More Than a Mugshot: Giving Eva Her Story Back 100 Years Later

Under the Southern Cross: Lives and Crimes in Historic Australia.

One of my passions is Australian criminal history — from the convict era through to the mid‑20th century. In my archival research, I recently stumbled across a truly tragic case from 1931 that I will be investigating further. It will likely require multiple Freedom of Information and archival retrieval requests — so the full story will take some time to put together.

What first caught my eye were the names: two entries, same surname. I clicked on the first one.

A young man, just 21, stared back at me from almost a century in the past. There was a smugness about him — the faint curl of a smirk at the corner of his mouth. I scrolled to the “charge” section: incest.

I clicked on the next name down. This time, I was met with the image of a barely 19‑year‑old girl. The contrast was stark: she looked empty, resigned, tired. Her charge? Permitting incest.

At first, I was puzzled by the difference in wording — though I had a fair idea what was being implied. Further research confirmed my suspicions. The charge of “permitting incest” was often laid against adolescent or adult women who, in the eyes of the authorities at the time, were “capable” of resisting but did not sufficiently do so. In other words: she was raped by her older brother, but because she did not — or perhaps could not — fight back enough, she was deemed culpable.¹

It’s a line of reasoning disturbingly familiar, even today, nearly a century later.

Arthur Wilson’s Charge Sheet. Source: Tasmania Archives

Eva Wilson’s Charge Sheet

I turned to Trove to see whether any newspapers had covered the pair. I found four articles, each revealing more — and deepening my sadness and anger.

The brother and sister were tried together. The defence lawyer argued they were both “dull of wit” and unaware of the seriousness of their actions. Then, testimony was read in support of Arthur’s character: he was a good fellow, attended Sunday school, came from a “respectable” family. No such glowing defence was read for Eva.²

Arthur, the court decided, had faced his trial day and that in itself was punishment enough. He went home with little more than a warning. But Eva?

One detail stands out if you read between the lines: Eva was said to be “willing” to place herself in the care of the Salvation Army’s Lansdowne Crescent Institution — also known as Elim. Why would she need to do this? Why was she not also sent home, warned, and left to get on with her life?

Elim began as a “rescue home,” housing young women deemed to have transgressed the sexual morals of the day. Many were pregnant; over time, the home became a maternity hospital for single mothers, though it also kept its original purpose. Girls and women were placed there by parents, police, courts, and the Mental Deficiency Board. Some stayed only briefly; others lived out the rest of their days within its walls. In certain cases, the Matron became their legal guardian.³

Salvation Army Lansdowne Crescent Institution — described as a “house of horrors”

This raises unsettling questions. Was Eva pregnant? She wears a thick, heavy coat in her mugshot in the middle of the Australian summer. Is this to hide an unfavourable condition? Is that how the incest came to light? Was her admission to Elim part of the sentence, or an indefinite removal from her family? Did she ever return home? What became of Arthur?

And what of the family’s “respectable” status? Was it genuine community standing — or just a protective shield for a young man whose crime was far more serious than the law cared to admit at the time?

For now, I don’t know the answers. But I intend to find out — and when I do, I will share Eva’s story. Her voice deserves to be heard, even if she has had to wait almost a hundred years for that to happen.

If you like my writing and what I do, please consider giving it a like, restack or comment. If you LOVE my writing and want to be notified when I publish more - hit the subscribe button :)

SOURCES

1. Kim Stevenson, “These are cases which it is inadvisable to drag into the light of day”: Disinterring the Crime of Incest in Early Twentieth-Century England”, Crime, Histoire & Sociétés / Crime, History & Societies [Online], Vol. 20, n°2 | 2016, Online since 01 December 2018, connection on 30 April 2019. URL : http://journals.openedition.org/chs/1669 ; DOI : 10.4000/chs.1669

2. The Mercury. Crime of Incest, 7th Jan 1931 - page 9. Digital scan accessed on 9th August 2025 via Trove, www.trove.nla.gov.au

3. Find and Connect. Elim Maternity Hospital. Accessed 9th August 2025 via www.findandconnect.gov.au.