Maybe not quite what you’re looking for, but the entire Byzantine Empire was viewed rather dimly by Western scholars until about fifty years ago. In 1869, W.E.H. Lecky wrote:
Only since the Second World War has the historical reputation of the Byzantines been reassessed and rehabilitated.
Maybe, but I’m willing to bet the “prosecution” for this case did not do a diligent job.
Alison Weir pointed out that the corpses found when the tower was rennovated were described as being dressed in velvet. Velvet was unknown in the UK before the reign of Edward IV, and the only two people who were in the tower from that time until the remains were found, and who vanished and were the approximate age, were the princes. There is no one else the remains could have been.
More’s account, with someone who claimed to be in on the plot, predicted where the bodies would be found. It’s hard to argue that it’s false if it comes up with something that is discovered years later (the person talking to More described dropping the dead princes in the stairwell where the two corpses were discovered; he said he was told the bodies were moved later, but was not present, so it was just hearsay that they were moved).
There are also eyewitness acounts that the princes were seen in the Tower (which, as now, was a public are) after August of the year. Plus the king stopped paying their jailer around the time the princes vanished.
I doubt Richard killed them personally, but he clearly gave the order – he had a strong motive, since it would have put an end to all opposition to his reign*.
This is a fairly typical reaction to any historical figure that gets a bad reputation: people start saying, “Well, he couldn’t really be that bad” and start looking for excuses that don’t exist. Richard’s evil was definitely overstated, but he was a cruel and impulsive man who had other examples of killing those who were threats to his power.
*At the time, Henry Tudor was an obscure prince living in France with only the most tenuous of claims on the throne (he was not the true Lancastrian heir, which at the time was King Juan of Portugal) – one of the reasons why Henry never claimed his crown due to right of blood, but rather because of Right of Conquest.
Till about after the first world war in Europe NApoleon was scarcely thought of as better than what hitler is today.
Wonder how long before Hitler is rehabilitated. Future generations may not take such a dim view of him as we do.
How about Alexander the Great? What’s so great about a guy that leads invading armies, pillages, enslaves, etc?
Well, serious students of Scottish history generally rate Macbeth as a very good king, despite what Shakespeare may have told you.
No, no, you misunderstand. Dahmer rehabilitated Jesus, who had an awful rep up to that time. 
In the West, Genghis Khan is pretty much synonymous with barbarity. But the recent book Genghis Khan and the Making of the Modern World takes a different view.
From one of the reviews:
Bah! So did many others. Changiz Khan was…well Changiz Khan. His actions were shocking even for his time.
The American Indian?
With friends like that…
you’ll never want for stew meat.
I am impressed you now an alternate spelling for Ghengis. :rolleyes:
Well, it’s not as if his name was originally written in English, so there are a fair few ways to transliterate it into the Roman alphabet. From what I’ve heard (no cites, unfortunately), ‘Changiz’ is closer to the proper pronunciation than ‘Ghenghis’ is.
I’m impressed you know an alternate spelling for “know”.
Good one.
But y’all new what he meant.
Its “Chun-gay-zh”. Genghis sounds just wrong.
Cardinal Richelieu and Richard Nixon both benefit from a more nuanced view of history
All true, but it also seems like there was something about Bligh that just rubbed people the wrong way. In addition to the mutiny, he was also run out of Australia after a disastrous tenure as governor of the colony.