“Well, he wanted the money. And he didn’t want to give any of it to the defendant. He wanted to keep it himself. Keep in mind that the circumstance of how that body was found show that the co-conspirator knew the money was coming, and did it so Bradfield could get the money. And what can you infer from that? He was going to get something.
“But Bradfield doesn’t want to give it to him. Bradfield knows he’s a suspect, so Bradfield covers himself, but interestingly, very interestingly. In the Susan Reinert vehicle amongst McDonald’s happy meal boxes, children’s raincoats, umbrellas. In a messy car, very child oriented, what do we find? A dildo. And what does Bradfield say. Suddenly in New Mexico he said that Smith didn’t do it. A kinky guy named Alex killed her.
“Why would Bradfield suddenly change his story? He didn’t continue to say Smith did it. He was scared because those two kids were dead and he realized the newspapers wouldn’t let him go, and now he had to back off. So suddenly Smith didn’t do it.
“Raymond Martray told you that the defendant said ‘I killed the bitch’ on two occasions. That in and of itself is sufficient to convict the defendant if you believe it. The defense suggested that because Martray saw this was a big case he was going to come into this courtroom and perjure himself. What did Martray get? Nothing. Martray served his time. He got out on schedule. What did the commonwealth do?
“Charles Montione. April, 1983, Bradfields arrested. Smith says, ‘We’re going to escape.’ Does an innocent man who’s being investigated by the police want to kill police officers who are looking into the facts? Are those the actions of an innocent man?
“Then we move to Mister Smith’s alibi. Mister Costopoulos said that if any of you were asked to recall where you were on a certain day you’d have difficulty. But keep in mind that Susan Reinert worked for the defendant. She was found in Harrisburg on the same day that he’s to be sentenced, and he’s late for sentencing. Now, wouldn’t you think that a person in that situation would think that somebody might conclude that he was involved? And look back and say, “Well, I was with so and so?’
“What did Grace Gilmore tell you about the Saturday? ‘I went to the shore with my sister. I was there all day Friday. I was there all day Saturday. I came back late Sunday afternoon. I heard a noise downstairs and then I heard his car drive away.’ Are we going to believe Grace Gilmore who never was in the lower level of Smith’s house? Or are you going to believe what he wrote down? Does an innocent man fake his alibi?
“We know where this man was on August twenty-seventh, 1977, but what does Bill Bradfield do? He takes the witness stand and says, ‘Nope, he was with me at the shore. Jay Smith couldn’t have done that Sears theft.’ Why? I summit to you the why is the quid pro quo, the first quid pro quo for this murder.
“We were interested in the note that the defense has described as a nice note to his wife when she was sick. We were interested in this note for two reasons. One, ‘Clean up the Capri. Thoroughly.’ Two, ‘Get rid of the rug.’ He says, ‘When you get better, get up off your deathbed and throw away that rug.’
“So we asked the defendant to provide us with a handwriting exemplar. This innocuous note means nothing. He sees it. What does he do? You have the exemplar that Jay Smith gave to us for comparison. Do you need to be a handwriting expert to tell that he faked it? It doesn’t look anything like his writing. Are these the actions of an innocent man? If they are not, another pebble on the pile. On the other side of that scale only the presumption of innocence.
“On the tape of September eighth from Smith to Martray, he stated: ‘Now where are the two kids’ bodies? See, he’s gotta show all that stuff and he can’t. The only way they can get me is if he gets on the stand and says Smith did it. Do you see the advantage in not telling your partner where you put the bodies?’
“The only person in the world who can speak with confidence and know for sure that William Bradfield couldn’t walk in here and tell us where the bodies are, the only person that knows, is his partner. That’s more like a rock than a pebble.
“Now we come to Jay Smith’s car. Our last pebble. In this innocuous letter where Jay Smith had to fake a handwriting exemplar, it says, ‘Clean out the Capri. Thoroughly.’ Underlined twice. Well, we learned that on June twenty-second, 1979, Karen Reinert and her brother Michael were collecting hailstones. Karen was dressed in a scoop-neck blouse and a pair of shorts. She wore a green pin. Nothing special to an adult.
“Karen was an eleven-year-old girl. It was more like an emerald to her. It wasn’t something insignificant. It was something she prized. And on that night Karen Reinert got into the car of her mother and drove away. Into oblivion.
“There’s an old children’s story about children walking through the woods. They leave things behind on the ground so they can find their way back home. Karen Reinert on the night of June twenty-second, 1979, knew she wasn’t coming back. Either that or the force that looks after little children left something for us. Not so Karen could find her way back home, but to tell us where she went and who sent her there. The last pebble is in.
“When I stop talking, the criminal investigation into the murders of Susan Reinert and her two children will have ended. I’m asking you now to do the right thing and I think you know what that is. Thank you.”
That afternoon the judge charged the jury as to the law and their duties. As to the jury not having heard the defendant speak, he said, “Now I want to say a word about the failure to testify because that very often is on the minds of a juror. This is what the law states and I emphasize it to you. It is entirely up to a defendant in every criminal trial whether or not to testify. He has an absolute right founded on the Constitution to remain silent. You must not draw any inference of guilt from the fact that the defendant did not testify, and so I leave that with you.”
At 6 P.M. when the jury was being fed dinner, Rick Guida and the prosecution team were at Catalano’s bar. Rick Guida, after a few drinks, was telling everyone that they’d done their best but he had very very bad feelings about this juror, or that one, or another one.
Jack Holtz said, “I’m not putting myself through this craziness,” and went home to his son.
28
The jury reached a verdict the next morning, April 30, 1986. Reporters and spectators reassembled in the courtroom at 10:48 A.M.
The heavy security was still present. Burly men in plains-clothes sat next to Jay Smith at the counsel table, and there were more in the rear of the courtroom, and one in the reporters’ box scanning the spectators.
Pete and Dorothy Hunsberger had spent the night in Harrisburg and were present in the second row. Mrs. Hunsberger’s hands were gripping each other so hard they were dead white. The Hunsbergers had tracked Jay Smith longer than anyone. They looked as though they were praying.
After all that had gone into the Reinert murder investigation, it seemed somehow that this was just another interlude. For Jack Holtz and Lou DeSantis it didn’t seem possible that they were hearing for the last time in this case the court clerk calling all to rise in the historic way:
“Oyez, oyez, oyez, all those having anything to do this day before the Honorable William W. Lipsitt draw near and they shall be heard. God save the commonwealth and this honorable court.”
Two jurors had their arms folded. A bad sign for the defense. Bill Costopoulos slid down in his chair. He rested his head on the back. He knew something.