unseen evidence.
Why the timeline is impossible.
What to Consider:
- The State alleges that Zach killed Rosalio at Rosalio's apartment in Kenosha and then transported the body using his own van all the way back to his home in Mequon.
- Rosalio's phone had an orientation change at 10:10pm, indicating it was handled either by (1) the killer, or (2) Rosalio himself.
- Zach placed a phone call from his home at 11:19pm, which is verified by the ping off a nearby phone tower.
- According to those two events, there is at max 1 hour 9 minutes between for drive time.
- There are anywhere between 33-45 traffic cameras on the major highways traveling from Rosalio's apartment to Zach's house (as designated above by the blue pins).
- The fastest highway route between is 1 hour 1 min (per Google maps).
- Disclaimer: Google Maps shows 56 minutes now, but there is a new exit near Zach's home that didn't exist in 2020.
- The fastest non-highway route is 1 hour 24 min (per Google maps).
- Although Zach could have made it home in the 1 hour 9 min timeframe using highways, his vehicle would have been spotted on at least 33 traffic cameras, so we know this is not the case.
- If it were, two things have to be assumed for this to be true: (1) that it wasn't Rosalio himself handling his phone at 10:10pm and (2) that his phone was put in the freezer at 10:10pm and then an immediate mad dash to the car occurred.
- There is NO evidence that shows that Rosalio was definitely dead before 10:10pm, so it is absolutely possible that he could have moved his phone at that time and been killed afterward, which would make the timeline impossible.
- The scene also does not support this theory because (1) the apartment lights were turned off, (2) a bag of tools was left directly in front of the patio sliding door which is the likely exit point, and (3) the patio curtains were closed and the screen door was closed. So, whomever was there took the time to close down the apartment in a way that would ensure the crime scene would not be discovered immediately.
- If it were, two things have to be assumed for this to be true: (1) that it wasn't Rosalio himself handling his phone at 10:10pm and (2) that his phone was put in the freezer at 10:10pm and then an immediate mad dash to the car occurred.
- Because Zach was not seen on any cameras reviewed by Kenosha PD, it is reasonable to assume that he would have had to have taken non-highway routes to avoid the cameras.
- This makes the state's timeline impossible unless he was going well above the speed limit through a major city (Milwaukee).
- There is no way he would risk speeding or running red lights and getting pulled over because cops could easily see a body in the back of his minivan.
- Just because he would have avoided the highway traffic cameras, doesn't mean he would have avoided all cameras. Kenosha PD also checked camera footage at places like gas stations and schools and still did not see any signs of Zach's van.
- This makes the state's timeline impossible unless he was going well above the speed limit through a major city (Milwaukee).
- The extremely narrow to impossible timeline coupled with zero footage of Zach's van traveling the long distance between these locations makes it impossible for Zach be the murderer of Rosalio Gutierrez Jr. There is zero evidence that exists that shows that Zach ever left his own home, and the timeline doesn’t work.
why Sadie and oa's testimony doesn't add up.
What to Consider:
- OA testified that Zach took her to Sadie's house in the very dark hours on the night of April 24th to "spy" on Sadie and Rosalio.
- She stated that Zach had parked in the bar parking lot and backed into a parking space. She states she stayed in the front seat of the car and watched him go up to the living room window. She said she saw him put a recording device in the air conditioning unit attached to the living room window.
- OA then testifies that while leaving, Zach then pulls the car into the second driveway, gets out of the car again to go take a picture of Rosalio's license plate and steal some papers out of the car. She then says he rings the doorbell before running back to the car to drive away.
- Sadie testifies that after the doorbell rings, she looks out of the window and sees a black car speeding away, assuming that it was Zach's.
- If you look at the maps above, there are a few major inconsistencies with their testimony:
- The living room window is oriented on the exact opposite side of the house as the bar parking lot (with lots of large bushes in between), so it is impossible for OA to have seen Zach go up to the window from the car, let alone be able to see in detail what he would have been doing there.
- The front door is tucked back completely out of the sightline of the second driveway because of the other attached unit jutting out so far, so it is impossible for OA to have seen Zach go ring the doorbell from the car.
- Also, because of the lack of sightline from the door to the second driveway, plus the fact that Zach's typical route back to his home leads away from the front door (not crossing past it again), it is impossible for Sadie to have seen Zach's vehicle from the window.
- There is no way to reconcile these impossibilities with what both Sadie and OA testified to, other than that they were either complete fabrications of fact or partial truths that were, for whatever reason, embellished.
- OA was 11-12 years old at the time all of this occurred, so there is a high likelihood, based on age and the way the brain functions during that stage of development, that she is misremembering. But how could she misremember completely impossible details that line up exactly with what Sadie remembers (e.g. the ringing of the doorbell)?
- If this event does show an indication of false memories, what other memories does she have that are false and only came from many years of discussions around these events? Again, this opens the door to the idea that much of what OA says she remembers from that time period is false. There is specific evidence of this at trial:
- She is able to state with exact specificity how many marijuana plants Zach was alleged to have, but she was unable to identify a picture of marijuana.
- She claims in testimony that she went down to Zach's basement because one of her brothers dropped a lego down the stairs and she went with him because the basement was creepy, but in her original police statement, she said her brother was playing down there because he liked it (Trial Day 14, L&C timestamp 3:34:56).
- In her original police statement given on May 19, 2020, she states she never saw any gun (reference: stipulated testimony by Detective Lorn Anschutz on Day 14, L&C timestamp 3:35:09), but nearly three years later on the stand she claims she was threatened with a gun.
- This would indicate that the memory is a false memory that was implanted through suggestion during the numerous conversations she had with Sadie, police, and the prosecution. Remember, OA has no contact with Zach after his arrest, so she only hears about and/or talks through these events with people trying to find evidence of Zach's guilt, which leaves a very high likelihood for suggestion.
- "Through early adolescence, children's ability to remember exact details is poor relative to adults, which makes them especially prone to false memories arising from suggestion," says Charles Brainerd, Ph.D., a professor of psychology at Cornell University.
- See also this article by Scientific American: Click here.
- If this event does show an indication of false memories, what other memories does she have that are false and only came from many years of discussions around these events? Again, this opens the door to the idea that much of what OA says she remembers from that time period is false. There is specific evidence of this at trial:
- However, Sadie is an adult with a stronger memory capacity, so misremembering, although not impossible, is far less likely. She claimed from her very first statements to police that she had seen what she assumed was Zach's vehicle drive away, so it is not a distortion in memory that happened over time. Sadie has a strong motive to lie and/or embellish truths because it was her goal to get Zach arrested on stalking charges. She felt like her claim wasn't strong enough to get the job done in the past (as she indicates by stating that police previously "didn't do anything" and denied her a restraining order). Therefore, it is highly possible she could have chosen to embellish or make up details that would make her claims seem more valid.
- "I had contacted Germantown Police Department with my concerns about the stalking behaviors, they told me they were not able to do much unless I caught him in the act,” she told News Graphic.
- So, in her words, her previous "concerns of stalking" were purely anecdotal and she had no hard proof to concern officials enough to produce an arrest or restraining order (indicating a lack of validity). Therefore, she had to be sure that she found ways to "catch him in the act" this time (e.g. stating he rang the doorbell and she saw his car drive away, stating that him accidentally dropping his phone in her car was an intentional plant for tracking purposes, etc.).
- "I had contacted Germantown Police Department with my concerns about the stalking behaviors, they told me they were not able to do much unless I caught him in the act,” she told News Graphic.
- OA was 11-12 years old at the time all of this occurred, so there is a high likelihood, based on age and the way the brain functions during that stage of development, that she is misremembering. But how could she misremember completely impossible details that line up exactly with what Sadie remembers (e.g. the ringing of the doorbell)?
- Regardless of the reason for these factual errors, all testimony of both Sadie and OA should be scrutinized. If you watch with careful consideration, you'll notice that none of their testimony has a single thing to do with the disappearance of Rosalio Gutierrez and much of it is either false or purely based on assumptions, hearsay, and irrelevant information.
why the speck from Zach's van is misleading.
Top: Example of how Luminol reacts to blood.
Bottom: The inside of Zach's van during Luminol testing.
What to consider:
- Luminol is a solution capable of detecting blood that has been diluted up to 10,000 times.
- Once Luminol comes into contact with blood, it reacts by causing the blood to glow a pale blue color (see top portion of the above picture, which is an example of how Luminol reacts to blood).
- Luminol also causes a similar reaction with oxidizing chemicals like bleach.
- Although there were no pictures of it, the crime lab also used Phenolphthalein in the van, which is a presumptive test that will turn pink to the presence of heme molecules in blood.
- Luminol testing was performed on the inside of Zach's van and the entire van remained dark (see bottom portion of the above picture).
- None of the Phenolphthalein turned pink on the inside of Zach's van.
- All presumptive testing was negative, which means there was no blood or bleach detected.
- Julieann Avila, one of the involved crime lab analysts, stated : "there was no indication of blood" in Zach's van.
Why Dr. G's Body Language Assessment about Zach is Junk
After Zach's sentencing hearing on May 16, 2023, Dr. John Paul Garrison "Dr. G" released a video on his Youtube channel analyzing Zach's body language at the hearing. Dr. G is a licensed clinical and forensic psychologist that creates "clickbait" videos analyzing body language in relation to high-profile crime cases. Generally, if the person is found guilty of their charges, Dr. G focuses his analysis on confirming that guilty perception.
In the video about Zach, he reviewed snippets of the the sentencing hearing and within seconds had labeled Zach a narcissist and a psychopath. He also noted that Zach showed no signs of remorse and he felt like Zach was flirting with his attorney, Nicole.
As one might imagine, there were some glaring issues with this so-called body language analysis. Firstly, Dr. G was interpreting Zach based on the assumption that he was guilty of the charges, which is not how true body language analysis or psychological evaluations are performed. At no point did Dr. G make any disclaimers that psychological diagnoses cannot be provided without a full evaluation of the individual, nor did he acknowledge that body language in high-stress situations may not accurately reflect a person's baseline. Additionally, he should have made note of the fact that there are external factors in such a situation that can alter a person's typical behaviors. In Zach's case, he was shackled hands to feet and had a high-voltage taser pack strapped to his calf with metal prongs digging into his skin. These factors make it more difficult for a person to act in accordance to their baseline.
As a result of this video, a Psychologist based out of the UK provided a report rebutting Dr. G's video assessment and pointing out such inconsistencies. Her report is linked below and and a recorded video version can also be viewed by clicking this link.
Due to the fact that Dr. G is a licensed professional using the weight of his credentials to lend a perception of factual accuracy to his unprofessional and slanderous videos, a formal complaint was submitted to the Georgia Licensing Board for Professional Counselors.
Dr. G has since removed his video.
In the video about Zach, he reviewed snippets of the the sentencing hearing and within seconds had labeled Zach a narcissist and a psychopath. He also noted that Zach showed no signs of remorse and he felt like Zach was flirting with his attorney, Nicole.
As one might imagine, there were some glaring issues with this so-called body language analysis. Firstly, Dr. G was interpreting Zach based on the assumption that he was guilty of the charges, which is not how true body language analysis or psychological evaluations are performed. At no point did Dr. G make any disclaimers that psychological diagnoses cannot be provided without a full evaluation of the individual, nor did he acknowledge that body language in high-stress situations may not accurately reflect a person's baseline. Additionally, he should have made note of the fact that there are external factors in such a situation that can alter a person's typical behaviors. In Zach's case, he was shackled hands to feet and had a high-voltage taser pack strapped to his calf with metal prongs digging into his skin. These factors make it more difficult for a person to act in accordance to their baseline.
As a result of this video, a Psychologist based out of the UK provided a report rebutting Dr. G's video assessment and pointing out such inconsistencies. Her report is linked below and and a recorded video version can also be viewed by clicking this link.
Due to the fact that Dr. G is a licensed professional using the weight of his credentials to lend a perception of factual accuracy to his unprofessional and slanderous videos, a formal complaint was submitted to the Georgia Licensing Board for Professional Counselors.
Dr. G has since removed his video.
Why Nereida's Testimony Doesn't Make Sense
Main Entrance to Rosalio's Apartment Building
Main Entrance to Rosalio's Apartment Building at Night
What to consider:
- State's witness, Nereida Macias, originally provided a statement to Kenosha PD on May 20, 2020 stating that she was supposed to be meeting up with Rosalio Gutierrez on May 17, 2020, the alleged night of his disappearance. She stated she had shown up to Rosalio's apartment at 9:34pm and had sat in her car waiting for a response from him until 10:18pm.
- In Nereida's original statement, she stated the only people she saw in that timeframe were: 1) a heavy-set black female entering the apartment carrying a bag, and 2) a young hispanic male, described as being in his early 20s, clean cut, with no facial hair and wearing a white t-shirt. She witnessed the hispanic male come down the stairs from the second floor, look out the front windows and then go back upstairs; he did this twice. After waiting 44 minutes for a response from Rosalio, she left.
- Nearly two years after her original statement, Nereida was called into District Attorney (DA) Michael Graveley's office to discuss her being a witness. She was then asked by the DA to show them where she was in relation to Rosalio's building on the night of May 17, 2020, and she met the DA and the Assistant District Attorney (ADA) at the apartment complex and, somehow, during this unrecorded exchange, her story changed and they determine she was in front of the wrong building.
- During her testimony about this exchange, she was adamant that she was at the wrong building in the first place. She states it was dark and raining outside and that she never looked at the building number to confirm which building she was in front of. She also provides testimony that she moved her car to 4 different parking spots while waiting, one of which is directly in front of the building. She maintained that she did see the two people described above.
- Rosalio's apartment, 1B, is inside of this 8-unit apartment building. Inside the entrance seen, immediately to the right is a set of stairs leading up to the second floor. Rosalio's apartment is the first unit on the right, underneath the stairs.
- The apartment building number, 3709, can be seen directly above the entrance to the apartment building, with a light above it to illuminate it at nighttime (circled in red above).
- There is a panel of cross-hatched windows directly to the left of the main door, as seen above. Looking in these windows from the outside would provide a view of the stairs leading up to the second floor.
- Although Nereida claims that she never looked at the apartment number on the night of May 17, 2020, the evidence shows that it would be difficult to miss, especially if she was parked in a spot directly in front of the building as she claims.
- The number sign is illuminated by the light above it, so even though it was dark and raining, the building number itself should have stood out in the darkness.
- Also, Nereida did maintain her statement that she saw the two people described, which means not only did she have to be looking at the front of the building, but she would have had to be close enough to obtain detailed descriptions of said people despite the darkness of night.
- The likelihood that she would be able to describe that the young hispanic gentleman had a clean cut face but see the apartment number just above where he would have been standing at the window looking out is low.
- Nereida had also changed her testimony based on the private meeting with the DA, which raises a few concerns:
- She testified that the DA gave her the address with which to meet him. This was at least two years after the incident occurred and she claimed she had never been to the apartments before or after the incident. So, how do we know that the DA gave her the correct address and didn't mislead her to go to the wrong apartment for the sake of his case? There is no witnesses of this meeting outside of Nereida (who works for the Milwaukee DA's office) and the Kenosha DA and ADA.
- Nereida and the DA both argued that Google maps has an error where it directs to the wrong building even when the correct apartment building is input. Nereida claimed she used Google maps for that meeting, but evidence proved that she had actually used Apple Maps on the night in question. So, again, how do we know that the result of where it directed her to was the same, especially since she herself is unfamiliar with the area otherwise?
- Even still, the DA requested this meeting with Nereida based on his knowledge that Rosalio had told Sadie in a text in February 2020 that Google Maps is often incorrect and leads to the wrong building. However, there is no evidence that Rosalio told Nereida about said error in May. So, how do we know the error was still occurring in May 2020, when Nereida was the one navigating to his house? If it was still a known issue, wouldn't he have mentioned it to her like he mentioned it to Sadie her first time navigating there?
- The changing of her statement is highly suspicious and possibly a sign of witness tampering on the part of the DA and perjury on the part of Nereida. For the sake of argument, it is possible that Nereida just didn't know she was at the wrong building on May 17, 2020. However, the likelihood that someone navigating to someone else's house for the very first time and not ever looking at the illuminated building numbers to confirm their whereabouts, especially when they are sitting in their car waiting for 44 minutes, is implausible and unbelievable.
- If she had looked at the building numbers on May 17, 2020 (which is the most likely based on the evidence and testimony as above) and confirmed she was at the right building, then she changed her story to become more favorable to the DA's case and lied on the stand to aid in Zach's conviction. The DA specifically focused on this witness because he knew the defense was using her testimony as proof that the timeline was even more impossible for Zach to have been involved. If Nereida was in front of the correct building and did not see anyone or anything out of the ordinary before leaving at 10:18, that means Zach would have had only 1hr 1min to somehow single-handedly get Rosalio's body out to his van and get home to Mequon by 11:19pm, 1 hr and 24 mins away by fastest non-highway, non-camera filled road.
Why Lisa treffinger's DNA testimony is misleading.
On October 3, 2023, Forensic DNA Expert Tiffany Roy filed a formal complaint with the Wisconsin Department of Justice Division of Forensic Sciences in regard to the testimony provided by Lisa Treffinger, WI State Crime Lab Analyst.
During the trial, the state alleged that Rosalio Gutierrez's blood was found in the back of Zach's van. In fact, this information was released to the media by the prosecution's office years before the trial in order to make Zach seem like the guilty party to the local community and anyone reading the news about the case.
However, in Lisa Treffinger's testimony, she states the only "blood" found found in Zach's van was item A1, which was one pinhead-sized speck of a reddish-brown substance. The crime lab collected a swab from the stain and Treffinger stated the DNA matched Rosalio Gutierrez. However, she confirmed no testing was completed to identify the substance of that swab because it was too minuscule to run both DNA testing and presumptive blood testing. However, the District Attorney asked for Lisa Treffinger's opinion and she stated her opinion is that the stain was blood based on its appearance and the fact that it provided a robust DNA profile, which wouldn't be seen with skin cells.
As you will see in Tiffany Roy's complaint, Lisa Treffinger's statements of opinion and other assertion of fact is unfounded, baseless, and, at times, scientifically untrue. The claims that Rosalio's blood was found in Zach's van are completely unsubstantiated, and don't match the other evidence asserted in the case. All other presumptive blood tests of the van were negative, including several other reddish-brown substance stains, which tested both negative for blood and for Rosalio's DNA.
During the trial, the state alleged that Rosalio Gutierrez's blood was found in the back of Zach's van. In fact, this information was released to the media by the prosecution's office years before the trial in order to make Zach seem like the guilty party to the local community and anyone reading the news about the case.
However, in Lisa Treffinger's testimony, she states the only "blood" found found in Zach's van was item A1, which was one pinhead-sized speck of a reddish-brown substance. The crime lab collected a swab from the stain and Treffinger stated the DNA matched Rosalio Gutierrez. However, she confirmed no testing was completed to identify the substance of that swab because it was too minuscule to run both DNA testing and presumptive blood testing. However, the District Attorney asked for Lisa Treffinger's opinion and she stated her opinion is that the stain was blood based on its appearance and the fact that it provided a robust DNA profile, which wouldn't be seen with skin cells.
As you will see in Tiffany Roy's complaint, Lisa Treffinger's statements of opinion and other assertion of fact is unfounded, baseless, and, at times, scientifically untrue. The claims that Rosalio's blood was found in Zach's van are completely unsubstantiated, and don't match the other evidence asserted in the case. All other presumptive blood tests of the van were negative, including several other reddish-brown substance stains, which tested both negative for blood and for Rosalio's DNA.