Please refer me to more balanced pro-guilt arguments than Ross

I had Ross recommended to me by this group as a fairly balanced
proponent of Richard's guilt in the disappearance of the princes.
Far better than Weir, who I refuse to read because EVERYONE says one
can drive a truck through the holes in her logic.

I am finding Ross a polemical Machiavellian. He presents little
factual information, but argues hotly and condescendingly and at
great length, that Richard certainly killed the princes because
neither scruples nor love had any relevance to the medieval upper
classes, and only Victorian sentimentalists or something think they
exist anyhow. This is the crux of the man's entire argument, and he
repeats it over and over again for each controversial event in
Richard's life throughout the entire book, ad nauseum. This man has
some serious issues in his life somewhere; if his unbalanced views
and ethics didn't make that plain, his continuously expressed extreme
anger toward anyone who thinks medieval people had any actual ethics
or ever loved anyone does.

If any actually intelligent arguments for Richard's guilt exist, I
would sure like to read it. Has anyone any such works to recommend?

Come on, folks, it would indeed be something if there were no
balanced and well thought out arguments for Richard's guilt since the
Croyland Continuator! Is that the case? Certainly I find it hard
to imagine any historical controversy of this magnitude without more
recent reasoning on the guilty side than that! Why, I have been
given to understand there are people in the Richard III Society who
think Richard did it!

Yours,
Dora Smith