Sir, - At the risk of paradox, may I suggest that all the apparently contradictory letters regarding de Valera's "reprieve are reflections of different aspects of the same truth: the co existence of two realities, the physical reality and the paper reality. In military or civil bureaucracy, nothing happens unless and until it happens on paper.
In his case, the physical reality was that 2nd Lieut Wylie's recommendation to General Blackadder, that de Valera was harmless and unlikely to cause trouble (disastrous!) was accepted and acted upon by the general. Nonetheless, the paper reality was that de Valera's name was on a list for court martial and the only way it was going to be removed was by the expenditure of a few rounds of ammo, or by having the appropriate word - in this case, "reprieved" - "inserted".
HQ Irish Command had to inform Whitehall. This decision carried a heavy political load, coming soon after Asquith's telegram (a result of his promise to Redmond) and simply could not have been submitted as "2nd Lieut Wylie told me" - even if the young officer was, in civvy life, a king's counsel. It had to be presented in proper form - as indeed also when released to the press. If there is a hierarchy of realities, the paper one is the decisive one in any bureaucracy.
Accordingly, while I have no doubt that Judge Wylie told the truth, Mr Richard Deasey's father could indeed have seen a paper with the word "reprieved" on it and The Irish Times published in good faith the list as released. The American citizenship factor - defended by Mr Aodogan O'Rahilly - could have been one of the grounds for eventual approval by higher command.
There seems to be an element of bad form in having one of the least harmful and most entertaining of the treasured myths that add up to "Irish History" exposed to the searching light of prosaic fact. Yet it might help to open the eyes of those whose "history" comes in chapters of divine revelation. - Yours, etc.,
Capt (rtd), Glenageary Woods,
Dun Laoghaire.