Madam, - While the balance of recently published evidence lies undoubtedly in the direction of those who believe in the authenticity of the "black" Casement diaries, the case is by no means as closed as W.J. McCormack claims (September 2nd).
Dr Audrey Giles's 2002 report on the diaries had a limited distribution in photocopy form, but this is not the same as proper publication. With due respect to Dr Giles's undoubted abilities as a handwriting expert, her report did not include paper, ink or word-frequency analysis. Nor have I seen any adequate reply to the criticism that, due to misunderstanding of the complex Casement manuscripts in the National Library, she apparently did not examine an important "white" diary entry dated October 12th, 1910.
This entry indicates that Casement's eye problem was causing him to write in a large pencilled scrawl at variance with the deliberate ink hand of the corresponding black diary entry.
I have read Dr McCormack's book, Roger Casement in Death and note that its references to Dr Giles's supposedly conclusive report are not accompanied even by an adequate summary of its findings. Furthermore, I resent, as no doubt other diaries sceptics do also, being beaten about the head by the author as a "Casement vindicator" with tendencies comparable to those of perpetrators of "clerical child abuse, prime-ministerial corruption, and paramilitary terror", not to mention "Holocaust Denial" (page 209).
More light and less heat is required if this controversy is to be laid to rest. - Yours, etc.,
SEAN MURPHY,
Bray,
Co Wicklow.