RE: Richard III didn’t kill the princes in the Tower. Or at least others had good reason to…

I would have voted to acquit him too, if the vote was based on the legal standard of beyond reasonable doubt. After five hundred years the evidence was never going to reach that standard. It doesn’t mean I think he was innocent. He was very probably guilty. There is no way of knowing if he did it personally, but it happened on his watch, and to his benefit, and he never even tried to stick the blame on anyone else, despite it being widely believed at the time that he was guilty.

So what do I conclude from his not setting up some enemy as a scapegoat? He probably didn’t think there was any credibility to it. He did not think anyone, even his most ardent supporters, would take such scapegoating seriously. It was probably not a secret at the time that he had had the princes┬ákilled.