> If allegations are brought to the police, they are duty-bound to investigate them, as they have done, and they have found that Sir Edward would have had questions to answer had he been alive.
Do we know what questions he would have had to answer?
For example, if X goes to the police and says "Ted Heath abused me", and Ted Heath is still alive ... would Ted Heath have had questions to answer along the lines of "X said you abused them. What have you got to say about it?"
Or does it mean more than that? For example, Saville-like, a couple of hundred people each individually go to the police and give stories that the police can see are somehow consistent ... would Ted Heath have had questions to answer along the lines of "There's a consistent pattern of alleged abuse across over 200 victims - what have you got to say about that?"
Just leaving it hanging out there that he would have had questions to answer, without saying why, continues to besmirch his name and makes the police look bad too.
Really, if no "inference of guilt" can be drawn from whatever they discovered, then why did they bother discovering it?