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

[Gina20]

I interpret it this way:

IMO, the DNA evidence under her fingernails, combined with his fingerprint on the cashbox, and her blood/his family DNA on the jacket and cotton gardening gloves discarded after obviously running away from the scene, makes it a slamdunk.

So much so, that the defense had no option but to admit that he was actually there, did actually wear the jacket, brought the absurd gardening gloves, etc.

IMO, a defense lawyer would never, ever, admit to that in a trial unless the proof against their client was unassailable.

They are paid to try to defend him, so they go through the motions of saying maybe it wasn't him who did the actual killing. They don't need to prove it, technically all they need to do is create doubt in the juries' minds.

But, IMO, reference to the existence and possibly un-niceness of a man who was briefly arrested, but who has been categorically cleared by LE, is not going to sway the jury. There is no actual evidence against him. It's transparently a last ditch effort by the defense to save their client from being found guilty.

IMO, jury will roll their eyes and say "Puleese, what kind of idiots do you think we are?"

If defense could give any convincing reason why Wright's DNA was under Renee's fingertips, why Wright's fingerprint was on the cashbox, why he got so much blood on his jacket but then ran away...maybe that would be considered by the jury. But instead, that part is all hum, ha, donno, shrug...he's cornered and they all know it.

JMO

I hope you are right about the jury. The human equation is unpredictable.

The crown prosecutors will need to be very clear in closing arguments. What was found: Robert Steven Wright's bloody jacket and gloves, discarded by him as he ran away from the murder scene. Witnesses described him with that clothing at the crime scene. DNA belonging to RSW was found under Renee Sweeney's fingernails. RSW's was fingerprint on the cash drawer, from which money went missing at the time of the murder.

John Fetterly's fingerprint was not found on the cash drawer. John Fetterly's DNA was not found under Renee's fingernails. John Fetterly did not match the description of the man at the crime scene when witnesses entered the store. His clothing was not discarded near the crime scene. He was older and did not wear glasses. His usual footwear was another color and did not match the footprint left at the crime scene.

The jury needs to understand that the evidence points to RSW.

 

[JuneBug67]

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/sudbury/ren%C3%A9e-sweeney-trial-closing-arguments-1.6788489

Summarizes the defense closing arguments. Also notes jury will be sequestered, so we might hear about some of the things covered under the publication ban soon.

 

[Gina20]

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/sudbury/ren%C3%A9e-sweeney-trial-closing-arguments-1.6788489

Summarizes the defense closing arguments. Also notes jury will be sequestered, so we might hear about some of the things covered under the publication ban soon.

Headline:

Wright's lawyers say Crown's case 'connects him to a crime scene. It does not connect him to a crime'

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/sudbury/ren%C3%A9e-sweeney-trial-closing-arguments-1.6788489

Defence:

He told the jurors that their job is "not choosing between" Wright and John Fetterly, who was charged with the murder for one day in February 1998 and who the defence has suggested the police did not properly look at as a suspect.

That's rich, considering the amount of time the defence lawyer spent suggesting that John Fetterly was the man responsible for Renee's murder. He then goes on to suggest that they should consider John Fetterly.

"But what about Fetterly? What about his disposition for violence? What about his fascination for knives? What about him lying about the last time he was in Sudbury?" Lacy told the court.

Perhaps he'll remind them that charges against John Fetterly were dropped and he received a police apology? Plus his DNA was not found at the crime scene, nor his clothing? Nah.

 

[JuneBug67]

Wright's lawyer is Toronto-based but this is at least his third high profile case in Sudbury. He got aquittals/dismissals in both past cases. Here is he talking about a Sudbury case a few years ago:

 

[JuneBug67]

"But what about Fetterly? What about his disposition for violence? What about his fascination for knives? What about him lying about the last time he was in Sudbury?"

There would be little purpose in lying about being in the city for a few days in December. How about a little slack for the mental freak out he must have been having being charged for a vicious murder he knew nothing about.

This case is a near perfect demonstration of how wrongful convictions can happen. A fleeting mistake led to Fetterly's arrest in the first place. He's essentially a random person as far as this case is concerned. But then we get:

-Fascination with knives!
-He has a mental health worker!
-His neighbour didn't see him in his apartment the moment the murder was committed!
-He lied!
-His ex-partner says he can be volatile!
-He stole magazines, just like the killer!
-He came into some money! (around the 1st of the month - almost certinaly welfare. Probably the same reason his bus trip half-back was around the same time )
-ID'd in a photo lineup! (set up and administered by police who already suspected him)

My god, once again, this poor guy.

 

[Gina20]

"But what about Fetterly? What about his disposition for violence? What about his fascination for knives? What about him lying about the last time he was in Sudbury?"

There would be little purpose in lying about being in the city for a few days in December. How about a little slack for the mental freak out he must have been having being charged for a vicious murder he knew nothing about.

This case is a near perfect demonstration of how wrongful convictions can happen. A fleeting mistake led to Fetterly's arrest in the first place. He's essentially a random person as far as this case is concerned. But then we get:

-Fascination with knives!
-He has a mental health worker!
-His neighbour didn't see him in his apartment the moment the murder was committed!
-He lied!
-His ex-partner says he can be volatile!
-He stole *advertiser censored* magazines, just like the killer!
-He came into some money! (around the 1st of the month - almost certinaly welfare. Probably the same reason his bus trip half-back was around the same time )
-ID'd in a photo lineup! (set up and administered by police who already suspected him)

My god, once again, this poor guy.

We also heard that he had been working on his income taxes. Perhaps he took it them to one of those tax preparation companies that pays tax refunds up front, albeit at a discounted rate.

The unspoken part? Isn't Renee's body considered a crime scene? There is DNA evidence connecting RSW to Renee's body, i.e. his DNA under her fingernails, which we've heard could only have gotten there with the use of some force.

There is also the matter of John Fetterly NOT being connected to the crime scene, not being connected to Renee's body -- not by fingerprints, not by DNA, not by bloody clothing left nearby, not by eyewitnesses who found a man near her dead body. So how could JF be involved?

 

[Gina20]

Fascination with knives!
-He has a mental health worker!
-His neighbour didn't see him in his apartment the moment the murder was committed!
-He lied!
-His ex-partner says he can be volatile!
-He stole *advertiser censored* magazines, just like the killer!
-He came into some money! (around the 1st of the month - almost certinaly welfare. Probably the same reason his bus trip half-back was around the same time )
-ID'd in a photo lineup! (set up and administered by police who already suspected him)
-

My god, once again, this poor guy.

Conversely, what are we allowed to know about Robert Steven Wright? Nothing. We are not allowed to know anything that would prejudice his character, such as:

Fascination with knives?
Did he have a history of mental health issues?
Past violence?
Did he have a juvenile criminal record?

Character is an important matter. It's a shame we can only know the character of a person not accused of this crime.

 

[Gina20]

Here's a more detailed summary of closing arguments today.

Here is why the defence says Wright should be found not guilty of 1998 Sudbury murder

Closing arguments are being heard at the Sudbury courthouse Monday in the trial for the man accused of killing Renee Sweeney in 1998 with the defence saying there is plenty of reasonable doubt to support an acquittal.

northernontario.ctvnews.ca

 

[dotr]

Here's a more detailed summary of closing arguments today.

Here is why the defence says Wright should be found not guilty of 1998 Sudbury murder

Closing arguments are being heard at the Sudbury courthouse Monday in the trial for the man accused of killing Renee Sweeney in 1998 with the defence saying there is plenty of reasonable doubt to support an acquittal.

northernontario.ctvnews.ca

Maybe i do not know teenage boys, but it seems very weird to me that any guy who is not a dirty old creep, goes to a 'horn' store, early in the day, by himself, imo.
It does not paint a picture for me of a poor, ''scared high school kid'.'

rbbm.
''The defence for Robert Steven Wright (RSW) – on trial for second-degree murder -- made its closing pitch to the jury Monday morning, painting the picture of a scared high school kid who fled the scene after coming across a dead body.''

 

[Gina20]

Maybe i do not know teenage boys, but it seems very weird to me that any guy who is not a dirty old creep, goes to a 'horn' store, early in the day, by himself, imo.
It does not paint a picture for me of a poor, ''scared high school kid'.'

rbbm.
''The defence for Robert Steven Wright (RSW) – on trial for second-degree murder -- made its closing pitch to the jury Monday morning, painting the picture of a scared high school kid who fled the scene after coming across a dead body.''

I cannot understand minutiae, like who would steal $.25 from the till after a murder? $178.25 was taken, but why the $.25, unless that happens to be the amount needed to make a call from a payphone at the mall. A teenager might not take any money to school, especially if the cafeteria was closed that day.

 

[JuneBug67]

The bit in the detailed closing argument about him not changing his appearance. Wasn't there a thing around the time of his arrest that he had claimed he lost or broke his glasses after January 1998 and that he got new ones? His school and grad pics both show round glasses, and neither of the composite sketches had round glasses.

 

[zerotohero]

Here's a more detailed summary of closing arguments today.

Here is why the defence says Wright should be found not guilty of 1998 Sudbury murder

Closing arguments are being heard at the Sudbury courthouse Monday in the trial for the man accused of killing Renee Sweeney in 1998 with the defence saying there is plenty of reasonable doubt to support an acquittal.

northernontario.ctvnews.ca

I'm a bit surprised the Defence didn't hammer home the detail they harped on earlier, that the majority of the accused's DNA was found in the "debris" in the jar that included her fingernails rather than under the fingernails themselves. Makes me think it was either over-reported on or the Defence realized it would be perceived as a meaningless distinction to the jury -- his DNA is under and around her fingernails, period.

Not a strong close for them, in my opinion, and they directly undermined the accused's own testimony by implying it doesn't make sense he would commit murder and then drop evidence while running away. Didn't he say on the stand that he dropped the evidence because he feared he'd be implicated in her murder? Why would he think that if it "doesn't make sense" to make that inference?

 

[Gina20]

I'm a bit surprised the Defence didn't hammer home the detail they harped on earlier, that the majority of the accused's DNA was found in the "debris" in the jar that included her fingernails rather than under the fingernails themselves. Makes me think it was either over-reported on or the Defence realized it would be perceived as a meaningless distinction to the jury -- his DNA is under and around her fingernails, period.

Not a strong close for them, in my opinion, and they directly undermined the accused's own testimony by implying it doesn't make sense he would commit murder and then drop evidence while running away. Didn't he say on the stand that he dropped the evidence because he feared he'd be implicated in her murder? Why would he think that if it "doesn't make sense" to make that inference?

There's a strange statement in the article that there were defensive wounds, but no indication Renee fought back. So she was defending herself but not fighting back? Illogical. In other cases I've read about, there weren't defensive wounds when the victim didn't fight back. Defending herself is fighting back, IMO.

There were defensive wounds, but no evidence that Sweeney was able to fight back.

 

[zerotohero]

There's a strange statement in the article that there were defensive wounds, but no indication Renee fought back. So she was defending herself but not fighting back? Illogical. In other cases I've read about, there weren't defensive wounds when the victim didn't fight back. Defending herself is fighting back, IMO.

There were defensive wounds, but no evidence that Sweeney was able to fight back.

Very strange, circuitous way of the Defence saying, "We have no photo evidence from 1998 of RSW with scratches on his face or body," and the people who saw him for a few seconds while fleeing that day didn't notice scratches. Why would there be existing evidence of him having wounds if he was not brought in for questioning or arrested for more than twenty years? Not exactly a strong argument. He's also a tall guy -- would not be unusual for him to not have a lot of visible defensive scratches on his face, imho.

 

[Gina20]

Questions in Sweeney case 'scream out reasonable doubt': Defence

Defence argues accused had no connection to Sweeney and no motive to kill her

thesudburystar.com

Somehow I think there was more to what the Crown said than this.

 

[Gina20]

Did I miss something? Did the defence call any witnesses to attest to the good character of RSW?

I do recall that they called witnesses to attest to the character of JF.

 

[Gina20]

Very strange, circuitous way of the Defence saying, "We have no photo evidence from 1998 of RSW with scratches on his face or body," and the people who saw him for a few seconds while fleeing that day didn't notice scratches. Why would there be existing evidence of him having wounds if he was not brought in for questioning or arrested for more than twenty years? Not exactly a strong argument. He's also a tall guy -- would not be unusual for him to not have a lot of visible defensive scratches on his face, imho.

Stab to carotid artery led to Renee Sweeney's death: Forensic pathologist

Sudbury woman would not have lived for more than a few minutes as she fought her killer, jury hears as murder trial continues.

www.thesudburystar.com

Renee had a defensive wound to the palm of her left hand. The tendons were severed. She fought back. She fought back hard. She was overpowered.

 

[musicaljoke]

Questions in Sweeney case 'scream out reasonable doubt': Defence

Defence argues accused had no connection to Sweeney and no motive to kill her

thesudburystar.com

Somehow I think there was more to what the Crown said than this.

Yeah, where is the Crown's closing remarks?

ETA, perhaps the press hasn't published them yet, since the Crown may still be presenting his arguments.

 

[musicaljoke]

The defence said that if Wright stole from the cash tray, that there would be prints on the springy things that hold the money in place, but, from the photos here, there are no springy things. And it sure looks like the person who murdered Renee is the same person who cleaned out the cash tray.

Here is why the defence says Wright should be found not guilty of 1998 Sudbury murder

Closing arguments are being heard at the Sudbury courthouse Monday in the trial for the man accused of killing Renee Sweeney in 1998 with the defence saying there is plenty of reasonable doubt to support an acquittal.

northernontario.ctvnews.ca

 

[JuneBug67]

The defence said that if Wright stole from the cash tray, that there would be prints on the springy things that hold the money in place, but, from the photos here, there are no springy things. And it sure looks like the person who murdered Renee is the same person who cleaned out the cash tray.

Here is why the defence says Wright should be found not guilty of 1998 Sudbury murder

Closing arguments are being heard at the Sudbury courthouse Monday in the trial for the man accused of killing Renee Sweeney in 1998 with the defence saying there is plenty of reasonable doubt to support an acquittal.

northernontario.ctvnews.ca

They're likely out of view, but do you even need to flip them up to pull the cash out? Could Renee have flipped them up in a move to signal cooperation at some point?