EOIN NEESON,
Sir, - I wouldn't normally waste your time or that of your readers and myself responding to such a disgraceful letter as that of A. Byrne (May 27th).
But in the interests of truth, the important distortions and personal misrepresentations in it should be corrected.
1. The entire tenor of my article of April 4th was an acceptance of the thrust of Prof McCormack's general conclusion.
2. My article contained no such unsavoury inferences as those suggested by A. Byrne.
3. Prof McCormack acknowledged that his investigation was not "conclusive".
4. References in my article to homosexuality and/or sexual perversion in relation to Casement were, accordingly prefaced by the word "alleged", and therefore clearly referred to the period, place and person(s) making such allegations. The shameful suggestion that that is also my view is wrong, stupid and offensive.
5. This is the second time that what I wrote in that article has been distorted for the same purpose - to try to prove that I am what I am not. That is shameful and sad. - Yours, etc.,
EOIN NEESON, Blackrock, Co Dublin.