I think the thing that is different about this case is the amount of evidence being withheld and the way in which they are continuing to do this. I always thought he was guilty so never bothered reading anything on the case until I saw an article by Bob Woffinden a few years ago, he seems to have changed his mind now but mine is made up, I think J Bamber is factually innocent, and technically if you count the fact he didn't get a fair trial.
I've read about cases that have been sent back to appeal on the basis of non disclosure of one statement (see the Taylor sisters) so I can't really understand how JBs case still hasn't been referred considering what has come out in the last few years. Something is deeply wrong here....
One other thing that worries me, I've seen a lot of people saying they think he is guilty because of a "gut feeling", how on earth can you have a gut feeling when you haven't seen all of the evidence or even met the person in question, that's what worries me about the whole jury system, it only takes one or two to have a "gut feeling" instead of actually looking at the facts to send someone down for many years.