John Alexander Dickman was born on 17 May 1864 in England. Little is publicly documented about his early life, upbringing, or education. By all appearances, he led a relatively unremarkable life before becoming embroiled in one of the most shocking train murders in early 20th-century England.

Dickman lived during a time of immense industrial growth and shifting class structures in Britain. Details about his family background are sparse, but one significant note came from his own brother, William Dickman, who later publicly declared his belief in John's guilt. This suggests that the family may have been working or middle class, and deeply affected by the scandal surrounding the murder charge.

John Dickman was not widely known before the incident. However, he was familiar enough with firearms to have received a pistol from a gunsmith in October 1909, a key point later used in the prosecution’s case against him. Prior to the murder, there is no public record of criminal activity, though later suggestions hinted he might have been responsible for earlier unsolved murders, including that of Caroline Mary Luard in 1908 and Hermann Cohen in 1909, though these accusations remain speculative and unproven.

On 18 March 1910, 71-year-old John Innes Nisbet, a colliery employee, boarded a train from Newcastle railway station heading to Alnmouth. He was carrying a bag containing £370, the wages for the colliery workers. At some point during the journey, Nisbet was shot five times in the head in a private train compartment. When the train arrived, his lifeless body was found in a blood-soaked seat. The money had vanished. Later, the empty wage bag was found discarded in a local mineshaft, with only a few coins left inside.

Suspicion quickly fell on John Dickman, who had reportedly been seen boarding the same compartment as Nisbet by two witnesses. These eyewitness accounts became central to the prosecution's case. Investigators discovered what they believed to be damning evidence: bloodstains on Dickman's clothing and paraffin-treated areas on his Burberry coat, possibly an attempt to remove blood. He also had a connection to a firearm, having received a pistol just months earlier.

Dickman was arrested within weeks and charged with Nisbet's murder. His trial began in July 1910. Despite the circumstantial nature of the evidence, the prosecution painted a convincing picture of motive, opportunity, and guilt. On 6 July 1910, Dickman was found guilty and sentenced to death by Mr Justice Coleridge.

However, the conviction stirred public debate. Critics argued the case relied too heavily on inconclusive eyewitness identification and circumstantial forensics. Some felt the judge had shown bias, while others believed the defence was poorly handled. The Home Secretary at the time, Winston Churchill, was petitioned to intervene, but he refused.

Dickman's legal team filed an appeal, which was quickly dismissed. A public campaign for clemency followed. Leaflets were distributed, and publications questioned the fairness of the conviction. Notably, the socialist writer C.H. Norman strongly opposed the execution and called Dickman's trial a miscarriage of justice.

Even Dickman’s own brother William weighed in, writing to the Newcastle Evening Chronicle to express his belief in his brother’s guilt, stating bluntly that John had brought disgrace upon the family that would last “not for years, but for generations.”

On 10 August 1910, John Alexander Dickman was hanged at Newcastle Gaol. He was the last man to be executed at that facility. His case remained controversial long after his death.

In later years, some theorists suggested alternative suspects or speculated that Dickman may have been framed. Programs like BBC's Murder, Mystery and My Family and Railway Murders revisited the case, with some even proposing that the two witnesses who claimed to have seen Dickman and Nisbet together may have been involved in the crime themselves.

Although there was speculation that Dickman may have been connected to earlier unsolved murders, such as the 1908 shooting of Caroline Mary Luard in Kent and the 1909 killing of Hermann Cohen in Sunderland, no concrete evidence ever linked him to those cases. They remain speculative associations in the historical record.

Dickman's story echoes through time as one of early 20th-century England's most haunting cases, a man hanged based on circumstantial evidence, with a legacy still debated over a century later.