MARINETTE, WI (WTAQ-WLUK) – In a key victory for the state, a judge ruled Friday prosecutors can use DNA evidence collected through a phony police survey in the case against Raymand Vannieuwenhoven for the 1976 murders of a couple at a county park.
Vannieuwenhoven, 83, is charged with two counts of first-degree murder for the deaths of David Schuldes, 25, and Ellen Matheys, 24. Trial is scheduled to start July 19.
The murders of Schuldes and Matheys were unsolved for more than four decades. In 2019, a DNA sample from evidence at the crime scene was determined to be from a particular family. After samples tested from Vannieuwenhoven’s brothers weren’t a match, a sample from him — obtained from a licked envelope for a survey on police performance filled out by Raymand — was a match, according to the complaint.
Defense attorney Lee Schuchart asked for the DNA sample to be thrown out, arguing Vannieuwenhoven’s Fourth Amendment rights were violated. He noted police didn’t have a warrant, and basically lied to him about the purpose of the survey and purpose of the envelope — making the entire ruse a violation of search and seizure rules.
But District Attorney DeShea Morrow noted there was no coercion, Vannieuwenhoven voluntarily cooperated with the deputy, and he lost any control after turning over the envelope.
In court Friday, Judge James Morrison said the evidence can be used.
“Every consent is a case-by-case analysis. I’ve got a very careful case-by-case analysis of the facts and circumstances in this case. And, for all for of the reasons set forth in the ruling that I have prepared, I am finding that there was consent, that the evidence was obtained appropriately. The motion to suppress is denied,” Morrison said.
Also Friday, Judge Morrison denied the prosecution’s motion to admit evidence from a 1957 incident in which Vannieuwenhoven was convicted of battery for attacking a woman. The incident fails the legal tests to be admissible as evidence of related prior bad acts, the judge said.
The defense asked for permission to introduce evidence that two other men could be responsible for the murder instead of Vannieuwenhoven. Judge Morrison denied the request for one possible suspect, but held open the question for another man, who was the park that day. Another hearing is set for April 8.
There are three prongs which have to be met to allow such evidence: motive, opportunity and evidence the other person committed the crime.
Vannieuwenhoven also allegedly sexually assaulted Matheys. DNA from evidence from the assault was eventually used to tie him to the crime scene. However, the sexual assault charge was dismissed because the statute of limitations has expired. There is no statute of limitation on homicide charges.
Comments