Please be assured that I am not unduly worried about anything at this moment in my life 
I have no idea why you appear to want to shoot the messenger. I am simply stating how high the bar is set post trial/conviction.
I have no particular view on Bamber's guilt or innocence and I find the whole pigeonholing and taking sides here very infantile. If those posting here wish to debate the case like adults they should expect to have their assumptions, views etc challenged and not take personal affront.
I completely agree that the pigeonholing is irritating and time-wasting, and also - in my opinion - suggests a poor understanding of the case because nobody (other than possibly, Jeremy) knows what occurred in the farmhouse that night. I also agree that the Forum is for debating the case, not goading and personal attacks.
Some of us are trying to debate the case properly, but there are people who are allowed to post here who have 'issues', as you can quickly see, and a lot of time is wasted dealing with them. Their intention is to keep the Forum small and obscure by putting people off joining and posting. It is humanly difficult, I am sure you appreciate, to post here constructively and ignore the disruptive behaviour and inevitably it affects the culture of the Forum and we all suffer.
On the point you are making, as you know, the test for criminal appeals is that the conviction is unsafe or unsatisfactory. That is a high bar, in all cases, simply because the appellant has usually been convicted by a jury. I agree that, realistically, the more appeals submitted and rejected, the harder it becomes to overturn a conviction, simply because evidence is considered and seen to be rejected, but the test remains the same. Jeremy does not have to prove he is innocent, only that the convictions cannot be sustained.
Whether what is required is a 'slam dunk' (whatever that means - it's colloquial language) or something more technical, I cannot say. Nobody can say. The Campaign Team serve an entirely different function to the lawyers and it is the lawyers who craft and make the submissions, not the campaigners and activists. I take the view that anything the Campaign Team say needs to be taken with a proverbial pinch of salt, but that is no commentary on the overall strength or weakness of Jeremy's appeal.
We just don't know. We have to wait.
Yes and it requires strong new evidence or argument underpinning it.
For example no matter what comes to light about the windows its already redundant as the judge told the jury "cannot affect the outcome of the case".
Some here will be up in arms about the judge's comment, and probably the mere fact I have recited it, but this is the reality of the situation.
The support people claim to have included this in the submission, presumably rubber stamped by the lawyer, but its a complete waste of time.
We don't know. We have to wait. The Commissioners and the appeal judges have latitude. A lawyer once reminded me, when I was in the pit of hell, that only a fool would predict the outcome of litigation. He was right. People will say this and that, and something else happens. The law is not black and white, or not as black and white as it appears.
