Bruce Reynolds
Discussion
Great train robber Bruce Reynolds has died. I know there won't be any sympathy on here but I always had a grudging respect for Reynolds. He planned the robbery meticulously and apart from the fact that "Alf" froze and couldn't drive the train which led to Jack Mills getting coshed it went off to plan. Bruce insisted on "no shooters" and the intention was that nobody would get hurt. 2.6 million quid in 1963 is worth about 40 million today.
His memoirs, "autobiography of a thief" were an interesting read.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21617926
His memoirs, "autobiography of a thief" were an interesting read.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21617926
unrepentant said:
Great train robber Bruce Reynolds has died. I know there won't be any sympathy on here but I always had a grudging respect for Reynolds. He planned the robbery meticulously and apart from the fact that "Alf" froze and couldn't drive the train which led to Jack Mills getting coshed it went off to plan. Bruce insisted on "no shooters" and the intention was that nobody would get hurt. 2.6 million quid in 1963 is worth about 40 million today.
His memoirs, "autobiography of a thief" were an interesting read.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21617926
It didn't lead to Jack Mills being coshed, he was hit by robbers who had little concern for anything other than their greed. Greed was the only thing that led to his death. The driver's injuries were a substantial cause of his death.His memoirs, "autobiography of a thief" were an interesting read.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21617926
Further, there is a significant doubt that Reynolds was indeed the brains behind the robbery. There were funding crimes in London that he could not have organised. There was a Mr Big, one who left the choice of staff to Reynolds and he didn't check that the engine driver could drive the engine.
Further, there was little or no post robbery planning, which is what led to the capture of most of the robbers.
Mr Big got away with it, of that there can be little doubt. What money wasn't reclaimed was put through a few bank accounts and once Mr Big was in the clear he went on something of a buying spree.
Far from respect for Reynolds, his ineptness nearly destroyed the carefully planned robbery. His poor choice of robbers and lack of control over them meant that they reverted to thuggery as soon as things did not go their way.
beezer said:
RBS Directors steal £5.2billion of taxpayers cash and get a bonus for doing it - strange old world 50 years on 
You have to put it in context I guess. The train robbers got 30 years which was outrageous and totally disproportionate. But the robbery happened 2 months after Profumo and the establishment was reeling. They saw it as a direct attack on them and pressure was brought upon the judge to hand down swingeing sentences. Even Bill Boal got sentenced to 24 years and died in jail and he had nothing whatsoever to do with the train gang.unrepentant said:
You have to put it in context I guess. The train robbers got 30 years which was outrageous and totally disproportionate. But the robbery happened 2 months after Profumo and the establishment was reeling. They saw it as a direct attack on them and pressure was brought upon the judge to hand down swingeing sentences. Even Bill Boal got sentenced to 24 years and died in jail and he had nothing whatsoever to do with the train gang.
And what would robbers get nowadays for a £5.3 billion take? They also attacked the railway. That was a major aggravating factor, together with the risk to other trains, given the systems in use in those days there was a significant threat of a train crash. On top of that they critically injured a man. And just to make things worse, these were habitual criminals, some just out of prison, for whom jail was just something they had to put up with until their next crime. So the country needed protecting from them.
One wonders why they did not appeal their sentence if it was so over the top.
And, something that the judge can take into account, the public feeling was one of outrage.
The fact that they were incompetent is not a mitigating factor.
I think the book would be thrown at them nowadays. However, sentencing guidelines have changed, and quite considerably so, so they would not get 30 years. Given sentencing in those days, 30 years was more or less right. There is no need to suggest that there was some tin-foil-hat conspiracy.
Derek Smith said:
It didn't lead to Jack Mills being coshed, he was hit by robbers who had little concern for anything other than their greed. Greed was the only thing that led to his death. The driver's injuries were a substantial cause of his death.
Further, there is a significant doubt that Reynolds was indeed the brains behind the robbery. There were funding crimes in London that he could not have organised. There was a Mr Big, one who left the choice of staff to Reynolds and he didn't check that the engine driver could drive the engine.
The robbers themselves suggested to Piers Paul Read that Otto Skorzeny had been behind the planning of the robbery but Read dismissed that notion and Reynolds and Edwards later confessed that they had made that up to sell more copies of the book. The original idea and the inside knowledge came from an unnamed source (the "Ulsterman"). You were in the job so I'll obviously bow to your superior knowledge but everything I have read (and I've read just about everything having lived near Leatherslade farm for a while and having been fascinated by the subject) suggests that Reynolds was the leader and chief planner.Further, there is a significant doubt that Reynolds was indeed the brains behind the robbery. There were funding crimes in London that he could not have organised. There was a Mr Big, one who left the choice of staff to Reynolds and he didn't check that the engine driver could drive the engine.
It's a matter of some dispute as to whether Mills injuries were a "substantial cause of his death". Having said that his coshing by Edwards was a stupid and unnecessary act and certainly will not have done his health any good.
An irony is that Biggs became the most well known of the robbers due to his escape and life in Brazil but he was a minor character whose only role was to supply a driver, who then couldn't drive the train!
Derek Smith said:
And what would robbers get nowadays for a £5.3 billion take?
They also attacked the railway. That was a major aggravating factor, together with the risk to other trains, given the systems in use in those days there was a significant threat of a train crash. On top of that they critically injured a man. And just to make things worse, these were habitual criminals, some just out of prison, for whom jail was just something they had to put up with until their next crime. So the country needed protecting from them.
One wonders why they did not appeal their sentence if it was so over the top.
And, something that the judge can take into account, the public feeling was one of outrage.
5.3 billion? That's a bit of a stretch Derek! They also attacked the railway. That was a major aggravating factor, together with the risk to other trains, given the systems in use in those days there was a significant threat of a train crash. On top of that they critically injured a man. And just to make things worse, these were habitual criminals, some just out of prison, for whom jail was just something they had to put up with until their next crime. So the country needed protecting from them.
One wonders why they did not appeal their sentence if it was so over the top.
And, something that the judge can take into account, the public feeling was one of outrage.
There was no danger of a train crash as the signals were tripped to red due to the train being in that sector of the track.
Public outrage? I think you will find that, to the contrary, there was establishment outrage due to the fact that the robbers were portrayed as latter day robin hoods by the press and were generally admired by the man on the Claphma omnibus at the time.
That the sentences were over the top is underlined by the fact that when Buster Edwards ( a key member of the gang who escaped) was finally captured in 1966 he was given only a 15 year sentence.
I met him a few months back. He was just a frail, quietly spoken and slightly bewildered old man.
Whatever he may or may not have masterminded 'back in the day', he did serve 10 years inside and I wouldn't say he deserves some of the bile being directed at him.
Some of the stomach churning crimes and ridiculous sentences of today put things into context for me.
Whatever he may or may not have masterminded 'back in the day', he did serve 10 years inside and I wouldn't say he deserves some of the bile being directed at him.
Some of the stomach churning crimes and ridiculous sentences of today put things into context for me.
unrepentant said:
The robbers themselves suggested to Piers Paul Read that Otto Skorzeny had been behind the planning of the robbery but Read dismissed that notion and Reynolds and Edwards later confessed that they had made that up to sell more copies of the book. The original idea and the inside knowledge came from an unnamed source (the "Ulsterman"). You were in the job so I'll obviously bow to your superior knowledge but everything I have read (and I've read just about everything having lived near Leatherslade farm for a while and having been fascinated by the subject) suggests that Reynolds was the leader and chief planner.
It's a matter of some dispute as to whether Mills injuries were a "substantial cause of his death". Having said that his coshing by Edwards was a stupid and unnecessary act and certainly will not have done his health any good.
An irony is that Biggs became the most well known of the robbers due to his escape and life in Brazil but he was a minor character whose only role was to supply a driver, who then couldn't drive the train!
There were a series of 'funding' raids in and around the City in the build up to the GTR. In one the thieves stole the City area car, Alpha 7. It was alright though as we got its index number. Reynolds would have been unable to plan some of them. This tends to suggest that someone else was pulling the strings.It's a matter of some dispute as to whether Mills injuries were a "substantial cause of his death". Having said that his coshing by Edwards was a stupid and unnecessary act and certainly will not have done his health any good.
An irony is that Biggs became the most well known of the robbers due to his escape and life in Brazil but he was a minor character whose only role was to supply a driver, who then couldn't drive the train!
There is a considerable number of myths surrounding the robbery but it would appear that the funding raids were organised locally and by someone with a bit of sense. For the GTR it would appear that this person believed the connections he had, i.e. with the police and judiciary, would be insufficient to shield him and he would have been aware that this might well lead to him being put away.
There was a lot of cooperation from other east end villains with regards information after the offence but it would seem that counter intelligence was organised as well. The amount of duff info was not so much a problem, as the thieves had left enough forensic to put themselves away, but did give rise to fantastic stories.
There were some fantastic coincidences, one in particular that seemed to make a lot of sense.
However, what convinced me about Reynolds was the comments from CID officers who were less than straight. There were some who knew everything that was going on in and around the east end (although they didn't use this info to capture anyone) and they were dismissive of Reynolds. I've got to say that despite them being pathologically dishonest, I believe them. If there was no money involved they would not make the effort to lie.
One name that kept coming up was someone who went on to be big in television. However, even then the suggestion was that he was merely connected with the organisation and not the one at the top. More a second lieutenant with a specific role. Again there were remarkable coincidences, some geographical, some of friendships, others of his post-incident behaviour, but it was a bit fantastical. Mind you, coincidences on coincidences are persuasive.
Reynolds wanted to sell his book and also had a considerable conceit. It is unlikely, I think, that the real Mr Big will step forward. I assume he is happy for Reynolds to claim the accolade.
My understanding is that there is dispute only insofar as how much the rather vicious and unnecessary attack on the driver contributed to his death. Certainly he never regained his full health after being beaten.
I read a book on the Babes in the Wood murders. It was meticulously researched with references and long words. It showed the errors in the police case (including using CID officers to drive a route to see what time it would have taken rather than using traffic officers - the logic was remarkable). Publication came, ufortunately, just after the bloke who got off the BitW murder was convicted of a copycat second offence.
Every true crime report, every newspaper expose, and every judicial inquiry that I have read where I have some inside knowledge of the circs, or have known people who were directly involved, sometimes both, have had massive factual errors, some quite laughable. If those are so remarkably, or rather unremarkably after the first few, wrong in essential, and often easily remedied, facts then I see no reason to think that Reynolds' ghost writer would not invent a few circs just to keep the story ticking over. And I feel certain Reynolds wouldn't give a damn.
In a well-known and oft-quoted report which showed the dark side of the police, a WDC's career was nearly ruined after she was quoted and named in the report as failing in her duty. The odd thing is that she was never interviewed, so the quotes were false, lies in fact, and if she had been she would have been able to point out the circumstances that were reported by relatives of the victims were also false.
No one could, of course, challenge the report. But not only that, she had her promotion delayed despite her senior officers knowing that what was said was wrong. But she'd been named and it would have been politically inexpedient to challenge the details.
You can't believe anything your read, not even this.
So I'll go with what the old boys said, and will remain quite confident of their honesty.
beezer said:
RBS Directors steal £5.2billion of taxpayers cash and get a bonus for doing it - strange old world 50 years on
PH poster fails to understand tax payers money and contract law. Same s
t, different day On the note of Bruce I do admire his balls in planning such a feat, but at the end of the day it is still just a grander scale of stealing someones purse/wallet.
elster said:
beezer said:
RBS Directors steal £5.2billion of taxpayers cash and get a bonus for doing it - strange old world 50 years on
PH poster fails to understand tax payers money and contract law. Same st, different day On the note of Bruce I do admire his balls in planning such a feat, but at the end of the day it is still just a grander scale of stealing someones purse/wallet.
Derek Smith said:
There were a series of 'funding' raids in and around the City in the build up to the GTR. In one the thieves stole the City area car, Alpha 7. It was alright though as we got its index number. Reynolds would have been unable to plan some of them. This tends to suggest that someone else was pulling the strings.
There is a considerable number of myths surrounding the robbery but it would appear that the funding raids were organised locally and by someone with a bit of sense. For the GTR it would appear that this person believed the connections he had, i.e. with the police and judiciary, would be insufficient to shield him and he would have been aware that this might well lead to him being put away.
There was a lot of cooperation from other east end villains with regards information after the offence but it would seem that counter intelligence was organised as well. The amount of duff info was not so much a problem, as the thieves had left enough forensic to put themselves away, but did give rise to fantastic stories.
Reynolds was no mug and was well connected enough to be able to get the inside scoop on the funding raids. He details the Heathrow blag and others in his book and there is no doubt that they were carried out by the train gang.There is a considerable number of myths surrounding the robbery but it would appear that the funding raids were organised locally and by someone with a bit of sense. For the GTR it would appear that this person believed the connections he had, i.e. with the police and judiciary, would be insufficient to shield him and he would have been aware that this might well lead to him being put away.
There was a lot of cooperation from other east end villains with regards information after the offence but it would seem that counter intelligence was organised as well. The amount of duff info was not so much a problem, as the thieves had left enough forensic to put themselves away, but did give rise to fantastic stories.
One thing that always puzzled me. Both the Twins and the Richardsons were very active at the time and the Twins were pretty much lording it over East End crime in the early sixties. They seem to have had no involvement in the train at all which would seem to be a bit surprising? You would have thought that they would have demanded their taste?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff