Madam, - W.J. (Bill) McCormack (September 2nd) seems utterly to misunderstand what I mean by "publication of the final report" (August 26th) of the investigation he led into the "black diaries". I refer to its publication as a thoroughly documented, fully fledged, serious scientific report. Vital to this is the process of "peer review", whereby a number of appropriately qualified persons scrutinise the approach and methodology used. The final publication may include commentary by these persons. Peer review acts as a quality control mechanism in the world of science.
I would be satisfied if the report appeared, in some form, in an appropriate academic journal such as The Journal of Forensic Sciences or The International Journal of Forensic Document Examiners, as peer review is here a requirement for publication.
Of course, nothing like this will ever happen.
Had there been any conviction in forensic science circles that the "black diaries" had, sensationally, been authenticated, it would have triggered comment on the techniques used in the specialist periodicals. Such commentary is marked by its absence.
Dr McCormack takes pains to display the qualifications of the members of his steering group, all of them distinctions irrelevant to scientific document validation. Ironically, he ignores the name of the man connected with the examination most eminently qualified to assess it. This is Prof Horan of John Jay College of Criminal Justice, New York, a forensic scientist. Horan gave his evaluation at length on April 21st, 2002 at the third Roger Casement Colloquium at Goldsmith's College, London and more briefly in the pages of the newsletter of the British Association for Irish Studies of July 2002. He states in the newsletter that he "would not recommend publication" because the report does not include back-up material to indicate how its conclusions were reached. Further, for similar reasons, he stated, it would not be acceptable to the courts of the United States.
I did read Bill's recent Roger Casement in Death directly after reading Maloney's 1936 The Forged Casement Diaries. Bill's book is meant to be a refutation of Maloney. I enjoyed the verbal extravagance but realised it did not actually engage with Maloney's elegant arguments. The book consists of a series of irrelevant digressions.
Bertie Ahern has done more than any other politician to further the study and appreciation of Casement and his life's work. This has been a matter of deeds as well as words. His acceptance of the findings on a TV documentary went no further than a polite acknowledgement. They were not accepted as final and definitive. However, his presence on the programme created a widespread, indeed international, misunderstanding that the results received full official endorsement.
Jeff Dudgeon (August 25th) suggests it would have been better had Vincent Browne (Opinion, August 11th) considered the "black diaries" to portray a "pederast" rather than a "paedophile". This distinction belongs to the medical world with its specialised terminology. As Browne, is not a writer on medical matters but a current affairs journalist he was correct to use the popular general term.
Despite what Jeff may imagine, all the active forgery theorists agree there is no reason to consider Roger Casement to have been homosexual.
The McCormack caper represented the first awkward, blundering baby steps in the technical examination of the "black diaries". A real examination will require state-of-the-art technologies including Raman spectroscopy, and linguistic fingerprinting, among others. If in 12 years' time, the centenary of 1916, this matter has not been professionally fully clarified it will be a very sad reflection on this society's scientific acumen. - Yours, etc.,
TIM O'SULLIVAN, Secretary, Roger Casement Foundation, Drumcondra, Dublin 9.