The Freedom Bulletin

On Wednesday, Christian Karl Gerhartsreiter, AKA Clark Rockefeller, learned that he will face a murder trial for the death of his landlord’s son in California. A preliminary hearing took place over five days last week and the week before in Alhambra Superior Court, CA, during which prosecutors presented their case and successfully convinced a judge that there was enough evidence to send Rockefeller to trial.

The young German immigrant, whose legal name was Christian Gerhartsreiter but who at the time went by Christopher Chichester, lived in a guesthouse owned by an older lady named Didi Sohus in San Marino, CA. Her son, John Sohus, and his wife, Linda Sohus, went missing in 1985. His remains were discovered on the property in 1994, cut up wrapped in plastic bags, and stuffed in a box; hers have yet to be found. Meanwhile, Chichester moved from place to place, taking on new names, creating increasingly elaborate and prestigious background stories for himself, and getting by either on the generosity of others or by doing the best he could at various jobs, given that he possessed few of the qualifications he claimed to have. This life unraveled in 2008, when, known as Clark Rockefeller and living in Boston, he was arrested for kidnapping his 7-year-old daughter, Reigh, after a bitter custody dispute with his ex-wife, Sandra Boss. After being convicted of kidnapping and beginning his sentence in a Massachusetts jail, he was indicted in the old murder case and sent to California.

Confused yet? Here is a recap of what we learned during the preliminary hearing:

Wednesday, January 18: Jose Perez, who was digging a pool at the former Sohus property in 1994, testified that his father uncovered a bag of bones, which he initially thought was the remains of a dog. Judith Day of the coroner’s office described how the bones, still clothed, were all separately wrapped in plastic. And Medical examiner Dr. Frank Sheridan said that Sohus’s death was caused by fractures on the right and front sides of the head, made by three blows with a rounded object such as a baseball bat.

Thursday, January 19: San Marino patrolman Thomas LeVeque testified that Didi Sohus believed her son and daughter-in-law were in Paris on a top-secret mission and would not tell investigators anything more, saying that doing so could put them in danger. As time went on and Chichester mysteriously moved away, Didi became more worried and even began drinking, according to her friend, Marianne Kent. She received a postcard that was supposed to be from Linda in Paris, but Lili Hasdell, another former police officer, testified that the handwriting did not match. And Judge William Stewart, who was an attorney and friend of Chichester, testified that he lent him a chainsaw. However, defense lawyers raised the possibility of another suspect, a real estate agent who helped Didi Sohus to sell her house and also did grocery shopping for her, drove her around, and spent a lot of time with her.

Friday, January 20: According to forensic scientist Lynne Herold, four bloodstains were found on the floor of the guesthouse where Chichester lived. The blood showed “wiping patterns,” but it was impossible to determine, with the technology available at the time, whose it was. Additionally, a t-shirt found with John Sohus’s remains had cuts that appeared to have been made by a sharp object.

Monday, January 23: John’s friend, Patrick Rayermann, testified that during a conversation shortly before his disappearance, John spoke of tensions with his mother, and feeling torn between staying with her and moving out with Linda. He also described John as “faultlessly reliable and said that neither he or Linda spoke of any definite plans to go off on their own. Lydia Marano, the owner of the bookstore where Linda worked, said that their relationship “made the rest of us smile” and called her “the most trustworthy person I had working for me.” Harry Sherwood, Didi Sohus’s grandson, said that he found John and Linda’s belongings strewn about, not consistent with a couple who were making a planned, long-term move. An acquaintance, Robert Brown, said that Gerhartsreiter asked him where to dispose of drums of toxic chemicals, saying he used them for his job at USC film school. And other witnesses said that he tried to sell them an oriental rug with a bloodstain on it.

Tuesday, January 24: Mihoko Manabe, who was Rockefeller’s girlfriend for 7 years in New York, when he went by the name Christopher Crowe, testified that he became paranoid after a detective called in 1988, looking for him. He grew a beard, had her die his hair, insisted on not walking with her in public, and planned to leave the country with her, telling her to stop communicating with friends and family and to receive mail at P.O. boxes.  He began to use the name Clark Rockefeller after discovering how respectfully he was treated when he used it. After he lost his job as a bond salesman due to his fake identity being discovered, Manabe supported him and got him a credit card under his new name. She described him as someone with “a temper, but not in a physically violent way…He could be very mean.” On the same day, his next-door neighbor in San Marino, Mary Cologne, said that she saw black smoke coming from his chimney one day, which smelled “terrible.” He said he was burning carpet.

The Boston Globe also has an interesting account of Rockefeller’s interview with the FBI after he was arrested in the kidnapping case.

With Sohus’s death taking place so long ago, some witnesses seem to have fuzzy memories, and it is doubtful there will be a lot of forensic evidence in this case. It will be interesting to see whether the circumstantial evidence, which was determined to be enough to establish probable cause, will be enough to convince a jury of his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

The European Commission is considering a law that would greatly strengthen online privacy and restrict companies’ ability to track and store people’s Internet activity without their knowledge or consent. According to the New York Times:

Europe is considering a sweeping new law that would force Internet companies like Amazon.com and Facebook to obtain explicit consent from consumers about the use of their personal data, delete that data forever at the consumer’s request and face fines for failing to comply.

The proposed data protection regulation from the European Commission, a copy of which was obtained by The New York Times, could have significant consequences for all Internet companies that trade in personal data, whether it is pictures that people post on social networks or what they buy on retail sites or look for on a search engine.

The regulation would compel Web sites to tell consumers why their data is being collected and retain it for only as long as necessary. If data is stolen, sites would have to notify regulators within 24 hours. It also offers consumers the right to transport their data from one service to another — to deactivate a Facebook account, for example, and take one’s trove of pictures and posts and contacts to Google Plus.

This kind of law is exactly what not just Europe but the entire world needs. Companies should not be allowed to collect vast amounts of data, which they keep indefinitely, about people’s most private activities, when people are neither aware that this information will be seen by anyone but themselves, or given any true choice in the matter. As a country that was founded on the idea of individual rights, America should be paying as much attention as Europe does, if not more, to the right of each person to use the Internet while also maintaining their privacy.

Photo by Gage Skidmore

Most of the world, I’m sure, has already heard of Senator Rand Paul’s act of courage yesterday, but I must pay tribute to him anyway. At a Nashville, TN, airport, Senator Paul, after already being forced to go through a full-body scanner, was ordered to submit to a pat-down. He refused and was subsequently escorted from the airport by police.

According to Yahoo News:

In a telephone interview with the Associated Press, Paul said that the incident occurred after an alarm went off when he passed through a scanner at Nashville Airport Monday. Paul said the alarm had apparently been triggered by his knee, though “the senator said he has no screws or medical hardware around the joint,” the AP said.

TSA agents refused his request to walk through the scanner again to reconcile the anomaly, and he refused their demand for a pat-down, Paul said.

The Kentucky Senator said that “he asked for another scan but refused to submit to a pat down by airport security,” the AP reported. Paul “said he was ‘detained’ at a small cubicle and couldn’t make his flight to Washington for a Senate vote scheduled later in the day.”

Some may argue that refusing a pat-down isn’t enough to make someone a hero. In my opinion, Rand definitely qualifies for that title because of everything he has done to defend liberty in his life so far. Although what he did yesterday was a small, everyday act, it is things like this that little by little advance the cause of freedom and make the world a better place.

The Supreme Court made a great ruling yesterday, unanimously declaring that, absent a warrant or probable cause, it is unconstitutional for police to track people’s movements by attaching a GPS device to their car.

As Justice Sotomayor points out:

“GPS monitoring generates a precise, comprehensive record of a person’s public movements that reflects a wealth of detail about her familiar, political, professional, religious, and sexual associations … The Government can store such records and efficiently mine them for information years into the future … And because GPS monitoring is cheap in comparison to conventional surveillance techniques and, by design, proceeds surreptitiously, it evades the ordinary checks that constrain abusive law enforcement practices: ‘limited police resources and community hostility.’ “

Read the full text of the ruling, in the case of United States v. Antoine Jones, here.

Famous journalist, TV personality, and author Anne Sinclair officially started her new job today as editorial director of the French version of the Huffington Post. Sinclair, of course, also happens to be married to Dominique Strauss-Kahn, who was the world’s most well-known rape defendant until the charges against him were dismissed and continues to be a major news story as he faces additional scandals. At a press conference today, Sinclair said that her site will not have any particular political viewpoint but will “give people space to talk.” The site’s founder, Arianna Huffington, said that Sinclair’s triumph over adversity ”gives hope and courage to every other woman,” and that DSK might even become a guest blogger.

Sinclair has faced criticism from people who doubt her ability to be neutral and wonder how her site would cover news about her husband. One even said that Sinclair ”is no longer a journalist. Ever since she compared the DSK affair to the Dreyfus affair, she is an interested party.” This is an interesting question, but ultimately I don’t think that Sinclair’s support of Strauss-Kahn should disqualify her from a job in journalism. First of all, do her critics think that if she threw her husband under the bus, that would make her neutral about his case? That wouldn’t make sense; no matter how she chose to react to her husband’s scandals, the fact that she is his wife means that she is affected by his legal struggles to some extent. If Sinclair’s critics take their reasoning to its logical end, the only conclusion they could come to is that anyone who has any relationship with a person in the news, or has expressed an opinion about any event in the news, is disqualified from being a journalist. That would disqualify almost everyone in the world. It’s perfectly reasonable for someone who is partial about a particular subject in the news to have a career in journalism but simply avoid covering that particular subject. This is what, for example, WCBV TV reporter Gail Huff does with respect to her husband, Senator Scott Brown, and what Sinclair says she will do with her husband: “It goes without saying that we will cover all news topics that come up whatever they might be. I’m not saying I would write the article but it will be covered and in the most professional manner possible.”

Additionally, as she has since she decided to stick with DSK, Sinclair faces criticism from so-called feminists who are in reality not feminists at all. People have referred to her as “undignified,” “shockingly weak,” “very very sad,” a “doormat,” a “terrible role model,” “an embarrassment,” and a “depressed woman with no respect for herself” who is “under submission.” They speak constantly of DSK’s “victims,” and what he “has done to other women.” They describe the prostitutes that DSK allegedly slept with as “vulnerable young women run controlled [sic] by pimps.” Most offensively, some even write that Sinclair “needs an appointment with a psychiatrist.”

In addition to the fact that it is wrong to disrespect the presumption of innocence, hideously offensive to claim that someone is mentally ill for making different choices than you, and bizarre to call someone weak and cowardly for defending an unpopular individual against an attacking mob, these comments are simply anti-feminist. It is anti-feminist, for example, to demand that all woman have the same standards and value the same things in a husband. It is anti-feminist to assume that in rape cases, women always tell the truth and men always lie. It is anti-feminist to treat sex, unless proven to be non-consensual, as something that men “do to” women. It is anti-feminist to treat women as inherently vulnerable and in need of protection, to assume that prostitutes are controlled by pimps, and to assume that Sinclair is weak, submissive, and controlled by DSK instead of being an autonomous and independent person.

In actuality, Sinclair and DSK are a couple that feminists should approve of. Instead of her staying home and being financially dependent on him, she is the wealthier one, and both are intellectual equals who have their own identities, their own lives, and (until DSK’s was unjustly destroyed) their own highly successful careers. Anne Sinclair is brave, independent, strong, intelligent, and feminist. People who make comments like the ones above are sad, undignified, and weak.

Because of her courage and her very impressive resume, Sinclair more than deserves this job. Congratulations, Anne, and the best of luck in your new endeavor.

To mark her comeback, Sinclair gave an interview to the French version of Elle magazine, in which she explained a little bit more about her ordeal, her idea of feminism, and why she supports her husband. Some of the best quotes:

• “To be an object of speculation, of permanent harassment to know what is happening in my home, has something about it that is Orwellian, totalitarian.”
• “There are trashy newspapers in the U.S., like everywhere, and violations of privacy. But, in regard to the big media, the press is demanding, precise, and hardworking.”
• On her presidential ambitions, or lack thereof, for DSK: “I wasn’t keen on the idea of candidacy. Power? I’ve seen it too close up to find it fascinating. As for the role of First Lady, it doesn’t exist in France. All that leaves me totally cold.”
• On her new job: “It brings me great pleasure to resume my career, in the euphoria of participating in something new! … I think that I can still bring something to this field. What makes me nervous is the launch of a journal, that it wouldn’t be ready in time, the stress, all that. But my return to the spotlight, as you say, it already happened, no? … But it’s true that the professional spotlight is always more pleasant.”
• On people who say that she should leave DSK: “Well then, leave your husband if you want to want to leave him. That’s your problem.”
• On accusations that she is condoning violence against women: “It’s unacceptable because there was no violence. If there had been, the prosecutors would have pressed charges. They didn’t. Violence horrifies me – verbal violence too.”
• “I, too, felt a great violence when certain self-proclaimed feminists unleashed themselves on me. I am a feminist, I always have been; I always will be. I have been part of all of the battles, on abortion, on equality at work, on the dignity of women here and elsewhere, on the role of women in public life. I think I have done at least as much as packs of ‘feminists’ for the advancement of women in men’s fields.”
• “Unconditional support does not exist. One supports if one has decided to support. Nobody knows what happens in the intimacy of couples, and I deny anyone the right to judge mine. I feel free in my judgments, my actions, I decide about my life in all independence. I am neither a saint nor a victim; I am a free woman.”

Sources: Elle.fr, The Telegraph, Daily Beast

Former Penn State football coach Joe Paterno passed away today of lung cancer, just two months after his reputation was irreparably tarnished by his alleged failure to respond forcefully enough to allegations of child abuse. It is, first of all, very sad that such a successful and celebrated coach had to spend the last months of his life not only fighting a painful disease but also knowing that his standing would be forever diminished in the eyes of many people. Second of all, Paterno is another example of our society’s tendency to punish people who are merely accused of wrongdoing, not found guilty. As Judge H. Lee Sarokin pointed out, Paterno was fired before the facts of the case could be determined, similarly to how Dominique Strauss-Kahn was pressured into resigning from the IMF after being accused of sexual assault, and how Herman Cain ended up quitting his presidential campaign after allegations of sexual harassment and an affair. Although Paterno faced no charges and spent no time in jail, for his career to end so abruptly and on such a bad note is undoubtedly a punishment. Yes, sexual abuse is a crime that should be punished severely, but considering the fact that Paterno is not accused of abusing anyone, that he actually reported the abuse allegations to his immediate supervisor, and that his only arguable mistake was not reporting the allegations personally to police, I think it is sad that his career and life ended the way that they did.

Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ) announced today that she will resign from Congress to focus on her recovery from the head injury she suffered in a shooting rampage just over a year ago. The Freedom Bulletin would like to wish her the very best in her recovery and her future career, whatever shape it may take.