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

New Posts

  • #301
musicaljoke said:
Yes, I also think that the jacket and gardening gloves were part of the plan and not worn on the street. He certainly took them off before leaving the video store. I can't imagine how he got out of the high school and made it to the store in that gear without being remembered, so perhaps he didn't wear it to the store either.

I've wondered what went through the mind of the father who apparently owned the jacket. Did it not occur to him that his own teal jacket which was identical to the one in the posters, was suddenly missing from his closet? There is no way that he didn't see the posters.
Click to expand...
He said in court that the jacket was left hanging at the back door of the family home, and worn by him, his brother and father. It's hard to imagine how something that was always there suddenly went missing on the same day that an identical jacket was linked to a murder, and nobody in the home noticed. It's hard to understand how that jacket, with a diaper pin clipped to the inner left chest area, became infamous in posters around Sudbury, but nobody in the home noticed. What else didn't they notice?

It's also been said in news reports over the years that the jacket was sold only in Mervyn's stores in 1994-1995 in California, although I don't think this has been brought up in court. I suppose it's possible to forget a trip to Disneyland or whatever.
 
  • #302
Gina20 said:
He said in court that the jacket was left hanging at the back door of the family home, and worn by him, his brother and father. It's hard to imagine how something that was always there suddenly went missing on the same day that an identical jacket was linked to a murder, and nobody in the home noticed. It's hard to understand how that jacket, with a diaper pin clipped to the inner left chest area, became infamous in posters around Sudbury, but nobody in the home noticed. What else didn't they notice?

It's also been said in news reports over the years that the jacket was sold only in Mervyn's stores in 1994-1995 in California, although I don't think this has been brought up in court. I suppose it's possible to forget a trip to Disneyland or whatever.
Click to expand...
Agree. The most logical explanation, if it's an occasionally shared family jacket and not his usual winter coat, is that he wore it that day to go incognito -- either because he was embarrassed to be seen going to or being in the store, because he planned to steal something, or because he planned to do violence. I'm wondering if the Crown made more of how often he wore it, whether he wore it often in the winter, whether he wore it to school that day or got it from his locker, etc.

I also wonder about his history of buying adult material, which he admitted to here. A bit unusual for an 18 year old to have a history of buying that in stores but also to have not previously gone to the adult video store a few minutes walk from his school, unless the issue is being recognized, which might explain the odd wardrobe. In the same report from his testimony, he says he left his schoolbag in his locker -- weird if you plan to kill time at a store where you might buy something sensitive to take back to school before your bus ride. Also makes it more likely he was using his jacket as a bag to hoard the magazines, toys etc. I'm a bit surprised none of this came up in cross-examination.

Re: the earlier questions about his bail hearings, could it be related to his possession case? His then lawyer seemed to think so, anyway.
 
  • #303
zerotohero said:
Agree. The most logical explanation, if it's an occasionally shared family jacket and not his usual winter coat, is that he wore it that day to go incognito -- either because he was embarrassed to be seen going to or being in the store, because he planned to steal something, or because he planned to do violence. I'm wondering if the Crown made more of how often he wore it, whether he wore it often in the winter, whether he wore it to school that day or got it from his locker, etc.

I also wonder about his history of buying adult material, which he admitted to here. A bit unusual for an 18 year old to have a history of buying that in stores but also to have not previously gone to the adult video store a few minutes walk from his school, unless the issue is being recognized, which might explain the odd wardrobe. In the same report from his testimony, he says he left his schoolbag in his locker -- weird if you plan to kill time at a store where you might buy something sensitive to take back to school before your bus ride. Also makes it more likely he was using his jacket as a bag to hoard the magazines, toys etc. I'm a bit surprised none of this came up in cross-examination.

Re: the earlier questions about his bail hearings, could it be related to his possession case? His then lawyer seemed to think so, anyway.
Click to expand...
It sure would be interesting to know what was said in voir dire. It might explain why certain obvious-to-us lines of questioning were not pursued. We also don't know what was in the agreed statement of facts.

Somewhere in testimony it was stated that Adults Only Video had a membership card for video rentals. Would membership require photo ID and a credit card? The items missing from the store were cash, magazines and sex toys, not videotapes. No membership needed. Items were purchased that day in cash only?
 
  • #304
zerotohero said:
Agree. The most logical explanation, if it's an occasionally shared family jacket and not his usual winter coat, is that he wore it that day to go incognito -- either because he was embarrassed to be seen going to or being in the store, because he planned to steal something, or because he planned to do violence. I'm wondering if the Crown made more of how often he wore it, whether he wore it often in the winter, whether he wore it to school that day or got it from his locker, etc.

I also wonder about his history of buying adult material, which he admitted to here. A bit unusual for an 18 year old to have a history of buying that in stores but also to have not previously gone to the adult video store a few minutes walk from his school, unless the issue is being recognized, which might explain the odd wardrobe. In the same report from his testimony, he says he left his schoolbag in his locker -- weird if you plan to kill time at a store where you might buy something sensitive to take back to school before your bus ride. Also makes it more likely he was using his jacket as a bag to hoard the magazines, toys etc. I'm a bit surprised none of this came up in cross-examination.

Re: the earlier questions about his bail hearings, could it be related to his possession case? His then lawyer seemed to think so, anyway.
Click to expand...

I wonder if there was a requirement in the video store to leave backpacks at the cash. If so, then if he had been in the store before and knew this, he may have planned his trip to the video store without a backpack.
 
  • #305
  • #306
  • #307
zerotohero said:
Sigh. Judge also seems to be instructing them to only stay home if they have symptoms, rather than to vigilantly test, which feels backward unless you want the whole jury to get it.
Click to expand...
And they are talking about zooming the trial.
 
  • #308
  • #309
  • #310
  • #311
This feels like one of the most disorganized and unprepared murder trial in my memory. I hope that the jury heard more convincing evidence than we have read about.
 
  • #312
I find it incredibly distressing that shoddy, dishonest police work is the only reason for John Fetterly's name to be in this at all, and now facts about this completely random person may be grounds for reasonable doubt. John was no saint - and I have no idea where he is now or if he's even still alive - but I feel badly for him that his name is getting dragged through all this again.

As I mentioned previously he was an aquaintance from high school and I talked to him at a bar after his arrest and release. He told me at the time he had proved to police he wasn't even in town at the time of her murder, and all this testimony about him being in Mildmay and them searching an apartment there could be considered consistent with that. If John had communicated that accurately to me, it would have been useful to have been brought out in trial. Speculating on a few reasons it may not have been:

-was not completely unassailable
-possibly would have needed John to testify to it and he is not available or Crown doesn't want to risk him being a poor or distracting witness
-as mentioned, possibly not in the official record at all as it would have made police look worse if they hadn't even checked that prior to arrest
-Crown wants to keep it simple, and focused on Wright
-John had a twin brother, and who knows what the defense would have done with THAT!
 
Last edited:
  • #313
musicaljoke said:
This feels like one of the most disorganized and unprepared murder trial in my memory. I hope that the jury heard more convincing evidence than we have read about.
Click to expand...

I've been struck more than usual with the inconsistent pictures coming out via media. It's hard to tell right now WHAT impressions the jury has been getting. I think it's going to boil down to two things:

1. How credible Wright was on the stand
2. How effectively the Crown can focus the jury on how Wright's actions on that day were simply not consistent with innocence by almost any reasonable measure, despite all the noise about an alternate suspect.
 
  • #314
JuneBug67 said:
I've been struck more than usual with the inconsistent pictures coming out via media. It's hard to tell right now WHAT impressions the jury has been getting. I think it's going to boil down to two things:

1. How credible Wright was on the stand
2. How effectively the Crown can focus the jury on how Wright's actions on that day were simply not consistent with innocence by almost any reasonable measure, despite all the noise about an alternate suspect.
Click to expand...
The DNA under Renee's fingernails seems to be the crux of this case, but even that is not simple.
 
  • #315
JuneBug67 said:
I find it incredibly distressing that shoddy, dishonest police work is the only reason for John Fetterly's name to be in this at all, and now facts about this completely random person may be grounds for reasonable doubt. John was no saint - and I have no idea where he is now or if he's even still alive - but I feel badly for him that his name is getting dragged through all this again.

As I mentioned previously he was an aquaintance from high school and I talked to him at a bar after his arrest and release. He told me at the time he had proved to police he wasn't even in town at the time of her murder, and all this testimony about him being in Mildmay and them searching an apartment there could be considered consistent with that. If John had communicated that accurately to me, it would have been useful to have been brought out in trial. Speculating on a few reasons it may not have been:

-was not completely unassailable
-possibly would have needed John to testify to it and he is not available or Crown doesn't want to risk him being a poor or distracting witness
-as mentioned, possibly not in the official record at all as it would have made police look worse if they hadn't even checked that prior to arrest
-Crown wants to keep it simple, and focused on Wright
-John had a twin brother, and who knows what the defense would have done with THAT!
Click to expand...
What is sickening IMO is that aspersions are being cast on John Fetterly when he is not in court to defend himself. John Fetterly is not on trial; Robert Steven Wright is.

And yet, due to the way the court system works, we are not allowed to know anything about Robert Steven Wright's background and what he may or may not have done leading up to Renee's murder, because that might prejudice the jury. How is it then okay to prejudice the jury against John Fetterly, a man who is not on trial and cannot defend himself? I'd say something about sharks and chum, but that is a tired old trope.
 
  • #316
More on the agreed statement of facts, all about John Fetterly, read into evidence today. There's a lot.

www.elliotlaketoday.com

Wright trial expected to wrap up soon after defence rests case

Four agreed statements of fact were read into evidence Thursday; trial to resume with closing arguments Monday, with jury deliberation expected to start Tuesday
www.elliotlaketoday.com www.elliotlaketoday.com

We have the erroneous fingerprint identification, a statement from someone who has died, people who were owed money, etc. Also:

Fetterly’s name was also a part of testimony from Tara Brutzki, manager of the biology department at the Centre for Forensic Sciences. She testified on March 9 that she could exclude John Fetterly as the source of the DNA on Sweeney’s right fingernails.
 
Last edited:
  • #317
JuneBug67 said:
I find it incredibly distressing that shoddy, dishonest police work is the only reason for John Fetterly's name to be in this at all, and now facts about this completely random person may be grounds for reasonable doubt. John was no saint - and I have no idea where he is now or if he's even still alive - but I feel badly for him that his name is getting dragged through all this again.

As I mentioned previously he was an aquaintance from high school and I talked to him at a bar after his arrest and release. He told me at the time he had proved to police he wasn't even in town at the time of her murder, and all this testimony about him being in Mildmay and them searching an apartment there could be considered consistent with that. If John had communicated that accurately to me, it would have been useful to have been brought out in trial. Speculating on a few reasons it may not have been:

-was not completely unassailable
-possibly would have needed John to testify to it and he is not available or Crown doesn't want to risk him being a poor or distracting witness
-as mentioned, possibly not in the official record at all as it would have made police look worse if they hadn't even checked that prior to arrest
-Crown wants to keep it simple, and focused on Wright
-John had a twin brother, and who knows what the defense would have done with THAT!
Click to expand...
Wild that the defence hinges on an alternate suspect that's already been charged, and already dismissed by the police themselves in 1998. I feel like the Crown could have done a better job of exposing the shoddy police work his arrest was founded on, but I suspect you're right that they didn't want to risk the police looking even worse and make the evidence they did collect look even more suspect.

Sad too that the Crown's case is almost exclusively limited to the DNA evidence under (or around?) her fingernails; wouldn't they have anticipated he'd make an "I was there but I just found her" defence? If Wright hadn't testified in his defence, they wouldn't even have his strange behaviour fleeing the scene and discarding his parents' unseasonable jacket and gardening gloves to work with except as inference. I'm surprised they raised the theory that he cleaned up in the bathroom in cross, when they seemingly have nothing tying him there, only a mismatched shoe print.

Curious what the jury will make of the shoe print evidence, which is inconclusive. Accused testified he has never owned a Brooks shoe and is a different shoe size from the bloodied print found on the bathroom floor and on a videotape -- not sure if that's agreed upon but I guess so. But the defence's own alternate suspect was wearing Cooper running shoes (dunno the brand) when arrested, and the neighbour in the agreed statement of facts raised by the defence saw him only in white running shoes (the ones in the video store were mostly black with white trim). It also doesn't seem like police did a good job checking the store, and particularly the bathroom, for prints, to the point where I wouldn't be surprised if the male witness who saw Wright in the store was the source of the Brooks shoe print.

If the Crown case wasn't so flimsy to begin with, I'd say the defence was pretty rocky. Their witness who helped identify the alternate suspect in the first place didn't sound very credible, admitting he couldn't remember the time he saw the man at the store, admitting the person he picked out of the photo lineup didn't really resemble the person he saw, and seemingly contacting police thereafter to recommend they "look into" others, like he thought of himself as law enforcement. (I believe he later went into security work.) All he's really attested to is that someone else entered the store at some point in the hour before her death, which is already evident from the purchase the victim spoke of.
 
Last edited:
  • #318
I can't recall if this article was linked to this thread, but it is worth reading:

northernontario.ctvnews.ca

Man accused of lying about seeing Sudbury murder suspect insists he was always telling the truth

The defence was on the offensive again Wednesday in Sudbury at the second-degree murder trial of Robert Steven Wright.
northernontario.ctvnews.ca northernontario.ctvnews.ca

Nobody asked, but here are some "brief" thoughts (yes, I've said that before) about the prosecutors' closing arguments:

John Fetterly was charged with the murder of Renee Sweeney, but the charges were dropped. He received an apology from police. He is older than the accused and did not wear glasses. No witness saw him fleeing from the crime scene. He is not on trial.

A man claimed to have seen JF going into the video store prior to Renee's murder, but wearing different clothes than the ones identified by other witnesses and found later near the crime scene.

Another man was eventually charged with Renee's murder. That man is Robert Steven Wright. Wright has testified that he was at the scene of the crime, wearing the clothing identified by eyewitnesses and the bloody jacket discarded nearby. He claims to have spent quite some time afterwards walking around in winter weather with no coat.

JF did not leave his fingerprints at the crime scene. His DNA was not found under Renee's fingernails. How could someone commit a vicious stabbing, leaving no fingerprints, no footprints and no DNA? His usual shoes did not match the footprints at the scene of the crime.

The bloody jacket found nearby belonged to SW.
The DNA found under Renee's fingernails belonged to SW. He claims it got there from his attempt to check Renee's pulse, like he was taught in Scouting.

Is this plausible? The Scout motto is "be prepared", not "be prepared to run away and hide for 20 years".

Renee's sister Kim Sweeney entered a statement that Renee had taken training in kickboxing and would have fought her attacker. The DNA under her fingernails is SW's. It got there when she fought back against her attacker, Robert Steven Wright.
 
  • #319
  • #320
zerotohero said:
Wild that the defence hinges on an alternate suspect that's already been charged, and already dismissed by the police themselves in 1998. I feel like the Crown could have done a better job of exposing the shoddy police work his arrest was founded on, but I suspect you're right that they didn't want to risk the police looking even worse and make the evidence they did collect look even more suspect.

Sad too that the Crown's case is almost exclusively limited to the DNA evidence under (or around?) her fingernails; wouldn't they have anticipated he'd make an "I was there but I just found her" defence? If Wright hadn't testified in his defence, they wouldn't even have his strange behaviour fleeing the scene and discarding his parents' unseasonable jacket and gardening gloves to work with except as inference. I'm surprised they raised the theory that he cleaned up in the bathroom in cross, when they seemingly have nothing tying him there, only a mismatched shoe print.

Curious what the jury will make of the shoe print evidence, which is inconclusive. Accused testified he has never owned a Brooks shoe and is a different shoe size from the bloodied print found on the bathroom floor and on a videotape -- not sure if that's agreed upon but I guess so. But the defence's own alternate suspect was wearing Cooper running shoes (dunno the brand) when arrested, and the neighbour in the agreed statement of facts raised by the defence saw him only in white running shoes (the ones in the video store were mostly black with white trim). It also doesn't seem like police did a good job checking the store, and particularly the bathroom, for prints, to the point where I wouldn't be surprised if the male witness who saw Wright in the store was the source of the Brooks shoe print.

If the Crown case wasn't so flimsy to begin with, I'd say the defence was pretty rocky. Their witness who helped identify the alternate suspect in the first place didn't sound very credible, admitting he couldn't remember the time he saw the man at the store, admitting the person he picked out of the photo lineup didn't really resemble the person he saw, and seemingly contacting police thereafter to recommend they "look into" others, like he thought of himself as law enforcement. (I believe he later went into security work.) All he's really attested to is that someone else entered the store at some point in the hour before her death, which is already evident from the purchase the victim spoke of.
Click to expand...
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
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Staff online

Members online

... and 132 more.
Total: 1,089 (members: 133, guests: 956)

Online statistics

Members online
133
Guests online
956
Total visitors
1,089
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
632,391
Messages
18,625,727
Members
243,133
Latest member
nikkisanchez
Back
Top