He had chosen a partner who was capable, analytical, high-achieving — and who therefore trusted her own assessment of situations. When she concluded that her partner was brilliant and accomplished, that conclusion felt supported by evidence: he seemed to know things, he discussed topics with confidence, he was interesting to talk to. She had evaluated him and found him credible. Questioning that evaluation would have meant questioning her own judgment in an area she had good reason to trust.
He understood this, and he exploited it.
—
## The Private Investigator’s Finding: Nothing
When Sandra Boss hired a private investigator after filing for divorce in 2007, the investigator’s principal finding was not a different identity or a criminal record or a false name. The principal finding was absence.
There was no Clark Rockefeller before approximately 1993. No school records. No family records. No employment history. No verifiable social connections that predated their relationship. No documentation of any kind placing him in any location before he appeared in her life.
This absence was, of course, because the name Clark Rockefeller had not existed before 1993. The person using it had, in the decade before that, been Christopher Crowe and before that Christopher Chichester and before that Christopher Gerhart and before that Christian Gerhartsreiter. The paper trail for Clark Rockefeller was thin because Clark Rockefeller was approximately ten years old.
What the investigator could not do — in 2007, in a private investigation — was connect the thin paper trail of Clark Rockefeller to the slightly thicker paper trail of Christopher Crowe to the partial records of Christopher Chichester in California to the immigration documents of a young German man who had arrived in Connecticut in the late 1970s.