details of Bedloe's confession, how could he possibly agree with it?

*Pollock, p. 160.

The most essential point of difference was that Bedloe accused
'Jesuits,' Le Fevre, Walsh, and Pritchard, who had got clean away.
Prance accused two priests, who escaped, and three hangers on of
Somerset House, Hill, Berry (the porter), and Green. All three were
hanged, and all three confessedly were innocent. Mr. Pollock
reasons that Prance, if guilty (and he believes him guilty), 'must
have known the real authors' of the crime, that is, the Jesuits
accused by Bedloe. 'He must have accused the innocent, not from
necessity, but from choice, and in order to conceal the guilty.'
'He knew Bedloe to have exposed the real murderers, and. . . he
wished to shield them.'* How did he know whom Bedloe had exposed?
How could he even know the exact spot, a room in Somerset House,
where Bedloe placed the murder? Prance placed it in Somerset YARD.

*Pollock, p. 148.

It is just as easy to argue, on Mr. Pollock's other line, that
Prance varied from Bedloe in order that the inconsistencies might
prove his own falsehood. But we have no reason to suppose that
Prance did know the details of Bedloe's confession, as to the motive
of the murder, the hour, the exact spot, and the names of the
criminals. Later he told L'Estrange a palpable lie: Bedloe's
confession had been shown to him before he made his own. If that
were true, he purposely contradicted Bedloe in detail. But Mr.
Pollock rejects the myth. Then how did Prance know the details
given by Bedloe?* Ignorant of Bedloe's version, except in two or