two forms of innocence

People under investigation almost always claim their innocence.

There are basically two ways to do so:

1. Claim that you are actually innocent and the facts as presented are incorrect
2. Claim innocence on a technical basis - evidence that was illegally collect, etc.
   

While both, assuming they are proven, or at least strong enough claims to put enough doubt into the prosecutors claims, will potentially be able to declare the accused to be innocent, they are very different methods, and leave different imprints on the case.

A prime example of this is my good 'ol governor from Illinois Rod Blagojevich. He finally spoke out about the corruption charges against him. His response is that he is innocent. Perhaps he has more to say that he is holding back, but so far all he has said in his brief press conference is that his innocence is based on the fact that the wiretapping was illegal.

While perhaps legally, if true, that can get him off the hook, that is still a far cry from saying "the truth is with me". He is still goign to be corrupt, and he was still trying to sell the seat of the Senate and all the other charges against him, they just won't be able to get him on it because of the way they obtained the evidence.

And in the public eye, his reputation has already been ruined. Such a declaration of innocence, one where it is not shown that he did nto actually do it, but only shows that the evidence was obtained illegaly, is not goign to be enough to win back the public's trust.