If you read More properly, you’d know that he said they were originally buried under a staircase and then moved. Moved, ok? The bones were exhumed from the urn in the 1930s and examined by two dentists. Their paper is available through the Richard the Third Society - with no skewed point of view - simply the findings of the doctors. Unfortunately, they worked from the assumption that the children were the princes and so identified them as such. That would never happen today with DNA testing. This is how it got into the water that one of the princes had jaw disease. The bones could not, at that time, be identified as either male or female - they were too young and undeveloped.
More grew up in the household of John Morton - a Lancastrian who brought about the death of Richard the Third. A man who deserves a book of his own - Morton’s Fork!
More’s book was never published in his lifetime and people are still perplexed by it. I suppose you believe Richard was born with a full set of teeth and hair down to his shoulders?
And there it is.
The Illuminati. The Bilderberg Conspiracy. The Grassy Knoll. The Wingless Plane that hit the Pentagon on 9/11. The Bermuda Triangle. And of course, last and by no means least kooky, The Richard The III Society
Oh, and by the way, I did say that no attempt was made to determine the sex of the children. That's not the same as saying it can't be done, which was your original claim.
You also repeat the nonsense about "jaw disease." he had degenerative bone loss, entirely consistent with starvation. I note you don't try to refute that, either.
As to More's claim that the children had been moved? That was based on a contemporary account that a female Yorkist, overcome by guilt, had had them moved. He could not have known whether that part, or even the fact that the children were buried there was true by first-hand knowledge. But at least part of his story is verified by the excavation. You on the other hand, credit one part of More's account but not another, denying the part that's upheld by evidence, and choosing to accept that part which isn't. Like most conspiracy nuts -- not least Ricardians -- you're very selective about what parts of the record you cherry pick.
Finally, your suggestion that Mancini's account cannot be factual because he didn't speak English or had a dubious provenance is amusing. Apparently you believe that either foreigners or sinister people [or some combination of the two] can't tell time. Remarkable. Please elaborate on that one.
But even if we stipulate to accept your dubious theory that a man lied to his own diary -- just to make your hero look bad -- you have the problem of Richard's own denials of the murders as contemporary evidence as well. Or are you of the opinion that Richard often lied publicly, just to make himself appear to be guilty?
As I said: you should have been -- perhaps were -- on the Casey Anthony jury. Her defense advanced a similar theory: that she was innocent precisely because she did everything in thew world to make herself appear to be guilty. That she is free is a testament to the Ricardians of the world.