Hicks a stranger to logic?

My current bedtime read is Michael Hick's allegedly unbiased,
balanced biog of R3....pull the other one, it's got bells on!

I was astonished last night at a particular claim he made which
reminded me, in the nature of its logic of my ex husband's classic:
Husband: "Would you like a cup of tea?"
me: "No thanks, I don't drink tea."
Husband: "Oh, you don't love me any more!"
I'm sorry, I obviously missed something there! Well this bit in
Hicks reminded me of that:

Richard is in London. Rivers, Grey and Vaughan are in Pontefract.

Richard cannot execute them until he is secure enough to avoid
comeback.

Only claiming throne will make him that secure.

He claims throne on the same day they are executed.

There is not enough time for word of his usurpation to reach
Pontefract for them (Neville and Northumberland) to know it is now
safe to execute them.

Therefore Neville and Percy knew beforehand he would usurp.

Richard didn't meet either after leaving York.

Therefore Richard must have planned to usurp before leaving York.

Sorry...I think we making one hell of a leap of logic here - a leap
too far in fact. Yet later he acknowledges at least one visit by
Brackenbury... How can anyone claiming to be a rational and unbiased
historian come up with such a farcical scenario? It seems to me that
Hicks, far from presenting a new and balanced view, is determined to
prove every element of the black legend to be true on all counts.
Really I despair if this is what we get from "unbiased" historians
may the Lord preserve us from biased ones!
B (ggrrrrr)