Am not sure, he may have a trump card and that would be fine, at least we would all know for sure but think MD has claimed in other books that he will prove without doubt who committed crimes but the evidence is never conclusive. 
Unless indisputable, one persons proof is another persons possibility therefore we still don't know who Jack the Ripper was etc.
I thought all books are held up because of an injunction which may stop any discussion about a person or persons who form an important part of the argument??
The evidence against Jeremy is conclusive, that is why he lost his appeals.
The fact Jeremy supporters like you refuse to accept it as being conclusive means very little.
Proving the evidence isn't conclusive requires refuting it. Jeremy supporters can't do that though thus instead resort to distortion such as bogus tales of Sheila having victim blood on her back that was the result of back spatter from murdering the victims with her gown on backwards. The more spectacular tales like this were never made at trial or on appeal they are entirely made up. Some of the less spectacular ones were made on appeal but were rejected as meritless. I'm not sure what is worse, raising claims already rejected or entirely fabricated ones.
There won't be anything new. There might be a more comprehensive discussion of the evidence that convicted Jeremy but won't be new evidence in the book.
