Kaz (Neighbour) (4:05)

No, because mostly the times I did see him would be in the evening, you know, when it's nighttime. He didn't really want to see a lot of people seeing him coming and going, you know, so everything was done not really during the day, you know, you never saw him out the front washing the car or taking the rubbish out or doing some weeding, I don't know. But no, you only ever really saw him. If he was coming in, he'd drive straight in the carport. I need be straight inside the house now.

Julia Robson (4:34)

I need you to remember what I'm about to tell you. Kaz did see something that morning. But we'll come back to this. For now, all we know is that over the days leading up to the discovery of Louisa's body, friends such as Indigo also received other strange messages from Jo. It was as if he was trying to extract information from them, insinuating that they were helping Louisa to hide.

Indigo (Friend) (4:59)

On October 7th, I got a message on my SMS, call me ASAP or call me. And then I called straight away. I was sitting with my ex boyfriend at the time and his sister and he answered and I hung up and I thought, shit. And then I thought, he's busted her. He messaged saying something like, if you're with Louisa, tell her to call me, her house has been robbed or something. And I thought to myself, she's gone to Greece. Like I'll never forget. I actually thought, she's gone to Greece, she's in Greece, she's left him. Good on her. And then I didn't respond on the. I think it was the 11th or 12th. That's when I saw on her Facebook, people were writing rest in peace. And I found out she was dead then that obviously I was like, no, surely not. And I started like calling her phone, her Phone was ringing and I rang, I rang, I rang, I remember I left work and I was ringing and he didn't, like. No one picked up the phone. And I thought, surely she's not.

Julia Robson (5:49)

Tragically, Louisa hadn't escaped overseas, nor was she being harboured by any friends. In fact, given Jo saw her dressing gown in the water the morning after her late night dash, the most likely conclusion is she was in that water shortly after leaving the house. So let's go back to the location of the pink robe in the creek. For eight days, it seems that Jo was the only person who knew about the whereabouts of this critical piece of evidence about Louisa's fate. We would have preferred to ask Jo directly about this, but he declined our invitation to participate in this podcast. We did, however, manage to track down a former friend of his who told us Jo provided this explanation when they questioned him about it. Just a note here. Their response has been spoken by an actor.

Andrea Safares (6:40)

Yeah.

Acast Announcer (6:40)

Apparently, where the body was was the spot that Louisa always went to and from when she was a child. Apparently she would always go to that particular part of the creek when she was upset or whatever it was, and she would just sit there and have some time to herself. I don't know if that's true or not, and apparently that's why she was found.

Julia Robson (6:56)

To clarify, while Jo apparently made this claim to a friend of his, none of Louisa's friends or family members that we spoke to agreed with this statement or had any knowledge of Louisa ever spending time down there. If true, and we need to be careful to take it at face value, given we haven't tested it with Joe, this would also be information Joe never shared with police, at least in his original statement. With this information aside, Louisa was incredibly proud of her appearance. And with extensions in her hair and the latest makeup, the idea of her entering a dirty creek by choice continues to raise questions for some of her friends.

Indigo (Friend) (7:39)

Would she go jumping into a creek? No. Disgusting. That would be her view. That's disgusting. I'm not jumping in that. I don't know where they're coming from with that angle. But there was nothing to indicate that she couldn't swim.

Julia Robson (7:55)

So if she got in the water, how could she not get out? From our own observations, when producer Claire and I visited the creek, we've guesstimated that the creek depth is usually around half a metre. This means that Louisa, standing at 1 meter 70 centimeters, would have easily been able to stand up with her airways well above the water level. We've also taken into account the Width of the creek, which currently ranges anywhere roughly from 1 to 20 metres, depending on the water level and how high it has risen on the side of the banks. Our own navigation up and down these banks, albeit a bit clumsily, indicates that it is achievable to get up and down the banks of the river. And even without ideal footwear, these are not particularly steep banks. It's difficult to think a woman of Louisa's height and ability would not have been able to get herself out of this creek. Unless, of course, there was something preventing her from doing so. Let's not forget those closest to Louisa, including her friend Indigo, were adamant she was a competent swimmer.

Indigo (Friend) (9:06)

This is the thing, like, I've heard, like the cops ask me, oh, she's a strong swimmer. And I'm like, hold on a second. We went to the beach. She was never scared about going in the water. I've never, ever had reason to believe that Louisa was scared of water or couldn't swim, by the way we were. When we went to the beach, our pastime was more going for coffees, going shopping, hanging out with our girlfriends or even boys that we had met on, like, the weekend or whatever. But never was I worried. Like, did I hear her say, oh, I can't swim? Never, never. And when we went to the beach, she got in the water, no problems, wasn't scared. So there was no issue that I knew of her with swimming.

Julia Robson (9:40)

It's completely understandable that accepting such a tragic event can be challenging, especially when it seems so contrary to her known abilities. However, if we take emotion out of this, we also know humans are complex and can and will do very unexpected things. But as Louise's brother Tas mentioned on many occasions that we spoke, he was adamant, something didn't add up here. Do you believe she drowned? No, I don't. I mean, not on her own accord.

Indigo (Friend) (10:12)

Okay.

Julia Robson (10:13)

Because the river, the creek was not deep as far as I'm concerned. All right? She knew how to swim, right? I don't buy that, that she just drowned in a little crate. I just.

Andrea Safares (10:24)

I don't buy it.

Julia Robson (10:26)

Tas has a point. The creek typically is shallow and is something Claire and I have witnessed on many occasions. But on September 29, 2011, just four days before Louise's believed entry into the creek, the area experienced a significant amount of rainfall material before the coroner noted that this would have caused the water level to rise beyond its typical depth. The evidence presented to support this claim included rainfall data and descriptions of seeing debris found in the trees up high on the creek's banks. Given Louisa was found in the creek eight days after she was believed to have entered, investigators were relying on visual clues to support this theory that she entered the water during these elevated water levels. Remember, their primary aid was the presence of debris and rubbish entangled in the trees or on the higher sections of the banks. This belief of elevated creek levels was also shared to the forensic pathologist and appears to have been considered as part of the ultimate conclusion that Louisa died in a manner consistent with drowning. However, there is a critical piece of information missing from the initial evidence gathering. The water levels of the creek itself, not just the rainfall during that specific period. Without this data, it becomes challenging to fully understand the depth of the creek at the time of Louisa's supposed drowning. So since this information hadn't been provided, it now became the focus of our investigation. The primary objective, to determine the depth of the creek at the time Louisa entered it. So I'm a little excited as I've just been sent an email from an environmental scientist who has said hi Julia, please see this link with a small data presentation helping you understand the creek heights and rainfall during the period in question. So let me just pull this up. This is going to tell me not only the rainfall data but how deep the creek was during the time frame Louisa entered. So this, this is really interesting. This is telling me that okay, on the 29th of September there was heavy rainfall and the time the creek rose to around 1.28 meters. So even that would have been underneath LouisA's height of 1.70 meters. Okay, but Creek depths are different. So this is where things get interesting because this is now telling me after the 29th of September it slowly fell until the 7th of October, well after Louise is believed to have entered and it only started rising again after the 7th of October. This is a significant finding because when Louise is believed to have entered the water, the the creek would have already started to recede. We will be back after a short break.

Xero Advertiser (13:51)

Take control of the numbers and supercharge your small business with Xero. That's Xero. With our easy to use accounting software with automation and reporting features, you'll spend less time on manual tasks and more time understanding how your business is doing. 87% of surveyed US customers agree Xero helps improve on financial visibility. Search Xero with an x or visit xero.comacast to start your 30 day free trial. Conditions apply.

Julia Robson (14:26)

Just to clarify here, although there's no specific data for the exact location where Louise is believed to have entered, there Are creek levels recorded for that period? Approximately 6 kilometres upstream and 2.5 kilometres downstream. According to this data, by 10pm on 2 October 2011, the earliest approximate time Louisa could have entered the creek, both upstream and downstream. Recordings indicated that the creek level was at a mean depth of a mere 40 centimetres and dropping. To really put this into perspective, and taking into consideration that the creek depth fluctuates in places at its deepest point, the water level would have only been around the depth of Louisa's thighs and in many places at a level roughly around her knees. This information completely challenges the theory Louisa's drowning could be attributed to high water levels in the creek. So now we're asking, is it even possible to drown in a creek that was roughly only 40 centimeters deep? Professor Kerry Carrington Inner suburban creeks don't have currents.

Andrea Safares (15:45)

You would not drown if you could swim. You would drown if you became unconscious.

Julia Robson (15:51)

Or if you were unconscious when you were thrown in or fell in.

Andrea Safares (15:55)

So it does raise the whole issue of consciousness.

Julia Robson (16:00)

So from everything we have, what do we have that actually supports the theory of Louisa drowning? There are two key pieces of information. Number one, police found nothing at the time she was discovered in the creek to suggest any suspicious circumstances such as visible signs of foul play or external injuries. And number two, the forensic pathologist concluded that the cause of death was consistent with drowning. But how exactly is drowning determined in an autopsy?

Andrea Safares (16:35)

Oh, well, there is no diagnosis for drowning. Drowning is a diagnosis of exclusion. You cannot just look at a body and say, oh they drowned or no, they didn't drown. It's based on the circumstances.

Julia Robson (16:46)

This is Andrea Safiers. Based in the United States, she is a renowned expert in water related deaths and aquatic investigations. Her extensive experience has seen her consult and provide training to law enforcement agencies, medical examiners and other professionals involved in water related death investigations. In other words, when it comes to understanding the complexities of bodies found in water, Andrea Safares is the go to contact. When I first spoke with Andrea, I asked if she would be willing to review the autopsy report and help me understand what led to the determination of drowning. I need to be clear. She was not provided with the full police report nor the detailed background of Louise's circumstances, such as her relationship history. We also need to remember that we're examining and testing different hypotheses here, not assuming that any one of them is true or false.

Andrea Safares (17:48)

My official title is medical legal death Investigators. I work for a medical examiner's office, but really what I do is asphyxiation. Death investigation, particularly the aquatic ones. But what we're finding is that it's not usually just aquatic. We call it co occurring criminal asphyxiation. They mix different types of asphyxiation. Those are all circumstantial diagnosis of exclusion, causes of death or abuse. So without a really thorough intimate partner violence informed investigation, you're going to miss things.

Julia Robson (18:25)

As Andrea explained, determining drowning does not rely on a specific test, but rather a comprehensive assessment of the circumstances surrounding the death and the findings of the autopsy. One common occurrence that can be observed in drowning cases during an autopsy is the presence of pulmonary oedema, which in more simple terms is an accumulation of fluid in the lungs. However, upon reviewing Louise's autopsy report, Andrea made a shocking observation.

Andrea Safares (18:58)

Right. Well, I'm looking at her lungs right now, and her lungs. Aha. Her lungs are normal weight. I don't even see pulmonary edema in her lungs. So. All right, if you drown. There was a wonderful study done by Dr. Lunetta, who is a forensic pathologist and he does all drowning autopsies and he's done over 2,000. I don't know any doc that's done that many autopsies and drowning victims. So he is my go to guy. And he and Dr. Model, who's another famous, famous forensic pathologist who specializes in drowning, they wrote this wonderful paper, they did this study and they looked at cases that they absolutely believed were drowning like no other. They did, you know, real diagnosis of exclusion. And only 2% of those cases had normal weight lungs. So 98% of the bodies that actually had a true drowning, as best as you can prove it, drowning causes death, had pulmonary edema. Well, her lungs are normal weight and it does not say pulmonary edema. So I don't know why they're saying drowning, and I do. It's because they have no other obvious cause of death that's the problem. So when you look at the last page of the autopsy, it says cause of death consistent with drowning. Well, I don't see anything that shows consistent with drowning. So let's look if they looked in the. I'm trying to remember if they looked at the sphenoid sinus. Okay, so they didn't open up the sphenoid sinus, which is just one other tiny little thing that you could, you know, put a checkbox in if there's fluid in it, you know, possibly. Yeah, there's nothing in here that I'm seeing. Yeah, I mean, it's just. It's not even pulmonary edema. So what? The only Thing that's consistent with drowning is the history of her being found in water.

Julia Robson (20:50)

In addition to discussing drowning, Andrea also provided valuable insights regarding asphyxiation and strangulation cases. It's important to note that this conversation was discussed in general terms and in no way suggests any specific connection to Louise's case.

Andrea Safares (21:09)

One of the problems is that there are some medical examiners that I would say are savvy and open minded and they will agree that you can asphyxiate someone and leave zero injuries. And I have some docs that say that's impossible. Well, I have a case history, for example, that was closed as a pneumonia. Natural death of a 29 year old pneumonia, natural. The detective talks to me after class. We get the case reopened. He literally grabbed her by the neck while she was in the shower and picked her up off her feet by the neck. So he's drowning and strangling her, and then he lays her on the bed and she just slowly dies. And he calls it in as a heroin overdose. So they treat it like a heroin overdose. They put her on a ventilator and when tox comes back, because she's on a ventilator before they did, they did the standard hospital tox. She only has therapeutic levels of methadone. But while she's in this emergency room, they swab the ventilation tube and it comes back positive for pneumonia. So there's no other cause of death because they don't have the history of the strangulation and the drowning in the shower. All they know is that she was found unresponsive, face down on the bed. So the only finding is pneumonia. So we contact the detective and have a big zoom meeting and we say, look, you got to tell the doc this is strangulation. Pneumonia was caused by the strangulation drowning. Doc comes back and says, no, you can't get pneumonia that fast. So we show him case history that yes, you can. But why this case is so important is the doc was a fellow and he was being evaluated on that autopsy. So he opened up everything like I've never seen this before. He opened every part of her up, all around her neck. I mean, with beautiful laying every layer back with the blue cloth behind because he's being tested, not a single injury. And we know that he confessed to picking her up full body weight off her feet by the neck. So we have cases.

Julia Robson (23:20)

The more I chatted with Andrea, the clearer it became just how tough it is to pin down the real cause of death in cases of asphyxia and drowning. And what Andrea was sharing with me now really opened my eyes. We're not suggesting that it occurred here, but it seems there have been times when key clues in asphyxia and drowning cases have been misread or even totally missed. Going back to Louisa's autopsy, Andrea makes some further observations.

Andrea Safares (23:50)

I don't see anything here that is even consistent with drowning. She doesn't even have fluid in her lungs. She has normal weight lungs. And according to this, her lungs have completely normal presentation. And her stomach, her stomach has only a small volume of fluid. And it's not uncommon when people are drowning to inhale, to swallow water. And so you get a larger volume of water in the stomach, it should have been undetermined.

Julia Robson (24:16)

So if the lungs were not enlarged and no significant traces of sediment was located in her airways or stomach, what are we missing that caused the conclusion to be consistent with drowning?

Andrea Safares (24:28)

Did you get the three questions opened up? Okay, so just jump. So first question is, does it make sense she's in that water at that time?

Julia Robson (24:36)

According to Andrea, when it comes to aquatic investigations, there are three basic questions that every investigating officer needs to ask. These are, Number one, does it make sense that the deceased was in that water at that time?

Andrea Safares (24:53)

There's only three ways you can enter any environment. One is purposeful, one is accidental, and the third way is by the hands of another. Right. There's no other way you can end up in any location. Purposeful, accidental, and there's no purposeful or accidental ways that are reasonable that leads by the hands of another. They need to sit down and find out why she would have been in that location at that time, either purposely or accidentally. And I'm talking that specific location at that specific time. And if they can't come up with any logical reasons, then by the hands of another is something that absolutely needs to be investigated.

Julia Robson (25:30)

Number two, does the location, position, posture, physical state and scene of the deceased and reporting parties make sense along with the conditions of the scene?

Andrea Safares (25:42)

The next question, location, position, posture of the reporting party and the deceit. And that's a, that's a more complicated question, but I don't have any scene photos, so the scene photos would be useful. But does her, what she's wearing make sense? You know, should she be in that water with those clothes on? Are they disheveled? Are they not disheveled? So literally, that's a head to toe exam. Where's her airway? What's the temperature?

Julia Robson (26:05)

Number three, does it make sense that the deceased did not survive the immersion.

Andrea Safares (26:09)

Or submersion then that last question is the one you just brought up. Why are they dead? So, without incapacitation, why would she not have just stood up and walked out? And if you can't provide a physiological incapacitation, then someone else did something to her. So those three questions, they're so simple, but they are powerful.

Julia Robson (26:36)

Andrea's view is that these three questions weren't fully investigated at that time. And after looking at 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. At this depth and with no evidence of pulmonary oedema, that is fluid in her lungs, is it then reasonable to assume she was already incapacitated when she entered the water? If this is the case, then when, where and how could Louisa have become incapacitated? It's at this point where the statements, or lack thereof, from other witnesses other than Jo become very important. Firstly, as it stands, there are no other witnesses other than Jo, who claims they saw Louisa headed towards the creek on the night of the 2nd of October. No one else appears to have heard her run out the door or saw her at any point between her house and the creek the morning after her run out the door. Jo then claims he walked the dog and alleges to have seen Louise's dressing gown floating in the creek. Again, no other witnesses have been identified who saw Joe walking the dog either down to the creek or on his return. But that's not to say people didn't see Joe in the morning. It's just that no one who came forward had seen him walking the dog. Witnesses that were spoken to did, however, appear to have seen something else. According to Kaz, the neighbour, the night Louisa went missing, she had seen Louisa's car parked in her carport. By the morning, Louisa's car was gone.

Kaz (Neighbour) (28:26)

I didn't see or hear Louisa again. I noticed her car gone the next day. I would have noticed it at about 7:45am because it was a school morning. If Louisa's car was to come back to the house, I would have heard it.

Julia Robson (28:39)

Another neighbour also alleged they saw Jo driving Louisa's car early that morning. If that's right, where was he going and why? We simply don't know. The destination and purpose of his alleged early morning drive remain unknown. Still to come on troubled waters.

Andrea Safares (29:03)

Imagine me holding up a container of cream cheese next to the moon and I'd say, look at that. 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 (29:24)

In this podcast, we've looked into whether Louisa's death was properly investigated and all explanations considered. We're not suggesting that Joe had any involvement in her death, and we're not aware that he was ever a formal suspect, as he has chosen not to participate in an interview, something that he is perfectly entitled to do. Beyond his police statement, we don't have the benefit of his responses or insights. Casefile Presents Troubled Waters is written and produced by Julia Robson and Claire McGrath. Audio production by Mike Megus Audio editing by Anthony Telfer Voice actor is Finn McGrath. Special thanks to Professor Kerry Carrington and Andrea Safares. If you need any support regarding any of the topics raised in this podcast, please reach out to services such AS Lifeline on 1311, 14, 1800 RESPECT or the Men's Referral Service on 1300 766, 491. Listeners outside of Australia should refer to their local services.

Acast Announcer (30:35)

ACAST powers the World's Best Podcasts. Here's a show that we recommend.

Leah Thomas (30:43)

For centuries, colonization has fractured our relationship with the land. We've come to position ourselves outside of nature, as observers and masters of it, as if it were ours to control and bend to our will. But the earth pushes back, reminding us otherwise. I'm Leah Thomas. I'm the founder of the nonprofit Intersectional Environmentalist, and I'm excited to be returning as your host for Season four of as she Rises. This season, we're exploring rewilding. We'll hear how communities are letting the land lead and reimagining what it means to truly coexist with the natural world. Subscribe now and listen to this season of as she Rises. Wherever you get your podcast.

Acast Announcer (31:29)

ACAST helps creators launch, grow, and monetize their podcasts everywhere. Acast. Com.