If you're looking for a true crime book that reads like a novel, look no further.

"Murder On The Train" by John J. Eddleston is an accessible non-fiction book about an Edwardian murder case I hadn't heard of before. In 1910, John Nisbett was murdered while delivering his employer's wages. What started as the search of two killers somehow turned into the accusation and arrest of one man, John Dickman.

But did Dickman actually do it? To his dying breath, he insisted he was innocent. So, did his wife and many that witnessed the case. Between solely circumstancial evidence, unreliable and questionable witnesses and stained evidence, Dickman had no chance. The author wishes with this book to shed the light on the unfairness of Dickman's trial and propose an alternative solve to the mystery.

The book starts with a detailed, and somewhat cinematic, introduction to the case. Over half of the book shares the case in its entirety, introduces us to all the parties involved as well as takes us through the trial and verdict.

And I will tell you I was baffled by the incompetence of everyone involved in the case. If I didn't know this had been a fiction, I would have called the whole thing unbelievable. But, unfortunately, it is true.

Afterwards, the author explains his theory and who he thinks actually committed the crime. I would rather avoid spoilers in my review so I won't go into the details, but I will say that the author's version of what happened certainly makes more sense than the prosecution ever did. While some of it might involve guesswork (how could it not after all that time?), it provides answers to many of the open questions that lingered after poor Dickman's execution.

I enjoyed this book and can safely say I found myself hooked.

Thank you to Pen and Sword True Crime and NetGalley for providing an ARC in exchange for an honest review. Murder on the Train is an absorbing, well-crafted exploration of a century-old crime. Eddleston skillfully blends rigorous historical analysis with the dramatic tension of a mystery novel, making the book both enlightening and emotionally engaging.

The research is evident throughout, and I especially appreciated the author’s thoroughly detailed descriptions of the victim and his wife, the accused, the witnesses, and the crime locations. The inclusion of images and maps at the back of the book was a particularly nice detail.
I found the alternative theory of the proposed killers thought-provoking, but I did not see conclusive evidence that they were any more likely to be guilty than Dickman. At times, the analysis seemed to place too much emphasis on the assumption that people behave honestly or in the way the author believed they ought to. I would recommend this book to lovers of true crime.

*The Murder*
John Nisbet, a colliery cashier, was shot five times on a train from Newcastle to Widdrington on March 18, 1910. He was carrying over £370 in a large leather bag, which was later found at the bottom of a disused mine shaft near Morpeth.

*The Investigation and Trial*
John Dickman was arrested and charged with the murder. The prosecution's case relied heavily on circumstantial evidence, including:
- *Bloodstained clothing*: Dickman's glove and trousers had bloodstains, and his Burberry overcoat showed signs of being rubbed with paraffin to remove bloodstains.
- *Financial struggles*: Dickman was deeply in debt and had a history of financial problems.
- *Witness testimony*: Several witnesses, including Charles Raven, Wilson Hepple, Percival Hall, and Cicely Nisbet, placed Dickman with the victim on the day of the murder.

*The Verdict and Controversy*
Dickman was found guilty and sentenced to death. However, a campaign was started to overturn the verdict, citing concerns about the reliability of the circumstantial evidence and the fairness of the trial. Dickman maintained his innocence until the end.

John Dickman was also linked to two unsolved murders:
- *Caroline Mary Luard (1908)*: Shot at her summerhouse in Kent. Some theorise Dickman's involvement due to alleged cheque forgery connections, but no concrete proof exists.
- *Hermann Cohen (1909)*: Moneylender brutally murdered in Sunderland. Newcastle Prison records mention possible Dickman involvement, but research disputes this, citing:
- Lack of bloodstains on passersby or nearby areas
- No reports of someone matching the killer's description
- Plausible that the killer was a local who escaped into a nearby alley

Dickman was only convicted and executed for the 1910 train murder of John Innes Nisbet.

Thank you to Pen & Sword True Crime, the author, and NetGalley for a DRC in exchange for an honest review.

The first twenty-three chapters (roughly 50%) of this book focus on the events leading up to the murder of John Innes Nisbet and the subsequent trial of John Alexander Dickman. This section is extremely fact-heavy and reads more like a textbook than a narrative true crime account. Much of the detail, including extended family histories, past addresses and minor biographical digressions, feels excessive and bogs down the narrative. As a result, the writing often feels dry and overloaded with minutiae.

The second half of the book is far more engaging. Once Eddleston begins to examine the flaws in the investigation and trial in greater detail, the pace picks up considerably. His argument is carefully constructed, persuasive and backed by evidence that casts significant doubt on Dickman’s guilt. While he stops short of explicitly exonerating him, it’s difficult to walk away from this book still convinced that justice was served.

Although the book claims to offer a balanced look at the murder of Nisbit and the subsequent trial of Dickman, it leans heavily in favour of Dickman’s innocence. Eddleston casts doubt on the prosecution’s evidence at nearly every turn and gives significant weight to inconsistencies and gaps in the case. While this perspective is certainly worth exploring, the author’s clear belief that Dickman was wrongly convicted risks overshadowing a more objective evaluation of the facts. Readers hoping for a neutral account may find the tone overly speculative or slanted.

As author makes clear, the evidence linking Dickman to the crime is entirely circumstantial. On top of this, the trial appears riddled with serious issues; The Judge, Lord Coleridge, arguably misdirected the jury and Police Officers involved in the investigation were, at best, unethical: they pointed out Dickman to witnesses just before they were asked to identify the suspect in a line-up - a practice that would today be seen as a blatant breach of procedure.

The book includes photographs and diagrams of key locations, as well as images of many individuals involved: the victim, the accused, the Judge, the Hangman and both the defence and prosecution Barristers. One detail I found particularly striking was how similar Dickman and Nisbet looked in their photographs - both sporting the thick, neatly trimmed Hercule Poirot type moustaches that were fashionable at the time. It makes you question the credibility of witness identifications. Didn’t most men in Edwardian Newcastle wear similar facial hair? The author himself acknowledges that the descriptions given were “so vague as to fit half the men in Newcastle".

This isn’t a sensationalist true crime read; it’s a sober, methodical, and ultimately damning critique of one of Edwardian England’s most troubling convictions. At only 200 pages, if you’re interested in possible historical miscarriages of justice and don’t mind a slow, dense beginning, you may find Murder on the Train a worthwhile and thought-provoking read - just bear in mind that this book does not present an unbiased argument.

#MurderOnTheTrain #NetGalley

England, 1910 & John Innes Nisbet boarded a train to work, carrying with him the colliery wages as usual but by the end of the journey, his body was found stuffed underneath the carriage seats in an empty carriage compartment. Nisbet had been shot 5 times with 2 different guns & the money stolen. A local man, John Alexander Dickman was arrested after several witnesses saw Nisbet with a man identified as Dickman at the station before boarding. Despite extremely flimsy evidence, Dickman was sent for trial, found guilty, & hanged for the crime despite maintaining his innocence to the end. This book examines the evidence & asks if the real killer escaped justice, before giving a compelling alternative theory for what might have happened that day.

It certainly seems that this was a shocking case of a miscarriage of justice. Despite there being no physical evidence linking him to the crime scene or the body, it seems Dickman's class & background played a part in his conviction. Whilst reading through this, it became clear that the case itself rested on circumstantial evidence including a couple of very shaky eyewitness testimonies. Indeed if you remove one of the eyewitness stories & posit instead that the witness was not telling the truth, then alternative suspects come into focus. I had a firm idea of who the possible killer was from fairly early on & by the end, found that my theory pretty much matched the author's. A great pity that we will probably never know the truth & that a likely innocent man was executed. A very interesting read although I think in a few places, the dismissal of aspects of the evidence isn't wrapped up as tightly as it could have been.

My thanks to NetGalley & publishers, Pen & Sword, for the opportunity to read an ARC.

Love to read about cases I have never heard before!

This book was an interesting read, and the case was clearly handed wrong in so many ways... but I don't think the author proved anything besides there being a miscarriage of justice.

More than half of the book was about the case, the trial, the hanging. But little to no information about who could have actually done it. I understand that the author can only work with the limited information available, but don't promise something that can't be delivered. I don't believe the author even sort of made me rethink who killed Mr. Nisbet. Do I think it was Dickman? Of course not. But I don't think it was the two men who the authors asserts either. There is far less evidence, circumstantial or not, that was provided than there was in the case against Dickman. Do I believe that the killers (yes I do agree that it was likely 2 people) could have lied and made themselves witnesses? It is entirely possible, and has happened before, but we don't accuse witnesses of being murderers 99% of the time without some serious evidence... of which there is none in this case.

Specifically I take issue with the "proof" the author provides/the assumptions being made:

To discredit Hepple's testimony, the author asserts 4 points, 2 of which are that the man didn't say hello to someone he knew. I also don't do that! Doesn't mean I didn't see my friend, it just means that I didn't want to say hi, they seemed busy, or I was busy in my own world. Introverts can still be valid witnesses!

Then there was the argument that Dickman couldn't/wouldn't have acted totally normal. Killers do, in fact, act like normal people in some cases. Again, I am not making an argument that Dickman was the killer, I don't think he was, BUT killers can act completely fine. They can go out of their way to talk to more people, to be seen out and about more, interact with their loved ones in a normal way, be an otherwise productive part of society. Not all killers are one way or another. It is why so many "nice normal" people skate by. Countless killers have family that never once suspected something was off.

Killings are not always personal. The killers did not HAVE to know Nisbet to have killed him in that manner. There are many many many killings that happen during robberies. It is senseless, and so unnecessary, but it happens. It could have been a simple robbery, and there was no real indication that it wasn't. Nisbet had money, as everyone has testified to. He was friendly with others, as has been testified to. He was a regular on that route, as has been testified to. It could have been nothing more than a robbery gone wrong. The author asserting that it just had to be personal is nothing more than personal bias.

The book is ladened with heavy personal bias, and we all have that. I don't think that justice was reached, I think an innocent man was hung for a crime he did not commit. However, I also don't agree with dragging two other names through the mud with no proof. Dickman was convicted, however wrongly, but he was convicted and that means that saying he committed a crime is not an injustice or disrespectful, regardless of how you feel about the verdict. The two newly accused men have no crimes to their name, and there is NO real proof they did anything to Nisbet. You are dragging their names through the mud with nothing to back it up. Stop attacking people who are unable to defend themselves. Unless you have real undeniable proof (like any form of forensic evidence) don't tote personal feelings as facts.

Overall, I don't hate the book. I think it is well written, well researched, and was interesting. My issues lie with the personal bias and assumptions. I would like to see books of a similar nature for other cases, and I do hope that one day Dickman gets his justice, but this book did not prove anything that I wouldn't already agree with (see: Dickman is innocent, and there was 2 killers).


*Things that did not affect my review but I would like to have them known"
1. This book is not formatted for kindle, so it is incredibly difficult to read outside of NetGalley-until it is published I assume.
2. The font is the least dyslexia friendly font I have ever come across, I really hope the physical book will have a different font.

I had never heard of this historical murder before, so I found this book to be so interesting. It was such a thought provoking read that made me think throughout history I wonder how many innocent people were sent to their deaths, the sheer m-=number it probably could have been is heartbreaking.
I couldn't put this book down I was totally absorbed.

The author's thesis is based on the Murder of John Innes Nisbet on a train, and an innocent man, Alexander Dickman was charged and executed unfairly. He aims to prove his innocence. He uses the evidence presented before him to exonerate Mr. Dickman and to show his conviction as being unjust.
The author starts with the background of the two people involved in the case. He then goes to the scene where John Innes Nesbit is found with five gunshot wounds to the head. The police search for the suspect and arrest Alexander Dickman, who says he is innocent. The police interviewed numerous witnesses, including the wife of the deceased. The case goes to trial, and he is convicted and hanged.
The author states that he was convicted on circumstantial evidence. He feels the judge and the police are biased, and there are numerous holes in the witnesses' stories. Some stories were manipulated, some were led on by the police to name Dickman as the suspect, and the judge's bias.
The author then presents his own theory of who the real killer or killers are. His findings are compelling for the innocence of Dickman. I personally leaned towards the author's theory. I enjoyed this book. If you like True Crime or whodunits, this is a good book to add to your collection. I am curious to see if others agree with the author.

This was an excellent book. It was well-written. I would highly recommend this book. It's very easy to read.
Thank you to NetGalley and the publishers for the ARC.

I love a historical true crime case, and this one set in Edwardian England did not disappoint. It’s always heartbreaking to read that someone has been pinned for a crime that they didn’t commit, especially when they suffered the death penalty for it, and this compelling and well-researched narrative does a great job of bringing a new theory to the front that’s extremely convincing.

I want to start off by saying that the concept of the book was really interesting. I love true crime and I love history so, the combination of the two was what peaked my interest. I had never heard of this case and was very interested to learn more about it. The added pictures at the end were also a very cool bonus.

However, the book felt a little slow in pace compared to most true crime books I have read. That is my only note.

I gave up reading this book after the first 20 pages or so. I try to push through most books I have to read, but I was just so bored. It reads like a dissertation, so dry and dull. It was almost as if the writer thought we knew the story already. One of the first things that happens is finding a dead body on a train. I know this is non-fiction, but at least make this moment exciting or shocking or just dramatic in some way. I just didn't care to go on any more from there.

Put this book down, do not be sucked in from the description on the back.

A non-fiction book that reads like an Agatha Christie novel.
The first thing that struck me about ‘Murder on the Train’ is how readable the book is. I was so caught up in the story tha I found myself picking it up in my lunch break, to catch up on the next instalment.
The book is an analysis of a murder which took place over a century ago. In 1910, a quiet, unassuming man, John Nisbett was travelling on the 10:27 Newcastle train, when he was shot five times in the head. In a ‘locked room’ mystery, he was found under the seat of an empty railway carriage, leaving more questions than answers. The ‘why’ was no mystery; Nisbett had been carrying miners’ wages from the bank to the colliery and this was a robbery. But were there one or two killers and how did they get off the train unseen?
The author walks us through who saw what, and when, and introduces the main suspect; John Dickman. The latter was arrested, tried, found guilty, and hanged. An open and shut case you might say…except all the ‘evidence’ was circumstantial and even at the time petitions were raised that this was an unsafe conviction.
In a twist, the author then explains his take on events and gives an extremely plausible explanation as to what happened and who the killer(s) [No spoilers!] were. To me, he has nailed it. Mystery solved!
This book was a hugely enjoyable read that speed past with the tension of a fictional thriller. Anyone interested in true crime, Victoriana, or miscarriages of justice is going to be fascinated by this book. If your are on the fence about reading it, ponder no longer and dive in…you won’t regret it.

"John Innes Nisbet was murdered by being shot in the head five times...in effect, John Alexander Dickman was also murdered by the same two individuals, by being hanged for a crime he did not commit."

Utterly heartbreaking.

This felt a bit scattered at times and there is some bias (as is often the case with true crime books). But overall, I agree with the author's final proposition.

It was the two guns for me. That alone should have led to enough reasonable doubt to be found not guilty.. and certainly too much doubt to be hanged. Disgusting.

Very compelling read! The book follows the death and subsequent trial of his killer, a unique view into the judicial system in the early 1900’s and how things can go very wrong. I really enjoyed the book. It read very well, and kept me interested. The author was able to break down the case, the problems with it and alternative conclusions without the story becoming rote or dry. I appreciated that the case was viewed objectively from both sides, that is if the accused was the killer, and if not. Overall, a very satisfying read, and definitely makes me want to see if the case in reopened!

On August 9, 1910, before he was hanged, convicted railway murderer John Alexander Dickman stated, “I declare to all men I am innocent.” His hope was one day the Court of Appeal would take a look at “the conviction of an innocent man:. In this true crime investigation, author John J. Eddleston revisits the case of the death of colliery agent John Innes Nesbit, at the hand of John Alexander Dickman, and Dickman’s subsequent conviction.

For two decades, Nesbit had worked as a colliery agent for a firm in Newcastle. Part of his duties consisted of alternate Friday wage deliveries to the miners working at the Stobswood Colliery. The lockable black leather bag contained three canvas bags, one each of gold, silver and copper. On March 18, 1910, Nesbit’s body was discovered in an empty compartment of the 10:27AM Newcastle Central Train. His body was pushed under the seat, a river of blood pooling on the floor of the third class compartment. He had been shot in the head five times by two guns of different calibers. Within three days, gambler John Alexander Dickman was arrested, having been identified as Nesbit’s traveling companion, as suggested by eyewitnesses.

After both Nesbit and Dickman purchased railway tickets, they walked near each other, without conversing, in the direction of the four compartments of the first carriage of the train. This compartment was directly behind the engine. Train compartments could only be entered from the outside, there were no inner hallway passages. Nesbit routinely travelled in the back of the train, however this day, he surprisingly leaned out the window of a front compartment, almost missing his wife Cecily, for their regular greeting when the train stopped at his home station. Cecily noticed another man in Nesbit's compartment, a man with his collar up and hat pulled down. He was sitting in the shadows, only visible in profile.

Why was Dickman suspected of murder?

-Witnesses noted that he purchased his train ticket right after Nesbit.

-Dickman walked near Nesbit to the train platform.

-Eyewitnesses claim that Dickman was seated in Nesbit’s compartment with his back to the train engine while Nesbit sat facing forward.

-Dickman, once a colliery, was now a gambler with deep rooted financial woes. His bank accounts were depleted.

-A search of Dickman’s dwelling produced some gold sovereigns, a stained left glove and trousers with traces of blood on the left front pocket.

Within three months, “the facts had to be fitted to the assumption that Dickman was guilty.”. Circumstantial evidence and the suppression of relevant data might have led to a different outcome.

Unreliable Witnesses
-At the Central Police Station, a colliery clerk named Hall made a “somewhat tentative identification of Dickman”. A corrupt policeman allowed Hall to view the accused in advance of the identity parade. Under cross examination Hall recounted, “I would not swear that it was the prisoner, but if I could be assured that the murderer was there, I would have no hesitation in pointing the prisoner out.”

Staining Evidence
-The examination of clothing seized from Dickman’s home indicated that the small stain on his left glove might or might not have been human blood. Blood on his trousers consisted of tiny pin pricks. His boots had no blood residue. Despite massive amounts of blood pooled on the floor of the murder compartment, there was no evidence of blood in Dickman’s house.

Firearm Evidence
-It seemed apparent that two guns were used in the murder. The judge discounted the possibility of two culprits and claimed that Dickman must have fired both weapons. Might the judge have attempted to control the narrative?

The Stolen Miner’s Wages
-The empty leather wage bag, with a slit on the side, was recovered from the bottom of an abandoned mine shaft, unfamiliar to Dickman, weeks after he was incarcerated. Where was the stolen money?

Perhaps the case of Murder on the Train will be reexamined with a spotlight shining on new theories by John J. Eddleston and others in an attempt to correct a miscarriage of justice in Edwardian Northumberland. This true crime presentation could be greatly enhanced if the final copy displays the excellent photographic plates within the body of the read.

Highly recommended.

Thank you Pen and Sword True Crime and Net Galley for the ARC in exchange for an honest review.