Menu
Ireland's political and cultural magazine
July-August 2024 25
Conclusive proof of forgery, finally
By Paul Hyde
with dissent from Jeffrey Dudgeon
A
mong the diaries attributed to
Roger Casement there is a cash
ledger for 1911 which is also part
diary. This has been scrutinised by
several authors, most closely by
Jerey Dudgeon, the Belfast researcher who is
today the leading forgery denier.
In 2002 Dudgeon published the first edition
of his book bearing the title ‘Roger Casement:
The Black Diaries – with a study of his
background, sexuality and Irish political life’.
This substantial volume purported to add rich
detail and colour to the already widely
established view that the diaries were
authentic. Dudgeon was able to present much
information about the north of Ireland in
relation to Casement and also to provide
something missing from other studies – what
it was like to be an active homosexual in the
North (and elsewhere) a hundred years ago.
Dudgeon’s history recipe freely mixes fact
with speculation and ‘in-the-know’ innuendo
to promote his desired conclusions of
authenticity which are guided more by an
obvious bias than by impartial analysis. His
book although stylistically challenging and
idiosyncratic has gathered both attention and
praise.
Dudgeon has never doubted the diaries are
genuine and he no doubt believes he has
demonstrated their authenticity to the highest
degree possible. As the years passed his
reputation grew as a veteran crusader who
knew ‘the inside story’ and he became an
influential expert consulted by authors,
academics, journalists, guest speaking at
conferences and appearing on the media. Such
was the success of his story that by the
centenary year of 2016, he produced a second
edition to meet steady demand. Then, only two
years later in early 2019, he produced a third
edition. There was however one small
dierence in this third edition. A certain
sentence on page 285/6 had disappeared. The
27-word sentence, apparently insignificant,
had been in print for 17 years but was deleted
in 2019.
To discover the motive for this unexplained
deletion is also to discover its significance for
the entire controversy about the diaries. The
devil is in the detail, we are told, so let us look
at the detail to find the devil.
The detail concerns an alleged affair
between Casement and a young Belfast bank
clerk called Millar; Casement did indeed know
Millar and his mother through shared friends
and acquaintances in Antrim but they had little
in common politically.
Readers of ‘Anatomy of a Lie’ will recall that
the widely believed story fabricated by MI5
agent Major Frank Hall and promoted by
Dudgeon is logically demonstrated to be
manufactured evidence.
The purported aair features in the 1910
diary and in the 1911 ledger with events
located in Belfast and environs. The story also
involves a motorcycle owned by Millar in 1911
which vehicle was identified by Hall in 1915
along with the full name of its owner, Joseph
Millar Gordon. Hall passed this information to
the cabinet meeting on 2 August 1916 to
overcome lingering doubts about the
expediency of an execution next morning.
Hall’s tactic succeeded.
The Devil and
Mr Roger Casement
Roger Csement beingescorted to the gllows t Pentonville Prison,
London, hving been found guilty of treson
POLITICS
26 July-August 2024
With regard to the Millar payment it is a fact
that Millar had his 21st birthday on 23 June,
1911; however, the suggestion that the money
was a birthday gift cannot be confirmed.
The ledger account and the NLI Millar note
share several features which deserve attention.
It might be coincidence that both refer to an
identical sum of money - £25. And both refer to
Millar – perhaps another coincidence. Then of
course both involve Casement. And the ledger
and note are understood to be written around
the same time - June 1911. Lastly, both
payments seem to be gifts.
If these are coincidences, we now have a
chain of five coincidences. Simple coincidence
is defined as the intriguing idea that two
unexpected events did not happen by chance
but share a hidden link or meaning. In this case
we have five apparent coincidences in
concurrence which strongly suggests the
causal nexus which is missing from simple
coincidence.
While ordinary coincidences are infrequent,
chains of coincidences are almost unknown.
Indeed nothing other than a causal link can
explain these apparent coincidences which are
not due to inexplicable chance but are the
result of human intention acting as sucient
cause. Coincidences do happen but they
cannot be made to happen.
Explaining that causal link would expose
how the ledger and the NLI note are related. If
both were written by one person then the first
written acted to bring about the other as cause
produces eect. But they don’t record the same
facts; the ledger records payment to Corbally
while the NLI note records payment to Millar. It
is necessary to determine which was written
first.
If the ledger precedes the NLI note in time we
must explain why the diarist recorded payment
to Corbally but, soon after, contradicted that
by recording the payment of an identical sum
to Millar. If the ledger entry was written after
the NLI note, the above contradiction is
eliminated but a second contradiction appears
with the references to Corbally and the
motorcycle which are not present in the earlier
NLI note and which contradict it. This fact
clearly shows there is a double contradiction
aicting the documents regardless of which
was written first. Either sequence produces
contradiction which signals we have made a
hidden assumption which is responsible for
the contradictions. That prior assumption is
The extra information - purpose and item
bought - is superfluous unless intended
for third parties who the diarist knows will
read the ledger. In short, the sentence is
an artifice
In the ledger the following appears dated 3
June: “Cyril Corbally and his motor bike for
Millar. £25.0.0”.
Cyril Corbally was a noted croquet player
from County Dublin who in 1910 worked at
Bishop’s Stortford Golf Club in Essex. In 1910
he acquired a second-hand Triumph motorcycle
registered with Essex County Council. In 1911
Corbally sold the machine and in July Millar
registered ownership with the same Council.
The sentence is understood to mean that the
diarist is paying £25 to Corbally to purchase his
motorcycle for Millar.
Research has confirmed that £25 is a
realistic price in 1911 for a three-year-old
Triumph motorcycle; a new machine in 1908
cost around £50.
However, as a simple record of a purchase
the sentence is suspect because it contains
four items of information when two would have
been sucient.
It was not necessary to record the vendor’s
name, the item bought, the purpose of the
transaction and the sum paid.
The vendor’s name and the price would have
been enough to record the purchase.
The extra information - purpose and item
bought - is superfluous unless intended for
third parties who the diarist knows will read the
ledger. In short, the sentence is an artifice.
There are two further references to the
alleged transaction in the ledger – one on June
8 which reads: “Carriage of motorbike to dear
Millar. 18/3”, and another at the end of June:
“Epitome of June A/C Present etc. to others
Cyril Corbally…25.0.0”.
Outside of the ledger there is no evidence
that Casement ever contacted Corbally; nor is
there any reference to the purchase of a
motorcycle.
Here is the sentence which Dudgeon deleted
from his third edition of 2019:
“It is possible that Millar bought the motor
bike from Corbally and that Casement was
repaying him as a separate note listing
expenditure simply reads ‘Millar 25.0.0’”.
This sentence published by Dudgeon from
2002 to 2019 fatally compromises his overall
endeavour to persuade us of authenticity.
It signifies serious confusion: he does not
know who paid for Millar’s motorcycle.
It also signifies that he admits the possibility
that Casement did not pay Corbally as alleged
in the ledger which therefore would be a
forgery.
This confusion signals that Dudgeon is
unable to make sense of the ledger and
consequently has lost faith in his project. He
cannot explain why, if Millar paid Corbally, the
ledger records that Casement also paid
Corbally. It is possible that an astute, well-
meaning reader alerted Dudgeon to the fatal
implications of that sentence but after 17 years
it seems improbable that he suddenly
discovered the gae by himself.
That ‘separate note’ is a single handwritten
page in the National Library of Ireland (NLI)
described as Rough Financial Notes by Roger
Casement (MS 15,138/1/12). It is inscribed on
both sides with records of outgoing payments.
Many of the ten undated payments record
substantial amounts so that Millar’s £25 is not
exceptional.
The NLI file holds fourteen used cheque
books and in many cheque stubs we find
comparable payments; but there is no used
cheque book for the May/June period.
Casement certainly wrote cheques in that
period but the used cheque book and dated
stubs has disappeared.
A stub with Corbally’s name would be
conclusive evidence of the Corbally payment
but there is no such stub and no used cheque
book.
None of the payments are recorded in the
ledger nor do they seem to be in chronological
order; the purpose was probably to sum up the
amounts paid before leaving for South America
in mid-August 1911. The figure of £105 is the
cumulative total of three £35 quarterly
payments to his sister Nina so its date is around
the end of June.
It is clear that most if not all were made in
June and July and one payment to a Belfast
friend is confirmed by a July 12 thank-you letter
in the NLI file. The list was written in July and
updated in August.
On the reverse side, payment totals are
recorded for July and August.
July-August 2024 27
Jeffrey Dudgeon
Paul,
I refer to your email with its challenge in relation to the Village article.
I was surprised to hear from you, especially as in a previous mention of my book you said
you hadn’t read it.
In the Village article you were comparing editions and finding dierences!
The delay in replying is largely due to putting the finishing touches to my fourth edition:
‘The Complete Black Diaries’.
My silence is not consent in matters Casement so I will be vocal if told Village would
publish my response. The magazine chose previously not to regarding a letter I submitted
on your Sidney Clipperton story.
You write:
“Here is the sentence which Dudgeon deleted from his third edition of 2019: ‘It is
possible that Millar bought the motorbike from Corbally and that Casement was
repaying him as a separate note listing expenditure simply reads “Millar 25.0.0...”’.
This sentence published by Dudgeon from 2002 to 2019 fatally compromises his
overall endeavour to persuade us of authenticity. It signifies serious confusion; he
does not know who paid for Millar’s motorcycle. It also signifies that he admits the
possibility that Casement did not pay Corbally as alleged in the ledger which therefore
would be a forgery”.
The reason why I dropped the “possible” option of Millar buying the motorbike directly
from Cyril Corbally, rather than Casement paying him, was due to you and Tim O’Sullivan,
who has dealt with these matters in the Irish Political Review, discovering that Corbally
was the manager of a golf club in Essex. That led me to ascertain he was Lady rench’s
brother, Corbally being her maiden name.
Plainly the sale involved the renchs [friends of Casement] and was processed in England
although Millar re-registered the bike in Essex as he was obliged to do.
There is no contradiction in Casement recording the £25 he spent against Corbally and
against Millar in dierent places.
The money to Corbally was payment for a gift to Millar.
Actually, I realise now the 3 June entry (“Cyril Corbally – His Motor Bike for Millar 25. 0.0”)
is even more confirmatory of Casement paying Corbally.
My third edition change could not in a hundred years be regarded as something that
“fatally compromises [my] overall endeavour”.
I can expand on all this and more in a response in Village once given a word length.
In your later email you wrote, “A rumour has reached me to the eect that you suspect
the NLI note featured in my Village article might be forged”. I wouldn’t call Angus Mitchell
[author of Roger Casement: 16 lives (2023) a rumour-monger given you refer to what I said
to him about replying to your article.
I told him then that Tim O’Sullivan had suggested the document where 25.0.0 is listed
against Millar might be forged or tampered with.
In no way is that my view.
Je
There are three essential points in a confused 464 word reply compromised by lack of
evidence and logic.
1.
Dudgeon deleted the compromising sentence upon discovering “Corbally was the
manager of a golf club… That led me to ascertain he was Lady rench’s brother …”
2. Concerning the motorbike transaction he states: “Plainly the sale involved the renchs
…” If ‘Plainly’ means obviously, Dudgeon gives no evidence linking the sister with the
motorcycle.
3. Dudgeon denies the contradiction at the core of the proof: “There is no contradiction in
Casement recording the £25 he spent against Corbally and against Millar in dierent
places”. The two dierent places are the ledger, a disputed document of unknown
provenance, and the NLI note accepted by Dudgeon as a true record of Casement’s
payments to various persons including Millar. Dudgeon’s confirmation that Casement
paid Millar logically excludes that he also paid Corbally.
that the two records were written by one
person.
As soon as we consider that the records were
written by two persons, not by one, the
contradictions are eliminated.
Since the NLI note was indeed written by
Casement it follows that the ledger entry was
written by a second person, by someone other
than Casement and is, therefore, a forgery. In
short, Casement’s authentic record of payment
to Millar is a de facto negation of the alleged
payment to Corbally.
It was the most influential biographer Brian
Inglis who in 1973 wrote “(and if one was
forged, all of them were) …” – the common law
principle is falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus.
Therefore it can now be stated with
categorical certainty that all of the Black
Diaries are forgeries and that this ultimately
simple proof is irrefutable and conclusive.
Two aspects add charm to this proof – its
disarming simplicity and its debt to a crusader
for authenticity without whom it might never
have come to light.
Let us give the devil his due and grant that it
was the most ardent forgery denier, Jerey
Dudgeon MBE who revealed the vital evidence
that led to this proof and it was a most supreme
irony that he did so by concealing that evidence
too late.
This is the response by Jerey Dudgeon to my piece:
Village will publish a full reply by Jerey Dudgeon in its next edition.
And this is my rebuttal of Jerey Dudgeon’s response:
There is no contradiction
in Casement recording
the £25 he spent
against Corbally and
against Millar in different
places.
