Thank you for doing this. It provided a ton of great information. Top notch. I wish I’d found this years ago.

Where’s Season 2 episode 7?

It’s so obvious he is guilty. Netflix created such a garbage narrative carried on by whack Zellner. This is not some giant conspiracy headed by some dopey cops. Steven is a manipulative incestual scum. Thank you Dan

Dan O’Donnell does not present any facts to support his biased opinion that Steven Avery and Brendan Dassey are guilty, and essentially is repeating the same information the State of Wisconsin has already presented during the trials of Avery and Dassey. As a practicing forensic scientist, I found numerous fallacies with Dan O’Donnell’s (and the State of Wisconsin’s) arguments that are used to support the culpability of both Avery and Dassey.

This podcast is well done!

I had to stop after the first episode when the host insinuated that the police were at no fault for convicting Steven in the rape case. In reality, Steven had an air tight alibi and wasn’t anywhere near where the rape occurred, which the host conveniently left out to try to make it seem like the police just did their best with what they had. After listening to only the first episode, it was clear the host was just as biased as MAM.

I was ALMOST ready to say Steven Avery was’t the killer, however, my gut told me he’s a creep, and guilty of something, and I’d never want to be in the room with him. I always thought something was off about his nephew, but not sure what. Listening to this, Dan takes FACTS and EVIDENCE and matches them to the proper narrative that is IN THE DOCUMENTARY, but covered over with blurred lines and proposition. It’s a really good listen and makes me wanna watch the Documentary again with clearer vision!

This a great documentary for the OTHER SIDE of the argument in which it affirms people’s belief that he was not framed. It presents the actual evidence and discredits the Insane theories that the defense team argues. The garbage Netflix documentary was completed one sided lacking of any evidence, and filled with awful conjuncture.

I really think the doc on Netflix is biased but this podcast is worse. The podcaster is disdainful and makes just as many “extraordinary” claims as the doc he seeks to rebut. I think the first season of the documentary was focused on the procedural issues of the trials rather than whether Steven Avery actually kill Teresa. So I was hoping this podcast would show how those procedures were correct. Nope. He’s way more focused on how attorneys shouldn’t make extraordinary claims when that’s what they’re supposed to do - advocate for their client between the tension presented by the state and their duty to the law. This podcast could be so much better. PASS

You’re probably the most condescending person I’ve ever listened to. The very tone of your voice makes you sound like you think you’re smarter than anyone involved in this case. I don’t know if it’s frustration because you “reported on this case”, or what, but it makes your podcast incredibly unappealing to the ear. Also your ads are about 15x as loud as your show. Maybe learn to edit your audio before you blow out someone’s ear drums 🙄

This supposed “podcast” is just as biased as it claims Netflix’s “Making a Murder” is. There is always a third side toast story, the truth, and this is NOT it. This is the equivalent to “click bait”.

When he gives facts that the documentary left out it’s actually thought provoking. But the majority of his rebuttals are opinion based and he falls into the the exact problem that he had with the series. He seems like the kind of guy who thinks anyone accused of a crime is guilty until proven innocent.

This podcast is terrible though ironic due to how biased it actually is. I was hoping for some real facts and reporting. Instead I got a pompous host that just says the opposite of whatever the documentary says. He would have argued the grass is blue if the series would have said it was green. It's cringeworthy. Save yourself the time.

Mr. O’Donnell present some interesting evidence that was left out of the Netflix series, but the entire tone of this podcast borders on obnoxious and lacking in journalistic integrity.

The host is equally biased as the show and does a terrible job at explaining the legal issues at play.

I was concerned to start this after reading so many negative reviews. Many complain of him being biased. He 100% is, but that’s the whole problem with the documentary to begin with. I think what people don’t like is the bias in the opposite direction. I believe the truth probably lies somewhere in the middle. In what I’ve found, he was a journalist that covered the trials. I’d like to know more about the evidence he presents. I’m not saying I don’t believe it. I just haven’t dug enough to be able to confirm it. I guess the thing that bothers me is wondering why other people haven’t come out presenting the same evidence.

This guy talks about how biased the documentary is while being biased himself. He isn't openminded enough to sort through facts, but rather is set in his opinion against Avery. His voice is also super annoying. Too aggressive!

He makes a few good points, but fails in so many others! Not too mention the biased and hatred in his yelling...

I’m a Forensic DNA/Serology student and you have to be open minded to cases like this. It honestly takes someone with open mindedness to see past what Zelner is putting in your head. This case is based on a lot of theories anyways but the plain and simple truth is that there is concrete evidence against Avery and none for him. I realized this doing some research on this case for a lab QA/QC class. I wanted to look into the police and planting evidence but turns out I found no evidence whatsoever. Turns out the only errors I could use was his first rape case that he was freed from prison. The error was unfortunately the validity of the victim’s identification of Avery as the rapist by a photo line up. There was a protocol put into effect to aid with this. The conclusion I came to is that there is no physical evidence proving that Avery was “framed” by the police. I’m sorry guys but forensic evidence does not lie.

A lot of people writing reviews, complaining about the bias of this podcast. The point of this podcast was never to lay out scientific facts about the case, it is to refute the “facts” and assumptions laid out by the docuDRAMA by Netflix. It says “rebutting” right in the title! It’s like people going into a courtroom, and expecting the prosecution to do the defense attorney’s job for them. This Podcast is brilliantly done, and anyone who watches that almost fiction on Netflix should be required to listen to Mr. O’Donnell’s REBUTTAL after each episode.

I’m going to search for an actual debate on this case. Hopefully there’s a podcast out there not omitting the facts that don’t suit their opinions.

This podcaster rakes the defense team over the coals for making accusations with no support. Then, he does the exact same thing by assuming law enforcement would never do anything bad, but has not support they didn’t. For instance he brings up the key chain on multiple incidents and point out that Avery’s DNA is found on it. Then states that they police couldn’t have planted because their DNA is not on it. Like they aren’t smart enough to wear gloves. Then he suggests that Avery cleans the key chain to get Teresa’s blood off the WOVEN key chain. So he is smart enough to remove her DNA but then let’s his own get on it. Hmmm. Then says there are no prints in her car because Avery wiped it down, but then concedes Avery left his own blood in the car. He makes the assumption that Avery cleaned the garage of all DNA after shooting Halbeck, but then says he simply missed the bullet and shell casings laying all over. He basically assumes that Avery is a sloppy, forensic expert and that his defense team is ruthless for defending their client.

Like most people, I was outraged when I watched Making a Murderer. I started digging into the details because it was hard for me to believe such a miscarriage of justice occurred. As I learned, many facts contradict the documentary. This documentary lays them out brutally. And then, Season 2 is a bigger farce that this series pokes holes in - actually convincing me of Avery’s guilt. I still think Dassey got a raw deal from his attorneys and family members. He was there, but he got bullied by his uncle and swallowed a terrible sentence. Season 2 of the podcast actually uses Zelner to slam dunk the case against Avery.

...however, Dan O’Donell’s rebuttals are equally as biased. This podcast only further muddies the waters between truth and fiction. It would be nice to hear scientific input on the points in the case. Dan O’Donell is not a blood expert, not a bone expert, or forensics expert. He was a journalist who was witness to the legal proceedings.

As for Steven Avery, I don’t have a strong opinion as to guilt or innocence, but this podcast adds zero to the story. The author criticizes tactics of the original show, but uses the same tactics in offering wild speculation without support. The conjecture and hypotheticals offered were too much to take and I cut loose at 5 episodes. Waste of time.

It is despicable that the DA, judge, found Brendan was capable of understanding anything when he clearly had learning disabilities and low IQ. He was coerced, badgered, and questioned without an attorney or his mother. The detectives questioning him basically planted things in his head. As an attorney, you should recognize this. Avery may be guilty, but this kid is probably not, and it’s despicable what they did to them. Total corruption.

Nice realistic views on the show

Great show with logical breakdown of the evidence. I hope dan Odonnell does another podcast. People that believe in conspiracy theories aren’t going to like this podcast, however, sane and objective people will be fascinated.

I was excited to listen to this. I think there is a need for an unsensational review of the facts of the Avery case. This did not fill that void. Rebutting a Murderer is just as biased as Making a Murderer. In fact, I’d submit it is more biased. Listening to this made me feel that there might be something to the claims of bias made by Avery because clearly this reporter who covered the case has a personal agenda. If the above was the only problem with Rebutting a Murderer, it might have earned two stars from me. However, it is also generally annoying. The narrator speaks in that fake self-important voice that bush league reporters who will never make it to a real media outlet adopt. It was like listening to Ron Burgundy read a podcast.

I feel like I’m listening to a 30 minute news report and I absolutely hate it. I get that this is supposed give off the impression of hard facts but it’s just impossible to take seriously. I like the idea of someone arguing another side but this was just done horribly and barely any thought was put into making it worthwhile to listen to. Mehhhhhh

I struggled through the first season and started the second, but finally had to waive the white flag. I won’t bother to echo a lot of the same comments already made here. Dan does make the occasional valid point and I think there is merit in trying to point out some very obvious flaws in the theory behind Making a Murderer...unfortunately, those points are obscured by what appears to be an overzealous attempt to combat any and every point being made within the documentary.

Only rated it one star because I couldn’t give it zero. Sides with prosecution and does nothing to discredit anything the documentary says, just makes petty arguments. I really wanted to hear a good argument but just found myself rolling my eyes the whole time.

This guy favors the prosecution so much, but he brings up some good points. The show favors Steven and Brendan so it’s interesting to pair this with the show to really think about what might have happened. I finished season 1 pretty sure Steven Avery did this, but by the end of season 2, this podcast can’t convince me, there’s some messed up police work happening in Wisconsin.

Unsubscribing

Found this podcast to be poorly done and unconvincing. It would have been better if they had attempted to build a case against Steven and Brendan. Instead, it sounded like petty argument that only addressed portions of information in the documentary

Wow. Nothing of value is said.

Decided to give this (excuse of a) podcast a try, you know, to be “fair and balanced.” Don’t waste your time. Beyond horrible. While “Making a Murderer” may have a slight bias toward the defendants, anyone who can’t see that Brendan Dassey’s “confession” was a total sham has no place in journalism. I could easily refute nearly everything O’Donnell claims with far more accuracy than he refutes what MaM says. One example: Danny Boy loves to postulate that Dassey’s confession is somehow accurate, going so far as to say “mounting evidence.” What evidence? Where’s the forensic evidence of a rape? Of cutting Theresa’s hair? Of tying/handcuffing her to the bed? Of cutting her on the bed? Zero evidence for any of this. Why? Cause it was all made up and fed to an easily manipulated, developmentally disabled 16-year-old with no prior criminal record. IHeartRadio: shame!

I was interested in hearing the other side of the story. This podcast does present some evidence that the show ignores, but there is at least as much conjecture on the part of Dan as there is by the podcast. This is as biased as the show, just on the opposite side.

Dan O'Donnell is just as biased and irrisponsible with his reporting of this case as he claims MAM is. Yes, making a murdrer, to use Dans favorite word, "glossed" over past issues that Avery had, but Dan glosses over the blatent issues that the police and prosecution showed. Dan doesnt even seem to understand basic law enforement procedures at some points. There are clear violations of due process and impartiality committed by the county sheriffs depertment. He also just completely ignores the fact that the DNA evidence found on the bullet that is found is contaminated by the analyst and should not have been admissable..? At this point no one is sure if Steven Avery murdered Teresa Hallbach, but despite Dan O'Donnells half harted attempts at a rebuttle, he cannot prove that Steven Avery was not railroaded by the state. Dont waste your time. Reddit has better rebuttles to MAM than this "reporter"

Mr. O'Donnell brings up some interesting points in this podcast. Some of the details that the documentary didn't fully investigate are covered. In the end, it was entertaining. However, his tone of voice throughout is the loud and forceful one common to local radio reporters that IT SEEMS THAT THE ENTIRE SERIES IS DELIVERED IN ALL CAPS!!!!!!

Very clear from the start the narrator is convinced of Avery and Dassey’s guilt. Way more biased than Making A Murderer.

Someone who doesn’t take that documentary as gospel.

A “common-sense” conservative who seems to be more interested in towing the line for Brad Schimel and Ken Kratz than actually rebutting the points made by the documentary.

Waste of time. I tried to give this a chance, but it feels like he’s just yelling the whole time. Besides that, he just questions the obvious speculation in the show and asks you to believe his equally uninformed speculation because he is a journalist and uses Latin phrases.

I wanted this to be good but it isn’t. I listened to the entire first season just to give it a chance. Don’t waste your time. He gave a few new pieces of information but mostly just makes conclusory statements.

The host apparently doesn’t understand that not being a murderer doesn’t automatically make you a good person or that doing something bad automatically means you did something else worse. The US definitely has problems with under reported and persecuted violence against women and there is a correlation between violence to animals in youth to greater crimes against people later. And it is possible Avery would have actually committed more serious crimes at some point. Instead of caring about any of these facts, the host simply weaponizes them inappropriately to make unsubstantiated claims.

Was excited to hear the "other side" of the story...But found this to be full of the same kind of argumentation that the host charged the documentary of making. My feelings seem to vindicated by reading the other reviews posted here.

So I was curious after hearing an ad on a network (How Stuff Works) I trust. But episode one was so bad I can’t continue. Of course Making a Murderer is biased, most docs are to some extent. But between a delivery I found to be condescending, and facts that didn’t make sense, I have to say HWS, I’m disappointed in your support of this. In episode one he argues the police new not to trust Avery’s 1985 alibi because of the legal problems of his brothers/Alvin witnesses. Dan then goes on to reference crimes/cases that happened years after Avery’s conviction. Is Dan arguing the cops can see the future bad acts Minority Report style?

I Took an objective approach to see if I missed something. Wow, this only confirmed my beliefs that they are innocent despite the podcast’s clear opposition without any substance to say otherwise.

I couldn’t make it through the first episode. This guy sounds like a low level market weekend anchor for the local news. Was he on a swing set while recording because his cadence is so sing-song. I felt like there were aspects of the Avery’s character that weren’t explicit on Netflix