Daily Mail Chastised For Erroneous Amanda Knox Story

The Daily Mail is facing the music over an erroneous article that incorrectly claimed that Amanda Knox's murder conviction was upheld in October.

Knox, an American student, had been found not guilty of murdering her roommate after spending four years in an Italian jail. The Daily Mail, however, had published a pre-written article claiming that Knox lost the appeal. The Guardian reported that the article was live online for 90 seconds before it was replaced with an accurate account of events. But British blogger Malcolm Coles caught the huge error.

On Tuesday, the British Press Complaints Commission upheld a complaint against the Daily Mail for the article. It took issue with the factual inaccuracy of the piece, as well as fictitious content. The article contained quotes from prosecutors, and descriptions of her family members, reacting to a guilty verdict. It also claimed that Knox would return to prison where she would be on "suicide watch."

The huge error prompted the paper to apologize to its readers, and change its policies on pre-written stories. Nonetheless, the PCC has determined that the paper violated the code of practice regulating British magazines and newspapers. The Daily Mail will print the complaint against it online.

Comments

[aphextwin07]

05:33 PM on 12/16/2011

this same story was posted the day she was released, why the need to plaster it all over the front page now? what is with huffpo's fascination with this killer anyway? enough is enough.

[kcmookie]

04:27 PM on 12/14/2011

HUFFPOST SUPER USER
similouis .44 Fans
Become a fan Unfan .12:29 PM On 12/13/2011 kcmookie,

Dave Marriott and Anne Bremner have already given first hand accounts of the manipulati­on strategy. I'm sure you've already read it.


GUILTER 101: If making an unsubstantiated claim and someone calls you on it, simply make another claim that cannot be substantiated.

I asked you for proof to support your claim that the "PR Machine" had somehow influenced the media. Your response amounted to "someone, somewhere, had a plan for good PR". Did it work? Did someone write a positive piece about Amanda that turned out to be false? Or is that simply the behavior of the guilty clan as exhibited in this very story?

Specifically WHAT exactly did this PR Firm do that somehow swayed the public opinion, and did so using false information?

I have said it before, and I will say it again, I have believed in the innocence of Amanda and Rafaelle from the start and found their imprisonment to be an offense to justice. I have never worked for, nor been contacted by, any PR firm; and I first joined this site to support my candidate for the 2008 election (having nothing to do with this case). So what exactly is your cause Simi?

[jackbutler5555]

04:31 PM on 12/14/2011

Staff meeting at headquarters Tuesday. There will be a lunch and a farewell party for Conti and Vecchiotti. Judge Hellman will speak and hand out awards.

[Stacyhs]

06:01 PM on 12/14/2011

Jack, you bring the pot (sf55 can provide you with the going rate) and I'll bring the vodka (I have a thirst for it). KC can bring the rocks to throw at passing cars and Donepretending is in charge of entertainment. I think he plans on doing cartwheels.

[ZEB]

05:13 AM on 12/15/2011

He He He, that must be the joke of 2011, nice one

[BIllyDelyon]

05:58 PM on 12/14/2011

While reading your comment I found myself thinking that the people that still believe, after all that is now out there about the Sollecito and Knox case, that Raffaele or Amanda had anything to do with this horrible crime are offensive to common sense and reason, as well as being an offense to intelligence...

[Stacyhs]

06:59 PM on 12/14/2011

Billy, there are still people who refuse to believe that man has walked on the moon, that there is global warming, and that people did not exist alongside dinosaurs.

[donepretending]

01:57 PM on 12/14/2011

simi.......thanks for the links. Problem? Everyone of them is referencing either a guilter website, a reporter who was clearly biased (Voght is a friend of Barbie Nadaeu and covered the trial for Seattle with the same bias) or a story from the DM (which I find incredibly ironic given this particular story.)

You prove yourself to be poisoned by your reading material. Word of advice....stay away from stories that blare "Foxy Knoxy" in their headline. It does nothing to confirm your credibility sending us to these sites to firm up your accusations.

[similouis]

04:06 PM on 12/16/2011

You've made well over 1,000 posts on the Amanda Knox case on this site. LoL @ you if you've never gone to PMF to read Massai,or the trial transcripts, or the archive of Knox's Myspace page. The Vogt article reported on Lumumba's trial testimony. I don't think the incomplete and erroneous article the DM had up for 90 seconds invalidates all their reporting. It's not unlike when Michelle Moore's blog that was since cancelled exposed a lie agents of the FOA had told on national television. *shrugs*

Foxy Knoxy's myspace is relevant to the discussion. As you know that was her choice to use that name on her page, and to replace the numeric ID assigned by myspace with the memorial "www.myspace.com/foxyknoxy3". Sorry it can't be avoided.

[donepretending]

07:27 PM on 12/16/2011

"You've made well over 1,000 posts on the Amanda Knox case on this site. LoL"

You've counted? Really? My record here on H P has been varied. Most of my posts from the beginning were political in nature. It wasn't until Oct of this year that I began following the posts here and like you, became hooked. Please do not even try to belittle me for following this case. It only makes your record (almost 400 comments....ALL of them about this case) all the more tempting to investigate.

Pot meet kettle.....except not really.

[kcmookie]

12:54 PM on 12/14/2011

Soa s to be clear regarding the conversation below, Simi I asked you for proof, and you like me repeatedly to websites that have been discredited? Again, this story was about how the Daily Mail published a false outcome as 'News', including the reaction of people--proving to be substantially falsified, and you use the Daily Mail as your soruce? I am sorry, but you really are p@thetic.

[similouis]

12:45 PM on 12/16/2011

See my post above.

[Napia5]

12:52 AM on 12/14/2011

Check out the comment section in Sharon Feinstein's Blog.

[jackbutler5555]

11:57 AM on 12/14/2011

Thanks again for the reference. I must admit I'm interested in the tidbits from the cellmates. As I said before, their dislike of Knox is inconsistent with the cheering throughout the prison when the verdict was announced and as she left the place to go home. Still, those cell mates may have gotten to know her better. Nevertheless, even if she was difficult (perhaps a Nordic-Mediterranean cultural clash), that is no indication she is guilty of murder. And, I know you must agree. My frustration is with those who, in the absence of argumentation, persuasion, and, of course -- evidence resort to casting aspersions instead. Knox could be as nasty as they make her out to be and still incapable of shoving a knife into the throat of her room mate.

[Napia5]

01:30 PM on 12/14/2011

jackbutler5555, howyadoin'? Should have been a little clearer. I wasn't talking about the blog itself, but the comment section. A good number of heavy posters from both sides are represented. People have the opportunity to see the picture on both sides of the fence.
It was the comment section I should have been clearer about. While I enjoy Sharon Feinstein's entire blog, especially her involvement with the plight of the leatherback turtle, I found the debate held there truly amazing..

[donepretending]

03:52 PM on 12/14/2011

Napia......I did check out the blog and I'm not at all surprised you have as well.

The comment section is not anymore thought provoking than anything here. I would have to say it seems to attract a crowd who wants affirmation of their feelings about Knox and nothing more. Why put any creedance into a story from a cellmate or guard who wish to capitalize on the notoriety of Knox? This journalist is obviously biased in her reporting.....she even voiced her thoughts of Knox's guilt in a comment she replied to.

This does not lend itself to the appearance of journalistic integrity. She pursues the story with a bias that displays intent.

[Napia5]

04:42 PM on 12/14/2011

Take from it what you want. I found the debate amazing.

[kcmookie]

11:03 AM on 12/13/2011

Clearly the Daily Mail would have never written this false article if it weren't for the "Friends of Amanda's" efforts to sway not only the public but the press at large.

This is your current argument? That a news organization wrote a false article indicating that Amanda & Rafaelle were found guilty, but it is the people who strongly support Amanda & Rafaelle that are to be blamed? REALLY? Seriously, I only thought neoconservatives and Republicans could come up with such disingenuous and hypocritical claims. You guilters amaze me (and I don't mean in a good way).

[similouis]

01:53 PM on 12/13/2011

Kcmookie said: she did not need Meredith's money for coke

Amanda was seriously under-funded!
She had only $4,457, approx 3,000E.

ERASMUS estimates monthly living expenses to be 600E in Perugia, not covering books, fees, and tuition. Clearly she does not have enough money to last until June.

Cannabis is 20E gram in Perugia! If she smoked a gram a day that‘s a 600E a month - .5g - 300E1.5g -900E. She also had a thirst for vodka. She had a coke dealer’s number in her phone. The cost of these drug habits were escalating! How much longer could she mooch off Raffaele (his father had him on a short leash because of his history of heavy drug use) or the boys downstairs!?

Also, she was just demoted from bus girl 7 nights a week to flyer girl twice a week. Meredith OTOH, was on a well funded scholarship, was well liked, and Patrick wanted to bring her in a night a week to bartend for ladies night - way more prestigious than bus girl or flyer girl. OUCH!

[kcmookie]

03:34 PM on 12/13/2011

Again with the innuendos.

Do you have any proof that she smoked a gram a day of cannabis, or do you simply want to 'imply' it for the weak-minded? Source?

What is meant by a 'thirst for vodka'? She tried it? She liked it? She was pounding a litre a day? Again, please cite a source.

She had a coke dealers #? Did she ever buy coke? Was there any in her system? Did her roommates claim they had seen her use it? Source please.

Mooch of Rafaele? How long had they even known each other? More baseless conjecture.

Did Meredith work for Lumumba? Do you have any proof that Amanda was concerned with Meredith working the bar, or are you just ASSuming there was some friction there? Proof?

Please address each one of my questions, as they are in response to your statement.

[donepretending]

04:43 PM on 12/13/2011

I agree with kc......you seem to have a plethora of allegations but where is your source?

I'm sorry simi, this feels like more lies perpetuated by the tjmk website and tabloid media. If you wish to repeat it, link us to the reference that substantiates it.

[similouis]

10:33 AM on 12/14/2011

He [Lumumba] next saw Meredith at a party he threw in the club for his employees a couple of days later. "She made everyone two rounds of her special mojitos," he says. "She was sparkly and cheery and lifted everyone's spirits. I asked her if she wanted to have a spell behind the bar when I next had a female DJ playing, as a kind of ladies' night. She jumped at the chance, although she'd stopped coming into Le Chic, and I heard she wasn't hanging around with Amanda much either. I wasn't surprised. The two couldn't have been more different."

Amanda, meanwhile, was becoming increasingly erratic. "Her moods started swinging from docile and lazy to hyperactive and flighty. "I knew she smoked cannabis and it was impossible to predict which one she'd be. I told her I'd asked Meredith to come and work for me and her face dropped and there was a big silence. Then she said, 'Fine,' and stropped off. I knew then she was extremely jealous of Meredith. She obviously thought she was invading her territory." By Tuesday, October 30, his patience ran out. He told Amanda she could carry on handing out club flyers, but could no longer work in the bar. She looked at me blankly and walked away," he says.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-496218/I-fired-Foxy-Knoxy-hitting-customers-Patrick-Lumumba-reveals-framed-Merediths-murder.html#ixzz1gWJh8F1g

[jackbutler5555]

12:11 PM on 12/14/2011

Page 134, 5. “The Fatal Gift of Beauty by Nina Burleigh.” 1. Lumumba was paid $70,000 Euros for his 2008 interview, $20,000 Euros from an Italian TV show. 2. He changed his story about firing her. He admitted he hadn’t fired Knox. In fact Knox quit. She told him her last day would be Nov. 5. That's his most recent story.

[Stacyhs]

03:15 PM on 12/14/2011

And this from the same article where he describes his abusive interrogation that he later denied ever happened. His credibility is shot because he's a liar either way.

Think about it...if Knox behaved so badly, was so unreliable, and he disliked her that much, why would he keep her on to hand out flyers instead of just firing her completely? It doesn't make an ounce of sense.

"I told her I'd asked Meredith to come and work for me and her face dropped and there was a big silence. Then she said, 'Fine,' and stropped off. I knew then she was extremely jealous of Meredith. She obviously thought she was invading her territory.­"

He got all that from her "Fine" when he allegedly fired Knox? Her "Ok. See you later. Have a good night" reply to him on Nov 1 certainly shows how upset and out for revenge she was! Chilling!

[Napia5]

08:03 AM on 12/13/2011

What does this article prove? Basically, it re-afirms my opinion that one must always try to check their sources. Regardless what your current position on Knox's and Solliceto's guilt or innocence is, read more. If it is cited on TJMK, read what injusticeinperugia is saying. If it is given as a direct quote from Massei, go look it up. If it's from Wiki, well, do what you want with this information.
I have no personal problem with preparing a bare-bones article, but I find the pre-recording of reactions and actual quotes disgusting. But, can any of us be totally sure of our sources, if we don't check things out for ourselves?

[Stacyhs]

12:20 PM on 12/13/2011

I agree, Napia. When I was teaching, it always amazed me how parents would accept as truth stories their teens would come home and tell them without ever asking me my side of anything. I actually had one student who told his parents I was teaching the Holocaust had never happened in my history class and they went straight to the principal demanding I be fired. Not once did they ask me why their son told them this. Since this was completely untrue, you'd think they'd learn. But, no. This same kid then told them I was trying to convert him to Catholicism in my Spanish class. Why? Because I had a picture of the Virgin de Guadalupe up as an aid for teaching the culture of Mexico (which I had clearly explained to them). I'm not Catholic. Heck, I'm not even a Christian! Still, these parents again went flying to the principal.

As you say, check your sources because you may not be getting the whole truth.

[homeking40]

04:03 PM on 12/13/2011

Go look it up ??

All the factual reports and their translations from the Italian, were first entered into the record on TJMK!!!!

All your FOA websites have used them - and then attempted to distort them.
What a nightmarish way of living.

[Stacyhs]

08:49 PM on 12/13/2011

>All your FOA websites have used them - and then attempted to distort them.<

Yet another person who likes to make claims/accusations but fails to back them up with any proof or examples whatsoever.

[ZEB]

04:13 AM on 12/14/2011

HK40 that is true, the Massei report was first up on the T**F site.
But I wonder if the Hellmann report will be up so fast, wait and see?
I have said this so many times that the evidence that was so true to place Amanda and Raff, in the room was kicked out by a higer court, then the lower court of Massei.
Never mind go back to reading the truthfall, we do not lie the D Mail.

[liberty apples]

01:37 PM on 12/12/2011

The Daily Mail apologized to its readers in a pre-written apology.

[pab08]

01:21 PM on 12/12/2011

".......... the paper to apologize to its readers, and change its policies on pre-written stories."

While I have always known that newspapers and electronic media have pre-written/pre-recorded stories in the drawer waiting for someone to die, etc.....
But am I the only one troubled by a newspaper "pre-writing" their reporting on breaking events?

[nevernot]

02:43 PM on 12/12/2011

Or my favorite part, prewriting reactions from her family and friends on the "guilty" verdict.....

[Stacyhs]

07:16 PM on 12/12/2011

No, you're not the only one. What bothers me is that this is a clear indication that the DM is not dedicated to reporting the truth, only reporting.

[SimianNation]

11:43 AM on 12/12/2011

The Daily Fail!

[sanfran55]

09:10 AM on 12/12/2011

It was article with the wrong info was up for a whopping 90 seconds? Big deal.

I can see where they got it wrong because the appeals judge started out by saying Knox was found guilty - of lying to police and falsely accusing her black boss of the terrible murder of her room mate, Meredith Kercher. The court sentenced her to 3 years prison time for that, which she served (didn't this also happen to Casey Anthony - found guilty of lying and misleading police but time already served?) Then the judge went on to say that Knox was acquitted of the other criminal charges.

[kcmookie]

10:21 AM on 12/12/2011

sanfran you want to continue to frame the argument and act as if that makes it somehow valid simply because it is what YOU want to believe. This story isn't as much about Knox as it is about the lack of journalist integrity shown by an entire organization.

Feel free to mimimize it all you want, but clearly they lack ANY integrity whatsoever for even WRITING an article that had no basis in fact and claiming it to somehow be legitimate 'news'. You can't have 'news' or claim 'journalism' or 'reporting' if you are making it up before it happens. But, by all means please tell us more about who Amanda falsly accused and what she was sentenced to, because we haven't heard enough detail about that from you.-sarc

[Stacyhs]

12:02 PM on 12/12/2011

Wow. A post by sf55 that has "lying to police", "falsely accusing her black boss", "3 years in prison", AND "Casey Anthony" in it. We've never seen that before.

[similouis]

04:06 PM on 12/12/2011

Good journalism would have prevented the FOA from spreading all the lies and misinformation about Knox.

[Gonzo36]

10:32 AM on 12/12/2011

LMAO! They PREWROTE an article and MADE UP QUOTES! Um hello! THAT is why the Knox's had to hire a PR firm! Because they were dealing with the bottom feeders that make up tabloid media and now we have PROOF that those magazines and papers were literally making up 'facts'. No wonder some people still believe Knox and Sollecito are guilty! Those that still believe in their guilt are just believing in the lies made up by Mignini and spread by the tabloid fodder.

[sanfran55]

11:09 AM on 12/12/2011

Baloney. Media outlets always make up stories in advance and run the one that corresponds to the news of the day - like earthquake in Los Angeles, terrorist attack, Obama winning or losing, etc.

Like I said, I can see where someone jumped the gun because the first words out of the appeals judge's mouth was that Knox was guilty - of lying to the police and falsely accusing her black boss. It took all of 90 seconds to take it down and clarify the situation.

[Donns]

06:46 AM on 12/12/2011

Do people actually read the Daily Mail? I thought it was sold as birdcage liners. Who actually believes what the media prints anyway, no mattter where in the world it is printed.

[sanfran55]

12:22 PM on 12/12/2011

Agreed. How can you believe what the media prints when PR companies are hired to spin images?

[donepretending]

02:27 PM on 12/12/2011

So your assumption is all media is incapable of decifering truth and fiction? That the they are inclined to take the PR's assertion at face value without investigating or corroborating the firms information?

Come on fran......how disingenuous can you be?

Better yet....how long are you going to keep ranting about the PR company instead of facing up to the fact that the forensic and the DNA did not corroborate the allegations?

[jackbutler5555]

04:28 PM on 12/12/2011

Out of curiosity, have you come to terms with the overturning of the verdict? If not, how did the jury fail to understand there was credible evidence the accused were in the murder room, in the apartment, in the building, and even in the neighborhood at the time of the murder? What was that evidence? You mention the PR company. Did they conceal the evidence that would have convicted the accused? How did they do that?

[ZEB]

11:01 PM on 12/12/2011

Yes people do buy the D Mail or fail or wail, but the real fact here is the PCC up held the complaint against the D what ever take your pick.
Amanda Knox has every right to take the mail newspapers to court for slander, which the Mail news papers have done from the start of this case.
Also you cannot just blame the great reporter, he he he, N Pisa, only jokeing, its the editor and the sub editors that buts his reports on the front page.
Even Murdochs the Sun started to do damage controll, but the D what ever no way

[1LTUSMC]

10:25 PM on 12/11/2011

The Daily Mail isn't a newspaper; it is a comic book. What crap!

"The article contained quotes from prosecutors, and descriptions of her family members, reacting to a guilty verdict."

Fictitious quotes and reactions all written prior to the verdict! How on earth could anyone have any trust whatsoever in anything this rag ever publishes in the future? At least our "Inquiring minds wants to know" rag, The Enquirer, usually only screws around with the headlines.

Again, what crap!

[Parade Keegan]

02:57 AM on 12/11/2011

Murdoch again, no surprise.

[ZEB]

05:08 AM on 12/12/2011

Not this time, the D Mail is avery far right wing paper, always have been and always will be, the D Mail has been going many more years then the Murdoch papers.
So this time Murdoch is not guilty.

[Parade Keegan]

05:51 AM on 12/12/2011

Thank you for the info.

[lenuk]

06:35 AM on 12/12/2011

"...the D Mail is avery far right wing paper...".

Better described as independent with right-wing leanings.

[homeking40]

10:15 PM on 12/10/2011

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2027598/Were-number-news-Europe-Official-figures-make-MailOnline-popular-news-site.html

[ZEB]

12:33 AM on 12/11/2011

But, HK40, the D mail sales are down,
And the fact is the DM posted a none story on their web page, ie Amanda is guilty, when in fact she was set free.
With a story, "that was just made up", just like the facts of her case, do not place the D Mail as a true newspaper, which should report facts which it did not.
FYI, the reporters who was sharing the same hotel as N Pisa, rip in to him when they found out what the D Mail front page was.
Even when this front page was up only up for 90 seconds, that was 90 seconds to long, we will see in the long run if Amanda takes the DM to court for slander

[Stacyhs]

01:13 AM on 12/11/2011

What's this prove? That there are a lot of idiots in the world? We already knew that. Just why are you obsessed with proving that a tabloid is somehow respectable journalism? It just doesn't wash.

[homeking40]

01:04 AM on 12/13/2011

Well, it's heaven, after the high school football scores, obituaries and recipe page which is what serves as news in this place.