CathInfo.com

According to Fr. Jenkins, when he and a few others interviewed the witnesses Dr. Hiller and Dr. Heller in Germany (and apparently this is on tape), they related that +Thuc concelebrated the New Mass out of a feeling of gratitude to the Novus Ordo priest for allowing him to hear confessions in the cathedral, and that he withheld his intention during the consecration.

Fr. Zepeda of The Catholic Wire on YouTube released 2 videos of recent interviews with Dr. Heller. They might provide a more accurate history of +Thuc. Fr. Jenkins harbors a strong prejudice against the +Thuc line, as it's been said that +Kelly was worried the faithful would stop attending their Masses, as relayed by Fr. Cekada if I remember correctly. Fr. Francis Miller, OFM also has a great talk from 2014 at the CMRI Fatima Conference about his first hand experience of living with and helping +Thuc in his later years.

I think most of the anti-+Thuc arguments stem from the SSPV and have no basis in sacramental theology. Even Bishop de Castro Mayer accepted the consecration of +des Lauriers. To +Thuc's credit, he acted when +ABL originally said he would not be consecrating bishops.

Fr. Zepeda of The Catholic Wire on YouTube released 2 videos of recent interviews with Dr. Heller. They might provide a more accurate history of +Thuc. Fr. Jenkins harbors a strong prejudice against the +Thuc line, as it's been said that +Kelly was worried the faithful would stop attending their Masses, as relayed by Fr. Cekada if I remember correctly. Fr. Francis Miller, OFM also has a great talk from 2014 at the CMRI Fatima Conference about his first hand experience of living with and helping +Thuc in his later years.

I think most of the anti-+Thuc arguments stem from the SSPV and have no basis in sacramental theology. Even Bishop de Castro Mayer accepted the consecration of +des Lauriers. To +Thuc's credit, he acted when +ABL originally said he would not be consecrating bishops.

Thank you, I have watched both. While there were many good questions and answers given in those interviews, it is confusing as to why they did not address the claim that +Thuc withheld his intention in the New Mass he concelebrated, and in the Palmar consecration. 

I try not to heed to what others say based on what their personal dispositions or intentions are. The truth is the truth, regardless of who says it, and why, as I am confident you would agree with. I find searching into those matters blinds us from seeing reality, because our perceptions can be wrong. However, the truth will always make sense.

To be fair to Fr. Jenkins, he does admit that the information we do have is not enough to claim with certitude the invalidity of the +Thuc consecrations, but rather that it is sufficient to prudently avoid, since the Church has not properly examined the question.

Would the Church truly give leave to Her children to go to these priests for the sacraments without having first assessed everything, and then giving authorization? It is my understanding that we are obligated to act in a manner that the Church would desire us to do, in this time of crisis, according to the principles of Epikeia. 

"Us?" Do you speak for the Resistance bishops? Perhaps the pride of the SSPX has been passed down, as well.

Any prejudice came from the assumption amongst the SSPX/SSPV that they are the only sources for valid sacraments. I accept the validity of some (if not most) of the +Thuc lines. Contrary to your assumption I have never attended any chapels associated with +Thuc clergy.

Well I know you sure dont speak for any resistance Bishops. 
The only pride is from the Thuc line who dont have the humility to admit the mistake they made.