The book, “Anatomy of Lie – Decoding Casement” by Paul R. Hyde  published last year creates a new paradigm for assessing the infamous  case of the  alleged Black Diaries of Roger  Casement; it establishes the case that there is no verifiable evidence that  these diaries existed in 1916 before Casement’s execution.

  Hyde makes a convincing case and it is essential reading for anyone interested in the issue. For what it’s worth I would like to add a few points connected with the Trial that confirms his thesis.  

I looked at the prosecution file at the British National Archives; a large six volume file (TNA DPP 1/46) prepared for the DPP that naturally included anything and everything available to help the case against   Casement.

This file  included, inter alia, the first appearance of the police typescripts, 24 carbon copy pages describing homosexual activity by Casement, submitted to the DPP on the 5 May 1916 with a covering note by Inspector Parker of the Metropolitan Police (MEPO) that claimed:   “With reference to the Commissioner  directions:   I beg to report that on the 25th ultimo Mr.Germain of 50 Ebury Street,  S.W. brought to this office a number of articles, including some diaries, which he stated were the property of Sir Roger Casement who had left them in his charge. A careful examination has been made of the diaries and a ledger, and extracts have been made of entries evidently written by Sir Roger Casement of his sexual habits with male persons, both in England and abroad. Six copies attached.”

            There are no diaries, or diary, or photographs of these alleged diaries, or even a page of a diary or a ledger included with the typescripts in the file.

Consider the scenario here: allegedly the most potent documents of   all possessed by the police were not presented, photographed or asked for by the DPP.   Even if the DPP had no interest in the typescripts of the alleged sexual behaviour of Casement why was he not curious about the rest of the content of the diaries and ledger which might well have included very relevant evidence relating to the charge of High Treason? In fact, it is almost certain that these would contain invaluable evidence for the prosecution. But the DPP was not interested! Apparently there were no curious individuals in the DPP office whose very job was to check the validity of police evidence presented to it.  And this was evidence for the most high profile case of the time for the gravest charge in English law – High Treason- by a Knight of the Realm. 

Surely in such a case some substantive corroboration would be needed to back up any such evidence as the typescript of a diary.  Nothing could be left to the chance of   a challenge to its authenticity if the typescripts alone were ever used. Yet the police do not provide all the evidence they claim to have to avert such a possibility!

By contrast, the diligent RIC in Tralee  to help the prosecution had produced evidence of everything they had found in connection with Casement’s landing and arrest  right down to the wrapping paper of a sausage – which became Exhibit  Number 15 for the Prosecution.

But the infamous Diaries that the Metropolitan claimed to have in their possession did not merit the consideration accorded a sausage wrapping.

This was the moment of truth for the alleged Casement diaries.  The Metropolitan Police and the DPP prepared very thoroughly to “throw the book” at Casement – but not the diary. How odd it may seem. Surely it would have been easier for the police to simply produce the alleged diary/ies for the prosecution file rather than go the trouble of typing out some entries from the alleged diaries?

I would submit that there is no chicken and egg mystery here about the ‘diaries’ and the police typescripts – the latter came first and the ‘diaries’ were hatched later!

I think it must be blindingly obvious to anybody that the diaries did not exist. And the DPP knew they did not exist which is why they were not asked for.  Is there any other possible explanation? It is a binary choice – they did or they did not exist – and a version of Schrödinger’s cat will not suffice. The state of that proverbial cat is very analogous to the way the existence/non-existence of the Black Diaries has been treated by the British Government and the true believers down the years.

Of course, we must remember this was all happening within the highly secretive and confidential world of the upper echelons of British Intelligence and legal world where everything is shared among friends and all clearly knew the real situation and what to ask for and not ask for. A ruling class doing what comes naturally.

Consider another scenario; I estimate that there are 460 files held at the British National Archives at Kew relating to Casement. It has been estimated that the main authors have spent the following number of years on the Casement case:

McColl: 1953 – 1971 = 18 years,

Inglis: 1953 – 1993 = 40 years,

Reid: 1971 – 1991 = 20 years,

Sawyer: 1975 – 2019 = 44 years,

O’ Síocháin: 1995 – 2019 = 24 years,

Dudgeon: 1995 – 2019 = 24 years.

Do the sums and also allow for numerous others, all diligent and well resourced, who were involved and we are into at least two centuries worth of research. And as far as I know none have produced actual evidence of what was actually shown in 1916 apart from police typescripts.  Claims made  for such evidence is not the same as the actual evidence. Claims made, it should be remembered, by people who were set on destroying Casement in every sense.  If such evidence can be found there is a great Eureka moment awaiting the finder.  It would be a wonderful   experience. It took some serious effort to ensure that all that was shown, not given, to people in 1916, apart from some typescripts have disappeared.  This did not happen by accident.

 Of course, some people were suspicious and did query what they were shown; a top US legal eagle, John Quinn, and a reputable journalist with the Associated Press, Ben Allen.  These were very urbane men of the world and not easily fooled. Ben Allen demanded them so he could check them with Casement himself and was denied them. Quinn wanted to take them to check the handwriting and the context. He was denied them.  And both were neutralised.

British Intelligence had plenty of what it says on the tin – intelligence – to ensure that this happened and thereby covered its tracks.

PS. Hyde does another useful service in pointing out the deliberate misleading and ambiguity in the use of the word diary and/or diaries by Casement biographers and commentators when referring to the police typescripts and alleged manuscripts. This was a great way of confusing issues. The police typescripts were not diaries.

A classic example of this occurred when the British Government after 40 years was eventually forced to ‘come clean’ on what it had in its possession. The Cabinet decided at a meeting on 17th March 1959 to have restricted availability of the documents at the PRO. The Home Secretary, R. A. Butler, presented a background Memorandum on the issue, drafted by the PRO.

That draft, inter alia, explained that the Ambassador in the US “was given photographs of two passages from the typescripts”. In the memorandum itself that was deleted and replaced by “The ambassador was given photographs of two passages.” (TNA CAB 129/97/3).

Why did the Home Secretary make this change that was clearly and deliberately misleading? The Memorandum was recorded as being “Removed and destroyed on 5/10/93” in file HO 144/23481.

All curious—to say the least!

Jack Lane

(Church and  State, Spring 2020)