Susan Reinert Murder: Bradfield, Smith, and the Missing Children

The Susan Reinert murder is a 1979 Pennsylvania homicide in which a 36-year-old English teacher was beaten, injected with a fatal dose of morphine, and left in the trunk of her car near Harrisburg, while her two young children vanished and were never found; two Upper Merion High School colleagues, teacher William S. Bradfield Jr. and principal Jay C. Smith, were convicted of the killings in an insurance-money conspiracy, though Smith’s convictions were later overturned for prosecutorial misconduct.

What Happened in June 1979

Around 5:20 a.m. on June 25, 1979, an unidentified caller reported a “sick woman in the trunk of a car” at the Host Inn in Swatara Township, Dauphin County. Troopers found Susan Reinert’s body curled in the hatchback of her orange Plymouth Horizon. She was nude, bruised, and marked in a way consistent with being bound with chains. A forensic pathologist concluded she had been killed by an injection of morphine given 24 to 36 hours after an initial assault, and placed her death during the morning of Sunday, June 24, 1979.¹

Her children were not with her. Eleven-year-old Karen and ten-year-old Michael had last been seen on the evening of Friday, June 22, at around 9:20 p.m. on the front porch of the family’s home in Ardmore, a Main Line suburb of Philadelphia. A neighbor noticed Karen was wearing a small green pin bearing a white letter “P.” A five-month nationwide search involving eighteen FBI agents and state and local police turned up nothing.¹ The children were declared legally dead in 1987.²

The Two Men Prosecutors Charged

The case centered on two Upper Merion High School figures. William Bradfield was a charismatic English teacher, Reinert’s colleague, and her former lover. Jay Smith was the school’s principal. Prosecutors argued the motive was money.

Reinert had named Bradfield the sole beneficiary of her estate, which included $730,000 in life insurance. Her will referred to him as “my future husband.” A former lover of Bradfield’s, Susan Myers, signed an affidavit stating she had read a passage in his diary reading, “I wish I could kill Susan Reinert for insurance money.”³

The prosecution’s theory was that Bradfield planned the murders and Smith carried them out. Smith had his own reason to act. Bradfield had previously given him a perjured alibi during an earlier theft trial, and Reinert’s knowledge of that false testimony threatened both men. Smith was already facing sentencing for a Sears store robbery and firearms violations when Reinert was killed, and he was in Harrisburg for that sentencing the day her body was found.⁴

The Cape May Alibi

Bradfield built an alibi for the weekend of the killings. He traveled to Cape May, New Jersey, with fellow teachers Susan Myers and Chris Pappas, and pressed another colleague, Vincent Valaitis, to come along. Valaitis later testified that Bradfield told him Smith planned to kill Reinert that weekend and that their group’s presence at the shore would provide provable cover. Valaitis eventually consulted a priest, went to the FBI, and became a key prosecution witness. He said he was “certain” that Reinert and her children were never near Cape May that weekend.⁵

Bradfield’s Conviction

On October 28, 1983, a jury of nine men and three women convicted William Bradfield of three counts of first-degree murder and three counts of conspiracy for the deaths of Susan, Karen, and Michael Reinert.⁶ Two days later, Judge Isaac Garb sentenced him to three consecutive life terms. Prosecutors had not satisfied the requirements under state law for a capital sentence, so the death penalty was not imposed.⁷

Bradfield maintained his innocence to the end. He died of heart failure in prison in 1998 without ever saying what happened to the children.⁸

Jay Smith’s Conviction, Reversal, and Release

Smith went to trial in 1986, charged with the first-degree murder of all three Reinerts. The prosecution presented physical evidence, jailhouse informants, and hearsay from Bradfield’s circle. The green pin with a white “P” that Karen had been wearing when last seen was recovered from under the passenger seat of Smith’s car. Carpet fibers from Smith’s home matched fibers on Reinert’s body. A military comb stamped “79 USARCOM,” found beneath the body, matched a set in Smith’s possession. One inmate testified Smith had asked him to kill state police detectives investigating the case; another said Smith confessed to killing Reinert for money and to keep her from exposing Bradfield’s perjury. Bradfield’s friends and lovers recounted his statements about Smith’s plans and follow-through.¹ Smith was convicted and given three death sentences.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court reversed those convictions on December 22, 1989, ruling that prejudicial hearsay from Bradfield’s associates had been improperly admitted. The court initially ordered a new trial.⁹

The Sand on the Soles of Her Feet

During Reinert’s autopsy, State Trooper John Balshy had used adhesive “lifters” to collect granular material from the soles of her feet. Balshy believed it might be sand, which would support the defense theory that Reinert was killed at the shore in Cape May rather than at Smith’s home in Pennsylvania. The lifters were placed in an evidence locker and forgotten.⁹

Trooper Victor Dove rediscovered them on April 24, 1986. He told lead investigator John J. Holtz on May 1, the day after Smith’s trial ended. Holtz contacted prosecutor Richard Guida, the assistant attorney general handling the case. Guida did not turn the lifters over to the defense.⁹

Guida had understood their importance during trial. In a memorandum to his superior he wrote that defense counsel would “attempt to establish that Mrs. Reinert was killed at the shore in Cape May, New Jersey by William Bradfield, Chris Pappas, and Susan Myers,” and that “the sand, therefore, is extremely material to the defense case.” Rather than disclose the evidence, Guida attacked Trooper Balshy’s credibility at trial, suggested he had fabricated his testimony, and recommended Balshy be investigated for perjury.¹ The prosecution also concealed a favorable sentencing deal with its chief jailhouse witness, Raymond Martray, who testified on the stand that no such deal existed.¹⁰

Smith’s attorney, William C. Costopoulos, brought the misconduct back to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. On September 18, 1992, the court ruled that “the double jeopardy clause of the Pennsylvania Constitution prohibited retrial” where a prosecutor’s conduct was “intentionally undertaken to prejudice the defendant to the point of the denial of a fair trial.” It ordered Smith discharged.¹⁰ Smith walked out after more than six years on death row. Guida had resigned from the Attorney General’s Office before the appeal was resolved, and was later incarcerated on cocaine charges.¹¹

Smith later sued the investigators under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. A jury sided with the defendants, and the Third Circuit affirmed in April 2000. The appellate court agreed the lifters were Brady material and called the prosecution’s behavior “reprehensible and unethical,” but concluded Smith had not shown the suppression was prejudicial enough to have changed the trial’s outcome, given the other physical evidence tying him to the crime.¹ Smith died on May 12, 2009, at age 80, at Wilkes-Barre General Hospital, still asserting he had been set up.⁴

The Payment From Joseph Wambaugh

A separate scandal emerged around the investigation itself. Author Joseph Wambaugh, who wrote the 1987 bestseller Echoes in the Darkness about the case, had offered $50,000 to lead investigator Joseph Van Nort for a personal depiction waiver. When Van Nort died, his partner Jack Holtz discovered the arrangement, entered an identical one, and collected the money.¹² A letter from Wambaugh reportedly conditioned the payment on Smith being arrested and brought to court.¹¹ The deal came to light after a junkman removed a box of evidence from Holtz’s home shortly before the state Supreme Court’s discharge ruling. Holtz was placed under internal investigation and retired. Smith lost all of his lawsuits against Wambaugh and the state police, with the final case concluding in 2000.⁴

Karen and Michael Reinert Have Never Been Found

More than 45 years after they disappeared, Karen and Michael Reinert remain missing. Bradfield and Smith spent the rest of their lives accusing each other and never disclosed what happened to the children.¹³

One piece of evidence still draws attention. A photograph developed in 1986 and recovered from Bradfield’s prison cell after his death shows a stone marker resembling a hooded figure, set among fallen leaves in a wooded area. Investigators believe the marker may indicate where the children’s remains are, but the location has never been identified. Bradfield’s belongings also included writings that appear to be in code, which investigators have studied without publicly announcing results.²

As of 2025, Pennsylvania State Police classify the children’s case as open and are offering a cash reward of up to $5,000 for information leading to the discovery of their remains or the resolution of the case. Investigators have publicly noted the “probability” of an uncharged third person who may know what happened.¹³ Anyone with information can contact PSP Harrisburg at 717-671-7500 or submit anonymous tips at 1-800-472-8477.²

1
United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. Smith v. Holtz, No. 99-7046
2
PennLive. Mysterious Photo May Hold Clues in 1979 Harrisburg Cold Case
3
The New York Times. Pennsylvania Ex-Teacher Faces Murder Trial
4
The New York Times. Jay C. Smith, 80, Dies
5
CNN. 30 Years Later, Murder Case Still Stirs Debate
6
The New York Times. Teacher Convicted in Slaying
7
United Press International. Bradfield Gets Three Life Terms
8
ABC27. 40 Years Later, Cold Case Murder Remains a Mystery
9
FindLaw. Smith v. Holtz
10
Justia. Commonwealth v. Smith, 532 Pa. 177
11
PennLive. Jay Smith Continues Trying to Clear His Name
12
vLex. Smith v. Wambaugh
13
CNN. Police Still Working Reinert Case