Michael Wiesner: Ten Major Mistakes In His Ill-Researched And Malicious Claims

1. Who is Michael Wiesner?

Michael Wiesner is a social studies teacher, at the Mid-Pacific Institute High School in Honolulu in Hawaii. 

Principal Grace Cruz (image at bottom here) is the supervisor of the staff of the school who presumably supervises Michael Wiesner and makes sure that her students are taught the truth - and to stay far away from drugs. Real estate broker James Kometani is the chair of the institute’s board of trustees.

Wiesner is the latest and hopefully the last of the Knox PR puppets intent on heading up that bizarre parade of middle-aged white knights and snake oil salesmen and commercial opportunists which Knox and her lawyers say they could do better without.

It is unclear if he has ever been to Italy or talked to anyone directly concerned with the case.

So far, he has worked hard to mislead a group of his high-school students as to the real Amanda Knox and the hard evidence in her case, he has posted a YouTube [quickly removed after this post] of some of his fabricated claims, and he has enmeshed himself in the conspiracy website run by the serial defamer “Bruce Fisher” who (surprise surprise) is now so desperate for adult attention.

To bolster Michael Wiesner’s credibility there “Bruce Fisher” attempts to draw attention away from Michael Wiesner’s irrelevant background, par for the course for that group, by claiming his “speciality” is “critical analysis of sources and media literacy”.

This is an analysis of ten of the claims made by Michael Wiesner in that YouTube [now removed, though we have a copy]. Smart students in Hawaii and smart parents of smart students in Hawaii would do well to absorb this before listening to any more shrill claims from this addled pretender.

2. Ten Of Wiesner’s False Claims

False Claim 1: Amanda Knox had never been in trouble in her entire life (minute 0.44)

Amanda Knox had a reputation for being a heavy user of drugs in Seattle long before she ever headed for Perugia and the use of drugs in the US is an indictable crime.

Amanda Knox was charged for hosting a party that got seriously out of hand, with students high on drink and drugs, and throwing rocks into the road forcing cars to swerve. The students then threw rocks at the windows of neighbours who had called the police.

The situation was so bad that police reinforcements had to be called. Amanda was fined $269 (£135) at the Municipal Court after the incident - Crime No: 071830624. She was also warned about the rock throwing.

False Claim 2: Everyone who knew her swear she never could have committed that kind of violence (minute 0.48)

Many who knew her back in Seattle went ominously silent after she first was implicated, and several who claimed to have encountered her there posted on the web that they were not entirely surprised.

Meredith’s boyfriend, Giacomo Silenzi, and her British friends certainly did not swear that Amanda Knox could not been involved in Meredith’s murder. On the contrary, after witnessing her bizarre and oddly detached behaviour at the police station on 2 November 2007, they all told the police that her behaviour was suspicious.

“Giacomo then talked with Meredith’s British friends, who all agreed that Amanda was oddly detached from this violent murder. One by one, they told the police that Amanda’s behaviour was suspicious.” (Barbie Nadeau, Angel Face, page 62).

False Claim 3: Raffaele Sollecito had never been in any kind of trouble in his life (minute 1.11)

If Michael Wiesner had bothered to read the Massei report on the sentencing of Knox and Sollecito, he would have known that Raffaele Sollecito was considered a drug addict, he had unnatural sexual proclivities, and he had a previous brush with the police.

Sollecito was monitored at his university residence in Perugia after hardcore pornography featuring bestiality was found in his room.

“...and educators at the boy’s ONAOSI college were shocked by a film “very much hard-core”¦where there were scenes of sex with animals” at which next they activated a monitoring on the boy to try to understand him. (p.130 and 131, hearing 27.3.2009, statements by Tavernesi Francesco). (The Massei report, page 61).

Sollecito had the previous brush with the police in 2003.

“...Antonio Galizia, Carabinieri [C.ri] station commander in Giovinazzo, who testified that in September 2003 Raffaele Sollecito was found in possession of 2.67 grams of hashish. (The Massei report, page 62).

Raffaele Sollecito was clearly already a drug addict. Four years after this incident, numerous witnesses testified that Sollecito was using drugs.

“Both Amanda and Raffaele were using drugs; there are multiple corroborating statements   to this effect…” (The Massei report, page 62).

It seems that Sollecito was not just using hashish. Amanda Knox claimed in her prison diaries that Sollecito had taken dangerous drugs like heroin and cocaine.

“According to Amanda’s prison diaries, Raf been reminiscing about his incredible highs on heroin and cocaine…” (Barbie Nadeau, Angel Face, page 163).

Mignini stated at the trial that Sollecito and Knox ran with a crowd who often used stupefying drugs.

“He also hinted that Knox and Sollecito might have been in a drug-fueled frenzy when they allegedly killed Kercher. He outlined the effects of cocaine and acid, and told the judges and jury how Knox and Sollecito ran with a crowd that often used these “stupificante,” or stupefying drugs.” (Barbie Nadeau, The Daily Beast, 20 November 2009).

Amanda Knox was in contact with a convicted drug dealer before and after Meredith’s murder. According to this Italian news report, the drug dealer’s name was on Knox’s contact list on her mobile phone.

“The young man defended by [lawyer] Frioni, on the basis of a service report by the police, he appears to be among the list of contacts within the cell phone of Amanda Knox.” (Translated into English by PMF poster Jools).

Knox and Sollecito both admitted that they had taken drugs on the day of Meredith’s murder. Michael Wiesner makes no mention of this in his YouTube video, presumably because it undermines the falsely wholesome portrait of them that he’s trying so hard to sell..

False Claim 4: After the murder Amanda refused to leave Italy (minute 1.26)

This claim is flatly contradicted by Amanda Knox herself. In the e-mail she wrote to her friends in Seattle on 4 November 2007 she said she was not allowed to leave.

“i then bought some underwear because as it turns out i wont be able to leave italy for a while as well as enter my house”

Amanda Knox’s e-mail to her friends on 4 November 2007 can be found here.  Knox actually knew on 2 November 2007 that she couldn’t leave Italy. Amy Frost reported the following conversation.

” I remember having heard Amanda speaking on the phone, I think that she was talking to a member of her family, and I heard her say, No, they won’t let me go home, I can’t catch that flight’” (The Massei report, page 37).

False Claim 5: The police called her in at 11.00pm (1.31 minute)

Michael Wisener’s claim is contradicted by Amanda Knox herself who testified in court that she wasn’t called to the police station on 5 November 2007.

Carlo Pacelli: “For what reason did you go to the Questura on November 5? Were you called?”

Amanda Knox: “No, I wasn’t called. I went with Raffaele because I didn’t want to be alone.”

The transcripts of Amanda Knox’s testimony in court can be read on Perugia Murder File.  Michael Wiesner is clearly totally unfamiliar with any of her court testimony.

False Claim 6: The police began a brutal interrogation (1.33 minute)

Michael Wiesner speaks with great authority about what what happened to Amanda Knox at that witness interview, despite the facts that he wasn’t present and that Knox herself is being sued for false claims she made about it.

All the witnesses who were actually present when she was questioned including her interpreter (Mr Mignini was not there) testified under oath during her trial that she was treated well and wasn’t hit.

“Ms Donnino said that Ms Knox had been “comforted” by police, given food and drink, and had at no stage been hit or threatened.

The newspaper Corriere dell’ Umbria said that Giuliano Mignini, the prosecutor, would bring an additional charge of slander against Ms Knox, since all police officers and interpreters who have given evidence at the trial have testified under oath that she was at no stage put under pressure or physically mistreated.” (Richard Owen, The Times, 15 March 2009).

She is actually being sued by those who were present (again, Mr Mignini was not.) Even Amanda Knox’s own lawyer, Luciano Ghirga, confirmed that she had not been hit, at Rudy Guede’s fast-track trial:

“There were pressures from the police but we never said she was hit.”  Mr Ghirga had every opportunity to lodge a complaint if he believed her story to be true. He never has.

The judges and jury had to decide whether to believe the corroborative testimony of numerous upstanding witnesses, or the word of a someone who had provably repeatedly lied. It would not have been a hard decision to make.

False Claim 7: They coerced from her an accusation from a person who was innocent (1.42 minute)

According to the corroborative testimony of multiple witnesses, including her interpreter, Amanda Knox voluntarily and spontaneously accused Patrick Lumumba of murdering Meredith.

Judge Massei noted the following about Amanda Knox’s false and malicious accusation against Patrick Lumumba:

It must also be pointed out that Patrick Lumumba was not known in any way, and no element, whether of habitually visiting the house on Via della Pergola, or of acquaintance with Meredith, could have drawn the attention of the investigators to this person in such a way as to lead themselves to ‘force”› Amanda’s declarations. (The Massei report, page 389)

False Claim 8:  Amanda immediately released a statement retracting the accusation (1.55 minute)

Amanda Knox didn’t retract her accusation as soon as she got some food at all. In fact, she reiterated her allegation in her handwritten note to the police later on 6 November 2007 which was admitted in evidence:

[[Amanda] herself, furthermore, in the statement of 6 November 2007 (admitted into   evidence ex. articles 234 and 237 of the Criminal Procedure Code and which was mentioned above) wrote, among other things, the following: I stand by my - accusatory - statements that I made last night about events that could have taken place in my home with Patrick”¦in these flashbacks that I’m having, I see Patrick as the murderer”¦”.

This statement which, as specified in the entry of 6 November 2007, 200:00pm, by the Police Chief Inspector, Rita Ficarra, was drawn up, following the notification of the detention measure, by Amanda Knox, who “requested blank papers in order to produce a written statement to hand over” to the same Ficarra. (The Massei report, page 389).

The Massei court took note of the fact that Amanda Knox didn’t recant her false and malicious allegation against Patrick Lumumba during the whole of the time he was kept in prison.

False Claim 9: Rudy Guede’s DNA was inside Meredith’s handbag (3.05. minute)

According to the Micheli report, which was made available to the public in January 2008, Rudy Guede’s DNA was found on the zip of Meredith’s purse and not inside it.

Guede’s DNA was not in fact found all over Meredith’s room. Guede left no hairs, no saliva, no sweat, no blood, and no other bodily fluid at the scene of the crime, considered to be the entire house. Knox and Sollecito left substantial proof of their presence, including both their footprints, Knox’s blood, and Sollecito’s DNA.

False Claim 10: Rudy Guede pleaded guilty (3.39 minute )

Rudy Guede did not plead guilty at his fast-track trial in late October 2008 which Judge Micheli presided over. He claimed that he was on the toilet when Meredith was murdered. Anyone with even a superficial knowledge of the case is aware of this basic fact.

3. Extensive evidence Wiesner hides

For example in the YouTube video now removed (we have a copy) Michael Wiesner does not provide a plausible innocent explanation for the numerous lies that Knox and Sollecito told before and after 5 November 2007.

  • He doesn’t explain why Raffaele Sollecito has refused for three-plus years and at trial to corroborate Amanda Knox’s alibi that she was at his apartment when Meredith died.
  • He doesn’t explain how Meredith’s DNA got lodged into a microscopic groove on the blade of the knife sequestered from Sollecito’s kitchen.
  • He doesn’t explain how an abundant amount of Raffaele Sollecito’s DNA ended up on Meredith’s bra clasp.
  • He doesn’t explain why Amanda Knox was bleeding on the night of the murder, or explain how her blood got mixed with Meredith’s blood in several spots in the cottage.

Michael Wiesner might not think the mixed blood evidence is important, but jurors at the first trial clearly thought it was. One sample was in Filomena’s bedroom, especially incriminating considering the simulated break-in there. 

“The defense’s other biggest mistake, according to interviews with jurors after the trial, was doing nothing to refute the mixed-blood evidence beyond noting that it is common to find mingled DNA when two people live in the same house.” (Barbie Nadeau, Angel Face, page 152).

He doesn’t account either for the visible bloody footprint on the blue bathmat which matched the precise characteristics of Sollecito’s foot,  or the bare bloody footprints of Knox and Sollecito in the corridor in the new wing of the cottage which were revealed by Luminol.

In short, he doesn’t address the vast bulk of the evidence which is detailed at great length in the Massei report, let alone in any way refute it. In fact, it’s quite clear that Michael Wiesner hasn’t even read the Massei report.

The only thing he has really proved is that he’s ignorant of the basic facts of the case.

4. Wiesner’s use of manipulative images

Michael Wiesner uses the manipulative tactic, which is an old favourite of CBS’s 48 Hours and now of CNN, of flashing images of Knox and Sollecito as children throughout the video as if that is some kind of proof of their innocence.

Childhood photographs of other notorious sex killers, such Myra Hindley and Ian Brady, and Fred and Rosemary West, are readily available on the web. The only thing these kind of photographs prove is that convicted sex killers were children once. Nothing more than that.

5. How Wiesner Lies: Summing up

The principal and parents and trustees of the Mid Pacific Institute High School should be very concerned that one of its teachers is championing the cause of two people unanimously convicted of sexual assault and a vicious murder by making demonstrably false claims.

It was not only the judges and jurors who thought the evidence against Knox and Sollecito was overwhelming. Legal expert Stefano Maffei made the following observation.

“There were 19 judges who looked at the facts and evidence over the course of two years, faced with decisions on pre-trial detention, review of such detention, committal to trial, judgment on criminal responsibility. They all agreed, at all times, that the evidence was overwhelming.”

The parents and the trustees of the Mid Pacific Institute High School should also be concerned at the fact that Michael Wiesner is shamelessly trying to manipulate the public by using photographs of Knox and Sollecito as children, and by sweeping under the rug any inconvenient facts about them, such as their extensive drug-taking and their previous brushes with the police.

Michael Wiesner needs to do now what the judges and jury did starting over two years ago. Namely, to look at all of the hard evidence against Sollecito and Knox, and stop regurgitating the many false claims which are a small industry on “Bruce Fisher’s” website.

[Below: Mid-Pacific Institute High School principal and supervisor of Michael Wiesner Grace Cruz]

Tweet This Post


Great job Machine.  If Mr. Weiner had bothered to watch the YouTubes, or even read the news on the 4 hour forum held for “Amander” he would have gleaned that it was NOT held at her alma mater, the University of Washington, but at Seattle University.


Thanks for tearing this guy to shreds.  Another one bites the dust. 


Posted by Tara on 06/01/11 at 07:52 PM | #

Here is today’s score for Michael Wiesner on the Rate My Teacher site. I wonder if that will change.


Not warm or popular, it seems, but the kids do find him clear and precise in the bullshit that he spouts.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 06/01/11 at 08:34 PM | #

If anyone wants to contact the principal, Grace Cruz, or Michael Wiesner, the contact details can be found here:


Posted by The Machine on 06/01/11 at 10:02 PM | #

Hi Machine. I already know that people are pretty shocked that Wiesner so much distorted the facts and tried hard to hide the involvement with drungswhich may or may not have been a contributing factor but hardly show AK and RS in a good light. They will be following up with Hawaii for sure.

Wiesner is a demonizer of Guede as the lone wolf who did the deed all by himself. But there is none of his DNA in Filomena’s room and he had no reason to rearrange the scene of the crime.

Neither the Micheli court nor the Massei court nor the Supreme Court accpted that Guede could have done the crime alone - and not even Knox’s own lawyers have been able to take that position.

They are now desperate to prove that Guede had help or that another pair of perps did it - though there is zero trace of such others.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 06/02/11 at 12:07 AM | #

What Tara said.

Posted by Hopeful on 06/02/11 at 12:27 AM | #

Great work Machine!! It is important to confront these misinformation junkies at this point. This is getting out of hand!

“Rudy Guede was only sentenced to 16 years in prison because he pleaded guilty and because he cooperated against Amanda and Raffaele” (3:25)

Odd Mr. Weisner, because I thought that Guede was sentenced to 30 years, which was reduced to 16 years because he asked for a fast-track trial. He never “cooperated” against either of them.

I am flabbergasted at the amount of blatant, ridiculous accusations and story twists that Wiesner is asserting…this might be the worst spin yet! Kids, this is why it is important to think for yourself and not just swallow all of the things shoveled your way by your teachers (or from anyone, for that matter)…I am thoroughly embarrassed for Mr. Wiesner and his school!

Posted by willsavive on 06/02/11 at 01:30 AM | #

One would think that any educational establishment choosing to turn a current event of this kind into a “teachable moment” would at least seek to ensure a balanced and factual presentation. Isn’t that one of the key values and goals of education? Teaching students how to think and not what to think?

I wonder if this school or any other would ever seriously consider using something closer to home as the right basis for a “teachable moment”, for example the Casey Anthony trial that is going on right now. Somehow, I think the answer is no.

I am surprised that the school would allow one of its teachers to propagandize for a cause in front of impressionable young people. If his cause were more conventionally controversial—same sex marriage or legalizing marijuana—I doubt he would have gotten away with it.

But the fact is, he has been allowed to present as role models two young people who were habitual drug users and who have been convicted of slaying another young woman. What was the administration thinking?

Posted by Skeptical Bystander on 06/02/11 at 03:25 AM | #

Thanks Machine for exposing another Friends of Amanda Knox huckster.

Steve Moore who was formerly on the security staff at Pepperdine University, was justly fired by Pepperdine University administration because he was lobbying on behalf of convicted killer, Amanda Knox.

Certainly parents of students attending Pepperdine University must have raised concern to university officials about the potential dangers their sons and daughters were exposed to by having Steve Moore continue on Pepperdine’s security staff.

One wonders about the potential liability that principal, Grace Cruz and other Honolulu Mid-Pacific Institute High School board officials could be facing in light of their knowledge that Mid-Pacific Institute High School teacher, Michael Wiesner, evidently is lobbying in class to his students on behalf of convicted killer, Amanda Knox?

Posted by True North on 06/02/11 at 03:46 AM | #

It just so happens that I am a teacher. I teach English as a Second Language, in China. My policy is very simple. I never, ever, ever offer an opinion during class discussion. I may question students, but I never impel them to accept my point of view, or “nudge” them towards what I may believe. In fact, if a student happens to voice an opinion which is similar to my own, I play “devil’s advocate” and express the alternative view.  It is a matter of pride to me that my students have no idea on my views about anything.

For example, I teach a bunch of high school students. Great kids, but many of them regard Osama Bin Laden as a kind of hero. They’re entitled to their views. I simply ask them to justify their views. I am not in class to promote any point of view. And that isn’t because I am in China (it is more open than you might think, here, and I am certainly permitted to offer views on Bin Laden in class if I wished to do so), but simply because it is not my place to try to influence the views of young people, anywhere in the world.

Posted by Janus on 06/02/11 at 03:50 AM | #

Michael Wiesner and other sockpuppets like Doug Preston and Steven Moore might be well advised to create some space between themselves and the anonymous loose canon “Bruce Fisher” who did so much to create this mess by facilitating and enabling Wiesner and elevating their legal liability.

David Marriott and Chris Mellas may also similarly well advised.  I am sure their lawyers will tell them the same thing, in light of the evolving legal situation described in the post immediately below this one which does not favor unfounded claims and defamation.

Our lawyers are seeing “Bruce Fisher” facing possible judgments of millions or even tens of millions for his unceasing series of defamations and personal attacks. With luck he ends up in an Italian jail. He’s radioactive, guys. Keep well away.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 06/02/11 at 06:08 AM | #

Thanks Skeptical Bystander and Janus for representing the finest in educational standards. Emails coming in now make it seems that the whole school is now pretty appalled at Wiesner’s peculiar adventure.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 06/02/11 at 06:10 AM | #

Thank you The Machine for going through this embarrassing video and exposing each and every lie.

It’s disgusting the way these people are spreading their misinformation all over the internet, but truly appalling when it comes to influencing young minds by shoveling it full of garbage!

There is so much to learn about from this case; not least of which is how another country’s legal system works. It is truly fascinating and highly educational. But these kids deserve to be taught the facts from the legal documents. Not spin from a PR company.

Let the kids read The Massei report and then debate it.

I sure hope the principal reconsiders the value of this “teacher”. It truly baffles that one would allow a person to teach lies to kids in order to use them in a campaign to free convicted sex killers. How immoral is that?

Posted by bedelia on 06/02/11 at 06:30 AM | #

Thanks, The Machine, for illuminating some of the startling errors in the Youtube presentation of Mike Wiesner.

The Machine sussed out most of the worst errors, but a couple others really jumped out at me. Toward the end, Mr. Wiesner says that since the verdict, “an army of experts have basically shown that the evidence amounts to nothing.”

This is a remarkable statement. A sovereign court system in a democratic nation is undergoing a rigorous, well-respected appeal process in this case. There is no suggestion of the case being thrown out of court because the evidence amounts to “nothing.”

Mr. Wiesner is basically accusing the judicial system of Italy of judicial misconduct of the highest order. I think he needs to back up this statement with much more evidence. Perhaps his class could demand that he do so.

This piece of propaganda begins with the emotional plea Amanda made at the end of Rudy Guede’s trial. The lack of balance in the film is evident right from this point onward, since no conflicting voices appear throughout. One-sidedness is not a feature of a good documentary.

Another error: “Amanda immediately released a statement retracting the accusation. However, the language in the statement was very vague because Amanda was up all night…”

The statement was vague, alright. So vague that it was hardly a “retraction.” Here’s the relevant excerpt (excuse the length, but that’s how she wrote it):

“In my mind I saw Patrik [Lumumba] in flashes of blurred images. I saw him near the basketball court. I saw him at my front door. I saw myself cowering in the kitchen with my hands over my ears because in my head I could hear Meredith screaming. But I’ve said this many times so as to make myself clear: these things seem unreal to me, like a dream, and I am unsure if they are real things that happened or are just dreams my head has made to try to answer the questions in my head and the questions I am being asked.” http://bit.ly/5MnMZ4

She professes these images are like a “dream”; she does NOT retract her previous accusation (give several times verbally during the night). I think most people would agree that giving accusations a “dream-like” quality is not a clear retraction. A clear retraction is some sort of statement such as: “I was mistaken. Patrick had nothing to do with it, as far as I know.” Something like that.

If all she needed were a good night’s sleep in order to think better and completely retract these “dream”-like recollections, she would have done so sometime in the next two weeks, while Mr. Lumumba languished in prison. In fact, she confessed to her mother that, for all she knew, Lumumba was innocent. However, she failed to communicate this to the police, and Lumumba was therefore not freed until an alibi witness could be located in another country.


In summary, I would like to say that, as someone with a life-long interest in education, I value teachers who embrace controversial topics. However, it must be done without slanting the discussion toward the teacher’s point of view. I’d like to think that I would object just as much to a teacher who presented this topic to the class in an “Amanda is guilty as sin” sort of way. That is not education; that’s indoctrination.

Right now, all the signs are that Mr. Wiesner is withdrawing his footprint on this from the internet. All to the good. But I hope no-one makes him into another martyr of the Amanda cause. As Skeptical and Janus have both pointed out so eloquently, a teacher has a sacred duty to lead their students in reasoning things out for themselves, not lead them down the primrose path.

And finally, I would like to add that from what little I have seen on their webpage, Mid Pacific looks like a fantastic school. That they began as a school for missionaries’ children is very interesting to me, as my father was the son of missionaries. His education, by both his mother in the mission field and schools here in the U.S. as he entered high school, was top-notch. I know he valued open discussion of controversial topics, but indoctrination would have been anathema to him.

Posted by Earthling on 06/02/11 at 09:09 AM | #

Mr Wiesner may live to regret his lack of rigour. I agree Earthling, her ‘retraction’ is weak and lukewarm and packed with disclaimers. A study in hedging. But her heavy handed and clumsy attempts to deceive are transparent. For someone who claimed to be exhausted she managed to construct quite an elaborate scenario and took pains persuade that she could have been hallucinating.

She tries to have it both ways: ie I want to make myself clear/I’m muddled and confused. She is asking to be believed yet not believed because she is waiting to find out what the police will find out. After that the statement can be rejigged to fit the facts as they emerge. This fey ingenue is in stark contrast to the steely-eyed girl who took the stand and just wanted to get on with her life.

Posted by pensky on 06/02/11 at 11:49 AM | #

Bitter, sore-loser attack by the anonymous “Bruce Fisher” on his site against me.

The fact is that TJMK is a highly effective group site pro-truth, pro-justice and pro-victim where many others have posted which now has “Fisher” enormously rattled and losing his marbles at a rapid rate.  If I step aside (which I wont) it would make little difference to what people want to post - the Wiesner post was a great idea, and it was Machine’s idea through and through.

There are no posts about Meredith (most of which were by our women posters) that you cannot find the equivalent of on many other victims site. At the same time “Fishers” website extolling a convicted murderess (albeit on appeal) is something unique.

We have been over this ballet dancer business before, and I have summarised what happened over on PMF. It was an innovative business deal with someone in an emotional state. Missing there is how the deal would work and how much she would gain to give her security. The money paid was always a business advance and we both agreed that was the case. Missing also is how many other dancers are in touch and seeking the same help..

“Fisher” rattles on obsessively about imagined perversions in others - he is not exactly the smartest guy in the world, and when some joked at him on PMF (where he is ridiculed daily) for slobbering over Knox and for being unable to make sense on the hard evidence, his meltdown began.

Here is my flagship ballet site by the way - nothing kinky there, and it is doing ballet a great deal of good. http://excitingperformances.com

Odd to be attacked for setting out to make the dancer in question and many others millionaires. “Bruce Fisher” blows smoke wildly, and hopes that somehow his absolute inability to make points in support of Michael Weisner will not be noticed.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 06/02/11 at 04:15 PM | #

Skeptical Bystander writes that Wiesner “has been allowed to present as role models two young people who were habitual drug users and who have been convicted of slaying another young woman.”

Modest yet devastating.

And Earthling quotes Amanda’s words:

“In my mind I saw Patrik [Lumumba] in flashes of blurred images…” With examples given. In one of these “flashes” she even saw herself cowering in the kitchen.

Unless memory deceives me Amanda speaks elsewhere of “flashbacks,” a term borrowed from literary criticism to describe scenes taken from the past & inserted into the present (scene) to give needed information. Good novelists use simple narrative or else dialogue to achieve this. Flashbacks are disruptive.

This literary term, I believe, is borrowed to describe the sudden intrusion of vivid & unwelcome memories of battle trauma which veterans may experience. I question whether “flashbacks” has any status as an authentic psychological term.

Maybe someone else can shed light on this.

Posted by Ernest Werner on 06/02/11 at 04:23 PM | #

Regarding Bruce Fisher’s article about Peter, yes it does look like he’s getting desperate. Looking at the amount of slime directed at Mignini and anyone who believes Amanda and Raffaele are guilty, I have no problem believing, based on his past history, that Bruce may be er, stretching the truth.

As a longtime antiwar speaker, I remember how Scott Ritter was attacked because he exposed George Bush’s lies on WMD.  Then, as now, I tune out all the allegations. They are personal to Peter and have nothing to do with the fine work he and his team, and Peggy and hers are doing.

That’s why I have for some time been referring people and posting links to TJMK and PMF at Huffington Post and have no problem continuing to support your excellent sites. As for “Bruce Fisher”, if you’re reading this, attack the argument, and not, the person.

Posted by Ergon on 06/02/11 at 05:07 PM | #

I see also that Bruce Fisher and friends are complaining about Michael Wiesener being targeted. Yet who, by posting the false claims of Wiesener and Steve Moore, painted the target on their backs? I wouldn’t go so far as to write their employers, but as someone who’s got children in the school system, I’m APPALLED at biased and factually incorrect propaganda being fed to young school children.

I also remember that they had been posting allegations against Peter for some time now. So they should step back and see if this mud slinging is counter productive? It has nothing to do with the guilt or innocence of Amanda Knox.

Posted by Ergon on 06/02/11 at 05:08 PM | #

I don’t read Injustice in Perugia, so it had escaped my notice that Mr. Wiesner is in fact a member of the FOA and a guest poster on the Bruce Fisher/David Marriott website. In February, he penned a post denouncing the lifetime made-for-television movie, focusing in particular on attacking its director, for comments he had made about the case (his apparent neutrality was not appreciated).

This makes Wiesner’s classroom antics (and the school’s apparent approval of them) even harder to justify. If he were a member of the Klu Klux Klan, would the school allow him to present a one-sided justification of the KKK’s beliefs and practices, and encourage students to get behind the cause?

Wiesner, or one of his reps in the FOA, is on record stating that all of his students got on board the innocence train. Did his students have a choice? Was there a grade attached to this segment of Wiesner’s course? Did students submit written work (or video work) for a grade? The position taken by the students is utterly meaningless if they only saw one side of the issue, even more so if they received a grade in exchange for espousing a view.

Moreover, why have these issues not been addressed in the albeit paltry “coverage” of this non-event, which is in fact just another creation of Bruce Fisher and the FOA. It is no accident that the first and perhaps the only “journalist” to report on this non-story is Candace Dempsey (Steve Shay is sure to follow), who either did not ask these questions or has chosen not to reveal the answers. That’s advocacy journalism for you, folks: for every story, there is only one side.

Posted by Skeptical Bystander on 06/02/11 at 05:17 PM | #

Hi Skep,

It is not true that all of Michael Wiesner’s students got on the innocence train. It also seems that there was a grade attached to the making of this video.

One of the students involved in the making of this video contacted me. Here are some of extracts from the correspondence:

“I would like you to know I do not endorse the views and commentary of the video. I was in charge of the technical direction and it was assigned to me in my Studio TV course at school.”

“I understand by posting the video, I become a part of the cause, but please understand that I am a student working for a grade, not an activist.”

It’s outrageous that a high school student is obliged to support two convicted sex killers as part of a school course. It is wholly appropriate to contact the principal, Grace Cruz, to complain about this.

Posted by The Machine on 06/02/11 at 05:45 PM | #

“Bruce Fisher” sure has a lot of Bees in His Bonnet today. Could it possibly be because he was forced to pull yet another of his fantastical “stories” from the web?

When I went to look for his May 18th “Amanda Knox Case: An Educator Standing Up For Truth In The Classroom” posting about Weisner on ground report this morning - oh my, it’s not there!  The cached page is still available, so grab it while you can. Just yesterday, it was still up at:


It would be helpful to know exactly how the student who helped produced the video was involved with Weisner.  Recall that Weisner was credited by Fisher as being an “educator standing up in the classroom for Amanda Knox”; a teacher who brought the Amanda Knox case to the attention of his high school “psychology” students.

He apparently used Amanda Knox as an ongoing example in his classes, teaching that she “was misunderstood because she did not conform to conventional behavior. Her actions were taken entirely out of context. Then the media frenzy that created the false persona of ‘Foxy Knoxy’, the misinterpretation of trivial actions like length of cell phone calls, and the fabrication of possible motives without a shred of evidence, all led to a wrongful conviction. This is how conspiracy theories develop. Give meaning to meaningless events - and if you have enough of them, people are easily fooled.”

So apparently Weisner believes that acting like you are guilty of a crime, along with telling lies about your whereabouts and activities during a criminal investigation, should not make you a suspect. And actually, cell phone records do play a critical role in any criminal investigation these days - it’s routine.  Also, it was Knox who gave herself the Foxy Knoxy title and carried it along with her into adulthood, not the media.

Weisner claims to have been teaching critical thinking, however, isn’t it rather hard to think critically when you are being limited to an intellectual diet of spoon-fed miss-information?

As an interactive exercise, Weisner had his students join a Facebook “causes” page and then brought the school news team in to record his classroom lectures as a video production project.  Were they all his students, working for grades?

As a result of his “critical thinking” exercises and lectures, Weisner claims that all of his students are now following the case and rooting for an acquittal. Apparently there were no dissenters among his students, and judging by the video in question I’d say this is due to the fact that he effectively communicated, in no uncertain terms, exactly what it was they needed to regurgitate in order to pass the class.

Is it any wonder that Mid-Pac Institute forced Bruce Fisher to take down the posting on Weisner’s outrageous activities?

Posted by Fly By Night on 06/02/11 at 08:08 PM | #

Ergon wrote:

“As for “Bruce Fisher”, if you’re reading this, attack the argument, and not, the person.”

The nature of these attacks suggests that the brief given to “Bruce Fisher” is precisely to attack the people who have tried to counter Marriott spin with the facts. I suspect “Bruce Fisher” does not have any bona fide counter-arguments and simply does not understand that the right to freedom of expression does not include the right to defame and that the goal of free expression is not to silence your opposition through innuendo and intimidation.

His obsessive nastiness does not reflect positively on his organization, the FOA, or its values, and ultimately does not reflect positively on Amanda Knox or her family. The latest attack is merely a desperate attempt to deflect attention from this obvious fact and from Bruce Fisher’s protected status as a non-entity. It has escaped no one’s attention that the only people who have vouched for his “authenticity” are the FOA’s own advocacy journalists, Candace Dempsey and Steve Shay.

Posted by Skeptical Bystander on 06/02/11 at 08:19 PM | #

Hi Ernest, re your “flashback” question; how about “motivated forgetting” ?

Posted by Cardiol MD on 06/02/11 at 08:40 PM | #

Hi Fly By Night.

Thanks for the tip on the disappeared “Bruce Fisher” post. We have a saved HTML clone of that website page, and could run it if we want to from our own server. Here is the deleted passage where “Bruce Fisher” praises Michael Wiesner and refers to his students, who now seem very ticked to have been dragged into this.


Injustice in Perugia: the Wrongful Conviction of Amanda Knox & Raffaele Sollecito

Tuesday, May 17, 2011

Amanda Knox Case: An Educator Standing Up For Truth In The Classroom

As Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito fight for their freedom in Perugia Italy, much has been said about the growing support they continue to receive. Both were found guilty in late 2009 of murdering Meredith Kercher and are currently appealing their convictions. This case has been highly controversial leading many throughout the world to believe they are innocent. As the appeal slowly moves forward, the complete lack of credible evidence against Amanda and Raffaele becomes clearer every day, leading to larger widespread support. Evidence of this support was witnessed in Honolulu Hawaii this week when a group of high school students put together a video highlighting what they had learned during a class discussion on the case.

Michael Wiesner, a psychology, philosophy, and history teacher at a private high school in Honolulu Hawaii, brought the Amanda Knox case to the attention of his students while teaching psychology. Michael has been teaching at the high school level for 27 years, and has been awarded teacher of the year. His current classes are Honors World Civ and International Baccalaureate 20th Century History, but he also taught psychology and philosophy for 25 years.

His specialty is critical analysis of sources and media literacy. According to Michael, students need to know how to recognize bias and evaluate sources. He says that one aspect of psychology concentrates on attribution theory - how easy it is to misunderstand other people, their actions, and intent. Michael knows better than most that in order to understand both history, and the actions of human beings, context is vital. It was Michael’s many years of teaching on this subject that caused his peeked interest in the Amanda Knox case. Here’s Michael’s take on the case in a nutshell:

“Amanda was misunderstood because she did not conform to conventional behavior. Her actions were taken entirely out of context. Then the media frenzy that created the false persona of ‘Foxy Knoxy’, the misinterpretation of trivial actions like length of cell phone calls, and the fabrication of possible motives without a shred of evidence, all led to a wrongful conviction. This is how conspiracy theories develop. Give meaning to meaningless events - and if you have enough of them, people are easily fooled.”

Michael felt strongly that the Amanda Knox case was a great way to teach critical thinking to his students, leading him to use the case in his classroom as a means of discussion. Michael was pleased to see his students take a strong interest in the case:

“Students relate to Amanda and Raffaele because they could be any one of them. My students joined the FB causes page, and then our school news team wanted to do this video for their last broadcast. They are following the case, and rooting for an acquittal”.”

Here is the video produced by the school news team that Michael is referring to. I am pleased to have the opportunity to provide this video and I would like to thank all of the students that took part in this project as well as Adam Simon for producing the video.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 06/02/11 at 08:59 PM | #

It’s really amazing the mudslinging the Knox/Mellas clan support stoops to - my favorite are the comments I’ve recently read at HuffPo from the Knoxites is that the Kerchers are trying to extort money from the Sollecitos, and that they framed Knox and Sollecito (I guess it fits in with the rest of the vast conspiracy theory they believe in). The Kerchers are in on the frame up, and now so is Peter Quennell…

Do they really think that any rational person would believe such craziness?


If this is any indication of the defense strategy, I am afraid the Knoxites will be sorely disappointed with the outcome of the appeal.

Posted by giustizia on 06/03/11 at 02:48 AM | #

“Guede left no fingerprints…at the scene of the crime, considered to be the entire house”

I’m confused.  I honestly thought that fingerprints were what got Guede arrested.  If it wasn’t fingerprints, how did the authorities find out Guede was involved?

Sorry if I’m completely wrong here.  I’m not an expert on the case but I am interested.

Posted by Anon on 06/13/11 at 02:18 AM | #

Anon, it was a print of the palm of Guede’s hand. No fingerprints of Guede were found. All gone (if any) in the obvious cleanup.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 06/13/11 at 04:57 AM | #

Anon, to amplify Pete’s Post of 06/12/11 at 09:57 PM:




Page 5:

“b) traces attributable to Guede: a palm print in blood found on the pillow case of a pillow lying under the victim’s body – attributed with absolute certainty to the defendant by its correspondence to papillary ridges as well as 16-17 characteristic points equal in shape and position –”

Posted by Cardiol MD on 06/13/11 at 08:54 PM | #

Hi Cardiol,

Judge Micheli wrote that Rudy Guede was identified by his bloody palm print on pages 10 and 11 of his report. The following information is from one our Italian lawyers:

“... Soltanto in seguito, attraverso la comparazione in Banca Dati di un’impronta palmare [palm print] impressa nel sangue e rinvenuta sulla federa del cuscino che si trovava sotto il corpo della vittima, si accertava invece la presenza sul luogo del delitto del 21enne G. R. H.”
“... A lui si giungeva con un più approfondito esame dei 14 frammenti di impronte papillari” - [which is translated into papillary impressions, and I assume are those of the palm of his hand, since there is no mentioning of finger prints].
“... Analizzando dunque le impronte rilasciate dal prevenuto all’atto delle pregresse identificazioni, e confrontandole con quella sul cuscino, ne emergevano “analogie nelle caratteristiche generali relative all’andamento del tracciato papillare e la corrispondenza di oltre 16-17 punti caratteristici uguali per forma e posizione”.”  [the papillary prints examined are those found on the pillow, therefore must be the palm prints]

Posted by The Machine on 06/13/11 at 11:08 PM | #

Thanks Machine for your 06/13/11 at 04:08 PM Post.

Deus ex…

Posted by Cardiol MD on 06/13/11 at 11:57 PM | #
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.

Where next:

Click here to return to The Top Of The Front Page

Or to next entry Knox PR Puppet Michael Heavey Sends A Pretentious Letter To President Obama Copied To Congress

Or to previous entry Why The FOA’s Increasingly Hapless Steve Moore Should Probably Stay Well Away From TV