Scan barcode
emenendez1's review
3.0
Liked the book, didn't love it. I think the structure was a bit off. I felt it was a bit boring, it dragged on. It was an interesting story, but not my favorite.
bookishblond's review against another edition
2.0
This is not a very good "true crime" book, and it is an even worse "serial killer" book. The author is incapable of sticking to the story of Marcel Petiot.
citizen_noir's review
2.0
On its surface this book has it all - a serial killer who operates in the fog of Nazi occupied Paris during WWII, gruesomely murdering scores of people hoping to flee France and escape to Argentina, or perhaps they’re scores of Germans and French collaborators who helped the Nazis and deserved to die, but scores of people nonetheless.
The problem is that from the beginning we know the perpetrator and his crimes - the only question is whether these are crimes of justice or ones of depravity. The lack of mystery turned this book into an unexpected slog for me. Woulda, coulda, shoulda been great, but isn’t.
The problem is that from the beginning we know the perpetrator and his crimes - the only question is whether these are crimes of justice or ones of depravity. The lack of mystery turned this book into an unexpected slog for me. Woulda, coulda, shoulda been great, but isn’t.
mnboyer's review
3.0
This book discusses French serial killer Marcel Petiot. He was a known doctor who, during the Nazi Occupation of France in World War II, became a serial killer. Similar to America's H. H. Holmes, Petiot constructed a "murder house" where he lured victims, killed them, and then he took their personal belongings.
What becomes confusing is his motivation. Some say he was working for the French Gestapo. Others claim that he was working with the French Resistance. It is possible, of course, that he was working on both sides. But what we know for certain: he killed (or was involved in killing) at least 50 people. And again, it gets confusing because he killed all types of people: men, women, children, elderly people, Jewish individuals, Germans, Resistance fighters, and some thuggish criminals.
You leave this book with a lot of questions. Did Petiot work for either the Resistance or the Gestapo? Unclear, although some information on the internet suggests he was mentioned in Resistance correspondence. Why did he kill these people? Was it simply for profit, or were these individuals actually targeted for a specific reason. The book does lean toward the simple explanation: They wanted out of the country and Petiot pretended he could help them, lured them in, and killed them after getting money for them, and then he got to keep items they had with them. The simplest explanation is the most-widely believed. At one point you'll be very confused because he is taken in by the Gestapo and interrogated, then later released, so... what does this mean? How did he manage to kill all of these gangsters? More importantly... why do French gangsters get 3+ nicknames per person? (Sigh, the French never do anything simple when they can complicate it)
The book jacket promises that the author had access to *all* of the previously sealed case materials and, considering this was a big brag, I felt that there were still a lot of missing elements. I don't necessarily blame King because he was working with what he had. He does try to shine a light on what is "fact" and what is "assumed" because that can get tricky with this case, but there are still lots of moments of confusion.
Sometimes, you'll be reading about bodies that have been cut into pieces and--suddenly--the next thing you know you're learning about what Picasso was up to at that exact same moment. Or Camus. And while some of that is interesting I felt like it was misplaced, disjointed, and took away from the serial killer book I'd been promised. Unless Picasso knows some of the answers to my above questions (which I'm sure he didn't) then I'll read about him in something else.
There are indeed parts where I felt it began to get a little slow. Most of these areas were the ones where suddenly Picasso (or some random third-party individual not really significant to the case by the end of the story) showed up. These moments where things began to get slow, coupled with random historical information that didn't necessarily help build the case against Petiot, and the fact that there are a lot of unanswered questions irked me a little as a reader. Not saying that this book isn't worth a read, but if you like 'clear cut solved cases' by the end of a book... this may not be for you.
Petiot is definitely an odd fellow and believe me, the crime scene is graphic and grotesque. If you like serial killers that dismember bodies, you'll want to read this.
What becomes confusing is his motivation. Some say he was working for the French Gestapo. Others claim that he was working with the French Resistance. It is possible, of course, that he was working on both sides. But what we know for certain: he killed (or was involved in killing) at least 50 people. And again, it gets confusing because he killed all types of people: men, women, children, elderly people, Jewish individuals, Germans, Resistance fighters, and some thuggish criminals.
You leave this book with a lot of questions. Did Petiot work for either the Resistance or the Gestapo? Unclear, although some information on the internet suggests he was mentioned in Resistance correspondence. Why did he kill these people? Was it simply for profit, or were these individuals actually targeted for a specific reason. The book does lean toward the simple explanation: They wanted out of the country and Petiot pretended he could help them, lured them in, and killed them after getting money for them, and then he got to keep items they had with them. The simplest explanation is the most-widely believed. At one point you'll be very confused because he is taken in by the Gestapo and interrogated, then later released, so... what does this mean? How did he manage to kill all of these gangsters? More importantly... why do French gangsters get 3+ nicknames per person? (Sigh, the French never do anything simple when they can complicate it)
The book jacket promises that the author had access to *all* of the previously sealed case materials and, considering this was a big brag, I felt that there were still a lot of missing elements. I don't necessarily blame King because he was working with what he had. He does try to shine a light on what is "fact" and what is "assumed" because that can get tricky with this case, but there are still lots of moments of confusion.
Sometimes, you'll be reading about bodies that have been cut into pieces and--suddenly--the next thing you know you're learning about what Picasso was up to at that exact same moment. Or Camus. And while some of that is interesting I felt like it was misplaced, disjointed, and took away from the serial killer book I'd been promised. Unless Picasso knows some of the answers to my above questions (which I'm sure he didn't) then I'll read about him in something else.
There are indeed parts where I felt it began to get a little slow. Most of these areas were the ones where suddenly Picasso (or some random third-party individual not really significant to the case by the end of the story) showed up. These moments where things began to get slow, coupled with random historical information that didn't necessarily help build the case against Petiot, and the fact that there are a lot of unanswered questions irked me a little as a reader. Not saying that this book isn't worth a read, but if you like 'clear cut solved cases' by the end of a book... this may not be for you.
Petiot is definitely an odd fellow and believe me, the crime scene is graphic and grotesque. If you like serial killers that dismember bodies, you'll want to read this.
cpalisa's review
3.0
I thought I would love this book, I love books about wartime Europe, especially Paris, and when I realized it was non-fiction and was supposedly similar to Erik Larsen's books (which I love!) I thought it would be a winner. The story was definitely interesting but there were so many characters that I couldn't keep track of them. I'm not sure how that could be fixed...I suppose if you need them in the book it can't be helped, but I had a really hard time remembering who was who. Sometimes I would go back and try to figure out who they were talking about but other times I just moved on, albeit a bit confused. By the end of it I just wanted to be done with it. The story itself was pretty intriguing (and shocking) but I didn't love the book.
andreashibly's review
3.0
Another historical serial killer. Very well researched, but not a very satisfying story. A lot of speculation left about the exact whys and hows of the case and the trial part of the book drags. I would have been more interested in reading more about life in Nazi occupied Paris.