Sir, - In his letter on Tom Barry and the Kilmichael ambush (September 1st) in which he replies to my earlier letter and attempts to substantiate his claim that Barry's account of the ambush "was riddled with lies and evasions".
In regard to the documentary evidence, Hart is prepared to accept the captured report of the Commander of the Flying Column as that of Barry, although, as I have pointed out, it is not handwritten by Barry and it is not dated.
Hart asks why this particular report, which he takes to be Barry's initial report, should be questioned. The answer is simple: the details of the ambush that it records do not, despite Hart's assertions to the contrary, match the accepted version of the encounter in many important matters.
Hart himself accepts that "it is clear that, contrary to Barry's initial report, the ambush was planned." This is the most striking difference: the captured report talks of the Flying Column retiring from its position before the ambush, while all other accounts maintain that the column remained in waiting until the Auxiliaries arrived.
Hart states in his letter that the time of the ambush in the captured report is the same as in other recorded versions. This is not correct. Most versions state that the ambush began soon after 4 p.m. and Barry gives 4.05 p.m. as the start of the engagement. The captured report states that at 4.15 p.m. "we started the return journey" home, and then saw two lorries of Auxiliaries at about 4.20 p.m. The ambush began soon afterwards. In other words, the captured report has the ambush beginning when the action, which lasted about 20 minutes, was finishing.
The fundamental question is not whether or not the document was a forgery by the British, but why Peter Hart should reject part of the account as inaccurate, and then accept the failure to mention a false surrender as accurate. On what grounds does he base his selection? The source is either of value in its entirety or not at all. Questions as to why the British should forge such a document become irrelevant.
In regard to interviews with participants, the names of those interviewed by Hart, and by others, are given only as initials in his book, and much of their testimony centres on the killing of the Auxiliaries rather than on the false surrender. The published account of Stephen O'Neill, commander of section three at the ambush (Kerryman, December 1937), which accepts Barry's version of a false surrender is rejected by Hart. Also rejected is the evidence of eye-witnesses to be found in Meda Ryan's book on Tom Barry (1982), who accepted that there was a false surrender. I agree with Peter Hart that readers may weigh these facts and draw their own conclusions.
I would also add that in the quest for veracity over this particular issue, and in other historical matters of the period, it would be of great benefit if the statements and documents deposited in the Bureau of Military History were made available for research purposes. - Yours, etc., Dr Brian P. Murphy,
Glenstal Abbey,
Co Limerick.