The Newcastle Train Murder - The Railway Murders 4/6 - True Crime
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 29 авг 2024
- In 1910, the city of Newcastle was transfixed by a murder trial. A clerk had been killed on a train and his wages bag stolen with hundreds of pounds inside. Accused of the murder was a local man named John Alexander Dickman. But the evidence against him was all circumstantial and, thanks to a recent change in the law, Dickman himself would have the chance to go into the witness box. Dickman was a professional gambler, but he had never faced stakes like this. If the jury believed him, he would walk free. If they didn’t, he would hang.
I really love this series and murder maps . All so well put together. Everything is just perfect! I have been watching the new ones as soon as I see them pop up
He couldn't deny being on the train only in the same carriage as the Clerk bcoz too many witnesses had seen him
Did they ever find the money? Did Dickman pay his loans back? I have a lot of questions. Reasonable doubt comes to mind.
Reasonable doubt wasn’t as set in stone in the UK in 1910.
People need to stop thinking that circumstantial evidence is not powerful. Circumstantial evidence, accumulated, is as good as any.
I think it was cruel that he wasn’t allowed to kiss his wife and children goodbye
Excellent episode Sir!!!🙏😢⚖️🤔
We all know how many people went to the gallows in Great Britain based on circumstantial eveidence
Actually, I don't
@@juttamaier2111 look it up
Well, they didn't have much choice back then. Murderers tend to be rather secretive when they do their deed, so there often is no proof positive witness. Without the aid of proof of fingerprints, blood, cameras etc, the justice system had absolutely no other option than to weigh up the evidence. Nowadays they would have tested the big stain on Dickman's shirt that his wife quickly washed out; then they could not. So yes, weighing up the "circumstantial evidence" was the only way they could determine justice.
For goodness’ sake, *circumstantial evidence IS EQUAL to direct evidence!!!* People who insist on making it seem inferior, or worse, not evidence at all. *ARE IGNORANT of law!!* And that includes supposed “expert” talking heads!!
Almost every country had that problem. Don't throw Britain under the bus😂 in America they are still executing people whose lawyers have been asking for appeals on the fact that DNA came to be and could exonerate, yet our justice system either has chosen that is the criminal or that they don't want to take the time to find the true culprit, and admit they were wrong.
Women first served on juries in England in 1920.
The gun had to be thrown off the train between Stannington Station & Morpeth Station where john dickman got off the train
To me, committing a crime on a train or a plane is a bad idea. Not that any crime is a good idea. But doing in an area you can not make a quick getaway from doesn't seem very smart. It seems you would almost always be caught right away. Idk how no one hears the gunshots either. The screaming. The fighting. But I guess I'm wrong since it does happen.
As for the noise - the racket of the steam train and the clatter of the carriage wheels on the track (and they didn't have smooth continuous track like we have now, so it really was clackety-clack, clackety-clack) could easily cover up the noise of the murder - and remember, they said it was a virtually empty train, so there was almost nobody to hear the assault. But yes, as for the rest, trains and planes seem like really bad places to commit crime, and even more so today than in 1910, with CCTV and the rest.
If you’ve not studied a subject, you are by definition ignorant about that subject. And people who are ignorant about a subject should ignore the impulse to make judgements about it. Seriously.
I cannot say how tired I am of that woman-and other pretend experts-knocking circumstantial evidence! *CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE IS EQUAL TO DIRECT EVIDENCE!!!* A great example of circumstantial evidence is when the fictional Robinson Crusoe had been completely alone on his island after his shipwreck; therefore, when one day he suddenly saw human footprints on the beach, _he knew he wasn’t alone anymore!_ The footprints aren’t DIRECT evidence, which would have been if Crusoe had actually laid eyes on Friday….the CIRCUMSTANTIAL evidence was an inference based on the footprints which were not his. It’s very simple!
@@robincowley5823 I appreciate you taking the time to explain it to me. That makes so much more sense now. Thank you!
@voracious reader How do you learn unless you ask questions? Unlike you, I do not have the time to look every single thing up. I like to learn by hearing someone else's definition of things. Have conversations with others. I'm guessing you never open your mouth by this logic. Never talk to real people? Since you take the time to look everything up before speaking. Always.......
Lol how come if the "suspect" was a person from another country, with no real life, nobody would be worried about him getting convicted? As I've seen on so many Murder Maps😊❤😂
No mention of the money. Was it ever found. Seems strange to me.
Shady/sketchy...?
12 people on the jury all agreed on the verdict. That's the gold standard. If one juror believed his story he would have been exonerated.
With a name like "Dickman" I'm not surprised he was a dick... lol