Monday, May 16, 2011

Anne Perry / Juliet Hulme (Revisited Again)

As regards my previous post on the Anne Perry documentary, here are the thoughts of two writers who seem to know her story well.

The first is Scottish crime writer Ian Rankin who interviewed Perry regarding her involvement in the murder and the second is Peter Graham who was said to be working on a book about the murder when he made the comments I've quoted.

And from Peter Graham via Second Sight:
Perry refused to be involved in [Graham's] book, but wrote Graham a letter last year mentioning the murder, which she referred to as "the tragedy". 
"I thought this is a strange word to use when you've brained somebody to death and talk about it as 'a tragedy' as if somebody got run over by a train or something, " Graham says. 
"But then when you think about it -- and I think this also came through in the film -- when she talks about this ghastly thing, she's really just seeing it as a tragedy to her. She's entirely seeing it through her own eyes, she doesn't consider at all what a tragedy it was for poor old Mrs Parker or Mr Parker or the rest of the Parkers, it's all about her. 
"I think you do see that narcissism is still there. The mere fact that she wants to have this film crew in her house, following her around . . . is a rather sort of egotistical thing to do, and that was certainly what she was like as a child and as a teenager and she doesn't seem to have changed greatly." 
Graham says Perry's tearful explanation in the documentary for what she calls "the thing that happened" appears staged. 
"At the very end you get her breaking down in tears and talking about it, and really what she's saying is something that she's said before in numerous interviews: in effect 'it was all Pauline's fault, Pauline was suffering from bulimia and Pauline was threatening to kill herself and I honestly believed that if I didn't help her kill her mother then Pauline would kill herself and that would be on my conscience'."

(Now I am off to search for Mr. Graham's book.)


  1. (I am posting this comment from Mr. Rosel because I inadvertently hit the "reject" icon rather than the "publish" icon when I tried to accept it earlier. Luckily I still had a copy via an email backup. I apologize for the mistake.

    Carl has left a new comment on your post "Anne Perry / Juliet Hulme (Revisited Again)":

    Anne Perry is genuine when she states that, she was afraid that her close loyal friend would commit suicide, if they were to part.As far back as November 2nd 1954, Pauline Parker wrote in her diary: The thought of suicide is heavenly.
    April 28th 1954 : Seriously considered suicide.
    We do not know how many times she stated that face to face with Juliet as well, but we do know that it was enough to make Juliet extremely fearful that, that is what she would do.
    They were not mature adults with their wits about them. They were adolescent girls in the throes of ' folie 'a' deux, suffering extreme psychic stress and trauma at the time the matricide was committed. They had only been on this earth 15 years. As very young girls they had spent long periods apart from their parents, in hospitals and sanitoriums. In Juliets case, 5 years at one stage. Medication given, had to be withdrawn because it impaired judgement.
    They were certainly in the category of, diminished responsibility or temporary insanity.
    Carl Rosel
    Auckland NZ

  2. Mr. Rosel, thank you for your well-taken points. Honestly, I cannot agree with your conclusion without more detail, but I understand what you are saying.

    I just have a hard time with the thought that two 15-year-olds could do what these girls did to one of their mothers. Perhaps my conception of the maturity level of a 15-year-old is different from yours and I give them more credit than they deserve; I don't know. How they could go from being the silly young girls that you describe to being the cold-blooded killers they became still throws me.

  3. Hi Sam,
    I can only reiterate that Juliet Hulme and Pauline Parker were only adolesents when the matricide was committed. It seems that a lot of people are making a judgement on them as if they were mature adults with there wits about them.No! They were adolescent girls, in the throes of " folie a deux " and suffering extreme psychic stress, which had built up from when they were very young girls. A fifteen year old girl in 1954, is very different from a fifteen year old in 2011. Why do people still judge them as if they were adults with their wits about them, instead of immature girls, suffering extreme trauma.It amazes me.
    Carl Rosel
    Auckland NZ

  4. Hi Sam,
    As an addition to other comments,I think it needs to be pointed out, that it was not planned for Juliet to take part in the actual physical assault ( swinging the brick in the stocking )That was Paulines role. The originator of the plan to moider mother. They were under the deluded impression that it would only take one bonk on the head. The mother would go to heaven and their friendship would remain intact.The main plan was to still be able to go to New York and have their novels published and be turned into movies, with them being hailed as film stars.
    Paulines sister Wendy has said that after the first hit on their mother, Pauline regretted it, but trauma and fear of the reprisal led to the continued assault. It was not cold blooded and calculating as many people think. That impression comes from the sensationalist accounts from 1954.
    I have read an article about an interview with one of the jury members in that case.He stated that the jury did think that the two girls were insane at the time the matricide was committed, but if they had delivered that verdict, there was a good chance that the girls could have been kept in a mental asylum for life. They did a finite time in prison, where the enormity of what they had done hit home.That is when Juliet ( Anne )
    Has said she came to repentance.
    Since then, for over half a century they have been acting in a good positive way towards others. It is a credit to them.
    Carl Rosel

  5. Have made an error in my first comment on this page, regarding diary entries written by Pauline Parker. The first entry about contemplating suicide, was November 1953.
    Carl Rosel
    Auckland NZ

  6. Carl, I will grant you that a fifteen year old girl in 1954 was a whole lot different than a fifteen year old girl in 2011. But, in some ways, I would expect more of a fifteen year old in 1954 than I expect from one today. Today's children have seen so much violence that they are almost numb to it, while those of the fifties would have been much more shocked at the thought of murdering a parent (I would think that's logical).

    I suppose we will never really know what was going on in the heads of these two girls. What you say, makes a certain morbid kind of sense, I'll admit. But isn't the age of 12 more or less accepted as the age of reason in Western societies? Fifteen strikes me as the point that these two could very well have been tried as adults and dealt with accordingly. I think they got a break from the New Zealand justice system in every way they could have. That they have lived productive lives since being released is absolutely to their credit, however, and speaks for the effectiveness of rehabilitation in appropriate cases.

    Thanks, too, for the correction of dates that you addressed.

  7. Thanks for your response Sam. I certainly come from a different angle, to a lot of people who comment
    on the case.
    For instance, many people describe what happened as; Bludgeoned 45 times, or savagely bludgeoned 45 times etc.,as if it was cold and callously planned that way. At the time, the two girls thought it would take just one hit.
    It was their frame of mind at that crucial period which I factor mainly into my reasoning.
    Following are more excerpts from Pauline Parkers diary in the time leading up to the matricide.
    April 29th 1954:
    I have not told Deborah ( Juliet )
    of my plans to remove mother.
    April 30th 1954:
    I have told Deborah ( Juliet ) of my plans to remove mother. She was a little bit worried, but did not
    disagree violently.
    June 6th 1954:
    We are stark raving mad.
    June 7th 1954:
    We rose this morning realizing how
    mad we are.
    June 9th 1954:
    I am feeling particularly mad today.
    June 12th 1954:
    We definately are mad but pleasingly so.
    June 20th:
    Is it peculiar we are so mad.
    I have worked out a little more of the plan to moider mother.
    She had also written that they were not genies as origanally thought, but that they had an extra part of their brain which can appreciate the Fourth world. Only about ten people have it. They discovered the key through the clouds, so they can enter the fourth world twice a year.
    The well researched 'Sir Peter Jackson 'movie, Heavenly Creatures, portrays the build up of emotional trauma and stress, very well, in the time leading up to the fateful day out at the park.
    Carl Rosel

  8. Carl, has the diary you quote from been published in book or magazine form? It sounds both an intriguing and fruitful source of insights. I have not watched the movie in its entirety yet but hope to do so at some point.

  9. I find it odd that Mr. Graham can be writing a book about the murder without even being aware that Pauline's father was not "Mr. Parker" and her mother was "Miss Parker" not "Mrs. Parker" as her parents never married and she and her mother were referred to as "Parker" in the court proceedings rather than by Pauline's father's last name. How well researched is this book?

  10. Kelly, I have not found the book yet. Do you know if it has been published...and, if so, where? Thanks.

  11. Sam and Kelly,
    I have been into whitcoulls bookshop in Auckland, and they tell me the book, written by Peter Graham, about Juliet and Pauline, isn't due out untill, August. It is called, Brilliantly clever. But that is, NZ.,
    I am trying to track dowqn where I read,excerpts from Pauline's, diary.
    I do have it, and will send it to you, Sam.
    Kelly, you are dead right. Paulines Father, was Herbert Rieper. Always has been. Where did Herbert Parker come from.
    Carl Rosel NZ

  12. Thanks, Carl. I would love to be able to link to those diary excerpts if they are still available on the net somewhere.

    I wonder if the book will be published in the U.S.? It would seem likely, but you just never know about publishers these days. I will find a way to get a copy, one way or the other, but it would be much simpler (and cheaper) to get one here.

  13. We need to approach the movie Heavenly Creatures, as very well researched, and based around Pauline Parkers diary entries. The voiceovers done by her character, are, from diary entries.
    It is a movie that needs to be seen more than once.
    Carl Rosel

  14. Sam, did e-mails arrive at :
    Name of book :
    So Brilliantly Clever

  15. Thanks for the book title, Carl. No, no emails at that address. I don't think that address accepts emails, actually.

  16. Carl, I finally watched "Heavenly Creatures" in its entirety yesterday and I find myself wondering if these two girls were not so mentally disturbed that they should have received treatment rather than imprisonment.

    Logically, Juliet's parents would have made better targets than the woman who was killed because they represented a far greater threat in keeping the two girls separated. Anne Perry comes across in the film as being an extremely arrogant and unlikable person at age 15. This film certainly did her no favors. The other girl seems to be the one who was led into this strange behavior by Juliet's stronger personality. My opinion of Juliet's culpability in this crime is further enforced...I do plan to watch the movie again.

  17. Glad you have been able to view Heavenly Creatures Sam.Yes, the wrong mother did seem to be the target, but that was because of the unusual set of circumstances. The girls did not know that Juliets Father had unwittingly triggered the attitude that Paulines mother started to display. Along with the inept Dr Bennet.
    The girls were definately in the category of, diminished responsibility, or temporary insanity, and you are right Sam, they should have been getting help rather than punishment.
    Juliet Hulme was labeled as the ringleader etc, in 1954, and she is still copping it. The Justice Department knew who the most culpable of the two were. They released Juliet first and allowed her to leave the country without parole conditions. Pauline Parker was released not long after, but was kept under strict parole conditions untill 1965.
    Can you send e-mail address to so I can forward other relevant information to you.
    Carl Rosel

  18. Interesting, the way their releases from prison were handled by the government, Carl.

    Use this email address for me:

  19. This is an incredible story; I guess that their friendship was so intense that it would be considered today as a lesbian relationship - Today, they are adults and one is famous, the other is a recluse. It is still a tragic murder committed by two teens lost in their own world. It is somewhat very surprising to have gone to jail for such a crime and to make it professionally. Tragic, it is.

  20. Anne Perry has stated, that she found it grossly offensive, that it was said, that her and her close loyal friend were in a lesbian relationship.She said, that although the friendship became very close and obsessive, it was not lesbian. They did a huge amount of playacting, with the Saints, as with other topics.
    Juliet ( Anne ) has said that she did not know about sexual things in the 1950's, but would never contemplate it with another woman.
    When asked by Dr Medlicott, if her and Pauline Parker had had sexual relations, she replied, but how could we, we are both women.
    To boot, Pauline Parker was having heterosexual relations with boys. Even sneaking out at night when her and Juliet were not having a saints evening.
    Sadly there was a lot of falseness surrounding that whole situation, triggered in 1954 by the crown prosecuter, inept doctors, and sensationist newspaper reports.
    Carl Rosel

  21. Anonymous, the movie leads their relationship right up to the verge of portraying it as a lesbian one, but it never crosses the line to say that was the case. They do show the girls in a bathtub together and doing some kissing, hugging, etc. but there is no overt sex shown between the two. I doubt that the girls were in that kind of relationship but I also doubt they could have gotten much closer to it than they did without going there.

  22. Good points, Carl. Theirs was one of the strangest relationships I've ever seen, but I have my doubts that the girls had a sexual relationship.

  23. Sam, Have the several e-mails I have sent, reached you. Diary excerpts etc.

  24. They have, thank you. I will be on the road for another week and have not had much time with them yet...much appreciated, however.

  25. Get it right Carl." Sensationalist newspaper reports "
    Carl Rosel

  26. The folie a deux diagnosis was made up by Hulme's defense. Brian McClelland admits this in an interview.

    Hulme says she murdered Honora Reiper because it was a 'debt of honour'; because Pauline was bulemic; because Pauline was suicidal; because she was scared of Pauline; and because she just wanted to scare Mrs Reiper.

    There's no 'fixed' reason for Hulme murdering her 'friend's' mother. Her reasons keep changing - and are always contradictory.

    Also, Juliet Hulme was deported from New Zealand the day after she was released from prison. Under NZ immigration laws, as a murderer, she is 'permanently prohibited' from ever returning to New Zealand. The NZ government simply don't want foreign psychopaths in their country.

  27. Interesting comments, Anonymous, and I'm counting on you to be able to back them up if they are challenged by someone else.

  28. In an interview with who.

    Anyone can make a statement. It does not mean buck-shee of nothing.

    The folie 'a deux' defense was not made up.It was a fact.

    Those two, then girls, had undergone extreme psychological stress. They were drawn together through cirumstances, and they were still adolescents.

  29. Defense counsel, Brian McClelland said, “Well, the problem was they’d both confessed to the murder, and the only defense we had was insanity, but how could we find the two of them insane? And then this chap, Reginald Medlicott comes along with this wonderful idea that they could have folie à deux, so we went with that.”

  30. You say: 'The folie 'a deux' defense was not made up...' Anyone can make a statement. It does not mean buck-shee of nothing.

    Juliet Hulme's defense lawyer says it was just a convenient strategy that the psychiatrist thought up and the decided to use.

    He admitted this in an interview. He would know beteer than anyone whether his defense of Juliet Hulme was real or not.

    Therefore, according to the man who used it as a defense, the folie 'a deux' defense was made up, fiction, not real.

    Sorry if that goes against your opinion, but fact can often do that, Carl. Still, at least you now know the truth. Perhaps you can now move forward.

  31. Sorry, here's the link:

    Dr Alison Laurie interviewed the Defense counsel, Brian McClelland, who admitted: "Well, the problem was they'd both confessed to it [the murder], and the only defense we had was insanity, but how could we find the two of them insane? And then this chap, Reginald Medlicott comes along with this wonderful idea that they could have folie à deux, so we went with that."

    So you see - a defense strategy that is pure fiction, nothing more, nothing less. And this is from Juliet Hulme's defense lawyer, a man who would know more about his own defense strategy than anyone else on the planet.

    Let's be clear: what this means, Carl, is that anyone claiming Hulme and Parker were actually afflicted with/by folie a deux is wrong and is spreading misinformation.

    Truth only, please. The folie a deux defense was totally made up - and you heard it from the man who made it up. Isn't truth great?

  32. Carl, when you say: 'Anne Perry is genuine when she states that, she was afraid that her close loyal friend would commit suicide, if they were to part...' aren't you forgetting that Juliet Hulme said there was no murder plan at all, just a possible plan to 'frighten' Mrs Rieper.

    When Juliet Hulme says: “I thought we would be able to frighten Mrs Rieper with the brick and she would give her consent for Pauline and I to stay together..." are you saying that she's lying?

    It seems that you're saying there WAS a murder plan; but Hulme is saying there WASN'T a murder plan! Which one of you is telling the truth, I wonder?

    It's very confusing you saying the opposite to each other.

  33. I have to admit that I'm intrigued by the give and take between our Anonymous and Carl concerning the Anne Perry murder.

  34. Sam, my name's James and my comments are my attempt to rectify misinformation. I'm in the process of writing a book about Juliet Hulme and whenever I see mistakes or misinformation, I feel I have no choice to show the evidence that refutes it.

    There's been too much misinformation put out about Parker-Hulme. I'm just trying to redress the balance with fact-based info.



  35. James, thanks for identifying yourself. I hope your are American - or, at least, that your book will be published here because I haven't been able to justify the expense of importing a copy of the recent book on the subject published in Australia. Good luck with the project.

  36. Honestly, after watching Heavenly Creatures and researching the case, anything involving either of these women leaves a bad taste in my mouth. I wouldn't ever knowingly read Anne Perry's novels or ignore what she did because she's "repented" and "was only 15" or any other excuse people say. I can't say she's evil or that it's impossible to change, because I firmly believe that people can change, but my gut reaction makes me severely uncomfortable with her. Regardless of her reasoning, she still murdered someone.
    I can't help but wonder, too, why any one, no matter their mental state, would immediately jump to murder as a solution. I mean,if she and Pauline were planning to run away anyway, why didn't they just run away? I fail to see how murder was their only option or that in the haste of the moment it was their go to.
    Also, the fact they thought one knock with the brick would kill her doesn't make their crime any less horrifying. It was still a premeditated murder, just because they didn't count on the 45 whacks doesn't excuse the brutality. I can't believe anyone would say that and pass it off as a justifiable argument. "We thought the one knock would do the trick and when it didn't we kept going because we were afriad she'd be angry we tried to kill her" sounds like total B.S. to me. Murder is murder and, in most cases, there's rarely a good reason for it. Especially in this instance.
    So the fact that she did 5.5 years in prison and can't see her bff ever again doesn't make me appreciate her plight. In fact, it makes the whole thing worse. They couldn't stand to be seperated to the point that they actually killed someone when, in the end, look how it worked out. They've lived their lives totally seperated and no one's commited suicide and their lives seem to have worked out, for lack of a better word, fine. It makes the whole thing seem almost...pointless.

  37. Anonymous, I think this post is particularly damning to Anne Perry because of the way it focuses on her rather obvious case of narcissism. I understand your feelings about her and her choice of life occupation and I share many of them still. - despite the ongoing discussion that has continued here for three years or so.

  38. Anonymous (Nicole), replying to Sam: I think, sadly, that her narcissism is fairly typical of someone in her predicament. Personally, when it comes to the interview, I don't read it so much as narcissism as it is avoidance. I think she's trying to distance herself from the incident and I'm not surprised. I think she detaches and it makes sense considering the degree of her actions. Unfortunately, it also makes the whole situation all the more confounding and atrocious.
    The thing that makes the Honora Parker murder so terrifying is the fact that the motivation was so weak. People are seperated from their best friends all the time and the way these two girls reacted says a lot about them. Again, why didn't they just run away? I will never understand why they couldn't come up with another solution to the circumstance and instead opted for murder. And such a brutal and personal one as well. That, combined with her cold detachment, makes me dislike her and makes me significantly uncomfortable. Plus, the pointlessness of it all - look what came of it? Nothing. In the end, they were seperated and are all the better for it.
    Honestly, I'm not sure there's anything either of these women could do to make me see them in a whole new light. I can't because the fact that they've lived out long lives and repented and tried to move on reminds me that Honora Parker can't. Everything they do reminds me of the fact that they stole someone's life yet get to live well into their seventies.
    More or less, I'm surprised at the amount of sympathy that goes out to either of these women, Anne Perry in particular. Everyone seems to be trying to empathize with the killer(s) but no one's acknowledging the victim. Honora Parker was a wonderful and caring woman whose only crime was being a good mother. Yeah, it's been half a century, but has the world changed so much that after half a century we forget the victim. Just because the last World War 2 veteran dies, do we have to forget what happened? I know they're seperate events, but it's always a tragedy when someone loses their life and before trying to empathize with Anne Perry, I think everyone should take a moment to remember Honora Parker. I'd be more likely to buy peoples and Anne Perry's argument of fairness and forgiveness if they could talk about it while acknowledging the victim and the crime. Yeah, if I ignore Honora Parker then it's easy to say that Anne Perry's moved on and is a different person, but I can't ignore Honora Parker. I can't ignore the fact that a loving, caring, and kind person was lured into a cold and calculating trap. I can't ignore the fact that Juliet Hulme dropped a stone on the ground, pointed it out to Honora, waited for her to bend over, and then, along with her friend, brutally attacked Honora while her back was turned and murdered her. It was cowardly, it was vicious, and I'll never forget it. The knowledge that anyone's actually capable of doing anything like that will haunt me for the rest of my life.
    The fact that I don't condone her career choice or look at the murder as anything but inhuman doesn't stem from the fact that I expect anything more or different from Anne Perry. Frankly, I don't expect anything from Anne Perry - I don't expect her to do something to make it better, I don't expect her to cry, I don't expect her to acknowledge it, I don't expect her to repent, I don't expect her to stop writing murder mysteries, I don't expect her to own up to what she did and tell the truth - I don't expect anything from Anne Perry because, at this point, it doesn't matter. My view of her has been forever tainted.
    I wish I could be more objective. I wish I could bring something else to this discussion apart from extreme horror and sadness, but I can't. This crime was inhumane and the more I think about it the more I dislike Anne Perry.

  39. Nicole, her narcissism bothers me because she expresses it so clearly in coldness that seems to be at the core of her entire personality. The video clips I've seen of her, including the one posted here, all give me the impression that she feels very little and that it is still all about her and what she wants.

    That makes me feel that she has learned very little from the horror she committed and that she is still very much the same person who killed an innocent woman - a woman who never even reached the age Perry is today.

    She is a writer. As such, she should be capable of expressing her feelings on paper, if not verbally. The only other book of hers I ever plan to read again is one she will probably never write - her memoirs, including what she feels about her crime and how lightly she got off.

  40. Response to Carl...I know that the way I was at fifteen years old, is very much the way I am now, 20 years later. It really bothers me when people try to defend teenagers by saying that they are not mature enough to know better. If anything, your argument doesn't hold up, because teenagers back in the 50's were a LOT more mature then they are now. They were fighting wars. They were getting married and having children in their early 20's. I know that 20 years ago, I could not have killed a spider. Let alone my mother.

  41. Thanks for adding to the discussion, especially regarding the emotional maturity of teens from the different eras. Maybe if the girls had been about 12 rather than what they were, I would have some sympathy for them. As was, they are well beyond what I consider the age of reason to be and should have been treated accordingly, IMO.

  42. I have already written a response to anonymous but it has not appeared on this page. Will copy it down here.

    In response to anonymous :-

    You have put your own connotation on what I have attempted to explain. I have never defended Juliet Hulme and Pauline Parker just because they were only fifteen years old. In Juliets case in particular, she had traumatic experiences from the age of two. Apart from the sicknesses she had endured also.

    Sir Peter Jackson portrayed the exceptional emotional distress and trauma that the girls were suffering in the period leading up to the matricide, as much as possible in the movie 'Heavenly Creatures'. A movie that needs to be viewed several times. A movie it has been said and written, was very well researched for.

    I have always stated that in that period, the girls had a diminished capacity for reason.We all know what extreme stress can do to adults,and indeed there are cases where adults have been excused for things done in that state. That is what I have had to say about the girls ages.

    You do not know what you may have done, if you had had the same experiences as those girls had. Noone does.

    Pauline Parker was the originator of the plan to be rid of mother. We do not know the full extent of what she suffered at home.

    Following is an excerpt from the testimoy of Hilda Hulme :-

    'Pauline had said she was very unhappy at home. She felt her mother did not understand her or love her. After quarrels with her mother she would be in great distress. Pauline gave me to understand quite clearly that her mother often subjected her to severe corporal punishment'

    Following is an excerpt from Pauline Parker's diary.

    'We were having our argument in the bathroom. I said something which annoyed her. She slapped my face several times'

    Carl Rosel

  43. Carl, you say: 'Pauline Parker was the originator of the plan to be rid of mother', but you must be aware that Juliet Hulme said SHE was the originator of the murder plan. She has admitted this in several interviews and statements. Her exact words are: “I thought we would be able to frighten Mrs Rieper with the brick and she would give her consent for Pauline and I to stay together. After the first blows were struck I knew it was necessary for us to kill her.”

    So when you talk of the ‘originator of the plan’, you can see right there, according to the murderer who decided to kill Honora, there was no plan to murder Mrs Rieper, just a plan to frighten her. And then Hulme (by her own admission above) decided Mrs Rieper had to be killed. That makes Hulme the originator of the eventual murder plan.

    So are you saying Hulme is lying? Are you saying she does lie and has lied in interviews? Are you saying there was a murder plan? Are you also saying that Hulme is lying about deciding it was ‘necessary’ to kill the unarmed Mrs Rieper in the park?

    Yes, we certainly ‘do know for sure, who the originator of the plan’ was… don’t we? It was Juliet Hulme. By her own (repeated) admission…


  44. Interesting debate, Carl and James...very thought provoking to read as each of you adds new detail and theory to the reasons such a terrible thing happened all hose years ago.

  45. James. Anne Perry / Juliet Hulme has never said anywhere at any time, that she was the originator of the plan to remove Honora Rieper.

    Pauline Parker was, and that is well known. That fact was written in her diary. ( April 29th 1954 )( I have not told Deborah ( Juliet ) of my plans to remove mother. )
    Also, her character says that in the Sir Peter Jackson movie, Heavenly Creatures.
    The day prior to her diary entry, Pauline Parker had written, ( seriously considered suicide.)

    People in 1954 were hell bent on laying everything at Juliet Hulme's feet, with their biased warped take on the situation. Her Father was the rector of Canterbury College. She was very intelligent. It must have been her idea etc.
    People have read that waffle and have the same mindset in 2012. But the facts are Pauline Parker was the originator of the plan and it had been building up for a long time and then triggered by Paulines mother refusing to let her go to South Africa with the Hulmes.

    Carl Rosel

  46. Please research a little more carefully, Carl. And please don't tell me I'm wrong - I can read perfectly well, thank you. Here is what Juliet Hulme says (and I've included the link to the original source):

    “Pauline wanted to come with me to South Africa. I wanted her to come, too. My father and I were booked to leave New Zealand on July 3rd next.

    Pauline and I had discussed the matter. We both thought that Mrs Rieper might object.

    We decided to go with Mrs Rieper to Victoria Park. We decided that it would be a suitable place to discuss the matter and have it out. I knew that it was proposed that we should take a brick in a stocking to the park with us. Pauline rang me recently and gave me the invitation to go with Pauline and her mother to Victoria Park. I knew this was the trip we had planned. It may have been the day before yesterday that she rang.

    I left home with my father at about 10:30 a.m. yesterday. I had a part of a brick which I wrapped in a newspaper. I had got it from near the garage. My father left me near Beaths. I made some personal purchases there and then walked to the Rieper’s house. I arrived there still carrying the brick. I gave it to Pauline. I know the brick was put into the stocking at Rieper’s [sic] house. I did not put it there.

    Mrs Rieper, Pauline and I left their place after lunch to go to Victoria Park. Pauline carried the brick and stocking in her shoulder bag. We went to Victoria Park together and had tea as I have previously stated. There had been no conversation on the subject of the South African trip up to this time. We walked together down the tracks among the trees. There was a pink stone on the path. I dropped it there myself. We went to a spot well down the paths and Mrs Rieper decided to come back. On the way back I was walking in front. I was expecting Mrs Rieper to be attacked.

    I heard noises behind me. It was loud conversation and anger. I saw Mrs Rieper in a sort of squatting position. They were quarrelling. I went back. I saw Pauline hit Mrs Rieper with the brick in the stocking. I took the stocking and hit her, too. I was terrified. I thought that one of them had to die. I wanted to help Pauline. It was terrible. Mrs Rieper moved convulsively. We both held her. She was still when we left her. The brick had come out of the stocking with the force of the blows.

    I cannot remember Mrs Rieper saying anything distinctly. I was too frightened to listen. We both went back to the tea kiosk and told the woman there that Mrs Rieper had fallen and had got her injuries in that way. My father was called and took us back home.

    I have always known Pauline’s mother as Mrs Rieper. I am sure that Pauline would have told me, if she had known, that her parents were not married and that her mother’s name was Parker. I was not quite sure what was going to happen when we went to Victoria Park yesterday. I thought we may have been able to frighten Mrs Rieper with the brick and she would have given her consent then for Pauline and I to stay together. After the first blow was struck I knew it would be necessary for us to kill her. I was terrified and hysterical.

    The three pages of this statement have been read to me. They are true and correct.”

  47. Carl, you have said: ‘Anne Perry is telling the truth in interviews, and excerpts from Pauline Parker’s diary prove that.’

    And yet, over the years, Juliet Hulme has come up with 5 contradictory and conflicting excuses for her part in the murder. They are:

    1. Juliet Hulme on why she committed murder: “It [the murder] was a debt of honour. It wasn’t the great ‘I can’t live without you’ business that these idiotic movie makers are making it out to be… All I can say is that it was violent, and quick.”

    2. Juliet Hulme on why she committed murder: “I was frightened of her [Pauline Parker], in the fact that I thought she really would take her life. It is stupid but I felt absolutely trapped… I knew it was wrong and I knew I would have to pay for it and I knew it was stupid but I was terrified that she really would take her life and that it would have been my fault.”

    3. Juliet Hulme on why she committed murder: “Pauline was suffering from bulimia and Pauline was threatening to kill herself and I honestly believed that if I didn’t help her kill her mother then Pauline would kill herself and that would be on my conscience’.”

    4. Juliet Hulme on why she committed murder: ‘I helped someone [Pauline Parker] kill another person… It was within a space of… We were about to leave the country. I felt I had not time to find a better solution. She told me that if I left, she would take her own life and I believed her.’

    5. Juliet Hulme on why she committed murder: “I thought we would be able to frighten Mrs Rieper with the brick and she would give her consent for Pauline and I to stay together. After the first blows were struck I knew it was necessary for us to kill her.”

    This last one’s quite interesting, because Hulme is saying here that all of her previous excuses are false – and that Parker’s diary entries are also false!

    Perhaps you can now see why many people (myself included) have trouble believing anything Juliet Hulme says.



  48. James, you are fudging this issue without seeming to realise it. What you have done is mix-matched what Juliet Hulme said in several different statements when interviewed by police, with statements she has given in recent years.
    She did make a false statement at first because Pauline Parker said she would take all the blame.
    You talk about research. Okay, research Pauline Parker's diary entries like Sir Peter Jackson and Fran Walsh did for the basis of the movie 'Heavenly Creatures'
    I will repeat. Pauline Parker wrote in her diary on the 29th April 1954,( I have not told Deborah( Juliet)of MY PLANS to remove mother.)Not OUR plans. MY plans.It was an idea that had formulated before it was written down or spoken of to Juliet Hulme.
    The day after it was written, April 30th 1954, another entry was made.
    ( I have told Deborah (Juliet)of MY plans to remove mother. She was a little bit worried, but did disagree violently.)
    So, that Pauline Parker was the originator of the plan to remove mother is factual. Written in diary entries. Written in court transcripts.In the movie 'Heavenly Creatures'In the book 'So Brilliantly Clever'written by Peter Graham. The title of that book was also taken from a diary entry of Pauline Parkers. She was describing herself and her friend as (so brilliantly clever.)
    Also, Juliet Hulmes release from prison was unconditional. She was released first, and then Pauline Parker a few weeks later. Juliet Hulme left the country but Pauline Parker was kept on parole conditions and further monitored for several years, because she was deemed the more culpable. If there had not been a plan, there would not have been loss of life. The Justice Department's Parole Board concluded that individually neither girl would have committed the crime;they said that it was a one-in-a-million chance that their association had been of such a nature as to lead to the planning of such an outrageous act.


  49. Sorry, but what you're saying is off the point, Carl. The extract is from her SECOND statement to the police, which, as you can see, she admits is 'true and correct'. Are you saying she's lying AGAIN, as she did with the first police statement? If so, that's two interviews she's lied in.

    My other question is this: How can Juliet Hulme give 5 conflicting and contradictory reasons for committing murder and expect anyone to believe her about anything?

    Also, I notice you say that ‘Given medication that, it was found out later, impaired judgment in people…’ Are you basing this on any evidence from doctors or phamacists? The reason I ask, Carl, is because according to Hulme’s doctor, Dr. Medlicott: “Both Isoniazid (an anti-bacterial) and Streptomycin (an antibiotic) were used, but there was no evidence that they produced any psychological changes.” So neither of the medicines ‘impaired judgement’ in any way, as Anne Perry has stated. According to Roche, the manufacturer of Isoniazid, after all these years, Isoniazid is still on the market and has ‘never been withdrawn for any reason’. According to Merck & Co., the manufacturer of Streptomycin, after all these years, Streptomycin is still on the market, and has ‘never been recalled, withdrawn or made unavailable to customers’. So which medication are you referring to that had to be withdrawn? It’s certainly not any medication that Juliet Hulme was being administered at any time?

    Finally, I notice you comment on Juliet Hulme being allowed to leave the country without parole. I've checked this with immigration and Juliet Hulme was definitely deported from New Zealand to Rome the day after she was released from prison. And under NZ immigration laws, as a murderer, she is 'permanently prohibited' from ever returning to New Zealand. The NZ government simply don't want foreign killers in this country.
    ome way or another in the case itself.

    Where does your information come from?


    I've researched all of this very carefully, Carl, talking to immigration, pharmacists, doctors, lawyers, police officers, all involved in s

  50. Carl, you say 'James, you are fudging this issue without seeming to realise it...'

    I think you'll find (if you look carefully at James' post) that he's listed the five contradictory and conflicting excuses that Juliet Hulme has given over the years for committing murder... Therefore, if anyone's guilty of 'fudging this issue', it's the murderer herself.

    The five excuses are all publicly documented and easy to verify. They're all word-for-word accurate. And they are all contradictory.

    Juliet Hulme has a career as a professional liar. She is paid a lot of money to write down lies. Some, including yourself, say she's very good at it. I think her writing sucks, but her continually-evolving, ever-changing lies about her part in the murder are truly fantastic.



  51. Carl, this is from Peter Jackson’s meticulous research for Heavenly Creatures. I’ve quoted from it because you reference this movie a lot, even though it’s clearly a work of fiction, and not a documentary.

    The link is here:

    Peter Jackson says:

    ‘Late in 1959, soon after her twenty-first birthday, Juliet Hulme was released secretly from prison (a public announcement was made two weeks later) and given an anonymous new identity. The terms of her release were that she would leave the country and she would have no contact with Pauline Parker, though these conditions were not made public at the time of her release, for some reason, and the public was led to believe that Juliet’s release was final and unconditional. In fact, if she had broken any of the conditions of her release, Juliet would have been subject to re-imprisonment according to the terms of release “During Her Majesty’s Pleasure.” ‘

    So, Carl, unless you’re saying that Peter Jackson is lying here, you now know for a FACT that Hulme’s release was totally conditional, and that Hulme was deported and is banned from ever returning to New Zealand. It’s only gullible people (and people unable to do basic research) that thought the release was unconditional. Cold, psychopathic, calculating murderers who murder in a foreign country NEVER get an unconditional release. They get instant deportation and a lifetime ban on returning to that country. Good job too. New Zealand has no use for foreign killers.

  52. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

  53. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

  54. OK, guys, don't get me wrong; I do appreciate the input both of you have offered to the discussion. I don't, however, want to get caught in the middle or something between you that is becoming too personal for me to feel comfortable posting here on Book Chase.

    I will be happy to post further comments from either of you that do not include personal insults or accusations.I would rather not attempt to edit whole comments to remove portions that I find a bit "iffy." That would be unfair on my part.

    I hope you both understand my decision. All the best.

  55. Thank you for being the voice of reason, Sam. Sorry to have strayed off-topic.

  56. Not a problem...I understand how things happen in the heat of the moment.

    My concern was somehow being held responsible for something posted here that might slip through the crack on me. I was threatened with a personal lawsuit two years ago by the brother of a well-known British TV personality because of something another Brit said on Book Chase about his business history (the man, not his more famous brother).

    Thanks for understanding my problem.

  57. At the time of the release of Pauline Parker and Juliet Hulme, the Minister of Justice for the New Zealand government, Sam Barnett,stated that the girls release was ordered by the executive council.
    (Repeat)The parole board had concluded that individually neither would have committed the crime;it was a one in a million chance that their association had been of such a nature as to lead to their planning such an outrageous act.
    Sam barnett said they had been monitored and been under the closest study during their imprisonment and had developed in a highly satisfactory manner.Both had pursued wholesome interests.
    Sam Barnett stated that Miss Hulmes release had been unconditional but Miss Parkers release was subject to further monitoring and general control under parole conditions.
    At the time the matricide was committed Juliet Hulme was fifteen years of age.To come along now, as has been done on this page, and call her a cold,psychopathic, calculating murderer when she is in her late seventies is absolutely reprehensible, and in fact nonsense in the extreme.People still tend to want to Judge Juliet Hulme, Anne Perry, as if the offence had only been committed in the last few years as she is now. An adult.
    The people who knew best, the state of Juliet Hulme, were the New Zealand government officials, prison authority's and the parole board.They acted accordingly and released her, after a seemingly short period (five years)for the offence.
    She is to be commended for making such a success of life after the horrendous experiences she had had from the age of two years of age until she was in her early twenties.

    Carl Rosel

  58. Juliet Hulme can change her name to Anne Perry, move across the globe and fool the fool world into thinking she is a successful and reclusive crime writer... but one thing will always hold true. It is a FACT that she brutally murdered an innocent woman.

    I simply do not understand all the fluffy gushy forgiveness. I don't give two craps about how she "rebuilt herself" after the horrible ordeal of prison. I am sure that Honora Rieper would have liked the chance to rebuild her life as well. Juliet Hulme/Anne Perry took that from her.

    Shame on anyone who continues to sing this woman's praises. And shame on anyone who still buys her books, and pads her non-remorseful pockets.

    Would you be so supportive if she had murdered one of your beloved?

  59. I did not realize that. It was all Anne Perry. Pauline Parker had nothing to do with it.
    I thought Pauline Parker, ( according to her Diary excerpts, and to her character in the 'Sir Peter Jackson, Fran Walsh movie, 'Heavenly Creatures')she did.

  60. Juliet Hulme/Anne Perry has already confessed numerous times that she helped Pauline to kill Honora Parker. Anne Perry also hit the innocent woman with the brick (also provided by Juliet from the Hulme household). Juliet also helped Pauline to lure Honora into Victoria Park. Juliet also placed out the pink gem stone on the ground to make on Honora bend down to pick it up so they could easily overpower her when she examined the stone. Sad to read that some people think Juliet Hulme was not so much involved. She did indeed to turns with Pauline hitting Honora to her death.

  61. And it is documented that while Anne Perry was still in Mt Eden Prison as a schoolchild, she showed great contrition and came to repentance when she realized the enormity of what they had done. That is one of the reasons why she was released after a seemingly short period (five and a half years)
    Do you anonymous, now after well over half a century later, know better than New Zealand government officials, Prison authorities and the Parole Board who had,Juliet Hulme/Anne Perry under the closest study and monitored.
    She wrote for a very long period before she had a book published. It was her step-father Bill Perry who advised her to write murder mysteries in the victorian period. He had always had an interest in that period, particularly the Jack the ripper mystery. So Anne Perry did a huge amount of research into that period ( the clothing, period furniture, speech and sayings, transport etc etc.)and wrote stories that were then accepted by publishers.She has made a success of her writing in that form. Is anonymous also dirty on Bill Perry for starting that.
    If Anne Perry was your young sister who had been punished for what she had done, and also came to repentance, would you like pork chops to come along over half a century later still wanting to vilify her and put her down.That attitude is indeed punitive, judgemental and finger pointing. There is no normal reason why people would keep that up.

    Carl Rosel

  62. You seem to have your own agenda on this case Carl Rosel and still eager to point your finger to people who doesn't agree with you. I also notice you continue to spread false information on the state in previous post "That is one of the reasons why she was released..." Give me a reference on that. from where did you get that info. Not only in this blog. I had a good laugh looking into your discussion on Reid's review on "The Search for Anne Perry":

  63. I came across comments by Carl on quite a few discussion boards.
    I have no idea why he feels the need to defend these two women like he does but it's very annoying that he keeps spreading false information.
    I hope people read his comments with an open mind and make up their own conclusions.

    I wonder why he feels the need to protect them so much.

    - European anon

  64. False information??
    Anyone on earth can read and find out what I have.It is no use approaching a situation with a strongly established mindset and bias.People who do are mostly those that first read the shockingly false and biased 1954 accounts,particularly concerning (Juliet Hulme)Anne Perry, and are either unable or unwilling to get rid of that mindset.
    Attempt to put your mindset aside for awhile and put the time in to sort out the chaff from the hay.You will not want to admit here now what you have found, but you will know yourself.Then you might stop using one woman as a target for your punitive vilification and judgementalism.
    Do not call what you have not bothered to put the time into finding out about, spreading false information.Those statements may sound good to you but not anyone with a bit of common sense.
    I was ten years old when that saga occurred in Christchurch.I can remember my parents, relations and some others discussing how badly and injustly Juliet Hulme was being treated at that time.She was falsely accused of being the originator of the idea to kill the mother. She was the ringleader.It was all her etc.People those days just loved having the chance to put (bloody snooty nosed poms down)I remember that being said.Juliet Hulme copped a lot on her shoulders because of what some thought of her parents.( Who do these poms think they are. Too big for there boots.)
    It was a shocking and sad situation. So was the bias and nastiness against one girl. That still abounds today in 2012.
    The crown prosecuter in the case was mentally unwell and indeed was committed to a mental institution. The Doctors involved were grossly inept for the situation and made things worse for the defence. The sensationalist newspaper reports and gossiping rubbish helped a witch hunt mentality,mainly against Juliet Hulme.And as I have mentioned, that warped nastiness is still alive and well in some quarters today.And of course Anne Perry is a succesful author.How dare she.

    Carl Rosel

  65. Interesting you refer to this horrible killing as "a saga". What kind of planet do you live on? In one of your previous post, Mr Rosel you state:

    "That is one of the reasons why she was released after a seemingly short period (five and a half years)"

    Could you please provide your readers from which source you got that information? Otherwise we may think you made up that yourself and spreading false information. Peter Graham also point out that one of the authorites who waved Juliet goodbye on the airport was never convinced Juliet Hulme was a reformed charachter.

    From my understanding the girls got 5 and half years because the New Zealand Justice system of the 1950's not only sought out to rehabilitate the girls in prison but also to educate them and make them fit to join society again. If they were sentenced today the system may have been given a harsher judgement.

    In his book So Brilliantly Clever (2011) Peter Graham who's a retired barrister state that there was indeed a diary owned by Juliet Hulme which was destroyed by her parents. He has gained this information by talking to several people around the Hulme household.
    And if there was a diary it most likely contained a lot of information on how the girls planned this together. Perhaps similar to those entries which we have in Pauline's diaries about the planning.

    Do you really think that Juliet was less involved in this than Pauline because she may not have been the one of first brought up the idea? Pauline's diary claim that she (Juliet) was worried but didn't disagree violently on killing Honora. Knowing this several days before the murder Juliet did nothing to alarm her family or contact any other adult about what was going on. It's quite obvious that Juliet did agree to the entire plot. She did agree to help her friend in the killing. She did agree to bring out a brick from her own home at Ilam (the murder weapon). She did agree to place out the pink stone on the ground so they could over power Honora and bash her to death. She was highly involved in this crime!

  66. Anonymous,

    You have rushed back onto this page without bothering to research one thing.
    I will give you a little snippet to, hopefully whet your appetite.
    Key in :- 18th December 1954.
    The Argus Weekender
    Mental torment.,

    It may give you a completely different view than the one you have on some aspects.
    For a start you may stop looking upon The two involved as they are now. Adults.But as they were in 1954. Schoolgirls.
    It is said that a 15 year old in 1954 is like a 12 year old these days.The brain still isn't fully wired up, so to speak.
    You will form a clearer idea why she is a writer.She had had encouragement to write for a long time. Because of her intelligence and amazing imagination.
    You have made a huge issue about her writing books,and have been upset about it.Only you and God know the real reason for that.
    Good luck with the searching.

    Carl Rosel

  67. Mr Carl Rosel,

    I'm not responsible for every "Anonymous" comment made on this blog. I'm also not that interested in having a debate with you since it's quite obvious you don't accept any other views than your ideas on this case. I've also noticed that you recently had your comments removed from other blogs discussing this case. I guess that says a lot about you.

  68. Mr Anonymous,(Which one)

    Comments were removed from the blog because there was a personal attack on me.You also read that the person apologised for straying off the subject. It is still there.So how can you write down here that it says a lot about me.You are bordering on doing the exact same thing. Why. Because some people become incensed at having something shown to them that does not fit their punitive, judgemental - attitude.Does not matter what they read or find out.It differs from the mindset they have, so they are unable or unwilling to take it on board. And they are numerous.

  69. I was making a reference not only to this particular blog (and if I got it right, both you and your "abuser" got your comments removed) but also a book blog called "cover me" where I saw one comment had been deleted and not re-posted. In the same blog you also query about people who are "anti-Anne Perry" a question which got no repy. Also, if I get it right you are not allowed to make any further comment on author and renowned literary critic Nicholas Reid's blog who used a critical approach while addressing Joanne Drayton's biography in his review of the book. I'm sorry if you got hurt by my previous post line "I guess that says a lot about you". You can be quite harsh yourself calling people "punitive, judgemental" as soon as they don't agree with you.

  70. Well, there you are. ( And they are numerous )


  72. Carl, thanks for that great link to the actual newspaper account of the aftermath of the murder. I always enjoy looking at original documents...much appreciated.

  73. There are in fact many other Newspaper articles (Australia)about the case available on that site.
    Use the search section: Parker-Hulme,
    or Juliet Hulme.

    Over 100 hits

    Great site.


    Past interview with ( now )Sir Peter Jackson,and Fran Walsh re-making the movie Heavenly Creatures.


    Sorry about link.


  77. Anyone engaging this case honestly must disregard that Argus Weekender post quoted and posted above on September 30 in early November. It's a load of bloated, excitable tabloidspeak so peppered with obvious (and I mean OBVIOUS) falsehoods that I'd advise no one to give it any credence whatsoever, and I'm surprised that Mr. Rosel--who is a reliable presence in pretty much every comment section about this case, quoting case materials--would post it, as it contains things such as:

    1. Saying the diary was Hulme's;

    2. Putting words into her mouth re: this diary being hers, and about her supposed devastation that her mother, under oath, would dispute what she wrote in "her diary";

    3. Repeatedly saying that Parker went by "Nina." (It was "Gina.")

    That third matter is a small but telling hint that this is the shoddiest of journalism, but the matter of the diary is a severe breach of basic journalistic ethics. This is invented, sensationalist quotes put into Hulme's mouth. This is true garbage.

    That article is appalling, silly tosh. Surely if you're sympathetic to Ms. Perry, as Mr. Rosel clearly is, you ought not to continue spreading something that not only gets the facts wrong but actively invents quotes from Ms. Hulme about her writings, her diary. Whatever one believes about her, this sort of thing is unfair.

    The unethical non-journalism in evidence here doesn't truly require further note, but the hysterical, panting tone of the rest of it does it no further favours. The absurd and breathless descriptions of Perry's writing being virtually nonpareil describe a reality far removed from the one in which Ms. Perry is a passable genre writer.

    I felt it necessary to write this, as Mr. Sattler expressed gratitude for the link. He has been very generous and open-minded here and I wanted to let him know that that particular piece is without merit.

  78. One interesting perspective I've not seen here regarding the argument that Hulme was in some way the "leader" of this pair comes from her defense attorney, who believed she was quite nice, quite clever, and quite ill--and was the communicator of any 'insanity' between the pair as well as the force behind their planning. He has, of course, said that the defense had no genuine belief that folie a deux was truly at work. He seems to have found Hulme to be quite delusional however.

    This requires no ripostes from Carl about what was actually in Parker's diary, as that's all quite clear. I'm simply offering the link, as there was a discussion above about whether or not Hulme was in some way 'the ringleader'. I don't think it's possible to know one way or the other; I do think this individual's impressions are more valid than ours, however:

    I am not sure if it was clarified above that the false claim regarding Hulme's TB medications having been later withdrawn (or in some way linked to diminished capacity or hallucinations) came from Perry, but sadly she is the originator of this demonstrably untrue claim. I do not know why she made this claim, as I am not Perry, but it is true that she has propagated a handful of demonstrably untrue tidbits about her own case.

    I say this not because I have decreed Perry to be an irredeemable creature, but because it is quite sad. No one but Perry can know why she does this. It may very well be the sort of thing one has to tell herself in order to go on--and something one then comes to believe over time. Unfortunately, for whatever reason, Perry has been demonstrably dishonest in her public statements. This is true. It is not an attack--it is simply true that she was not an 'accessory', that her medicines were not recalled, that several things she's said do not comport with known facts.

    This is the finest writing I have seen on the topic, from a woman who knew Hulme at the time of the murder and wishes her peace even though she has previously found herself troubled by Ms. Perry's bafflingly sad untruths:

    It is true that 1950s attitudes were backward. I am sympathetic to perpetrators as well as victims. These girls were not mindless monsters, Carl is correct on that. The only thing any of us looking in (and back, far back) from outside can know for sure is that both girls participated in the crime. Splitting hairs about how one is less culpable than the other is meaningless. They took a life, together.

  79. (I meant to say the Weekender story was quoted/referenced/posted on September 30 and in early November. It is this piece:

  80. Since you write you are "sympathetic to perpetrators" I guess you also defend rapists and other convicted murderers. Or, is it that you are only "sympathetic to perpetrators" in this case because both women has managed to stay out of trouble after leaving prison? Or are you sympathetic because this case is very famous? They both took part in carefully planned murder. Even the doctors who examined them shortly after the murder were stunned that they showed absolute no remorse and could argument that the death of Pauline's mother was indeed justified. They got out after 5 years only. A quite light sentence compared to the crime. New Zealand Prison system could have kept them for 25 years but as anyone who has read about the case the juridical system were very eager to rehabilitate these girls. They were educated by Professors from Canterbury University and prior their release 1959 both had passed University entrance.

  81. I stated that because Mr. Rosel, quite bizarrely, pops up absolutely everywhere defending Hulme. Rather than suffer more of that I thought I would state from the outset that I am not without compassion for all people, and that I do understand the argument that these girls were very young and very troubled. It is not because of a compassion deficit that I feel a need to call him out for spreading falsehoods.

    I continue to find Hulme's dishonesty troubling and do not have oceans of sympathy for her in particular, no. Perhaps I should have said compassion rather than sympathy? I believe that it's a rare person who is wholly irredeemable. I will take my cue from Ms. Parker's sister's forgiveness here.

    The barrister interview I posted discusses the very same absence of remorse you reference. I'm well aware of it. And unfortunately the article Mr. Rosel posted is a load of hogwash, whether it be an argument about the girls' repentance or about Hulme's impossibly brilliant writing. I am not arguing that neither of these girls showed repentance in that time period (I cannot know that, and I've not read all the literature on this crime), just that said article is appalling garbage. It should not be held up as evidence of anything.

    I will argue quite confidently that Perry is no genius writer, however. Oy gevalt.

  82. Thanks for your clarifications and your experiences in discussing this particular case. Just remember that some people aren't worthy argue with. I think you know whom I'm referring too. Thanks for your post, I quite liked it.

  83. The same Anonymous again, with a clarification: when I wrote of forgiveness I was speaking of the comments of Parker's sister toward Parker. I have no idea whether or not she has ever expressed forgiveness toward Hulme/Perry. I can imagine--*imagine*, as all of us only imagine--how painful it would be for me to be the child of a murder victim reading the sort of odd, detached dissembling Perry has offered to the media regarding her crime and her victim over the years. But I am not Ms. Parker's sister. As someone who actually has lost loved ones to murder, I do know how I would feel if *those* perpetrators, the ones who've hurt me so personally, behaved in that way. But that is only me trying to compare my experience to that of a stranger.

    I do believe, though, that if one wants compassion one must *offer* compassion, or at least understand what it means. It is quite sad to me that Ms. Perry seems to expect some level of compassion for herself while saying uncompassionate things (such as that she does not really think of her victim because she scarcely knew the woman). When a person asks that people be compassionate regarding things she did long ago when young and troubled, all the while describing only her own sorrows as evidence (while actively lying about what brought them about), she is doing only half the work. The easy half. The half that requires more from others than it does from her.

  84. Of course the woman doesn't owe any of *us* these explanations, kindnesses, displays of genuine contrition and growth. She owes those to Honorah Parker Rieper and her family and loved ones--and if she has never reached out to them otherwise, her public comments *are* essentially her comments to those people. She is someone who makes a living writing about human nature, so she knows this very well (or one would hope). Clearly she hoped she'd spend the rest of her life undiscovered, but once discovered, all of this, including compassion and honesty owed to those harmed, became part of the equation…as did the fact that she now makes a living writing *murder mysteries*. AS did the fact that she has written things such as 'Well, it's not very difficult to hit someone on the head, if they trust you and are not expecting anything of the sort.' (From 'The Hyde Park Headsman'.) She may very well be a stiff upper lip sort, someone who expresses in private, and only in private, the compassion people tend to expect in exchange for our offering it to those who've done what she's done. But she is also someone who supposedly spends a great deal of her days probing human nature and the human psyche, pen in hand. Her comments regarding the theft of a very real woman's life are detached and dishonest and odd in a way that anyone devoted to exploring the human mind and heart ought to recognize. I would think fans of Perry should expect more from her.

    This is another component of the original question about whether her history affects people's experience of her work. Should not we expect *more* than this from someone who writes about murder and morals and the human condition for a living? Think about what she does each day. She sits, with her mind and her pen, exploring exactly these sorts of matters. And if she was young and confused and troubled (and perhaps delusional) long ago when she battered a woman to death, is what she is *now*, how she discusses these matters *now*, anything approaching an admirable maturity? I can proffer compassion for a possibly mentally ill, possibly quite neglected, demonstrably troubled youth. But is an adult refusing to take responsibility for violent youthful transgressions not ultimately behaving *childishly*? (Her saying she cried and repented is not the same thing as taking responsibility. Taking responsibility means not propagating falsehoods, for one. She is not on trial, but if she is going to address these things at *all* it is neither mature nor repentant to distort and diminish like that.)

    I'm saddened to think that anyone might hold her up as an astute observer of human mores while excusing her quite ill-observed positions.

    Thank you fellow anonymous! I did find myself compelled to post all this for some reason.

  85. You're most welcome to do so! I know this case rise many thoughts and questions. I recently read Joanne Drayton's biography about Anne Perry (released this year) and was annoyed that she (Drayton) make a mission of creating a more "sympatetic" view of Anne Perry. I don't think that should be the goal of any biographer if they wish to stay neutral about the subject the study and present. My own "compassion" reach only to the limits of psychiatry. It's perhaps easier to be compassionate if trying to understand what one is dealing with here and that is to my personal view a case of two persons with personality disorders. A possible diagnosis is for each one is also revealed in Peter Graham's book "So Brilliantly Clever" (2011). A personality disorder such in this case with both girls declared sane to stand trial doesn't make anyone less responsible for the law. These are just my thoughts for the moment. Also wanna thank Sam sattler for allowing Anonymous comments on this case.

  86. I am enjoying the conversation between the Anonymous posters and Carl. At this point, I personally don't have much more to add to the conversation, but it is interesting that a variety of sentiments continue to be expressed this way. I have given up the notion that we will ever get an honest public reaction from "Perry," but I'm hoping that she leaves something behind after her death that will reflect her mindset accurately enough to answer our questions.


  88. What's the point with this link dropping? Start your very own webpage/homepage/or blog about Anne Perry and Parker-Hulme, Carl Rosel.

    Anyone who can use Google search can reach out to those articles. Again, what's the point with link dropping? Have you tired hearing your own voice :)

  89. Since Carl Rosel hasn't made any comment to the article he links to above I can tell that it's an article written by James Bennett and it focus on the Parker-Hulme case and various interpretations by both scholars and artists (for example: Peter Jackson's movie Heavenly Creatures). Bennet's article also focus on the gay aspect of Parker-Hulme case:

    "All the medical witnesses who took the stand at the trial, Drs Medlicott and Bennett for
    the defence, and Drs Stallworthy, Saville and Hunter for the prosecution, characterized
    the relationship as ʻhomosexualʼ. Their interpretation of the way in which the relationship
    manifested itself varied considerably. See Notes of Evidence, Regina v Parker and Hulme,
    Transcripts of Supreme Court Proceedings, CH273/T10/1954, 58 and 178, Archives New
    Zealand (Christchurch Regional Office). For a recent scholarly perspective on homosexual
    identity, see Chris Brickell, ʻThe Emergence of a Gay Identityʼ, in A. Kirkman and P.
    Moloney, eds, Sexualities in Aotearoa/New Zealand, Dunedin, 2005."

  90. If people do not like the links that are placed on this blog because they do not conform to their negative, punitive mindsets,that is too bad for them really. The more that read them instead of the sensationalist garbage that they have, the better.
    Not one of the witnesses in the trial of the, then girls, spent anywhere near the time that those who closely monitored and studied them did.We are talking five years. Not a few hours as those involved in the trial did.Many take heed of them over and above anyone else.I am not sure, but did the Doctors for the crown even spend one minute with them.
    Sir Peter Jackson and Fran Walsh undertook extensive research into the girls. As Sir Peter has stated in one of the links on this page said :- They were not evil. Not psychopaths.A far different view to the consistant vitriole from those who have only read dribbling rubbish.
    In the latest book about Anne Perry (Juliet Hulme) and this is a repeat, she is described as the most gentle,good and intensely moral person. And has been longer than a lot of her detractors have been on this earth.
    But it is fantastic that Anne Perry has risen above all the vitriole and continual nastiness and is successful. She has had the intelligence, the spirit and the guts to do it.Nothing that is said here or anywhere else is going to change that. She has over 26 million books in print. That is an amazing achievement considering what she experienced as a girl.
    If people do not like that aspect either, well just remember, jealousy is an ugly trait.

  91. Neither Carl Rosel or Fran Walsh/Peter Jackson are qualified to make any comments about the mental health of these girls. Why?
    They're not psychiatrists. They're entitled to have an opinion of course but they're no medical expertise so when Carl Rosel state the girls were not "psychopats" he doesn't know what he's talking about.

    Dr. Bennett said: "It was a murder that was bestial, treacherous, and filthy. It is outside all kindly limits of sanity. It is a thousand miles away from sanity."

    You still haven't answered the question why you keep posting links without any comments. Now, I commented on James Bennet's article (grandson of Dr. Bennett who examined the girls prior trial) above. What's your thoughts on his article except getting back to his own conclusions about people having a negative mindset. I really liked James Bennet's article. Especially his references and I quoted one as well. What's your opinion about Bennett's article, carl Rosel?

  92. You quote that certain people aren't psychiatrists. Was Dr Bennett? Or was he just a GP.Why then are you quoting him.You want it both ways and you are just arguing for the sake of it.The people who closely monitored the, then girls in prison certainly were.So it is good that you concede that Professional people are right. They were right that the girls were not lesbians.Right that Juliet Hulme (Anne Perry)showed contrition about what they had done and came to repentance.So it is actually good that you have pointed that out.
    I have often put a link on the page without a comment. It gives people an entirely different aspect to the situation to what they have read before.You are just so keen on shooting down anything at all that is said just for the sake of it.
    I hope you have a Happy Christmas though.

  93. I have found out that Dr Kenneth Stalworthy who was a crown witness did indeed see the girls (albeit for a short period)

  94. I had never really wanted to become enmeshed in discussion about Doctors because I have no experience or expertise in that field. But I have discussed them and now stand corrected on the issue of Dr Bennett. Although I have read in the past that Dr Bennett was a GP friend of Henry Hulme, I have now read that he had been involved in several cases concerning psychiatric issues.
    If we are to take Dr Bennetts diagnosis as correct, would it be fair to state that indeed the two girls should have then been found 'Not Guilty'on the grounds of insanity at the time the matricide was committed.
    Dr Reginald Medlicott stated :-
    I was satisfied that in the period leading up to the crime and immediately following it they were disturbed in mood, activity and thought patterns to a degree consistant only with the diagnosis of psychosis. Their psychoses were identical and the term folie-a-deux applicable.
    In the link above which is already on this blog, it states :-
    A fuge state of non-insane automatism would probably have provided a more finessed account of their actions ( a fugue being an interval in which a person is not in control and lacks full volitional agency. )
    Dr Kenneth Stallworthy, witness for the crown, conceded during cross examination by Terence Gresson for the defence that, yes, whether a person was sane or insane was a matter on which psychiatrists might disagree. And yes,there had been instances in the past when he had been proved wrong and his colleagues right.
    So there are different and varied dignoses put forward.Maybe that is part of the reason that the crown prosecuter Brown, at the trial had a mental breakdown and was committed to a psychiatric hospital.
    I think it would be fair to say that the girls at the time leading up to and at the time the matricide was committed, had a diminished capacity for reason. When you also take into account the extreme trauma and stress they were also being subjected to at the time, which is also portrayed in the movie 'Heavenly Creatures'Brown the prosecuter is proof of what stress can do to an adult.We are discussing schoolgirls.

  95. I quoted Dr. F.O Bennett's words from a 1954 Newspaper report on the trial and there is no need to interpret his words in terms of diagnosis. It's not an diagnosis he delivered but an ordinary medical opinion. No one knows if the girls ever got a proper diagnosis concerning their mental health except being diagnosed with homosexuality. Both girls were followed up by psychatrists in prison. It's confirmed by Anne Perry to Joanne Drayton she did indeed received visits from one. Peter Graham gives their names in his book. I think Pauline had an elderly female Dr. who was also specialist in women's health and childcare. Dr. Medlicott later abandoned his theories about Folie-a-deux in the 1960's. That theory was only important for the girls defence team.

  96. Today there exists in British law the psychiatric defence of mental impairment, which falls short of medical insanity and which would have related very well to the circumstance of Pauline Parker and Juliet Hulme.
    Extreme emotional disturbance, such that an accused may suffer from, an over-riding albeit not long-lasting state of psychological freezing.
    In 1954 the defence team did not have that option.
    It does not matter that Dr Reginald Medlicott abandoned whatever theory he had. The fact remains that he was satisfied, that in the period leading up to the crime and immediately following it, they ( the girls ) were disturbed in mood activity and thought patterns to a degree consistant only with the diagnosis of psychosis.
    You also see that portrayed in the movie 'Heavenly Creatures'Sir Peter Jackson and Fran Walsh did extensive research for that movie, which included professional diagnosis of the state of the two girls.
    It is grossly injust to judge the two (then girls )as if they , firstly, were adults. And secondly, had their wits about them.There was an horrendous amount of stress and trauma going on in their lives at the time the offence was committed.