Let me address the specific complaint of that review. The situation is the following. Our (bounded, open) convex set is denoted $K\subseteq\mathbb R^n$ with closure $\overline K$, and we consider the "distance to $p$" function $d_p:\partial K\to\mathbb R$ for $p\in\overline K$. Let $V\subseteq\overline K$ be the set of $p\in\overline K$ for which $d_p$ has exactly one local minimum. I claimed in my paper that "it is clear that $V$ is closed". As the reviewer correctly points out, this is false (counterexample: $K$ the unit ball). But here is a corrected version: "if $d_p$ has finitely many local minima for every $p\in\overline K$, then $V$ is closed". Indeed, if $d_p$ has **finitely many** local minima, then if we perturb $p$ the number of local minima can only increase. This corrected version of the statement is sufficient for the proof given in the paper, since if $d_p$ has infinitely many local minima for some $p$, this exactly means that there are infinitely many normals to $\partial K$ which are concurrent at $p$. So the reviewer's remark doesn't invalidate the argument.

I have to admit, this is not a well written paper, and I would be surprised if it did not contain a number of other equally badly presented arguments. I can say that I reread it a couple of years ago and was more or less convinced by the proof. However, I have not discussed it in detail with anyone.