The Main Line Murders

Part Three: Polaroid

In the years after Bill Bradfield’s arrest, this story would continue to play out, providing answers to some of the overarching questions that had been haunting those in the Main Line region of Pennsylvania, while ignoring the others, which remain unanswered to this day...

Listen to "The Main Line Murders (Part Three: Polaroid)" on Spreaker.

On Monday, June 25th, 1979, the body of 36-year-old Susan Reinert was found in the trunk of her car, which had been abandoned in the parking lot of a motel near Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. The single mother of two, who lived more than an hour away, had gone missing days prior, along with her two children: 11-year-old Karen and 10-year-old Michael, who had been seen with her on the evening of Friday, June 22nd.

As Pennsylvania state troopers began to explore the suspicious circumstances of Susan's death, they were unsuccessful in identifying any suspects in the weeks after the discovery of her body (and were similarly unsuccessful in locating her two children, who would remain missing). The only reasonable lead left for investigators to pursue, after months of setbacks and dead-ends, was a possible link to financial motive.

In the months after Susan's murder, investigators would discover that just one month beforehand, she had changed her will, leaving behind everything to her coworker and boyfriend, William Bradfield, whom she had been seeing privately for over four years. This estate included more than $800,000 worth of life insurance policies, which had been taken out on Susan's life in the preceding months.

While police could find no definitive link leading them to Bradfield - nor his longtime associate, Jay Smith, who was already serving a decade-long sentence for numerous offenses - the two would become targets of the media, who began to explore the scandalous backstory of the two. Bradfield, in particular, would be singled out by Susan's loved ones, who began to file civil suits against the man as his long-term machinations began to be exposed.

It turned out that Bradfield had been seeing numerous women at the time of Susan's death, carrying on long-term affairs with a handful of women (most of whom believed him to be their future husband). Susan's brother and ex-husband would allege that Bradfield had swindled Susan out of more than $25,000 in the months before her murder, and in their quest to seek damages, would end up inspiring a criminal investigation into the theft. Bradfield was ultimately convicted of this offense, serving a paltry one-month sentence... but this left the door open for future charges, as the investigation that the FBI had begun to refer to as "Sumur" (short for "Susan's murder") continued on.

On April 6th, 1983, nearly four years after the body of Susan Reinert was discovered, Bill Bradfield was taken into custody, charged with Susan's murder and the murder of her two children (alongside an unnamed co-conspirator). Under Pennsylvania law, the bodies of the two children were not required to have been found in order to pursue murder charges, as long as prosecutors could establish a desire to cover up the crime.

The indictment against Bradfield would subtly allege that Bradfield had cooperated with someone - the aforementioned "unnamed co-conspirator" - and many took that to mean Jay Smith, the former-principal of Upper Merion High School that had been linked to this case since its inception. While Smith would not be charged immediately, a curious prospect for those that had been following the case, his presence would remain intrinsically linked to it for the foreseeable future.

This is part three of the Main Line Murders.

Almost immediately after his arrest in April of 1983, Bill Bradfield's fate began to grow uncertain.

In his previous trial for theft back in 1981, Bradfield had been represented by John Paul Curran, a well-respected defense attorney in the Philadelphia area. But almost immediately, Curran argued that a postponement of any preliminary hearings was necessary; not only for Bradfield to receive an adequate defense, but because he was likely to drop the case since Bradfield could no longer afford his services. Apparently, years of being unable to find work had finally taken their toll on the 50-year-old former-schoolteacher. This meant that his case was likely to get pushed onto a public defender.

After failing to postpone the preliminary hearings, Curran told the court that Bradfield was being harassed by his fellow inmates, who were not only offering drugs for Bradfield to take to end his life but offering up better living conditions if he were to cooperate with investigators. Curran alleged that this was the work of the prosecution, attempting to tighten the screws on Bradfield and subject him to abhorrent living conditions in order to get him to talk. While these allegations were never proven, they were enough to delay the preliminary hearings long enough for Curran to drop the case.

The following month, Bill Bradfield would formally request to be represented by a public defender, citing a lack of funds as his rationale. Then, just a couple of weeks later (June 1983), Bradfield would enter a plea of not guilty, as he and his new legal counsel began preparing for the start of his trial early that Fall.

As opening statements began later that year, Bradfield's new defense attorney, Joshua D. Lock, would manage to properly summarize this saga, which had taken nearly half-a-decade to reach this point. Setting the stage for what was undoubtedly going to become a circus of a criminal trial, he would tell the court in October of 1983:

"What you will hear is a bizarre tale probably unlike that experienced by anyone any one of us knows. It almost does a disservice to the English language to characterize this case as bizarre. This word is not enough."

Leading up to his trial, Bradfield's attorneys argued that the judge presiding over the case - who had also supervised the grand jury panel that led to Bradfield being charged - had been exposed to one side of the case and his judgment came into question. This petition, which was successful, allowed Bucks County Judge Isaac S. Garb to come in and oversee the subsequent trial, which finally began in October of 1983.

As the trial got started, the prosecution announced that they would be pursuing the death penalty, asking the jury to sentence Bradfield to death if he was found guilty. They also decided to drop several of the charges Bradfield had been accused of, including kidnapping, conspiracy to kidnap, and obstruction of justice, due to issues with the statute of limitations on a few of them (as well as the appeals that would certainly follow). This helped narrow in their case on the three murders, which would help them present a much more focused and streamlined case against Bradfield.

Jury selection would turn into a battle of its own, with the defense and prosecution haggling over the merits of dozens of potential jurors over a handful of days; a process that was highlighted throughout several Philadelphia-area newspaper articles.

Because there was no direct physical evidence linking Bradfield to the crime, this case would end up relying mostly upon witness testimony.

Mary Gove, Susan's elderly next-door neighbor, would become one of the most important witnesses for the prosecution early on. She recalled Bradfield being a constant presence at Susan's home, especially between December of 1978 and the week of Susan's death, a time period that correlated to when Susan had inherited money from her deceased mother. Mary had also been one of the last people to see Susan and her children alive, having witnessed them in their front yard just minutes before leaving at around 9 PM on June 22nd, 1979.

Mary's statements - which helped establish a long-term relationship between Susan and Bill - were backed up most of Susan's other loved ones, who recalled her gushing about Bill over an extended period of time. This made his own allegations - that he had no romantic relationship with her - seem that much more puzzling.

Proctor Nowell, the inmate that Bradfield had allegedly confessed to during his incarceration for theft, also took the stand and recounted what Bradfield had allegedly confessed to. If you recall from the last episode, Bradfield had allegedly told Nowell during a game of chess:

"I was there when they were killed, but I didn't kill them."

In his testimony, Nowell described this in detail:

"He said none of this was meant for the children, only for Susan, but there couldn't be a stone left unturned. He said 'We had to tie up all the loose ends.'"

Bradfield's attorneys would question the motivations of Nowell, theorizing that he was looking for leniency on some drug and firearms offenses that he was currently facing. But in response, Nowell would claim that he wasn't looking to make any such deal, and that - as the father of two children - he was simply trying to do the right thing.

[It's worth noting that Nowell would make headlines a few years later, for murdering his girlfriend while under the influence of drugs, which impacted his already fragile mental state. While that doesn't impact this case, I thought it was tragic, intriguing, and worth mentioning.]

Arnold Winder, another inmate that spent time with Bradfield at the State Correctional Institute at Camp Hill, alleged that Bradfield also confessed a similar level of involvement in the case to him, as well. He said that Bradfield also expressed:

"... a desire to kill or hire others to kill Commonwealth witnesses."

When it came time for Bradfield's defense to call witnesses of their own, they ended up relying upon many of the people that had been in Bradfield's corner both before and after the murder of Susan Reinert. This included many of his friends and colleagues from Upper Merion High School - who had been with him throughout the weekend of Susan's murder - and even some of his romantic interests from the school.

One such name was Vincent Valaitis, an English teacher at Upper Merion that had been a longtime associate of Bradfield's. During his testimony, Valaitis alleged that Susan Reinert had been having an affair with Jay Smith before her death, which he had learned about secondhand through Bradfield. For that reason, he believed that Jay Smith had killed Susan, not Bill. However, he did claim that Bradfield knew about the ongoing threat to Susan's life (via Jay Smith) and even spoke about it the weekend of Susan's murder, hence him attempting to establish an alibi for himself hundreds of miles away.

Susan Myers, another teacher that had lived with Bradfield for several years, was another witness called by the defense. During her testimony, she repeated a lot of the information presented by Vincent, seeming to put the blame for Susan's death at the feet of Jay Smith. Like Vincent, she also claimed to have learned about Susan Reinert's affair with Jay Smith through Bill Bradfield, which - considering his reputation for covering up his own affairs through obfuscation - didn't seem to hold much water.

Myers would also testify to Bradfield writing in a diary years before Susan Reinert's murder, back in 1974 or 1975, of his desire to murder her for insurance money.

Wendy Ziegler, one of Bill Bradfield's former students that had turned into a girlfriend of his, was also called to the stand. Like Bradfield's other friends, she would repeat the party line - deflecting blame onto Jay Smith - but would testify to holding onto roughly $30,000 for Bill Bradfield for several months. This was the money that he had swindled out of Susan Reinert before her death, and Ziegler holding onto the money for several months - while police were investigating Reinert's murder - seemed to hint at some kind of nefarious underlying motive.

When it came time for Jay Smith himself to provide testimony, having been called upon as a potential witness, it was Bradfield's legal counsel that ultimately decided against it. Bradfield's lawyers had reportedly grown unsure about what Smith would say if he were to be called to the stand.

Apparently, Smith was going to be called to the stand in the closing days of this multi-week trial, but in the leadup to his testimony, he refused to meet with the legal team of either side: the prosecution or the defense. Smith told the judge that he would refuse to make any secret deals with either side; instead, deciding that whatever testimony he provided to the world would be unfiltered. He even told Judge Garb that he would waive his own Fifth Amendment rights should it come to that.

The decision to keep Jay Smith from testifying was seen as a panicked move by Bradfield's lawyers, who had laid the blame at Smith's feet throughout the trial. Some speculated that this could be seen as a disastrous move by the jury, who were eager to hear what Smith had to say for himself.

Pennsylvania's Deputy Attorney General Richard Guida, who served as the prosecutor in this case, made a compelling case for Bradfield to be convicted throughout the trial. In his closing argument, he linked together all of the evidence that pointed to Bradfield's guilt and described the scheme that Bradfield and his unnamed co-conspirator had carried out: taking out life insurance policies on Susan's life before her murder and making sure that only her body was found. Without Susan's body being found, Bradfield couldn't collect upon any life insurance policies or inherit whatever she had allocated in her will (which, it turns out, was her entire estate). Guida then alleged that the children's bodies were disposed of because they were deemed as disposable and/or worthless to Bradfield and his co-conspirator(s).

The jury would later describe this closing argument as being incredibly impactful, thus eliminating any doubts that might have remained.

On October 28th, 1983, the case was put into the hands of the jury after three weeks of testimony.

The jury - which was comprised of nine men and three women from Dauphin County - would spend less than 90 minutes deliberating Bill Bradfield's fate before handing down their decision. Everyone filed back into the courtroom, and Bradfield stood emotionless behind the defendant's table as the verdict was read that Friday afternoon.

William S. Bradfield Jr. was found guilty on three counts of first-degree murder, as well as three counts of conspiracy to commit murder. This would give him either the death penalty or life in prison; a decision that would remain in the hands of Judge Isaac Garb throughout that weekend.

Many of the jurors would speak to reporters, stating that it was relatively easy for them to convict Bradfield (hence the one hour and 25 minutes it took them to come to a decision). They described there being almost no dissent among any of them by the time they got to arguments, with one member likening Bradfield to cult leader Charles Manson, and another comparing him to the literary monster Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. Jurors would later state that Bill Bradfield had personally convinced them of his guilt, having taken the stand for nearly sixteen hours throughout the trial and failing to convince anyone of his innocence (which was, ironically, the same thing he had done in Jay Smith's 1979 trial).

On Sunday, October 30th, everyone was recalled to overhear sentencing, which Judge Garb had decided to take out of the hands of the jury; ruling that the state had failed to provide evidence of "aggravated circumstances" that could merit the death penalty. Bradfield managed to eke out a small smile when Judge Garb told the court that he wasn't going to sentence the defendant to death, but that smile quickly disappeared when he was given a life sentence for each murder. Because this wasn't a formal sentencing hearing, it was unsure whether or not he would serve these sentences consecutively or concurrently.

Over the next year or so, Bradfield would attempt to appeal his conviction, claiming that he had not received a fair trial in Dauphin County and that the jury had favored the prosecution throughout it. Both claims were rejected in December of 1984, and his sentence was upheld.

In February of 1985, it was finally decided that Bradfield would serve each of his three life sentences consecutively (meaning one after the other). This meant that he was going to spend the rest of his life behind bars.

The second grand jury, which had been empaneled by the state of Pennsylvania in January of 1982, would continue to oversee the case even after Bill Bradfield's conviction, looking into other investigative avenues that remained open to them.

Even though Bradfield had been found guilty of conspiring to murder Susan, Karen, and Michael Reinert, the case was still active. Namely, there was the matter of the "unnamed co-conspirator" that had acted alongside Bradfield - who had allegedly committed the murders and then disposed of the bodies - and then there was the issue of Karen and Michael's bodies, which had yet to be found nearly five years later. To date, investigators had no idea what had happened to the two children but had decided months prior that, wherever they were, they were likely no longer alive.

So, in that regard, the case was far from closed.

Then, there was the giant loose thread which came in the form of Dr. Jay Smith, the former-principal of Upper Merion High School, who was already serving a lengthy prison sentence for a litany of other offenses. He had been previously linked to the case through some tentative physical evidence: namely, matching hair and rug fibers, as well as a comb bearing his Army Reserve unit, which was found underneath Susan Reinert's body. There was even some more circumstantial evidence - such as his whereabouts during the murder and disposal of Susan's body - that piqued the interests of many.

Smith's violent and bizarre nature notwithstanding, his links to this crime could not be overstated, especially since he had become explicitly linked to this case during Bill Bradfield's trial. Even though Smith would continue to deny all of these allegations, suspicion would be cast upon him, as the public spotlight began to transition from Bill Bradfield to himself.

Throughout the 1980s, Jay C. Smith would apply for parole in his prior convictions, but each time would have his appeals rejected. He was eventually told that he would have to serve out his entire sentence, meaning that he couldn't taste freedom until June of 1988 (at the earliest).

This meant that when the grand jury came calling yet again, Smith was unable to turn down their requests to talk. In the Fall of 1983, following the conviction of Bill Bradfield, Smith would be called in to testify in front of the grand jury yet again; this time, asserting his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination (his 4th time having done so). When asked about why, Smith would tell reporters that a grand jury wasn't the proper outlet for him to testify; he wanted to do so in a public forum, where he wouldn't be forced to keep his testimony a secret from the world-at-large.

In January of 1984, months after his own conviction, Bill Bradfield would also be called to testify in front of the grand jury. While the details of his testimony were never revealed - with both sides citing the legally-mandated secrecy of a grand jury investigation - it was theorized that this round of questioning might be related to Jay Smith's still-missing daughter and son-in-law, Stephanie and Edward Hunsberger.

In April of 1985, after Bill Bradfield's formal sentence had been meted out, Smith was called again to meet with investigators in the Reinert case. This time, instead of just answering questions, Smith was asked to provide samples of his handwriting. Reporters at the time theorized that this may have had something to do with documents he had written years prior, which may or may not have laid out a plan to murder Susan Reinert. Within weeks, this would seemingly begin to lead somewhere.

On June 25th, 1985 - six years to the day that Susan Reinert's body was found - Pennsylvania state police arrested Jay Smith, charging him with three counts of first-degree murder. Since he was already serving a prison sentence, he was taken into temporary custody, and then transferred to a different facility, where he could begin to make regular appearances in court.

As he was guided into state police headquarters for processing, Smith told the eager reporters that lined the walkway:

"I had nothing to do with the murders of Susan Reinert and her two children."

The linchpin in this case had been a pair of jailhouse confessions, which seemed incredibly similar to what had happened in the Bill Bradfield case. According to Pennsylvania Attorney General LeRoy Zimmerman, Smith had told a fellow inmate "I killed that... bitch" and then confessed a similar involvement in the crime to yet another prisoner. When paired together with all of the other circumstantial evidence, this seemed like enough to convince the grand jury to pursue charges... and Smith was formally indicted on the six-year anniversary of this case being launched.

The prosecution's case against Jay Smith was remarkable in that it was almost identical to that presented against Bill Bradfield, but would have to circle around any possible motive. In Bradfield's case, the motive had been clear - financial gain - but when it came to Smith being involved in the murders... not so much. While that wouldn't be a deterrent in pressing charges, a jury might not be too keen on convicting someone without a motive (which is a real fear for prosecutors to this day).

While there was some physical evidence linking Smith to the crime, there wasn't much. A couple of episodes ago, I mentioned there being a forensic link between hair and rug fibers: apparently, a strand of hair was found inside Smith's King of Prussia home, which seemed to be a match for Susan Reinert, but a full-on analysis of the hair sample, conducted by the FBI, would fail to establish any definitive link. A similar thing would happen with fibers from a red carpet from Smith's home, which loosely matched fibers found on Susan's body, but not definitively.

The most convincing piece of evidence was a blue comb found underneath the body of Susan Reinert, which bore the insignia of the "79th USARCOM" - Jay Smith's Army Reserve unit. This provided a direct link to Smith but could be seen as a coincidence to some.

Like in the case of Bill Bradfield, the trial of Jay Smith would end up relying upon witness testimony. A lot of witness testimony. This included the two inmates that Smith had allegedly confessed to - Raymond Martray and Charles Montione - as well as witnesses that had testified in Bradfield's trial. This included Bradfield's friends and love interests, who testified to what Bradfield had told them over time regarding Smith, his alleged love affair with Susan Reinert, and his later desire to kill her.

In total, more than 90 witnesses were called to the stand, and the prosecution presented over 110 pieces of evidence.

Throughout the trial, noted crime author Joseph Wambaugh was present, observing everything. Wambaugh had already adapted this saga into a book, 1984's Echoes in the Darkness, but it was believed that Wambaugh was hoping to report on the trial and capitalize upon its popularity for an upcoming TV miniseries. I only mention this because it will become relevant later on.

After a three-week trial, the jury broke for deliberation in April of 1986. They would end up spending more than six hours deciding Smith's fate, which was spread out over two days. When they returned on Wednesday, April 30th, they did so with a guilty verdict.

Jay Smith was found guilty on three counts of first-degree murder, and within days, would be sentenced by the jury to die via electric chair.

For many, this was the natural end of the story. Jay Smith had been publicly identified as the "unnamed co-conspirator" from Bill Bradfield's trial and seemed to be a natural fit, having been linked to this case (and suspected of involvement) from the very beginning. Investigators would even state that - barring any new revelations - the case was closed.

But as we'd find out, this supposed natural conclusion was not the end of the story, and the truth wouldn't be so cut-and-dry.

In 1984, shortly after Bill Bradfield's conviction for murder, noted crime author Joseph Wambaugh had released a book about this story titled Echoes in the Darkness.

Even though the book had been released before Jay Smith was officially charged with the murders - much less convicted - it was very much in favor of him having been the actual killer of Susan Reinert and her two children. One could even argue that Wambaugh's book had built a case almost entirely dependant on Smith being the actual killer, and had gone as far as to describe him as a "goat-eyed sociopath."

Jay Smith's conviction seemed to validate a lot of Wambaugh's opinions, and a TV miniseries was ordered to adapt the book shortly after his sentencing.

Even though the case was already infamous throughout the Main Line area of Pennsylvania (hence its eventual nickname, the "Main Line Murders"), this TV miniseries would end up exposing the case to a larger, national audience.

As the American public began to learn about this bizarre case for the first time, Jay Smith continued to plead his innocence from the inside of a prison cell.

For the next several years, Jay Smith would attempt to appeal his sentence, even going as far as requesting a new trial by citing prosecutorial misconduct. But all of those requests were denied, and in 1987, Smith was formally sentenced to death via electric chair.

Smith would continue to deny any involvement in the Reinert murders and would continue to claim that he had been framed by Bill Bradfield, who he says planted specific pieces of evidence to make him look guilty (such as the comb found underneath Susan Reinert's body).

It wasn't until 1989 that a court decided to actually revisit his case, and during their analysis, discovered some glaring holes in the prosecution's case. For starters, it appears like certain evidence had been withheld from the defense by a single state trooper, who had been overseeing the investigation for several years. This officer, Jack Holtz, had actually been paid $50,000 by Joseph Wambaugh, the author of Echoes in the Darkness, in order to disclose confidential information both before and after the trial. Not only was the release of this information prohibited, but so was the notion of state troopers receiving any kind of cash payment from unapproved sources.

This was a tremendous injustice, regardless of Smith's guilt, and one that allowed him to seek another trial.

In December of 1989, the Pennsylvania state Supreme Court ruled in Smith's favor, vacating his sentence and granting him a new trial. Their ruling stated that the witness testimony used to convict him was hearsay; namely, the witness testimony provided by those with a vested interest in overturning Bill Bradfield's conviction (friends, lovers, etc.). The Supreme Court ruling also cast aspersions on the prosecutor in the case, Pennsylvania’s Deputy Attorney General at the time, Richard Guida, who had since resigned in disgrace and been incarcerated for cocaine distribution. During his own trial, he had admitted to using cocaine while pursuing charges against Smith, and his prior conduct was now called into question.

The following year (1990), Jay Smith would waive his right to a speedy trial, agreeing to stay incarcerated until this matter could be fully investigated by the state and his own attorneys, who were working to grant him permanent freedom.

This saga would carry on throughout 1992, with the Pennsylvania Supreme Court eventually finding that not only had the prosecution failed to try their case with integrity - utilizing testimony that was hearsay - but they had actually withheld evidence from the trial that might have been valuable to the defense. They found that this evidence - which was discovered in the attic of state trooper Jack Holtz - could have feasibly swayed the jury in favor of Smith's innocence.

Throughout 1992, Jay Smith would begin to feel optimistic, and that feeling was vindicated when, in September of that year, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court decided to rule entirely in his favor. Not only was Smith's entire murder conviction vacated, but the Supreme Court found that the prosecution had tried their case with improper conduct; so much so, that Smith would not even face a retrial. At least, not with the current set of circumstances, players, and evidence, which would impede upon double jeopardy laws.

Over the next two decades, the state would not retry this case, allowing Jay Smith to live out the rest of his life a free man.

Over the next decade, the still-convicted Bill Bradfield would skirt a number of court rulings, refusing to pay back $25,000 he owed to the estate of Susan Reinert. Through a number of excuses, the killer tried to squirm out of repaying the money that he had swindled out of the murdered woman, but her family members would continue on with the suit; not in an effort to enrich themselves, but rather, as a matter of principle.

It wasn't until August of 1996 - more than 13 years after it was filed - that the suit was finally settled, and the money was taken out of a bank account controlled by Bill Bradfield and his long-term love interest, Joanne Aitken.

Meanwhile, Jay Smith would file a couple of lawsuits of his own; not only against the state, for concealing evidence during his trial, but also against noted author Joseph Wambaugh. Smith alleged that Wambaugh had not only defamed him but conspired with law enforcement to frame him for the three murders he was originally convicted of.

The lawsuit against the state would get snuffed out in 1998, and the lawsuit against Wambaugh would follow in 2000, and Smith would end up spending the decade afterward in relative obscurity.

On January 16th, 1998, 64-year-old Bill Bradfield, who had been incarcerated for over a decade at this point, was found unresponsive in his cell by a couple of guards during their afternoon rounds. After several attempts to resuscitate him failed, Bradfield was taken to a nearby hospital but was pronounced dead of cardiac arrest just after 5:00 PM. He was believed to have died via sudden heart attack, taking with him any secrets that he might have still had.

However, from his death, a tiny glimmer of hope for answers would appear in the form of a single polaroid photo found in his possessions. The photograph, which was found alongside some coded writings and other items, seemed to have been developed in 1986 - years after his conviction - and appears to have been set in a wooded area.

The photograph itself is centered around a very distinct-looking stone, which may or may not be a marker of sorts. You can see trees in the background and leaves on the ground, surrounding the stone, which investigators believe could be the impromptu burial plot for Karen and Michael Reinert. Since their bodies had yet to be found more than twenty years later, it was theorized that this could have been a picture of their gravesite, eternalized by Bill Bradfield, who died without ever explaining himself or his actions.

In the years that have passed, many of those connected to this case have since passed away.

Kenneth Reinert, the ex-husband of Susan Reinert and the father of her two children, passed away in June of 2002. He left behind a wife, a stepdaughter, and a son, but died without knowing what happened to his oldest two children.

Meanwhile, Jay Smith, the former-principal of Upper Merion High School, who had been convicted of murdering the three in 1986 - but whose sentence was vacated in 1992 (and never retried) - would go on to write a couple of independent books about the case. He would even remarry in 2002. But he, too, would fall prey to father time, passing away on May 12th, 2009 (at the age of 80). At the time of his death, his involvement in this story had yet to be cleared up; as did his potential involvement in the 1978 disappearance of his daughter and son-in-law, Stephanie and Edward Hunsberger. To date, those two remain missing, with their last known sighting having been in February of 1978.

Upper Merion High School would struggle to escape the massive shadow cast by this case, even decades after the fact. Students and parents alike had a hard time separate the name "Upper Merion" from the scandalous story that had unfolded throughout the 1980s: murder-for-hire, fraud, love affairs, drugs, theft, etc. This is especially true when you factor in the stuff that wasn't true: rumors of a Satanic cult being involved, a snuff video, and what-have-you.

For years, graffiti would mark the exterior walls of Upper Merion - stuff like "Satan's Place" - and the reputation of this story was hard to escape.

The case itself has remained a unique piece of Pennsylvania lore, having inspired the largest - and most expensive - investigation in state history, in addition to a number of books and even a network TV miniseries. For years, prosecutors throughout the state joked about the case being "cursed," and its mostly-unfinished nature seems to be symbolic of that.

Investigators have remained pretty tight-lipped about the active state of the investigation, claiming that it is still an open case, albeit inactive. Shortly after Jay Smith's death in 2009, investigators told reporters that it was possible that someone named in prior news reports - likely someone I've mentioned throughout this series - might have known more about the case than they've let on over the years.

Brian Krause, then a Pennsylvania state trooper, told reporters about the possibility of someone else having been involved in this case:

"I would certainly say that there is a possibility of a third person out there - a probability."

With the time that has elapsed since this case began - almost four decades - it remains unlikely that things will change anytime soon. But crazier things have happened in true crime in recent memory: deathbed confessions, unheard-of advancements in forensic testing, and even the discovery of bodies years after they had been hidden or disposed of. Hopefully, time will help bring resolution to this case.

As of 2020, several questions remain unanswered. Who actually killed Susan Reinert and disposed of her body? What happened to her two children? Similarly, what happened to Jay Smith's missing daughter and son-in-law, who - like the missing Reinert children - have been missing for over 40 years now. What kind of answers did these two men - Bill Bradfield and Jay Smith - take with them to the grave?

Karen and Michael Reinert, who were just 11 and 10 years old when they went missing in June of 1979, would now be in their early 50s. Despite their bodies never being found, they were officially declared dead on June 22nd, 1986, seven years to the day after they were last seen (the time allotted to missing persons under Pennsylvania state law). Because no one has seen or heard from them since 1979, that ruling still stands, even though their true fate remains unknown.

The stories of Susan, Karen, and Michael Reinert - as well as those of Edward and Stephanie Hunsberger - remain unresolved.

Episode Information

Writing, research, hosting, and production by Micheal Whelan

Published on on May 31st, 2020

Producers: Maggyjames, Roberta Janson, Ben Krokum, Peggy Belarde, Quil Carter, Laura Hannan, Victoria Reid, Gabriella Bromley, Damion Moore, Amy Hampton, Steven Wilson, Scott Meesey, Marie Vanglund, Scott Patzold, Astrid Kneier, Lori Rodriguez, Aimee McGregor, Danny Williams, Sydney Scotton, Sara Moscaritolo, Sue Kirk, Thomas Ahearn, Seth Morgan, Marion Welsh, Patrick Laakso, Kelly Jo Hapgood, Alyssa Lawton, Meadow Landry, Rebecca Miller, Tatum Bautista, gravityheadzero, Erin Pyles, Jo Wong, Teunia Elzinga, Consuelo Moreno, Travis Scsepko, Jacinda B., and Jared Midwood