Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

July 11, 2023 - Viva & Barnes

01:36:58

Zacharia Anderson "Denny Motion" Released - Live with Solomon Anderson! Viva Frei

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	If you can just explain for our audience exactly what you want to see out of this.
	Legislation is there now.
	You want these organizations to negotiate.
	What do you hope will then happen to the Canadian news landscape?
	It's important to know that 80% of all ad revenues is going to two companies in Canada, Google and Facebook.
	I'll comment on this afterwards.
	I'll replay a few seconds of it.
	Because of that, money is not going to all those...
	Traditional news outlets, those media that we need in a democracy, independent, free, nonpartisan newsrooms are disappearing.
	I would say it's the same in the United States.
	I've read somewhere recently that two newspapers are closing the door every week, sometimes small ones.
	But those small papers are playing a very big role in their own community.
	Local news matters.
	So what we're saying here is that we want to build where the government is arm's length.
	We're simply putting a table in the middle of a room.
	We're sitting the web giants on one side, Google, Facebook, and the media outlets on the other side, and they have to get to agreements.
	If not, they go to final arbitration.
	It's very simple.
	It's very simple.
	That's Pablo Rodriguez, Canada's Minister of Heritage, talking about the new...
	Oh, it's not the Online Streaming Act.
	It's the link tax, which recently became law in Canada.
	All they want to do...
	There's a lot of money that's not going to independent news outlets as though there might not be a perfectly logical and scientific explanation as to why more money is not going to them.
	If you can just explain for our audience exactly what you want to see out of this.
	Legislation is there now.
	You want these organizations to negotiate.
	What do you hope will then happen to the Canadian news landscape?
	What he hopes will happen is that Google and Meta, Facebook, We'll be forced to pay a link tax merely for linking through to the original source to legacy media that is flailing on its own in Canada, despite heavy government subsidies, direct and indirect.
	And this is basically just a way of saying, hey, Google, we need you to pay them for doing nothing other than actually giving them traffic via your search engine and your social media platform.
	But listen to what Pablo Rodriguez says right here.
	Yeah, it's important to know that 80% of all ad revenues is going to two companies in Canada, Google and Facebook.
	80% of ad revenue is going to two companies, Google and Facebook.
	What amount of internet traffic does Google and Facebook account for in Canada?
	I don't know the answer.
	I think I know the answer.
	I think I have a strong suspicion as to what the answer is.
	80% of ad revenue is going to the two biggest companies that generate the most internet traffic.
	Probably by a long shot in Canada.
	What does this do?
	This would allow the government to compel a big tech giant to basically pay to their independent and free media a tax on amount owing that is undeserved, that there's no logical reason for paying it to them because they are merely redirecting traffic through to the link to the original source where the original source gets its ad revenue.
	You know, those little banner ads where the original source gets its traffic through the redirection.
	But watch what's going to happen.
	And see what happens to these outlets when they don't have Google and Facebook acting as an intermediary to direct traffic to them.
	All right.
	This has nothing to do with today's interview.
	I was going to say sidebar.
	This is a daytime interview.
	This has nothing to do with the daytime interview.
	I just wanted to highlight that stupidity.
	And by the way, bear in mind, Pablo Rodriguez himself retweeted or tweeted that video.
	Pablo Rodriguez is taking to CNN to spew government propaganda rubbish to try to convince Americans that what's going on in Canada is not the most opportunistic, shameless corruption imaginable when it is.
	Goes on CNN to try to sell people on legislation that has been met with wild opposition in Canada and trying to turn, like, American public opinion against Google and Facebook.
	Not that it should necessarily be on their side, but...
	Injustice is injustice even when it's one culprit, the government committing it against another culprit, big tech censorship, because there's only one goal to that legislation that just passed in Canada.
	It's to find an indirect way to subsidize legacy media in Canada.
	Sure as hell is not there for the benefit of Rebel News and True North.
	It's there for CBC Online, Radio Canada Online, CTV News, Global, all online.
	So they just get free money for Google.
	Giving people search results and linking through to those original sources.
	All right.
	Today on the menu, however, is something...
	It's a follow-up.
	I guess it's breaking news of sorts.
	Solomon Anderson, Zachariah Anderson's brother, is back on.
	Solomon was on.
	We did like a three-hour podcast where we talked about Zachariah Anderson's trial, murder trial in Kenosha, Wisconsin.
	That resulted in a conviction of Zachariah Anderson for...
	Murder, concealment of a body, and stalking.
	A conviction when there was no video evidence, no...
	I don't want to say genetic evidence, no...
	Oh, son of a gun.
	You know what I'm talking about.
	Direct evidence.
	No body.
	No weapon.
	And it's an amazing thing.
	They convict him on murder and then convict him on disposal or concealing a body.
	It's an amazing thing to be able to do when you don't have a body, you don't have a weapon, and thus lack certain essential elements that are typically required in order...
	Forensic evidence.
	In order to have the requisite forensic evidence to convict someone beyond a reasonable doubt.
	DNA evidence.
	Yeah, it was DNA direct.
	DNA actually was probably more than what I was looking for, not forensic.
	DNA evidence.
	Although there was that one speck of unknown...
	Substance found in Zachariah's van, which had the carpet ripped out from the back, and in the entire van, no more DNA evidence other than a nondescript pinprick of a thing that somehow managed the thorough cleanup.
	So all that to say, those who watched Zachariah Anderson's trial in real time came away thinking it's an absolute egregious injustice.
	There was prosecutorial misconduct in many people's opinions, and it's an outrage.
	After my two-and-a-half-hour podcast with Solomon, Zachariah's brother, and having caught up on that trial, which I was not following in real time, I tend to agree.
	I find it somewhat shocking.
	You can have a conviction beyond reasonable doubt without a body, without a murder weapon, without DNA evidence, without video evidence, which there would have to have been had Zachariah done what he was convicted of having done, which was drive a fair distance, kill someone.
	Remove their body, dispose of their body, and not get caught by any one of the traffic cameras there or back.
	All right.
	In the context of that trial was something that was filed called a Denny motion.
	We're going to talk about that.
	We're going to talk about how Solomon came to be in possession of the Denny motion, which was filed but apparently only became public the day before yesterday.
	And some other stuff.
	That's it.
	We're going to talk about this.
	Get your questions in there.
	We should be live on...
	Rumble.
	I should have double-checked this before going in.
	We are live on Rumble.
	We should be live on Locals.
	We are live on Locals.
	VivaBarnesLaw.locals.com.
	Standard disclaimers.
	You all know them.
	And we'll probably go over to Locals afterwards for, I don't know, an exclusive Q&A in our VivaBarnesLaw.locals.com community.
	Okay, now with that said, Solomon, I'm bringing you in.
	You ready?
	Three, two, one.
	Sir?
	Hold on.
	Let me bring it out so people can see the...
	Now, there you go.
	I'll start with the broad, obvious questions.
	How are you doing?
	How is Zachariah doing?
	How is the family doing?
	I mean, remarkably well with the news that this document was made public.
	So, you know, Zach has been still in holding, waiting his eventual home.
	So still waiting to be placed in general population.
	And on his birthday, he went to a hearing for restitution, which went...
	Reasonably well.
	So all things considered, things could be a lot worse than they are right now.
	So it's not all bad, but we've got a long fight.
	And I know Barnes has probably talked to you about that as well.
	Appeals take years and years.
	So this is really a long-haul situation.
	One of the only ways to shorten that time period is to actually find Rosario Gutierrez or his body.
	But that would require the police to do their due diligence to follow up on legitimate leads, which is one of the reasons why I'm here today.
	So as it stands, we're doing well enough, but could be a lot better.
	And I'm going to share the link to the Give, Send, Go, and not to say that this is not about financial success whatsoever.
	This is about the costs that are going to be necessary for your family to continue doing what you're doing.
	It's up to $54,000 and it's, anybody who doesn't understand the costs of an appeal, exorbitant.
	The costs of a proper investigation that, you know, the police arguably, but not arguably, did not do, exorbitant.
	So the give-send goes there, and I'll put it to the pinned comment as I typically do.
	First of all, you said Zach had his hearing on restitution.
	What does that mean for those who don't know what that means?
	So because Zach was convicted of the crime, the state stipulated that he had to pay for certain costs.
	Those are usually court costs, filing fees, and then financial losses and damages up to and including the loss of life, cost of funeral expenses, things like that.
	So the judge stipulated that...
	Zach was going to be responsible for covering the cost of the memorial for Mr. Gutierrez as a missing man.
	As it turns out, Zach's ex, Sadie, showed up and she demanded to be repaid for her voluntary time off of work.
	So she took PTO.
	In order to attend the trial and then showed up to court at the restitution hearing and then demanded that he is financially responsible for the time that she voluntarily took off, including the days that she took off that court was not in session.
	So things like that get kind of argued or deliberated in a restitution hearing.
	It's about people seeking financial damages against someone that's convicted of a crime.
	PTO is personal time off.
	So Zach is...
	Sorry, this is an ignorant question.
	Has he been sentenced yet?
	He has not been sentenced.
	No, he was sentenced.
	What was the sentence?
	They sentenced him to 50 years, 55 years, I think, total.
	So he was...
	Or 50 years total.
	And he's set for parole at 89 years old.
	I'm going to ask another obvious and potentially stupid question.
	They sentenced to 50 years and not...
	Not life.
	Were there arguments presented as to why he only gets 50 years?
	Well, they actually went above the mandatory minimum for first-degree intentional homicide.
	And then there's repeater clauses for repeat offenders of repeaters on felony charges and things like that.
	So it actually takes some of the charges and inflates them a little bit.
	So realistically, there's a very large time frame on exactly when he would have been released.
	And the judge, you know, he wasn't...
	He wasn't overly heavy-handed.
	It's not like he sentenced him to 5,000 years per charge or anything like that, like I've heard in other cases.
	But a life sentence in Wisconsin, I believe, is 25 years minimum.
	And I brought up one comment which said, who thought the sentence was life without parole?
	Life?
	With the chance of parole at 50. But either way, I'm curious as to know what the rationale was.
	But if life is 25 in Wisconsin, that answers the question already.
	And if I may also ask, it's a personal question.
	Your niece, his daughter, do you have any interactions with her?
	Is she doing okay?
	She's doing well enough.
	I'm not going to speak on her personal life.
	She does want to be left out of the public spotlight.
	You know, we're trying to support her the best we can.
	We're trying to be there for her and present for her, even with our limited resources, because we don't have any, you know, custodial rights for anyone in our family at all.
	And it's a very, very difficult hill to climb.
	But the reality is that we love her and that we want to support her and take care of her the best that we can.
	All right.
	So sentenced 50, 55 years, whatever.
	That's, I guess, one of the latest developments.
	Now, the latest development, which you tweeted about it the other day, and I'm sitting here reading this, what's called a Denny motion.
	First of all, I didn't realize the date of the Denny motion.
	We're all going to look at this, but it was dated February, and I was wondering why this only became publicly available now.
	We're going to get into that, but before we even get into that...
	I shared a link in our locals community just briefly explaining what a Denny motion is.
	Now, I'm not a Wisconsin lawyer.
	I'm not an American lawyer, period.
	You're not a lawyer either, but you might know a lot.
	I mean, you might have learned a lot.
	Your understanding of what a Denny motion is, were you directly involved in the whole case at the time the Denny motion was filed in February?
	They really kept us in the dark.
	I mean, there's confidentiality.
	You know, agreements and things like that about what exactly gets discussed.
	So in the situation, I knew about the Denny motion.
	I knew who the Denny motion was about.
	And I knew that there were some compelling reasons for the state to follow up on the Denny motion, which we're about to see.
	So in this situation, you know, there were...
	I can't cite anything that wasn't public that has to do with the hearing itself, but there was an argument between the district attorney and the defense about whether or not to allow it and comments made by the judge that I would love to be able to share because they were unfair, but I don't think I can.
	Good.
	Let me bring this up here.
	Denny Motion, Wisconsin.
	That's just a sample Denny Motion.
	I don't want that.
	Let's see if I can find the link.
	Wisconsin v.
	Denny 1984.
	That's what I got here, but I don't know if I want to bring it.
	So what was the principle of the Denny Motion?
	The motion itself is permission to...
	Yeah, it actually establishes it at the top of the document that we have.
	So in the background, in the lead-up, it cites case law as well.
	So there's case law citations.
	I'm not going to read every word of that, but case law citations that are all in there that cite the case law specifically and why it's applicable to this case and in what form it represents or how it represents the law in the state of Wisconsin.
	Now, there's a window open in the backdrop.
	Do you want me to bring that in?
	Sure.
	Yeah, that's actually the link to our website.
	We have the motion live on the website already.
	So if you want me to scroll into it, I have the Denny motion in pretrial documents right here.
	Okay, good.
	So that might be, I had it as a PDF in my backdrop, but this is just as easy in a way.
	Also, if you want to put the link to cut and paste or send me the link via private chat and I'll post the link to your website.
	You know, bring it up for one second.
	Let's just ask these questions.
	Oh, sorry.
	Wrong window.
	Bring this one out.
	So how did this motion...
	The motion was filed in February.
	It was adjudicated upon and dismissed.
	And then it went to trial with a restriction as to what could be presented at trial in terms of evidence.
	How did you get access to this?
	Or how did this document become public subsequently?
	A member of our community actually went to the courthouse and there are kiosks or there's an interface for you to access documents from cases that are released to the public.
	And they were able to obtain the motion, the pretrial hearing motion, from the actual courthouse, physically the courthouse.
	It's a release of documentation because it's like freedom of information where they release certain things that don't have sensitive information on them to the public.
	And this document just went public very recently.
	So we got our hands on this.
	Having never actually read the document.
	Before this weekend.
	And this staggered us as a family and raised a lot of questions as to why the police wouldn't have followed up on this other than, you know, kind of a CYA situation where it was embarrassing for them to have done such a poor job with confirmation bias going after my brother.
	Then how could they possibly admit that this other potential person had committed this crime?
	Alright, now what we're going to do, before I bring this back up, everyone on YouTube, come on over to Rumble, because we're going to carry this over on Rumble, and then I'll publish the entire thing to YouTube afterwards.
	We're going to walk through the Danny motion now, and you didn't see it at the time.
	You saw it after the fact.
	You knew how it was adjudicated because you were in court, I presume.
	This was done, but pre-trial, so maybe you weren't in court when this was debated.
	That's correct.
	Yeah, so through a couple of conversations with Uh, uh, with legal team and, uh, and, uh, and with Zach about, you know, what had transpired.
	Uh, I, I got the gist of, of what, what happened and what, what was said.
	Um, but, uh, but again, that's, that's nothing that I can, that I can share.
	So like, uh, the goal is not, uh, the goal is at this point to discuss what is public and maybe the public can actually, can actually help.
	All right.
	So what we're going to do is I'm going to end this on YouTube right now.
	Come on over to rumble.
	The link's in the pinned comment, and I've just sent it out a couple times.
	Here we go.
	Enjoy this.
	Come to Rumble, and then after a while, I think we're going to, once we've done this, we're going to go through it.
	We'll end on Rumble, maybe do something private on vivobarneslaw.locals.com.
	Private, but nothing confidential.
	All right, ending on YouTube in three, two, one, now.
	Okay, we're live.
	We're still good, and nothing has changed.
	Let me just make sure we're good here.
	Okay, we're good.
	I'm going to bring it up, and we're going to walk through this.
	Perfect.
	Okay, here we go.
	What you might want to do is zoom in a little bit so we can get out of the...
	Yeah, there you go.
	Lose the useless white...
	There we go.
	Perfect.
	Okay.
	So you might want to scroll up and let's see what this is.
	So you can see...
	That this is, in fact, a court case document as it's been stamped over the print.
	This is right from the courthouse from Kenosha.
	So you can see the legal heading determining that this is defendant's notice of motion to permit any evidence as it's stipulated.
	And then to attention, the district attorney's office.
	So this outlines the beginning.
	Please take notice that the defendant, Mr. Zachariah Anderson, appearing by undersigned counsel, and upon all records, files, and proceedings heretofore, had taken herein...
	will appear in Branch 3 of the Kenosha County District Court presided over by Honorable Bruce Trader on February 10, 2021.
	And I'm going to stop you periodically with questions that I might have.
	So this is drafted and filed in February 2023.
	Zach was arrested in 2020?
	2020.
	So Zach was arrested May 19th of 2020.
	And this is filed in the court on...
	On February 2nd of 2023.
	Right here.
	This is the clerk of court stamp.
	And you can see it.
	It's in the docket.
	I mean, I could access the docket, but not physical files as the person who went to court seems to have done.
	I don't want to ask questions again that could be solicitor-client or not public knowledge.
	This is filed.
	There might be a procedural reason why it's filed later, but before the trial that I don't know of.
	And maybe I'll ask someone who...
	I know would not have any knowledge that they might not want to accidentally disclose.
	But just if I want to appreciate that timeline, why this took so long, I don't know if there's a procedural reason for which it could not have been presented earlier or was not presented earlier.
	I'm assuming that they kept all of the court documents relating to the trial completely under wraps until after the sentencing and relevant case hearings in Kenosha until after...
	This last hearing and everything else.
	That doesn't include the appellate issues that will be coming, but the reality is that for the primary trial, that this has been completed for Kenosha, so now they're filing it, organizing it, and putting it out in the public record.
	Okay.
	Carry on.
	All right.
	So it goes on to move the court to permit at trial evidence that another person, specifically Michael A. Campbell, committed the crimes of first-degree intentional homicide and hiding of a corpse.
	Two counts for which the defendant is being tried, pursuant to State v.
	Denny.
	As a matter of evidentiary...
	When we were discussing earlier, I said, look, some people are going to say, well, all of this was submitted to a court anyhow, and they heard the evidence and came to a conclusion that your family doesn't like, that many people think is an injustice, but they heard the evidence nonetheless.
	But the reality is that they didn't hear this evidence because this motion was denied.
	This motion was denied, and you'll flesh out as we go through this the degree to which this individual testified or didn't testify at trial.
	Yeah, that's correct.
	So this motion and all of its contents were not allowed to be brought into the trial by the defense, but they were referenced by the prosecution.
	If you go back and watch the questioning of Michael Campbell, you'll see that a lot of these topics come up in the line of questioning from the prosecutor.
	And so Michael Campbell was, in fact, a witness.
	And for those who are not familiar with the facts as intimately as you and many others, Michael, this individual is one of the two individuals who showed up at Zachariah's place while there was an investigation going on for the disappearance of Guterres.
	They showed up, apparently, according to Zachariah, to intimidate or were intimidating, were threatening him, which resulted in him calling the cops and then subsequently the cops come and arrest him.
	And I don't know that we ever found out why these two individuals were there.
	Their argument is they were there to find out where their friend was.
	That's what they said.
	But if you go back, after we read this, I actually encourage you to go back and re-watch the testimony of Michael Campbell and through the lens of this knowledge, understand why he was evasive, why he was at times...
	In my opinion, dishonest.
	And why he was so aggressive when questioned by Attorney Mueller and was intentionally ignorant on the stand.
	So there was one moment that he specifically claimed that he didn't know someone that was driving his sister to the methadone clinic every day.
	So just understand that from our perspective, we're critically looking at this, trying to understand why the police didn't Didn't really look into someone that was so evasive and so dishonest repeatedly.
	And we'll get into a little bit as we read once we get into the meat and potatoes of this motion.
	Okay, go for it.
	So, statement of facts.
	On May 19th, 2020, law enforcement responded to the residence of Mr. Rosalia Gutierrez at his address on 15th Street in the city of Kenosha, Wisconsin.
	Upon arrival, law enforcement determined at the scene...
	That the scene inferred that Mr. Gutierrez had been severely injured.
	Subsequent investigation led law enforcement to believe that Mr. Gutierrez was murdered on May 17, 2020.
	Following the investigation, the Kenosha County District Attorney's Office charged Mr. Anderson with first-degree intentional homicide and hiding of a corpse.
	Although Mr. Anderson was charged in these defenses, the following evidence implicating Michael A. Campbell exists.
	1. Mr. Campbell was friends and a working associate with Mr. Rosalia Gutierrez.
	According to several sources, they did contracting work together.
	2. According to individuals who know Mr. Campbell, Mr. Campbell owed Mr. Gutierrez a large amount of money, so much so that Mr. Campbell was in fear of losing his house in order to pay Mr. Gutierrez the money that was owed to him.
	Let me interrupt.
	Ask here.
	Do you know, if it's confidential as to how this is known, Just say I can't answer, and that answer should go for the rest of the stream.
	How was any of this information known?
	Was there a deposition of Campbell that was relied on?
	How was any of this information known?
	There was a private investigator that looked into quite a bit of this.
	And the private investigator of Zachariah's team, or not part of the prosecution investigation?
	That's correct.
	Part of our team.
	I don't think that I can go any deeper than that.
	Okay.
	I'm just trying to figure out, because everyone has to also appreciate this is a motion.
	These are allegations, and these are not proven facts.
	As far as I see, there's no Exhibit 1, Exhibit 2, and I'm just wondering how and based on what these allegations were made in the Denny motion to begin with.
	So the intent was to bring this stuff to court, to then present it to the jury.
	That is the intent, based on...
	Witnesses and other information gathered by the defense.
	But again, because this was denied, they couldn't touch it with a 10-foot pole, if you will.
	Understood.
	I believe that we're on three.
	On May 14, 2020, Mr. Gutierrez withdrew $700 from his checking account.
	He then withdrew another $300 on May 15, 2020.
	There is nothing in discovery that established that Mr. Gutierrez had gone anywhere from May 15 to May 17, 2020 and spent the $1,000 he had in his possession.
	The contents of Mr. Gutierrez's wallet was recovered in the freezer of his apartment, but there was no U.S. currency located in his wallet, the freezer, or anywhere in his apartment.
	From Mr. Campbell's phone records, it is known that on May 18, Mr. Campbell texted his mom and asked her if she could drive him to two separate banks.
	Mr. Gutierrez's phone records indicate he was going to see Mr. Campbell on May 17, 2020.
	Further, Mr. Campbell's GPS data from a Cellbrite download indicates he was at Mr. Gutierrez's apartment on May 17, 2020.
	Mr. Campbell...
	had interjected himself into police investigations multiple times.
	First, Mr. Campbell arrived on scene on May 19, 2020, almost at the exact time law enforcement arrived on scene.
	How he knew to be there, or that law enforcement would be on scene, is unknown, but certainly perplexing.
	Second, Mr. Campbell and his friend Brandon Hendrickson then traveled to Mr. Anderson's residence in Maquan, Wisconsin.
	When he arrived at Mr. Anderson's home, Mr. Anderson called 9-1, given there were two unknown individuals snooping around his property and yelling for Mr. Anderson to come out of his house.
	Mr. Campbell and his friend left the residence, but law enforcement later told him that he needs to stop interfering with the investigation.
	And again, just to highlight now, so these are allegations.
	We can imagine how they were the information upon which they were was relied in order to make them.
	And then the idea would be, well, now we get to make this evidence.
	I mean, I believe that there's a bunch of these facts that were referenced during the trial, even if the jury was not in the room.
	So these are things that both the prosecutor and the defense were aware of.
	So I have reason to believe that these...
	This is not a ploy.
	This is not a dishonest representation of what was discovered.
	Item 6. Tammy Milliger told law enforcement that she heard people talking about Mr. Gutierrez and that these individuals mentioned that they believed the people who did construction work with Mr. Gutierrez had went to the apartment and killed him.
	Ms. Milliger furthered that they mentioned Mr. Gutierrez was rolled up in a carpet and taken to Pheasant Run Landfill in Kenosha County.
	7. John Hunt, an individual who knows Mr. Campbell, told law enforcement that a few days after Mr. Gutierrez went missing, he saw Mr. Campbell and noticed that Mr. Campbell had cut his hair and was all cleaned up.
	According to Mr. Hunt, this was unlike Mr. Campbell because Mr. Campbell was always meticulous with his hair and appearance.
	Mr. Hunt noted that the same day, Mr. Campbell had items in his truck, including a rolled carpet.
	Mr. Campbell said he was taking the stuff to Pheasant Run Landfill.
	Mr. Hunt had asked Mr. Campbell for the carpet because he would use it on his back patio area.
	Go ahead.
	Go back to the grooming part.
	I think it confuses me a little bit.
	It says he changed his hair and was clean cut and clean shaven, which was odd because he was always meticulous about his hair.
	I thought that seemed a little mutually incompatible or incoherent.
	He was unkempt and it would be odd that he would cut his hair.
	Do you know what's meant by that?
	So it actually clarifies that a little bit further down in this motion.
	Michael Campbell has been bald to what he testified to and what some of his friends testified to since high school.
	He's shaved his head.
	However, he has maintained a beard.
	And so when he mentions all cleaned up, clean shaven, that he had cut his hair, he had actually removed the beard from his face.
	Why would a man that had spent all that time cut?
	The beard off of his face, coincidentally, when Mr. Gutierrez goes missing.
	A bearded man doesn't normally remove his beard.
	It's not a normal thing, especially if you're bald with a beard.
	It's kind of a look.
	So it was noted by someone that knew him for years, or for a very long time, and they thought that it was odd.
	So we'll get into that as well.
	Let's see.
	Mr. Hunt also said that it would help Mr. Campbell because it would lighten his load, which would in turn cost less for Mr. Campbell to offload.
	Mr. Hunt said Mr. Campbell was adamant that he could not take the carpet.
	Mr. Hunt thought this was odd.
	And now we've got to explain why this is extremely relevant for those who didn't watch the trial.
	The curse of knowledge, let's not take for granted.
	Guterres, when he disappeared, There was blood in the apartment, but the carpet was gone.
	So he had a roughly five by seven foot area rug that was in front of his couch.
	He had a sexual couch.
	And that rug, that carpeting, was missing.
	It was gone.
	And it was something that they mentioned, and they were trying to figure out where this rug was.
	This motion very specifically alleges that...
	Mr. Goutier's was rolled up in a rug, as the state had presented in the case in chief, and that that rug could have been the rug in the back of Mr. Campbell's truck.
	And also, to flesh this out for those who didn't watch, no carpet fibers were found in the back of your brother's truck or anywhere on his property, even in the burn holes, the burn pits where they found clothing, with no DNA outlet.
	None.
	Was any evidence at trial adjuiced as to the dustiness or the fiberness of the carpet?
	From the crime scene itself, it is the case that there were fibers, sort of like an imprint of the carpet left around.
	So it's not like this was a latex, or I don't know if that's a rubber carpet that did not shed.
	This was a fibrous carpet that would have shed.
	Someone described that they recognized the carpet.
	They didn't describe that specifically, but the living room was also carpeted.
	So it was a rug on top of carpet, and neither the carpeting from the room properly or the rug that was removed was found, any fibers of it, in the back of my brother's van.
	None.
	Okay.
	All right.
	Carry on.
	Item 8. From Mr. Campbell's Salbright download, there are messages where multiple people asked Mr. Campbell how he knew details about what had happened to Mr. Gutierrez.
	Mr. Campbell told those individuals that he had been in contact with Sadie Beecham on May 19, 2020, and that is how he knew about what had happened and how he got information about Mr. Anderson.
	However, his phone records do not reflect any communication with Ms. Beecham.
	Further, Ms. Beecham...
	Ms. Beecham's phone data show that she was never in contact with Mr. Campbell.
	Item 9. Wait, wait, stop.
	Before you go there, just let everybody know who Beecham is, who these players are in the context of the...
	Sure.
	Ms. Beecham is my brother's ex.
	It's the mother of his three children, and the woman that was dating Rosalia Gutierrez, one of the women, I should say, that was dating Rosalia Gutierrez.
	Ms. Beecham also had mentioned in trial that she had messaged Michael Campbell and a number of other people, but didn't hear a response from him for some time.
	Now, it is also important to note that they testified to the fact that Erica Saylor, So, here we are again, finding another lie told by Mr. Campbell on the stand.
	In this situation, Michael Campbell had claimed that his, at the time, fiancé had located my brother through CCAP and through finding Sadie on Facebook.
	And I believe that Eileen Knoll, which is an ex of Rosario Gutierrez, also...
	The employer of Mr. Gutierrez, she had hired him to do handiwork and flipping for her and whoever her partner was or something like that.
	So Eileen Noll had messaged Erica to what they had testified to, to my understanding.
	And so there was a group of conversations between these people that led to them finding my brother.
	In this, they further stipulate that That Michael Campbell had given conflicting stories that he was dishonest with the police on multiple occasions about how he got my brother's information and why he had pursued him at all to confront him.
	And people should also be aware whether or not it's relevant.
	There was a custody battle going on between your brother and his ex.
	And when they say that your brother's ex was dating Gutierrez, my understanding from the evidence at trial is that...
	This was not like a long-term...
	Just to explain the stalking or potentially attenuate the allegations of stalking, this was not like a serious we're getting married type relationship.
	They had seen each other half a dozen times?
	Yeah, about a half a dozen times.
	Now, after Mr. Gutierrez disappeared, Sadie really did lean into the idea that she believed that he was her soulmate and all kinds of stuff.
	There's social media posts about that.
	But it...
	It quickly turned the other way when more and more evidence was released that Mr. Gutierrez was dating other women as well.
	So even though they had been talking regularly for a couple of months, they'd only met about a half a dozen times, give or take, in person to what was testified to during the trial, which on the day that Mr. Gutierrez had gone missing, she had texted him telling him that she You know, wanted him to be her person, that she wanted to kind of take it more seriously with him.
	So the intent may have been there, but the reality was that he had a date scheduled that night with another woman named Narita Macias who had shown up during the alleged time of the disappearance.
	Okay.
	Alright, so number nine.
	There is evidence that someone was in Mr. Gutierrez's apartment on May 18th, 2020 from other evidence that it...
	It is evident that Mr. Anderson was not in Kenosha on May 18th, 2020.
	But Mr. Campbell was in Kenosha on this date.
	Now, stop there.
	Is that evidence?
	Again, I'm hesitant to ask, but there was a question that it was known that someone had to have been in there because there was a little scenty device that only lasts 18 hours or something?
	Yeah, so the scent diffuser, the essential oil diffuser that was on the small table by the door was still giving off steam when the crime scene photos were taken on May the 19th, somewhere around 1 p.m., maybe around noon.
	So that was roughly 39 hours after they alleged the last time that happened.
	And that's much longer than it was possible for this diffuser, the scent diffuser, to be running.
	There were also other witness accounts.
	One neighbor who changed their testimony after speaking with the district attorney had said that they had heard an argument in the apartment on May the 18th, somewhere in the early afternoon.
	And then...
	Another eyewitness account from an anonymous tip to the police that saw a brown-haired woman on the patio at 4.16 p.m. on May the 18th.
	So there are multiple witness accounts placing someone in and near Mr. Gutierrez's apartment, literally standing on the patio outside his screen door on May the 18th, and this argument that had ensued supposedly midday.
	I think that was around 1 p.m.
	And the argument or the evidence or lack thereof to suggest that Zachariah could not have been there, the distance from where Zach lives to where Gutierrez lived was an hour?
	It was.
	It was.
	It's an hour at the earliest travel time, 57 minutes by taking the freeways through downtown Milwaukee.
	I can show you the map, actually.
	Yeah, let's do that.
	We have that on the website.
	And because I know the map shows, through the direct path that would have been the shortest distance, which would have had to have been taken and would have left minutes to do all of this, there are multiple street cameras, multiple surveillance cameras that would have picked up Zach's vehicle had it actually been there, in theory.
	I mean, I guess there's a way to...
	So this is the map.
	So you can see Zach's home in Mequon right here.
	The fastest route, by taking 43 down, takes you through downtown Milwaukee right by the lakefront.
	This is the downtown interchange right here.
	This is the zoo interchange over here.
	Both of them are heavily laden with cameras all the way around.
	You can count the number of cameras.
	It's actually staggering, the number of cameras that just the Department of Transportation has on the freeways between Rosalia's apartment down here in Kenosha.
	All the way back up.
	We also have listed routes for trying to avoid the freeway to avoid those DOT cameras all the way up and travel times, the fastest one at an hour and 34 minutes, the fastest route on the highway at one hour and one minute.
	So this very, very clearly shows visual representation, one of the city.
	You can see the population density in here.
	This is all...
	Major city.
	So you have stoplights and all kinds of other issues when you go off of the freeway trying to take all these back roads up.
	It slows down your commute substantially, even at that time.
	They alleged at around 10 p.m. on a Sunday night, you have to drive well above the speed limit to cut a half hour off your drive.
	By doing that, you still have to be traveling at 70, 80 miles an hour.
	Doesn't make sense.
	It's not physically possible to have done this, committed the crime, as the state alleged, at around 10 p.m., and then made it all the way back up to my brother's next text message, which was at 11.19 p.m. in Mequon from his home.
	It wasn't actually possible for him to do.
	You know, by the time the phone was placed in the freezer, it was at 10:10 PM.
	So it really gives like an hour and nine minutes and cutting that much time, like I said, almost a half hour off the trip is just, it's not possible.
	All right.
	You want to bring back up the other documents?
	Yeah, I sure do.
	So we got, now we have the players.
	There was the, there's no photograph of the scent diffuser thing.
	I tried to Google to see what I could find, but.
	Oh, we do have photographs of the centrifuser.
	I don't have that uploaded on, or we don't have that uploaded on the website as of yet, but that will be covered in the evidence as well.
	We have a lot of that on our social media posts.
	And just mention where people can find you right now, and then I'll put the links up after.
	You can actually locate all the social media links and find out how to get to our Discord and the Facebook group and everything else on the website at FreeZachariAnderson.org.
	That's where I am right now, seeing the evidence.
	You can access this document on FreeZachariAnderson.org.
	We also have a timeline from the trial posted on the website, as well as links to watching the YouTube recordings of the trial by some of our supporters.
	that did watch the trial live and stream it themselves.
	So all of that is available.
	You just go to freezechariahanderson.org and you'll be able to locate all of those things.
	Okay, we're at number 10. All right, number 10. Although the quality is not the best.
	Surveillance video obtained by law enforcement depicts several trucks driving on 15th Street, where Gutierrez lives, between 8 p.m. on May 17th, 2020 to 2 a.m. on May 18th, 2020 that match the type and color of Mr. Campbell's truck.
	Bearing in mind, everyone has to appreciate these are allegations of evidence that would have been adjuiced by the defendant, but at the very least seems to be raising questions that ought to have been investigated by the prosecution or the investigators.
	And like people are rightly pointing out in the rumble chat, prosecutors sometimes just want the conviction at all costs for the W so that people can sleep well.
	They did their job and solve the crime.
	Okay, sorry.
	Number 11, to date, Mr. Campbell has not provided any information to law enforcement that would preclude...
	So he has no alibi.
	Erica Saylor had testified to the fact that she was asleep.
	She made some comment about being a light sleeper.
	And as it turns out, there was a man and a woman as far as the argument that was testified to her that the police had gotten a statement about that were arguing in the apartment.
	And a brunette woman, which...
	As it turns out, Erica Saylor is a brunette woman that was spotted on the patio.
	Now, I don't know for sure that Erica Saylor was the brunette woman, but there's a strong possibility that because Michael Campbell is the father to her children, that she has motive to trying to cover for him when he was missing.
	All right.
	Now we're going to get into some legal argumentation about the Denny and the standards of evidence, or the standards of applicability.
	That's right.
	So the legal authority, so this speaks to the Denny argument, why it's applicable to this situation.
	The right to present a defense is grounded in the confrontation and compulsory process clauses of the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution in Article 1, Section 7 of the Wisconsin Constitution, Chambers v.
	Mississippi.
	A defendant's right to present a defense may in some cases require the admission of testimony that would otherwise be excluded under applicable evidentiary rules.
	Again, I have no knowledge of Wisconsin law.
	I presume the applicable rules...
	I'm trying to think of what the applicable evidentiary rules that would be to exclude it, and I can think of only hearsay or...
	In a sense, it's an attempt to incriminate someone who's not a...
	Not a defendant, not an accused.
	That's correct.
	Yeah, so in this case, it implicates somebody else as a possible other actor without directly connecting them to the accused.
	So in this, as far as evidentiary rules about relevance and hearsay become applicable in this to be able to present in the defense of a different person.
	Does that make sense?
	Yeah, no, no.
	To me, reading this, it just seems like here's a criticism as to what the investigators did not look into.
	And jury, because they didn't do their jobs, this would be tantamount to a reasonable doubt because the outcome of this would not be to substitute Campbell for your brother.
	It would just be to acquit because there's someone who, even by a preliminary assessment, might have more direct evidence for culpability than your brother.
	That's correct.
	Yeah, exactly.
	Normally, the rule is that evidence of motive of an individual other than the defendant to commit the crime is inadmissible.
	Very specifically, State v.
	Denny.
	However, if there is evidence that said individual has a direct connection, motive, and opportunity to commit the charged offense, then the third-party evidence should not be excluded.
	In determining whether to allow third-party evidence, the Wisconsin Court of Appeals refused to adopt the standard established in People v.
	Green and rather adopted the less stringent legitimate tendency test established by the United States Supreme Court in Alexander v.
	United States.
	The Wisconsin Court of Appeals holds that a defendant shows legitimate tendency when motive and opportunity have been shown and as long as there is That is Denny.
	Therefore, if a defendant can show that a third person not only had the motive and opportunity to commit the crime, but was also placed in such proximity to the crime as to show he may have been the guilty party, the evidence would be admissible.
	I think that it's really important that in that sentence that we recognize that they never placed my brother in Kenosha during any part of the case in chief, not a single time.
	And this last part that said, in such proximity to the crime as to show that he may be the guilty party, implicates or
	insists that if Just to emphasize that yet again, like it's not just that there was no...
	Surveillance footage or CCTV of the car going to and from his place to Gutierrez's place.
	There's nobody who even saw your brother or his vehicle there.
	Is that correct?
	Nothing.
	No eyewitness testimony.
	There's no direct evidence.
	There's no circumstantial evidence that actually placed my brother in the apartment, Mr. Gutierrez's apartment, at all.
	None.
	Not one shred of evidence.
	And just to steelman it, the evidence that they had was that, of suspicious behavior, was that the carpet in the back of your brother's minivan was ripped up around the same time as this event, the other evidence which we can go over as well.
	No carpet fibers, no blood, except for that one speck of blood, which there's some disagreement as to whether or not that speck DNA-wise was of an unspecified male or was definitively Guterres' DNA.
	I think we talked about that last time.
	What's your understanding of that?
	Was it definitively Gutierrez's DNA?
	It was argued that it was a match for Mr. Gutierrez, but they never said to what degree.
	And it was also not confirmed in later testimony because they had three different crime lab analysts that took the stand in the case.
	So because of the conflicting...
	The only thing that he could...
	What he put a merit to was what was on his report, which is very specifically the evidence as it was presented in the discovery or what they had discussed, which did not include her opinion.
	So they pushed really hard to try and get that into the trial, but he still refused to do it, which was a slimy tactic to try and push the topic, to try and confirm it.
	You know, Julianna Villa, that also said that in all preliminary testing for blood evidence in the van, that there was no blood in my brother's van.
	Just to show, the amount of blood that we're talking about right now was the tip of a pen, basically, or the tip of a needle.
	Yeah, the head of a needle.
	The head of a needle in a vehicle from a scene that was very bloody.
	In a vehicle that something you also mentioned, and I don't know if this was adduced as evidence of the trial, but even if you take those Clorox bleach, wipe those Clorox wipes that your brother was seen buying either the morning of or the day after, I forget exactly which, during COVID no less, but even if you use Clorox bleach to wipe down a car, it doesn't remove the DNA.
	It denatures the DNA so that you would see streaks of DNA, although you could not identify it.
	This was in the back of a car, allegedly used to transport a bloody body in a carpet.
	The spec was the tip of a pencil or the ballpoint of a pen or the tip of a needle.
	That's correct.
	That's how little evidence they had.
	That was it.
	And we talked about this during our last podcast or the first time I interviewed you.
	That could have come off someone's shoe.
	That could have been transported between crime scenes or between the lab and the truck.
	That's right.
	It could have just been a...
	A mistake in the equipment or dirty equipment that wasn't cleaned in between running specimens.
	We don't know.
	We have no idea because they also never photographed or videotaped the testing of the specimen.
	We don't even have proof that they had followed proper evidence handling in handling that one pinhead size spec.
	And the argument that they couldn't do extensive testing on it because if you tested even to determine DNA, I guess that it would have destroyed the actual sample itself.
	So testing it's destroyed and the only DNA evidence that seems to be arguable at best is permanently destroyed.
	That's all they had.
	That was the extent of it.
	That's correct.
	And it was a reddish brown substance that was identical to the reddish brown substance.
	It wasn't just one single little spec.
	There was this stain that was on the other wheel hub, the other D-pillar, on the visor above the driver's seat and on the runner next to one of the sliding doors in the minivan.
	So it was not a unique spec.
	It was not like something that was completely out of place in the van.
	And there's no other evidence that corroborates the fact that Mr. Gutierrez's DNA was anywhere in or on my brother's property.
	With the vacuum of information that corroborates that speck, it doesn't actually make scientific sense, principally scientific sense, that it would be the result of the murder of Mr. Gutierrez.
	There's nothing there, and it's not retestable.
	That and the carpet itself has never been found.
	We're going to get back to this.
	Not anywhere, not in the burn pit at your brother's place, which had partially burnt clothing.
	None of that clothing had any blood on it.
	Or any DNA evidence?
	None.
	All right.
	All right.
	Here, there is evidence that Mr. Campbell had the motive and opportunity to commit the crime, and he was also placed in proximity of the crime to show he might have been the guilty party.
	It does say might, so this is in...
	Outlining specifically that he is guilty, but it creates a possibility that he did commit this crime.
	It's very important that we recognize that this is not a legal action against Michael Campbell, but it does create a situation, another possibility, where it's very possible that Michael Campbell was the guilty party.
	Sorry, I will go back.
	When looking to opportunity, the question that this court must determine is whether the alleged third-party perpetrator could have committed the crime in question and that's another state citation in wilson it is the defense's position that mr campbell We're good
	19th, 2020, and observed him acting strangely and having changed his appearance in that he was clean-shaven, which was not like him.
	There were statements from other witnesses that Mr. Gutierrez's body was dumped in a rolled-up carpet at Pheasant Run Landfill, and according to Mr. Hunt, Mr. Campbell told him he was taking a rolled carpet to Pheasant Run Landfill around May 19, 2020.
	It should also be noted...
	Now, I...
	Never mind, I won't ask.
	I presume somebody...
	I had a discussion.
	This is not from eavesdropping or tapping of cell phones, but rather this is just probably informal investigations or not carried out by the actual Kenosha investigators, but I'll leave it at that.
	I don't know.
	That was actually discussed in 0.7.
	John Hunt.
	Very specifically had talked to him about it.
	John Hunt had specifically cited that Michael Campbell told him that he was taking it to Pheasant Run Landfill.
	So that was already cited in this.
	So a direct eyewitness account that even heard him say that he was going to Pheasant Run.
	To chuck, to dump a rolled carpet, not the rolled carpet.
	Correct.
	A rolled carpet.
	And the guy's like, can I have that carpet?
	I might be able to use it.
	And he's like, no, it goes to the dump.
	That's right.
	And he was like, but it'll cost you less to dump it.
	Like, I'm doing you a favor.
	And he still insisted.
	And because for those who don't know, when you go dump stuff, they charge you by the kilo of what you're dumping.
	And someone could have used that carpet.
	It would have saved one person money, saved another person's money.
	The answer, according to the allegations herein, were no.
	And it goes to the dump.
	That's correct.
	And do we know if the Kenosha police ever looked at this dump or looked into this dump?
	No.
	To my understanding, they never searched the dump.
	Now, I don't know how dumps work.
	Do the dumps get periodically emptied or is it just accumulated?
	And in theory, such evidence could still be there years later.
	So what normally happens, there's like a...
	Like a dump shed for someone that would do something like this to take the refuse in, and then they offload it.
	And then they have front-end loaders that scoop it up, put it into a trash baler, and then it's actually taken in a truck, like a dump truck, up onto a massive landfill hill, and then normally just...
	Just offloaded, just dumped into the landfill.
	So in this situation, they should have records.
	The landfill should have records of where the trash was dumped in the landfill on that date.
	So it's possible to exhume that location, but I don't know the legality of that.
	And actually, Gypsy Moon in the Rumble chat says, I wonder if there's a record of how much the load weighed.
	I mean, there would be records of the load.
	That this person did dump.
	And if there isn't such a record, then maybe they didn't actually go to the dump.
	But that information is discoverable in theory.
	That's correct.
	Yes.
	Okay.
	So there was the carpet.
	And some other refuse.
	I don't know exactly what he was taking.
	Mr. Campbell cited on his time in the stand during the trial that he does flooring installation.
	And so he never said that that carpet specifically was covered in cat and or dog refuse, but he implied that it was.
	And that was a very, very interesting dodge of words when he was questioned about the carpet and why he didn't give it to Mr. Campbell.
	Oh, gosh darn it.
	Wrong one.
	Sorry, and why he didn't give it to Mr. Hunt.
	And I was going to say, it's a joke, but not a joke.
	There has to be a lot of cat and dog refuse on the carpet for it to be unusable and not just washable.
	Exactly.
	Especially if you're just throwing it out on a back patio.
	Well, if it goes outside, it's going to get rained on and whatever.
	Okay.
	Let's carry on with this.
	It should be noted that although individuals saw Mr. Campbell with his truck around May 17, 2020 to May 19, 2020, Mr. Campbell was asking other people to drive him around.
	The fact that his truck was working but was asking other people to drive him to public places is a fact that should not be ignored when completing an analysis here.
	Although proximity cannot be established by mere presence, Circuit courts must assess the proffered evidence in conjunction with all other evidence, looking at the fact that Mr. Campbell was at Mr. Gutierrez's apartment in conjunction with the facts that Mr. Campbell,
	one, owed Mr. Gutierrez a substantial amount of money, two, continuously intervened with law enforcement investigation, three, provided inconsistent answers about how he obtained information relating to Mr. Anderson and Mr. Gutierrez.
	Four had been observed by people to change his appearance immediately after Mr. Gutierrez's disappearance, and five had a rolled-up carpet and other items that he took to pheasant-run landfill.
	There's evidence that Mr. Campbell had motive to commit the charged offenses of first-degree intentional homicide and hiding of a corpse.
	In conclusion, for the reasons within this motion, And for any reason stated on the record at a hearing on this motion, the defendant respectfully requests that this court grant this motion and allow the defense to present third-party evidence against Mr. Campbell.
	That's dated in Milwaukee on the 9th of February 2023.
	It is...
	Again, I don't know the procedural law about this.
	It is interesting because this just sounds like this should be like the checklist for the investigators.
	And I can understand a judge saying, no, look, this is not a trial within a trial.
	We're not going to have the defendant basically call in, although not technically call in, but necessarily call in a third party to blame the crime on in order to exonerate themselves.
	The theory of that motion, Campbell owed Gutierrez a thousand bucks.
	Yeah.
	And something happens.
	What I find more compelling, that may or may not be a strong motive for people, but just the other contemporaneous stuff that was clearly not looked into, which is the biggest problem in all of this, is what was not looked at versus what was looked at.
	At the time, they didn't go to Pheasant, whatever the name of the dump was.
	Pheasant Run.
	Locate a body that doesn't just disappear with a carpet that doesn't just disappear.
	All that was testified to as far as landfills was Zion Landfill, actually, in Illinois, where Waste Management or whatever company that was handling the disposal of the dumpster from Mr. Gutierrez's apartment complex took the contents of that dumpster.
	So that dumpster gets emptied in Zion, Illinois.
	So it's actually taken across state border to Zion, where it is then dumped.
	Now, Detective Correa had talked about how they had actually sequestered the section of the landfill where the contents of that dumpster was supposedly.
	That was all it took.
	They didn't consider that even if it was potentially my brother who committed the crime, that there would be something of evidentiary value dumped in that landfill.
	There could have still have been Mr. Gutierrez's corpse in the landfill, and they still didn't search it.
	That blows me away.
	It took my breath when I was sitting in the courtroom and he testified to that.
	And I couldn't believe it because it was their ineptitude, their lack of willingness to go to...
	To make sure that they ruled it out as a possibility for the disposal of Mr. Gutierrez's body if Mr. Gutierrez was murdered on the night of the 17th, they could have at least had the evidence and given, you know, Celia Patterson and their family closure and being able to bury their son if he is indeed dead.
	And that is something that just overwhelms.
	Even our whole family looking at this, the ineptitude of the police officers where they latched on to the one statement by Zach's ex to try and investigate only him and then didn't look into other leads, never took them seriously, didn't bother really getting to the bottom of the case or being willing to literally dig through the trash to find Mr. Gutierrez's remains.
	They just weren't willing.
	So that motion was dismissed.
	It was dismissed in the end of the month as well, right?
	It was dismissed, give or take, in February 2023, and then the trial came down, or trial happened a couple months later.
	The trial started less than a month after that, a couple weeks after that hearing.
	Are you aware of any public reasons, or was there any reason given for the dismissal of the motion that you're allowed to share?
	To my understanding, Michael Gravely had described Michael Campbell as, Michael Gravely is the district attorney.
	For those of you that don't know, Michael Campbell is the man in question in the Denny motion.
	So Michael Gravely had said something along the lines of how Michael Campbell was a hero for getting his buddy to drive with him up to my brother's home in Mequon, borrowing someone else's car to do it, borrowing his mother's car.
	So he borrowed his mom's car.
	He didn't even take it.
	His vehicle.
	His working work truck.
	To make that drive all the way up there.
	And then he lied about that too.
	Because if you consider.
	One second.
	The map.
	And here I'll pull that up again.
	I'll pull up the map.
	The map.
	So people understand.
	Sadie didn't live on the way past Zach's house.
	Or Zach didn't live on the way to Sadie's house.
	That's not the location of Sadie's home.
	Sadie's home.
	If you look at Zach's...
	Sorry, I just accidentally pulled out of that screen.
	Sadie's home was right over here.
	Okay?
	So Sadie used to live right here.
	This is right next to another major freeway that comes down the west side of Milwaukee.
	Right there.
	So if Michael Campbell were to be using his GPS after driving from Zach to Sadie's house...
	He would have then taken GPS home right down the freeway this direction, completely avoiding Zach's house again.
	But that's not what he testified to.
	He testified to the idea that he drove back past Zach's house because that was the way home from visiting Sadie's house to then drive back down to Kenosha.
	Does that visual representation make sense to you?
	Well, it makes sense in that it doesn't make sense.
	I'm just trying to look at smaller roads to make sure.
	That's adding a traverse on small country roads to the extent they even exist.
	That's totally unnecessary.
	It adds an extra half hour plus to his drive.
	Oh, for God's sake!
	Sorry, I keep taking out the wrong window.
	I'm sorry.
	I mean, to really critically look at Michael Campbell's testimony, how dishonest was he on the stand?
	Things that were said in the courtroom that didn't make sense to us.
	As the family, we know.
	We have, like you said, the burden of knowledge, knowing where Sadie lived, where Zach lives, where Zach's house was.
	Knowing and understanding that...
	That doesn't make sense in the courtroom.
	It just adds to our frustration when watching this.
	For us, as a party, watching this testimony, there was just something completely off about his presentation.
	He was very, very evasive and dishonest in it.
	They never checked or inspected Campbell's truck?
	Not to my knowledge.
	And they were in touch with Campbell because...
	Obviously, well, he had been accused.
	What did he do to interfere with the investigation?
	He actually drove to my brother's house that's interfering with the police investigation after giving a statement and talking to both detectives, Anschutz and Correa, at the crime scene earlier that day.
	So he was there in the early afternoon hours of May the 19th at Mr. Gutierrez's home, showed up unannounced.
	He said that someone had messaged him.
	Wondering where Junior was, and he went to Junior's home to check on him.
	How do we know that he wasn't lying?
	We don't.
	Junior is Gutierrez.
	Is Gutierrez, yeah.
	He showed up on May 19th.
	Gutierrez, the actor, the incident took place May 18th at 10 o 'clock at night.
	May 17th.
	May 17th.
	Then you have the day where there were people who were seen at the location, arguments heard, center still going or diffuser still going the day after.
	Yep.
	They never check Campbell's car?
	Were there other men whose vehicles might have been implicated?
	Not to my knowledge.
	Though Michael Campbell was, as he said, a flooring contractor, there were some interesting things that he had shared.
	Immediately following, I believe at 3.40pm on May the 19th, he had made a social media post that specifically says, please contact me.
	Or the police, if you have any information on the whereabouts of Rosalia Gutierrez Jr., and listed his cell phone on it.
	Now, he cited that before the family was told that Rosalia was missing, and that is how Rosalia's son found out that Rosalia was missing, a missing man, was because Michael Campbell posted that on social media.
	If you really think about that verbiage, he completely inserts himself as a locus of communication in a police investigation, which...
	Is something that a murderer who wants to know what the police know would do.
	That is something that, if you follow true crime at all, is in line with, you know, modus operandi of someone that had committed that kind of crime.
	May I ask you, was that evidence adjuiced at the trial?
	No, that is public knowledge that was actually posted on his Facebook and screen grabbed afterwards.
	Has it since been deleted?
	I don't know if it's been deleted.
	I haven't followed back up on it.
	But we have the screen grab with the timestamp on it.
	On your website?
	On the website, FreeZachari.com?
	It's not loaded onto the website, but we do have it.
	So that was in social media.
	And there's a few other posts that he made.
	One of them where he cited on May 21st, 2020, that he said, I understand that people are really concerned about this, but please stop giving Kenosha news or any other source of news.
	Because it can be ruining the investigation.
	Please, please stop.
	So in that, he then makes a social media post asking people to stop talking about anything to do with the case to giving any news source anything that has to do with it.
	Which, again...
	What motive does he have to try and do that?
	Wouldn't you want any possible information on any lead possible to come to light so then they could find and locate the individual responsible for this?
	I understand not destroying a police investigation, but the reality was that he also had motive to try and get people to stop talking about his hypothetical involvement in the disappearance of Mr. Gutierrez.
	And there's some other things where he had made other social media posts.
	Let's see.
	One of them where he posted the sale of his enclosed trailer.
	And so he sold his enclosed trailer.
	It wasn't immediately following this, but he did have an enclosed trailer to do contracting work, and then he offloaded it.
	And that trailer is still out there, and they talked about that trailer in the courtroom.
	There was also another social media post that he made that kind of raised one of our eyebrows, and it said, today is going to be a sad day for my family.
	Life is too short.
	And this world needs to change.
	There are so many lives gone.
	I know I wasn't much in your life, little cuz, but just know I always cared and loved you.
	You will be missed many.
	Anthony Wheeler, you will get yours, buddy.
	I don't care what gang you run with.
	And a man that is willing to make...
	Brazen accusations like that on social media, trying to lay that out there.
	To us, that was an inclination of violence.
	For somebody that's willing to take revenge or to take it to that level, and I believe that had to do with the death of a family member or something that happened to one of Michael Campbell's family members.
	I don't know the absolute details of his personal life, but the reality is...
	That he was willing to threaten violence on someone on social media and specifically said, I don't care what gang you run with.
	I mean, I'm not sure what you think is going to disseminate out of that kind of brazen accusation, but those things are...
	...are alarming to us as a family member, to Zach, looking at the evidence of Gutierrez's disappearance.
	Is this a man that's inclined to violence?
	Is this a man that will do something like this as a last-ditch effort?
	I think it speaks to his character and, and, uh, and reasonable concern as a family member and as, as a law enforcement agency, why didn't Kenosha PD really look at, at this man a little bit deeper and then follow up on the lead about pheasant run at all.
	I'm an idiot.
	I said the give, send, go had gotten to $54,000.
	That's the goal.
	The give, send, go is at $25,000.
	Let me just bring up a rumble rant here.
	And it's from...
	E.E. Lawson or E.Lawson, Crystal started a donation challenge.
	I'm matching hers.
	Who else?
	Can you beat ours?
	I think that's in reference to the Give, Send, Go, which I'm going to bring up now just to show everybody what it looks like.
	The Give, Send, Go is here.
	Yeah, I was reading the wrong number.
	The goal is $54,000.
	Raised is $25,429.
	And I'll give everybody that link again.
	And your website is freezachariah.org.
	Freezechariahanderson.org.
	Freezechariahanderson.org.
	My apologies.
	Stupid, obvious question.
	Have you specifically, via certified registered mail, sent this information to the prosecutors at the time or since?
	Well, no, not to the prosecutor.
	The prosecutor helped cover it up, and he was aware of all of these things, you know, as it stands, as it was submitted in the Denny motion and made an argument against it.
	Moreover, you know, he very much wanted to try and convict my brother of this crime.
	Regardless, he moved forward on it and described Michael Campbell as a hero.
	I don't see how sending it to Michael Gravely was going to be beneficial to us at all.
	He's been very much biased and in line against our family.
	From day one, between Michael Gravely and Gabriel, the now judge Gabriel, that started this case as the deputy district attorney that described my niece as an easily manipulated minor witness, they knew that they could try and manipulate this case into something worse than it really was and paint my brother as a monster.
	And now, my brother's not a perfect man.
	And he did not conduct himself perfectly through this breakup and through this child custody battle.
	I understand why people have criticism of him.
	I do understand why people have criticism of him.
	I personally have criticism of it as well.
	But the reality was that it wasn't stalking and it wasn't murder.
	He didn't do either of those things.
	Did he gather information on people to bring it to family court?
	Yes, absolutely, unequivocally.
	For those of you out there, you don't invite your stalker over for dinner.
	You don't call them by pet names.
	You don't say goodnight hugs and kisses.
	Those are not things that you do to someone that you are truly afraid of.
	And those are behaviors that the alleged victim of stalking had elicited during the time in question.
	And that's why it's important for you to recognize that not only was he not guilty of murder and that there was other people that...
	Probably had committed this crime, or definitely had committed this crime, probably had committed it that we just presented today, with all likelihood.
	But the reality was that not even the stalking charge would count.
	And as far as the stalking charge against Rosario Gutierrez, Judge Schrader argued against it in the courtroom himself, and then decided to not overturn it, because there was no evidence.
	Not just...
	One or two things of evidence.
	There was no evidence ever presented that actually implicated my brother in the stalking of Rosalia Gutierrez whatsoever.
	Not at all.
	What was I just about to say?
	Oh, sorry.
	Pam Walker in our Locals community says, why in respect to the landfills?
	Go search yourself.
	And I suspect that's part and parcel of what you're raising the money for is independent investigation.
	Fraudfighter says, did the police choose to ignore the landfill investigation or were they ordered to ignore it by the DA?
	Can you actually flesh that out?
	Now, corruption of the Kenosha prosecution has been mentioned a lot, specifically in the context of this prosecution.
	Explain what happened with the, was it the DA?
	Was it Gravely who was meeting with the witnesses and then was apparently had to leave one day when one of the witnesses was testifying?
	Flesh that out a little bit more specifically so I can actually also snip and clip a highlight.
	So there were three witnesses, three total witnesses that they presented during the trial that had changed their testimony after meeting with Michael Gravely.
	And Michael Cravey very specifically does not record any of the conversations that he has with these witnesses because any verbal conversation is not admissible in discovery whatsoever.
	So it's not a Brady violation.
	If he has a conversation, the contents of the conversation are not disclosed to the defense.
	He actually made that argument during the trial.
	So three different witnesses, one of them being Narita Masias.
	Narita Masias had met with Michael Gravely, had had a discussion about her original statement about where she was and where she was parked and what she saw.
	And what she claimed that she had seen was a larger black woman and a young Hispanic man that had gone in and out of the apartment building.
	What she thought was Rosalia Gutierrez's apartment building at the time when she gave the statement.
	Afterwards, she met with Michael Gravely and changed her statement, stating that she was not outside the correct building because Michael Gravely had her meet him outside of Rosalio's apartment.
	building.
	When you say changed her testimony, this is from the first mistrial to the second retrial.
	It was actually just before the first mistrial that she changed her statement.
	So it was in February of 2022 that she changed her statement to what was presented in trial now.
	So this changed a great deal of things because she was there.
	She was a witness.
	She never saw anyone that matched my brother's description in or around the building.
	She saw people that absolutely did not match his description go in and out of this building.
	And during the time in question where they alleged that this murder had taken place because it was the only time that they could have connected my brother to committing this crime that coincides with the other events on Rosalio's cell phone.
	So, the argument was, indeed, that she was there and witnessed the lack of my brother being present on the property.
	Well, after meeting with Michael Gravely, they drove to the crime scene, and Michael Gravely stated that she went to the wrong...
	That she parked outside the wrong building.
	In doing so, made himself a witness to where she parked and what she had done and changing her statements.
	And because he had submitted that to the court, it was really important to then hold Michael Gravely accountable for inserting himself as a witness.
	And whether or not he, you know, in questioning and confirming with the other two witnesses that changed their stories, they were neighbors, the one that changed from hearing the argument on the 18th to hearing it at 9pm on the 17th, that was a different neighbor that had claimed that.
	This is all really relevant to this case, especially considering that Michael Gravely also met with the jail snitch who testified that my brother had a...
	Dream confession in jail when my brothers never, ever told anyone that he was anything other than innocent of this crime.
	Just to stop you there, the absurdity of this prison snitch set aside his credibility in general.
	His testimony was that your brother was having a night terror while sleeping.
	He said, I'll kill you, I'll kill you, I'll kill you.
	He said, die, die, die.
	Die, die, die.
	And then when your brother woke up from the night terror, this...
	Convicted criminal who's in jail, whose credibility can be questioned to say the least, looks at your brother in the eye and says, tell me, look at me in the eyes, did you do it?
	And he said, yeah, I did it.
	And like I said at the time, even if that's true, one might be able to say, well, there's a good reason why someone who's in jail with other convicted criminals might want them to be scared of him.
	But the story itself is laughably preposterous that he's having a night terror and then his cellmate becomes an inquisitioner for the purposes of determining guilt, says, look into my eyes.
	Laughably outrageous.
	This prison snitch also met with gravely, no recorded conversations for the purposes of prepping testimony.
	That's correct.
	Not only in the prepping for testimony, but in giving the statement to begin with.
	So they brought no body cam footage, they brought no camera in at all, and then they wrote down his testimony with no footage of it to confirm that those were indeed his words and what transpired in that room.
	Was actually truthful and forthcoming.
	So in this situation where the COs in the jail facility itself have body cams that they walk around with, you're telling me that the police in Kenosha, that Detective Correa didn't have access to a camera to record his statement, to present it?
	It is preposterous.
	That it was not recorded.
	And frankly, dishonest.
	That they would not have gone through the trouble of doing that.
	So, enduring the die, die, die testimony of Munch or Marquand Washington, as you had cited, Michael Gravely is mouthing along simultaneously with him saying, die, die, die.
	And they cut off as he starts the third.
	It's evident.
	It was real-time, on camera, as he said it simultaneously with the witness.
	I'm trying to find the clip to play, but maybe someone in the chat can find it.
	And then the third witness that Gravely met with no recordings, allegedly.
	It would not have been your niece.
	It was another stipulated witness.
	Some of the rumors or some of the things that people were saying, that Gravely met with your niece, Zachariah's daughter, to prep her for 40-plus hours, give or take 40 hours.
	What's the truth or what's the story behind that?
	So I was told that originally, and I was told directly from my niece that that was not true, that he did not spend that many hours.
	How many hours altogether between both trials?
	She did not give me a figure, but she said that there were multiple occasions where she met with him and then went over this testimony.
	So it was, I believe, on three separate occasions, but the reality was that in...
	So a lot of that doesn't...
	Doesn't add up.
	And I still hold the stance that it was in an obscene amount of time and an obscene amount of detail about things that a 12-year-old girl would not have remembered to the detail that she did remember three years later based on her brain development and the things that she really latched on to.
	It doesn't make sense.
	While you're talking, I'm trying to find the link for Die, Die, Die where he mouths it.
	MLS Law Show has a link to it, I believe.
	I'll find it while we're talking.
	One other clip I do want to bring up because this was the most amazing revelation of our first interview was when he told witness tampering that they alleged your brother was intimidating.
	His daughter on stage says, before you do anything, go like this with your shirt to make sure that you don't get the breath marks on the window.
	There's an awful lot of facial expression happening and it is clearly impacting a 14-year-old girl.
	I have been watching both the...
	I'll stop it there.
	I'll stop it there because with that scary, sinister music and the testimony that you had heard overlaid with the image, one would have thought that your brother told his daughter, your niece, to be quiet while she was testifying.
	And like you explained during our first interview, that occurred when his daughter, who he had not seen in how long by the time this got to trial?
	It was 33 months.
	33 months is almost three years, sorry.
	Just under three years, yeah.
	She was trying to mouth things to him and, I don't know, communicate with him.
	Her father, your brother, was saying, "Don't do this now.
	Now is not the time." That misrepresentation by the media was stunning.
	Not surprising, just stunning.
	Yeah.
	I mean, completely false.
	And the fact of the matter is that not only was this brought up and spread as this momentous thing where he was intimidating, but immediately following this, they also brought Sadie back onto the stand to talk about how How they were also mouthing to her because she was misbehaving.
	And the reality was that the ruling was also not discussed by Schrader about the situation when he said, it just needs to stop.
	I understand that everyone is trying to be a parent in the room, but it's not proper for the courtroom.
	And if you cannot control yourself, we will remove you from the courtroom while the testimony is given.
	So that was very specifically, when following along, when watching the trial, to really not only see that moment, but to really watch the litigation of the moment after that and what had been transpiring in the courtroom that was clearly outlined by both sets of lawyers and the judge's decision really speaks to the truth of the situation in that For
	those of you that have any ounce of compassion, just understand that all they could do was...
	Was try and tell her that she was not acting appropriately and that she needs to calm down.
	And that was what both parents were doing in that situation.
	And I absolutely uphold that as the reality of the situation.
	Because that's what happened.
	And I was there.
	Now I found it.
	Here.
	Check this out.
	I guess they slowed it down or replayed here on Law and Crime.
	What did he shout?
	There you go.
	There it is.
	Die, die, die.
	I'm sorry.
	It was over here.
	What did he shout?
	Die, die, die.
	Yeah.
	All right.
	I don't know if there's a delay or a lag or whatever.
	It depends on what part of the trial it was because when they hooked it up in the trial, like in the courtroom, there was lag from From where it was being presented to the monitor that was broadcasting in the courtroom.
	So there was some technical issues.
	And when Judge Schrader took it and put it on his personal laptop, he himself said, it appears to be simultaneous.
	And then afterwards, he held up the flash drive and said, I'm keeping this.
	Get yourself another copy.
	Very specifically, which implied also the weight and significance.
	Of that moment in the courtroom, but then Schrader just never did anything about it.
	There was no follow-up on it at all whatsoever.
	Just didn't care to.
	The weekend, because that was on Friday, the weekend hit, and then after that, it didn't matter anymore.
	Hopefully the jury forgets.
	Solomon, do you have a few minutes to come over to Locals and see if there's any specific questions that our community has over there?
	Yeah, I do.
	I got myself ready for work.
	I think I just need to change before I leave.
	So we'll do 10 or 15, maybe 10 minutes if you can.
	We'll just get some questions and I'll thank you there.
	Is there anything that you wanted to mention today before we end this broadcast on Rumble that I forgot to ask you?
	You know, we did start a letter-writing campaign in relation to this, mentioning pheasant-run landfill as a place of proper investigation on our website.
	So on our website, I don't know if you wanted to pull this up, but under Get Involved, let me know when you have it up.
	Yeah, this is you here.
	So under Get Involved, go down to Demand Change.
	Under Demand Change, there's the letter to the Attorney General of Wisconsin right here.
	And underneath this, for us to galvanize as citizens, as Wisconsinites, as Americans, just as human beings, we have form letters for you to download, print, and send for U.S. citizens, non-U.S.
	citizens, for the letters of concern.
	The letters of concern are very specifically to reopen the investigation, which included searching pheasant-run landfill.
	Into the disappearance of Rosalia Gutierrez.
	The grievance letter, very specifically right here, is a letter to open an investigation into the Kenosha County District Attorney's Office for the level of impropriety that they had displayed during my brother's case.
	Both of those, we ask people to print two copies of each of the letters, send them in separately.
	Certify mail one copy.
	Regular mail another copy of each of them.
	So that's four envelopes.
	Two of them are certified.
	And then email them also.
	So email a copy in as well.
	We have links to the proper places all on this website right here.
	And then send us a link.
	There's a little...
	I would like to be able to walk in with a stack of letters and sit down with him with a stack of letters.
	in front of him for the number of people that have done this on behalf of Zach, on behalf of Mr. Gutierrez, and on behalf of the citizens of Kenosha and the United States of Wisconsin.
	Because if this case becomes precedential, it actually endangers all of our freedom.
	Michael Gravely, on multiple occasions, asked permission to violate my brother's In this case, they ignored his Sixth Amendment right to bring in a potential other actor.
	They ignored his Fifth Amendment right and his right to silence.
	In this situation, it was egregious.
	And beyond that, they also used this to try and expand the rights that people have to excluding hearsay evidence from being argued in the...
	So if we allow them to expand the definition of hearsay like they did in this case, that means that more hearsay evidence is allowed in any case against an individual citizen, especially in the state of Wisconsin.
	But if other states recognize that if this case is upheld in the state of Wisconsin, they can cite it as precedence for their own states.
	They have a little bit more power to deny, but it can be upheld elsewhere in the United States as well based on presidential law.
	So just understand that because they were pushing the limits of the law, their interpretation of the law in my brother's case, it actually does endanger our freedom.
	It actually did violate my brother's constitutional rights.
	And it is very important for us as citizens to stand up, say something, and do something about this case because...
	It matters.
	All right.
	With that said, Solomon, thank you for coming back on.
	Anytime, you're more than welcome.
	What we're going to do, I'll end on Rumble.
	I just have a few questions for you on Locals, and we'll see if there's other questions out there.
	Tyson underscore Hockley.
	I know who Tyson Hockley is.
	I saw him in Ottawa.
	I'm a 15-year-old spreading the truth here on Rumble.
	Please follow my accounts to help me out.
	If that is, in fact, the real Tyson Hockley, I do know who you are from Ottawa.
	Tyson, nice to see you again.
	We're going to end it on Rumble.
	A few questions on Locals, so come on over to vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	Solomon, thank you.
	I will put up all of your links after the stream.
	Just pin comments so people can find it and everything.
	Thank you very much, and everybody, come on over to Locals for a few minutes for some exclusive stuff right now.
	All right, we're good.
	Solomon, I'm going to ask you this, and this is the obvious question a lot of people are going to ask you, and then I'll ask you the follow-up, but people are just going to say you're a brother.
	Who, you know, refuses to accept the guilt of your brother.
	Now, I happen to not share that at this point in time.
	It was an initial thought that I had is, of course, a brother's going to want to defend his brother.

▲