All Episodes
Previous Next
May 26, 2023 - Viva & Barnes
02:30:26
Wrongful Conviction? Interview with Solomon Anderson, Brother of Zacharia Anderson - Viva Frei Live
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Somebody had mentioned the lips in the courtroom in the chat that I saw earlier.
It's a very important thing because a lot of people were convinced that he was trying to stifle my niece's testimony, but that's not the truth.
I was sitting in the courtroom at the time, and my niece kept mouthing to him.
She kept trying to speak to him directly.
Just mouthing words, not vocalizing.
So in between questions, during those silences, she's trying to speak to him.
When she walked up and sat down, the first thing she did was try to communicate to him directly at the defendant's table.
And through that, my brother had nudged and tried to get his attorneys to say something about it.
To make it stop during the testimony.
I'm going to explain all this in a form.
Nobody was saying anything to her about it.
It was a problem.
As it turns out, then, he was doing a dad reaction and said, please stop.
Please stop mouthing at me.
Steal your lips.
Just stop doing that.
He didn't try to interfere with the testimony.
Clearly, she was able to say whatever she wanted on the stand.
That's not how this worked at all.
So for anybody who doesn't know what we're talking about right now, what the context to that is, we're going to get into it in the context of this stream.
For those who do, I'm just going to show you the picture because it's an amazing thing where you read something in the news and then if you decide to try to dig in a little bit, when you don't find answers immediately or even after digging in a lot, well, then you have a lot more questions.
This is the image, the infamous image of Zachariah Anderson at the trial, allegedly intimidating one of the witnesses during his murder trial, the witness being his 14-year-old daughter at the time, 14-year-old daughter.
This picture, close your lips when you're testifying, was suggested by everybody.
Everywhere that I saw was suggested as being the defendant in real time intimidating his daughter into shutting up during the testimony that they said incriminated her father.
And by all accounts it did because he got convicted.
I tried to find what testimony was being spoken at the time of that image because I couldn't find the timestamp in any of the live broadcasts.
Couldn't find it in any of the news.
And I was like, well, Jesus, was she saying something like really damning?
Or is there another explanation to this that might not be what the headline news is running post-conviction in order to justify this conviction and make this guy look like the monster that many people believe he is?
So that's it.
That was the context.
We're going to get into it.
And that's his brother, Solomon Anderson, on an interview with a recovering addict, did a podcast with him.
We're going to get into this entire trial.
Zachariah Anderson.
I was convicted of murdering...
I'm going to forget all the names in this, and it's not to be disrespectful, it's because there's too many names.
And I was on a panel about a week and a half ago, and this subject came up, and I was like, oh, I read about it very briefly.
I was like, oh, okay.
Not that I believe everything I read in the news anymore, and it's quite the opposite, but had no knowledge to formulate an opinion.
The panel, which consisted of...
Nine other attorneys said this was the most egregious trial, the most egregious miscarriage of justice.
Guilt or innocence aside, because he might still be guilty, as a process, this was the most egregious miscarriage of justice imaginable in terms of what evidence was allowed in, what evidence was not allowed in, what witness tampering might have actually occurred.
Beginning to end, this is a murder trial in Kenosha.
The judge of this trial is the judge from the Rittenhouse trial.
And if you don't know the story, we're going to get Zachariah Anderson's brother to talk about it.
Before we do that, let me just make sure that we are, in fact, running properly everywhere.
Okay, so we're on Rumble, which is good.
Hit the plus button on Rumble.
Share the link around.
We'll make the landing page so people can hear about this.
Are we simultaneously on Locals?
We are on vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
Okay, Solomon, I'm going to bring you in.
In about 30 seconds.
Standard disclaimers, no medical advice, no legal advice, no election fornification advice.
Superchats, YouTube takes 30%.
If you want to support the channel, you can do it on Rumble.
They have Rumble rants.
Rumble is not taking any of that amount for the rest of the year.
They typically take 20%.
Best way to support the channel, if you like what we do here, vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
Become an annual subscriber and you can see the behind-the-scenes documentary, History of Chattanooga Through the Eyes of Robert Barnes as he relives his childhood.
Okay, let's do this.
Solomon, I'm bringing you in in three, two, one.
Sir, how goes the battle?
It's more of a marathon than a foot race, so it's going well enough.
Do I want to do wide angle?
I'll do wide angle.
I think it frames better.
Sure, yeah, that's good.
Now we're going to get into the hand gesture, what it means before people start hypothesizing as to satanic worshipping.
Solomon, let's, okay.
Everyone knows the backdrop.
Your brother was just convicted of murder in a trial where people who paid close attention to it and legal minds took serious issue with a number of things.
There's a GoFundMe to help him raise funds for his appeal.
I've already shared that link around last week.
We're going to share it around again.
Before we even get into all of this, who are you?
Where are you from?
What was family life like?
What's your relationship like with your brother?
How many siblings?
And the whole family situation, which some people might not know.
Well, my name's Solomon.
I'm Zach's younger brother by four years, just about.
And in total, there were...
Nine siblings.
Most of them are half siblings to us.
The eldest four were from our original two parents, and they separated and had more children afterwards.
So nine total children.
My next elder brother passed away in 1982.
He was about nine months old, give or take, with an accident in the bathtub.
So I wasn't even around yet at that time.
My parents split up, actually, while my mother was pregnant with me.
I believe that it was kind of like a last-ditch effort to salvage their marriage after my brother's passing.
And so with that, we ended up being placed primarily with my mother until 1989.
My father had remarried, and my mother decided to leave us and move to Texas.
She kicked us out, told us to...
Get off her lawn, actually, and walk down the road.
So my older two brothers and I were very, very close.
We were very much raised in a situation where we bonded together and took care of each other to a great degree.
That's Josh, Zach, and myself.
The other siblings came for the most part later, and my next younger sister moved to Texas with my mother, but the rest of us went with my dad.
My dad got...
Divorced in, I think, 1991.
And then we were raised by a single father for quite a few years.
So during those years, you know, as a single dad with three boys, he did the best he could.
But, you know, there's only so much that you can do.
You still have to be working.
You still have to be able to maintain the home.
And it's a hard stretch.
So my brothers and I were very, very close.
Fought like cats and dogs.
We bickered through most of our childhood.
And like brothers do, we came out the other side still closer than other siblings might be in different circumstances.
So Zach and Josh have always been kind of my caretaker, even from those early years.
With that being said, that's kind of the role that Zach took as I grew up.
He made sure that I got my license.
He spent the hours on the road driving with me.
He got me my first job outside of agriculture, and he drove me to work and home regardless of the weather.
He bailed me out of bad situations where I had...
I had a girlfriend who was an alcoholic and she was abusive and he got me a job and showed up with a U-Haul truck and moved me.
He was always my parachute when I needed it.
He was always there for me.
And that's a big part of why I continue to fight.
How old are you and how old is Zach?
Currently 39, and he turns 43 in July.
Okay, and I had another question.
It's going to be a silly question.
I presume there was a religious element in your family, Zachariah, Solomon, Joshua?
Yeah.
I don't know much about the Bible, but I know that.
Yeah, you didn't even hear our middle names.
It's Joshua, Daniel, Zachariah, Joseph, Aaron, Elijah, Solomon, Moses, right?
So it's very heavy.
She started with the Old Testament.
My mother was raised very Catholic, very much so Catholic.
My grandmother was a staunch Roman Catholic.
And so she started with the Old Testament.
for the most part we're named in some sort of religious nod or some some respect to the to the Bible and that piece of our family history all right now and I'm going to end this on YouTube, and we're going to be exclusive on Rumble and Locals.
So everybody on YouTube, head on over to Rumble.
The link is in the pinned comment in the chat, and I'll post the entire interview later to YouTube.
So I'm just going to end it on YouTube now.
Okay, so...
Where do we start?
Let's start from the beginning of context leading up to the events, the trial, the conviction.
Your brother did not get married to the girlfriend from which they have now the daughter that testified at court.
What was that relationship like?
Well, they have three children total, and they were never married.
They started out very well.
I think that they started out in a very good way.
Then Olivia came along.
Oh, man.
My niece came along, and it was a good relationship.
He fell in love with her quick and fast, and they were there for each other.
There was a point where they started to run into some problems.
My brother is stubborn, very stubborn.
Sadie wanted to be able to control and push him in different directions.
There were a lot of arguments that they had had over years.
The text messages that we received were that my brother was out of control.
Those were her words.
My brother always bristled at someone trying to tell him what to do or how to live his life or anything like that.
It was never a good situation.
Let him figure it out on his own, for the most part, which doesn't mean that they had a very healthy relationship, I can't say.
And that's unfortunate for them.
They're two consenting adults in a relationship, and there was a point where both my brother Josh and I were very much hands-off.
I think she had made a comment to the media that we refused to help, but there was no help to give.
They were together for, at that point, over 10 years, and there was no reason why we should come in and tell my brother to, you know, to whatever, try and, you know, hear her out or whatever it is.
They had to figure out how to communicate between each other.
So they had some rocky points in their relationship where they would take a break.
You know, he bought his home and moved out, and they didn't live together starting in 2011.
They were still together.
But they didn't live together starting in 2011.
So that was an important point in their relationship that helped them actually live a healthier relationship.
My brother's just a little particular.
He's very sensitive to noise and stuff like that.
And he can be a challenge to live with just as a partner.
So that doesn't make you a bad person, but it was good for them to do that.
Over the years, they described it as an on-again, on-and-off, but they took repeated little breaks, or they would get in an argument or whatever, and then a week or two later, they would start talking again, and they would work it out.
And that was the nature of their relationship, sort of non-traditional, but they still loved each other nonetheless, and they were still kind of drawn to each other.
Like magnets.
From what our perspective was on their relationship, it was up to them to figure out.
Just like it's their children.
They have three children together to raise as they see fit.
There's not a lot that we're going to do or say to get in the middle of that.
That's up to them to figure out.
The situation where she claims that they were broken up, but he said that they were on a break, that was not abnormal for them.
That was nothing new.
All right.
And did they date other people in this on and off time where they were living apart, but on and off together?
There were other people.
Yeah.
I can't say specifically if there was anyone that I can point the finger at.
No.
Invited into their life.
But there were other people that came and went.
But no matter what, Zach seemed to just keep a special place in his heart for Sadie, and they continued to persevere.
So now, this culminates, but begins with, tell us what happens of the event, and then what happens of the investigation, and then what happens of the trial.
We'll get to that in a bit.
But the event itself, how does that event unfold?
Well, from my brother's perspective, he had his children that weekend.
He was very tired.
He took a nap and he woke up, talked to his girlfriend for a little bit, searched some stuff on the internet, took another nap, got up.
Went to the store, bought some stuff, and went to work.
Went to go file his taxes and carried on with his life.
Then made up for the date that he had overslept the night before by spending that Monday evening, the 18th of May of 2020, with the woman that he was dating at the time.
On the 19th, he carried on his life like normal.
And then two men show up at his home, and they ask for him by name.
One is fidgeting with his waistband.
They're trying to look into his windows.
He's put off by it.
He asks what they're doing on his property, and they ask for him by name.
He said, well, I'm his brother.
He's not here right now.
And, of course, lies and deflects the situation to try and get them to leave because it was not a good situation.
They're trespassing and they seemed like they were there to do him harm.
So they leave.
He calls my brother and my dad.
One of them tells him that he needs to call the police.
My brother leaves the Christmas tree farm to drive down to be there for him in case these men come back as a witness.
My brother Zach calls the police, dials 911.
The police show up and they arrest him.
They take him to the Mequon Police Department.
My eldest brother arrives.
They flag him over to the Mequon Police Department.
They hold both of them in interrogation rooms for some time before questioning them.
I believe they started questioning Zach at 11.30 or almost midnight at that point, after he had been up all day when he was already very tired.
And they held my brother Josh until, I think they questioned him, until after midnight.
They had held them both.
They didn't really tell them why they had arrested or detained them at the time.
And then started questioning them about the situation.
So from his perspective, he had no idea.
He called for help because two suspicious men trespassed on his property that appeared to mean him harm.
And then he called for help and the police show up and arrest him.
The two men who showed up were undercover or were police?
They were neither.
They were Michael Campbell and Brandon Hendrickson.
Both of them were witnesses that testified on the stand during the trial.
So there were two civilians that were in contact with the police that then interfered with the police investigation by going to confront my brother because my brother was pointed out as a suspect.
And then they saw no charges and no response by the Kenosha PD for doing that.
Moreover, Michael Gravely had described Michael Campbell as a hero in the Denny motion that was filed in the court for interfering with the police investigation, for going to confront my brother in this situation, which is still illegal.
I don't understand why this is done.
So hold on.
You have the curse of the knowledge, which you're going to know more than a lot of people.
And I didn't follow the trial in real time.
I did as much catching up as I could afterwards to come to my own You know, quasi-educated opinion.
The two individuals who come, this is after the murder, although they've never found a body, and we'll get to that.
Never found a body.
Never proved it.
And it occurred on what?
It was the evening of May 17th or May 18th?
So the state alleges that it occurred on the evening of May 17th of 2020.
So that's a Sunday night.
The prosecutor claimed that this occurred at about 10 p.m. when the murder occurred and that Mr. Gutierrez was never heard from again at that point.
His phone was put in the freezer at 10, 10 p.m.
And then there was an orientation change end at like 1045, 1044, something like that.
And then Gutierrez's phone is silent and not touched until it was discovered in the freezer at the, I think, the 21st or 24th of May, which is well after my brother was arrested by Gutierrez's mother when she was cleaning out the apartment.
Okay.
And now, do you know how they're able to pinpoint the time that the phone goes into the freezer?
Only because it was discovered in the freezer, and they saw that the orientation change happened at 1010.
When they downloaded the information off the cell phone, it tracks all of the orientation changes, text messages, and other events that the phone experiences.
Orientation as in the phone's location or the angle of the phone?
Angle of the phone.
Landscaped portrait.
Okay.
Orientation change.
10-10 the evening of the 17th of May 2020.
This is like right after COVID hits, which is going to be relevant, I think, in a second.
So three days go by.
Two or three days.
Two days, yeah.
The individuals who come to see your brother, they know what happened.
Whether or not your brother does depends on who you believe in this.
But they presumably are there because they know something happened and they've come to contact or to...
No.
So, the police did not know, at least that's what they had claimed, that Detective Correa told Michael Campbell to not do anything.
That's what Correa said.
So, Correa testified in the courtroom that he told Michael Campbell to not do anything.
Michael Campbell then did his own sleuthing or whatever it was that he claims that they did.
And then went to confront my brother, drove over an hour just to show up at my brother's house.
Now, I had heard that he was waved through a police line because they were setting up the search on my brother's property and that the local police had set up cars and waved him through to the property to then...
Let him confront my brother, thinking that he was a member of the Kenosha police undercover that was going through to set up this search.
And just so people are also totally clear, Gutierrez, the victim in this, was dating your brother's ex-girlfriend.
Sadie, I think, is your brother's girlfriend.
That's correct.
She was dating Sadie and a couple of other women at the same time.
How long had he been dating Sadie for at the time of the event?
He had started speaking with Sadie on February the 13th of 2020.
So at that time, it was three months.
They had met in person maybe a half a dozen times most.
Okay, that's...
Very interesting.
If we're piecing this all together, the media was describing Zachariah as an obsessed ex-boyfriend.
This was not, not to qualify it or anything, but not a serious relationship in that they had only met each other, from what you're saying, a half dozen times or so.
Give or take, yeah.
Because there was issues with both...
Both of them having children, them not being comfortable bringing each other around each other's children at that time.
And so there was some scheduling issues.
COVID hit.
There was a bunch of other problems that sort of ran this into a compact set of issues that they only testified that they really had only met in person, I think it was about a half dozen times.
What I say is interesting about this, and now I'm learning a few things as the details are filled in, but...
When it comes to the stalking charges that your brother was also convicted on, and him asking his daughter, your niece, to put a camera in a vent to spy and stalk, look, if one wants to find a non-criminal explanation for that, it might be that there's a man who's not well-known, now in the proximity of his...
Ex-girlfriend and potentially children.
I don't know what that is there.
So that's interesting.
And that this was not a long-term established relationship that was going places, potentially leading to whatever.
This was a new and very young relationship, if it could even be called that.
Right.
Yeah.
And that was how it originally was presented was that Sadie and...
And Gutierrez were in this incredible once-in-a-lifetime relationship.
It was sort of how it was described in the press and how it was presented is that she had said, I think I want you to be my person for a while in a text message to Gutierrez.
But it was presented in the court that all he did was send a heart emoji.
He didn't reciprocate.
He was just like, it's the equivalent of a fist bump.
Like, yep, thanks for sharing.
Or I like that you shared that with me.
Sort of a statement.
Which was odd to us as a family seeing that for the first time.
Because if she felt a special connection to him, I'm not disparaging their emotions.
Hopefully she was going to find some sort of connection with someone.
Because it seemed like it was inevitable that her relationship with my brother was coming to an end after a dozen years.
And it was unfortunate, but it was a necessary thing.
They had a family court date set already.
They were going to court to argue for custodial placement of the children.
My brother was gathering information to be able to take it to family court to then get as much time as he could with the kids.
There was a family issue that started right around my niece's birthday that they spent almost every day together.
So there were some issues with Sadie's testimony and the fact that she said that he was not welcome in her home and that he wasn't.
Well, that's not the case.
They spent almost every single day together from roughly the end of April through the beginning of May.
And that's just the reality of the situation that we as a family got to see, you know, and we were frustrated to see that it was misrepresented to such a gross degree.
You know, my brother did his laundry at Sadie's house.
During this break that they had, he would take his laundry over there and do it.
He was welcome in the home.
It was not uncommon for him to be over there to pick up the kids.
This was a complete misrepresentation of the reality of their relationship.
And I can't say that they had a healthy exchange the entire time during those...
You know, those couple of months, it was clear that they had arguments over the phone.
As one of the detectives or one of the police officers testified to, most of the recordings that my brother had on his computer were the arguments between a man and a woman, primarily about the children.
Right?
And this was an important thing to note when discussing these stalking charges that they claim that my brother was invited over to the house.
She asked him why he didn't spend the night one night.
She invited him over for Panda Express.
She texted him, good night, XOXO, you know, Z-Bear.
This doesn't make sense.
Well, let me ask the obvious question that I think some people might be asking.
The stalking conviction, was it on Sadie or was it on Gutierrez?
Both.
Okay.
I should also just...
We'll lay out some facts right away for everybody who's watching that might not be familiar with this.
There's no body.
There's no murder weapon.
There's no definitive type of murder weapon.
They said at one point, blunt force, like a baseball bat, then changed that to a sharp object.
No body, no video recording.
The event occurs on May 17th.
So what you're saying is they met maybe a half dozen times.
This was not a long-term relationship.
It wasn't like...
If you're trying to explain the obsessed ex-boyfriend flipping out, maybe that narrative doesn't have all the pieces to that puzzle that you'd need.
Some people are asking, do I understand that he was recording Gutierrez with Sadie with his phone?
That never happened.
I might be getting ahead of the chronology here, but his daughter, your niece, testified that Zachariah had asked her to go record or put a camera in a vent to record.
It was either Sadie or the two of them together.
So there were some issues with that testimony.
The living room is on the opposite side of the house from where she claimed the car was parked.
So it was on literally the opposite side of the house.
You'd have to have x-ray vision to see him walk up to the air conditioning unit and to place the phone in the vents, the little fans on the side of the air conditioning unit, to try and listen.
through that thin veil, right, through the AC units expansion on So I'm not sure exactly what she was talking about.
It wouldn't be possible to have seen that situation.
So there's issues with the factual basis of this testimony.
Moreover, the video footage that they played was the sounds of footsteps in the night through the dark.
And then what appeared to be some sort of blue-lit window.
And then Sadie said, that's my window.
But there's no definitive proof that that was her window.
It was a window in the night.
And there's no footage of her and Gutierrez.
There's no footage of him peeping in.
None of that exists.
It's not there.
Okay.
I mean, it's incredible juxtaposition from what is reported versus what, you know.
What might have been evidence in reality?
Okay.
May 17th, the event occurs.
They know the phone was last moved to 1010.
It's in a freezer.
Your brother is only confronted for the first time two days later by the two individuals who...
How are they related to Gutierrez?
Michael Campbell and Brandon Hendricks are both friends of Rosalia Gutierrez.
So they had known what had happened.
And they had been in touch with the police, and they come, notwithstanding apparent police orders to talk to Zachariah, your brother says, does he know who they are?
No idea who they are.
So he sees two people that he does not know who they are, and then he calls the police?
That's correct.
There's evidence that he calls the police?
Yes, there's a 911 call.
What did he say during that 911 call?
We don't have the recording, and we need his consent to get it from the Mequon PD.
But to my understanding, he reported that there were two men that showed up at his house questioning him about a missing person, and they were threatening him, and he was seeking some sort of protection or some intervention because he didn't know what was going on.
And when you say you don't have that, your brother has that, defense has that recording, correct?
I would assume that it would be part of the discovery, but they never played it during the trial, and I'm only paraphrasing what I was told was said.
Okay, that's interesting.
I'd be curious to know why they didn't play it, if what was said on it would have been exculpatory.
But also, if he had done what he's convicted of having done, would he be calling the cops first thing?
Right.
Which we know that he did, but we don't know what he said during that call definitively.
So then he gets taken into custody.
He and your older brother are, what do they call it?
Not the post, but they're interrogated.
For how long?
Oh, six hours on Zach.
Wow.
And six or seven hours.
Zach was in Mequon PD, and Josh was there for almost five, give or take.
And when do they tell them, ultimately, why they're there?
Zach had no idea that he was a serious interest in this missing person and potential homicide until he was transported to Kenosha when they had actually presented him paperwork that said that they were investigating for a first-degree intentional homicide.
So he had no idea that this guy had gone missing and that they thought that he had been murdered.
He had absolutely no idea.
It was a man that my brother had never met, and he had only looked him up, you know, on the internet.
I had never met him in person, nothing like that.
Had seen him, you know, to his statement that he had gone to Sadie's home in the early morning hours of the 25th.
I'd seen him once, and that was it.
Before we get into the arrest, and I'm going to ask some questions about what you know of the investigation leading up to the arrest.
If I may ask the indiscreet question, your brother had, for anybody who wants to go by character assassination or character judgment, your brother had a criminal record for nonviolent drug possession.
What was his criminal record about?
Yeah, he was pulled over in South Dakota transporting 20 pounds of marijuana?
I don't remember the exact poundage, but of criminal possession of 10 or more pounds of marijuana that he was driving back to Illinois or Michigan, wherever it was.
I don't really know where he was taking it back to, but he was transporting it from the West Coast over to one of the Midwest states that he had a connection to.
How long ago was that?
That was November of...
2019 he was pulled over?
Relatively recently.
Yeah, so that was during that time period.
Otherwise, he had no criminal record from when he was about 18 years old until he was pulled over in South Dakota.
He was totally free.
What came of that?
Did he stand trial for that yet?
Or what happened with that?
He actually pled.
He pled guilty to the charge, and he paid his fine, and they gave him a sentence for it.
Okay.
He went to jail for that?
He was already in jail.
The court proceedings ended up finishing after he was already arrested for the stalking charge.
Okay.
I think I understand that.
All right.
No violent charges or no violent convictions in his past, for whatever that's worth?
No.
And now, during the trial, I know that drug production or growing drugs came up.
He was also growing marijuana on his property at this time?
That's what they had presented in the courtroom.
Now, my brother had started an LLC specifically to set up a CBD company.
He was interested in setting up a CBD company, so I'm not sure exactly what...
What he was doing behind the scenes to do that, but he had already established an LLC to handle that.
And he was setting up and he had a connection, I think, in Michigan that he was working out how to set that up and how to grow legal.
So I'm not sure exactly what he was doing, but they claimed that he had 72 plants in his hand or in his home, according to my niece's testimony.
What Michael Bravely said they found in the trash bags next to the garage.
All right, now let me ask you, the properties and where he lives and what these things look like is somewhat relevant.
Where is your brother living?
Where are you living?
And what do these properties look like in terms of size, what's on them, where they're located?
So my brother lived on about 4.8 acres in the city of Mequon.
It was a slightly rural area.
He had one neighbor to the west through a pretty thick A tree line slash forest, and then he had one neighbor across the street.
Otherwise, he was surrounded by wilderness, and it was a very peaceful, zen, very quiet place on a reasonably busy road, but it was only two lanes wide, so quiet enough, just down the road from a local Technica college.
I, at the time, lived about 10 minutes, 11 minutes north of him in the city of Cedarburg.
Which is just a historic town in southeast Wisconsin that my family had settled.
So I lived there and I operated my construction remodeling business out of basically his house.
So there was a dumpster on the property, a bunch of construction equipment and materials stored in the old workshop that was on his property and things like that.
Okay, I hope that this is a big preamble because now we're getting into the investigation, ultimate charges, and then what some consider to be a miscarriage of justice of a trial.
Do you know, I mean, we know now because it was evidence at the trial, but how does the investigation into this missing person go?
And when is your brother formally charged?
So it started when Sadie drove to Kenosha, found the crime scene, and called 911.
Zack Sacks goes to do what she said was a wellness check.
She shows up and sees that the patio door is open.
Then goes to check the front door.
May I stop you there?
Just for one second, actually.
She does a wellness check on Gutierrez at his apartment.
At his apartment.
So she drives from her home, leaving their daughter home.
Because it was during COVID and I believe that school was out and it was a virtual.
So she leaves the daughter, goes to do this wellness check, drives all the way to Kenosha.
So that's over an hour.
She drives one direction just to check on him because he hasn't answered the phone in about 30 hours or maybe 36 hours at that point.
So she drives to Kenosha.
Parks sees that both of his vehicles are there, sees that the patio door is open, hollers in through the patio door, gets no response, goes through the main entry because it's not secured, walks up to his door, sees what looks like drops on the door frame, goes back around to open the slider.
She says that she parts the blinds and peeks in.
She sees blood.
She panics.
She calls the police.
The police respond.
And she tells them that she knows that Zachariah Anderson has something to do with this.
So that's what she tells the police.
She just unequivocally, she knows it was him for whatever reason because at that point she had been spinning up a narrative with her best friend Rebecca Jekyll that Zach was stalking her because she felt like he was following her around and doing things.
All right.
Police then get involved, and I guess you only learn after the fact.
What do they do?
I mean, what does the investigation look like, or what evidence of the investigation was presented at trial?
So what occurs, then Sadie goes and picks up my niece, brings my niece into the police station.
So drives all the way back to her home up in Germantown, Menominee Falls, picks her up and then drives all the way back to have a second witness give some sort of testimony to verify any piece of her story about my brother being a stalker.
And then the police contact the DA, they write a warrant, and then go to arrest my brother.
So that's the timeline that they have.
They have effectively hearsay.
They have word of mouth from Sadie and they take that and they run with it.
They execute the search warrant on my brother's home.
They find that there's a section of carpet missing in the back of his van.
They search and they pull a bunch of implements.
They search the house.
They find some cash.
They find what they presented as the marijuana that they had showed.
During the trial, and then the mushrooms and otherwise nothing else.
They bring dogs on to search the property.
They have drone footage that they bring around.
They search the area around my brother's property that is mostly forested and fallow grassland.
And they find nothing.
They find the dog marked on the fire pit and on, I believe, an old chainsaw that was in a shed and outbuilding.
Otherwise, there's nothing that they find.
And they take a bunch of things as evidence, which end up testing completely empty or completely void of any DNA evidence except for my brother's minivan, which they took to the state crime lab, where they found one pinhead-sized speck.
Of what they claimed was splash DNA on the rear inside panel on the passenger side right by the back lift gate.
They found no other evidence of there being anything on it.
And I'm not even sure that the experts swabbed the handle of the lift gate or any fingerprints on the lift gate for any of Gutierrez's DNA.
Because if he had...
Dumped the body in the back of the van.
He would have then handled the back hatch and done things like that.
They claimed that when he set the body down, that a splash of DNA got on that side panel.
Reddish-brown substance, this similar substance, a similar appearing substance.
It looks similar to blood on the opposite rear panel, like over the back wheel well, on the floorboard right next to the driver's side sliding door, on the visor, on the driver's seat, and I believe on the steering wheel as well.
None of those locations tested positive for blood.
Not a single one.
They didn't find any evidence of DNA.
There was just missing carpet.
When they luminoled the back of it, there was no evidence of blood.
There was no evidence of a bleach cleanup of blood.
Nothing like that ever lit up with luminol.
We're going to have to break down a lot of that here because we're going to get to the carpet.
We're going to get to that spec, which I'll ask in advance just before we forget later on, but I won't forget.
It tested positive for DNA, not blood, of an unspecified male, correct?
Lisa Trefinger, I just clipped this earlier today.
Lisa Trefinger said that it was a single-source male DNA, and she claimed that it tested positive for Rosalio Gutierrez.
Those were her words.
She didn't say to what degree of certainty.
None of the other information came out.
She just said that it tested positive for Rosalio Gutierrez, and they moved on.
An interesting statement.
They then tried to quantify that they could not differentiate between blood or any other type of evidence because the specimen was so small that they could not verify the source or the type of source that the DNA evidence was.
They went on to have other experts come on and also say that it was too small to say definitively, scientifically, that it was blood.
It was very important, though they tried to draw a logical conclusion.
And what they said was that the quality of the DNA evidence was indicative of blood.
That was what somebody else said.
But they could not say definitively or scientifically that it was indeed blood.
It's a very important distinction because the prosecutor claims that it is blood repeatedly.
They had a third person from the Wisconsin State Crime Lab also say that there was...
No evidence of blood in my brother's van.
Those are very important statements that have been made by two other crime lab witnesses.
Help me understand this, Solomon.
How small is this speck?
So think of the tip of a Sharpie.
If you were to look at the photograph, there are still frames.
If you find the photograph, there's an arrow on a little Post-it note.
And the line on that is the tip of a Sharpie of the arrow, okay?
The size of the spec is smaller than the tip of the Sharpie.
It is the size of the head of a pin.
I'm not trying to be skeptical for the sake of being skeptical.
I am just asking myself the question, how did they find that spec?
This was in the back of the car.
That's correct.
How do you find the head of a needle in the back of a van?
One of the crime lab analysts has a very good eye.
She spotted this speck and she said, she called to their testimony, she called Lisa Treffinger in to also look at it.
And then they tried to obtain the specimen and then run testing on it.
But as they said, the specimen was so small that they could not differentiate what type it was without destroying it.
So they had to choose whether to test it for the DNA evidence or to test What type of evidence it was.
And the DNA evidence, they said an unspecified male, but this woman, the name you just said is who again?
Lisa Trefinger.
And she is an expert.
She is the spokesperson from the Wisconsin State Crime Lab that was held as an expert for the state.
They said it was the DNA of an unspecified male that they believed to be Gutierrez.
Yes.
And why did they believe it to be Gutierrez?
She just said that it tested positive for Rosalia Gutierrez.
Okay, so that at least clarifies one ambiguity.
Some people were saying it didn't.
There was no mention that it tested positive for Gutierrez' DNA.
They were saying it was just an unspecified male.
They couldn't say which.
So she says unspecified male, but Gutierrez.
Why then would they say it was an unspecified male if they could specify the male?
The verbiage is single source male.
So it's from one male source, and it had tested positive for Gutierrez.
To what degree?
I have no idea.
It was never presented.
I don't know if it was like a 15% or a 20% match, or if it was anything else.
They also, to my understanding, didn't videotape the testing, so we have no idea if it was contaminated.
We also have police officers that were on the scene that were previously...
On the crime scene in Kenosha that drove all the way up and processed and looked at the van.
So there's a possibility of cross-contamination.
And we also have the possibility that it's epithelial touch DNA that has been spread secondhand from Sadie herself, who was at Rosalie Gutierrez's apartment on the night of the 16th, and then was dropping off the children who were in the van on the 16th.
So we have more than one potential issue with that DNA evidence being there.
It could absolutely be a touch DNA that was just coincidentally also on this speck of reddish substance, which matched the other reddish substance in the back of the van.
These are all realistic possibilities.
Real things that can happen with DNA.
And I don't think that DNA evidence was really described in how touch DNA can be spread and really the testing of it.
And I don't think the district attorney did it properly in presenting the DNA evidence.
He almost pseudo-inserted himself as an expert by asking her different types of DNA evidence.
He knew all of the types of DNA evidence.
It was sort of an odd presentation.
Again, I'm going to preface this question by saying that when there's a wrongful conviction, it's not just that there's a wrongful conviction of an innocent person.
It necessarily means that the guilty party is still out there and will get away with the crime.
And so there is a double, to the extent there's family, there's even more than a double victim to a wrongful conviction.
And now I'm thinking just, you know, the crime scene was described as very violent.
Different types of blood, like splatter and...
Splatter, drip, spray.
So very violent, like something out of Dexter, and I'm not saying that to be glib.
It's like different types of the way blood comes out.
Like if you've been hit, spit, air, breathe.
A violent scene to the extent that a cleanup would be presumably equally messy, if not messier, but at the very least messy.
And if one is thinking cynically or skeptically or critically, it would be even weirder that that would be the only speck that one would find in the back of the pickup.
Minivan crime scene.
It would be weirder that that would be the only spec that you find, as opposed to that being part of many.
And now, just thinking also critically, conceivable that a spec dries up and is carried over from the investigative of the crime scene to other places.
Not implausible, and that's not just to try to think of something far-fetched to achieve a foregone conclusion of innocence for Zachariah.
But back this up before we even get to the carpet, the spec, and we'll come back to it.
The chainsaw.
What relevance is the chainsaw in all of this?
None.
Is there a suggestion that the chainsaw was used to dismember a corpse for the purpose of concealing?
The only thing that they said was that the canine unit had pointed on a chainsaw that was in my brother's shed.
That my brother had gone to the tree farm, and this was part of my niece's testimony, had given or swapped a chainsaw, had loaded a chainsaw on the back of the van and driven back.
This was the only relevance that they had, was to try and bolster my niece's credibility and the fact that this chainsaw seemed suspicious, but they never proved.
There was no DNA test that came back to have any human DNA at all on the chainsaw.
No.
It's irrelevant to this case.
I'd say irrelevant or maybe exculpatory in the sense that if the suggestion is that this was used to dismember and dispose of, I don't think you can ever clean a chainsaw without having traces detectable any more than you can clean the back of a minivan.
Did your brother own firearms?
No.
No.
He was not allowed to own firearms.
I assume it was a felony drug charge.
Well, there was the felony drug charge.
There was also a conviction for when he was 18 that prevented him from owning firearms.
So he, for his whole life, had not owned a firearm, period.
I lived with him for a short time.
Like I had said, I owned a shotgun used for hunting.
It's a slug rifle, or a slug gun, not a rifle, but a slug gun used for hunting deer if you're going to do a deer drive or something like that.
And he saw it in the house.
And he was very angry at me because there was no firearm ever allowed on his property whatsoever.
He did not want firearms on his property.
It was just not something that he was comfortable with, and he was very comfortable with not owning a gun.
So that was just a non-starter, which is why the, this is again getting ahead of ourselves, but why the I was threatened by that gun comment was so completely just imaginary.
It was just not realistic.
It would not have happened.
You'll remember to come back to that.
So the chainsaw, no DNA, so there's not a question it wasn't used.
It was just a scary tool.
Yeah, a canine unit had barked at it, and then they took it for evidence, tested it, came back negative.
It also barked at the fire pit, where they found that he had burned his own clothes, but there was more than one pair of jeans, as there were two buttons that they had discovered, and then some socks and some underwear that they found.
But my brother was cleaning out his house, and he was prepping for custody of his children, so I'm not shocked that he burned stuff.
Well, before you get there even, the burn pit.
Now we know it's a 4.1 acre property, so there are 4.8.
So you make outdoor fire pits.
Was it a fresh fire pit burn?
Was it an existing fire pit that had newly burned clothes?
I mean, is the idea or even the admission from your brother's perspective that, yeah, I burnt the clothes contemporaneously with these events and I did it for a totally innocuous reason?
Yeah, he burned.
He burned all kinds of things for an innocuous reason.
The fire pit was an existing fire pit, to start, to answer your question.
The fire pit had been his fire pit for many, many, many years.
It's where we burn where he had felt.
He had dropped a couple of trees.
We were burning logs.
We were burning just wood that we had pulled out of demolitions.
So like old two-by-fours that were rotten and all kinds of stuff, we'd throw it in the fire, we'd burn it.
It was a convenient way to get rid of a bunch of stuff that would otherwise just fill the dumpster unnecessarily.
So the other thing was that my grandmother had just passed away.
And all of the belongings that were in our home were emptied out and were taken to my brother's house.
And he was going through and disposing of things that had no significant value.
And a lot of those things ended up getting burned.
So there were personal effects and things like that that were burned as opposed to filling the dumpster, which was full of construction debris.
And so that's...
Now, I'm going to steal, man, just so no one thinks that I'm just here to listen to...
A brother who's emotionally invested tried to defend his brother.
Someone's going to say, okay, well, there's always a good answer for why he was burning stuff.
There was always a good answer to why he was buying stuff at a store the day of or the day after, I should say, burning the clothes.
The question is, as a matter of fact, did they find anything in the burn pit that could definitively or was suspected to have predated the incident?
They did not find anything in the burn pit that was definitively connected to the incident.
Would they find older stuff?
There's been stuff that was in that burn pit.
There's springs and all kinds of stuff.
There's all kinds of old metal that they pulled out of there.
I think there's chairs and mattresses and stuff like that.
Like an old country burn pit.
You take the stuff out that you don't want that'll light on fire and you burn it.
And that's not a shock.
I personally had watched it happen many times over and raked out the pit.
Is your brother's testimony, though, as far as this is concerned, that, yeah, I burnt some clothes the day after the incident?
To be clear, my brother didn't testify to anything.
That was not the way I wanted to say that.
Was the evidence to suggest that the burn was contemporaneous, like this was a fresh burn?
That's what they claimed.
They claimed that he had intentionally burned this and that it was freshly done.
But my brother had had a good-sized fire on the Friday before.
They claimed that it had rained very hard for days.
I actually went back and looked at the weather report, and there was less than an inch of rain over all of those days.
It was overcast, it was misty, but it didn't rain as hard as they claimed it did in Mequon.
So the fact that they claimed that there was this smoldering pit...
Well, you can burn on an overcast or misty day.
That's not a big deal.
And there was debris and wood and all kinds of stuff to get rid of.
So am I shocked that he had burned?
No.
Was it on fire when they got there?
Well, no.
They said that it was smoldering.
and to my understanding was that there were hot coals that they found inside the fire pit.
Not that this was a raging fire when they And if you've ever had a country fire and you've burned big logs, it gets a skin of ash over the top, but the core of it is still warm unless you get a torrential downpour.
So the fact that they had to call the fire department out to hose down the fire pit didn't shock me because he has.
Good size fires when he has a fire.
So their evidence as to the clothing having been burnt freshly in the pit was two buttons from what they determined were jeans?
Two buttons from what they determined were Levi's.
There was an elastic band from some underpants and a partially burned sock.
And I don't understand why.
If the state presumes that he's destroying evidence...
Why would he not have soaked it in all of it in an accelerant and made sure that it all burned properly?
That doesn't make sense.
Did you say there was a remnant of a sock?
Yeah, remnants of a sock.
So there was still some unburnt portion of the cloth sock left.
Was there blood on that unburnt portion?
Nothing.
So they didn't have any DNA evidence that...
That connected my brother to Gutierrez.
They even pumped his septic tank.
Hold on, hold on.
Before you get into that, sorry, because this is fascinating, but let me finish on this.
So they determined there were clothes burnt.
There was still cloth left over from what they determined or know was a sock, but no blood on the sock that was partially burnt because presumably he's concealing evidence.
No blood on that.
And part two to that, the only DNA.
Evidence connecting Gutierrez to your brother was that pinhead speck in the back of his truck.
We're going to get to the carpet in a bit.
That's correct.
It's the minivan.
I thought I was just cracking the case because if there's a sock that he's burning, presumably it's because it's evidence and presumably it's going to have blood on it.
And if he didn't burn the entire sock, well, presumably they should be able to find some blood on the sock that he's burning because it's evidence.
But no.
Nope.
They found a sock and they were like, aha!
And then they shipped it to the crime lab and it came back completely negative.
No DNA evidence.
Okay.
Chainsaw irrelevant.
Growing marijuana, allegedly.
That does not make one a murderer.
And now, okay, let's do the septic before we do anything else because I saw this in the interview with Recovering Addict or Recovery Addict.
And I thought this was interesting.
Most people might not know this.
If he's washing his hands off, if he's taking a shower, if he successfully cleaned the entire back of that truck, but when my little speck got through, well, you've got to wash off.
So if you wash off of the shower, the sink, whatever, stuff can get stuck in the drain, the little U-bends where things don't always go down.
What do they do to search the property?
Well, they actually take the traps from underneath the sink and the tub.
And they keep the contents.
So they keep the traps from the sink and the tub, and they pump the septic tank.
So if he were to shower and he had blood on him, then some would be left inside the trap, that U-bend that you talked about, in the sink or the tub and or in the septic tank itself, the whole tank.
Because this is a country property where you've got a septic tank and it's not connected.
It's not connected to city water.
That's correct.
So there's a septic holding tank out in the yard.
They bring a truck.
They actually...
They pump the whole tank.
They take this evidence.
They test it, looking for Gutierrez's DNA, and it came back completely negative.
So there's no other evidence.
None.
They searched our family Christmas tree farm three times.
They found no evidence.
They claimed that they found a shred of this mystery flannel that my niece claimed that he was wearing on that Sunday.
There's no evidence of that flannel being burned.
They said that they had found in some of the press a shard of this flannel in one of the fire pits.
I believe at the tree farm.
It was not ever presented.
Not even once.
It was not brought up during the trial.
It was not cited.
They claimed in news articles that they found pieces of Gutierrez's clothing in my brother's fire pit.
This is the mainstream media releasing this stuff.
There was no evidence ever presented of Gutierrez's clothes in my brother's fire pit.
It never happened.
They also claimed that the spec was definitively blood in the back of my brother's van, that there was blood in the back of the van.
There was no evidence ever verified, none, that there was blood in the back of the van.
They never presented this stuff.
The DA, Gravely's office, has a PR person that then spreads lies and misinformation to the mainstream media that then it gets disseminated through the local population and potentially taints jurors into believing that this man is guilty before he sees trial, years before he sees trial.
It's a problem.
Well, no, it's a problem because I consider myself to be cynical and reasonably intelligent, and I had heard this stuff.
And it's not that I took it for granted.
I was not following this case the way we followed Rittenhouse, so it was not the one that I was dissecting with judicial scrutiny.
But I heard it, and I know the way my initial reactions and reflexes go.
I thought, first of all, even after looking into this, that the speck of DNA was the size of a pinhead in the back of a truck that allegedly was the getaway.
Clean-up truck for a very large individual.
We're going to get to the size because it's relevant for other stuff, but a massively messy, violent, brutal murder that leaves in the back of a truck a speck the size of a pinhead, and that's it.
Okay, so they pump the septic tank.
They find no blood, no DNA.
Nothing else on the property.
Burnt sock in the fire.
No blood on it, let alone...
Incriminating DNA.
The van.
This is the one where I get suspicious.
There better be a damn good explanation for why between the event, the carpet in the back of the van is pulled up and the seat is removed.
Explain what happened with the truck, what kind of truck it was, and whether or not what was alleged to have happened in fact is admitted or confirmed to have occurred contemporaneously with the incident.
Well, it was a minivan.
It had two rows of seats in the back.
My brother would take them out all the time.
He would take them out so he could load construction materials or whatever he wanted at the back of the van.
The seats just disconnect.
He'd take them out.
He'd set them right in the driveway so he could put them back in when he finished hauling whatever he was hauling.
And if he needed to cover them, they would go in the shop or in the garage and not a big deal.
But he'd just pop the little levers.
You'd take the seats out.
You'd set them aside.
So there's a bench seat in the way back.
That thing popped right out.
No problem.
He had the kids on that weekend.
The bench seat was installed.
The bench seat was there.
My niece testified that the carpet was in the back of the van, but he had set the chainsaw in the back of the van.
To my understanding, the chainsaw had leaked fuel in the back of the van.
If I may stop you there, your niece testified that the chainsaw was in the back of the van.
That's right.
Okay.
And it's obviously a gas-powered chainsaw, not one of those crappy electric ones.
Yeah, it's a mixed gas, yeah.
So, like a two-cycle engine.
So, as I understand, there was some fuel spilled in the back of the van, and as opposed to driving around with the smell of fuel in his van, he just removed the carpet.
It was already all stained up and messed up from doing the demo.
That he had done as work for Susan Brown-Williamson up in Belgium, where they had talked about this, where he was demoing the kitchen, the bathroom, and helping her with some of the house remodel.
So he had that Friday.
I watched him pull in the driveway with the trailer that they had shown in pictures that was Susan Brown-Williamson's loaded with debris attached to the back of the van, and the van was packed to the ceiling with other construction demo debris that he had then hauled out and thrown in the dumpster.
So this stuff was very clear that he had used it for this purpose.
The back of the van was filthy.
Full of dirt and debris.
The state alleged that he had cleaned this van, but then they actually show pictures of the van, and it's full of dust, full of debris, full of filth, and it's evident that the van was never scrubbed, ever.
It was not cleaned.
I got asked a stupid question.
I feel terrible for not knowing it.
I was going to ask you in private chat, but I'll just display my own ignorance.
You didn't testify.
I did not.
Ask the obvious question, as far as you understand.
Was there any evidence adjuiced in defense, or perhaps inadvertently in prosecution, that the chainsaw leaked gasoline onto the carpet?
Or is that something totally extraneous to the trial?
Totally extraneous to the trial.
Because it's an interesting explanation.
Some people might say, you know...
If they want to be cynical, it's an emotionally invested brother trying to protect his brother.
Here's an explanation that I think is plausible.
But nothing was adjuiced by way of evidence other than the fact that the chainsaw was, in fact, in the trunk of the car as per his daughter, your niece's testimony.
That's correct.
Yeah, that was the only thing that was adjuiced during the trial.
Was there any explanation in defense submitted as evidence to the trial, withheld or not, or retained or not by the jury?
As to why the carpet was removed?
No.
I don't believe they discussed it.
They just said that it was, sure, it was missing.
He was a contractor, and there was Susan Brown-Williamson that testified that the carpet was already removed to her eyewitness testimony on, I believe, the same Friday that I saw him pull in the driveway.
Which was before the incident.
That's correct.
That was Friday the 15th of May of 2020.
Susan Braun-Williamson is a contractor who testified.
Sorry, not a contractor.
Rather, she's a client who testified.
That's correct.
So she may have or did, in fact, recollect that the carpet might have actually been removed prior to the incident and not after as his daughter testified.
That's correct.
All right.
And I'll remind everybody who might be tuning in an hour late.
No body, no weapon.
As of now, no body, no weapon.
And we're hearing the evidence or the lack thereof.
I guess it's the time now to go into his daughter's testimony because that was, I think, by the account of the media, the most damning testimony out there.
He even had his own daughter testify against him.
This is how evil this stalking, jealous, obsessed ex-boyfriend was.
I want to point out how outraged we were as a family that they accused my brother of her testifying.
He actually motioned.
He had his lawyers motion the court to ask that she didn't testify because of how damaging it would be to her.
And the fact that people say that it was his fault that she testified is so disingenuous.
He didn't ask for her testimony.
Sadie put her in this position and then the court demanded her testimony.
So, as opposed to letting her do something on video, which I know that the state of Wisconsin has room in their legislature for a minor testimony in something as sensitive as this, as opposed to protecting her psyche, what they did was put her on the stand and put her through this awful scenario, making her testify against her father.
Especially, and you'll correct me if I'm wrong, I think there was nothing...
There was nothing exceedingly relevant about her testimony, save and except for that one story where she said, Dad drove me over to Mom's house and asked me to put a phone in a vent to spy on them, and I looked through the window and I saw them lying together on the couch.
It was not exactly that.
It was that she stayed in the car, watched him walk up, and put the phone in the vent, and then...
Uh, and then he, he looked in the window and that she watched him do this.
And then he came back and got her and then he walked her up to the window and said, okay, go ahead and look, but cover your nose and mouth with your shirt, uh, to what she did.
And then she looked in the window and saw them and then they left.
But when they pulled out of the driveway, they turned to drive back past the front of the house.
They stopped because.
Gutierrez's truck was in the driveway, and then my niece claimed that he went through Gutierrez's glove box, looked at the registration, or took the registration, and took a picture of it, took this Dear John letter, or whatever it was, and then came back to the car.
Oddly enough...
They presented later in the court case that he had looked up a way to search a Colorado license plate, a free license plate search.
So again, that doesn't make sense for someone that looked at the title.
Why would you need to search the license plate to find out who owns the piece of property if you have...
I think it was just the registration, not the title.
but a letter written from the owner about how Rosalia was, was, was granted permission to drive the vehicle and then the registration of the vehicle.
Now I'm reluctant to ask this question because I don't want anyone perceiving it as like looking to victim blame.
And there's no, but to that I'm going to ask it anyhow, did Zachariah or do you know of whether or not anybody involved in this new of who Gutierrez was like the, You could frame it as an obsessive, jealous ex-boyfriend, or you could frame it as a concerned father who might know something and just wants to do a background check on someone who might be in proximity of his girlfriend and children.
Did Zachariah, to your knowledge, know anything of Gutierrez's past, present, and history?
Zach actually said to me on one occasion that he said that he was that he wished he had he had been a better boyfriend to Sadie and it was too bad and that the relationship was too far gone and then he he said that that he didn't like that That this guy had a history and he mentioned some sort of drug affiliation to me.
Those were his words to me.
But really just referenced that he wasn't like this clean guy that she was bringing into their kids' lives.
And he was really disappointed that she didn't do better for their kids.
That's all he ever said to me, and that was never brought into the court, but that was it.
It was not obsessive.
He didn't have a feverish look in his eye.
He was just like, it's too bad.
And this guy, he's just not like this upstanding citizen.
He has a history, and I don't really like him being around the kids, but I just wish that she had better judgment.
That's what he conveyed to me.
And again, not a question of victim blaming.
It's on the one hand a question of saying, is there a non-incriminating explanation for why an ex-boyfriend might, you know, even if he did go take a picture of registration to do a background check unbeknownst to people that he cares about, and flip side, if you're looking for alternative explanations and places to investigate that I'm not sure the Kenosha did, might there be other players who might more plausibly be potentially related to this than your brother?
Okay, so now, your niece, his daughter testifies.
Yeah, okay.
The image heard around the world, him holding his lips to tell her to be quiet.
And the media ran with this as witness intimidation.
And I read the comments to the YouTube videos where people are watching mainstream media report on this.
They don't know what the testimony was at the time.
And I'm finding out now because there was none.
And yet they're saying in the comment section, Sick bastard, total witness intimidation, he's evil, yada yada.
I saw your explanation as to what he was doing.
It makes sense, but explain it to the world because part of me is like, I just want to know what the testimony was at that time to see whether or not it was incriminating for the dad to be telling his daughter to zip her lips.
Your explanation makes a lot of sense.
Is there anyone out there to contradict your explanation and give it to us?
I mean, I don't think there is a contradiction.
They wanted to try and spin it, that it was intimidation, absolute intimidation.
But it was just a father trying to father his daughter.
You know, at the same time, during the same court proceedings, you know, my niece had a massive emotional outburst.
And from the gallery, you had Sadie's family members mouthing and signing to calm down, calm down.
And in this, you know, it's half a dozen of one, six of the other.
Both of them were attempting to try and get this young girl, this girl to try and recenter herself and to act appropriately for the situation, even though it was such a high-stress and high-stakes situation for her and for the family.
I don't blame her for having a moment where, for the first time in nearly three years, she saw her father and wanted to ask him questions, wanted to reach out to him, wanted to communicate with him.
Of course she did.
That's not evil by any means.
There was no intimidation there.
People don't understand that there was a no contact for almost three years.
It was the first time she had seen him.
This is a young girl that does love and miss her dad.
Regardless of the situation, if you listen to her impact statement, she even says, it's time for you to work on you and come talk to me when you're done.
That's not like her telling him that he's a monster.
That was her saying that my love is still here for you and I just need you to earn it.
Those are very different to what the state wanted to sell the public as to what the nature of the relationship was.
And it's unfortunate that the media took that and ran with it and misrepresented it.
Did he do the right thing?
No.
Doing this was not the right thing to do in the moment.
And I admonished him about it afterwards.
I said, what are you doing?
That was so stupid.
You knew all the cameras were on you.
He's like, she's my daughter, Saul.
I said, I understand.
I get it.
But the one moment that you needed to just...
Sit stoic and keep it together, you know, in regards to what she was doing.
No, it really is enraging because it's not a question of taking sides.
Just give me the truth and I'll come to my own conclusion.
And you see the screen grab, the still, and everyone's like, oh, look at his evil in his eyes.
I think people project into the eyes what they have already come to by way of conclusion.
And I didn't get there.
Show me the facts.
And now that I know...
Just so everybody appreciates, it wasn't him telling her to shut up while she was testifying.
She was mouthing to him while on the sentence, like, I don't know what she was saying, but trying to communicate with him, and he's like, stop.
And I look at that, and I don't see evil in the eyes regardless, but maybe I'm just projecting my own stuff onto it.
I mean, if you look into his eyes, he has nothing but love and adoration for almost her entire testimony.
She's sitting on the stand, and his eyes are alight.
And he's just happy to see his daughter for the first time in almost three years.
I mean, it's 33 months at that point.
And then there's a moment where Gravely is hammering on calling him the defendant.
Oh, I'm calling him the defendant.
And she calls him the defendant to appease Gravely.
And you can see they showed him.
And he goes from loving and proud to injured.
He's hurt.
It's his daughter.
Calling him the defendant, not dad?
That's awful.
And speaking of the absolute utility or lack of the testimony, the bulk of her testimony was that evening, allegedly placing the camera, the chainsaw, that he grew 72 plants of marijuana, but she couldn't identify Bud when she saw it.
I watched that.
I mean, I tried to catch up on it.
I was like, I don't understand the utility of this, except for running with the narrative that we got his daughter to testify against, and that's how evil he was, even though she said nothing of use to the actual, I'll say not alleged murder, but the murder, until he's found, but the event.
Okay, let me think.
They tried to use her to proof stalking.
That was the only utility to it.
The only utility.
Someone had asked, and maybe I forgot to ask the question.
You said, as it relates to the back of the truck, no smell of bleach, no residue of bleach because bleach leaves a residue?
Well, bleach, when you're wiping up DNA evidence, it breaks down like the DNA itself, right?
It denatures DNA.
So it denatures, which makes it not test well when you try and run it through the PCR testing.
However...
It still leaves DNA.
You can easily Google pictures of what appears to be a crime scene cleanup, and when it's luminoled, you see streaking as the wipes go through.
It may have denatured the DNA, so you could not test it to test for a positive DNA match, but it will still light up with luminol testing.
So the fact that they...
Well, I'd say unrealistic, especially given what he is alleged to have used to clean it up, which were, unless I'm mistaken, Clorox bleach wipes that he was seen purchasing the day after at a, was it a Walmart?
Walmart, yeah.
So let's hear this.
This is the morning after.
Allegedly, right?
That he's shopping for an hour at a Walmart.
What did he get?
He got bags, Clorox bleach wipes.
Yeah, sardines.
Oh, that was another issue with the mainstream media.
The sardines, Q-tips, and some other benign things.
Sardines for what?
Oh, and rubber gloves.
Yeah, a snack.
He eats sardines.
You don't have to agree with eating sardines, but he enjoys it.
Well, it depends how they're preserved.
So people think, oh, he bought rubber gloves in Clorox bleach.
Some people have hypothesized the innocuous interpretation.
This is during the height of COVID.
I don't know what evidence was presented to counter that.
What type of rubber gloves?
They were just regular rubber gloves.
It wasn't like...
It wasn't like heavy duty.
It was just rubber gloves.
Did they ever find them?
They didn't present them.
Not a single time.
So I don't know where the rubber gloves are.
Evidence that a construction worker during COVID bought rubber gloves, sardines, Clorox bleach.
The wipes that come in a container, you pull one out at a time.
Yeah, and there were two types of them.
There's one with the purple top and the other one.
And one of the Clorox...
You know, he had driven after stopping at the Walmart up to Belgium to this job site where he spent about half the day.
You know, and if you're unfamiliar with construction, you use...
Use bleach very specifically to kill mold spore, but you use trash bags to bag up things like loose insulation.
And this house was at an era where vermiculite insulation was used regularly and other things like that.
My brother was very particular about fiberglass insulation and wanted it bagged up before it went in the dumpster.
He had worked construction when he was younger, had done a bunch of demolition or a bunch of insulating, had gotten fiberglass.
I told you he was a particular person.
He was very particular about how fiberglass was supposed to be handled and bagged.
He didn't want it blowing around his property at all and wanted to make sure that it was secured and not free-floating because he didn't like breathing or having it in his eyes at all.
That's the pink cotton candy type stuff?
Yeah, that stuff.
And there's vermiculite, which is like a hard...
Harder ground pebble.
I have...
What's the word?
A pet peeve.
My pet peeve is broken glass.
When someone breaks a glass, you've got to do multiple levels of not...
Make sure you don't step on a damn shard that goes into your heel and ruins the rest of your week.
So that's the damning...
Circumstantial evidence.
He bought this stuff the day after the event.
Yeah, but if you watch, it's 32 minutes of footage that they presented during the trial.
They claimed originally that he parked so far away.
He parked really far away from anyone.
It was clearly avoidant behavior.
But then you watch him on the camera, and he parks right next to, adjacent to another vehicle, if not another one in front of him.
So he parks right next to other vehicles.
And then he casually walks into the Walmart.
He casually strolls around and buys the things that he needs.
Purchases them at the self-checkout.
Pays cash.
Again, very casually.
And then walks out.
I think he waves thank you to the greeter or whatever when they take the cart from him.
He puts his hood up because it's raining that day.
It was drizzling or misting or whatever.
And then he leaves.
It wasn't damning at all.
Well, do we know when the body is alleged to have been removed?
Like, by the time Sadie gets there 36 hours later, this would have been in the interim that your brother would have gotten the bags.
I mean, is the theory that he already had the body in the back of the car or that he went back to get it?
That's what the state alleged.
Yeah.
The state alleged that in 10 minutes, give or take 10, 15 minutes, because to Gravely's closing argument, he said at around 10 p.m., My brother viciously attacked Gutierrez.
At around 10pm, he blitzes him at the door.
He bashes his head in.
He finishes him with a knife.
Then he pulls the body over and he puts him on the carpet and then rolls it all up.
But all of that doesn't give enough time, one, for the blood to pool on the couch and on the carpeting on the floor.
It doesn't give a realistic amount of time to wrap him up like it's a cigarette, right?
Like, try and totally wrap the body up into a tube and shoulder him.
Lift about 300 pounds onto your shoulder, walk it out to your minivan, set the body down in the minivan, and only get this one splash.
And what they presumed was a little bit of mess on the carpeting.
And then...
And then go in and get the phone and put it in the freezer and then drive back to Mequon, which if you took the freeway on time, I believe that it was an hour and seven or hour and nine minutes, that gave him somewhere between minutes and seconds to make it back to his home in Mequon between 10.10 and the 11.19 p.m. when he texted his girlfriend and called her apologizing for sleeping too long.
It's not physically possible to do this.
It's very important that we recognize that it was not possible.
Someone in the chat said, get to the prison snitch.
Don't worry, we're getting to the prison snitch.
But before then, so the theory of the case is that your brother, how tall, how much does your brother weigh?
My brother is 6 '1", and at the time he was about 220, maybe?
All right, and Gutierrez is 270 to 300 from what I understand.
Yeah, I mean, they tried to say that he was as low as, like, 240.
I think Eileen said something around 220, using their imaginations.
So Celia Patterson had posted an article in the newspaper.
Who's Celia Patterson?
That's Roselia Gutierrez's mother.
She posted an article right after he had disappeared that said that he weighed 280 pounds and that it was not possible for any less than two people to have committed this act.
That was her words on the article that she put out looking for whomever might have done this.
Did that make its way into evidence in defense?
I hope so.
I don't remember.
I don't remember if that article specifically was.
I'd have to look back at the trial.
But very specifically, that news article was released.
There were a bunch of people that testified that he weighed 270 pounds.
Now, imagine it's 270 pounds, but he wrapped him up.
So you have all of the wrapping materials.
You have the carpet that they claim that he wrapped him in that is presumably blood-soaked and everything else that was used to wrap up this man.
So you have a...
270-pound man, plus weight of carpet, plus everything else, all stacked up together.
So you have up to 300 pounds, give or take, that he would have had to just throw on his shoulder and walk out like a sack of potatoes out to the minivan and set it down because there's no drag marks.
No blood on the stairs going down.
Well, he lived on the first floor, so there's no stairs.
But there's no, like, on the patio door, on the entryway, not in the hallway, no dripping, no dragging, nothing anywhere.
It's not to be found.
I'm going to just take a note.
Snitch and Houdini.
I want to get to Houdini.
No, that was part of the prison snitch, yeah.
The carpet.
Did they know that the carpet was used?
Well, the carpet was missing.
Okay.
They never found the carpet.
They never found the carpet.
The carpet wasn't in your brother's burn pit.
And not only did they not find it in the burn pit, they didn't find it in the tree farm burn pit, they also never found any fibers of the carpet in my brother's van.
Another important thing to note, that when they did their forensic analysis of the van, they knew what the carpet looked like.
They found...
No evidence of the carpet ever have been placed in my brother's van.
Now, I'm not asking this to show off any stupid intelligence.
What kind of carpet was it?
It was like a 5x7 area rug that was in front or underneath the front of the couch and underneath the two small coffee tables, things that were used as coffee tables that were pictured on the crime scene.
Now, this might be a very detailed question to which you might not know the answer.
Defense, did they find carpet residue, carpet particles in Gutierrez's apartment?
I believe that they found hair follicles and what they said were fibers.
I might be remembering that incorrectly.
I'm sure the chat could be correcting me right now.
But they had claimed that they had found some fibers and things like that.
And moreover, in the pictures of the crime scene, there was the area that was...
A little bit cleaner.
On the edge of it, there was what appeared to be a little bloodstains pool that had a definitive corner edge to it.
I'm just thinking critically, inconceivable.
Anybody who's ever dealt with carpets that the dust particles from a carpet would not be tracked anywhere, especially if you're wrapping it up and bending it.
What kind of minivan do you know?
It was maybe a Chrysler.
A Dodge, something like that.
And wrapped up in a carpet, which, like you mentioned, is not going to bend.
So it's not foldable, even if it didn't have a human body in it.
Okay, it gets more outrageous.
But the issue is that it's not clear what was brought up.
For me, what you have by way of rational insights that are not necessarily presented or were not presented in defense.
And you have just an onslaught of circumstantial...
Innuendo-type evidence being presented.
Yeah.
So the carpet.
Okay.
So the carpet gets loaded in the back of the van.
They say that he closes the back hatch or whatever.
He goes in, he stashes the phone, and he takes off.
Or stashed the phone, loaded the carpet, closed it, and then took off.
So either way, it created a time window of about 10-15 minutes to be able to wrap this up entirely.
And there's only about a 3 foot by 3.5 or 4 foot, the width of the back of the van, section of carpet missing.
It's not all of the carpeting.
It's just the rear section from the...
The brackets of the rear seats of the van to the rear bumper to where the liftgate latches.
So that area of the van has carpet missing.
Not the entire thing, but just that area.
That doesn't imply that you slid a 300-pound man into the back of your van.
They kind of infer that he folded him up into a tight little bundle and stuck him in the back three feet of the van.
That also doesn't make sense.
Because he's such a large man, and in order to contain all of that bloody mess from bludgeoning a man to death, you would have had to have done a different tier, a different level of protection to try and stop that.
Or you, and again, this is not to be disrespectful.
There's a victim in this as well, or a chainsaw to dismember, but we know that that's not a possibility.
Because it would have happened at the apartment, and there was never any testimony to that, any sound of a chainsaw running.
So that was a mood point.
Chad is asking me to make sure that we mentioned the diffuser.
Now I remember that the diffuser was still diffusing 40 hours later.
What was the relative?
Diffuser gate.
Yeah.
So when you walk in to the apartment, to Rosalia's apartment, the door swings to the left.
Okay?
Door swings to the left.
Right in front of you, sort of front and to the left, there's a small, long table.
Short table that's right there.
It had blood splatter on it and things like that.
On that table, there's a diffuser pot, a wooden-looking diffuser pot that's sitting on the table.
What is a diffuser pot?
So it's like something where you put like an essence of or some sort of aromatherapy, you fill it with water, and then it steams the water and carries that aroma throughout your dwelling.
So it's supposed to be for peace, aromatherapy, relaxation, things like that.
Some people might use it similar to incense.
So this pot then is sitting on this little table, and it's running when they do the crime scene photographs.
And those crime scene photographs were taken somewhere between noon and 1 p.m. on May the 19th.
They presented that the murder occurred at about 10 p.m. on May the 17th.
In that time frame, it's likely that...
Mr. Gutierrez expecting Narita Macias coming over at any time around 9 p.m., that he had loaded the diffuser and it was running on high.
So that's what the evidence shows, that both lights, both indicator lights are lit, and this diffuser is running on high, not on low.
But diffusing it as much as it can, as quickly as possible.
And then it's still running with a solid stream of steam coming out of it by midday on May the 19th.
So that's 39 to about 40 hours later, give or take, on this time window, which is not possible to all of our testing and retesting for a diffuser to run on high for that long, even if you overfill it.
So this is an issue.
That means that someone would have had to have been in the apartment on May the 18th, which is verified by other witness testimony, where a neighbor had heard bickering in the apartment on May the 18th.
Another person had called in an anonymous tip, seeing a woman at 4.16 p.m.
I was correct.
So there's an odd correlation of events where we have then a testimony of there being people in Gutierrez's home on May the 18th, which is a day after, allegedly, he was murdered.
At least 12 hours later, if not 16 hours later, than when the phone was placed in the freezer.
So the evidence, as it's presented, does not present well.
Furthermore, the phone, speaking of the phone, Tested with two alleles, so two DNA alleles, that were a 0% match to Zach, meaning that someone else handled the phone and put it in the freezer that was not my brother, absolutely, and was not Rosalia Gutierrez, and was not Celia Patterson.
Likely, the person that handled the phone is the criminal that they need to investigate, the person that needs to be in prison for this crime.
And so I'm just thinking, hypothetically, someone's there.
Why are they there and why are they putting up a diffuser?
Maybe, I don't know, it makes the place smell better?
That's correct.
Yeah.
Okay.
Fascinating in a horrible way.
Right.
What do you do?
Not everybody soils themselves when they pass away, but maybe Gutierrez did.
Maybe the smell of blood.
Maybe the smell of blood.
It could have been anything.
Again, the way I'm describing this is a little flippant.
I just wanted to say this.
I'm not trying to disparage the crime that occurred or the sorrow that...
Celia Patterson or Rosalio's family, friends, or children are experiencing.
It's very important to recognize that this is a human life and this man had people that loved him.
So by all means, please don't take it that way.
It is an absolute tragedy for him to disappear from the people that love him and loved him.
It's just so we're clear that people out there are listening.
I don't think good faith people who are thinking sincerely would even have that suspicion.
So don't worry about that.
Although, I mean, it's good that you worry about it.
But anyone who's going to believe that is not going to be convincible in any event.
So the DNA evidence on the bag of the cell phone that's put in the freezer does not match your brother.
It's not on a bag.
It's just on the cell phone.
Gutierrez had a money clip that was laying on the couch.
They had pictures of his wallet or his fold that was on the couch.
There was no cash in it.
And they found the cell phone and I believe his ID and maybe a credit card or two in the freezer days later when the crime scene was released.
So here we have a situation where someone went through his possessions.
They went through his wallet.
They took what cash was there.
They threw the phone and some other items from that billfold in the freezer, and then they took off.
People in the chat are hypothesizing on a connection between the prior 10-pound marijuana trafficking and this.
I mean, totally unrelated?
Other people are saying it's totally unrelated.
People don't make connections.
Totally unrelated.
Totally unrelated.
There's no connection to this.
My brother's charge in South Dakota was specifically just for driving some marijuana through the state of South Dakota.
And he pled guilty to it, and they gave him probation and some jail time.
And at this point, his jail time has been served because he was allowed to serve it at the same time while waiting trial for this case.
Let's get to the most, unless there's another piece of evidence that is more outrageous or that we haven't yet gotten to.
The prison snitch.
I swear to you, this is when we're talking with the panel of lawyers and I'm like, it's not possible that evidence was presented of a prison snitch whose incriminating testimony against your brother's alleged admission is an alleged night terror.
In which your brother is sleeping, screams out something in his sleep, wakes up, and this prison snitch says, look into my eyes and tell me that you didn't do it, or tell me that you did it.
And he looks into this prison snitch's eyes and says, I did it.
Can you flesh out that outlandish, outlandish story?
Yeah, you summarized it very well.
So Munch is the snitch's jailhouse nickname.
This guy says that while he was bunked with my brother, my brother had the top bunk and he had the bottom.
He was struggling to sleep and my brother was sleeping.
And during my brother's sleep, he said, die, die, die, motherfucker.
And then...
When he woke up shortly after that, Munch asked him, he said, you know, you talked to your sleep.
He said, oh, did I?
In response, like, wow, what did I say?
And he said, man, you said some stuff about what you did.
He said, did you really do it?
And he said, what are you talking about?
He said, look me in the eye.
Tell me that you did it.
And he jumped down off of his bunk and he looked him right in the eye and he said, yeah.
I did it.
That was the confession that Munch presented to the court.
And during, simultaneously to this confession, this quote, this die, die, die, the camera switched to Michael Gravely, the prosecutor, and he's mouthing simultaneously, simultaneously with the witness, Die, die, die.
You can slow it down.
You can play it in real time.
You can absolutely see him mouthing along with the testimony of the witness.
This is a huge problem.
One that was brought before the court.
One that even Judge Trader said, it appears as if you're saying it simultaneously.
And then he says, I'm keeping this, referring to the flash drive that was given to the court, and then proceeded to do absolutely nothing about it.
And this is after Michael Gravely had inserted himself as a witness in the case as well.
He refused to recuse himself.
He said he had a personal vested interest in making sure that my brother stayed in jail.
It was personal for Michael Gravely.
And this is a problem that the prosecutor was willing to go to any length to try and get my brother locked up.
This is ethically just unimaginable.
Well, I'm trying to see if I can find the die, die, die clip in real time here.
I think I found...
I'll find a shorter one.
I don't want to fish through a 13-minute video.
But I saw it.
It's...
I mean, it's in your face.
And this is one of the other elements that...
We've discussed this, Robert Barnes and I, in our streams.
When you have a shocking crime, an unresolved crime, in order to quell...
In order to feel like you're quelling public concern, uncertainty, find anybody.
And at least if you have a conviction of anybody, people can sleep well.
Crime solved.
Even if it's not a crime solved.
And, you know, that speck of DNA, not knowing if it's even blood, and is it outlandish?
I mean, I still think like a critical person may be blackpilled a little bit.
O.J. Simpson, in as much as I think he was guilty, I didn't know that they actually literally took blood out of a vial, put it on a sock to make the evidence, and they found out about it only because the blood that they put on the sock contained whatever chemical is in the vials, and they knew that the blood came from a vial.
I mean, okay.
The idea that the only DNA connecting any of this is a speck in an otherwise clean minivan that was allegedly used to transport a 270-pound man in a carpet, it becomes outlandish.
I mean, I wouldn't classify it as clean.
I would say that it was otherwise DNA-free.
I mean, crime clean.
Yeah, it was a filthy, filthy minivan with, by the way, other trash bags that you can see in some of the pictures.
A larger contractor-sized trash bag, a box of them, jammed below the passenger seat.
Even more exonerating because it means that that van was not thoroughly cleaned out after an alleged use for cover-up of a crime.
Absolutely.
Now, so the snitch, I mean, it's outlandish, but there was an issue about the snitch.
Confession not being recorded?
And I forgot the details of that.
Michael Gravely, Jessica Krasarek, the ADA, the one that was also prosecuting the case, Correa, Detective Correa, and I believe one of the other detectives, four people went and interviewed Munch for his testimony.
Just the four of them, completely off camera, and the four of them sat down and worked out his testimony, completely off camera.
So there's no testimony, no recorded evidence of this testimony, none whatsoever.
Is this known during trial, or is this stuff that you only know that's not submitted as a trial?
John Birdsall pointed out, and he said, so you sat down with these individuals, and he pointed specifically at these individuals to give your testimony.
These individuals, these three people right here.
And he pointed out all three of them, all three of the people sitting at the prosecutor's table, all three of them were present for him giving his jailhouse snitch testimony with one other police officer and no body cam footage, no interrogation footage, nothing there to verify it.
And it was so...
Aggravating for us to see that they were willing to go to any length.
The reason why there was a second jailhouse snitch brought in was because Gravely had offered the same thing to him.
Offered him some sort of deal to let this guy get off of some of his charges in some way that he would put in a good word for him.
And that's the promise.
Just like a handshake agreement, I'll put in a good word for you.
I don't know when this was a juice as evidence, but he says, I haven't promised him anything.
But, you know, but, dot, dot, dot.
I mean, it's the insidious nature of corruption.
You don't need the email saying, here's what I'm going to give you.
They know.
You play ball and we'll help you later on down the line.
Jailhouse Snitch meets with the prosecutors, unrecorded, undocumented, taking his story, and that was like the smoking gun.
He looked me in the eyes and said, I did it.
And, again, I look at that and say, I don't believe that it happened.
Period.
Even if it did happen, There's a part of me that understands that your brother, who is in his own mind and by the facts, may be innocent of murder, in a jailhouse with the hardenedest criminals on earth, and what is he going to do to try to protect himself?
He might say, yeah, I did it.
Don't fuck with me.
He might even say that for his own self-protection, much like I thought would be a reasonable explanation for his nickname Houdini.
So this snitch says that your brother's going around prison saying my nickname's Houdini because I make bodies disappear.
I mean, for the record, my brother has never, ever, ever claimed that he did it.
Not a single time.
It's never been his stance.
He's always stood by his innocence and stood by the fact that he never committed this crime.
No, no, but what I mean to say is it's conceivable even in jail.
Right.
It's conceivable that somebody would, right, to protect themselves, but he specifically never did that.
Okay.
And now apparently the rumor was that his nickname was Houdini within prison.
Everyone's got their nicknames.
His was Houdini because he boasted about being able to make bodies disappear.
That testimony or that evidence came from the snitch witness?
Yes, but then it was not verified by the other person from the jailhouse that he had never heard him called Houdini, and that was, again, totally made up.
So, I mean, there's very little believability in that whole testimony.
Almost none, really, other than the fact that he was...
There was the issue of the solitary confinement, the location of the cells, and also how the rounds work in solitary when you're taken out to eat and what's allowed.
People from upstairs are allowed to walk down past the people downstairs in their holding cells.
And there was some argument, some litigation between each side about whether or not...
One prison snitch was capable of telling the other prison snitch how to jump on somebody else's case, and that was an argument that occurred in the courtroom.
They actually brought in pictures from one of the guards, some body cam pictures about the location of the two cells that each of them were in when they were in solitary simultaneously.
Didn't rule out the possibility of them talking.
It just made the claim that they couldn't do it from when they were in cells individually.
Let me bring it up, Solomon.
I think I got the good part here.
Let me see this.
Yeah, this is it.
Here, check this out.
I remember I was laying there the night before.
I told him about the next day, but I was laying there and I was reading my book and I heard him...
Shout at his sleep before he woke himself up.
And what did he shout that you heard?
He said, die, die, die, motherfucker.
There it is.
And you see the look of disbelief on my brother's face?
Like, what is this guy talking about?
And he's just like sort of dumbfounded.
Like, what?
What?
Like, this never happened.
It wasn't, try to steel man it, it wasn't as though the witness started to say die, and then he He started, boom, that's the answer.
Die, die, die.
Alright.
That's the prison house snitch that was the confession.
And by the way, the media headlines ran with obsessed ex-boyfriend confessed to killing.
Personish.
They never even touched the fact that Gravely was mouthing it.
They never even talked about it.
So, you know, think about that.
I mean, the mainstream media ran with this idea that my brother was obsessed, right, that he was the obsessed ex-boyfriend murder trial.
They already painted him as a murderer, and they painted him as someone obsessed with Sadie, you know, that he was this crazed, obsessed man.
And then they continue to run headlines like this, that he's intimidating his daughter, and then they run headlines that he admitted to doing the crime, you know, as opposed to, you know, the...
The more notable headline, which is that the prosecutor is mouthing along with testimony, that the prosecutor is leading questions where, oddly enough, coincidentally enough, when he gives multiple choice answers, the answer is almost always, if not always, the last option that he gives and does it consistently.
He also mouths yes multiple times, yeah, no, along with people on the witness stand.
He does this.
It's consistently, because he's gone through all of these testimonies with people so much, because he's nailed it down to the word verbatim, like a play mom, like a mom sitting in the crowd while their daughter is on stage or their son is on stage.
It's grotesque.
Actually, I forgot to ask when it came to the testimony of your niece, Zach's daughter.
Everybody was saying she was prepped for 40 hours with the DA.
That's what I was told.
Where does that number come from?
That was a figure that was given to me by my father.
Whether it's 40 hours, 30 hours, 20 hours, the DA spent a considerable amount of time prepping.
Was Sadie present when they were prepping your daughter?
She couldn't have been.
Nope.
So they have a 14, or she's 14 or 13 at the time?
Yeah, depending on which trial that they were prepping her for, because they had a mistrial prior to this.
So they had spent a bunch of time in February leading up to the trial prepping her for this testimony.
Like a lot of time.
And it's not okay.
Like I said, there's a specific statute for minor testimony in the state of Wisconsin that allows a minor to just give a videoed statement just on a camera to be able to give a statement and then let it be.
It is a lower threshold of psychological fallout.
It is more respectful to the child, and they specifically chose not to after the ADA, who's now a judge, I believe, had said the reasoning why they put a restraining order.
A no-contact order between my brother and my niece was that she was an easily manipulatable minor witness.
This is a horrific thing for them to do.
They knew that she was manipulatable.
They knew that she was impressionable, and they did it anyway.
Yeah, people in the chat are saying, we're not sure if the mother would have been present, but if they're both witnesses, you can't prep one witness in front of another normally, but this doesn't look like things were done normally to begin with.
I believe it was all one-on-one.
Okay, I think we're getting to all of it here.
The issue about how gravely the prosecutor made himself a witness in this trial, because this is...
I've never done criminal law.
I studied it, never practiced it.
But the idea that there would have actually been a moment during the trial where the prosecutor was compelled to leave the courtroom while a witness testified...
And then came back to continue being the prosecutor.
It makes no sense to me.
And when I talk about this with Robert Barnes during our weekly stream, I'll ask him his take on this.
Just explain the context of how that happened and the details as to how that happened.
So there were multiple witnesses that actually changed their testimony after speaking with Michael Gravely.
There were a few statements read that had changed their testimony.
One of them was for Narita Macias.
Narita Macias is the girl that was showing up at Rosalia Gutierrez's apartment on the night of May the 17th.
His Facebook dating app, Hookup.
She was the girl that showed up and was texting him during the time of the alleged murder.
She claimed that she was outside of his building, saw a larger black woman come down the stairs, go outside, and that was all she saw.
She didn't see anyone else go in or out of the apartment building at all.
This was specifically damaging to the state's case because she was there seeing no one, no culprit, go in and out of the apartment, which is problematic.
The issue that came up was that Michael Gravely met with her to go over her statement.
And then when she claimed that she went to the apartment, he said, well, but the MAPS program will take you to the wrong place.
And she said, oh, does it?
Like, I was confused and I drove around to a couple spots.
And so he goes, how about this?
I'll meet you at the crime scene.
He drives to the crime scene.
She drives to the crime scene.
She parks in the wrong spot.
He says, aha!
You were in the wrong spot the whole time.
So that is what they claim transpired.
So I don't know where she parked.
It was never on body cam footage.
There was never photographs taken of where she claims it was.
All it was was just a statement that she parked.
And they outlined it on the map.
It was over to the east of the apartment, not in front of the apartment, where she would have been able to see inside the apartment building.
So she changed her statement.
But in doing this with her, in meeting her over there and bearing witness to her parking in the wrong spot and going over this with her, he made himself a witness in this case because he witnessed her.
He then refused to recuse himself, and the judge refused to remove him from the case, and they just went with it.
It hasn't been done, to my knowledge, since 1978, and I might be wrong on that.
I had looked it up on when it became unethical in the state of Wisconsin, and it was not done.
Since then, I don't understand why they allowed it to continue and why Judge Schrader just allowed him to continue to prosecute the case.
He should never have been allowed to continue to prosecute the case.
It gives him false credibility.
It creates all sorts of headaches with the case in general.
It's bad practice.
It's completely unethical.
Yeah, I mean, they say the flip side is, okay, they'll kick him out and just get someone equally as corrupt in, but maybe get someone who's...
Potentially equally corrupt.
Maybe you get someone who's not and who will not seemingly coach the witnesses while they're on the stand.
What are they going to do?
Bring Binger in?
It's unreal.
Both Binger and Gravely made an attempt, or Binger outright did, but Gravely asked the judge for permission to violate my brother's rights.
He asked the judge on more than one occasion how close to the line he could get to violating my brother's right to silence.
He asked the judge for permission to infer to violate his right to silence and he followed that up with also making sure that he tried to turn the burden of proof on the defense.
And the judge allowed that to happen.
Okay, flesh that out.
There's a point in the trial where they try to assert that the defense can test the evidence as well on the crime scene, which implies that the defense had some onus to try and test all of the evidence presented in the trial, some onus of proof to the court.
So Gravely actually states that in front of the jury that, well, the defense can test this too.
Am I correct?
And then the defense objects, but the judge allows him to continue with that.
So the defense is then forced to say, but we're not allowed access to the crime scene.
We're not allowed to go to the crime scene and test everything that the state didn't collect.
So they're then forced into a position where they have to try and defend why they didn't test evidence that was talked about in the court that was not tested.
Because the state failed to do their investigation thoroughly and properly.
They failed to test items in the apartment that were clearly manipulated by the potential perpetrator, including the shoe rack against the wall, including the coffee tables moved off of the carpet, things like that that were moved around or could have possibly been moved by the culprit, the perpetrator, on the crime scene that they never, ever bothered testing or processing.
It's a huge issue, a massive issue that he burden shifted during the trial in front of the jury.
It's unconscionable.
I'm just going to read it.
There's a couple of rants here.
One says, hey, thank you.
Hold on.
But one is a substantive one.
It says, they didn't have the spec evidence for seven months.
There was no forensic evidence for seven months, but they still leaned on Zach the entire time without investigating a single other soul.
That's from Jen.
RN310.
Fleet Lord Avatar has a link to something that's not related to this.
That's a really important point, is that realistically, this situation, they had no DNA results on anything until December of that year, late November or December of 2020.
So during the rest of that time, the police were supposed to be looking at all possibilities.
A good investigator would start at the bottom, would chase every potential motive for making a man disappear.
They did not chase most of the financial issues that Gutierrez had in his life.
He was...
Back on his child support, he owed Michael Campbell a few thousand dollars.
He owed another guy like 60 bucks.
There were some issues with money.
He was bad with money.
It was very clear.
His mother had set up a joint checking account and then dumped money in it the previous week.
He had taken $1,000 out of that joint account and used it to buy his children's baseball supplies and then food and stuff for the kids for the weekend.
So there's evidence of him being very bad with money.
Owing people money.
They didn't follow those leads and Schrader actually told the defense that they weren't allowed to present it in court.
That they weren't even allowed to bring his financial woes to court.
So you have a gross mishandling of this case by the police.
These detectives didn't bother to chase any other lead for seven months while they continued to search properties related to my brother.
They searched the Christmas tree farm, like I said, three times.
They searched the house in Belgium that he was working on.
They searched Harrington Beach State Park.
They searched his property, right?
They had the dump site where the dumpster from Gutierrez's apartment building was dumped the morning of the report, May the 19th.
They had that.
On May the 19th, later that day, they went to the actual dump, the public dump, where the garbage truck went and dumped the contents.
They had the section roped off.
They had police there.
When they heard that the carpet was missing from my brother's van, they released the dump site, assuming that there was no evidence put in that dumpster that was worth any evidentiary value.
There might have been Rosalia Gutierrez in that dump site.
We'll never know.
It's outrageous once you hear this.
And the tactic...
Oh, that was the question I was going to ask.
How long after was your brother arrested?
Or formally charged, I should say.
He was formally charged with murder in December of 2020.
So they didn't charge him with homicide until after they got the DNA test result from the back of the van, from that single speck, that one speck, with no other corroborating evidence.
None.
Moreover, with evidence that came back from the cell phone that was exculpatory, but they didn't bother following up on.
Was there any issue of withholding other exculpatory evidence from the defense?
So this is the issue with the first mistrial, was that this Narita Macias situation was revealed to the defense in the opening statements of the prosecution.
So the change in testimony was revealed in, that was March of 2022.
So last year in March, during the first trial, during the prosecution's opening statements...
They objected to it because, one, the state had waited until, I believe, the Thursday or Friday before the trial.
They did not give the defense enough time to dig through a massive dump of information that the prosecution laid on the defense.
They didn't give them ample time to go through a bunch of evidence that they dumped onto the discovery.
So the state did this tactic where they last-minute dumped evidence that some of it was damning for the state.
They changed the testimony of Narita Macias as well during opening statements after jury selection during the first trial, to which they called it a mistrial because it was something that they absolutely never disclosed to the defense at all.
And it was part of the defense's argument against the timeline.
So they had to then revisit the evidence presented and then go for it again.
That meant that they set a new trial date for...
I believe it was September of last year.
Unfortunately, in the interim, Judge Schrader had fallen.
He had taken an injury and was hospitalized and was out of commission.
They then just canceled the court date because Schrader was injured and hospitalized, and they never said a new one.
So my brother's lawyers filed a habeas corpus to try and release him because he had his right to speedy trial violated.
The issue with that was that then the chief justice had to oversee the decision on the habeas corpus.
So the chief justice had to sit in and weigh in on this for the, I believe it's second district court, maybe it's third district court or second district branch three or whatever it is.
So the Chief Justice has to sit in.
The first thing he says is, I have to recuse myself from this case.
I'm personally connected to people involved in this case.
I should not be able to make decisions.
But then he moves forward to deny my brother habeas corpus and deny my brother change of venue.
Your brother's in jail this entire time?
In jail the whole time.
He has been in jail since being formally charged, so he was out for seven months.
No.
He was formally charged with stalking on May the 19th and they held him in jail.
They set his bail at $35,000 for stalking.
Only stalking.
But they set it high because the judge said that he thought that he was a flight risk.
Well, I mean, whatever risk he might have or might have been or might not have been, once he's in jail at least...
He cannot be accused of further trying to conceal evidence.
So the fact that they can't find anything except the spec seven months later.
They took the van, but the DNA testing took that long.
So they waited to even formally charge him with homicide until the DNA test came back.
Solomon, have I not asked you anything that I should have asked you?
I don't think that we've touched very heavily on the stalking.
And it's very important that we clear the air on the stalking.
The homicide is right out.
It's physically not possible.
Not only did they testify to there not being any video footage of him driving to or from the crime scene on an impossible time frame, but in order for him to avoid the traffic cameras, he would have had to detour through country roads in a roundabout way that would have had to have added a half hour to an hour or more to his drive time for a very long drive to begin with, an hour plus, an hour and nine minutes, hour and seven minutes, one way.
The homicide is not physically possible.
That is definitive to the state's timeline, to what they presume it was impossible for my brother to have committed this crime.
One of them was homicide.
Another thing was the hiding of a corpse, which is the disposal of this corpse, which they also never found any evidence of.
Then there are two counts of stalking, one versus Sadie Beecham, the other versus Rosario Gutierrez.
So there's four counts against him total that they found him guilty of all four counts.
There's some issues with the stalking.
We touched a little bit on how Sadie had him regularly over at her home, how he was welcome to do laundry at her house, how they were co-parenting together, and all of those things.
There was at least a tolerance between the two of them, even with the shaky state of their relationship, that he was allowed to be present and allowed to be present in the children's lives.
The other issue is that...
That she had sent him repeated text messages, things about inviting him over for dinner, things about calling him a pet name and saying XOXO and telling him goodnight, asking him why he didn't spend the night.
Her specifically saying to Rosalia Gutierrez, or maybe to Zach directly, I don't remember what the recipient was, but she said, and I quote, if you fuck with me, I fuck with you back.
That's what she said to him very specifically.
That is not fear.
That is not in extreme emotional state.
That is her getting ready to mama bear at him, specifically about the placement of the children.
This is a custody battle between the two of them that is an issue that made her then try and start developing this tale of him stalking her.
Because he was then...
Making sure that he was getting ready for family court and he had accused her of not being home very often and leaving the children and leaving them behind and things like that, which was a concern for him because their daughter at the time was 11 and the twins were, I believe, four at the time.
Four, almost five.
So at that point, the kids are young, and she would do that frequently, leaving friends.
There was the issue with her going to Mexico in the beginning of March and setting up babysitters with her friends, as opposed to giving my brother the right of first refusal, which is exactly what should have happened, that she should have reached out to him and said, I'm taking off.
I'm going on vacation.
Do you have time?
What's your schedule like to watch the children?
She specifically avoided doing that to then have it slip to him later, and then he showed up in the middle of the night, which was testified to that he had shown up and woken the children up and made them breakfast before school.
The timeline on that is...
They said early in the morning but there was an assumed timeline by Rebecca Jekyll whom I don't think is a trustworthy witness based on the things that she said.
There's also testimony that was presented between Sadie Beecham and Rosalia Gutierrez about this Plan B, which included breaking my brother's legs.
This is a very important thing that they were talking about, a custodial dispute, and Sadie was complaining to Rosalia Gutierrez, who had two previous custodial disputes.
And he was talking about building a paper trail, and she said, I'm already doing that.
She specifically had already testified to the fact that she was building a case against my brother for taking to family court.
This was all about placement of children and money.
This is very specifically about child support and that sort of thing.
So we have a situation between Sadie and Rosalia where she says, oh, I've definitely thought about a plan B, and plan B being that...
That Rosalio or somebody that Rosalio knows would show up at my brother's home and beat the daylights out of him, maybe breaking his leg to send him a message that he can't mess with her or whatever it is that they're inferring when they're arguing about custody.
So this is the type of situation that my brother is up against.
Someone that's willing to entertain the plan B in this and even says...
To the man, after he asked her for permission, he said, I won't do it unless you tell me to, that she says, Poppy no snitch, and he tells her to delete the text messages, and she does.
This is a...
You know, on the border of criminal, this is an issue that the state, the police, never even bothered investigating her for.
Furthermore, she has discussions with her best friend, Rebecca Jekyll, about picking up a cell phone, and then less than a week before Rosalio goes missing, Rebecca Jekyll texts Sadie and says, the phone call has been placed.
It'll happen, or it'll begin in the next week, and you won't know who or where.
Those are what she says, and I think I have the quote somewhere around here, but very specifically saying that it will begin in the next week.
And that's in reference to what?
And when questioned on the stand, they say, oh, that was just banter.
And Rebecca Jekyll says, well, I was just trying to throw Zach off because I thought that he was listening or watching our text messages, which is completely not believable.
Their testimonies are all over the place.
They impeach themselves with their own statements.
They're inconsistent.
If you watch their testimonies, they are not trustworthy witnesses.
Period.
And I understand that that's up to the jury to decide in making this decision about the conviction, but the reality is that they absolutely contradict their own testimony consistently through, and they have this very suspicious line of text messages that the police never even bother looking at.
They never actually investigate Rebecca Jekyll.
Her connection, this mysterious cell phone, nothing that she did.
Absolutely nothing.
How many times can the police fail to investigate a suspicious actor?
It's adjacent to a man's disappearance for them to be at fault for negligence.
Well, it's that.
And it's that they've placed all of their resources and all of their interest on one person who might be the easiest to go after.
And the media did a good job leading up to this trial to paint an image of someone who went into a trial without a chance is not necessarily the right statement because...
From what you're describing, from what I understood, and from what I've seen, the evidence is literally not there.
No body, no weapon, other than the speck, no carpet, the burn pit, which everyone thinks is the most incriminating thing on earth, doesn't even have blood on the remaining unburned sock.
What are you doing now in order to seek justice on your end?
You've got an appeal.
Yes.
For whatever that's worth.
It's tough to overturn jury convictions.
It really is, yeah.
There's the pending issue about, I mean, the issue about the DA there, Gravely.
Is his name Gravely?
Yeah, Michael Gravely.
That's an unfortunate last name also.
Mouthing off to the witness, or mouthing the witness testimony, I mean, even that sanctions, ethics, whatever, you still got the condemnation.
You're working for an appeal, and are you also looking to get...
Private investigators to conduct your own potential investigation here.
That's correct, yeah.
I didn't get a chance to touch base on the fourth charge, which is against Rosali Gutierrez, which there's no evidence presented whatsoever.
None.
There's no evidence that it was ever presented.
So I'll get to the path forward, but very, very specifically, he even said in a text message to Sadie, I'm not worried when referencing Zach and what Zach might do, and talked about going to Zach's property and giving him a taste of his own medicine.
In terms of going through his vehicle.
In terms of the stalking charge, the idea being, look, it's not stalking, they're not scared, and it's almost consensual invitation or interactions.
Exactly.
In this case, you might maybe plausibly have some argument for criminal harassment at most.
But in this case, he's completely innocent of stalking.
It's not there.
Again, this is a massive issue that they found him guilty on all four charges with nothing other than hearsay and speculation and a prosecutor that lied and spun a tale with a lot of maybes and supposition through his entire closing argument.
With that, misleading the jury, which is supposed to be factual in basis, you know, in the ethics, in the actual, in the Bar Association, what this is supposed to do, it's supposed to be a factually based argument, an opine based in fact to the jury to convince them that your argument is sound.
And it just wasn't.
It was full of lies and mistruths.
So that's a huge issue.
Gravely's lack of ethics, his violation of my brother's constitutional rights, the judge being biased is another thing that is very important to recognize, the rulings that he made.
The fact that he refused to allow the...
Now, I mentioned the Denny motion against Michael Campbell.
There are three things that a Denny motion requires.
It's the motive, the opportunity, and the means to commit the crime.
You have a potential motive of being owed a bunch of money, the means by which you get an enclosed trailer, and the opportunity.
He was available that night to commit this crime.
And the only person that testified that...
He was home, was Erica Saylor, which could have been his accomplice in this because they had seen a brunette woman on the patio on the day of the 18th.
It's very possible that she was his accomplice in doing this.
And of course she would cover up for him if that's the case.
Now that's an opinion.
I don't know that she is the person, but I know that something happened on the 18th and it seems to be consistent with the evidence presented that the 18th is a suspicious day.
Now, if you...
If you're looking at this through an objective lens, we have the judge ruling that allowing the DA to define the speck in the van as blood, refusing to allow the defense to present the debt as evidence of a potential motive for any other actor to commit this crime.
He's letting the DA say whatever he wants and allowing him to inference the violation of my brother's constitutional rights.
Furthermore, in the end of the trial, when we're in sentencing, he then disparages my sister's letter to the court, which is written in the format that was provided to us by the court.
Which includes an introduction of yourself, who you are, and how you're related to the accused.
And then you're supposed to go on to present a character statement for the person being sentenced.
Sentencing is supposed to be individualized underneath, I believe, the Sixth Amendment.
So then we have the judge willing to potentially even violate an interpretation, at least, of a violation of the Sixth Amendment in not allowing us to speak on my brother's behalf.
That is indicative of bias of a judge.
I don't know that he's ever had anything overturned based on this bias, but based on the rulings that he made in the pretrial hearings during the trial, what he allowed, the fact that he refused to give gravely any consequences for his inappropriate conduct in the courtroom in mouthing along with witness testimony or making him recuse himself from the case, the fact that the judge refused to do that implies that the judge was biased very Very biased in pursuing this case.
And the question is, what would the judge's motive be to be biased?
You know, we have what is a unicorn case, right?
Well, just, you know, overall concealing generalized corruption.
Corruption does not like to expose corruption.
We also have a unicorn case.
We have a bodiless homicide.
We have a bodiless homicide.
It's the irony.
Bodiless homicide, but then charges for concealing a body.
It's almost Kafkaesque.
Yeah, exactly.
It's the snake eating its own tail, right?
It's mind-boggling.
From our perspective as the family, we...
We're wondering why they'd set the bail so high initially.
We didn't know.
And then we find out that this man is missing.
You know, there's some issues that we had with this.
We were trying to plan for the future of what was going to happen with my brother's property, with his rentals.
We were under the impression that this was going to be an in and out, that there was not much evidence that they were bringing and that this wasn't going to turn sideways until they found the speck of blood.
And they asserted that it was blood and that it was...
But it was in the back of my brother's van.
It wasn't Everblood.
Because from us, we're only getting things from the press.
We read these press releases and we're like, wow, that sounds terrible.
Don't see how that was possible for them to have found that, but if they found it, they found it.
So we're trying to go into the trial with an open mind.
We sit through the trial, we see what they present, and then we're absolutely outraged by this.
Completely outraged that they had taken him and they had run him through a kangaroo court to try and get a conviction because the win was more important than justice.
And because the win was more important, they not only...
Destroyed my brother's relationship with his children, destroyed a massive piece of our family, and altered my brother's entire life, but they also destroyed justice for Rosalio Gutierrez.
If that man is dead, the person that killed him, that person should be in prison, and the police did not do their diligence, and this court did not do them justice in running a case like this.
It is an absolute mockery of our justice system, and it's not the only time this happens.
It happens all the time in our court system, and it is an issue that prosecutors are able to lie, spin, and tell fraudulent testimony, fraudulent things to a jury to try and get a conviction over presenting truth.
It is presenting bias to a jury to try and get a conviction, to try and get that W, like you said, put a body in prison to appease the populace, more than it is about finding the person that did it and putting them in jail where they belong.
This is an issue with our justice system, and it sickens me that we're on the losing side of this, that both the Gutierrez family and my family gets to reap the corruption in...
The Kenosha system at the very least, if not the wider system as a whole.
And what can we do to overturn this?
We're raising money, as you said, for private investigators.
We're raising money to investigate the actual case itself, to see if we can get a proper investigation, to look at the jury, to see if there is bias there, to look at the DNA evidence, because that needs to be revisited to see what might have gone wrong or what they did wrong or what that evidence really shows.
So we need to be able to do all of those things.
We need to be able to order the court transcript.
All of these things cost tens of thousands of dollars.
This is not just a drop in the bucket.
This is a very expensive thing to do.
And the average cost of an appeal is somewhere around $150,000 by the end of it.
And that's even with court-appointed attorneys.
This is not just cut and dry.
The attorneys that we talked to had told us $150,000 to $200,000 to represent my brother for the appeal.
That's not going to happen.
We're not going to be able to come up with another $150,000 to $200,000 because my brother's already spent that much on his current attorneys.
It's not like you get the...
The winning hand here, if the jury gets it wrong because the prosecutor is allowed to lie and manipulate, then the consequences on the families and on the accused are so egregious that they're almost insurmountable.
That's why the Innocence Project and the Exoneration Project exists, because it's an uphill battle.
And no matter what, you're looking at, on average, 12, 14 years in prison before you're released.
How many years is that of my niece's life?
How many years is that of my nephew's life?
They'd be completely estranged.
This is criminal inaction.
I don't understand why we have no room for consequence on prosecutors that are willing to withhold exculpatory evidence, are willing to lie to get convictions.
If you can prove that a prosecutor did that, why is there not consequences to their actions?
I'm not saying that we should completely overturn prosecutorial and judicial immunity, but if they knowingly tamper with evidence, they knowingly put someone in prison wrongfully.
they know that they're doing the wrong thing and they're just doing it to win the case, then they should serve jail time.
They should be removed from their position and they should be fined very heavily.
I don't think there's many people who are going to disagree with you on that.
Solomon, so I'll put the link to the Give, Send, Go.
Thank you.
I'll pin that afterwards.
Now, to end this, I don't know if you're comfortable doing it.
Unheard of that they don't let The family of Zach speak, even if he was convicted.
You had a statement.
Do you want to read the statement that you would have read?
I don't want to put you on the spot.
I find that it doesn't have the same emotional impact the follow-up times.
I can read it.
No, so you know what?
Not necessarily.
I mean, I think it's just a question of there will be no undoing of that wrong as it's been.
All right.
So people are going to go, give, send, go.
What can they do?
Where can they find you?
And what can they do to help?
I think, I mean, I can at least cite, because I've talked about quite a bit of my statement here already in my interview with you.
It's something that I believe very strongly in.
There is something that people should be aware of, and that's the exoneration projects.
The National Registry of Exoneration, their statistics on wrongful convictions.
It's something that people believe only happened consistently before DNA evidence became an issue or became the mainstream in getting convictions.
But the reality is that there's a lot of errors in DNA evidence processing.
And unfortunately, because of that, we have the statistics from the National Registry of Exoneration saying that...
Somewhere between 2% and 10% of all convictions are wrongful.
Wrongful convictions outright.
There's an estimated up to 230,000 inmates in the United States prison system that are innocent and exonerated people.
Have already served over 25,000 years in our correctional system as of June of 2021.
That should put some things into perspective for people that believe that our justice system is getting it right every time and are so willing to jump on the mainstream media bandwagon, where the mainstream media is using clickbait titles to try and get people to invest themselves into stories of someone that's accused of a crime who is presumed innocent.
This is an important optic of our judicial system.
One of the core pillars is that the accused is innocent unless proven beyond reasonable doubt that they committed the crime.
And that is beyond, probably did it, that is beyond, well, most likely, that if there is another explanation...
Behind the evidence presented, behind the situation presented, all of the evidence as it's presented.
If there's another feasible situation presented, if there's another way for you to rationalize how the crime could have been committed as a human being, the answer is not guilty.
We need to be cognizant about that as citizens, as potential jurors.
It's a very important thing because people get it wrong.
A lot.
It's not that they get it wrong.
They get it wrong when there's a concerted effort.
It's modern-day Coliseum-type justice.
That's right.
And the statistics are shocking.
And it's why, as an adult, I've come to realize I can't support the death penalty anymore, even if in principle I do, because this situation, the one coming out of, I think it's Oklahoma, glossly, it's one after the other.
I started off thinking, okay, the jury must have gotten it right, and I heard the headlines, and then I just scratched the surface, and then you keep scratching.
Sullivan, hold on.
I had a last thought.
Ways to get a hold of me.
So the Gibson Go, you posted the link.
We also have our free Zachary Anderson shirts.
We have the Free Zachary Anderson shirts, as you see right here.
Those are on Bonfire.
I sent you a link to those as well.
So if you want to buy Free Zachary Anderson swag, that's where you go.
We have two different links.
One is, I think I just sent you one of them.
I see them now in the private chat, so I'll use those to pin afterwards.
All right.
And then there's also our Facebook group.
So if you want to join our cause and use your voice to join us, hashtag Free Zachary Anderson.
You see right below me, right there.
We have a Facebook group.
We've got over 1,000 members in our Facebook group right now, all working towards pushing for freeing my brother or helping us organize for the appeal and donate.
You can also get information there.
We're posting on if you want to write exact letters.
He's happy to be a pen pal with people.
Please write him.
The old-style way, he prefers it that way.
It costs quite a bit of money for internet access and per message.
So we'll have his new address.
He was just transferred facilities posted on our Facebook group very shortly.
And if you're able to, please give to the Gibson Go.
It helps us tremendously pay for these expenses that I talked about.
These are all major ticket issues, tens of thousands of dollars.
It is not inexpensive to try and overturn a conviction, let alone defend someone in the court of law.
Only if you're able.
If you're not able or otherwise, even if you are able, please spread word, you know, We should all be cognizant of the fact that if...
This conviction is not overturned in the appeals court.
That means that it's been tried in the appeals court and upheld, which makes the case precedential.
The judge himself, Schroeder himself, said specifically that he allowed more hearsay into this case than he has ever allowed in any case in 40 years on the bench.
That is concerning to all of us as citizens that we could infringe upon.
Our rights as individuals, if this is upheld to the point where hearsay legislation could be changed based on a precedence established in my brother's case, that is not okay for us as individuals to protect our ability to defend ourselves in situations where finger point accusations can put you in jail, can put you in prison.
We have a justice system in the state of Wisconsin where you're allowed to charge someone for For time incarcerated.
So you can finger point someone out, have them arrested for stalking like this.
They can be thrown in jail and then they can be charged room and board.
So not only are you stripped, you're fined, you might lose your job and everything else while you're waiting your day in court to then...
Prove your innocence.
Afterwards, they can still charge you a monthly fee like rent when you've now lost your job and your life is in tatters.
That's legal in the state of Wisconsin.
This is wrong on all levels.
Everything that they do, if we establish finger point accusations as some sort of valid way to lock someone up in family court, think of the amount of cases of divorce and custody battle that this could affect.
This is obscene.
It should not be allowed.
All right.
Well, I was going to say it's the Pelosi era of justice.
You'll be able to prove your innocence in court.
And I was skeptical of the degree to which this was a fiasco of justice, and I'm not so skeptical anymore, and I don't think many people would be skeptical after having watched all of this.
Solon, thank you.
Godspeed, and good luck with everything.
We'll say our proper goodbyes after I end this stream, but I'll post it to YouTube afterwards as well in its entirety so everybody can see it there.
But Solomon, thank you for coming on and going into such detail.
Thank you very much for having me.
All right, everybody.
Enjoy the rest of the day.
▲
Export Selection