tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6905506070718158368.post3291470619928111486..comments2024-03-23T02:44:06.889-05:00Comments on Quixotic Joust: John Birch Society Warning to JFK in 1958Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6905506070718158368.post-30744719606223263312015-03-23T10:06:22.968-05:002015-03-23T10:06:22.968-05:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6905506070718158368.post-62494256905195772112015-03-23T10:05:03.460-05:002015-03-23T10:05:03.460-05:00How Did The Giles Report Investigate Casement'...How Did The Giles Report Investigate Casement's Handwriting?<br /><br />by James J. Horan<br /><br />Dr. Audrey Giles has an excellent reputation in the forensic document community. She is a member of some of the major professional societies and has published a number of papers in the leading journals. She has presented a number of papers at international meetings some of which I had the opportunity of to attend. Although I have never personally worked with Dr. Giles, I would consider her a competent examiner with years of experience. What I am going to say now is based solely on the Giles report on Casement' Black Diaries. I've never seen the Diaries and I have never examined them.<br /><br />For a report to be accepted in courts in the United States it must present not only the findings but also the data which backs up those findings. Under the Federal rules of evidence, a report must include the results of the tests and all the notes and charts required to demonstrate the findings based on all the documents examined. Dr. Giles' report as it stands would not be accepted in the courts in America because the report is lacking in backup material. Where are the photographs of the evidence examined, the charts, and supporting detail necessary for anybody to review the report?<br /><br />When you examine known writing, especially in a case like this, it is very crucial, that you determine the validity of the known writing. In the 1980s we had the problem of Hitler's Diary, which was accepted as genuine by one of the leading document examiners in the world. Michel and Baier, two of the German document examiners who were involved in exposing the Hitler forgery in an article in the Journal of Forensic Science Society, pointed out some principles that should be used in examining documents. "The reliable information on the point of origin of the material examined has to be obtained and inter-homogeneity of the documents cannot be over stressed". Basically, you have to compare all of the known writings together to make sure how it breaks down into different groups. Can they be accounted for, or can they not be accounted for? The known writing of Casement should be crucial. In effect, as much time should be spent on examining the known writing as should be spent on the questioned writing.<br /><br />Another problem which Michel and Baier pointed out is the need for the examiner to be familiar with the writing system. In Dr. Giles' report she suggests that Roger Casement used a modified Civil Service system. She is referring to the English Civil Service system in Osborn's book. Osborn was one of the leading document examiners around the turn of the century and his book is still used as the leading text in the field. This is the system that Dr. Giles suggests Casement was using or was in common use at the time. She points out a number of features in Roger Casement's writing, which she calls distinctive features, but when she describes them in the report she fails to give any examples. Using her descriptions I went through a letter that was given to me in the Home Office material, which was distributed at the Royal Irish Academy Casement conference a few years ago. There are examples of writings taken from the British Consul in Norway. He sent a letter to the Home Office and basically he has the same general features that Dr. Giles records in her report. I am not saying he wrote it but the features are similar. If I were examining writings from the turn of the century, I would have to collect a number of examples and analyse them to establish what was common and what was uncommon. Casement's writing of the "d" was very pronounced in the way it swept up and back, but I noticed exactly the same feature not only in the Consul's writing but also in a number of other writings in other papers made available by the Home Office. So that was a common feature. A document examiner, then, has to decide after very thorough examination on exactly what emphasis should be put on various features. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6905506070718158368.post-39068031262025968372015-03-23T10:03:28.606-05:002015-03-23T10:03:28.606-05:00In March 2002 two lavishly-produced television doc...In March 2002 two lavishly-produced television documentaries were broadcast which revisited the controversy, one from the BBC and another from RTE. They contained biographical material on Casement, interviews with a variety of supposed experts, and finished with coverage of an examination based on handwriting analysis which was meant to indicate finally if forgery had taken place or not. This had been carried out by Dr. Audrey Giles, a self-employed forensic document examiner who often did work for the London Metropolitan Police. It had been organised by Dr. W.J. McCormack, then Professor of Literary History at Goldsmith's College, London. The outcome of the examination was kept secret till near the end of the programmes, which made for gripping viewing. We were shown close-ups of handwriting enlarged on computer screens which, one imagines, was meant to suggest some technical sophistication was involved.<br /><br />Yet when the conclusion was announced that the Diaries were genuine lingering questions remained hanging in the air. Why had O Maille not been interviewed and allowed give his reaction? Why had no forensic scientist been interviewed for an independent opinion of the examination? Angus Mitchell, British-born author of The Amazon Journal of Roger Casement, still maintained his conviction they had been forged.<br /><br />The media in Britain and Ireland went on to tout the line that the case was now solved and could be closed. Talking with various people taught me that there was a real widespread belief at this time that this was the end of the matter.<br /><br />The reality, however, was very different from this media-manufactured impression.<br /><br />James J. Horan teaches at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice, New York City and is a member of the editorial board of the Journal of Forensic Sciences. He is a former head of the New York City Police Department crime laboratory. He took part in the Royal Irish Academy Symposium, Roger Casement in Irish and World History, in May 2000 and presented a paper titled, How Forensic Science Would Approach the Casement Diaries? His opinion was that a number of approaches involving a variety of technologies needed to be employed. Handwriting analysis would be just one of them.<br /><br />At a Colloquium at Goldsmith's College, London, on Casement soon after the television programmes in 2002, Horan gave his evaluation of what has come to be called the Giles Report. A shortened version of that paper appeared in the newsletter of the British Association of Irish Studies for July 2002. It is this shortened version which appears below.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6905506070718158368.post-25586174845567864902015-03-23T09:57:04.806-05:002015-03-23T09:57:04.806-05:00The Devil and Mr Casement (2009) by Jordan Goodman...The Devil and Mr Casement (2009) by Jordan Goodman describes in detail the story of Casement’s Putumayo investigations. Casement was pitted against the immensely politically powerful and ruthless Julio Arana. Discernible is the fearfully dangerous situation Casement found himself in. The reader will find it hard to imagine how anybody in such a threatening atmosphere would, or indeed could expose themselves to danger by engaging in daily homosexual escapades and by the keeping of an incriminating diary. The contentious diary material was not employed as source material for the book.<br /><br />The theory that forgery was carried out explains elegantly the many-faceted litany of anomalies and inconsistencies that attach to the Casement diaries and their history. It has the qualities of a good scientific theory. All the questions and riddles are answered. All the jigsaw pieces are made to fit together and click into place. A clear and comprehensible picture is made to emerge. 10/03/2014Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6905506070718158368.post-71898001264755163502015-03-23T09:55:14.467-05:002015-03-23T09:55:14.467-05:00At the 2006 Roger Casement Foundation symposium Ke...At the 2006 Roger Casement Foundation symposium Kevin Mannerings provided interesting information on the pink glue-like substance which covers about ten pages of the 1910 diary and most of January 1911 and a few more 1911 diary pages. It has previously been represented as a form of restorative treatment. It is mentioned briefly in Angus Mitchell’s The Amazon Journal (1997). The Giles report and an associated article by Peter Bower concerning the paper, upon which the diary text was written, were published in 2005 by the RIA, along with a collection of papers connected with its May 2000 symposium, Roger Casement in Irish & World History. There was no discernible direct reference on the part of Giles or Bower to this visually obvious feature of the documents.<br /><br />Mannerings’s queries to the Public Record Office/National Archives in Kew met with a reply that this substance was polyvinyl acetate. The substance was applied in 1972, a year when some restorative work was carried out on the diaries. Further investigations revealed that polyvinyl acetate is not a substance normally used for purposes of preservation and restoration of handwritten matter. Contact with a laboratory in London brought a response that testing for evidence of erasure followed by interpolation using Infra-Red or Ultra-Violet light would be frustrated by the presence on the paper of such a substance.<br /><br />In light of the above, rigorous attention would need to be focused on the paper surfaces of the documents as part of any future investigation.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6905506070718158368.post-29302818545580789672015-03-23T09:07:22.419-05:002015-03-23T09:07:22.419-05:00Forensic testing
On 12th March 2002 the results o...Forensic testing<br /><br />On 12th March 2002 the results of the first ever fully independent forensic examination of the Black Diaries were announced at a press conference in London. The examination was carried out by Dr Audrey Giles, an internationally respected figure in the field of document forensics. It was commissioned by Professor Bill McCormack of Goldsmiths College, London, and jointly funded by the BBC and RTE. The verdict was as follows:<br /><br /> The unequivocal and confident conclusion which the Giles Document Laboratory has reached is that each of the five documents collectively known as the Black Diaries is exclusively the work of Roger Casement's hand, without any reason to suspect either forgery or interpolation by any other hand. The Diaries are genuine throughout and in each instance.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com