Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Murder of Julia Wallace (1931) - Full DPP case files

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by moste View Post

    What’s this? Associated with Anfield ?
    There were many robberies in Anfield as we know, but none of them received press. But Liverpool gangs were hitting up districts all over Merseyside (and even other cities like London and Manchester). The particular one I mentioned hit Allerton, Southport, Wallasey, Wavertree. These did receive press coverage.

    And so did their brutal attacks on 70+ year old women in broad daylight on the streets to mug them of their purses. One woman was found barely conscious by a responding officer due to the brutality of the attack, with severe head injuries. She was probably nearly killed herself.

    And just in general, if you check around crime in the 30s in the newspaper archives, you'll find a lot of "overkill" and a lot of violence. A lot of "head cavings" by burglars who said they killed them so they couldn't give a description to police. Even one I found of a woman found, like Julia, in her own home with her head caved in but I think that was London.

    I used to think "well if a burglar is discovered and he doesn't know her, he'll just flee!" but then after seeing just how disgracefully vicious the criminals then were - well I started to think maybe a discovered burglar would just beat her senseless anyway. I mean these are BADDDDDD people. People think Gordon Parry is a badboy LOL, they haven't seen anything.
    Last edited by WallaceWackedHer; 02-15-2020, 11:20 PM.

    Comment


    • Also another contemporary fact for you all which you might not know:

      Much older men (as in 50+) would often collaborate with very young housebreaking gangs (youths who were say, 16, 17, 18, usually).

      These older men were termed by police as "receivers", and their role would be to purchase the merchandise the youths stole at a lowball price. You would be arrested and taken to court if you were suspected of being a "receiver", and it was even possible to see jail time for this crime.

      Now...

      I have verified Tom Slemen's claim that Johnston had a work colleague living at 30 Menlove Gardens (Dan Roberts). He got it slightly wrong, because he said Menlove Gardens West... Actually it was 30 Menlove Gardens SOUTH. The man's full name was Daniel Eric Roberts and he worked as a ship joiner.

      What's then interesting...

      Is that we have a home burgled just 4 doors down from Johnston's Menlove Gardens South friend, and a home burgled just 6 doors down from Johnston's own home in Wolverton Street, all within MERE DAYS of each other in December 1930... Those addresses being 38 Menlove Gardens South, and 19 Wolverton Street, respectively.

      Something to think about...

      Furthermore...

      Of the housebreakers mentioned Stonehouse, King, and Hughes were all labourers. I can go on FindMyPast now and see if they were dock labourers, because that would be interesting if so wouldn't it... I know Stonehouse had worked as a ship steward before but lost the job (because he was an utter scumbag of a human being, of course). His father was in the Navy.
      Last edited by WallaceWackedHer; 02-15-2020, 11:32 PM.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by WallaceWackedHer View Post

        Yeah I thought that, but had to make serious amendments to my thoughts after reading old newspapers. Would you change your mind if I showed you a bunch of horrifically brutal blunt force attacks carried out by burglars at the time?

        I like the idea of her investigating a sound in the dark parlour. But evidence supports her knowingly being in there with someone.
        No, I don’t really want to see further massive blood shed, I can’t see the evidence for her willingly entertaining anyone, pure supposition in my opinion.

        Comment


        • Of the housebreakers and associates who burgled Menlove Gardens South in December 1930 here's what I've got.

          Keep in mind this is the 1939 Census. So they are older by this point so may be in a different line of work. How unfortunate they weren't of working age in 1911 or they'd have been on the 1911 Census which would have been more relevant IMO.

          Anyway 1939:

          James Herbert King: "Kitchen Porter Work Merchant Navy"

          John James Hughes: "Wharf Labourer Dock (Heavy Worker)"

          Kenneth Stonehouse: "General Labourer Hw"

          Now consider this okay because now this is just one of my typical wild theories...

          But okay we know older men worked with young gangs, like that's a real thing that happened often and it was punishable by jail time, they played a specific role.

          Johnston worked down at the docks. His friend, ship joiner Daniel Eric Roberts lived at 30 Menlove Gardens South... Now, let's just say, hypothetically, these two were among the old men who at the time would work with the youth housebreaking gangs.

          We see John James Hughes is a dock labourer, he might be known to them. And by the way, incidentally, he's one of the men who actually broke into Menlove Gardens South, and one of the ones who was out on bail during the "one final spree".

          So let's say 38 Menlove Gardens South was robbed BECAUSE Dan Roberts suggested it, and 19 Wolverton Street robbed BECAUSE Johnston suggested it.

          NOW... If this is the case. What if Johnston's "confessed" cat tale really is kinda true, as in, they did take the cat (maybe to hand over to someone so they could gain entry into the home).

          IF this is the case, Johnston has a key for that door. He could have given it over to someone to use to get in the back, and handed over the cat to a man to get them admitted in the front of the house.

          Just saying.................

          I think this is one of my better weirdo rambling theories that I've come up with. Like I think at least some consideration of the possibility is warranted.

          Comment


          • The police force was suffering from lack of manpower and there was a healthy slice of corruption .However, the population was peaking at around 850,000 in 1931, and although people were concerned about the level of crime , and home burglary’s were on the rise , it’s very easy to get carried away, with stories we read from that era. The largest percentage of home break-ins were conducted by young males working alone , or if two ,one as a look out. Majority would not be carrying a weapon, and more importantly would only attempt targeting a house that they felt fairly sure no one was at home . Once inside stealth was paramount , and if for example a sound was heard say from upstairs, they would be away like greased lightening. Being caught in the act was a rarity, and would almost always result in the intruder forcing himself past the homeowner possibly barging that person out of the way in pure desperation. Criminals carrying a gun, knife, or iron bar, would be unusual in a home burglary, and the use of a weapon like these would be a very last resort. The object of the exercise was always to trespass, steal any valuables as quickly as possible, and vacate within minutes .
            I grew up in Sth. Manchester, Lived in the council house of my birth in 1947 till ,’ 68. In the 50s our gas meter coin box was broken open on two occasions , lump hammer and steel cold chisel used in both instances to smash off the padlock , and emptied of its few shillings .
            The scum bag had done a few in the area and was eventually caught ‘red handed’ The mallet type hammer was considered a tool of his trade. not a weapon. My point I guess is , a burglar is very rarely a killer, and this is one good reason to look at the Wallace affair with suspicion.

            Comment


            • Quote....So let's say 38 Menlove Gardens South was robbed BECAUSE Dan Roberts suggested it, and 19 Wolverton Street robbed BECAUSE Johnston suggested it.

              Was anyone killed or otherwise attacked during these two break-ins do you know?

              Comment


              • Originally posted by moste View Post
                Quote....So let's say 38 Menlove Gardens South was robbed BECAUSE Dan Roberts suggested it, and 19 Wolverton Street robbed BECAUSE Johnston suggested it.

                Was anyone killed or otherwise attacked during these two break-ins do you know?
                Not at #19. And I think not at 38 MGS but I'm not sure.

                Their intention is not to go into homes and murder people. Of course if this is a burglary it's as termed a "robbery gone wrong". They did bring weapons sometimes - I'm mostly going in on one particular gang based on a few facts that match up well with them having involvement in this. Then again, some robberies these people committed did involve beating elderly women to near-death as I said.

                It's also unusual in this crime in the sense that a person was still in the house.

                But what we are told of the Wallaces is that if both went out, AKA there were no occupants, EVERY PENNY in the home would be taken with them.

                INCLUDING the insurance money, which is evidently what was targeted. So you could not rob that money if nobody was home. Beyond that:

                The two were reclusive in any case.

                And due to the collection schedule etc. there's a very specific ideal time to strike.

                The setup and outcome of this crime is different from others. It doesn't mean anything. I can show many burglaries from the era that did go wrong or end in murder even though the same person had burgled before and not killed anybody.

                It's not really noteworthy. It might be an unusual robbery, but say it's a murder, how many murders do you know where the guy has telephoned himself with a fake address and all the other weird details? No matter how you spin it, this is far from a usual case.

                Figuring out exactly how the murder played out and, also, in MY bizarre opinion wtf happened to the cat, are important things to figure out.
                Last edited by WallaceWackedHer; 02-16-2020, 05:08 AM.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by WallaceWackedHer View Post

                  Not at #19. And I think not at 38 MGS but I'm not sure.

                  Their intention is not to go into homes and murder people. Of course if this is a burglary it's as termed a "robbery gone wrong". They did bring weapons sometimes - I'm mostly going in on one particular gang based on a few facts that match up well with them having involvement in this. Then again, some robberies these people committed did involve beating elderly women to near-death as I said.

                  It's also unusual in this crime in the sense that a person was still in the house.

                  But what we are told of the Wallaces is that if both went out, AKA there were no occupants, EVERY PENNY in the home would be taken with them.

                  INCLUDING the insurance money, which is evidently what was targeted. So you could not rob that money if nobody was home. Beyond that:

                  The two were reclusive in any case.

                  And due to the collection schedule etc. there's a very specific ideal time to strike.

                  The setup and outcome of this crime is different from others. It doesn't mean anything. I can show many burglaries from the era that did go wrong or end in murder even though the same person had burgled before and not killed anybody.

                  It's not really noteworthy. It might be an unusual robbery, but say it's a murder, how many murders do you know where the guy has telephoned himself with a fake address and all the other weird details? No matter how you spin it, this is far from a usual case.

                  Figuring out exactly how the murder played out and, also, in MY bizarre opinion wtf happened to the cat, are important things to figure out.
                  Wallace was reclusive? Was he?

                  Comment


                  • An issue for the Housebreaker argument is of course that if someone had broken in, expecting the house to have been empty, they would hardly have been likely to have put the cash box back on the shelf. And as with any theory involving robbery we have to ask why no search was made? I’ll paraphrase the old saying “if it doesn’t walk like a robbery and it doesn’t look like a robbery then it probably isn’t a robbery.”
                    Regards

                    Herlock




                    “ Herlock is the cleverest man that I’ve ever met.” - Stephen Hawking.
                    “ I wish that I could have achieved half as much as Herlock.”- Neil Armstrong.
                    “ What a voice Herlock has.” - Luciano Pavarotti.
                    “ I wish that I could dump Harry for Herlock.” - Meghan Markle.
                    “ I know that it’s not good to be jealous but I just can’t help it.” - John Holmes.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by moste View Post

                      Wallace was reclusive? Was he?
                      As much as Julia, yes. They were described as extremely reserved. In an old book, it mentions Wallace and Julia went to a Prudential work party and the two were very introverted and reserved, didn't speak to anybody.

                      Wallace has his chess club, occasional chemistry lectures... That's about it for his social life unless violin lessons are social events.

                      The two did have SOME friends but yeah.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by moste View Post

                        Wallace was reclusive? Was he?
                        He spent 6 days a week meeting hundreds of people. He had previous lectured at the Liverpool Technical College, he had chess club, a small circle of friends, visits to Amy and Calderstones Park. Granted he wasn’t Ozzy Osbourne.but reclusive is a bit much. I don’t think that WWH actually means that he/they hardly went out. I’d say that it would be more accurate to say that they simply had a very small circle of friends and that they were both quiet and reserved.
                        Regards

                        Herlock




                        “ Herlock is the cleverest man that I’ve ever met.” - Stephen Hawking.
                        “ I wish that I could have achieved half as much as Herlock.”- Neil Armstrong.
                        “ What a voice Herlock has.” - Luciano Pavarotti.
                        “ I wish that I could dump Harry for Herlock.” - Meghan Markle.
                        “ I know that it’s not good to be jealous but I just can’t help it.” - John Holmes.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
                          An issue for the Housebreaker argument is of course that if someone had broken in, expecting the house to have been empty, they would hardly have been likely to have put the cash box back on the shelf. And as with any theory involving robbery we have to ask why no search was made? I’ll paraphrase the old saying “if it doesn’t walk like a robbery and it doesn’t look like a robbery then it probably isn’t a robbery.”
                          They didn't expect it to be empty IMO. Someone well acquainted with the Wallaces (such as Parry) suggested robbing the Prudential money. He was deemed a "family friend" by Wallace, and in John Bull Wallace (without giving Parry's name) says he trusted him.

                          You can't rob the Wallace house if it's unoccupied or there won't be any money in there, and that insurance money is what they're after.

                          They knew Julia was in there hence someone kept her occupied in the front room so the living kitchen where the cash box was kept was empty and thus the person who entered the back could rob it and leave.

                          Not much was taken because Julia's death halted the robbery. I actually think they probably wouldn't have taken things out of the house with them necessarily- and if they did they'd have dropped the items down grids within minutes.

                          I can show you this exact gang incinerated money when they thought they might get caught (weird because money isn't identifiable? Lol. But they did this and I can prove it). Maybe they burned it in the house. Maybe some stuff they were going to take was put back somewhere in the house or flushed or lord knows what.

                          Coins were on the floor, presumably from the cash box.

                          Once Julia is dead they don't care about robbing the place, they care about getting away with murder - and IMO there's three people in the house. I wrote two because it's easier to accept and the three is a pure hunch. It doesn't help explain anything better I just think it's the case LOL. Prior robberies with this gang had them break into properties very often in groups of three.


                          Anne Parsons did see TWO men running very fast, which implies two. But Johnstons statement about the thuds and Wallace's suspicion someone was in the home suggest maybe those two had ran away (the gang often used "lookouts", maybe it was the lookouts), and others had remained in the house ensuring they have left nothing incriminating, possibly disposing of bank notes etc.

                          Wallace thought there were four notes in the upstairs pot. There were 5, one stained with blood. Now the generally accepted idea is an officer placed the blood smear on the note there and there's good reason to believe this - as the officers on the scene never noticed that smear just the police analyst after the fact...

                          However what if someone was up there when Wallace knockes and hastily shoved a bill in there?
                          Last edited by WallaceWackedHer; 02-16-2020, 10:41 AM.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                            He spent 6 days a week meeting hundreds of people. He had previous lectured at the Liverpool Technical College, he had chess club, a small circle of friends, visits to Amy and Calderstones Park. Granted he wasn’t Ozzy Osbourne.but reclusive is a bit much. I don’t think that WWH actually means that he/they hardly went out. I’d say that it would be more accurate to say that they simply had a very small circle of friends and that they were both quiet and reserved.
                            Btw would you mind if I used your theory from Antony's site and added it to my own? With credit. I can use your real name, initials, username whatever you prefer.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                              He spent 6 days a week meeting hundreds of people. He had previous lectured at the Liverpool Technical College, he had chess club, a small circle of friends, visits to Amy and Calderstones Park. Granted he wasn’t Ozzy Osbourne.but reclusive is a bit much. I don’t think that WWH actually means that he/they hardly went out. I’d say that it would be more accurate to say that they simply had a very small circle of friends and that they were both quiet and reserved.
                              Correct ,If a salesman was a reclusive he couldn’t be a salesman.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by WallaceWackedHer View Post

                                Btw would you mind if I used your theory from Antony's site and added it to my own? With credit. I can use your real name, initials, username whatever you prefer.
                                Hey wwh. Have you noticed if you touch on a posters name, you can send a private message? Just trying to be helpful.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X