The Ripper Diary: Old Hoax Theories

[Livia]

Correction

Robert and Thomas Over, watchmaker and watch case
maker were probably not related to John Charles Over,
husband of Emma Parker Powell. Or, if they were, it was
too far back to be relevant.

John Charles Over was a joiner, as was his father Joseph.
His grandfather Thomas was a railway superintendent.
They were a Cheshire family, as was Emma Parker's.
John Charles Over died in 1908. Emma Over died in
1936, age 91, in Upton Cheshire.

[caz]

Cheers Livia.

Love,

Caz
X

[Pcdunn]

Hi Pcdunn,

This just goes to show you can't trust even the most reliable ripper authors to be unbiased where the Maybrick saga is concerned. Don is a lovely chap, but he relied on a dodgy source this time and another myth lives on as a result.

It is not a lady's watch. It is a gentleman's dress pocket watch.

Love,

Caz
X

Thank you for the information, Caz.

One thing I've noted from my short time here on the message boards is how Ripperlogists are likely to stand their grounds, once they have a reason to do so. Good for you all!

[pinkmoon]

Could make a carry on film about the diary.

[Amanda]

Could make a carry on film about the diary.

Starring Harry Enfield & Simon Pegg.......yes, can see it now

Amanda

[GUT]

Starring Harry Enfield & Simon Pegg.......yes, can see it now

Amanda

And Sid James, what's a carry on without Sid.

[pinkmoon]

Starring Harry Enfield & Simon Pegg.......yes, can see it now

Amanda

Carry on up the diary!!!!!!!

[caz]

What a great idea! But no Kenneth Williams, Joan Sims, Charles Hawtrey or Peter Butterworth? Unthinkable.

"Frying tonight!" as John Omlor tries desperately to commit the diary to the flames. More horror show than comedy.

Love,

Caz
X

[MayBea]

John Omler? Another J.O.!

What are the odds of that?

I looked it up. 0.15 to .3 %.

http://blogs.sas.com/content/iml/201...st-common.html

[MayBea]

The odds are therefore 300 to 1 that there was a J.O. in the Maybrick circle.

I seriously doubt someone would know about John Over and engrave a J.O. on his "Maybrick watch forgery".

Therefore it's good odds that the watch came from the Maybrick circle, even if it is a big circle.

The matching watch in the estate sale increases the odds especially, when it just says "monogrammed" which means, to me, it's not a Maybrick monogram. Otherwise it would be quite valuable, wouldn't it?

...another myth lives on as a result.

It is not a lady's watch. It is a gentleman's dress pocket watch.

Put that myth up with the proverbial "Victorian photo album"!

A stub book can be used for photos but it's not a "photo album".

[caz]

I seriously doubt someone would know about John Over and engrave a J.O. on his "Maybrick watch forgery".

Oh I don't think anyone has seriously suggested the J.O. engraving was commissioned by whoever made the Maybrick/Jack markings. The point is, this person was not put off by the existing J.O, and was likely to have been aware of a connection to the Maybrick household via John Over.

Therefore it's good odds that the watch came from the Maybrick circle, even if it is a big circle.

But the bigger the circle, the more likely it would have included someone with the initials J.O. The first initial J is extremely common, while O is going to be very common among those of Irish descent (O'Connor, O'Reilly and so on), and many would have lived and worked in the Liverpool area.

A stub book can be used for photos but it's not a "photo album".

Indeed. It's a Victorian guard book (or scrap book to a modern Brit), which can be used as a photo album or a diary, while not really being either.

Love,

Caz
X

[MayBea]

But the bigger the circle, the more likely it would have included someone with the initials J.O. The first initial J is extremely common, while O is going to be very common among those of Irish descent (O'Connor, O'Reilly and so on), and many would have lived and worked in the Liverpool area.

You're right, Caz.

The odds get actually much better than 300 to 1 with even a small circle.

Using this dice formula I found:

1-(5/6)exponent#n=probability

I plugged in 1-(299/300)exponent30=.9
or 1 in 10 chance of having a J.O. among 30 people.

It's similar to the Birthday problem. The odds of two having the same birthday are 50-50 with just 23 people.

[pinkmoon]

Could J O really be a fancy 10?

[caz]

I wouldn't have thought so, pinky.

Love,

Caz
X

[pinkmoon]

It's worth a try my dear.xxxxxxxxxxxx