The Daily Mail has emerged as the major fall guy by mistakenly publishing the wrong online version of the Amanda Knox verdict.

Knox won her appeal, but the paper's website initially carried a story headlined "Guilty: Amanda Knox looks stunned as appeal against murder conviction is rejected."

The Mail was not the only British news outlet to make the error. The Sun and Sky News did it too and yes - hands up here - so did The Guardian in its live blog.

It would appear that a false translation of the judge's summing up caused the problem, leading to papers jumping the gun.

So why has the Mail suffered the greatest flak? In time-honoured fashion, echoing the hot metal days of Fleet Street, it prepared a story lest the verdict go the other way.

But it over-egged the pudding by inventing "colour" that purported to reveal Knox's reaction along with the responses of people in the court room.

It even included quotes from prosecutors that were, self-evidently, totally fake.

In other words, by publishing its standby story, the Mail exposed itself as guilty of fabrication.

Here's some of the invented colour writing:

"As Knox realised 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'".

The fiction got better and better. Sorry, I mean worse and worse ...

"Following the verdict Knox and [Raphael] 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."

I would guess that certain Mail website workers will be put on suicide watch too.

However, though it is very embarrassing for the Mail, I do have some sympathy.

I recall preparing two different front pages and two separate four-page pullouts for the Daily Star in 1979 when we were awaiting the verdict of the Jeremy Thorpe trial. The former Liberal party leader had been charged with murder and conspiracy.

One set of pages would be published if he was found guilty and another were ready should the jury find him innocent.

I blush to recall that my imagination ran away with me in describing his very different reactions to the different verdicts. (He was cleared, by the way).

At least the Star didn't put the wrong pages on the presses. But there have been times when it has happened, notably in the 1948 US presidential election when the Chicago Tribune ran the headline "Dewey defeats Truman."

Harry Truman, the real winner, enjoyed brandishing the inaccurate front page.

I have to say I find it rather touching that the Mail thought it necessary, in these days of instantaneous digital communication, to be first with the (invented) news.

Did it believe it would win more readers by hitting the top of the Google search engine? Possibly.

At least it shows that it hasn't lost its competitive edge.

Hat tips: Malcolm Coles/WhatCulture!