Private Eye have been able to publish about this in the last few issues - I think they were prevented by injunction beforehand.
One claim is that the trial was essentially skewed - the prosecution had loads of expert witnesses, the defence none, and that creates an image.
Some of the evidence had alternative views of it ("this many happened when LL was there" - "yeah, but this many happened when she wasn't, how does that fit", I think). The counter-argument wasn't made available to the defence (again, I think this is what it said).
PE is pretty clear that they're not saying she's innocent, just that the trial was unfair. The Telegraph has put it on the front page today.