http://bfms.org.uk/challenging-miscarriages-of-justice/
http://www.qualitysolicitors.com/jordans/our-people/mark-newby
This would be like me ignoring the facts of a case and tossing the Knox/Sollecito acquittal out there and saying because of that we should believe all convictions are bogus and skip trying to actually look in detail for legitimate gripes.
When advocates are unable to find anything legitimate to latch onto they resort to such which is really just a smokescreen and waste of time.
The only way to undo the conviction and get anew trial is to attack the main evidence that convicted him.
That main evidence is:
1) Julie's testimony
2) Proof that Sheila can't have killed herself and absence of evidence establishing she beat or killed anyone else which would have existed had she done so.
The only way to get a new trial is to undermine these. The only way to undermine Julie's testimony would be if she recanted. If she told someone she lied and made it up that would be new evidence that would undermine the trial testimony and likely result in a new trial.
The only way to undermine the evidence would be to use new evidence to challenge the testimony at trial that:
1) she suffered a contact wound that would result in drawback
2) new evidence that she did have GSR or other evidence on her body or clothing
Short of new independent analysis of the body and clothing there is no chance of proving she did in fact have evidence on her body and clothing. Testing her body is impossible and clothing might be impossible and even if not will never happen.
There is no new evidence that casts doubt on her wound being a contact wound nor is there any way for experts to ever make such a determination. They can't examine her they are stuck with the assessments of the experts who did and there is nothing in those assessments open to challenge.
There is nothing to refute the testimony that the wound would result in drawback. It is well documented that when a prior damage causes internal hemorrhaging in an area that shooting such blood filled area will result in backspatter if fired at non-contact range and drawback if fired at contact range. There will never be some new science saying this doesn't happen.
Short of proving the wound a) was not a contact wound and thus drawback would not have been able to result
or b) it was a contact that would not result in drawback Jeremy is toast. That is because the following flows from the implication of Sheila suffering from a contact would that would result in drawback:
If she was shot sans moderator her blood would have been in the rifle but if shot with the moderator it would have been in the moderator.
It was in the moderator but she could not have shot herself with the moderator attached and most certainly could not have removed the moderator and put it away after she was dead. So if shot with the moderator she was murdered and surely Jeremy killed her.
So as a lawyer this case is a lost cause. There is no hope of finding any evidence to free Jeremy. As a lawyer who wanted to help those wrongly convicted I would move on to another case because there is no hope here. A good lawyer recognizes the key issues, explores them and then either makes their case or faces there is no hope and moves on.
