Spotlight: Chelsea Hoffman

Early this morning, Chelsea Hoffman published an article about Dana Bonanno saying the following, I’ve made bold the most asinine portions:

From the beginning of this case I had a hard time believing she was in any danger, and it’s a relief that she wasn’t.

and:

“[I speculated]  …that the missing woman could have been suffering from a mental breakdown of sorts — and from the looks of the latest developments, I was absolutely correct. I stated that police needed to eliminate the possibilities of drug use or mental illness before foul play could be considered — and as it turns out, they never had to do this, because she revealed herself in the end. It’s just unfortunate that some people who claimed to know her were adamantly in opposition to the theory that she was in psychiatric care. Had these loved ones considered my speculation in the first place, they may have located her sooner.

Article is here: Dana Lauren Bonanno was in mental hospital this entire time

So Chelsea had a hard time believing Dana Bonanno was in any danger, was absolutely correct in her speculations, and thinks that if people searching for Dana listened to her, they would have located Dana earlier.

The problem is that on August 3, 2013 Chelsea published an article entitled “Was Dana Lauren Bonanno murdered?” that said this:

 “it’s entirely possible that someone preyed upon this young woman”

and:

“It’s highly possible that someone abducted her with foul motives”

then in the same paragraph said this:

“However, this whole theory seems a little far fetched, doesn’t it?”

Which is it then Chelsea?

In the same article she said “Missing woman Dana Lauren Bonanno vanished over two weeks ago, and now the NYPD is seeking information on her case. Her disappearance is garnering national media attention due to the strange details surrounding it”

Her disappearance garnered national media attention? But on August 8, 2013 Chelsea said this:

The lack of media coverage in this case is perplexing, because that means there is a lack of questions being asked.”

and:

“This case is in danger of slipping through the cracks unless the media, the public and the NYPD snap into gear.” 

The article is here: Dana Lauren Bonanno mystery: Foul play, drugs or mental illness?

In an article entitled The Dana Bonanno mystery: Do roommates know what happened? Chelsea said the following:

“Dana Lauren Bonanno vanished well over two weeks ago, but her case is just recently getting media attention — which is a shame, because it’s likely too late.

and:

“If any of them know more about her disappearance than previously known, it will surely come out eventually — but will it be too late by then? With it being already over two weeks since anyone last seen her, it’s probably safe to say it’s already too late.”

So it was too late for Dana, she was likely dead or gone forever somehow. How awesome must it have been for friends and family of Dana to read that Chelsea Hoffman had concluded that  Dana was a lost cause. We should have all given up, I suppose. According to Chelsea, I definitely wasted my money by contributing to her reward fund. But wait, Dana is home. Dana is home and now Chelsea is saying that if everyone listened to her they would have found her sooner. What? Found her dead, Chelsea? Do you care to clear up your lunacy so we can know what your actual thought process is? You speculated that she was suffering from mental illness and you were absolutely correct? Hoffman, let me tell you something. It’s incredibly easy to be correct when you speculate every possible outcome. If I disappear and you say that David either killed himself, was murdered, overdosed, is being held for ransom after being kidnapped, is purposely hiding from the world, faked his death, or is in a mental hospital somewhere… when the cat is let out of the bag… you will probably have been correct with one of your several guesses. That is not expertise. That is insane. People actually read what you write, Chelsea and we actually remember what you say. It is time to start coming up with a theory and sticking to it. Don’t be scared to be wrong, and only take credit for being right if you were actually correct.

Oh, and you decided to tweet at me saying:

Capture

BUT… I said “Chelsea was a wunderkind, if you didn’t already pick up on that.” Was meaning, in the past… when you were younger. Not now.

Definition of wunderkind:  a wonder child or child prodigy.

If there is anything else, you know how to reach me.

Oh and as for your nice message to me on facebook:

HoffmanMessage

You’re welcome.

Her post on Facebook today:

Capture2

It feels good to be dead-on correct sometimes?

You leave it alone, then I’ll leave it alone.

Advertisements

4 Comments

  1. I was relying on Google for updates on Dana and kept getting alerts to Chelsea’s speculative garbage. Completely tasteless writing, exploiting the concerns of people who knew Dana — both casually and personally — with shitty SEO tactics and baseless opinions for hits. Chelsea has no sources, no credentials, and no fucking life but to troll missing persons sites and pretend she’s AllVoices’ Nancy Grace.

    Looks like she’s a smug piece of shit to boot.

    Note to Chelsea: No one’s reading your articles for YOU. We’re finding it by mistake and hitting the back button.

Criticize me here.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s