Discovering Casement - Village Magazine

4 6 October 2016

t is today widely believed that between Casement’s arrest and

execution in 1916 the Black Diaries now held in the UK National

Archives were clandestinely shown to inﬂuential persons in

order to disarm appeals for his reprieve. This belief was once

again articulated by law professor Sean McConville on 2 June,

1916 at a Casement event in London when he stated to a TV audi

ence of millions “...the diaries were circulated in London ...

Blackwell ... was circulating these diaries at a time when Case-

ment’s fate had not ﬁnally been decided

...”. The original sources of this belief, how-

ever, are the books written by Rene MacColl

BL, Reid, Roger Sawyer, Brian Inglis and

Séamus Ó Síocháin.

These volumes comprise more than

2,000 pages and at an average of two years

of research for each study, we have around

ten years research. Strangely, in these

2,000 pages there is not a single veriﬁable

instance recorded of the diaries in the

National Archives being shown to anyone

in that period. How can this be?

It is not credible that these authors of

research overlooked this crucial aspect

after ten years. If they found instances of

the diaries being shown in that period, then

it seems they withheld that vital informa-

tion from their readers. Since this is not

credible, we must assume that none of

them found any instance of the diaries

being shown in that period. It is well

attested that typescript pages were circulated in that period and

that a large quantity of these eventually found their way to Single

ton-Gates who published them in Paris in 1959. But Casement did

not type those pages.

What would constitute a proof of authenticity of the diaries held

in the National Archives? There are no witnesses to Casement’s

authorship and there have been no rigorous and impartial scien-

tiﬁc tests. The only evidence that has been adduced in favour of

authenticity is a resemblance in handwriting. The attempts at cor

roboration in July 1916 are not evidence of authorship.

But perhaps the question about authenticity is a false trail. In

the period from 25 April to 3 August the British authorities claimed

POLITICS

Today there are ﬁve

bound volumes in the UK

National Archives. That

the bound-volume diaries

were not shown from 25

April to 3 August 1916

means there was some

impediment to showing

them

Discovering

Casement

No evidence Rising hero

and philanthropist wrote

'Black Diaries'

by Paul R hyde

October 2016 4 7

to be in possession of the ﬁve bound volumes now

held in the UK National Archives. However, there

is no veriﬁable record that these volumes were

shown to anyone in that period. Rather than show

the diaries, the Intelligence chiefs had decided to

prepare typescript pages and to show these to

inﬂuential persons, journalists, editors, politi

cians, churchmen and others. They told these

persons that the typescript pages were authentic

copies of original diaries written by Casement.

They failed to provide any proof that the typescript

pages were copies of anything written by anyone.

The proof which they did not provide would have

been exhibition of the bound volume diaries now

in the UK National Archives. No explanation has

ever been proposed for this failure.

Today there are ﬁve bound volumes in the UK

National Archives. Their existence today does not

prove their existence in the period 25 April to 3

August 1916. That the bound volume diaries were

not shown in that period means there was some

impediment to showing them. The protagonists –

Blackwell, Thomson, Hall, Smith and others – had

the strongest of motives for showing the bound

volume diaries which they said had been discov-

ered but they did not do so. The impediment

certainly existed and it was such that these pow-

erful men neither jointly nor singly could overcome

it. Therefore it was out-with their joint power to

show the bound volume diaries in that period. This

circumstance indicates that the impediment could

not have been overcome by anyone in England at

that time – not even by the monarch. In this regard

these powerful men had touched the limit of their

human power.

The question is therefore not about forgery or

authenticity but about the material existence of

the bound volume diaries at that time. The absence

of veriﬁable evidence that the bound volume dia-

ries existed before August 3, 1916 means that

questions about authenticity are meaningless.

What ﬁrst requires to be proved is their existence

in that period before August 3. Those who claim

the typescripts were true copies have now had 100

years to produce evidence of the existence of the

bound volumes in that period. That they have not

produced the necessary evidence indicates that

they too have been unable to overcome the imped-

iment which defeated their powerful predecessors,

Thomson, Smith, Hall etc. In these circumstances

an impartial court of law would decide to act as if

the bound volume diaries did not exist at that time

and would dismiss a case for their authenticity as

being un-tryable. The case for the typescripts

being copies at that time could not be tested or

proved without veriﬁable independent evidence

that the bound volumes existed before August 3.

Thus the case in favour of the material existence

of the bound volume diaries before August 3 rests

entirely on the word of Thomson, Hall, Blackwell,

Smith and others and these are the people who at

that time were circulating typescripts which

depicted Casement as “addicted to the grossest

Those who claim the

typescripts were true

copies have now had 100

years to produce evidence

of the existence of the

bound volumes in that

period

Levels of Proof

sodomitical practices”. These persons can only

be considered as hostile witnesses by virtue of

their uncontested behaviour. There are no neu

tral witnesses who testiﬁed to seeing at that

time any of the bound-volume diaries now in the

UK National Archives. Absence of proof of exist-

ence of the bound volumes at that time entails

that no proof of their authenticity can be

derived. That no proof of authenticity can be

derived entails that - until such proof of exist-

ence is provided - the veracity or falsity of the

typescripts cannot be considered. Ei incumbit

probatio qui dicit, non qui negat; the onus of

proof rests on the accuser, not on the defence.

If questions about authenticity are meaning

less due to lack of conclusive evidence after 100

years, claims favouring authenticity do not rest

upon veriﬁable facts or upon independent tes

timony. Therefore such claims rest upon an

induction which excludes the normal apparatus

of reasoned proof, a process which is indeter-

minate, untestable and unprovable, akin to that

of faith.

That there is no independent witness to the

existence of the bound volumes at any time

before August 3, 1916 means that their continu-

ous existence from 1903, 1910, and 1911 can

only be presumed because it cannot be proven.

That the Intelligence chiefs did not show the

bound volumes to any independent witness

during the three-month period up to August 3 is

an extraordinary omission but it cannot have

been an oversight given their joint plan to

destroy Casement’s moral reputation. Therefore

the presumption that the bound volumes

existed before August 3 is groundless because

unsupported by veriﬁable facts or the testimony

of independent witnesses. That the bound

volume diaries are effectively ‘date stamped’

proves only that they are date stamped but does

not constitute a veriﬁable fact that they existed

on those dates. The anomalous behaviour of the

Intelligence chiefs was nonetheless intentional

and intentional behaviour is that which is felt to

be necessary. Therefore they felt it necessary to

show typescripts rather than bound volumes.

That necessity compelled them to exclude

showing the bound volumes. Such a necessity

indicates that there was no option; the bound

volumes could not be shown by any of the Intel

ligence chiefs at any of the many recorded

showings of the typescripts. An impartial

person, indifferent to the political equations,

would be irresistibly drawn to the conclusion

that the bound volumes held in the UK National

Archives could not be shown in that period

because they did not exist before August 3;

therefore they cannot be authentic Casement

writings. The search for reasonable alternative

explanations being exhausted after 100 years,

the impartial person would regard this as satis

fying the 0.91 probability threshold required for

proof beyond reasonable doubt.