No franke I'm sure you do want to see these men go down as much as everyone else.
It's just that it's not that easy to get an appeal. Though there's a popular view that it is easy - probably stoked by newspapers and films.
You have to find new evidence or prove the trial judge made an error, maybe something else too. Good luck to them with that.
The forensic evidence was sound - fibres, blood.
The defence kept on about cross-contamination but they didn't explain how Stephen's blood, described by the prosecution as having soaked into Dobson's collar, got there when Stephen's clothes were throughly dried days before the defendants were arrested.
Neither did the defendants explain why they said they didn't know each other when photos taken four days after the attack show that they clearly did.
Neither were their alibis plausible. That's strong circumstantial evidence, I might be wrong, but I think it's a myth that you can't ever convict on those grounds.
The flip side to their difficulty in getting an appeal works for the others said to be involved. You can't appeal without grounds and you can't charge without grounds either. They haven't found compelling evidence against any others yet.