Recordings from several South Philadelphia homes documented clothing, voices and movements that guided a weeks-long search.
PHILADELPHIA, Pa. — Separate security cameras mounted along a South Philadelphia block captured fragments of William “Billy” Schmidt’s final walk, giving detectives a timeline that police used to identify and charge two teenagers in the 22-year-old student’s killing.
No single recording showed the entire encounter near 20th and Durfor streets early June 6. Together, however, the videos documented two people approaching Schmidt, a demand for a missing phone, movement through parked cars and the gunshot that killed him across from his home. The recordings also followed the pair as they changed or discarded clothing. Police later charged 16-year-olds Kaiseem Smith and Azzubair Outen-Fleming with murder and other offenses. Both were arrested in early July.
The first publicly described images showed two young people walking through the area after midnight. One appeared to turn and speak with Schmidt, who was outside the camera’s frame. Schmidt then followed them toward the street. Another angle captured a person throwing a cellphone, according to investigators and local news organizations that reviewed the video. A figure ran around a corner with Schmidt following. A second person appeared from near parked vehicles, turned and fired into Schmidt’s chest. On an audio recording, Schmidt could be heard saying, “Give me back my phone.” The shot followed within moments. The cameras did not clearly record every face, but they preserved the sequence, clothing and physical movements that became central to the investigation.
Police officers responding at about 1:30 a.m. found Schmidt lying in the roadway on the 1900 block of Durfor Street. Emergency workers took him to Penn Presbyterian Medical Center, where he was pronounced dead at 1:47 a.m. His family lived across the street. Bill Schmidt, his father, later found his son’s phone beneath a car and turned it over to police. That recovery gave investigators a physical item connected to the alleged robbery and helped support the family’s understanding that the confrontation began over the device. Authorities have not said what testing was performed on the phone or whether fingerprints, DNA or digital records became part of the case.
Detectives examined more than the moment of gunfire. Video from surrounding homes appeared to show one person crouching or hiding among parked cars while another moved down the block. Later footage showed the pair without some of the clothing seen earlier. Police emphasized a distinctive gray sweatshirt bearing skull-and-crossbones artwork, describing it as custom designed. The department said the clothing was discarded after the shooting and released images in hopes that someone would recognize it. Additional footage showed both people in white T-shirts. Investigators said the shorter individual fired the weapon with his left hand, a detail drawn from the shooter’s posture on video.
The visual evidence allowed police to ask the public narrow questions rather than issue only broad suspect descriptions. Investigators said both people were Black males. One appeared to stand about 5 feet 8 inches tall, while the other was several inches shorter. Police distributed still frames and clips showing their clothing and movement. The department offered a $20,000 reward for information leading to an arrest and conviction. The U.S. Marshals Service later joined the search and offered additional money for information leading to the teenagers’ capture. Officials have not said whether a tip generated by the released footage directly led to either arrest or whether any reward was paid.
The video also shaped the public account provided by Schmidt’s family. Bill Schmidt said one person appeared to take the phone while another concealed himself nearby. His son followed the person who had taken it, the father said, before the second individual came into view and fired. “I’m shocked he chased them,” Bill Schmidt said. His description came from what relatives had been told and what they could see on the recordings. Police called the encounter an apparent robbery, but early in the investigation they did not release a complete motive or explain whether Schmidt had been selected at random, followed from another location or approached only after entering Durfor Street.
The limitations of the footage are likely to matter as the case enters court. Video can establish timing, clothing and movement, but it may not by itself identify a person beyond dispute. Prosecutors will have to connect Smith and Outen-Fleming to the figures on the recordings through additional evidence. That evidence could include witness identifications, recovered clothing, cellphone location records, forensic testing, social media data or statements. Authorities have not publicly listed all items seized during the investigation. Defense attorneys will be able to question the image quality, camera angles, time stamps and any methods used to compare the defendants with the people shown.
Police obtained arrest warrants after a search lasting more than three weeks. Outen-Fleming was found July 1 at the home of a distant relative in Colorado Springs. Members of a U.S. Marshals Service task force arrested him after he allegedly attempted to deny his identity. He was held at the Zebulon Pike Youth Services Center while awaiting return to Philadelphia. Smith surrendered to Philadelphia police July 2. Federal authorities said his surrender brought the manhunt to an end. Officials have not explained whether video surveillance, electronic records or information from another person helped officers locate Outen-Fleming in Colorado.
The defendants’ age adds a procedural question to a case built around modern evidence. Both are 16, but murder cases involving teenagers can begin in Pennsylvania’s adult criminal courts. A defendant may seek transfer to juvenile court, where rehabilitation and age receive different weight. Prosecutors may oppose such a request based on the allegations and the evidence. Future hearings could reveal whether the state believes both teenagers planned the robbery, whether one acted without warning or whether accomplice liability forms part of the murder case. Police have said both face multiple charges but have not publicly provided a full account of how each count applies.
The recordings came from a neighborhood where home security systems are common and cameras often cover porches, sidewalks and parked vehicles. After the shooting, residents gave detectives access to clips from several positions. The cooperation allowed police to move beyond the limited view available from the immediate scene. One camera captured sound. Another recorded the approach. Others showed movements afterward. Their combined value came from overlap rather than clarity. Each filled a gap left by another, allowing investigators to arrange events in order even when trees, vehicles, walls or darkness blocked parts of the scene.
That same footage was difficult for Schmidt’s relatives and neighbors to watch. The block heard his voice, saw him move toward the corner and then heard the shot. A local television station muted the gunfire in one broadcast out of respect for his family. A resident called the killing over a phone abhorrent. Others asked anyone who recognized the young people or their clothing to come forward. A memorial of flowers and candles grew near the place recorded by the cameras. The images that assisted detectives also preserved the death of a person many residents had known since he was young.
Schmidt had been returning from a bar where he watched an NBA Finals game with friends. He was studying digital journalism and media at Penn State World Campus and expected to graduate in December. His family said he wanted a career in sports broadcasting. Penn State expressed condolences and contacted the family, while Roman Catholic High School remembered its 2021 graduate for his kindness and character. Those details entered the public story through family statements and school tributes, providing a fuller account of the person whose final seconds appeared in grainy nighttime footage.
The prosecution’s next steps may place the recordings under more exact review. Lawyers can seek original files rather than broadcast copies, examine whether time stamps were accurate and question the owners of the cameras about installation and storage. Specialists may be asked to explain frame rates, compression or image enhancement. Judges will decide which evidence may be shown and how it can be described. Jurors, if the case reaches trial, could be asked to compare multiple clips with other records rather than treat any one video as a complete account.
Several important facts remain undisclosed. Police have not announced the recovery of a gun, identified the place where all discarded clothing was found or explained whether laboratory testing linked those items to the defendants. Officials have not said whether the teenagers knew Schmidt before that night. Nor have they publicly described any statements made after the arrests. Those gaps do not determine the strength of the case, but they mark the difference between the investigative summary released to the public and the evidence prosecutors must eventually present in court.
Smith remained in Philadelphia custody while Outen-Fleming awaited transfer from Colorado. Their upcoming hearings are expected to provide the first detailed public test of the evidence assembled from cameras, physical items and witness accounts. Until then, the neighborhood recordings remain both the clearest published timeline of the killing and an incomplete view of what happened on Durfor Street.
Author note: Last updated July 12, 2026.