Book Launch:  Report

Another ‘Biography’ Of Casement !

Books on  Roger Casement are becoming something  of a growth  industry.  The  latest is by Rory Carroll, the Irish correspondent of the Guardian, titled  A Rebel And  A Traitor.  The leaflet below was made available on 25th March at a pre-publication event for the book, The Hunt For Roger Casement.  It was held at a rather unusual location, the Bow St. Police Museum (London)—which had the unusual advice to  those attending  that seating would not be available!  One elderly attendee complained about the cost he had incurred in buying and bringing his own seating!

The following reflections may be of interest and give some idea on the themes of the book which was subsequently published on 26th March.  Time constraints do not allow  for a full-scale review at this point..

The  publisher’s publicity blurb for the book tells us that, as a—

 “…master storyteller Rory Carroll has combed diaries, letters, police reports, memoirs, court transcripts, secret service archives and declassified government files in the US, Britain, Ireland and Germany to create a page-turning history, and a story that still echoes through Anglo-Irish relations.  A Rebel and a Traitor raises profound questions about honour, courage and the price of patriotism.”

This is an impressive sounding accolade, but it begs a couple of questions.  The research does not make reference to any of  Casement’s own  published writings—and this is odd, as he never seemed to have  stopped writing throughout his whole career!  Surely these would be more significant for any biography worthy of the name than the other sources mentioned.  

What could possibly be more important in writing a biography of anybody than what he actually wrote and what he was hanged for? Because, being the man he was, he  followed through on what he wrote about Germany and the First World War.  His  views on the War were collected in “The Crime against Europe” and published as the War was launched;  and his  writings in The Continental Times during the War were published as “England’s regard for the truth—by one who knows both”.

Carroll did not mention  any of these  in his talk and, when I asked why, he  claimed that The Crime Against Europe was not widely read!  However, its importance is not to be judged by its popularity at the time, for obvious reasons, but its historical significance is what historians should acknowledge.  Carroll is unable to do this, journalists being journalists and historians being historians!

Also interesting in the blurb accolade on Carroll’s research is the pride of place given to the Diaries—which he claims to have “combed”.  These therefore these would seem to have been be a primary source for the author.  But which ‘diaries’?

 Casement  is  associated  with  two sorts of diaries—on the one hand, two genuine, undisputed, diaries and, on the other, those known as the ‘black’ diaries, which have always been disputed because there is no verifiable evidence that he wrote them, or that they existed in his lifetime. 

Carroll  treated all the diaries  as of a piece,  claimed that the Black Diaries were written in secret so that he could “reflect on past intimacies”.  This is a somewhat selective use of words, as the encounters  presented in the contested diaries were those of a pederast buying quick and silent sex from under-age boys. 

Moreover, to borrow a phrase from the ‘hetero’ world, it was a case of “slam, bam, thank you ma’am”.  Humpty Dumpty famously said that words mean exactly what you want them to mean:  and here is a good example of that!

A gay elderly gentleman in the audience from NI  said he felt liberated by the acceptance of  a homosexual  Casement.  In response, I pointed out that homosexuals I knew considered the  Black Diaries  to be homophobic pederasty, and considered that these should not be equated with homosexuality:  as was done with these so-called  diaries.  And evidence of their falsity is confirmed by  Casement himself—who explained in a genuine diary that he was celibate because “I have never given life myself to anyone and my celibacy makes me frugal of human life” (29.9.1910).  Carroll must surely have come across this remark if he ‘combed’ the diaries.  So, if he and others do not accept it, then they are saying in effect that Casement was a thoroughgoing lying hypocrite.

Overall we were presented with what the author  himself called a “cat and mouse” thriller:  with Blinker Hall of Naval Intelligence as the cat.  The world changing events of the period are relegated to background noise and a narrative of  a personal vendetta imposed on these events.  The treason committed by Casement at a time when the survival of the British Empire was at risk during a deadly war receives little consideration.  Instead, Carroll stresses that it was Hall’s sheer vindictiveness that ensured Casement’s execution—which is just silly for anyone familiar with the circumstances:  in particular the insistence from the Government and the public that the ‘traitor’ be executed.  (No overt reference to homosexuality was made in the trial.)  This is creative history with  knobs on.

 Some of the other regular mantras were  mentioned:  such as a  devious Alder Christensen, portrayed as a lover who betrayed Casement.  This, despite the fact that Christensen  was offered £5,000 by M. De C. Findlay, the British Consul to Norway to betray Casement and  “knock him on the head”.   Instead of doing so,  Christensen surrendered the written offer of a bribe to the German Foreign Office, while Casement exposed the attempt:  which humiliated Findlay and ended his career ladder in the Foreign Office. 

There is no credible evidence of a sexual relationship between Christensen and Casement;  Christensen was certainly attracted to women:  he married three times, which surely gives some indication of his sexual preferences!

We are presented with a biography that dismisses the subject’s own writings, especially those that led to his execution;  relying instead on forged diaries for the substance of the book! 

It is a book  full of trivial details, true and false—that are already well known to anyone interested in the subject:  what is presented here is a totally distorted picture of the subject.  A classic example of verisimilitude:  as also were the Black Diaries.

Max Hastings, in an understated way, gets it right: 

“I am not persuaded that his device of harnessing Casement’s wartime story to that of Captain Reginald “Blinker” Hall, mastermind of naval intelligence, quite works:  his work interweaved only loosely with the 1916 Irish tragedy” (The Times. 17.3.26).

Unfortunately, the author is not able to  see the wood for the trees in the Casement story.  Historians like Max Hastings are able to see the reality, but this foreign correspondent for the Guardian cannot.

 Two pages of acknowledgments excludes the work of  Paul Hyde—though the author has been well aware of it for some time—as he rather sheepishly admitted.  Indeed he read Anatomy Of A Lie in March 2024.

No doubt, like other recent books on Casement it is likely  to get “rave reviews” in the ‘Mainstream Media’.  Let this be  a health warning if you plan to buy it.  

And as it’s a thriller by  a “master storyteller”, watch out for the film!

Jack Lane

[The following leaflet was distributed at a public meeting in London,  which featured Rory Carroll as the speaker.  It is a rebuttal of an article by Rory Carroll in Village Magazine]

THE HUNT FOR ROGER CASEMENT:     Rory Carroll at Bow Street Museum, Mar 25, 2026:  A Rebuttal!

Today’s consensus for authenticity of the diaries attributed to Casement results from a long campaign of deception and disinformation aimed at concealing the criminal plot to exact revenge on him  for  supporting Germany in WWI by destroying his reputation.  Much of what is published about Casement and the diaries is demonstrably false. 

Listed below are just twenty-six of the most frequent falsehoods which are believed to be facts. The publication of so much deception constitutes strong evidence of awareness of forgery. 

 1 – The diaries were found in Casement’s luggage. False. No incriminating diaries were found anywhere. Source: Basil Thomson in 1916, Home Secretary Butler in 1959, Inglis and many later biographers. 

2 – The diaries were ‘circulated’ to influential persons before the trial.  False. Source: Brian Inglis, Sawyer, Dudgeon, Ó Síocháin, Philipps. The handwritten diaries now at Kew archives were never circulated at any time and were not shown to anyone in 1916.  Only police typescripts were shown to selected persons. 

3  – Casement told his barrister Sullivan he was homosexual.  False. Source:  Sullivan claimed this in 1952 but in 1956 he publicly admitted he had lied;  ‘He told me nothing about the diaries or about himself…’

4 – King George V, Rev. John Harris, journalists Clement Shorter & Ben Allen, US Ambassador Walter Page were shown handwritten diaries.  False.  Source:  Inglis, Sawyer, Reid, Dudgeon, Ó Síocháin, etc.  Home Office files state that these persons were shown police typescripts only. 

5 – Michael Collins authenticated the diaries.  False.  Source: many authors.  Collins left no comment after seeing two diaries in 1922.  There is no evidence that he was duped.  He told Gogarty in person that he was shown the diaries, in order to persuade him of authenticity. Collins never knew or corresponded with Casement.  

6 – Casement’s parents were alcoholics.  False. Source:  Inglis, Sawyer & Broken Archangel by Philipps.  The allegation is unsupported by evidence.  This slur contributes to the portrait of Casement as a fractured personality, disturbed and unstable since childhood.  Likewise the slur that his mother was illegitimate.

7 – Casement had homosexual relations with his servant Christensen.  False.  Source:  Findlay, Brian Inglis, Dudgeon and later authors.  There is no evidence that Casement ever had sexual relations with anyone. 

8 – Christensen betrayed Casement to Findlay at the Oslo legation in 1914.  False.  Source: Brian Inglis in his 1973 biography.  Foreign Office files of the period show very clearly that no betrayal took place. 

9 – Casement conducted an affair with Joseph Millar Gordon in 1910.  False.  Source:  Major Frank Hall of MI5 in 1915-16.  Definitively disproved in Chapter 9 of Anatomy Of A lie, by Paul Hyde, Wordwell Books, Dublin 2023.  

10 – The Giles Report was a state-of-the-art forensic investigation proving authenticity by DNA, paper and ink testing.  False.  Sources: British and Irish media & Foreign Office historian Gill Bennett. DNA, paper & ink testing were excluded by Government policy.  Giles’ instruction was to authenticate the diaries, thus biased.  She exposed her bias by repeating the lie of Collins’ authentication.  She was privately commissioned by a determined proponent of authenticity.  Giles produced a handwriting comparison without charts, graphs, examples or explanations—not a forensic report to court standards.  Two US document experts, James Horan of the New York Police Department and Marcel B. Matley, an expert handwriting witness, San Francisco, stated that it did not meet publication standards and was ‘junk science’. 

11– ‘Eventually in 2002 forensic examination confirmed their authenticity to general (although not universal) satisfaction.’  This is false.  Source:  Michael Laffan.  There has never been a forensic examination of the diaries.  Giles did not confirm authenticity since her opinion is not a proven fact. 

12 – Sullivan was given the diaries but refused to read them.  This is false.  Source: Broken Archangel, page 281.  Sullivan was given the police typescripts as verified by Artemus Jones who did read them. 

13 – Reverend John Harris was shown photographs of diary extracts.  This is false.  Source:  Broken Archangel, page 309.  Home Office file 144/1636…3A confirms Harris was shown the typescripts by instruction of the Home Secretary.

14 – ‘Smith offered to enter the diaries into evidence.’  This is false.  Source:  Broken Archangel, page 280.  Attorney General Smith had no diaries;  he offered the police typescripts, again as verified by Jones. 

15 – The diaries were examined by two psychiatrists.  This is false.  Source:  Broken Archangel, page 307.  Doctors Smith and Craig inspected the 1911 typescript and typescript ledger, as confirmed by HO 144/1636/311643/40;  “We have read and considered the copies of the diary dated 1st January to 31st December 1911 …” (emphasis added)

16 – Thomson showed ‘the diary’ to the US Ambassador.  This is false.  Source: B roken Archangel, page 311.   Cabinet legal advisor Blackwell described the diary as “…many pages of closely typed matter…”.  HO 144/23481 confirms the Ambassador was given two photographs of extracts from the 1911 typescript.

17- The police typescripts were not shown to anyone in 1916.  This is false.  Source: Broken Archangel. Philipps’ total silence about the showing of the typescripts in 1916 is a de facto denial of their existence.  

18 – ‘Photographs of pages torn from the 1903 diary were shown to journalists by Captain Hall.’  This is false. Source:  Broken Archangel, page 279.  No source given;  no other author has ever made this claim.  No-one ever reported seeing these photos.  Philipps had no source and therefore his claim is a lie.   

19-22 – The ‘original rolled manuscript’ shown to journalist Ben Allen ‘was later found to have been twenty-two pages torn out of the 1903 diary.’  This is false.  Source:  Roger Sawyer, page 140, The Flawed Hero.  Allen stated the pages measured:  about 216x356mm which is 5.7 times larger than the diary pages at 90x150mm.  Three more falsehoods appear on page 140 of Sawyer’s 1984 book.

23 – Casement instructed his lawyers to prepare his trial defence against the homosexual charges.  This is false.  Source: Dudgeon 2002.  Casement was charged with treason.  No homosexual charges were ever made and Casement knew nothing about the diaries until after the trial. 

24 – US ambassador Page & John Harris saw manuscript diaries in 1916.  This is false.  Source: Dudgeon (Village Oct 2024).  HO file 144/23481 states “After the dismissal of the appeal a typescript copy was shown, on the Home Secretary’s instructions, to Mr. (later Sir John) Harris …”  Dudgeon failed to find independent evidence proving the diaries’ material existence in 1916. 

25 – Anyone who wanted to see the diaries could do so.  This is false. Source:  B. L. Reid. Only police typescripts were shown in a targeted and controlled operation.  In his 532 page biography of 1976, Reid failed to name a single person who saw manuscript diaries in 1916.

26  – “The forgery thesis has long been discredited…”  This is false.  Source:  Rory Carroll.  Far from forgery being discredited, Casement expert Jeffrey Dudgeon recently acknowledged in writing that, while police typescripts were shown, there is no independent witness testimony to prove the diaries existed in 1916.  Abundant evidence demonstrates conclusively the diaries are forged.  Supporting the arguments and rigorous proofs in Anatomy Of A Lie,Decoding False History, online at www.decoding-casement.com, in Village magazine and in Irish Political Review are leading Casement scholar Angus Mitchell, former TD & government advisor Martin Mansergh, former TD & Minister of State Conor Lenihan and present Minister for Justice Jim O’ Callaghan and many others. 

https://villagemagazine.ie/casement-was-straight-and-not-a-paedophile/https://decoding-casement.com/ Reader Reviews