I don’t know why the case of “The Two Maids” fascinates me, but it always has. It begins and ends with a mystery. On the evening of Thursday, February second, 1933, Monsieur Rene Lancine, a retired lawyer living outside of Le Mans, France, became concerned when his wife and eldest daughter, Genevieve, did not arrive at a friend’s house for a planned dinner party. He had not seen them since morning but he knew they were both looking forward to the dinner, and when they failed to arrive he anxiously returned home
He found all the doors of his home locked and the house dark- except for what looked like a single candle burning in the attic room where two servant girls slept. M. Lancine was concerned enough that he immediately went to the police station. Several officers accompanied M. Lancine home again, and one officer climbed over the back wall of the house and thus gained entrance. In side, on the landing half way up the main staircase, were the battered and mutilated bodies of Madam and Mademoiselle Lancine, still wearing their coats and gloves. The murder weapons were scattered about the landing, dropped from the hands that had wielded them; a kitchen knife, a hammer, and a heavy pewter pot. But the bludgeoning had only been part of the assault.. The eminent psychiatrist Jazues Lacan put it succinctly; “They tore out their eyes as Bacchantes castrate their victims.” One of the daughter’s eyes was found on the carpet. Both of Madam Lancine’s eyes were found in the folds of her scarf, still around her neck. And in the bare attic room the police discovered the two servant girls, Christine and Lea Papin, naked and huddled together in one bed. The police wrapped them in bathrobes and brought them in for questioning. Already the press photographers were showing up. Both girls readily admitted to having committed the murders. But they failed to offer an explanation for the brutal slaughter.
The case was an immediate sensation and a cause celebre’ for every side of the moral and political debate in France - to the Paris tabloids the sisters were “The Monsters of Le Mans” and “Les Arracheuses d’Yeux” (The Eye Gougers), and the murders were “…the most terrifying and cruel murders ever committed.” Jean Genet, author of “Waiting for Godot” was inspired by the trial to write a play, “The Maids” in which he has Christine say, “Madame likes us like she likes her armchairs. And maybe not that much!” Simone de Beauvior commented, “…there are no doubt women who deducted the cost of a broken plate from their maid’s wages, who put on white gloves to find forgotten specks of dust on the furniture:…one must accuse their childhood orphanage, their serfdom, the whole hideous system set up by decent people for the production of madmen, assassins and monsters.” And to the new science of psychology there were dark undertones of incest and the assault upon the victim’s eyes was thought significant. The case was a theatre d’ete (a summer theatre), or perhaps a sarriette (a summer treat), in much the same way that the murder of Sandra Levy and the O.J. Simpson trial were to be a half century later. But after 77 years the central mystery of the Papin sisters remains; why?
The sisters were born into the brutal and cruel life of the French peasantry, still common in rural France between the World Wars. It was a life with little education, and what passed for a social safety net was administered by the Catholic Church as charity and moral lesson. There were originally three Papin sisters. The eldest daughter, Emilia, had been raped by her drunken father when she was nine years old. The mother had divorced the beast, but that threw the family into bitter poverty. Emilia had been sent to a nunnery and she rarely saw her family again. The mother hired out as a house maid. The younger sisters were sent to an orphanage. And when Lea and Christine were thought to be old enough (their early teens) they too became servants. As often as possible the sisters worked together. But after a few years they no longer spoke to their mother.
When the Papin sisters moved into the Lancine home, Christine was 24 and Lea just 20. They had worked in several other homes around La Mans, and had good work records. And they worked for the Lancine family for seven years without trouble. Mademoiselle Lancine was known to be strict about cleanliness, and often ran one of her white gloves across surfaces to check the sisters’ work. But the only thing that might have been unusual about that particular afternoon was that mademoiselle and madam must have come home unexpectedly. It was then that the rulers of the home would have discovered that the fuses had been blown by a badly repaired electric iron. It was that relative minor inconvenience which had somehow precipitated the explosion of bloody violence on the landing.
After their arrests, the sisters were separated. Christine began to wail and cry out for her sister. After several days they were allowed contact again, and Christine showered Lea with kisses. The doctors sent to examine the girls decided that Lea was a simpleton and that Christine was mentally and emotionally unstable. At one point Christine became so distraught at the separation that she tried to gouge her own eyes out and had to be restrained in a straight jacket. When their trial finally came in September of 1933 Christine was sentenced to the guillotine, but this was later commuted to life in prison. Being alone again in prison she went into a profound depression and stopped eating for long periods. She lost weight. Eventually she was transferred to an insane asylum, where in 1937 she died of “cahexia”, a diagnoses which basically meant that she simply gave up fighting to stay alive. Lea was sentenced to ten years of hard labor, of which she served eight. After she was released, Lea was reunited with her mother and they moved south to Nantes, where Lea worked as a chamber maid at a hotel under an assumed name. She died in 2000.
It is a sad story, and I have not more than touched on the details here. It highlights a world now long gone, and the life of two bourgeoisie peasant girls, born into a universe that seems to have had little use for them until they achieved fame by doing something despicable. And the instant they did it no longer mattered who the Papin sisters really were. At that point they became merely characters in someone else’s play.
- 30 -
Officer Barron then testified that as a 19 year employee of the Corrections Department she considered the response “Oh, Lord. Okay” as an indication that she should deliver the prisoner on her own, even though she had never been asked to do so before. As she explained it, the supervisor didn’t specifically tell her not to deliver the prisoner so she presumed he must have wanted her to. 
A jury later convicted Marcus Anderson "in absentia" of being a convicted felon in procession of a firearm and transporting a firearm in a motor vehicle. He faces five years without parole as well as the three years he was already facing for violating his parole on the drug conviction. Felony escape charges are still pending, since nobody has seen Marcus Anderson since he was remanded into the custody of Officer Barron. Yes, a sad tale indeed.
A much more engaging tale was recently presented to Judge Brigitte Koppenhoefer, one of the most respected members of the Superior Court in Dusseldorph, Germany. Normally Judge Koppenhoefer presides over complicated cases involving corporate law and dealing with hundreds of millions of Duetchmarks and Euros, such the Mannersmann trial she just completed against Duetsche Bank and its CEO Josef Ackerman. But as the summer vacations came around Judge Koppenhoefer found herself rotated by luck to decide a simple property dispute between two neighbors. The honorable judge listened with a straight face as the litigants detailed the escalation of conflict between them, as their war of words escalated to insult filled letters, to letters adorned with cockroaches, followed by an actual egg fight, culminating in the express delivery of packages filled with feces. And through it all Judge Koppenhoefer maintained her judicial restraint, and a straight face. 
But then, as the litigants were overcome with emotion and began to shout at each other across her courtroom, describing each other as schinehunds, smelly bum and donkey face, poor Judge Kippenhoefer lost her composure and burst out laughing. She was forced to call for a brief adjournment so she could retire to her chambers and release the belly laughs she had been restraining. Five minutes later the Judge resumed the bench, but just long enough to dismiss the case as “ridiculous” and hit the plaintiff with a $750 fine for having wasted the court's time with the whole mess. At which time Judge Koppenhofer repeated, “This was just so ridiculous.” 
It is a phrase that should be displayed above the front door of every law school in the world. And maybe it should be on the bar exam, too, just as a reminder. 
The only problem was that $5 million the “smart money” had just squeezed out of the market had to come from someplace. Lots of the “suckers” who had bought RCA on a standard 10% margin were suddenly caught short by the switch to “dump” mode. They would now either have to pay the 90% they still owed for the stock (which most could not do) or come up with another 10% to maintain their margins. The rush to raise cash to meet the margin calls did two things at once. First, as people sold other stock to meet their short falls on RCA, that drove down the price of lots of other stocks. The New York Daily News called it a “selling avalanche”. And two: as those who either could not or chose not to sell other stocks to avoid the “margin calls” on RCA looked for the funds to meet their margins, their demand for cash drove the price of loans higher and higher. It was an instant liquidity crises- sound familiar? In a single day, Monday, March 25th, the market abruptly dropped 4% across the board. 
What stopped Monday, March 25, 1929 from becoming Black Monday was that on Tuesday, March 26, 1929 at about 1:30 in the afternoon, Charles Mitchell, a member of the Federal Reserve Board, boldly walked onto the trading floor and placed a loud “buy” order for U.S. Steel at higher than the then depressed market price. He also announced that he had $25 million to stabilize the market ($300 million in 2007 value). Immediatly the panic on Wall Street stopped, and conservative Democratic Senator Carter Glass called for Mitchell’s resignation because he had violated "purity" of the market. 
The famous “Sleeping Prophet” Edgar Cayce would write a letter in the first weeks of April 1929 famously predicting the October collapse of Wall Street. In fact the near collapse at the end of March was repeated again with another 4% drop in value on May 22 and again on May 27 and yet again on August 9 and yet a fifth 4% drop on October 3, and a 6.3% plummet on October 23, and all of these preceding the infamous Black Monday collapse, when in a single day the market dropped 12% of its total value. You would have had to been deluded not to have seen the market collapse was just around the corner. Unfortunately, Wall Street was filled with desperate, deluded people who for lots of reasons refused to see the approaching abyss. And Edgar Cayce has been making converts ever since with his mystical prediction that doesn’t seem so mystical in retrospect.
In the immediate aftermath of the debacle of 1929 Senator Carter Glass helped fashion legislation (The Glass-Steagall Act) that divorced commercial banks from intimate ties with brokerage firms, one of the primary fuels in the collapse. And Joe Kennedy helped write new rules that banned “insider trading”, such as pools. But the Glass-Steagall Act was largely repealed in 1999, because the magicians on Wall Street are still selling the idea that secret knowledge and magical skill can trump luck on Wall Street, and they are still finding idiots who want to believe them and are willing to pay for the idea. And where ever he is at the moment, heaven or hell, Old Joe Kennedy must be having a very good laugh about the “spike” in oil prices that the experts assure us is certainly not the product of speculation. 
