by David King
Khaït’s son was shocked by the doctor’s proposal. Under no circumstances, he told her, should she be a party to such fraud. Madame Khaït, however, was eventually won over by Petiot’s apparent generosity and adamancy. After many years of helping her daughter, Khaït said that she would not stop now in this time of need. Petiot and Khaït went into another room. A few minutes later, the doctor left the apartment.
At some point that week, probably one or two days later, Khaït decided that she did not want to follow through with their plan and deliberately mislead authorities. Her son had rebuked her for her complicity, as had her husband David and her physician, Dr. Pierre Trocmé, who was appalled to learn about the behavior of his medical colleague. In fact, Trocmé refused to believe that a licensed doctor would give such advice. He urged Madame Khaït to report the matter to the police. If she refused, he would do so himself.
About seven o’clock in the evening of March 25, 1942, Madame Khaït left her apartment, telling her husband that she had to see Dr. Petiot and then stop by the office of her daughter’s lawyer. It would be a quick errand, she said. She did not state the purpose of the visit. Nor did she take any identification papers, ration cards, or even her purse. A large pot of water was boiling on the stove.
On the following morning, when she had still not returned home, an envelope containing two letters had been slipped under the door of Madame Khaït’s residence. One was for her husband David, a Jewish tailor, and the other for her son Fernand. Both were allegedly written by Marthe Khaït. Opening the envelope addressed to himself, David Khaït read with surprise:
Do not trouble yourself on my account. Do not say anything to anybody and above all, don’t go to the police. What I’m doing is in the interest of Raymonde. Dr. Petiot was right. It is better for the police to believe that I am a drug addict. I am not able to withstand an interrogation. I am going to escape to the Free Zone. You will definitely be able to come and join me by adopting the same means. Later, Raymonde will rejoin us.
Bizarrely, she then confessed to having taken drugs for years as a painkiller for a heart ailment. The letter to Fernand was similar. And both letters bore a striking resemblance to the letter in the Van Bever case, in everything from confession and explanation of the disappearance (which in both cases involved leaving abruptly without packing), to the method and timing of the letters’ delivery (which in both cases had the person signing his or her full legal name). Some experts would extend the similarities further, concluding that the handwriting appeared to be from the same person, though this would be disputed.
The handwriting actually seemed to be his wife’s, David Khaït acknowledged, and he eventually concluded that she had in fact written the letters. He also thought that she had delivered them herself. The family dog, which always barked at the approach of a stranger, had not stirred. Even the stubborn latch on the door in the courtyard had posed no problem. Someone familiar with the building must have delivered the letters. Khaït also recalled his wife’s earlier frustrations about her daughter’s predicament and some conversations when she claimed that she had considered fleeing to the unoccupied zone for the duration of the trial. But at the same time, he knew, she was no drug addict.
Also that morning, two other letters were delivered to the home of Raymonde’s attorney, Maître Pierre Véron. Both of them—one to the attorney, the other to Raymonde—duplicated the information contained in the letters to her family. Three one-hundred-franc notes were enclosed for the attorney’s fee.
The maid, who received the letters, first said they had been delivered by Marthe Khaït. She was certain, she said, because she recognized the woman from previous visits. Later she changed her statement, claiming that the letters were delivered by someone who resembled Madame Khaït. As with the first two letters, the tone of these two was more formal than usual and devoid of the usual nicknames for members of Madame Khaït’s family. Handwriting experts again disagreed on the authenticity of the letters.
Why had Madame Khaït gone to Petiot anyway? Was it to report her decision not to participate in his fraudulent scheme? Was it to pick up the money to pay the attorney, as he had earlier promised, or was there yet some other, unknown reason?
Madame Khaït’s husband, David, uncertain how to proceed, listened to the pleas in the letters and refrained from approaching the police, which was only done by Fernand on May 7, 1942. David Khaït, being Jewish, had good reasons for avoiding contact with authorities and had first gone to Petiot, who claimed not to have seen his wife on the day she disappeared. He had not seen her, he added, since the day he visited her house after Raymonde’s arrest. “All that I know,” Petiot told him in his office, “is that she wanted to leave for the Free Zone.”
Petiot did say that he had earlier given her a contact in the unoccupied zone, should she want to flee. While David Khaït waited, Petiot grabbed a postcard, addressed it to “Monsieur Gaston,” Plagne, near Loupiac, Cantal, in southwest France, and scribbled the single line: “Have you seen the party I sent to you?” Petiot placed a stamp on the card and gave it to Khaït.
The following month, when David Khaït visited Petiot a second time, the doctor said he had not heard from his contact. On a third encounter, in Olmi’s office at the Palace of Justice in early May, Petiot said that he had just learned that his associate in the unoccupied zone had not seen Madame Khaït.
“You wretch! You criminal!” Khaït shouted. “It’s you who killed my wife!” He could read it in the physician’s eyes, he said. Petiot replied calmly that the man was crazy and needed to be locked up.
When questioned by the police, Petiot said he had no idea what happened to Marthe Khaït and denied that he had given her any injections. He also alleged that he had received a letter from Madame Khaït’s daughter, threatening to blackmail him if he did not say that the original prescriptions were genuine. The story of his injections, Petiot said, was simply the lie of a drug addict desperate to save her own skin.
Baudet was found guilty on July 15, 1942. Petiot was also fined and sentenced for drug trafficking, though his attorney, René Floriot, succeeded in January 1943 in having the fines of the Van Bever and Khaït cases combined for a total of 2,400 francs. Despite the verdict, many who worked on the case remained suspicious. Maître Véron, for one, urged Magistrate Olmi to charge Petiot with kidnapping or murder. He would later come to play an important role in the suspect’s life.
The police continued to look for Madame Khaït, under that name as well as several possible aliases suggested by her family, including her maiden name, Fortin, and variations of her earlier name by marriage, Lavie, such as Lavic, Laric, and Lepic. They never found her. So just three days after Van Bever vanished, another witness in a separate case against Dr. Petiot had disappeared.
The police eventually searched Petiot’s apartment on rue Caumartin, finding nothing whatsoever to implicate him in the disappearance of either person. They did, however, find a surprising number of jewels, linen, and other objects of value in an office drawer, which Petiot explained as “gifts of clients” who could not afford his fees. Almost apologetically, as the search failed to turn up any evidence of the missing persons, the presiding officer, Achille Olmi, turned to Petiot and said, “Rest assured, no one is accusing you of burning them in your stove.”
5.
“100,000 AUTOPSIES”
MY DEAR COMMISSAIRE, I DO NOT ENVY YOU INVESTIGATORS WHEN IT COMES TO PUTTING NAMES ON THIS DEBRIS.
—DR. Albert Paul
PARIS’S newspapers devoured the story of the monster in the elegant 16th arrondissement. Marcel Petiot was dubbed “The New Landru,” after the infamous French murderer who had been convicted in 1921 for killing eleven people, ten of them lovers. Le Petit Parisien chose that sobriquet for its two-inch-high headlines on Monday, March 13. L’Oeuvre used it that morning as well, reporting that some twenty-five or perhaps thirty women had been killed or “burned alive” in the charnel house. L’Oeuvre and its many rivals in the
capital competed in depicting the killer as a sadistic sex fiend who tortured women before he watched their “throes of agony” in his viewer and then mutilated their bodies.
Le Matin was also emphasizing the “demonic, erotic” nature of the crimes. All the bodies found at rue Le Sueur—that is, those that were not chopped up, burned, or caked with lime—were naked. When exactly had the killer removed the victim’s clothes? Was it before or after he latched them to the hooks of his padded cell? To complete the nightmare image, Le Matin was also reporting that Dr. Petiot would wear a frightening mask as he tortured and finished off his victims.
As the controlled French press covered the Petiot case for the home market, the official state-run German news agency DNB, Deutsches Nachrichtenbüro, broadcast the news internationally of the “charred and dismembered skeletons of 25 women” found on the physician’s property. Almost every night, its bulletins detailed how Petiot pedaled to the empty house near the Arc de Triomphe to conduct the grim business that filled his lime pit and produced the nauseating smoke that emanated from his chimney.
The DNB, like the Parisian press, sometimes reported that Georgette Petiot knew or participated in her husband’s activities; other times, she was presented as oblivious to his double life. Usually, however, the German-controlled press emphasized that Petiot preyed on women. The physician was described as leaving his wife at home as he arranged nightly rendezvous on rue Le Sueur. Neighbors looked away, disinclined to interfere with the physician’s presumably romantic liaisons.
The female visitors to his property—often assumed to be “shady ladies of the demi-monde”—sought packets of heroin, cocaine, or some other narcotic. What they received, however, was not “the white powders of forgetfulness, but death itself.” Petiot, with his hypodermic needle, was quickly deduced to have injected a poison into the veins of his victims. Whether it was a yet-to-be-identified substance, an overdose of some generic drug, or perhaps a concoction of his own invention was not clear.
Thanks to his connections, a German journalist for the DNB, Karl Schmidt, received one of the first tours of the triangular room. The butcher, he speculated, drugged his victim and then dragged her into the dark room, where she was tied up and suspended from the hooks on the back wall. The murderer projected two spotlights onto her face, watching the “human agony until the last convulsion.” The physician, using his medical skills, proceeded to inflict torture, presumably prolonging the pain as long as possible. He then dissected “the twisted corpse” and tossed it into the lime pit.
Massu, however, was far from ready to draw any conclusion. Known for his caution, the commissaire preferred to move slowly, building his case piece by piece and proceeding with as much certainty as possible, rather than rushing into a mistake. He was skeptical, particularly of evidence that seemed too clear or obvious. “You have often heard me say,” Massu said to Brigade Secretary Canitrot, “it is necessary to be suspicious of the so-called evidence.” When policemen make hasty conclusions based on “the evidence,” Massu believed, they often fall into a river of error, with potentially “catastrophic” results. The fundamental problem for a detective was how to interpret the evidence.
On one hand, Massu was relieved to receive unambiguous instructions from the Gestapo, hoping of course that it would mean that German authorities would not interfere with or obstruct his investigation. At the same time, there was another concern. The Gestapo rarely expressed immediate interest in a French criminal case. When they did, particularly when ordering an arrest, it was usually to catch a culprit whose crime consisted of little more than opposing the Nazi regime. Did this mean that the owner of the house at No. 21 rue Le Sueur possibly served the French Resistance?
The case was certainly perplexing. Unlike the case of the infamous French serial killer Henri Landru or the recent murder spree of Eugen Weidmann, it was not clear how exactly Petiot or the murderer had either killed or disposed of his victims. There was no sign of stabbing or physical blows, and there was no blood found on the bodies of the victims or in the basement. As the journalist Jacques Perry put it, there were many bodies, but no signs of a murder.
ON the morning of March 13, a saleswoman at the department store Grand Magasins du Printemps on Boulevard Haussmann contacted the police to tell her story. “I should have been killed this afternoon at three o’clock,” she said. Based on a referral from her pharmacist, she claimed to have consulted Petiot about a sore wrist on the afternoon of March 11. Petiot, she thought, looked more like a mason than a medical doctor, and his suit was supposedly stained with lime.
“A shiver ran down my spine,” she claimed, describing her unease as the physician, staring intensely at her, touched her wrist to examine it. “His black eyes,” she said, “bored into me with such impertinence that I thought he was mad.” Petiot allegedly X-rayed her hand, diagnosed a sprain, and told her that her delicate bones needed more calcium. He prescribed treatment. But as he did not have the necessary equipment at his office, he asked her to consult a “special clinic.” The address was 21 rue Le Sueur.
Although it was not easy to sift out the valuable pieces of information in the barrage of rumors and allegations already coming to his attention, Massu now had many leads. The chief priority, of course, was locating the physician. The obvious place to check was the forwarding address posted on the front door at rue Le Sueur: 18 rue des Lombards, Auxerre, just under one hundred miles to the southeast, in the central Burgundian region of Yonne. In addition, examining the note, Massu learned that there had originally been a different address—one that had been removed and then replaced, in a different handwriting. The original was 55 or 56 rue du Pont, Auxerre.
Massu asked one of his assistants to make the travel arrangements. Trains ran less regularly during the Occupation, only twice a week to Auxerre, and the next one did not leave for a few days. But Massu obviously did not want to wait. He called a friend in the garage of the préfecture de police and obtained car number 3313 and gasoline for his trip, which, in the strict rationing system, was not always an easy prospect even for the head of the Brigade Criminelle. The brigade secretary and two inspectors joined him. By six o’clock that morning, they were on the road.
Massu was still trying to figure out how the murderer selected his victims, lured them into the town house, and, as he imagined the terrifying scenario, pulled out a long syringe to deliver a deadly injection. The killer then chopped up the bodies, disposed of the internal organs, and dropped the remaining debris into the lime pit, which would further dehydrate the bodies and make them easier to burn. Massu’s hypothesis sounded, as he put it, as “horrible and icy as any story of Edgar Allan Poe.”
Massu needed to find out how and when the doctor obtained his lime, and who had helped him. Clearly the doctor—or whoever the murderer was—could not have killed so many people on his own. How, too, could he have escaped detection by his neighbors? Massu was nowhere near understanding the case, let alone finding the killer and the evidence to convict him. For the first time in his career, the commissaire was having trouble sleeping.
“Boss,” the secretary asked in the car, “is it true, as it’s said, that some engravings of the devil were found in the office at rue Caumartin?”
“Yes,” Massu said. “There was better than that, or worse, depending on your view.” The commissaire did not elaborate more than mentioning some “bestial and smutty drawings” found in Petiot’s office.
“Is the doctor a drug addict?” another inspector wondered, picking up on another rumor.
“It’s almost certain,” Massu answered, probably too hastily. Drugs were too easy an explanation for how a respectable physician by day could become a monster at night.
Before reaching Auxerre, the investigators stopped at Villeneuve-sur-Yonne, the town where Dr. Petiot had served as mayor. Chief Inspector Marius Battut and Inspector Rochereau went first to the murder suspect’s former home at 56 rue Carnot. The current occupant, another physician, told them that
he had lived there since July 1934. He had seen Dr. Petiot only once and had never had any dealings with him. The home owner, Battut summed up in his report, “did not want to provide any interesting information.”
The gendarmes at the Villeneuve-sur-Yonne police department, however, were more helpful. They told the officers of the Brigade Criminelle that Petiot suffered from a “very bad reputation.” During his term as mayor, he had been suspected of committing a number of thefts, including cans of oil and gasoline. One time, he was charged with stealing electricity by tampering with the meter attached to his property. What’s more, the brigade inspectors learned that another one of his suspected lovers had died in mysterious circumstances.
ON March 11, 1930, fourteen years to the day before the discovery at rue Le Sueur, Armand Debauve, the owner of a dairy cooperative outside Villeneuve-sur-Yonne, was having a drink at Frascot’s bistro. About eight o’clock that evening, a villager arrived with news that his dairy was on fire. Debauve rushed home to find his house in flames and his wife, firefighters informed him, sprawled out dead on the kitchen floor, her head covered in blood.
It did not take long for detectives to conclude that the fire had been intentionally set, and the victim, forty-five-year-old Henriette Debauve, had received a series of blows to her skull. The size of the wounds suggested that the weapon had been a hammer. Indeed, of the handful of objects missing from the property, one of them was a hammer.
Not long afterward, neighbors reported seeing Mayor Petiot drive by the ruined farmhouse with his wife. He had come, eyewitnesses first deduced, to express his condolences to the family of the victim. For an experienced doctor and veteran of the First World War, however, he seemed strangely uneasy, even nervous. Then, to further surprise, the mayor returned to his car and drove into the town of Sens to take his wife to the cinema.
