Anyway if she didn't do it, and neither did her ex-boyfriend who also got acquitted, then what are we left with? That other dude's conviction still stands despite his getting a reduced sentence. I guess that's where things will stand from now onwards.
Frankly given the sensationalism of the trial I have to wonder just what kind of fairness to the accused was possible. Also the prosecution's case never really seemed all that convincing to me, seemed to depend almost entirely on character assassinations and a lot of speculation. And she spent four years in prison in a foreign land for something she says she didn't do. If I were her I would be on the first plane out of Rome five minutes after walking out the fucking court.
Just think... if they had actually guessed right, they would have been given the slide, even though they cited fake sources, made up-quotes and described non-existent courtroom activity. Even if other news sources had described things differently. Just think about what that means for all the news articles when they don't have their hands caught in the cookie jar.
I'm glad Knox got acquitted, there was little to no physical evidence linking her to the crime and what the little evidence that was used against her was well... Utterly inadmissible and pointless. Not to mention the conduct of the prosecution during her first trail.
As for what we do now, I did post a while ago that a career criminal admitted to knowing who did the deed and that it wasn't Knox.
"it takes two sides to end a war but only one to start one. And those who do not have swords may still die upon them." Tolken
