Sherlock Holmes wrote:

I'm pretty sure Sherlock would have read the information on the stick. Even if John kept it hidden, or attempted to, we know by now that he can't keep ANYTHING secret from Sherlock.

Seeing as Mary gave up her old live five years ago though, I honestly do think that her and John met by chance and her love for him is genuine. I think the information on the stick will involve things that she's done in her career, possibly the amount of people she's killed and some of the methods she's used, things she believes will put John off her for life (but in reality, probably wouldn't)

As for whether Sherlock took a copy, that would depend on whether he knew John was planning to throw the stick onto the fire or not.

I think, Mary is genuinely in love with John, no doubt about that, but I don't believe for one moment, that she met John by chance (that would be a very uninteresting story line, btw)
She might have given up her incarnation as a CIA agent some years ago, but according to CAM, she was freelancing,  And I think, CAM knew way more about that and Mary's 'wicked ways'. She might've been freelancing right to the time TRF takes place. Maybe, it was her love to John, which made her change this 'wicked' life. In this case, John saved her as well as she saved John.
As to John destroying the stick eventually... I think, Sherlock knows John well enough to anticipate such a romantic gesture.

Davina wrote:

If she was set up with a false identity her financial arrangements would have been sorted out as well.

But people who are set up with a new identity don't do things which draw attention to themselves, and managing to live in London on a part time nurse's pay is the sort of thing which instantly draws attention.

Even where the new identity is provided by the state, for example witness protection schemes, the person involved is expected to earn their own living wherever possible; working part time is not normal for a woman of Mary's age...
 

besleybean wrote:

Who says?

The Office for National Statistics 
 

Swanpride wrote:

perhaps she couldn't afford living in London itself before she meet John and they moved in together.

 
If she couldn't afford to live there then she couldn't afford to commute there either; it is mindbogglingly expensive to do so. That is why the vast majority of Civil Service jobs were moved to much cheaper parts of the country years ago...

Wasn't exactly what I was thinking of.
But ok, so do these statistics say that not one woman of that age in Britain, works part time?
I know several who do.

besleybean wrote:

Wasn't exactly what I was thinking of.
But ok, so do these statistics say that not one woman of that age in Britain, works part time?
I know several who do.

No. But we are not talking about a woman of that age in Britain; we are talking about a specific woman of a specific age in a specific place ie the most expensive part of Britain, who most certainly could not afford to either live in, or commute to, London on the salary of a part time nurse.

It may be that the women you know who work part time and have no other sources of income manage to survive on their income, in which case congratulations on living in Shangri La.

But down here the world is somewhat harder; economic reality kicks in. And HMRC tend to get tetchy when people appear to be able to perform magical tricks which defy the age old precepts of there having to be income in order for there to be expenditure 
 

silverblaze wrote:

There must be nurses in London. Don't tell me they can't live there, they must or london hospitals would be a disaster. (Maybe they are but that's a different discussion.)

There are indeed nurses in London hospitals; they work full time and they live in hospital provided accommodation, or social housing provided by local authorities for essential workers like nurses.

None of which has anything to do with a woman working as part time nurse in a GP's practise...
 

Swanpride wrote:

I don't follow the logic...if she shares the rent with John, she certainly should be able to afford a decent place. Perhaps John is even paying the main share of it. After all, he is working as a doctor again and has his army pension. And we don't know where she lived before she meet John.

But she wasn't sharing the rent with John when she first met him, was she?

And whether she lived in London or commuted she could not have done so, even flat sharing, on the salary of a part time nurse at a GP's practise. It's straightforward mathematics; she has to have another income in addition to the one we are told about.




 

Swanpride wrote:

If the guy with the bike could find a flat in London, even if it was an ugly one directly beside the rails, than Mary should be able to do so, too. All those people who work in a low-pay job have to life somewhere after all, statistics or not. Perhaps she didn't life directly in London but traveled into town everyday.

We only know where she lives now, and that is quite nice, but is not something she has to afford on her own, so I really don't see the problem.

 
The guy with the bike was a drugs dealer; are you suggesting that is what Mary was doing?

And as I keep pointing out, commuting into London is ludicrously expensive; it doesn't solve anything. Traveling into London each day costs an arm and a leg, and people doing low pay jobs work long hours, not part time.

None of this is an explanation for Mary having a lot more money than the one source of income we are told about; I do not think the writers are so dumb that they accidentally overlooked this when they were writing this season, which is why I think the question will be relevant to what happens next...