Why Are Smart Women Carried Away by Fakes?

by Michele McPhee

Clark Rockefeller, the kidnapper captured in Baltimore this past Saturday—six days after he snatched his 7-year-old daughter from the ritzy Back Bay enclave during a supervised visit—had no driver’s license.

No Social Security card.

No work history.

No record of education.

No family members to speak of.

In 1994, he did marry a woman (after first falling in love with her identical twin) but he did not file for a marriage license. He spread stories of owning Lear Jets, built a bizarre moat around his New Hampshire home, led neighbors to believe he was a descendant of the Rockefellers—the famed industrialist clan—and he swore he graduated from Yale. All lies.

In the words of one Boston Police law enforcement source, “He’s a ghost.” A broke ghost that lived off of his wife’s lucrative income.

But that did not stop Harvard-educated, high-powered political consultant Sandra Boss from marrying Rockefeller. Or Clark Rock. Or Michael Brown. Or whatever Rockefeller’s real name is. She was married to the man for more than a decade, but, astonishingly, she would never know who her husband and father of their child (who has since reunited with her mother) really was. In fact, Rockefeller took a “substantial amount of money” to relinquish custody of his little girl (pictured above) and even signed off on paperwork to change her name from Reigh Rockefeller to Reigh Boss.

Sandra Boss is not the only smart woman to fall in love with an impostor. Two decades of crime reporting have shown me that women are often willing to clench their eyes shut to the possibility that the man they have fallen in love with is not who he said he was—like whistling in the dark to keep away ghosts. Recent murder trials have shown us that much.

Rachel Entwistle, the beloved teacher from the South Shore, who was shot dead alongside her nine-month-old daughter Lillian Rose, thought she had found a loving husband and doting dad in Neil Entwistle, who was pulling in $10,000 a month as a computer consultant for British intelligence. In fact, Rachel (pictured right) created a Web site to keep family members abreast of the Entwistles' perfect life and signed each message the same way, “Love, the happy family.” Neil Entwistle was in fact a broke, cowardly sex addict who pumped bullets into his baby’s belly and his wife’s head. He was convicted this summer.

Weeks later, in the same courthouse, another so-called loving husband, former WRKO radio talk-show host James Keown, was convicted of killing his wife Julie by spiking her Gatorade with antifreeze. As she died slowly and painfully in their Waltham home, Julie Keown (pictured left) was still convinced her husband was a Harvard Business School student (he forged acceptance letters), a man who was heartbroken over the inexplicable sickness of his wife. In e-mails to friends, Julie wrote about her unending love for James, and even expressed fear that her illness would “mess up” his life.

When sentencing Keown, a judge remarked, "I am truly in the presence of an evil person." Why couldn't intelligent women, in intimate relations with these men, sense something shady beneath the façades? Why are smart women so ready to believe obvious lies? Have we become so focused on advancing our careers that we ignore our personal lives—failing to see the "ghosts," the evil, right before our eyes?

Tweet

What Happened to Stealing the Old-fashioned Way? A Look At Identity Theft

by Robin Sax

Technology and modern electronics have forced even the most crotchety people to log on, tune in, and get wired. Shopping online isn’t even new anymore. We have become accustomed to Internet banking, greeting cards, and social networking. And like anything else, with every new development comes a new way for criminals to commit crimes. It seems that criminals stay one step ahead of the unsuspecting, law-abiding citizen, as well as law enforcers.

Stealing the old-fashioned way is plain stupid. Facing the victim can bring high risk and small gain for thieves. For a little bit of cash, jewelry, or perceived valuables, thieves leave witnesses who can identify them, potentially fight back, and notify police. Besides the risk in the crime itself, there are also many punishable consequences, such as gun enhancement--charges that are potentially subject to the “Three Strikes” doctrine, or equivalent repeat offender laws, as well mandatory, long prison sentences.

Stealing by identity theft, on the other hand, offers great profit at very low risk. After all, there is no victim contact, no weapon, it can be done any time of day or night, and best of all, the loot is delivered. Further, the labor involved in investigating these crimes is high. and everyone knows law enforcement agencies are overworked with little resources. Even if and when the perp is apprehended. the sentences are typically low-level slaps on the wrists.

The magnitude of the problem is huge, but what is being done about it? The FTC released its annual report revealing that identity theft is among its top ten complaints. For over six years in a row, identity theft has been the source of much frustration and accounted for approximately 37% of the consumer fraud complaints filed with the FTC last year.

The misuse of other people’s personal information is a huge issue. But is it really identity theft? I argue no. It’s just another version of the old-fashioned crime of fraud, coupled with modern technology that allows for impersonation.

No one is actually becoming another person. Rather, the thief is fraudulently acquiring someone’s personal information and using it to buy items, take out loans, and acquire objects of value.

There is no shortage of ways to get information these days. Whether by “phishing” (setting up Web sites to resemble reputable companies) or by stealing mail or utilizing inside sources, impersonation and fraud is one of the most prolific forms of theft these days.

It’s surprising to me that few people are outraged enough to do something about it. After all, stolen personal information can wreak havoc on a person’s life and particularly on their credit. And then there's the years it can take to rebuild one’s resources and security after being a victim of this crime.

Identity theft can affect millions, but the victims seem to suffer in silence. Is it because credit card companies only hold the credit holder liable for the first $50? Is it because there is so much anonymity to the crime? Or is it because the big financial institutions haven’t shelled out enough of their own money to warrant more protection for consumers?

Whatever the reason, the focus in the real world is just as absurd. Every time I whip out my credit card, the nice cashier asks for ID to make sure that my name matches my picture. Doesn’t it make sense that an impersonator will get an ID that matches the name? Just like many aspects of crime. the focus is all wrong. It’s time to stop focusing on having the innocent validate their identity, and instead work on the preventive aspects.

Just yesterday my friend told me she took out an American Express card in her dog's name by using a phony Social Security number. First it was a joke to see if it was possible. But then it became a scary commentary on how just how bad the state of financial security is.

When my friend showed me the card, I couldn’t help but to imagine some nice clerk asking for ID and validating Fido as the card owner, then finishing the transaction.

While identification checks will probably continue, a better solution can be achieved in how we validate and acquire our cards and information to begin with. Financial institutions are far too eager to make transactions possible and ultimately pass this ease on to merchants and consumers.

"We need to make the entity that is in the best position to mitigate the risk be responsible for that risk," says financial security expert Bruce Schneir. "And that means making the financial institutions liable for fraudulent transactions."

Tweet