Today I happened to visit the grave of Richard Turpin, or was it?
🕵️‍♂️
Was Dick Turpin Innocent? A Case of Mistaken Identity and Legal Convenience
Dick Turpin is the ultimate poster boy for 18th-century villainy — a highwayman galloping through the night, pistol in hand, destined for the gallows. But what if the story is not as clear-cut as we’ve been led to believe?
What if Turpin — or at least the man hanged under that name — was wrongfully convicted, misidentified, and sacrificed to public appetite for justice?
Let’s take a closer look.
🧑‍⚖️ 1. No Conviction for the Crimes That Made Him Famous
Turpin was not executed for highway robbery, or for murder, or for any of the violent crimes that made him a household name. He was hanged for stealing a horse.
In fact, no court ever found him guilty of any of the crimes committed by the so-called “Essex Gang”, whose exploits inspired terror across the south of England. Nor was he tried for the alleged murder of Thomas Morris, the forest keeper said to have been shot by Turpin in Epping Forest.
His conviction rested entirely on circumstantial evidence that he stole horses while living under the alias John Palmer in Yorkshire. No one witnessed the theft. The evidence was unrecorded in detail, and little trial documentation survives.
🕵️‍♀️ 2. The “Handwriting Identification” That Sealed His Fate
The key to “John Palmer” being unmasked as Dick Turpin was a letter he wrote from York Castle to his brother-in-law, James Matthews, in Essex. Matthews refused to pay the postage, and the letter fell into the hands of a former schoolteacher named James Smith — a man who had taught Turpin in childhood.
Smith claimed he recognised the handwriting.
That’s it. No photograph. No fingerprints. No confession. No forensic science. Just one man’s memory of a former pupil’s handwriting.
By today’s standards, such identification would be laughable in a criminal court, and likely inadmissible without expert corroboration. Yet this flimsy link was enough to transform John Palmer the horse trader into Dick Turpin the legendary highwayman.
🪤 3. A Convenient Scapegoat
By 1739, the authorities were under pressure. The Essex Gang had ravaged the countryside, and the newspapers were full of their savage deeds. Executions were the preferred method of closure — and Turpin was the last man standing.
Yet:
- The key gang members were either dead or hanged already.
- Much of the evidence against Turpin was hearsay or retrospective.
- His name had become synonymous with lawlessness, whether fairly or not.
Once “Palmer” was identified as Turpin, it didn’t matter whether he stole horses. It was a convenient charge that would stick, that would satisfy public outrage, and that would end the story.
A capital conviction for horse theft was all they needed. Justice — or at least vengeance — could proceed.
⏳ 4. No Time, No Defence, No Lawyer
Turpin was tried, without legal representation, in a system that offered no disclosure, no duty of fairness, and no right to properly prepare a defence.
He told the court:
“I never was tried before — I do not know what to say.”
His trial lasted less than a day. He had no lawyer. He had no chance.
By today’s standards, this was a denial of justice, regardless of guilt or innocence. Even the most basic protections we now afford defendants were absent.
If Turpin wasn’t guilty — or wasn’t even who they claimed — we’ll never know. No appeal. No review. Just the scaffold.
🧠5. What If It Wasn’t Turpin at All?
Let’s entertain a radical idea: What if the man hanged in York in 1739 was not Dick Turpin?
- “Dick Turpin” was already a media invention by the late 1730s — his name had become a label for crime itself.
- Could authorities have misidentified Palmer? Could Smith’s identification have been mistaken?
- Could the man in York have been a small-time horse thief, convenient to dispose of under a larger-than-life legend?
While this theory borders on historical heresy, it highlights a critical point: the justice system didn’t care who he really was. They needed a name, a neck, and a rope.
⚖️ Conclusion: Innocent or Just Invisible?
We may never know whether Dick Turpin was innocent — but we do know that he was:
- Not convicted of his most infamous crimes
- Identified using highly questionable methods
- Denied legal representation
- Tried on the thinnest evidence
- Executed with remarkable haste
Innocent or guilty, the man hanged in York was denied a fair trial. And that, more than anything, makes this story not just a matter of crime — but of justice denied.