Gambling disputes ending in someone’s death typically involved men, were over alleged cheating and happened at saloons or other enterprises offering games of chance. However, the circumstances behind the 1936 case of Paul F. Rohl, 33, in Los Angeles, California differed.

Death Comes To Light

Police officers responded to a call about a shooting, from the Rohl home late Saturday morning, Feb. 15, 1936. They found the man of the house, a service station attendant, lying on the living room floor, dead. On a cursory look at his body, they noticed a gunshot in the area of his heart and a bullet lodged in his right armpit.

Shoe Money Gone

Paul’s wife, Ruth T. Rohl, 31, told police detectives her husband had shot himself accidentally. He’d pointed the revolver at her, she’d pushed his arm to prevent him from firing at her and the gun went off, she said, hitting Paul in the arm. From that impact, he twisted, causing a second discharge, that one into his chest.

The events had begun the night before, Ruth said. When Paul had gone out with $140 in cash (about $2,700 today), the total amount of his paycheck, she’d hired a private investigator to trail him.

Later, that man had reported to Ruth he’d followed Paul to a gambling house and had witnessed him lose all but $2 playing craps.

The next morning, Ruth had confronted her husband about what he’d done and, admittedly, had berated him for frivolously spending money desperately needed for shoes for their 11-year-old son Paul, Jr. The couple had argued, and he’d slapped her. He’d demanded she leave him alone, having said he’d just wanted to go to work.

He’d left the room, and she’d yelled after him to somehow get money for shoes. He’d returned, she went on, in one hand holding a gun hidden by an overcoat and in the other, his rain boots. He’d pointed the weapon at her.

Ruth Rohl

State Attacks Wife’s Account

Eventually, Ruth was arrested and charged with first-degree murder, or premeditated killing with malicious forethought.

At Ruth’s several-day preliminary hearing that began on Friday, Feb. 28, the deputy district attorney sought to prove the shooting of Paul couldn’t have, and thus hadn’t, happened as Ruth had described. Thus, she’d murdered Paul; he hadn’t killed himself unintentionally.

A handful of witnesses testified, among them the doctor who’d performed an autopsy on Paul’s corpse. He said one bullet had penetrated Paul’s heart. The other had entered and exited his right elbow then had traversed upward through the deceased’s chest, finally stopping in his armpit. The state disputed Ruth’s contention the first bullet hit Paul’s arm.

A ballistics expert said that if the shooting had occurred as Ruth had detailed, Paul’s clothes would’ve had powder burns on them, but they didn’t.

In a move rarely seen in this type of proceeding, the accused took the stand. Ruth again relayed what led to Paul’s death and insisted the shooting was accidental not purposeful.

Ultimately, the judge set bail at $5,000 ($95,000 today) and bound Ruth over for trial. He did, however, reduce the murder charge against her to manslaughter. This, in California, is defined as the killing of another person during a sudden quarrel or in the heat of passion.

Suspicious Circumstances

On April 9, the opposing attorneys empaneled a jury. Then the state unfolded its case, mostly like it had during the preliminary hearing, but added witnesses.

One of the detectives investigating the case testified he’d seen and had photographed Paul’s rain boots some distance from his body, neatly standing upright, side by side. They appeared as if they’d been placed there not flung from Paul’s hand when the bullets impacted him.

The prosecutor questioned Ruth’s mother, Alice E. Gunn, about her having cleaned Ruth’s living room and having taken home and washed the robe her daughter had been wearing during the shooting. Gunn admitted she’d done so with the rest of the Rohls’ dirty laundry, including the robe. She’d claimed the latter hadn’t had any blood stains or powder burns on it before she’d cleaned it.

Opposite Depictions

The defense strategy, in part, was to show Paul had been angry and abusive and Ruth, the target of his rage and, therefore, a victim. Also, her attorneys highlighted that each time Ruth had been questioned about the crime, she’d answered consistently.

Ruth’s long-time best friend testified that Paul had had a violent, uncontrollable temper to which Ruth had been subjected during the past 16 years. During his tantrums, the friend said, he’d yell and curse at his wife and throw things. Fourteen other female friends of the defendant spoke to her stellar character and reputation.

When Ruth took the stand, she said she and Paul had argued many times in the past about his gambling. She reiterated the story of the shooting as she originally had told it to detectives. 

Innocent Or Guilty?

After 13 days, the case went to the jury on Wednesday, April 29. After deliberating two hours, the jurors returned a verdict of not guilty.

Upon hearing of her freedom, Ruth sobbed and told her mom, “Now I can go home and take care of my son” (Illustrated Daily News, April 30, 1936).

Alice Gunn, left; Ruth Rohl

————————

What do you think? Was the shooting of Paul accidental or intentional? And should Ruth have gotten acquitted or convicted?

Sources

Following abolishment of gambling in Nevada, a Los Angeles moving picture company purchased and shipped to California a carful of equipment outlawed in 1909, including roulette wheels, faro tables and chuck-a-luck games.

Photo from Wikimedia Commons: “Boule-Kessel” by Pierre Poquet

Selig Zoo archway

1938

Gambler Tony Cornero Stralla offered to donate a day’s worth of revenue from his Southern California casino boat, the Rex, to Zoo Park at 3800 Mission Road in Los Angeles.

The attraction, then owned/operated by the California Zoological Society and formerly the Selig Zoo, was teetering on bankruptcy and its animals were facing starvation.

However, the group refused Cornero Stralla’s offer on the grounds it was “inadvisable to mix gambling with pennies contributed by school children” (Nevada State Journal, Oct. 14, 1938). Indeed, youths were donating what they could to save the zoo.

Photo from Wikimedia Commons/University of California—Los Angeles Library, Los Angeles Times photographic archive

Chico Marx, c. 1930

1937

A $2,000 check signed “Chico Marx” (about $34,600 today) was found in the pocket of Los Angeles gambler/bookmaker George “Les” Bruneman upon his murder carried out by a couple of Southern California Mafia hitmen.

About Bruneman’s death, Marx — a fan of betting on card games, sports and horse and dog racing — joked that perhaps he’d done himself in after discovering the check wasn’t cashable due to insufficient funds.

Charles E. Sebastian

1913

As what the Los Angeles Times called the “the first sally in the greatest campaign that has ever been waged for the elimination of gambling” (April 7, 1913), Los Angeles Chief of Police Charles E. Sebastian offered a $100 reward ($2,500 today) for information that led to the arrest and conviction of anyone operating an illegal casino in the city.

One existing operation in particular was being run in a prominent hotel and another in a well-known office building, both downtown. Officers had had difficulty procuring evidence to convict the proprietors of these enterprises because entry solely was by introduction.

1950

In late 1948, Hollywood movie producer, Frank N. Seltzer — known for the movies, Jungle Patrol and Let’s Live Again, which debuted that same year — began research for his next project, 711 Ocean Drive, starring Edmond O’Brien and Joanne Dru.

He intended for it to expose the “bookie racket,” or “wire service as a new industry for the hoodlums who lost out through repeal” of Prohibition,” he said (Nevada State Journal, June 15, 1950).

He planned to film in a handful of California and Nevada cities. However, Lieutenant William “Bill” Burns, with the Los Angeles Police Department, warned Seltzer he was “walking into a bear trap” in Las Vegas.

In 1949, after the script was ready, someone from the public relations firm that represented the City of Las Vegas told Seltzer they could make available famous hotel-casinos on the Strip for filming. A separate hotel owner directly offered his property for the Sin City sequences. Further, a city councilman and Chamber of Commerce member assured the producer they’d cooperate fully with production.

Obstruction, Harassment Begin

Two months later, however, when production manager, Orville Fouse, went to Las Vegas, the hotel-casino owner who had offered his property for filming asked him to his office, where there were three “bruisers leaning against the wall,” Seltzer described. The hotelier told Fouse the trio believed making the movie would be “harmful to the best interests of the city.” The PR company also reneged. Seltzer’s cameramen were denied a rental car and city airport facility services and told to return to Los Angeles where they belonged.

A false rumor that Seltzer was working on a biopic of the late mobster, Benjamin “Bugsy” Siegel, spread around Sin City. The bogus story that Seltzer was filming for a story about mobster Mickey Cohen was perpetrated in Palm Springs.

“We are going to stop you in any way we can,” Las Vegas gamblers made clear to Seltzer.

“Frank didn’t realize what danger was in this flicker until some mobsters from Las Vegas threatened

to run him out of town — loaded with lead — when we went there on location,” O’Brien said (Lubbock Morning Avalanche, Aug. 17, 1950).

At that point, LAPD’s Burns assigned himself and four of his Gangster Squad men to escort Seltzer and the cast throughout filming.

Despite the warnings and obstructionism, Seltzer moved forward with his cinematic project as best he could. He and his production team were prevented from filming in Vegas, at Lake Mead and a well-known Los Angeles restaurant. He was nearly stopped from shooting in Palm Springs.

When attempts were made to block them from shooting scenes near Boulder Dam, Seltzer had his attorneys ask the Secretary of the Interior, Oscar L. Chapman, to intervene, which he did. Consequently, U.S. forest rangers were assigned to the crew, and filming took place but allegedly remained fraught with danger.

For instance, O’Brien, the movie’s leading man, recalled what really happened during the final sequence when his character, Eddie, was supposed to be shot with blanks by 20 riflemen during a chase through Boulder Dam, “After the take, I turned around and there were three bullet holes in a car windshield — about a foot from my head” (Lubbock Morning Avalanche, Aug. 17, 1950). “The cops cleared out all spectators including a few hoods in their midst. We had to do that scene over three more times — and, believe me, I ‘died’ each time.”

The International News Service reported, “As police know, 711 was in constant danger from hoodlums and was protected by a battery of police and plainclothesmen … 711 almost cost the lives of a few persons connected with it, including O’Brien’s.”

Seltzer presumed the gamblers’ main objection to his picture was that it revealed how past posting — faking odds and placing bets after races occurred — could beat the bookies.

Reactions Upon Movie Debut

Upon 711 Ocean Drive’s 1950 release, some critics claimed it fell short of being a hard-hitting, revelatory movie about the gambling industry. Instead, they said, it was a modest melodrama at best, “no more than an average crime picture with some colorful but vague details thrown in,” reported the Los Angeles Times (July 20, 1950).

Others lauded it for being the first to portray “the inside story of the infamous syndicate and its hoodlum empire, with its terror and violence,” and “forcefully reveal[ing] the many facets of the bookmaking business which takes millions of dollars daily from thousands of small bettors: housewives, mechanics, office workers, students,” according to Utah’s Salt Lake Tribune (July 31, 1950).

Sources

1886

In fall 1886, Officer John L. Fonck confronted one of his superiors face to face. He charged Chief of Police J.W. Davis with “standing in with the gamblers,” in other words, allowing them to operate their illegal casinos unfettered (Los Angeles Times, Dec. 8, 1886). California had banned gaming 26 years earlier.

In response, Davis suspended him for insubordination. When Fonck subsequently asked the police commissioners to reinstate him, they fired him instead.

The unemployed officer then took his allegations against Davis to the Los Angeles Times, which published them.

Chief Publicly Outed

Consequently, the Los Angeles City Council members held a special meeting to investigate. During this proceeding in which attorneys were disallowed, Fonck presented a case, gave a statement and questioned witnesses.

He depicted a scenario in which Davis:

• Accepted protection money from local, Chinese gamblers
• Tipped off those individuals about upcoming raids
• Obstructed, in other ways, officers’ efforts to close gambling dens

Soon after Davis took office, in December 1885, Captain of Police C.A. Ketlar told Fonck that he (Ketlar) and Chief Davis “let them play and pay,” referring to the Chinese gamblers, and that everyone could benefit from the arrangement. The next day, Davis informed Fonck he only objected to non-Chinese people playing games of chance. Other times, various gambling club owners scoffed at Fonck’s power because the chief was “with them” (Los Angeles Herald, Nov, 14, 1886).

Fonck detailed several other situations and circumstances to prove that Davis knew gambling was happening and where. For instance, one of the chief’s rules was that no officer could raid any casino without his prior consent.

The Blue Wall Vanishes

Testimony against Fonck included:

• Ketlar charging the officer had tried to corrupt Ketlar and the chief
• A former chief saying he’d suspended him in the past for unruliness
• A second ex-chief admitting he didn’t like him as an officer

Davis , when questioned, denied all accusations and often answered he didn’t recall specific conversations and instances between him and Fonck.

“These witnesses made a sorry failure of their attempt to break down Fonck’s character. It was a noticeable feature throughout the investigation that not one of the witnesses against him could look, or tried to look, the honest old Dutchman in the eye,” reported the Los Angeles Times (Dec. 8, 1886).

The Smoking Affidavit

In early December, the Times published a statement it had held for three weeks, until after the city election. In it, fellow police officer Herbert Benedict swore to interactions with Davis that depicted his true character. Benedict came forward, not because he and Fonck were close but because he viewed him as a solid officer and believed Fonck’s job loss and Davis’ vindication had been unjust.

Benedict explained Davis had used him as a middleman to communicate with Fonck. Davis had instructed Benedict to tell Fonck that Davis would reimburse all of his lost salary since his firing if Fonck would drop the charges against him. When Fonck had refused, Davis had had Benedict try again, that time offering $100 and the promise of $200 more if Fonck would “make the evidence as light as possible” (Los Angeles Times, Dec. 8, 1886).

When council members subsequently asked Davis about the $300 bribe, he tried to explain it away by telling a convoluted story involving former chiefs and their wrongdoings.

Weak, Not Depraved

The next day, Davis resigned.

“My reasons are that I am unjustly accused or blamed for an act of mine which was done without any willful or malicious motive, and solely to benefit another person; but circumstances are such that I am without witnesses to demonstrate the truth of my assertion, and I therefore prefer to resign at, once, though perfectly conscious in my own mind, that I am innocent of any wrong, illegal or improper act, were the whole facts known,” he said (Los Angeles Herald, Dec. 9, 1886).

Subsequently, no one pursued holding him accountable for his alleged misconduct.

“Chief Davis’ troubles have arisen, it is believed, rather from weakness than from innate depravity, and there was no disposition to hound him down,” noted the Los Angeles Times (Dec. 9, 1886).

The council chose Ketlar to step in as chief until it voted in someone new.

As for Fonck, as opined in the same article, “The events of yesterday, however, vindicated his position, and palpable justice demands that he be reinstated, with pay for the time he has lost. That is a proposition which admits of no argument.”

Sources

Photo from Wikimedia Commons

1936

A thief took the trouble of entering a Los Angeles, California café through a skylight to rob the slot and marble games. But instead of getting the heck out after that was successful, he stayed and played the machines.

Unknowingly, their noise alerted a watchman, and the “victim of his own sporting instincts” was arrested and jailed (Nevada State Journal, December 3, 1936).

Photo from Pond5: “Hourglass Set on Gray Background” by Chones

1948

Mickey Cohen (né Meyer Harris Cohen) — violent Los Angeles, California mobster and gambling kingpin with ties to Benjamin “Bugsy” Siegel and the Flamingo in Las Vegas, Nevada — suffered from obsessive compulsive disorder that led to him washing his hands 50 to 60 times a day.

In fact, the ritual saved his life in 1948. After shaking hands with stickup man, Jimmy “The Weasel” Fratianno, who was on his way out of Cohen’s menswear shop called Michael’s Haberdashery, Cohen immediately went to the restroom in the back to wash his hands.

Fratianno signaled the assassin team, headed by his best friend, Michael “The Bomp” Bompensiero, which stormed and shot up the store but failed to hit Cohen who was nowhere in sight.

Grave markers at San Quentin State Prison

1915-1935

James “Jimmy” Sidney Rogan, an active student and football player, was well liked by the principal of his high school in Tonopah, a mining boom town halfway between Las Vegas and Reno. In 1915, when the available ore in the town dubbed Queen of the Silver Camps was believed to be petering out and numerous residents, therefore, moved to the next hot spot, Rogan quit school in his junior year but wouldn’t tell Principal Chauncey Smith why. Smith encouraged him to stick with his education, to no avail. Rogan went on to work as a Southern Pacific brakeman running out of Sparks, then as a taxi driver in Reno.

In 1924, when in his mid-20s, Rogan got in a brawl in public in Reno, which led to a disturbing the peace charge. A judge fined him $20 ($475 today).

The next year, also in The Biggest Little City, Rogan and a friend, Bobby Gray, a Reno prizefighter, beat and robbed a miner of $80 and his shirt. When police questioned Rogan, he confessed and returned the money to his victim, who declined to press charges. The same judge, before whom Rogan had appeared in the past, gave him roughly 12 hours to get out of town. He did and found work as a seaman. (Gray was released and admonished to choose better associates.)

In Deeper Trouble

In 1932, Rogan, “the debonair adventurer,” and known San Francisco gangster, Rollie D. McAllister, lost $100 ($1,700 today) in the early morning hours while gambling in a speakeasy in Los Angeles’ exclusive Westlake neighborhood (Nevada State Journal, Oct. 14, 1933).

Around 5 a.m., they returned via taxicab after having decided they’d been cheated out of their money. Brandishing guns, they tried forcing the club’s owners, Harvey Crosby and Ben Harris, to return it. Also inside were Deputy Sheriff Rudolph Vejar, 36, who was investigating vice conditions, a bartender and a dealer.

McAllister forced the proprietors to remove their shoes and lie down on the floor while Rogan kept the other people there on the opposite side of the room covered with two pistols. Finding only $68 in the owners’ pockets, McAllister ordered Vejar to remove his shoes and lie down with Crosby and Harris. McAllister began burning Crosby’s bare feet with lit matches to get him to disclose where the cash was hidden.

Suddenly Vejar drew his pistol and shot Rogan in the leg. The former Renoite returned fire, a bullet hitting Vejar in the mouth then penetrating his neck and spine. Vejar emptied his firearm at McAllister, mortally wounding him. Rogan peppered the room with gunshot as he backed out of the establishment. He then took the waiting cab away from the scene and asked to be let out at Washington Boulevard.

Vejar died in the hospital the next day. Rogan went on the lam.

Eleven months later, police found the “underworld character,” as he was described, in San Francisco, where he was visiting his mother before his planned exit from the United States (Nevada State Journal, Dec. 16, 1933). They arrested and extradited him to Los Angeles.

In late 1933, Rogan was tried on robbery and murder charges. During the court proceedings, he insisted that he was innocent in that McAllister had killed Vejar. The jury, after six hours of deliberation, however, found Rogan guilty on both counts.

The judge sentenced him to death on the gallows. In the meantime, he was to remain behind bars at San Quentin State Prison.

Attempts At A Reversal

The Supreme Court of California heard the case on appeal and upheld the conviction and death sentence.

Rogan’s mother and one of his sisters implored California Governor Frank Merriam to commute Jimmy’s death sentence. Five of the jurors who’d found Rogan guilty previously signed a petition for clemency as did Nevada Senator Pat McCarran, a friend of Rogan’s father.

In early February 1935, Rogan wrote a letter to Smith, his former principal/football coach/math instructor, telling him he was sorry for never following his advice way back when. He revealed why he’d dropped out of high school: he hadn’t made the basketball team while younger classmen had.

“In case the worst happens I certainly wanted you to know that I appreciate the things and the efforts on your part to assist me in every way,” Rogan wrote Smith (Reno Evening Gazette, Feb. 13, 1935).

On Feb. 8, 1935, the 32 year old was hanged at 10:04 a.m. Eleven minutes later, the prison physician pronounced him dead. To the end, Jimmy had maintained his innocence.

Sources

Photo from the Los Angeles Times: by Rick Meyer