It does not appear to be a fair analysis to me, it is implying guilt in my opinion but of course we all read things differently I suppose.
Only Heath and any 'alleged ' victims will know if he was a Peadophile.
I cannot agree when someone thinks looking into historic cases is a waste of money but equally I cannot agree there is sufficient evidence ' in the Heath case ' for there to be an emphatic presumption of guilt.
Heath may be guilty or innocent but the same thing happened to Harvey Proctor, Lord Brammall , Leon Brittan and you don't have to be a high profile figure to be falsely accused as poor Christopher Jefferies found out. They all received a public humiliation and were found not guilty but the media and the public had made it's mind up and the Kangaroo Court was in full swing ' they were guilty ' because of who they are or the public thought they ' looked guilty '.
There is of course another side of the scenario when talking about Jimmy Saville, Cyril Smith , Grenville Janner etc. but in my opinion there is a lot more substantiated evidence in these cases to make a ' fair ' assumption .
Time may well prove me wrong but until then I remain open minded as to Heath and Operation Conifer.