Amélie needn't be vindicated. Her AO title was won fairly and she OBVIOUSLY deserved it (I'm glad the thread starter agrees with me ) Nonetheless, now that she is the new Wimbledon Queen, no one can ever doubt her again: she was always Grand Slam material - only the blind were not able to see it
Aside from mauresmo's nerves, to me there was never a need for vindication. Let's be honest. If Justine was leading Mauresmo at the 2006 Australian Open final, Justine wouldn't have had a "tomy ache." It's just that she was getting a beatdown of a lifetime and didn't have enough class to handle it. So she turned to her old tricks, which were gamesmanships.
It depends what you mean. Just because she beat Justine today doesn't mean that she would have beaten her at the Australian. Just like the thrashing she got in Berlin didn't mean she wouldn't have done. You just plain don't know and can't know what would have happened - maybe Kim would have beaten Amelie?
What you can know is that she was the best player in the draw at that Slam. Her AO title never needed vindicating, as far as I was concerned. That's the bottom line for me.