Bill1978 said:

Today it is pretty much unanimous that Anne was innocent of all the charges she was found guilty of, as were the man found guilty along with her. I'm wondering were there people at the time of Anne's execution that firmly believed that an innocnet lady and Queen was being executed for crimes she didn't commit. I imagine there would have been general public that thought it, but was there anybody from the court that felt she was a victim of a conspiracy to help Henry get a new breed mare. I imagine the fear of being charged with treason would have kept many to keep their opinion to themselves.

I think everybody with a brain saw the show trial and the execution for what it was.   Truly, I can't say Anne wasn't guilty.  I can say with certainty the evidence offered by the court did not prove her guilt.  

I believe both Cranmer and Chapuys expressed doubt concerning the trial and its sentence.

Bill1978 said:

I can say with certainty the evidence offered by the court did not prove her guilt

Interesting thought there. Because if with today 's eyes the evidence has so many holes in it, why then did the lords all say she was guilty. It sounds like they were all gotten to before the trial. I would be interested to know if any of the people who said guilty came out afterwards and said they had their doubts because of the evidence.

Did Cranmer and Chapuys express their concerns before of after the execution?

I'm a tad blind when addressing legal questions in English law which operates on a common law system.   Henry and his legislators basically passed laws necessary to establish Anne's guilt.

A jury's decision must be based upon the definitions of various laws and their knowledge of the facts (supported by evidence.)  I'm not sure if the Lords judging Anne even understood the definitions of the crimes of which she was accused.  Even if they did understand the definitions, their acceptance of the so-called evidence indicates extremely poor judgment. 

Most important, Anne's jury was far from impartial.  Their purpose was not to consider evidence and judge Anne's guilt or lack of guilt.  Their purpose was to serve their king (Anne's husband.)

If I was Anne's counsel, I would immediately move for an international court trial on the grounds that English subjects owed her husband loyalty and would inevitably find in the king's favor.  I don't know if legal provisions were available for that, but if they were I'd try.  From there, I'd negotiate with whatever counsel represented Henry/England on Anne's behalf.  I don't think Henry would want to go through another lengthy trial, he might have been willing to settle Anne with something — pension her and her daughter off, so to speak — in exchange for not contesting an anullment based on his affinity complaint. 

I don't believe an impartial jury would ever find Anne guilty in today's legal system.

I believe Anyanka cited a letter Chapuys sent Charles suggesting his doubts of Anne's guilt.    I consider this very telling, although it does not prove Anne's guilt or innocence.  Chapuys loathed Anne, but he was also an attorney.  That he questionned the credibility of the case against Anne suggests the case was quite weak.  My opinion, for what it's worth.

I am an English lawyer, albeit not a criminal one (maybe I should rephrase that). Anyway, guilty must be established 'beyond a reasonable doubt' before a jury can convict. Whichever way you look at it there had to be a reasonable doubt of guilt in Anne's case. Yet her own father found her guilty by sitting on the jury of the four commoners and finding them guilty. Despite that I doubt strongly that Thomas Boleyn believed his daughter was guilty. A finding of guilt and a genuine belief in it are very different concepts. I think any jury member brave enough to have found Anne, George and the rest innocent would have had a very limited career and/or lifespan.  

The only one to make a confession was Mark Smeaton, who was also the only one alleged to have been tortured. None of the other men made any admission of guilt. All three of the other commoners, and George and Anne maintained their innocence to the last.

Info from Ives:

Smeton confessed to adultery, but pleaded not guilty to the rest of the charge. (treason)  Norris, Weston, and Brereton plead not guilty to all charges. BTW, to have intercourse with a Queen who consented was no crime at common law-ill advised, but punishable only by the Church courts as an affront to morality.

There was no defense council-it was not allowed. “Crown prosecuters determined not so much to present the gov't case as to secure a conviction by fair questions or foul.”  “As the jurymen were called into the court, Norris and the others knew their fate was sealed.  Cromwell had preselected a hostile panel as could be imagined.”  Thomas Boleyn served on the jury which condemned the four men.  By doing so, he condemned his daughter and his son.

Wriothesley who was not an Anne supporter, said of her testimony, “She made so wise and discreet answers to all things laid against her, excusing herself with words so clearly as though she had never been faulty to the same.”  She kept the sympathy of the onlookers, but not of the jury, as it deliberated under the watchful eye of the Duke of Suffolk. – De Carles.  Northumberland collapsed after he gave his guilty verdict.  Not sure what this shows.  He was a sick man to begin with. 

Then it was George's turn. He plead not guilty.  He used intellect and wit to crumble the royal case to dust.  Again the audience was with him.  “The odds ran 10-1 that he would be acquitted,” Chapuys.  Not so among the peers.  He was found guilty.  For the second time in a day Norfolk condemned a family member.

It is not known how Smeton's confession was obtained.  It may be he was promised pardon as was Norris if he confessed. Psychological pressure was more than likely used.  By the time Smeton arrived at the Tower he had already given a confession to Cromwell.  Or Cromwell used that knotted rope.  Smeton admitted to adultery.  “Norris denied that he knew anything of the musicians adultery was the conclusion drawn that the groom of the stool must have been involved as well.”  Apparently, Smeton's confession turned the denials of Anne, Norris, and later Rchford into evidence of guilt.

For what it is worth, Chapuys did not believe in Anne's guilt-“condemned on presumption and not evidence, without any witnesses or valid confession,” was his conclusion.

The swordsman was from Calais and was sent for before the trials began. 

In those days the King was the law.  Every man on that jury knew what was expected of them, and that was the verdict that best pleased the King. If Henry was openly courting Jane Seymour there could be only one possible outcome to the trial. Imagine what would have happened to any juror who found Anne not guilty!  Whatever they privately thought about Anne's guilt or lack of it, they would not risk trading places with her and who could really blame them?