The Curtis Bennett Inquiry

[David Orsam]

During July 1887, he said, Maurice Moser, a Scotland Yard detective, called on Robert Pinkerton in New York, saying he was in search of evidence that would implicate Parnell and others in the Phoenix Park murders . . .

Wrong! Maurice Moser was not a Scotland Yard detective in July 1887. As I said earlier in this thread, he resigned from the Metropolitan Police force in January 1887.

[Simon Wood]

Hi David,

Sorry, you'll have to tell that to the Pinkertons.

Regards,

Simon

[David Orsam]

Hi David,

Sorry, you'll have to tell that to the Pinkertons.

It doesn't matter who I tell it to Simon, it will still be factually wrong.

[Simon Wood]

Hi David,

I agree.

Maurice Moser had earlier retired from Scotland Yard’s Irish Branch to establish the Anglo-Continental Enquiry Agency.

But you don't know if he told that to the Pinkertons.

Facts don't always dictate the narrative.

Regards,

Simon

[David Orsam]

Hi David,

I agree.

Maurice Moser had earlier retired from Scotland Yard’s Irish Branch to establish the Anglo-Continental Enquiry Agency.

But you don't know if he told that to the Pinkertons.

Facts don't always dictate the narrative.

I don't care what Moser might or might not have said to the Pinkertons. The story you quoted from a New York paper states:

"During July 1887, he said, Maurice Moser, a Scotland Yard detective, called on Robert Pinkerton in New York".

It doesn't say Moser claimed to be a Scotland Yard detective, or even that Pinkerton said he was a Scotland Yard detective, it just says that he was a Scotland Yard detective. That, as you agree, is factually incorrect. It's wrong.

[Simon Wood]

Hi David,

Yes, I agree.

For goodness sake, please take a stress pill and lie down in a dark room before you explode in a fit of righteousness.

Regards,

Simon

[David Orsam]

Hi David,

Yes, I agree.

For goodness sake, please take a stress pill and lie down in a dark room before you explode in a fit of righteousness.

Yet another misreading of a text on your part if you think I need to take a stress pill or am liable to explode "in a fit of righteousness" simply because I have chosen to correct a serious factual inaccuracy in a press article you saw fit to post in this thread!

[Simon Wood]

Hi David,

Yes, everybody but David is marching out of step.

Take it easy.

Regards,

Simon

[David Orsam]

Hi David,

Yes, everybody but David is marching out of step.

Take it easy.

What does that even mean? Shame you couldn't simply have accepted my correction with good grace some six or seven posts back rather than respond with a glib answer like "Sorry, you’ll have to tell that to the Pinkertons".

[David Orsam]

As you may recall from earlier in this thread, the Home Office wrote to Sir Charles Warren on 14 July 1888 asking him to obtain from Superintendent Cutbush any observations he thought fit to offer about the criticisms made of him in Curtis Bennett's report. Cutbush provided his observations to Sir Charles in a memo dated 21 July 1888, and Sir Charles in turn forwarded the memo to the Home Office two days later. Here is Cutbush's defence of his behaviour at the inquiry as set out in his memo of 21 July:

With reference to the remarks made by Mr. Curtis Bennett in his report dated 10th July 1888, on the case of Mr. H. K. Evans, I beg to state that I am quite unconscious of doing or saying anything that could be construed into disrespect, or to any want of respect to Mr. Bennett. I was examined by Mr. Bennett, Mr. Pennefather and Mr. Evans, and it is probable that when the latter insinuated in his opening question that I had been instructed by the Commissioner as to what evidence I should give, that I replied somewhat sharply; and possibly I did so to other questions put to him as he seemed to me to assume that I was there as a hostile witness. I have made this explanation as it appears to me that the incidents in connection with my examination by Mr. Evans may have caused Mr. Bennett to form the opinion expressed in his note. I can only express my very deep regret that anything I should have said, when questioned by Mr. Evans, should have caused Mr. Bennett to think I was guilty of want of respect to him, and to assure him that I am quite innocent of any such intention. With reference to the candour of my statement, the remark is probably based on a question, as to who, in the Receiver’s Department, I had ever heard speak of Mr. Evans. I requested permission to decline answering this question; but on the Receiver pressing Mr Bennett to force it, I replied. It appeared to me to be an attempt on the part of Mr. Evans to endeavour to implicate any person he possibly could, who had at any time gossiped about him, or his business. Moreover, I was from the first treated as though I attended there as an enemy of Mr. Evans, and I submit that reference to my examination will show that this is so. I felt this, and I certainly answered with dire (sic) regard to caution; but to the best of my recollection I answered every question explicitly.

The questions put to me inferred that I had been in communication with ex Inspector Moser on the subject of Mr. Evans’ business; and that he was in the habit of frequenting my office. There was absolutely no foundation for any such assumption.

The assumptions relative to ex P.S. Butcher were equally without foundation, as I had never seen or communicated with him subsequent to the receipt of his letter complaining of Mr. Evans; and which I had never replied to, not having received any instructions after submitting it to the Commissioner.

I can only reiterate what I have before stated, that I regret most sincerely, that Mr. Bennett should from some apparent defect in my manner or from my replies have felt it necessary to make the observations he has. I by no means intended to be disrespectful, though I certainly felt hurt at the insinuations made by Mr. Evans, and I again desire to assure Mr. Bennett that I was not intentionally guilty of any want of respect to him.

I have been upwards of twenty years in the Police Force, and have never yet been censured. On the contrary I have been commended by Magistrates, the Secretary of State, the Commissioner, and the public with whom I have had to deal.

CH Cutbush
Supt
21st July 1888

[David Orsam]

Curtis Bennett's response to Cutbush's memo, delivered to Godfrey Lushington at the Home Office on 27 July 1888, was brutal:

I have perused the copy of an explanation by Mr. Cutbush in reference to the remarks I deemed it necessary to write in regard to his manner and evidence before me when sitting at the request of Mr. Secretary Matthews at the Home Office, and I am bound to state that the same is entirely inconsistent with the facts.

Immediately on his entering the room in which I held the inquiry I asked him (as I had requested all the witnesses) to take a chair. His answer was as follows: given in an insolent and defiant manner:

"Before I sit down or answer any question I wish to be informed what my position is here."

I informed him that this inquiry was held by me at the request of the Home Secretary, he then sat down but from first to last his evidence was given in a most unbecoming manner and after one or two formal questions by me, he, in answer to a question by me, and not from the Receiver of the Police or Mr. Evans, said he declined to answer the question – see notes of his evidence taken at the time – after this his principal answer was "I do not remember", which failed to impress me as being the fact, and he convinced me he was in no way friendly towards Mr. Evans.

At the conclusion of his examination on leaving the room he slammed the door with such force as to shake the whole room and had I been sitting in another place I should most certainly have then and there taken notice of the matter.

I consider it right to now outline these facts and would ask you to kindly place them before the Home Secretary.

[David Orsam]

It will recalled that the Star published a quite detailed story about the Curtis Bennett inquiry on 16 July 1888 and that two days later Edward Leigh Pemberton thanked Sir Charles Warren for forwarding a report about it from Maurice Moser to Ruggles Brice. Moser's report dated 16 July, addressed to John Wontner, is below:

Re. Harry King Evans

I regret to say that Mr. Mills has thought fit to supply some information to "The Star" respecting the above matter and I enclose cutting from today’s 2nd edition.

I only returned today from Bordeaux and knew absolutely nothing about this. I have spoken to Mr. Mills this afternoon and his explanation of it is, that he thought as he had been dismissed from Scotland Yard, he had a perfect right to make the circumstances public.

I merely write this to let you know that I have had nothing to do with this affair.

[David Orsam]

The Mr. Mills being referred to here was Walter Mills, employed in the Receiver's Office as a temporary copyist, who was the son of the senior clerk, Edwin Mills. As stated in Curtis Bennett's report, young Mills was dismissed from his position during the first week of July.

[Robert]

It doesn't seem to have affected Edwin's career, anyway. He was still in place in 1891 and left close to £5000 when he died in 1915.

[David Orsam]

Yes, Edwin was fine - he said he had no idea what his son was up to - but one naturally wonders about Cutbush's career.

It's interesting that an anonymous letter writer to the Pall Mall Gazette, under the name of 'NOT AN OUTSIDER', wrote on 30 August 1888, in reference to Monro's successor as Assistant Commissioner of the CID, that, 'The only surprise of "those who know" is that Mr. Cutbush has not received the vacant Commissionership; certainly no-one would have filled the post with greater distinction than he. Perhaps however there is better fortune in store for him.' This was published in PMG of 3 Sept.

By this time, of course, Robert Anderson had been appointed Assistant Commissioner, but it raises the question of whether Cutbush would have been in the running had it not been for the reprimand, received shortly before Monro's resignation, and whether his reprimand did indeed prevent him from this type of advancement.