November 18 1980. I wonder if the case will ever be solved?

November 18 1980. I wonder if the case will ever be solved?

That remains to be seen. However, as Robert Stack noted at the end of the segment, it is believed that, despite all the unanswered questions, there are those who have some answers related to the case, and that the case can be solved.

I never believed that Clarence Roberts died in the first house fire (which occurred in 1970). Besides, it was mentioned that the burned body found in the first fire didn't have the same blood type as Clarence. Unless a clerical error was made, that information alone proves it wasn't Clarence's body.

I think the Clarence Roberts case is the spookiest homicide case I have ever seen on UM. :eek:

I think the Clarence Roberts case is the spookiest homicide case I have ever seen on UM.

Agreed. Another one of those cases that you just couldn't make up.

It should be pointed out that Clarence Roberts most likely could not set the fire and kill Geneva all by himself.

There is a third party accomplice that is getting away with murder. :mad:

It should be pointed out that Clarence Roberts most likely could not set the fire and kill Geneva all by himself.

Really? Why not?

I don't think there is much of anything to solve in this case personally. Clarence Roberts faked his own death, and then, for unknown reasons, either tried to murder his wife and ended up dying in the blaze himself, or decided (more likely, if you ask me) that he wanted to die and, being a control freak, figured his wife wouldn't be able to get on without him, and so killed her too.

Really? Why not?

1. First and foremost the police believe there to be another person involved. I don't know why the police would create a third person involved when they could easily wrap up the case.
2. The fire could only be done by someone outside. No way could Clarence have set the fire this way with him burning inside of it. I believe there is also evidence that the fire was set from outside.
3. I find it hard to believe that Clarence would allow himself to burn alive. I have to imagine he would choice a more peaceful death for him and Geneva. Which would amount to someone killing or doping them both before the fire consumed their bodies.
4. Clarence would have needed another accomplice other than his wife to keep faked death going on so long. There is another person that was let into this circle of trust.
5. I would also argue that Clarence did not think up this scheme himself. Clarence was doing shady business long before the fire. He's worked before with some disreputable people.

I don't think there is much of anything to solve in this case personally. Clarence Roberts faked his own death, and then, for unknown reasons, either tried to murder his wife and ended up dying in the blaze himself, or decided (more likely, if you ask me) that he wanted to die and, being a control freak, figured his wife wouldn't be able to get on without him, and so killed her too.

1. Your forgetting about the person that died in the first fire. It's assumed that it is a derelict, but he is a human being. He could be one of the several people on the Doe Network. Maybe this person isn't a derelict maybe he had people that knew him.

2. if Clarence could have faked his death once, it's not impossible he could do it again. Which would lead to a second dead innocent dead person?

1. First and foremost the police believe there to be another person involved. I don't know why the police would create a third person involved when they could easily wrap up the case.
2. The fire could only be done by someone outside. No way could Clarence have set the fire this way with him burning inside of it. I believe there is also evidence that the fire was set from outside.
3. I find it hard to believe that Clarence would allow himself to burn alive. I have to imagine he would choice a more peaceful death for him and Geneva. Which would amount to someone killing or doping them both before the fire consumed their bodies.
4. Clarence would have needed another accomplice other than his wife to keep faked death going on so long. There is another person that was let into this circle of trust.
5. I would also argue that Clarence did not think up this scheme himself. Clarence was doing shady business long before the fire. He's worked before with some disreputable people.



1. Your forgetting about the person that died in the first fire. It's assumed that it is a derelict, but he is a human being. He could be one of the several people on the Doe Network. Maybe this person isn't a derelict maybe he had people that knew him.

2. if Clarence could have faked his death once, it's not impossible he could do it again. Which would lead to a second dead innocent dead person?

Granted, some still-unidentified person died in the first blaze, and it would be nice to know who that was. But, nearly forty years out, that is becoming increasingly unlikely.

In another thread on this case, this link (http://books.google.com/books?id=If9GiGRV7a8C&pg=PA23&lpg=PA23&dq=clarence+roberts+death&source=bl&ots=y5zUWQGp_J&sig=guWdynCIAYfcJn2ieWXbEOBb_rg&hl=en&ei=3lqhSYT6C5mQsQPklK3WCQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=7&ct=result#v=onepage&q=%22clarence%20roberts%22&f=false) was provided to a book that gives some more details about this whole incident. If you read through the information there, this case is just one of those where UM is trying to make it more mysterious than it really is. This idea that Clarence Roberts did anything other than a total hack job in staging his first death is nonsense; it was known less than a month after the first fire that the corpse found in that blaze had a different blood type than Clarence. The corpse found in the first fire had only one tooth remaining; Clarence wore a frontal denture, but had several teeth. The corpse found in the first fire had only one kidney; Clarence had never had any surgery to remove a kidney. The original investigating officer never believed it was Clarence. A grand jury even indicted Clarence for the murder of the unknown derelict in 1975. So, Clarence hadn't really fooled anybody except his own family, who wanted to be fooled, and that one lone medical examiner.

When he was found the second time, a team of forensic pathologists, and even that original medical examiner from the first fire, all agreed, after comparing dental records and chest x-rays, that Clarence died in the second fire.

Whatever else happened, I don't think Clarence Roberts was some evil genius who successfully faked his own death twice. The evidence that it wasn't him in the first fire was enough that it really should never have been declared that he died in the first fire; except for one apparently mule-headed medical examiner, he wouldn't have been able even to fake his own death once.

I nominate Clarence's brother as being the third party who set the second fire.

He seemed so adamant that Clarence died in the first fire beyond all evidence of the contrary.

I nominated Clarence's brother as being the third party who set the fire.

He seemed so adamant that Clarence died in the first fire beyond all evidence of the contrary.

Kind of harsh to accuse the guy of double homicide just because he doesn't want to believe his brother was a murderer and insurance scam artist, isn't it?

Kind of harsh to accuse the guy of double homicide just because he doesn't want to believe his brother was a murderer and insurance scam artist, isn't it?

That's not the reason I suspect him of being the third party. It's more process of elimination on who Clarence would trust to do this. I don;t think Clarence would pay someone to do this second fire. I think as long as it was mutually agreed upon by both Geneva and Clarence, I'm sure his brother would view it as a "mercy killing".

Statistically, it has been showns that siblings tend to be the usually accomplices to crimes. Even more than spouses.

I nominate Clarence's brother as being the third party who set the second fire.

He seemed so adamant that Clarence died in the first fire beyond all evidence of the contrary.

Whatever else happened, I don't think Clarence Roberts was some evil genius who successfully faked his own death twice. The evidence that it wasn't him in the first fire was enough that it really should never have been declared that he died in the first fire; except for one apparently mule-headed medical examiner, he wouldn't have been able even to fake his own death once.

If Clarence had any help faking any deaths, wouldn't it stand to reason that it was the medical examiner who was in on it? He was the only one, outside of Clarence's family, who believed it was Clarence who died in the first fire. It was his testimony and his testimony alone that put the breaks on any investigation into what had become of Clarence. This medical examiner knew Clarence, and considered him a friend. Would he have insisted on identifying a body as Clarence, even if it wasn't, to help his friend out? And can a person employed as a medical examiner, except through willful deceit, really mistake a corpse with one tooth, one kidney, and one blood type for a guy who had several teeth, two kidneys, and a different blood type?

If you want to draw grand conspiracies, I'd start with him.

I nominate Clarence's brother as being the third party who set the second fire.

He seemed so adamant that Clarence died in the first fire beyond all evidence of the contrary.

Clarence's sister In Law seemed to think he was still alive and didn't die in either fire.

She seemed to have pure hatred for Clarence, maybe she was somehow involved?

Clarence's sister In Law seemed to think he was still alive and didn't die in either fire.

She seemed to have pure hatred for Clarence, maybe she was somehow involved?

I never got that impression of her. She was just stating his problems & in her opinion could see him faking his death.

If Clarence had any help faking any deaths, wouldn't it stand to reason that it was the medical examiner who was in on it? He was the only one, outside of Clarence's family, who believed it was Clarence who died in the first fire. It was his testimony and his testimony alone that put the breaks on any investigation into what had become of Clarence. This medical examiner knew Clarence, and considered him a friend. Would he have insisted on identifying a body as Clarence, even if it wasn't, to help his friend out? And can a person employed as a medical examiner, except through willful deceit, really mistake a corpse with one tooth, one kidney, and one blood type for a guy who had several teeth, two kidneys, and a different blood type?

[QUOTE]If you want to draw grand conspiracies, I'd start with him.

It wasn;t ME who drew the grand conspiracy, mozart.

It was the cop in the segment who believed there was a third party to begin with. So if you want to discuss grand conspiracies, I guess you should speak to him first. It was in his opinion that the second fire was caused by another person. Did he recant this position, mozart? Did UM misrepresent his statements? Did UM take his interview out of contex? Explain, please.

Why did the law enforcement officer say in the segment that he favored the theory of a third party setting the fire?:confused:

How did Clarence light the second fire, anyway? How did he kill his wife and himself and arrange for both bodies to be inside the inferno...without the aid of another person? I'm sure it's possible, but I would like an explanation or a post that details the explanation. Mozart can you direct me to the post, the link or right me a short explanation?

How did Clarence light the second fire, anyway? How did he kill his wife and himself and arrange for both bodies to be inside the inferno...without the aid of another person? I'm sure it's possible, but I would like an explanation or a post that details the explanation. Mozart can you direct me to the post, the link or right me a short explanation?

This wouldn't be hard at all. First, hit your wife hard enough to knock her out. Second, spread some gasoline around, upstairs and down. Third, light a match. Fourth, wait.

It's not hard, if you want to do it.

This wouldn't be hard at all. First, hit your wife hard enough to knock her out. Second, spread some gasoline around, upstairs and down. Third, light a match. Fourth, wait.

It's not hard, if you want to do it.

Mozart, are you telling me that you think that

1. Clarence Roberts set himself on fire while still alive? That Clarence didn;t choose to have a more peacefull demise in having both himself and his wife drugged (possibly with the same thing they used on the transient) and then simply had someone light the match from outside?

2. And that the fire originated from a spot in the house and not outside?

This wouldn't be hard at all. First, hit your wife hard enough to knock her out. Second, spread some gasoline around, upstairs and down. Third, light a match. Fourth, wait.

It's not hard, if you want to do it.

Mozart, are you telling me that you think that

1. Clarence Roberts set himself on fire while still alive? That Clarence didn;t choose to have a more peacefull demise in having both himself and his wife drugged (possibly with the same thing they used on the transient) and then simply had someone light the match from outside?

2. And that the fire originated from a spot in the house and not outside?

Also I didn;t read you explanation of the cop's statement in the segment? Why did the detective think there was a third party?

if he died in the first fire who was the strange man people saw around his wifes house? i think he died in the 2nd and murdered the bum