Isn't it interesting how much volume of traffic this topic attracted in such a short space of time?

Well, a couple of thoughts:
1. Someone said something about "this guy's behaviour seeing off alarm bells". I haven't seen any evidence that anyone has knowledge of his behaviour. Most of what I'm seeing is people here imputing "behaviour" from other information. If you can't/haven't observed it, it isn't behaviour. You might surmise, but you might be wrong, and you have no proof or this debate wouldn't emerge again and again.

2. There seems to be a tipping point for many posters here where evidence suddenly becomes, not just inappropriate but deviant. There is no middle ground with some people. I haven't noticed anyone talking about an obsessive trait in his personality or maybe a "crush" on a pretty young girl. Such things were more common in his day than we usually hear about. The Edwardians were not prudes. The Victorians were. Being obsessive or having a crush is not necessarily the required proof to brand someone as a pedophile.