Murder, Mystery and My Family (2018–…): Season 1, Episode 4 - Episode #1.4 - full transcript

The British justice system

is the envy of the world.

But in the past, mistakes have been made.

Between the year 1900 and the year 1964

approximately 800 people were hanged

in the United Kingdom.

Many of those desperately
protested their innocence.

Some of these
long standing convictions

could be a miscarriage of justice.

She's received most of
the blows in this position

once she's already bleeding.



In this series a living relative

will attempt to clear their family name.

I would dearly love
for him to be innocent.

Searching for new evidence.

I can make the 32 fire both calibers.

With help from two of the UK's

leading barristers, one for the defense.

This is a very worrying case.

I think the evidence is very suspect.

- And one for the prosecution.
- I'm still of the view

that this was a cogent case of murder

committed during the course of a robbery.

They are on a
mission to solve the mystery.

Submitting their findings
to a Crown Court judge.



There is a real risk that there has been

a miscarriage of justice here.

I will look again at the evidence

in the light of the
arguments that you both

have put before me.

Can this modern investigation

rewrite history?

In Newcastle in 1910,
there occurred a case

stranger than fiction,
with all the hallmarks

of an Agatha Christie mystery.

A who-done-it murder on a train.

On Friday the 18th of
March, a colliery cashier

called John Nisbet boarded the 10:27 train

from Newcastle Central Station.

The 44 year old was carrying £370 in wages

for the workers at a local coal mine,

a delivery he never made.

Nisbet was brutally murdered
for the cash he carried.

Shot in the head five
times, his body was found

stuffed beneath a carriage seat

by the porter at Alnmouth
Station at the end of the line.

When police searched the crime scene

they found two different
caliber of bullets,

leading officers to initially
suspect two assailants.

Until several key witnesses lead police

to a local bookmaker called John Dickman

who was subsequently arrested, charged

and convicted of murder.

Despite staunchly
protesting his innocence,

on the 10th of August
1910, Dickman was executed.

The last man to be hanged
at Newcastle Prison.

I've known for nearly 40 years

that my great grandfather
was hung for murder.

Now, over 100 years later,

Dickman's great grandson
Rowan, wants to know

if he was executed for a
crime he did not commit.

It must be a horrendous
journey to the gallows

to know that you're gonna lose your life.

I have an open mind as to
whether he did it or not.

A former clerk
turned professional gambler

with a love of horse
racing, Dickman operated

as a wheeler-dealer on the fringes

- of the mining industry.
- I do know he's a person

that lived I think very much on the edge

but that doesn't make him
a murderer, of course.

To unearth the truth

about his great grandfather,

Rowan will be helped
by two of the country's

best legal minds.

Jeremy Dein QC is a top defense barrister,

specializing in murder cases.

Sasha Wass QC has put
away some of the country's

most dangerous and devious criminals.

Before they start their investigation,

the barristers have
asked to meet with Rowan.

Rowan, very nice to meet you.

- Sasha.
- Examining a case

- that's over 100 years old?
- Nice to meet you, Jeremy.

- Will be no easy task.
- My role is to explore

the truth of the case with a view to

- having the case reopened.
- Rowan, I will be looking

at the evidence with a prosecution slant.

That doesn't mean that I'm trying

to uphold this conviction
at all costs, far from it.

And just so you know
I'm going to be keeping

a completely open mind, all right?

- Absolutely.
- All right.

What we have to do is, we have to find

some new evidence or some new argument

that hasn't previously
been put before a court.

- That's not always easy.
- Rowan, there is a chance

of catastrophic evidence
indicating that he is guilty.

- Now are you prepared for that?
- I believe I am.

- Good.
- I would dearly love

from him to innocent, of course.

That's my heart.

My head tells me that it may be

slightly more difficult process.

Jeremy and
Sasha will examine five

crucial areas of the case.

Before submitting their
findings to a senior judge

who could recommend the case for review

or confirm the original guilty verdict.

But first, the barristers
need to get to grips

with the facts of the murder.

So Jeremy this was the
murder of John Nisbet

who was carrying £370, nine
shillings and six pence

in wages when he boarded the train

from Newcastle to Alnmouth.

And the prosecution case
was that he was killed

for the money.

Mr. Nisbet was shot five times

and then John Dickman
alighted the train at Morpeth.

Well Sasha, there are
a lot of ifs and buts.

We definitely need to scrutinize

the identification evidence.

Some very strange things went on.

But also, two caliber of bullets
were fired at John Nisbet

and the police suspected
that there were two gunmen.

It's only once John
Dickman came into the frame

that they decided on one
so I certainly don't accept

at this stage that this is anything like

an open and shut case.

Whilst Jeremy and Sasha delve

into the evidence, Rowan
is traveling to Newcastle

to learn more about his great grandfather

and the crime for which he hanged.

I would like to know more about two areas.

One is around John and indeed the evidence

that was presented, how
the case was carried out

but also about my family background

which I know nothing about, really.

Dickman had
much in common with Nisbet,

the man he was convicted of killing.

Both were born in Newcastle upon Tyne,

close in age and happily
married with two children.

They belonged to the
educated lower middle class,

finding employment in Newcastle's

thriving commercial center.

They knew each other a little too

as regulars on the railway that connected

the growing city to the collieries

that fueled it's prosperity.

On the 18th of March, 1910, both boarded

the 10:27 from Newcastle to Alnmouth.

Only one of them got off the train alive.

Rowan wants to start
by retracing the steps

his great grandfather
took on that fateful day.

Just arrived at the station, ironically,

at almost the time John
Dickman got on the train

for Morpeth.

The prosecution's case

relied entirely upon the testimony
of several key witnesses.

Taken together, their
evidence put Dickman's head

in the hangman's noose.

I'm holding here a photograph
of Newcastle Station

taken in 1910.

If we look carefully we
can just see platform five,

directly behind us.

This photograph shows us exactly

what it would have been
like when John Dickman

and John Nisbet walked onto the forecourt.

On platform five, an artist

called Wilson Hepple, who had
known Dickman for 20 years,

saw him with a companion about to board

near the front of the train.

Just behind us is where Wilson Hepple

would have seen both men
making their way to the train.

I'm going to now make a journey based on

a number of witness statements,
which I'm not so sure

-are as sound as they could be.

The first
stop was Heaton station

where John Nisbet lived
with his wife Cecily.

She would make a habit of
standing on the platform

to greet her husband as he passed.

It was here that Cecily
Nisbet, John Nisbet's wife,

actually saw John in the carriage.

She is quite adamant
there was one other man

in there with him.

Of course, the big question is whether

that was John Dickman.

Three days after the murder,

Dickman volunteered a statement to police,

explaining his movements on the day.

Far from ruling him out as a suspect,

the police used the information

- to put him in the frame.
- So Jeremy,

what John Dickman told
the police was this,

he said the reason he
was on the 10:27 train

from Newcastle is that he was going

to meet someone at the Dovecot Colliery

about a business proposition

and that would have
involved him getting off

-at Stannington Station.

In his
statement, Dickman admitted

he had seen Nisbet briefly
at Newcastle Station.

Before buying a newspaper
and getting in a compartment

at the read of the train.

Mr. Dickman didn't get off the train

at Stannington Station
because he was engrossed

in reading the newspaper.

At Stannington Station,
the deceased, John Nisbet

was seen alive and well.

What we do know is that by Morpeth,

John Nisbet was dead.

We also know that Dickman
must have alighted the train.

We know that because he
buys and excess fare ticket

from a ticket inspector
at Morpeth Station.

The ticket collector at Morpeth

recalled a man paying an excess fare.

Dickman admitted that man was him

and having missed his stop,
he decided to walk back

to his meeting at the Dovecot Mine.

And that's where his account
becomes rather strange.

He told police he decided
to walk down this road here

but was taken ill where
the X is marked on the map.

Feeling ill,
Dickman darted into a field

- to relieve himself.
- In John's statement,

he maintains that he rested
up for close to an hour

and realizing that he couldn't
really go any further,

made his way back to Morpeth.

When he got back to Morpeth
he met two people he knew,

Elliot and Sanderson,
and they can corroborate

the time that he got back there.

Elliot and Sanderson confirm

that shortly after 1:30 PM
they had a brief conversation

with Dickman, who seemed to them

of perfectly normal demeanor.

Despite this alibi, almost
two hours had passed

since Dickman had got off the train

much of which was unaccounted for.

In terms of John's
alibi, I do recognize it

as a weak point in the story.

I want to believe that he was ill

and that indeed he had to rest up.

But also, I can understand
no one to corroborate that.

This part of his evidence still has

that question mark above it.

So this period
where nobody really knows

what he's doing.

Sasha is reviewing evidence

that could account for the
hole in Dickman's alibi

but does it prove Dickman was the killer?

What the prosecution said at trial

is that what Mr. Dickman was in fact doing

was not walking down to Clifton,

but was walking towards Hepscott here

where in a disused mine shaft, in June,

so several months later, was found the bag

which contained the money
which was the subject

of the robbery of John
Nisbet on the train.

Nisbet's money bag was found

three months after the
murder at the bottom

of a disused mine shaft,
less than a mile and half

from Morpeth.

At the time the prosecution
used this discovery

to suggest Dickman was
not lying ill in a field

but was in fact disposing
of the stolen money bag.

But Jeremy has found a
problem with this evidence.

We need to keep in mind that John Dickman

was in custody from the 21st of March

and the 9th of June when it was found.

The Mine had been searched
on the 17th of March,

the day before the incident,

the 29th of April and the 18th of May.

And in fact the bag wasn't found there

until the 9th of June.

The reality is, there's
not a shred of evidence

that John Dickman dumped that bag.

A more likely course of
events is that someone else

killed John Nisbet.

So Jeremy believes
the money bag discovery

indicates that the police
should have been looking

for other suspects.

This is a reconstruction
of the 10:27 train

from Newcastle to Alnmouth.

The engine was at this end

and this entire mapped out
area is the first carriage.

The barristers now want to turn

their attention to the evidence given

by the key witnesses that
put Dickman in the frame.

Does their testimony prove
that Dickman was the killer?

The first important thing is at Newcastle

a witness called Bruce
gets onto this compartment

nearest the engine and
he's with another man

who's identity is not important

for the purpose of this case.

On the second compartment
nearest the engine,

two other witnesses who gave evidence,

Mr. Hall and Mr. Spink, they get on there.

Now, a witness at Newcastle Station

called Wilson Hepple, saw John Dickman

in the company of another
man, one of the two

put his hand on the door
of one of the compartments.

So for the sake of what I'm
going to explain to you,

Mr. Dickman gets onto the
train with the other man.

As the train
arrives at Heaton Station,

Nisbet's wife Cecily was on
the platform to greet him.

He leans out of the window
and he waves at her.

But Cecily also sees another
man in that compartment,

wearing a coat, wearing a
hat, the collar pulled up

and that man is actually
sitting facing the engine

so he's facing this way.

The train pulls off from Heaton

and the next station of
importance is Stannington.

Now, at Stannington,
Mr. Hall and Mr. Spink

get off the train.

Mr. Hall knows Mr. Nisbet and
they acknowledge each other.

Mr. Bruce, in
the first compartment,

witnesses Hall nodding
before the train pulls away.

The train then stops at Morpeth,

where the next key witness
is waiting to board.

Mr. Grant walks past this first carriage

of third class compartments
and he particularly noticed

that there was nobody, or he
believed that there was nobody

in this carriage.

Which suggests that Mr. Dickman
must have got off the train

and remember Mr. Dickman did
get off the train at Morpeth

and that Mr. Nisbet
was lying on the ground

which is why he wasn't
visible at window height.

Crucially, the witness
Grant, the big question

in his case is, how did John
Dickman leave the carriage,

leaving John Nisbet on
the floor behind him

if Grant didn't see
anyone exit the carriage?

Because he doesn't claim that he did

so how did John Dickman
get out of that carriage

if his evidence is correct?

Could the killer
have got off the train

-a different way?

Rowan has some to Tanfield
Heritage Railway, near Newcastle.

He's hoping that traveling back

-to his great grandfather's era

with historian Alan
Thompson, can shed some light

on the incident.

So this is exactly the
same type of carriage

that my grandfather, John
Dickman, and John Nisbet--

- Yes.
- Would have traveled in?

I presume that you would
have to hold your luggage

- on your laps?
- Either lap or if you put it

under the seat, but I think wages?

He would have his hands
on it all the time.

- He wouldn't dare let it go.
- No.

John Nisbet was shot five times.

Makes you wonder whether anybody else

- would have actually heard it?
- We're close to the engine

so it'd have the noise of the engine,

-the rear joints,

you're getting that all the time.

- You've got solid walls.
- Yes.

And you're getting the vibration
that can be quite noisy.

Could the noise of the train

masking the gunshots explain
why nobody reported the crime?

I've noticed the carriages
don't have a corridor.

Was that common on these trains?

Yes, corridors as such came in much later,

probably after the first World War.

Yeah.

So you were stuck in
here between stations?

Yes.

The design of
the train allowed no way

to enter or exit the
compartment between stations.

It was unlikely anyone
could have jumped off

as they would leave
the door flapping open,

almost certainly alerting the guard.

So it remains a mystery
as to how the killer

could have got away unnoticed.

In London, the barristers are trying

to solve another dilemma.

Did Dickman had a genuine
motive for murder?

Jeremy this was a murder committed

during the course of a robbery and we know

that £270, nine shillings
and six pence went missing.

There's also evidence that John Dickman

was short of money in the year
leading up to this murder.

At the trial, the prosecution

tried to prove that Dickman
was in urgent need of money,

presenting evidence that he
had taken out two loans for £20

and his bank accounts were empty.

There was some evidence that John Dickman

had money troubles of a sort.

- Yeah, but Sasha--
- Do you agree with that?

Well.

I'm not sure I'd agree
he had money problem.

He seems to have needed to borrow money

on more than one occasion, however,

the reason why his accounts
had little money in

is because he was a
bookie and he used cash

in connection with that work.

So just because the
prosecution swooped on that

and labeled those money
lending scenarios as motive

doesn't mean that John
Dickman turned his hand

to gruesome killing, so I'm afraid,

I just don't see that there
was a respectable motive

put before the jury.

So Jeremy is
not convinced Dickman

had a clear motive and raised doubts

about the prosecutions
circumstantial case.

We've now looked at various
issues in this case,

did you accept that there
was no direct evidence

against John Dickman and that there are

significant number of difficult questions

for the prosecution to answer?

I'm still of the view that this

was a cogent case of murder
against John Dickman.

However, I am concerned about
the ammunition in the case.

Two different sorts of ammunition

and I would find it helpful to
speak to a ballistics expert.

The murder
weapon was never found

but two different caliber of bullet

were retrieved from the victim's body.

So what does this tell us about the crime?

- Hi Innes, how are you?
- Hello.

Innes Knight is a gunsmith

with an expert knowledge
of historic firearms.

The gun we think was
used was a 32 revolver.

Our reasons for thinking this
is there is no physical way

that a 32 round would be able to be fired

from a .25 pistol.

It is physically impossible.

It is, however, possible for a .25 bullet

with enough ingenuity, to
be fired from a 32 revolver.

Can you actually load
that bullet in that gun?

You would need a little bit of ingenuity.

- Right.
- So this is a fairly typical

-32 revolver.

Now if I take .25?

-It will drop clean through.

So it requires to be adapted

- before it can be shot?
- I have done some experiments

and by wrapping the bullet in paper.

- Yes.
- Or tape, or leather.

- Yes?
- I can make the 32

fire both calibers.

Nisbet was shot five times.

But three of the shots
using the .25 bullet

caused only superficial wounds.

The fact that that .25

came out at low enough velocity
not to penetrate the skull

means that it was not fired
in it's correct barrel.

- Yeah.
- If I fire that

in the large barrel?

That bullet would come out
at a much lower velocity.

And so one gunman with one gun

firing both caliber of bullet?

With the evidence I have been presented,

it is most likely one gun.

It was probably by luck
that those rounds went off

rather than judgment.

But it is possible.

So what might happen is, that if someone

was to wrap a bullet
in the way you've said,

it's conceivable that in fact
the bullet wouldn't fire?

- Yes, it is.
- Potluck?

-Yeah.

So the gunsmith
favors one gunman.

A theory that the prosecution
successful pursued in 1910.

Rowan wants to know what the
public made of the evidence,

reported in it's entirety
by the local press

in the lead up to the trial.

He's come to Newcastle Library
to search the archives.

I found the actual article

at the start of the trial.

It's actually taken us through
the different eye witnesses.

What it does say, that it's
quite a sensational trial.

The trial of John Dickman

opened on the 4th of July, 1910

to Moot Hall in Newcastle
where a vast crowd

packed the area outside.

It was a well publicized trial.

The public had become largely involved,

the papers were very much involved.

For a lot of people their minds

may have already been made up.

Could it have been a fair trial?

Dickman would face the jury

in the home town of the man
he was accused of killing

and where public opinion was
strongly set against him.

Looking at this and seeing that the case

was quite bias in many respects

makes me angry to say the least.

I think if I was reading
these articles at the time,

I would probably believe
that we was guilty.

Jeremy has his
own concerns about the case.

So he's asked Home Office
pathologist, Stuart Hamilton

to look at the crime scene evidence.

Stuart, you want to take us
through the various scenarios

as to how John Nisbet
might have been killed.

Tell us about the scenes here.

So what we have here is
a perfect reproduction

of the carriage that
Mr. Nisbet was sat in.

The evidence is that
he was shot five times.

We have two different types of bullet.

I can only conclude, if it is one shooter,

that there is a shot with the lead

that comes across the
face and stuns Mr. Nisbet.

He then goes to the ground.

There are then more discharges
to the back of the head

and there is the lethal
shot to the brain stem.

The evidence that was given in the trial

was that the bullet wound to this forehead

was fired while Mr. Nisbet was prostrate.

You can see from the
dimensions of this carriage,

to actually get into a position, somehow,

where that could be fired
seems incredibly difficult

and somewhat unlikely to me.

There just isn't room here to do it.

The second scenario is that
we have two assailants.

-Two men, two guns.

One man gets up, first shot
is discharged into his head.

He then goes to the ground.

The man with the nickel
plated bullets fires twice.

The other assailant shoots twice.

One of the those shots
hits his brain stem,

Mr. Nisbet is going nothing ever again.

In the end, which of those scenarios

do you believe is the most likely context

in which John Nisbet was killed?

I think two people in control of a firearm

makes far more sense
than one person with two

and I think the likelihood
of it being one weapon

seems considerably less likely.

So the pathology evidence

points to two gunmen,
contradicting the opinion

of the gunsmith.

We're still left with
different ammunition in one gun

or the two gunman theory,

and given what the ballistics expert said,

I'm in favor of one gun, one gunman.

Stuart Hamilton favors two gunmen.

If correct, then there is
a fundamental question mark

over whether John Dickman
was rightly convicted.

Rowan has spent
hours searching the archive

for newspaper articles about the case.

Much to his surprise,
he's found a collection

of personal accounts written
by John Dickman's wife, Annie.

It's the first time that I see an article

from my great grandmother.

Funnily enough it sent shivers up my spine

when I actually saw her signature
at the bottom of the page.

Annie defended her husband

right up to his execution,
allowing a number

of personal letters written
by Dickman from his cell

to be published.

And this one makes me a little bit angry,

"Dickman's last letters,
pathetic references

"to his wife and children."

I'm angry because the letters
are far from pathetic.

When you read them it's
about a man coming to terms

with his deaths and what
could become of his family.

"The last letter from the condemned man

"to his wife was received
by Mrs. Dickman on Monday.

"In it her husband wrote,

"there is something still keeps telling me

"that everything will
be made clear someday.

"When it is too late to benefit me,

"I can only repeat that I am innocent."

There's a man here that seemed
to have loved his family

and right to his last letter he's saying

maybe one day his innocence will be found.

When I see that, I do
hope that at the end of it

there will be enough answers for us

to be able to say he was innocent.

Maybe that day's close
at hand, I would hope.

Yeah.

Despite being
handed a death sentence,

Dickman still had one less hope of proving

-he was wrongly convicted.

On the 22nd of July, 1910,
his case was to be heard

by the Court of Appeal.

Earlier that month the
Home Office had received

disturbing news of
serious police malpractice

relating to an identity parade
involving two key witnesses,

Spink and Hall.

Hall, when taken to the police station

for the purpose of seeing if
he could identify Dickman,

"Was first invited by
somebody, possibly on behalf

"of the police, to look through a window

"and on doing so,
sitting alone, the person

"who was afterwards convicted, was there."

I personally find it staggering

that John Dickman was convicted in part

on the identification evidence

of somebody who'd been
ask to have a look at him

sitting on a chair in
isolation before the parade.

That evidence, in modern times,

would never have gone before a jury.

Jeremy is still hoping to find

a new legal angle on which to argue

that the conviction was unsafe.

How did to come about that Hall

was shown John Dickman sitting on a--

No, let me finish.

- You dismiss this type of--
- No I don't, I don't.

Hang on, let me finish.

You dismiss this type of conduct

as if this is a matter of pure irrelevance

but if in fact that police were prepared

to put John Dickman on display

how do we know that there weren't
more shenanigans going on?

Why do we assume that the
only piece of misconduct

was the one that was discovered?

We don't know what went on, this is 1910

and I'm not as comfortable
with mere assertion

by the witnesses as you appear to be.

Can I just clarify the matter, Jeremy?

I'm not comfortable with what happened

in terms of the identification procedure.

It was completely improper conduct.

It doesn't alter the conclusion
of the Lord Chief Justice

that he would not have hesitated

to quash this conviction had
Hall been the only witness

and we both agree that
he's a tainted witness.

The Lord Chief Justice has made it plain

that there was a wealth of other evidence

putting John Dickman and John Nisbet--

- We can go on forever.
- The same train compartment.

We can go on forever, Sasha.

We can't get beyond what's
here in black and white

- before us, that's the problem.
- That is the problem.

And I see it and I read
it rather more skeptically

than you do, and that's not a
criticism of you, I just do.

With time running out

on the barristers' investigation,

Rowan has come to Newcastle Cathedral

for a momentous meeting.

80 years ago John Dickman's
son Henry, Rowan's grandfather,

abandoned his wife and
son to start a new family

across town.

They are my relatives,
they're my blood relatives

and I think I've been remiss
in not trying to contact them.

Waiting to greet Rowan

is his half-uncle John and cousin Beezy,

relatives from a side of
the family he's never met.

I've feeling very nervous, actually.

I think it's probably nervous
than anything else I've done.

- Hello.
- John?

- Oh!
- Hiya, fella.

- Pleased to meet you.
- Nice to meet you.

- This is Beezy.
- Hello.

All right? Are you a bit nervous

- and a bit emotional?
- It's all right, yeah.

- Don't worry about it, really.
- I wish my mum could be here

and my auntie Pat.

I know I've been very remiss.

I've kind of tucked
everything back burner.

- Me, too.
- And dad was always,

- so sort of angry?
- Angry.

- Unhappy, yeah.
- He had a right to be.

He had a right to be.

He would never talk about it.

- No.
- Should we sit down?

- Yeah.
- Please.

They have a hundred years

of broken family history to discuss,

starting with the marriage
of John Dickman to Annie,

right here in Newcastle Cathedral.

Here we are in that same building

where they began their
marriage and their life.

Hopefully come 'round full circle.

- Yes.
- Hopefully full circle

which is actually, yeah,
that finally the family

- can get back together again.
- Yes, yes, hopefully.

Whilst the Dickman
family become acquainted

Jeremy is still searching
for the new evidence he needs

to argue before the judge that
the case should be reviewed.

He's hoping crime writer
John Eddleston can help.

So John tell us about how you developed

an interest in the case of John Dickman

and how you've really become
an expert on the case.

Well my wife and I researched
every single execution

in the 20th century and
this case in particular

was very contentious.

And having spent three or
four years looking at it

I've come up with a
completely different scenario

which means that John Alexander Dickman

was almost certainly
innocent of the crime.

-Right.

We know the train left at
10:27 from Newcastle Central.

Now, we do know that Nisbet
traveled in that compartment,

that's absolutely certain
because that's where

his body was found.

We know from the evidence of his wife

there was a companion sitting
directly opposite to him.

The only other person we're
certain of is Andrew Bruce

and Bruce is sitting right in this corner.

Hall was in that particular carriage.

We know that at Newcastle,
on his own evidence,

Hall was looking out of
the window at the platform

to see who was coming down.

He was also looking out
of the window at Heaton,

a curious thing to do for someone

who had made the same journey
many times over the years

with Spink.

We are lead to believe that
in the same carriage is Spink

but for the time being,
can we leave him out?

Yeah.

My scenario is this, Hall
was indeed looking out

of the window, but not
to see who was coming,

to make sure that no one else
came into that compartment.

The unknown companion with Nisbet

is not an unknown companion,
it's John William Spink.

In this
scenario, the mystery man

witnessed in the compartment
with Nisbet was not Dickman,

it was Spink,

one of the key witnesses
and the companion of Hall.

Waiting in conspicuously
for his partner in crime

to join him.

When they reach the
station before Stannington

which is Plessey, Hall gets out
and gets into this carriage.

There are now three
people in that carriage.

He was about to shake hands with Hall

when Hall and Spink both opened fired.

This is now an empty carriage.

When the train arrives at Stannington,

they both get out, through the door

and stand about here,
between the two carriages.

So Nisbet's dead before
we get to Stannington?

Nisbet's dead between
Plessey and Stannington.

The body's under the seat.

Hall and Spink are on the platform.

The train pulls out
and Bruce sees them nod

- to an empty carriage.
- To a dead man?

To a dead man.

When the train arrives
at Morpeth, John Grant

is waiting here where the engine is.

He wants to find a smoking compartment.

As he walks along he sees that
that compartment is occupied.

He walks past, that's a non
smoker, that's no use to him.

But when he walks past the
carriage where Nisbet's body

is now lying, he sees and
swears that it is empty.

If Dickman is the killer,
he would have seen Dickman

get off the train at Morpeth.

Dickman did indeed get
off the train at Morpeth,

he paid an excess fare, but he got it

from way back down there.

If that case is true, Hall
and Spink are the killers.

Could this be the breakthrough

that Jeremy needs?

It is enough to convince a judge

that John Dickman was innocent all along?

It seems to me that his hypothesis works.

The most obvious scenario
here is two gunmen.

The case against Hall and
Spinks is equally as strong

as it was against John Dickman.

The difference between them is
that John Dickman was hanged

and Hall and Spinks weren't.

The hypothesis put
forward by John Eddleston

was fascinating and ingenious

but it really was based on two premises.

Firstly that the witness,
Grant, who was at Morpeth

categorically did not see
anyone getting off the carriage

at Morpeth.

Now I'm not sure that
is Mr. Grant's evidence.

Rather he didn't see someone,

didn't particularly notice someone.

And the second premises is
that there were necessarily

two guns involved in this murder

and again, I'm not sure
that is the evidence

from the firearms expert in this case.

I'm afraid his contribution
has not caused me

to believe that this was
a miscarriage of justice.

For decades
the Dickmans have coped

with secrets and hurt as a
result of their family history.

Finally, two factions of the
family have come together

to share their past

and Rowan and John have
unfinished business in Newcastle.

So we're here, maybe
if we cut just up here

that will take us up to that corner?

- It would do, yes, yes.
- Yeah?

- Try that, shall we?
- Yeah, sure.

They've come to Jesmond Cemetery

to search for John
Dickman's unmarked grave.

It's an open patch just here.

- Yes, that's right.
- Maybe if he is looking on

maybe we can just sort of
say to him, well we tried.

This is the best we can do for you.

- Not forgotten.
- Not forgotten.

Hopefully in time we can clear his name.

It's those last few words, isn't it?

- "Perhaps one day"?
- The truth will come out.

- Well, maybe we will do that.
- Hopefully we will.

And I'm glad that we actually met up

and I know that I've
got an extended family.

It's great isn't it?

And in one sense that's
brought up together hasn't it?

- It has really, yeah.
- Exactly, yeah.

- Hey John.
- And you, yeah.

Well, hopefully he's looking on.

Yeah, hopefully he is fella, really do.

Judgment day has
finally arrived for Rowan.

He's returned to London
and will soon find out

if the barristers have uncovered
the evidence they need.

I really am hopeful that
some of the evidence there

is strong enough to convince a judge

that we can re look at this case

because I truly believe
that should happen.

Jeremy and Sasha have spent days

scrutinizing the facts

and considering their legal arguments.

- Rowan, hi.
- Hello Sasha,

- lovely to see you.
- Nice to see you again.

Hello John, nice to see you.

- How are you?
- I'm fine, thank you, yes.

Looking forward to today, yeah.

- Right.
- Little bit nervous.

Do you want to say anything at this stage?

No, I think the best thing
really is if update you

when we're all sitting
round with our papers open

on the table in front of us,
so shall we go on through?

- I'm looking forward to it.
- All right, okay.

For Rowan,
this could be the start

of a legal process to exonerate
his great grandfather.

Or, it could be the end of any hope

that the conviction can be overturned.

- Rowan, come and sit down.
- Thank you.

What I want to do now is
just really update you

on what's been happening.

Rowan, you can see that
there isn't a judge here.

A judge won't be coming
into this room today

and what I'm going to
do is explain why not.

We have explored really
as many of the features

of this case as we can but it seems to me

that there is no real basis for saying

that this was a miscarriage of justice.

So I'm sorry to be the
bearer of such bad news.

The burden lay with me
to identify new material.

I have significant
concerns about the safety

of this conviction,
but try though we have,

no new material has emerged sufficient

to argue before a judge that
the conviction is unsafe

which means that we simply
cannot progress the case

before a judge.

I'm desperately sorry
that we haven't been able

to take it forward.

I think there are issues without a doubt

that I think make it unsafe.

I do think are issues about
the testaments that were given.

I am concerned that the
identification parade

wasn't as professionally carried out--

Yeah, absolutely.

But I had for the last 50 years

accepted that my great grandfather
may well have been guilty

to a point where I have
very strong doubts now.

But I appreciate that
doubts isn't enough to take

to any form of appeal.

But yeah, um, bit more emotional
than I thought I would be.

We just want to wish you
the very best of luck

in taking this forward in the future,

which having met you we
are confident you will.

Oh, certainly.

-And I must say, we will.

I'm pretty sure I can
speak for the family.

I feel very disappointed
and far more emotional

than I thought I ever would do.

However, through my journey
I've gained a family

and I'm getting to know them.

And we're of one mind that we're going

to follow this further.

Apart from the disappointment,

I've gained so much from this.