During the first season of Unsolved Mysteries (the 1988-89 season), there was a story about an Inidana man named Clarence Roberts. Does anyone remember it? If not, here is the synopsis:

Clarence Roberts owned a hardware store, and was a financially secure man. However, he decided to take a gamble on more money, but kept losing. Then in 1970, his house burned down and the body found there was identified as his. Then in 1980, ten years later, his wife Geneva was killed in a house fire. Her body was recovered, addition to a second body--which was identified as Clarence Roberts!

This is undoubtedly one of the eeriest cases to be featured on Unsolved Mysteries. It sticks in my mind, and probably will for the rest of my life. I mean, it poses a puzzling question: how could the same man die twice? Clarence's nephew believed he died in the first fire (1970). But the majority of those who were interviewed for the story believe otherwise. They believe he was either killed in the second fire (1980) or might still be alive.

Shortly before the 1970 fire, Clarence Roberts was seen talking with a derelict, who then disappeared. Some believe Clarence killed the derelict and had it passed off as his own in an effort to collect insurance money.

For the next ten years, Clarence's "widow" Geneva insisted that Clarence was dead, but some began to have their doubts. An unknown man was seen in her property, and some people (including the local police) speculated that it was Clarence. This suggested that Geneva had something (or should I say someone) to hide. However, this mysterious man seemed very careful because he would always disappear before anyone could have a chance to identify him.

I am convinced that, in the first fire (1970), a derelict died in Clarence's place. There is no doubt in my mind that Clarence Roberts was alive after the 1970 fire. It is possible for him to be alive today, but it seems to me that he died in the 1980 fire.

This is a very intriguing case, and once you have seen it, you might never forget it. Whether this mystery will ever be solved remains to be seen.

:eek: I remember this from last year.

Originally posted by TheWho
:eek: I remember this from last year.

You obviously saw it on Lifetime, then. However, it was rerun just a few days ago. But I know it originally aired during the 1988-89 season (UM's first season).

I forgot to mention that there was a piece of evidence suggesting that Clarence Roberts didn't die in the 1970 fire: The burned corpse at that fire had a different blood type than Clarence. To me, this is a sure sign that someone other than Clarence died in that fire. :eek:

Okay, this is the best story ever. It has all the elements of classic intrigue and drama. I certainly think that the second man found was Clarence and that he had been in hiding. But the real fun in watching the story unfold before your eyes. If this one was solved, I think it would take away from the fun of speculation.

I felt so sorry for Geneva though. :(

This case is eerie no doubt about that but it's not really a mystery. Obvious to just about everyone is Clarance didn't die in the first fire but in the second one.

An interesting fact about this story is that the fires happened almost exactly 10 years apart to the day.

I also believe the man seen with Clarence just days before the fire was the person who died in the first fire, with Clarence dying in the second fire.

Has this story had any updates?? Probably not considering everybody in the know is dead.

This case is eerie no doubt about that but it's not really a mystery. Obvious to just about everyone is Clarance didn't die in the first fire but in the second one.

His sister in law really hated his guts it seems.

He knocked off the bum in fire #1, but was carless enough to leave behind a few personal effects, such as his ring. I'm not sure whether or not he got access to all that insurance money or not, but obviously found a way to subsist for the next decade...........

.....at which point he made contact with his wife, discussed god knows what inside her house and then bumped her off the last night before setting the fire and dying for real.


Does anyone besides me think that fire #2 could've been a mutual thing though?? Clarence was obviously a bum himself pretty much in the last 10 years and his wife was little better. He could've quick shot her or something to prevent the suffering a fiery death would bring and the two would walk off into the next world side by side almost..........

Clarence Roberts is for sure an interesting story. Although I have lived in South Dakota since I was 18, I grew up in Indiana about an hour and a half away from the town where this all took place. The second fire took place when I was 2 months old so I mean, it all happened before my time but I have heard about it more than just through UM. Despite the obviousness that Clarence died in the second fire and not the first, last I heard the records still list him as the victim of both fires.

In regard to Huskerz post above about the ring being carelessly left behind. In the segment they talk about how the ring should have been more damaged by the blaze and they think that it was planted after the fire, hence not a careless thing at all. I think he faked his death for the insurance money. Although, they never got it. I don't know what to speculate about the second fire being murder or double suicide or what but there is a lot of mystery surrounding that.

I think he faked his death for the insurance money. Although, they never got it.

I don't think they got it until after fire #2, when the pieces began coming together........and things started making more sense in relation to fire #1

Actually the segment never makes clear whether Clarence and Geneva's children ever recieved a dime on their parents' insurance policies if thats what you are asking about. Clarence and Geneva's deaths in 1980 could've easily been ruled a double suicide.

I could easily have seen Clarence and Geneva along with an accomplice doing themselves in because

A) the authorities were closing in on Clarence Roberts staking out his house and such due to suspicion he murdered someone in the first fire to collect on insurance money

and...

B) Geneva Roberts' life had deteriorated since her husband's "death" in 1970. She had not been able to collect on the insurance policies and her life had pretty much gone down the toliet to be quite frank so I could easily see Geneva joining her husband in committing a double suicide.

Actually the segment never makes clear whether Clarence and Geneva's children ever recieved a dime on their parents' insurance policies if thats what you are asking about. Clarence and Geneva's deaths in 1980 could've easily been ruled a double suicide.

I could easily have seen Clarence and Geneva along with an accomplice doing themselves in because

A) the authorities were closing in on Clarence Roberts staking out his house and such due to suspicion he murdered someone in the first fire to collect on insurance money

and...

B) Geneva Roberts' life had deteriorated since her husband's "death" in 1970. She had not been able to collect on the insurance policies and her life had pretty much gone down the toliet to be quite frank so I could easily see Geneva joining her husband in committing a double suicide.


Exactly! Another small clue supports this theory, particularly part B.........in the last months of her life, Geneva had been buying a good quantity of beer and had even been seen drinking on occasion.........now if she was a diabetic, wouldn't that be pretty hazardous?

I was thinking the same things as you guys while I was putting this story on YouTube.

The first fire took place November 18, 1970. The second fire took place November 18, 1980. What are the odds that they would take place exactly 10 years apart?

I think Clarence and Geneva organized the whole scheme of getting the insurance money from the first fire. Once they had the money in hand, Geneva would make it look like she was moving away alone (most likely to another state) and then she and Clarence could live out the rest of their lives together on that money. But their plans backfired when they didn't end up getting the money so he had to remain in hiding.

Dante, your avatar is hilarious. :lol:

An interesting fact about this story is that the fires happened almost exactly 10 years apart to the day.

I also believe the man seen with Clarence just days before the fire was the person who died in the first fire, with Clarence dying in the second fire.

Has this story had any updates?? Probably not considering everybody in the know is dead.

That's odd...maybe the dates show that it was planned if the fires happened almost exactly 10 years apart to the day.

Also, I have a theory.....maybe Clarence went out and purposely found a direlect and killed him on purpose and set his house on fire so Geneva could collect the insurance money (because he was going for broke, anyway). Unfortunately, people are slow to report drifters and derelicts missing. Then, with Clarence hiding with Geneva, they could possibly live off the insurance money, making everyone think Clarence was dead. But, if this was indeed the plan, it didn't work.

The man in hiding with Geneva I believe could've been Clarence, but nobody knows for certain.....

But, I believe both Geneva and Clarence died in the second fire.

What was the reason for the second fire? The fire appeared to be deliberately lit from the inside. If so, why?

^ Read upwards...A likely reason for the second reason was that Geneva and Clarence started the fire themselves in suicide attempt to first escape their legal/financial troubles and second to possibly allow their children to cash in on their life insurance by making their deaths seem like they occured in a tragic fire.

It certainly was not an accident though as I believe Geneva Roberts was shot prior to the start of the fire, I believe either by Clarence or herself (probably because she was too scared to burn to death - a horrible way to go anyway you look at it)

There is one possible loose end in this case though, the possibility of an accomplice setting the fire but it could have just have easily been Clarence Roberts. I personally highly doubt that anyone tried to murder Clarence and Geneva Roberts, it was a suicide done by the couple with or without assitance from a third party.

The body found in the first fire had a different blood type to Clarence.

I think Clarence and Geneva organized the whole scheme of getting the insurance money from the first fire. Once they had the money in hand, Geneva would make it look like she was moving away alone (most likely to another state) and then she and Clarence could live out the rest of their lives together on that money. But their plans backfired when they didn't end up getting the money so he had to remain in hiding.

dynoguy's summary makes the most sense to me. But gad, it's extremely rare to commit suicide by fire.

Here's an interesting post I found recently in a strange place, the guest book of another missing person website, a case dating to 1967. This woman apparently has made contact with authorities who handled the Clarence Roberts investigation.

http://johnlake.com/guest.php

"I wrote to you a while back thru the Doenetwork. Did you ever check out that unidentified guy I told you about in Brown County, Indiana? The homeless man that was taken and murdered and set afire in Clarence's home for insurance money? This happened in 1970. In 1980, due to another fire, they we're able to prove that the owner of the home of the first fire, was NOT the guy that died that night. He did, though, die in the second fire. They've never learned the identity of the man in the first fire. He was burnt beyond recognition, except for 1 tooth (after Clarence knocked the others out) found stuck in his body and a piece of flannel fabric stuck to his back that did not burn as he was lying on his back. This man drank alcohol, and the day he died, he had earlier collapsed for unknown reasons outside a liqour store. That's when Clarence Roberts came by, told the folks he knew the man and would take him to the hospital, but instead took him back to his house and murdered him. The pathologist that handled the case is John Pless. Email address is jpless@iupui.edu

He can give you the name of the Detective that investigated the case. I talked to him myself a few years ago, but last time I emailed him, no reply. Don't know if he's still alive, but he did say he had ALL the files on the case in his basement. Maybe he or someone still has them. The unidentified man looked somewhat like Clarence. I've seen Clarence's photo and there is a resemblance. The last I spoke to Mr. Pless, he still had "bone fragments." Can we get some DNA off of those? Not sure where the tooth is, but Mr. Pless might know. Either way, I do pray and believe that one day you will find out what has become of your father."

Hmm yes, after seeing the case a few times I am now pretty convinced that it was not Clarence Roberts who died in the first fire. I think that Clarence was desperate for money and that he decided to murder a homeless person when the chance came for him to do so he decided to take advantage. I think he decided to murder the guy, set his house on fire and then disappear to make it seem like he had died in the fire. I think at some point after the fire his wife was able to smuggle him into her house. I do think that Clarence did die in the 2nd fire and I think when he set the first he thought his wife would get the insurance money and they could live comfortably but that never happened. I imagine Clarence was quite ticked about that. But there are just so many clues that Clarence was the man that was in his wife' house after the first fire and before the 2nd. The fact his wife would buy beer regularly which Clarence was known to drink but that his wife didnt drink often because she had diabetes. The fact his wife went to such great lengths to hide this mysterious man and make sure no one saw him. It is circumstancial but it was most likely Clarence that died in the 2nd fire.

I'm surprised some family members did not insist on DNA testing. I know it was not available then, but it sure is now. Unless the bodies are completely destroyed, getting mitochondrial DNA can help determine who died in what fire. Expensive, yes, but for peace of mind, I think it would be worth it. At least to me, if it were my family, it would be.

I'm surprised some family members did not insist on DNA testing. I know it was not available then, but it sure is now. Unless the bodies are completely destroyed, getting mitochondrial DNA can help determine who died in what fire. Expensive, yes, but for peace of mind, I think it would be worth it. At least to me, if it were my family, it would be.

They were somehow able to determine that the man who died in the 1st fire had a different blood type to Clarence.

Did anyone notice the very audible laugh in the background after Clarence's sister-in-law, Mrs. Warren Roberts, says that the difference in Clarence was like "turning a light on and turning a light off"? The case is viewable on that site with the videos, where it is divided into three parts. The part in question happens in the first part, at about 3:35.

^ Yep that lady is wild - Seriously something with her eyes, when she says that - Its like she is giving a performance for someone (perhaps the person who laughed)

I am looking for a copy of the segment of the Clarence Roberts story. My grandfather who has since past, was the coroner that wouldn't sign the death certificate in the case and i want to get a copy to share to the next generation in our family. Anyone that can help me would be greatly appreciated.


PLEASE HELP ME.

I am looking for a copy of the segment of the Clarence Roberts story. My grandfather who has since past, was the coroner that wouldn't sign the death certificate in the case and i want to get a copy to share to the next generation in our family. Anyone that can help me would be greatly appreciated.


PLEASE HELP ME.

I sent you a pm. :)

This case seems easily solved--or at least which body was Clarence's. Was DNA testing ever done? If the body in the first fire had a different blood type, than why any speculation whether it was him or not? Seems pretty clear it wouldn't have been, but yet some of his family believe it was? Kinda ignorant if you ask me. Any testing done on the 2nd body?

Great segment, I love it.

I looked up the result I just posted (edited) and the person said they had found them (they died before the fire took place in 1968).

I grew up in Nashville, was 10 years old when Clarence Roberts' garage burned down. On a lark a couple evenings ago, I happened to think of it, googled on his name and found both this thread and some videos containing the Unsolved Mysteries docudrama mentioned above. I had heard about the making of the UM show when it happened (I had moved overseas at that time, but still have family in Brown County). The film crew purchased an old building in the area and burned it down as a stand-in for the garage in the docudrama. Because I was overseas at the time, I never saw the UM segment about this until I found it recently.

I've watched only one (the middle) segment of the videos -- I'm on dialup and it takes forever to download. However, it is pretty interesting to see people I knew when I was growing up acting out their roles in the docudrama.

When the body from the fire is put in the hearse, I believe the guy in the hat is in fact the original coroner, Earl Bond, but it might be his son Jack playing the role -- that's one area my memory is fuzzy on. The Bonds had a funeral home (THE funeral home, as I recall), and the funeral director/owner doubled as the coroner. (There was also an attached florist business run by them, and I bought all my mother's day flowers and my prom corsage and flowers there). The original Bond funeral home building still exists in downtown Nashville, but is now a play-house called the Pine Box Theatre - a play on the building's original function. The Bond funeral business is still in operation as Bond-Mitchell, but some years back moved north of town to a newer building they had built -- not so far from where Clarence's garage burned.

The woman playing Geneva Roberts is shown going into a brick building -- that is the county courthouse. In the courtroom scene, where Geneva is told she lost her civil case, the guy playing the judge is in fact the real judge, Sam Rosen -- he was the circuit court judge for a long time, and I served on my first jury when I was 18 in front of him. The out of town attorney's were quite surprised that pretty much everyone on the jury knew each other and the judge. Sam also was friend of our family, altho he got mad at mom one time because she wouldn't put one of his reelection campaign signs in her yard -- Sam was running as a Democrat, and mom was an officer of the county Republican Party, so she couldn't very well put a Democrat sign in the yard! He got over it of course.

The younger state police detective, Dave Anderson, retired from the Indiana State Police some years later and was elected Sheriff of Brown County for two terms. He was and is a friend of my family for a long time.

The Roberts brothers were well known in the community. Clarence and Carson, and maybe Warren too? had a lumber and hardware business that my dad took me to about every Saturday morning to get something (plus Petro's barber shop was right next to it). Clarence did get into financial difficulties with some of his other projects. One I remember being told about was he invested/developed some apartment buildings in the Salt Creek valley just east of Nashville. They are still there. Unfortunately in the first year of operation the Salt Creek had an unusually high flood, and it flooded the first floor of all the new apartment buildings, and I was told this put Clarence behind the eightball financially.

When the fire happened, at least some people were suspicious early on, especially the insurance company. However, a lot of people who knew the Roberts families just couldn't accept that Clarence would murder someone and disappear like that, and a lot more felt really sorry for Geneva. The video says she moved to the outskirts of town, but as I recall, it was more like WAY out of town -- on a very narrow State Highway 135 in the southern part of the county. Brown County is very rural in general, especially the southern part. About 50% of the county is state or federal forests and parks, most of that in the south, so she was pretty much out in the sticks. Seems I recall that one of her suits was to have Clarence declared dead after he had been missing for seven years, but that didn't work either.

Discussing the Roberts case in Brown County was touchy -- as I said a lot of people liked the Roberts, and did not like to see them hurt by talking or gossiping abou the case. I remember my parents telling me about the Unsolved Mysteries segment being filmed and that a lot of folks were not pleased by that -- felt like it was opening old wounds. My dad told me he asked one of the surviving brothers what he thought happened to Clarence, and the brother told him he just honestly did not know.

Periodically there would be reports in the newspaper (which I took long after I moved away) about someone supposedly seeing Clarence in Mexico or Vegas or wherever. One running joke was he was hanging out with Elvis and Jimmy Hoffa. Towards the end I heard of the rumors that someone was living with Geneva, and she was buying more groceries and liquor than seemed logical for an old lady living by herself, and that the police periodically staked out her house. Then came the second fire and that pretty much answered the question about where's Clarence, altho I guess some of the family still doesn't accept that it was him.

I hope the other two UM segments download soon, like to see the rest of the show and see who else is in it.

A. Reader

Informative post Reader, welcome to the board.

Any way you look at this case there are at leas 2 things that leave this case open in my mind.

1. There are at least 2 people who have been murdered. Those murders have to be answered for. There is a very strong possibility that someoene other than Clarence Roberts is getting away with murder

2. I find it difficult that Clarence could orchestrate the second fire without an accomplice. So there are an arsonist(s) who is getting away with a crime and could potentially still be active.

Longtime reader, first time poster. Yay me!!

Anyway, yes. This was interesting/spooky even though it was pretty obvious what was going on.

He killed an innocent wino who distantly resembled him so his wife could collect the insurance money, then when that finally was settled. She would join him where ever he was hiding. That never came, and when he ran out of resources, he came back and they agreed to end it all.

Here is a partial chapter dedicated to the case in a new book. Although one would have to buy the real book or check it out from their local library to view the whole chapter on it.

http://books.google.com/books?id=If9GiGRV7a8C&pg=PA23&lpg=PA23&dq=clarence+roberts+indiana&source=web&ots=y5xVVXHvYJ&sig=HbbI7Dyih9Wya3bGWdFCPQuaFqE&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=4&ct=result


Just curious, I was wondering why I can only find extensive forums about a serious and frightening show like Unsolved Mysteries on a site called "Sitcoms Online".


Lastly, I was wondering if there is a current forum on the "Who Killed Cindy James" case? I just ordered online and read the book written by Ian Mulgrew.


Thanks

Longtime reader, first time poster. Yay me!!

Anyway, yes. This was interesting/spooky even though it was pretty obvious what was going on.

He killed an innocent wino who distantly resembled him so his wife could collect the insurance money, then when that finally was settled. She would join him where ever he was hiding. That never came, and when he ran out of resources, he came back and they agreed to end it all.

Here is a partial chapter dedicated to the case in a new book. Although one would have to buy the real book or check it out from their local library to view the whole chapter on it.

http://books.google.com/books?id=If9GiGRV7a8C&pg=PA23&lpg=PA23&dq=clarence+roberts+indiana&source=web&ots=y5xVVXHvYJ&sig=HbbI7Dyih9Wya3bGWdFCPQuaFqE&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=4&ct=result


Just curious, I was wondering why I can only find extensive forums about a serious and frightening show like Unsolved Mysteries on a site called "Sitcoms Online".


Lastly, I was wondering if there is a current forum on the "Who Killed Cindy James" case? I just ordered online and read the book written by Ian Mulgrew.


Thanks

Welcome! :wave: I totally agree with you about the first person who died in the Clarence Roberts fire. I think its a pretty good theory about the second fire as well.

Lol, we get a lot of questions about why a UM board on SO. The owner of SO is a huge UM fan so he wanted a board dedicated to it as well. Good for us he did because it is by far the biggest and most extensive UM board on the net.

There isn't a forum about that book that I'm aware of but there a few threads about Cindy James on here. Cindy's sister "purple rose" even posts on here at times.

I actually live in Brown County, and both my parents work for the newspaper.

Oddly enough, I only registered and am posting because there's a little bit of a snag to this story.

Back in May, my dad, Rodney, was taking pictures at a house fire, which is a common thing around here; I believe, though probably biased, that he's probably the best photographer in Southern Indiana.

Regardless, the house that burned had been built in the same location where the Roberts house had been. The reason: arson. Someone had caught the house on fire with questionable reason.

Adds to the mystery, I know, but I haven't heard yet who the person was, or what the intention was.

There you go. ;) Enjoy. If you can't get the newspaper at your own home due to location issues, be sure to check out their website: www.browncountyindiana.com.

-btyler

I actually live in Brown County, and both my parents work for the newspaper.

Oddly enough, I only registered and am posting because there's a little bit of a snag to this story.

Back in May, my dad, Rodney, was taking pictures at a house fire, which is a common thing around here; I believe, though probably biased, that he's probably the best photographer in Southern Indiana.

Regardless, the house that burned had been built in the same location where the Roberts house had been. The reason: arson. Someone had caught the house on fire with questionable reason.

Adds to the mystery, I know, but I haven't heard yet who the person was, or what the intention was.

There you go. ;) Enjoy. If you can't get the newspaper at your own home due to location issues, be sure to check out their website: www.browncountyindiana.com.

-btyler


Now that's freaking scary. This case always makes me uneasy. I'm still not totally convinced that Clarence Roberts died in the 1980 fire, either.

I think Clarence did die in the second fire in 1980 but I don't think it was him that set the house on fire. or maybe it was? I still wonder who was the person wandering around. Probably Clarence himself or somebody else.

I think Clarence did die in the second fire in 1980 but I don't think it was him that set the house on fire. or maybe it was? I still wonder who was the person wandering around. Probably Clarence himself or somebody else.

That's the thing that gets me: why would Clarence ignite a fire in the house while he and Geneva were still in it? I mean, I understand they were both old, but unlikely that incredibly senile. I can't think of any motivation for anyone else to have done it, except maybe that they had a vendetta against Clarence (which wouldn't have been that implausible. Prominent community members typically have a handful of people who don't like them for one reason or another). I don't know. The most likely scenario I can imagine is Clarence accidentally igniting the house somehow in the process of distributing the burn agent (turpentine?). I'm still not completely convinced that was him, though, in 1980.

I'm of the opinion that person wandering around was Clarence. I know there was something about someone hearing the mystery man speak and it not sounding like him, but there've been plenty of I.D. mistakes on UM before. Why else would somebody hole a person up in a house like that, and with such extreme caution? If Geneva had taken up with another man there would've been no stigma attached to it---she was a "widow", after all.

I can't think of any motivation for anyone else to have done it, except maybe that they had a vendetta against Clarence

Maybe a friend or relative of the guy he killed the first time put two and two together and served up a poetic justice-type revenge. peace:

Maybe it was Mrs Warren Roberts, she had obvious contempt for him during the interview on UM.

This link has a wealth of info on Roberts.

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#PPA26,M1

This link has a wealth of info on Roberts.

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#PPA26,M1

Thanks for that link. Interesting read specially the part about people seeing Clarence after the first fire. I just don't understand why his family won't accept that Clarence did not die in the first but in the second fire. There is more then enough evidence IMO to prove this.

Thanks for that link. Interesting read specially the part about people seeing Clarence after the first fire. I just don't understand why his family won't accept that Clarence did not die in the first but in the second fire. There is more then enough evidence IMO to prove this.

You are welcome Peachy. It is a good informative link.

My thought on why they won't is financial. The cost of the first funeral and adding to that having that body relocated and having the second buried and possibly a second funeral must be astronomical. That is just my opinion. They probably do know and have discussed it privately and have agreed to just put it behind them.

Thanks for that link. Interesting read specially the part about people seeing Clarence after the first fire. I just don't understand why his family won't accept that Clarence did not die in the first but in the second fire. There is more then enough evidence IMO to prove this.

I would imagine they would be apprehensive about the possibility that Clarence murdered a transient (or so the theory goes) in the first fire. At the very least, the idea that Clarence burned down his own property to collect insurance would be tailor-made for the grapevine, especially in a small town like Nashville, where Clarence was something of a prominent resident.

I remember this one well. Have they featured it on any of the new epsiodes?

one one the best early UM cases, I think the consensus is he died in the second fire, I tend to agree, but they both died of smoke inhalation, I think maybe Clarence hired an accomplice to burn the house, so he could finally collect on the money, but for some reason was unable to get out, and he and Geneva both succumbed to the smoke.

I was absolutely thinking about this case today and couldn't remember the details. Thanks for the briefing!

I stumbled across this today. It makes for some extremely interesting reading if you're not too uncomfortable with legalese:

http://in.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.%5CIN%5CIN2%5C1980%5C19801015_0030672.IN.htm/qx


Highlights:

- Geneva and the rest of Clarence's beneficiaries were denied their claim as the insurance company wasn't satisfied that Clarence was actually dead; the beneficiaries sued and the court ruled in favor of the insurance company. Interestingly enough, the case was finally decided a little over a month before the second fire was set.

- The life insurance company claimed that it had reason to believe Clarence was involved in forgery and falsifying documents against it in order to obtain payouts. He was also suspected of forging his own brother's (Carson, the one he owned the hardware store with) signature on some sort of bank document. The morning of the first fire, a bank representative was actually sent out to Clarence's home to speak with him about the discrepancy. Clarence never answered the door, but he was also apparently aware about the bank's suspicions and actively avoided the representative, as there was at least one individual who reported seeing Clarence at home that day.

- There had been multiple reports of Clarence in the company of a woman who was not his wife in neighboring towns, well before and even after the first fire. Some claimed to have seen him around as late as 1975!

- The clothing the collapsed vagrant was wearing the day of the fire very closely matched that which was found in the ruins afterward, although nothing matching reports of what Clarence wore that day was ever found.

- Clarence was actually indicted for kidnapping and murder in 1975.

:eek:

Good find, Meg.

That's really not surprsing. I watched this one again semi-recently, and everything sort of falls into place if you let it...

It's obvious that Clarence was having financial problems at the time of the first fire, so he staged it to collect insurance money. Ultimately, he did a piss-poor job playing dead. His scheme failed because no one (including the insurance company) truly belived he was dead, so he took his own life in the second fire.

I suppose it's possible that he had some assistance in setting the second fire and commiting suicide. Perhaps he hired a hitman to do it. Wasn't the gun found near his body though? He could have shot Geneva, set the fire, and turned the gun on himself.

I can understand his brother wanting to believe that Clarence died in the first fire. If you believe otherwise, then Clarence is a murderer, and who wants to think that of a family member? Notice too that the brother is the only person interviewed in the segment who believes that Clarence died in the first fire. Hell, even Clarence's own tombstone lists the date of the second fire.

I can understand his brother wanting to believe that Clarence died in the first fire. If you believe otherwise, then Clarence is a murderer, and who wants to think that of a family member? Notice too that the brother is the only person interviewed in the segment who believes that Clarence died in the first fire. Hell, even Clarence's own tombstone lists the date of the second fire.

I mean, it's so cut-and-dried, but especially so when one considers the evidence found in that court document. A history of forgery and attempts at smaller frauds, plus evidence of apparent philandering--who would reasonably put a big attempt to defraud the insurance company into paying out his death benefits past him?

I can understand losing money on an apartment complex because of something like water damage (which is exactly what happened--its basement flooded sometime in the late '60s or early '70s), but why on earth would anyone invest in grain elevators around 1970? Not only were agricultural commodities way down in the market at that time, but a corn blight that swept through over the summer of 1970 dropped yields down at least 10% in the Midwest. I suppose one can assume, though, that Clarence purchased the elevators in advance for probably an inexpensive price, hoping corn would start rising through the new decade.


I do find it quite interesting that the first fire occured not long after harvest time. Clarence must've put an extraordinary amount of money into those elevators.

Are the dates of the fires listed earlier in the thread accurate? An arson and death on November 18, 1970 and an arson and two deaths on November 18, 1980, exactly 10 years apart.

Is that date of any kind of significance to Clarence Roberts, like a birthday or anniversary or anything?

Where was Geneva Roberts during the first fire? (sorry, I haven't seen this in a while) Did she escape the fire or was she out of the house for some reason when it happened?

What I wonder is why is it still even considered a possibility that Clarence died in the first fire if the body did not contain his blood type? I would think then its cut and dry that you can eliminate that possibility.

The other thing thats never been explained is whether or not they did any blood testing or anything on the second body? And if not why?

I'm not entirely convinced that the man who died in the second fire was Clarence either, it could have been but I just don't really see enough evidence to say definitively. Because wasn't there a story about someone who thought he heard Geneva and this mystery man talking, someone who knew Clarence and thought it didn't sound like him? I think its just being assumed that Geneva was hiding this man because it was Clarence and she didn't want him identified. There could well be another reason though what it is I can't even begin to speculate.

Until it is revealed whether or not some sort of blood testing was done on the second body, I think any assumptions are kind of at a dead end with this case. If no testing was done on it I can't imagine why.

Interestingly enough it was a relative who lived next door or close by that said she heard a man's voice & didn't think it was Clarence. She could have very well been lying & it was in fact Clarence but she didn't wanna say that.

Are the dates of the fires listed earlier in the thread accurate? An arson and death on November 18, 1970 and an arson and two deaths on November 18, 1980, exactly 10 years apart.

That's correct. Clarence Roberts' grave marker, however, gives his date of death as November 29, 1980--for whatever reason. The only thing I can surmise is that's when forensic tests concluded that it was Clarence Roberts. As far as we all know right now, there's no way of knowing who even purchased the monument. A lot of people protested its even being there to begin with.

Is that date of any kind of significance to Clarence Roberts, like a birthday or anniversary or anything?

Here's what I gather:

Corn is harvested and subsequently stored for winter during autumn. After waiting throughout the summer and discovering the poor corn harvest yield of 1970, Clarence floundered for a few weeks and finally decided to purchase hefty life insurance policies on himself (the Wabash Life policy totaled $164,000 alone, and an additional Modern Woodmen of America policy put the total sum at nearly a million dollars). He went through with his plan of murdering a vagrant to "stand in" for him, but the insurance companies didn't accept it and would not pay out to Clarence's beneficiaries. Geneva sued in 1978, claiming that Clarence was now legally dead under common law as he had not been seen nor heard from in seven years, and she and the Roberts children were due Clarence's death benefit.

Geneva's civil suit was decided in the autumn of 1980--October 11th, if I remember correctly. The insurance companies spoke of the past fraud attempts Clarence had made (both against them as well as other financial institutions), reports of his being seen around after his death, and witness statements that Clarence had alluded to plans to make Geneva "the richest widow in Brown County." There was no conclusive proof that he was dead, and the judge ruled in their favor. A month and seven days later, the second fire was set, killing Geneva (and Clarence).

The first fire was set, in my opinion, as a last-ditch effort to get Clarence out from underneath the debt he had accrued. I believe Geneva was completely aware of the plan and may have absented herself on the day of the fire (no report I've read describes her being there, although in all fairness none of them ever broached the subject). I think they planned on collecting the money and moving from Brown County reestablish themselves somewhere else, or Clarence intended for Geneva to use the money for herself and her family while Clarence went somewhere else to begin life anew. When that didn't work, Geneva resorted to finding work for herself. Clarence continued to hide, however poorly a job he may have made of it.

After seven years, Geneva filed suit to obtain the insurance money. That failed, so the Roberts resorted to other methods.

That being said, I have no idea why the fires were set on exactly the same day, ten years apart. But I can certainly see how the events leading up to those fires probably caused them to be set when they were.


There are four scenarios I can envision:

1. Clarence decides he's had it with life. In a very poetic gesture, he kills his wife and then himself, and has a very sympathetic third party set fire to the house ten years to very day of the initial fire.

2. Clarence decides he's had it with feeling like a jerk for putting his family through such financial hardship--particularly his children--and their not receiving the payout from his life insurance policy. So he decides to murder his wife. This is only plausible if Geneva had an existing life insurance policy at the time of her death, of course, but if she did, I'm sure the Roberts children were probably named as beneficiaries. Clarence was probably betting on the death being ruled accidental, homicidal (with him not being the guilty party, of course), or suicidal (which may have been the reason he chose for setting the fire on that particular day). I'm not sure if such was the case in Indiana under 1980 laws, but a life insurance policy will generally pay even if Geneva's death was found to be a suicide--given the policy was over two years old or so. In this scenario, Clarence may have attempted to set the fire himself, planning to escape. Given his advanced age and/or general carelessness, his plans were foiled and he ended up dying with his wife. This idea is certainly in keeping with his history of insurance fraud.

3. Clarence decides he's had it with being poor. Perhaps a trusted child has kept Clarence's secret for years, and perhaps this child is also one of Geneva's policy beneficiaries. With or without the child's knowledge, Clarence murders his wife so that said beneficiary can collect the payment, hoping he/she will share some of it with him. This is the least likely scenario, in my opinion.

4. The woman "seen in Clarence's company" who was definitely not Geneva (refer to the link) may have set the fire in some sort of jealous rage. If the "mysterious man" seen behind Geneva's house was in fact Clarence, perhaps the fact that he was "going back to his wife" enraged her. Again, maybe for a poetic touch, she murdered this man in the same way he murdered that vagrant so long ago, on the very anniversary of the fire.

What I wonder is why is it still even considered a possibility that Clarence died in the first fire if the body did not contain his blood type? I would think then its cut and dry that you can eliminate that possibility.

The other thing thats never been explained is whether or not they did any blood testing or anything on the second body? And if not why?

I'm not entirely convinced that the man who died in the second fire was Clarence either, it could have been but I just don't really see enough evidence to say definitively. Because wasn't there a story about someone who thought he heard Geneva and this mystery man talking, someone who knew Clarence and thought it didn't sound like him? I think its just being assumed that Geneva was hiding this man because it was Clarence and she didn't want him identified. There could well be another reason though what it is I can't even begin to speculate.

Until it is revealed whether or not some sort of blood testing was done on the second body, I think any assumptions are kind of at a dead end with this case. If no testing was done on it I can't imagine why.

The Indiana state pathologist--the one interviewed in the segment--did examine the body in the second fire, and did find it to be Clarence Roberts'. To be fair, he did claim that it was not "unreasonable" to assume the body in the first fire was Clarence's during the time of Geneva's civil suit--although at no time did he ever claim beyond a shadow of doubt that it absolutely was.

Well, if indeed Mr Roberts murdered a vagrant who died in the first fire, and attempted to commit insurance fraud on top of that, people seem to be forgetting that he appeared to be a man who allowed greed to consume him and had become a very selfish and not nice person.

It seems out of character for him to suddenly after doing something like that settling down into a simple life in a modest house just with his wife. Thats why this mystery man doesn't sound much like Clarence to me. Thats something people seem to be forgetting. I'm not saying its impossible, but it just seems a little out of character for a man who apparently had reached a point in his life where he was not above commiting murder and fraud to keep living the good life.

Like I said, it could still have been him, but some things just don't add up to me.

As I mentioned, I think the key to going further with trying to solve this case is revealing whether or not any tests were done on the man who died in the second fire.

The Indiana state pathologist--the one interviewed in the segment--did examine the body in the second fire, and did find it to be Clarence Robert's. To be fair, he did claim that it was not "unreasonable" to assume the body in the first fire wasn't Clarence during the time of Geneva's civil suit--although at no time did he ever claim beyond a shadow of doubt that it absolutely was.

Ok, I must have forgot this. Do you remember what kind of test they did? Was it another blood test? Because having the same blood type of course doesn't mean its the same person.

I'm not certain exactly how much was available as far as identifying remains in 1980. But I'm sure there was no elaborate DNA testing.

But it does clear up a lot if that was him.

Ok, I must have forgot this. Do you remember what kind of test they did? Was it another blood test? Because having the same blood type of course doesn't mean its the same person.

Pathologists perform all kinds of different tests in many different capacities, but just within the realm of performing autopsies, they're primarily concerned with examining tissues, organs, that sort of thing. What the pathologist probably did was a number of comparative tests on the bones (I remember him specifically mentioning a chest x-ray), possibly blood tests, tissue samples, etc. As pathology is the study of disease, perhaps Clarence even had an ailment that would be apparent upon professional examination of his organs and tissues.

people seem to be forgetting that he appeared to be a man who allowed greed to consume him and had become a very selfish and not nice person.

It seems out of character for him to suddenly after doing something like that settling down into a simple life in a modest house just with his wife. Thats why this mystery man doesn't sound much like Clarence to me. Thats something people seem to be forgetting. I'm not saying its impossible, but it just seems a little out of character for a man who apparently had reached a point in his life where he was not above commiting murder and fraud to keep living the good life.

But that's just it. He wasn't just settling down into a simple life in a modest home just to be with his wife. He was hiding. As the investigator said in the segment, more than likely he had simply run out of places to go. He had been indicted in 1975 for kidnapping and murder, and was probably attempting to steer clear of the authorities at all costs.

I think Clarence's behavior is less greed- than desperation-driven. He wasn't a John Fairbanks or a Phillip Breen. This was a man who had two very large investments that failed miserably--one of which was through no real fault of his own. Unfortunately, he seemed to have planned to "ride" on these investments and made a number of unwise purchases well in advance of the supposed returns he would be getting from said investments. He simply got far too in over his head. He lost all of his vehicles, his credit was probably souring by the day, and I'm sure he was about to lose his house at the time of the second fire. Clarence and his family were literally about to lose every material thing they owned. That's certainly no excuse for his behavior, but it does differentiate him from other greed-driven con-artists commonly featured on UM.

Meg, thanks so much for all that info! What a bizarre case...

"It was like turning a light on and turning a light off"

(laughing in the background)

:lol:

"It was like turning a light on and turning a light off"

(laughing in the background)

:lol:

That was Clarence, turning the light off.

Saw this one again today after many years. It appears that Clarence Roberts went full circle in his quest for the insurance.
I'm surprised that if there were any questions why the body hasn't been exhumed to test his DNA.

I also wonder if this is still considered to be an "open" investigation.

During the first season of Unsolved Mysteries (the 1988-89 season), there was a story about an Inidana man named Clarence Roberts. Does anyone remember it? If not, here is the synopsis:

Clarence Roberts owned a hardware store, and was a financially secure man. However, he decided to take a gamble on more money, but kept losing. Then in 1970, his house burned down and the body found there was identified as his. Then in 1980, ten years later, his wife Geneva was killed in a house fire. Her body was recovered, addition to a second body--which was identified as Clarence Roberts!

This is undoubtedly one of the eeriest cases to be featured on Unsolved Mysteries. It sticks in my mind, and probably will for the rest of my life. I mean, it poses a puzzling question: how could the same man die twice? Clarence's nephew believed he died in the first fire (1970). But the majority of those who were interviewed for the story believe otherwise. They believe he was either killed in the second fire (1980) or might still be alive.

Shortly before the 1970 fire, Clarence Roberts was seen talking with a derelict, who then disappeared. Some believe Clarence killed the derelict and had it passed off as his own in an effort to collect insurance money.

For the next ten years, Clarence's "widow" Geneva insisted that Clarence was dead, but some began to have their doubts. An unknown man was seen in her property, and some people (including the local police) speculated that it was Clarence. This suggested that Geneva had something (or should I say someone) to hide. However, this mysterious man seemed very careful because he would always disappear before anyone could have a chance to identify him.

I am convinced that, in the first fire (1970), a derelict died in Clarence's place. There is no doubt in my mind that Clarence Roberts was alive after the 1970 fire. It is possible for him to be alive today, but it seems to me that he died in the 1980 fire.

This is a very intriguing case, and once you have seen it, you might never forget it. Whether this mystery will ever be solved remains to be seen.
Well,I am a direct blood relative of Clarence,and reside in Brown county Indiana. I was looking up stuff on clarence to tell my 18 year old son about him,and stumbled across this thread. I do know that Clarence built the apartments east of nashville,and was in bad financial trouble afterward. Family says he did indeed kill the vagrant man,and he did die in the SECOND fire. Jack Bond,coroner at the time,refused to sign the 1970 death certificate. It has been widely known in our family that Clarences 2 sons,were seen putting clarence on an airplane at indianapolis airport the night of the 1970 fire. His sons are my cousins,and refuse to say anything about it to this day,but,I do know,that his son loran, used to go to costa rica frequently,and would never say why. When the 1980 fire happened,that was indeed his body,as well as aunt genevas body,found in the rubble.

I hate to use the phrase, "where there's smoke, there's fire" but it definitely applies to this case. It's glaringly obvious that Clarence Roberts killed the vagrant shortly after being seen taking him away from the liquor store. He then staged the 1st fire to make it seem like he was dead so his wife could collect on his life insurance policies. The segment makes it very clear that Roberts was in dire financial trouble, and I think he became so desperate that he saw this as the only way out. His family members who believed he died in the first fire simply do not want to accept the fact that he killed another man. But the blood type from the man killed in the first fire was not the same of Clarence Roberts, the man had a kidney missing and Roberts (according to his wife) had never had surgery, and the pathologist interviewed in the segment said without question the body found in the second fire was that of Clarence Roberts. Case closed? Not quite.

After the first fire, this is where, IMHO, everything gets eerie. Was Clarence Roberts living with his wife for the 10 years he was supposed to be dead? It's doubtful. I just don't see how he could have remained hidden for ten years without someone catching on. So I think the theory presented earlier in this thread about Roberts taking off and relocating somewhere waiting for Geneva to join him is spot on. It took until 1978 for Geneva's claims to the insurance money to be denied, and I don't think it's a coincidence that this is right around the same time that the "mystery man" was seen. I think Roberts came back when he realized there would be no way to start life over elsewhere due to the fact that they had no money.

I then think more and more people became suspicious of this "mystery man" lurking about Geneva's house and when the rumor mill began to spin that it may have been Clarence (since some LE members held true to the theory that he was still alive) this got the attention of the local law enforcement agency. I think Roberts knew it was only a matter of time at this point before he was found to still be alive and he offed his wife, set the house on fire, and then killed himself as well. I believe he killed his wife so that his children could collect the insurance money on her life. Whether or not this was a murder-suicide, or double suicide is definitely up for debate. But there's no doubt in my mind that Clarence Roberts was responsible for BOTH fires. I think it's just too much of a coincidence for a third party to have set the 2nd fire almost ten years to the date of the 1st. And why would someone willingly help Clarence Roberts set the fire if they knew he and/or Geneva would be in the house as it was burning? He certainly had no money to pay an accomplice for this and I personally think Clarence set up both fires on his own.

There are still some nagging questions about this case that I don't know if we'll ever have the answers to. Who was the vagrant that Roberts in all probability murdered? Did Geneva willingly participate in the scheme? Did Roberts murder Geneva and then kill himself in the 2nd fire? Or did they both plot to kill themselves and set the house ablaze together? Or did Roberts murder Geneva, plan to flee the house but succumbed to the flames/smoke? And for Clarence's family members who believed he died in the first fire, who do they believe the man who died in the second fire to be? And why aren't they pushing to have Gevena and this "mystery man's" death to be reinvestigated? Didn't the investigators at the time say that at least Geneva's death was deemed a murder? So many questions in such a confusing and mysterious case.

What was the reason for the second fire? The fire appeared to be deliberately lit from the inside. If so, why?
It was from turning a light on and turning a light off. :lol:

To me the most curious part of this case involves what Clarence was up to between 1970 and ~1978. As the segment says, his investments had failed and he was all but broke. From the relatively destitute state that Geneva found herself in after 1970, I would surmise that his children weren't wealthy enough to support him while he was on the lam.

So where exactly did he go for the eight or so years between the first fire and the time the "mysterious man" was seen at Geneva's house, and how did he support himself? UM featured people who had a lot more money than Clarence who burned through it in their first few months or years hiding out. If Clarence was able to settle down somewhere else and make enough to live on by doing odd jobs or whatever (and as a former hardware store owner, one would assume that he was handy enough to make a tolerable living that way)...why did he bother going back to live with Geneva? I know it's been alleged that he went back to Geneva because he'd "run out of places to hide"...but he'd successfully hidden out and supported himself for eight years! Why go back to the one place people were going to look?

Why go back to the one place people were going to look?

Maybe Clarence figured since everyone assumed he was dead, he would be in the clear by returning to Geneva. Or maybe he genuinely missed being around her? Who knows what he was thinking?

To me the most curious part of this case involves what Clarence was up to between 1970 and ~1978. As the segment says, his investments had failed and he was all but broke. From the relatively destitute state that Geneva found herself in after 1970, I would surmise that his children weren't wealthy enough to support him while he was on the lam.

So where exactly did he go for the eight or so years between the first fire and the time the "mysterious man" was seen at Geneva's house, and how did he support himself?

Mexico. It's believed by members of his family that during that time he was missing he fled to Mexico.

Mexico. It's believed by members of his family that during that time he was missing he fled to Mexico.

Again, though, one has to wonder: if Clarence was doing well in Mexico, why didn't he just stay there, and have Geneva join him instead?

I don't know...all I can figure is that Clarence had dollar signs in his eyes. He must have been incredibly naive to believe that 1) after the insurance company didn't declare him dead the first time that they'd pay out the second time after what they surely must have considered fraud, and 2) he'd be able to hide out in plain sight at Geneva's house, even though he had been indicted for murder--something Geneva must have known about.

It's surprising to me, though, that Clarence survived eight years on the run in Mexico, if that's where he went during his exile. I could see him hiding out on a farm somewhere in the US or Canada, doing odd jobs or repair work. Mexico, though...that's a bit of a culture shift for someone who had spent his entire life in rural Indiana. It's a lot harder to see someone like Clarence, who AFAIK had no connections to Mexico, showing up there and being canny enough to eke out an existence for eight years. I recall watching an episode of I Almost Got Away With It where a felon on the run hid out in a Mexican resort town, working in a bar. That felon had friends in Mexico and spoke fluent Spanish...and he still only lasted nine months before he ran out of cash, then got caught trying to sneak back into the US. Clarence didn't have either of those two things on his side.

One theory i've always had about this case is that Geneva was seeing another man while Clarence was in hiding. What if Clarence came back and this man was told to leave? If that was the case, he might have feared for his life knowing the history of the first fire, and decided to kill them before they killed him. Or he was jealous and killed them for that.

That feels like a real stretch though. I think what happened was the plan with the first fire was blown. The money they had counted on wasn't there, Geneva was working in a kitchen of a restaurant with no car (if we believe the segment where we see her walking home from work with groceries)...she's on the outside of town. They are broke, they are almost destitute compared to the way they lived before, and they are dislocated.

Clarence is ruined, destined to be hiding and peeking around corners for the rest of his life. If he admits he wasn't in the first fire, and anyone can prove whole the homeless guy was, he's finished. I think he decided or thy decided suicide was the answer and maybe a chance for the kids to collect insurance.

I feel like second fire, and specifically because of the date, was a **** you to the police and the town. It seems like Clarence was a man who was given to grandiosity - hence the gambling, cars, overspending, and he probably figured if I can't have the money, I'll have the legend. If I show up in the fire, no one will believe it. They will be talking about it for years to come as we are doing now.

Well,I am a direct blood relative of Clarence,and reside in Brown county Indiana. I was looking up stuff on clarence to tell my 18 year old son about him,and stumbled across this thread. I do know that Clarence built the apartments east of nashville,and was in bad financial trouble afterward. Family says he did indeed kill the vagrant man,and he did die in the SECOND fire. Jack Bond,coroner at the time,refused to sign the 1970 death certificate. It has been widely known in our family that Clarences 2 sons,were seen putting clarence on an airplane at indianapolis airport the night of the 1970 fire. His sons are my cousins,and refuse to say anything about it to this day,but,I do know,that his son loran, used to go to costa rica frequently,and would never say why. When the 1980 fire happened,that was indeed his body,as well as aunt genevas body,found in the rubble.

The segment did indicate that Clarence & Geneva had 4 sons. None were interviewed for the segment. The one that seemed to defend Clarence the most was a nephew of his.

I always believe the wife was in on it. I also wonder if they will ever find out who the homeless guy was :(

I always believe the wife was in on it. I also wonder if they will ever find out who the homeless guy was :(

I do believe Geneva hid Clarence out in her house, perhaps even for a long time, but I don't know if she had any involvement other than that.

I wish we could find out who the homeless man was, but unfortunately I don't think the odds are too great, especially after 44 years. He may not have had any living relatives, or if he did, didn't associate with them.

I saw this segment for the first time last night. And what a bizarre one indeed! I am in agreement with everyone who believes that Clarence Roberts did not die in the first fire. I'm also flabbergasted that no DNA testing has been done. Going through the thread I see folks here all the way back in 2008 pointing out how fairly easy it would be to have testing done, now in 2014 is far easier than that now.

I read somewhere that the investigators of the Lori Erica Ruff/Jane Doe case were able to get her DNA profile uploaded to Ancestry.com in hopes of finding a match to someone, anyone in the database. I am not sure if this means that they were able to send her profile to Ancestry and request that they please add it or if they somehow were able to take some of her saliva for the Ancestry spit kit test (probably the former). I would think then that they could exhume both "Clarence Roberts 1" and "Clarence Roberts 2," test their DNA, ask Ancestry to add their profiles, test Clarence and Geneva Roberts' children/grandchildren using the 99 dollar spit kit from Ancestry. If either of the Clarence Robertses is the correct one then there would be a match to the spit kit results. And as a bonus, if either or both of the bodies *are not* Clarence Roberts, then there's the possibility of finding a match to someone in the Ancestry database and making an indentification of the body or bodies.

As I said, it's very very easy to do now so I am shocked they haven't. I had testing done on myself last year through Ancestry, partly because one of my great-grandfathers was a shady character who clearly had something to hide and there was very little we knew of him or his life prior to marrying my great-grandmother. There has been talk of a murder in Alabama and him refusing to be photographed over the years. Anyway, just the DNA itself ended up revealing some answers...we were apparently his second family, he was a bigamist with another family back in Alabama. If me just using a credit card, spitting into a tube and dropping it into a mailbox was all it took to reveal that, I don't see what is keeping investigators or the Clarence Roberts family from going forward with this, other than perhaps the family is afraid of the answers they will get.

I do believe Geneva hid Clarence out in her house, perhaps even for a long time, but I don't know if she had any involvement other than that.

I also think she hid Clarence out. While I think she certainly would have had to know about the man who died in the first fire, I don't really think she was in on any plot to kill him and collect life insurance. I think that was all Clarence.

I wish we could find out who the homeless man was, but unfortunately I don't think the odds are too great, especially after 44 years. He may not have had any living relatives, or if he did, didn't associate with them.

Me too. All he probably wanted was something to eat or some money to get around, and he got completely taken advantage of in the worst way.

I think he killed a random homeless guy for the first fire, fled, and then after hearing the policy wouldn't pay off, came back to live with his wife until the second fire. The second fire is what really bothers me, though. I mean, i can understand him murdering a homeless dude, but I can't see him killing his wife and then killing himself. I mean, he did kill the homeless guy so she could support himself. Maybe someone found out about him faking the death and got revenge? Such a weird case.

I think he killed a random homeless guy for the first fire, fled, and then after hearing the policy wouldn't pay off, came back to live with his wife until the second fire. The second fire is what really bothers me, though. I mean, i can understand him murdering a homeless dude, but I can't see him killing his wife and then killing himself. I mean, he did kill the homeless guy so she could support himself. Maybe someone found out about him faking the death and got revenge? Such a weird case.

I tend to think Clarence came back to Geneva after years of hiding, and then when police started to show up at her house he knew it was only a matter of time before they found him alive so he killed her and then himself and set the house on fire a second time.

This is one of those segments that I unfortunately accidentally taped over so I'm probably sketchy on some of the details. But one thing I remember is being annoyed at how little "investigating" went on around Geneva's house during the ten years BETWEEN the two fires.

Many in the town apparently thought that Geneva was hiding Clarence in her home all those years. People often spotted a man on her property that looked like Clarence but they could never get close enough to confirm it. Geneva never let a soul inside her house all those years. She practically lived on her front porch. The rare times she had visitors, they would stay on the porch and never step foot outside. If Geneva heard a car pull up, she would immediately walk outside before the person could even get out of their car. There were reported sightings of Clarence in nearby Mentone, Indiana which is where Clarence's old businesses were.

I fully believe Clarence was hiding on that property but how come they never got busted once in ten years? Surely they should have slipped up some time. Also, Geneva worked at a Bed & Breakfast in Nashville. That left ample time during the day that police could have staked out the house and looked for any signs of Clarence.

One last thing. Clarence was indicted in 1975 for the kidnapping and murder of the unidentified homeless man. Couldn't the police have obtained a search warrant for Geneva's house, busted inside once and for all to see if he was inside? I just can't believe the Roberts were able to get away with this for a decade.

I fully believe Clarence was hiding on that property but how come they never got busted once in ten years? Surely they should have slipped up some time. Also, Geneva worked at a Bed & Breakfast in Nashville. That left ample time during the day that police could have staked out the house and looked for any signs of Clarence.

One last thing. Clarence was indicted in 1975 for the kidnapping and murder of the unidentified homeless man. Couldn't the police have obtained a search warrant for Geneva's house, busted inside once and for all to see if he was inside? I just can't believe the Roberts were able to get away with this for a decade.
I agree with this. I think that Geneva was definitely hiding Clarence on the property. IIRC, the police did one stake out and he never appeared during that time. Maybe they were too clever for the police and Clarence never went outside during that time? It is crazy that they were able to get away with it for ten years though.

I had no idea he was indicted for the murder of the homeless man! You would think they could have obtained a warrant. If they had, there would probably be little to no mystery today.

I wonder what caused the homeless man to collapse in the first place outside of the restaurant. I find it really sad that he has never been identified.

Not sure if this was mentioned before, but Clarence's brother was the county sheriff at the time. I think his name was Warren, I saw it online (someone wrote a book about murders in their state and there were a few "sample" pages online to read, and the Roberts case is discussed in the book, that's where I got this information). The book also said that the blood type of the first "Clarence" did not match that of the real Clarence. Also the first body only had one kidney, the medical examiner concluded that this person had a kidney operation to remove it, and Geneva told authorities Clarence never had such a surgery in his life. If these facts are true, then it's obvious the first body was not Clarence.

Not sure if this was mentioned before, but Clarence's brother was the county sheriff at the time. I think his name was Warren, I saw it online

Yeah, it was briefly mentioned in the segment. The woman who made the infamous "turning a light on and turning a light off" comment in reference to Clarence during her interview was actually Warren Roberts' wife.

This is one of those segments that I unfortunately accidentally taped over so I'm probably sketchy on some of the details. But one thing I remember is being annoyed at how little "investigating" went on around Geneva's house during the ten years BETWEEN the two fires.

Many in the town apparently thought that Geneva was hiding Clarence in her home all those years. People often spotted a man on her property that looked like Clarence but they could never get close enough to confirm it. Geneva never let a soul inside her house all those years. She practically lived on her front porch. The rare times she had visitors, they would stay on the porch and never step foot outside. If Geneva heard a car pull up, she would immediately walk outside before the person could even get out of their car. There were reported sightings of Clarence in nearby Mentone, Indiana which is where Clarence's old businesses were.

I fully believe Clarence was hiding on that property but how come they never got busted once in ten years? Surely they should have slipped up some time. Also, Geneva worked at a Bed & Breakfast in Nashville. That left ample time during the day that police could have staked out the house and looked for any signs of Clarence.

One last thing. Clarence was indicted in 1975 for the kidnapping and murder of the unidentified homeless man. Couldn't the police have obtained a search warrant for Geneva's house, busted inside once and for all to see if he was inside? I just can't believe the Roberts were able to get away with this for a decade.

I personally think he wasn't hiding on the property for ten years, but was elsewhere in the country or in another one. When he realized Geneva wasn't getting the pay off from the life insurance, he knew his funds were all but done, so he decided to return to her.

I personally think he wasn't hiding on the property for ten years, but was elsewhere in the country or in another one. When he realized Geneva wasn't getting the pay off from the life insurance, he knew his funds were all but done, so he decided to return to her.

Oh, I don't doubt that. He most likely wasn't hiding on the property the full ten years but probably at least half of that. I still think there were ample opportunities to catch him.

Nashville, Indiana is a very small town. And in the 1970's, the police department was probably just a few to several officers, if I had to guess. If it was just a simple insurance scam attempt and no other people got hurt, I could see why there would be little attention placed on trying to figure out who that stranger was that was spotted on Geneva's property. But that link a few pages back states that since the burned body from the first fire was confirmed not to be Clarence, he was indicted for the kidnapping and murder of the homeless man. And that means the police should have been fully focused on scoping out Geneva's property constantly, questioning her, going full force on trying to bust her and her obviously alive husband but it doesn't sound like that happened. And that floors me that such futile attempts were made to catch him year after year when he's a man who is wanted for murder.

Oh, I don't doubt that. He most likely wasn't hiding on the property the full ten years but probably at least half of that. I still think there were ample opportunities to catch him.


We're there reports that Clarence may have fled to Mexico at some point? I think the origins of these rumors may have been the Roberts' family so they could be of a dubious nature. Who knows?

It's pretty hard to believe that in a 10yr period that absolutely NO ONE spotted Clarence in all that time? It would be extremely difficult to hide him out for that long especially because he would need food, hair cuts, just every day stuff, how could their friends/relatives not have known that he was not alive, don't you think she would have told her children or other family members that he was hiding out there? I'm sure she had people helping her conceal him, it would have been very difficult to pull that off alone. I'm sure that someone in that family (their children probably) were providing them with money since they were broke and didn't have a pot to p*** in. Were they both actually killed by the fire or was it a double-murder or murder/suicide type thing? I don't see why anyone would knowingly volunteer to have themselves burned up in a fire, I mean who would sign up for that? Maybe someone else set the fire when Clarence and Geneva were in the house, maybe someone in the family wanted them out of the way, or an enemy wanted them out of the way. It's pretty unbelievable to me that their wasn't some kind of reason for those to to die in the fire. Does anyone know if insurance monies were actually paid to anyone after they died? This is just an odd case any way you slice it. I think there is definitely more to this story than we know about!

The second fire could have been a accident?
Does it mention anywhere how they were found? and what room.
Pretty obvious the rest of it is a insurance scam

i was thinking maybe they killed another man and woman and did the same thing to vanish lol. but i think they would have been alot more thorough on the autopsy to make sure it was them.

id say if it wasnt a accident, he probably knew it was only a matter of time til someone saw him especially if they were starting to get suspicious about a man on her property and he killed his wife and set fire to the house on the exact same day.

somewhat interesting article about the case (from 12/1988), and the casting/filming of the UM episode - an old archived article, courtesy of the Logansport, IN Pharos-Tribune (http://www.pharostribune.com/).

193474

Wow. Now THAT is bizarre. When UM recreated the second fire, they actually burned down the house that Clarence grew up in.

The question of whether it was Clarence or not could easily be put to rest with a DNA test today. Although I'm sure given how old the case is and that I doubt police are actively investigating it anymore as they believe Clarence is dead and he's the murderer or the person found in 1970.

Also, I read another google article on the case and a few people reported seeing him in the southwest in 1975. The one person testified before the grand jury and swore up and down he had seen him. After, Clarence was found dead in 1980, the person said everyone thought he was crazy for saying he saw him but now this proves he was right.

I think its pretty obvious he drugged a homeless or transient person, drove him home, left the man in the car with the garage door closed and waited for the carbon monoxide to kill him. He then set the stage for it to look like it was him who had died.

I definitely believe it was Clarence in the second fire, but I'm wondering if it's possible if the transient died of natural causes and Clarence took the opportunity to use him and formed this plan on the spot. Otherwise, it seems pretty silly that he would let himself be seen with him in public if he planned to kill him. Then again, he was capable of murder considering what happened to his wife in the second fire.

Maybe a friend or relative of the guy he killed the first time put two and two together and served up a poetic justice-type revenge. peace:


:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: Ooops, I nearly rolled on the floor after reading that :lol: :blush:

I definitely believe it was Clarence in the second fire, but I'm wondering if it's possible if the transient died of natural causes and Clarence took the opportunity to use him and formed this plan on the spot. Otherwise, it seems pretty silly that he would let himself be seen with him in public if he planned to kill him. Then again, he was capable of murder considering what happened to his wife in the second fire.
Clarence was with the transient man in another town so its possible he thought no one might recognize him ......

I definitely believe it was Clarence in the second fire, but I'm wondering if it's possible if the transient died of natural causes and Clarence took the opportunity to use him and formed this plan on the spot. Otherwise, it seems pretty silly that he would let himself be seen with him in public if he planned to kill him. Then again, he was capable of murder considering what happened to his wife in the second fire.


It couldn't have been natural causes. The autopsy of the first man found in the fire (the homeless man most likely) stated that the cause of death was carbon monoxide poisoning. Its stated in an article posted on the last page. Although it was never revealed on unsolved mysteries. That's why I said he most likely kept the drugged man in the car and just closed the garage.

It couldn't have been natural causes. The autopsy of the first man found in the fire (the homeless man most likely) stated that the cause of death was carbon monoxide poisoning. Its stated in an article posted on the last page. Although it was never revealed on unsolved mysteries. That's why I said he most likely kept the drugged man in the car and just closed the garage.
Thanks, LilMissKryssy. So Clarence had to have deliberately caused his death, then. I know his relatives in the segment say "no way" about Clarence committing murder, but there's really no other explanation here, also considering the second fire killed his wife. I wonder if she wanted to come clean after ten years and he decided he had to stop her at all costs/gave up on the ruse.

Thanks, LilMissKryssy. So Clarence had to have deliberately caused his death, then. I know his relatives in the segment say "no way" about Clarence committing murder, but there's really no other explanation here, also considering the second fire killed his wife. I wonder if she wanted to come clean after ten years and he decided he had to stop her at all costs/gave up on the ruse.

No problem. I was on the fence until I found that article as well (as well as a few other articles I found on google). Its actually quite interesting. In 1983, the authorities were trying to indict relatives of Clarence Roberts in aiding and abetting, but they just lacked enough conclusive evidence to bring formal charges. So the authorities clearly believed for quite some time that other members of his family, other than Geneva, had knowledge of the scheme and/or helped him. Although, Im not sure which members of his family (like if the ones interviewed for the show were the ones they were trying to indict). Shortly before the second fire, Geneva and her attorneys had finally exhausted every last appeal to gain the one million dollar insurance money Clarence was after. I'm guessing that Clarence came back to staying with Geneva in the later part of the 1970s after he had nowhere else to go and ran out of resources. People who knew him had claimed to spot him in the southwest around 1974-1975. There had been quite a few rumors Clarence was in the Southwest or in Mexico during that time and investigators came to believe that that's where he was hiding during the early to mid 70s. I think It was around 1977 that the investigators received reports of a man on Geneva's property. That's when they staked out the house for 3 days but didn't see anything. I'm assuming by 1980, when Clarence realized they were all out of appeals to gain the 1 million dollars of insurance money which had dragged on for 10 years, he decided to end it all. I'm sure he knew if he was ever caught he would be charged with murder and insurance fraud and would face a life sentence in prison. He realized his scheme failed and I'm sure he was exhausted from living in hiding with no resources left. He might have felt bad that Geneva had to live in poverty because he scheme failed so maybe he killed her with him as a mercy killing. He might've also known if he killed himself and his body was identified, Geneva might go to jail for aiding and abetting his scheme. My personal theory is, he killed Geneva with him to spare her either a life of isolation/poverty or prison herself. Maybe in frustration she told him she was sick of living like this and with no chance of the insurance money, he decided to kill himself and Geneva. That's my best guess.

I always liked the somewhat resigned sounding comments from the detective in this one, specifically his remarks about the second fire and how they knew the body was going to be Clarence and just that was "how it turned out" or something along those lines...

Magazine article about the Roberts case published several months before the second fire in 1980:

http://archives.chicagotribune.com/1980/02/17/page/236/article/the-strange-immolation-of-clarence-roberts

Magazine article about the Roberts case published several months before the second fire in 1980:

http://archives.chicagotribune.com/1980/02/17/page/236/article/the-strange-immolation-of-clarence-roberts

Cool find. Thanks!

Magazine article about the Roberts case published several months before the second fire in 1980:

http://archives.chicagotribune.com/1980/02/17/page/236/article/the-strange-immolation-of-clarence-roberts

Thanks! Interesting to read an article on this. You can tell it is an older article, as one of the descriptions of Clarence was "lover of children." I don't think they could get away with putting that in any publication these days, even if meant in the kind way.

Thanks! Interesting to read an article on this. You can tell it is an older article, as one of the descriptions of Clarence was "lover of children." I don't think they could get away with putting that in any publication these days, even if meant in the kind way.

LOL. I completely missed that when I read it. I think you're absolutely correct in your thoughts there. :)

Something interesting I noticed was that Geneva was living in a rented room at the time, in February 1980. She must have moved into the house that burned just a few months before the second fire.

Still never been able to understand why certain family members believed that Clarence died in the first fire, despite the body not matching him in any way, shape, or form.

That article was excellent.

I never knew about the limbs, which seems to seal my personal belief that he fled after staging his own death.

What surprises me most is the absence of his four children after his first "death". I had read at one time that one of his sons took trips on occasion to Central America. It was believed by some of the family that Clarence was there.

The true tragedy of the situation lies with Geneva. I feel for her, losing everything in the end.

For some reason the part of the re-enactment showing the first Housefire with Robert's silhouette in the foreground watching the blaze creeped me out as a kid.

The whole segment creeps me out.

I remember several years ago I was in North Charleston, SC for a job interview and was watching some UM segments in my hotel room. For whatever reason, the Clarence Roberts segment really got to me that night--particularly the "mysterious man seen behind Geneva's house" part and that very memorable conclusion with the cemetery footage.

I guess you could say there was no "turning a light off" for me there.

Magazine article about the Roberts case published several months before the second fire in 1980:

http://archives.chicagotribune.com/1980/02/17/page/236/article/the-strange-immolation-of-clarence-roberts

I didn't know they had Sons? Was this mentioned in the UM segment? It's been years since I've seen it. Where the kids living at the 2 Houses that burned down? I'm guessing not. So many questions here. :eek:

I didn't know they had Sons? Was this mentioned in the UM segment? It's been years since I've seen it. Where the kids living at the 2 Houses that burned down? I'm guessing not. So many questions here. :eek:
I'm pretty sure the children were grown by the time the fire started, and not living in either home. But I'd love to know more about them and their whereabouts at the time. What a terrible ordeal to experience.

I am watching this case on Amazon and they say that the first body did not have the blood type of Clarence Roberts. Doesn't that flat out prove that is not him?

I am watching this case on Amazon and they say that the first body did not have the blood type of Clarence Roberts. Doesn't that flat out prove that is not him?

I think most of the world is in agreement that the first body wasn't Clarence except for the nephew of his they interviewed for the segment. At least the portion of the world who has an opinion on the case.

The whole segment creeps me out.

I remember several years ago I was in North Charleston, SC for a job interview and was watching some UM segments in my hotel room. For whatever reason, the Clarence Roberts segment really got to me that night--particularly the "mysterious man seen behind Geneva's house" part and that very memorable conclusion with the cemetery footage.

I guess you could say there was no "turning a light off" for me there.

I know what you mean. The Clarence Roberts case is pretty straight-forward once you know the whole story. Man uses body of dead vagrant to fake his own death (and perhaps killed said vagrant). Then hides out for 10 years before actually being found dead in a fire. Their is some question as to how he and Geneva ended up dead in 1980. Murder/suicide, double suicide, etc. But, the atmosphere of UM really brought out the creepiness of this one in a big way.

Magazine article about the Roberts case published several months before the second fire in 1980:

http://archives.chicagotribune.cotm/1980/02/17/page/236/article/the-strange-immolation-of-clarence-roberts

This was a fascinating read. Thank you for posting it.

I know what you mean. The Clarence Roberts case is pretty straight-forward once you know the whole story. Man uses body of dead vagrant to fake his own death (and perhaps killed said vagrant). Then hides out for 10 years before actually being found dead in a fire. Their is some question as to how he and Geneva ended up dead in 1980. Murder/suicide, double suicide, etc. But, the atmosphere of UM really brought out the creepiness of this one in a big way.

Is this the segment where you see a long shot of the house burning from about 50 feet away & a shadow stands up between the house and the camera? If so, creepy indeed.

As I recall from watching this episode, the scene was staged to make it look like a suicide. Why would he make it look like a suicide being that the goal was to collect insurance money? He thought through the plan enough to find a guy that could he could pass of as him. Yet, he doesn't know the particulars of the policy enough as to whether or not to make the scene look like an accident or suicide. Lord bless us and save us

As I recall from watching this episode, the scene was staged to make it look like a suicide. Why would he make it look like a suicide being that the goal was to collect insurance money? He thought through the plan enough to find a guy that could he could pass of as him. Yet, he doesn't know the particulars of the policy enough as to whether or not to make the scene look like an accident or suicide. Lord bless us and save us

I don't think LE ever thought that was the case--that he staged the scene to look like a suicide. He did, however, clearly stage a scene in which he may have thought he was going to receive both a life and a property insurance payout, which I think was his ultimate intention.

Wasnt it pointed out there was a gun laying beside him when he was found after the fire? I believe insurance was denied because of suicide ruling. In the case it wasn't a suicide, insurance would have had to been payed out if premiums were up to date. As I said, what a fool to stage the scene with a gun there.

Wasnt it pointed out there was a gun laying beside him when he was found after the fire? I believe insurance was denied because of suicide ruling. In the case it wasn't a suicide, insurance would have had to been payed out if premiums were up to date. As I said, what a fool to stage the scene with a gun there.

There was a shotgun found with the victim, but I can't remember if that was mentioned in the segment.

The insurance company wouldn't pay out because it didn't have conclusive evidence that the body belonged to Clarence, IIRC.

There was a shotgun found with the victim, but I can't remember if that was mentioned in the segment.

The insurance company wouldn't pay out because it didn't have conclusive evidence that the body belonged to Clarence, IIRC.

Correct. That's the whole reason the new pathologist got involved. The one who was sure the first body was Clarence right up until he saw the second body.

Yes. The insurance was NOT denied because of cause of death. The cause of death had nothing to do with the ruling. The reason as others have stated is the insurance companies were not convinced the body was that of Clarence Roberts. Plus life insurance policies can still pay out in the event of a suicide, though the ones that do often require higher premiums. A shotgun was found in the ashes of the fire but it was not said where in proximity to that, the gun was found. In addition it isn't the easiest gun to kill oneself with. A shot gun. Especially with a raging inferno going on. However life insurance companies, have, can and do have policies that do pay out in the event of suicide. Again the cause of death had nothing to do with the benefits being denied in this case. The life insurance companies were highly suspect that Clarence Roberts was even dead.

Yes. The insurance was NOT denied because of cause of death. The cause of death had nothing to do with the ruling. The reason as others have stated is the insurance companies were not convinced the body was that of Clarence Roberts. Plus life insurance policies can still pay out in the event of a suicide, though the ones that do often require higher premiums. A shotgun was found in the ashes of the fire but it was not said where in proximity to that, the gun was found. In addition it isn't the easiest gun to kill oneself with. A shot gun. Especially with a raging inferno going on. However life insurance companies, have, can and do have policies that do pay out in the event of suicide. Again the cause of death had nothing to do with the benefits being denied in this case. The life insurance companies were highly suspect that Clarence Roberts was even dead.
This is correct. Most policies nowdays have a two year clause from the time of policy purchase, then they will pay out anyway, but I'm uncertain what would have been the case in 1970. I forget, did Clarence purchase the policies the year of the fire or well before it?

Even if the policy wouldn't have paid out for suicide, the clincher was definitely because the identity of the body was in question that prevented Geneva from getting any of the benefits.

This was 1970. Not like the forensics were anything close to what they are today. IIRC the main points of contention with the police were the ring that was untouched by fire and a gun near the body. The whole point of my earlier post was if Clarence wanted it to look like an accidental death, why have a gun anywhere near the body? Doesnt make any sense at all considering he obviously took his time to find the right person to use as him. Supposedly the body in question was pretty close in height and weight to him. And being that my father in-law is a retired executive from State Farm, the insurance companies will fight a claim that looks to be anything close to suicide every day of the week. So, I will say again, very sloppy of him to have a gun near the body after doing all this work to stage a death to make it appear accidental to collect insurance money

I don't think he was trying to make it look accidental. I think he wanted the death to look like a suicide unless he was trying to make it look like a murder? I mean Clarence did murder the vagrant in my opinion. However that said I have considered the theory Clarence tried to fake his own death by making it appear like he was murdered and then the fire set to cover up the crime?

I know it was 1970 and the forensics aren't what they are today. Neither myself nor anyone else was arguing the point with you from what I can tell? The ring sounded like it was placed there after the fire had cooled. It would have melted or at least been damaged had it actually been in the fire. So why plant it? That is one of the mysteries.

Also some life insurance companies do pay in the event of a suicide. Your father in law's opinions I do not doubt that doesn't mean every insurance company or every insurance adjuster would fight the claim. Some of the policies when purchased the person will ask if the policy pays out in the event of suicide. So it isn't necessarily true that if it was ruled a suicide the policy wouldn't pay out. Again, the cause of death was NOT the issue in why the insurance company by their own admission fought the claim. They didn't believe beyond a reasonable doubt that Clarence was even dead at all!

I look at it like this; Clarence over thought the final scenario. He buys the insurance. Waits to find the perfect victim. Then when it comes time to stage the scene, he panics or over thinks it. In my mind, because of the ring being placed there sometime after the fire and a gun being there, questions are going to start being asked. The insurance company will not start poking around and asking questions if the case is open and shut. Had the ring and the gun not been involved, how many questions would have been asked at the beginning of the investigation? Just my opinion on the matter. I could be totally wrong. But I know for certain that when more questions start being brought up, good investigators will start asking even more questions.

Exactly! Another small clue supports this theory, particularly part B.........in the last months of her life, Geneva had been buying a good quantity of beer and had even been seen drinking on occasion.........now if she was a diabetic, wouldn't that be pretty hazardous?

It depends on what type of diabetes she had. Drinking is more dangerous for people with type 1 because their blood sugar tends to be touchier since they take insulin; drinking too much (and not eating along with it) can lead to drastic drops in blood sugar because the liver is too busy processing alcohol and neglects to produce glucose. If you drop too low, your body basically stops functioning and you go into a coma. My grandfather died this way. I'm a type 1 diabetic too and I don't really drink because of this, though many T1-ers do still drink. You just have to be really smart about it.

Clarence was dead the first time. All of the other times his wife was wearing his skin, pretending to be him. :happyface :p

I rewatch this case and I notice Geneva got a job at a restaurant and she of course, bought the beer and stuff but I'm wondering....did she talk to anyone she worked with? Wouldn't people have talked to her during her job? If Clarence was being held hostage or something she could have said something...maybe the beer was for the kidnappers?

Stopped in today. Met a man at the cemetery that asked me who I was looking for, surprised look when I said Clarence Roberts. He remembered the fire though....if I would have been more on my game, I would have asked which one. https://scontent-ort2-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t34.0-12/19190964_10213485477070315_751010072_n.jpg?oh=5fb9fed008b791b1ad1e69e1007eea0e&oe=5944A2ED

That's impressive. I am also surprised that there is a flag on his grave too. I am assuming he still has relatives that visit the cemetery regularly (or maybe the cemetery does that for all veterans, who knows) .

There were a lot of flags in the cemetery, I'm thinking they just put them up for every veteran. Geneva is not buried there. Good question with the relatives, I didn't think about it, very possibly could. I would have asked the man at the cemetery, but he was there visiting his daughter that he lost in a car wreck...felt terrible for the guy.

Robin's latest Trail Went Cold podcast on this case got me interested in doing some more research online. I found a few minor nuggets of info that I don't believe have already been mentioned in this thread.

Charles Roberts saw his cousin, Clarence Roberts, mulching leaves at Clarence Roberts' home late in the afternoon of November 18, 1970. Charles talked with Clarence briefly. Clarence, who was wearing a solid-color blue shirt, commented that his wife, Geneva, and his son, Loren, had gone to Columbus for supper. Clarence invited Charles to join him for a sandwich, but Charles declined the invitation. Charles departed. Fifteen minutes later, Charles Roberts received word of a fire at Clarence Roberts' property. Charles returned to Clarence's property approximately twenty-five minutes after Charles' departure; the roof of the barn had already collapsed due to the fire.

So apparently the cousin would be the last person to see Clarence before he disappeared to who knows where while the vagrant's body, no doubt, burned inside the barn. It would seem Clarence was trying to make himself be seen at his house very close to the start of the fire so people would have no doubt that it was his body in the blaze. This also explains where Geneva was during the first fire. Whether she was actually having dinner with her son, we'll never know. But Columbus is an 18 mile trip from Nashville. So if it was the truth, that would have left Clarence plenty of time to set the fire up.

On November 18, 1970, Ella Cummings, a neighbor of Clarence Roberts, observed leaves burning at the base of a tree located near the barn on the Roberts' property. In retrospect Mrs. Cummings surmised that she could have extinguished the small fire herself if she had stopped at that time. Instead, she went to her home and called the fire department at 6:15. When the fire engine arrived at 6:30, the barn was already destroyed;

So it took roughly 15 minutes for the fire to do that much damage. If the neighbor was successful in putting out the fire herself at the base of the tree when it was small and had just started, would that have ruined Clarence's plan? He'd have a severed corpse in his barn he'd have to deal with. What would he have done? Tried to burn the place down again at a later date? :crazy:

http://law.justia.com/cases/indiana/court-of-appeals/1980/1-1179a307-6.html

So it took roughly 15 minutes for the fire to do that much damage. If the neighbor was successful in putting out the fire herself at the base of the tree when it was small and had just started, would that have ruined Clarence's plan? He'd have a severed corpse in his barn he'd have to deal with. What would he have done? Tried to burn the place down again at a later date? :crazy:

http://law.justia.com/cases/indiana/court-of-appeals/1980/1-1179a307-6.html

Another amusing way Clarence's plan went wrong is when the firefighters managed to move his pick-up truck out of the barn before it was completely destroyed by the fire. That's what caused them to notice about 30 holes in the exhaust system and made them suspect Clarence used carbon monoxide poisoning to kill the vagrant. If they hadn't rescued the truck, they might never have noticed this.

If anyone has a Newspapers.com account, they can access hundreds of old articles about this case and learn a bunch of fascinating information. The most interesting revelation to me is that a grand jury convened in 1983 and they seemed to believe that Clarence murdered Geneva, started the fire, but accidentally passed out before he could escape the burning house...

http://i63.tinypic.com/okrk89.jpg

That sounds like a pretty logical explanation to me, which is why I find it so curious that the investigator interviewed on UM learned towards the theory that Clarence and Geneva were murdered by a third party.

An interesting tidbit I recently found:

http://www.ourbrowncounty.com/0712s4.htm

Bob Greg and George Tucker had a lumber and building supply store north of Gould Street which burned. It had gas pumps in front of its offices making four service stations in downtown Nashville. Clarence and Carson Roberts purchased the property and rebuilt on the lot as Roberts Brothers Lumber Co. which later burned and was replaced by a two story complex of shops which also burned and was never replaced.

Also, here's the brief from the final appeal of the case against the insurance company. Note that it was decided a month before, and the re-hearing motion denied five days before the second fire:

https://law.justia.com/cases/indiana/court-of-appeals/1980/1-1179a307-6.html

Most likely he murdered the vagrant for the 1970 fire, then with both tired of life-her medical problems & his having sneak around not being seen etc decided to take their own lives.

I wonder if there still exists two graves for Clarence, because the remains recovered from the 1970 were buried under his name according to an article I read. A Find-A-Grave search yields the headstone shown at the end of the segment, the one "some family members protested".

I have a lot of curiosity questions about Geneva in the years between the first and second fire as well. I've never been able to pin down her living arrangements--one article states she rented a room in town, another says she lived in a one-hundred-year-old house described as a "tinderbox" in the wake of the 1980 fire, and another states she lived in a trailer at the time of that fire and it was that structure that burned to the ground. The segment seems to indicate it was an old house.

In the course of my digging around about the case I also found both Geneva and Clarence had several brothers and sisters--Clarence had about four half-siblings alone. What I wondered is whether any of the Roberts and/or White families supported Geneva financially at that time, since going on only what I know it would seem as though they did not. I don't issue personal judgement on that, but I'm simply curious as to why if that actually was the case.

They were somehow able to determine that the man who died in the 1st fire had a different blood type to Clarence.

Different blood type could be a clerical error. DNA, even mitochondrial, can be more definitive.

In the course of my digging around about the case I also found both Geneva and Clarence had several brothers and sisters--Clarence had about four half-siblings alone. What I wondered is whether any of the Roberts and/or White families supported Geneva financially at that time, since going on only what I know it would seem as though they did not. I don't issue personal judgement on that, but I'm simply curious as to why if that actually was the case.

Articles I read online say that Geneva was shunned by old friends and the majority of the town because they believed her to be a co-conspirator to Clarence killing and the insurance scam. I assume the Roberts/White families must have felt the same way.

Even her four sons seemed to stay out of the picture during the 70's. Although there is not THAT much information, two of them, apparently, cut themselves off from their parents (as well as the rest of the family) and the other two sons had legal problems of their own, serving time in prison for burglary.

I guess nobody wanted anything to do with Geneva after that first fire.

No problem. I was on the fence until I found that article as well (as well as a few other articles I found on google). Its actually quite interesting. In 1983, the authorities were trying to indict relatives of Clarence Roberts in aiding and abetting, but they just lacked enough conclusive evidence to bring formal charges. So the authorities clearly believed for quite some time that other members of his family, other than Geneva, had knowledge of the scheme and/or helped him. Although, Im not sure which members of his family (like if the ones interviewed for the show were the ones they were trying to indict). Shortly before the second fire, Geneva and her attorneys had finally exhausted every last appeal to gain the one million dollar insurance money Clarence was after. I'm guessing that Clarence came back to staying with Geneva in the later part of the 1970s after he had nowhere else to go and ran out of resources. People who knew him had claimed to spot him in the southwest around 1974-1975. There had been quite a few rumors Clarence was in the Southwest or in Mexico during that time and investigators came to believe that that's where he was hiding during the early to mid 70s. I think It was around 1977 that the investigators received reports of a man on Geneva's property. That's when they staked out the house for 3 days but didn't see anything. I'm assuming by 1980, when Clarence realized they were all out of appeals to gain the 1 million dollars of insurance money which had dragged on for 10 years, he decided to end it all. I'm sure he knew if he was ever caught he would be charged with murder and insurance fraud and would face a life sentence in prison. He realized his scheme failed and I'm sure he was exhausted from living in hiding with no resources left. He might have felt bad that Geneva had to live in poverty because he scheme failed so maybe he killed her with him as a mercy killing. He might've also known if he killed himself and his body was identified, Geneva might go to jail for aiding and abetting his scheme. My personal theory is, he killed Geneva with him to spare her either a life of isolation/poverty or prison herself. Maybe in frustration she told him she was sick of living like this and with no chance of the insurance money, he decided to kill himself and Geneva. That's my best guess.

Think you hit the nail on the head here. Clarence had a plan and it didn't work, instead pushing Geneva into poverty and causing him to go on the lam. Better to end it all on his own terms, lest he be discovered and drag loved ones down with him.

DNA testing might help in forming some solid conclusions though if anyone felt so inclined (though I think we've pretty much nailed it here)

bump

It's a shame that there wasn't much done to find out who the man who was murdered in the first fire actually was. After the 1980 fire, there should have been more done into looking into who exactly was buried in Clarence Roberts's first grave. I wonder if DNA would help solve who the man was in a way similar to how the Sumter County Does were identified.