Sir, - Dr Roger Sawyer (November 19th) understandably endeavours to defend the scholarship of Casement's biographers, but he still avoids an explanation as to why he did not mention archive MS 13087? On page 179 of Dr Sawyer's biography, the reference to the Putumayo Diary is MS 13085-6. Not so. The Putumayo Journal or "white diary" is held in MS 13087 (25). The rest of this archive contains "Correspondence, memoranda, diary etc re: Casement in Brazil and re his expedition to report on atrocities in the Putumayo river area of Peru, c. 1,000 items, 1907-1912."
The thousand-odd items in this archive, including the 160,000word Putumayo Journal, the Paredes Report and the manuscript versions of Casement's interrogations with the Barbadians, persuaded me - on the strength of the textual evidence - that the Black Diaries were forged.
In defence of Casement's biographers I would say that their research was obstructed in several respects. They worked at a time when photocopying was an expensive novelty. Until March 1994 the restricted access imposed by the Home Office hindered any indepth independent analysis. Dr Sawyer should recall that it was I who handed him photocopies of the 1910 Dollard's Diary and the typescript version of the Putumayo Journal (NLIMS 1622/3), the documents he used for his most recent book.
When writing about the Public Record Office manuscripts, Prof Roger McHugh quoted Montaigne: "Historians can decide which of two reports is the more probable." That is what I did.
I look forward to speaking with Dr Sawyer publicly at Goldsmith's College on February 28th when our arguments will benefit from clearer analysis of our mutual work. - Yours, etc.,
From Angus Mitchell
Dolphin Square, London SW1V 3PP.