frequently asked questions.
DNA
Q: Was there blood in zach's van?
- Per the testimony of Crime Lab Analyst Julieanne Avila, "there was no indication of blood" in Zach's van (Vielhammer Media, Day 13, 30:26). Both Luminol and Phenolphthalein were used as presumptive testing for blood in the van and both came back negative. These compounds can also react to the presence of bleach, but neither showed any sort of reaction to the stains they stated appeared to have the consistency of bleach.
- The prosecution called a pinhead-sized speck of a reddish-brown substance in the van blood based on the opinion of Crime Lab Analyst, Lisa Treffinger. She had stated it was her opinion that this speck was blood, but no confirmation testing had ever been completed to verify that opinion. She confirmed it was possible that the DNA found was from skin cells, aka transfer DNA, around an unrelated stain (Law&Crime Trial Day 4, 7:20:36).
Q: Was the dna found in zach's van confirmed to be from rosalio gutierrez jr.?
- According to Lisa Treffinger, the speck of DNA came from a "male single source profile" and when asked who it was a match for she stated Rosalio Gutierrez (Law&Crime Trial Day 7, 7:20:36).
- No likelihood ratio was given to confirm to what degree of certainty the DNA matched Rosalio.
Q: When was the DNA in Zach's van discovered?
- Initial testing and evidence collection inside the van was performed on May 21, 2020. According to Kenosha Police Department, they did not receive a result on the DNA in the van until December 11, 2020.
The Van
Q: Did Zach buy sardines to cover the smell in his van?
- Zach purchased cans of Sardines at Walmart on May 18, 2020 during his shopping trip for other household items, including bleach wipes, Q-tips, gloves, a razor, Old Spice, garbage bags, etc. He enjoys eating Sardines and would often purchase them for on-the-go snacks. His defense attorney, Nicole, noted that, although the cans had clear lids, they were found unopened (Law&Crime Sentencing, 36:15).
Q: Why was the carpet removed from the back of the van?
- Zach often used his van as a work vehicle, including hauling refuse from demolition projects he did on the side. He also hauled tools around either for personal or work use. Per Zach, some gasoline had spilled in the rear of the van and, rather than inhaling the fumes or bothering to try to clean a beat up old van, he cut the affected piece of carpet out.
Q: When was the carpet in his van removed?
- According to Zach's daughter, OA, she saw the carpet in tact on May 16, 2020 (Law&Crime Trial Day 11, 1:36:10). She stated she was sitting in the front of the van and the rear row of seats was in at the time with junk strewn about the floor in the midsection of the van (Law&Crime Trial Day 11, 2:41:08).
- According to Zach's employer, Susan Brown-Williamson, she had witnessed the carpet removed prior to the weekend of May 16-17, 2020. She stated the last time she saw him, she was standing on the driveway at the house he was working on and saw the doors of the van open with a bunch of stuff piled in. She notes there was no carpet in there and she watched Zach close up the van and hook up her trailer to haul the construction debris away. (Law&Crime Trial Day 8, 4:19:22). When asked why she had never mentioned this to law enforcement, she stated she did tell them it was gutted, but may not have specifically mentioned the seats or carpet being removed.
The Burn Pit
Q: Why did Zach have a burn pit in his back yard?
- Zach's home is situated on almost 5 acres of land in a rural area. In rural areas in the state of Wisconsin, homeowners can apply for a yearly burn permit to dispose of certain household trash and yard waste. According to the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, state regulations allow individual households to burn small amounts of dry, household rubbish (which includes only unrecyclable paper and cardboard, natural fibers, clean, untreated wood and similar materials), and yard waste. Per the testimony of Kurt Zellner, Deputy Fire Chief, Zach had a current burning permit for the year 2020 that was valid through December 31, 2020 (Law&Crime Trial Day 14, 3:28:13).
Q: Were Rosalio's clothes found in the burn pit?
- Although certain news articles stated that pieces of Rosalio's clothing were found in Zach's burn pit, this information is categorically false. No testimony in the trial or police investigative reports ever documented that any clothing or DNA belonging to Rosalio Gutierrez was found in either the burn pit on Zach's property, or in the burn pit of the Anderson Tree Farm. All clothing items found in the burn pit belonged to Zach and had only his DNA on it.
Q: Why would Zach burn his clothes unless he was concealing a crime?
- Per the testimony at trial, police found two Levi's jean buttons, a partially burned sock, the elastic from a pair of underwear, and the steel toes from a pair of boots. Although these are not the only articles of clothing found in the burn pit, these are the only ones that were presented at the trial to make it seem like he had only burned one set of clothing in an effort to conceal some sort of evidence. As more information is released, it will be clear that Zach regularly burned clothing; the burning of these clothes was not an isolated occurrence. Rather than pay the cost of disposing old clothing items in the dumpster on his property (which is rented and paid for by weight and was otherwise used for Solomon's construction business), he chose to burn them.
The Testimony of OA, Zach's Minor Daughter
Q: Why did Zach "shush" his daughter while she was testifying?
- To clarify, Zach and his daughter had not seen one another in 3 years. Emotion could be seen on Zach's face throughout her testimony. What you could not see, was the minor daughter had similar emotions and attempted to mouth things to him between questioning. Zach attempted to have his attorneys intervene, but when that failed, he made a motion for her to stop mouthing words to him. Similarly, the daughters mother, Sadie, motioned to her daughter to calm down via ASL. Both parents of the minor child made attempts to "shush" her. Unfortunately, Zach's was highly publicized and turned into something to use against him.
Q: Why did Zach's daughter testify against him?
- The full truth is unknown. However, most likely OA was subpoenaed to testify by the DA and had no choice in the matter. She was used as a material witness because Sadie told officers at the scene of the crime that OA had information pertinent to Zach's "stalking behaviors" and the disappearance of Rosalio. By making such a statement and agreeing to bring their daughter in for questioning, OA was forced to be involved.
Q: Did Zach threaten his daughter with a gun?
- No. During her testimony, OA states "I was threatened with that gun, for your information" in reference to an unregistered gun she states Zach owned (Law&Crime Trial Day 11, 6:47:40). Initially, she stated that an unregistered gun existed in California. However, when questioned further she inferred that the gun was in Wisconsin, but was unable to provide further details other than that the gun was black, maybe some sort of pistol, and it was at Zach's house at some point. Nowhere in her testimony did she ever state that Zach threatened her with a gun and the jury was directed to disregard that statement as irrelevant. OA herself even stated that the gun was not related to this situation. It wasn't until the judge addressed her directly and told her to listen to questions carefully that she made that utterance. In fact, any mention of a gun by OA is extremely puzzling as Zach has never owned a gun in Wisconsin. Even Sadie, who had been in an on/off relationship with Zach for roughly 12 years by the time he was arrested, had no idea what OA was referring to (Law&Crime Trial Day 11, 6:15:49). Zach is very anti-gun, particularly because he was robbed at gun point when he was 19 years old. Additionally, there was no evidence of this gun ever existing; No firearms or ammo were recovered by police during their search of Zach's home.
The Timeline
Q: How much time was there between the proposed time of death and Zach's cell phone use at home?
- According to the state, Rosalio is believed to have been killed sometime between 9:30-10:00pm. The last known activity on his phone was an orientation change that occurred at 10:10pm, which means someone had to be handling the phone inside his apartment at that time. Zach was pinged at his home in Mequon at 11:19pm when he sent a text and made a phone call to his girlfriend, Christine. His drive time from Rosalio's apartment to his home would have been 1 hour 1 minute at the very best, leaving only 8 extra minutes to dispose of a body in a way that still has not been found to this day, 3+ years later. The timeline is simply impossible. Please see the unseen evidence page for more detailed information.
The Investigation
Q: Was Sadie Beacham ever investigated?
- No. Sadie did willingly allow a download of her cell phone contents and provided statements to the police, but she was not investigated as a potential suspect for the crime. This means that they did not search her vehicle, her home, her computers, her social media, or anything else that could potentially be relevant to finding the whereabouts of Rosalio. Her alibi for the time in question is unknown.
Q: Was Michael Campbell ever investigated?
- No. Around the time of Rosalio's disappearance, Mr. Campbell was only asked to provide a statement to the police. In 2022, Zach's defense attorney's requested that the District Attorney obtain phone records from Mr. Campbell. According to DA Michael Graveley, they essentially apologized for the inconvenience to Mr. Campbell and asked if he would be willing to provide his phone. which he did. Kenosha PD did not search his vehicles, his trailers, his home, his computers, his social media, or anything else that could potentially be relevant to finding the whereabouts of Rosalio. His alibi for the time in question is unknown.
Q: Did Kenosha Police investigate anyone other than Zach?
- No. When asked who else the police investigated other than Zach, Detective Anschutz testified: "Personally, I didn't investigate into anybody else. We did look. We looked for other leads, other clues, other evidence but, personally, I didn't take the initiative to go look specifically at somebody else" (Law&Crime Trial Day 3, 5:12:46).
Zach's Testimony
Q: WHY DIDN'T ZACH TESTIFY TO PROVE HIS INNOCENCE?
- A defendant's right to remain silent is protected by the 5th Amendment of the United States Constitution; it is not the duty of the defendant to prove anything, including his innocence. It is the duty of the state to prove that the person on trial is the one that committed the crimes as charged, beyond a reasonable doubt. As in most criminal proceedings, it was the defense's advice for Zach not to take that stand to testify. Testifying can be stressful, intimidating, and overwhelming. Some people do not perform well under pressure and might become agitated or nervous; a jury may wrongfully interpret this behavior as a sign of the defendant's guilt.
Stalking
Q: Why did Zach put a phone in Sadie's vehicle?
- Per Sadie's testimony, Zach had texted her stating that he had lost his phone and asked if she had seen it. He mentioned how he had already looked for it in several places and thought maybe he dropped it in her car when they were exchanging the kids. Sadie quickly assumed that Zach had placed the phone in the vehicle on purpose with the intent to track her movements. Per their text conversation, she stated that he admitted to stalking her, to which he responded that she forced him to say that before she would give his phone back.
Q: Why did Zach involve his daughter in stalking Sadie?
- Zach admitted to police during his interrogation that he had brought the kids over to Sadie's home the night of April 24, 2020. OA was 11 at the time and she was upset about her parents split. Up until this point, she had always known her parents to be together. OA was mad at Zach that day because she felt like his relationship with Christine was the reason he and Sadie weren't together any longer. Zach attempted to explain to her that Sadie had also been spending time with a new love interest, but OA did not believe Zach. Rather than continue to argue with his daughter about it, he told her that he would show her with her own eyes and brought her over to Sadie's so she could see for herself that Sadie had moved on too.
© 2023 FreeZachariahAnderson. All rights reserved.