Warzynsky notes that Leicester University maintains that its identification of the skeleton as Richard III’s is based on at least six separate lines of evidence, including a contemporary reports of the location of Richard’s grave and the nature of the skeleton.
***
Six lines of evidence sounds pretty convincing, but I guess it is wise for the experts to want to see all of the papers first. But this dissenter is not too convincing, IMO.
I agree. If he has knowledge that the whereabouts of these other family members is unknown, it would still behoove him to go look for them; the number of burials at the site of the battle isn’t all that large afaik, and if there are literally sixteen, and all were to be dug up, and tested, and they all showed the same mtDNA, well, then there could be a problem.