regarding the question of "would he be acquitted today?"
It is my belief he would not - and here is why:
1) The evidence presented in court originally, has, to the best of my knowledge remained intact (in terms of fact/findings, rather than physical state!)
2) Subsequent DNA testing on the moderator has shed some new light on the likely source of DNA found, but does has not been able to discount it being a murder weapon. It has only served to suggest the origin of DNA found was likely to be June Bamber.
3) Arguably THE most crucial piece of evidence was the testimony of Julie Mugford, and, rightly or wrongly, the original jury found her to be a credible witness, since they accepted her testimony as being true.
Given the gravity of the evidence provided by Miss Mugford (as was then), there has since been no reason to raise doubt, or form a new opinion on the credibility of her, or the validity of her testimony.
Essentially, the decision of the jury then was sound, and remains so. One cannot simply 'change their minds' about Miss Mugford at a whim.
Now, with regard to new evidence coming to light, much of it has been of a nature that to put it mildly, is tenuous at best, and at worst, bordering on being vexatious.
There are numerous cases of where "one witness said this, and another said that". This does not amount to a conspiracy to conceal or falsify evidence. It is a typical of a case of this nature to have contradiction in witness testimony, or occasional mistakes in logs and suchlike, regrettable as that may be, this too does not amount to, or even indicate conspiracy.
All in all, no new evidence has come forward that substantially deviates from the evidence provided at trial. Whilst we might have a little more clarity here and there, the same material circumstances and likely scenarios presented at the original trial remain the same.
Therefore. The same verdict would must likely be reached.
What the 'JB innocent team' would prefer though, is to omit much of the agreed testimony, and focus on the testimonies that differ, this giving rise to the impression that nobody agreed, and the whole investigation was chaos, or family, girlfriend, police et al conspired, or acted apart to 'frame' Jeremy Bamber. That the remaining members of the family planted evidence or garnished it, his girlfriend allowed her anger to go so far as to see a man imprisoned for life and deny family members the truth, and that the police themselves manipulated a crime scene in such a was as to not only hide their already accepted mistakes, but to lend weight to a murder theory, which was counter to their own belief of suicide).
If we are to believe the Police wanted to make certain it looked like suicide then this ONLY helps to suggest it would have looked even more like murder without their actions.
If we are to believe the Police wanted to make it look like murder, then this would be contrary to all other actions they undertook (or didn't undertake) in their woeful gathering of evidence - which was born out of belief it was a suicide.
Not enough new evidence to change much, just a lot of minor evidence which when dished out in sufficient volume tries to amount to being 'significant'.
