Boston Police report the pair was found today in Baltimore. She's on her way back to her mother; he's in a jail cell awaiting a Monday court hearing on being extradited to Massachusetts.
Investigators determined that Clark Rockefeller and Reigh were staying in an apartment on Ploy Street in close proximity to a facility, known as Anchorage Marina, where Clark was docking his 26ft. unnamed catamaran. Investigators used this information to create a ruse to lure Clark from the apartment to the marina by placing a call to him with information that his boat was taking on water.
Clark while enroute to the marina was placed under arrest by FBI agents. Simultaneously agents made their way to the apartment to find Reigh. At approximately 3:29pm, Reigh was found alone in the apartment where she was reportedly excited to see law enforcement. Her appearance had not been altered. Reigh appeared to be unharmed.
Like the job UHub is doing? Consider a contribution. Thanks!
Ad:
Comments
strange...
By o_brien
Sun, 08/03/2008 - 2:27pm
from timesonline.co.uk:
"Police sources claimed that Rockefeller agreed to give up custody of Reigh last year in exchange for almost $1.5m from the sale of one of the couple’s former homes — and an agreement that he need not produce his birth certificate."
"Rockefeller" reverses on divorce agreement - kidnaps snooks
By Anonymous
Sun, 08/03/2008 - 3:45pm
good article o_brien ...
Bizarre, isn't it?
By Gareth
Mon, 08/04/2008 - 6:16am
If we are to believe that "Clark Rockefeller" loved his daughter more than anything else in the world, and he could have gotten custody if he only revealed his true identity, then what could have motivated him?
When he set up their new life in Baltimore, he established the alias of Charles (Chip) Smith. That's not such a fancy name. He couldn't continue being a Rockefeller, or moving in high society.
He's up against charges now, and he was willing to take that risk. What did he do in a prior life that would have been worse to face?
Hmmmmm ...
By SwirlyGrrl
Mon, 08/04/2008 - 7:41am
Makes me wonder if everything was okay until the transfer to London for her work came up and she then found out that her husband had no official identity.
The whole "didn't have to reveal his identity" thing and the funny accent thing hint that he is either a fugitive or a refugee who found unofficial asylum.
Compelling reason
By Gareth
Mon, 08/04/2008 - 8:53am
It stands to reason that he must have some compelling reason not to reveal his true identity - even in custody, he's still not spilling it. I agree that it seems likely he is wanted for something else or is a refugee of some sort. The cops are running his fingerprints through the databases now, and will likely do the same with DNA. But not all crimes leave fingerprints, and not all databases are connected.
A friend of mine and I talked yesterday about whether he was a con man or pathological. One thing I find peculiar is that he didn't do a terribly good job at hiding, which makes me think that his problem is at least partly pathological. It takes a certain amount of denial to think that he could hide in plain view so close to where he ran off, without altering his or her appearance, and talking (once again) loads of high-flying horseshit. The Baltimore Sun has interesting details.
Is this really the way one hides? One goes from being fake gentry in Boston to being fake gentry in Baltimore? Well, it's not the way one hides successfully, anyway.
As far as the mother, you will be relieved to hear that I have no intention of throwing stones. I'm sure she's a wonderful mother who loves her little girl very much, and I am happy for her. Simultaneously, I am sad for the father, who seems to have been brought down by remarkable hubris. He's not going to see much of his daughter in the future, and it's his own fault.
It does seem a bit odd to be married to someone for twelve years and not know who he is. It seems the mother was completely taken in for a long time. I'd be interested to hear more about how such a thing could happen, and wonder if we will. I imagine that she had creeping suspicions for years that she unwisely suppressed, rather than being surprised at the divorce proceedings.
Having no identity
By Ron Newman
Mon, 08/04/2008 - 9:10am
Isn't it hard to have no known identity and also be married? A joint tax return requires Social Security Numbers from both spouses, even if only one has income.
Evidently
By Gareth
Mon, 08/04/2008 - 9:25am
Evidently, it's hard but not impossible...
married filing separately? fraudulent ssn?
By Anonymous
Mon, 08/04/2008 - 9:31am
We know that Rock avoided situations where he was required to give up information like his social security number, such as his divorce agreement. So it could be that they are married filing separately, and he didn't need to file because he had no income. If marriage license applications require a social security number, it would be interesting to see where that number leads or if its fraudulent. Answers to these questions will surely be in the news shortly.
Married filing separately costs more tax, though
By Ron Newman
Mon, 08/04/2008 - 10:00am
and if she had all the income, how would he persuade her to file this way?
I guess we'll learn everything soon.
It is easy. You simply say
By dot.lane
Mon, 08/04/2008 - 10:32am
It is easy. You simply say you have someone who has handled your taxes for years because you have money tied up in complex trusts and other financial instruments and that they're too complicated to file jointly.
Even married filing separately requires both SSNs, though
By Ron Newman
Mon, 08/04/2008 - 10:57am
if I understand the tax forms properly. Otherwise the IRS can't match up the two returns to ensure that both itemize or both take the standard deduction, etc.
did Rock file income tax?
By Anonymous
Mon, 08/04/2008 - 11:45am
It's not clear Rock filed income tax. He is not obligated to file if he has no income... he was the stay-home dad, mom raked it $1.4million as a management consultant.
If joint, the wife gets the husband as a dependent. They probably already make too much to be lower than any cut off. I'm not sure about the effect of rates, but I would expect that they'd do better married filing separately than joint, not that it's a huge difference given her income, his income and their tax bracket.
The marriage penalty comes when both spouses have income.
Tax difference, married filing jointly vs separately
By Ron Newman
Mon, 08/04/2008 - 4:16pm
Grossly oversimplifying, let's assume that one spouse makes about $1 million a year, the other has no income, and there are no capital gains, capital losses, mortgage interest deductions, interest, dividends, or any other complicating factors.
I'll further ignore the standard deduction and personal exemptions (that's why I said "about" $1 million/year)
If they file jointly, the tax is $96,770 plus 35% on the income over $357,700, which comes out to $321,820.
If they file separately, the tax is $48,385 plus 35% on the income over $178,850, which comes out to $335,788.
The 'penalty' for filing separately is $13,968 -- not a gigantic amount for a couple with this income, but still enough that most people would want to avoid it.
(Also, if a married couple file separately, I believe both have to file even if one has no income.)
value of filing jointly or separately doesn't drive the decision
By Anonymous
Mon, 08/04/2008 - 4:58pm
I'll concede your tax law expertise and your math. I don't think the value of filing jointly or separately would drive the decision. Here's why, she makes 1.4 million a year and gave him 1 million in the divorce. He has an identity to hide and an identity to protect and went as far as making one of the conditions of their divorce a consideration that would help him to conceal his social security number. You think she'd have made an issue of whether they ought to file jointly or separately because of $13K? I don't. We already know he doesn't want to put his ssn in play. By the way, the assertion I made about taxes in my last post about, which you dismissed as "grossly oversimplifying", was an opinion from a friend CPA who works in the tax practice at PwC.
'Grossly oversimplifying'
By Ron Newman
Mon, 08/04/2008 - 5:01pm
was my description of the scenario I presented in my post. It was not a description of anything you said.
I see. Thanks.
By Anonymous
Mon, 08/04/2008 - 5:15pm
I see. Thanks.
Poor Reigh
By adamg
Sun, 08/03/2008 - 3:00pm
Brian: With Clark Rockefeller captured, Reigh is now free to go back overseas to be ignored by her mother.
"I don't think"
By Anonymous
Sun, 08/03/2008 - 3:35pm
I don't see one iota of substantiation for this remark by Brian Maloney. He refers to a "financially mismanaged home of author Edith Wharton" and "her ties to discredited, bank-busting New York Senator Chucky Schumer" but nothing about how Ms Boss relates to her daughter.
Calling Swirrly - Would you give this a close read and tell me what I'm missing?
What he might be referring to
By adamg
Sun, 08/03/2008 - 3:37pm
The whole "Mr. Mom" thing up until the divorce.
Mr. Mom wasn't going to get
By pierce
Sun, 08/03/2008 - 6:49pm
Mr. Mom wasn't going to get many jobs without a license, ss #, and well, an identity.
House-husband is about the only position for an uneducated, mis-accented, unidentifiable person
not convincing
By Anonymous
Sun, 08/03/2008 - 7:52pm
Because Brian Maloney cites no information about the nature of Mrs. Boss parenting skills and no information that would lead a reasonable person to conclude "Reigh Is The Real Victim" or even that her mother ignores her... "Reigh is now free to go back overseas to be ignored by her mother."
I would guess the claims are based on a faulty assumption and incorrect inference about Mrs. Boss's parenting simply because she is a professional women. Lots of kids have two parents that work, lots of kids have two parents that work who are both professionals. Reigh has one.
What if her one parent was a dad who worked. Would anyone call Reign a victim or 'ignored' in that case without evidence?
Calling the kid a victim or ignored because of the mom's profession is, in large writ, sexism. Show some evidence to the contrary and I'll concur, or make an argument for an drawing a different conclusion.
Don't bother him with complicated reality
By SwirlyGrrl
Sun, 08/03/2008 - 10:41pm
It would seem that Mr. Maloney's having a classic "father's rights" movement moment. Even though there is some merit in a few of their talking points, every custody battle is simply the same story over and over again, you see, even when it is not.
Yawn
By dot.lane
Mon, 08/04/2008 - 10:30am
I'm not quite sure how Brian knows the details of Reigh's relationship with her mother in London, but then again conservative pundits all seem to have a high degree of omniscience these days. Why don't you get back to saving WRKO Brian?
fingerprints unconfirmed link to muder
By Anonymous
Tue, 08/05/2008 - 3:51am
How did Mrs. Boss find out Clark was not who he said he was? (I'm guessing: She got suspicious and hired an investigator.) What made her suspicions? (dunno)
Compelling motivation
By Gareth
Tue, 08/05/2008 - 8:22am
Now there's a compelling motivation - no statute of limitations for first-degree murder. On the other hand, if this murder happened just a decade ago, it's not a 'previous life thing,' as it happened while "Clark Rockefeller" was already married to Boss. What, did he fly out for a fun-filled murder weekend? I wonder if we'll hear more about the timing of that.
Besides who is he really, the other thing I'm wondering is if he's going to write a book. He's certainly got imagination. Sez the Herald:
Yar, Captain Chip Smith a su servicio, straight from Chile.
And who else has he been? He's almost as much fun as Frederic Bourdin.
Elvis Costello was on the lam?
By adamg
Tue, 08/05/2008 - 8:49pm
That's what Maggie thought after seeing one of the court photos.
maggie has an ear for lyrics
By Anonymous
Tue, 08/05/2008 - 8:57pm
Fugitive Phil Collins?
By SwirlyGrrl
Tue, 08/05/2008 - 9:27pm
Except he didn't feel it coming in the air ...