“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.
“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 fo
r 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 Dance
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.
Judge Lipsitt said, “Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. The court has been informed that the jury has reached a verdict. Would the foreperson hand the verdict forms to the clerk, please.”
The clerk took the forms from the woman selected and said, “In the case of The Commonwealth Versus Jay C. Smith, number 1677, the charge of murder, how do you find the defendant?”
“Guilty. Murder in the first degree,” she said.
“In the case of The Commonwealth Versus Jay C. Smith, number 1677a, the charge of murder, how do you find the defendant?”
“Guilty, murder in the first degree,” she said.
“In the case of The Commonwealth Versus Jay C. Smith, number 1677b, the charge of murder, how do you find the defendant?”
“Guilty, murder in the first degree,” she said.
Costopoulos requested a jury poll and the courtroom heard “Guilty, murder in the first degree” thirty-three more times. Jay Smith didn’t so much as twitch.
When they were finished, the clerk said, “Will you please rise. Hearken to your verdict as the court has it recorded. In The Commonwealth Versus Jay C. Smith, the charge of murder, you say guilty in the first degree. So say you all?”
“We do,” they said.
Pete Hunsberger touched his wife’s arm as each count was uttered. Pete and Dorothy Hunsberger heard two additional counts of murder that no one else heard.
The lawyers immediately had a conversation at the sidebar where Bill Costopoulos reminded Judge Lipsitt that Judge Garb had precluded the penalty phase from going to the jury in the case of William Bradfield. He asked the court to adopt the same position.
Guida argued that in the Bradfield case Judge Garb had reasoned that William Bradfield was not convicted of the actual killings, but was an accomplice. Nor had the prosecution proven to the judge’s satisfaction that he had contracted the murder. In this case, Guida argued, Jay Smith was the actual murderer.
Judge Lipsitt quickly denied the request of the defense and the penalty phase was ordered to begin.
“Members of the jury,” the judge said, “you have now found this defendant guilty of murder in the first degree in connection with three cases. Your verdicts have been recorded. We are now going to hold a sentencing hearing during which counsel may present additional evidence and argument.
“You will decide whether the defendant is to be sentenced to death or life imprisonment. Whether you sentence the defendant to death or life imprisonment will depend upon what, if any, aggravating or mitigating circumstances you found present in this case.”
When the judge had finished, the moment had at last arrived. Jay Smith stood and walked tall and erect. He took the stand and sat easily. He was a bit more pale and gaunt than he had been, but at the moment looked to be in far better emotional condition than his lawyer. His eyes had all the expression of a pair of hubcaps.
“Mister Smith, please state your full name for the record,” Costopoulos began.
“My name is Jay Charles Smith.”
“Your age, sir.”
“I will be fifty-eight on June fifth of this year.”
“Where were you born?”
“I was actually born in Ridley Park, but lived all my life in Chester, Pennsylvania.”
“Do you have any brothers or sisters?�
��
“I have three brothers living, one brother dead, and one sister.”
“For how many years were you married before your wife passed away?”
“Twenty-eight years.”
“When did your wife pass away?”
“On August seventh, 1979.”
“From the date of your imprisonment, what have you done in the institutional environment in which you live?”
“Well, I’ve been involved in a large number of activities. I don’t know whether it was you or someone else who mentioned the jailhouse lawyer. I was known more as a jailhouse guidance counselor because a great amount of my activity was helping individuals with their personal letters and personal problems.
“I handled fifteen Vietnam veterans, the Agent Orange cases, to get these individuals their medical examinations and get them their proper discharges. I worked with a large number of Hispanics who couldn’t speak English.
“I taught a class for inmates called ‘How to Get a Job,’ showing them how to make out applications and construct résumés and keep files.
“I worked a lot in the church activities, not that I’m an expert on it. I was more of an organizer. I was president of the God Squad for three years. When there was no minister I handled all the church activity at the prison. I would bring in ministers and set up the ceremony. I handled the Bible study.
“I did my regular prison job. I handled the dayroom, handled all the books and papers, kept it clean.
“I’ve worked for over four years on a criminal justice dictionary. That was my main writing activity.”
“How does the request for two back issues of Penthouse tie in with that?”
“I’ve found that Black’s Law Dictionary and Ballentine’s do not cover criminal justice definitions very well. I had inmates bring up words that they know, then I went through about fifty or sixty sociology and criminology textbooks and began writing definitions in the criminal justice dictionary.
Echoes in the Darkness Page 41
