Jesse Vang (Photo courtesy Manitowoc County Sheriff's Office)
MANITOWOC, WI (WTAQ-WLUK) – Police cadaver dogs investigating the death of Elijah Vue “hit” on locations at Jesse Vang’s apartment and car, but the defense says that evidence should not be allowed at trial.
Jesse Vang and Vue’s mother, Katrina Baur, face multiple charges for the 3-year-old’s February 2024 disappearance and subsequent death. Vang is charged with physical abuse of a child causing death and hiding a corpse, while Baur faces four charges, including chronic neglect of a child – consequence is death, and neglecting a child. No trial dates have been set.
Baur, who sent her son to stay with Vang – also has a deadline today to file motions, but nothing had been filed as this posting.
Vang’s attorney, Jeffrey Jensen, filed three motions Monday – two relating to the evidence, and one procedural.
Multiple cadaver dogs were used to inspect several locations. At Vang’s apartment, K9 Moxy gave indication of human remains in multiple locations. Other dogs indicated Vang’s vehicle as a location recently containing a dead body.
But Jensen argues that, normally, the dogs are used to find evidence – i.e. a body – but since nothing was found in the apartment, the state shouldn’t be allowed to use the dog’s ‘indication’ at the apartment.
Normally, cadaver dogs are used to locate human remains or a dead body. Thus, the “credibility” of the dog’s “indication” is dependent upon whether or not a dead body is actually found in the area where the dog indicated. Here, though, the state takes this one step further: to use cadaver dogs to offer “opinions” as to whether or not a dead body had recently been present in any given area. In a very real sense, then, the state in this case is offering the dogs’ opinions that a dead body had been in a 1997 Nissan Altima, and also in Vang’s apartment. Since the police did not actually find a dead body in the Altima, and they also did not find a dead body in Vang’s apartment, the dog’s non-verbal assertion (i.e. the trained “indication”) that a dead body had recently been present is merely an opinion by the dog, not a confirmed fact, such as where the dog indicates and a body is actually found.. The dog’s opinion, then, ought to be subject to all of the same truth-testing devices as is a person’s opinion testimony,” Jensen wrote. “Because the dog does not speak English, it is impossible for defense counsel to cross-examine him concerning the dog’s opinion that a dead body had recently been in the area searched. Counsel cannot flesh out, through cross-examination, exactly why the dog thinks a dead body had been present in the area searched, as opposed to the odor having drifted in from some other location. Counsel cannot clear up an ambiguity in the dog’s indication. And, further, the dog cannot be asked whether he “indicated” just because he wanted a treat. In sum, in the absence of cross-examination, it is impossible to test the truthfulness of the dog’s indication.
The other evidentiary evidence motion relates to sand and gravel found in the area where Vue’s body was found.
According to reports, this sand and gravel did not appear to be consistent with the geologic material in the immediate area. However, a bucket and barrels near Vang’s home contained a mixture of sand and gravel used to treat icy sidewalks and roads – which have some similarities to material found by Vue’s body.
Jensen questions the expert’s assessment and the findings, arguing they should not be allowed.
The evidence of the sand and gravel is probably relevant. That is, the fact that sand and gravel was found in the area of the skeletal remains is part of the panorama of evidence. Similarly, the fact that a bucket of similar-looking sand and gravel was found in a bucket near Vang’s house is also relevant. However, the jury can look at the evidence and form their own opinion as to what weight to give the evidence. It is unfair and unhelpful for the state to be allowed to present evidence that some “expert” has compared the materials and, to her, they seemed identical except for the lack of halite,” Jensen stated.
Citing the amount of pre-trial publicity, Jensen asks for a jury to be selected from outside Manitowoc County.
There is no reason to believe that, as time passes, the public interest and the level of media coverage will decrease. Rather, it appears that whenever there is any development in the case, significant or otherwise, the media reports on the development; and, in the process, recounts the history of the case to that point. Thus, once a trial date is set; as the trial date draws near, the intensity of the media coverage of the case will increase to the point of it becoming impossible to find twelve jurors in Manitowoc County who have not seen or heard dozens of articles concerning the case. As mentioned above, the media articles both recount the evidence the state purports to possess; and offer members of the public to post highly negative comments about Vang,” Jensen wrote.
He suggests either picking the jury in another county and holding the trial in Manitowoc, or just moving the entire trial elsewhere.
After the jury is picked, he asks for the panel to be sequestered during the trial.
Prosecutors have until April 20 to reply to the motions.
A motions hearing is scheduled for May 18 for the judge to hear arguments on these issues.
Prosecutors say Baur sent her son to live with Vang at his Two Rivers apartment for “disciplinary reasons.” Vang reported Vue missing on Feb. 20, 2024 and an Amber Alert was issued.
Months later, on Sept. 7, a man preparing his land for hunting season found human remains on private property near the entrance of Camp Manitou, a Girl Scout camp. Those remains were positively identified as Vue’s.
In June of 2025, prosecutors made a plea deal offer to Baur, however, the details of the proposal were not revealed.
Comments