I have now re-listened to the podcast which seems very recent. His supporters apparently worked with Bamber's legal team on the submission for the review people. I made the following notes and it seems some form part of the submission
1. Police surgeon didn't take temperatures. Had he done it would have showed Sheila died 4 or 5 hours earlier.
Is it possible to be so precise about when someone actually dies?
Not usually in circumstances such as this, but it can be roughly indicated and this may have been significant given that Jeremy was outside with the police for several hours.
2. They [unsure exactly who "they" refers to] know Bamber is innocent.
What reason would the system have for framing an innocent man?
I don't believe they had any reason, but do they need a reason?
3. Claims Mr Bamber Snr called the police.
PC West seems to deal with this adequately in the doc.
The CT claim they have proof. We'll have to wait to see what this is.
4. Claims Julie smuggled drugs from Canada.
What evidence exists to support this?
This is an allegation that came out of Stokenchurch. It's in one of the police reports from that re-investigation.
5. Claims Sheila wrote a suicide note stating "I have just killed myself".
This certainly requires some explanation! The deceased writing suicide notes 
That's not what it is alleged.
6. Claim Jury was misled about who went on to inherit Mr and Mrs Bamber's estates.
Thought this was dealt with in a previous submission?
May have been.
7. Claim to have found the grey hair and that it did not pertain to Mr Bamber snr.
Thought the biologist at trial said it held little forensic value so doubt jurors placed much weight on it. Although I believe judge mentioned in his summing up.
The CT believe the grey hair still exists. If true, it could be subjected to further DNA analysis.
8. Claim 2 silencers were used to convict Bamber. Talk about Robert Boutflour's blood group in silencer. Also add 8% of population have same blood groups.
How would Robert Boutflour's blood get inside silencer.
It could accidentally if he cut himself, or it could be put there on purpose.
9. Claim police disturbed scene.
They did. Even the official narrative concedes this.
10. Claim lights/curtains on/off/opening/closing.
I don't know about this, but I have sometimes wondered whether lights were on or off. It seems nobody can quite remember.
11. Claim Sheila made a 999 call.
This is a reinterpretation of a part of the BT operator's log. The CT claim that they have additional proof of a 999 call from Sheila at a time when Jeremy was outside with the police. Don't look at me, I'm just telling you what they say.
12. Claim crime scene photos showed windows secured.
This one is definitely true, to be fair. I have seen the photograph and I am aware of the background evidence regarding attendance at the scene and the photographic chronology that supports the conclusion.
13. Claim burns were not caused by a person but unable to say what they were caused by as do not want to give the police a headstart.
No idea about this.
Yvonne claims she is very confident the review people will refer to the appeal courts. I think she might be disappointed. Since watching the ITV doc, and during lockdown, I spent some time reading up on the case and to the best of my knowledge these points have either all been raised previously or could potentially have been raised at trial and are therefore redundant.
I honestly think we must wait and see. Nobody knows the strength of the evidence except the Campaign Team and the lawyers, and Jeremy himself.
As a point of interest, I believe this is officially Jeremy's sixth go at an appeal:
His immediate appeal started in 1988 and was heard in 1989, and refused.
He then applied to the old Home Office C3 Division in 1991. This application was declined.
He then applied to the new CCRC in 1999/2000 and this was successfully referred in 2001, but the court refused the appeal in 2002.
He then, I believe, made a plea for the exercise of the Royal Prerogative of Mercy in around 2004 or 2005 on the advice of his representative at that time, Giovanni de Stefano.
He submitted a second application to the CCRC in 2010, which was declined in 2012, and a judicial review of that decision was rejected shortly thereafter.
We're now in 2021 and this is his sixth official try at it.
