Echoes in the Darkness (1987)

by Wambaugh, Joseph

  It was all getting down to the stash of $25,000 that everyone was hiding and wiping. He called that his "boat fund" and said that he'd been saving it secretly for years.

  "Why didn't you use the boat fund for the art store?" Rick Guida wanted to know.

  "Because I wanted to retain it."

  "Why didn't you put that money into Terra Art? Because you weren't getting any interest on it anyway, and you coula've used that instead of paying interest on these loans. Why didn't you do that?"

  "Because Sue Myers, for all her good points, was impossible when it came to money."

  "Mister Bradfield," Guida interrupted, "money is money, whether it comes from selling land, or borrowing it, or if it comes from your boat fund. It's the same thing. Now, again my question is, why didn't you use the boat fund instead of borrowing at ten or twelve percent?"

  "Because the ten or twelve percent interest that I would pay back on the loan would be paid through monies that were controlled by Sue Myers and me. If, on the other hand, I used the boat fund for the business, I never would have seen that money again for my own use."

  Guida didn't bother to ask why he didn't put the secret money in an interest-bearing account, but moved along to the alibi testimony. Bill Bradfield said that the court reporter in that case had misquoted him in his testimony.

  And then they moved along to the chains and acid that Jay Smith showed Bill Bradfield during the lazy crazy days of summer.

  Guida's tone during the cross-examination of Bill Bradfield never varied. His incredulity was blended with only as much sarcasm as he figured the judge would permit. If you could bottle it, it would've been about 80 proof.

  "That brings up something interesting," he said. "You saw tape and you saw chains and yet you said you didn't believe Jay C. Smith had anything to do with the death of Susan Reinert. Did you hear the testimony that there was tape residue around her face and chain marks on her back?"

  IYeS"

  "To this day you have a relationship with Rachel, is that right?"

  "Yes."

  "You lived with her in 1981 through 1982, isn't that right?"

  IYes"

  "Did you hear her testimony that you had a romantic relationship during the summer of 1978?"

  "I don't recall."

  "If she did say it she would have been wrong, is that right?"

  "I didn't view our relationship as romantic. My relationship with Rachel has been of a different sort than that which you would accurately characterize as romantic or sexual. It's not what we really had, I would say."

  "Over all this time you never had any sexual and/or romantic relationship?"

  "Well, we have had some sexual incidents. What I'm trying to do is characterize it fairly for you. It was not the essential relationship with Rachel, and never with me, and never had been. It wasn't in the summer of 1978 and it isn't now."

  "I believe you've described your relationship with Rachel as artistic and intellectual, is that right?"

  "Yes."

  "Was it that same with Shelly? Sex was not at the center of her universe either?"

  "It was not." "How did you rekindle the relationship when you spent a four-day weekend with Rachel over Thanksgiving, 1978?"

  "It was not a sex holiday, as you're suggesting."

  "A romantic holiday then. What happened?"

  "We went to see a number of art films in Cambridge. We went to see the glass flowers at Harvard in the exhibit there. We attended a lecture. We went to the museum of art."

  "Where did you stay?"

  "With Rachel."

  "In her bedroom."

  lYes"

  "But you wouldn't characterize this weekend as intimate?"

  "I don't mean to suggest that the relationship with her or with any of the other people in my life was either orthodox or proper."

  "Now speaking of that weekend, what did you do to protect Susan Reinert?"

  "Nothing."

  "You told this jury that you drove around her house and did many things over that time period when you found out about the threat, even to the point of sending Sue Myers away because Smith would kill on holidays. Why did you take that critical weekend off and go to Massachusetts if Susan Reinert was in such danger?"

  "I tried to spend as much time as I could,
  "So you just gave up on the critical weekends and went someplace else so you wouldn't even be anywhere near her house or near Jay C. Smith, is that right?"

  "It was more than I could do. I really don't know how I could've done much more and not ended up in the hospital."

  "How about calling the police?"

  "Looking back, I wish I had done that. I think we all wish that."

  "Why didn't you go to Susan Reinert and say, 'Jay C. Smith has chains, he has locks, he has guns, he has silencers, he has all these things. And by the way, he's threatening to kill you.

  You better do something about it.' Did you ever say that to her?"

  "No."

  "That would've been another way you could've protected her, could it not have been?"

  "I don't know that it would've worked, but it could have. I was not sure that there was a relationship between Susan Reinert and Doctor Smith. I could never find out for sure."

  "Wouldn't that be all the more reason to tell her if this person you think she's having a relationship with was going to kill her?"

  "Looking back, I think it was."

  "But that didn't occur to you at the time?"

  "No."

  "It occurred to you to tell the police, but you dismissed it, is that right?"

  "It occurred to us to speak, but we decided not to do that."

  "We. You keep saying we. Wasn't it you that was bringing all this information to Mister Pappas, Miss Myers and Mister Valaitis? You were the one that brought all the information back, is that right?"

  "Yes."

  "You were the one that was making decisions. You were the leader, weren't you?"

  "I was not making the decisions solely. I sought their advice in everything I did."

  "The group was making decisions on the basis of your facts, isn't that right?"

  IYes"

  "You indicated that you didn't want to tell the police because they were corrupt, is that right?"

  "Correct, and involved with Doctor Smith."

  "How many police departments did he control?"

  "Not just the Upper Merion Township police. He mentioned that he knew someone with the West Chester police. He mentioned several people in the Philadelphia police. And he mentioned the police in Bucks County."

  "In other words, he had connections, so that nothing would happen to him and you'd be in trouble if you told?"

  "Nothing would happen to him, but something would happen to me."

  "In other words, they'd tell him and he'd come and get you, is that right?" "Yes."

  "Did you ever hear of the Pennsylvania State Police, Mister Bradfield?"

  "Yes."

  "Are they listed in your telephone book at home?"

  ^Looking back I wish I had gone to them."

  "You could've picked up the phone and called the Pennsylvania State Police and said I don't trust the Upper Merion Township police and I'm going to tell you people about these strange goings-on. You could've done that, is that right?"

  "Any one of us could have done that."

  "You could have, couldn't you?"

  "We all could have."

  "But you could have."

  "Yes, indeed."

  "You didn't, did you?"

  "None of us did."

  "Have you heard of the Federal Bureau of Investigation?"

  IYes
"

  "Did you call them?"

  "No."

  "Did Jay C. Smith have contacts in the state police and the Federal Bureau of Investigation?"

  "He never indicated that."

  As to the character of his relationship with Susan Reinert, William Bradfield said, "In 1976, Sue Myers had already had a confrontation with Susan Reinert and she said to me, 'You're wasting your life on this woman. She's not worth your time.' But I told her that anyone who is interested in literature to the point of teaching it, let alone of trying to write poetry as I was trying to do, should feel that any other person who is willing to be open with him in a real and hottest way, in a personal way, is someone that anybody who's interested in the arts can't turn his back on."

  "I see. So, the relationship with Susan Reinert, if not romantic, was at least artistic? Is that what you're telling us?"

  "On my part?"

  "Yes."

  "I guess all of my relationships are."

  "Artistic?"

  "Yes."

  As to the prom night adventure and other Dr. Jay business,

  the testimony contained even more "we's" and fewer "Is" than the rest of it.

  "Why did you need a silencer to protect yourself?"

  "Because both Chris and I felt that if Doctor Smith were to threaten me while I was in the car I would have to try to wound him or disable him or kill him. We agreed that I'd call Chris and he'd come immediately and we'd figure out exactly what we were to do. If I'd have tried to defend myself with my .357 magnum it would've alerted half of Chester County."

  "When you're talking about protecting yourself from an armed man who threatens you with a weapon, why did you need a silencer?"

  "We were concerned not only with Doctor Smith, but with people in the drug world because of his daughter and so forth. And . . ."

  "Mister Bradfield, let me interrupt you for just a second. You're telling me about your fears. I'm asking why you needed a silencer."

  "Because I wanted to do more than simply disable him. I wanted after that to be able to call Chris, and for Chris and me to decide where we would go and take Doctor Smith."

  "Were you planning on murdering him?"

  "We talked about it. Chris and I had talked about it."

  "If you had a plan to murder him and he threatened you with a weapon, why didn't you just finish him off right there in self-defense and be done with it? Were you going to take him to a hospital? Why did you get a silencer so that no one would come around? Tell me that."

  "We didn't know what the best plan would be. We were afraid if I had to produce the weapon quickly and tell him not to move, disable him, tie him up or whatever, and call Chris ... If I produced a weapon, and if he'd come at me and I had to use it, and if it were an unsilenced .357 magnum, and we were anywhere within earshot of people, all options as to what we could do after that would then be closed. People would hear and they would rush to see us."

  And so it went. The jury, Jack Holtz noted during all of this, was slack-jawed, and he was hoping they weren't getting fuzzy like Chris Pappas used to get. He was relieved when they hoisted their chins back up onto their faces.

  Bill Bradfield testified that he had believed Dr. Jay Smith to be deranged and dangerous, but still, he was morally obligated to testify for him as an alibi witness in the one crime he had not

  committed. All things considered, Bill Bradfield didn't tell it much differently than it was told by Chris Pappas, Vince Valaitis, Sue Myers and Shelly. If the disciples had believed, Bill Bradfield obviously felt that the jury would believe.

  As to the neighbors of Susan Reinert seeing his car parked in front of her house at all hours, he said that he would park his car and leave it there to deter Dr. Jay Smith from creepycrawling her house.

  "Did you move your car occasionally" the prosecutor asked.

  "During the fouror five-month period I parked my VW quite often in front of Susan Reinerts house."

  "Overnight?"

  "Yes, for days and nights."

  "How did you get home?"

  "I took my Cadillac to school."

  "But how did you get the Volkswagen to Susan Reinerts house?"

  "Susan Reinert would come in with a lady teacher and then she would drive the Cadillac. And I would drive the VW to her

  house."

  "And then you would get in your red Cadillac and go home?"

  "Or wherever I was going."

  "Then you must have told Susan Reinert why you were doing this?"

  "Yes, I did."

  "Then you told her that Jay C. Smith was after her, and you were parking the car in front of her house as a deterrent, is that what you're telling us?"

  "No. I told her that parking at my apartment was very crowded, which it was."

  "What about the testimony of the neighbors who saw you coming out of the house at seven in the morning? Were they mistaken?"

  "No, there were times, particularly on Saturdays, when I would come by very early to see Susan before I went to my eight a.m. Greek class."

  "But they saw you doing it during the week."

  "They're mistaken."

  "That brings me to Mary Gove. Mrs. Gove said that on at least three occasions a week, she would see your car there at times when she would get up at five in the morning, and then

  when she'd go to work at seven-thirty your car would be gone. Was she mistaken?"

  "It could have happened a couple of times."

  "Are you saying that there were occasions when you left Susan Reinerts house very late, say around midnight, and came back at five a.m.?"

  "There were many times that I stayed late and there were many times that I went over early in the morning. And I think it would be easy for Mrs. Gove to feel that it happened all at once. I was taking a course at Villanova in Greek at eight o'clock in the moming and I would try, when I could, to come before class and sometimes I came early enough to make breakfast."

  "You made breakfast for them? You would drive all the way over to Susan Reinerts house early in the morning on Saturday just to have breakfast with the kids?"

  "Yes."

  "Can you explain your comment to Sharon Lee when she called you on the phone and you said, 'Oh, yes, how old were the children?'"

  "I knew that Karen and Michael were grade-school children but I didn't know what age. I really didn't know them that well."

  "Why did you use the word 'were'? Why did you refer to the children in the past tense on June twenty-sixth, 1979?"

  "The assumption was that something awful had happened to the children."

  One clever bit of business that Rick Guida conceived was to subpoena the court reporter and prosecutor who'd been at the Jay Smith trial of May 30, 1979, when Bill Bradfield had been an alibi witness.

  Guida staged a reenactment of that testimony. He played the part of Jay Smith's attorney, and on cross-examination he played the part of prosecutor Jackson M. Stewart, Jr.

  Stewart himself played the role of William Bradfield and with each of the performers holding a certified copy of the transcript of that proceeding, they reenacted Bill Bradfield's alibi testimony for this jury, just as it had happened then, without editorial comment.

  This was a very effective piece of lawyering. The testimony didn't sound any more believable coming from Jackson Stewart's lips than it had from Bill Bradfield's back in 1979. TTiis jury got a very good idea of what that alibi tetimony had been all about and what it meant to this trial.

  One of the scores of witnesses against William Bradfield was Special Agent Matt Mullin of the FBI. While he was waiting to testify, he walked up to Jack Holtz and said that he'd been wrong with Joe VanNort, and that the arrest of Shelly had helped turn the case around.

  Jack Holtz thought that was a decent thing to say and told him so. He said that Joe would've appreciated it.

  By far, the saddest testimony in the William Bradfield murder case was given by Ken Reinert and his mother.

  Once when Florence and Jo
hn Reinert were on vacation in Vermont they'd seen a boy who resembled their grandson Michael. They'd tried to follow his school bus. They'd reported it to the FBI.

  They were still unable to celebrate Christmas.

  When Ken Reinert had first read in the newspapers that a murder charge was being filed, he was as happy as he'd been in four years. Until he saw that three murder charges were being filed. He'd called the state police in tears.

  He said, "But you can't file three murder charges! Not three murder charges!"

  Just before that time, in a newspaper interview Ken Reinert had said, "I'm optimistic that the children are still alive. I know there're people in the world who murder children, but I can't really believe that anyone would kill these children. Not these children."

  It wasn't until the murder trial in 1983 that Ken, Florence and John Reinert were able to describe the children in the past tense. The children were no more. It had been decreed by the commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

  Chapter 24

  Widgets

  By the time the fourteen-day trial was concluding, Rick Guida was up to five packs of cigarettes a day and down fifteen pounds in body weight. But Josh Lock was in worse shape. The case had consumed him and he was near collapse, by his own assessment.

  Lock felt that toward the end he was too exhausted to respond quickly enough to Guida, but the court record doesn't support the self-doubt. What was very hard to respond to was being offered from the lips of William Bradfield as his explanation for wills and insurance and silencers, and murder schemes against Susan Reinert by Jay Smith.

  The most famous criminal defense lawyers in America admit that because of our system of safeguarding the rights of the accused, they don't often get a chance to defend clients who are "innocent" in the sense that the public defines innocence. If they're going to make a living in criminal defense they have to be content with making the best of a client's story and protecting his rights despite what they might personally believe.

  In law school they're told that they can have a satisfying career doing just that, and on the rare occasions when they believe in their hearts that they do have an innocent criminal client they can permit a bit of personal passion.

  But the vast majority of lawyers are the products of middleclass American society that grew up on Perry Mason, and they aren't satisfied with the caveats of law school. They need to believe in innocence.