Is there any evidence to support the claim that Richard Burton told John Speke he would return home via Jerusalem after their Nile Quest?

I am trying to provide an answer before the question is about to be closed, which I don't understand. I don't think it is opinion based because we can draw the conclusion based on the facts.

I find Tim Jeal's version hard to believe for two reasons,

1. Never had I found elsewhere did Burton believe Speke theory. Only after Henry Morton Stanley had proved that almost 20 years later did Burton accept the defeat.

2. Even if we assume that was true for the moment, since he was the leader of their expedition why not just return to RGS asking for another expedition instead of making a lame excuse to Speke that he would return home via Jerusalem?

Tim Jeal's version defended all Speke's actions, tried to portrait Speke as quite a noble and decent man while accused of Burton despicable. Make no mistake, Burton was not a saint either, when talking about their dispute we are truly talking about the lesser of two evils here.

But when re-read the story with "River of the Gods" I still can't help to wonder what a jerk Speke was!

His "crimes" according to "River of the Gods" included, but not limited,

1. Betraying Burton

2. Leaving James Grant behind on purpose, so he could be the only one who claimed the glory.

"who had shared in the difficulties, expenses, and dangers of the expedition, would be deprived of both the thrill of the moment—seeing the Nile as it rushed from the Nyanza—and the glory that was to come."

Tim Jeal's version also wrote "the normally sweet-natured Grant was seized by an uncharacteristic fit of rage".

In years to come, Speke’s critics would say that he selfishly reserved for himself what he confidently believed would turn out to be the discovery of the Nile’s source. But Grant would always deny this, saying he had been ‘positively unable to walk twenty miles a-day ...

three days after he and Speke had parted company, the normally sweet-natured Grant was seized by an uncharacteristic fit of rage. A goat-boy, who had briefly lost sight of his flock, was given twenty lashes on his orders – a shocking punishment for a minor offence.

3. Accusing John Petherick taking part in the slave trade and totally ruined Petherick's reputation just because Petherick was late for their meeting.

"Spreading the rumor that he(Speke) had heard in Gondokoro from Petherick’s trading rivals, men whom Petherick had arrested for selling enslaved people, Speke suggested that the consul himself had taken part in the slave trade. ... For Petherick, the repercussions were immediate and devastating."

4. Betraying the then president of RGS, Sir Roderick Murchison, who championed his trip and was fond of him at the beginning of the trip

giving the full account of his expedition not to the Royal Geographical Society (as a tradition ), but to Blackwood. "The idea that he would treat the Society and the men who had supported and encouraged him with such casual disregard and disrespect astonished Murchison... Finally, after months of urging, complaining, and demanding, the Royal Geographical Society did receive a short article from Speke. The article, however, was so disappointing that Murchison dictated a terse letter to the man he had once enthusiastically championed, complaining of its “very brief and imperfect character.”

Speke basically betrayed everyone on his second expedition, which makes me hard to believe he was a decent guy.

Accusing innocent John Petherick deserves further discussion because that was a fact everyone agreed but Tim Jeal's once against came up with his own theory.

"Devil drives" said this(in page 221)

Privately he(Speke) accused Petherick of selling stores which really belonged to him. Publicly, with no justification, he accused Petherick of participating in the slave trade

But Tim Jeal's explanation was

Samuel Baker could easily have saved Speke from making this foolish allegation by admitting that he himself believed Petherick innocent. But Baker wanted to replace Consul Petherick as the man to ‘succour’ the explorers, and he also hoped to ensure that when Petherick eventually arrived, Speke would not feel inclined to let the Welshman share in the glory of finding the Luta N’zige. The less Speke liked Petherick, the better things would be for Baker – or so Baker appears to have calculated.

In Tim Jeal's version Samuel Baker was another "evil" guy who tricked innocent/unsophisticated Speke.

Let me give another detail to show why I think Tim Jeal's reasoning and logic was quite flawed.

Before leaving London for his second expedition Speke wrote to Burton a farewell note as a gesture for reconciliation. After he had done so much harm to Burton I think it was quite natural to do that.

"Devil Drives" said (in page 171 ) "it was conventional enough save for the poignantly revealing first line, I cannot leave England addressing you so coldly"

"Rive of the God" added this comment,

Now, however, as he prepared to take command of his own expedition, Speke’s feelings had begun to shift from resentment to magnanimity. ... Two days before Speke was to leave on his expedition, he wrote to Burton one last time. “My dear Burton,” he wrote, attempting to return to a friendlier tone. “I cannot leave England addressing you so coldly...

But Tim Jeal's version said, "Speke’s true character shines out in a note he wrote to Burton on 16 April 1860, shortly before leaving England... "

Really, can that gesture be interpreted as "true character shines" ?!

When reading Tim Jeal's book I keep getting the feeling that "the author was quite naive. This book review at amazon said my words

Tim Jeal goes to heroic lengths to establish his hero, Speke, as the un-credited one. It is a dramatic tale, and Jeal's sense of injustice having been done in this determination, he makes sure you get the correct picture; being the author, he has taken on the roles of judge and jury, infusing it with new layers of passion. This skews the evidence always in favor of Speke and to the detriment of most anyone else, particularly Sir Richard Burton.

But again New York Times Book Review says otherwise,

Jeal’s singular achievement is to rescue Speke from his unwarranted relegation to the second rank, not only establishing his credentials as a pioneering explorer but unearthing at the same time a subtle and attractive character who was far from a prude.

The WJS book review provided a more objective narrative, to quote

Mr. Jeal is his ardent supporter. Nothing the wily Burton did was, in Mr. Jeal's eyes, honest or aboveboard; Speke, by contrast, could do no wrong. Mr. Jeal makes an almost unanswerable case, but his stridency makes the reader wary.