Q. – Why did the authorities make only two photographs of diary pages?
A. – Ask the ‘experts’, Inglis, Sawyer etc. None of them answers this question.

Q. – Why did the authorities go to the trouble of preparing hundreds of typescript pages rather than simply make photos for circulation?
A. – Ask the ‘experts’, Inglis, Sawyer etc. None of them answers this question.

Q. – Why have none of the ‘experts’ answered these two questions?
A. – Because the answer fatally compromises their shared agenda of authenticity.

Q. – Did Michael Collins authenticate the diaries as Dr. Giles states in her report?
A. – Misinformation. Collins left nothing in writing so any report of his reaction to seeing the diaries is speculation and hearsay. Collins never met or corresponded with Casement.

Q. – What about the eight affidavits in 1916 reported by Ó Síocháin?
A. – None of these documents are affidavits. See Appendix in The Casement Secret.

Q. – What happened to the photos and typescripts?
A. – Not known but presumably destroyed by the authorities.

Q. – Where are the handwritten pages shown to Ben Allen of Associated Press?
A. – Not known but presumably destroyed by the authorities.

Q. – When was King George V shown diary materials and by whom?
A. – Not known but all sources report this event.

Q. – What about the claim made by C. H. Norman that Hall admitted there was no original Casement Diary?
A. – The claim made in The Irish Press in August 1957 is hearsay therefore it remains unverifiable.

Q. – Given the absence of evidence, why does the British Government insist on authenticity?
A. – Strictly speaking, the government says nothing. No government will admit uncomfortable truths unless there is a reward.

Q. – Who is considered the brain behind the whole operation?
A. – The operation required superior intelligence and a talent for cunning, secrecy and discretion. Thomson did not possess these qualities. Hall did.

Q. – Why would the authorities bother to undertake such an extensive forgery?
A. – The forgery was needed for the destruction of Casement’s moral reputation thus ensuring his execution. This was made clear on August 2nd 1916 by two eminent figures representing church and state. Archbishop of Canterbury Randall Davidson met Lord Chancellor Buckmaster on that day to advise that “a reprieve would be wiser than an execution” but “the well being and safety of the Empire” required his execution. Davidson completed his justification by describing Casement as “morally unhinged”. On the same day, after a long cabinet meeting, Home Secretary Herbert Samuel wrote that a reprieve would “let loose a tornado of condemnation … would profoundly and permanently shake public confidence in … the government” and admitted that “had Casement not been a man of atrocious moral character” the decision to execute him would have been much more difficult.