Hidden True Crime - Susan Smith's Prosecutor Reveals What Still Haunts Him 30 Years Later

Episode Date: August 9, 2026

In this exclusive interview, I sit down with Tommy Pope, the prosecutor who helped convict Susan Smith, to revisit one of the most infamous murder cases in American history and examine its striking parallels to the Lindsay Clancy trial. Pope takes us inside the Susan Smith case, the prosecution’s fight to prove why a mother killed her own children, and the evidence and arguments that ultimately led to her conviction. More than 30 years later, he also shares his perspective on the Clancy case, where questions surrounding motherhood, mental illness, motive, and criminal responsibility have once again captivated the nation. What can the Susan Smith case teach us about Lindsay Clancy—and how does a prosecutor approach the almost unimaginable question at the center of both cases: Why did she do it? Sponsors: Ethos Life Insurance: Protect your family with life insurance through Ethos—get up to $3 million in coverage in as little as 10 minutes at https://ethos.com/hidden. ASPCA Pet Insurance: Explore ASPCA® Pet Health Insurance coverage at https://www.aspcapetinsurance.com/HIDDEN The ASPCA® is not an insurer and is not engaged in the business ofinsurance. For terms and conditions visit:https://www.aspcapetinsurance.com/more-info/state-documents-and-sample-policies/. About Hidden True Crime What started as a simple conversation at their dinner table became a captivating podcast. Join the dynamic duo of Dr. John Matthias, a criminal psychologist, and Lauren Matthias, an investigative journalist, as they delve into the psychological facets of unthinkable crimes every week. Their unique perspectives and in-depth analysis offer a fresh take on true crime storytelling. Thank you for your support through sponsorships, subscribing, listening, and becoming a Patreon member at⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Patreon.com/HiddenTrueCrime⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

More than 30 years ago, a young prosecutor named Tommy Pope, that's you. You stood before a South Carolina jury and you asked them to sentence a mother to death. And her name was Susan Smith for nine days in 1994. Susan Smith told America that a stranger had carjacked her and her two little boys, three-year-old Michael, 14-month-old Alex, still strapped inside. And then she confessed. There was no carjacker. Susan had driven to a lake, John D. Long Lake in South Carolina,

gotten out of the car, let it roll into the water with her children still inside. So when Susan Smith went on trial, the biggest question wasn't who did it. It was why did she do it? And in some ways, Tommy, that's the same question gripping the country right now, right? In the Lindsay Clancy trial, these aren't traditional who does? done it. We know who caused the deaths, right? The battle is essentially over why. It's over mental illness, intent, state of mind, ultimately criminal responsibility. In Susan Smith's case, her defense portrayed her as deeply troubled, a suicidal mother. You, Tommy, argued something very

different, that this was not simply an impulsive act by a woman who wanted to die. It was murder. And the jury convicted Susan Smith. They did spare her life. I want to talk you about that. But then nearly 30 years later, you found yourself just recently in 2024 facing Susan Smith again. It was not in the courtroom this time. You stood before a parole board along with the father of the children. Is that right? And argue. That's correct.

She should remain behind bars. So you essentially have lived. You are a prosecutor that lived one of America's most infamous cases for three decades. Thank you for being here. I have so many questions for you. Ultimately, let's start with that. You know, you stood before a jury in 1995, asked them to sentence Susan Smith to death.

Now, nearly 30 years later, you stood before a parole board, asked them to keep her in prison. So I want to know, what do you know about this case, having lived it for three decades that makes you so certain today as you were then that Susan Smith should never be free?

Let's just start right out of the gate with that. Sure, sure. So going back to it, You know, of course the father David Smith, Michael and Alex's father, you know, came alongside me. It's always tricky, as you see from the Clancy case you're watching now, when you have your victim's family, your defendant's family are the same people. You know, so it's very difficult in that regard. But David Smith came alongside me. In Susan Smith's case, and I know we'll want to compare in contrast with Clancy, you know, since it's current, but it was just abundant.

clear to me that she made a decision, a horrible, horrible decision, but she made a decision that somehow she was rid of those children, if she was rid of her current life, so to speak. Matter of fact, in the trunk of the car, as best I recall, the wedding album was in the trunk, her wedding dress was in the trunk. I always say everything from her marriage, but David Smith, the father, was in the trunk. So I never really believed. that it was an attempt in suicide. And we can get deeper into that. But the short version is that she had a boyfriend.

He told her he didn't want children. And rightfully or wrongfully, she fought into that. And I think that's what ultimately drove her on. Now, I will say anybody that steps in the back of the courtroom that we try, that takes another life, something's got to be wrong. You know what I mean? Mental health wise or whatever the case may be, you know, because it's beyond societal norms, particularly when you take a mother, you know, who we think is the most protective of children, and we see that life paid.

So the way I treated it then, you know, you get painted as a prosecutor, you know, I'm vicious, you know, in wanting to seek the death penalty. But the truth is, whatever the ultimate punishment was, Susan deserved that. In our case, we had life and death. the jury wanted to know was she eligible for parole. Back then, she would have been, as you just discussed. The next year, the law changed. And she, if we'd have tried it a year later, we'd not be talking about parole now because life would have met life.

But we weren't able to tell the jury that. And I think the biggest burden, you know, as you let in for me is not that, because she's eligible every two years now after the 30 years. It's not for me. It's for David Smith and his wife Tiffany and their family. And they have to live it. You know, it's just like, you know, scratching a wound open or surgery open again and again and again every two years. So I'll be there with David every time, you know, it comes up as long as she stays in prison.

And unfortunately, that's part of our system, but I'll be there to help them. Wow, every two years. That's incredible. So from the very beginning, you were the prosecutor on this case. Do you recall when she confessed or what was going on? Yes. Yes. Yeah.

So if you recall, I was teasing you earlier, I know you probably too, you only to remember back then, but you know, when we were handling the case, I was actually a prosecutor in two counties. I was the elected district attorney. And I always told people, I was in my bigger county, York County. This happened in Union County, South Carolina. I always told people I was doing the Lord's work. I was prosecuting the preacher who was embezzling from the daycare.

So I'm doing it, but I used to be a state law enforcement officer. So I had a close work in relationship with the agents that were working the case. And they would call me every night. And truthfully, based on my law enforcement experience, I really thought she was going to have the children hidden somewhere. You know, it felt more like a domestic case. you know, and maybe it was doing it to get attention, you know, maybe from her husband, maybe from a boyfriend.

I really thought, you know, they were going to be stashed down at the beach, you know, with some friend's house or something. I really didn't think, you know, this would occur. But, you know, from a carjacker standpoint, a carjacker, we call them a carjacker for a reason. They're taking your car. They may take your money. A female, they may sexually assault. But nobody's taking charge.

children unless it's a domestic. Now, I know we deal with human trafficking now, but, you know, particularly back then, you know, you didn't see that near as much. And so I felt like there was going to be something other than the carjacker. But, you know, law enforcement couldn't set that aside because as you recall, Susan was on TV, how adamant she was, I hope you return my babies, I hope my babies home the whole time knowing they were in the lay. Yeah, I know knowing that. And so Which leads me to my next question for you. What made you so certain this was premeditation? Because when you tell me that story, I think, oh, yeah, of course this was premeditated.

But the defense really pushed back. They said this was a mother with a long history of mental health issues and trauma in her life, including herself being abused. I mean, they were effective, you know, the jury. Absolutely. And no to death, right? So what was it that convinced you as the prosecutor? that this was completely premeditated. This was not just an act of a mother who was, you know, suicidal, wanted to self-harm

and in a bout of mental illness or spiraling. Becoming a parent changes the way you think about almost everything, right? So many things. Suddenly, planning for the future isn't just about you anymore. There's this little person depending on you. And even though nobody likes to think about the worst-case scenario, making sure your family has some financial security is one of those very grown-up important things that matters. And that is why I appreciate how simple ethos makes the process of getting life insurance.

It's 100% online. You can get a quote in seconds, apply in minutes, and potentially get same-day coverage. There's no medical exam. You just need to answer a few simple health questions online. and then you can get up to $3 million in coverage. Some policies are as low as $30 a month. So take 10 minutes to get covered today with life insurance through ethos. Get your free quote at ethos.com slash hidden. That is ethos. E-T-H-O-S dot com slash hidden.

Application times may vary. Rates may vary. Ethos.com slash hidden. And again, I want to be very careful because when we talk about mental illness, those are all real things. And again, I'll go back to what I said earlier. Anybody that would commit this crime has got some mental health things going on. You know, the question is legal responsibility, knowing legal and moral right from legal and moral wrong. Past that, the botched suicide, you know, to my dying day, I'll never believe.

it was about suicide. Now, was she in a tough mental place? Was she depressed? Was she upset? Because the boyfriend, you know, the dream, the boss's son, she's going to live happily ever after. You know, Prince Charming had rejected her. Absolutely. But she made a horrible, horrible decision. And for me, just backing up, and there were so many pieces throughout the case and throughout the trial, but even just backing up, I always tell people if she'd shown up to the house, because, you know, she rolled the kids in the lake. She goes to a house and knocks on the, you know, door and immediately starts telling this story about the African-American carjacker.

If she had shown up at that house wet, if she had shown up at that house with her clothes disheveled, where she had rolled the car in the lake and then had second thoughts, in other words, you know, anything like that to show she really, if she had been in the car and then got out but not ready, rescue the kids, it would have still been a crime, but it would have been much more understandable. You know, as you're saying, you know, you couldn't support it, but you could see it. You know, and so there wasn't any of that. You know, again, in contrast to Clancy, you know,

and, you know, we'll wait and see how that plays out, but she's sitting in a wheelchair now. So she did injure herself. You know, Susan did not. When Susan gets to the house, David Smith, the father is called. Susan ironically had an Auburn sweatshirt on that belonged to Tom Finley, the boyfriend. And I remember I had raw footage from the local TV station that showed up at the house first. And right before the camera comes on, the reporter says something to the fact, okay, David and Susan, I'm going to ask you, you know, kind of say who you are. and then, you know, we'll roll into what occurred. David looks like a guy who's just been told your children have been kidnapped.

Susan is kind of giggling like we're going to be on TV. And then, you know, and then she rolled right into her stories, you know. And so that, you know, little pieces like that, she told David even that early. Now, don't be upset if Tom wants to come to the house. You know, he wants to come see me to be supportive. it. And so, you know, I told somebody, I said, you know, somebody said, well, why don't you give the kids away? You know, if you want Tom and you want to be with Tom and he doesn't want kids, give the kids, you know, to your cousin, your aunt, you know, put them up for adoption,

give them to David, you know. But I thought through that, I said over the years, I've been talking about it so much, I've kind of become a lay psychiatrist, psychologist, I guess. If you give your kids away, you're a bad mother and you're less desire. Exactly. But if the carjacker takes your kids, you're a victim and more likely that Prince Charming would come to you, you know, to be your protector. And so there was a lot of thought that went into it on Susan's part. You know, the defense will deny that, but I mean, I saw it.

I saw Susan laugh in the courtroom when the jury was out and cry when they were present. It made me think about that the day on the Clancy case when the judge was admonishing about, you know, perhaps the prosecution had said something about Clancy crying, you know, during the autopsy or something like that. And it made it kind of, it made me think, you know, wonder, I guess, whether is that contrived or not. I'm not saying it is. I'm saying that was there in our case. And it was really, you know, really a facade, you know, with Susan that. A lot of people don't understand. Yeah, a lot of manipulation.

Manipulation from the very beginning, as you pointed out, she lied. She lied about a carjacker. There was even a racial component in that, right? Absolutely. That it was a black man. I want to ask you about that. But also, you know, Lindsay Clancy never has denied what she has done. And also you brought up this interesting motive, this affair that she's having with another man.

We haven't seen that yet in the Lindsay Clancy case. I mean, unless we're going to learn about something between either a package. or Lindsay, but we haven't seen that yet. So you did bring up some very different components there and the manipulation. Yeah, it's just, yeah. I can't imagine how she did that. And, you know, I believe she is where she needs to be if you want my full opinion. Yeah, yeah.

Well, you know, go ahead. I was going to say, you know, when the jury gave her life, you know, because I always tell people, you know, they'll put Susan Smith, prosecutor on my tombstone or my pitch wearing probably because, you know, but when the jury, you know, the jury asked about life and they were, back then you had to tell them, do you take life and death and they're

plain and usual meaning? That was the law that, you know, you're quite saying. In other words, you didn't want them speculating on parole. But the other thing too, I remember afterwards, one of the jurors said, well, we just felt like you know, it'd be more punishment for her to be

in prison and, you know, think about what she did and be remorseful in that regard. And I think if she truly had remorse, it would be. But what I've seen even over this 30 years and even at parole hearing, Susan's remorse is about how things affect Susan, you know, that now she doesn't have her freedom. And, you know, I mean, even when they finally, she gave a statement the night she finally admitted to doing it, my deputy solicitor pointed out how many times in that statement, she said, I and my and me, you know, my this, my that, you know, and so she's, I think it's history,

histrionic in the DSM, but, you know, she's either the princess or the victim. And so she was focused and continued to be, you know, when she got to prison, she's having sex with guard. She's having, you know, pimple. You know, I mean, she's, she's not sitting. around lamenting Michael and Alex, if anything, she's lamenting what happened to herself. And again, I'm not being vindictive about it. I always told people, I don't seek the death penalty and I don't wake up going, woo-hoo, you know, I get to seek the death penalty. I treat it almost like being in military in that, you know, if you go to war,

there's things you have to do because that's your job. And, you know, and you have to take lives or whatever the case may be. And so with the death penalty, to me, it was kind of similar. I will say at the time of the crime, you know, once we found out, you know, the public is Susan the monster, you know, how could she do that? And to the defense's credit, by the time we get around to try it in that summer in July, they kind of changed the narrative to Susan the victim, you know, whether it was her father being suicidal, her stepfather molesting her. And those are all, you know, horrible, horrible things. but my approach to it was if the black guy had done it, and I didn't seek the death penalty,

you know, you and I probably wouldn't be talking now. You know, it'd be unheard of. If David Smith, the father, had committed the crime, you know, it would be expected. When I say death penalty again, whatever the ultimate punishment was, that's what would be expected from the public and from the system.

So how, if the black guy would have been, been or David would have been, how do you treat Susan differently where in reality the mother, it's almost worse. Well, it isn't almost worse. It is worse because I thought about it. Every day when I go to court, you know, when my kids were little, Kim Pope, my wife was here taking care of the kids and not once did I worry about their safety. I knew Kim Boak would give her life before those kids. Well, what happens there is, it unsettles us. It's actually easier if it's the monster.

It's actually easier if it's the parjacker or the husband or whatever because Susan looked like our sister, our co-worker, our friend, our interviewer, you know, she looked normal, you know. And so that's very unsettling for people. And so I think it makes you look even harder to explain something that really, really can't be explained, you know, the why that you let in with, you know.

Yeah, absolutely. And you brought in the racial component again. I mean, the racism that she brought into this blaming, you know, a black man when it was actually a white woman and the mother of the children. And there was there, that kind of became a spotlight too, the sort of stereotyping and racism that she brought into this as well. You know, and ironically, you know, I'm here. I grew up here in South Carolina. I've been here my whole life. I know you couldn't tell from my accent, but, you know, to their credit, because, you know, unions like a small mill town, you know, in the middle of South Carolina, that community handled it very well, particularly the African American community. And I always remember there was a lady on TV and the reporters going, well, How do you feel as an African-American lady? And they said, how do you feel about, you know, Union blaming a black man? You know, the town of Union, the community of Union, blaming a black man.

And that lady said, Union didn't blame a black man. Susan Smith blamed a black man. Somewhere along the way, Lily Bell became a major part of the hidden true crime family. She takes that position very seriously. She's our head of HR, as we say. It mostly involves supervising everyone demanding. attention, but also knowing exactly what somebody needs, and especially when they need a little bit of extra love. We adore her. Today's episode is sponsored by the ASPCA Pet Health Insurance Program.

So the ASPCA Pet Health Insurance Program, they offer customizable accident and illness plans that can fit your budget, your lifestyle, even your pet's particular quirks. Because let's be honest, that bills, they add a fast. AspCA pet health insurance. has been around for almost 30 years. They've covered over 1 million pets. And when it's time to submit a claim, it's easy. You just use their app, receive reimbursement for eligible vet bills directly into your bank account. So you can get back to focusing on what really matters, which is your pet. To explore coverage, visit ASPCA pet insurance.com slash hidden. That's ASPCA petinsurance.com slash hidden. This is a paid advertisement.

Insurance is underwritten by either Independence American Insurance Company or United States Fire Insurance Company and produced by PTZ Insurance Agency Limited. The ASPCA is not an insurer and is not engaged in the business of insurance. You know, people are out looking for the kids. They're out, you know, how you'll have search teams and volunteers and they're looking for the red car. You know, God forbid for every poor black guy in union that had a red car, you know. And so, you know, and so, I mean, it was tough on that community. Right. And you're right. Susan Smith blamed a black man for what she did to her own two children. I mean, it is horrific what she did. And then, of course, yeah, you also brought up the sex behind bars because I remember when two correctional officers were charged with having sex with Susan Smith.

And then she had to be transferred. I mean, this is some wild stuff happening even after. after the conviction. I mean, is this, or is this normal? Is this something that happened? You know, if it is, it's not getting as much publicity as hers did. And maybe because she's notorious. I don't know. But in a strange way, it just gave me further affirmation for the beliefs that I laid out to you earlier.

You know, I mean, I would think, you know, again, the prosecutor's job is to seek the truth. the prosecutor's jobs to be fair not vindictive we have a different role than the defense has you know their jobs to protect susan at all cost and i respect that um but everything i saw like i said the courtroom issue with her crying with the jury in laughing when they're out um all of that tells me i wasn't far off the mark in my estimation of her uh we had a video testing or i say a vehicle testing of the cars to see because I wanted to know the flotation characteristics. I wanted to know how long

the car floated. I wanted to know what Michael and Alex went through. I wanted to know if Susan had a chance to rescue him and it took about six minutes. And so we had a video camera. It wasn't a reenactment. It was a testing. You know, we didn't have mannequins in there anything, but we

tested and the car basically went down the ramp and the real reason the divers probably, because they don't the lake early on before, you know, she admitted it. When it went in the water, you would think it would be straight off that ramp, you know, that steep ramp. But when it got in the water and started floating, I guess, you know,

whatever current toward the dam, it took them and turtled them and put them upside down. It took about six minutes. And, you know, you always say the best lies are laced with the truth. I remember Susan saying something about when the carjacker drove off that her kids were, you know, crying for her. and calling her name. And I believe she did hear that. She heard that if she was standing there with that car,

you know, rolling into the lake. But so we had a video of it. It wasn't allowed in the guilt phase. But, you know, for your viewers, you know, there's a death penalty case here is a bifurcated or two-part trial. First is just guilt. Second is penalty. And in penalty, you can bring in a lot more evidence

than you could in the guilt part because how horrible the case is whether someone did it or not. So in the second phase, or the victim impact type testimony. And so we had this video, well, we had to argue legally of whether it even be admitted. And it was about six minutes. But when you would watch it,

it would literally take your breath away because the camera was mounted kind of back between the car seats. As the car goes and ultimately turns, water is coming from the floorboard. Water is coming through the vents. And it covers ultimately, I mean, even 30 years later, it makes me short of breath thinking about, you know, like you're drowning.

Well, so we're watching it, you know, this is the old days. We had TVs, you know, on big carts, you know, the big 35 inch, you know, TV. So we got it turned. Susan can see it. They're over there, and we're on this side. The jury's out. We're watching it. And it, like I said, it would take your breath away.

And I hear something. And I look, and I don't know if Susan was writing notes with the paralegal. or they were giggling or play a tick, tecto. But I mean, she was just having a big time. She'd look at it, not look at it, not. Well, then the jury comes back in. So now it's turned. We can't see it.

But again, you know, it runs about six minutes. So now I'm looking at 12 jurors' faces, and people are doing just what you would think. You know, some are crying, some are leaning back, some are holding their breath. And suddenly from that side of the courtroom, I hear crying. And again, it was orchestrated. I mean, there were so many things.

And again, I don't fault the defense. That was their job. But what it tells me, what they were selling as far as Susan is just not accurate. That's fascinating. That is absolutely heartbreaking. You know, you mentioned that you're a lay psychologist or an armchair psychologist. You've mentioned the DSM. You mentioned, you know, why she didn't just give her kids away.

I think you've actually nailed it so far. I'd have to agree with you being an armchair psychologist myself. You know, but the defense, they did a good job with the psychology. Like you said, you just mentioned jurors crying. I also think I want to say when you said that she shared how her children were crying for her. Yeah, that was exact my thought too. I bet that happened. That is horrifying.

So the jury hears this. The jury's crying. they're affected. They do find her guilty. They don't give her the death penalty. Clearly, the defense had a good job with the psychology in there. What was it that the jury...

I think what they did, you know, and again, you know, I always tell people, you know, I sought the death penalty for the reasons we discussed earlier. You know, whatever the punishment was, even if we didn't have the death penalty, whatever the maximum punishment was,

that's what I felt like she deserved. Whatever, you know, if it was 10 years, That's what she deserved, you know. But where I think the defense did a masterful job really on a number of fronts, I think I was ready to try it. You know, so it happened around Halloween in 94. I tried it summer in 95.

The defense said they needed more time. I was going to try it like, you know, right after the holidays, not, you know, directly, not January, but, you know, February and March. they needed more time. And during that time, again, and this is maybe where I was a little naive, we had a gag order, but like Susan Smith's mother wrote a book, and, you know, there were things that kind of circumvented the gag order, you know, the back, you know, that made.

So for one, they did a job of kind of working the jury pool before you had a jury pool. Number two, I think where they did a good job was they did not request a change of venue. and union's a small town. Everybody knows everybody. Heck, I even had the police chief's wife on the jury. And so everybody knows everybody. And so I think part of it comes to, and again, we'll talk about the case

and the things I think they brought forth that were helpful, but I think part of it too was everybody knew they'd have to see Susan's brother or Susan's mom at the grocery store or whatever. And it just, union was weary of the whole, the media glut. This was when OJ was going on. We got all these satellite trucks.

And, you know, it's like nobody can rest in union for, you know, it's just the pressures. I think there was some of that to them wanting, you know, wanting them to be kind of out, and just to be over. And, you know, knowing if it definitely is given that, you know, traditionally we normally have tried two or three times for whatever reason. And so I think there was some of that. that. Again, I think that the jury being picked from union, it was kind of a trap because I'm elected by the people of union. If I act like I don't think they can be fair. I'm telling my voters you can be fair and impartial.

So if I ask for a change of venue, what am I doing to my own community, so to speak? And so it was kind of tricky. I couldn't ask for a change of venue. We ultimately did get a jury. and so, you know, again, I accept it like I was leading into before. I always kind of look at Smith as a loss. Not that I got to win every case, but I think every time I see David Smith every two years from now on, and I think if only that jury given the death penalty, I mean, heck, I got people on death row now,

and I left the prosecutor's office 20 years ago, and there's still people there that hadn't been executed. So it's not so much. that she would have been executed, but David Smith wouldn't be having to deal. You know, his family wouldn't be having to come do this every two years. And so in that regard, I see it as a failure on my part. That makes sense. And so David Smith, he was able to remarry and have another family.

Is that true? I think he just, I heard from him the other day. I always love hearing from my victims because, you know, it's like you went you were in the foxhole together, you know, I like hearing from my victims, but I never reach out them because I represent a very bad time in their life. And so anytime they reach out to me, I welcome it. Now, it's a little different now with every two-year, you know, parole hearing, so we'll be spending a lot more time together, you know, but I always love when I hear them and I got word the other day that they had their first grandbaby.

And so as hard as it's been for them, you know, they've tried to move on, but he's never going to quit fighting for Michael and Alex. I learned things. So we went to the parole hearing that day, and it was an awkward situation from the standpoint. I hadn't seen them for a while. It almost reminds you of a funeral visitation. You know, if you've ever gone, you're waiting in line. And you don't really know what to say.

You know, you want to tell them you're praying for them. You want to hug them. But you also, you know, are uneasy. You may laugh in the line. You may cry in the line, whatever. It was kind of similar. And it took us a long time. So we'd laugh a while and cry a while.

We have this solicitor, my deputy solicitor, who's now the solicitor with us to share with us. And we'd laugh and we'd cry. And then, but when David finally spoke, he shared so many things that I really didn't know. And he had gone to Michael and Alex Gray and thought about taking his own life before, you know, with a gun. He had gone to the lake and thought about rolling himself in the lake.

You know, these were things he was sharing with the parole board that I didn't know. I mean, I can easily imagine, you know, if it happened to you or I. I mean, it wasn't anything particularly unusual. But I think sometimes we forget, you know, the scars that are less. after these cases pass on and the lives they affect. And certainly David was one. But he seems to be in a really strong place. And he actually shared that, I mean, his faith in God is what made a difference for him.

Because otherwise, you think, why, you know, what reason is there to live after all he's been through? Yeah. I think that's, I think that's a question that, you know, likely a lot of victims of, horrific crime's face. I thank you though for sharing how he's been able to move on. That's, you know, or do his best to, you know, again, I think there's two years. It sounds like, my goodness.

You know, a couple of questions. This case happened even before Andrew Yates case happened, you know, before. I mean, that really opened actually the public discourse on maternal, you know, postpartum health. Sure, sure. you know, what mothers go through. Would that have helped you in this case to kind of prosecute understanding? I mean, I don't see this case like Andrea Yates.

And I see the differences right now in Lindsay Clancy, although there are many people online comparing the two cases. So I want to talk about that. But did that make, I mean, do you think that would have been beneficial for you to understand that? Would it have been the similar type of, you know, would you have prosecuted? You know, it was ironic because I actually back then, I used to say, you know, that was back in the days of Pagers. And if I had a number that said Atlanta or New York, I knew somebody had done something to children, you know, because that's when I'd get called from the media. And I remember doing some work not on the case, but on the commentary about the case with Yates.

and there seem there to be, because, you know, again, to simplify it for your viewers, and each state's a little different, but in simplest terms, you want to know, and this is true with Clancy too, did they know legal and moral right from legal and moral wrong? And where I make the distinction there is what we would normally use as a prosecutor, could you beg traffic laws, could you use your phone, did, you know, real true, you know, delusional out of it. And I've had a guy that burned his mother up in the house and thought he was building an altar to the Lord.

And ultimately, everyone said that was really, you know, mental health and had occurred. He really believed it. And so we did allow, you know, like a guilty but mentally ill plea in that set of circumstances. But, you know, much like Clancy, you look, you know, she ordered the food.

She said her husband on the air and she did all the different things, you know. And again, not to make a mockery of it, but true psychosis is when I think, you know, that I don't, I'm not in York, South Carolina. I don't, you know, I'm in a spaceship and I think you're a demon. And, you know, I mean, it's that far removed that tears you from the, like from long, you know, I thought the children were monsters or, you know, whatever. But, you know, with Yates, if you recall, there, we always seem to see kind of a religious thing. thread that wasn't really there with Susan. I mean, the closest she

gave is some variation of, you know, I didn't want them, you know, to have to live without me. You know, which goes back to me, me, me, I, I, I, you know. Exactly what I thought. It was all about her. Yeah. Yeah. But, you know, I mean, that, you know, like with Yates, the best

I recall, you know, she really thought it was some kind of, the only way to transfer, you know, to take them to heaven was to do that. And so there was, you know, some difficult I mean, are some distinctions. And so I think going back, anything that occurs, you know, that you can learn can help you be a better, whatever, better prosecutor or whatever.

And so I think knowing that, but I also think it probably introduced more questions than it asked. Yates would have because with Smith, again, there's no doubt she killed her two kids. There's got to be mental health issues. But she knew right from wrong. She did it. Her mental health issue is, like I said, whether it's histrionic or whatever it is in the DSM, she is totally fixated on what's best for Susan.

And that's what happened. And, you know, again, not to make life. You know, I prosecute sexual assault all the time. But she was having relationships with her stepfather and the boss of the company who was Tom's day. You know, right before she killed the kids. So again, and I'm not saying. that being abused when she's younger

didn't make her be that. I'm not saying any of that. I'm just saying that it's not an excuse. Trauma is not abuse to. Right. She is making bad choices. And I can tell you, you know, I got contact

from all over the country back then. You know, everything from you know, I would have taken those kids to I was abused or I lost. In other words, every template that she would have used I had 10 people. contact me saying I've done that and that's what made my children, you know, or I'd live through

that and I've done that. I live through that. And that's what made my children so much more important to me. And so again, as I look at these distinctions, you know, Susan to me doesn't get anywhere near the level of Yates. And of course, we don't know how Clancy's going to, you know, shape out before the end. But, you know, observing the Clancy situation, you know, as I said earlier, whether, you know, the prosecution has taken extreme measures, you know, to say, was it really, you know, did she really try to hurt herself? And again, not to be disrespectful of suicide, but in Clancy, she's a nurse. I believe if she wanted to, again, not making light of, if she wanted to cut herself, cut an artery, I believe she could have done. You know, if she,

I don't think she intended to end up paralyzed, you know, if the sliding blood down the outside wall case is there. So I kind of feel like, as I've been watching at Clancy's maybe somewhere halfway between Smith and Yates, you know, as far as is kind of where it lands. And so because I can't figure out what Clancy's end game would be. You know, Clancy, you know, at least Susan was going to get the boyfriend. and live happily ever after after the carjap or two. Exactly. There was the motive for for Susan and I just haven't seen that motive yet with Lindsay Clancy beyond. I haven't either.

Other than other than I'm so overwhelmed, I can't handle the kids and this is the only way I see fit. Because again, like I said with Susan, giving the kids away apparently doesn't come an option for these folks, you know, which would be the bad. I mean, think how many grandmothers raise their kids now, you know, their kids' kids, now as it is, you know. I mean, somebody would have taken these kids, you know, so. No, absolutely. And you're right.

Did anybody, you know, what was the, did everybody say that Susan Smith was a wonderful mother? Because with Lindsay Clancy, we have witness after witness saying she was an incredible mother. I think even David Smith said she was a good mother. you know, I will say, you know, having, my wife having raised our three kids, I always, anytime I get the opportunity, they're adults now, we're grandparents, but I always say Kim Boat raised my kids while Tommy was out being a prosecutor, or being a legislator, whatever they're doing. So it didn't take about one good weekend with me with the kids.

No, I didn't want Kim's job. I'd rather go to the courthouse every day because it's hard work. So when, for people to say someone's a good mother, you know, it sounds so cliche, where of course you are. It's hard, hard work. And so I respect that, you know, whether it's from a defendant or the lady at church, you know, it's hard work and I respect. One last question. Well, I might have one last question after this, but a random question that was probably not on your bingo card for this, for this interview. But one aspect of this case has been getting, the Lentie Clancy case currently has been getting a lot of attention. It wasn't expected. But the prosecutor

every day in the Lindsay Clancy case walks in wearing a large hair bow in her hair. Have you heard about this or seen this? I have not. I have not. Okay. So she opts to wear a large hair bow. I will say some people say that she has worn this hair bow in other trials that she has prosecuted. So other people, though, mentioned her opening statements where she actually states that

Cora Clancy loved hair bows. So we don't know why she's wearing it. It could be that she just likes hair bows herself. She wore them in other trials. But here's what I want to ask you, because there are some people I've spoke to, including even a detective who said, I'm surprised the judge is letting her do this

because everybody's, everybody's seen as sort of a, you know, Cora, every photo of Cora is in a hairbow. And she loved hairbo. She mentioned an opening statement. And I had a detective say, a judge would never allow us to even like walk in in the color we like if it was a gang color of somebody that's being prosecuted on the stand, right? Even if you love the color red, if that's going to affect something in a case, you don't wear the color red.

So I wanted to know your thoughts. It's a large hair bow. She wears different colors every day. And so I was wondering your thought as a prosecutor, again, I don't. know her motive. I can't say whether it is or isn't because of Cora, but there's a lot of uproar on the internet. And she did mention the hairbows and she mentioned the hairbows of Cora. So do you think this is something like a prosecutor should do? Do you think it's something that a judge should put a stop to you? Do you think it's a nothing burger? Because the internet wants to know.

Sure. Okay. So I'll do my part for the internet because there's not enough stuff out there. And what I would think if this prosecutor and this judge, you know, are from that jurisdiction, the judge knows the prosecutor, all that, for starters, it may just be her bit, you know, that she's always done it, you know, like you said a minute ago. Well, that'd be one thing. You know, it's funny, I used to wear, well, I still do, where suspenders, you know, I think when I was 20 years old, some guy to men's shop fit me in a pair, you know, my suit with a pair of suspender buttons.

And I've been wearing suspenders ever since. It didn't, it doesn't really correlate to what case I'm trying, but that was kind of just happened to be, you know, who I was. So if this is who she is, that might be, and the defense may know it too, and that might be why you're not hearing that. Now, I'll back up. I always tell people, you know, we did the Susan Smith, case in the shadow of the OJ case.

And if you recall, the OJ case went on forever and it became a circus. You know, even the judge, you remember he, was it Lance Hito, liked to have hourglasses. And people started to send him hourglasses. Next thing, you know, on the bench. You know, it kind of became a kind of a show. Well, they also, I remember for the victims, had like an angel pen. And they literally and OJ had probably a day and a half of hearings to decide if the victim's family and the prosecutors could wear these angel pen. By contrast, when we tried the Smith case, and I've still got several of them in my office,

but there was a picture of Michael and Alex with Yellow Ribbon that started early before they were discovered with the hopes that, you know, the Yellow Ribbon, they're going to come home, you know. And so early on, the family was wearing them. Different people in the audience would be wearing them. I wasn't wearing them. I mean, I had a picture of Michael and Alex on my prosecution table, but that was for me not to show.

And the defense made a motion. We went up to the sidebar and talked to the judge and we removed them. In other words, instead of a day and a half a hearing, we just recognize what kind of what you're alluding to with the hair bow. and we removed them but we've always been very very careful um the hardest thing for me probably in the whole trial in that regard david smith testified in the penalty phase and cameras we didn't

have cameras in the courtroom we had cameras up into the trial but we didn't and again it kind of goes back to what i was telling you about jury venue if i say i want cameras in the courtroom as a prosecutor i'm a glory ham if i don't want cameras i got something to hide you know you know You know, you can't win that one. And so selfishly, I wanted cameras in the courtroom with David Smith testified because had they seen David Smith's testimony, they would know why I was trying this case. In other words, what I do in the penalty phase is basically, and not to over simplify, but bring the victims back to life. In other words, I start with David. Tell me about Michael and Alex.

going to the park, changing their diaper, you know, whatever the case may be, bubble bass watching. David said they, well, Michael loved, he couldn't say Dalmatians, 1001 Dalmatians, but it was like diametrons or something. But he tells all that, and then, and we don't rehearse it. I just tell him kind of a bit aware of the comment because I don't want it to be contrived or rehearse. David, we get to the point, I have to take him to the day Susan says she's carjacked.

and then I have to take him through that, and then I have to take him to when they're recovered. In other words, I basically bring the victims back to life and then take their life again. By the time David got through, I was about to burst into tears, and I couldn't ask the remainder of my questions. I'm not allowed to cry in a courtroom.

It's kind of the same thing. That's where I'm heading with this, you know. And so I kind of had to stop because, you know, it's non-verbal testimony, but I'm not allowed to testify. And it goes back to the, you know, but again, you know, I appreciate the internet speculation, but to me, as normally is the case, the answer is really behind the scenes. I've got to feel if the defense attorney or if it was so unusual and she never wore

a hair bow before and everything, you and I've heard that, you know, watching the video in the courtroom, I think. right right well thank you for your thoughts on the matter because yeah the internet wants to know so thank you i appreciate that um prosecutor i have appreciated this interview so much you plan every two years then to stand before susan smith to make sure she doesn't get out i will go um every time the only reason i could think i wouldn't go if i wasn't drawing breath or david smith decided they wanted to do something different. I often say if there could be such a thing where Susan got out,

went to Montana, you know, wherever, disappeared, and we never heard from her again, in a strange way, that would really be better for David in his family, I believe, versus tearing this wound open again and again every two years. The fallacy in that, and I was trying to think, what was the girl that did not get convicted down in Florida, that her little girl disappeared. And I can see her face.

Casey Anthony. Yes. So she's tried to kind of now be an influencer or something. I know it. Can you believe it? I know. She shows up on TikTok and yeah, WTF. And I believe absolutely that's what Susan Smith would do.

And you talk about salt in the wound for David and his family. you know, that would be more horrible than having to do this every two years. So my whole point being, if she could go somewhere to disappear, it would be better for him, but I just don't see Susan's not capable of that. She enjoys the limelight too much. I agree with you. I agree. I think that was a great comparison.

Well, thank you for fighting for justice for Michael and Alex and for David and his family now. Sure. Yeah, and I appreciate your thoughts on this current case. You're right. We're watching this trial play out. It has some very different elements to it. But of course, at the center of it all is a mother who killed her children. And the question is why, right?

So thank you for your time. Yes, ma'am. We appreciate it. And we'll talk again soon. Sounds good. Thank you. Bye-bye.