next morning.
  • Kaz: “If Louisa’s car was to come back to the house, I would have heard it.” (28:26)

Jo’s Account of the Creek

• Jo reportedly told a friend (per an actor) that Louisa had visited that spot at the creek since childhood when upset—this was never corroborated by Louisa’s family or friends and not included in original police reports. (06:40)

Louisa’s Swimming Ability & Creek Conditions

• Friends, especially Indigo, strongly rejected the idea Louisa would voluntarily enter a dirty creek or was unable to swim.
  • Indigo: “Would she go jumping into a creek? No. Disgusting. That would be her view... There was nothing to indicate that she couldn’t swim.” (07:39)
• Julia and producer Claire visited the creek, finding the banks accessible and the average depth typically half a metre—well below Louisa’s height (1.7m). This challenged the plausibility of accidental drowning. (07:55)

Environmental Data: The ‘Breakthrough’

• Research with an environmental scientist revealed accurate creek depth records upstream and downstream:
  • On the night Louisa entered the water (Oct 2), the average depth was only 40cm and receding (not at flood/high-water).
  • This undercuts the coroner’s rationale that high water or strong currents caused accidental drowning. (14:26)
  • Julia: “So now we’re asking, is it even possible to drown in a creek that was roughly only 40 centimeters deep?” (15:08)

Expert Forensic Analysis: The Drowning Diagnosis

• Forensic pathologist Andrea Safares provided a detailed review of Louisa’s post-mortem:
  • She pointed out that Louisa’s lungs were normal weight, with no pulmonary oedema—present in 98% of true drowning cases.
  • Andrea Safares: “I don’t see anything here that is even consistent with drowning. She doesn’t even have fluid in her lungs... It should have been undetermined.” (23:50)
• Andrea highlighted drowning is diagnosed by exclusion, but the only thing “consistent with drowning” in Louisa’s case was simply that she was found in water.
  • Andrea Safares: “All I’m saying here is the story doesn’t make any sense, and as such it is suspicious.” (29:03)
• She further explained that asphyxiation/strangulation can leave no visible injuries—a critically overlooked factor if not specifically considered. (21:09, 23:20)

Three Key Questions for Aquatic Death Investigations

Andrea outlined essential investigative questions:

1. Does it make sense she was in that water at that time?
   • Was her presence purposeful, accidental, or at the hands of another?
2. Does the scene (location, posture, clothing, etc.) make sense?
   • Was she dressed to enter water? Was the scene in order?
3. Does it make sense the deceased did not survive immersion/submersion given the conditions?
   • If there’s no physiological reason for incapacitation, then external cause must be considered.
   • Andrea: “Those three questions, they’re so simple, but they are powerful.” (26:09–26:36)

Unexplained Actions & Missing Evidence

• No one other than Jo saw Louisa after she left the house, nor Jo walking the dog as claimed.
• A neighbour said they saw Jo driving Louisa’s car early the following morning; his destination is unknown and unexplained. (28:39)
• These gaps emphasize problems in the original investigation and the need for further scrutiny.

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• Kaz (Neighbour) [04:05]: “No, because mostly the times I did see him would be in the evening... He didn’t really want to see a lot of people seeing him coming and going...”
• Indigo (Friend) [07:39]: “Would she go jumping into a creek? No. Disgusting. That would be her view.”
• Julia Robson [14:26]: “By 10pm on 2 October 2011, the earliest approximate time Louisa could have entered the creek, both upstream and downstream... indicated the creek level was at a mean depth of a mere 40 centimetres and dropping.”
• Andrea Safares [18:58]: “Her lungs are normal weight and it does not say pulmonary edema... Only 2% of those cases had normal weight lungs... So what? The only thing that’s consistent with drowning is the history of her being found in water.”
• Andrea Safares [29:03]: “This is consistent with my belief that the moon is made of cream cheese. All I’m saying here is the story doesn’t make any sense, and as such it is suspicious.”
• Julia Robson [26:36]: “With the data suggesting the creek was roughly only at a depth of 40 centimetres when she entered the water, it’s difficult to understand how she wouldn’t have been able to get herself out unless there was something preventing her from doing so.”

Timestamps for Key Segments

• [03:10] – Re-examining Jo’s account and lack of follow-up by others
• [04:05] – Kaz describes Jo’s reclusive habits; never saw him walking the dog that morning
• [05:49] – Indigo remembers believing Louisa had fled, not drowned
• [07:39 & 09:06] – Friends confirm Louisa’s strong swimming ability and skepticism toward drowning theory
• [10:12] – Louisa’s brother Tas’s doubts about accidental drowning
• [14:26] – Environmental data reveals the creek was shallow, disputing police theory of high water
• [15:45 & 23:50] – Andrea Safares on the impossibility of drowning for a swimmer in a shallow creek and lack of forensic evidence for drowning
• [21:09] – The possibility of asphyxiation/strangulation cases leaving no visible marks
• [24:36] – Andrea Safares’ “three key investigative questions”
• [28:26 & 28:39] – Kaz and a neighbour’s observations about Louisa’s car and Jo’s movements
• [29:03] – Andrea’s “cream cheese and the moon” analogy highlighting illogical conclusions

Conclusion

Episode 8 dismantles critical elements of the official narrative around Louisa Ioannidis’s death:

• The claim of accidental drowning is scientifically and circumstantially questioned based on new evidence about creek depth and the absence of forensic markers typical of drowning.
• Forensic expert Andrea Safares’s input raises the spectre of undetected incapacitation or third-party involvement, with a call for thorough, context-aware death investigations.
• Persistent gaps in witness accounts and forensic ambiguity drive home the episode’s central theme: Louisa’s death remains unexplained, and the investigation has left troubling questions unresolved.

The episode’s meticulous, measured tone underscores the gravity of unexplored possibilities and the enduring pain of unanswered questions for Louisa’s loved ones.