Dan O'Donnell - Rebutting a Murderer

[Limaes]

I am saying
IMO I find it hard to believe Auto Trader
" begged " for TH to go to Averys.
If this IS indeed the truth it would be great to hear straight from a rep from Auto Trader, PERIOD.
The objective of a magazine is???
Print the truth??
Sell magazines?
As far as this longtime " friend" is concerned..I truly would like to know..
Was she PAID MONEY to give this information??


Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

Perhaps you could ask them if they pay the friends of homecide victims to make a comment?

 

[BigCityAccountant]

He should not have been contacting her...period.

Really???????????

They talked because she was on the Criminal Justice Commission working on the Avery Law and he was giving testimony. You must have missed the part in MaM.

www.buting.com/New-Criminal-Justice-Commission-Formed.pdf

 

[Hoosen_Fenger]

Actually, no she did not ask if there was anything she could do. Here is the paragraph in which she describes the context.

A few months after I met Steve, he left a message for me. So I called him and he was kind of beating around the bush. He was telling me how he didn’t have any money and he couldn’t get a job and he was living on his parent’s property and it wasn’t going well and he wanted to get his own place to live and it would really be nice to have a house. I finally came out and said, “Steve, are you asking me to buy you a house?” And he said yes. I said, “That’s not possible. We probably should not be talking to each other. I will be deposed in your civil suit.” He was cordial, he wasn’t abusive or anything. It was just clear he wanted money from me. I called job services and passed that along to his attorney, but I don’t know if he ever followed up with them.

This was taken from her statement to the Marshall project, which can be found here.

I have already answered what it has to do with this case. I will go further. It casts further aspersions on to the character of Avery. Why ask her for a house if you are getting millions? He response is that she is going to be disposed in the hearing. In other words, the law suit was well under way and he did not need to ask as he was going to get a large pay out.

 

[CoolJ]

Actually, no she did not ask if there was anything she could do. Here is the paragraph in which she describes the context.

A few months after I met Steve, he left a message for me. So I called him and he was kind of beating around the bush. He was telling me how he didn’t have any money and he couldn’t get a job and he was living on his parent’s property and it wasn’t going well and he wanted to get his own place to live and it would really be nice to have a house. I finally came out and said, “Steve, are you asking me to buy you a house?” And he said yes. I said, “That’s not possible. We probably should not be talking to each other. I will be deposed in your civil suit.” He was cordial, he wasn’t abusive or anything. It was just clear he wanted money from me. I called job services and passed that along to his attorney, but I don’t know if he ever followed up with them.

This was taken from her statement to the Marshall project, which can be found here.

I have already answered what it has to do with this case. I will go further. It casts further aspersions on to the character of Avery. Why ask her for a house if you are getting millions? He response is that she is going to be disposed in the hearing. In other words, the law suit was well under way and he did not need to ask as he was going to get a large pay out.

So you are assuming that is the only conversation they ever had? You don't think she could have asked him if there was anything she could do for him when they first met months previous to that phone call?You don't consider that a possiblity given how apologetic she was?

Again, what relevance does this have to his guilt or innocence in THIS case?

Me and you think in completely different ways my friend.

 

[Hoosen_Fenger]

Me and you think in completely different ways my friend.

Indeed we do. How boring would it be if everyone had the same opinions.

 

[dexter75]

Perhaps you could ask them if they pay the friends of homecide victims to make a comment?

Perhaps I will

 

[dexter75]

:yourock: I totally agree with you and BCA. Just because someone may not have the best judgment at times (can't we all admit to that, honestly?) it is absolutely no indication of guilt or tendencies to murder. There is so much bias against SA, it totally amazes me. I feel that if someone is not able to put themselves in SA's shoes for even one short nanosecond, that shows me they are truly biased, and not proceeding with an open mind. IMO.

:curtsey:
Thank you, IDK.:gthanks: I know I've made MY share of mistakes ( damn teen years ) in life, however, it's been my experience that sitting back on that high horse.. with ones nose turned up in the air... JUDGING one another..will only come back to bite ya in the arse.
As far as bias against SA..:thinking: Ya don't need me to spell it out how MOST folks have been just that..from the beginning.
JMO

 

[dexter75]

The perspective of the author is irrelevant because the points I was making were based on quotes from those close to the case.

The fundamentals I am suggesting you could freshen up on, or at least admit to, is the commonly known fact that Lenk and Colbourn (and the rest of the MCSO cabal) were not supposed to be directly involved with the investigation. Before I go any further in this debate I have to ask... Do you agree with that or not?

I have to agree..
WHY would this be acceptable ( since we are questioning behavior a lot lately ) for Manitowoc to REPEATEDLY at ALL hours of the day and night..insert themselves into this investigation?
Especially when KRATZ assured EVERYONE they would NOT, and MANITOWOC was THE subject of the suit?
Again..here we go with the STANDARD LE should have lived up to though, right? ( Couldn't even TYPE that last comment without an eyeroll.. Hochstetler, Avery, Avery again? JMO )

 

[dexter75]

Thanks for this one. I hadn't seen it before.
MCSO sure did play a big part in recovery of evidence didn't they.

How some folks don't find this suspicious is totally beyond me. I mean those with ulterior motives, I get it. But how the average Joe, seemingly intellectually intelligent enough, don't see the red flags...I'm not sure I will ever understand that.

BBM
Everytime we go over this case...

 

[dexter75]

Bolded by me

Cheeky. I see what you are doing there....... Get them little old LE fella's & KK in a studio with a blank backdrop and ask them friendly questions about Bunny Rabbits & Candy......

Then, edit the life out of their answers.....

Despite everyones opinions of KK, I think he was right not to do the show, otherwise with just some simple questions, they could have made him look very bad if they edit the way they did with Colborn.

Like most others, I do not know KK or anyone in LE personally, so my only interaction is what was on the show, and what I have researched. (some of it, in KK's case, is clearly not the sort of behaviour, that would ever see me taking the guy out for a beer.)

As for Colborn, I feel really sorry for him. He has had his name & reputation dragged through the mud by virtue of some unproven & slanderous accusations. Yes I know he did not file a report in 1993, but he was a probation officer at the time and Avery's name was not given to him. It was, above his pay grade to look into it. What did he do? He passed it to his superiors which was the right thing to do. MaM painted him to be some kind of Machiavellian agent, when actually, there were others to blame.

Wandered a little off topic there, but it is relevant to D.O. and his rebuttal because MaM only presents one side of the story. We have all been reading the case files to find out more detail about the investigation & trial and dismissing the validity of the programme in our debating positions. So perhaps, there is space for MaM - The Case For The Prosecution, that needs to be made into a show. (As long as I pick the Music.... :happy dance: )

Nope, not at all talking about a MAM style documentary. I don't care WHO interviews them....hell..let it be LIVE for all I care. I think it would help answer a LOT of questions.
THAT is what I meant by that

 

[ArianeEmory]

:yourock: I totally agree with you and BCA. Just because someone may not have the best judgment at times (can't we all admit to that, honestly?) it is absolutely no indication of guilt or tendencies to murder. There is so much bias against SA, it totally amazes me. I feel that if someone is not able to put themselves in SA's shoes for even one short nanosecond, that shows me they are truly biased, and not proceeding with an open mind. IMO.

Cat. Fire. Yes, I'm biased.

 

[dexter75]

Cat. Fire. Yes, I'm biased.

Yep, hey you admit it:biggrin:

 

[Limaes]

There is a lot more biased toward SA than there is against him. Some of the comments I've seen from his supporters are puzzling to say the least. Even to the point that the real victims, Teresa and her family, are the bad ones.

Sent from my SM-P550 using Tapatalk

 

[BigCityAccountant]

There is a lot more biased toward SA than there is against him. Some of the comments I've seen from his supporters are puzzling to say the least. Even to the point that the real victims, Teresa and her family, are the bad ones.

Sent from my SM-P550 using Tapatalk

.
I think the only thing we agree on....LOL

People who continue to victimize the family in that way are just pure evil themselves!

Hoozer~~At one time I too felt sorry for Colburn~~but~~the more I dug~~the more I felt uneasy about what transpired there. I guess knowing the area well helped me jump the fence from guilty to not guilty.

 

[Limaes]

Dan O'Donnell's views on Judge Duffin's decision to overturn BD's conviction.

http://newstalk1130.iheart.com/onai...-ridiculous-brendan-dassey-decision-15050465/

How weird that in the short time since he announced his decision, Duffin has been overuled twice...and one of those was by himself haha

 

[dexter75]

Dan O'Donnell's views on Judge Duffin's decision to overturn BD's conviction.

http://newstalk1130.iheart.com/onai...-ridiculous-brendan-dassey-decision-15050465/

How weird that in the short time since he announced his decision, Duffin has been overuled twice...and one of those was by himself haha

Ralph Sassons COMMENT at the end of this OPINION you linked, is spot on!
IMO

And the link you provide here, is nothing more than another O'Donnell OPINION.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

 

[missy1974]

Ralph Sassons COMMENT at the end of this OPINION you linked, is spot on!
IMO

And the link you provide here, is nothing more than another O'Donnell OPINION.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

I had to go read it, and I agree, what a great comment! I think this is the opinion that also included how biased Duffin was in using a Leo/Drizin book, which just reinforces that O'Donnell is just spouting off and not even researching anything, considering the State used Leo or the book in an appeal or something. It was part of the court record, thanks to the prosecution

 

[Limaes]

Ralph Sassons COMMENT at the end of this OPINION you linked, is spot on!
IMO

And the link you provide here, is nothing more than another O'Donnell OPINION.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

That is why I said his views.

The comments section of articles are always entertaining. Biased people calling others biased LOL Wonder how they feel now that he has been overuled twice.

 

[Limaes]

I had to go read it, and I agree, what a great comment! I think this is the opinion that also included how biased Duffin was in using a Leo/Drizin book, which just reinforces that O'Donnell is just spouting off and not even researching anything, considering the State used Leo or the book in an appeal or something. It was part of the court record, thanks to the prosecution

Are you sure about that?

THE DEFENSE

http://stevenaverycase.com/s/2011-Dassey-COA-Brief-Dassey.pdf

THE STATE

http://stevenaverycase.com/s/2011-Dassey-COA-Brief-State.pdf

Looks like D.O isn't the one spouting off and not even researching anything. Duffin made an error and it has been re-spouted over the internet without checking whether it was true or not.

I find it humourous that anyone would believe that Drizin's co-author would be brought in to testify by the State. All they did was cross examine him to which he had to concede that BD had knowledge of the facts because he was, in fact, there. smdh [emoji57]

 

[proudfootz]

In reading Dan O'Donnell's piece, I notice he states "Dassey was of average intelligence."

AFAICT Brendan's IQ scores are around 70.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...making-a-murderer_us_57ae2f42e4b0718404117823

Most of the sources I've seen suggest that an IQ of 100 is average, and that someone scoring well below that is relatively rare - as in this graphic:

According to the statistics used here, a score of about 70 on an IQ test would put you in the lowest 3% of the population.

What subculture does Dan O'Donnell belong to which has an average IQ of 70?