Scan barcode
A review by mnboyer
Death in the City of Light: The Serial Killer of Nazi-Occupied Paris by David King
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.