Good morning Yvonne,

I read with interest the article in relation to the building of the Burnley Tunnel and the deaths of the two workers which was quite tragic and absolutely preventable.

What I found particularly frustrating was the fact that the ambulance officer and experienced trench rescuer – who was accepted as the trained and experienced expert in the field would not accept the observations of O’Connor who was only a worker and therefore in his then current dilemma was not an expert.  Even though O’Connor continually advised there was water in the hole his observations were ignored without questioning the validity of what he was saying.

What was it that stopped the rescuer from accepting that what O'Connor was saying was the truth and fact?  Although probably a harsh judgement, I think there was a certain type of arrogance and even apathy to the incident, as written in the article, not only was a video of the rescue operation made for training purposes by the fire brigade, there was also an ‘air of confidence that it would be a successful textbook operation’.   Therefore, with a belief that the rescue was going to be a textbook operation anything outside the norm of the textbook would have been excluded and considered an irritation. 

I attended a fatal road crash involving a woman (pedestrian) and a B-double truck on a major 4 lane highway in a 100km zone.  As a Crash Investigator I was called to the scene and even before I arrived the general duties police had decided and reported it to the Duty Supervisor as a suicide and it was recorded on the police computer system as one.  When I arrived the general opinion was why was I bothering surveying the scene, conducting measurements and so on.  One thing I did pick up along the roadway was the woman’s mobile phone which I put back together and it worked, even ringing a couple of times while I was there. 

As this incident happened in the very early hours of the morning, at the completion of the job I went home and didn’t return to work until late the next afternoon.  I was asked by my officer in charge why I was dealing with a suicide matter because he had been told what had happened.  I told him that I had concerns it had not been investigated and I disagreed with the opinion of everyone at the scene.   The initial report entered into the reporting system was based on the very short version supplied from the truck driver who had said the woman had come out of the bushes onto the road so therefore she must have done it deliberately.     

It took me a number of weeks and into a few months and many statements, and many conversations with friends who had been out with her that night; conversations with her family of what she had to look forward to; a detailed statement from the truck driver and; conversations with her Doctor to finally arrive at a conclusion for the Coroner.  There were two particular findings I reported to the Coroner.

The first being in relation to a prescribed and somewhat new medication for assistance in the treatment of cessation of smoking, which was recorded at abnormally  high levels in the system of the woman by the pathologist.  After researching and reading some case studies, I found the medication produced some behavioural side effects including a distorted view of reality which was mentioned and described by her friends and husband in their statements.   

The second and most significant finding was that the woman was a bit of a prankster and had always threatened to go to an overpass situated on the highway which was visible to one of her best friends if she sat on the back deck of her house and ‘moon’ her.  The particular part of the overpass which was visible was across the highway, on the opposite side to the suburb where they both lived.  Immediately prior to the incident the woman’s best friend told me she had received a phone call from the woman asking if she were on her back deck, which her friend had said she was.  The friend had told me that the phone was still open and she heard a loud sound getting closer and then the phone call stopped. 

My conclusion to the Coroner was that the incident was the result of misadventure and not suicide, with the distinct possibility that the medication along with the alcohol she had consumed on the night had an effect on her judgement, perception and reaction.    

What I found was that the incident was treated as a ‘text book suicide’ from the moment the incident site was attended and a short version obtained from the truck driver only.  I don’t believe things are ‘text book’, no two things are ever the same in incidents that appear similar on the surface. I think as an investigator - and in the reported case in Melbourne, a rescuer, needs to take everything into account and then discount it only after an assessment has been made.       

Theresa