A chara, – At his best, Patsy McGarr writes very well. The heading of his article “Survivor’s life should be feted not tarnished” (Rite & Reason, April 8th) is good, whether or not he himself is responsible for it. It deals with the recent death of Christine Buckley.
Sadly, when he chooses to make personal jibes, as he does in that article, his standards plummet. He repeatedly describes as "cuttlefish" those who consider that his writing on the abuse of children seriously lacks balance. In the current winter edition of the Irish quarterly review Studies , he has an article entitled "A Response to Critics of the Murphy Report". There he names me as one of those who are critical of that report, as he responds to my recent book Unheard Story , on the same topic. I am clearly one of his cuttlefish. He writes: "You have been graceless since she died. You and your cuttlefish friends. Your silence since March 11th has been eloquent."
Mr McGarry says he has been surprised at the lack of critical reaction following the death of Christine Buckley. He is the one who has now made capital of her death. She deserves more respect.
He seems to find it impossible to conceive that the story might be more complex than a simple narrative. A letter from Reg Gahan in The Irish Times on April 23rd, 1996 pointed out: "We learn from the film [ Dear Daughter ] that Christine passed her Leaving Cert exam while still at Goldenbridge Industrial School ('orphanage' is Mr Lentin's misnomer) and then became a nurse. Mr Lentin … did not quote the part of my letter pointing out that the nuns got no credit for their part in this."
Not only did the Mercy Sisters continue to support Ms Buckley after normal leaving age; she even returned to Goldenbridge for holidays. Such matters do not mean there was no cruelty, but show that the full story is more complex than the film.
Your then media correspondent, Michael Foley, wrote about the film (March 19th, 1996): “It received wide, uncritical preview coverage. Few questions were asked and little journalistic scepticism shown … Ms Buckley’s story was told in a dramatic way. Journalists usually approach such stories differently, testing allegations. In this case, that was not done. The drama, the reconstructions, the use of actors and the memories of Ms Buckley were never challenged, no alternative explored.”
Mr McGarry accuses his critics: “They’ve been picking at detail in hope of unravelling the lot, while ignoring its truth and the overwhelming evidence.” I know of no one who hopes to unravel the lot. It is not sufficient for Mr McGarry to insult others and accuse them of obfuscation. Good journalism requires that he address the full truth. Is mise,
PÁDRAIG McCARTHY,
Blackthorn Court,
Sandyford,
Dublin 16