Troubled Waters – Episode 9: She’s Not the Only One

Podcast: Troubled Waters (Casefile Presents)
Host: Julia Robson
Date: June 16, 2024

Episode Overview

In this penultimate episode, private investigator Julia Robson explores the shocking discovery of another death—almost a decade after Louisa Ioannidis—in the same Darebin Creek, involving a young man last seen leaving Louisa's old address. The episode examines whether this strange parallel is a sinister link or a tragic coincidence, and uses the two cases to explore evolving investigative practices, the difficulties in determining cause of death in aquatic environments, and the profound ambiguities that persist in Louisa’s mysterious case.

Key Discussion Points and Insights

1. A Second Body in Darebin Creek: A Strange Parallel

• [00:46] Julia and producer Claire discuss recent information: another young person, “Jacob” (an alias), was found dead in Darebin Creek in 2021, last seen leaving the same address Louisa had once lived at.
• [01:52-02:36] Julia notes:

  “You are not going to believe what else I was told about that story. That individual was also last seen leaving Louisa’s old address. … Two people leave the same address and both of them end up dead in Darebin Creek.”

• Despite the seemingly eerie coincidence, Julia’s investigation finds no concrete link between the deaths aside from this shared location and timeline.

2. Contextualizing the Deaths: Patterns and Exceptions

• [03:29] Julia researches Darebin Creek’s grim history: over 150 years, only 30 deaths have been reported—most from before 1964 and largely children.
• Since 1964, just six bodies have been recovered, half of which (all women) were homicides.
• Louisa’s is the only post-1964 female death not labeled as homicide or attributed clearly to drowning, placing it in an ambiguous category.

3. Drowning or Something Else? Forensic Uncertainties

• [09:04] Dr. Shelley Robertson, a former forensic pathologist at the Victorian Institute of Forensic Medicine, clarifies:

  “One of the hallmarks of drowning is a lot of water in the chest cavity... In the absence again of anything else, and you’ve been told by the authorities that this body was found in the water, then it is consistent with drowning.”

• Julia learns that “consistent with drowning” is a less definitive term than “drowning,” especially in undetermined cases.

• [10:30] Dr. Robertson further outlines what an “unascertained” cause of death means:

  “There’s pretty much nothing to find … in the absence of natural disease or injuries... you say unascertained.”

• Julia notes the shift in forensic practice over the last decade: in more recent cases, even with water in pleural cavities, death may still be left unascertained.

4. What Did Investigators Know at the Time? The Issue of Background Context

• [12:32-15:13] Discussion on “Death Form 83”—the report police file for sudden deaths, which informs the pathologist.
• Julia and Dr. Robertson discuss whether Louisa’s domestic violence history or attempt to flee the country was adequately documented for the forensic pathologist to consider.

  Dr. Robertson: “It would depend … if the police were looking to mount an investigation, whether there was a suggestion of domestic violence and if it was related to … cause of death.”
  Julia: “It seems unlikely that the Form 83 would have provided the forensic pathologist with a detailed history of Louisa’s relationship and the apparent breakdown … leading up to her death.”

5. Drug Toxicology and Other Theories

• [15:27] Louisa had THC (cannabis) in her system, but not the methamphetamine reportedly used earlier that day with George. Reasons are unclear: metabolism rates, delays in testing, or inaccuracies in George’s account.
• [16:24-16:43] Dr. Robertson speculates:

  “If she went for a walk, you know, she’s not thinking clearly because of the THC or particularly if it’s combined with the amphetamines. She may have just stumbled or walked somewhere … and fallen in.”

• Julia points out the creek was shallow enough for Louisa to stand and leave; there were no incapacitating injuries.

6. Forensic Challenges: Drowning, Asphyxiation, and the Limits of Autopsy

• [17:04-17:18] Julia queries: is asphyxiation always visible post-mortem?
• Dr. Robertson: “No. There’s usually quite significant signs…” but decomposition can obscure them.

7. The Problem of Narrative and “Consistent With” Language

• [18:46] Dr. Thomas Young, U.S. forensic pathologist, provides a philosophical critique:

  “One cannot reliably surmise past events from physical evidence unless there is only one plausible explanation… If you don’t have a continuous narrative, … you don’t know what happened. … The case is undetermined.”

• [20:33] On “consistent with drowning”:

  “Anytime you say consistent with something you believe it is a meaningless statement. It has no meaning. Who saw her drown?”

• Memorable Analogy (20:33):

  “That would be like me taking a container of cream cheese and holding it up next to the moon during nighttime. … This is consistent with my belief that the moon is made of cream cheese. … That’s what it is like to say this case is consistent with drowning.”

8. The Problem with the Scene: Could Louisa Have Drowned There?

• The creek was shallow—only knee to thigh-deep after recent rain.
• [25:34] Prof. John Pern, Australian drowning expert:

  “Certainly a conscious, normal woman would not drown in 40 centimeters of water unless they were demented or there was some other medical cause for it… If a woman was completely fit and well and fully conscious … it’s very unlikely indeed that she would drown in 40 centimeters of water.”

9. Alternative Theories and Behavioral Possibilities

• Drug overdose by cannabis is rare and not typically fatal.
• Could Louisa have been suffering a paranoid episode? It’s possible but seems inconsistent with her earlier coherent behavior (e.g., neighbor conversation at 8:44pm).
• Dr. Young challenges speculative reasoning:

  “What if she was drugged with something that doesn’t show up on their toxicology screen? … You can’t sit there and imagine your way to an answer like this.”

• [28:54] On victims of intimate partner violence:

  “Women who have been abused … freeze or flee, they don’t fight back… The cost of fighting back is worse than just letting it happen.”

10. A Family’s Lingering Suspicion and Unresolved Questions

• No definitive injuries, no credible overdose, and shallow water challenge both the accident and suicide theories.
• Dr. Young’s conclusion:

  [30:49] “All I’m saying here is the story doesn’t make any sense and as such, it is suspicious. This is a suspicious story. The family has every reason in the world to be very upset right now.”

11. What Remains Unanswered: The Puzzle of Louisa’s Final Movements

• No one witnessed Louisa entering the water or struggling.
• The shifting terminology and evolving forensic standards highlight the challenges in classifying deaths by drowning.
• Julia teases the final episode, noting Louisa’s final journal entry—a haunting premonition of death—and vowing to continue seeking answers.

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• On “consistent with drowning”:

  “Anytime you say consistent with something you believe it is a meaningless statement. It has no meaning. Who saw her drown?” —Dr. Thomas Young (20:33)

• On the improbability of drowning in shallow water:

  “It’s very unlikely indeed that she would drown in 40 centimeters of water.” —Prof. John Pern (25:34)

• On the suspicions surrounding the case:

  “All I’m saying here is the story doesn’t make any sense and as such, it is suspicious. … I would be upset if this was a family member of mine.” —Dr. Thomas Young (30:49)

• Contextualizing history:

  “After 1964, there have only been six reports of bodies found in and around Darebin Creek. Half of these were found to be homicide. Of note, all homicide victims were female.” —Julia Robson (05:39)

Timestamps for Key Segments

• 00:46 – 02:36: Julia and Claire uncover another suspicious death linked to Louisa’s address.
• 03:29 – 06:38: Overview of the historical context of deaths in Darebin Creek.
• 09:04 – 11:37: Dr. Robertson on autopsy language and challenges in diagnosing drowning.
• 12:32 – 15:13: The missing details in police reporting (Form 83) and its implications.
• 16:12 – 17:03: Questioning drug use and its influence on the events.
• 18:46 – 23:40: Dr. Young’s critique of forensic inferences and the limits of “consistent with.”
• 25:34 – 26:20: Prof. Pern on drowning possibilities in shallow water.
• 28:43 – 29:13: On domestic violence and why victims may not fight back.
• 30:49: Dr. Young calls the case “suspicious.”
• 32:06: Closing preview for the series finale and mention of Louisa’s journal entry.

Episode Tone and Style

Julia’s narration is empathetic, quietly relentless, and deeply investigative. The discussion is respectful of victims and families while critical of procedural and forensic ambiguities. Expert interviews oscillate between highly technical and almost philosophical debates about evidence and inference, all delivered in measured, candid tones.

Final Thoughts

This episode deepens the sense of unresolved tragedy in Louisa’s case. By juxtaposing her mysterious death with another similar, equally unexplained one, Julia Robson not only underscores the tenuousness of official explanations but reveals how much in forensic death investigation is interpretive, uncertain, and potentially shaped by incomplete information or assumptions. The series prepares listeners for a final episode still searching for the truth, haunted by unanswerable questions and the urgent need for closure.