Prosecutors return gold, cash to Rockefeller/Gerhartsreiter

The man who calls himself Clark Rockefeller and is at the center of a San Marino missing persons’ mystery will have seized gold coins and cash returned to him to help pay for his defense in his parental kidnapping case, as the Associated Press reports below:

BOSTON — The man who calls himself Clark Rockefeller will get back about half of the
gold coins and cash seized by authorities after he was arrested for allegedly kidnapping his 7-year-old daughter.
Prosecutors agreed Monday to turn over 160 gold coins — worth about $140,000 — and $6,480 in cash so he can pay for his defense. Prosecutors and the man’s attorneys said the money came from a divorce settlement with his ex-wife.
He has pleaded not guilty to parental kidnapping.
Authorities say Rockefeller is actually German citizen Christian Karl Gerhartsreiter, who has
been labeled a “person of interest” in the 1985 disappearance of a San Marino couple.
“Clark Rockefeller” was charged with kidnapping his daughter, Reigh, during a supervised visit in Boston in July. He was arrested in early August in Baltimore, where Reigh was found unharmed. The girl was returned to his ex-wife, Sandra Boss, who lives in London.
During the hearing in Suffolk Superior Court on Monday, Assistant District Attorney David Deakin said prosecutors agreed to return half of the seized cash and coins because there was no evidence Gerhartsreiter obtained it illegally and he “has a right to pay for his defense.”
The agreement allows Gerhartsreiter’s defense to seek the return of the rest of the money at a later date.
In all, authorities had seized 321 gold coins and nearly $13,000 in cash when Gerhartsreiter was arrested in Baltimore. Deakin said that prosecutors consider the money to be evidence of
pre-meditation in the kidnapping and plan to mention it at Gerhartsreiter’s trial.
Defense lawyer Tim Bradl said the Monday agreement also allows the defense to get the keys to his client’s Baltimore condominium. Bradl said his client wants his attorneys to retrieve dolls in the condo and return them to his daughter.
The FBI said in August that it had matched fingerprints from Gerhartsreiter’s immigration papers from the early 1980s to those taken from a wine glass he touched in July. He has insisted in interviews that his name is Clark Rockefeller and that he does not remember large chunks of his past.

Facebook Twitter Reddit Tumblr Linkedin Email
  • If Denner screws up, he’ll get a gag order on the malpractice lawsuit.

    He just got one on me, convincing Blogger that I am the Plaintiff in a pending Civil case against Denner.

    My URL was

    This was my last post:


    Saturday, November 22, 2008
    In re Abbott 437 Mass. 384, 772 N.E.2d 543 (2002).
    Derrick Gillenwater’s case against Jeffrey Denner was scheduled for a pretrial last week. The case is still apparently pending. I have not seen Derrick’s blog reappear so I assume that Denner and his boys still have the judge on their side to get a gag order in a civil case. If the things I’ve found out about Denner — a lawyer whom I largely respect — are online (and they are) then why in the hell cannot Derrick Gillenwater use his First Amendment Rights to discuss them? There’s no national security risk involved in this case.

    There’s something fishy in Denmark, Hans.

    Then again it looks like there was something fishy with Denner’s conduct in the case of In re Abbott, 437 Mass. 384, 772 N.E.2d 543 (2002) as well. Same inability to monitor the actions of attorney who worked for him. The attorney Denner was supervising never even filed the man’s appeal, and Denner failed to cover for him.


    The following facts are drawn from the committee’s findings which were adopted by the appeals panel and the board.

    Abbott was admitted to the bar of the Commonwealth on January 12, 1983, and from 1983 to 1995 worked as a sole *387 practitioner with a concentration in criminal appellate work.FN3 Between 1990 and 1991 Abbott rented space from Attorney Jeffrey Denner in his Newton office and occasionally performed work for Denner as an independent contractor. On or about March 23, 1991, Atehortua retained Denner to represent him in an appeal from his conviction of trafficking in cocaine. Denner was to be paid $9,000 to review the transcript and materials related to Atehortua’s trial and evaluate whether there were any issues worthy of appeal. Denner would then be paid an additional $9,000 for preparing the appeal if meritorious issues were found.

    Bar counsel commenced disciplinary proceedings against attorney. A single justice of the Supreme Judicial Court, Cowin, J., issued order suspending attorney from the practice of law, and attorney appealed. The Supreme Judicial Court, Cordy, J., held that: (1) attorney was given adequate notice of charges against him; (2) bar counsel had no obligation to interview attorney’s witness; (3) attorney’s rights to confrontation and due process were not violated when hearing committee admitted client’s videotaped deposition in lieu of his live testimony; (4) substantial evidence supported findings that attorney failed diligently to pursue postconviction relief for his client, intentionally misrepresented the status of the case to bar counsel, misrepresented the contents of a document to his client to induce him to sign it, and fabricated evidence to mislead bar counsel; and (5) attorney’s misconduct warranted suspension from the practice of law for a period of two and one-half years.



    FN2. Abbott had been previously admonished by the Board of Bar Overseers (board) for similar unprofessional misconduct in 1989 when his failure to file an appellate brief in a deportation matter caused his client’s appeal to be dismissed. This conduct violated S.J.C. Rule 3:07, Canon 2, DR 2-110(A)(2), as appearing in 411 Mass. 1318 (1992), and S.J.C. Rule 3:07, Canon 6, DR 6-101(A)(2) & (3), as appearing in 382 Mass. 783 (1981), and was considered as an aggravating factor in the board’s recommendation of discipline in the current matter.

    Denner apparently did a good job defending Boston cop Carlos Pizarro on a drug distribution case. Maybe he did too good a job. Maybe he had to offer up Derrick to repay Pizarro. That would be interesting, wouldn’t it.

  • The beat goes on.

    Attorney Denner settled another Big Dig case, this one for $16M to add to the $28M. I’m glad for him and for the Del Valle family but what about Derrick Gillenwater?

    Harvard Law School Citizen Media Law Center is following this case but nobody else in Boston has the chutzpah to write about it at all. It’s disgusting.….

    -Boston Bob

  • lovel

    We know how it is; the economy is really brutal right now! Even people who normally don’t struggle with their bills and have excellent credit have had the interest rates on their credit cards suddenly raised for no reason at all. When bills become harder and harder to pay, people begin looking for creative ways to get those bills paid.One would say “sell your gold

  • this is good…………………

  • One of these ways is selling gold for cash. Consumers think that years and have no problem buying or selling your gold for a price that is fair for both parties .You can view more information about gemstone properties, beading tips and techniques, and jewelry marketing and well designed jewelry.

  • This is a wonderful opinion. The things mentioned are unanimous and needs to be appreciated by everyone.
    I appreciate the concern which is been rose. The things need to be sorted out because it is about the individual but it can be with everyone.

  • This is a wonderful opinion. The things mentioned are unanimous and needs to be appreciated by everyone.
    I appreciate the concern which is been rose. The things need to be sorted out because it is about the individual but it can be with everyone.