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

[moste]

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.

[WallaceWackedHer]

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.

[moste]

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.

[WallaceWackedHer]

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.

[WallaceWackedHer]

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.

[moste]

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.

What’s this? Associated with Anfield ?

[WallaceWackedHer]

Consider though, a disturbed burglar, taken by surprise by Julia ( maybe upstairs, she heard commotion down stairs perhaps believing it to be William home again) ,intruder has moved into the parlour still not aware of another presence in the house .Julia confronts him in there, game over! Now , a burglar that is not recognized I would submit only smacks her to the ground and takes off. On the other hand a local guy that she instantly recognizes is now in deep ‘doo doos’ and knows if he doesn’t finish her off ,is going down for a long time.
But no! I can’t accept that this was not a personal attack , the perpetrator of this killing was experiencing severe malice. Along with my view of a blunt instrument not necessarily opening a bloody wound with the first blow, I would only add, to smash the skull open shattering bone ,and spewing blood such a distance ,as the statement alludes ,required immense force, and probably more than 4 or 5 strikes . This whole scene stinks of Vendetta, in my opinion.

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.

[moste]

The frenzy myth needs to end though.

First of all MANY burglars who killed practiced "overkill" to avoid the witness regaining consciousness to give a testimony then dying and a charge of murder being delivered.

Second of all, McFall originally said 3 blows. If he says 3 to 12, the margin is so wide as to be completely unreliable.

The amount of strikes does not show it's William. And fuether if William wanted to smash her head in anyway, but wants to get away blood free, the less hits the better.

Consider though, a disturbed burglar, taken by surprise by Julia ( maybe upstairs, she heard commotion down stairs perhaps believing it to be William home again) ,intruder has moved into the parlour still not aware of another presence in the house .Julia confronts him in there, game over! Now , a burglar that is not recognized I would submit only smacks her to the ground and takes off. On the other hand a local guy that she instantly recognizes is now in deep ‘doo doos’ and knows if he doesn’t finish her off ,is going down for a long time.
But no! I can’t accept that this was not a personal attack , the perpetrator of this killing was experiencing severe malice. Along with my view of a blunt instrument not necessarily opening a bloody wound with the first blow, I would only add, to smash the skull open shattering bone ,and spewing blood such a distance ,as the statement alludes ,required immense force, and probably more than 4 or 5 strikes . This whole scene stinks of Vendetta, in my opinion.

[WallaceWackedHer]

I’ve just started the Rowland book. Just a pretty bog standard intro of course but it has served to remind me of the comments that William made after hearing Ibsen's play The Master Builder

“......This is a fine thing and shows clearly how a man may build up a fine career, and, as the world has it, be a great success, and yet in his own mind feel that he has been an utter failure, and how ghastly a mistake he has made to sacrifice to love, and the deeper comforts of life, in order to achieve success. Curious that Julia did not appreciate this play! I feel sure she did not grasp the inner significance and real meaning of the play.”

He asking why his wife didn’t appreciate or understand the message of a play about a man who mistakenly sacrifices a possible successful career for domesticity. What ‘inner significance?’ Who might he be describing?

Ironically it's the literal opposite.

It's about how the guy (the builder) sacrifices love etc. to have this super successful career and despite being so successful is still unhappy because love is way more important. Well - not only love but everything in life.

You can watch the play on YouTube, and also this page is quite good:

https://www.encyclopedia.com/arts/ed...ster-builder#D

The quote is "to sacrifice love" not "to sacrifice TO love". Wallace obviously doesn't care about being a success anyway so it makes sense he'd see it this way. He might have cared in Malaya, but now he's too sick to be successful like Joseph back in England he keeps the exact same position with the Pru for a decade without a promotion.

While enjoying botany, nature, philosophical musings over the meaning of existence etc.

What's also ironic is that in this play the builder says he feels he's "chained to a corpse" in his elderly wife. So he gets a new young girl, and it's this that leads to him falling from a tower to his death.

Wallace admonishing the titular character seems to suggest he himself is the exact OPPOSITE type of person.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I’ve just started the Rowland book. Just a pretty bog standard intro of course but it has served to remind me of the comments that William made after hearing Ibsen's play The Master Builder

“......This is a fine thing and shows clearly how a man may build up a fine career, and, as the world has it, be a great success, and yet in his own mind feel that he has been an utter failure, and how ghastly a mistake he has made to sacrifice to love, and the deeper comforts of life, in order to achieve success. Curious that Julia did not appreciate this play! I feel sure she did not grasp the inner significance and real meaning of the play.”

He asking why his wife didn’t appreciate or understand the message of a play about a man who mistakenly sacrifices a possible successful career for domesticity. What ‘inner significance?’ Who might he be describing?

[Herlock Sholmes]

I received my two books today in double quick time. The Lustgarten is a modern reprint and the Rowland is in close to mint condition. I’m just about to start it but I’ve just checked the photo plates. The one of the phone box is obviously just a more modern box transposed on to the spot (which I’m giving him the benefit of saying is the correct location) The iron railings are missing though which obviously could have occurred in the 18 years between crime and book.

In the preface he mentions discussing the case with Mr Waveney Girvan who, from looking online, must have been Ian Waverley Girvan who was an interesting character but it has no bearing on the case.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I love The Hound Of The Baskervilles so perhaps you could write The Cat Of The Wallace’s.

[WallaceWackedHer]

He also mentions ten wounds earlier in the report.

Yes he does. I see that now.

I am quite diehard on the cat. I've posted the entire case on loads of threads online and aside from me there have only been two other people who read the case facts and said "wait wtf, the cat went missing then turned up the night she died?"

It's obviously not something that many people find important. But myself and like a few others, that just strikes us as a totalllll "wtf" occurrence. Well, for me mainly because of the "confession" - irrespective of whether Johnston is the one who said it or not.

But on the murder story I wrote on my site (the crime retelling not the solution), someone picked up on that one sentence where I said the cat was gone.

Obv it's something a very tiny minority of people see and attach great importance to.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I was just thinking.......

If the fire is already on (in order for it to get hot so as to burn the things as it did), then what exactly is Julia doing down there? We have already given some possibilities... What about another, she's stooping down to the cat which has indeed been used to help a stranger gain entry (albeit I don't think it's necessary as a scheme to get in).

You and that bloody cat

[Herlock Sholmes]

I have the actual images of the autopsy report, I have no idea why I have not uploaded this on my site. Here it is:



The final sentence on the second page is where the three to four times is mentioned.

Yes it may be that the three to four he estimated would have killed her... But we must remember he contradicted this. On trial he said the very first strike killed her IIRC.

Also he drastically changed his time of death estimate, so that would seem to fit with him being the type of person to just dramatically change opinions on things.

He also mentions ten wounds earlier in the report.