Rockefeller Center
Update 12.03.08: Vanity Fair has a terrific chronology of Mr. Gerhartstreiter, “The Man in the Rockefeller Suit,” Vanity Fair January 2009, by the somewhat redundantly named “Mark Seal” (Is that his real name? Isn’t a seal a sort of mark? Hm.) The article goes through each of the identities, with interviews of people who knew this “fake Rockefeller” under each identity.
I’m hooked: it’s like studying a Yeti, except with documents and witnesses. Maybe more personally, haven’t we all seen the poseurs working the room and thought to ourselves, “You. . can. . not. . be. . serious.” Yet, they are, and it works, and some escape being found out forever, probably.
But two points on the article – one on the Chichester name, and the other on assuming Mr. Gerhartstreiter can experience parental love.
About the “Chichester” identity: Recall Mr. Gerhartstreiter took on the persona of “Christopher Chichester – Baronet the 13th” with the coat of arms “Firm en Foi”, the bird, the eel, the “dummied up” newspaper about Sir Francis Chichester and the Gipsy Moth. I think this may have been a play to claim British nobility title, and the San Marino crowd may have been just a ruse.
I had guessed that the “Chichester” name was from a Hitchcock film, given Mr. Gerhartstreiter’s flourish for the dramatic — the Son of Sam social and all (from the time spent at bond trading desk). No, the story, as Mr. Seal reports from interviewing a US high school chum, is that Chichester was the name of a teacher. Mr. Gerhartstreiter did embellish with the title and the props, presumably to impress San Marino dowagers.
Yet, the selection of “Chichester” and “Baronet”, again, seem to be some sort of scam: The peerage title of “Baronet” is a “courtesy title,” and (according to the source of all knowledge and wisdom, Wikipedia, ) “. . .A baronetcy becomes extinct when heirs cannot be traced and are believed not to exist. In this case it should not be listed on the Official Roll but would be re-activated should an heir subsequently emerge.. .”
Now, the Chichester Baronetcy reportedly went extinct in 1653: “Lord Chichester had no sons and on his death in 1653 the baronetcy became extinct“ (again Wikipedia). O man. How convenient. All you have to do is show up with a bunch of rich friends to vouch for you and claim your title — Baronet of Chichester. Perfect nobility title for the unemployed and broke.
About the motives for the alleged kidnap: Mr. Seal (if that is his real name) assumes Mr. Gerhartstreiter allegedly kidnapped his daughter because of paternal love.
(Psychopaths (as I understand the term) don’t have the capacity to feel human emotion and bonding on any deep level. My theory is that this is due to a white matter disconnect, and possibly vasopressin receptor deficits.)
The article was so to the point – - money and power — that I was optimistic: maybe Vanity Fair, which knows it some narcissists and poseurs, will get this one right. Mr. Seal goes through the different identities and points out the money and power perhaps derived from each. So, why would Mr. Gerhartstreiter be any different about his lawful issue?
To a psychopath, children are instrumentalities, not the end in themselves. The reasons a psychopath wants child custody are usually money and power. (As mentioned elsewhere, I don’t think this would have ended in even more tragedy — Mr. Gerhartstreiter had a plan to reinvent himself, with his daughter.)
Mr. Seal writes that Mr. Gerhartstreiter was down to his last $800K; actually down to his last $350K from spending about $450K on a condo. He probably mulled over, “Drug dealing? Art forging? Child support?”
And he had his argument for lifting the previous settlement contract: it was void ab initio since he never filed the marriage certificate, so there was no divorce to settle (because there had been no marriage). No marriage means no alimony (and no palimony), but there sure could be child support. Plus, once the agreement is torn up, Mr. Gerhartstreiter would be free to dream up some kind of in quantum meruit claim — after all, he was an acting contractor for the family home, contributing to Ms. Boss’s separate property. Shouldn’t he be paid a little something for that? (That was based on his interview where he was sure to mention that he acted as the contractor when remodeling the Learned Hand house, which is so . . . symbolic: remodeling the home of a famous jurist, just like remodeling the law to suit himself. If there is ever a movie, that should be the opening scene — Mr. Gerhartstreiter standing amidst the ruins of the Learned Hand house.)
Anyway. If he did the dissomaster child support spreadsheet for someone who earns, say, $1.4MM, he’d get at least $500K post-tax cash a year. Plus a “contractor’s stipend”. Not too bad.
Plus, in that male-preferred “Courtship of Eddie’s Father” kind of way, the single dad thing is a huge chick magnet — add to that “Rockefeller” and sprinkle in some fake art, and voila: the second wealthy soon to be ex-wife. Baltimore divorcees, you may want to send the FBI a fruit basket for saving you.
But, Mr. Gerhartstreiter did stay home and give the child a pre-K education. Was this paternal love? I doubt it. There are other uses for an extremely attractive and talented child. Like the rare dog he walked around New York to meet personages, wheeling a stroller was a perfect ornament for Mr. Gerhartstreiter. Children and dogs are wonderful ways to get to know the wealthy and powerful, or to let everyone know you are wealthy and powerful.
So, did Mr. Gerhartstreiter (allegedly) kidnap for paternal love? No.
But, I do feel for the child. She loved her father, of course: she’s a baby, and she was duped. Everyone was duped. Unfortunately, the man is dangerous (if the facts are as reported). The best thing to do is to keep him far away. He’ll come at her again, probably after he serves time, seeking money from the trust fund. Some girls may be grossed out, some, if feeling deprived of a father, may be beguiled. Unfortunately, this will be a burden in her life, because she’ll always wonder, if he’s not incarcerated, if he’ll (or someone he hires) will snatch her again, and this time, for ransom. If he’s sentenced, he should be implanted with a chip so she can see where he is on the GPS.
Original post below:
This post covers two topics: One, the press reports that have some sympathy for the guy; two, analysis of Mr. Gerhartstreiter’s reported life so far.
Reading the recent reports, this guy is textbook: glib, beguiling, charming, arrogant, lack of empathy, low frustrational tolerance, ease in deception and lying, lack of conscience.
Classic psychopath (for previous posts about psychopaths, click here; sometimes also called a sociopath). Very much akin to The Talented Mr. Ripley.
From press reports, people just don’t understand the mindset of a psychopath. The children are merely the instrumentalities toward another goal — money, a cover in social circles (the “poor single dad”,) revenge at the wife, demonstrating that the ex is evil because the court didn’t award her custody. . . whatever. It’s not about the kid.
Nor does the “but he was traumatized as a child” work. Psychopaths are physically – cellularly – incapable of compassion. Maybe not totally. There may be a spark with some. But it’s severely distorted. They cannot bond with others, except for the most utilitarian reasons.
Here are two reports that totally miss the mark, in my opinion:
First, here is a “sociologist” who claims Mr. Gerhartsreiter was likely traumatized by the holocaust and that made him want to shed his past life and move to the US . Pleeeze. That is an insult to those who truly were traumatized.
Second, here is an article about Father’s rights — which is not factually supported. This seems to be the predominant view – pity the stay at home dad who just wanted to have time with his kid. Newsweek, ya got this wrong. Here’s an earlier Newsweek article with the factually supported view.
Now: Analysis of his presumed biography shows exactly how a psychopath thinks. Every time a psychopath is outed, it’s fascinating to me: like capturing a Yeti. Or an alien.
Here’s what’s reported so far – here’s a pretty good summary from the Telegraph ; see the link and related reporting in the Boston Herald; and the Wikipedia entry for citations.
There’s a pattern — tentative at first, more bold later:
One, he keeps his options open;
Two, he creates personas consistent with the aspirations of his audience.
Christian Karl Gerhartsreiter, born 02.21.61, later claims to be born 02.29.60 – Feb 29, leap year. This is a plot used in Gilbert and Sullivan’s Pirates of Penzance – the leading character must give up an apprenticeship with pirates on his 21st birthday. Because the pirates were a mistake — he was supposed to be a pilot — he will now have to turn around and capture his beloved pirates. The problem is solved when he figures out his birthday is on Feb. 29 – leap year – so he won’t have his 21st birthday until he is chronologically 80+. Feb 29 – when given a choice, always take the option which gives you the most flexibility.
Childhood in Bergen was, reportedly, unremarkable. Mr. Gerhartstreiter was raised with his family, his mother, brother, father, in a home build by his grandfather in a story book village in Bergen Bavaria – near the Bergen-Belsen concentration camps.
There are now ex post facto reports that no one liked him, and that he was even arrogant to his family. There is a report that he was antisocial as a child, intentionally blowing pepper into the eyes of a teacher or using an air rifle to shoot out windows.
He pretentiously apparently hyphenated his name. Again – flexibility. With a hyphen, the first part can be a middle name, so the second part shows up under a different alphabetical order. He later does this on his drivers’ license in Connecticut.
As an apparent exchange student in Connecticut, he annoyed his host family with arrogance – refusing to eat their cooking, getting mad at having to do his own laundry, locking out a little sister in the cold, calling them peasants – until he is kicked out. There is no report of his seeking revenge on this family, however.
The little sister is nicknamed “Snooks” — the same nick name given to Mr. Gerhartstreiter’s biological daughter. Psychopaths – having no emotional valence – mimic. Mr. Gerhartstreiter may have been mimicking the only little-girl family member he knew — so as to appear normal.
After connecticut, Mr. Gerhartstreiter shows up in Wisconsin – home to many others of Bavarian ilk. Apparently he is off his student visa and seeks a green card. He does play by the immigration rules. This indicates to me that law enforcement has an effect on him – he respects authority.
Seeking a green card, he marries at age 19 in Wisconsin, promptly dumps his Wisconsonian wife, and leaves town. That must be one of the best things that ever happened to that woman.
The marriage records issue is interesting: Mr. Gerhartstreiter apparently fails to follow up to see if he’s divorced – which he was some years later. And, years later, when getting married to Ms. Boss, Mr. Gerhartstreiter failed to register his second marriage certificate (as Mr. Rockefeller). This could cut two ways. Say you divorce and seek alimony and child support in order to support your parasitic lifestyle. In that case, you’d want an air tight marriage, certificate on file, and no potential polygamy cloud on title. On the other hand, that means that you’re now on record as a Rockefeller – easily found out.
Leaving Wisconsin, green card in hand, in the early-mid 1980′s, he winds up in San Marino, California. Now, LA is a good place to reinvent yourself, it’s done all the time. San Marino is probably the only part of LA where being an actor is sort of tacky – Pasadena, San Marino — that’s oil wealth area, and that counts as “Old Money” in LA. No french poodles in pink Chanel bags. The mid west starts at the Pasadena freeway.
Mr. Gerhardtstreit reinvents himself as Christopher Chichester, the thirteenth, a baronette – coat of arms and all. The Californians really like Eurotrash. He joins the right clubs, chats up the ladies, speaks with a British-ish accent.
As will turn out horrifically, he rents a guest house from a young couple.
Apparently he has some interest in acting and film, and has a cable show on “channel 8″ which is the public access channel. At that time, Mr. Gerhartstreiter apparently portrayed himself a producer of Alfred Hitchcock’s shows. Perhaps this is where he got the name Chichester. In one Night Gallery episode, #39, November 1971, “House, – With Ghost”, there is a character, Mr. Chichester. Here’s a Youtube clip, \”House with Ghost,\” Night gallery, via Youtube (this is uploaded by a user in three parts). Chichester is the real estate agent, of “Chichester’s Real Estate.” The plot stars Robert Crane as a social climber, wanting to lease in a high rent area, getting a British girl friend, and murdering his wife (Jo Anne Worley). Whoa. This is ironic prescient on so many levels, not the least of which is that the actor Bob Crane was brutally murdered in 1978.
(As an aside, the actor who played Mr. Chichester also played the priest in Harold and Maude. )
Was Mr. Gerhartstreiter considering murdering his Wisconsin wife now that he had the green card, as in the “House with Ghost”? A psychopath would weigh the cost/benefits – probably in a small town in Wisconsin this would not be feasible, so better to just take the green card and move to a populous city where he can’t be found: LA.
In yet another oblique reference, the short story of “House, with Ghost” was written by August Derleth, born in Sauk City, Wisconsin, not too far from Elm Grove, Wisconsin, where Mr. Gerhartstreiter married to get his green card.
Why the 13th Baronette? Why not the 9th? or the 35th? Alfred Hitchcock’s birthday was on August 13th; his first film was “Number 13” (not completed). And 13 is just an unlucky number.
Just like “House-with Ghosts”, the San Marino house is apparently the site of a single, if not double, homicide. It is unclear if Mr. Gerhartstreiter is connected to this. There’s the matter of a borrowed chainsaw, a buried body, the opportune timing, and Mr. Gerhartstreiter showing up with an apparent victim’s vehicle 3000 miles away. Probably the motive is financial, should Mr. Gerhartstreiter turn out to be the perpetrator.
Shortly after the landlords go missing in Mr. Gerhartstreiter’s guest house in San Marino, Mr. Gerhartstreiter reportedly shows up on the East coast, He calls himself the name of a director, Christopher Crowe – who, in 1985, was a writer for a re-do of “Alfred Hitchcock Presents“. In 1985, there were 4 episodes, and the last one, “An Unlocked Window”, was a re-do of a 1965 show about a madman murderer on the loose who preys on home-care nurses. Was the wife in Wisconsin a nurse? At any rate, it was convenient because he could still answer to the name “Chris” which was his original birth name.
Mr. Gerhartstreiter apparently worms his way into some investment banking jobs by claiming he is a managing director for European royalty trust properties. He apparently got fired or skedaddled out of the jobs when the California law enforcement came investigating the missing Californians. For a psychopath, this was a mis-fire, and a confused one at that: the finance crowd isn’t impressed by royalty, or by film (which Mr. Gerhartstreiter was apparently pitching). They want money.
Who has money? Rockefellers.
Mr. Gerhartstreiter shows up in New York, with the name “Clark Rockefeller”. Rockefeller nailed it: this was his new crowd’s aspiration. He honed his act.
He married well. Had he been truly a good con — and some sociopaths are, I’ve seen them — then he would have backed off, lived well, and not made any noise.
This reportedly wasn’t the case – he lived in New Hampshire under the cover as a stay-at-home dad. Again, playing to the crowd, he said he was Ivy league, and an absentee business owner. A “poor” Rockefeller — which is again aspirational to that crowd – not flash, but pedigree.
Yet, the arrogance got the better of him, apparently — it is reported he objected to naming a road after a neighbor family, instead suggesting that the road be named for his late dog or town historical reference, not the other family name. His offer to buy the town a back hoe (or something) was turned down when town leader suspected he wanted city back-hoe services in return. They were on to him. (Again, according to reports).
When he took off with his daughter, he apparently he sought to tone it down in Baltimore — his name was Charles “Chip” Smith, a single dad with a Yacht in a Baltimore harbor. He realized the Rockefeller name was a burden, and he chose “Smith”. “Charles – Chip” sounds suspiciously like a cookie delivery firm, very work-a-day. Apparently there were ruses along the way to buy real estate or get his belongings together, but these weren’t the big ticket items. It is interesting how he kept a “yacht” (a listing Catamaran) in Baltimore for 9 years — was this to maintain flexibility just in case he had to make a get away?
And, again with the name – he lived on “Ploy Street”.
Now Mr. Gerhartstreit is sitting in jail, claiming not to recall any of his life pre-1993. A psychopath would be weighing what proof there is against him versus any alibis that could be fabricated on the spot. If he is backed into a corner, he may suicide – after all, there is nothing left to lose. My guess is that even in jail, Mr. Gerhartstreit would thrive – he’d be maybe the most famous fake Rockefeller. There is one photo of him in handcuffs smiling. Probably telling him he is better than Rocancourt would be a motivator. If he does generate revenue from a book, it may be the only time in his life he is a profit center, rather than a cost center. (Even though he may not be able to keep the money himself).
This part is why I’m posting yet again: the child. He fathered an heir to his wife’s wealth. To a psychopath, a child is an instrumentality to power- and here, that is the means to manipulate the mother to support his parasitic lifestyle. I don’t think he would have harmed the child — he had too much to lose. (By harm, I mean physically, he already has inflicted substantial emotional damage). My guess is that he would have demanded child support, and portrayed his ex wife as an abusive workaholic who could not possibly nurture a child. Given the public press, he would have gotten sympathy, too.
I hope people understand that, if things are as reported, he is not a good dad. He is a monster.
The little girl has a new found family in Germany, who, by all reports, appear healthy and happy. Who knows, they may be the most healthy family she’s got.
Maybe not.
How about pathological liar?
How about a guy who has been living theatrical fantasies?
I think you are not correct in the clinical psychopathy diagnosis.
Air rifle to shoot out windows? Well, if he was shooting neighbors pets you would be a bit more on track. Pepper in the face of a teacher? How about cutting the teacher’s tires with a knife.
He did pranks swivel. This is not psychopathy.
I do share your interest in Psychopathy and it is certainly biologically based, and hereditary.
But this guy…seems a bit shy of the mark.
Maybe you can enhance your blog to draw some distinctions between pathological lying (which has a neurological basis) and clinical psychopathy.
And I agree with you that these people, when outed, really are like aliens. The worst ones are the ones who are not outed of course. Far more than most people realize. And always in positions of prestige/power or reaching towards such positions.
Anon, thanks for the comment. What is the clinical definition in psychopathy you use? And why would this individual be shy of the mark according to those criteria?
pathological lying and theatrical fantasies are both things that are manifested in psychopathy, anon. The lack of empathy that would have to be present to do something insulting and knowingly harmful like blowing pepper into the face of someone (and the sense of invincibility present allowing one to do it to an authority figure, like a teacher) is characteristic as well. \
Judging from what I’ve read I would agree with the blog poster and tell you to do a bit more homework on your psychopathy/sociopathss/ASPD/NPD, swivel seems to be right on the mark.
Thank you maeby for your comments, and your screen name is great. Mr. Gerhertstreiter’s life (as reported) is one big case of arrested development, although more sinister.
I don’t want to get hung up on semantics — whether psychopath or sociopath or antisocial behavior — but the reports point to the larger pattern of using people as instrumentalities in order to get power. There is no affiliative behavior – no emotional bonding.
Reports on the childhood behavior have a little more color, see, http://www.bostonherald.com/news/regional/general/view.bg?articleid=1112082 , Jessica Van Sack, “He was always Crazy”, Boston Herald 08.10.08
Swivel,
Sorry for the delayed reply. The definition I use is Robert Hare’s PCL-R. By this definition, this guy is a bit shy of the mark.
Regarding “sociopathy” there really is not proper clinical definition available, and the other label you might go for is Antisocial (ASPD) per the DSM-IV. But so far there is no evidence to support ASPD.
You should study the topic pathological liars/story-tellers as a distinct entity. Such folks ARE neurologically different from most people. But most of them are not clinical psychopaths.
Now, if Gerhartstreiter DID kill John Sohus, and especially if he did it for a simple economic motive (and especially if he did it for an economic sum which most would regard as far insufficient to motivate a normal person to even fantasize of murder) then you have a much better case for psychopathy.
What you do have here is pathological lying resulting is such grand tales that the criteria for “delusions of grandeur” is well satisfied.
Psychopathy is very real. You are doing good service to by raising awareness of psychopathy. But there are other neurological types which fit this guy better than psychopathy.
maeby,
Having dealt with some real clinical psychopaths, and knowing very well the clinical, neurological, neuroelectrical, neuroatomical, verbal semantic, and practical behaviors of true clinical psychopaths, I don’t think I need your advice on doing homework.
You might do well to not mix up some very different clinical entities as you do in your message above. ASPD criteria is satisfied by vast numbers of people in prison, Psychopathy is definitely not. NPD as a clinical entity can certainly be gotten to by reducing the severity of traits among some clinical psychopaths.
Clinical psychopaths are very much like a different sub-species of human, as are pathological liars. But the two are different.
Both you and swivel might do well by considering the notion of a person who might be addicted to the “rush” they achieve by telling a tall tale. This as an underlying model of this individual’s motivation performs well in terms of a single orthogonal explanation of 99% of what this guy has been evidenced to have done, INCLUDING, using his primary apparent skill in life — telling tall tales — to effect the kidnapping of his daughter.
People who are hooked on alcohol or cocaine or heroin do lots of things which might make it appear that they lack empathy. Why? Because they are constantly resolving conflicts between an addiction and what would otherwise be high-conscience behavior, and they are resolving these conflicts in favor of the addiction.
Is that a lack of empathy?
By you logic a very large portion of people who are addicted to anything are psychopaths.
I think not.
And the pepper incident is absolutely not of a scale to dictate psychopathy. If he then went and strangled the teacher’s cat, you might have something, but so far, you have a prankster, who in that case clearly met with administrative consequences and by all indications, took that feedback on board.
As for kidnapping his child who according to the press he raised from birth to age 6 or 7, you might do a search of how often women kidnap their birth children after they lose custody (these are usually women who have substance abuse problems in fact).
So, MAEBY you are not quite qualified to be opining on these topics, and MAEBY you need to do a great deal more homework, including expanding your knowledge to include clinical entities not even on your list above.
“Seeking a green card, he marries at age 19 in Wisconsin, promptly dumps his Wisconsonian wife, and leaves town.”
Really? According to the University of Wisconsin, he attended as a student there for at least several semesters.
As for people marrying for green cards, perhaps you are not aware of how extremely common it was in the late 1970s/early 1980s for people in the U.S., especially in the Arts world, to help out their friends by marrying them to assist a green card. And it was considered about as “unthinkable” to do as smoking pot among arts students. In other words, everyone was doing it — it was normal. Only years later did the Federal government get around to cracking down on this activity.
It is noteworthy that the former “wife” in Wisconsin isn’t talking. Maybe she extracted a payment of $500 from Mr. Gerhartstreiter for her help?
In any case, your implication that he dropped into Wisconsin for a day, married some poor innocent, and then dumped her, is not supported by any evidence whatsoever. You are the apparent victim of newspaper journalists who are scoring higher on some of the Hare PCL-R axes for “psychopathy” than is the individual they are presently making a meal of — perhaps you should drill more deeply on the facts before believing a press which shows no “empathy” or “remorse” as well as pathological and highly manipulative “reporting”?
Just a thought!
Thank you for the comment anon.
I totally disagree with everything you have said and believe you couldn’t be more wrong.
But thank you for your comment, it was an interesting read.
Swivel,
Perhaps you are busy, but simply saying that “[you] totally disagree with everything you have said and believe you couldn’t be more wrong.” doesn’t seem a sensible reply, and it does not reflect a strong sense of reciprocal moral obligation on your part, which I would note is a trait bearing a positive correlation coefficient to clinical psychopathy. But I am surely not ready to “diagnose” you on this symptom alone — unlike your own apparent comparative zeal at diagnosing a certain other.
Are you saying that it is wrong for me to say that Psychopathy is a different clinical entity than Pathological Lying? Maybe you should spend some time on Medline and see what you come up with.
Are you saying that this fellow wasn’t registered at U. of Wisconsin and taking film courses for several semesters?
Why don’t you go through the Hare PCL-R checklist which you can find on WIKI and score this guy on each item and see what you get?
Now I will grant you that some of his behaviors do bear a strong correlation to psychopathy, however, some of these bear an even stronger correlation to another entity. Also, the behaviors which are missing from the psychopathy profile should cause an objective person concern over jumping to apply this label. Sure it is tempting to call him a clinical psychopath, but what is curious is how most clinical psychopaths do not do nearly the level of tall-tale telling which this fellow does. He is obviously absolutely hooked on telling extraordinary self-aggrandizing tales. This is his most prominent clinical feature and is surely has a neurological basis.
Further point:
Psychopathy is very important neurological sub-type within the human species, and the vast majority of psychopaths — estimated at 1% of the population — are not in prison, nor have they ever killed anyone. But they do cause severe problems for our society on many levels.
By taking an extremely colorful case of a guy who engages in wildly delusional pathological lying and labeling him (incorrectly) as a psychopath, you are doing a disservice to proper awareness building on the important topic which is psychopathy within the human species.
Of much greater concern should be those callous, unemotional, highly manipulative, controlling, lacking-in-remorse, neurologically aberrant individuals who have clawed their way into positions in our society from which they can and do engage in extensive anti-human activity under various covers and guises.
Thank you for your comments Anon. Your point has been made .