- 2 days ago
Did an Innocent Man Pay the Price? A case from the early 20th century that stunned a nation
The John Nisbet CaseJoin this channel to get access to perks:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXNVw0S9_LZHhWTr-skizhg/join
Please remember to subscribe and hit the bell icon as well as leave a like and a comment for more videos every week!
Brief Case is a True Crime Channel focusing on old or lost cases that have been forgotten to history. If you have any recommendations for future cases that you would like to bring to light, feel free to reach out to me to: briefcaseuk@gmail.com
Music by CO.AG Music - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VwZB4l43iTw&t=105s
Music by Myuu -https://www.youtube.com/user/myuuji
Music by Kevin Macleod - https://incompetech.com
The John Nisbet CaseJoin this channel to get access to perks:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXNVw0S9_LZHhWTr-skizhg/join
Please remember to subscribe and hit the bell icon as well as leave a like and a comment for more videos every week!
Brief Case is a True Crime Channel focusing on old or lost cases that have been forgotten to history. If you have any recommendations for future cases that you would like to bring to light, feel free to reach out to me to: briefcaseuk@gmail.com
Music by CO.AG Music - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VwZB4l43iTw&t=105s
Music by Myuu -https://www.youtube.com/user/myuuji
Music by Kevin Macleod - https://incompetech.com
Category
🗞
NewsTranscript
00:07Today we are looking at a case from the start of the 20th century. So sit back as we go
00:14to England.
00:17John Innes Nisbet was born in the city of Newcastle in England in 1864. After completing
00:23his education in 1882 he joined the Stobbswood Colliery Company and was given the position of a
00:29clerk. He proved reliable and capable, steadily rising through the ranks of the business and in
00:341892 he married a young lady named Cicely Elizabeth. The following year their first daughter was born
00:40and in 1897 a second daughter arrived. By the turn of the century the family lived at 180 Heaton Road
00:48which was in Heaton, one of Newcastle's growing eastern suburbs. Throughout his career John Nisbet
00:54earned a reputation for honesty and diligence and by 1910 he had spent 28 years in the employment
01:00of the Stobbswoods Colliery Company and had risen to the position of cashier. It was a role which
01:05carried considerable responsibility. Every other Friday he would go to Newcastle to obtain the
01:11wages money from Lloyds Bank before taking the cash on a train from Newcastle Central Station
01:16for payment to the men employed at the colliery. Newcastle Central Station was designed by the
01:21renowned architect John Dobson and engineer Robert Stevenson as a single station to unite the various
01:27railway lines serving the city. By 1910 the station handled thousands of passengers and served as a
01:33vital gateway for both commercial and industrial traffic. Businessmen, commercial travellers, miners
01:40and colliery officials regularly passed through its platforms while the trains carried goods, mail and
01:46passengers across Northumberland and beyond. For companies such as a Stobbswood Colliery Company it
01:51formed an essential link in the movement of the miners wages and other business transactions throughout
01:56the region. On Friday the 18th of May 1910 John once again began his journey to Newcastle where he
02:02withdrew £370.09 from Lloyds Bank and placed the money in a small locked leather bag. Following this
02:10he made his way to Newcastle Central Station to catch the 1027 train bound for Almuth. Intending to get
02:17off at the station at Woodrington, payday always brought extra activity to the station. Other
02:23colliery cashiers would make similar journeys carrying money for miners across Northumberland. Among them
02:28were Percival Harding Hall and John William Spink who worked for the Netherton Coal Company. As passengers
02:35began to board the train, Mr Hall saw Mr John Nesbitt walking along the platform with another man.
02:40The pair appeared to be searching for a smoking compartment near the front of the train and Mr Hall
02:45heard Mr Nesbitt say, we will make this one a smoker. He then saw the two men enter the compartment
02:51together shortly after the train's departure. It stopped at Heaton Station where it was Mrs Nesbitt's
02:57custom to meet her husband as the train passed through. On this day she was once again waiting for
03:02him on the platform. To her surprise however she found him seated near the front of the train.
03:07This was quite strange as he usually sat in a compartment at the back or the middle.
03:11When she saw him, she waved and Mr Nesbitt lowered the window and they were able to speak briefly to
03:17each other. Mrs Nesbitt reminded her husband not to be late home that evening because her aunt was
03:22coming to visit. He laughed and reassured her that she intended to return directly home once his work
03:28was done. As the train began to move away, Mrs Nesbitt caught a glimpse of the passenger seated opposite
03:34her husband. The compartment stood partly in the shadow of a tunnel which made observations difficult
03:39but she could see that the man wore a light coloured overcoat with a turned up collar.
03:45At 11.06 the train arrived at Stannington Station where Mr Hall and Mr Spink got off.
03:51They walked along the platform and as they did, they glanced into the compartment where Mr Nesbitt was
03:57sitting. They saw that he was seated facing the engine while talking to another man who was sitting
04:02opposite. The train soon departed and six minutes later arrived at Morpeth where a passenger wearing
04:08a loose overcoat stepped onto the platform and approached the ticket collector named John Athie.
04:13The man explained that his ticket was only valid as far as Stannington but he had forgotten to get
04:18off the train. The conversation was cordial and the man then paid the excess fare and left the station.
04:23At the same time, a man named John Grant boarded the train. He did not want to sit in a
04:29compartment by
04:29himself so walked along the platform in order to see one that had other passengers inside.
04:34As he walked past the compartment where John Nesbitt had been sitting, he noticed that it was empty.
04:39The train continued north. No passengers departed at Pegdwood and Longhurst and then the train arrived
04:45in Widrington, the station where Mr Nesbitt was supposed to depart and meet a representative from
04:51the Stobwoods Colliery Company. However, Mr Nesbitt did not get off the train. The representative
04:56walked along the platform and looked through the carriage windows but could not see Mr Nesbitt.
05:02The train then left Widrington and continued to Almuth. This was its final destination and once
05:08all the passengers had disembarked, a porter named Thomas Charlton noticed an apparently empty
05:13compartment. With its window left open, he went over to close it but when he opened the carriage door,
05:19he stumbled upon one of the most shocking crime scenes in Edwardian Britain. Streams of blood run across
05:24the floor of the compartment and forced beneath the seats lay the body of a man. Beside him were a
05:30hard hat and a broken pair of glasses. Mr Charlton immediately summoned the garden station master
05:36who then contacted the police. Police officers quickly arrived and examined the compartment.
05:43They looked at the hat, which had a label inside bearing the name of J.I. Nesbitt and an address
05:49of
05:49180 Heaton Road in Heaton. The carriage contained disturbing evidence of a violent struggle.
05:55Blood-stained finger marks were on the armrest, which police surmised had been left by someone
05:59using the seat for leverage while dragging a body to the floor. The leather wage bag that Mr Nesbitt had
06:05been carrying was missing. After a careful examination of the compartments, the body was
06:09removed to the mortuary. The following day, Dr Berman, the police surgeon, conducted the post-mortem
06:15examination. He found that Mr Nesbitt had been shot five times in the head, and said that in his
06:20opinion, any one of the shots would have caused instant death. The attack, he concluded, had likely
06:26been completed in less than 30 seconds. The crime stunned the local community. A trusted cashier had
06:32been murdered aboard a moving train, and the wages of hundreds of miners had vanished. The Stopwoods
06:37Colliery Company immediately offered a reward of £100 for information leading to the arrest and
06:42conviction of the murderer. Investigators began reconstructing the events of the morning by
06:47tracing the movements of passengers and railway employees. They gathered statements from people
06:52who had been at Newcastle Central Station, and from those who had joined and left the train during
06:57its journey. Particular attention was paid to identifying the man seen travelling with Mr Nesbitt,
07:02and determining exactly where he had entered or left the train. As witness statements were gathered
07:07and compared, a clearer picture of the journey began to emerge. Mr Charles Raven, a commercial
07:13traveller, informed police that he had seen Mr Nesbitt walking through Newcastle Central Station,
07:18accompanied by another man, shortly before the train departed. An artist named William Heppel also
07:23came forward, and said that he had recognised the man with Mr Nesbitt as John Alexander Dickman,
07:28someone who Mr Heppel claimed he had known for many years. On Monday the 21st of March 1910,
07:34John Alexander Dickman was arrested and taken to Gosforth Police Station in Newcastle-upon-Tyne.
07:40He admitted that he had travelled on the same train as John Nesbitt, but claimed that he had
07:44been so absorbed in reading the newspaper that he had missed his train stop, and instead got off at
07:49Morpeth, where he paid the excess fare and began walking towards the collieries. But he became unwell,
07:55and rested beside a field before abandoning the trip. He said that he later returned to the station,
08:00and caught the 140 train back to Newcastle. Mr Dickman did acknowledge to knowing Mr Nesbitt by
08:06sights, and said that he noticed him at the station that day, but denied travelling with him or speaking
08:12to him. The police, however, remained unconvinced, and carried out an extensive search of his home.
08:17They removed a variety of items for further examination, including letters, financial records,
08:23gloves, several pieces of clothing, as well as the light-coloured Burberry coats that Mr Dickman had
08:29been wearing when he was taken into custody. An identification parade was arranged, and Mr Hall
08:34and Mr Spink, who had both claimed to have seen Mr Nesbitt's companion during the journey, were
08:39invited to view the line-up. Mr Spink could not make a positive identification, but after Mr Hall had
08:45examined the men carefully, he pointed to Mr Dickman and said, if any one of these is the man,
08:50it's he. Mr Dickman was in charge of the murder of Mr John Nesbitt, and was taken to appear before
08:55the magistrate. Crowds had gathered, hoping to catch sight of the suspect, in what the newspapers
09:01had now called, the sensational railway murder. When proceedings began, Superintendent Weddle outlined
09:08the evidence, and requested a remand while the investigation continued. Mr Clark, who was
09:13representing the defence, objected, arguing that the evidence presented was insufficient, and that his
09:18client should not be detained while police searched for additional proof. After hearing the evidence,
09:23the magistrates retired for nine minutes, before granting a seven-day remand. As the
09:28investigation progressed, the police became increasingly confident in the case they were
09:33building against Mr Dickman. One month after the murder, Mr Nesbitt's missing leather bag was
09:38discovered at the bottom of the air shaft at Isabella Pits, a disused mine in Stannington. The
09:44money had disappeared, but investigators believed that the location linked the disposal of the bag to an
09:49area familiar to Mr Dickman. The press were quick to report any new lead in the case, and there was
09:55much excitement as the trial was scheduled to take place in July 1910, and was already the most talked
10:00about crime in Britain. The trial opened before Mr Justice Coleridge, on the 5th of July, and Mr Dickman
10:09pleaded not guilty. There had been much public attention surrounding the case, but the prosecution
10:14possessed remarkably little direct evidence linking Mr Dickman to the killing. There were no witnesses
10:19who had seen the murder take place, and neither the murder weapon or the stolen money had been found.
10:25Much of the case depended upon a chain of circumstances, and witness observations, from before and after
10:30the crime. There were many witnesses who could testify that they had seen Mr Dickman and Mr Nesbitt
10:35before the train departed. Charles Raven repeated his account of seeing the pair walking towards
10:40Platform 5, and Mr Wilson Heppel, who had known Mr Dickman for more than 20 years, told the court that
10:46he was definitely the man that he had seen with Mr Nesbitt on the 18th of March. Mr Heppel's evidence
10:51was of particular importance, because he was not identifying a stranger. He had known the defendant
10:56personally for many years. He insisted that he recognize Mr Dickman immediately, and that it was
11:02without doubt Mr Dickman with Mr Nesbitt. Percival Hall, who had picked out John Dickman at the
11:07Identity Parade, told the court that he was the man sitting opposite Mr Nesbitt when he saw them in
11:13the train compartments as he walked along the platform in Stannington. The ticket collector,
11:18John Athie, also confirmed that Mr Dickman was a passenger who left the train at Morpeth,
11:23and before leaving the station paid an excess fare. The fact that multiple witnesses claimed to have
11:28seen Mr Dickman during the journey considerably strengthened the prosecution's case. Even Mrs Nesbitt,
11:34who had seen a man sitting opposite her husband when she saw him briefly as a train stopped at
11:39Heaton station, now claimed that it was Mr Dickman who had shared the train compartment on the 18th
11:44of March. Dr Robert A Bolan was called to give evidence as to stains on certain articles of
11:50clothing found in the prisoner's house. He said that he had examined a portion of the left thumb of a
11:55suede glove and the left pocket of a pair of trousers, and confirmed that there was a smeared stain on
12:00the
12:00glove, which was distinctly coloured dark red, and there were small spots of blood inside the
12:05pockets. He said that although they were blood stains, he could not say if they were human blood.
12:10He said that he also examined the Burberry overcoat which Mr Dickman was wearing when he was arrested,
12:15and that there was a large stain on the left front. The doctor stressed that the coat was frayed,
12:20as it had been rubbed, and smelt faintly of paraffin. Looking at the judge, he then said that if
12:26blood had been on the coats, it would have been possible to wash it out with either water or
12:30paraffin. Financial testimony formed a crucial part of the prosecution's arguments. Bank officials
12:35described Mr Dickman's worsening financial position, and evidence presented to the court
12:40painted a picture of mounting financial difficulties, with debts increasing, and possessions
12:45regularly being pawned. Prosecutors argued that Mr Dickman had a clear motive for seeking money by
12:50unlawful means. The prosecution also introduced evidence relating to firearms.
12:55Police officers stated that four bullets had been removed from the body, and although they
12:59appeared to have been fired by different weapons, they believed that paper had been wrapped around
13:03the smaller bullets, so they could be fired from a single revolver. Evidence was then presented
13:09that John Dickman had purchased a revolver months before the murder, although the weapon itself had
13:14never been found. The defense only had one witness, the accused man, John Dickman, once in the witness
13:22box. He said that he had been paid about £500 as commission on the sale of a colliery near Morpeth,
13:27and that he had also received bank shares as a legacy, which was about another £220.
13:33He said that he did a considerable amount of betting, and was generally very fortunate.
13:37He explained his business connections with Mr Hogg, who he had said that he went to see on the day
13:42of
13:42the murder. He admitted speaking to the deceased at Newcastle Central Station that morning, but said that
13:48he never saw him after leaving the booking hall. Looking at the jury, he said that after purchasing
13:52his tickets, he walked to the train alone, and got in at a carriage near the rear. He claimed that
13:58the
13:58motion of the train going round the curve near Morpeth, first revealed to him the fact that he'd
14:02passed Stannington Station. When asked what he did next, he said that he got off the train at Morpeth,
14:08paid the excess fare, and started to walk to his destination, but he became ill, so rested for a while,
14:13before returning to the station to catch the 140 train to Newcastle. When asked about the revolver,
14:19he said he did indeed buy one by mail order, but after its arrival, he sent it back to Glasgow.
14:25He added that he never actually opened it. He also said the £17 that the police found in his
14:30possession on the day that he was arrested, was part of his betting reserve. When he was cross-examined by
14:36Mr Tyndall Atkinson, Mr Dickman claimed that all he knew about the murdered man, was that he was
14:41employed at the Newcastle Quay. He stressed that he did not know that he was a clerk or bookkeeper
14:45to a colliery company. He did concede, however, that having previously been connected with a local
14:51colliery, he was aware that money was drawn from the bank by cheque every two weeks, and that cash
14:55was carried by someone to the colliery, where the wages were paid. When he was asked why he had said
15:01that he went to see Mr Hogg, yet Mr Hogg knew nothing of the appointment. He said that all he
15:05wanted to do
15:06was speak to the gentleman, and he knew that he would definitely be there, because it was payday.
15:11Mr Tyndall Atkinson asked him who exactly had been travelling in the train compartment with him,
15:16and Mr Dickman replied that there was about five or six people in the same compartment,
15:20but he could not say who they were, or where they got out. The prosecution lawyer then reminded the
15:25court that the defence had failed to find any witnesses who could confirm that they had travelled
15:30in a compartment with Mr Dickman on the 18th of March. The prosecution continued their cross-examination,
15:36and asked Mr Dickman about the blood on the gloves. He said he had not worn them since Christmas,
15:41as they were a bad fit, and when he was asked about his coats, he said that the stain was
15:46from
15:46bicycle oil, and if there was any blood, it would have been from one of his many nosebleeds.
15:51The trial concluded on the 6th of July. Mr Tyndall Atkinson addressed the jury on behalf of the
15:56prosecution, and stated that much of Mr Dickman's account lacked independent confirmation. He reminded the
16:02jury that although he stated that he was on the train to visit a colliery, his purpose for travelling
16:07that day had proved difficult to verify. He then reiterated that every person who Mr Dickman claimed
16:12to be visiting that day had said that they did not have an appointment to see him. Mr Tyndall Atkinson
16:17then stressed that these inconsistencies undermined the credibility of his explanation.
16:23Following this, the defence barrister Mr Michelinis addressed for jury,
16:26he urged caution before convicting a man on evidence that was entirely circumstantial,
16:32and reminded the jurors that no one had witnessed the murder, no weapon had ever been recovered,
16:36and none of the stolen money had been found in Mr Dickman's possession. The defence argued that much
16:42of the prosecution's case depended on uncertain identifications, as well as assumptions drawn from
16:47circumstances rather than direct proof. The barrister maintained that his client had provided
16:53explanations for the evidence presented against him, and insisted that the prosecution had failed
16:57to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. He therefore asked for jury to return a verdict of
17:02not guilty. Following this, Mr Justice Coleridge delivered his summing up, and the jury retired to
17:09consider the verdict. They deliberated for two and a half hours, before returning with a verdict of
17:14guilty, asked if he had anything to say before sentence was passed. Mr Dickman declared that he was
17:20entirely innocent, and had no involvement whatsoever in the crime. Mr Justice Coleridge then sentenced him
17:26to death. The conviction immediately became controversial. Supporters argued that Mr Dickman
17:33had been condemned on circumstantial evidence alone, and campaigners organised petitions and appealed to
17:38the Home Office for mercy. As the execution date approached, the Governor of Newcastle Prison received a
17:44letter, where the writer claimed responsibility for the murder, and insisted that Mr Dickman was
17:49innocent. This caused much excitement in the press, and the confession was investigated, but ultimately
17:55dismissed. There were still those, however, who were determined to secure a reprieve, and newspapers
18:00published articles questioning the verdict, and urging further examination of the evidence. The
18:06reliability of Mr Hall as a witness was questioned, as although he had picked out Mr Dickman from an
18:11identity parade, there were claims that proper police procedure were not followed. It was alleged that
18:16before Mr Hall and Mr Spink were asked to identify him, they had seen him alone in another room. Although
18:22Mr Hall did not deny this, he insisted that his conclusion was based on what he had seen on the
18:27day
18:27of the murder. Legal representatives for Mr Dickman, however, argued that any prior exposure to a suspect
18:33risked compromising the identity process. The issue attracted considerable attention, because Mr Hall's
18:39identification of Mr Dickman had formed an important part of the prosecution's case, and people
18:45questioned whether such evidence would have been treated with the same confidence, had these
18:49circumstances been fully explored at the trial. The Home Secretary was Winston Churchill, who reviewed
18:55the case again, and ordered additional inquiries. He expressed doubts about some aspects of the evidence,
19:01particularly Mrs Nisbet's identification of the man in the train compartment. Nevertheless, after reviewing
19:07the complete case, he concluded that the conviction was safe, and the appeal was rejected. When informed of
19:13the decision, Mr Dickman reportedly told his wife that it was the greatest outrage ever perpetrated.
19:19On the morning of the 10th of August 1910, John Alexander Dickman was led from his cell at Newcastle
19:24Prison to the gallows. He walked to the scaffold and seemed to be very calm. Before he was hanged,
19:30he once again stated that he was an innocent man. The trial of John Dickman is one that is still
19:35talked
19:35about today, and many people still debate the evidence. Some believe the jury reached the correct
19:41verdict, and the chain of circumstantial proof pointed overwhelmingly to him. Others remain
19:46unconvinced, arguing that no murder weapon was ever recovered, and that the case depended too heavily
19:51upon witness identification. What remains beyond disputes is the fate of John Innis Nisbet, a trusted
19:58colliery cashier who left home on his regular wage run, but never returned. His murder aboard a moving train
20:04transformed an ordinary March morning into one of the most enduring mysteries in British criminal history,
20:10history. Hello everyone, and thank you so much for listening. As usual, please leave any comments
20:18or feedback you may have, and I hope to see you all again in the next Brief Case.
Comments