The godson of Sir Edward Heath has called for an official inquiry into police handling of child sex abuse allegations against the former prime minister.
Lincoln Seligman said he believes there were serious flaws in Operation Conifer, which has investigated claims against the former Conservative leader for the past two years.
He spoke as reports at the weekend claimed Wiltshire Police, which conducted the £1.5 million investigation, believed it would have had enough grounds to interview the late politician under caution if he was still alive.
Mr Seligman, an artist who knew Sir Edward for more than 50 years from childhood, said Wiltshire chief constable Mike Veale was "acting as judge and jury and has already convicted the man".
Mr Seligman told the Press Association: "My suspicion is that we will learn nothing from the report except innuendo and that really takes nobody any further forward, except it leaves a dark stain over a man who can't defend himself.
"What we are looking for is a judge-led review of a: how the police have conducted Operation Conifer and b: all the evidence it has produced.
"We want a judge to look at that who will be independent and impartial and to me that is the opposite of cover-up, because we want the truth and we believe the truth will exonerate him (Sir Edward)."
Sir Edward, who led the Conservative government from 1970 to 1974, stepped down as an MP at the 2001 general election and died at home in Salisbury in July 2005, aged 89.
Operation Conifer was launched in 2015 after he was named as a suspect in an investigation into historical child sex abuse.
Wiltshire Police will make public on October 5 the "summary closure report" of its inquiry into Sir Edward.
The findings will be passed to the Independent Inquiry Into Child Sexual Abuse, which is being chaired by Professor Alexis Jay.
Last year, the probe found no evidence that a prosecution against a brothel keeper was dropped because of threats to allege publicly that Sir Edward had been involved in sexual offences.
In November a report by Dr Rachel Hoskins, who was enlisted by detectives to examine Op Conifer evidence, was revealed.
Writing in The Mail On Sunday in November, she said she had "exposed a catalogue of fabrication" at the heart of the probe and warned the force it should immediately end its investigation into a key accuser's "pernicious" claims of satanic ritual abuse.
The leading criminologist also branded the inquiry "a disgrace" and said that, while the force had accepted her report, she had "little confidence" police would pass the findings on to MPs.
On Sunday, the same paper reported that claims against Sir Edward include allegations of sexual assault on boys aged as young as 11, including a rape, which would have been enough to have him arrested and interviewed.
In September Mr Veale said Operation Conifer had "followed and complied with national guidance from the outset and throughout" and urged people not to speculate about the report's findings.
Mr Seligman, whose father was a university friend of Sir Edward's, said he had been prevented by police from attending the report's release on Thursday.
He added: "I'm not naive about these things. I think it would have been so difficult for him to hide anything, because he was constantly surrounded by protection officers, secretaries, his general household, that he just wouldn't have had the opportunity.
"But quite honestly, me protesting his innocence is not as important as putting right the injustice that has been done, in my view."
He compared Conifer to Operation Midland, which investigated claims of a paedophile ring among MPs but was later discredited.
He said: "I think the Conifer inquiry must have begun before Midland ended but they seem to have learned nothing about being credulous when it comes to stories from seriously unbalanced people."
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules here