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 wellbeing and mental health. Please check the show notes for more our descriptions of the episodes. On the morning after Louise's sudden disappearance, we heard Joe's claim that he walked to the creek in search for her. We also know that after spotting her dressing gown floating in the water, instead of getting closer for a better look, he turned around and went home. Despite this, he was confident enough to call Louise's brother and informed him about the sighting of the pink robe. Joe also reached to several of Louise's friends, sharing the same news of the dressing gown in the water, but at the same time also asked them about her whereabouts. Of course, no one followed up on Joe's lead to visit the creek. No one really thought much of it at the time. It would be another eight days before complete strangers would discover her lifeless body. As we step in to commence a fresh investigation, perhaps speaking to experts will help us gain more clarity on Louise's tragic death.

Or maybe the key to shedding light on any unanswered questions is in a stunning new piece of evidence we are about to uncover. Episode 8, The Breakthrough. You may be thinking, did anyone else witnessed Joe walking down to the creek and back that morning? It was a Monday morning after all, and people were typically up and about preparing for their work week or dropping their children off at school. Well, as far as we know, No one came forward to support this. But given the delay between locating Louisa, then additional time identifying her, police were only able to canvas the area over two weeks later. With that being said, Cas, the neighbor, was particularly observant. She says that Joe taking the dog out would have been completely out of character for him, and therefore, something she would not only have definitely noticed, but remembered. Did you ever Did you ever see him walk the dog? No. Because mostly the times I did see him would be in the evening, when it's nighttime. He didn't really want to see a lot of people seeing him coming and going. Everything was done, not really During the day. 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, and he'd be straight inside the house. Now, 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 Louise's body, friends such as Indigo also received other strange messages from Joe. It was as if he was trying to extract information from them, insinuating that they were helping Louisa to hide.

On October seventh, I got a message on my SMF, 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 is being robbed or something. And I thought to myself, She's gone to Greece. 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 calling her phone. Her phone was ringing, and I rang, rang, rang. I remember I left work and I was ringing, and no one picked up the phone, and I thought, Surely she's not.

Tragically, Louisa hadn't escaped overseas, nor was she being harbored by any friends. In fact, given Joe 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. Let's go back to the location of the pink robe in the creek. For eight days, it seems that Joe was the only person who knew about the whereabouts of this critical piece of evidence about Louise's fate. We would have preferred to ask Joe 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 Joe provided this explanation when they questioned him about it. Just to note here, their response has been spoken by an actor. Yeah, 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 where she was found. To clarify, while Joe apparently made this claim to a friend of his, none of Louisa's friends or family members that we spoke to agreed with the 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.

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 We don't know where they're coming from with that angle, but there was nothing to indicate that she couldn't swim.

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 estimated that the creek depth is usually around half a meter. 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 meters, 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, 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.

This is the thing. I've heard the cops ask me, Oh, she's a strong swimmer. 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 to 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 the weekend or whatever. But never was I worried. 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 if her was swimming.

It's completely understandable that accepting such a tragic event can be challenging, especially when it seems so contrary to her her own 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 Tess 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, because the river, the creek was not deep as far as I'm concerned. She knew how to swim. I don't buy that she just drowned in that little creek. I don't buy it. Taz 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 Louisa'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 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 seeing 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.

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. 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 Louise'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 After the 29th of September, it slowly fell until the seventh of October, well after Louise is believed to have entered, and it only started rising again after the seventh of October. This is a significant finding because when Louise is believed to have entered the water, the creek would have already started to recede. 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. He was not even that handsome. Trying to woo him back. 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. 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 kilometers upstream and 2.5 kilometers downstream. According to this data, by 10:00 PM on second of 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 centimeters 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 Louise'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.

In a suburban creek, don't have currents. You would not drown if you could swim.

You would drown if you became unconscious or if you were unconscious when you were thrown in or fell in.

It does raise the whole issue of consciousness.

From everything we have, what 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. Number two, the forensic pathologist concluded that the cause of death was consistent with drowning. But how exactly is drowning being determined in an autopsy?

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.

This is Andrea Sofia Safears. 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 Safears 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.

My official title is Medical Legal Death Investigator. 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.

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 edema, 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.

Right. I'm looking at her lungs right now, and her lungs, Her lungs are normal weight. I don't even see pulmonary edema in her lungs. 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. He's done over 2000... I don't know any doc that's done that many autopsies in drowning victims. So he is my go-to guy. And he and Dr. Modell, 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 believe were drowning, like no other. They did real diagnosis of exclusions. 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 cause of death, had pulmonary edema. Well, her lungs are normal weight, and it does not say pulmonary edema. I don't know why they're saying drowning. Well, 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 sign. Okay, so they didn't open up the sphenoid sinus, which is just one other tiny little thing that you could put a check box in if there's fluid in it, possibly. Yeah, there's nothing in here that I'm seeing. Yeah. I mean, it's not even pulmonary edema. So the only thing that's consistent with drowning is the history. Of her being found in water.

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.

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. 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 her 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. 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. The only finding is pneumonia. We contact the detective and have a big Zoom meeting, and we say, Look, you got to tell the doc this is strangulation. The ammonia was caused by the strangulation, drowning. Doc comes back and says, No, you can't get pneumonia that fast. 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. He opened up everything. I've never seen this before. He opened every part of her up all around her neck. It was beautiful laying every layer back with the blue cloth behind because he's being tested. Not a single injury. We know that he confessed to picking her up a full body weight off her feet by the neck. We have cases.

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. 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 Louise's autopsy, Andrea makes some further observations.

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 swallow water, and so you get a larger volume of water in the stomach. It should have been undetermined.

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?

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

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?

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. 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 leaves 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. I'm talking that specific location at that specific time. If they can't come up with any logical reasons, then by the hands of another is something that absolutely needs to be investigated.

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?

The next question, location, position, posture of the reporting party and the deceased. That's a more complicated It's an complicated question, but I don't have a scene photo, so the scene photos would be useful. But does what she's wearing make sense? 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?

Number three, does it make sense that the deceased did not survive the emersion or submersion?

Then that last question is the one you just brought up. Why are they dead? Without incapacitation, why would she not have just stood up and walked out? If you can't provide a physiological incapacitation, then someone else did something to her. Those three questions, they're It's so simple, but they are powerful.

Andrea's view is that these three questions weren't fully investigated at that time. After looking at the data suggesting the creek was roughly only at a depth of 40 centimeters 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 edema, i. E. 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 Joe become very important. Firstly, as it stands, there are no other witnesses other than Joe who claims they saw Louisa headed towards the creek on the night of the second 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, Joe 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 Cas, the neighbor, the night Louisa went missing, she had seen Louisa's car parked in her carport. By the morning, Louisa's car was gone. I didn't see or hear Louisa again. I noticed her car gone the next day. I would have noticed that it 7:45 AM because it was a school morning. If Louise's car was to come back to the house, I would have heard it. Another neighbor also alleged they saw Joe driving Louise'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. 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.

In this podcast, we've looked into whether Louise'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. Casewell presents Troubled Waters is written and produced by Julia Robinson and Claire McGrath. Audio production by Mike Migas. Audio editing by Anthony Telfa. Voice actor is Finn McGrath. Special thanks to Professor Kerry Carrington and Andreas Affears. If you need any support regarding any of the topics raised in this podcast, please reach out to services such as Lifeline on 13-11-14, 1-800-Respect, or the Men's Referral Service on 1300-766-491. Listeners outside of Australia should refer to their local services.