GUILTY Canada - Renee Sweeney, 23, murdered, Sudbury, Ont, 27 Jan 1998 *arrest in 2018*

New Posts

Is anyone aware of United Empire Loyalist descendants who settled in the Sudbury area?
Coincidentally, two families with "extensive information on each family tree", and with the Wright surname among their descendants, are United Empire Loyalists by the names of Secord and McAllister. Secord is a familiar name to most Canadians.
 
www.timminstoday.com

Officer who made Wright’s 2018 arrest takes the stand

GSPS Sergeant Robert Weston details the ongoing nature of the Renée Sweeney murder investigation, the largest in the police service’s history, and what led to Robert Steven Wright’s arrest
www.timminstoday.com www.timminstoday.com
Jenny Lamothe
35 minutes ago

''Weston testified the Sweeney murder is the largest police investigation in Sudbury’s history. He said that in the years since the crime, police had received and followed up on in excess of 2,000 tips, and had eliminated 1,800 people as suspects, either through DNA recovered from under Sweeney’s fingernails or other means (he did not specify).

“There are 100 bankers boxes of paper documents on this case,” he said.

Weston testified that he was on holidays, drinking coffee in the summer of 2016 when he heard of a company called Parabon Nanolabs.

Using DNA collected at the murder scene, the company offered to create, for free, a composite image with its Snapshot DNA Phenotyping Service. Snapshot is billed as the first software application in the world that can predict the appearance and ancestry of someone based solely on DNA samples.

In Sept. 2018, Parabon compiled a report for GSPS that detailed ancestral testing they had done with the DNA sample. The report comes back with two last names that have ancestral ties to this DNA, Weston testified; those names are ‘Secord’ and ‘McAllister’.

They were not related, Weston testified, but had a common descendant. Weston testified his job, as he saw it, was to find the descendent link. ''


''When Parsons finished his questioning, co-defense attorney Bryan Badali said the defence had no questions for the witness. Defence co-counsel Lacy then asked for a voir dire in relation to Weston’s testimony. The jury was then excused. As explained earlier, a publication ban prevents the media from reporting on the substance of a voir dire, so Sudbury.com can’t get into the reasons Lacy asked for one. ''
 
dotr said:
''When Parsons finished his questioning, co-defense attorney Bryan Badali said the defence had no questions for the witness. Defence co-counsel Lacy then asked for a voir dire in relation to Weston’s testimony. The jury was then excused. As explained earlier, a publication ban prevents the media from reporting on the substance of a voir dire, so Sudbury.com can’t get into the reasons Lacy asked for one. ''
Click to expand...
This is intriguing. On a matter of such importance, one would think there would be cross-examination. It was then followed up with the judge's explanation that jurors don't have to accept the substance of the testimony, but it serves to explain the process. Very curious indeed.
 
I have done some further digging about the Secord family genealogy. It appears the the most famous Secord, Laura Ingersoll, does not have the Wright surname among her descendants. There are other Secord family members who do.

The Niagara Settlers - Ontario Pioneers "Sage to Servos"

Below are the biographical summaries for some of Ontario’s earliest pioneer settlers. Order their full story and genealogy for just $12.95 by clicking the tab to the right of the listing and it will be sent to you by email within 24 hours.
sites.google.com sites.google.com

en.wikipedia.org

Laura Secord - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org
 
Noting that the two reports posted here today differ in how many suspects were eliminated over the years by DNA and other means: is it 1600 or 1800? Not sure.

Either way, the case was moved forward by a new investigator who brought Parabon onboard, combined with a review of cold cases. This investigator did not know Renee, but did remember her murder and the impact on the community at the time. Without his dedication, in spite of it creating extra work reviewing 100 boxes of case materials, would this case be in court now?
 
Sam Juric · CBC News · Posted: Mar 09, 2023 2:31 PM EST
''Tara Brutzki, with the Centre of Forensic Sciences in Sault Ste. Marie took the stand.

Brutzki told the court she was approached to conduct the review in May 2013.

Over the years, since 23-year-old Sweeney was murdered, Brutzki said DNA technology has made several advancements enabling forensic scientists to make comparisons using smaller samples of DNA, as well as, allowing them to test more complex mixtures of DNA.''


''Brutzki told the jury she was asked to re-examine items submitted by Sudbury police from when Sweeney was murdered. The items included a blood-soaked cotton gardening glove, Sweeney's nail clippings and the teal jacket found in a bush area near the intersection of Paris Street and Walford Road.''

Brutzki said from there, she had to figure out whether Profile 4 could be the biological father of the sources of Profile 2 and Profile 3. Using a discarded sample from Robert Wright Sr.,the results found that he couldn't be excluded as the biological father of either Profile 2 or Profile 3, assuming that Wendy Wright was the biological mother. Ultimately, CFS found that Robert Wright Sr. could not be excluded as Profile 4.

A November 2019 report released by CFS, Brutzki said, used blood samples taken from Steven Wright and also determined he could not be excluded as the source of DNA Profile 2. The probability that a random person unrelated to him would coincidentally share that DNA profile is estimated by CFS to be one in one trillion.

However, during opening arguments, the defence did not dispute that Steven Wright was in the video store on Jan. 27, 1998. They said he didn't kill Sweeney.''
 
Gina20 said:

Forensic scientist details how Steven Wright could not be excluded from DNA samples from evidence​

Click to expand...

dotr said:
Sam Juric · CBC News · Posted: Mar 09, 2023 2:31 PM EST
''Tara Brutzki, with the Centre of Forensic Sciences in Sault Ste. Marie took the stand.

Brutzki told the court she was approached to conduct the review in May 2013.

Over the years, since 23-year-old Sweeney was murdered, Brutzki said DNA technology has made several advancements enabling forensic scientists to make comparisons using smaller samples of DNA, as well as, allowing them to test more complex mixtures of DNA.''


''Brutzki told the jury she was asked to re-examine items submitted by Sudbury police from when Sweeney was murdered. The items included a blood-soaked cotton gardening glove, Sweeney's nail clippings and the teal jacket found in a bush area near the intersection of Paris Street and Walford Road.''

Brutzki said from there, she had to figure out whether Profile 4 could be the biological father of the sources of Profile 2 and Profile 3. Using a discarded sample from Robert Wright Sr.,the results found that he couldn't be excluded as the biological father of either Profile 2 or Profile 3, assuming that Wendy Wright was the biological mother. Ultimately, CFS found that Robert Wright Sr. could not be excluded as Profile 4.

A November 2019 report released by CFS, Brutzki said, used blood samples taken from Steven Wright and also determined he could not be excluded as the source of DNA Profile 2. The probability that a random person unrelated to him would coincidentally share that DNA profile is estimated by CFS to be one in one trillion.

However, during opening arguments, the defence did not dispute that Steven Wright was in the video store on Jan. 27, 1998. They said he didn't kill Sweeney.''
Click to expand...
In short, four DNA samples were found on the jacket. One belonged to Renee. Further testing during a case review, using discarded DNA, could not exclude three men in Steven Wright's family household: himself, his brother and his father.

Yet the distinctive jacket, sold in Mervyn's stores in California, was not reported missing to police, as far as we know. Photos were widely distributed by police after the murder.

The case review began in 2013.
 
Last edited:
Gina20 said:
This is intriguing. On a matter of such importance, one would think there would be cross-examination. It was then followed up with the judge's explanation that jurors don't have to accept the substance of the testimony, but it serves to explain the process. Very curious indeed.
Click to expand...
I think there was no cross because they're conceding it was Wright's DNA.

The process was fascinating (and apparently full of hearsay lol), but doesn't really go to the truth of the matter because that comes in the actual DNA testing of the items and the suspect.
 
It will interesting to hear how the defence explains away the missing jacket with three family members' DNA on it. "I was in the store." Surely someone should have stepped forward in the (checks watch) 20 years before the arrest to mention that they knew who the infamous bloody jacket belonged to, and how there was a perfectly good reason for it being abandoned in a field behind the murder scene. Surely two decades of seeing it on the news would have stirred up some memories. I guess I'm just a little slow, because I don't get it.
 
It seems like so far the prosecution's case is entirely based on the DNA? Seems to me like they should probably provide at least a overview of how and/or why he might have been in that video store in 1998.
 
Gina20 said:
It will interesting to hear how the defence explains away the missing jacket with three family members' DNA on it. "I was in the store." Surely someone should have stepped forward in the (checks watch) 20 years before the arrest to mention that they knew who the infamous bloody jacket belonged to, and how there was a perfectly good reason for it being abandoned in a field behind the murder scene. Surely two decades of seeing it on the news would have stirred up some memories. I guess I'm just a little slow, because I don't get it.
Click to expand...
I guess anything is possible and Wright could surprise us, but it's hard to imagine from here how he's going to explain anything credibly.

The family members' DNA on the jacket is harder to parse for me. Tests are so senstive now that they could easily pick up trace stuff from the environment just from Wright (the murdery one) wearing the jacket and sitting in a chair once that other family members used. It's hard to remember now how distinctive that jacket was at the time. Would you have definitely identified that jacket as one that was your brother's or son's? Now it just looks like the 90s to me, regardless of the fact that its origin was actually unique to one chain of stores in one state.

What was definitely weird about that jacket was that he was wearing it at all. That is not a winter jacket, and Sudbury is a winter city. In the end I can see it both ways: the family knew or suspected and covered, or at least didn't ask any uncomfortable questions, or the jacket was relatively random and borrowed or bought at Value Village or pulled out of the bottom of a closet or something, and deliberately used so he didn't have to wear his real coat to a robbery.
 
evilwise said:
It seems like so far the prosecution's case is entirely based on the DNA? Seems to me like they should probably provide at least a overview of how and/or why he might have been in that video store in 1998.
Click to expand...
He's acknowledging being in the store, so I don't think it's an issue. I'm sure they'll argue a robbery motive.
 
Last edited:
JuneBug67 said:
He's acknowledging being in the store, so I don't think it's an issue. I'm sure they'll argue a robbey motive.
Click to expand...
It's all so strange. If he bought a used jacket expressly for the purpose of going to the store to rob Renee, then the charge should not have been downgraded to second-degree murder. A murder committed during a robbery should be first-degree murder. A planned murder should be first-degree murder. His charge was reduced to second-degree murder, and there has never been a robbery/theft charge, to my knowledge.

The jacket came into contact with his family's DNA in some way, so this was not likely a spur-of-the moment second-hand purchase on the morning of the murder. It's more likely IMO that this jacket had been inside the family home, or in a family vehicle. Also, a used piece of clothing likely would have had other people's DNA on it -- the clerk, the person who donated or resold it, other customers who tried it on. No: just the family and Renee. We've never heard that it was Renee's jacket, stolen from the store, and if it was, how did the family's DNA get there?

The jacket was all over the news from the beginning. It's hard to believe that a clerk in a used clothing store wouldn't recognize it, or him, from the composite sketches.

I still wonder how this particular case came under review in 2013 by the centre for Forensic Sciences. There are so many other unresolved cases from the intervening years. What triggered a review of this one? New DNA information that we haven't heard about yet?
 
Another thought: how could a jacket from a home with four people contain the DNA of only three of them? Is it possible that this jacket was not kept in the home? For example, maybe the jacket was kept in a vehicle trunk or a locker, and pulled out during activities with the three of them, like golfing. Could a locker key have been pinned inside? My mind went to more nefarious uses for the safety pin, but it could be just that.
 

Forensic scientist details how Steven Wright could not be excluded from DNA samples from evidence​



On Thursday afternoon, the court heard from Sgt. Jeffrey Myatt, a forensic identification officer who was asked by Sudbury police to review the fingerprints and footwear impressions left behind when Sweeney was murdered.

Myatt told the court that he analyzed the fingerprints left at the video store, to see if they were suitable for comparison with a set of five "exemplar" fingerprints. Myatt said the identities of the people the exemplar prints belonged to were not disclosed to him when he analyzed them.

Cash tray fingerprints​

After analyzing them, Myatt said it was his opinion that both fingerprints found on the cash tray were a match with exemplar prints, which belonged to Steven Wright.
 
northernontario.ctvnews.ca

Jury hears how crime scene DNA, fingerprints were linked to Sweeney murder suspect

Jurors at the trial of Robert Steven Wright spent Thursday listening to DNA and fingerprint experts explain how they helped link Wright to the crime scene.
northernontario.ctvnews.ca northernontario.ctvnews.ca
rbbm.

''DNA analysis can be used to create a genetic profile, Brutzki said, that comes out as a series of peaks on a graph. Modern techniques have evolved to the point that 15 unique points of a DNA profile can be identified, compared to just four in 1998 when the murder took place.

Brutzki said a cold case review of the Sweeney murder began in 2014, using the more advanced techniques.

She said her analysis determined that blood found on the teal jacket and white garden gloves almost certainly belonged to Sweeney – there was only a one in one quintillion chance that it belonged to another random person.

The jacket and gloves were found near the crime scene soon after Sweeney was killed.

Brutzki testified she also examined DNA taken from other areas of the jacket and gloves not stained with blood, including the inside of the pocket of the jacket and from inside the gloves.

Those tests uncovered DNA from three men and analysis showed a strong possibility it came from Wright, his brother and his father.''
 
Gina20 said:
It's all so strange. If he bought a used jacket expressly for the purpose of going to the store to rob Renee, then the charge should not have been downgraded to second-degree murder. A murder committed during a robbery should be first-degree murder. A planned murder should be first-degree murder. His charge was reduced to second-degree murder, and there has never been a robbery/theft charge, to my knowledge.

The jacket came into contact with his family's DNA in some way, so this was not likely a spur-of-the moment second-hand purchase on the morning of the murder. It's more likely IMO that this jacket had been inside the family home, or in a family vehicle. Also, a used piece of clothing likely would have had other people's DNA on it -- the clerk, the person who donated or resold it, other customers who tried it on. No: just the family and Renee. We've never heard that it was Renee's jacket, stolen from the store, and if it was, how did the family's DNA get there?

The jacket was all over the news from the beginning. It's hard to believe that a clerk in a used clothing store wouldn't recognize it, or him, from the composite sketches.

I still wonder how this particular case came under review in 2013 by the centre for Forensic Sciences. There are so many other unresolved cases from the intervening years. What triggered a review of this one? New DNA information that we haven't heard about yet?
Click to expand...

You would think so, but in Canada robbery is not actually one of the circumstances that elevates murder to 1st degree. It feels like it should be, but it's not.

The fact that he's admitting to all or much of his connection to the physcial evidence likely serves to take potential heat off his family with regard to the coat. I don't think he had any choice but to admit those elements, but it's a nice side effect. I'm sure the police investigated that jacket to death though, and may have tried to trace its history after his arrest anyway. It will be interesting to see if we hear more.
 
evilwise said:
It seems like so far the prosecution's case is entirely based on the DNA? Seems to me like they should probably provide at least a overview of how and/or why he might have been in that video store in 1998.
Click to expand...

I understand that SW is going to testify in his own defence.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Members online

... and 103 more.
Total: 5,791 (members: 104, guests: 5,687)

Online statistics

Members online
104
Guests online
5,687
Total visitors
5,791
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
623,672
Messages
18,471,213
Members
240,484
Latest member
NyanM
Back
Top