Dan O'Donnell - Rebutting a Murderer

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

here is a link the AMA he did on reddit a few weeks ago. Since it was not deleted on the other thread from Ranch's post, I assume it's ok to post. https://www.reddit.com/r/StevenAveryIsGuilty/comments/5812l8/ama_dan_odonnell/

Here are just a few examples of where he was wrong: The lack of photos in the burn pit is pretty standard (ok then :rolleyes: ), that the AutoTrader receptionist said she (TH) was "weirded out" and didn't want to go back to the Avery property. (this is just plain wrong, and it distorts the truth immensely)

in regards to the documents released on www.stevenaverycase.org he says "I'll be honest, I haven't looked at much". I give him credit for admitting it, but c'mon, and we are supposed to take his opinion into consideration? I find it equivalent to someone that watched MaM and insisting that BD and SA are innocent because they watched it, it's silly, and we should expect more from any media source. Because we have the documents readily available, so does the media and so does Dan O'Donnell. JMO
 
missy1974 said:
here is a link the AMA he did on reddit a few weeks ago. Since it was not deleted on the other thread from Ranch's post, I assume it's ok to post. https://www.reddit.com/r/StevenAveryIsGuilty/comments/5812l8/ama_dan_odonnell/

Here are just a few examples of where he was wrong: The lack of photos in the burn pit is pretty standard (ok then :rolleyes: ), that the AutoTrader receptionist said she (TH) was "weirded out" and didn't want to go back to the Avery property. (this is just plain wrong, and it distorts the truth immensely)

in regards to the documents released on www.stevenaverycase.org he says "I'll be honest, I haven't looked at much". I give him credit for admitting it, but c'mon, and we are supposed to take his opinion into consideration? I find it equivalent to someone that watched MaM and insisting that BD and SA are innocent because they watched it, it's silly, and we should expect more from any media source. Because we have the documents readily available, so does the media and so does Dan O'Donnell. JMO
Click to expand...

Do we have any examples of his reporting during the time of the trial? I would be very very interested to see that.
I would also be very interested to learn more about what his relationship to Ken Kratz is.

Something tells me if we dig deep into his background we will find a very interesting story. JMO

Law school is an odd route into broadcasting, is it not?
 
CoolJ said:
Do we have any examples of his reporting during the time of the trial? I would be very very interested to see that.
I would also be very interested to learn more about what his relationship to Ken Kratz is.

Something tells me if we dig deep into his background we will find a very interesting story. JMO
Click to expand...


Well according to a comment in his AMA, KK (and others) has reached out to him to say "Thank you" LOL does that count?
 
missy1974 said:
here is a link the AMA he did on reddit a few weeks ago. Since it was not deleted on the other thread from Ranch's post, I assume it's ok to post. https://www.reddit.com/r/StevenAveryIsGuilty/comments/5812l8/ama_dan_odonnell/

Here are just a few examples of where he was wrong: The lack of photos in the burn pit is pretty standard (ok then :rolleyes: ), that the AutoTrader receptionist said she (TH) was "weirded out" and didn't want to go back to the Avery property. (this is just plain wrong, and it distorts the truth immensely)

in regards to the documents released on www.stevenaverycase.org he says "I'll be honest, I haven't looked at much". I give him credit for admitting it, but c'mon, and we are supposed to take his opinion into consideration? I find it equivalent to someone that watched MaM and insisting that BD and SA are innocent because they watched it, it's silly, and we should expect more from any media source. Because we have the documents readily available, so does the media and so does Dan O'Donnell. JMO
Click to expand...

An opinion is just that~~its an opinion. I have one, you have one, we all have one. However, there is a chance that 50% of us with the NG opinion are correct and 50% chance we are wrong. Likewise, there is a chance 50% with the G opinion are correct and 50% chance they are wrong. This case is not going to be decided based upon Dan O'Donnell's opinion, your opinion or my opinion. So, we can discuss our opinions all we want, however in the end it will make no difference at all.
 
He was not wrong about her being weirded out by SA. This has also been substantiated by one of Teresa's longtime friends.

“She had a bad feeling about him,” says Halbach’s longtime friend, Gina Haring. “She said, ‘He looks at me weird. He creeps me out.’ ”

http://people.com/crime/teresa-halb...r-to-go-to-steven-averys-house-one-last-time/

The fact that Teresa spoke to several people about him just goes to show how concerned she was which makes what happened to her even more tragic.
 
D.O was at the trial. He seen and heard everything the jury did and maybe more so it doesn't concern me at all that he hasn't read up on transcripts etc.

I don't necessarily share his opinion on how or why BD was involved, but at least he seems to have set a much higher benchmark for himself when it comes to truth in reporting than the MaM filmakers did.
 
To be fair to D.O. he actually put this rebuttal together almost immediately that the series came out. Yes there are a couple of inconsistencies, but on the whole, he raises some very interesting questions and points out that the programme makers misled its audience by suggesting wrong doing by LE, without actually providing any evidence. Also, he noted that other people were suggested as potential suspects based upon nothing but the opinion of the producers of MaM.

D.O. did however, did spark some ideas about the editing of the programme, which I have found to be very disconcerting. Colborn's appearance in the witness box is massively edited, and they have him giving answers to questions that were put in a different order. I would watch the relevant MaM episode again, but have the court transcript from when Colborn was on the stand, open in a browser. They stitched him up like a Kipper on that show, and misled the audience by actually showing his reactions to other questions, instead of what he had just been asked.

For making me check the records and finding out for myself how biassed MaM is, I have D.O. to thank.
 
Limaes said:
He was not wrong about her being weirded out by SA. This has also been substantiated by one of Teresa's longtime friends.

“She had a bad feeling about him,” says Halbach’s longtime friend, Gina Haring. “She said, ‘He looks at me weird. He creeps me out.’ ”

http://people.com/crime/teresa-halb...r-to-go-to-steven-averys-house-one-last-time/

The fact that Teresa spoke to several people about him just goes to show how concerned she was which makes what happened to her even more tragic.
Click to expand...

He stated the receptionist from AutoTrader testified to this.... he was wrong. She didn't. Read her testimony. She testified on Day 2.

If what her friend said is true, I wonder why she didn't testify? I wonder why it wasn't brought up in the testimony of 2 AT workers that TH was going to quit? They begged her to go to Avery's? :rolleyes:
 
Hoosen_Fenger said:
To be fair to D.O. he actually put this rebuttal together almost immediately that the series came out. Yes there are a couple of inconsistencies, but on the whole, he raises some very interesting questions and points out that the programme makers misled its audience by suggesting wrong doing by LE, without actually providing any evidence. Also, he noted that other people were suggested as potential suspects based upon nothing but the opinion of the producers of MaM.

D.O. did however, did spark some ideas about the editing of the programme, which I have found to be very disconcerting. Colborn's appearance in the witness box is massively edited, and they have him giving answers to questions that were put in a different order. I would watch the relevant MaM episode again, but have the court transcript from when Colborn was on the stand, open in a browser. They stitched him up like a Kipper on that show, and misled the audience by actually showing his reactions to other questions, instead of what he had just been asked.

For making me check the records and finding out for myself how biassed MaM is, I have D.O. to thank.
Click to expand...

BBM

I don't think it was all just their "opinion". There are court documents filed before and after the trial that accuse others as potential suspects.

Honestly Hoosen_Fenger, the show is almost a moot point to me now. Yeah, I watched it, but half way through, I started researching it and was reading while watching. I am smart enough to know that it is a show and I wasn't snowed by any editing. Maybe some time I will go back and watch it when I have the time (which isn't any time soon lol), it will be interesting to me now that I have far more knowledge about the cases as a whole than I did the first time. I promise if I ever do, I will make notes of anything that I think is wrong compared to the transcripts and documents that we have :)
 
Hoosen_Fenger said:
To be fair to D.O. he actually put this rebuttal together almost immediately that the series came out. Yes there are a couple of inconsistencies, but on the whole, he raises some very interesting questions and points out that the programme makers misled its audience by suggesting wrong doing by LE, without actually providing any evidence. Also, he noted that other people were suggested as potential suspects based upon nothing but the opinion of the producers of MaM.

D.O. did however, did spark some ideas about the editing of the programme, which I have found to be very disconcerting. Colborn's appearance in the witness box is massively edited, and they have him giving answers to questions that were put in a different order. I would watch the relevant MaM episode again, but have the court transcript from when Colborn was on the stand, open in a browser. They stitched him up like a Kipper on that show, and misled the audience by actually showing his reactions to other questions, instead of what he had just been asked.

For making me check the records and finding out for myself how biassed MaM is, I have D.O. to thank.
Click to expand...

I absolutely agree that NO one should base their opinions of this case on the documentary alone. I think anyone & everyone who is going to form an opinion pertaining to SA & BD's guilt or innocence should READ through each page of the transcripts as well as CASO. I've always wondered.. why KK or LE never accepted MAM creators invitation to answer questions? Even with a lawyer present or something? Set the record straight and get those big bad liars off their backs, right?:thinking:
jmo
 
Limaes said:
He was not wrong about her being weirded out by SA. This has also been substantiated by one of Teresa's longtime friends.

“She had a bad feeling about him,” says Halbach’s longtime friend, Gina Haring. “She said, ‘He looks at me weird. He creeps me out.’ ”

http://people.com/crime/teresa-halb...r-to-go-to-steven-averys-house-one-last-time/

The fact that Teresa spoke to several people about him just goes to show how concerned she was which makes what happened to her even more tragic.
Click to expand...

Seriously? Begging? Anyone know if People magazine pays$$$ for interviews?? Curious
 
BigCityAccountant said:
An opinion is just that~~its an opinion. I have one, you have one, we all have one. However, there is a chance that 50% of us with the NG opinion are correct and 50% chance we are wrong. Likewise, there is a chance 50% with the G opinion are correct and 50% chance they are wrong. This case is not going to be decided based upon Dan O'Donnell's opinion, your opinion or my opinion. So, we can discuss our opinions all we want, however in the end it will make no difference at all.
Click to expand...

:clap::clap::clap:
 
dexter75 said:
I absolutely agree that NO one should base their opinions of this case on the documentary alone. I think anyone & everyone who is going to form an opinion pertaining to SA & BD's guilt or innocence should READ through each page of the transcripts as well as CASO. I've always wondered.. why KK or LE never accepted MAM creators invitation to answer questions? Even with a lawyer present or something? Set the record straight and get those big bad liars off their backs, right?:thinking:
jmo
Click to expand...

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: )
 
Hoosen_Fenger said:
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: )
Click to expand...

2 questions for you Hoosen_Fenger, if you would kindly answer:

1) did the MCSO make a commitment publically that they would not be directly involved in the investigation?
2) did Colbourn and Lenk find the majority of evidence in question?
 
CoolJ said:
2 questions for you Hoosen_Fenger, if you would kindly answer:

1) did the MCSO make a commitment publically that they would not be directly involved in the investigation? They agreed to let Calumet County take the lead in the investigation.
2) did Colbourn and Lenk find the majority of evidence in question? No, they did not.
Click to expand...

Bold & Italics by me.

I'm happy to answer any questions. I do though, in the true spirit of 'Give Get,' as I would understand it, have the opportunity to now ask you a couple of questions.

1) Of all the questions you could have asked someone like me, who is in the minority on Websleuths that feels Avery & Dassey to be both Guilty, why those two questions?
2) Did you know that Steven Avery asked Pamela Bernstein to buy him a house?
 
Hoosen_Fenger said:
Bold & Italics by me.

I'm happy to answer any questions. I do though, in the true spirit of 'Give Get,' as I would understand it, have the opportunity to now ask you a couple of questions.

1) Of all the questions you could have asked someone like me, who is in the minority on Websleuths that feels Avery & Dassey to be both Guilty, why those two questions?
2) Did you know that Steven Avery asked Pamela Bernstein to buy him a house?
Click to expand...

I asked you those two questions because they are relevant to your post. If you don't understand the fundamentals of why Colbourn's integrity is in question, then I understand somewhat why you would have the viewpoint you do... Lack of understanding the fundamentals of this case ala Dan O'Donnell.

What does Pamela Burnstein have to do with this case? She owes him a heck of a lot more than a house IMO
 
Hoosen_Fenger said:
Bold & Italics by me.

I'm happy to answer any questions. I do though, in the true spirit of 'Give Get,' as I would understand it, have the opportunity to now ask you a couple of questions.

1) Of all the questions you could have asked someone like me, who is in the minority on Websleuths that feels Avery & Dassey to be both Guilty, why those two questions?
2) Did you know that Steven Avery asked Pamela Bernstein to buy him a house?
Click to expand...

Read this. Especially the quote from Jerry Pagel

http://www.postcrescent.com/story/news/2016/01/26/experts-investigators-tainted-avery-case/79065166/
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is Fairfield County Jane Doe (1993)?

Members online

... and 203 more.
Total: 483 (members: 204, guests: 279)

Online statistics

Members online
204
Guests online
279
Total visitors
483
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
608,482
Messages
18,240,232
Members
234,385
Latest member
johnwich
Back
Top