The flaws in the prosecution case against Jeremy Bamber very much reflect the era:
-incomplete disclosure and arrogance/God complexes on the part of the police and prosecutors (we know best about what should be disclosed, not the court);
-sloppy forensics;
-editing statements;
-no recorded interview;
-lone wolf police officer who was dogmatic about Jeremy's guilt;
-dubious incriminating evidence suddenly appears, after a search by relatives who are financially-vested in a conviction;
-everything hinges on the uncorroborated evidence of a female witness, who is being paid by a tabloid on the contingency of a guilty verdict;
-without her, an entirely circumstantial case, as there was no direct forensic evidence of his involvement.
Law, forensics, disclosure practices and police culture have moved on. Whether the convictions are safe/satisfactory, they are certainly out-of-date.