Hi Paul, Hi Chris,
Mr Butler, you are just the kind of guy I have been trying to meet on the JTR casebook (without much luck!)! I love it when someone has the ability to 'think outside the envelope' and from what you have posted on here it's obvious to me that you can!! Mind you, I must also say at this point that it is just as good to have someone like Chris on board to keep both of our feet on the ground but CONSTRUCTIVELY. If only the lot on the casebook could be like this we might actually get somewhere! Considering how a lot of the servants at Battlecrease House seemed to act in James and Florries employ, I think your theory about nurse Over and Alice Yapp could easily be a valid solution to the watch mystery. I believe Trevor Christies book mentions somewhere that James was frequently unhappy with the servants in his employ (in particular the gardener can't recall his name grrr!!!). I also feel that a lot of the female servants did not approve of Florrie and James's union and may well have felt a certain resentment over her arrival. I get a feeling that, though only his housekeeper, Alice Yapp may have been rather fond herself on Mr Maybrick (who knows with James's appetite he may even have had a sexual liason with her) and so may well have wished to keep the 'masters watch' for herself after his death. It's even possible that Michael Maybrick could have presented her with the watch in recognition of all the good service she had provided James over the years and throughout his final illness. If this was the case it might explain why it was listed on the itinery of possesions you mention but never sold at the auction. Michael was not a scruplious man on the evidence of how he dealt with James's estate anyway as a lot of the furniture etc that was supposed to have been the childrens was sold off by him against James's wishes.
Do you know any more about when nurse over and /or John over died? What happened to their possesions after their death? Were there children from the union? If a link to the Overs could be proved it would add considerable weight to the credibility of the watch at least.
The diary however is a very different beast! I'm really intrigued by Steve Powell's story and belive that he at least feels what he is telling us is the truth. Thing is though, the tin match box problem again gets in the way if you want to believe the date he gives of 1969-75. To believe this you have to believe that from AUSTRALIA they somehow managed to get access to the officially SEALED archives to see the police itinery list. For me, this is far more unlikely than my theory that Anne Graham DID have the original copy of James's diary and that she and Steven Park used most of what was in that for inspiration to create the diary we now have. The passages about the tin match box and 'oh costly intercourse of death' could have been late additions by Mike Barrett (Powell say's he thinks Mike added to Parks original). It's all very confusing now and hard (even for me!) to come up with a feasible explaination...
Oh well, over to you!
All the best,
div>
Tony.
Bookmarks