Read Online Death in the City of Light: The Serial Killer of Nazi-Occupied Paris by David King - Free Book Online
Authors: David King
Ads: Link
culprit was someone in or close to that family.
But then, on March 26, while Petiot’s case was still pending, an unknown man delivered two letters to the office of Jeannette Gaul’s public defender, Maître Françoise Pavie on Boulevard Saint-Germain. Both letters were purportedly written by Van Bever. The first one, addressed to his attorney, Maître Menard, informed him that his services were nolonger needed—an odd way to end a business relationship with an old family friend. The second letter, addressed to Jeannette Gaul, was even more peculiar.
“It is no longer necessary to tell any stories,” the writer began. He then claimed to be a drug addict who required one to four shots a day and admonished her to tell the truth. There was little here about Van Bever’s lover, but a great deal instead about his physician:
You know that Dr. Petiot examined me in the next room. The proof is that he saw the scabs of my hypos. If I made false statements, it was to get temporary freedom to make a new life for myself somewhere else. We will meet on your release to try to make a new life together, far from all filth. I kiss you warmly
.
The letter was signed “Jean Marc van Bever.”
Why would Van Bever go to the trouble of writing to his lover only to spend two-thirds of his letter confessing to an addiction that either he did not have or that, if he did, would not be news, and then proceed to make points that corroborated Petiot’s position? Why, too, in a letter to his lover, was he signing his full name? Van Bever’s attorney, for one, doubted that these letters were written by his client.
The police continued to search for Van Bever in bars, prisons, hospitals, asylums, morgues, and other likely places around the capital and surrounding country, without success. His trial with Petiot, meanwhile, came up, as scheduled, at the Tenth Police Court. Van Bever was pronounced guilty in absentia and sentenced to a year’s imprisonment with a fine of 10,000 francs. He was never found.
As for Jeannette Gaul, she received a fine of 2,400 francs and a sentence of six months in prison, though she would be released after serving only three months (in May 1942), counting from her arrest in February. She returned to the streets and her drug habit, even visiting Dr. Petiot again. She died three months later of tetanus, a complication from an unclean hypodermic needle.
Petiot argued that Van Bever’s disappearance—“he did not dare toshow up”—was proof of his own innocence. He was let off with a fine of 10,000 francs, which his lawyer, René Floriot, appealed and soon managed to reduce to 2,400 francs. Dr. Petiot had emerged from a potentially disastrous narcotics charge with his record untarnished.
A S the Van Bever–Gaul investigation was winding down, Petiot was implicated in a second narcotics case. The circumstances were similar. He was allegedly attempting to cure a patient, who had then tried to circumvent his treatment and gain more drugs by deception. But as the case emerged, there would be even more striking similarities.
The patient in the investigation was the twenty-eight-year-old Régine or Raymonde Baudet. In early 1942, when Petiot had prescribed Sonéryl, a mild sleeping pill, Baudet had attempted to replace the word “Sonéryl” with “14 vials of heroin.” The pharmacist on rue des Écoles was not fooled by the unsophisticated tactic. He notified the police. Baudet was taken into custody on March 16, 1942, her fourth arrest on drug charges, two of which had previously led to convictions.
Once again hauled into court for a drug case, Petiot freely admitted trying to cure Baudet of her addiction. He had written four prescriptions for heroin for her already under the name that she had given him, Raymonde Khaït, the last name borrowed from her stepfather. Petiot had refused, he further stated, to write any more prescriptions, offering instead a sedative.It was hardly his fault that his patient, in
But then, on March 26, while Petiot’s case was still pending, an unknown man delivered two letters to the office of Jeannette Gaul’s public defender, Maître Françoise Pavie on Boulevard Saint-Germain. Both letters were purportedly written by Van Bever. The first one, addressed to his attorney, Maître Menard, informed him that his services were nolonger needed—an odd way to end a business relationship with an old family friend. The second letter, addressed to Jeannette Gaul, was even more peculiar.
“It is no longer necessary to tell any stories,” the writer began. He then claimed to be a drug addict who required one to four shots a day and admonished her to tell the truth. There was little here about Van Bever’s lover, but a great deal instead about his physician:
You know that Dr. Petiot examined me in the next room. The proof is that he saw the scabs of my hypos. If I made false statements, it was to get temporary freedom to make a new life for myself somewhere else. We will meet on your release to try to make a new life together, far from all filth. I kiss you warmly
.
The letter was signed “Jean Marc van Bever.”
Why would Van Bever go to the trouble of writing to his lover only to spend two-thirds of his letter confessing to an addiction that either he did not have or that, if he did, would not be news, and then proceed to make points that corroborated Petiot’s position? Why, too, in a letter to his lover, was he signing his full name? Van Bever’s attorney, for one, doubted that these letters were written by his client.
The police continued to search for Van Bever in bars, prisons, hospitals, asylums, morgues, and other likely places around the capital and surrounding country, without success. His trial with Petiot, meanwhile, came up, as scheduled, at the Tenth Police Court. Van Bever was pronounced guilty in absentia and sentenced to a year’s imprisonment with a fine of 10,000 francs. He was never found.
As for Jeannette Gaul, she received a fine of 2,400 francs and a sentence of six months in prison, though she would be released after serving only three months (in May 1942), counting from her arrest in February. She returned to the streets and her drug habit, even visiting Dr. Petiot again. She died three months later of tetanus, a complication from an unclean hypodermic needle.
Petiot argued that Van Bever’s disappearance—“he did not dare toshow up”—was proof of his own innocence. He was let off with a fine of 10,000 francs, which his lawyer, René Floriot, appealed and soon managed to reduce to 2,400 francs. Dr. Petiot had emerged from a potentially disastrous narcotics charge with his record untarnished.
A S the Van Bever–Gaul investigation was winding down, Petiot was implicated in a second narcotics case. The circumstances were similar. He was allegedly attempting to cure a patient, who had then tried to circumvent his treatment and gain more drugs by deception. But as the case emerged, there would be even more striking similarities.
The patient in the investigation was the twenty-eight-year-old Régine or Raymonde Baudet. In early 1942, when Petiot had prescribed Sonéryl, a mild sleeping pill, Baudet had attempted to replace the word “Sonéryl” with “14 vials of heroin.” The pharmacist on rue des Écoles was not fooled by the unsophisticated tactic. He notified the police. Baudet was taken into custody on March 16, 1942, her fourth arrest on drug charges, two of which had previously led to convictions.
Once again hauled into court for a drug case, Petiot freely admitted trying to cure Baudet of her addiction. He had written four prescriptions for heroin for her already under the name that she had given him, Raymonde Khaït, the last name borrowed from her stepfather. Petiot had refused, he further stated, to write any more prescriptions, offering instead a sedative.It was hardly his fault that his patient, in
Similar Books
