Joseph Wambaugh - Echoes in the Darkness

“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 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?’