Link (http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-rockefeller-imposter-guilty-20130410,0,55254.story)

A German native who consorted for years with New England’s social elite by pretending to be a Rockefeller was convicted Wednesday in Los Angeles of first-degree murder, capping a nearly three-decade-old mystery involving a missing couple and a body buried in a San Marino backyard.

Christian Karl Gerhartsreiter, 52, was accused of bludgeoning his landlady’s adult son with a blunt object and then digging a 3-foot-deep grave in the backyard of the victim’s home. The body was buried behind a guest house where Gerhartsreiter had been living.

The victim, John Sohus, 27, vanished in early 1985 along with his wife, Linda, who has never been found. Gerhartsreiter, who in San Marino introduced himself as British aristocrat Christopher Chichester, disappeared soon afterward, resurfacing on the East Coast under a series of ever more elaborate false identities.

In Connecticut, he was television and film producer Christopher Crowe before convincing some on Wall Street that he was a bond trader. But it was his act as Clark Rockefeller, an eccentric but brilliant member of America’s famous wealthy family, that won him entry to exclusive social clubs and fooled many, including his Harvard-educated wife.

More than 40 witnesses testified during the three-week trial in downtown Los Angeles, recounting stories about the charismatic Gerhartsreiter and the missing couple, who had been married less than a year and a half when they disappeared. John’s remains were discovered in 1994 by a construction crew building a swimming pool for the new owner of the Lorain Road property.


Defense attorneys argued that their client was a simple conman who committed only petty crimes. They pointed out that the prosecution had presented no motive for the killing. The victim’s 29-year-old wife, they said, was more likely to have been responsible for the slaying.

In building a case against Gerhartsreiter, the prosecution had to overcome an array of obstacles. There was no DNA, fingerprints or other forensic evidence identifying the killer. Most of the victim’s remains were mistakenly destroyed in 1995. Witnesses had trouble remembering dates that were nearly 30 years old. The new lead sheriff’s detective had to deal with incomplete reports and missing evidence from previous investigators.

Deputy Dist. Atty. Habib Balian spent three weeks weaving together a case from circumstantial evidence.

The key prosecution evidence were two plastic bags found wrapped around the victim’s skull. Both were in use during the early 1980s. One was from the bookstore at USC, where Gerhartsreiter attended film classes at the time. The other was from the bookstore at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, where Gerhartsreiter was enrolled from spring 1980 to spring 1981.

The prosecutor argued that Gerhartsreiter slipped up by taking the couple’s new truck with him when he left San Marino. In 1988, he gave the Sohuses' truck to a friend who tried to obtain its title from California, alerting police that Gerhartsreiter and the missing couple's vehicle were in Connecticut.

Although Gerhartsreiter had lied about his identity before, he went to more extraordinary lengths to hide who he really was after the killing, particularly when a detective began seeking him in connection with the missing couple, Balian argued. Witnesses testified that Gerhartsreiter changed his address, dyed his hair, used post office boxes and kept records out of his name for the next 20 years.

“He's gotten away with it for 28 years,” Balian told jurors at the end of the trial. “He thinks he's smarter than everyone.… He thinks everyone's so stupid.”

I came here to post this article. Yay!

It's a good day for justice! I am sad that they have not found Linda's body. I see the conviction for John's murder as a virtual conviction of her murder as well. I hope this brings their families some peace.

So, how long before he tries to pass himself off as Charles Manson's younger brother who really orchestrated the whole thing?

Well, I'm glad it turned out this way, because I've always believed that he was guilty of this, and based on the circumstances as presented in the segment, I'm surprised that he wasn't considered a suspect initially.

I hope that now it is "done", perhaps more details of his whereabouts over the years will be made public and maybe Linda can be found someday.

YAY!!! Another douche gets what he deserves!!!!!

Finally! RIP John Sohus

Great news! Now if he will just tell what happened to Linda.

Great news! Now if he will just tell what happened to Linda.

This is what I hope for as well.

I am glad to see this story has been posted here. A bizarre tale, indeed. Maybe someday we will find out what happened to Linda?

Who knows, maybe the in-clark-cerated rockefeller will be able to help....solve a mystery? :cool:

I hope his guilty verdict and sentencing is of some closure to John and Linda's friends and family. I think finding Linda is the last big piece of the puzzle. I don't get the feeling that she is dead. I think she might be in hiding.

I hope his guilty verdict and sentencing is of some closure to John and Linda's friends and family. I think finding Linda is the last big piece of the puzzle. I don't get the feeling that she is dead. I think she might be in hiding.

Do you think she was involved in John's death?

Logic would indicate if she is still alive she was 100% involved.

Logic would indicate if she is still alive she was 100% involved.

Yes but she could also be dead in the backyard or elsewhere.

Do you think she was involved in John's death?

I don't think so. She might have witnessed it and was murdered or was forced to help him cover up the murder. As to your comment about the backyard, they used radar equipment a few years ago and didn't find any other remains in the backyard or in the house.

It's always good to see a classic UM case like this one finally be solved. Especially for the old cases. This case shows that there is still a chance that other old UM cases could still be solved.

Does anyone know if there are any books about this case?

(I'm sure there will be some in the near future, now that "Clark" has been found guilty, just wondering if there were any out there yet)

Yes, this one is very good. "The Man in the Rockefeller Suit" by Mark Seal. http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0452298032/ref=pd_lpo_k2_dp_sr_1?pf_rd_p=1532201582&pf_rd_s=lpo-top-stripe-1&pf_rd_t=201&pf_rd_i=B00B9ZEG7I&pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_r=1M4H12A0Z48EXG6TFTJ9

Dateline is on tonight at 8pm (in Canada) and the subject is this case! I'm curious to see what unknown facts (if any) will be revealed...

Yes, this one is very good. "The Man in the Rockefeller Suit" by Mark Seal. http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0452298032/ref=pd_lpo_k2_dp_sr_1?pf_rd_p=1532201582&pf_rd_s=lpo-top-stripe-1&pf_rd_t=201&pf_rd_i=B00B9ZEG7I&pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_r=1M4H12A0Z48EXG6TFTJ9

I will check it out, thanks! :wave:

I don't think so. She might have witnessed it and was murdered or was forced to help him cover up the murder. As to your comment about the backyard, they used radar equipment a few years ago and didn't find any other remains in the backyard or in the house.

I was going to ask everyone what their theories were on what happened to Linda's body. I'm with 1990 UM fan: I don't believe Linda had anything to do with John's death and was a victim as well. I don't understand why they weren't disposed of in the same manner/location though.

That may be Crockefeller's last bargaining chip, actually. I wouldn't be surprised if he tried to use it.

Of course, he may just keep his mouth shut, because they still can't prove she's dead.

I love typing out my thinking. :crazy:

I was going to ask everyone what their theories were on what happened to Linda's body. I'm with 1990 UM fan: I don't believe Linda had anything to do with John's death and was a victim as well. I don't understand why they weren't disposed of in the same manner/location though.

Here's another interesting fact. The neighbors reported smelling a rotten smell coming from the Sohus' chimney around the time of their disappearances. Investigators used Luminol in the guest room where the chimney was and found a large amount of blood in the room. It's highly likely that either John or Linda, or both, where killed in that room. John's remains were buried in the backyard but Linda was not found anywhere. It's possible that she was killed, dismembered and then burned in the fireplace, as to why they never found her body. It's an odd way of disposing of a victim but it's likely.

"Sentencing for Gerhartsreiter, who faces 25 years to life in state prison, had been scheduled for June 26. Lomeli postponed the hearing until Aug. 15."

Creep claims he has new evidence about Linda, wants a new trial. Read articles.


Read more: http://www.pasadenastarnews.com/news/ci_23502159/fake-rockefeller-claims-new-evidence-proves-he-is#ixzz2XZZITTpo

http://www.pasadenastarnews.com/news/ci_23502159/fake-rockefeller-claims-new-evidence-proves-he-is

I don't think he committed murder. Identity theft, fraud, conning, etc. are all crimes of cowardice. Is he guilty of being a scumbag for all the crimes he committed? Sure. I'm just saying murder is a far stretch from constantly changing your name and living under different pseudonyms.

Here's another interesting fact. The neighbors reported smelling a rotten smell coming from the Sohus' chimney around the time of their disappearances. Investigators used Luminol in the guest room where the chimney was and found a large amount of blood in the room. It's highly likely that either John or Linda, or both, where killed in that room. John's remains were buried in the backyard but Linda was not found anywhere. It's possible that she was killed, dismembered and then burned in the fireplace, as to why they never found her body. It's an odd way of disposing of a victim but it's likely.

Then where are the obvious bone fragments in the chimney? A chimney can only get a fraction of the heat generated compared to cremation ovens. Even a good cremation of a corpse can't burn through bone. It has to be broken up afterwards. A household chimney I don't think could generate the amount of heat to even burn flesh to the bone. As for the luminol. Luminol for the past years has been deemed very circumstantial. Yes it can detect areas where blood had been, it can also detect where bleach and other cleaning solvents have been.

I don't think he committed murder. Identity theft, fraud, conning, etc. are all crimes of cowardice. Is he guilty of being a scumbag for all the crimes he committed? Sure. I'm just saying murder is a far stretch from constantly changing your name and living under different pseudonyms.

Do you think it was Linda who killed Jon and then disappeared?

IMO, it had to be someone close to the family since Jon's remains were found buried in separate bags in his own yard. If his mom was as much of a mess as has been reported, I don't think she would have been capable of doing it.

With Crockafeller having possession of Jon's car all the way across the country and trying to sell it, right after Jon and Linda went missing.... that's just another thing that makes him look like the killer, imo. But I do agree that it's odd for someone with Crock's history as a conman to commit a murder at such a young age, and then go on to not murder again, but just continue being a big scammer.

Do you think it was Linda who killed Jon and then disappeared?

IMO, it had to be someone close to the family since Jon's remains were found buried in separate bags in his own yard. If his mom was as much of a mess as has been reported, I don't think she would have been capable of doing it.

With Crockafeller having possession of Jon's car all the way across the country and trying to sell it, right after Jon and Linda went missing.... that's just another thing that makes him look like the killer, imo. But I do agree that it's odd for someone with Crock's history as a conman to commit a murder at such a young age, and then go on to not murder again, but just continue being a big scammer.

That could very well be the case. For all we know, the car could have been a loaner to him and he never changed the registration on it. My money is on Linda. Linda has just as much of a motive to kill Jon and his mother than Crock. What I want to know is what happened to the cats. I remember in the segment that their 2 cats were staying at a pet hotel and were never claimed. During the investigation, amazingly their 2 cats were claimed by an anonymous person. Maybe a close friend of Linda?

That could very well be the case. For all we know, the car could have been a loaner to him and he never changed the registration on it. My money is on Linda. Linda has just as much of a motive to kill Jon and his mother than Crock. What I want to know is what happened to the cats. I remember in the segment that their 2 cats were staying at a pet hotel and were never claimed. During the investigation, amazingly their 2 cats were claimed by an anonymous person. Maybe a close friend of Linda?
Actually, her sister apparently picked up the cats and that was an error on UM's part, according to some posters on this forum. Also, she had a whopping 6 cats, IIRC (Charley Project says there were 4), that she was apparently very protective of. I'd like to figure out where that info came from and why there would be such an oversight in the segment if it was really her sister who picked up the cats.

if you read the book "the man in the rockefeller suit" you will be better able to judge crock's guilt. the author interviewed many of his and Didi Sohus's acquaintances from his time in San Marino. Didi is not around to tell her story but this book goes into how Crock was stealing all of her money and how she ended up in a trailer park at the end of her life. I read the book a while ago but I think that Crock had promised someone he knew a share of her savings once he controlled it, but this guy was never paid.

So to say that he could not be a murder is just plain wrong, murder over money happens every day.

My theory is that Jon confronted Crockefeller about his mothers savings, possibly threatening to go to the cops. Enraged, Crock kills Jon, then tells Linda that he got Jon a job in NY and that he had already left. He lures Linda to some location and kills / buries her too.

Also something UM never touched on was that Crock was not some weirdo shut in during his time in San Marino, he was well known and even produced a weekly local television show!

if you read the book "the man in the rockefeller suit" you will be better able to judge crock's guilt. the author interviewed many of his and Didi Sohus's acquaintances from his time in San Marino. Didi is not around to tell her story but this book goes into how Crock was stealing all of her money and how she ended up in a trailer park at the end of her life. I read the book a while ago but I think that Crock had promised someone he knew a share of her savings once he controlled it, but this guy was never paid.

So to say that he could not be a murder is just plain wrong, murder over money happens every day.

My theory is that Jon confronted Crockefeller about his mothers savings, possibly threatening to go to the cops. Enraged, Crock kills Jon, then tells Linda that he got Jon a job in NY and that he had already left. He lures Linda to some location and kills / buries her too.

Also something UM never touched on was that Crock was not some weirdo shut in during his time in San Marino, he was well known and even produced a weekly local television show!

Money is definitely a motive for murder. I just don't think in this case. It's a prime example of wrong place, wrong time. The guy never got paid? What was he expecting from a thief?