Posted on 11/26/2004 3:52:26 PM PST by Ladysmith
ozaukeemom, we have the confirmation on the Green Lake County trespassing case you had found.
If there was brass for more than one weapon from the gringos the case is likely to fall apart.
I'd bet that Vang is the man responsible for 2001 murder of the hunter in the nearby county. He probably thought since he got away with that murder he'd be able to get away with it again. Too bad Wisconsin doesn't have the death penalty.
Ahem... Why the refusal to say more?
I suggested a few days ago that this guy may have been trying to kill all the hunters to eliminate witnesses, which evidently happened in the other shooting.
But this story has some new facts. Evidently there may have been a group of four Hmong who participated in these murders. Good grief. I hope the investigators will indeed hit this case hard.
Not necessarily. There was likely a lot of brass around that deerstand....some of it no doubt from previous seasons. Investigators should be able to locate the newly spent brass from Willer's rifle and determine how many rounds he fired. I don't see how it could be determined from forensics who fired first though.
This makes me just plain nervous.
They had better not blow this case.
"In the statement, he said he returned fire, but he also conceded that he shot victims in the back and that some victims were unarmed."
He is done. You can call a person a WHOLE LOT OF NAMES (assuming that even happened) but that will NEVER be sufficient provocation for shooting.
The guy is slime, I don't care if he was the head of the joint chiefs of staff.
More immigrants please, NOT!
forensics can recreate the battle... history channel did it for the battle of little big horn and it was quite interesting...
from the locations of the bodies and the testimony of witnesses, investigators should be able to paint a pretty accurate picture...
for example, if a hunter fired at vang, relatively close miss, the bullet may be lodged in the stand... vang's first shot would be where the bullet came from perhaps... and can be tracked through lasers and such...
watched a lot of csi, but i don't think the investigation will go this far...
teeman
Am I missing something? This guy admits shooting unarmed people in the back and he is not a suspect??
"I missing something?"
Yes, yes, you are missing something. They don't consider him a suspect in the 2001 murder. He's definately the "accused" in the 2004 murders.
The article is a bit confusing. Bad writing is everywhere, especially in the daily papers!
It's "cop speak"....till they have something, they can't CHARGE him, therefore he's not "yet" a suspect.
Just give 'em time....
You gotta know that that's the first time that particular species of human debris has ever appeared in little Heyward , Wisconsin.
Thanks, After I posted, I thought that might have been what I missed. (Speed reading has its drawbacks...)
I heard it here first. (possible relation to 2001 case)
If they don't call him a suspect they can question him without an attorney present.
Isn't THAT the truth?
My first take on it was that prosecutors wanted to keep the accounts separate until they get all the physical evidence, and don't want either party to be able to alter their account to come into compliance with the others.
Say that the victim says "it happened like this" and the accused gets the information and is careful to alter his statements so that the interpretation of the physical evidence can fit his with some wiggle room.
I hope that is clear. A first principle of interrogation is to separate individuals so they cannot compare stories.
Please add me to the ping list.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.