TAKES ONE TO KNOW ONE:
Former Local Nut Case Is Represented By A Legal Nut Case
THE STORY:
A Greenwich Roundup reader gave me a news cliping from today's New York Post's print edition.
The article has the former Greenwich residents lawyer, Stephen Hrones, saying that Christian Karl Gerhartsreiter AKA Clark Rockefeller is not guilty of kidnaping his daughter.
Lawyer Stephen Hrones said the former Greenwich resident and con man was not legally married and therefore there can not legally be a divorce.
Stephen Hrones says you can't get a divorce from a marriage that never existed, and therefore the judges divorce order was invalid.
According to Hrones, the former Greenwich resident and con man was merely a father picking up his own child, who was under no valid court orders.
Maybe that's why yesterday the Boston Herald reported.....
"Gerhartstreiter’s lawyer, Stephen Hrones, has arranged for NBC and The Boston Globe to interview the erstwhile Rockefeller at the Nashua Street Jail, but the network and the newspaper agreed to limit their questioning to only the subjects of his daughter and ex-wife.
Hrones said he agreed to the unorthodox jail house interview next week in order to counter negative publicity spread by prosecutors and the FBI."
But Hrones, has not explained away that Los Angeles murder, or has he....
Clark Rockefeller’s faulty memory? Yeah, that’s the ticket!
The Boston Herald
As he told us how his client, Clark Christian Gerhartstreiter Rockefeller, suddenly recalled his desire to take Hollywood by storm 25 years ago under the name Christopher Chichester, I waited for attorney Steve Hrones to end his press conference the other day with the punch line to that old SNL skit: “Yeah, that’s the ticket!”
Well, seems Clark called himself Christopher Chichester because he figured it would help him become the next Max Von Sydow.
Yeah, that’s the ticket!
Remember Tommy Flanagan? He was the endearing pathological liar Jon Lovitz played on “Saturday Night Live.” “Yeah, that’s the ticket!” was how Tommy connected one whopper to an even bigger one.
Outside the Nashua Street Jail Monday afternoon, Steve Hrones defended his “Tommy Flanagan” with a straight face and furrowed brow that seemed to reflect the weight of the world.
A week ago, Steve told us Clark couldn’t remember a thing before 1993. But that was before Christopher Chichester’s decades-old fingerprint surfaced in California, along with a long-ago disappearance and likely double homicide, and before a guy in the Bavarian Alps claimed Clark was his long-lost brother.
Now it seems that the miracle of memory is starting to return to one gnome-like con man locked up at Nashua Street. Yes, Clark can remember being the talented Mr. Chichester. But Hrones says his “eccentric” little hustler has no memory of ever murdering anybody. Yeah, that’s the ticket!.......
Please Also See:
New York Post
BOSTON - While the man who posed as a Rockefeller claims not to remember who he really is, he had no trouble yesterday recalling that he loves and misses the daughter he is charged with kidnapping.
"Snooks, I miss you. I love you," Clark Rockefeller wants his daughter, Reigh "Snooks" Boss, 7, to know, according to his lawyer.
Attorney Stephen Hrones said that his client, who is charged with custodial kidnapping for snatching his daughter off a Boston street on July 27, has no way of communicating with his little girl, but that she is always in his thoughts.
Aside from that, Hrones said Rockefeller insists he has no memory of being born Christian Gerhartsreiter in Bavaria.
"I know nothing about the name. I don't remember living in Germany or anything about that name," Rockefeller told his attorney.
He also does not recall living in California - although he does remember living as Christopher Chichester. He also recalls the couple, John and Linda Sohus, who mysteriously disappeared in 1985 while he was living in a house on their property, Hrones said.
"He doesn't remember being in California," the lawyer said. "He is not denying it, he just doesn't remember it."
Did I Hear Some One Say, "Your Honor, My Client Is Not Guilty By Reason Of Insanity"
In criminal trials, the insanity defenses are possible defenses by excuse, an affirmative defense by which defendants argue that they should not be held criminally liable for breaking the law, as they were legally insane at the time of the commission of alleged crimes. A defendant attempting such a defense will often be required to first undergo a mental examination. It is important to note that the legal definition of "insane" in this context is quite different from psychiatric definitions of "mentally ill", also that the definition of insanity varies between jurisdictions.
When the insanity defense is successful, the defendant may be committed to hospital.
Mental impairment is not a defense. It falls under the category of a mitigating factor referred to as "diminished capacity". A mitigating factor (which can include conditions not eligible for the insanity defense such as intoxication) can be used to attempt a reduction of the charges to a lesser offense or in a reduced sentence.
The insanity defense is based on evaluations by forensic professionals that the defendant was incapable of distinguishing between right and wrong at the time the offense was committed. In addition, some jurisdictions require that the evaluation address the issue of whether the defendant was able to control his behavior at the time of the offense. A defendant making the insanity argument might be said to be pleading "not guilty by reason of insanity" (NGRI). A successful NGRI defense can result in an indeterminate commitment to a psychiatric facility.
Diminished responsibility (or diminished capacity) can be employed as a mitigating factor and is applicable to more circumstances than the insanity defense in the United States. For example, some jurisdictions accept inebriation or other drug intoxication as a mitigating factor, whereas intoxication alone is not accepted as an insanity defense. If diminished responsibility (or capacity) is presented convincingly, the charges may be reduced to a lesser offense or the sentence may be more lenient.
Or will the former Greenwich resident lawyer argue that "amnesia" has made the con man unable adequately assist his lawyer Hrones in preparing a defense, make informed decisions about trial strategy and whether or not to plead guilty or accept a plea agreement.
Please See:
08/15/08 FBI confirms former Greenwich Resident's Identity
Please read how the Greenwich Time reporters are unable to cover this story, "By Reason Of Insanity":
08/14/08 WAKE UP GREENWICH TIME!!!
Grenwich Time Reporters Are Out To Lunch
MORE INFORMATION:
08/15/08 This Former Greenwich Resident Is Really Creepy
The phony Rockefeller eyed in the disappearance of a California couple 23 years ago once said his favorite movie was "Double Indemnity" - in which two lovers plot to kill her husband for the insurance.
Clark Rockefeller, a k a Christopher Chichester in 1985, claimed to be trying to break into the film business when he lived on the same San Marino, Calif., property as John and Linda Sohus, who went missing that year.
"He made a big point that he wanted to go see 'Double Indemnity,' " friend Dana Farrar told The Boston Globe.
Nine years after the Sohuses vanished, a male skeleton was found on the property and dried blood in the guesthouse, where Chichester stayed.
Lawyer Stephen Hrones claims Rockefeller had nothing to do with the disappearance, but Rockefeller was pulled over in the couple's truck years later in Greenwich, Conn.....
============================================
Please send your comments, as well as, any memory you may have of "one gnome-like" former Greenwich con man to GreenwichRoundup@gmail.com
No comments:
Post a Comment