Read Cold Case Reopened: The Princes in the Tower for Free Online

Anne Boleyn he continued his process of cleansing his kingdom of the Poles.
    Lord Montagu, Reginald Pole's brother, had already been executed on charges of treason in 1539. Margaret Pole and Montagu's young son Henry Pole had been confined in the Tower since then. In 1541 Margaret Pole, old and infirm as she was, was sent to the block. The execution was famously botched and her death sent shock waves around the kingdom. Henry Pole, aged 14, was still in the Tower with instructions that he was to be “strictly kept.” However there is no evidence or guide as to the fate that might have befallen him. Some academics suggest that he might have been starved to death. The last record of him was in 1542 in the Tower of London's records, where a record was made in the accounts ledgers of payment for his food.
    Could Henry Pole be one of our skeletons? He certainly fits into the potential age bracket. In addition, if he had been “strictly kept” then this might explain the fact that skeletons were of a slightly built child. If he is, then that raises the fascinating question of who is the other skeleton in the chest? We do not believe that Henry Pole was imprisoned with another child.
    Using Occam's razor principle then, it is far more likely that two skeletons in one chest are going to be the missing princes as opposed to Henry Pole and an unknown other or just common prisoners.
Would new forensic tests prove conclusive?

    There have been numerous attempts by the Richard III society to have further forensic tests undertaken on the bones. However, the home secretary, the monarch and the Church of England all have to agree to testing. As of yet, this is something that has not occurred.
    Radiocarbon dating has always been the principle aim of these new tests, together with establishing the sex of the skeletons and to see if blood was present on the elder skull.  
    If new tests could prove that the skeletons were male, that would be a significant step in moving to confirm that the skeletons are the princes. Radiocarbon dating is normally correct to within 40 or 50 years. By performing these tests we could least determine the rough period that they date from. If there was blood present on the skull then this could then go some way forward to confirming that death was caused by suffocation.
    If these tests were ever undertaken and they all proved positive then we could probably raise the likelihood that these were the bones of the princes to the 90%+ mark. In addition to identification we would have a likely cause of death. Identification and cause of death are all significant factors in police murder enquiries.
    However, since the confirmed discovery of Richard III's body under a car park in Leicester in 2012 there have been further suggestions of additional forensic tests.   Namely, if DNA could be extracted from the skeletons then this could be compared to that already extracted from the body of Richard III to prove beyond all doubt that these skeletons were really the princes. However, despite the excitement on the internet (and various badly researched newspaper articles) this test is not possible. DNA comparisons come from the maternal genetic line. Richard was the princes' paternal uncle. His own DNA would be useless in attempting to identify the bodies.  
    However, this is not an end to the matter of DNA testing the skeletons. The living descendants of Richard III whose DNA was used to identify the king's remains actually came through the female line, from Richard and Edward's sister Anne, so that DNA could be used.
    Of course, Elizabeth Woodville lies next to her husband in St George's Chapel, Windsor Castle. Her DNA could also be used to test the skeletons, although the likelihood of being able to dig up another royal tomb is near to zero.
    If the DNA tests were ever completed the results could potentially throw some interesting results:
    1.The DNA could match, proving the skeletons were the princes.
    2.The DNA could match