Had a happy jaunt back into this classic murder mystery. Inspector Alan Grant of Scotland Yard is recuperating from an on-the-job accident. Bored out of his mind in his hospital room, a friend brings him a stack of pictures of different historical figures. Grant enjoys faces, and goes through the stack with enjoyment. He comes upon a painting that challenges him. It is a painting of Richard III. However, the painting does not match the evil villain history has painted Richard III to be -- the wicked uncle who arranged for the death of his two innocent nephews in the Tower of London. Grant starts an investigation "a la Scotland Yard" into the age old murder to see if Richard III really could have been the one responsible for the death of the Two Princes.Who benefited from the death of the princes? What did contemporary reports say about the crime? Who wrote the history that depicted Richard III as a hunchback and as the murderer of his nephews? The result is refreshingly new, and well presented! I can never read Shakespeare's "Richard III" in the same way ever again. *SPOILER* The answer is that Henry VII benefited most from the removal of the two princes. Contemporary reports about the crime were non-existent because all evidence pointed to the fact that the two princes were still alive at the time of Richard III's death. Sir Thomas More wrote the celebrated "wicked Richard III" history that Shakespeare based his play on. And Sir Thomas More supported the Tudor kings. Richard III was the last of the Plantegenet kings. Go figure!So, now go read your history anew and see if you can figure out "who-done-it" yourself!