Really it's irrelevant to the crime he committed. And even if the sign was defective, or wasn't there, he would have to leave the land immediately upon being informed by the propertyowner he was tresspassing on private land. The onus is on the hunter to be on land open to the public, which does include privately owned land in Wisconsin.
" A no hunting or trespassing sign is posted November 24, 2004 near the cabin in the area where eight hunters were shot November 21, 2004 in Sawyer County, Wisconsin, leaving six dead and two wounded."
That text is vague as to if the sign in the picture is one of the actual signs posted on that specific property, or some property down the road and used in the picture as a representation of the type of sign used for posting property in that area. This becomes important because some of the first reports said Vang was found on the property earlier in the day then again at lunch time. Also post #73 on this thread talks of multiple trespasses by Vang on this same property.
I am interested in examining photos of the actual property that appear in the press. It gives an idea of how far from the road the crime scene is,(if police yellow tape is visible) how close the CLAMs are being allowed to the crime scene, and what the actual wording of the posting signs was. (ie:was verbal permission acceptable or was written permission needed) Also, if this was the cabin on the property, where is the police tape, and where are the cars/trucks from all the hunters. I can guaren-damn-tee that at least 6 did not drive themselves away from the area. That would mean vehicles left behind. Where are they? Vehicles left behind would be taped off as part of the scene. This leads me to think that the photo is of another cabin in the area used as a representation. After all, who would know the difference?