BOGUS PEPPER ATTACK

Evening Star, Issue 20555, 6 August 1930, Page 12

BOGUS PEPPER ATTACK

POSTMAN'S CLUMSY SCHEME THEFT OF VALUABLE LETTER In the hope that the prevalence of mailbag robberies would lend colour to his cunning scheme, an English postman caried out a “fake” pepper attack on himself, and then staggered into a district post office with a plausible and startling story of how he had been waylaid and deprived of a package containing a substantial sum. At first it was believed that he was telling the truth, but at length his duplicity was revealed, and he paid the penalty at the Old Bailey. The author of this astounding “frame-up,” William Arthur Lovelock, aged forty-two, postman-driver, of Knightsbridge Gardens, Romford, was charged ■with stealing a' postal _ packet containing 134 £1 notes, and inviting John MacLaughlin, another postmandriver, to steal a mail bag. • Mr Percival Clarke, prosecuting, said that Lovelock’s duty was to collect mails from various sub-post offices in the Ilford area. On March 15 he called first at High Hoad Post Office, Ilford, and took a remittance letter, which ho saw made up, containing Treasury notes amounting to £134 and a cheque for £SO. , , „ After leaving Aldborough road office, Seven Kings, Lovelock came staggering back in two minutes’ time, carrying a pouch. He appeared to bo very ill, and there were traces of pepper on his face and coat. He declared that as he was going round to his van he saw a man step off the running-board with the pouch on his shoulder, fie grabbed at the pouch and got a bag of pepper in his face. THE ARREST OF LOVELOCK. The postmaster’s daughter went outside and found near the rear wheel of the van some parcels and a bag of pepper. When the pouch was examined it was found that the letter containing the £134 was missing. Lovelock repeated his story to the police, adding that he could not give a description of his assailant as it was too dark. It was assumed at that time that Lovelock’s story was true. Ho was taken to hospital, and although pepper was found on him there was little evidence that much of it had gone into ins eyes. No trace could be found of the supposed thief, and two people present at the time stated they heard no cry and saw no attempt at robbery. The postman was told that his explanation was not satisfactory, and he was arrested. He was suspended from duty and granted bail. The stolen letter was afterwards found posted in a post office letter box. Its contents were intact. Mr Clarke submitted that there was no doubt Lovelock had contemplated robbing the mails, for he had previously suggested to John MacLaughlin that he should drive off his van while Lovelock was in a post office, dump it, and get away with the registered letters. When MacLaughlin refused to have anything to do with such a scheme. Lovelock remarked; “Well, if you haven’t got it in you, Jock, don’t give it another moment’s thought. Don’t breathe it to a soul.” Counsel suggested that as mail-bag robberies had been so prevalent, Lovelock apparently thought that that would bo taken for Another of them. ACCUSED’S STUBBORN DENIAL. In the witness-box Lovelock stuck to his story of the attack, and denied that he had committed the robbery or incited MacLaughlin. He was quite composed during a severe cross-examina-tion, and when asked by the Recorder, Sir Earnest Wild, K.C., to show how he shouted when he was attacked, he called out “Help!” in stentorian tones that rang through the court. “That seems loud enough for anyone to have heard unless he was very deaf,” commented Mr Clarke, amid laughter. The jury, without leaving the box, found Lovelock guilty of stealing the letter. The charge of inciting was allowed to remain on the file. A police inspector said that Lovelock was married and had one child. His general character was satisfactory. Ho was in the Navy as a lad, leaving in 1919. Ho had been a postman since 1924, and his wages wero £3 9s 2d a week. The judge observed that the fraud was an impudent one that might have deceived less astute officers than those concerned in the case. He sentenced Lovelock to three years’ penal servitude.