Decoding Casement

Diagnosis of an Enigma

“Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past.”

George Orwell.

Part 1

The many identities of Casement accumulated over 100 years – hero, traitor, homosexual, humanitarian, revolutionary, pervert, martyr, conspirator, patriot, secular saint, renegade, extreme nationalist, degenerate, visionary – could hardly be concocted by some delirious Hollywood screenwriter and they tend to make other 20th century iconic figures seem one-dimensional. His spectral afterlife has almost eclipsed the fame of all other Irish patriot leaders. Casement seems to have escaped all the categories by assuming plural identities and our perplexity about his real life and afterlife resolves itself in the term enigma. He has become a code to be decrypted into as many meanings as he has identities. Few historical figures have attained as much.

Codes are artificial secret languages which require a key to reveal meaning. How did Casement become a secret code and who created him as an enigma? Throughout his professional life Casement himself laid the groundwork that made this encoding possible. Much of his work in three continents was investigative and conspiratorial. Codes are intended to protect meanings by concealment and much of Casement’s work required concealment of intention from those under investigation or against whom he conspired.

The real encoding of Casement began after his resignation from consular service to dedicate his energies wholly to Irish nationalism. That a world famous knight of the British Empire should openly endorse this cause was already intolerable treachery. He travelled in an Ireland already filled with spies and informers whose identities are even today still kept secret by British court order in defiance of the Freedom of Information Acts and the Open Government Initiative. From 1913 onwards Casement was a marked man, an exceptional enemy. The encoding process intensified when, travelling incognito as ‘Landey’, he left the US for Norway where the homosexual plot was born and then into Germany. When he finally fell into the hands of British intelligence, the Room 40 code masters took control of his public identity and the meaning of his life and, more importantly, his afterlife.

Even those who hold that the British government behaved shamefully in its deployment of Casement’s alleged “secret life” would agree that some credit is due to that government for its investigation of the genocidal atrocities in the Congo and Peru especially since neither area was part of the empire. In those delicate and dangerous investigations, the honour which Casement earned fell also upon Britain as a moral example to other powers. Thus, upon his knighthood in 1911, Casement embodied what was perceived as British moral leadership. When Casement set out for his final trip to South America in August 1911, he went as representative of a state which saw itself as a moral superpower and he carried in his person the enhanced prestige of the British Crown.

The Two Diaries – 1910

In the National Library of Ireland there is a long handwritten document which is the undisputed work of Casement and which is a detailed account of his day-to-day investigation into the Putumayo atrocities in the latter months of 1910. This document is referred to here as The Putumayo Diary[1].

In the UK National Archives there is a handwritten diary attributed to Casement most of which is a partial account of the same period and which contains around 22 references which appear to allude to homosexuality. This document is referred to here as the Dollard Diary[2].

The precise relationship between these two documents has never been fully explained or indeed examined and even where it is proposed that both are the work of Casement, it remains to be determined which precedes which. This is necessary because those who hold that both are Casement’s work claim that the Dollard was written first and that the Putumayo Diary is a later version. The Putumayo Diary consists of 128 handwritten, double-sided foolscap pages containing around 143,000 words detailing Casement’s travel and investigations over 75 days from September to December 1910. This document is 10.22 times longer than the entries for the same period in the Dollard diary and it contains no compromising writings whatsoever. Its existence has caused some difficulties for those who believe that the much shorter Dollard diary was written by Casement in 1910 not least because the only reason for thinking that Casement wrote the shorter diary is a resemblance in the handwriting.  Whereas there is verifiable evidence that The Putumayo Diary was written by Casement in 1910, there is no evidence to show that it was written later than 1910. To ease those difficulties it has been suggested that both diaries are genuine and that the longer document is a later version of the shorter which has been purged of its compromising content. Therefore, it is the inclusion in the Dollard of the contentious references totalling 516 words which provides the only rationale for its existence. [See Appendix 1] This however does not explain why anyone would write circa 14,000 words in 75 days merely in order to conserve 516 words of near gibberish. Nor does it explain why the same person would later write 143,000 words in order to conceal those 516 words. Nonetheless, there is an explanation.

Others have suggested that it is counter-intuitive to propose that a much longer document is a later version of a much shorter document; the usual motive for producing a second version of any document is that the first is too long, too dispersive and unfocussed and that a tighter, more concise version will achieve maximum effect with less effort. If this is accepted, then the Dollard diary is the pared-down version of the unwieldy Putumayo Diary and not vice versa. This finds confirmation in common sense. Therefore the Dollard diary would be either an extract or a condensed version of the Putumayo Diary containing only the essentials of the longer document but there are serious difficulties also with this idea. Apart from the controversial content, however minimal, there is only a limited correspondence between the innocuous information in the Dollard and in the Putumayo Diary. The Dollard contains information which is not recorded in the Putumayo Diary and also contains information which disagrees with information contained in the longer document. The locations and dates more or less correspond as do many of the persons mentioned. Certainly there is some resemblance or overlapping in the information content. But there are many anomalies, discrepancies and contradictions between the documents which act to frustrate understanding of the relationship between them. One of the most perplexing anomalies is the disparity of emphasis or importance between events as recorded in the two documents. Two of these are examined at some length below, (Miraculous Recovery, Lunar Rainbow). Given that diary writing is a personal activity in which one records significant experience and reflections upon events, it becomes problematic when an event given great importance in one diary is recorded in the other diary but receives no importance whatsoever. It is true that events tend to diminish in importance as time passes and this being the case, it suggests that the two documents were written some time apart rather than in tandem day-by-day by the same person. The document which consistently attributes less importance to events is the Dollard.

Of course a reasonable enquirer would ask why Casement would wish to write the Dollard diary as a variant of the first and not only with the addition of incriminating material but also with information which does not coincide with that contained in the longer document. And in caso versus, the impartial enquirer might equally well ask why the author would repeat in the Putumayo Diary any of the same innocuous information contained in the Dollard. But to speculate on Casement’s possible motivation for writing a second diary with or without the sexual references, is simply to add to the many conjectures which afflict the story and would not serve to decode the multi-layered enigma.

The idea that both documents were written by Casement in tandem, more or less simultaneously during his investigation, must be considered. This too raises the question of the motive for keeping two diaries for the same period and the only motive proposed for keeping the Dollard is that he wished to record erotic experience. This might enjoy some credibility if the Dollard was indeed an erotic diary. But 96% of this ‘erotic diary’ is utterly non erotic. The 3.62% erotic content consists of non events, mere observation and innuendo to a total of only 516 words. None of the 23 entries containing erotic references record Casement’s participation in sexual activity. It is reasonable to expect erotic activity to predominate in any document motivated by the desire to record erotic experience; this vast disproportion has yet to be explained. If no explanation is found, then Casement did not write the Dollard in order to record erotic experience. Another motive must be found for writing the Dollard.

The argument that The Putumayo Diary is a ‘cleaned-up version’ of the shorter Dollard is untenable and bereft of logical coherence and not only because The Putumayo Diary is quite evidently not a version of anything else but more importantly because in 1910 or 1911 or 1912, Casement had no need to produce a ‘cleaned-up version’ since the Dollard was allegedly still in his possession during those years and remained so until late 1914 at the earliest. Therefore he had no incentive to produce a ‘cleaned-up version’ of the Dollard at any time before his capture in 1916. The incentive would arise only if Casement had foreseen several years before 1916 the key role that any such diary would come to play in his destiny. Moreover, The Putumayo Diary was not intended to be read by others and therefore would have served no purpose as a ‘cleaned-up’ version. Until February 1913 (more than two years after its completion) The Putumayo Diary was not seen by others; this is evident from Casement’s own description of it to Charles Roberts MP, chairman of the Parliamentary Select Committee, who requested to see the original[3].

The existence and survival of the Putumayo Diary as an authentic record written in 1910 of Casement’s experience has constrained three of his widely-read biographers to produce contradictory accounts of its provenance. That three ‘experts’ contradict each other on a point of such importance is unfortunate for the experts but less so for the readers they wish to convince because those readers might conclude either that neither expert is an expert or that neither expert is telling the truth.

Inglis

“The other [diary] was a copy of his Putumayo diary, which he made for the use of the Select Committee investigating the affair. As he told the chairman, he was sending the copy because ‘naturally there is in it [the original diary] something I should not wish anyone else to see’.”

Appendix III, p. 439, Casement by Brian Inglis, 1973.

The “other” diary was the Putumayo Diary, not a copy of that original document. The Putumayo Diary was written in 1910, two years before the Parliamentary Select Committee was appointed, an event unforeseen by Casement at the time of writing the Putumayo Diary. Inglis states that Casement copied the original Putumayo Diary in 1912 and sent the copy upon request to Charles Roberts MP. This is false. There is no reference to a copy in Casement’s letter to Roberts. There is no verifiable record that the document submitted to Roberts was a later copy of any other document nor is there any evidence that a manuscript copy of the original 1910 diary ever existed. Casement’s own description of the document he was sending to Roberts demonstrates very clearly that it was the 1910 original with all its defects. “… have not read it for two and a half years … sincere and was written with (obviously) never a thought of being shown to others but for myself alone as a sort of aide memoire and mental justification and safety valve.” [Casement-Roberts Correspondence, 27th January 1913.] In this matter of the alleged copy, Inglis is simply misleading his readers.

Sawyer

Roger Sawyer also provides a problematic account of the Putumayo Diary. He derives his ‘explanation’ from a casual remark made by Casement on 24th August in his notes recording a conversation with Victor Israel, a businessman based in Iquitos.

“Should he [Israel] ever read this conversation – supposing I were to some day publish a book on my travels in the Amazon – he will doubtless deny every statement I here attribute to him …”

From this passing supposition, Sawyer attributes to Casement the following intention concerning the Putumayo Diary:

“Evidently it was written in the hope that it would eventually form the basis of a published work and … it had the initial value of being a useful aide-memoire for the official report …”; “… as he writes a fuller, official, version eventually intended to form the basis of a published work.”

Introduction p. 2: Roger Casement’s Diaries by Roger Sawyer, 1997.

Sawyer’s account is confused and confusing and the wary reader will be alerted by the suggestive term ‘Evidently’. On one hand Sawyer seems to claim that the Putumayo Diary was written after Casement’s return from the Amazon as preparatory material for publication of a book. He suggests that the Dollard Diary was his aide-memoire for this later exercise which in turn became a second aide-memoire for his official report. The ‘fuller, official, version’ is the Putumayo Diary which Sawyer implies was written after the private Dollard diary therefore was not written during Casement’s 75 day investigation.

On the other hand, Sawyer seems to confirm that the Putumayo Diary was written before Casement submitted his final official report on March 17, 1911 which would mean that Casement was writing both the diary of 143,000 words and two preliminary reports delivered on 7th and 31st January plus the final report of 25,000 words all at the same time but after his return from the Amazon.

Thus Sawyer differs from Inglis in that he claims there was no original Putumayo Diary written in 1910. It follows that Sawyer claims that the document sent by Casement to Roberts in January 1913 was indeed the unique original and not a copy, but was entirely composed in early 1911. In this, he contradicts Inglis. Sawyer offers no evidence to make this claim more credible and this absence of evidence can only be explained by Sawyer’s need to undermine the authenticity of the Putumayo Diary in order to sustain the alleged authenticity of the Dollard. Sawyer’s claim implies that Casement faked the entire Putumayo Diary in 1911 and later intentionally and successfully deceived the Select Committee about its authenticity as a ‘real time’ record. Sawyer does not explain that the manuscript in the National Library of Ireland is largely written in pencil, is in parts nearly illegible, contains much irrelevant data – all facts which Casement admitted to Roberts when he wrote:

“It is often almost unintelligible altho’ I can read it all…. If you want to go through it I advise you strongly to have it typed first by an expert. It will take an expert to read it and decipher it. …The value of the thing, if it has any value, is that it is sincere and was written with (obviously) never a thought of being shown to others but for myself alone as a sort of aide memoire and mental justification and safety valve. … There is much, as you will see in my diary, would expose me to ridicule were it read by unkind eyes … The diary is a pretty complete record and were I free to publish it would be such a picture of things out there, written down red hot as would convince anyone.” (author’s emphasis)

Casement letter to Charles Roberts MP, 27 January 1913. R.H. Brit. Emp. S22 Casement-Roberts Correspondence.

Editors are not known for their kind eyes but this is Casement’s description of his own manuscript which Sawyer claims was written “to form the basis of a published work”, thus for the approval of editors. In the two years between his return from the Amazon and the despatch of the Putumayo Diary to Roberts, there is no evidence that Casement was seeking publication; indeed he stated that he had not even read his diary in those two years. Ironically, if Casement ever contemplated ‘literary’ fame he achieved it for the works he did not write rather than for those he did write.

Estimating that Casement wrote at the average handwriting speed of 31 words per minute means that the Dollard, at circa 14,000 words, required about 7.52 hours over 75 days which means a mere 6.01 minutes of writing per day. Therefore, Casement’s many references in the Putumayo Diary to spending many hours writing the Putumayo diary at night would be part of his alleged plan in 1911 to deceive Charles Roberts MP and the Parliamentary Select Committee two years later in 1913 and about which he knew nothing in 1911.  Sawyer offers no credible motive for this alleged deception because no such deception occurred.

No-one would suggest that these two distinguished authors did not ‘do their homework’. Therefore, having done their meticulous research, the only conclusion an impartial enquirer can reach is that both decided to mislead their readers. Their joint recourse to this tactic demonstrates that both were intent upon concealing the truth about the Dollard Diary.

Ó Síocháin

“My own conclusion on the many suggested ‘contradictions’ is that, in virtually all cases, the arguments made for them are tendentious and that they fail to stand up to critical analysis.”

Appendix, p. 486. Roger Casement: Imperialist, Rebel, Revolutionary by Séamus Ó Síocháin.

Ó Síocháin disagrees with both Inglis and Sawyer in that he accepts the fact that Casement sent the original manuscript written in 1910 to Roberts rather than a copy. Therefore he rejects both of their arguments concerning the provenance and circumstances of the Putumayo Diary. He does not explain why he disagrees with Inglis and Sawyer. Despite this major difference of judgement, Ó Síocháin agrees that the Dollard diary is authentic. Unfortunately, much of his conviction rests on The Giles Report which he accepts without question, calling it “an important milestone in the debate …”, while the rest of his conviction is based on rather flaccid reasoning, acceptance of official explanations and dismissive comments such as: “Most of the ‘discrepancies’ dissolve under analysis.” He concedes that discrepancies and contradictions exist but engages with only one of these – how Casement’s eyesight problem is treated in both diaries. For his response to this question he relies completely on The Giles Report which flatly denies the evidence that Casement’s handwriting was affected by eye illness. None of the other anomalies are confronted perhaps because Ó Síocháin claims that they “are signs of authenticity” rather than of falsity. So that the discrepancies which disappear when analysed, magically reappear as “signs of authenticity”. Or vice versa which means that these “signs of authenticity” vanish when analysed. Either way, the discrepancies are too fragile to be analysed and Ó Síocháin wisely does not take the risk.

Falling back on the ‘wealth of detail’ argument, Ó Síocháin undermines his entire position by the use of persuasive but vacuous rhetoric – “It is impossible to imagine how a forger could …” so that because we don’t know something becomes proof that we do know something. Since we don’t know how it was done means it wasn’t done. This is proof ex nihilo, belief derived from ignorance and as such it stands outside rational process and belongs to the domain of propaganda.

Ó Síocháin rather naively asserts that to challenge authenticity is “to suggest that certain branches of the British establishment were themselves taken in by the forgery.” He seems to regard this as an impossibility but he does not explain why. The impartial enquirer looks in vain for the critical analysis of the contradictions which Ó Síocháin claims have failed the analysis.

The Smear Campaign

It is no longer disputed that a campaign to blacken Casement’s reputation began within days of his arrest and that the plan was inspired by both Thomson and Hall, his two principal interrogators[4].  This does not exclude possible roles for F. E. Smith and Ernley Blackwell[5]. Thus within a short time, Casement’s identity was encoded with two politically bonded meanings– traitor and sexual degenerate.

The campaign to manipulate press and public opinion began with the showing to US journalists of typescript pages which were said to be official copies of Casement’s diary although none of the documents now in the National Archives were produced to authenticate the typed pages. Mary Boyle O’Reilly, a journalist, recorded in her 3rd June 1916 letter to Casement’s solicitor Gavan Duffy[6] that the typed papers had been shown about a month earlier. Casement’s interrogation lasted 3 days (23rd – 25th April) and it is reasonable to conclude that the typing process began soon after perhaps on 28/29 April which leaves only up to 10 days before the first showing of these pages around 6th to 9th of May. The urgency with which these pages were prepared was vital to the credibility of the project since the sooner the typed pages were ready for showing the more convincing these would seem – a delay would indicate planning and calculation rather than spontaneity. We have no idea how many pages were produced in those at most ten days before the first showing but even at a production rate of only 10 pages per day, this amounts to around 100 pages of typescript by the first showing around 6th to 9th of May. One must always bear in mind that the typed pages and photos were shown only and were never allowed into possession of those to whom they were shown. Thus, ‘circulated’ is not an accurate term. It has been assumed that the typed pages derived from diaries allegedly discovered during Casement’s interrogation but since there is no verifiable record that anyone saw these alleged diaries in 1916, it cannot be demonstrated that the typed pages were copies of any document/s which existed before Casement’s arrest. What has never been explained is the extraordinary decision in May 1916 to set about the laborious preparation of typed pages as alleged transcript copies of the diaries instead of simply photographing the original pages of the alleged diaries for display. This would have been quicker, easier and, above all, much more convincing. That the decision was made to type the alleged transcripts suggests very strongly that the authorities did not have the choice of photographing original pages.

Facts about the Dollard Diary 1910

The Dollard diary does have the appearance of a genuine diary and because the handwriting resembles Casement’s sufficiently, one might identify the Dollard as Casement’s work. And the discrepancies between it and the Putumayo Diary would probably not be detected since it is only the compromising content which has caused it to be scrutinised. A pedant might ask why Casement wrote two diaries at the same time and might be told that the Dollard was Casement’s aide-memoire for the much longer Putumayo Diary. But the quantity and quality of information in the Dollard does not support this thesis.

The Dollard entries for the 75 days contain surprisingly little text of a sexual nature, a mere 516 words in 23 entries which amount to only 3.62%. Even these 23 entries are not dedicated exclusively to sexual matters. And these 23 contentious entries record non-events in which there is no sexual activity. The 23 entries are merely allusive and insinuate sexual interest or desire or observation. Consisting merely of innuendo and allusion, the Dollard Diary is non-pornographic by any standards. There is very little that is explicit and there are no graphic descriptions of sexual encounters such as might be expected in an erotic diary.  By comparison with the 1911 diary, the 1910 Dollard is muted, tame and minimal. Certainly no-one would accuse the author of recording his sexual exploits in these 23 entries but it might be said that he found a surrogate satisfaction in recording his desires rather than in fulfilling them.

Since the Dollard contains so little compromising text, a mere 3.62%, it is unreasonable to believe that recording erotic experience was the principal motive for writing the diary. Had the author wished to keep a private erotic diary, he would have excluded 96% of the Dollard content because it is non erotic. The quality of the compromising content is unconvincing because it lacks emotional intensity and passion. Casement seems to be more a voyeur than a protagonist. However, the 516 words are embedded in many thousands of words of diary writings which appear to record a day-to-day reality experienced by the author and from this context of apparently verifiable reality, the compromising text borrows its own reality. The compromising text does not allow of any kind of verification. In total contrast with the innocuous material which contains potentially verifiable data, the compromising text contains none at all. This is the crucial distinction. Resemblance is not identity.  But resemblance is sufficient to facilitate belief in identity.

The disproportionate percentage of innocuous writing in relation to the controversial content is of maximum significance for the following reason. It is the quantity of the innocuous writing which acts to convince the reader that this is an authentic diary written by Casement. The compromising content can be vague and minimal because the reader is primed to identify such material by its vagueness and innuendo so that the two words ‘big one’ or ‘fine types’ always resonate as if erotically charged. This compromising innuendo is set in juxtaposition with text which appears to be authentic Casement writing complete with apparently verifiable mundane facts which act to convince the reader that the entire text both innocuous and compromising is genuine. The reader automatically transfers his truth conviction from the innocuous text to the compromising material no matter how vague that material is. Each time the reader finds the terms ‘big one, fine type, offered, wanted awfully’ the reader automatically responds to the encoded terms as programmed. The reader deciphers the code without being aware of the decoding process. Therefore the compromising text contains only allusions to possible sexual encounters – most entries are allusions such as ‘went to square but none’. In these there is no reference to any sexual act or even to sexual desire nor does there need to be since the reader is by now conditioned by the code and co-operates by attributing the desired meaning to the phrase.

If ‘none’ means nothing happened, why does the author want to record a non-event? The principal requisite of an erotic diary is that there was an erotic experience to record in the diary. It is more probable that these non-events would be forgotten as being of no significance whatsoever. In this diary non-activity is recorded as if it were activity and that which did not happen becomes proof of sexual intention – a significant mental event.  Lacking explicit detail of real sexual encounters, these non-events are nonetheless part of the encoding technique; graphic details are not needed.

Another significant feature of the Dollard diary is the lack of sentences of future aspect. The Putumayo Diary has many such sentences which resonate strongly with authenticity because they express the flux of time as lived whereas if the writer does not render temporal dynamics in the text under composition, it indicates that the writer is physically outside the original time flux and this means that composition is taking place after closure of that original time frame. To simulate the awareness of original time flux in sentences of future aspect requires imaginative gifts and trained narrative skill which are rare. This strongly suggests that the Putumayo Diary was written day by day in 1910 while the Dollard was written some time after the events recorded; the retrospective aspect which dominates the Dollard is in marked contrast with the intimate continuum of the narrative voice in the Putumayo Diary. It would appear that the author of the Dollard was unable to create the temporal dynamics which render the Putumayo Diary so convincing as a narrative written in ‘real time’ day-by-day.

The average length of an entry in the Dollard is 190 words (based on 27 random entries over 75 days). Casement was a prolific writer and almost certainly he wrote at some speed. Average handwriting speed is 31 words per minute so each average Dollard entry of 190 words would have taken only 6.12 minutes. The average length of the entries in the Putumayo Diary is 1,654 words (based on 27 random entries in 75 days). In the Putumayo Diary Casement records many times that he spends many hours writing often late into the night and he stresses the need to record in writing the events as they happen in order to record accurately and fully. Therefore, when Casement refers to time spent on writing, he is referring to the Putumayo Diary and not to the Dollard which, in fact, he never mentions. Equally, there is no mention in the Dollard of many hours being spent on writing anything although it is not disputed that extensive writing was a daily activity for Casement.

The idea that Casement intended the Putumayo Diary for publication is untenable given his own description of the manuscript to Charles Roberts MP. The time to offer the text for publication was immediately after his knighthood in 1911 when his reputation was highest but there is no evidence that he did so. Indeed there is evidence that publication was not an option[7].

Given that the arguments proposed over the years by the “conspiracy theorists” have been judged unconvincing and in some cases ill-informed when not woefully stupid, an impartial enquirer might wonder why the argument upholding authenticity has produced so many books and articles. It is true that the published texts against authenticity are, in general, inadequate because they fail to interrogate in a calm, coherent and penetrating manner. This being the case, these arguments might have easily been ignored without risk to the authenticity position. But the flow of books, broadcasts and articles in favour of authenticity suggests that authenticity itself needs continuous support and suggests that at least some of the better conspiracy arguments had to be countered. Certainly the absence of witnesses would have worried the authenticity camp as would the unanswered questions about the convenient ‘discovery’ of the alleged diaries and the unexplained disappearance of crucial documents including the typed pages and photographs shown in May/June 1916.

Only one Casement scholar has consistently argued against authenticity during this period. The research and publications of Dr. Angus Mitchell are a well recognized contribution to Casement studies and his Amazon Journal is essential reading and an invaluable source. In the preface to that volume, Dr. Mitchell lists some forty ‘discrepancies’ between the Dollard and the Putumayo Diary; a number of these are analysed in the present research.  Dr. Mitchell, unlike many other scholars, interprets the meaning of Casement on various levels beyond the significant categories of ‘humanitarian’ and ‘Irish patriot’; indeed, it is as an enemy of imperialism with insider knowledge that Casement’s deeper and unifying meaning is achieved. And this is why he had to be destroyed. [See Appendix 4]

It was said that the now infamous Giles Report of 2002[8] was intended to put an end to the controversy but it failed to convince anyone who was not already convinced and therefore it failed to resolve the issue. Opinions, however expert, about handwriting resemblance are subject to cognitive bias and will never resolve the question of authenticity. Expert opinions remain opinions and all of the so-called forensic opinions so far are British establishment opinions and none would be accepted by an impartial court of law because they all fail to meet forensic-court standards. The ‘evidence’ that Casement was the author of the diaries held in the UK National Archives rests on the perceived handwriting resemblance between the handwriting in those diaries and his unquestioned writings. Resemblance is not identity. But the arguments that have induced many to believe in authenticity are principally the one proposed by Inglis[9] (See Appendix 2) and a second – the wealth of specific detail. The Inglis argument fails to resist scrutiny because it is facile and lazy rhetoric. The wealth-of-detail argument assumes that the detail is correct but does not demonstrate its accuracy. It is based on the easy presumption that a great quantity of detail is evidence of veracity of every detail, an inference belonging exclusively to psychology and propaganda rather than to logic. As we shall see the Dollard author had more than enough sources for the wealth of detail, perhaps too many, but used them hurriedly and unsystematically.

Part 2

Statements are not made in a vacuum but are generated in physical and historical circumstances as were all the statements in these documents. Written statements are physical trace evidence of human voices and these voices can be scrutinised for truth and falsity. The method adopted in this study takes account of the ‘official’ explanation for the existence of both documents and seeks to reveal the circumstances which generated them. The method cannot do this with precision because it is not retro-cognitive. But it can identify and eliminate a false explanation of the circumstances. When the false is eliminated, what remains speaks for itself.

A considerable number of anomalies and discrepancies between both documents have been detected by various commentators but no convincing conclusions have been drawn from these. It appears that no close scrutiny has been carried out on these discrepancies.  Therefore ten of these anomalies have been selected for analysis and each will be subjected to a standard scrutiny process by deductive hypothesis. These anomalies cover the entire period from arrival in late August to December 1910. Each anomaly will pass through three hypotheses in order to expose their encoded meanings. This will determine two essential questions about these documents; firstly, the matter of precedence – which was written first; secondly, the question of authorship of the Dollard. In each analysis, the first hypothesis proposes that Casement wrote the Dollard entry before he wrote the Putumayo Diary entry. The second hypothesis proposes that Casement wrote the Putumayo Diary entry before he wrote the Dollard entry. The third hypothesis proposes that Casement wrote the Putumayo Diary entry in 1910 and that later, an unknown person wrote the Dollard entry. From each analysis a conclusion will be deduced which offers maximum explanatory value in response to the type of contradiction which has been exposed.

For maximum clarity, contradiction is examined under three aspects: direct, indirect and internal. Direct is when data recorded in one lemma is negated by data in the other lemma of the same hypothesis. Indirect or delayed is when data attributed to one date is negated by data attributed to another date. Internal is when data recorded is negated within same date entry. These aspects are considered as related functions of contradiction by negation.

The results of these analyses will then be subjected to a proof test. Civil law proof standards are based on quantity of evidence and on probability. The highest standard of proof in jurisprudence is that used in criminal law – proof beyond reasonable doubt. Varying definitions of this proof offer one common element; the conclusion is proven when there is no reasonable alternative to that conclusion. An alternative is reasonable when it is 100% consistent with already known and undisputed facts relating exclusively to the question which is to be judged.

1 Alhambra

Entries 2nd & 3rd December

The December 2nd entry in the Dollard contains 227 words of which about 123 (54%) are compromising. The same date entry in the Putumayo Diary contains 1,272 words which is 5.6 times longer than the Dollard. Almost none of the innocuous content of the Dollard is recorded in the Putumayo Diary nor is there any relationship between events recounted. These two entries have almost nothing whatsoever in common save the bare fact of an evening visit to the Alhambra cinema. The Putumayo Diary refers to the following:

1 – a press article about violent conflict between Indians and Peruvians

2 – a comment on the evasiveness of Cazes, the Honorary British Consul

3 – a reference to an Indian attack on missions

4 – a comment on a confrontation with Cazes about his covering up & reticence

5 – a comment on the slow unloading of ship & possible departure date

6 – a comment on a mutiny in Brazilian Navy and on press article regarding same

7 – a visit to the Alhambra cinema in honour of the anniversary of Portuguese independence, political comment, critical comment on ‘immorality’ of film shown.

This is the December 2nd Dollard entry:

“Heavy rain in night & all y’day afternoon & it will quite spoil the discharge of “Athualpa. Saw “Julio” at Pinto Hess. Gave cigarettes. He said “Muchas gracias”. Enormous limbs & it stiff on right side feeling it & holding it down in pocket.  Saw Huge on Malecon. Looked everywhere for Ignacio. No sign anywhere. Very sad. Guzman not got Sub-Prefect. Saw Guzman at 10 a.m. waiting for Prefect with elderly Indian woman. Prefect “too busy” again! Bishop tells me. At 5 p.m.  Guzman was told to come at 3 p.m. This is Friday & he was first sent on Tuesday! To Booths with Brown saw “Julio” again at store & asked him to come to Punchana. He said “Vamos” but did not follow far. He asked when I was going to Manaos. Saw some great big stiff ones today on cholos. Two Huge erections, & then from boys at 5 on seat in front, & then lovely type in pink shirt & blue trousers & green hat & later in square with “Wags” the same who looked & longed and got Huge on left. To Alhambra with Cazes at 9.30 seeing many types & “Julio” in white again in box. Met outside & asked him come Puchana tomorrow. He said “Vamos” & asked when to meet. I said at 10 a.m. but he probably didn’t understand.”

Of the eight persons mentioned in the Dollard entry above four are not mentioned in the much longer Putumayo Diary entry for 2nd December which mentions 16 persons. In particular, Guzmán is not mentioned which is strange since Casement makes many references elsewhere to this person who is witness to brutalities and therefore relevant to his investigation. In the Putumayo Diary for the next day 3rd December, Casement records that Bishop[10] has just told him that he met Guzmán[11] on the previous evening who recounted his visit to the Prefect. Writing this on 3rd December means that Casement did not know about Guzmán’s visit until 3rd December. But in the Dollard the information is recorded on 2nd December, the day of Guzmán’s meeting with the Prefect. This is a contradiction. The timing of Casement’s learning of the same meeting is recorded on a different day in each document and both entries confirm the meeting took place on 2nd December. If the Dollard was written first then it means that on 2nd December, Casement knew of the meeting and recorded it on that day. He then recorded it again in the Putumayo Diary but stated that he had just been informed on 3rd December and therefore on 2nd December he did not know that the meeting had happened and thereby he contradicts his Dollard entry. If Putumayo Diary was written first then it means that on 2nd December Casement did not know that the meeting had happened that day and when he heard of it on the following day, he recorded hearing about it that day in the entry for that day. This would mean that the Dollard author knew the meeting had happened and recorded this one day before Casement heard that the meeting had taken place. If Casement is the author of both documents this is impossible. Both entries cannot be correct.

Hypothesis 1 – on 2nd December Casement writes the Dollard entry in 227 words of which 44 record Guzman’s meeting that day with the Prefect. He includes compromising material.

Later, Casement writes the entry dated December 2nd in the Putumayo Diary in 1,272 words and comments on seven matters listed above but does not mention any meeting between Guzmán and the Prefect although he does know about the meeting since he has already recorded it in the Dollard.

OR

Hypothesis 2 – on December 2nd Casement writes the entry for that date in the Putumayo Diary in 1,272 words in which he comments on seven matters listed above. He makes no reference to any meeting between Gusmán and the Prefect either because on 2nd December, he does not know about the meeting or he knows but considers it unimportant.

Later, Casement writes the Dollard entry dated 2nd December in 227 words of which 44 state that he learned of the meeting on 2nd December. He includes compromising material.

OR

Hypothesis 3 – on 2nd December Casement writes the December 2nd entry in the Putumayo Diary in 1,272 words and does not mention any meeting but comments on seven matters listed above. On 3rd December Casement writes the 3rd December entry in Putumayo Diary in which he records hearing from Bishop on 3rd December about the 2nd December meeting   and which he records as happening the day before on 2nd December.

Later, an unknown person writes the Dollard entry which he dates 2nd December and in which he states that Casement knew on 2nd December that the meeting had taken place earlier that day. The unknown person dates Casement’s knowledge of the meeting to 2nd December because at the later time of writing the unknown person knows that is the correct date of the meeting. The unknown person includes compromising material and, in complicity with others, attributes the entry to Casement.

Summary: an indirect contradiction occurs between the first lemma of hypothesis 3 and the Dollard lemmas of hypotheses 1 and 2.

Conclusion: The second lemma of Hypothesis 3 eliminates both contradictions attributed to Casement in hypotheses 1 and 2. The maximum explanatory value is derived from Hypothesis 3. The Putumayo Diary was written first and later an unknown person wrote the Dollard.

2 The Missing Day

Entries 6th & 7th November

This analysis is related to No. 3 concerning the Lunar Rainbow and to No 4 – Delirium. The Dollard entry for 7th has been altered and this results in all the events recorded for 7th November in the Dollard being ‘re-dated’ to the 6th and no events for 7th being recorded to replace them. This change produces considerable confusion because the 6th November Dollard entry already contains an error. Moreover, one of the events recorded in the Dollard for the 7th should not have been moved to the 6th because it belongs correctly to the 7th as recorded in the Putumayo Diary.

Events 7th November – Dollard: statements from Barbadian employees, sighting of the lunar rainbow, shooting of wild ducks.

Events 7th November – Putumayo Diary: various including shooting wild ducks but no Barbadian statements, no lunar rainbow.

Therefore the shooting of wild ducks on 7th is correctly dated and corresponds in both entries for 7th. In the Dollard, however, this event has later been erroneously attributed to 6th as part of the ‘correction’ along with the Barbadian statements and the lunar rainbow which were indeed wrongly recorded for 7th November. The attribution of all events for 7th to the 6th means that there are no events recorded for 7th November since the diary space for that day is full of events that do not belong in that space – the real 7th November cannot be recorded and so it discretely ‘disappears’.

There is a further error in the Dollard entry for 6th November where it records the return of three Barbados employees on 6th. They had already returned on the previous evening of 5th as recorded in the Putumayo Diary and their statements were taken and signed on 6th.

The ‘re-dating’ or alteration was done after the 7th November Dollard entry was written and not at the time the Dollard 6th entry was written. This is demonstrated by two facts: first, the Dollard 6th entry already contains only 63 words followed by an ample blank space; second, the Dollard 7th entry at 243 words is above average length and its events fill out almost all the space covering the day from morning to night. The fact that there was ample blank space in the 6th entry and that this space was not used for the subsequent 7th entry means that the writer believed at the time of writing the events he was recording properly belonged to the 7th November.

Hypothesis 1 – on 7th November Casement writes an entry in the Dollard of 243 words. He records seeing a lunar rainbow (only 22 words) and he records the deposition of statements by three Barbadians and later he records the shooting of wild ducks. He also writes 39 words about a Bridge game. He then writes a ‘correction’ to this entry which denies that these events happened on the 7th and in which he attributes all the events of 7th to the preceding day November 6th.

Later, Casement writes an entry of 2,160 words dated Nov 7th in the Putumayo Diary. He does not mention a lunar rainbow because there was no lunar rainbow on this date. He does not mention the formal deposition and signing of statements or a Bridge game. He does record the shooting of wild ducks.

OR

Hypothesis 2 – on 7th November Casement writes an entry in the Putumayo Diary of 2,160 words. He does not mention a lunar rainbow or the formal deposition and signing of statements or a Bridge game because these events did not happen on that date. He does record the shooting of wild ducks.

Later, Casement writes an entry of 243 words dated November 7th in the Dollard. He records a lunar rainbow (only 22 words) and the deposition of statements by three Barbados men and later he records the shooting of wild ducks. He also writes 39 words about a Bridge game. He then writes a ‘correction’ to this entry which denies that these events happened on the 7th and which attributes all the events to the preceding day November 6th.

OR

Hypothesis 3 – on 7th November Casement writes the entry of 2,160 words for that date in the Putumayo Diary. He does not mention a lunar rainbow or the formal deposition and signing of statements or a Bridge game. He does record the shooting of wild ducks.

Later an unknown person writes the November 7th entry in the Dollard of 243 words. He records the lunar rainbow (only 22 words) and the deposition of statements by three Barbados men and later he records the shooting of wild ducks. He also writes 39 words about a Bridge game. He then writes a ‘correction’ to this entry which denies that these events happened on the 7th and which attributes all the events of the 7th to the preceding day November 6th. In complicity with others, the unknown person attributes the entry to Casement.

Summary: the Dollard lemmas in all three hypotheses contain an internal contradiction. A direct second contradiction in all three hypotheses is consequent upon that internal contradiction. An indirect third contradiction is present in all three Dollard lemmas.

Conclusion: the three contradictions appear in all three hypotheses; the direct contradiction is the duck shooting episode transposed to 6th November whereas in fact it occurred on 7th as first recorded in the Dollard and as consistently recorded in the Putumayo Diary. The indirect contradiction; on 6th November Casement had already recorded the lunar rainbow in the Putumayo Diary, therefore the three Dollard lemmas of 7th also contradict that entry of 6th. The internal contradiction; each Dollard entry negates its date of composition. By result of these contradictions the 7th November in the Dollard loses all its events and remains ‘empty’ – reductio ad impossibilem. The third hypothesis eliminates the contradictions attributed to Casement in hypotheses 1 and 2 and has maximum explanatory power. The Putumayo Diary was written first and later, in complicity with others, an unknown person wrote the Dollard.

3 The Lunar Rainbow

Entries 6th & 7th November

The entries for the period 6th to 8th November in the Dollard are afflicted with anomalies and confusions. This analysis focuses on the multiple contradictions arising from the recording in both diaries of a lunar rainbow. A lunar rainbow is a relatively rare phenomenon which is observed in a limited number of locations. The rainbow is seen by the observer as white/silver but is in fact coloured. It is usually witnessed some 2 or 3 hours after sunset or 2 or 3 hours before sunrise. In the Putumayo Diary, Casement devotes a total of 661 words to his experience of seeing a lunar rainbow on November 6th in three entries dated Nov 6th, 13th and 27th. In the Dollard merely 22 words are devoted to the experience which now appears to have no significance. Moreover, the experience is recorded in the November 7th entry but then the diarist seems to lose control and he transposes all events of the 7th to the preceding day thus denying what he has just recorded. [See Appendix 3]

Hypothesis 1: on 6th November Casement writes an entry of 63 words for that date in the Dollard without mention of a lunar rainbow because he did not see a lunar rainbow on that date.  On 7th November Casement writes an entry for that date in the Dollard in which he records in 22 words seeing a lunar rainbow on 7th. Then on the 7th or later he has second thoughts and attributes all the events of that date including the lunar rainbow to the 6th November thus denying that he saw it on the 7th.

Later, Casement writes an entry of 1,488 words in Putumayo Diary which he dates November 6th. He records in 600 words (40% of total entry) the most important event of the day, a ‘guiding sign’ – a lunar rainbow. He records this phenomenon because of its rarity and the significance it has for him.

OR

Hypothesis 2: on 6th November Casement writes an entry of 1,488 words for that date in the Putumayo Diary. He records in 600 words the most important event of the day, a ‘guiding sign’ – a lunar rainbow. He records this phenomenon because of its rarity and the personal significance it has for him.

Later, Casement writes an entry of 63 words in the Dollard which he dates November 6th without mention of the lunar rainbow because, although he saw the rainbow on the 6th as recorded earlier in the Putumayo Diary, it now has no significance for him or he feels he has written enough about it already. Casement also writes an entry in the Dollard which he dates 7th November and in which he records in 22 words seeing a lunar rainbow on the 7th thus contradicting his earlier entry of 6th in the Putumayo Diary. He then on the 7th or later has second thoughts and transposes all the events of 7th including the lunar rainbow to the 6th November thus denying that he saw it on the 7th.

OR

Hypothesis 3: on 6th November Casement writes an entry of 1,488 words for that date in the Putumayo Diary of which total he devotes 600 words to his sighting of the lunar rainbow and the special significance he attributes to the phenomenon.

Later, an unknown person writes the entry dated November 6th in the Dollard without any mention whatsoever of the lunar rainbow. The unknown person also writes an entry in the Dollard which he dates 7th November and in which he records in 22 words Casement seeing a lunar rainbow on the 7th. He then decides to re-date all the events in this 7th entry including the lunar rainbow to the 6th November thus denying that Casement saw the rainbow on 7th November as first recorded. The unknown person, in complicity with others, attributes the entries to Casement.

Summary: the contradictions in these hypotheses are direct and indirect and internal and amount to a minimum of five.

Conclusion: hypothesis 3 eliminates all of the contradictions attributed to Casement and therefore has maximum explanatory power. The Putumayo Diary was written first and the Dollard diary was written later by an unknown person.

4 – Delirium

Entries 5th to 8th November

This concerns unexplained alterations in the Dollard which result in the cancellation of events recorded for 8th November and their replacement by other events.

The Dollard entries for 6th, 7th and 8th November are very confused and confusing. Certainly the diarist has made a number of errors which make understanding almost impossible. It would appear that on Saturday 5th or Sunday 6th November the Dollard diarist entered into a confused state for several days during which period he was unaware of either the day of the week or the date. The entry for Monday 7th bears an overwritten note to advise that “this is Sunday. One day out” and the entry for Tuesday 8th is cancelled with a note saying “Made a mistake of a day since Saturday!” It is not clear if the ‘mistake’ is a single mistake repeated or if there are two ‘mistakes’. Either way, at least three entries are seriously compromised.

This 3-day delirium is not reflected in the Putumayo Diary and it is difficult to grasp how the other Commission members whom Casement dealt with each day did not alert him to his condition. It is also difficult to grasp how a habitual diarist for many years could make such ‘mistakes’ for three consecutive days. Moreover, in these very days Casement was taking the formal depositions of the Barbadian employees over many hours for later submission to the FO – a fact recorded in both diaries – a task which required patience, lucidity and constant awareness both of what he was doing and precisely when he was doing it. These sworn depositions by British subjects were later officially published by the British Government.

The Dollard entry for 6th November states that Fonseca arrived on the evening of 6th but this does not correspond with the same arrival noted for the previous evening of 5th November in the Putumayo Diary. Therefore the Dollard entry for 6th is wrong and unlike the entries for 7th and 8th has not been ‘corrected’. This error constitutes a contradiction.

The 63 words present in the Dollard entry for 6th November leave below the writing a large blank space sufficient to accept many more lines of writing and the few events recorded for 6th begin in the morning and close in the evening. It is therefore evident that when he began to write the longer entry for 7th November in the appropriate space for that date, the author did not intend to add further material in that large blank space of the 6th. Indeed the author almost filled the 7th Nov space with 243 words recording events from morning to night before deciding that all the events of 7th November belonged to the day before. These events having later been attributed to 6th November, there was no space remaining in the already completed 7th Nov space for the actual events of 7th Nov. Thus there is a day missing, 7th November, in the Dollard diary and the diarist has been unable to rectify this lacuna because the space for 7th November is fully occupied.

Here is the first Dollard entry for 8th November.

“Lovely morning at 8 a.m. Reading Lt Maw[12] again about the Indians & Putumayo in 1827. Hope “Liberal” comes today. They are trying to put the “Alvaringa” on barge “Putumayo” into the rise today – the high waves are awash of her[13].”

There follows the cancellation of the first entry above, the arrival of the longer substitute entry with a note to advise of the ‘mistake’. These changes have a logic motivated by the awareness of error in the dating of the entries rather than in their content. The distinction is crucial to understanding what has happened. The ‘re-dating’ of the entries of 7th and 8th is intended to rectify the dating error for three days and it appears to do so but at the expense of creating a new error in content for one of those days, viz. the reference to wild duck shooting. This event, as explained in The Missing Day, after being re-dated is in the wrong day.  In short, the entry for 7th was mostly wrong but partly right. If Casement wrote the 7th entry it follows he was unable to distinguish the events of the previous day from those of the present moment of writing. And this delirium occurs during days when he is taking signed and dated sworn statements. This error constitutes a contradiction.

A second error is the reference to the barge Putumayo which is recorded in the Putumayo Diary on 7th November as follows: “They have put the barge Putumayo in to the water this morning – it was just touching her keel.” The barge bearing the Alvaringa is put in the water on 7th in order to float the Alvaringa into the water because the “high waves are awash” of the Alvaringa. This operation on the 7th cannot be repeated on the 8th as recorded in the Dollard. This error constitutes a contradiction in the first (cancelled) entry for the 8th.

Hypothesis 1 – Casement writes the November 8th entry of 42 words on that date in the Dollard. He records re-reading the book by Lt. Maw and the barge Putumayo but then cancels this entry and appends a note saying “Made a mistake of a day since Saturday!” He then writes a new entry of 147 words for 8th November which does not mention the book or the barge and instead records the arrival of O’Donnell[14] and a head-dress gift from Arédomi[15] and he includes a compromising reference.

Later, Casement writes the entry in Putumayo Diary of 1,008 words which he dates November 8th and makes various comments about the weather, the river, lack of news, financial accounts, rubber weighing. He does not mention the book or the barge. He does mention O’Donnell’s arrival and the gift from Arédomi.

OR

Hypothesis 2 – on Nov 8th Casement writes the entry of 1,008 words for that date in the Putumayo Diary and he makes various comments about the weather, the river, lack of news, financial accounts, rubber weighing. He does not mention the book or the barge. He does mention O’Donnell’s arrival and the gift from Arédomi.

Later, Casement writes an entry in the Dollard of 42 words which he dates November 8th. He records re-reading the book by Lt. Maw and the barge Putumayo but then cancels this entry and appends a note to this entry saying “Made a mistake of a day since Saturday!” He then writes a new entry of 147 words for 8th November which does not mention the book or the barge and instead records the arrival of O’Donnell and a head-dress gift from Arédomi and now he includes a compromising reference.

OR

Hypothesis 3 – on Nov 8th Casement writes entry for that date of 1,008 words in the Putumayo Diary making various comments about the weather, the river, lack of news, financial accounts, rubber weighing. He does not mention the book or the barge. He does mention O’Donnell’s arrival and the gift from Arédomi.

Later an unknown person writes an entry of 42 words in the Dollard which he dates November 8th. He mentions re-reading the book by Lt. Maw and the barge Putumayo but then cancels this entry and appends a note saying “Made a mistake of a day since Saturday!”  He then writes a new entry for 8th November of 147 words which does not mention the book or the barge and instead records the arrival of O’Donnell and a head-dress gift from Arédomi and now he includes a compromising reference. In complicity with others, the unknown person attributes the entry to Casement.

Summary: in the Dollard lemmas of hypotheses 1 and 2, no doubt because of his delirium, Casement does not know a) if he has or has not read the book that day or b) if he read or did not read the book on the previous day. Neither does the reader. Nor does the reader know a) why he cancels the entry if he did read the book on either day or b) why he writes the entry if he did not read the book on either day. The first entry was made before cancellation and before the note of date ‘correction’ and before the new ‘substitute’ entry. The Dollard author recorded that Casement was reading the book and cancellation of the entry does not eliminate that act of recording even if the motive for cancellation cannot be determined. The ontological status of the act of reading is compromised by the cancellation but the ontological status of the act of recording is unaffected. This status conflict constitutes a direct contradiction. Either he read the book or he did not read the book. A diarist who compromises what he has recorded as a simple fact contradicts himself by the law of excluded middle. The events recorded in the first version of Nov 8th, the entry having been cancelled rather than re-dated, are now in limbo. In logic there is no limbo. Reductio ad impossibilem.

Conclusion: There is a direct and an internal contradiction in hypotheses 1 and 2. Hypothesis 3 eliminates the contradictions attributed to Casement and therefore has maximum explanatory value. The Putumayo diary was written first and an unknown person later wrote the Dollard.

5 Miraculous Recovery

Entries 10th & 11th October

Much has been written about Casement’s eye problems which are recorded very differently in both documents. In Casement’s writings of the period, letters and the  Putumayo Diary, there are 13 references, totalling 342 words, to his eye condition dating from 11th August to 13th October as follows: 11, 14 August, 4, 12, 13 September, 10, 11, 12, 13 October. In the Dollard diary there are only two references (totalling 40 words) dated 10th and 11th October. To an impartial enquirer this numerical difference (40: 342 = 11.69%) would be of considerable significance. This represents one of the most problematic of all the anomalies between the documents because of the vast disparity of attention given to the condition which is completely ignored in the Dollard for about 8 weeks and then receives only two references whereas during the same period there are 13 references to minor discomforts.

These are the two Dollard references:

“My eye is very bad indeed ­left eye, and I have it bandaged with Boracic lotion and the Dr of Hilary’s stuff. Turned in early with wet bandage over eyes.” (10th October)

“I am far from well. My left eye very bad.” (11th October)[See Appendix 3]

Since it is accepted that Casement wrote the letters and the Putumayo Diary, his 13 references to a continuing eyesight problem indicate that the problem was both real and of such concern to him that he restricted himself to writing in pencil from August onwards. It is therefore difficult to understand why there are only two references to this problem in the Dollard since it is held that this diary was also written while Casement was in South America. One would reasonably expect a greater number of references in the Dollard especially if, as claimed, this was written first. It might be said that the explanation for only two entries in the Dollard is simply that he had already recorded his eye problem fully in his letters and in the Putumayo Diary which would demonstrate that the Putumayo Diary was written first.

During the period 11th August to 13th October in which Casement’s eyes were a source of worry as recorded in his letters and in the Putumayo Diary, we find in the Dollard 13 references (totalling 101 words) to passing discomforts such as headaches, high temperature, sore throat, a cut finger, tiredness.[16] It would seem that during this period, the ‘Dollard Casement’ gave more than six times greater importance to minor and transient ailments than he gave to his deteriorating eyesight which jeopardized his entire investigation (13 references to 2). Moreover, the ‘Dollard Casement’ ignored his eye condition for almost 8 weeks and only on 10th October made first note of it. And the same ‘Dollard Casement’ also ignored his condition on the 12th October for which date Casement wrote in the Putumayo Diary “Eyes both bandaged all night.”

Although the different significance given to the eye condition in the documents might seem at first perplexing, the actual references to the eye condition in the diaries do not directly contradict each other. But this lack of direct contradiction is deceptive. When these statements are analysed in their historical context and are asked for an explanation, the contradictions emerge. The explanation must answer the questions which emerge from the remarkable disparity in the two diaries. The questions are: Why does the Dollard Casement ignore his eye problems for almost eight weeks? Why does the Dollard Casement give so little significance to this problem? Why does the Dollard Casement suddenly change from pencil to ink part way through writing the 11th October entry when he has just described his eye condition as “very bad”?

Hypothesis 1 – on 10th & 11th October Casement writes the Dollard entries in both pencil and in ink and in 40 words records his concern about his eyesight. The 10th entry is in pencil because his eyes are troubling him and part of the 11th entry is in pencil for the same reason. On both dates his left eye is bandaged. Near the end of line 4 in the 11th entry, exactly at the end of the sentence which refers to eye problems, Casement suddenly changes to ink and writes a further nine lines in ink. This sudden change is made possible by a miraculous recovery from his eye condition. In both entries the pencil and the ink writing is equally neat and legible.

Later, Casement writes the 7 references in pencil which he dates 10, 11, 12, 13 October in the Putumayo Diary and in 117 words records his eye condition on those days. Therefore at least two of these entries are written after the days on which his eyesight was troublesome as earlier recorded in the Dollard. Casement continues to use pencil for the entries dated 12th and 13th   and later. Pencil is used consistently in previous entries. He uses pencil because of his poor eyesight – it is easier than pen and ink. At this later time of writing after his miraculous recovery when writing the Dollard, he fakes the poor quality of his handwriting which shows in letter formation, irregular left margins and writing below the ruled guidelines. He does this because he does not believe in miracles. He has already written 6 references to his eye condition in five letters dated 11, 14 August (2 references), 4, 12, 13 September, four sent to the FO and one to Colonel Bertie[17]. All of these letters were received and are extant.

OR

Hypothesis 2 – Casement writes the 13 references in letters and in the Putumayo Diary entries on 9 days spanning 8 weeks and in 342 words he records his concern about his eyes on each of those occasions. The first 6 references are in five handwritten letters, four sent to the FO and one to Colonel Bertie, dated 11, 14 August (2), 4, 12, 13 September. All of these letters were received and are extant. On 10th, 11th, 12th, 13th October, Casement writes the 7 references in pencil in the Putumayo Diary and in 117 words records his eye condition on those days. Casement continues to use pencil for the entries after 13th. He uses pencil because of his poor eyesight – it is easier than pen and ink. The quality of his handwriting is compromised and this shows in letter formation, irregular left margins and writing below the ruled guidelines.

Later, Casement writes the Dollard entries dated 10th and 11th October in both pencil and in ink; the 40 words recording the condition of his eyesight are in pencil. He has written nothing in the Dollard about his eyesight at any time before writing these entries. For these entries he writes in pencil until near the end of line 4 in the entry of 11th when he changes to ink and completes a further nine lines of that same entry. The handwriting in both entries is neat and legible because at this later time of writing he is no longer suffering from eye problems. But he uses pencil in these entries because he is unaware that he no longer has eye problems or ‘out of habit’ or for no reason whatsoever. He mentions two medications one of which was given to him in August as recorded at the time in one of his letters. The other medication is not mentioned anywhere in the 13 references he has written in the other documents.

OR

Hypothesis 3 – Casement writes the 13 references in letters and in the Putumayo Diary on 9 days spanning 8 weeks and in 342 words records his concern about his eyes on each of those occasions. The first 6 references are in five handwritten letters, four sent to the FO and one to Colonel Bertie, dated 11, 14 August (2), 4, 12, 13 September. All of these letters were received and are extant. He writes a further 7 references in pencil in the Putumayo Diary and in 117 words records his eye condition on those days. Casement continues to use pencil for the entries after 13th. He uses pencil because of his poor eyesight – it is easier than pen and ink. The quality of his handwriting is compromised and this shows in letter formation, irregular left margins and writing below the ruled guideline.

Later, an unknown person writes the Dollard entries in both pencil and in ink and dates them 10th and 11th October and in 40 words records the eyesight problem for the first time. The unknown person does not have an eyesight problem and so uses pencil and ink with equal facility. The handwriting in both entries is neat and legible. He writes the two references to eyesight problems in pencil because he knows that Casement used pencil when his eyes were swollen, painful and often bandaged. He changes to ink near the end of line 4 in the 11th entry exactly at the end of the sentence which refers to eye problems because the remaining nine lines do not refer to eye problems. In complicity with others, he attributes these entries to Casement.

Summary: all three hypotheses confirm that Casement’s eyesight was compromised. In hypothesis 1 the Dollard Casement experienced an instantaneous miraculous recovery from his eye illness on 11th October immediately after recording his eye condition on line 4. The Dollard Casement is unaware of this miracle, does not mention it and at once starts writing in ink. The Putumayo Diary Casement does not experience this miraculous recovery, continues to suffer from eye problems and continues writing in pencil that day and the following days.

Conclusion: in logic there are no miracles. The contradiction in the first lemma of hypothesis 1 can only be explained by instantaneous miraculous recovery. That the Dollard entries for 10th and 11th October are written neatly in ink and in pencil when they record considerable eye problems on those days requiring bandaging and medication is explained by the second lemma of hypothesis 3.  This lemma also answers the three questions posed before hypothesis 1. The contradictions exposed in hypotheses 1 and 2 collapse into reductio ad absurdum. Hypothesis 3 eliminates the contradictions attributed to Casement and therefore has maximum explanatory value. The Putumayo diary was written first and an unknown person later wrote the Dollard.

6 St Swithin

Entries 31 October & 2 November

These entries relate to St. Swithin and to the English folk belief dating from around 832 that if it does not rain on the saint’s feast-day, 15th July, there will be no rain for forty days afterwards. A variant has it that whatever weather obtains on that day will continue for 40 days.

One reference to this belief appears in the Putumayo Diary on 31st October as follows: “Macedo[18] says if it does not rain on 2nd November it will not rain for six weeks. A local St Swithin evidently.”

Another reference appears in the Dollard entry dated 2nd November as follows: “Very little rain today, but still it passed St Swithuns without rain.”

It is clear from the Putumayo Diary reference that Casement is familiar with the original English legend. It is not clear from the Dollard reference that the author is familiar with the local equivalent in the Putumayo region as related to Casement by Macedo. Also the spelling of the saint’s name is different.  Since the English legend refers to July 15th and the Dollard reference is dated 2nd November but is without mention of a local Putumayo legend to give context to the reference, the Dollard reference to St Swithuns on its own makes no sense. It makes sense only if the Dollard author is aware of the local legend and the only source of that awareness is the single reference in the Putumayo Diary because, being an irrelevant anecdote, it does not appear in Casement’s official report or in The Blue Book. Therefore the Dollard reference constitutes strong evidence that the author had access to the St Swithin entry in the Putumayo Diary before writing the entry and this means the Dollard was written after the Putumayo Diary.

Hypothesis 1 – on 2nd November Casement writes the St Swithuns entry in the Dollard omitting any explanatory reference to a local legend and spelling the name with ‘u’. He includes compromising material.

Later, after 2nd November, Casement writes the St Swithin reference in the Putumayo Diary recording that Macedo told him of the local legend on 31st October. He now changes the Dollard spelling of the name from ‘u’ to ‘i’ and he either inserts this reference into the entry for 31st October or he writes the Putumayo Diary up to 31st October and includes the reference. (The last two possibilities are required because the proposal that Casement wrote both diaries does not state if the diaries were written in tandem or if the Putumayo Diary was written after completion of the Dollard.)

OR

Hypothesis 2 – On 31st October Casement writes the St Swithin reference in the Putumayo Diary for that date and makes explanatory reference to hearing from Macedo of a local legend. He spells the name with ‘i’. He makes no reference to St Swithin elsewhere in the Putumayo Diary.

Later, Casement writes the St Swithuns reference in the Dollard which he dates 2nd November. He omits the explanatory reference to hearing about the local legend because he has already recorded the context in the Putumayo Diary. He changes the previous spelling of the name from ‘i’ to ‘u’. He includes compromising material.

OR

Hypothesis 3 – On October 31st Casement writes the St Swithin reference in the Putumayo Diary and makes explanatory reference to Macedo telling him on that date of a local legend. He spells the name with ‘i’. He does not refer to the St Swithin legend again in the Putumayo Diary.

Later, an unknown person writes a shorter St Swithuns reference in the Dollard which he dates 2nd November because he knows this is the date in the local legend but he omits to make an explanatory reference to the local legend. He uses a different spelling of the name and includes compromising material. In complicity with others, the unknown person attributes the entry to Casement.

Summary: hypothesis 1 contains a direct contradiction in that Casement cannot record St Swithuns in the Dollard before he hears of the local legend from Macedo; the second lemma proposes that this happened after the Dollard date of 2nd November. The first lemma in hypothesis 1 also contains an internal contradiction since November 2nd is not the date of St Swithin in the English legend.  All three hypotheses present an inexplicable inconsistency in spelling.

Conclusion: hypothesis 3 eliminates the double contradiction in hypothesis 1 and resolves the spelling inconsistency. Hypothesis 3 eliminates the contradictions attributed to Casement and has maximum explanatory value. The Putumayo diary was written first and an unknown person later wrote the Dollard.

7 Omarino

Entries for 31st October & 2nd November

Omarino is the name of the Indian child sent to England by Casement in December 1910. This analysis focuses on anomalies arising from differing versions in the documents concerning the weighing of the child and the load of rubber carried by the child. [See Appendix 3]

Hypothesis 1 – On 31st October Casement records in the Dollard that he has weighed Omarino and his load of rubber; the weights recorded are 24 kilos for the child and 29 kilos for the rubber. He includes vague sexual innuendo.

Later, Casement records in the Putumayo Diary entry dated 31st October that he intends to weigh Omarino and his load on the following day thus denying what he has already written in the Dollard. On 2nd November Casement records that he weighed Omarino and the load on 2nd November; he records the child’s weight at 25 kilos and the load at 29.5 kilos.

OR

Hypothesis 2 – On 31st October Casement records in the Putumayo Diary that he intends to weigh Omarino and his load on the following day. On 2nd November Casement records that he weighed Omarino and the load on 2nd November; he records the child’s weight at 25 kilos and the load at 29.5 kilos.

Later, Casement records in the Dollard entry dated 31st October that he weighed Omarino and his load on 31st October thus denying what he has already written in the Putumayo Diary. He changes the weights already recorded to 24 kilos and 29 kilos respectively. He includes vague sexual innuendo.

OR

Hypothesis 3 – On 31st October Casement records in the Putumayo Diary that he intends to weigh Omarino and his load on the following day. On 2nd November Casement records that he weighed Omarino and the load on 2nd November; he records the child’s weight at 25 kilos and the load at 29.5 kilos.

Later, an unknown person writes the Dollard entry dated 31st October in which he states that Casement weighed Omarino and his load on 31st October and that Casement recorded the weights at 24 kilos and 29 kilos respectively. The unknown person includes vague innuendo. In complicity with others, the unknown person attributes the entry to Casement.

Summary: both direct and indirect contradictions are present in hypotheses 1 and 2.  The first contradiction is that Casement records that he both weighed and did not weigh the child on the same day. Hypothesis 2 presents a double contradiction; firstly the same contradiction as in Hypothesis 1 and secondly in respect of the weights recorded.

Conclusion: hypothesis 3 eliminates the contradictions attributed to Casement and this hypothesis offers maximum explanatory value. The Putumayo diary was written first and the Dollard was written later by an unknown person.

8 & 9 Argentina

Entries 8th, 9th, 12th September

This analysis and the following one focus on discrepancies in the documents which record events arising from Casement’s decision to send a river launch at considerable cost to find and bring back a capable interpreter of the native languages, a person who was located several hundred miles distant. The hired motor launch Argentina departed from Iquitos on 3rd September and returned on 12th September without the interpreter who could not be located. The return of the vessel is recorded contradictorily in two distinct entries in the documents.

As a continuous daily narrative The Putumayo Diary starts on 23 September 1910. Prior to that date there are various letters and dated writings which partly cover Casement’s stay in Iquitos from arrival on 31st August to departure for the Putumayo on 14th September. These letters and writings are held in N.L.I. MS 13,087 and in PRO FO 371/968 and they are published in The Amazon Journal edited by Angus Mitchell. References to these documents in these analyses are therefore to The Amazon Journal.

In The Amazon Journal events are recorded on 9,10,11, 12 September. There is no record for 8 September and no mention of the Argentina before its return on 12 September. The Dollard is inconsistent about the return of the vessel. The Dollard entry for 8th September records that the interpreter was not found – and this before the vessel has returned. The Dollard entry for 9th September records the return of the Argentina without interpreter. This is then ‘corrected’ a few lines lower in the same entry which denies that the Argentina has returned. The Dollard entry for 12th September finally records the return of the Argentina – twice. The entry for 12th September in The Amazon Journal also records the return of the Argentina without the interpreter.

A further anomaly is that the Dollard does not mention the deployment of the Argentina or the purpose of the costly exercise. However, these are mentioned in Cazes’ letter of 3rd September and in Casement’s letter of 4th September to Colonel Bertie. Since this decision was of importance to Casement’s mission, the absence of any mention in the Dollard entries for 3rd and 4th September remains to be explained.

8 Argentina

Entries 8th September

Hypothesis 1 – on 8th September Casement writes the Dollard entry for that date and records that the interpreter has not been found four days before this can be known and although he knows the vessel is several hundred miles distant and that nothing can be known in the matter before its return. He includes vague sexual innuendo.

Later, Casement writes The Amazon Journal entry which he dates 9th September and does not mention the vessel or the interpreter although he has already recorded in the Dollard that the interpreter has not been found.

OR

Hypothesis 2 – on 9th September Casement writes The Amazon Journal entry for that date and does not mention the vessel or the interpreter because he knows a) that the Argentina has not returned and b) until the vessel returns nothing can be known about the interpreter and therefore nothing can be recorded on the matter.

Later, Casement writes the Dollard entry dated 8th September and records that the interpreter has not been found four days before this can be known and although he knows the vessel is several hundred miles away and until the vessel returns nothing can be known about the interpreter. He writes this entry either before the return of the vessel on 12th September or after that date. He includes vague sexual innuendo.

OR

Hypothesis 3 – on 9th September Casement writes The Amazon Journal entry for that date without mention of the Argentina or the interpreter because he knows that the Argentina has not returned and until the vessel returns nothing can be known about the interpreter.

Later, an unknown person writes the Dollard entry dated 8th September in which he records that the interpreter has not been found four days before this can be known. He writes this entry either before the return of the vessel on 12th September or after that date. He includes some sexual innuendo. In complicity with others, the unknown person attributes the entry to Casement.

Summary: the Dollard lemmas in hypotheses 1 and 2 contain an internal contradiction.

Conclusion: For hypotheses 1 and 2 to be non-contradictory would require a second Casement with the gift of precognition. In hypotheses 1 and 2, a unitary Casement contradicts himself in the Dollard by recording something he cannot know on that date because the non-finding of the interpreter has not happened on that date. Hypothesis 3 eliminates the contradictions attributed to Casement and has maximum explanatory value. The Amazon Journal was written first and an unknown person later wrote the Dollard.

9 Argentina

Entries 9th September

Hypothesis 1 – on 9th September Casement writes the Dollard entry for that date and records the return of the Argentina at the precise time of 11am without the interpreter. A few lines below Casement denies that the Argentina has returned. He includes some compromising references.

Later, Casement writes The Amazon Journal entry dated 9th September and does not mention either the Argentina or the interpreter because he knows that the vessel has not yet returned and therefore nothing can be recorded on the matter. He writes this entry either before, on or after 12th September.

OR

Hypothesis 2 – on 9th September Casement writes The Amazon Journal entry for that date and does not mention either the Argentina or the interpreter because he knows that the vessel has not yet returned and therefore nothing can be recorded on the matter.

Later, Casement writes the Dollard entry dated 9th September and records the return of the Argentina at 11am without the interpreter. A few lines below Casement has second thoughts and denies that the Argentina has returned. He includes some compromising references. He writes this entry either before, on or after 12th September.

OR

Hypothesis 3 – on 9th September Casement writes The Amazon Journal entry for that date and does not mention either the Argentina or the interpreter because he knows that the vessel has not yet returned and therefore nothing can be recorded on the matter. On 12th September Casement records the return of the Argentina without interpreter in the Amazon Journal.

Later, an unknown person writes the Dollard entry dated 9th September and records the return of the Argentina at 11am without the interpreter. Then a few lines below the unknown person denies the return of the vessel on 9th September. He includes some compromising references. The unknown person also writes the Dollard entry dated 12th September recording the return of the Argentina on that date without the interpreter. He then repeats the same information at the end of the same entry. In complicity with others, the unknown person attributes the entries to Casement.

Summary: hypotheses 1 & 2 contain an internal contradiction in lemmas 1 and 2 respectively both in the Dollard. Those lemmas also contain an indirect contradiction in respect of hypothesis 3.

Conclusions: in hypotheses 1 and 2 the Dollard Casement contradicts himself while The Amazon Journal Casement is consistent in all three hypotheses. Hypothesis 3 eliminates the contradictions attributed to Casement and has maximum explanatory value. The Amazon Journal was written first and an unknown person later wrote the Dollard.

10 Hotel Le Cosmopolite

This analysis focuses on Casement’s two week stay in Iquitos in early September which is recorded contradictorily in the documents. A letter of 4th September records that Casement stayed as a guest in the home of Mr David Cazes[19], the Honorary British Consul, whereas the Dollard does not mention this undisputed fact and records instead that he booked a room at Le Cosmopolite.

Upon arrival in Iquitos on 31st August Casement became the guest of Cazes for two weeks. He recorded this fact in a letter written to Colonel Bertie dated 4th September in which he also stated that the Commission members resided in a house provided by the Peruvian Amazon Company[20]. In November, Casement returned to the Cazes’ house in Iquitos as recorded in the Putumayo Diary.

The Dollard diary records that Casement took a room at the Hotel Le Cosmopolite and does not mention his stay in the Cazes’ home. Casement’s expense account submitted to the FO does not record any hotel expense for this period.

Hypothesis 1 – on 31st August Casement writes the Dollard entry for that date and records that he has booked a room at Hotel Le Cosmopolite. He does not mention this hotel again during his stay in Iquitos or elsewhere in the Dollard.

Later, on 4th September, Casement writes a letter to Col. Bertie in which he records that he became a guest in the Cazes’ home upon arrival on 31st August thus ‘deceiving’ his correspondent about the hotel. He later declines to seek the reimbursement for hotel expenses from HM Government to which he is entitled.

OR

Hypothesis 2 – On 4th September Casement writes a letter to Col. Bertie in which he records that he became a guest in the Cazes’ home upon arrival on 31st August. There is no mention of any hotel.

Later, after 4th September, Casement writes the Dollard entry which he dates 31st August in which he records that he has booked a room at Hotel Le Cosmopolite. He does not mention this hotel again during his stay in Iquitos or elsewhere in the Dollard. He later declines to seek from HM Government reimbursement for hotel expenses to which he is entitled.

OR

Hypothesis 3 – on 4th September Casement writes a letter to Colonel Bertie without mention of any hotel and in which he records that he became a guest in the Cazes home upon arrival on 31st August.

Later, an unknown person writes the Dollard entry dated 31st August and records that Casement booked a room at Hotel Le Cosmopolite upon arrival in Iquitos. The unknown person does not record anywhere in the Dollard that Casement stayed at any time as a guest of the Hon. British Consul in Iquitos because, at the later time of writing, the unknown person overlooks this fact. In complicity with others, the unknown person attributes the entry to Casement.

Summary: hypotheses 1 and 2 contain a direct contradiction. This is supported by an entry contradicting the reference to Le Cosmopolite: a 3rd September reference in the Dollard – “In house all day getting things unpacked & writing to F.O.”

Conclusion: hypothesis 3, second lemma eliminates the contradictions attributed to Casement in hypotheses 1 and 2 and also explains why no expense account for the hotel was submitted to his employers.  Hypothesis 3 has maximum explanatory value. The letter of 4 September was written first and an unknown person later wrote the Dollard.

Proof Test

The ten analyses by deductive hypothesis have in each case given the results that the Dollard diary was composed later than the Putumayo Diary and that the Dollard entries were written by an unknown person. According to common sense this means that the entire Dollard was written by an unknown person and from this it is reasonable to deduce that the other diaries containing compromising writings were written in part or completely by an unknown person or persons. This result for the Dollard Diary must be tested by proof beyond reasonable doubt which requires that reasonable alternatives be considered. Those alternative explanations which would refute the result must be consistent with known and verified facts before they can be considered reasonable. They must be supported by a reasoning which does not exceed or contradict reasoning already used to arrive at the proposed conclusion. All evidence produced must lead to a single conclusion.

To reasonable doubt must be added the notion of maximum explanatory power which must demonstrate itself as non-contradictory and reasonable in that it responds to all the facts as established. Is there a reasonable alternative which has equal or more explanatory power than the thesis of unknown authorship? That reasonable alternative would have to resolve all of the anomalies above analysed in a single, consistent and coherent manner. Further, it would have to restrict itself to the specific occasions of writing the diary entries. These last two conditions are determined by the thesis of unknown authorship. Failure to provide such a reasonable alternative leads to the conclusion that the thesis of unknown authorship has been demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt.

The first result demonstrates the temporal sequence of composition with the Putumayo Diary written first. The only reasonable alternative to this result is that the writings used in the analyses of both documents are either false or are true but do not demonstrate the result. The first thesis is untenable because the writings are qua writings unquestioned – they exist in the documents for all to see. Therefore in order to argue that they are true but do not demonstrate the result it would be necessary to demonstrate that hypothesis 3 does not eliminate the contradictions revealed in hypotheses 1 and 2. Since hypothesis 3 does indeed eliminate those contradictions it becomes necessary to deny that the contradictions are indeed contradictions. To deny contradiction is to deny the nature and possibility of meaning and requires either a second order logic or some kind of neurological imbalance or both. Ex falso quodlibet.

Two sample cases demonstrate that these mistakes are indeed significant contradictions of facts. The case of Omarino demonstrates clearly that one of the documents is wrong because the dates and the weights do not correspond. The case of Hotel Le Cosmopolite demonstrates that one of the documents is wrong. Both cases demonstrate that the Dollard is wrong because it contains significant factual contradictions. Factual contradictions are significant because it is the falsity of one ‘fact’ which makes impossible reconciliation with the other.

The second result of the analyses is that the Dollard was written by an unknown person. Putting this to the test of reasonable doubt requires again that a reasonable alternative is considered. The only alternative is that the author was Casement rather than an unknown person. This requires that after writing the entries in the Putumayo Diary, Casement wrote the entries in the Dollard. Once again the errors and contradictions must all be reasonably explained. The Dollard Casement repeats in modified language and form much that he has already recorded in the Putumayo Diary and introduces much that he has not recorded in that diary. In the Dollard he also contradicts facts he has already recorded in detail and proceeds to diminish and even eliminate the significance of much of the experience he has already recorded. That the motive for the Dollard was to keep a record of erotic experience has been shown to be untenable because of the quantity ratio of innocuous text to erotic innuendo as already outlined. If no reasonable motive for Casement’s writing the Dollard can be found, (motive considered separately from content) questions might reasonably be raised about his mental welfare. Answers to these questions require to be consistent with the known facts about Casement in 1910. That his physical health was compromised is well recorded in the Putumayo Diary and in his letters but there is no verifiable evidence to be found anywhere that his mental health was at risk. On the contrary, the Putumayo Diary and his letters demonstrate his lucidity and presence of mind at all times. There is no evidence of amnesia or confused mental states anywhere in his undisputed writings of 1910 or in his communications with and reports to the Foreign Office. Therefore it cannot reasonably be maintained that mental disturbance motivated him to write the Dollard because no evidence has been provided.

A second element of this reasonable alternative concerns the discrepancies and contradictions revealed in the Dollard. Allow that this element be even further examined under two related aspects.

A – The errors and confusions in the Dollard might also be explained as the result of disturbed mental states such as brief periods of amnesia and disorientation coinciding with writing each of those entries in the Dollard. Perhaps some form of dissociation of personality would provide a reasonable alternative. Certainly a disturbed mental state would have considerable explanatory power and would resolve the anomalies in a consistent manner.

There are, however, several difficulties with this reasonable alternative. Firstly, it must explain not only the anomalies analysed here but would have to be consistent with any other reasonable alternative used to explain the many other anomalies in the Dollard which have not been analysed here. This suggests that the disturbed mental state would be a fairly frequent occurrence. Secondly, the disturbed mental state would require to be defined more precisely and such a definition would require supporting evidence. Thirdly, such evidence of a disturbed mental state would have to be consistent with known and undisputed facts which means that any third-party evidence produced would have to demonstrate previous occasions of such a defined mental state. As before, when considering motive, there is no evidence that Casement frequently suffered from a specific set of symptoms associated with an identifiable disturbed mental state. There is, however, a mass of evidence to the contrary in the Putumayo Diary, in his communications with the Foreign Office and in his private correspondence, that Casement was continuously lucid and alert, that he was at all times in command of his intellective faculties. Therefore, in the absence of verifiable evidence, this alternative that a disturbed mental state can explain the contradictions does not meet the basic requirements of consistency with known and undisputed facts and therefore it is not a reasonable alternative and must be rejected.

B – There is no evidence in either diary, considered separately, of a disturbed mental state. Nor is there any evidence elsewhere. The need for such a mental state explanation arises only when one analyses the diaries together as written by one person. As soon as the diaries are considered as written by two persons, the question of mental disturbance disappears. That the diaries were indeed written by two persons has, therefore, maximum explanatory power.

A second reasonable and important alternative must be considered. It has been suggested that these errors and discrepancies are indeed the work of Casement but they can be attributed quite simply to human error by a very busy diarist. This is a plausible version of the idea that the mistakes are intrinsically meaningless and nothing definite can be deduced from them. This thesis admits the existence of errors but fails to engage with them and justifies that failure to engage by predicting the futility of investigating them – without investigating them. This reaction to a fairly large number of unexplained errors weakens the thesis that nothing can be deduced from them. Failure to defend one’s thesis on such weak grounds indicates that mere plausibility is favoured over impartial desire for truth. To an impartial observer this might indicate a fear of the truth rather than laziness.

The second thesis requires that reasonable alternative interpretations are given for each and every ‘mistake’ which has been demonstrated such that it is in each case demonstrated that none of those ‘mistakes’ are in fact mistakes. It is difficult to see how this might be achieved. It would require an advanced state of cognitive dissonance to refuse to recognise mistakes as mistakes, as significant incongruities. The mistakes would have to be shown each time as meaningless or as meaning something different for this thesis to gain ground.

If the many mistakes are meaningless then it ought to be easy to demonstrate their lack of meaning. Let some of the errors speak for themselves. The following are some of the allegedly meaningless errors. Casement weighs the child Omarino twice on different days and records different weights. Casement stays in two places at the same time and deceives his correspondent about the hotel which he pays for from his own pocket rather than from HM Government. Casement records seeing the Lunar Rainbow twice – on 6th and again on 7th November – then decides that he saw it only once so he changes the date of the second sighting.  One Casement ignores his eye illness for almost 8 weeks while the other Casement records his worries 13 times in those weeks. One Casement reports the return of the Argentina four days before it returns while the other Casement is silent until it returns.

Rather than meaningless ‘mistakes’ these are factual errors and contradictions which are found in only one of the documents and therefore they are significant incongruities which demand explanation in every case.

Two sample cases demonstrate that these ‘mistakes’ are indeed significant contradictions of facts. The case of Omarino demonstrates clearly that one of the documents contradicts the other because the dates and the weights do not correspond. The case of Hotel Le Cosmopolite demonstrates that one of the documents contradicts the other. Both analyses demonstrate that the Dollard is wrong because it contains significant factual contradictions. Factual contradictions are significant because it is the falsity of one ‘fact’ which makes impossible reconciliation with the other.

The Casement who weighed Omarino and his load on 2nd November cannot be the same Casement who had already weighed the child and load two days before because two days before, the Putumayo Diary Casement had written on that day that he did not weigh the child on that day. The Casement who was guest in the Cazes home does not mention Hotel Le Cosmopolite once in his highly detailed Putumayo Diary. Yet the Dollard Casement records booking into a hotel and never mentions being a guest in the Cazes home.

In the case where a reasonable alternative is not possible, the verdict is determined by the facts as already demonstrated. The two alternatives considered above fail to pass the proof test of ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ therefore the only verdict possible is that of unknown authorship.

Part 3

Conclusions

“The very concept of objective truth is fading out of the world. Lies will pass into history.” George Orwell

A conspicuous feature of the diaries for 1903, 1910 and 1911 is that the majority of the compromising writings refer to places outside the UK in either Congo or the Amazon regions. There is a reason for this which helps to explain why the diaries were written by an unknown person. It is undisputed that the purpose of circulating typescript and photograph versions of the alleged diaries in 1916 to influential persons in Britain and the US was to confuse and disarm the powerful lobby of support for clemency and the various appeals made to the British government. These included not only many famous names but also an appeal from the US Senate. But there was a secondary motive behind the choice of the Congo and the Amazon relating to 1903 and 1910-11. These locations were the basis of Casement’s international fame and moral stature: it was in these two locations that he had earned his fame as an outstanding humanitarian. In the public mind of Europe and the USA, Casement was instantly associated with these locations where he had revealed the heart of darkness and the atrocities against defenceless indigenous peoples enslaved for imperial profit. He had exposed not just the continued existence of slavery some 77 years after its abolition (in the British Empire) but had demonstrated the consequence of that hidden slavery – genocide. The enormous moral strength that Casement achieved from his pioneering investigations was precisely what had to be destroyed. He was to be attacked and discredited at the very point where his ‘defence’ was apparently impregnable. That defence derived from his work in the Congo and in the Amazon. Moreover, the allegations concerning degeneracy in those far-off locations could not be disproved or even tested since there were no witnesses. Hence the three incriminating diaries relate to the three years when he was in the heart of darkness.

It is most probable that that the typed copy of the Putumayo Diary prepared by the Foreign Office in 1913 for the Parliamentary Select Committee was one of the sources for these first typed pages. Among other sources were the Green Notebook/s (kept by Casement when travelling in awkward circumstances and which have never been located) and the Blue Book[21] and his official report[22]. The fastest method of production was improvised dictation to a typist. This method would account for errors and lack of narrative coherence. The speed of this process meant that no checks were done and errors were not noted or corrected. More was better than fewer pages since this would persuade people that such a large quantity of text could not have been invented ab origine in such a short time. Some of these typed pages were also photographed for wider circulation – there is no evidence that the photos were images of handwritten pages and we do not know if photos of any handwritten pages were circulated. But it is possible that an unknown person prepared some preliminary handwritten pages for photo reproduction. But full scale preparation of the five bound volumes now held in the UK National Archives started later. The basic source for all later elaboration of the Black Diaries was the typed pages improvised by dictation to a typist. The ‘dictator’ would have varied the text of the entries in the typed document from those in the sources in order to simulate a ‘version’ of day-to-day events so that the text of the new ‘version’ appeared authentic. These variations and the hurried improvisational method led to the anomalies and contradictions.

In 1973 Brian Inglis’ influential book was published and it contained the following paragraph which became the mainstay of the argument for authenticity of the controversial diaries.

“No person or persons, in their right mind, would have gone to so much trouble and expense to damn a traitor, when a single diary would have sufficed. To ask the forger to fake the other two diaries and the cash register (and if one was forged, all of them were) would have been simply to ask for detection, because a single mistake in any of them would have destroyed the whole ugly enterprise.” [See Appendix 2]

  1. 397 Roger Casement by Brian Inglis, 1973

Although Inglis underestimated the hatred felt towards Casement at the time, he is correct in his observation concerning the precarious authenticity of the diaries. Detection of ‘a single mistake’ was avoided by keeping the diaries secret until 1959 and by tightly controlling access to them until recent years[23]. It was also avoided by three non-forensic ‘tests’, two performed by British handwriting experts and one by non-experts[24]. Inglis also underestimated the international status that Casement had achieved and the delicate balance between Britain’s desire to woo the US to its side in WW1 and the desire to exact the final forfeit from their ‘traitor’. In the event and despite the clemency appeal from the US Senate, hatred won and the US did not declare war on Germany until 6th April 1917, some eight months after Casement’s execution.

Whereas Inglis’s ‘single mistake’ would destroy authenticity, it would do so only logically and not psychologically. The latter is of much greater importance because it is the psychological dimension which has dominated the long controversy over the authenticity of the diaries. This can be seen in the number of books published which accept or argue for authenticity; starting with MacColl’s book in 1956 there have been thirteen including three editions of the Inglis volume – on average one book every 4.15 years[25]. To these can be added two TV documentaries which reached millions. Broadcast and mainstream press coverage has been wholly in favour of authenticity and dissenting voices have largely been confined to ‘Letters to the Editor’ and to pamphlets.  It is perhaps excessive to describe this unanimity as propaganda but it is also difficult to distinguish it from propaganda. It might be seen as a consensus inspired campaign in marketing the encoded enigmatic identity of Casement, the fallen Lucifer. That the campaign has been successful can be discerned in the following: no British government has ever officially committed itself to authenticity nor has any British government ever openly endorsed any of the ‘forensic’ tests, three of which were private initiatives. The results of the 1959 Home Office report/test remain unpublished. Yet somehow authenticity has unofficially become ‘official’ truth which explains government silence. That official silence also means that no British government has ever denied falsity. Even as recently as July 2015 the UK National Archives ambiguously described the Black Diaries as “attributed to Roger Casement” while at the same time unambiguously declaring their satisfaction with the private Giles Report[26].

If a single mistake would not suffice to destroy authenticity psychologically, the impartial enquirer might ask how many mistakes would suffice. Considering the importance of the psychological dimension, many more mistakes would appear helpful if not logically necessary. The ten analyses presented here expose more than 25 ‘mistakes’ and these might be sufficient for an enquirer who is free of prior bias, who is impartial. Unfortunately the Casement controversy since its beginning one hundred years ago has been afflicted with strongly biased opinions leading to at best superficial and most often non-existent scrutiny and grievously defective logic.

Only months before the much-acclaimed Giles Report, the UK National Archives announced “Recent Releases at PRO June 2001”.  Among these were several Casement related documents and one of these had been eagerly awaited for many decades. MEPO 2/10672 is a 3-page list of personal effects compiled by the Metropolitan Police and date stamped on the second and third pages 28th July 1916.  These effects are listed as being found in Casement’s trunks. This is the ‘discovery’ document long kept secret. In the top header section the sentence of death dated 29th June is clearly typed. At the beginning of the first list there appears the following typed text: “Brought to New Scotland Yard by Mr. Germain, 50, Ebury Street, on 25th , April, 1916.” The eighth item listed below is “3 diaries”.

The release of this document in 2001 after 85 years of secrecy must have embarrassed those who claim the diaries are authentic. Their subsequent silence about this document is explained by the fact that it adds yet one more version to Thomson’s four conflicting versions of discovery [see Appendix 5].

The existence of five differing versions indicates not confusion but concealment. Thomson’s versions contain truth and half-truth and all four of them contradict the police statement that the locked trunks were delivered on 25th April.

Far from clarifying the discovery, the official account is highly suspect not only because it is dated three months after the alleged delivery but because it agrees with only one aspect of Thomson’s third account – that a former landlord delivered the trunks to Scotland Yard. That this happened on 25th April is disproven by the fact that the landlord could not have known anything of Casement’s arrest and presence at Scotland Yard until this news appeared in the press after the final interrogation. Thomson’s three later references to the trunk keys during interrogation were therefore true but constituted a charade for the shorthand record intended to conceal that he knew the contents before Casement’s arrest. The logical conclusion is that the post-trial police report is false concerning the date of delivery and therefore the trunks were in police possession, as Thomson states twice, “some months” before the arrest.

At this point another figure must be considered – one who is not mentioned in any of the numerous Casement studies. Arthur Maundy Gregory[27], one of Thomson’s many informers and agents, is mentioned by Thomson in Queer People as being the original source of the idea of incriminating diaries. “Gregory was the first person … to warn that Casement was particularly vulnerable to blackmail and that if we could obtain possession of his diaries they could prove an invaluable weapon with which to fight his influence as a leader of the Irish rebels and an ally of the Germans.”

Gregory was an unsavoury person involved in theft, fraud, blackmail and possibly murder by poisoning. Like Thomson, he was an imperialist reactionary but whereas Thomson received a police salary, Gregory’s income was derived from the honours-for-sale scandal of those years and from blackmailing wealthy public figures including homosexuals. This high-class crook was therefore an ideal police informer with links in MI5, the establishment and the underworld.

Thomson’s comment above indicates that Gregory’s suggestion was made during Casement’s time in Germany which in turn means that the idea of discrediting Casement with incriminating diaries was in Thomson’s mind before the interrogation during the period when the police were in possession of the trunks.

The police list was compiled and dated to conceal the pre-arrest discovery of the trunks. This was necessary so no-one would know the contents of the trunks until Thomson and Hall decided what should be made known about the contents. The hoped-for but unexpected arrest on 21st  April had a significant impact on the ‘rules of the game’ because it transformed Casement from being a fugitive renegade beyond their power into a potential martyr and/or traitor within their power.  The crucial tool which allowed Thomson and Hall to control how the new game would be played was that earlier suggested to Thomson by Gregory – incriminating diaries.

In short, Thomson’s published statements show police possession of the trunks before these had allegedly been delivered to them on 25th April by the former landlord as stated in the police report dated 28th July. Therefore, on the basis that the request for keys was a charade, if diaries were indeed found in the trunks they were found before the arrest. If these diaries contained incriminating material in Casement’s handwriting a credible explanation must be given for the official silence for “some months”. Reluctance to discredit Casement before arrest is not a credible explanation because there was at no time a guarantee of future arrest. Thomson and Hall’s failure to exploit such a powerful weapon for “some months” can mean only one of two possibilities: a) that some delicate moral scruple inhibited them from using the diaries before arrest or b) that before arrest they did not possess this powerful weapon, that the diaries – if found – did not contain incriminating writings.

To these five versions of provenance there must be added a sixth version which is the official transcript of the three-day interrogation. Scrutiny of this document shows that Casement’s locked trunks allegedly came into police possession in the closing minute of the last day of interrogation – 25th April. There is no mention of diaries or of a former landlord bringing the trunks to Scotland Yard. Instead, there are two references by Thomson to the trunks; in the first Thomson proposes to obtain the trunks from Ebury Street and seven minutes later his second reference announces their arrival. There is no explanation as to how Thomson knows of the existence of the trunks before these have been located. The transcript version of provenance contradicts crucial details of the other five versions.

The fact remains that the six versions of discovery of the crucial documents constitute the weakest point in the already-weak claims for authenticity. That a single credible account cannot be produced after 100 years reveals significant structural instability in the authenticity edifice. When this dubious circumstance is added, firstly, to the insidious use of innuendo and allusion to disguise the lack of verifiable facts and testimony and, secondly, to the fact that the British authorities refuse any hard-science testing of the documents, the suspicions of any intelligent and impartial person are justified.

It was Shaw who indicated the significant influence of Freud in relation to the Casement question[28]; the long shadow of the dark unconscious had altered western perception of human motivation; individual motive became a dark mystery driven by concealed impulses. With the ‘revelations’ of the ‘Black Diaries’ in 1916, Casement’s moral integrity was rapidly undermined and he became a Lucifer to be cast out of civilisation for his alleged addiction to sexual degeneracy. The ‘heart of darkness’ uncovered by Casement and others was transferred to Casement himself, the noble humanitarian who had concealed his personal ‘heart of darkness’.

The disturbing question is not how the diaries were fabricated but rather why so many people “in their right mind” were convinced for so long on the basis of such suspect evidence that they were authentic.

“… an English gentleman educated at an English University should be able to smell right and wrong …” Putumayo Diary, 1910.

Roger Casement could not have foreseen or imagined as he wrote these lines on October 5th 1910 that within a few short years those English gentlemen in far-off London would abandon and repudiate him, seeing him as a pariah, an outcast guilty in their eyes of unspeakable crimes worse than those he had exposed in those remote regions and that their opprobrium would adhere to his name for a century after his death on the scaffold. For every day of those one hundred years, the ‘victory’ of those English gentlemen was false and shameful. Casement had a higher regard for those gentlemen than they had of themselves. They failed to destroy his meaning: a passion for freedom and a compassion for all those whose freedom was denied and this remains his undying legacy to all the living and to those yet unborn.

“… the cause of human freedom is as wide as the world …” Roger Casement, 1911.

© Paul R. Hyde, Verona 2015

The author acknowledges invaluable advice and encouragement generously and patiently given by Dr. Angus Mitchell.

 

Appendix 1

The average word count of the sexual references is about 22 words per entry. In detail these are dated from September 28th to 6th December. In September there is 1 reference on 28th. In October there are 4 references on 4th, 28th, 29th, 31st. In November there are 12 references on 1st, 2nd, 4th, 8th, 17th, 18th, 20th, 21st, 23rd, 24th, 27th and 29th. In December there are 6 references on 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th and 6th.

There are 23 entries with content which can be interpreted as sexual (or as alluding to sex) which total 516 words. The figure of 516 is a generous approximation due to the vagueness of many entries. The length of the Dollard for the 75 days is 13,989 words. The 516 words in the compromising references therefore constitute 3.62% of the total text over that period.

Appendix 2

Inglis writes in Appendix III p. 439 of his 1973 book:  “Of the two other surviving diaries, one was written while he was in Germany, under constant police surveillance he would have been unwise to include any compromising material.”

The dishonest inanity of this ought to be self evident; Casement did not include accounts of his compromising behaviour in his diary because he was aware of police surveillance while performing that compromising behaviour.

On page 397 of the same book, Inglis articulates his ‘mainstay’ argument: “No person or persons, in their right mind, would have gone to so much trouble and expense to damn a traitor, when a single diary would have sufficed. To ask the forger to fake the other two diaries and the cash register (and if one was forged, all of them were) would have been simply to ask for detection, because a single mistake in any of them would have destroyed the whole ugly enterprise.”

This presumes that the diaries do not contain a ‘single mistake’, a thesis which has never yet been proven. Inglis does not specify what would constitute a ‘mistake’. Casement was ‘damned’ and condemned by a court jury, not by a diary or diaries which played no juridical role in the accusation of “adherence to the King’s enemies”. Detection of a ‘mistake’ was avoided for 43 years by secrecy and not by failure of impartial investigation. A single diary would have been even more suspect than the four compromising documents so conveniently ‘discovered’ because more is always more convincing. Inglis underestimates the ‘trouble and expense’ required for the permanent destruction of an extraordinary enemy.

Inglis terminates his Appendix III with the following: “Smith, in other words, believed that the diaries were genuine – or why would he have risked obloquy by letting Casement see them, and prove they had been forged?” Fact: Casement did not see the diaries. When informed about them he denied authorship. He could prove nothing even if he had seen them. Neither could Smith. Neither could Inglis. Ergo Smith did not risk obloquy and what he believed is both unknowable and irrelevant.

Appendix 3

Comparison between the conflicting texts can be made in these three examples.

Lunar Rainbow

Here is a 164 word extract from Casement’s 600 word account of the lunar rainbow in the Putumayo Diary for 6th November:

I asked for a sign – and lo! It has come – the most extraordinary utterance – I have been in grave doubt all the afternoon … Just as this thought raised itself, I looked up from the Verandah to the eastern sky – and saw, to my amazement, an arc of light across the dark, starless heaven. … then I saw it – a lunar rainbow – a perfect arch of light in the night … and this wondrous, white, perfect bow spanning the dark. … I take it to be an omen – an omen of peace and augury of good, – that God is still there – looking down on the sins and crimes of the children of men – hating the sin and loving the sinner. He will come yet to these poor beings – and out of the night a voice speaks. … These shall get their rights too … – freely granted – and I shall not be the agent of silence, but I hope of the voice of freedom.

Compare this extract to the 22 words in the Dollard: At night a lunar rainbow, 7.30 to 7.50 in the East & then rain. … Rain came at 7.45 & dissipated the lunar rainbow.

Miraculous Recovery

Here are the 342 words in 13 distinct references on nine days to Casement’s eye illness in letters and The Putumayo Diary:

11th August. My eyes are weakening and troubling me a bit.

14th August. My eyes have got very bad – that is why I write in pencil, they had shown signs of weakness just before I came away, but had improved at home. On arrival at Pará the bad symptoms returned and the ship’s doctor says I am threatened with chronic opthalmia. The worst is that there is no doctor where we are going and it is not a cheerful prospect to have a complete breakdown of the eyes in the wilds of the Amazon forests. However, it would never do for both Bertie and myself to come away with our work all undone and whatever the case I shall go on into the Putumayo … I hope you may be able to read this letter – my eyes are very dim. The Ship’s doctor has painted them with Nitrate of Silver – they are very sore too.

September 4th: My eyes have got no better – rather worse I am afraid – and that is my chief reason for using pencil. I find it less strain to write with pencil than with ink – in latter case one has to look closer at the paper and form the letters more distinctly.

12th September.  I am seedy … and my eyes are bad.

13th September. Since coming to Iquitos I have been ill, and my eyes are very weak.

10th October. Eye (left eye) very sore and swelling again, so that I have to bandage it…. My eye is getting very bad, and I have to do all my writing now with one eye – the right – the left is carefully bandaged up.

11th October.  My eye continues very bad and is bandaged tight over, so that I have only the right eye to see by.

12th October. … I came more slowly with Tizon, as my eye is under a heavy bandage and the road very bad. … as I was ill, and my eye very bad,  I did not go to dinner, but lay down right away in this guest room. … eyes both bandaged all night.

13th October. Eye better and took bandage off and started writing hard right away.

Compare the above 342 words to the 40 words in the Dollard:

10th October. My eye is very bad indeed left eye, and I have it bandaged with Boracic lotion and the Dr of Hilary’s stuff. Turned in early with wet bandage over eyes.

11th October. I am far from well. My left eye very bad.

Omarino

Here are the two references in The Putumayo Diary:

31st October. The child’s name is Omarino and he comes from the Naimenes village, towards El Encanto. He had carried a huge load of rubber down too. I will get him and it weighed tomorrow.

2nd November. My little boy Omarino was weighed to-day too; he weighs 25 kilos, and the load of rubber he brought in weighed 29  kilos!

Here is the single reference in the Dollard:

31st October. Chose one small boy, a dear wee thing named Omarino. His weight 24 Kos in fono and his load of rubber 29 Kos.

Appendix 4

Thomson’s accounts are paraphrased in B. L. Reid’s study of 1976 The Lives of Roger Casement:

“In the first account in the Times of 21 November 1921, he wrote that a policeman who had been sent to search Casement’s old quarters returned at the end of the first interrogation (23 April) and asked for the key to “two or three trunks” that had been found; Casement said, “Break them open.”

“Thomson’s second account appears in his book of 1922 Queer People: Thomson wrote that Casement’s lodgings had been searched “some months earlier, when we first had evidence of Casement’s treachery” and “locked trunks” had been taken to Scotland Yard but not opened; he then repeated the story of the key at the interrogation.

“In March 1925 Thomson’s third account appeared in English Life. “A detective interrupts the interrogation to ask if Casement has the keys to certain trunks that his old landlord had brought to Scotland Yard some months earlier.”

“The last version was published in 1939 in Thomson’s The Scene Changes: Superintendent Quinn “with the expression of Mephistopheles” lays on Thomson’s table during the interrogation a manuscript volume, new to Thomson, which had been “abstracted” from Casement’s luggage “which was lying in the Special Branch office”.

Reid’s paraphrasing of the four versions omits Thomson’s references to a single diary for 1903 being allegedly found. Reid also omits Thomson’s claim that the 1903 diary was the only diary retained by the police when the contents of the trunks were returned to Casement’s solicitors.

There are two further versions making six in total, none of which agrees with the others. The fifth version is the official police list of contents allegedly found in Casement’s trunks which were allegedly delivered by a former landlord to Scotland Yard on 25th April, 1916. The sixth version is the official verbatim transcript of Casement’s interrogation which records that the trunks were allegedly located and taken into police custody on 25th April and were not opened before the end of the last interrogation.

Footnotes

[1] References to the Putumayo Diary are to the handwritten manuscript held in The National Library of Ireland: Mss. 13,087 (25).

[1] References to the Dollard Diary are to the version published in Roger Casement’s Diaries: 1910: The Black & The White edited by Roger Sawyer, 1997.

 

[3]  Charles Roberts MP requested the diary and Casement sent it on 27 January 1913, describing it as “… sincere and was written with (obviously) never a thought of being shown to others but for myself alone as a sort of aide memoire and mental justification and safety valve.”

[4]  Basil Thomson was head of CID and responsible for ‘discovery’ of the diaries. Reginald Hall was head of Naval Intelligence. An article by C. H. Norman in The Sunday Press 4th August 1957 reports that Hall had admitted to J.H. Thomas, Secretary for the Dominions, that there was no authentic Casement diary and that one ‘Magnus’ was the forger.

[5]  F.E. Smith was State Prosecutor and Cabinet member and openly avowed enemy of Casement. Blackwell was legal advisor to the Cabinet who advised maximum diffusion of the alleged diary copies.

[6]  Gavin Duffy headed Casement’s legal defense, a task no other lawyer would accept and for which he was repudiated by his colleagues.

[7] “The diary is a pretty complete record and were I free to publish it would be such a picture of things out there, written down red hot as would convince anyone.” Casement letter to Charles Roberts MP, 27 January 1913. R.H. Brit. Emp. S22 Casement-Roberts Correspondence. That it was never intended for publication is also confirmed by René MacColl at page 163 in Roger Casement: A New Judgement. 1956.

[8] Privately financed by W. J. McCormack, The Giles Report was strongly criticized by US experts for failing to demonstrate how its conclusions were reached. Dr Giles is a former Metropolitan Police forensic document expert.

[9] Brian Inglis, author, historian and TV broadcaster. His influential and readable book appears balanced but with regard to the authenticity question, its contradictory logic cleverly conceals its hidden bias from unwary readers.

[10] Bishop, one of the Barbadian employees, became Casement’s interpreter/guide during his 1910 investigation.

[11] Gusman / Guzman, a Peruvian employee, sought Casement’s help in denouncing abuses and brutality. There are various spellings of his name in both diaries.

[12]  A travel journal by Lieutenant Henry Maw, published 1829 and referred to several times in the Putumayo Diary.

[13] Alvaringa is the name of a lighter, a flat vessel used for unloading larger vessels.

[14]  O’Donnell is one of the managers (or Section Chiefs) of the Peruvian Amazon Company; Casement considered him as less criminal than other managers.

[15]  Arédomi is an Indian rubber gatherer befriended by Casement and later sent to England to help publicize the plight of the Putumayo natives.

[16] These are recorded on August 19, 20, 25, September 9, 12, 15, 16, 17, 21, 26, 30, October 5, 8.

[17] Colonel R. Bertie, head of the Commission, had a distinguished military career. He withdrew from the inquiry due to illness. Casement was on very good terms with him and regretted his departure.

[18] Macedo, one of the worst Section Chiefs in the Putumayo; Casement regarded them all as criminals.

[19] Cazes, a businessman, was honorary (unpaid) British Consul in Iquitos. Casement noted that he was indifferent to the Putumayo atrocities.

[20] The Peruvian Amazon Company (PAC), under the control of the Arana family, was registered in London and had British shareholders, many of them distinguished in public life. This fact outraged Casement who saw venture capital causally linked to slavery and mass murder.

[21] The Blue Book (Command Paper 6266), a 165 page official document containing Casement’s reports and the testimony of 30 Barbadian witnesses, was finally published on 13 July 1912. It caused worldwide outrage.

[22] Casement’s official report on the Putumayo atrocities was submitted to the FO in March 1911.

[23] The diaries were ‘released’ to the Public Records Office in 1959 after publication of the Olympia Press edition in Paris and after an unpublished report/test by Home Office expert Dr Harrison. Access thereafter was strictly controlled and often denied even as late as the 1990s.

[24] Tests in 1972, 1993, 2002 were non-government initiatives none of which meet forensic-court standards. All claim the diaries are authentic. The non-experts were Singleton-Gates and Letitia Fairfield, both over 80 years old in 1972.

[25]Roger Casement, A New Judgement by René MacColl 1956; The Black Diaries by Singleton-Gates & Girodias, 1959; Roger Casement by Brian Inglis, 1973, 1993 and 2002; The Lives of Roger Casement by B.L. Reid, 1976; Casement: The Flawed Hero, by Roger Sawyer, 1984; Roger Casement’s Diaries: 1910: The Black & The White edited by Roger Sawyer, 1997; Patriot Traitors: Roger Casement, John Amery and the Real Meaning of Treason by Adrian Weale, 2001; Roger Casement: The Black Diaries with a Study of his Background, Sexuality and Irish Political Life by Jeffrey Dudgeon, 2002; Roger Casement in Death: or Haunting the Free State, by W. J. McCormack, 2002; Roger Casement: Imperialist, Rebel, Revolutionary by S. Ó Síocháin 2007; Dream of the Celt by M. Vargas Llosa, 2010. The only ‘non-aligned’ book published in this period, The Devil and Mr Casement by Jordan Goodman, 2009, was largely ignored in the UK & US press.

[26] Letter from Chief Executive & Keeper of The National Archives to the author dated 20 July 2015.

[27] Basil Thomson recruited Arthur Maundy Gregory as an agent. According to Brian Marriner: “Gregory, a man of diverse talents, had various other sidelines. One of them was compiling dossiers on the sexual habits of people in high positions, even Cabinet members, especially those who were homosexual. Gregory himself was probably a latent homosexual, and hung around homosexual haunts in the West End, picking up information…. There is a strong suggestion that he may well have used this sort of material for purposes of blackmail.”

[28]“The trial occurred at a time when the writings of Sigmund Freud had made psychopathy grotesquely fashionable.  Everybody was expected to have a secret history unfit for publication … If it had been announced that among the papers of Queen Victoria a diary had been found revealing … the day-dreams of a Messalina it would have been received with eager credulity …” G.B. Shaw letter in The Irish Press, 11 February, 1937.