The “Black Diaries” Attributed to Sir Roger Casement

 Copyright 2002-2003 by 

Kevin Mannerings and Marcel B. Matley 


Sommario - I Diari di Casement

Sir Roger Casement fu impiccato in Gran Bretagna nel mese di agosto del 1916 con l'accusa di tradimento. Era conosciuto come una persona altruista e molte persone si batterono contro la sua condanna a morte. Ma questo appoggio popolare venne meno quando furono messi in circolazione i suoi diari in cui si parlava delle sue avventure omosessuali. Si disse tra le altre cose che erano stati i servizi segreti di Sua Maesta' a fabbricare i diari apposta per far cadere l'idea che Casement fosse un martire. Il Laboratorio Pertale Giles nel mese di marzo 2002 ha stabilito l'autenticita' dei diari. Mannerings e Matley hanno dubbi.

Résumé - Les Agendas De Casement

En Août 1916 en Grande-Bretagne Sir Roger Casement fut pendu pour trahison. Il était célèbre pour son altruisme et beaucoup de gens voulaient lui éviter la peine de mort. Le support de la population s'évanouit lorsque des agendas circulèrent décrivant apparemment ses aventures homosexuelles. On a suggéré que les Services Secrets Britanniques avaient fabriqué ces agendas pour que les gens ne le considèrent plus comme un martyr. En mars 2002, les résultats des tests du Giles Document Laboratory, ont montré que ces agendas étaient authentiques. Mannerings e Matley ont des doutes.


Introduction by Kevin Mannerings

 In 1916 Sir Roger Casement was on trial for treason. He was known as a humanitarian and many people wanted to avoid the death penalty being applied to his case. This support was lost as excerpts of journals, now known as the “Black Diaries”, were circulated. These handwritten documents described his apparent homosexual activities. Casement was hanged at Pentonville in August 1916.

It has been suggested that the British Secret Services fabricated the diaries to stop him being considered a martyr. The debate about the diaries has swayed for and against the forgery theory over the years. The ‘Black Diaries’ were published in 1959 and soon afterwards the Irish academic Prof. Roger McHugh (1960) made a careful challenge to their authenticity. He called for a thorough forensic examination of the documents.  There has been a long running historical controversy about Casement, which took on a new level in 1997 after the historian Angus Mitchell, who edited Casement’s Amazon Journal, declared his view that the ‘Black Diaries’ are forgeries. In a brilliant introduction to Casement’s campaigning work against the enslavement of the Putumayo Indians by the rubber traders, Mitchell declared that the ‘Black Diaries’ were “deeply homophobic documents”.  Some forty years after McHugh’s challenge, in March 2002 results of a forensic examination were made available. These tests by Giles Document Laboratory found the diaries to be genuine. 

For some of us who have been studying the handwriting, syntax, vocabulary and plausibility of the diaries, however, the results came as a major surprise. The present article suggests that the forensic examination falls short of being “conclusive” and calls for the job to be finished.

The Forgery Theory           

Casement consistently insisted the ‘Black Diaries’ were forgeries, and all who knew him closely felt certain this was true. The main problem with the diaries is the lack of corroborating evidence. Essentially, there are two sets of documentation about Casement. One set shows him to be a great humanitarian, who devoted the best years of his life to campaigning against slavery and exploitation. The other set has been interpreted to show him as a man who, while pretending to be engaged in charitable work, was in fact spending the money he raised for charity having sex with male prostitutes, including children. McHugh’s central argument was simple: all those documents which claim to show Casement as a paedophile homosexual have, without exception, passed through the hands of the Chief of British Naval Intelligence, Sir Reginald Hall, and the Head of Scotland Yard, Sir Basil Thomson. Those documents, which have been collected independently over the years, mainly in the National Library in Dublin, do not provide a single cross reference, which would confirm the ‘Black Diaries’.

The writer Richard Deacon (1969) suggested that Rear Admiral Sir Reginald Hall, the chief of British Naval Intelligence, organised the forgery. Deacon does not give sources for his information, but it is believed that in reality Deacon is a pseudonym for a Conservative MP with good connections to past and present members of the British Secret Services.

In a number of instances, Hall emerges as a master of political deception and such previous cases show that he possessed the skill and effrontery to side step the Cabinet and take independent action to get the results he wanted. The US ambassador in London Walter Hines-Page described him as a genius, and certainly in the annals of international espionage and secret service, Hall deserves his legendary position.

During his intelligence career and afterwards, he was associated with several acts of forgery, some quite legitimate, such as the photos of HMS Hampshire, the fake edition of the Daily Mail or the Lusitania Medals.. Other forgeries he has been allegedly associated with, such as the Zinoviev Letter or the publication of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, put him in a less honorable light.  It is thus entirely in keeping with what is known about Hall that he could have devised a sophisticated and elaborate scheme of deception and forgery. The Daily Mail helped by publishing an entirely false rumour that Casement had been arrested in Germany under paragraph 175 of the German penal code (homosexual offences).  His aim was to get Casement executed, and once that had happened the diaries disappeared as suddenly as they had appeared. The Cabinet was a target of the forgery, and was unaware of what Hall had sprung on them.     

The first reports of Casement’s  “unnatural relations” occur in October 1914.  Casement spent two days in Norway on his way to Germany. These reports, collected by British Intelligence agents, and the ‘Black Diaries’, are the only evidence of Casement’s supposed “addiction to sodomy” and “degeneracy”. This first ever report of Casement having a sexual relationship coincides with when Gertrude Bannister, Casement’s first cousin, tells us Casement’s diaries were seized by the British, in London. Thus those plotting to destroy Casement had some 18 months to complete the forgery of the diaries. Those who claim it would be impossible to forge such a large amount might like to consider the work of Konrad Kujau, the man who forged the notorious Hitler diaries, which were authenticated by numerous experts. There were 60 volumes of them.

The Forensic Examination in 2002

In reviewing the results of the 2002 McCormack tests two questions arose immediately. How did the 1911 diary, which shows obvious signs of bleaching and interpolation, manage to pass video spectral analysis without the manipulation becoming obvious?  Secondly, why did the comparison with the so-called White diary for 1910, during the period of Casement’s serious eye infection, not arouse suspicion?

The latter question is easy to answer.  Immediately the report was published copies of the section of the White Diary used for comparison were obtained from the National Library of Ireland (NLI). The originals were away for conservation and not available for inspection, but in spite of the conservation work, a section of the White Diary was made available to the committee of senior academics, so the committee had got the wrong documents from the NLI. Contrary to what it says in the Giles Report and the TV documentaries, the crucial section of the White Diary written when Casement had a bandage covering one eye and an infection spreading to the other eye, leaving him partially blind, was not examined.

At the Casement Colloquium at Goldsmiths College McCormack and Giles did not dispute that the copies from the NLI were indeed the same documents as those examined in the forensic tests.  McCormack stated that it was the section “with the eyes incident.“  The conclusion is that they didn’t even notice that they had the wrong documents with the wrong chronology.  A proper reference of the documents from the NLI used by the Steering Committee was not included in the Giles Report or the accompanying documentation. The confusion has been caused by the numbering of the pages, which is not what it appears to be. The page numbers given in the Giles Report are not the consecutive page numbers of the so-called  “White Diary or Putumayo Journal“ Dr Giles evidently believed they were, but the top pages of 16 sections of the document Ms 13,087(25) As a result, Dr Giles was not given the page of the document Casement dated Wed 12. Oct 1910, starting with the words “Left Puerto Perano”, which is the page Casement apparently wrote with a bandage over one eye and a bacterial infection in the other eye, as it is not one of the top pages. It is therefore no wonder that she found no evidence of Casement’s eye infection. The Giles Report (p. 3 para. 5, p. 44) inadvertently makes statements about documents, which were not part of the examination. This is the substance of what McCormack has called the “confident and emphatic” verdict that the ‘Black Diaries’ are genuine.

In my view, the pencil entries for Monday and part of Tuesday of that week in the 1910 Dollards diary are indeed genuine Casement. He was keeping two records, one including the investigative work he was doing for the British Government and in the other Dollards diary some personal and confidential notes, such as his objection to other members of the Commission of Inquiry having sexual relations with native women.  The pencil entries in the Dollards diary are in small tight handwriting, so it is understandable that he would abandon this diary as his sight deteriorated and instead write larger words on the foolscap pages of his Journal.  

Two questions arose for the forensic examination which have been missed completely. Is there any connection between the pencil entries in the Dollards for 10/11 Oct and the White entry for 12 Oct? It is possible that Casement was using the same pencil, and if he happened not to sharpen it, then it is possible that forensic examination could confirm this.

Secondly, as there is a White entry for 12 October on the separate sheets of paper, which appears to follow the innocent Dollards entries for 10/11 Oct, the ink entries for the rest of that week in the Dollards and the following weeks deserve special attention. In my view the entries after 13/14 Oct are not the handwriting of Roger Casement. They show traces of the handwriting, vocabulary and syntax of the MI5 officer Donald im Thurn.  These entries have been interpolated into the gaps left in Casement’s original Dollards Diary. They are carefully designed to portray him as a paedophile homosexual with psychiatric problems.  It is this section of the diary, left empty by Casement, which contains the physically impossible description of the lunar eclipse. There is also a simple explanation for why the forger suddenly changes from pencil to ink. Casement’s tight pencil scrawl, with strings of words joined together is highly individual and almost impossible to forge. There is far greater variation in his ink writing, with more breaks in the writing.

Dr Giles does not provide a table of the comparisons she made in her study, so it is not possible to verify whether her study includes examples from this section of the Dollards diary or to check the comparisons she has made.

The second area of the Black Diaries showing obvious evidence of forgery is the January 1911 section of the 1911 Letts Diary. This section of the diary deserves special attention and video spectral analysis. I still believe that the results of this video spectral analysis would be most interesting. It is not acceptable that the results of this analysis are being kept secret. A scientific analysis for which the authors claim gives clear results must address the difficult questions.  The Irish taxpayer has put up some of the money for this work, copies of the video spectral analysis should be placed in the National Library and made available to other scientists. Science in an open society thrives on full certified publication of results and thorough examination by other scientists.

There is another aspect of the 1911 Letts Diary which is most strange. At some stage in the 1970’s this diary was subjected to forensic examination, apparently by the British www Office.  The results of this work are again top secret, but one wonders if they found what Herbert O’Mackey found in 1959/1960 and I found in 2002:  obvious evidence of bleaching and interpolation.  On one page the bleach has clearly gone through the paper and damaged the writing on the other side. There is no other sensible explanation for the strange changes in ink colour, together with chopped off parts of words which were caught by the bleach. Then, in a sudden burst of restorative enthusiasm, some persons unknown decided to coat these very pages and some others, with some kind of glue, which contains a pink dye. There is also some kind of granular substance in the glue; the whole job reminds me of a mixture of flour and water paste with methylated spirits added for luck.  There can be no doubt that this curious work has in fact damaged the 1911 Letts diary, which is otherwise in very good condition. One page has been torn along the edge of the paste and has become detached from the diary.

There is a note in the front of the diary, signed by a Master of the Supreme Court in London, stating that he has examined photos before and after the work. Who initiated all this work, and why? Where are the papers relating to it?  Masters of the Supreme Court do not usually trot along to Kew and start examining documents spontaneously. Did the forensic tests in the 1970’s reveal signs of bleaching, and was this a clumsy attempt to cover it up?  Dr Giles has not revealed whether these coated pages were subjected to video spectral analysis, or whether the coating had any influence on the results. She has stated that she found no evidence of erasure. At the debate on this at Goldsmiths, the handwriting expert Frits Cohen pointed out that this statement would only be acceptable in an English court if Dr Giles had carried out the recognised tests for erasure. 

Appraisal of the Forensic Report by Marcel B. Matley

The following are extracts from a 26-page document (Matley 2002) which is an assessment of the Forensic report. They have been selected to give the main points and to provide the reader with a feeling for the report as seen through the eyes of an experienced Document Examiner who, being American and based in San Francisco, is geographically and emotionally far removed from the Casement Affair.

This evaluation is solely based on a reading and study of the report issued by Dr. Audrey Giles [hereinafter: Giles Report], dated 8th February 2002, regarding the results of her examination of the so-called “Black Diaries” attributed to Sir Roger Casement.  The evaluation is not based on any extraneous information, it deals only with the opinions expressed in the Giles Report and the reasons and reasoning given in support of these opinions.  The report is taken on its own internal merits.

All in all, the report’s arrangement is cumbersome and repetitive, while lacking the most critical data needed to evaluate the reliability of the methodology and the validity of the opinion. 

The Giles Report has informed us the identification of Casement as author of the “Black Diary” to be conclusive, but the expression of conclusions does not tell us what is the standard for stating “conclusive” over a lower term of probability.  My position is that any lack in any standard in the process of identifying handwriting, which lack is not fully compensated for in some way, forestalls one from making a “conclusive” finding (or “definite” in American terminology).

Page 2 gives “INSTRUCTIONS” and clearly indicates the desired conclusion:  “The Steering Group have set the initial proposition to be that the documents at Kew known collectively as Roger Casement’s Black Diaries are genuinely written in his hand throughout.”  In a forensic investigation, there ought not be an “initial proposition,” but one ought to start with an objective question such as:  “Are the Black Diaries in the handwriting of Roger Casement?  If not, can the writer be identified?  If so, is there evidence of who the author is?”  Purchasers of forensic opinions are more likely to obtain their preferred “proof” the more they let it be known what is preferred, which is what “the initial proposition” amounts to.

Conclusion number 1 states “many similarities” and “no significant differences.”  Why does the author omit “significant” before “similarities”?  No amount of similarities will prove authorship unless they be significant for identification.  It is difficult to imagine an absolute absence of significant differences between writings by the same person separated by a notable difference in time, topic, circumstances, or physical health.

Conclusion number 5 states there are “sufficient similarities” that “amount to conclusive evidence.”  All of which tell us nothing unless we are told what makes for sufficiency and whether “conclusive evidence” is to be taken as “definite” and thus equating to “beyond a reasonable doubt.”  One assumes such is the case.

Conclusion number 6 says nothing much at all really.  The author must provide us with the standards for proving or disproving simulation, while bearing in mind that lack of evidence for simulation is not evidence of genuineness.  Indeed, lack of evidence for one of a pair of contradictory propositions is not proof of the other; so that lack of evidence of simulation is not proof there was no simulation, merely that one has no grounds to assert it.

Page 12 pads the report with quotes from various authors.  As with techniques, such quotes should only be given to explain what import is to be given to observations which are first reported.  So one says this characteristic was found to be true of the ink on a certain document.  This characteristic means this because an authority on the topic says thus and so.  A list of nine physical aspects of ink is given, but the report never states how any given ink on any given document measures up on them.

Why are we denied the principal purpose of a scientific report, which is the sharing of data obtained through the examinations?  Instead, the Giles Report settles for the secondary purpose of a forensic report:  asserting what the expert thinks the data proves.  Both are essential, IF both are requested, but the first is primary and ought always be provided absent specific instruction to the contrary.  Was she asked to withhold her alleged data obtained through all her examinations and techniques?  If so, why are we denied the data?

On page 13 are given the characteristics to be noted about the “work of a particular pen.”  Having made “observations and measurements of these features as appropriate,” why are they not tabulated in the report if they were indeed appropriate?  Pencil writing is also discussed on page 13, and any resulting data is also denied us.  Discussing theory from notable authors is no redemption for a notable lack of data regarding the documents under discussion.

Page 14 begins with:  “It is an established fact that handwriting can be recognized.”  So, we recognize handwriting as handwriting.  But does Giles Report state precisely the identifying traits of Casement’s authentic writings which, number one, characterize each period of his life and which, number two, can be considered stable throughout all periods of his life?  Our expert must be expert enough to demonstrate the precise complex of traits, significant for identification, which characterize Casement’s handwriting through all periods of his life and in any given period of his life.  Absent that, there is no expert foundation for determining whether any questioned writing is or is not by him.

To be intelligently organized, all exemplar writings should be arranged and illustrated chronologically.  Then one should set forth what has been described previously in this evaluation, that is, what identifying traits are stable throughout all exemplar writings and what characterizes the various periods into which the exemplars might be grouped.  Examples of what can demarcate a particular period would be the onset of a serious illness or the development of a new writing characteristic such as adoption of a new style for a particular capital letter.  If these essential things were done, Giles Report does not share them with the reader.

On pages 16 and 17 are given characteristics observed in the exemplars.  Let us group them under the types of traits given earlier in the Giles Report as the kind of observations made. The summary is in Figure 1

Figure 1. Characteristics observed in the exemplars

Feature Examined

Description

Evaluation

Size

·  variable in letter to Mrs. Morel 1911

·  sometime very large in same letter

These two items make for a very meager observation of size, not the least bit specific or detailed enough to be significant for identification

Shape of characters

·  forms less detailed in 1911 letter to Morel

·  well-formed

·  consistent

·  single stroke cursive “E”

·  “G” and “g” single looped structure

·  “d” ending with upward stroke of loop of left tendency

Form (also called style or shape of characters) is the least compelling evidence in handwriting identification; the features chosen would not specify any individual’s style and misses a wealth of potential observations in Casement’s exemplars and in the questioned materials

Internal proportion of characters

·  consistent

·  “d” with broad upper loop

·  “t” with high or low crossbar

·  “s” horizontally elongated

·  “bowl” of “y” not fully formed

If one of these observations were not obviously incorrect (every illustration of exemplars has size ratio variation throughout) and two others incomplete, they might have amounted to worthy, though not compelling, evidence.

Number and order of strokes in characters

 

No observation given

 

Giles Report fails its own promise

Line direction

No observation given

Giles Report fails its own promise

Crossings

No observation given

Giles Report fails its own promise

Other Observations

·  “widely spread” handwritings in 1911 note

·  fluently written

·  “number of distinctive features throughout”

·  “s” with small pen movement

·  word connections

 

These are of no use for the task at hand. Some are incorrect, others incomplete, some unclear as to what is meant, and the rest not unique to Casement either singly or in combination.

Page 18 ends with a note about variation.  The examiner must define the specific characteristics of a writer’s variation.  Since “everybody’s handwriting” is said to have “natural variation” to the some degree, we need to know what characterizes Casement’s variation vis-a-vis anyone else’s.  For example, does he vary one letter rather than another?  Which variations occur together and which occur individually?  In what features does variation most occur, such as slant, base line, size?  If, for example, size varies, does it vary randomly, at a particular place within words, within lines, within sentences, within paragraphs?  The author of Giles Report seems oblivious to all observations of handwriting which are inconspicuous and which are difficult to make and record.  Lastly, since most of the potential observations of handwriting are not even touched on, the statement that no significant differences were found fades into insignificance, because most of the handwriting characteristics seem not to have been noticed.

Page 22 provides the conclusion of Giles Report for the ARMY FIELD notebook, which is what the Steering Group stated on page 2 was their thesis.  A strange statement is made that consideration was given to whether someone other than Roger Casement wrote all or part of the notebook.  The statement is strange because how can any other person be considered when no other person’s exemplars are stated to have been examined?  When a client provides massive amounts of material for one person but nothing for any other person who was ever mentioned or might be considered as a possible author of the questioned material, one can be assured that act underlines what the expected conclusion is.

On page 25 anomalies are noted, such as text squeezed in, notable reduction in size of writing in some areas against greatly expanded writing in others.  Having earlier stated how squeezed in and so on “contentious” entries are as compared to others, there are now no significant differences to be found.  All anomalies are dismissed as insignificant.  However, even while saying there are no differences, it seems to say there are.  The discussion on page 27 is either skillful ambiguity or poor proofreading.

On page 33 begins “consideration of “THE LETT’S OFFICE DIARY 1911.”  On page 34 an incorrect understanding of what a UV light examination can prove is used to support a conclusion.  I quote a Peter Singleton-Gates whom Giles Report quotes on page 34:  “The [UV light] examination showed that no possible erasures had been made and that there had been no interpolations.  The ray revealed a consistency of the handwriting of the same ink used on every page.”  Actually we have several misunderstandings:

1.  UV light might reveal an erasure, but it cannot prove the impossibility of erasures being present.  It is only one of several means of detecting erasures.  Further, it will not yield its full potential of evidence unless all three commercially available ranges of UV light are used, each with all customary filters.

2.  Nor can UV light eliminate all possibility of interpolations.  Since there are many ways to interpolate new text into a document, use of all methods for detecting such might not discover some interpolations.  For example, suppose I were handwriting this paragraph and came to the last line which was but one word.  Someone tells me I should modify what was said, so the next day I interpolate a short sentence on the same last line, using the same pen as before.  All the UV light in the world with all the most sophisticated equipment for use of UV light and employment of a million filters would not detect the last sentence as an interpolation.

3.  UV light does not tell us whether any handwriting is consistent, though it can detect some inconsistencies.  Only good old fashioned, intelligent and competent handwriting examination can determine inconsistencies in the most satisfactory manner.  For example, if 100 t-bars were in a sample and were all made differently, what value could UV light possibly add to simple observation?  If they were all made with the same ink on the same paper at the same sitting, UV light would see them as chromatically consistent.

4.  UV light examination can positively prove different inks are used only if they have different formula which react differently under the UV light and if the equipment and filters employed are sensitive enough to distinguish the different reactions.  But if different formulas of ink have components which do not react under UV light or react in the same way, the examination will not reveal that they are different inks.  That is why properly applied ink chemistry can prove facts no specialized light examination can.

5.  Underlying the above four misunderstandings about UV light are two logical fallacies which are often unrecognized by the scientifically unaware.  These two logical fallacies are the violations the following principles:

(a)  Absence of evidence for a fact is not positive evidence for its contrary; and, a corollary to this,

(b)  A fact at issue must be proved by positive evidence pertinent to it.

Wilson R. Harrison is cited to the effect that the inferences quoted are from incorrect procedure.  The Harrison cite is introduced with:  “He cautions the use of this technique…” The passage from Harrison says “many a forged document has been given a cursory examination by ultra-violet light and declared free from erasure.  Any suspect document has to be given a thorough examination which extends far beyond a visual inspection by ultra-violet light if erasures are not to go undetected.”  Rather than going far beyond inspection by ultra-violet light, Giles Report seems to tell us Peter Singleton-Gates and Dr. Letitia Fairfield performed only an ultra-violet examination.  We can suspect erasures might well have gone undetected with employment of a single procedure out of the several which ought to have been employed. It is then said oblique light and magnification should be used to detect erasures, which is true as they are the major two of the several methods.

It is repeatedly asserted that contentious and innocuous entries are consistent in appearance.  Recall that “consistent” did not appear among the expressions for conclusions on page 15.  That can only mean that “consistent with” or “inconsistent with” has no value in expressing a conclusion as to identification.  Indeed, semantically, being consistent with a thing only means that with which it is consistent is at least possible but that there is nothing to eliminate the opposite of that with which it is consistent.  Being inconsistent with a thing would at best suggest the two are possibly mutually exclusive, though not necessarily so.  Inconsistent things have often coexisted while consistent things have often existed apart.  In summary, “consistent with” and “inconsistent with” only give an illusion of some kind of reality.

Under Results on page 36 we are told many similarities were found, but we are not told precisely what they are or whether any are significant for identification.  There were allegedly no significant differences, however, if the anomalies described were not found within the authentic diaries, they become significant differences which, absent a reasonable explanation, at least prevent an identification from being made.  If they are of great import, as their numbers and descriptions suggest they are, they are positive evidence of falsity absent a reasonable explanation.  The author seems content with a cavalier dismissal of anything disturbing to a comfortable support of the client’s “initial proposition.” The report has not reported what it claims is the factual bases for any of its conclusions, only asserting that there are factual bases. Even if every document examined were the authentic writing of Casement, this report does nothing to establish the fact.

Conclusions by Kevin Mannerings

Roger Casement’s Diaries must be among the most important documents of modern Irish history. Pages of some diaries are falling out of their holding; they are torn and detached. The Public Records Office has questions to answer about the way the documents are being preserved. There should be a full investigation of the work done in the early 1970’s on the 1911 Letts Diary. Given that this clumsy destructive work was allowed on the diaries at Kew in the 1970’s, there is really no reason any longer for the Public Records Office to stop chemical tests on the paper of the 1911 Letts diary, which could establish proof of forgery once and for all.

It is not acceptable for a piece of academic research to be left on the record without correction if it is true that the authors did not even notice that they did not have the documents they thought they had. The research was financed in part by the Department of the Taoiseach, so that it is unfortunately the case that Mr Ahern has been codded in this matter. He accepted the report in good faith, trusting that the academics involved had got it right.

There is also the matter of journalistic integrity in this case. Millions of BBC and RTE viewers have been led to believe that the ‘White Diary’ for 1910 written while Casement was partially blind has been compared with the ‘Black Diary’. The viewers were led to believe that there was no evidence of blindness in the ‘White Diary’, and therefore no ground to suspect the parallel Black entries written in ink. The fact is that the crucial entry for 12. October 1910 at Puerto Perano never left Ireland.

The truth about Roger Casement and the diaries cannot be hidden any longer. Bertie Ahern started the ball rolling. He should finish the job he started by ensuring that the forensic work is done in full, including chemical tests on the paper. It was after all, the founder of the Fianna Fail Party, Eamonn de Valera, who said, when taking off his hat to Casement on a cold wet day against his doctor’s advice: “Casement deserves better.”


References

Chester, Fay, & Young, (1967) The Sunday Times Insight Team The Zinoviev Letter

Deacon, Richard (1969) A History of British Naval Intelligence

Deacon, Richard, (1978) The Silent War A History of Western Naval Intelligence

Giles, A (2002), Examination of the “Black Diaries” 8th February 2002

Inglis, Brian (1973) Roger Casement

Kienast, W (1967) The Medals of Karl Goetz

Matley, M (2002) “Black Diaries” Attributed to Sir Roger Casement :The Audrey Giles Report File Ref. 020310-A . 21 April 2002. 26pp

Mannerings K, (2000) The ‘Black Diaries’ of Roger Casement: filling the gaps in the forgery theory. 10pp unpublished essay

Mannerings K, (2002) The ‘Black Diaries’of Roger Casement: reply to Jeff Dudgeon 3pp

Mannerings K, (2002) Casement deserves better. Article based on a talk given at the Roger Casement Symposium in Dublin organised by the Casement Foundation. 28 Nov 2002 (5pp)

McHugh, Roger (1960) Threshold Magazine

Mitchell Angus, (1997) The Amazon Journal of Roger Casement

O’Mackey Herbert, (1966) Roger Casement: The Truth about the forged Diaries

Reid BL, (1976) The Lives of Roger Casement

Simpson, Colin (1976) The Lusitania

Tuchmann, Barbara (1980) The Zimmermann Telegram


Notes

1. Kevin Mannerings, Bismarckstrasse 9, 75323 Bad Wildbad, Germany.  Kevin Mannerings is a graduate of Manchester University and Trinity College, Dublin. He also studied for five semesters at the Johann-Wolfgang-von-Goethe University of Frankfurt.  He lives near Stuttgart, Germany, where he works as a systems engineer.

2. Marcel B. Matley Post Office Box 882401, San Francisco, Ca 94188 USA E-Mail:  mmatley@aol.com

3. This paper is based on several documents by the two authors. It was edited and adapted for the Graphodigest 2002 conference by Nigel R. Bradley in December 2002. Italian abstract by Sabina Maffei, French abstract by Christine Scali.

4. Copies of the Giles Report will be deposited in the following libraries in Britain and Ireland. The British Library, The Public Record Office, The London School of Economics, The National Library of Scotland, The National Library of Ireland, The Royal Irish Academy.


Graphodigest 2002 Programme


  Graphology Info Centre Centro d'informazione di grafologia (IT) - Centre d'information graphologique (FR) -  Last updated 18 July 2003. orrections to bradlen@wmin.ac.uk-     Hit Counter hits since 2 Jan 2002