]Just come across this.
The Daily Mail published this story on rth october which was the day after the Amanda Knox appeal in which her conviction was overturned. The Mail is renowned for lying but this is very extreme.

[attachment=0]mail_online_amanda_knox.jpg[/attachment

the following extract from the Mail Online story:

"Following the verdict Knox and Sollecito were taken out of court escorted by prison guards and into a waiting van which took her back to her cell at Capanne jail near Perugia and him to Terni jail, 60 miles away.

“Both will be put on a suicide watch for the next few days as psychological assessments are made on each of them but this is usual practice for long term prisoners."

The Mail also quoted prosecutors saying “justice has been done” but adding that a “'human factor it was sad two young people would be spending years in jail”.

I saw this on twitter minutes after it happened. Not surprising that they had a digital story ready to run, though certainly any 'quotes' need the pinch of salt

The story was only online for 2 minutes and the Mail are desperately trying to cover the balls up by claiming to have two stories ready but the quotes sort of show the whole thing was made up.

Here is the full text

Here is the full text of the Mail Online story, published in error at 8.50pm on Monday, 3 October

Guilty: Amanda Knox looks stunned as appeal against murder conviction is rejected

Amanda Knox looked stunned this evening after she dramatically lost her prison appeal against her murder conviction.

Knox, 24, and her family had high hopes that she would be freed and allowed to return home after spending the last four years behind bars for the killing of Meredith Kercher in Perugia, Italy, in 2007.

In December 2009 she had been sentenced to 26 years and last night the judge and jury agreed with prosecutors that she should remain in prison as they accepted that she had brutally murdered student Meredith.

KNOX'S FINAL PLEA FOR FREEDOM

Earlier today a tearful Amanda Knox made a dramatic 10-minute final plea for her freedom to the judge and jury in the court in Perugia.

The 24-year-old, speaking in Italian, said: 'I am the same person I was four years ago, the same person, the only thing that distinguishes me from four years ago is the four years that I have suffered. 'In four years I have lost a friend in a brutal and unexplained way. My faith in the police has been betrayed.

'I have had to face accusations, injustice and suggestions without foundation and I am paying with my life for something that I did not do.

'I am not what they say I am. I am not perverse, violent, disrespectful towards life, people, these things do not apply to me and I have not done the things that have been suggested.

'I did not kill, I did not rape, I did not steal. I was not there. I was not present at this crime. 'I had never faced such tragedy, suffering, I didn't know how to tackle it, how to interpret it.

'A person who I was sharing my life with, who had the bedroom next to me, she was killed in our house and if I was there that night I could have been killed.

'Meredith was killed and I have always wanted justice for her. I am not fleeing from the truth and have never fled. I insist on the truth. I insist after four desperate years for our innocence because it is true. It deserves to be recognised.

'I want to go home. I want to return to my life, I don't want to be punished and deprived of my life, future forsomething I have not done because I am innocent, Raffaele is also innocent.

'We deserve our freedom. We have never done anything not to deserve it.'

The 21-year-old was found semi naked in a pool of blood with her throat slashed in her bedroom of the house she shared with American Knox and two Italian women.

Judge Claudio Pratillo Hellman also ruled that Raffaele Sollecito, 27, Knox's former boyfriend, should remain in jail and confirmed the original 25-year sentence on the computer studies graduate.

As Knox realized the enormity of what judge Hellman was saying she sank into her chair sobbing uncontrollably while her family and friends hugged each other in tears.

A few feet away Meredith's mother Arline, her sister Stephanie and brother Lyle, who had flown in especially for the verdict remained expressionless, staring straight ahead, glancing over just once at the distraught Knox family.

Prosecutors were delighted with the verdict and said that 'justice has been done' although they said on a 'human factor it was sad two young people would be spending years in jail'.

Both Knox and Sollecito – who have always denied any involvement in the brutal murder - said they would take the case to the third and final level of appeal at the Supreme Court in Rome where it will probably be heard late next year.

The ten-month appeal hearing had heard from several witnesses who had given evidence in the first trial but most importantly from two independent court appointed DNA experts.

Professors Carla Vecchiotti and Stefano Conti had been asked to evaluate how the original DNA investigation had been carried out by the forensic police and highlighted several howling errors.

Key to the case had been a 12ins kitchen knife found at Sollecito's apartment and on which was said to be DNA from Knox on the handle and that of Meredith on the blade.

But they had insisted the genetic evidence from Knox was so small it should not be used as conclusive proof against her – although they did admit it was her DNA on the handle.

The original trial and appeal had heard that Sollecito’s DNA was found on it but because it had been left lying around for six weeks and it had been picked up by officers wearing dirty gloves it was probably 'flawed evidence'.

Prosecutors argued that they had no idea of what they were talking about and labelled them inexperienced and amateur and judge Hellman and the jury of five women and one man believed them.

Following the verdict Knox and Sollecito were taken out of court escorted by prison guards and into a waiting van which took her back to her cell at Capanne jail near Perugia and him to Terni jail, 60 miles away.

Both will be put on a suicide watch for the next few days as psychological assessments are made on each of them but this is usual practice for long term prisoners.

The decision still leaves several questions unanswered and there are serious fears that justice has not been done as many observers believe the evidence is just not beyond all reasonable doubt.

The decision meant that the court rejected the experts opinion that DNA on the knife and bra should not have been considered as evidence in the trial and it also excepted several highly dubious witness testimonies as fact.

Among these was tramp Antonio Curatolo – who has been a 'key witness' in two other murder cases in Perugia and who insisted he had seen Knox and Sollecito near the house the night of the murder.

But in court he was far from convincing and it also emerged he was a regular heroin user and he stumbled over many basic points in his evidence – insisting he knew it was the night of the murder as he had 'seen youngsters queuing for nightclub buses' at the same time.

However bus staff and disco managers all testified that no transport or venues were operating the night Curatolo claimed to have seen them as it was a bank holiday in Italy.

The court also accepted as fact the statement of former supermarket boss Marco Quintavalle who was questioned by police in the days after the murder as his business is next door to Sollecito’s apartment.

He initially had told them that he had not seen either Knox or Sollecito but then when contacted by a local newspaper six months later he changed his story and said she had been there buying bleach and he remembered her 'blue eyes'.

He stood by his claims in court but another assistant Marina Chiriborga said she was also working that day and had not seen them in the Conad supermarket at all.

Other crucial elements include Knox’s ‘confession’ in which she admitted being at the house the night of the murder but that came after 14 hours of questioning and without a proper translator or lawyer present.

There are also question marks over the DNA evidence in the bathroom concerning bloodspots found at the scene and which are said to contain mixture of both Knox and Meredith’s genetic material.

However Knox’s lawyers argued that this evidence was inadmissible as the blood could not be dated and as she lived at the house it was obvious her DNA would be there.

I think Sky initially had it wrong as well - the reason being that the first verdict the judge announced was "guilty" - before qualifying that was on the charge of defamation of the police (or something similar). He then went on to announce the overturned verdicts on the main murder charges. So you can see they had the story prepped, heard guilty and filed copy.

None of which excuses the lowlife nature of the making up of the quotes and behaving shabbily in an affair which has frequently forgotten that some poor young girl suffered a brutal murder.

Obviously all proper news outlets prepare brief copy in anticipation of any possible outcome, but they flesh it out in the following minutes and hours. Shows that the Daily Mail don't do best practice, which surely calls into question why there isn't a press watchout to stamp this stuff out.

There is but the man in charge of it happens to be the editor of the Daily Mail

Wasn't there also the IRA rocket launcher story recently? Also another one in a similar vein to the Knox one - two stories on either side of the potential result but with specific quotes from each side. Wish I could remember the details!

There are rumours that the thermal imaging photos thy published of the St Pauls camp were faked.

Not surprising that a paper with a racist, homophobic, sexist editor prints lies though. I think Dacre pays his journalists to lie, especially if doing so promotes racial hatred,

the sun and NI in general gets a lot of s**t thrown at it (rightly so) but these ***** are worse imo. I can't believe this paper still runs.

FFS, of course he is, this is Britain after all...

Agreed. Good journalism challenge facts bad ones twist them; Daily Fail continually change them to push their negative hate agenda.

The Mail has ended up becoming a parody of itself. Trying to whip everyone into state of hysteria. The only papers I bother reading these days are the Sunday Mirror (despite it's obvious bias there are some good articles) and The Independant, or the "i" mini paper, which is probably the best.

The whole Knox thing stinks. The Yanks turmed it into a big patriotic thing. That Rudi bloke was found not to have acted alone in Meredith's death, so who aidied and abetted then ? Probably a back hander from Obama to Berlusconi somehere along the line.

And of course there is the daily anti nhs story . . . . . .

http://www.mailwatch.co.uk/ Just click on any of the catagories down the right hand side.

All news sources are desperate to be first on the web with a big news story, which is why they will all have prepared guilty/not guilty templates. This doesn't excuse the fake quotes, of course (which look like re-hashes of Amanda's testimony to the appeal court a few days earlier). But what I don't understand is why Surprised (and others on Fiso) read the Mail so avidly if they loathe it so much. Hardly a topic is discussed in the News forum without Surprised quoting from the Daily Mail, in a kind of moral self-flagellation. I wonder how many other people read the Mail because they love to hate it? Yet the joke is that if no one read the Mail, it would go out of business, end of story.

Quite possibly the most bizarre post I have seen on FISO.

Fair enough they have two stories prepared.

But that they were prepared to post a story with fabricated quotes shows they were clearly prepared and happy to lie. Which begs the question: how often do they do that?

Even if they hadn't cocked up and the verdict really had been guilty, it would have been impossible in the timescale for those quotes to have been made and then reported back.

And remember folks, the Daily Mail is like spending 20 minutes in a mental asylum. That's what it says on my coffee mug and it's true.

To read the mail is to feel desperate and sadly helpless at the number of people who are regular readers of it and it's racist Tory lies. It is a window on their ignorance and on their maliability. It tells us that these people are just awful human beings but walk amongst us with the same veneer of respectability that the mail has.

It's truly depressing.

Wouldn't know, I don't read it Why would you

To have a prepared headline and post the wrong one up is one thing. To make-up actions and quotes is another. Shocking.

I agree! So why read it? It's not me who's being bizarre here - I'm just being logical.

There's an alleyway near my house that's littered with dog shit. I don't walk down it because I know if I do I'll get shit on my shoe.

Billy and tricky

That's a really depressing attitude. There are proverbs about taking an ostrich approach to things in that way which are all too obvious surely?

Is nothing in the world you don't like anything to do with you?

I don't read the mail at all regularly but we all see all the papers from time to time.

I find it fascinating. I despise it. The two things are not mutually exclusive.

And crucially it tells me about it's readership. No paper knows what it's readers want better than the mail.

I am now very concerned because I am in agreement with groomy. I am going to take some medication and lie down.

I'm not taking an ostrich approach to the Mail - if I did, I'd pretend it didn't exist, or deny that it's objectionable. On the contrary, I think it's a disreputable rag (and I've said as much before). But unlike some, I don't read it regularly, I don't constantly refer to it on this forum and I don't post links to it. I can't see what the latter achieves, other than giving it publicity.

I can't stand the Daily Mail but I just can't help reading the stories and more so the comments. Just to remind me that there really are ridiculous people out there. We shouldn't place ourselves in a bubble and pretend that everyone is as rational and normal as we are. We need to know the stupid people exist so we can do something about it! Like moan and whinge and feel superior.

I dislike it so I choose not to read it

I tend to concern myself with things that I can have an effect on and try to distance myself from what I can't....thus I choose to avoid reading it.

That's how it gets away with what it does. If it or its readership is never challenged then they think they can get away with anything.
It has a vile, racist, sexist, homophobic editor who gives the readership the racist, sexist, homophobic fabricated stories it yearns for.

Maybe it can be sued for something along these lines?

If some kids can get sent down for suggesting having a riot............

But then The Clash and Kaiser Chiefs have got away with similar

But you can change the views of this those that read it and add truth to the stories they cover in your social circle.

I am fascinated by people. The mail gives me a window on people's minds and people's ignorance.

Know your enemy.

Has the Mail got this bad reputation because it prints stories on the I word (Immigration) ? I know we're not supposed to discuss this because to do so would alledgedly make you a member of the KKK . Is that why it's racist ? Our spiralling population is a cause for concern. If it prints a story on it then good luck to it.

As for the rioters, well I hope they got everything thrown at them. I've no sympathy there. I do, however, agree with most of the anti capitalist marches, which would no doubt be at odds with this type of paper, judging by the stereotypes.

To people with a left wing leaning, I can see their contempt for the Mail. There is totally no excuse for the above story. Then again, the left wing papers, usually the Guardian, will have the same stories, obviously aimed against the right. Was it not involved in politcial scandal back in the day against the Tories ?

Like I say, I buy the Sunday Mirror. Every week there's Tories close this, Cameron's let us down etc etc. Under Labour it was Gordon gives us this, promises us that. Neither are/were right really. Something in between. Just

"Look at the pictures taken by the cameras they cannot lie
The truth is in what you see - not what you read
Little men tapping things out - points of view
Remember their views are not the gospel truth"