Well it isn't really anything new but I did email an organization that did have Clifford Sherwood listed on their site. I asked if they had any additional info or any info about George Gumbley. I thought you guys might be interested in their reply:

On October 21, 1954, Clifford Sherwood left home at the usual time for school. He was accompanied by one of his friends, Georges Gumbley.


v They never arrived at school.

v They are both still missing.

v At the time, Clifford was living alone with his mother in Verdun.

v The father had the custody of Clifford’s four sisters and they were all living in the Vancouver area.

For us, the Sherwood case is: Missing children category Unknown.

v In the spring of 1955, a human torso was found in the St Lawrence River near Sorel. There was no identification on the body and Mrs. Sherwood refused to see the torso.

v We received a lot of information, but none of the leads were good.

v Mrs. Sherwood is now 85 and her health is not very good.

I hope this will help you!


That is still so baffling about him and his friend disappearing. I always figured Clifford's father abducted him but the friend missing can't just be a coincidence.

That is still so baffling about him and his friend disappearing. I always figured Clifford's father abducted him but the friend missing can't just be a coincidence.

Agreed. It's one of the more poorly executed segments on UM. They may have played up the father-abduction angle because that's was the theory of Clifford's family, but it doesn't make sense at all.:confused:

I agree- it is so frustrating, especially since UM didn't mention that George Gumbley was still missing. I'm guessing that the only reason Clifford's case is still active is because his mom is so vocal. Canada rocks in that regard.

The sister they inteviewed (unfortunately, I don't know her name or I would google her) believed that there was something suspicious going on, too. I found it depressing that the girls were all in foster care for the rest of their juvenile lives - I wonder why? Presumably Mrs. Sherwood was a fit parent. I wonder why she wasn't allowed to keep her children. The '50s was a different time...

Anyway. Anyone remember the name of Clifford's sister? I have googled Clifford and his dad to no avail.

The military record of Clifford Sherwood's father was set to become public property this month (he died in April of 1976). Apparently, he'd enlisted in the army under another name, and was receiving his military pension under that name. Because he'd listed himself as a bachelor, his daughter was unable to get permission to open the file at an earlier date.

I think the daughters name was Colleen

Any updates on this case? I mean...weren't those military records made public just recently?

I have to agree... the father abduction doesn't make sense in this one either and I'm afraid, UM, Cliff's family and the police may have over played that angle.

Add to the fact that his father was on the other side of the country at that time... sorry but the sherwood's didn't strike me as a family of means so I don't think he flew into pick up clifford... mr. sherwood rides a train/drives to pick up his son back across the country without being seen and hides him from his sisters?

As to her dad not wanting to talk about it... I'm not trying to be negative to the Sherwood ladies or ladies in general but sometimes men are a little less naivete about peoples motives for kidnapping children.

You would think that if Clifford was going to "secretly" meet his father, he would have told someone besides George Gumbley.

And the fact that Gumbley's disappearance is so underplayed and under emphasized... why would George have been a target of Mr. Sherwood? This appears to be a case of someone who took advantage of two younger boys.

Plus what about the body that was discovered, has that ever been compared to either Clifford or George's DNA? If one or the other shows up dismembered that suggest a brutal overkill (as I recall the body had no arms to legs) for that I wouldn't normally associate with a parental kidnapping? They didn't say why the girls were put in foster care but it sounded more like it was neglect (because of mr. sherwoods drinking) than abuse (although he did hit his wife).

I agree with nowheregirl, I think the producers possibly even the police got too convinced of his mothers opinion over the years (and while she makes a very emotional case that it was his father that took him, the known evidence points elsewhere).

I'd start with the known/convicted pedophiles and work from there.

I just saw this segment today and couldn't believe how UM just glossed over the other missing child, George. The fact that two friends went missing at exactly the same time would strongly suggest that this is anything but a parent abduction. I really don't understand what the UM people were thinking on this one.

I just saw this segment today and couldn't believe how UM just glossed over the other missing child, George. The fact that two friends went missing at exactly the same time would strongly suggest that this is anything but a parent abduction. I really don't understand what the UM people were thinking on this one.

I completely agree with you. Its as if its not as important that this poor George Gumbley is missing too. Since you are from Canada and might know where to look, if you can find any more info on this case (since its so old, its tough to research it) please share.

I completely agree with you. Its as if its not as important that this poor George Gumbley is missing too. Since you are from Canada and might know where to look, if you can find any more info on this case (since its so old, its tough to research it) please share.

I found a newspaper article from February 1955 that spells the other boy's name as "George Grumblav" and the doenetwork lists his name as Georges Gumbley. I could not find further information on either of the names.

Was the torso's DNA ever compared to either missing boys? That is pure ridiculous if not! And Clifford's mother not wanting to find out is stupid too; I can understand not wanting to look at a torso, but to say in the first place it cannot be his is silly. Does anyone know if any DNA was tested against the torso found?

It's possible it wasn't, depending on how old this case, maybe they didn't have DNA testing at the time. And it looks like from seeing past UM shows and other shows on CourtTV and such, that there used to be a lot more sloppy investigating.

It's possible it wasn't, depending on how old this case, maybe they didn't have DNA testing at the time. And it looks like from seeing past UM shows and other shows on CourtTV and such, that there used to be a lot more sloppy investigating.

The torso was discovered in the Spring of 1955, so I doubt they did any DNA testing on it. :) There might have been a sloppy investigation, but the timeframe ought to be considered as well.

I think the key to finding out anything now would be to find information on the other boy...whatever his real name might be. The Unsolved Mysteries episode seemed to be more of a smear campaign against his father without really focusing on the fact that the boys were still missing!

(It wasn't even until the second or third time I saw this episode that I had realized it had taken place that long ago...for some reason, I had thought he disappeared in the 60s/70s.)

Wait a second...

Did they even mention in the original broadcast that his friend George was missing???

I remember that case really well but I don't remember there being another boy missing. That sort of changes everything, in my eyes.

Did I just miss/forget that or was it not mentioned at all?

Thanks...

^ They do mention it briefly when talking about the three boys walking to school something like "Butch made it to school and George and Clifford never did". They allow show a very old yellowed newspaper clipping that notes several months after both boys disappeared both were still missing.

I have no idea if George' remains were ever recovered or not but the fact that George went missing alongside Clifford makes me think they were enticed or kidnapped by someone other than Tex Sherwood and they were both possibly murdered soon after their abduction.

The drivers license scenerio with the names reversed though is intriguing though I must admit...strange case.

I hadn't seen this case in awhile. I agree with those who were a bit taken aback by UM's decision to totally ignore the second boy. Not only does it make a "custodial interference" case about 1,000 times less likely, it does a great disservice to that boy and his family. And, although he seemed like a less-than-wonderful person, it also makes Clifford Sherwood's father seem like a worse person than he probably really was; if he had taken the boy, where exactly would he have kept him all that time? Even the segment concedes that he was questioned at the time.

I hadn't seen this case in awhile. I agree with those who were a bit taken aback by UM's decision to totally ignore the second boy. Not only does it make a "custodial interference" case about 1,000 times less likely, it does a great disservice to that boy and his family. And, although he seemed like a less-than-wonderful person, it also makes Clifford Sherwood's father seem like a worse person than he probably really was; if he had taken the boy, where exactly would he have kept him all that time? Even the segment concedes that he was questioned at the time.

You know I'm not so sure it was UM's choice to ignore George Gumbley. I always assumed his family didn't cooperate with the segment because I think UM would have been happy to interview his parents on camera as well. This case is just so baffling! Did the boys run off? I did notice part of what the newspaper clipping said about something like "their long talked of plans of running away". When the other friend approached George and Clifford they seemed to be in the middle of a deep discussion (by the reenactment anyway) and didn't want to walk with the other friend to school. That might be a clue. That would explain the picture found of Clifford and his dad that seemed to be taken after Clifford went missing. George's family might also think their son ran away and that could be a reason why they seemed unwillingly to cooperate. Also I did notice in the interview with Frances that she wasn't shown the torso found. It wasn't that she refused to see it, they wouldn't show it to her. She said they only read to her what they found and I certainly don't blame her for not accepting it as her son. Another possibility that I recently thought of, I wonder if Clifford and George could have run away to Tex's house. It wouldn't be unheard of for a boy living with his mother to prefer to live with his dad and maybe George was unhappy at home and wanted to accompany him. Also I can't help but think that Clifford could still be alive because of that clue they found of a drivers license issued to someone with a very similar sounding name (the first and middle names were transposed) with the exact same birth date as Clifford's. I mean what are the chances of that being just a coincidence. The more I'm typing this the more I'm thinking its a very good possibility that Clifford ran away.

I assume this is getting some recent air-time here due to it being on our lovely Mod's latest DVD. It's a bit baffling isn't it. I too noticed how UM didn't pay much attention to the other boy that went missing. You don't suppose Cliffard's dad took both boys and murdered the other one? Maybe those were the bones that were found. Probably not hey but just something that crossed my mind briefly.

You know I'm not so sure it was UM's choice to ignore George Gumbley. I always assumed his family didn't cooperate with the segment because I think UM would have been happy to interview his parents on camera as well.

This is definitely a possibility, but even if the parents of the other boy chose not to participate (or were already deceased; given the apparent age of Clifford's mother as she was shown in the segment, I would say this was also a very distinct possibility), I think UM owed it to the boy HIMSELF to at least make some kind of pass at the idea that he was missing too. Perhaps they could have come up with an age-progressed composite of him as well as Clifford. In any event, the fact that he was missing throws a real monkey wrench into the "custodial interference" theory, and I think UM really dropped the ball by not at least acknowledging that problem.

This case is just so baffling! Did the boys run off? I did notice part of what the newspaper clipping said about something like "their long talked of plans of running away". When the other friend approached George and Clifford they seemed to be in the middle of a deep discussion (by the reenactment anyway) and didn't want to walk with the other friend to school. That might be a clue.

Indeed, this is probably the strongest piece of "evidence" suggesting a runaway, if indeed it is true (and nice catch in the newspaper article, by the way). However, it seems to me just as likely that perhaps the two kids were just planning on playing hooky and didn't like the other kid enough to invite him along. Or maybe they just plain didn't like the other kid, and wanted him away from them, and they were planning on going to school all along. Hard to say, without any further evidence.

That would explain the picture found of Clifford and his dad that seemed to be taken after Clifford went missing.

That picture, to me, is a non-issue. There's no way to know how old Clifford is or isn't in the picture. My guess is it was taken before he disappeared. He looks to me like he could easily be 9 years old in the photo, the age at which he vanished, or perhaps even 8. I don't think, absent other evidence, we can assume it was taken AFTER he disappeared.

George's family might also think their son ran away and that could be a reason why they seemed unwillingly to cooperate.

Maybe, but I don't know --- to the parents out there, if one of your children ran away, would you be too embarassed, angry, disinterested, etc., to want a national television show to profile his case in hope of returning him? Even if it was years later? I think it's far more likely that George's parents were simply dead, and UM didn't bother to look for siblings (if there were any) or more distant relations.

Also I did notice in the interview with Frances that she wasn't shown the torso found. It wasn't that she refused to see it, they wouldn't show it to her. She said they only read to her what they found and I certainly don't blame her for not accepting it as her son.

See, I think this is another case where UM indulges in a little sleight-of-hand. Certainly, the impression they want to give the viewer is that they refused to show her the torso, and that she refused to "identify" something she hadn't seen. But if you watch the segment carefully, I think they were offering to show it to her (and information from other posters here seems to corroborate this), but that she refused to see it, because some otherworldly force "told" her it was not her boy. I think it's still possible that it was. Of course, it was evidently only a torso --- I think it's very unlikely she could have identified it 100% accurately as her boy, regardless of whether she saw it or not.

Another possibility that I recently thought of, I wonder if Clifford and George could have run away to Tex's house. It wouldn't be unheard of for a boy living with his mother to prefer to live with his dad and maybe George was unhappy at home and wanted to accompany him.

If his father lived in Montreal, or one of its suburbs, I would agree that this would be a distinct possibility. But he lived clear on the other side of Canada, which is just as big as the United States. Where would two nine year old boys even begin to get the confidence that they could GET across the entire country, let alone the money or the knowledge to do so? This seems extremely unlikely to me. Also, although the segment blunts the reference to it by giving as little detail as possible (and thus downplay its signifcance), Clifford's father WAS interviewed when he disappeared. This guy did not seem wealthy or particularly clever. Where would he stash one (and possibly two) nine year old boys so as to hide them from police?

Also I can't help but think that Clifford could still be alive because of that clue they found of a drivers license issued to someone with a very similar sounding name (the first and middle names were transposed) with the exact same birth date as Clifford's. I mean what are the chances of that being just a coincidence.

An amazing bit of counterintuitive probability: if you have just 23 randomly selected people in the same room, there is a BETTER than 50-50 shot that two of them will have the same birthday (see Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birthday_paradox, for more on this if you're interested). Canada, of course, is an awfully big room. I know it was the same year, but lots and lots and lots of Canadians, I'm sure, were born in 1959 (or whatever year it was he was born), and many were born on the day in question. And Sherwood, as a last name, for a country which has a great many inhabitants of English descent, is not a particularly uncommon last name. And since, despite UM's touting of the similarity between "Edward Clifford" and "Clifford Edward", the two names don't REALLY match beyond the last name, and the last name is not at all uncommon in England, the odds are that this is nothing more than an interesting coincidence.

The more I'm typing this the more I'm thinking its a very good possibility that Clifford ran away.

He very well may have, but I fear he and his companion didn't get very far before discovering that decision was ill-advised.

I just looked at this case again (well, it was on in the background while I was doing other stuff). It mentions that Clifford Sherwood's father's army records would become public record in 2006. I wonder if they revealed anything interesting, or if they ever even bothered opening them (I can't imagine they would have much in the way of useful information vis-a-vis his son).

You know I'm not so sure it was UM's choice to ignore George Gumbley. I always assumed his family didn't cooperate with the segment because I think UM would have been happy to interview his parents on camera as well. This case is just so baffling! Did the boys run off? I did notice part of what the newspaper clipping said about something like "their long talked of plans of running away". When the other friend approached George and Clifford they seemed to be in the middle of a deep discussion (by the reenactment anyway) and didn't want to walk with the other friend to school. That might be a clue. That would explain the picture found of Clifford and his dad that seemed to be taken after Clifford went missing. George's family might also think their son ran away and that could be a reason why they seemed unwillingly to cooperate. Also I did notice in the interview with Frances that she wasn't shown the torso found. It wasn't that she refused to see it, they wouldn't show it to her. She said they only read to her what they found and I certainly don't blame her for not accepting it as her son. Another possibility that I recently thought of, I wonder if Clifford and George could have run away to Tex's house. It wouldn't be unheard of for a boy living with his mother to prefer to live with his dad and maybe George was unhappy at home and wanted to accompany him. Also I can't help but think that Clifford could still be alive because of that clue they found of a drivers license issued to someone with a very similar sounding name (the first and middle names were transposed) with the exact same birth date as Clifford's. I mean what are the chances of that being just a coincidence. The more I'm typing this the more I'm thinking its a very good possibility that Clifford ran away.

That's a good point about it not being UM's choice to ignore the second boy. There was a second boy murdered in the Scott Johnson case (they were the ones trapped in a shed that was set on fire) and that boy was not even named. Like the Sherwood case, the Scott Johnson case was also decades old at the time it was filmed and it may be either that they could not find the boy's family or that they chose not to participate.

Are you sure Clifford Sherwood's mother didn't refuse to see the torso? Maybe I need to watch it again, but I'm almost positive it happened the way mozart describes.

I too noticed how UM didn't pay much attention to the other boy that went missing. You don't suppose Cliffard's dad took both boys and murdered the other one? Maybe those were the bones that were found. Probably not hey but just something that crossed my mind briefly.

I noticed that, too, and actually, I have ALWAYS assumed this. Although DNA testing wasn't available in 1955, and with only a torso they couldn't even check such things as dental records, probably the remains were buried and there ought to be a record of where. Has ANYONE tried to unearth the torso and compare its DNA to the Sherwood and Gumbley families? Are they short of funds or something else?

Some of the scant information on Clifford online said that he made a phone call to his aunt the day after he went missing, said her name, then the line went dead. Evidently no one in his family ever heard from him again.

The reasons I suppose Clifford's father abducted both boys, and murdered George(s), are as follows:

--He sounds like the sort of person who would do that kind of thing by the way his family portrayed him.

--It would serve the dual purpose of getting rid of George(s) so he couldn't talk, and terrorizing Clifford into total obedience.

--The family found among the father's possession a picture of Clifford which no one remembered, in which he appeared up to a year older than when he disappeared.

--His father would fly into hysterical, destructive rage whenever Clifford was mentioned. If he was innocent and this were a stranger abduction, why the rage and refusal to discuss the event?

Unsolved Mysteries should be brought back as a series. No doubt there are updates on many cases. Some, such as the discovery of the remains of the Grand Duchess Anastasia and her brother Alexei of Russia, made the news, but many more did not and people may be wondering about them.

--His father would fly into hysterical, destructive rage whenever Clifford was mentioned. If he was innocent and this were a stranger abduction, why the rage and refusal to discuss the event?



I can't really say much about a lot of your points but this one has a possible explanation. Many men of Clifford's father's generation were raised with no idea how to express their emotions. It could be that he simply didn't deal well with the loss of his son and anger and rage were the only emotions he felt a man could express about that kind of situation.

His reaction doesn't prove guilt, just looks bad. It effectively kept the remaining family members from asking any questions.

His reaction doesn't prove guilt, just looks bad. It effectively kept the remaining family members from asking any questions.

Yes I could never really figure out if Tex's extreme and sometimes violent reaction whenever Clifford was mentioned was due to a secret he was hiding or the anger and grief he felt that his son had went missing.

This could have gone down several ways:

--Tex abducted both boys and murdered Georges in part to terrorize Clifford. (Remember the Shawn Hornbeck/Devlin case. The kidnap victim offered to stay with the child molester and do "anything" rather than be killed.)

--Tex abducted both boys and pretended he was giving Georges a ride home. I do hope Clifford didn't witness the murder or know of it firsthand, though if the case was publicized and he was allowed access to newspapers he must have eventually learned.

--Tex put someone else up to abducting or helping him to abduct Clifford, who wasn't too particular about how he did it or who got hurt. (Remember the Steven Stayner case. His abductor, Parnell, had help.) This still allowed Tex to look innocent to Clifford, "Well, geez, how did I know he'd kill your friend?" (Not so likely. I think Tex was the abductor and lured both boys because Clifford knew him. Would TWO boys have gone willingly with a stranger? Although, remember the still-unsolved Jacob Wetterling case, where the stranger was armed and controlling three boys before taking Jacob.)

I still feel like Tex was involved. Anyhow, why don't they test that body, if they have it, so they could determine who was or wasn't killed back then?

I happened across this website and topic while doing a search on Clifford Sherwood and George Gumbley. What triggered me to do the search was news I heard on a local radio station today (Jan.09/2009) that Clifford Sherwood’s mother died recently. My interest in this case? I’m George Gumbley’s cousin. My Father was his Uncle. I never got to meet Georgie (as his siblings called him) because I was born about 2 years after he disappeared.

I’m amazed at the speculation as to the boys’ disappearance and p*ssed at the lack of attention about George. Years ago when I watched the UM episode (which I have on tape and occasionally watch) I was quite upset about the lack of attention paid to George and the focus on Clifford. I’m not taking anything away from Clifford or his family but UM treated George as if his life was worthless. A few days after seeing the original broadcast I contacted one of Georgie’s brothers and asked him why there was so little focus on George. He said that the producers had contacted him, but only briefly. He gave them info on the case and didn’t hear very much from them. I don’t think he was very upset about the lack of attention. Not because he didn’t care but because his family is very private about the matter. I think after all those years their feeling is “why open old wounds”.

UM aren’t the only people to ignore Georgie. Every year here in Montreal the Missing Children’s Network puts on a telethon to raise money for their very worthy cause. And every year for many years, Clifford’s mother was a guest on the show. And every year she went on about Clifford and NEVER once said anything about George. And the radio host never said anything about George either. As a matter of fact, when I heard him talking today about Frances’s passing, again he mentioned that she was a devoted mother who kept praying that Clifford would return home one day. And again, he didn’t say anything about George.

In the opening scenes of the UM episode they explain that Frances was still living at the same location that she was living in when Clifford disappeared. Her reasoning being that if Clifford came back, he’d return to where he’d been living. Well, Georgie’s father (my Uncle) did exactly the same thing. When I was a child I often heard him say that he wasn’t going to move because Georgie would be able to find his family when he came home. My Uncle lived in the same place until he died.

What happened to them? My father thought they drowned. There was a “fishing hole/lake/pond” in a large park a mile or two from where the boys lived. A lot of the kids used to go to that area to play. Also, the boys lived only a couple of streets away from the St.Lawerence River which has a very fast and strong current. My father thought that on the morning they disappeared they’d decided to skip school and go fishing. My father said it was thought that one of them slipped on some rocks and fell into the water and the other fell in while trying to help. He said that they asked the police to dredge the fishing hole and the police refused because they thought the boys had “simply run away from home and would be back in a day or so”. The following newspaper article explains the cops attitude:

From the "MONTREAL STAR" Oct. 25, 1954 -
"SEARCH FOR VERDUN BOYS SHIFTS TO VAUDREUIL AREA"
Verdun police said today that two boys, nine and 12 years of age, missing from their homes for nearly a week, were reported seen hitch-hiking through Vaudreuil, Saturday night.
The boys, Clifford Sherwood and George Gumbly, respectively, left home for school on Thursday morning as usual, but never reached there. It is believed that they decided instead to take to "the open road". Almost everything seems to point to the conclusion they had it all planned out, police stated.
Mrs. Gumbly, mother of the older boy, said to The Star "George did not take his bike to school that morning." She also noted that the boy did not take any of his savings money cached in his bedroom chest of drawers.
Mrs. Sherwood, mother of the younger boy, said her boy left with only his flannel shirt on. "He kissed me good-bye as usual," she observed. "I didn't notice anything strange about his manner." She thought he may have taken the notion of going to Toronto where his father is at present. "At first we thought it was just another one of those one day 'let's run-away-and-never-come-back' things'," Sgt. Det. A. Harvey said. He is investigating with Sgt.Det. J. Marin. "Now the whole thing has gotten out of hand." Sgt. Harvey added.
Police acting on a tip that the boys usually went down to Angrignon Park in Ville Emard searched the bottom of an abandoned pump-house in the park but did not find anything. Police also checked a Lake Masson resident, an uncle of one of the boys, where young Clifford goes every summer.
They said they obtained the Vaudreuil story from a woman who called them saying two boys undoubtedly answering the little fugitives' descriptions were seen going through the town. One of the boys was carrying a rifle, the woman said. Police did not say that this had any connection with a theft at a store on Wellington street last Friday. That night a group of "very young boys" broke into the store and stole a rifle.

Note: Vaudreuil is a suburb of Montreal, approximately 25 miles west (on the way to Toronto)
Angrignon Park is where the fishing hole/lake/pond is located (the park is still there)
Ville Emard is a district within Montreal a mile or two from where the boys lived.
Lake Masson is about 50 miles north of Montreal
Wellington Street is a major commercial street about a block from where the boys lived

My father said his family thought that the theory that they’d broken into the hardware store, stolen a rifle and were walking to Toronto (300 miles west of Montreal) was ludicrous. He thought that it was simply a case of two young boys accidently drowning.

Thanks so much for posting Mustang Dan! We have been wanting to find out more about why Georges Gumbley wasn't mentioned as much as Clifford. Its very aggravating but knowing how UM was at times, I can theorize why they didn't mention Georges except in passing. Their "angle" for the story was probably the fact that Clifford's mom was still in the same home, decades later, waiting for her boy to return. If that is the case why they didn't mention him much or even show a picture, thats horrible imo. What I don't get is why in the scant mention of Clifford on the missing websites Georges Gumbley is also barely mentioned with no picture. Is this how the family wanted it? I think the theory about the drowning makes a lot of sense since I do believe they mentioned to a friend about possibly skipping school that day or being late. It seems like the friend in the reenactment said they went in the opposite direction of school. Was the lake every searched for their remains? Were there any reported sightings of them together after they went missing, perhaps later that day?

[QUOTE=Cori aka ChrisSCrush]I noticed that, too, and actually, I have ALWAYS assumed this. Although DNA testing wasn't available in 1955, and with only a torso they couldn't even check such things as dental records, probably the remains were buried and there ought to be a record of where. Has ANYONE tried to unearth the torso and compare its DNA to the Sherwood and Gumbley families? Are they short of funds or something else?
[QUOTE]

As the torso apparently went unidentified, it was likely buried in an unmarked and/or mass grave, and now, some 50+ years later, may not be found with any certainty. Even if the location was known, the DNA might be too degraded for testing; and even if a profile can be extracted, it's unclear if there are samples to compare it to (although if Clifford had sister, an mtDNA test could be done).

The cost of finding, exhuming, and DNA typing of old, degraded, samples would be, I can imagine, very, very expensive.

Mustang Dan - thanks for the reply. You have filled in many troubling gaps.

Your father's theory is quite possibly correct, and UM may have ignored your family as the theory doesn't make for much of a mystery.

All the best to your extended and overlooked family.

Thanks for that, Mustang Dan! This case has always intrigued me. I think the theory you gave is probably correct. I hope someday you find out for sure.

Although DNA testing wasn't available in 1955, and with only a torso they couldn't even check such things as dental records, probably the remains were buried and there ought to be a record of where. Has ANYONE tried to unearth the torso and compare its DNA to the Sherwood and Gumbley families? Are they short of funds or something else?
[QUOTE]

[QUOTE=egswanso]As the torso apparently went unidentified, it was likely buried in an unmarked and/or mass grave, and now, some 50+ years later, may not be found with any certainty. Even if the location was known, the DNA might be too degraded for testing; and even if a profile can be extracted, it's unclear if there are samples to compare it to (although if Clifford had sister, an mtDNA test could be done).

The cost of finding, exhuming, and DNA typing of old, degraded, samples would be, I can imagine, very, very expensive.

Thanks, Mustang Dan! May I ask, were the remains in question found near where your family thought the boys may have drowned? Were the Gumbleys also asked to view the remains, did they, and did they come to any conclusion? Did any other remains turn up? There was a case of an unknown young boy in the Philadelphia area being exhumed over 40 years after his death to extract DNA. Of course, he was found well-preserved and given a decent burial. You can google "America's Unknown Child" if you're prepared to see post mortem pictures of a very young victim. I kind of assumed the Gumbleys didn't cooperate as much in search efforts--it's interesting to learn they regarded it as just an accident, not an abduction. Still an unsolved mystery, in any case.

The Gumbleys DID cooperate in search efforts. They were frantic, they wanted their child back home. It was the authorities who didn't make an effort. Reread the part of my posting with the copy of the newspaper article. You'll see that the police felt it was simply a couple of young boys running away from home and they'd be back in a few days. Like I wrote, my Father said they wanted the fishing/hole/pond dragged for bodies and the police refused.
Based on what my Father said I don't think anyone at the time thought it was an abduction. Abductions weren't as common back then as they are now or at least people weren't aware of them as we are now. The 1st time I ever heard about an abduction was in the UM episode.

See, that's another way the UM ep made the Gumbleys look bad--by playing them down, it made them look as if they weren't cooperative, weren't interested, or had given up. Of course, the Sherwoods did make a more interesting mystery due to the bad blood between the parents and Tex's suspicious actions.

That torso that was found, do you know where? Were any other young boys missing in that time frame besides these two? Was the area searched for any further remains? The torso had to have been attached to the rest of a body at some point! If a skull was found, identity could almost certainly be made through dental records.

DO you want to know what is so sad about his whole segment? I had forgotten that his friend went missing as well! And I remember this one from the first time around in the 80's. Poor George - he was totally glossed over in the segment.

Is Clifford's mom still alive?

Is Clifford's mom still alive?

No, sadly she passed away a few days ago.

http://www.canada.com/story.html?id=1164875

Mother held out hope for her missing son
Only her death ended 55-year vigil
The Gazette
Published: Sunday, January 11, 2009
For 55 years, Frances Sherwood never gave up hope that her son, Clifford, who vanished in 1954, would one day turn up on her Verdun doorstep.

Sherwood often vowed she would never die until she was reunited with her son.

It was a promise she was unable to keep.


Frances Sherwood holds an early photo of herself with son, Clifford Sherwood, who disappeared in 1954 at the age of 9 with classmate George Gumby. Her long vigil for the return of her son ended with her death Friday.
GORDON BECK GAZETTE FILE PHOTO

Email to a friend

Printer friendly
Font:****On Jan. 7, she died at age 90 without knowing what happened to her boy. With her death, the mystery of her missing son remains unresolved.

Sherwood always believed her son and another boy, George Gumby, who disappeared the same day, had been kidnapped by her estranged husband.

Even though a badly decomposed torso that might have been Clifford was pulled from the St. Lawrence River one year after both boys vanished, Sherwood was adamant the body was not his.

"Unless parents have been through this themselves, they have no idea of the kind of pain a parent goes through when their child goes missing," Sherwood told The Gazette 10 years ago. "There is an emptiness that can never be replaced. Not knowing is the hardest part, but you can never lose hope, either."

Sherwood had lived in Toronto when she was married. She had four daughters and a son. She said while she was ill in hospital, her husband, known as Nephi, abandoned her, taking their four daughters to British Columbia.

At the time, Clifford was being cared for by his grandmother in Verdun. On Oct. 1, 1954, Clifford and classmate George Gumby disappeared while on their way to school. A police investigation turned up nothing.

There were no further leads until 1987, when the Missing Children's Network determined that a Clifford Sherwood was living in Edmonton. He had the same birth date as the missing boy. But that was about the extent of it.

Sherwood's father was able to prove he was on the West Coast when his son disappeared, and police ruled him out as a suspect.

Sherwood never wavered in her faith that she would see her son again.

"I don't want to interfere in his life; I just want to know he's alive," she said. "I'd also love to see him. Everyone will know when he comes home, too. I'll let out a whoop and a holler."

The case was featured on the U.S. television show Unsolved Mysteries in 1992. But the program only added to the puzzle. Did the boy make a telephone call to his aunt Hilda the day after he vanished? Was Nephi Sherwood somehow involved, and why did he have an alias, Edward Thorne? If he had his son abducted, why was George Gumby kidnapped? And what ever happened to George Gumby?

Frances Sherwood served as a poster mom for the Missing Children's Network, a song was written about her and she and became something of a local folk hero.

"She was an exceptional woman who truly exemplified courage, dignity and strength," Pina Arcamone, the Network's director-general, is quoted as saying on the group's website.

Note: If you click on the actual link there is a picture of her.

another link on her passing: http://www.montrealgazette.com/story_print.html?id=1164875&sponsor=

Unsolved Mysteries really mishandled their presentation of this case. If you look at the Kurt Sova story, the emphasis is on Kurt, but the other boy who died, Eugene, was mentioned and his picture shown at the end. George deserved at least this much! Make the story about Clifford, if that's what they wanted, but at least mention George and show his picture at the end--don't just toss him off in passing. They could have done computer aging on his, too, if the family provided pictures of him, and of his parents taken at the age he would have been had he lived to that time.

Did any other young boys ever go missing in the area, which might hint at the possibility of a child predator?

Here's another short article on Frances Sherwood:

http://www.westislandchronicle.com/article-294895-Remembering-Frances-Sherwood.html

Charli-Ann

http://www.canada.com/story.html?id=1164875

Mother held out hope for her missing son
Only her death ended 55-year vigil
The Gazette
Published: Sunday, January 11, 2009


...Frances Sherwood holds an early photo of herself with son, Clifford Sherwood, who disappeared in 1954 at the age of 9 with classmate George Gumby...

Jeez! Even that newspaper article got Georges Gumbley's name wrong! :mad:

Mustang Dan, I hope you and your family know that there are people out there who care about what happened to your cousin. Thank you so much for posting. George was really just a black box until you filled us in. I agree that his father's theory about what happened is probably the most plausible. I think the phrase, "When you hear hooves, think horses, not zebras" applies well here.

What serious efforts have there been to even TRY to pursue leads on this?

Note: If you click on the actual link there is a picture of her.

That has to be one of the saddest photos I've ever seen. :(

Updated in my other post.

Very tragic but fascinating mystery. I recently rewatched the segment, and read through the posts here. Thanks again to George Gumbley's relative for keeping his memory and cause alive, and for letting us know what the real facts and theories were all about!!!!! My thoughts are with you and your family.

When watching this segment, I also felt that the idea that the estranged husband kidnapped the boys was implausible. The only way that I would think he was involved is if it involved him wanting to do something to really hurt Francis (according to Francis and the segment, he was very very controlling and jealous). Perhaps he hired or asked someone to murder his son in order to seek revenge on his ex-wife, and poor George was taken out as well b/c he was in the way or a witness. It's not out of the realm of possibility that he would do that to his son, given that he allowed his son to stay with his ex wife even though he was adamant about having his girls go with him to Vancouver (or Toronto, as the above article states- which city was it)?

So, perhaps the ex had someone do this for him... perhaps the boys ran away, perhaps they were kidnapped by a random person, or perhaps they skipped school and had a drowning accident (as George's cousin feels. I feel the last account is the most plausible, and this would certainly explain a torso being found (water has a tendency to do horrible things to the body... remember the oba chandler case (horrific) as well as the infamous Laci Peterson body discovery?

Regardless, I feel that UM made a mistake on this one, and did not review this case from all angles... in this case, it appears that a good story was more important than actually finding the missing boys and presenting the facts of the case. I sincerely hope that UM did not do this with other cases and we simply don't know about it.

PS: Quick note: I too agree that Clifford's mom chose not to identify the body, versus them refusing to show the torso to her. That was a shame, and it indicates that she simply could not handle the notion that her son was dead... certainly understandable! I agree with previous posters in that the photo of Clifford is irrelevant. First of all, given the fact that his mom refused to identify the torso, it is clear that she was operating under the belief that he was alive, so that perhaps clouded any objective judgement (and I can understand her desperation for sure). I found it partularly telling when she said on the segment that "it could have been 6 months or a year after he went missing." 6 months to a year? I don't think that is enough time to notice substantial changes in a person's appearance, and this seems like a non-issue.

On a totally unrelated note... I lived in Montreal a few years ago, and if you haven't been you should absolutely go! It is one of the most beautiful cities in the world, amazingly affordable, exciting, and so close! I am jealous of those that get to live in such a lovely city.

I might have mentioned this before but I don't see how Frances Sherwood could have identified that body even if she wanted to. It was just the lower torso of a young boy, not the full body. Unless Clifford had a birthmark anywhere on his feet or legs, how exactly would she have been able to identity him?

Also, I hate to get so graphic but Frances was told this boy had been dead about a year. Wouldn't a body be badly decomposed after that amount of time? Identifying it would be impossible. The only thing to go on would be the clothes or belongings found on the body and Frances said in the segment that none of them belonged to her son as far as she knew.

I just saw this segment today and couldn't believe how UM just glossed over the other missing child, George. The fact that two friends went missing at exactly the same time would strongly suggest that this is anything but a parent abduction. I really don't understand what the UM people were thinking on this one.

Isn't it obvious, everybody? UM was doing a "Lost Loves" segment, so to do anything more than just casually and subtlely slip in the fact that the other boy he was with disappeared too would have messed up the story UM was trying to tell.

Classic UM in so many ways. :rolleyes:

You know I'm not so sure it was UM's choice to ignore George Gumbley. I always assumed his family didn't cooperate with the segment because I think UM would have been happy to interview his parents on camera as well. This case is just so baffling! Did the boys run off? I did notice part of what the newspaper clipping said about something like "their long talked of plans of running away". When the other friend approached George and Clifford they seemed to be in the middle of a deep discussion (by the reenactment anyway) and didn't want to walk with the other friend to school. That might be a clue. That would explain the picture found of Clifford and his dad that seemed to be taken after Clifford went missing. George's family might also think their son ran away and that could be a reason why they seemed unwillingly to cooperate. Also I did notice in the interview with Frances that she wasn't shown the torso found. It wasn't that she refused to see it, they wouldn't show it to her. She said they only read to her what they found and I certainly don't blame her for not accepting it as her son. Another possibility that I recently thought of, I wonder if Clifford and George could have run away to Tex's house. It wouldn't be unheard of for a boy living with his mother to prefer to live with his dad and maybe George was unhappy at home and wanted to accompany him. Also I can't help but think that Clifford could still be alive because of that clue they found of a drivers license issued to someone with a very similar sounding name (the first and middle names were transposed) with the exact same birth date as Clifford's. I mean what are the chances of that being just a coincidence. The more I'm typing this the more I'm thinking its a very good possibility that Clifford ran away.

You make a compelling case. However,

Just a few rebuttals:

1. I think the reason for UM not focusing on the other missing boy is more or less what I said in the last post.

2. Frances was not shown the torso because her "mother's intuition" told her that it was not her child, and thus she felt there was no need for her to see it. The police wanted her to look at it, identify it, and sign that it was her son's, but she refused to do any of it. That being said, I don't blame her for not accepting it either, because it is just a torso (however, I think she should have looked).

3. I don't think Clifford and George ran away to Tex's house, because Tex by then had moved to Vancouver. That would be the U.S. equivalent of running from Boston to Seattle. Possible, but unlikely they would hitch the train that far to get to Tex's house (and I doubt they would know exactly where Tex lived and how to get there when the arrived).

4. The drivers license, however, is rather uncanny. Considering there would have been about 900 children born in Canada that day (in the baby-boomer generation), the chances of two Sherwoods with similar legal names (albeit reversed) would be quite slim. However, I would need to know more about this before giving it any more credence.

This could have gone down several ways:

[1]--Tex abducted both boys and murdered Georges in part to terrorize Clifford. (Remember the Shawn Hornbeck/Devlin case. The kidnap victim offered to stay with the child molester and do "anything" rather than be killed.)

[2]--Tex abducted both boys and pretended he was giving Georges a ride home. I do hope Clifford didn't witness the murder or know of it firsthand, though if the case was publicized and he was allowed access to newspapers he must have eventually learned.

[3]--Tex put someone else up to abducting or helping him to abduct Clifford, who wasn't too particular about how he did it or who got hurt. (Remember the Steven Stayner case. His abductor, Parnell, had help.) This still allowed Tex to look innocent to Clifford, "Well, geez, how did I know he'd kill your friend?" (Not so likely. I think Tex was the abductor and lured both boys because Clifford knew him. Would TWO boys have gone willingly with a stranger? Although, remember the still-unsolved Jacob Wetterling case, where the stranger was armed and controlling three boys before taking Jacob.)

1. There was really no need to terrorize Clifford. He pretty much had his way with the kids (the daughters just up and left with him, no questions asked). All he would have had to do was say, "Mom called me, she has taken ill again and you'll have to come with me", just like he did with the daughters. Why resort to draconian measures (ie. murder and dismemberment) when they are not necessary?

2. Why abduct both boys? Why not just wait until Clifford is alone and take him then?

3. As you say, "not so likely".

Here is the thing: my default position is that the most likely scenario is the one that most probably happened. Some sick pervert probably abducted the boys, molested them, and dismembered them. Hence the torso.

I contacted one of Georgie’s brothers and asked him why there was so little focus on George. He said that the producers had contacted him, but only briefly. He gave them info on the case and didn’t hear very much from them.

Also, the boys lived only a couple of streets away from the St.Lawerence River which has a very fast and strong current. .

That pretty much proves my point - UM wasn't interested in Georgie because he really wasn't all that important to the "lost loves story" they were trying to tell.

I believe a missing boy was found in the waterways of the St. Lawrence river in Quebec just recently. His family lived very close to the St. Lawrence, and it is speculated he walked out his backyard, went a little ways, and was swept away. Very tragic. So it is not without precedent, and it would not surprise me if that had happened to Georgie and Clifford.

See, that's another way the UM ep made the Gumbleys look bad--by playing them down, it made them look as if they weren't cooperative, weren't interested, or had given up.

I don't think UM made the Gumbleys look bad. If you know UM's modus operandi, you are going to assume that Georgie just didn't fit in the story. I never drew that conclusion.

Something like this was probably heard in the UM boardroom meeting: "A fishing accident? Well, that's not a good story. But the abusive dad who lost his kids to foster care because he left the druggie next door in charge of taking care of them? Now, that might make for a good segment! Oh, and there was a guy with a similar name born on the same date, but who up and disappeared before he could be contacted? Golden - a phenomenal little tidbit to throw in at the end to leave the viewer with. Let's film it!"

I am a hopeless UM romantic too, but I am realistic enough to acknowledge that the executive producers of the show were primarily driven by ratings, and only secondarily by the desire to solve crimes and help give a grieving family answers to the tragic deaths of their loved ones. This is a case in point.

I can't believe I've only seen this segment for the first time yesterday. All I can add is "spot on as usual, Wamisto". I'm with you on each point. The only thing I'd add (apologies if you already covered it) is that the focus HAD to be on Clifford because Frances Sherwood's life was one long set of tragedies and that tugs on the heartstrings andd makes for much mor compelling television.

I can't believe I've only seen this segment for the first time yesterday. All I can add is "spot on as usual, Wamisto".

Aw, well, uh-huh, ... shucks :blush:

I agree- it is so frustrating, especially since UM didn't mention that George Gumbley was still missing. I'm guessing that the only reason Clifford's case is still active is because his mom is so vocal. Canada rocks in that regard.

The sister they inteviewed (unfortunately, I don't know her name or I would google her) believed that there was something suspicious going on, too. I found it depressing that the girls were all in foster care for the rest of their juvenile lives - I wonder why? Presumably Mrs. Sherwood was a fit parent. I wonder why she wasn't allowed to keep her children. The '50s was a different time...

Anyway. Anyone remember the name of Clifford's sister? I have googled Clifford and his dad to no avail.

Clifford had 4 sisters Colleen Clara Claudia and Carol stuff Colleen died about 3 yrs ago.
My Aunt Frances was unable to keep her children she was in the hospital for 2 yrs after leaving a prior hospital where there was a death of a new born.
When My aunt went home the house was empty, business sold , and children gone minus clifford who resided with his grandmother in montreal...
They were put into foster care as the father TEX left them in a drug infested house so the services removed them from the home.
My aunt went to bc with her father to try and get them back but at that time she had no means.
My aunt is a very special lady and should remain at peace.

Something I have never understood is why in the world those girls chose to stay with their father? The guy was an abusive scumbag. My heart goes out to the mother. Had a piece of garbage husband, a missing son who she still doesn't know the truth about, and was alienated from her daughters for a long time.

Stuff like that saddens me. Guys like Sherwood don't deserve one tenth of what they got. If I wasn't a strong born again Christian taught to be forgiving and hope for redemption of all my fellow man, I'd hope he was rotting in Hell now.

Guys who abuse their wives are as bad as serial killers in my view.

Guys who abuse their wives are as bad as serial killers in my view.

I'd still put them below child molesters. But yes, they are right up there, in third place, I'd say.

56 years have gone by. October 21 1954

56 years have gone by. October 21 1954

Wow. So much time has passed. I can't remember but was Clifford ever legally declared dead? Or is he still considered missing?

Wow. So much time has passed. I can't remember but was Clifford ever legally declared dead? Or is he still considered missing?

There would be no reason for him to be declared dead. The main reason people are declared dead is to pass on assets and to clear up things like insurance claims.

I think the main drive of the UM segment was Clifford's mom. Without her, it would have been just another story about two missing boys.

I take all the UM segments with a grain of salt after they disproved the car seat finagle in that rape case that was later proven to be true. When more than one person goes missing, an accident is even more likely than being kidnapped by a pedo.

Clifford's sister interviewed on Unsolved Mysteries is Colleen.

he went missing along side clifford day after day we all wonder where and what happened to him :(

That pretty much proves my point - UM wasn't interested in Georgie because he really wasn't all that important to the "lost loves story" they were trying to tell.

I believe a missing boy was found in the waterways of the St. Lawrence river in Quebec just recently. His family lived very close to the St. Lawrence, and it is speculated he walked out his backyard, went a little ways, and was swept away. Very tragic. So it is not without precedent, and it would not surprise me if that had happened to Georgie and Clifford.


Just wondering what brother you spoke with either my father or uncle??

This was another case that was presented the way the mother/family thought it happened or "wanted" it to have happened rather than the way it actually or probably happened. A lot of the "suicide or murder?" cases are presented the same way.

I might have mentioned this before but I don't see how Frances Sherwood could have identified that body even if she wanted to. It was just the lower torso of a young boy, not the full body. Unless Clifford had a birthmark anywhere on his feet or legs, how exactly would she have been able to identity him?

Also, I hate to get so graphic but Frances was told this boy had been dead about a year. Wouldn't a body be badly decomposed after that amount of time? Identifying it would be impossible. The only thing to go on would be the clothes or belongings found on the body and Frances said in the segment that none of them belonged to her son as far as she knew.

I agree. How could look at a torso (gruesome for anyone, and a decomposed one at that) and be able to identify it as belonging to your child? I respect her decision and deciding to go off of the personal effects on the body. And I believe that she was not making things up about the picture she found with Clifford appearing older and with new clothes along with his father; I think that the father was involved, even if I am in a minority here. That later photo would not have been possible if a random assailant had attacked the two boys; it is a sad possibility that he kidnapped his son and disposed of the other boy :( thus explaining the one torso being found fitting in Clifford's age range. Can't DNA testing be conducted to surviving family members related to both boys to confirm anything?

I think that the father was involved, even if I am in a minority here. That later photo would not have been possible if a random assailant had attacked the two boys; it is a sad possibility that he kidnapped his son and disposed of the other boy :( thus explaining the one torso being found fitting in Clifford's age range. Can't DNA testing be conducted to surviving family members related to both boys to confirm anything?

This is what I've been saying for years. Another possibility is it is something like the Uhaul heir's wife's murder or the Chandra Levy murder--there was dirty laundry with indications pointing to a killer with a motive but may have been a random murder or even an accident. (Which doesn't fully explain the photo of Clifford said to have been taken after his disappearance.)

And, isn't ANYONE just a LITTLE BIT curious to identify these remains, when they have had TWO good possibilities all these years, and it's recent enough that the boys have CLOSE RELATIVES (brothers and sisters) still living? Can't whoever is in authority to do so test the remains to at least eliminate Clifford and Georges? I tried contacting the police department in the area about this and never got far.

I was looking through some info about Clifford and George on some websites and there was an article that somebody found that was in the newspaper shortly after the boy's disappearance. The theory that police had brought up was that the two boys ran away together, and that they had told friends about running away. A few days after they vanished, the two boys were seen hitchhiking. Frances suggested that Clifford may have ran away to Toronto to see his father. So, I was thinking that it could be possible that he did stay with his father, and that he for some reason he didn't want to see his mother again, and then started a new life. This would explain the photograph and the driver's license of Edward Clifford Sherwood. And it could be possible that that was why Tex did not want to discuss Clifford because he knew where he was and what happened to him.

Edit: I was watching the segment and saw that the article was briefly shown. The title was "Search for Verdun Boys Shifts to Vaudreuil Area" because the boys were spotted in Vaudreuil.

It sounds plausible... but that's pretty damn cold. wouldn't someone have noticed Clifford living with his father? and what exactly happened to the other boy?

Also I kind of find it suspicious that the boys wouldn't have been turned over to the authorities for attempting to hitch hike. or meeting a horrible demise in an attempt to hitch hike. but what the hell do I know? :/

If Clifford Sherwood wanted to run away to see his father, then I'm still at a loss why all these kids were so determined to get away from their mother, the daughters apparently wanted to live with him to and by all accounts the father was nothing but an abusive piece of trash.

Was the mother that strict on them?? :confused:

I just watched the Clifford Sherwood segment for the first time, and I have to agree with what most of the other posters have observed already: it seems highly unlikely that Clifford's dad is behind all this, but it does seem likely that UM may have played-up this angle in order to spice up the story.

-Why would Clifford's dad abduct *two* kids? That is an insanely high-risk endeavor and quite difficult to pull off. I've never heard of a case where a non-custodial parent tries to "take back" their child, and throws in another abductee along for the ride.

-Clifford's dad was (I think?) living on the other side of the country at the time.

-Clifford's mom didn't identify the torso that was found, claiming that some "intuitive feeling" told her it couldn't have been her son:( (highly understandable, but probably wishful thinking).

-Regarding the photo of Clifford, he looks to be anywhere between 8 and 11 years old (in my subjective opinion). There's just no evidence he's any older than the age he was when he vanished.

-After all these years, wouldn't Clifford have tried to contact his mother? Unless dad kept him locked in the basement or something for years on end, which is quite difficult/complicated to pull off.

-The driver's license can easily be dismissed as coincidence, given all of the other aspects of this case that point away from Clifford's dad.

What I want to know is if the guy they said they think was Clifford really is him? His first and middle names were reversed but the birth dates are the same.

What I want to know is if the guy they said they think was Clifford really is him? His first and middle names were reversed but the birth dates are the same.

I wondered that, too. Given all the tools we have today, one would think it wouldn't be totally impossible for Clifford's surviving family to track down the driver's license guy and make a final determination.

I wonder if they could put DNA into the computer and find something?

I wonder if they could put DNA into the computer and find something?

Like what? Now, if they could find that torso and prove it was related either to Georges's family or Clifford's, that would be something!

I wonder if the driver's license could simply have been a case of identity theft.

I wonder if the driver's license could simply have been a case of identity theft.

Like a case I heard about (somewhere) recently where someone (a Joseph Somebody III?) died and when they contacted the family they learned that person was killed in a car crash at the age of 9 so they had to identify the man who had died, who had stolen the dead boy's identity. You can see the identity thief not wanting to be found in that case!

Like a case I heard about (somewhere) recently where someone (a Joseph Somebody III?) died and when they contacted the family they learned that person was killed in a car crash at the age of 9 so they had to identify the man who had died, who had stolen the dead boy's identity. You can see the identity thief not wanting to be found in that case!

Yeah, it has happened in a number of missing persons cases or people who died as children. More so years ago.

The thing about this case is that Tex's files were supposed to be available to view in 2006, but I'm guessing there was nothing important in there that shed light on Clifford's fate.

If the unidentified torso was never matched to an owner, it should be exhumed and DNA taken and tested against surviving members of the Sherwood and Gumbley families-- or at least that should be possible. Maybe one of them can get answers after all of this time.

About Tex: I think it does seem a wild theory that he killed George and took Clifford. But I think it's possible that he knew something and I don't think he can be ruled out 100%. We're talking about a man who by all accounts had SERIOUS anger issues and would become violent at the mention of Clifford. If he truly had nothing to do with it and loved picking his son up when in town, why would he start raging and smashing things? I would think that he would have done some searching or something. I also don't think it's that wild that he could have been in town around the time of the disappearance. It's stated directly in the segment that he stopped by multiple times for a visit with Clifford.

About the mysterious photo: Clifford's mother didn't recognize the clothing/hat. It's possible that Tex didn't want him to take the new clothes home, I guess, but that could be an indicator that it happened later. From my point of view I don't think Clifford looks that much older in the picture, but then again we don't have a picture from right before he vanished, either. I think the segment shows pictures of him at a much younger age.

Like a case I heard about (somewhere) recently where someone (a Joseph Somebody III?) died and when they contacted the family they learned that person was killed in a car crash at the age of 9 so they had to identify the man who had died, who had stolen the dead boy's identity. You can see the identity thief not wanting to be found in that case!

Oh, here is where I saw it. #3 on the list. http://listverse.com/2013/06/23/10-unsolved-mysteries-involving-unidentified-people/

I just watched this episode for the first time. First thing I'd like to say is how inappropriate I felt it was by UM to just basically skip over the fact that Clifford's friend, George Gumbley, also went missing along with Clifford himself. That, in and of itself, rules out the possibility of it being the father who kidnapped Clifford.

I just watched this episode for the first time. First thing I'd like to say is how inappropriate I felt it was by UM to just basically skip over the fact that Clifford's friend, George Gumbley, also went missing along with Clifford himself. That, in and of itself, rules out the possibility of it being the father who kidnapped Clifford.

It doesn't rule it out, just renders it a heck of a lot less likely. The episode could have been a matter of the mother trying to frame the father, but what about the sisters describing Tex flying into a rage at the mention of Clifford? Was he enraged at the thought of them possibly suspecting him, or because he really was guilty? Also how about the picture of Clifford at an older age than when he disappeared and wearing clothing unfamiliar to his mother? I think Tex knew something!

It doesn't rule it out, just renders it a heck of a lot less likely. The episode could have been a matter of the mother trying to frame the father, but what about the sisters describing Tex flying into a rage at the mention of Clifford? Was he enraged at the thought of them possibly suspecting him, or because he really was guilty? Also how about the picture of Clifford at an older age than when he disappeared and wearing clothing unfamiliar to his mother? I think Tex knew something!

Yea, I should have "in my opinion, it rules him out". Clearly it doesn't rule him out entirely.

Well, I cant speak for Tex but I do know that I know people who have had a relative disappear or killed and they DO NOT like to discuss that person at all. Maybe that was what Tex was thinking? Maybe not?

As far as the picture, only the mother was saying she thought he looked significantly older in that picture than when he left for school, but how do we really know? She commented on his clothes not being clothes he wore. Maybe they were clothes that he had at Tex's house?

In the world we live in today, with as much technology as we have, I feel like if we haven't found missing persons, its because they are either dead or they do not wish to be found. My guess, is Clifford is dead, sadly.

It doesn't rule it out, just renders it a heck of a lot less likely. The episode could have been a matter of the mother trying to frame the father, but what about the sisters describing Tex flying into a rage at the mention of Clifford? Was he enraged at the thought of them possibly suspecting him, or because he really was guilty? Also how about the picture of Clifford at an older age than when he disappeared and wearing clothing unfamiliar to his mother? I think Tex knew something!

I think it was mentioned in the segment that Tex had temper issues and was a violent drunk. Perhaps the fact that Clifford disappeared triggered some anger in him. Not because he was involved in the disappearance, but because the situation was out of his control, and that made him angry, and being that he was a violent drunk he lashed out whenever the issue of Clifford's disappearance was brought up and those feelings returned. Or, another possibility is that if he believed Clifford was abducted, he likely had some idea of the motives of the perp and what likely became of Clifford, and as a father that made him understandably angry and upset.

The picture the Sherwoods found has always been a red herring to me. I forget how old Clifford was at the time he disappeared, but I seem to recall that he wasn't at an age where puberty had set in, or he otherwise would have had some sort of a growth spurt that would markedly change his appearance. He could have been 7, 8, 9, 10 when that picture was taken and he likely would have looked the same, or pretty similar.

Since Frances and Tex shared custody and there were times that Clifford would be with Tex exclusively, it wouldn't surprise me if Tex bought Clifford some new clothes at some point, and the clothes either stayed with Tex when Clifford returned home, or Clifford wore them home but Frances failed to recognize/remember them years after the fact because she didn't purchase them herself.

I think the fact that Georges Gumbley disappeared as well really makes Tex Sherwood's involvement in the whole affair highly suspect.

To look at it this another way...Why even involve Georges in the plot at all? If Tex was that desperate to have sole custody of Clifford (go figure since he already had visitation rights) why not just abscond with him during a visit? Such a scenario would have then been no different than many other non-custodial parents who violate the court order and take off their kids. So why abduct Clifford off the street with some other kid, and presumably do away with the other kid?

And, not to mention that Tex apparently stayed close enough with the family after the abduction. Had Clifford been living with him, he would have had to keep it a secret. I can't imagine him being able to keep this ruse up for very long due to the logistics of it all.

The whole thing is absurd, IMO.