Try and think of it as a philosophical question. For example, you have a fine bone china plate, which you drop and it breaks into pieces. Now, no amount of your denying it, sticking it back together again, sweeping it under the carpet or blaming the neighbour changes the reality that you broke the plate.
Now, imagine a criminal trial. Person X is accused of being at place Y, at such o'clock, and this is established in court as a matter of scientific fact - CCTV, mobile phone mast triage, GPS, together with two independent random members of the public eye witnesses.
The man is acquitted and is let out of jail. Yes, his supporters are over the moon that he has been freed from prison (not sure why because he has no intention of sharing the profits from his story with any of them). But the fact remains as fact, reality and truth that he Mr. X was at place Y at such-o'clock.
So, to the average person in the street, simply being released from jail is the big win; but to the philosopher, the salient hard truth is, Mr. X was there at place Y. A minor victory but the biggy remains. Forever.
So, re the plate you broke, I could patronise you and disrespect you by saying, 'There, there, you didn't do it', when we both know that you did do it. Far more moral and manly would be for you to put up your hand and say, yeah I broke it, pay for a new one and have done with it.
So whilst the pair have been freed thanks to the huge PR campaign, nothing changes. It doesn't automatically mean that 'therefore Guede must have done it alone,' because that is not the established fact. The fact remains - re the final Supreme Court, Knox was present when Meredith was brutally killed, washed off Mez' blood, from her hands, did stage a burglary scene and did criminally and intentionally tell police it was Lumumba who did it, in order to cover up for Guede. These are facts that can't be changed. They are not just 'judicial facts', because if they were, Marasca-Bruno could have easily sent it back to the Nencini merits/appeal court to reconsider the issues as it directs them to.
So, of course, the supporters of Knox and Sollecito have launched a great PR campaign to try to rewrite history by confecting a fairy story that Knox was some kind of 'quirky' Amélie figure who was victimised by a sad Catholic prosecutor who believed in Satan, rather than the cold hard-faced person, as emerged from the trial. Oh, and Meredith remains dead and murdered, and it was established in court who did it. The police are not looking for anyone else.
So yeah, let's patronise each other and pretend they are literally 'innocent', just like we can pretend you never broke the aforesaid plate, as if what did happen in the past can be changed, and the new game-playing changes or hides the grim reality of what physically and actually did happen and cannot be changed.
