Bamber was convicted in 1986 of murdering five of his family the previous year, including his two six year old nephews (who would have been 32 YO now).
He's lost two appeals against his conviction, and one against his sentence, and the Criminal Cases Review Commission refused to refer his case back to the court of appeal again in February of this year.
If it wasn't Bamber I was reading about, I would find the reasons he says his original conviction was flawed, pretty strong, (if you're interested just google 'Jeremy Bamber innocent' to decide which website you'd rather read them on), especially the fourty thousand odd documents and 211 pictures that have yet to be disclosed (can anyone shed any light on whether this is the norm?).
But how does someone who is innocent of the crime they've been convicted of, overcome the picture the media and their conviction has painted of them and gather public support?
Most high profile cases have some degree of public interest, do you think 'trial by media' really does figure in these types of situations? (like the Knox case showed)
Or do you have complete confidence in our criminal justice system? And he hasn't won his appeals (or been referred back to the court of appeal) because the evidence he says is there, just isn't strong enough?