How picking apart nothing is the hardest thing

Geoff needs someone to come forward with information that shows his conviction was unsafe. Some information that, if put before Court of Appeal judges would convince them that if it had been heard by the jury would have reasonably led them to a different decision. Because the deliberations of a jury are secret, he doesn’t know how they came to convict, how they were convinced beyond reasonable doubt that he was guilty, so he is left to guess.

It seems that a number of things did for him. Firstly that one of his co-defendants, Town, admitted the charge and the other, Cantero, denied it, despite sworn police evidence that he was seen unloading the cocaine from underneath his lorry.
If the jury were to acquit Cantero, they would have to accept his defence that the officer was lying – an unlikely scenario given that most people like to think that police officers would never lie. Could it be that Town’s admission and Cantero’s apparent guilt "contaminated" the integrity of Geoff’s defence – that the jury thought, The police have been clever enough to find the drugs, one of the suspects has admitted it, the second was apparently seen doing it and therefore Geoff must be in on it too and is just trying to wriggle out of it using a clever defence barrister?

This is the position all defendants find themselves in – most people simply don’t believe that the police arrest people for nothing – no defendant ever begins his trial in a neutral position. Our criminal justice system may be based on the principle of innocent until proved guilty, but few defendants ever walk into the dock without the baggage of their very arrest hanging over them.

Then there is the fact that he panicked and lied in police interview: arousing suspicion yes, but pointing to guilt? It seems the jury thought so.
And then there is the phone evidence. How did the unknown conspirators orange and green have his phone number if Geoff wasn’t part of it? Geoff doesn’t know, all he knows is that he has had the number for over 5 years , that it is a personal and business number and anyone who has ever done work with him – or knows someone who has done work with him - would have it.
This raises the scary scenario that if a criminal has your mobile number, are you a criminal too, or at least an accomplice to a criminal? This is plainly untrue, but the existence of telephone traffic was all the CPS needed to suggest a conspiracy.

So what Geoff needs is new evidence: is there anything the police should have told our defence but didn't? Is there anyone out there who can prove Geoff wasn't lying about the brakes: is there a recording of the phone calls somewhere? Is there someone out there who knows Geoff wasn’t involved, but for personal reasons can’t come forward?
Is there something the police should have done but didn’t. Geoff knows his case was subject to a cursory investigation – a 27-minute interview and a police scientist’s examination of his mobile phone – but can he show that they should have dug deeper and that if they had, would have found something to point to his innocence?

Because there was so little evidence to begin with, there was little to pick apart in the trial, and now Geoff has been convicted the process has become even harder.
But he can be sure of one thing: there are good people on the outside who know he is innocent and will not stop fighting his corner: it is all a good and innocent man deserves. And Geoff is a good and innocent man.

* If you can help us help Geoff, please contact us on www.kmclarke72@hotmail.co.uk.