“Fifty-three files. They invaded his most sacred communications. They took his letters to his brother. They took his letters to his lawyer which is the most sacred privileged communication we sanction in this country, and they read them to you.
“Raymond Martray showed up in 1981 and said every time Smith had conversations pertaining to the murder, they were in the grandstands of the prison. The first time Smith told Martray, ‘I took care of her.’ The second and third times Martray was told, ‘I killed the fucking bitch.’
“They had problems with Raymond. Big problems. They turned him over to the FBI. Constant attempts were made to pin down Martray concerning specific statements made to him by Smith concerning the Reinert killing, and Martray became more and more general rather than specific in his answers.
“You heard those tapes yourselves. Jay Smith talked to you, ladies and gentlemen, and you learned what he knew and didn’t know about the death of Susan Reinert.
“I was worried about the fact that the crime was a savage one. Everybody gets angry, and it was an ugly crime, but my concern was never over the evidence against Jay Smith because there isn’t any. Once you get rid of Martray that leaves them back where they were in 1980. With this new comb. What’s that prove? Nothing.
“There wasn’t a trace linking her body to anyone. It was professionally done. We’ve got the pin and the car of Jay, wiped clean. We’ve got everything that Bradfield said before and after. But use your common sense. William Sidney Bradfield is the biggest liar that ever walked the face of this earth. The comb was clean. The pin was clean. The fibers and hair mean nothing.
“Ladies and gentlemen, you have the power to render the only appropriate verdict in this case based on the evidence we’ve all heard. And this is that Jay Smith is not guilty. It’s in your hands. Thank you.”
When Costopoulos got back to the defense table, he whispered to Jay Smith, “How’d I do, teach?”
Jay Smith said, “The semesters not over yet.”
In the afternoon session it was the turn of the prosecutor. Guida rose and said, “Thank you, Your Honor. Ladies and gentlemen, seven years ago, on a very cold summer morning, Trooper John Holtz left his bed and went to the Host Inn parking lot. Since that time, the most massive police effort in the history of Pennsylvania has been continuing to try to solve the Reinert murder case.
“Four and a half years ago I joined the office of the attorney general. My first assignment was this matter. Today it’s over. Today, all of the effort expended by the prosecutor, by the defense, by the FBI, all comes down to you.
“In this case, the law is not complex. Mister Costopoulos said in his opening argument, and I agree with him, that this is a case of murder in the first degree, or it is nothing. The commonwealth is alleging that this defendant cold-bloodedly and brutally killed a woman and her two small children. Why? We’ll talk about motive in a while.
“In this case the commonwealth has presented two types of evidence: direct and circumstantial. Direct evidence is someone coming into the courtroom and saying the defendant confessed to him. In this case we have a man by the name of Raymond Martray who says that.
“The rest of the commonwealths case is what is called circumstantial evidence, a group of facts, none of which in and of themselves is sufficient to prove the defendant guilty.
“Lets wrap up the defense case. During the first day of the case a retired trooper took the stand. He’s worked for the defendants private investigator. On cross-examination he suddenly talks about her feet, about some grains of sand. Mister Costopoulos said it was like pulling teeth getting him to say it. It was more like pulling out dentures. A big smile came over his face. He said that gritty particles could have been sand.
“You found out that early in the investigation when the state police were exploring the possibility that Mrs. Reinert might have been to the shore, they called him to a meeting to determine that, and what did he say? Nothing. It’s a sad commentary on what was a decent career with the state police. What value did his testimony have for the defense? Zero. Nothing. As a matter of fact, it might tell you something else.
“We came to hair and fibers. They brought their experts in, men who were paid to attend this hearing. It was said that the hair found on the floor of Jay Smith’s basement was four and a half inches long and Susan Reinert’s hair was seven inches long. It probably was Jay Smith’s hair, he said.
“On cross-examination, what did I say? How long are the samples? He didn’t want to answer that question. He wanted to say that her hairbrush had seven-inch hairs in it. I said, how long were the samples? He said four and a half inches long.
“The defense switched tacks and we went to a receipt from the grocery store turned over by Sue Myers with many other things. This receipt happened to be stamped June twenty-third, 1979. Well, we can’t explain it to you. Is it possible that Bradfield would have given access to his apartment to the person that he was using to murder Susan Reinert?
“If Sue Myers had murdered Susan Reinert with William Bradfield, and had an alibi at the shore, would she be so stupid as to hand that receipt to the state police? Back to common sense.
“There’s Vincent Valaitis. Never given immunity. Vince was there with these people all weekend. I think he was, as he appeared here to you, somewhat insecure. He needed a friend. Bradfield provided it and used him.
“There were more than three victims. There’s Sue Myers. Sixteen years with the same man she loved. He’s with Reinert, with Rachel, with Shelly. She didn’t want to believe that she’d invested sixteen years of her life. She was obedient. She was weak. If anything, you can say to these people that they certainly look foolish. But I’m asking you, did Vincent Valaitis and Sue Myers appear to be the kind of persons who would murder a child?
“Christopher Pappas was cut from the same cloth as Vincent Valaitis. He needed a friend. Shelly was nineteen years old. She made a commitment that will haunt her for the rest of her life. But was she a murderess? Could she have cut up two children?
“Well, let’s talk about Rachel. She’s the only person that is unaccounted for on that weekend. The commonwealth isn’t saying that Rachel isn’t involved. We never said there were only two. What we said to you is that we could only prove two.
“The evidence against Rachel is that her whereabouts are unknown for that weekend, and that’s it. With that kind of evidence, there can’t be another chair at this table. We have to work on the evidence that we have. It’s very possible that somebody followed the defendant to Harrisburg and helped him get back home. And it’s possible that William Bradfield would want this person there because there was a lot of money at stake. That’s possible.
“In some degree, the commonwealths strength is in its subtlety. Do you think that Sue Myers, Vince Valaitis and Chris Pappas would plant a pin under Jay Smiths car seat and then anticipate that Beth Ann Brook would remember that Karen had it on that night? It’s something that an adult throws away. Why didn’t they just take Karen’s finger after she was dead and roll it on there? What we have here isn’t a normal murder case.
“We didn’t introduce William Bradfields statement to his friends to show the truth of the matters. This case involves a conspiracy within a conspiracy, a conspiracy with two separate motives. Bradfield knows he’s going to be a suspect so before she’s murdered he starts covering himself. He starts saying that Jay C. Smith might do it.
“Those friends are going to come, he believes, and support him by saying Bill was worried. Bill wanted to help her. Bill was a great guy. He didn’t want the insurance.