Are cops shielding Geldof's husband?Comment on this story
POLICE faced questions last night over why they insisted the death of Peaches Geldof was ‘unexplained’, despite the overwhelming mass of evidence they faced.
Officers discovered stashes of heroin, almost 80 syringes and burned spoons in the 25-year-old’s home.
Her body was found slumped on a bed, covered in needle puncture marks.
Yet, Kent Police spent weeks hiding behind statements in which they said officers were simply investigating an ‘unexplained sudden death’.
They repeatedly refused to comment on whether suspicious substances or evidence had been found at her property, or even where Peaches died and who – if anyone – was with her at the time.
It was almost four weeks later, amid an explosion of speculation in the media and on social networking sites, that they finally admitted officers ‘did seize drugs paraphernalia’.
This revelation appeared designed to protect her husband, as it came alongside a firm denial that he could face questioning or even arrest for drugs offences. Kent Police said the extreme media blackout was justified because their sole duty was to the coroner, once it had been established there was no foul play.
But suspicions remain that Lord Justice Leveson continues to cast a long shadow, encouraging police forces to be more secretive than ever. His Press standards inquiry has called for a clampdown on police/media relations, with records of meetings between officers and journalists and tighter curbs on briefings.
But the Leveson inquiry completely ignored the value of keeping the public informed of the actions of police as they investigate often controversial events as servants of the Crown.
Yesterday Kent Police defended senior officers’ actions, insisting a ‘thorough and professional investigation’ was always going to be the first priority.
A spokesman for the force said: ‘It was important throughout that the integrity and professionalism of the investigation remained intact.
‘We had a duty of care to Miss Geldof’s family and it would be irresponsible to prematurely release details which may have led to further speculation without having established the full circumstances surrounding the death.’ - Daily Mail