I was unable to spend the necessary time to form any strong views on the OP case.
I will always maintain that had JB had a different defence counsel with a different strategy he would have been found not guilty. I don't just blame Geoffrey Rivlin QC on the day, but also all those involved at Kingsley Napley in preparing the case - or not!
Did the OP judge really say the OP evidence was 'purely circumstantial'? That really annoys me; evidence stands or falls on it's own merit and in no way should the word 'circumstantial' be used to imply inferior or less reliable evidence compared to direct.
In many instances direct evidence far outweighs circumstantial evidence but conversely circumstantial evidence is often preeminent. I expect the likes of Jackie to continuously parrot 'circumstantial evidence' as a reason for Bamber's conviction to be unsafe but I do not expect such idiocy from a judge.
Those who think the same should consider that fingerprint and DNA evidence are both purely circumstantial evidence!