Aggregated reviews for Rebutting a Murderer

Is Steven Avery from Making A Murderer Guilty? Rebutting A Murderer Podcast gives new facts and insights about the case

Can’t stop listening   (4/5)

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!


Awesome!   (5/5)

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 want to believe   (1/5)

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


Thanks, I hate it   (1/5)

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 🙄


Biased, the whole way around.   (1/5)

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”.


Some facts, A LOT of opinion   (2/5)

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.


That Time You Make A Biased Podcast to Try and Prove a Point that a Documentary is Biased   (1/5)

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.


Smug and Unprofessional   (1/5)

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.


Horrible   (1/5)

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


Keep an open mind   (4/5)

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.


Cringe-worthy   (2/5)

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 defends Len K! lol   (1/5)

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


Open Mindedness   (5/5)

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.


It’s in the title people!!!!   (5/5)

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.


He’s just as biased as Netflix   (2/5)

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.


The definition of irony   (1/5)

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.


Mostly nails it   (5/5)

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.


We knew Making a Murderer was biased...   (2/5)

...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.


Self defeating and meandering   (1/5)

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.


Brendan Dassey was not competent to understand anything   (2/5)

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.


Great feed back   (5/5)

Nice realistic views on the show


Finally someone who shows the other side   (5/5)

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.


Good idea wasted   (1/5)

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.


Newscaster Voice?? Meeehhh   (2/5)

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


Painful   (1/5)

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.


Horrible   (1/5)

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 is so biased   (3/5)

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.


Unlistenable   (1/5)

Unsubscribing


Unconvincing   (2/5)

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


Waste of time   (1/5)

Wow. Nothing of value is said.


Boycott IHeartRadio   (1/5)

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!


Interesting concept, terrible execution   (1/5)

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.


Being a piece of crap, does not a murderer make   (1/5)

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"


Interesting Second Opinion   (3/5)

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!!!!!!


Biased Agenda   (1/5)

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


Finally   (5/5)

Someone who doesn’t take that documentary as gospel.


Interested in topic but not from him   (1/5)

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.


Skip   (1/5)

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.


Gives Some New Info But Mostly Conclusory   (2/5)

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.


Couldn’t make it past the first episode   (1/5)

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.


Disappointing   (2/5)

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.


Sorry but no...   (1/5)

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?


Trash   (1/5)

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 like the concept but....   (1/5)

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


Great info conveniently left out of the documentary!   (5/5)

Ignore the 1 star reviews, these people suffer from confirmation bias. They have already made up their minds that the documentary is accurate and no amount of evidence to the contrary will sway them. It’s sad, the world is filled with these people.


MAM fans will hate this series...   (5/5)

Emotionally unstable MAM fanboys/girls are driving the ratings down on this series. Insanely, it’s more popular to create fantasy scenarios instead of following the facts. If you do in fact listen to this series, really pay attention to how the host points out what MAM specifically leaves out of their program. There’s a reason for everything, remember that.


Dan O’Donnell is also biased   (1/5)

Intrigued by the premise and having watched making a murderer, I was interested in listening to the story from all angles. The promos for this show went on and on about how biased the show was. Well, this show was just as biased from the opposite side. This podcast is RIFE with judgement. I expected to hear facts and evidence that we were not made aware of in the Netflix Doc, but mostly what I heard was the interpretation of events from someone that obviously feels that Steven and Brandon are guilty. Which is fine, but don’t tout yourself as an unbiased reporter unveiling truth when that’s not at all what you’re doing. On top of that the manner in which the information is presented is boring, uninteresting, and doesn’t have an obvious through line.


Clear Breakdown of Evidence Not A Biased Spin Job   (5/5)

The host clearly breaks down episode by episode of the show what people DIDN’T see. The host actually attended the trials so he was privy to information the general public was not. He debunks myths from the tv show about why if Kathleen has all of this “new” evidence why didn’t she actually USE it in her appeals filing.


Angry much   (1/5)

Obviously, the prosecution’s argument for guilt won out in this case. Mr. Avery is in prison. Your approach to debunking the documentary sounds bitter and angry. A defendant has every right to appeal their conviction. Thank the system, because where would we be with out this right...? finding an alternate suspect or definitively solving the murder would be amazing but that may never happen. I am not saying Avery is innocent or guilty, cause idk. However, arguments made out of context are inherently confusing and disturbing to anyone. I doubt Mr. Avery will ever get out of prison with this conviction. I hope Ms. Halbach’s family can find some kind of peace through all this horrible publicity.


One bad review a day   (5/5)

Fishy... like clockwork. This podcast seem a fairly solid take down of a documentary which I grow increasingly angry at for wasting our collective time. Netflix needs to clean this up. MAM second season is trash.


Really?   (2/5)

Do you have to be that condescending? Just let your arguments stand on their own... Very amateurish series, really


Junk   (1/5)

You are guilty of everything you complain about. The fact that anyone can have a podcast is made evident here. The contradictions in this podcast are infuriating. Hire someone impartial to do the editing.


Trash   (1/5)

This guy Dan O’Donnell isn’t rebutting anything. I made it thru episode 5 but it only took 1 episode to see where this garbage podcast was going. First episode “Steven Avery threw a cat in a fire when he was a kid so this proves he’s a vicious murderer” Second episode “Brendan Dassey’s confession wasn’t coerced, the detectives didn’t even once raise their voices” This podcast is an absolute joke.


Reviews are biased as well.   (5/5)

This is a great podcast and hits the points it is trying to make. This podcast is not just about saying Avery is a murderer it is more so about the bias of the show and how common sense can refute almost all points the show makes. A jury convicted both of these men this podcast is not about convicting them again. If you have an open mind and not a conspiracy mind these points make sense overall. Yeah some points are opinion but it’s a podcast.


Poorly argued and heavily biased   (1/5)

I like many have followed this case from the first season of MAM and have been in the innocent camp. I really wanted to hear someone who could challenge this for me. This is not that podcast. For someone who opened his first episode claiming to have studied law the only evidence was the patronizing attitude he had. His use of legal terms was more for show. He brought nothing to his case unless repeating the prosecution’s arguments louder and angrier was the only goal. Then I read the host is a conservative talk show host and it all made sense. There was never any intention to argue the documentary, he just wanted to rant about it.


Who is this podcast for?   (1/5)

I could only get 2 episodes in. This is not a journalist reporting on a case and facts. This sounds more like an audition tape of Geraldo Rivera from 1985. I can’t. I. Just. Can’t.


Reviews seem fishy   (4/5)

Seems to me that we have a case of burying a podcast with negative reviews! Look at the dates and all the 1 stars are on the same date or within a couple days of each other in a cluster. This appears to be the doing of MAM and not actual viewers or listeners. Hopefully all will listen objectively as podcast gives another look of MAM. Is this biased? Maybe but so is MAM.


No such thing as sweat DNA!   (1/5)

I saw right through the lies when the dogmatic host regurgitated the same falsehood that Kratz made up. As a scientist by trade I know for a fact there is no such thing as “sweat DNA.” DNA comes from cells. There is no way to tell if it came from someone touching, spitting or sweating on the surface where the DNA was found. Was really hoping for an unbiased review of MAM where they called the bull crap from both sides of the story but this is clearly NOT it.


Fraudulent   (1/5)

Failed attempt of a hanger-on, small-time reporter desperate to be relevant.


He has a voice for print media   (1/5)

O Lord. The host’s voice is annoying. Please stop yelling at us. He argues semantics and appears to be biased. He glosses over the inappropriate behavior of the Sheriff’s office and the prosecutor, but he will nitpick the appeal attorneys’ theories and testing methods. I am impartial. I just wants the facts delivered by a host whose voice has been trained for radio/podcasts. I felt as if I had listened to a used car dealership commercial.


Just stop...   (1/5)

I don't normally bother rating podcasts that I don't like, but after 3 episodes... I have to stop. You can rebutt a case without facts. You're just arguing to argue... I can't listen anymore.


Clearly presenting the Facts   (5/5)

This show is great at presenting the clear and unbiased facts! So interesting to here each argument broken down and explained. Great work!


What?   (1/5)

All you do is yell against the MAM documentary and overlook the fact there might actually be a cover up. You present no actual facts yourself. Complete waste of time to listen to.


Sad   (1/5)

This is a real sad attempt at a podcast, I wish he had taken more time and went through all the evidence, does not really answer any of the glaring questions in the case.


The Netflix Series Is Biased   (5/5)

Rebutting a Murderer presents the information about evidence that the Netflix series omitted. A real eye opener.


Zero objectivity   (1/5)

The issue with this podcast is it is just an attack on MAM. Not once does the host comment about why the defense team in either season is making the points they are instead he just tries to point out what’s “wrong” with what they are saying. He uses “facts” to say everything the defense is arguing is subjective and “highly impossible theories” but when the prosecution theorizes what they think happened he defends it. I became extremely frustrated in the second season when he would argue that all the testing did was proving Steven was guilty instead of realizing the goal was to create reasonable doubt. So many things are skimmed over and if half the time of your short episodes you are replaying clips of the show it leaves very little time to actually argue your points. I was hoping for objectivity instead got a rant from what sounds like an individual jealous of the success MAM has had.


Don't bother   (1/5)

Dan's obnoxious delivery sounds impersonal and tries to argue against MaM using rhetorical techniques better suited for my intro Composition courses than a seasoned journalist. An embarrassing waste of time.


What?   (1/5)

To the few commenters who’ve said that this guy is educated and presented a fair point, I ask how? He never provides sources or evidence to backup his claims. Journalists are supposed to always provide sources, but you won’t find any here and this is disappointing. You can’t call out others and then proceed to do the exact same thing.


Whaaaat?   (1/5)

50 minute episodes debunked in 4 sentences of a podcast? Hardly. Dan complains that the show is biased, but doesn’t mention that he too is biased. Touting going to law school to become a reporter is like saying you went to culinary school to be a yelp food reviewer. I’d like to hear an unbiased view. Of just facts. And if the fact is they found a Key under someone’s shoes after 7 times searching for it. That leads me to conclude that it was planted, or the investigators that were present are so incredibly inept to find evidence after 6 attempts that they realized they had to go back and move his shoes. After the key fell off a bookcase.. under shoes. Cuz when I drop stuff, it always ends up under something that it couldn’t possibly be under. Like that time I dropped my baseball glove on the infield and it landed under 1st base. Only in Wisconsin.


Infuriatingly Bad   (1/5)

This “journalist” reminds me of a young Geraldo Rivera; bombastic, arrogant and presumptuous. Spouting his law school Latin, ad nauseam, our intrepid reporter takes on Kathleen Zellner’s team, pointing out that their experiments weren’t conclusive. Even as a lay audience we realize the goal was not a conclusive result but simply to establish reasonable doubt by showing holes could be poked in scenarios presented by the prosecution, right? He points out each of their (the defense) logical fallacies, while making any number of illogical leaps and faulty, unsupported suppositions himself. I’ve seen more effective, better supported rebuttals from high school students! If this putz thinks he’s qualified to take on someone with the legal chops of Kathleen Zellner, he is woefully mistaken. Infuriating, laughable and a downright waste of time.


Is this a joke?   (1/5)

This was a waste of my time. Stick with your 10:00 PM local news station, buddy, and keep reporting on the weather.


Why does everyone in Wisconsin believe in their Judicial System?   (1/5)

It seems to me that everyone in Wisconsin is blinded by their police and justice system. As if their police officers aren’t capable of corruption. Only people in Wisconsin think Avery is guilty. So I wanted to find out WHY they believe so. This is zero fact, all speculation and idiocy. If you want to sound intelligent give us some facts, report the case as it happened. Actually give us the other side of each step of finding Avery guilty. This didn’t do that. Which further makes me feel that Avery and Dassey are innocent.


Bad delivery   (1/5)

I never heard of Steven Avery until Making a Murderer. After the show, I thought Steven probably did it. But wasn’t 100% sure. After season two, I was a little more skeptical of his guilt... so I was interested in hearing what Dan had to say because I’m still not sure if his innocence... but all Dan did repeat talking points I’ve already heard, say things weren’t addressed in the show, that actually were addressed (did he even watch it?), and make points that I feel were already made by the prosecutor. Definitely a story here, as all documentaries are lopsided.... but I’m not sure Dan is the right person to do it. Also it just sounded like a 20 minute news story. His presentation is annoying and over the top. If anyone knows another podcast that discusses this case, please share with me! :)


Terrible Podcast Don’t waist your time.   (1/5)

I listened to this podcast to get an idea of the other side. I truly want to understand both sides. Well Dan does a terrible job at doing this. He argues that MAM is filled with speculation. How does he back up those arguments? Speculation. He argues things in episodes that are answered in later ones. He assumes that since the doc only shows them running test a few times that it’s not real evidence. As Dan likes to say A LOT “well isn’t it just as likely that they didn’t want to show you all 15 tests in an hour long episode” Not sure how he can argue someone’s point with assumption when he constantly complains about MAM making assumptions. Lastly Dan has a constant arrogant tone in his voice, especially in season two. This is funny to me since they answered almost all his questions from season one. This podcast helped solidify my decision that why are innocent, and the only people who think otherwise were either duped by Kratz or to ashamed to admit that MAYBE something fishy happened. DONT WAIST YOUR TIME!


Nonsense.   (1/5)

Dry and soulless. Fails to entertain or inform. Talks about presumption and confirmation bias of the documentary a lot and backs it up with presumptions and unsubstantiated ideas indicative of confirmation bias. Ludicrous.


Annoying voice grabbing onto the coattail of a Netflix show!   (1/5)

The Annoying voice of the guy obviously grabbing onto the coattail of a Netflix shows useless.. And dolt with an IQ over 17 can draw many conclusions after watching the Netflix show and this is one of them.. We tried listening to this podcast but the narrator terrible at telling a story and his voice is hard to stomach!


Innocent   (1/5)

Hearing this arrogant reporter from WI cite no police reports court reports or expert analysis just made me more convinced that some one else killed Teressa Halbach. He is arguing that Avery is smart enough to clean all the DNA in the bedroom yet dumb enough not to cover up a burn pit.... Boasting about you WI credentials only make you more biased Dan....


Little effort, poorly put together   (2/5)

This podcast was put together with very little research, effort, etc. They picked the lowest hanging fruit and all you get is information you already know and an annoying narrator to come along. When it comes to the narrator, another reviewer said it best, "[The Narrator] has the tone and temperament of a high schooler who is *convinced* he is going to nail it in debate class". He comes off as argumentative and willing to argue over the most petty of issues in order to win. For the record, I DON'T think Stephen Avery should be let of out prison, but this podcast is nothing more than a "get rich quick sceme"; a podcast disputing MAM was guaranteed to get listeners and the producers created this not because they had information to share, but because they wanted to get listeners.


Don’t bother   (1/5)

Fallacious arguments and the tone of the narrator is irritating. The podcast equivalent of a bad tabloid magazine.


Junk   (1/5)

Reviewing this using more than the word “junk” in a short sentence would be a waste of my time.


Read the other reviews   (1/5)

I’m completely unsure how this has a 3.5 star rating as a majority of the reviews have one star. I would appreciate hearing the other side or perhaps a less biased view on the show, but this sure isn’t it—he criticizes the show for establishing its viewpoint in the first 2 seconds and does the same thing in his, for starters. I understand that this is called “Rebutting a murderer,” but there is a way to deconstruct some of the points made by the show without shouting every point made down as preposterous. Full of logical fallacies. Also, not as important, but he shouts into the mic the whole time and it hurts to listen.


Arrogance +   (1/5)

Talk about biased!! This host arrogance is only bested by the arrogance of Ken Kratz himself...really trying to listen to see if there is ANYTHING new here... but as of Episode 4 absolutely nothing new...just an ignorant arrogant host pushing his, and the prosecution’s, agenda. Ugh 😑 🤢


Hypocritical   (2/5)

I was open minded to hear a different side of ‘Making a Murderer’ & I was looking forward to it. This is not that podcast. Dan does exactly what he claims the documentarians do. Throughout the series it seems that Dan is extremely biased. His point-of-view denies any police wrong doing or mishandling of the case. Dan altogether dismisses the historical facts of police wrongdoing, as if it just doesn’t happen. Dan sounds as if he is the mouthpiece for the state. Again, I was really hoping to hear a factual unbiased argument to the Avery case & this is not that.


Straight garbage   (1/5)

It’s really true anyone can make a podcast these days. Just a bunch of hearsay and his own opinions.


Interesting but not mind blowing   (2/5)

There is a lot of interesting points in this podcast that we’re not talked about in the documentary, but I’m still not entirely convinced either way on Steven and Brendan’s guilt. I’m glad I listened but I do really wish this guys would learn how to properly pronounce “Avery”.


Insufferable   (1/5)

This guy bashes the makers of Making a Murderer for being biased, but then turns around and creates a podcast based on his own biases. He says he’s just giving the “other side of the story” but his contempt for the defense is overwhelming. Skip this.


Trashcast - listen to the reviews, you’ll thank them later   (1/5)

He rants and goes on about how terrible democrats and restorative justice is. His “unbiased” opinion of the case are ridiculous. He literally will say “that’s not true” and offer no evidence of anything to back anything he is saying. It’s hard to listen because he sounds like he is yelling the entire time. Like he has an agenda to push. Sounds like a conservative guy who waves blue lives matter flags around and tries to find anyway to invalidate anyone who has a different point of view than him. Skip this podcast. It’s pure trash.


Horrible and annoying   (1/5)

Dan O’Donnell has successfully made me ashamed to be an alumnus of the University of Wisconsin. We are all not this idiotic! His rebuttal is based solely on hearsay with repeated “Oh, reallys?” after every clip of a Kathleen Zellner interview. Get a clue, man. I believe that Bobby Dassey killed poor Teresa and the completely crooked Officer Colburn helped to cover up by planting evidence including her car. Look at the facts.


Just awful   (1/5)

I certainly believe that there are a lot of unanswered questions the makers of the documentary should have addressed and that the show was slanted. But the tone of this podcast is obnoxious. And, no more believable. Throwing in Latin legal terms does not insulate the point you are trying to make; it’s a distraction at best. I would give this podcast negative stars if I could.


A biased rant   (1/5)

This does not have the thoroughness or the level of objectivity as the show it critiques. It goes point by point instead of taking into account information that is revealed later... proving this is not a legitimate effort to prove the show has false conclusions, but is an effort to have a popular podcast. I would LOVE to hear legitimate evidence that counteracts the original documentary. This is not it.


Terrible   (1/5)

O’Donnell doesn’t like MaM reporting, but does just argues that the reporting is wrong without supporting his perspective. For example, the key. O’Donnell explains that there is sweat DNA from Avery on key and therefore police couldn’t have planted it, but offers no explanation why only Avery’s DNA on key, not victim’s. No sense.


Disappointing!   (1/5)

I was excited to see someone offering the other side of the story because, as a journalism school graduate, I like hearing a story from all angles. But within minutes, I was turned off because no sources were cited with the “facts” presented. For instance, it’s stated that Avery didn’t simply accidentally toss his cat through a bonfire but “doused it in oil” first. How is this known? Who told the narrator this? I couldn’t get through more than a few minutes. So disappointing and biased.


Hhiilll   (1/5)

This podcast received either 1 or 5 stars on iTunes. This tells me that people have their minds made up before they listened to the podcast. Also , I think the creator of the podcast is writing false reviews. I can’t picture what kind of person would think this man is “Well educated and the most unbiased” That’s president level mental gymnastics.


Great listen   (5/5)

Thank you for presenting the other side! I was strongly persuaded by the documentary when it first came out, and I appreciate hearing other perspectives.


Finally   (5/5)

About time some truth about this case comes out. Bet the stupid true crime housewives who think every criminal who has a podcast or documentary made about them are innocent will hate this show but anyone with a brain will love it


Dishonest   (2/5)

His principal criticism of the Making a Murderer “documentary” is that it’s completely biased, while then proceeding with a rebuttal that is itself completely biased in the opposite direction. It’s odd because we already have this perspective from Ken Kratz, who shows himself at every opportunity to be a thoroughly discreditable figure. Furthermore, Dan claims to be an attorney himself but seems to have conveniently substituted a guilty by absolutely no doubt standard for a reasonable doubt standard a jury would actually use. Zellner deftly presents a defense that would provide plenty of reasonable doubt and would most assuredly have resulted in an acquittal of Avery. Dan O’Donnell fails miserably in his advocacy of the guilty verdict by creating straw-man arguments and bold absolutist claims from his cushy studio chair, without any of the hustle and sweat Zellner clearly applied to her narrative.


THANK YOU DAN   (5/5)

It’s about time someone puts out a rebuttal to the preposterous documentary that the defense orchestrated. Dan is insightful, educated, and unlike all of the armchair detectives out there—was there in the courtroom for the trial. This is good stuff.


Very bad   (1/5)

I was hoping for an analysis of the evidence and a breakdown of what the documentary got wrong but this is just a rehashing of the prosecution’s arguments as if they were fact, and it’s delivered in the tone of a wannabe Nancy Grace. Don’t waste your time.


Pointless   (1/5)

I’m not sure why people were raving about this on Facebook. I agree with the other comments on here about this being a waste of time. He said all the Netflix series is about is how Steven Avery is innocent and his is all about how he is guilty. But Dan has NO facts on anything. I was open minded but this podcast is a complete waste of time.


Trash   (1/5)

This is the kinda guy that won’t shut up till everyone tells him that he’s right


Hypocritical   (1/5)

Just as the documentary went in with a certain view point this podcast is equally guilty of cognitive bias and failing to use common sense.


Ugh!   (1/5)

Holy crap, could this guy sound any more like a smarmy condescending jackass? No, no he could not. Unlistenable.


Horrible show. Terrible "rebutting"   (1/5)

I've never left a 1-star review on any podcast until now. This show is sarcastic, thrown together, and trying to ride the coattails. Did Dan ever consider that maybe only tiny bits of what Zellner has debunked of the State's case were even shown on MaM2? Zellner has said that is the case. I could hardly listen to 10 minutes of Dan "rebutting" the evidence.


An angry dude just spewing off everything they already argued in the documentary   (1/5)

Literally just recaps tiny facts from the documentary all ticked off. Really wanted to like this... but nah.


Talk about Biased   (1/5)

This is a sad rebuttal to Making of a Murdered. It is not a rebuttal but a extremely biased RANT against Steven Avery. While claiming Making of a Murderer was biased towards Steven Avery, Dan O'Donnell comes off as an arrogant and condescending. Steven Avery did spent 18 years in prison for a crime he did not commit. I was looking for a thoughtful review of the series Making a Murderer, as I saw the bias of the documentary, but I felt that there was some justification because of the background of Avery. You do not want to get on the wrong side of the law. I quit listening after the 4th espisode.


Great podcast!   (5/5)

I'm really surprised that this podcast doesn't have more reviews. It is excellent. I watched making a murderer, and have listened to a variety of podcasts about the case, but this by far is the best researched and the most unbiased. Facts and logic is what is podcast is based on, not unsubstantiated claims of a police cover up.


Hear the other side of the story just once   (5/5)

I get it. You’ve been watching Making a Murderer and think you know the arguments and case against Steven Avery. You believe he’s innocent and was setup. I get it. I assure you that you haven’t heard the real the real argument or the real case. I’m also sure you haven’t heard the real story. Check this podcast out and get the facts about the Steven Avery case that the Netflix documentary intentionally left out and hide from the public.


Waste of Time   (1/5)

Fascinating concept, excruciatingly bad execution. There is a story here, but Dan O'Donnell can't seem to find it. His own arguments are riddled with speculation and logical fallacies even as he decries these traits in the story the defense puts forth. Often in the course of a single 15min episode Dan will contradict himself and his own assumptions several times. It is infuriating. iHeartRadio should be embarrassed to call this man a journalist. Furthermore, he has the tone and temperment of a high school freshman who is *convinced* he is going to kill it in debate class, and it is nearly unbearable to listen to. If you're going to be bad, at least be interesting. I'd give this podcast 0/5 stars if I could. Will boycott future content from this reporter.


Hearsay   (1/5)

This is mostly hearsay, repeated and repeated again. Stating opinions as facts is different than offering up other possible explanations (which both sides are guilty of). I’d like to see this Dan O’Donnell talk to Kathleen Zellner face to face.


This guy nailed it!   (5/5)

The soap opera that is Making a Murderer, really got it wrong and this guy really gets it right. Even if he says things wrong occasionally, he’s still right. Thanks can’t wait for more


Wanted to Hear the Other Side   (1/5)

Understanding that MAM is very biased and didn’t present much of the damning evidence against Avery and Dassey, I was looking for podcasts or articles refuting the discoveries made during season 2. Because this podcast hasn’t caught up to season 2 yet, I decided to listen to season 1. The first episode was pretty good, but after that it all went downhill. It is laughable how biased this podcast is in the other direction that it’s hard to take it seriously. And PLEASE learn how to pronounce the word “vague.”


Watch Part 2   (1/5)

Everything you complain about is addressed. Justice has certainly not been served.


Does what he accuses them of doing   (2/5)

1) His arrogant tone makes the show difficult for open minded people to listen to. 2) He does exactly what he accuses them of doing (arguments out of ignorance etc). 3) Obviously KZ and team did more experiment repititions than what's made it to an episode, so be reasonable. Wanted to like it as I'm undecided, but not close to being listenable.


Nothing new   (1/5)

Commentator is only rehashing what has already been found and said in the Netflix series. Basically it’s him arguing with Netflix. Stupid and lazy....even for a podcast.


Horrible   (1/5)

Dan is literally trying to address speculation with speculation. Get some facts Dan


Kind of annoying.   (2/5)

Interesting to hear the opposite side of things and I enjoy doing so, but it is kind of washed out by annoying claims made by this dude. Episode 2 he’s all tough about how KZ made a mistake by showing that DNA could in fact be left on the hood latch. She wasn’t doing it to show it’s impossible to leave DNA, she was showing that it was impossible to have so much DNA. Jeez guy it isn’t that hard to understand her work.


Legitimate rebuttal   (5/5)

Making A Murderer makes a clear message that a corrupt system targeted an innocent man and his nephew. In Rebutting A Murderer the narrator makes clear arguments against the documentaries claims using logical fallacies, case law, and with evidence not presented in the documentary. The podcast also explains the bias of the Netflix series through omission of important evidence and by showing only one point of view: the point of view of the defendant. If you have a strong opinion after watching Making A Murderer listen to this podcast, you may find that truth is not as clear as it appears to be.


Most biased thing I’ve ever heard.   (1/5)

While yes, I think that Making a Murderer is in fact a bit biased, ironically I would have to say that this podcast may be the most biased thing I’ve ever heard. They completely ignore points that the show makes about the police department being biased toward Steven Avery and misrepresent facts that the show clearly goes over. An example, when Steven lit the family cat on fire. Yes this was an absolutely horrific thing to do, but I don’t think it was “glossed over” in the show as the podcast suggests. There are many other instances that show to his character that the podcast says we’re barely touched on in the show and even make some accusations about what the show implies with some of these statements. The show could have opted to completely keep out this information and they didn’t. Again I will say that the show is a bit biased, but this podcast seems to be suggesting that the show blatantly mischaracterized facts that they in fact did not. It is important to think critically about these things, but this podcast seems to just be hating on the show rather than trying to make one think critically.


Accurate   (5/5)

Excellent job on bringing up and pointing out all of the MANY inconsistencies and lies brought about by this reverse witch hunt also known as M.A.M. The right people are behind bars and it is a shame that the VICTIM’S family is being forced to relive the crime over and over. THANK YOU for this podcast.


Great podcast   (5/5)

I’m so glad this podcast addresses the facts that the show left out/ignored/glossed over. I’ve been following this case for years and the show made me sick on how they portrayed the investigation and trial. The only people that are butt hurt about this podcast are the people who refuse to actually do the research, watch too many police/medical tv shows, refuse to read the court documents and continue to allow a tv show and Wikipedia to make decisions for them. Thank you for being a voice for all of us who actually paid attention during the trail and didn’t just watch a tv show. Well done.


So off   (1/5)

Yes the show is only going to tell and show you what they want the audience to see. The fact you think a 16 year old could handle an interrogation on his own is where you lose all credibility. I don’t care what Iq he has no way they should be allowed to speak to him alone. That mother had a reason to send him in there and why would she not demand to be with him? That was a setup. No parent would say ya your low iq go ahead speak to these nice police officers without anyone. The lawyer was a dump truck. He should have been disbarred. This was a total setup. I don’t think that kid knows the difference about being in jail or out. How about the fact a body can’t burn in a fire pit. Who burns a body in three places? This was done to save this town from paying this dirtbag of a guy 40 million. Who cares about some guy in jail in some small way out place. Well the victims family does thats who. They have the wrong people I think the right family tree but the wrong people. I have seen so many young people do stupid things in interrogation room like confess it’s crazy. I mean no one should allow children to speak to the police without an attorney. The whole idea they didn’t raise there voice as a reason it was ok. I say this all the time to adults they play two ways. Good cop or bad cop. He needed good cop so they played that game. I don’t know who did it but I do know this kid didn’t see what he said. Not one thing was true it just fit what they needed it to fit. They set him up both the cops and his family. The hood latch why would they even ask about it. That’s so random. No other dna on that latch just Steven, that’s lucky that dirty old car but a full hit not even a small hit clear as a bell. Sorry never happened. Remember this was more than 10 years ago in a small town. No way no how. It’s great to see someone try and defend the DA and the police but they are dirty and the DA was fired for being dirty. The judges on the 7th circuit wrote the harshest comment but were over ruled based on not wanting to rock the boat not changing the juvenile laws which need to be changed this is not about fixing a wrong it’s about not opening the floodgates. The Supreme Court the same. You speak about how they agreed no they didn’t they just cya. if you are a reporter why not look into false confessions it’s not new that’s why we don’t waterboard anymore. Not because it’s cruel because it’s not effective. People lie it’s just what happens sometimes to save themselves sometimes not. It’s a tool not the whole game. This case is a mess and they need to fix it. The family deserves to know what happened and this is not it.


Good reminder to think critically   (4/5)

I remember being all up in arms for Steven Avery and Brendan Dassey when Making a Murderer came out. But as time went on and I thought about it...it made less and less sense. This podcast does a great job of going through the facts and the evidence with a measured view. In fact, I’m now really interested in the documentary as a phenomenon that convinced so many of us of something so outlandish in retrospect. Would be cool to hear this explored in season 2.


Garbage reporting   (1/5)

The host is obnoxious and does not bring anything to light that was not covered in the documentary. Clearly biased opinions.


Don’t waste your time   (1/5)

Worse podcast ever


Cant wait for season 2   (1/5)

Does not think beyond the obvious. Is because of people like this that people get away all the time. Cant wait and see what happens on season 2 all his rebukes are addressed and contradicted on Netflix MOAM season 2. Good luck.


So dumb   (1/5)

Totally biased view. He’s all over the place, and everything he says IS in fact in the documentary...nothing new. He’s retelling it in the same way Kratz did, only in his reporter voice. The “changed sheets” part I thought, “man this guys an idiot”. I always like listening to both sides, but this guy has obviously not retained the facts and I look forward to the day Avery and Dassey are released.


Terrible.   (1/5)

This is terrible, every single “argument” he says to try to explain why he thinks Avery is guilty was explained. This was a waste of time.


Biased the Other Way   (1/5)

The host is just as biased as the Netflix doc. He seems to think the that yelling at the listener makes him more right than everyone else.


Finally!!   (5/5)

Someone a logical rebuttal of the obviously biased “documentary.”


Biased and Motivated   (2/5)

To me this O’Donnell journalist is your typical highly motivated, highly animated and clever mainstream reporter type. The Avery case is complex but if we know anything we know confidently three things: 1) corruption within the government 2) an overall weak case against Steven Avery and Brendon Dassey 3) the generally low class, degraded and even depraved nature of some members within the Avery and Dassey families.


Laugh out loud   (2/5)

Dan had lost all credibility by episode three when he tried to explain how blood/DNA might not me discoverable in the bed room. You can not simply clean away blood evidence. There will alway be traces of DNA. Aside from burning his trailer down her DNA would be all over that trailer if these things happened. Same in the garage.