Casement

Random entry RSS

  • Posted in:

    Casement was straight and not a paedophile

    Conor Lehihan probes ‘Anatomy of a Lie’ by Paul R Hyde. Sir Roger Casement was an icon for the British Empire in the Edwardian age. His two peripatetic reports on the degradation of natives and exploitation in the Congo and the Amazon were truly ground-breaking in the evolution of human rights. They were also solace for British people who had seen the imperial project discredited by the instigation of ‘Concentration Camps’ in the Second Boer War in South Africa. Knighted in 1911, Dublin-born Casement began to become more sympathetic to Irish nationalism due to his disenchantment with colonialism and a growing love for the Irish language. Significantly he never bothered to open the box containing the CMG that had come with his knighthood. He joined the Irish Volunteers and became a member of its national committee. He helped organise the Howth gun run and found a friend to part finance it. He later travelled to Germany, now at war with England, to enlist German support for a rebellion in Ireland. Before this, he had been in the USA to discuss his mission to Germany with Irish-American Fenians like John Devoy. Casement was caught landing arms at Banna Bay in Kerry and put on trial in London for treason. In an effort to discredit Casement, British officials claimed that he kept what became known as the ‘black diaries’ for the years 1903, 1910 and 1911, now kept in the public archive in Kew (London). They depict Casement as a homosexual who had many partners, had a fondness for young men and mostly paid for sex. The surreptitious campaign by the intelligence services was to frame Sir Roger as a moral degenerate who was owed no debt of sympathy for his earlier work on behalf of the Empire. Little difference was attached to the fundamental difference between homosexuality and paedophilia. Of course, prejudice persists to this day: it was revealing the online vituperation that greeted the advertisement in June 2023 by Kilmainham Gaol of ‘Pride Month Queer History tours of the Gaol’, much of it presumably from so-called republicans. The specific goal of the British establishment was to taint Casement to deny him a pardon from the death sentence in his trial for Treason in 1916. In his book, ‘Anatomy of a Lie’, Paul R Hyde shows that a British diplomat in Oslo fabricated a hasty report hinting that Casement enjoyed an “unnatural” relationship with his manservant. Hyde demonstrates through intense interrogation of the British documents the utter falsity of the original allegation. Furthermore, he discredits the effort by two Scotland Yard detectives to beef up the original Oslo allegation and gather reliable evidence which none of the possible witnesses were prepared to sign. Key figures from politics, the clergy, journalism and the administration were shown concocted details of Casement’s predatory sexuality allegedly culled from an actual diary that was forged from his own disparate notebooks and writings. When Casement heard of the rumours, he virulently denied they were in any way true; none of his close friends and colleagues ever apparently believed he was homosexual; and in the US and in Germany he was under intense surveillance yet allegations about his sexuality were never levelled Typed-up versions of the black diaries were circulated as the actual handwritten forged diaries had not yet been copied onto paper. The actual forged physical diaries were only produced after the smear campaign. The sheer detail of Hyde’s exegesis is impressive and reveals, point-by-point, the contradictions, factual errors and shoddy work the intelligence officers and policemen perpetrated in their effort to fit the spurious sexual allegations into the broader narrative of Casement’s day-to-day routine. Casement’s supporters have maintained his innocence. It has become an article of faith, particularly among supportive nationalists that the forged diaries maliciously rigged out a weakness for sex with young men, paedophilia; but that he was nevertheless homosexual. However, Hyde makes the point that none of the British and American surveillance threw up evidence of homosexual acts by Casement. In fairness to Hyde, he chooses not to enter into the debate about Casement’s sexuality but rather puts all his energy into proving that the black diaries are forgeries. Jeffrey Dudgeon, himself a distinguished gay-rights campaigner who published an edition of the diaries has also been cautious but in the end definitive. Noting that there is an absence of any evidence of heterosexual activity on the part of Casement, he has claimed: “His homosexual life was almost entirely out of sight and disconnected from his career and political work”. For this author, there is no evidence of homosexuality. For a start, when Casement heard of the rumours being circulated about him during his trial, he virulently denied there was any truth whatsoever to them. None of his close friends, including those that had worked with him as a professional, ever claimed before his execution or afterwards that they believed he was homosexual. Both in the USA and in Germany he was under intense surveillance. In the USA both the Fenians and British intelligence kept a close eye on his activities. The Germans and the Fenians both shared suspicions that Casement with his impeccable establishment credentials might have been sent by the British to infiltrate them. No allegations about his sexuality were ever levelled. Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when first we practise to deceive! Inference rather than proof may continue to dominate the controversy surrounding Casement’s sexuality and it has taken over one hundred years to disentangle the story to the point of informed and probable speculation. Scholarly writers and academic authors for many years accepted the authenticity of these forged diaries. However this, as Hyde points out, should not surprise anyone. Significant historians and hand-writing experts were all fooled by the famous Hitler diaries, with the elaborate hoax completed in a period of two years. The forgers of the Casement diaries did not have as much work to complete. The actual completion of the false narrative in physical form

    Loading

    Read more

  • Posted in:

    Discovering Casement

    It 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 in uential 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 audience of millions “…the diaries were circulated in London … Blackwell … was circulating these diaries at a time when Casement’s fate had not nally been decided …”. The original sources of this belief, however, 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 information 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 Singleton-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 scientific tests. The only evidence that has been adduced in favour of authenticity is a resemblance in handwriting. The attempts at corroboration 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 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, politicians, 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 discovered but they did not do so. The impediment certainly existed and it was such that these powerful 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 theirhuman 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 diaries 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 impediment 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 timeand 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 sodomitical practices”. These persons can only be considered as hostile witnesses by virtue of their uncontested behaviour. There are no neutral witnesses who testified to seeing at that time any of the bound-volume diaries now in the UK National Archives. Absence of proof of existence 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 existence 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 meaningless due to lack of conclusive evidence after 100 years, claims favouring authenticity do not rest upon verifiable facts or upon independent testimony. Therefore such claims rest upon

    Loading

    Read more