That is a better article, but I still don't think the parents are disgraceful based on that. They just believed the first verdict.
Which I believe is the point of a verdict. It's supposed to mean the accused are guilty beyond reasonable doubt. The parents followed the first trial, believed in it, and were of course emotionally invested in its validity.
It also sounds like they just need more time. They are in shock and don't know what to think:
What happens now? Does that mean the police have to look for more killers?
The poor grieving parents. They have to start back from square one. They'll be needing a few months, not hours.
It makes a mockery of the original trial. We are all shocked, we could understand reducing the sentence but completely freeing them, wow.
No kidding.
I'm glad they're 'completely freed' but how can such two 180 degree verdicts even happen?
What happens now? Does that mean the police have to look for more killers?
I'm a bit confused that they are so confused. Guede's verdict is still guilty. How in the process of the appeal were they not introduced to the notion that their daughter could simply have been killed by one person without co conspirators?
See: You Be the Jury, The Amanda Knox Test
While we hear about Bayes' Theorem being under threat in some courts, it is nice to savor the occasional moment of rationality prevailing in the justice system, and of mistakes being corrected.
Congratulations to the Italian court system for successfully saying "Oops!"
Things go wrong in this world quite a bit, as we know. Sometimes it's appropriate to just say "hooray!" when they go right.
Discuss, or celebrate.