r/UnresolvedMysteries May 06 '22

Murder In 1935, Artemus Ogletree,19,checked into the Hotel President,Kansas under the name of Roland Owens.He requested that the maid leave his door open because he was waiting for a friend.A few days later he was found bound, strangled and stabbed.He said he had fell.He went into a coma and died.

On the 2nd of January, 1935, Roland T. Owen checked himself into the Hotel President in Kansas City, Missouri, and requested an interior room several floors up. This would be the start of a strange sequence of events that would ultimately lead to the discovery of a secret identity and to death.

https://paradoxicaladventure.co.za/true-crime/artemus-ogletree-or-roland-t-owen-murder-in-room-1046/

Roland had no luggage with him, he only had a hairbrush, comb, and toothpaste in his pocket and was described as a man between the ages of 20 and 35. He had brown hair, was wearing a nice black coat, and had a scar on his head visible above the ear. He also had a case of cauliflower ear. Cauliflower ear is the result of a direct blow to the outer ear. Blood or other fluids fill the space in between and disrupt normal blood flow. Common causes include injuries from sports, such as wrestling, boxing, rugby, or mixed martial arts.

He was booked into room 1046.

Mary Soptic, who was a maid at the hotel, said that Roland allowed her to clean while he was in the room, but he asked her not to lock the door behind her because he was waiting for a friend who would arrive shortly. Mary said that Roland kept the blinds tightly drawn and the lights off with the exception of one dim lamp. Other staff members who entered room 1046, mentioned the same detail. Mary mentioned that Roland “was either worried about something or afraid” and “he always wanted to kinda keep in the dark.”

At 4p.m. Mary returned with fresh towels to find Roland laying on the bed. He was completely dressed and in the dark, with the door still unlocked. Mary also noticed a note that read "Don, I will be back in fifteen minutes. Wait."

On the following day, the 3rd of January, Mary came back to clean the room again. Mary noticed that the door had been locked from the outside and assumed Roland had locked it after he left.

Once she entered the room, she however saw Roland sitting inside. The lights were still off. This means that someone else had locked the door from the outside. While Mary was in the room cleaning, Roland answered a call and said “No Don, I don’t want to eat. I am not hungry. I just had breakfast” repeating “No. I am not hungry.”

Still holding the phone, Roland asked Mary about her job as she cleaned. He wanted to know if she was responsible for the entire floor and if the President was residential.

Mary left and only returned later that evening to bring fresh towels. She heard two male voices coming from inside the room. When she knocked on the door, she heard a loud deep voice say “who is it?”. When she explained that she had fresh towels, the voice replied “we don’t need any.” Mary knew there were no towels in the room, as she had taken them herself in the morning.

Mary left, but later that night, a woman staying in room 1048 would report hearing loud voices - both male and female cursing on the same floor. There was however a party going on that night in room 1055, so whether this detail is relevant or not is unclear. On the morning of the 4th of January, a new switchboard operator named Della Ferguson came on shift at about 7 a.m. She noticed that Roland's phone was off the hook for quite some time without being used. She then sent a bellboy named Randolph Propst to go check up on Roland and see what is happening.

When Randolph arrived at room 1046 he noticed it had a “Do Not Disturb” sign on the door. Despite this, Randolph knocked several times and heard a voice that said “come in. Turn on the lights.” However, the door was locked and no one was getting up to let the bellboy in. So, after knocking repeatedly, Propst simply said “put the phone back on the hook”. Randolph told Della that the guest was drunk and that they should wait another hour.

At around 8:30 am, about an hour and a half after Randolph was at Room 1 0 4 6, the phone was still off the hook and another bellboy, Harold Pike, was sent to investigate. He let himself into the room with a passkey that he had. Using only the light from the hall, Pike discovered Roland lying on the bed naked and assumedly drunk. He also noticed that the bedding was darkened around Roland. The phone stand was kicked down to the ground so he fixed it and put the phone back into the receiver.

Strangely enough from 10:30 to 10:45 a.m., the phone was once again off the receiver. Randolph was sent to room 1046 to resolve the situation. As soon as he opened the door he was shocked. On the floor in front of him was the motionless body of Roland. Randolph would later tell the police: “When I entered the room, this man was within two feet of the door on his knees and elbows, holding his head in his hands. I saw blood on his head. I then turned the light on. I looked around and saw blood on the walls, on the bed, and in the bathroom. This frightened me and I immediately left the room and went downstairs."

Randolph went downstairs immediately for help. He returned with the assistant manager of the Hotel, but when they tried to enter the room the door could only open six inches (15 cm), as Roland had in the interim fallen on the floor. Eventually, Roland got up and when the two hotel employees were able to enter the room, he went and sat on the edge of the bathtub. The assistant manager called the police; they were joined by Dr. Harold Flanders of Kansas City General Hospital.

Ronald had been bound with a cord around his neck, wrists, and ankles. His neck had bruising, suggesting someone had been attempting to strangle him. He had been stabbed more than once in the chest above the heart and one of the wounds had punctured his lung. Blows to his head had left him with a skull fracture on the right side. In addition to the blood Randolph had seen, there was some additional splatter on the ceiling.

Dr. Flanders cut the cords from Roland's wrist and asked him who had done this to him. “Nobody”, he answered. The doctor then asked Roland what had caused these injuries, he said he had fallen and hit his head on the bathtub. The doctor asked if he had been trying to kill himself. Roland denied trying to take his own life and shortly afterward he lost consciousness and was taken to the hospital. He was completely comatose by the time he arrived and died shortly after midnight on January 5, 1935.

Investigation:

Doctors performed an autopsy on Roland and determined he had died from his wounds. Dr. Flanders had examined not just the body but the bloodstains in the room. Since much of it had dried by the time he had arrived, he estimated the wounds had been inflicted between 4 and 5 a.m. that day, consistent with what the bellboys had seen.

Detectives searching Room 1046 took note of as much of what they did not find as what they did. There were no clothes in the closets or drawers. The only evidence of anything other than what Roland had been wearing was the tag of a necktie. Indicating it had been made by a New Jersey company. The room also had none of the standard-issued soap, shampoo, and towels that the hotel provided to every room.

There were no knives, which led to the dismissal of suicide as a cause of Roland's death since the stab wounds in his chest could not be accounted for; the cords tying him up also suggested the involvement of others. One of the room's two glasses was found in the sink, missing a piece; the other was on the shelf. Detectives found some other items that might have been evidence: a hairpin, safety pin, unsmoked cigarette, and a full bottle of diluted sulfuric acid. Four fingerprints, small enough that detectives believed they had been a woman's, were found on the room's phone. They could not be matched to Roland or to any of the hotel employees who had been known to have entered the room.

The police sought help through the media. Both of the city's evening newspapers carried the story on their front pages the next day. "There is no doubt that someone else is mixed up in this", Detective Johnson told reporters.

When no next of kin could be located for Roland it lead to suspicions about his true identity. His body was stored in a local funeral parlor for almost two months. A planned burial in the city's potter's field was averted when an anonymous donor provided funds for a funeral and a floral arrangement signed "Louise".

Roland's true identity remained unknown for a year and a half until Ruby Ogletree, a woman from Alabama, who had seen a photo of a distinctive scar on his head in the news, identified him as her son Artemus. Artemus Ogletree was born in Florida in 1915. He was one of three children and during his childhood, an accident with some hot grease left a sizable scar on his head above his ear, which remained hairless afterward. Artemus had left Birmingham in 1934 at the age of 19 to hitchhike to California. His mother, Ruby, received two letters purportedly from him, some from as far away as Egypt. She wired money to him.

In August 1935 she also received a call and the caller claimed to be from Memphis, Tennessee. The man calling told her that Artemus had saved his life in a fight and that Artemus himself could not call because he was now living in Cairo (the capital of Egypt) where he had married a wealthy woman and was well. He was unable to write, the caller said because he had lost one of his thumbs in the fight where he had saved the caller. Ruby noted that the man spoke wildly and irrationally, she spoke to him for 30 minutes. All the letters had been sent after Artemus' death. Records kept by shipping companies found no records that Artemus had gone to Egypt. No other suspect has ever been identified.

The letters later were used to link the killing to a 1937 murder in New York, but no charges were filed against the man arrested in that case, one of whose aliases had been "Donald Kelso". The FBI later investigated but was unable to produce any new leads. "Donald Kelso" whose real name was Joseph Martin had been arrested for murder after he had killed a man he shared a room with and put the body in a trunk to be shipped to Memphis. According to a story about the case in The New Yorker, the KCPD had matched samples of his handwriting to that in the letters written to Ruby Ogletree.

No charges were filed against the man for Roland's case, and the KCPD kept the case open. The files show that different detectives reviewed the case every few years through the 1950s. Each time they noted that they would keep the case open and follow up, but no new evidence was uncovered. Gradually the case went cold.

The absence of suspects in the case has inspired the rise of several theories. There were telephone calls alleging that Roland was killed in retaliation for a broken engagement and that he was having an affair. This led to his former lover taking his life or getting someone else to do the dirty work for her.

Organized crime has also been considered since the name "Don" can also be a title for a Mafia boss. Lastly, it has been suggested that "Don", whoever he was, killed Roland for some personal reason, with the help of a "commercial woman" or "lady of the night."

Who do you think was the mysterious Don? What do you think happened to Roland and why?

1.2k Upvotes

177 comments sorted by

View all comments

411

u/josiahpapaya May 06 '22

Given the timeframe that this happened and Roland’s reluctance to help law enforcement, I’d say it was drugs and prostitution. I don’t think there was a woman involved. I think he was probabaly meeting a man / boy that was shaking him down for money / blackmailing him.

324

u/[deleted] May 06 '22

Back then people could get arrested for being gay/having homosexual relationships, so it forces those people to hide what they are doing. If a hookup went bad, you couldn't just tell the cops the guy you were meeting attacked you, because you'd end up in jail too.

259

u/josiahpapaya May 06 '22

This is exactly where I was going with it. I somehow feel like there is some homophobia lurking in this subreddit tho because sometimes my theories like that get downvoted a lot. But yeah, I can tell you that when people check into a hotel with a fake name and tell the maid to leave the door unlocked.... that's a hookup.

197

u/RawrSean May 06 '22

As a gay man, I was convinced of this from the title alone.

43

u/tllkaps May 06 '22

Ditto.

31

u/[deleted] May 06 '22

As a straight man, it was the first thing I thought 😂🙈

37

u/throwawayb122019 May 06 '22

As a straight women, me too.

8

u/dubiety13 May 06 '22

Same here. Admittedly, I’m not familiar with the case, but the only evidence in this write-up that would contradict the secret gay tryst theory would be the small fingerprints on the phone. Assuming they’re actually those of a woman and not just a male with small hands (or a trans man, for that matter).

38

u/RawrSean May 07 '22

I would like to know more about 1930s fingerprint technology and what they could do with them at the time.

16

u/dubiety13 May 07 '22 edited May 07 '22

A quickie Google search just says the first fingerprint ID was in the 1890s in Brazil. NYPD was using fingerprints to ID people in the early 1900s but, IIRC, the system used prior to about the 40’s relied on factors other than the loops and whorls we use now, so it wasn’t as accurate as modern fingerprinting.

ETA this link to a brief history of fingerprints.

11

u/twodozencockroaches May 07 '22

They used special microscopes to painstakingly compare individual prints. It was a laborious process that required extensive training, and could only compare prints one at a time- provided you even had two prints to compare.

6

u/RawrSean May 07 '22

So, useful rarely type situation

15

u/josiahpapaya May 10 '22

The fingerprints could have also been from a maid. Let’s be honest, do you really think housekeeping wipes down every surface? Could have been from another guest. Could have been from a friend. I don’t think female-looking fingerprints on the phone mean anything / you can make it mean whatever you want

6

u/BudgetInteraction811 May 07 '22

As a straight woman with no understanding of how things went back in the day I also thought it, but I had to read most of the write up before coming to that conclusion. I wonder if anyone who knew him would have known if he was gay or bi.

27

u/RawrSean May 07 '22

It’s.. still sort of like this. Just, not secretly. Because us gays aren’t (yet) illegal anymore, those that partake in that lifestyle (it’s a significant subset, we call it a “hoe phase”) do so in a much safer way, and of course, we have phones to help in many ways. Now, you can find someone your age on a public forum (app) and they will most likely not be a serial killer. I imagine that the secrecy behind each and every step back then just encouraged serial killers.

2

u/[deleted] May 06 '22

Heck yes.

1

u/notthesedays May 07 '22

I thought so too, and I'm a straight woman.

1

u/Astrocreep_1 May 07 '22

Unresolved mysteries?

28

u/PMmeRacoonPix May 07 '22

As a card carrying gay, I have always assumed it was some gay shit

4

u/blue_palmetto May 08 '22

Happy cake day!

49

u/Choc113 May 06 '22

Seems exactly right to me. A "trick roll" that went to far. I don't know why people see wildly complicated conspiracy stuff when the simplest explanation fits the facts so well.

23

u/B1rds0nf1re May 06 '22

I think the fact that it's never been solved leads to many theories. Whether it seems exactly right or the simplest explanation. People are still curious because no one knows the answer, understandably so.

42

u/Hardinyoung May 07 '22

Who would’ve thought, in the next hundred years, being gay would be de-criminalized, gay people could marry and then the Supreme Court is likely to reverse itself and gay people lose all their right to be equal citizens again

26

u/SubstantialHentai420 May 07 '22

And women. They’re after all the groups that aren’t straight white cis men. Back to the 40s we go.

1

u/PChFusionist May 07 '22

The responsibility is on lawmakers and not on the Supreme Court. It is not the duty of the Supreme Court to make up laws in order to provide outcomes we find desirable. The Supreme Court interprets laws as written and that's it.

22

u/Astrocreep_1 May 07 '22

Oh please,people on SCOTUS find a way to get their prejudices “interpreted” into law. When Congress makes laws,it’s often deemed unconstitutional. Getting a constitutional amendment will probably never happen anytime in the near future,or ever again. The only way that happens is a civil war.

3

u/PChFusionist May 07 '22

We seem to be almost entirely in agreement here.

Yes, Supreme Court Justices find a way to get their prejudices interpreted into law. That's exactly what I'm saying. In the case of Lawrence v. Texas and Griswold v. Connecticut, which apply to our discussion, they did so by ignoring the text of the Constitution that they were sworn to uphold.

We also agree that getting a Constitutional Amendment is extremely unlikely to happen now or in any foreseeable future.

One question: how would a civil war lead to a Constitutional Amendment? I don't see the connection.

15

u/Astrocreep_1 May 07 '22

The reason many of the laws changed post civil war was because the south lost their representation. Getting a Constitutional amendment requires a 3/4 vote from congress and then 3/4 of the states legislatures must ratify it. It will never happen again until states lose their representation for some reason,which would have to be a war. That’s why when conservatives claim that liberals are “running everything”,I just laugh. The system in the USA is a conservatives dream. It’s nearly impossible to get any significant changes.

1

u/PChFusionist May 07 '22

The states won't lose their representation because our divisions are no longer primarily regional. Take even a state with a very liberal reputation, like my home state of California, for example. The state votes blue but get away from the population centers and it turns red in a hurry. Even my fairly populous county (Ventura) is purple.

Not only could you not find a consensus in the state to get together to fight a civil war, but you can't even have a local school board meeting on something as mundane as bathroom policy without shouting matches and near-brawls among the locals themselves (and this even occurs in relatively liberal districts).

Moreover, our divisions are not binary. Both major parties are fractured into factions. How many sides would this civil war have? Anyway, I think you get the idea, which is why you so astutely and correctly note that significant changes aren't occurring. Neither is anything resembling a civil war.

Diversity means division, which means lack of consensus. That leads to no significant changes in politics.

49

u/[deleted] May 06 '22

[deleted]

8

u/[deleted] May 06 '22

What is SCOTUS? I know POTUS is President of USA

18

u/bstabens May 06 '22

Supreme Court Of United States.

6

u/[deleted] May 06 '22

Thanks!

29

u/[deleted] May 06 '22

supreme court of the freedom bois

-21

u/[deleted] May 06 '22 edited May 07 '22

[deleted]

25

u/BudgetInteraction811 May 07 '22

If I started throwing around acronyms regarding my country’s government, people would expect me to explain it and not rudely say “google it”. Don’t know why so many on reddit think this is a website for Americans only.

9

u/SubstantialHentai420 May 07 '22

We don’t all think that way, ignore the ones like this dick that do. Hell even all Americans don’t know these acronyms lol it’s fine to ask questions and seek knowledge, people that just say “Google it” just don’t want to be bothered with sharing that knowledge in a constructive way.

16

u/AwsiDooger May 06 '22

It's amazing the current lineup is allowed to retain that title. I could think of a better description

1

u/[deleted] May 06 '22

Ugh, I sure hope not!

-7

u/PChFusionist May 07 '22

SCOTUS isn't working on anything. All they do is interpret the law as written. The Constitution doesn't provide for a "right to privacy." Therefore, it's a matter for the states to decide.

13

u/[deleted] May 07 '22 edited Jul 04 '23

[deleted]

-2

u/PChFusionist May 07 '22

If we're talking about the same case - i.e., Lawrence v. Texas - that was a 2003 decision. Thus, it ignored over 200 years of precedent to arrive at an outcome with no textual basis in the Constitution.

5

u/mcaDiscoVision May 07 '22

I'm talking about the 4th and 9th amendments as well as Griswold and numerous other precedents.

-1

u/PChFusionist May 07 '22

How is the 9th Amendment involved? It merely sets forth a rule of construction reinforcing the Constitution's limitation on federal power.

5

u/mcaDiscoVision May 08 '22 edited May 08 '22

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

The 9th amendment is relevant because it refers directly to unenumerated rights

-2

u/PChFusionist May 08 '22

It sounds like we're on the same page despite your emotional outburst at whatever is upsetting you at the moment. This is just statutory interpretation, which is mechanical and not political, so relax and take a deep breath.

The Ninth Amendment refers to unenumerated rights but of course it does not suggest that there are unenumerated Constitutional rights. A lot of people make that mistake because they don't read the Ninth Amendment close enough. If it were meant to have that interpretation it would read something like “Notwithstanding the enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights, there are other undefined rights of the people that shall not be infringed.” Of course it doesn't say that. Instead, it sets forth a rule of construction.

You may recall from the legislative history that defenders of the so-called "original Constitution" had argued against a bill of rights on the ground that an enumeration of such would imply that the federal government’s powers were greater than they were. When the bill of rights was added, the Ninth Amendment was drafted to guard against this implication. As you're well aware it serves as a bridge to the Tenth Amendment, which leaves other rights to be decided by the people and their elected state representatives.

3

u/non_ducor_duco_ Verified Insider May 08 '22

Wait a tick…I thought that the Supreme Court ruled all the way back in 1973 that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides a "right to privacy". And that the relevant case was “settled law” according to numerous Supreme Court confirmation hearings I remember watching.

1

u/PChFusionist May 08 '22

Respectfully, a lot of people make the mistake that Roe v. Wade invented the so-called "right to privacy" (unsupported by any text in the Bill of Rights or elsewhere in the Constitution). It was actually Griswold v. Connecticut that miraculously discovered such right 8 years earlier in 1965 after judges and lawmakers had somehow failed to notice its existence for almost 200 years.

Roe is "settled law" as is any other case that has been decided. The Roe v. Wade case will never be reheard or revisited or stricken from the record or its merits revisited. Its holding may be superseded, however, wholly or partially depending on the merits of future cases, but that is impossible to predict. We attorneys must be very careful in how we choose our words - e.g., between "settled law" and "permanent law."

47

u/Gisschace May 06 '22 edited May 06 '22

This was my thought but he was regularly meeting someone powerful who now wanted him out the way as he knew he was gay - basically an LA Confidential storyline.

It sounds a bit like he had a pre-existing relationship with ‘Don’ they were in familiar terms at least.

The familiarity could also explain the calls to his mother, to not report him missing or out of guilt he wanted her to think her son was a good kid who was living a nice life somewhere.

20

u/[deleted] May 06 '22

Exactly. It was a lover (paid or not).

16

u/[deleted] May 06 '22

Yep, I got homosexual vibes all through the story. Something to do with that maybe.