‘A Rebel and a Traitor’ by Rory Carroll

Rory Carroll’s new book is neither a history nor a biography; it has elements of a political thriller or an adventure story but is not that either. This hybrid identity conceals it as a strategic narrative  –  a carefully designed instrument of disinformation. Evidently he had no prior interest in Casement matters therefore was not inspired by knowledge of Anglo-Irish history but perhaps by his political compliance with the fashionable consensus which alleges that Casement was a pederast. Carroll takes authenticity of the diaries for granted but provides only a few fragments of pseudo-evidence which are unsupported by facts.

Carroll adopts some features of fictional narrative which is quite appropriate since his book is so close to fiction; he is uncomfortable with history because the discipline and precision of history demands a foundation of verified facts while fiction – storytelling – is ‘creative writing’ which invents its facts to obtain emotional control and even dispenses with facts which cannot be credibly manipulated. 

Carroll’s tactic is to claim that only fervent nationalists believe in forgery because they do not accept a pederast as an Irish patriot. Though Carroll surely knows this is false he also knows it will appeal to British prejudice while allowing him to quietly avoid the fact that he cannot supply  evidence for authenticity. His strategy is avoidance. Thus there is no reference to the innocuous genuine1910 diary published as The Amazon Journal. There is no reference to the police typescripts shown rather than manuscript diaries. There is no reference to the 1915 Foreign Office files which demonstrate that no betrayal took place. Suppression of these facts exposes his manipulation and bias. 

Carroll’s cognitive model is identical to the model invented over a half century ago by Inglis and is  equally false. Central to that model is the portrayal of Christensen as a scoundrel who betrayed Casement. This lie was invented by Inglis in 1967 when he examined newly-released Foreign Office documents. Among these he found the extensive correspondence between Findlay in Oslo and his Whitehall superior Arthur Nicolson, in particular FO 95,776 where Nicolson states clearly that no betrayal happened and that Findlay had been duped for months before he gave Christensen the handwritten bribe. Inglis simply suppressed these facts and replaced them with the wholly invented fable of treachery and betrayal. Carroll is aware of these facts since he has read FO 95,776  and has also read their exposure in Anatomy of a lie. It follows that  he is intentionally deceiving his readers by repeating the original Inglis lie. 

However, there is some very important recent news which the author was not aware of when busy with promotion. He cites as ‘magisterial’ Jeffrey Dudgeon’s 2002 biography which has been very influential in convincing thousands to believe the diaries are authentic. Since his study was (self) published in 2002, Dudgeon has become a legendary defender of authenticity with articles, press interviews, conferences and consultations rather like a guru guiding his acolytes. His certainty of authenticity has been strong and consistent for a quarter century at least. 

Carroll’s admiration of the legendary Dudgeon is understandable since they are on the same political wavelength and share storytelling skills. Carroll’s admiration presumably includes Dudgeon’s endorsement of pederasty and prostitution, behaviour  which Carroll attributes to Casement who, as Carroll knows, privately described himself as celibate, a fact which he does not tell his readers. There are many other sins of omission which are permissible in fiction but not in historical narrative either popular or scholarly.

Carroll’s book fully reflects Dudgeon’s cast-iron certainty. However, unknown to Carroll, that certainty no longer exists because Dudgeon has lost faith in authenticity. On 31 March 2026 Dudgeon published a letter in the Irish Political Review (April, page 13) admitting that the diaries might be forged.  Carroll being a newcomer will not know what has provoked this radical change of mind. Since 2020 Dudgeon has been troubled by a certain fact first raised in Anatomy of a Lie in 2019. That fact is that after decades of research none of the many biographers had named anyone who witnessed manuscript diaries in 1916. In all cases what independent witnesses were shown were the police typescripts. There was no independent evidence for the material existence in 1916 of handwritten diaries. Today there is still no such evidence. Shortly after, a second fact emerged to worry Dudgeon since it was new to him. On May 5 1916 the police  sent 24 typescripts to the Director of Public  Prosecutions, purportedly official copies of Casement manuscripts in Scotland Yard. It seems the DPP did not ask for manuscript originals and certainly never saw any. The police typescripts were not evidence for trial purposes. Further typescripts were submitted in June and again the DPP did not ask for original manuscripts.

These facts and circumstances have been in the public domain for several years but despite the extensive and much-vaunted research by Carroll and his ‘outstanding researcher’, they remained unknown to both. Or if known, Carroll has suppressed the information. The fact that independent witness evidence does not exist has been admitted by Dudgeon whose published letter concedes “That … does not preclude the typed versions existing before the diary manuscripts …” This change of mind means the former forgery denier now accepts the possibility of forgery. In the context of his past adamantine certainty, this is a de facto capitulation which leaves Carroll exposed and without the comforting support of a once-influential Casement expert. 

In his dismissal of forgery on pages 335/6 Carroll writes “another [theory] suggests only typescripts were ready in 1916 and that the actual handwritten diaries were created years later …” He fails to give his source which is Anatomy of a lie, the book he has read but is afraid to name. Moreover, this is his only reference to the police typescripts which played a vital role in the 1916 deception.  This clumsy dismissal of forgery is entirely predicated upon the material existence of diaries for which there is no independent evidence. He alleges “the paper and bindings have been analysed,” when he knows such testing is forbidden by the UK Archives.  He claims that “evidence for authenticity is overwhelming” but he has cited none whatsoever. The sad litany continues with reference to non-existent “forensic analysis” and an absurd claim that Casement’s “personality  and habits” indicate he wrote the diaries. The confusion culminates in familiar rhetorical devices posing as valid questions. Why fabricate extensive diaries when a few fake letters would be enough to smear him? But fake letters to or from real named persons or fake persons – a Pigott forgery again? Why did prosecutor Smith give copies to Casement’s lawyers and risk them “blowing the whistle”? But copies of what? The typescripts are not diaries.  After the execution why preserve the diaries if fake? But non-existent diaries can’t be preserved. And lastly the assertion that there was no time for extensive forgery. But manuscript diaries were not shown until 1922, six years later. All these fake questions derive from the Inglis book of 1973.  

 There is nothing new in Carroll’s book which repeats the familiar mantras recited in other strategic narratives for over 60 years. Among these we have: 

1 – he ignores the Foreign Office account of events in Oslo 1914 by Nicolson in order to uphold the fabricated Inglis version of treachery and betrayal,

2 – he repeats the description of Casement as a fractured personality from a dysfunctional family, 

3 – he claims the diaries were delivered to the police on 25 April, 1916, a version which ignores the other six conflicting accounts of provenance and suppresses contrary conclusions by Sawyer, Thomson, Montgomery Hyde, McLachlan, McConville and Roland Philipps that the luggage was found and opened as early as December, 1914. Possibly Dudgeon can also join the list since his recent ‘change of mind’.  

4 – he falsely claims that the Reverend John Harris (page 303)  and US Ambassador Page were shown manuscript diaries while Home Office documents confirm they saw only police typescripts,

5 – he recites René MacColl’s fabrication allegedly from an anonymous source that other obscene diaries were destroyed in 1916 by a Belfast friend,  

6 – he quotes on page 59 the forged poem The Nameless One, completely unknown until 1957 when former MI6 agent Montgomery Hyde published it in The Sunday Times alleging he had found it in the NLI,

7 – on page 301 Carroll repeats the false claim that two doctors examined the diaries when HO 144/1636/311643/40 clearly refers to “…the copies of the diary dated 1st January to 31st December 1911 …” In short, typescripts only. [Emphasis added.]

8 – on page 299 we are told that “Photographic copies of the diaries were …transported … under marine guard …to Washington…” but we are not told that the courier, naval intelligence officer Walcott, was shown photographs only by Thomson and not diaries.

9 – he ignores the published report by Father Gerard Smith of the enquiries in January 1916 by two British officers sent to the Putumayo area to probe Casement’s reputation. They failed to find any trace of scandal.

10 – he does not tell his readers that neither King George V nor the Director of Public Prosecutions nor Attorney General Smith were allowed to see handwritten diaries.

What Carroll cannot understand is that his  defence of authenticity serves to validate not only the original homophobic hatred which guaranteed Casement’s execution but also the charge of treason. Thus Carroll provides a defence of Britain’s historic imperial hostility to Irish national independence and a justification of the treason charge against Casement. That charge had no basis in rational jurisprudence since the 1800 Act of Union was imposed by coercion and by non-democratic votes. In short, Britain had no mandate from the Irish people in 1916 to impose Casement’s identification as a subject of the British crown. Britain was simply the de facto but illegitimate ruler.   

Promoting his book, Carroll writes “I combed diaries, letters, police reports, memoirs, court transcripts, secret service archives and declassified government files to create a propulsive story…” But in the same blurb he claims that ‘an outstanding researcher’ did this research for him; Steve Ramsay, a press reporter in Brighton, ‘peeled back layers of the historical record …’ If Carroll himself ‘combed diaries, letters, police reports …’ what was left for Mr. Ramsay to research? And why did Carroll leave his research to a non-expert? 

A journalist who cannot distinguish propaganda from impartial scholarship is a mouthpiece for official lies and deception. An author who eliminates informed alternative interpretation is biased. A writer who does not recognize lies is incompetent. A journalist who repeats lies perpetrated by other authors is a liar. A writer who has no critical distance cannot be trusted. 

From the repeated emphasis on the alleged authenticity of the diaries, it seems clear that the author was not motivated by a long-term interest in Casement as a human rights pioneer and anti-imperial crusader but more by a wish to exploit the dispute as a platform for expressing his own views about homosexuality and gender politics.  It is crystal clear that Carroll refuses to understand the controversy has nothing to do with gender politics and everything to do with how and why the typescripts were used, genuine or forged, as political instruments of subjugation and control.   

Despite the avalanche of publicity, A Rebel and a Traitor is profoundly cynical, evasive and deceitful but it will satisfy those many who share Carroll’s fashionable attitudes and biased opinions. It is an exercise in the disinformation which has polluted the Casement story for many decades. Written in bad faith and burdened with irrelevant data and demonstrable falsehoods, it abuses the trust of uninformed readers. Some might expect this author now to withdraw his book from sale but that will not happen because it would be the honorable thing to do.