to impart information helpful to the public, the Easter weekend was littered with rumours about who or what might or might not have killed a woman visitor to the Maritime Museum at Dockyard. In the absence of valid information, the public will substitute speculation and innuendo which are always more damaging to the public than facts. People, especially people on a small Island, who are left in the dark in the face of a crisis, will listen to and fear things which they need not consider or fear if they are served well by being kept properly informed.

We are not talking about the release of information which would compromise a Police investigation into a murder. We are talking about giving the public enough information so that the people are reassured if they are not in danger or warned if they are in danger. That is why Governments have public information departments. That is why such organisations as the Police have public information officers. They are paid out of the public purse to ensure that the public is kept informed, so that it is not alarmed and not endangered. Over the past 20 years the Police public information department has been good, bad and indifferent depending on who occupied the posting. In recent years it has been very good in the hands of Roger Sherratt, John Instone and Roseanda Jones. We thought the Police had learned the value of good PR but, apparently, they have not. That is a great shame. In recent years PR has moved the Police image from that of an alien enforcer not to be joined by Bermudians to that of a public service where Bermudians can be comfortable and within which Bermudians can work and succeed.

We agree that over the weekend the Police investigation was at a delicate stage but so was public concern. When a person is killed, especially in daylight in a public place frequented by visitors, people have a right to sufficient information to make informed decisions. This was not the case over Easter.

For three days over the Good Friday-Easter weekend the public was, intentionally it seems, deprived of information. There was such a tight clamp on information, especially in the light of destructive rumours, that this newspaper could only think that the Police were misusing their public information machinery to engage in a disruptive cover-up. Why? We don't know but it certainly seemed over Easter that the Police were scrambling to hide something more than the facts they needed to protect to further their investigation. We suspected a conspiracy of silence. As examples of what went on: This newspaper was lied to. The press in Germany was refused even the name of the victim's home town. Overseas media was told to telephone The Royal Gazette for information when the newspaper had been told nothing.

We are not going to repeat the rumours because many were fanciful, some grizzly, a few libelous. They were, of course, all the public had. That is just not good enough.