The "deaths" of Clarence Roberts

[Kane]

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.

[TheWho]

:eek: I remember this from last year.

[Kane]

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:

[fivecats]

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.

[SitcomsAreTheWay]

I felt so sorry for Geneva though. :(

[SP4CE INV4DERZ]

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.

[AVERMAN]

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.

[DarkDante]

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.

[Huskerz85]

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..........

[asmitty]

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.

[Huskerz85]

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

[DarkDante]

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.

[Huskerz85]

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?

[dynoguy88]

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.

[Fletch]

Dante, your avatar is hilarious. :lol:

[greatgarrett2]

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.

[AVERMAN]

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

[DarkDante]

^ 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.

[AVERMAN]

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

[Awsi Dooger]

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."

[kadrmas15]

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.

[mphs95]

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.

[AVERMAN]

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.

[mozartpc27]

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.

[DarkDante]

^ 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)

[lis_anne]

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.

[crystaldawn]

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. :)

[kamy]

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.

[unsolvedmysteriesfan]

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).

[A. Reader]

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

[idol]

Informative post Reader, welcome to the board.

[Mastermind]

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.

[grexiu]

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

[crystaldawn]

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.

[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

[MegtheEgg86]

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.

[LiveByTheSea]

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.

[MegtheEgg86]

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.

[Cori aka ChrisSCrush]

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:

[sdb4884]

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

[Obi Wan]

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

[peachysquirt21]

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.

[Obi Wan]

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.

[MegtheEgg86]

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.

[larry510]

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

[atm8588]

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.

[coatjones]

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

[MegtheEgg86]

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:

[justins5256]

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.

[MegtheEgg86]

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.

[TracyLynnS]

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?

[XCalibur]

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.

[peachysquirt21]

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.

[MegtheEgg86]

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.

[MegtheEgg86]

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.

[XCalibur]

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.

[XCalibur]

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.

[MegtheEgg86]

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.

[MegtheEgg86]

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.

[TracyLynnS]

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

[nicoge21]

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

(laughing in the background)

:lol:

[MegtheEgg86]

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

(laughing in the background)

:lol:

That was Clarence, turning the light off.

[cocytus]

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.

[troberts72]

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.

[TheCars1986]

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.

[Mr. Metalhead.]

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:

[The Third Man]

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?

[TheCars1986]

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?

[DarkDante]

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.

[The Third Man]

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.

[economistman192]

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.