Enjoy your holiday, Tim.

Yeah.

Enjoy your holiday, Tim.

Yeah. Summer holidays don't last long. Neither will our boiler offer. Get 20% off your annual service when you book with Bored Gosh Energy before July 31st and give your boiler the efficiency boost it needs. But remember, 20% off won't last long. Book online at Bored Gosh Energy. Ie. Terms and conditions apply. A cast recommends, podcasts we love.

This is not without My Sister. The podcast where two sisters from Kildare, Ireland, now live in Fort Wayne, Indiana, and have lots of things to do with their time, but decided to do a podcast instead. We talk about the time Beatrice got kidnapped by a man who looked like Santa, and then tried to squeeze her into his ex-wife's poochy pants to no avail, and not to be outdone the time that Rosemarie dawned her best Game of Thrones larping costume and showed up on some unsuspecting handsome boy's doorway. It was not even that handsome. I'm trying to woo him This and more can be yours, not without my sister.

Acast is home to the world's best podcasts, including In the News from the Irish Times, Irish History Podcast, and the one you're listening to right now. This podcast contains content that may be upsetting to some listeners. Before continuing, please prioritize your own well-being and mental health. Please check the show notes for more detailed descriptions of the episodes. And a warning, this episode also contains strong language. It was the 19th of October, 2011, eight days after a body had been found in Darabin Creek and police had finally identified the deceased as Louisa Ioanidis. Upon arriving at her home, they met her boyfriend, Joe, and began the somber task of looking through her possessions. Let's rewind back to episode 5, where we first discussed Louisa's journal, the one with a pink vinyl cover containing a collection of her emotions, daily reminders, and old school work. On that day, in Louisa's bedroom alongside Joe, police turned their attention to this buried journal. Flipping to the final page, Joe pointed out where he had left a message the morning after Louisa vanished. Though we're yet to learn the exact words he wrote, it reportedly conveyed Joe's feelings towards George, the man it's alleged Louisa provided sexual favors to in exchange for drugs.

Yet, hidden at the top of this very same page lay a deeper mystery, one we haven't discussed yet. You see, on that same page where Joe had left his note, there was also another message above it. But this one had been deliberately crossed out, almost as if someone didn't want anyone to see it. It had been scribbled out enough that whatever it did say couldn't be deciphered at the time. Police felt these crossed-out words were important and sent the page to a forensic document examiner who was able to decipher it. What emerged beneath the scribbles appeared to be a premonition of what was to come. These words said, When a baby is born, it's bright. When someone dies, it's dark. Episode 10, All the Pieces. So who panned those haunting words that had been crossed out? If it was Louisa, had she left a genuine clue about an intention to end her life? As far as we know, the last time she wrote in her journal was in July. So could this have been on her mind three months earlier? Despite the coroner's findings that they were not satisfied suicide could be ruled out, those closest to Louisa had already decided from the outset this was not an option.

Louisa's friend Indigo.

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 life, and that's why she was in that church. You can't be in that church if you're taking your own life.

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

It's very, very, very rare that people purposely are able to drown themselves. They usually have to put rocks in their pocket, 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 can't stay up. To drown yourself, if it really was shallow, it makes no sense accidentally that she drowned and it makes even less sense suicidally. It's very hard to drown yourself in water that you can obviously stand up in.

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 Joe 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 the mystery author was were inconclusive.

Nothing adds up when it comes to this incident. Louisa, she wouldn't take her own life. She was probably too proud for that.

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 Darrobin Creek. If face was 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 been haunted by these questions. 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 Louise's absence. I know this because it was on Christmas Eve when Tass first reached out to me asking for help.

In his own words.

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

For family members who have also experienced lost through tragedy, Taz's sentiments likely strike a cord. 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 passed away two years before Louisa from an asthma attack.

Even now, they ask about Louisa, and it wasn't that long ago, really, that the older one asked, What happened to Louisa? What to your mom? I guess the older they get, the more they start understanding.

Now, by assisting Tass and helping to take over this investigation, we've been able to revisit the details, scrutinize the evidence, and unearth new leads. Have we, in fact, uncovered a different version of events that might explain how Louisa ended up in Daravan 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.

She never, ever sat there, rocking back and forth over at 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 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 in dealing with mental health struggles. As medical legal death investigator, Andrea Safeez, puts it.

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. When the doctors look at it and go, Oh, she was depressed. Well, if you're in a bad relationship and you're not depressed, there's something wrong with you.

While authorities refrained from When they were in dismissing Louise's death of 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 Darroban Creek? Was Louisa incapacitated upon entering the water? And if so, how? In the words of Dr. Thomas Young.

This is a big synthesis. You're putting things together. It's like a a saw 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 just take an old jigsaw puzzle and said, We're done with this, and then you just pull the whole thing apart, put it back in the box.

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 Louisa'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 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 Tess had reported her missing to police. It was that same officer who spoke to Tess, who also attended Dareban 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 Tess reporting Louisa missing and a body found 450 meters from her home. To be clear, at the time TAS reported her missing, no official missing person's 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 Tess his card.

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 something, her name on the computer and the system, something would have come up.

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 Darabin Creek overridden 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 Darrobin 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. To make this judgment, what training did attending officers at the scene have when it came to bodies in water? Expert Andrea's Affairs.

There's no training. Police and death of buscators are not trained on how to look for signs of homicide and drowning. It's not their fault. They are not trained. 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 A hundred hours of training and hundreds of hours of on-the-job experience. If there's the same thing, if there's a fire, a body found in a fire, and you can ask them this, 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 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, there are people People that do shooting reconstructions. 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. The detectives have been given zero training on how to process that scene.

Their crime scene people have been given zero training on how to process the scene of a creek.

We will be back after a short break. A cast recommends, Podcasts We Love.

This is not Without My Sister, the podcast where two sisters from Kildare, Ireland, now live in Fort Wayne, Indiana, and have lots of things to do with their time, but decided to do a podcast instead. We talk about the time Beatrice got kidnapped by a man who looked like Santa, and then tried to squeeze her into his ex-wife's poochy pants to no avail, and not to be outdone the time that Rosemarie dawned her best Game of Thrones larping costume and showed up on some unsuspecting handsome boy's doorway. It was not even that handsome. Trying to woo him This and more can be yours, not without my sister.

Acast is home to the world's best podcasts, including In the News from the Irish Times, Irish History Podcast, and the one you're listening to right now. 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 what training have they had in intimate partner violence? What's so frustrating is most victim advocates, I'd say over 90% in the States are women. And these detectives are typically male. There's still so much prejudiced. They'll talk to 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 They need to sit down with a victim advocate.

I can't answer if police received appropriate training for dealing with bodies in water. We did ask Victoria police, though, whether they consulted a domestic violence advocate after Louise's death, and they told us that the Darabin 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 The initiative at the initial scene at Darabin 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 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 complementary 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 Joe or anyone else for that matter is responsible for what happened to Louisa. However, in preparing this podcast, 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 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, Joe 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 Joe was made aware of this attempt to leave. Around 8:44 4:00 PM on the night she was last seen alive, Louisa made a phone call from her neighbors 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 Louisa'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 streetlight. But through our own recreation, we've been unable to see from one end of the street to the other. During the early hours that Louisa was missing, Joe claimed he was sleeping, yet the phone records appear to suggest he rang George at 2:00 AM. According to Tess, Joe's account he was sleeping appeared to satisfy police as...

The aspect of Joe It was conveyed to me from the police that they believe that he had a strong alibi, so that's why they were looking at, he had a strong alibi. I remember them saying that. That's why he wasn't a person of interest as such.

Sometime overnight or in the morning, Louisa entered Darrobin 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 depths, she was unable to get out, and her death was attributed to drowning. Expert Andrea Safez.

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

I'm asking that exact same question, but let's continue. The morning after Louisa went missing, again, Joe 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 Louisa's car missing around 7:45 AM, and another neighbor reported seeing Joe driving it in the morning. Did Joe forget to mention these events, or are the two witnesses recalling the wrong days? If the witnesses were correct, where was Joe 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 Joe had knowledge about Louise'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 Louise's robe, somewhat submerged and no doubt discolored, 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 because When I was calling her during the day that she went missing, he goes, Yeah, I've gone looking for her. I couldn't seem to find her. I go, Joe, you need to ring up her mates and friends and start asking a question finding her. 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 robe, but never really went any closer to investigate it. He just saw it from his distance, and he assumed that she just threw a 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 story that's definitely come out of his mouth.

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 were 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 unassetained. Reviewing the cause of death is important. If Louisa's death was determined to be unassertained rather than consistent with drowning, then that also suggests a 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 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 Joe's writing. Is there something to be read into these factors, or are they just distractions? We've been unable to clarify exactly what Joe wrote in Louise's journal the morning she went missing, other than it appears to have involved his feelings towards George. Apparently, it was Joe who volunteered the journal to police. However, at no point did Joe Joe appeared to admit to making a 2:00 AM phone call to George on the night Louisa went missing, a call in which George claims Joe was verbally abusive towards him. To refresh your memory, Louisa was purchasing drugs from George. George. That does not appear to be in dispute. We've heard, though, that on Louisa's final day, Joe broke George's car window, and there appears to be two narratives as to why he would do this.

Joe's explanation is that Louisa divulged she'd performed oral sex on George under duress in exchange for drugs. Joe broke the window to show Louisa she didn't need to be scared of George. Once they got home, however, Joe would then break up with her. Despite this version Joe gave, both Joe's friend and George provided a different account. In their statements to police, they alleged Joe 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 Joe wrote about George in Louisa's diary may be a benefit. We're no closer to finding out what he wrote, aside from confirming police still have that page in their evidence storage. 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. 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, Joe believed sexual activity had occurred, which appears to be the catalyst for Joe calling George at 2:00 AM 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 Joe think Louisa would run off with George if he was also claiming Louisa was scared of him? It 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've linked to Joe, there is no suggestion Joe had knowledge of this call.

This is the original voicemail I received. It's been edited to remove Joe's full name. I'm just Constable Pappers from Roosevelt Police Station. I'm I was ringing up in regards to an illegal investigation you got going on, Joe. Can you cease that operation, please, or call back? Thank you. 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. For the record, let it be known that impersonating a police officer is a criminal offense. 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, our perseverance to continue the investigation to uncover the truth remains steadfast. Speaking with Louise'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, Julia, you're like the last chance, then you just give up.

To task Louise's brother to their mother, Helen, who fought tirelessly to provide Louise 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. Tass, Louisa's brother, wholeheartedly agrees.

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.

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 at contact at casefilepodcast. Com. This podcast is dedicated to the memory of Louisa'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.

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

Yeah, okay.

All right, let's do this.

Remember, this is in the end. We're just getting started. Casefile presents Troubled Waters is written and produced by Julia Robson and Claire McGrath. Audio production by Mike Migas. Audio editing by Anthony Taufer. Special thanks to Dr. Thomas Young and Andreas Affairs. If you need any support regarding any of the topics raised in this podcast, please reach out to services such as Lifeline on 13114, 1800 Respect, or the Men's Referral Service on 1300 766 491. Listeners outside of Australia should refer to their local services.