What do you think?
Rate this book
Murder in the Metro: Laetitia Toureaux and the Cagoule in 1930s France
On the evening of May 16, 1937, the train doors opened at the Porte Dorée station in the Paris Métro to reveal a dying woman slumped by a window, an eight-inch stiletto buried to its hilt in her neck. No one witnessed the crime, and the killer left behind little forensic evidence. This first-ever murder in the Paris Métro dominated the headlines for weeks during the summer of 1937, as journalists and the police slowly uncovered the shocking truth about the victim: a twenty-nine-year-old Italian immigrant, the beautiful and elusive Laetitia Toureaux. Toureaux toiled each day in a factory, but spent her nights working as a spy in the seamy Parisian underworld. Just as the dangerous spy Mata Hari fascinated Parisians of an earlier generation, the mystery of Toureaux's murder held the French public spellbound in pre-war Paris, as the police tried and failed to identify her assassin. In Murder in the Métro, Gayle K. Brunelle and Annette Finley-Croswhite unravel Toureaux's complicated and mysterious life, assessing her complex identity within the larger political context of the time. They follow the trail of Toureaux's murder investigation to the Comité Secret d'Action Révolutionnaire, a secret right-wing political organization popularly known as the Cagoule, or "hooded ones." Obsessed with the Communist threat they perceived in the growing power of labor unions and the French left wing, the Cagoule's leaders aimed to overthrow France's Third Republic and install an authoritarian regime allied with Italy. With Mussolini as their ally and Italian fascism as their model, they did not shrink from committing violent crimes and fomenting terror to accomplish their goal. In 1936, Toureaux -- at the behest of the French police -- infiltrated this dangerous group of terrorists and seduced one of its leaders, Gabriel Jeantet, to gain more information. This operation, the authors show, eventually cost Toureaux her life. The tale of Laetitia Toureaux epitomizes the turbulence of 1930s France, as the country prepared for a war most people dreaded but assumed would come. This period, therefore, generated great anxiety but also offered new opportunities -- and risks -- to Toureaux as she embraced the identity of a "modern" woman. The authors unravel her murder as they detail her story and that of the Cagoule, within the popular culture and conflicted politics of 1930s France. By examining documents related to Toureaux's murder -- documents the French government has sealed from public view until 2038 -- Brunelle and Finley-Croswhite link Toureaux's death not only to the Cagoule but also to the Italian secret service, for whom she acted as an informant. Their research provides likely answers to the question of the identity of Toureaux's murderer and offers a fascinating look at the dark and dangerous streets of pre--World War II Paris.
266 pages, Hardcover
First published May 1, 2010
3 people are currently reading
70 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 10 of 10 reviews
August 30, 2010
After completing Chapter 1 and 2 of this non-fiction page-turner I had that familiar feeling that comes with reading certain brilliantly entertaining books. The story was intriguing, the setting was fascinating, the story-telling was comfortable and non-self-conscious. It had me submerged in a foreign land and a distant past. I was hooked. So as I turned the page to chapter 3 I was already settled in and prepared to be thoroughly entertained some more. But that didn’t happen. Instead of continuing at the engaging clip that the book had been galloping at in unfolding this mystery, there was an abrupt about face. All the sudden there seemed to be an agenda behind the book, it became bogged down in scholarly gobbley-gook, it took on judgmental tone, politicized and stiff. As a reader you know you are in trouble when you read “In this chapter, we begin the…” For Christ’s sake! Is there any single prepositional phrase in the written language that is more frickin’ boring than that? That was my first red flag and I immediately got that sinking feeling that comes with the disappointment of having high hopes dashed. My high hopes for this book started the moment that I spied Murder In The Metro on the New Releases shelf at my local library. I was impressed with the subtle genius of the graphic design of the front cover (pictured above). Then, flipping to the back cover, I noticed that the book was written by two authors. The photograph showed the two woman who co-wrote the book, seemingly sitting beside each other on a park bench. The woman on the left looked relaxed, down to earth and happy, possibly even having armpit hair. She seemed like someone that I would get along with, someone I would be interested in what she had to say. The other woman I wasn’t so sure about, there was nothing that struck me one way or the other about her, but as I sank a few paragraphs into Chapter 3 I felt certain that this chapter had been written by the woman on the right, Annette Finley-Croswhite (even the name sounds like it has an agenda). Finley-Croswhite’s biases immediately start littering the paragraphs of Chapter 3 that the book becomes unreadable. By paragraph two she is blathering on about the term “bourgeois” as it is used by historians, by paragraph three she is on about “male journalistic anxieties about the newly asserted young women of the interwar period” and male journalists whose “speculations increasingly reflected their fears of modern sexual mores, their erotic fanasies”. Again, are you frickin kidding me??? Three paragraphs into the chapter and this “historian” is claiming to know the inter mental workings of long dead French journalists who I imagine she’s never met??? These over-generalizations combined with the disappointment of having a savory reading experience suddenly ripped away from me was too much. I decided that I had to contact these writers, if for no other reason that to find out which one wrote this chapter and which one wrote chapter one and two.
----
***UPDATE***
This afternoon I came home from work, opened my email and found a response to my critical review of Murder In the Metro by none other than Annette Finley-Croswhite, the co-author who I was ripping on. She was very polite about explaining some of the criticism of her book. Here is what she had to say:
Both authors are equal co-authors in every sense of the word. Chapter 2 or 3 that you take issue with was written in a side-by-side manner and edited thoroughly by both authors. "Murder in the Métro" was meant to be a cross-over book, academic, but one general readers could enjoy. The book was written by two university professors, who also love to write. That said, it was published by a University Press, Louisiana State University Press. As a result, it was also written for scholars. Academic presses make certain requirements and use outside readers to review books to accept or reject for publication. Compromises occur between writer(s) and reviewers. In this case, both one outside reviewer and one editor at LSU required a discussion of the word "bourgeois." It was NOT our choice to make that inclusion, but one that was deemed necessary by two different authorities. It was part of the "negotiation" process that went on before a final contract for publication was issued. Writing a "cross-over" book isn't easy. This one went through many versions to smooth out the language. We tried to make it fun, but that is clear in some places more than others. Hopefully, you enjoyed the later chapters that are written more like chapter one. The point is that as a "cross-over" work it contains elements of both an academic text and a more popular book. Just like a piece of music in a "cross-over" situation, a variety of motifs are used. The "hook" is "popular," but the substance is, afterall, academic and based on twelve years of very hard work, much of it spent in archives digging in old documents. And "Murder" wasn't published by a popular trade press, but an academic one.
As for my name, I'm sorry you take issue. It was an accident of birth, reconfigured at marriage to please my father, who very much wanted me to take my husband's name. As a name it is cumbersome, I'll give you that, but the choice was made at a more innocent time of my life when I felt it was important to appease a father I dearly loved with a bow to his old-time values. I'm sure, secretly, my choice pleased my husband as well. Additionally, I enjoy a linguistic connection with the name my sons carry, their father's surname while retaining the link to my birth name and heredity.
With regard to my co-author, Dr. Brunelle is a very elegant woman, and perhaps, the smartest person I have ever met. She also has a great sense of humor. But alas, neither one nor the other author is solely responsible for any chapter of the book.
I hope I've answered your questions. We are working now on a biography of Eugène Deloncle, the founder of the Cagoule, that we hope to market to a trade press in a popular style--without much of that academic verbiage you disdain. We also continue to produce academic scholarship as university professionals.
posted by AnnetteFinley at 6:49 am (EST) on Jul 18, 2010
First of all impressed by the fact that Annette Finley took the time to respond to me. And her good humour seems to indicate that she has thick enough skin to take my two cents worth for what it is. She also educated me on the process of writing her book and how that process was partially responsible for the criticisms I had of it. Still though, I stand by my review. I can't stand that scholarly hoity-toity crap. I would have liked to seen the two authors blend the scholarly stuff into the narative in such away that it wasnt so jarring. I think if it were my book and I had put so much into it and some outside "authorities" insisted that I had to include something, I would have told these "authorities" exactly where they could go shove it. In my opinion, the suggestions of the "authorities" nearly ruined a potentially great read--and that is just a sin!
----
***UPDATE***
This afternoon I came home from work, opened my email and found a response to my critical review of Murder In the Metro by none other than Annette Finley-Croswhite, the co-author who I was ripping on. She was very polite about explaining some of the criticism of her book. Here is what she had to say:
Both authors are equal co-authors in every sense of the word. Chapter 2 or 3 that you take issue with was written in a side-by-side manner and edited thoroughly by both authors. "Murder in the Métro" was meant to be a cross-over book, academic, but one general readers could enjoy. The book was written by two university professors, who also love to write. That said, it was published by a University Press, Louisiana State University Press. As a result, it was also written for scholars. Academic presses make certain requirements and use outside readers to review books to accept or reject for publication. Compromises occur between writer(s) and reviewers. In this case, both one outside reviewer and one editor at LSU required a discussion of the word "bourgeois." It was NOT our choice to make that inclusion, but one that was deemed necessary by two different authorities. It was part of the "negotiation" process that went on before a final contract for publication was issued. Writing a "cross-over" book isn't easy. This one went through many versions to smooth out the language. We tried to make it fun, but that is clear in some places more than others. Hopefully, you enjoyed the later chapters that are written more like chapter one. The point is that as a "cross-over" work it contains elements of both an academic text and a more popular book. Just like a piece of music in a "cross-over" situation, a variety of motifs are used. The "hook" is "popular," but the substance is, afterall, academic and based on twelve years of very hard work, much of it spent in archives digging in old documents. And "Murder" wasn't published by a popular trade press, but an academic one.
As for my name, I'm sorry you take issue. It was an accident of birth, reconfigured at marriage to please my father, who very much wanted me to take my husband's name. As a name it is cumbersome, I'll give you that, but the choice was made at a more innocent time of my life when I felt it was important to appease a father I dearly loved with a bow to his old-time values. I'm sure, secretly, my choice pleased my husband as well. Additionally, I enjoy a linguistic connection with the name my sons carry, their father's surname while retaining the link to my birth name and heredity.
With regard to my co-author, Dr. Brunelle is a very elegant woman, and perhaps, the smartest person I have ever met. She also has a great sense of humor. But alas, neither one nor the other author is solely responsible for any chapter of the book.
I hope I've answered your questions. We are working now on a biography of Eugène Deloncle, the founder of the Cagoule, that we hope to market to a trade press in a popular style--without much of that academic verbiage you disdain. We also continue to produce academic scholarship as university professionals.
posted by AnnetteFinley at 6:49 am (EST) on Jul 18, 2010
First of all impressed by the fact that Annette Finley took the time to respond to me. And her good humour seems to indicate that she has thick enough skin to take my two cents worth for what it is. She also educated me on the process of writing her book and how that process was partially responsible for the criticisms I had of it. Still though, I stand by my review. I can't stand that scholarly hoity-toity crap. I would have liked to seen the two authors blend the scholarly stuff into the narative in such away that it wasnt so jarring. I think if it were my book and I had put so much into it and some outside "authorities" insisted that I had to include something, I would have told these "authorities" exactly where they could go shove it. In my opinion, the suggestions of the "authorities" nearly ruined a potentially great read--and that is just a sin!
January 23, 2011
Poorly edited (several gender errors in the French names), dull and inconclusive. This is a very interesting story, but the book about it is still to be written,
November 14, 2024
You get an almost closed room murder, 1930s Paris, Italian intrigue, the self imposed amnesia of the politcally powerful (like Mitterand) and wealthy like L'Oreal...what's not to love about wandering around pre-war Paris watching a bunch of fascists and far right nationalists run amok.
May 9, 2018
A great bit of history that gets lost in the details. If you don’t read this book, you’ll never know this stuff.
Read
December 28, 2019 Several years ago I did some superficial research on the Toureaux homicide, thinking that a fictionalized version of the crime and surrounding circumstance would be a solid plotline for an Inspector Gambrelli mystery. Before abandoning the idea I had occasion to read what might be called an academic monograph on the subject, written by two American professors of history: Brunelle and Finley-Croswhite.
This is not a mystery novel. It is a slice of French history in the late 1930's, using the unsolved murder of Laetitia Toureaux as a starting point for a discussion of left, center and right wing organizations that swirled through the boulevards and backstreets of Paris.
Although the authors focus on the Cagoule many other organizations are mentioned and extensive notes are provided for anyone craving additional information. As for me: "No thanks, I'm full for now."
My initial interest in this crime was piqued by the rather circumspect way it was presented in Jean Belin's memoir "Secrets of the Surete."
If one takes as fact the relationships and associations the authors attach to the victim, it is easy to see how the murder was never "solved" and the investigation abandoned despite the notoriety of the crime.
This is not a mystery novel. It is a slice of French history in the late 1930's, using the unsolved murder of Laetitia Toureaux as a starting point for a discussion of left, center and right wing organizations that swirled through the boulevards and backstreets of Paris.
Although the authors focus on the Cagoule many other organizations are mentioned and extensive notes are provided for anyone craving additional information. As for me: "No thanks, I'm full for now."
My initial interest in this crime was piqued by the rather circumspect way it was presented in Jean Belin's memoir "Secrets of the Surete."
If one takes as fact the relationships and associations the authors attach to the victim, it is easy to see how the murder was never "solved" and the investigation abandoned despite the notoriety of the crime.
October 5, 2019
Just be aware that it is an academic book and it is written as such. Full review:
https://tylerwolanin.com/2019/10/2/wh...
https://tylerwolanin.com/2019/10/2/wh...
April 15, 2015
My two star review is meant to convey the "It was OK" rating. Two stars feels bad, but in this case I don't mean it to be. The book was on an interesting topic, and I definitely feel like I learned something, but it suffered from what I see as two weaknesses.
First, it's a little bit of false advertising. It's marketed like a book about Laetitia Toureaux, including (ostensibly) any relationship or interaction with or victimization by the Cagoule group of political activists/fascists/terrorists. But when you start the book, first you get a pretty scholarly introduction, then a couple of chapters introducing Laetitia Toureaux, placing her in the cultural context of an immigrant community in 1930s Paris, and then describing her murder. This is all top-notch. But then you get the next 2/3 of the book, which describes the political atmosphere in Europe after World War I and with the threat of World War II. We hear about the push/pull of socialism and communism versus fascism and the rising Nazi regime. We get a very enlightening exploration of the Spanish Civil War and why Russia got involved and Germany got involved and Italy got involved, but France and Great Britain stayed out of it. (At least officially.) We hear about the Cagoule. We hear a lot about the Cagoule. And it was interesting, but it takes until the final two chapters to have it tied back into Laetitia Toureaux and the authors' theory of how and why she was murdered, and by whom. It comes off slightly as a bait-and-switch.
Second, a big chunk of the book reads in a pretty scholarly or academic tone. I don't specifically have a problem with that, but I was reading this for myself, and a scholarly work presented for research is not all that fulfilling to leisure readers.
Luckily, I place a pretty high value on walking away feeling like I have greater understanding of something, and I definitely feel clearer on pre-war Europe. So I don't regret reading this, although it's not quite what I'd hoped.
First, it's a little bit of false advertising. It's marketed like a book about Laetitia Toureaux, including (ostensibly) any relationship or interaction with or victimization by the Cagoule group of political activists/fascists/terrorists. But when you start the book, first you get a pretty scholarly introduction, then a couple of chapters introducing Laetitia Toureaux, placing her in the cultural context of an immigrant community in 1930s Paris, and then describing her murder. This is all top-notch. But then you get the next 2/3 of the book, which describes the political atmosphere in Europe after World War I and with the threat of World War II. We hear about the push/pull of socialism and communism versus fascism and the rising Nazi regime. We get a very enlightening exploration of the Spanish Civil War and why Russia got involved and Germany got involved and Italy got involved, but France and Great Britain stayed out of it. (At least officially.) We hear about the Cagoule. We hear a lot about the Cagoule. And it was interesting, but it takes until the final two chapters to have it tied back into Laetitia Toureaux and the authors' theory of how and why she was murdered, and by whom. It comes off slightly as a bait-and-switch.
Second, a big chunk of the book reads in a pretty scholarly or academic tone. I don't specifically have a problem with that, but I was reading this for myself, and a scholarly work presented for research is not all that fulfilling to leisure readers.
Luckily, I place a pretty high value on walking away feeling like I have greater understanding of something, and I definitely feel clearer on pre-war Europe. So I don't regret reading this, although it's not quite what I'd hoped.
December 28, 2017
A fascinating academic study of a well known 'locked room' crime on the Paris Metro with in depth discussion on the political and social conditions surrounding the victim. Thoroughly enjoyed this book for its precision and incisive evaluation of the events leading to Yolande's death. A tendency to repeat some of the information did make a few sections redundant and prevents it being an outstanding book, but overall a very good resource whether from a crime, political or social science viewpoint.
February 11, 2012
A real life murder mystery, involving skullduggery and intrigue in pre-war France. Prof. Brunelle and Prof. Finley solve a "locked-room" mystery that has puzzled French authorities for over 70 years. A great read for those who love history and mystery!
October 3, 2013
A good source of reference
Displaying 1 - 10 of 10 reviews