Anne Perry (Juliet Hulme)

Anne Perry (born Juliet Marion Hulme) is an English author of historical detective fiction.

Anne Perry (Juliet Hulme)

Anne Perry was born in Blackheath, London on 28 October 1938. As of 2009 she has published 49 novels, and several collections of short stories. Her story Heroes, which first appeared in the 1999 anthology Murder and Obsession, edited by Otto Penzler, won the 2001 Edgar Award for Best Short Story.

 

 

What many people don’t seem to realise is that Anne Perry was convicted of the brutal murder of her friend’s mother in 1954. Together with her school friend Pauline Parker, Anne Perry, (then Juliet Hulme) murdered Parker’s mother, Honora Rieper, in June 1954. Hulme’s parents were in the process of separating, and she was supposed to go to South Africa to stay with a relative. The two teenage girls, who wrote gruesome murder stories together, had created a rich fantasy life together populated with famous actors such as James Mason and Orson Welles. They did not want to be separated.

 

On 22 June 1954, Perry (Hulme) and Parker took Honora Rieper for a walk in Victoria Park in their hometown of Christchurch. On an isolated path Perry (Hulme) dropped an ornamental stone so that Ms. Rieper would lean over to retrieve it. At that point, Parker had planned to hit her mother with half a brick wrapped in a stocking. The girls presumed that would kill the woman. Instead, it took 45 frenzied blows from both girls to finally kill Honora Rieper. The brutality of the crime has contributed to its notoriety.

 

Perry (Hulme) and Parker stood trial in Christchurch in 1954, and were found guilty on August 29 of that year. As they were too young to be considered for the death penalty under New Zealand law at the time, they were convicted and sentenced to be detained at Her Majesty’s Pleasure. In practice, this sentence meant they were to be detained at the discretion of the Minister of Justice. Perry (Hulme) and Parker were released separately some five years later. A condition of their release was that they were never to meet or contact each other again.

 

These events formed the basis for Peter Jackson’s 1994 film Heavenly Creatures, in which Kate Winslet portrayed teenaged Juliet Hulme (Anne Perry), and Melanie Lynskey portrayed a teenage Pauline Parker.

 

Here’s the murder scene from that film. (Warning: This scene is brutal and disturbing):

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQ6W5bRYxWc

 

And here’s the Heavenly Creatures trailer:

 

 

After being released from prison in 1960, Juliet Hulme took the name Anne Perry and continued  writing about murder. Her first novel, The Cater Street Hangman, was published under this name in 1979.

 

 

Her works generally fall into one of several categories of genre fiction, including historical murder mysteries, detective fiction and religious fantasy. Many of them feature a number of recurring characters, most importantly Thomas Pitt, who appeared in her first novel, and amnesiac private investigator William Monk, who first appeared in her 1990 novel The Face of a Stranger.

 

 

Most of Anne Perry’s novels feature a grisly or brutal crime that is eventually solved by the protagonist.

 

In an episode of his television series Ian Rankin’s Evil Thoughts, crime novelist Ian Rankin interviewed Anne Perry, who spoke candidly about her part in the murder. Here is a pertinent clip from that interview, complete with a transcript of the interview:

http://minguo.info/usa/node/81

 

Here is a link to Anne Perry: Interiors, a documentary film about Perry and the ongoing conflicts between her past, her present and her future:

http://www.anne-perry-interiors.com/index.php?lang=en

 

And here’s a link to the Christchurch Library Digital Archives on the Parker-Hulme murder case (1954):

http://christchurchcitylibraries.com/heritage/digitised/parkerhulme/

 

And here’s the link to the extensive Heavenly Creatures website, containing all of the documents, diary entries and transcripts – as well as a wealth of other material – used for research by Peter Jackson and Fran Walsh in the making of the film:

http://members.tripod.com/hc_faq/contents.htm

 

And here is a link to details of Peter Graham’s book on the Parker-Hulme murder case – So Brilliantly Clever:

http://www.penguin.com.au/products/9781877551123/so-brilliantly-clever-parker-hulme-murder-shocked-world

 

And here’s a link to Reflections of the Past, Alexander Roman’s documentary about the relationship between Juliet Hulme and Pauline Parker: 

http://www.reflectionsofthepast.net/

 

And here is a link to Anne Perry’s website, where any reference to her murderous past is absent, although the notoriety of the brutal crime may undoubtedly have contributed to her getting her publishing contract: http://www.anneperry.net/

 

Interestingly, there are no references to Interiors or Heavenly Creatures or So Brilliantly Clever or Ian Rankin’s Evil Thoughts or Reflections of the Past on Anne Perry’s website.

 

 

Anne Perry (Juliet Hulme)

 

www.rjdent.com

 

 

 

 

  

About these ads

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

522 Responses to “Anne Perry (Juliet Hulme)”

  1. Emilia Says:

    It is astounding that this woman is loved and admired for her books about MURDER, when she herself was instrumental in a planned and coldly executed brutal murder. She would be in prison if she was not “only” 15 when she helped annihilate that poor woman – her friend’s mother! Based on her actions, I imagine this psychopath enjoys writing about murder. Shame on her readers and all the other people who promote this cold-blooded murderess!

  2. Julie Smith Says:

    Emilia, Your choice of words is precisely appropriate: you “imagine” your characterization of Miss Perry, i.e. “psychopath”; and you further “imagine” that such a one “enjoys writing about murder” because she is a “cold-blooded murderess.”
    This reader is not ashamed of enjoying Anne Perry’s writing. Indeed, I would recommend any one of her mysteries, as I often do. I add that I am most impressed by the story of her own life – her very troubled adolescence – and the godly person of character which she has become instead. What glorious hope her choices hold up to each one of us, who turn from a fractured past, and desperately plead for a chance to begin afresh.

    • Emilia Says:

      Julie Smith, like me, you are free to believe whatever you want about Hulme/Perry. What I believe, is based on an incredibly violent, cold-blooded, horrendous murder she planned and committed. What is the fundament of your belief that Hulme/Perry turned to God? I read one of her books–before I found out who she really was–and there is NOTHING there complimentary to God–on the contrary.

  3. Juliet Says:

    Julie,

    Your choice of words is precisely appropriate: you claim you are ‘not ashamed of enjoying Anne Perry’s writing’. Juliet Hulme’s first writing was a murder plot. A real one. You also say you are ‘most impressed by the story of her own life – her very troubled adolescence – and the godly person of character which she has become instead.’ How do you know she has become godly – and whatever do you mean by ‘godly’? Do you mean it in the sense of being god-like, or like god? Juliet Hulme makes a profit from writing about murders. Is that what you’d call truly ‘godly’? You state: ‘What glorious hope her choices hold up to each one of us’ – but one of her choices was to murder someone. Not much glorious hope there. Your ‘fractured past’ comment is gallows humour at its blackest, because it was a fractured skull (45 blows with a half brick from both girls, according to forensics) that she turned and ran away from, after which she ‘desperately plead(ed) for a chance to begin afresh’ and put her heinous crime firmly in her past. And to then never mention it to anyone – but to write novel after novel about brutal murders, and be paid for it!

    Don’t defend murderers. They’re scum. Always.

    Regards,

    Juliet.

  4. Stephen Flatley Says:

    I don’t know why people leave unintelligent comments, especially as they have here, in relation to a ‘controversial’ subject. I hate comments like “Murdering bitch!” or “Rot in hell!” or ‘evil bitch’, or even “I love Anne Perry!” To comment on a blog, the comment needs to contribute something useful. Also, if JH has served time in prison for her crime, isn’t that the end of it? Shouldn’t we ALL move on. If you believe she’s still guilty, then by all means say so, but don’t buy her books. Great blog by the way, RJ. My advice – delete all the negative comments and just keep doing what you’re doing!

    • Emilia Says:

      Stephen Flatley. Perry did NOT serve time in prison – unfortunately – because she was “only” 15. She was smart enough to turn her friend’s mother’s cranium into mush with a brick, yet, was too young to rot in jail.

      Since you believe comments should “contribute something useful,” could you remind me of your, er, useful contribution?

  5. Reginald McClane Says:

    Well, look at the controversy this post has caused – and all because the author was once a murderer. She’s not a murderer now, she’s a writer – and quite a good one too. Okay, it’s good to know the facts – and yes, her notoriety probably did help get her a publishing contract, but surely her novel sales have helped her to keep her books in print and to guarantee her a writing career. We know what she did – and we know what she does. Read her or don’t read her – it all depends on your ability to let go of the past. And if you listen carefully to what she says in the Rankin video, then you’ll know that she spent five and a half years in prison for her crime. Incidentally, I loved Heavenly Creatures.

    • Jessica Says:

      It’s not once she was a murderer, but now she’s not (she will always be a murderer). You show me where she states over and over again that she is sorry. Every day she should be sorry for what she did. She took somebody’s life and got lucky to only serve five years. The victim was a daughter, wife, and mother. The fact that she considers herself to be a mormon and writes books about gruesome murders shows she really hasn’t changed. I dont know any mormons who write, read and think about gruesome murders.

  6. Zeyno Altinok Says:

    I recently started to read Victoria Thompson’s Gaslight series… and on the cover page of every one of her books, there is a blurb that says “Anne Perry and Caleb Carr fans rejoice!!”… Well after reading all of VT books, I decided to give Anne Perry a chance. I read two of her books and fell in love with her stories… and her storytelling talent. A few days ago, on my way back from the library, as I was getting on to the elevator, a gentleman approached me and struck up a conversation about Anne Perry. He asked me if I knew that she was once a convicted murderer. I was stunned. I couldn’t believe it. That day I got the Heavenly Creatures dvd, but first I read as much as I could about the murder case. Deep in my heart I could not feel anything at all… What I mean is, I wasn’t mad at her, I didn’t hate her, or feel any other emotions, although I was very curious to know the motivation for this crime. I thought of my childhood, the emotional distress, physical abuse I’d suffered, and the depression I fell into as a result of my parents’ divorce. By the time I was 16 years old, although I now realize this, I was a totally and utterly depressed individual. There have been times when I felt very angry towards certain individuals but I never ever wanted to kill them. By saying this, I don’t mean to equate myself with Ms. Perry or the other woman. One cannot understand the degree of stress one experiences; extreme stress can provoke bad behaviours in people. Again, I am not trying to make an excuse for the murder, all I am trying to say is: Thank God that it was not me who suffered as much as Juliet and Pauline – and that I never ended up committing a crime. Only those two will know the kind of emotional torments they lived through. They served their sentence as per the laws of their nation and it is now up to a higher authority to do what needs to be done. For two people who commit a murder of a person (not just anyone but the mother of one) because they did not want to be SEPARATED, a lifetime’s punishment of separation is I think maybe worst than execution… I hope with my broken English, I was able to convey my thoughts…

    • copper04Carl Rosel Says:

      Zeyno, how right you are. Extreme stress can cause people to do things, that in normal circumstances they would not do. Juliet Hulme and Pauline Parker were in that category. To boot they were adolescent girls. The psychic stress and trauma they were enduring was phenomanal. If that case was heard today, I am quite sure the verdict would have been, diminished responsibility or temporary insanity, with a proviso that they received help, not further punishment. They had suffered since very small girls. Apart from their parents in hospitals and sanitoriums. In Juliets case, five years at one time. Given medication it was found out, impaired judgement and had to be withdrawn.
      Over half a century later, and there is still that same 1954 thinking and element that wants to put them down.
      Carl Rosel

  7. Jub Says:

    I was very impressed with the interview. I appreciated the view she takes concerning her prison term mentioning that had there been no punishment there could also have been no redemption. Five and a half years might not seem like a long prison term for a murder like this, but since she was just fifteen at the time, five and a half years represents more than one third of the lifetime she had yet lived. She was able, in time, to turn her life around and use her talent to find employment and support herself. Once a person has done their time, to find work and live their life as any other free citizen is not too much to ask. If you enjoy her writing, buy her books. If not, don’t, but there is nothing wrong with a person using their talent to make a living selling interesting mysteries that lots of people enjoy reading.

  8. Emilia Says:

    Reginald, I conclude that if Hitler had survived and turned to be a “good writer” (something Perry is not), you would certainly be upset with all the “controversy” created, and wouldn’t mind reading all his books. Perry was NEVER notorious for her crime; 99.99% of her readers have no idea of what kind of sick mind hides behind her fake name. It is not a matter of letting go of the past, but the fact that a murderer–who has never been punished–chose to write about grizzly murders. Zeyno, understanding why someone commits a horrible crime–like the one Mrs. Perry perpetrated–does not make it less horrific and does not undo the crime. You think Juliet and Pauline (who served extremely brief sentences, by the way) suffered; what about the horrific minutes in which they were both hammering a brick on Pauline’s mother’s skull? How much “emotional torment” do you think that woman felt? Now, let’s suppose Mrs. Perry was a man and had committed rape; would you still think the same way? Being over 6′ tall in a country where the average woman is 5’6″ and being teased, ridiculed by my peers in school, didn’t turn me into a depressed lil’ monster: I overcame the “emotional distress.” took advantage of my height and long limbs and became a model! And the question, Jub, is not Mrs. Perry using her so-called “talent” (of which I can’t find much in her books) to write, but the choice she made: murder, which she committed and doesn’t show signs of having repented. Recognizing all this does not make me mad or hate; common-sense just dictates that someone who at such tender age concocted such horrific scheme, is not a human being worth of my time.

  9. Stacy Luck Says:

    I’ll say this for you, Emilia, you really are doing your best to get everyone to hate Anne Perry, and to believe she didn’t spend five and a half years in prison, aren’t you? Well, she did. Check your facts carefully before you spout off! Haven’t you got anything better to do than monitor these comments and then try and stir up hatred for a very good author? Listen – we’ve all got bad things in our pasts – should we be judged now for what we once did? No, of course not. With regards to Anne Perry, some like her books; some don’t. Some can forgive her; some can’t. Some know about her being Juliet Hulme; some don’t. What does it matter? Let’s just try and get on as a species, shall we, without stirring up antipathy and hatred, eh? Remember in Bambi when Thumper’s mother says: If you can’t say anything nice, don’t say anything at all – well, you could try following that advice. Good post by the way.

  10. Otto Herd Says:

    I can’t believe the number of negative comments that this post has generated. Why can’t you all leave Anne Perry alone. She only writes books – that’s all. If you don’t want to read her work, then don’t. She’s not done anything that she hasn’t paid for. Positive comments only. Mine: I love Anne Perry’s books.

  11. Cecelia Brown Says:

    I totally agree with Stacy’s comments. I read many of Anne Perry’s novels before I sadly learned of her past. I have continued to read all of them because I love her insight, and her manner of writing. God has blessed her with that talent and she is using it well.

    We are all walking through this life for the first time making mistakes and learning as we go. I know that I count on the forgiveness of God at the end of my life and I have hope. Anne Perry committed the worst sin and has paid in all ways. As far as the rest it is up to God not me to judge her. I am so glad that Emilia is not our final Judge, aren’t you? She too will be judged, perhaps she should work on her unforgiving heart before that moment arrives.

  12. Kate Moser Says:

    I met Ms Perry in 2000 at a Crime Writers conference at Oxford University. She was lovely and gave two very excellent presentations.
    She paid her dues long ago. Does a person have to pay for what they did for the rest of their life?
    She has gotten on with her life. How about you get on with yours.

    • John Burlington Says:

      Well, in most cases yes, murderers are supposed to pay for the rest of their lives. 5 1/2 years for taking someone’s life in such a brutal and premeditated manner is an insult to the justice system. I’m amazed at how easily something this callous and cold-blooded can be so easily dismissed by so many. Would you feel the same way had it been your mother who had been bludgeoned to death? It’s so easy to dismiss when it happened so long ago and to someone you don’t know, isn’t it? Because now of course she entertains you.

    • David Warner Says:

      ‘She was lovely and gave two very excellent presentations.’ – She was evil and she planned and executed a brutal and bloody murder with her friend. ‘She paid her dues long ago.’ Hulme went to prison for five and a half years, and was then given a publishing contract with a major publisher. Dues? ‘Does a person have to pay for what they did for the rest of their life?’ If Hulme/Perry had stolen some money, or committed a crime where no one was hurt, injured or killed, then maybe she could be forgiven, but MURDER cannot be forgiven, EVER. Perry needs to be reminded every day of the terrible crime she committed – forever! No let up, no excuses, no pardon, no forgiveness, no kindness, no sympathy – because – she’s a fucking evil murderer!!! And always will be. She has no right to ‘get on with her life’. She shouldn’t have a life to get on with. And you think she’s ‘lovely’. Shame on you!!!

  13. Wiley Says:

    The one thing I find interesting is the lack of emotion in Ms. Perry’s voice when she talks about the crime. I realize it was so long ago but to not acknowledge a mother was murdered at the hands of her own daughter and daughter’s best friend in a more compassionate way seems odd to me. It is like she has completely separated herself from the event and it has become like one of her novels. Complete and total fiction. Having spent five years in prison at such a young age must have been awful but I do feel that no amount of time should wipe the slate clean. I think that she is lucky to feel she’s paid her debt and now makes a living carrying on writing fantasy murders as she did with Pauline Parker. No doubt she is very talented but what an odd woman. Seems so very distant and cold. I am not here to judge and I don’t wish anyone ill but I do find her a fascinating subject. In some ways she must be reliving the experience when she writes some rather gruesome chapters about the act of murder. What has happened to Pauline Parker? Have they ever communicated and do you think she reads Anne Perry’s novels?

  14. Wiley Says:

    I just did a little research and I know that Pauline Parker now lives under another name as well, Hilary Nathan, and is a very devout Catholic. She has never married and runs a riding school on her property in England. she has no television or radio and no oven. She lives a chaste existence as a single woman. Her sister, Wendy, says that she is very remorseful of her actions and prays everyday. She has not spoken of the crime to anyone and has never tried to use her notoriety to further her career. She did not tell anyone what her real name was and has turned away all attempts to interview her, in fact, denying her real identity. It appears she cannot deal with the reality and finality of her actions.
    She never attempted to find or contact Juliet and I highly doubt she has read any of Ms. Perry’s novels.

  15. Wayne Stead Says:

    Despite the overwhelming response to this post, I’m not sure what its purpose is. Being positive, I think R J Dent is using shock tactics to inform readers about Anne Perry’s past. Envy might be the motivator – she’s definitely sold more books than he has. Negatively, he might be trying to drag her down by revealing her sordid past to potential readers, in the hope no one will read her any more. Besides, this is all old news. Wiley, you’ve just added to it. Kate Moser, are you addressing those who have left comments, or R J Dent? Also, why does everyone keep mentioning a god? What’s the supernatural got to do with Anne Perry’s novels? Or her crime? Obviously there was no kind of divine intervention during the murder, which speaks volumes to me! Well said, Stacey – Emilia needed telling. Jub, the interview was a farce – AP comes across as a cold bitch. No remorse and loads of damage limitation. Who cares about an old woman who just happens to be an average writer who once co-murdered someone? Is it important? Meaningful? I think not. Nor are her books – eight of which I’ve read – worthwhile reading. They’re not important works of fiction. It’s just pulp trash that can be used to fill an afternoon or two.

  16. Emilia Says:

    So, Stacy, my rhetoric is so strong I can sway people’s minds? My facts are correct and 5 years is nothing if compared with the horrendous fate that mother suffered. (After 5 1/2 years she was still dead, by the way!) Had Perry been a couple of years older, how long do you think she and her friend would have spent in prison for coldly planning and brutally murdering a defenseless mother?! Speak for yourself, Stacey: I do not seem to recall having committed any crimes against humanity. Now, from what you wrote, should I conclude you did? Let’s see, you come to this site with the specific and sole intent of attacking me, then you cite… Thumper’s mother… I’d say you are the one who would benefit from your own advice – if you are capable of coming out of your cartoon world! Many people posting here attacked anyone who dared speak the truth about Perry and passed judgment on me; then, straightfaced, these same people preach forgiveness! In my native tongue we have a word for this: “hipocrisia”! If we were to follow your absurd logic, there would be no juries, since only God can judge us… A question for Wayne: if you don’t care “about an old woman who just happens to be an average writer who once co-murdered someone,” if it is not important, etc, etc, etc, why did you comment at all?

  17. David Crosby Says:

    Comment #23: Anne Perry is a murderer who writes – and that’s all. You’re all missing the point: she’ll never not be a murderer, no matter how much time passes. Even when she’s dead, she’ll still be a murderer. Killing another human being is not like stealing or defrauding – it ends another human’s life. By writing saleable stories that hinge on finding out the details of how someone brutally took another person’s life is macabre at best, twisted and evil at worst. Every book of Anne Perry’s is a boast about her part in the murder of her friend’s mother – let’s not kid ourselves otherwise. Emilia, I know you mean well, but you do come across as an unforgiving ghoul. As Dermot intimates, it’s as though you have a vested interest in Anne Perry’s career. Do you work for her? Sorry, that was a joke – sort of. Also, you downplay why you write on here: of course you’re trying to sway people’s minds, otherwise you wouldn’t comment. All of our comments are trying to get people to believe that what we’re saying is true. I am, and so are you. If you downplay your deliberate use of rhetoric, you’re simply doing what Anne Perry does in the Rankin video. Great post, RJ, it’s certainly got people debating a controversial author/topic.

  18. Carlos Perkins Says:

    Emilia, here are some of your comments: ‘She would be in prison if she was not “only” 15′… ‘Stephen Flatley. Perry did NOT serve time in prison–unfortunately–because she was “only” 15′… ‘do you think Juliet and Pauline (who served extremely brief sentences, by the way) suffered’… ‘My facts are correct and 5 years is nothing if compared with the horrendous fate that mother suffered. (After 5 1/2 years she was still dead, by the way!) Had Perry been a couple of years older, how long do you think she and her friend would have spent in prison for coldly planning and brutally murdering a defenseless mother?!’… One question, Emilia: does the word ‘contradiction’ mean anything to you? Don’t bother answering that – PLEASE!

  19. sandy Says:

    i believe that this monster Juliet now called Anne should have received life in prison. she was a grown girl and she killed her friend’s mother and doesn’t deserve to be free. i do believe in the death penalty but in this case life would have been better. what they did was evil. they both should have died in prison.

  20. ann hurd Says:

    I, too, was struck by her absolute lack of emotion while talking of her crime. She has completely separated herself from this murder and only intellectualizes about it. I do not see any remorse at all. As a mental health professional, I’m not sure she is capable. Anymore than the “Iceman”, the professional hit man who was so cool and collected as he calmly discussed how he murdered people. He spoke in the same detached, intellectual manner… the difference was that he honestly acknowledged that if he were free he would kill again.

    This author, on the contrary and completely detached from her crime, continues to kill. In her fantasy life. Which has made her a very rich person. I personally consider her to be a well-paid psychopath perfectly capable of rationalizing her behaviors in the past. If not, why does she try to cover up who she is if she’s so rehabilitated? Where is the honesty? Why the lie of omission? Is all this just too inconvenient for her to have to face up to society and be honest about what she’s done? She continues to lie just as she and her friend did when they tried to cover up what they’d done by running and screaming for help, saying the mother had fallen and hit her head. ( 45 times)

    I saw her bio where she conveniently leaves out the “small” detail that she personally bludgeoned a living person to death over a period of long minutes in which the person suffered both physically and emotionally, knowing that her daughter and the friend were doing this to her. Simply because the mother was ‘… in the way” of them being able to be together?

    I’m sorry but there is no way in hades that 5 years is an adequate punishment for murder! Is that all a human life is worth?

    She doesn’t deserve to be successful by being paid for her continued fascination with gory murders. I don’t give a penny’s damn how well she writes!

  21. Concetta DeMara Says:

    This is an interesting post containing a shocking revelation. A popular writer of murder mysteries is a murderer. That’s not everyday, run-of-the-mill news. And the video clips (fiction and fact) show that crime does pay. Kill someone in Grand Guignol style and you can have a lucrative literary career – as long as you write about it over and over again. Oh, and as long as you espouse some sort of religious clap-trap about repentance and redemption. Anne Perry is a great lesson in using murder to forge a career. Good for her – bad news for the rest of us with morals.

  22. Robert McGarvey Says:

    Emilia
    I’ve just re-read ALL of your comments. You DO contradict yourself. No good getting cross with someone for noticing your inconsistency. Why do you say to Stephen Flatley that Hulme/Perry did NOT serve time in prison? I’m sorry, Emilia, but that’s totally incorrect. She DID serve time in prison. Five and a half years. You are spreading misinformation by saying she didn’t. If I’ve got my reading of your words wrong and I somehow don’t fully UNDERSTAND what you mean when you say: ‘Stephen Flatley. Perry did NOT serve time in prison – unfortunately – because she was “only” 15.’ then please explain the hidden subtleties of your words. They seem fairly straight-forward – although obviously very wrong – to me. Let’s see: ‘Stephen Flatley. Perry did NOT serve time in prison…’ No, sorry, can’t see any grey areas in those words. ‘Stephen Flatley. Perry did NOT serve time in prison…’ I THINK I understand what you’re saying here… One more time: ‘Perry did NOT serve time in prison…’ Yes, I think I see the contradiction and the total inaccuracy of your words, Emilia. Of course, I might simply be misunderstanding you. Perhaps history is wrong and Perry did NOT serve time in prison at all. Can you let me know if she did or not, please? Thank you.

  23. Fiona Geffen Says:

    It’s official – Emilia IS Anne Perry – and she’s a mental case! There’s no point trying to understand anything she says, and no point trying to reason with her. She’s totally nuts. Loopy. Barking mad. Here are the ravings of a lunatic: ‘…you just LOVE to read me, yet, you don’t understand what you read… Re-read the posts I was responding to and you might understand…’ In other words, she’s saying we’re all stupid. Well you can fuck off, Emilia/Anne/Juliet, you patronising shit!

  24. Emilia Says:

    Cross? Me? What did I write to make you think I was upset, Robert McGarvey? If you did follow the thread, you would have noticed that my statement was merely a correction of what I wrote prior–not that I care, but I know it will make no difference to you, since your intent is merely to criticize me. (Wow, you do LOVE to read my posts, don’t you?) Fionna Geffen, darling, why so mad? Your use of profanity reflects very badly on you. :-)*

  25. Robert McGarvey Says:

    Emilia, the reason I said you were cross is because you attack people for their comments. For example, you advise Stacy to come out of her ‘cartoon world’, simply because she quotes some advice on morality presented in a film, rather than in a book. You know as well as anyone that a cartoon rabbit cannot really speak, and you are also aware that it was, in fact, a person reading from a page of text. Would it have had more validity for you if Stacy had been quoting Spinoza or Kant? She was quoting Felix Salten’s words, and they’re as valid as anyone else’s, especially when they are so full of profundity. Yet you mock her and call her logic absurd. And you DO say what I said you said. And in your response to Reginald, you say Hulme/Perry was a murderer ‘who was never punished’. Or have I got that wrong too? Also, I notice you take Fiona to task for her use of profanity, just after you’ve intimated that some readers are too unintelligent to grasp your meaning. I’m also finding it hard to grasp your ‘true’ meaning because your moral high ground keeps shifting. Why not say clearly what you mean? And since when do a few colloquialisms reflect badly on a person? The words Fiona uses can be found in several great works of literature, film and music. Besides, have you decided that you are qualified in some way to attempt to censor Fiona? Shame on you. You should be advocating free speech for all – including those you disagree with. There is no ‘correction’ of what you ‘wrote prior’ – at no point do you admit to making a mistake. At no point do you apologise for repeatedly disseminating misinformation. At no point do you state your previous comments were false. All you seem to do is pretend you’re more intelligent and more moral than anyone else who responds to this post. Yet based on what you said to Stacy, I don’t think you know who Felix Salten is, or why he said what he said. Do you? And finally, if you think Bambi is anything less than a fascinating and informative textbook of jungle warfare and survival techniques, written by a man hunted by the Nazis, then you are not thinking clearly. And if you’re muddled on that, you’re probably muddled about Anne Perry too. Let’s be clear about this: Anne Perry, for the record, is a persona; a fictional person. She is not real. Comprende?

    • Doug Smith Says:

      Mr McGarvey

      Felix Salten’s novel, Bambi is not ‘a fascinating and informative textbook of jungle warfare and survival techniques’. It is, in fact, a powerful political allegory on the treatment of Jews in Europe, as can be deduced from the fact that it was subsequently banned in Nazi Germany in 1936, due to it being considered an anti-Nazi work of fiction.

      You can see why Bambi was banned, and why Salten was hunted by the Nazis, if you read the novel, particularly the last section of Bambi, which contains Salten’s famous (and very well-written) attack on Hitler:

      ‘He isn’t all-powerful as they say. Everything that lives and grows doesn’t come from Him. He isn’t above us. He’s just the same as we are. He has the same fears, the same needs, and suffers in the same way. He can be killed like us…’

      • Barbara Snade Says:

        Mr Smith

        Your assessment of Bambi is correct; it is ‘a powerful political allegory on the treatment of Jews in Europe’, as you say, but it is also ‘a fascinating and informative textbook of jungle warfare and survival techniques’, as Mr McGarvey states, as well as the first eco-awareness novel. The wonderful thing about Bambi (the novel) is its metaphorical nature. Like Kafka, Felix Salten is able to convey compelling and urgent messages by using superb metaphors. Bambi is a great book – far better than anything written by Anne Perry.

      • Phil Watson Says:

        If you read the ‘two leaves’ chapter of Bambi, you will probably notice how similar it is (in theme and style and subject matter) to Endgame by Samuel Beckett. The ‘two leaves’ chapter contains a dialogue on mortality which is full of existential angst, witty mordant epigrams and an understanding of the fragility and tenuousness of human life. This particular chapter has nothing to do with a young deer, a gauche rabbit, or any other animal for that matter. It is an investigation into the notion of mortality and is as serious a piece of writing as anything written by Thomas Aquinas, William Blake, Emily Dickinson, or the afore-mentioned Beckett. Felix Salten is a vastly under-rated writer. More people should read his books.

      • James Harvey Says:

        Yes, this is one of the most memorable scenes of the book, in which Salten writes a short chapter about the onset of winter. The entire chapter is told from the perspective of two leaves, clinging to their branch after some of their neighbors have already fallen. In that scene lives all the questions of mortality and afterlife, mutual support against the unknown, the comforting lies people tell each other, wonderings about the future and the sweep of time, and fear of death. It’s a conversation between two leaves. This book frequently inspires awe in me. it is so well-written, so filled with profundity and wisdom. Felix Salten is an amazing writer. You’re right about the Beckett similarities; as someone else mentioned, there are Kafka similarities too. Everyone should read Bambi, Bambi’s Children, and Perri.

      • Terry Baldwin Says:

        Why are you all talking about a stupid kid’s book? Anne Perry is the subject of this blog and this discussion, not some tale of a naive deer and its pathetic rabbit friend. Grow up and discuss real writing: Anne Perry’s novels and stories.

      • Gerry Grotowski Says:

        Mr Baldwin, Anne Perry’s books are not more ‘real’ than Felix Salten’s Bambi. All of her books and all of his are fiction. The difference between them is that Salten was on the run from murderers, whereas Hulme is a murderer. The difference between their books is that Hulme’s are reasonably popular ephemera, whereas Salten’s books are recognised literary masterpieces that have acheived classic status. Felix Salten was a writer; Anne Perry is a mediocre hack.

      • Thomas Early Says:

        Salten is as good as Aquinas, Beckett, Blake, Dickinson or Kafka! Really? Are you sure? Isn’t Bambi nothing more than an average kids’ book which became well-known because of the Disney film? Anne Perry is a fantastic writer of many gripping and compelling stories. If anyone should be compared to the great writers, it’s her. Her stories will be the next generation’s literature…

  26. Chris Ennis Says:

    Mr McGarvey, your rhetoric is powerful and your criticisms of Emilia are correct. However, Emilia is not the subject of this blog – Anne Perry/Juliet Hulme is – or rather the boundary between who Anne Perry is and who Juliet Hulme is – the subject of this post. To become embroiled in a debate that grows more heated with each comment posted is counter-productive. Felix Salten is a veritable saint. What a man! What a hero! What a writer! However, not everyone knows who he is – Emilia clearly doesn’t. In my opinion, you shouldn’t castigate her for her lack of knowledge. We should be kind to those less knowledgeable – perhaps even share our knowledge with them. Truly, Emilia has shown herself to be an ignorant person, but let’s try and be kind, shall we?

  27. Emilia Says:

    I find it quite interesting that my comments received outraged, irate snaps from posters, who even took time to analyze and dissect my rhetoric. It does not upset me that some posters address me — someone of whom they know nothing — with highly condescending terms. Yet a cold-blooded murderess is treated with the utmost care, as if she did not know what she was doing when she helped plan and execute the murder of her friend’s mother. So, go ahead and keep ignoring what Perry is; continue your defense of this “scum” — as she was so aptly characterized by ‘Juliet’ in her post of May 22, 2010.

    • Tabby Spruce Says:

      Saying you are ignorant because you deride someone for quoting Fellix Salten is not being ‘highly condecending’. It’s being truthful.

      • Emilia Says:

        In your world, yes, of course.

      • Tabby Spruce Says:

        con·de·scend·ing/ˌkändəˈsendiNG/Adjective:
        1.Acting in a way that betrays a feeling of patronizing superiority.
        2.(of an action) Demonstrating such an attitude.

        No – in everyone’s world apart from yours, according to the above definition…. because that is the way you are… as you can easily see if you just read back over your own comments….

      • Emilia Says:

        Why, kitten, you were SO eager to hear from me that you couldn’t help answering as soon as I posted… Either you’re a big fan of mine or you have too much time and not much to do?

  28. Terrence Arnott Says:

    Emilia, of course people retort angrily to what you say – it’s because you talk such crap. I bet if you acknowledged you’d made a few mistakes in what you’d said in your earlier postings (similar to the way Anne Perry acknowledges her mistakes in the Rankin video) and stopped attacking people for speaking sensibly and logically, then some posters would ease up on you. You come across as arrogant and condescending – and no one likes that. Why not try admitting you made a few mistakes and see if it works? Or are you morally and intellectually above such things? Also, if you hate Perry so much, why do you keep posting here? You are Anne Perry, aren’t you?

  29. Emilia Says:

    Terrence, acknowledging one “made a few mistakes” is NOT comparable to planning and helping to brutally murder a woman and publicly admitting it decades later!

    Your point seems to be that because I disagree with some of the posters, that makes my posts stupid or crap; that if I start agreeing with them, they’ll “ease up” on me. This might come to you as a shock, Terrence, but I believe people have the right to disagree with me. Definitely: I am “morally and intellectually above” planning and executing a murder! What about you? Now, could you point out where I wrote that I “hate Perry”? Despite all my shortcomings I have such a devoted audience, that almost immediately after I post there’s a rebuttal. Not bad for someone who is arrogant and condescending. ;-)

    “Vos vestros servate, meos mihi linquite mores.” (Petrarch)

  30. George Fowler Says:

    The original blog posting erroneously asserts that “the notoriety of the crime undoubtedly contributed to her getting her publishing contract”. Anne Perry kept any public awareness of her connection to the murder minimal, especially through her adoption of her stepfather’s family name. It was only AFTER the release of Peter Jackson’s excellent film that a resourceful New Zealand reporter tracked her down. To her credit, when confronted she admitted that she was Juliet Hulme, and made a few public statements about the murder. (The interview linked here is about the most revealing.) Anne Perry’s first book was published in 1979 in the U.S., where awareness of the murder would have been minimal indeed before Heavenly Creatures made it famous. Her initial success was in the States, and the early books weren’t originally published in the U.K. at all, where some people might have been aware of the murder in New Zealand in the 1950′s.

    Of course she is a murderer forever. No credit for that. But she was a juvenile offender, and no doubt quite unbalanced. It is to her great credit that she made something of her life.

    • Djnok Says:

      Why should anybody forgive this individual? Why should anybody assume she would not as likely do to them what she’s done before? I’ve never bought her books on account of knowing her past. I will neither buy nor read them in the future. She didn’t steal a pencil nor dent an auto fender. She took a life. That cannot be undone. A fine won’t make good on what she did. 5 years in prison is nothing. Many, many 15-year-olds have hated without acting on those feelings. She acted. She has profited mightily from her twisted thought processes. Her god may forgive her. Nobody else should forgive her. I will not contribute to her upkeep.

  31. James Redding Says:

    So, Emilia, did Anne Perry spend time in prison or not? Was she punished or not?

    • Emilia Says:

      It seems in your mind she never even committed a crime, the poor little darling…

      • James Redding Says:

        Sorry, do you mean she DID spend time in prison or she did NOT? You seem confused on this and many other issues. Are you now seriously suggesting that I personally believe that no murder was committed? If so, then I wonder if you’ve had any psychiatric evaluations lately?

      • Emilia Says:

        It seems I’m not the only one who’s confused and can’t understand what the other extremely smart people write in this blog…

      • James Redding Says:

        Not sure I get what you’re saying. I was asking YOU if YOU have changed YOUR mind and now think Hulme did serve five years in prison – or if YOU still believe (as YOU said repeatedly) that she wasn’t punished… just wondered which one YOU had decided on… if you HAVE actually decided, that is… As I said, your comments come across as confused on this topic… mainly because you’ve stated that you believe both, despite them being contradictory. Just asking for clarification, that’s all… no need for sarcasm. It’s a serious question.

      • Emilia Says:

        No, I didn’t change my mind. Spending a few years in prison is hardly punishment. The last comment I wrote about Mrs. Perry will give you a good idea of what I believe. I apologize for confusing you—and for responding with sarcasm to your sarcastic remarks about my mental health… English is not my mother tongue, and it can be a bit tricky.

  32. copper04Carl Rosel Says:

    Juliet Hulme ( Anne Perry ) and Pauline Parker were living in a fantasy world and were temporary insane at the time of the killing of Honora Rieper. And that was obvious. They thought they were doing a really good thing. The Mother would go to heaven and they would stay together so they could take their novels to New York. They also thought that it was going to take one bonk on the head. It had not been planned for Juliet to have any part in the physical assault. Of course it did not work out like that, and fear at the reprisal, led to the continued onslaught. None of that was as cold blooded and calculated as some people have said. It was, two girls, as Pauline described in her diary (stark raving mad) Sadly, together, it was stated as Folie ‘ a ‘ deaux.
    I have read an article about a member of the jury saying in an interview with the People’s press magazine, that the jury thought they were insane at the time, but if they had returned with that verdict, the two would have spent the the rest of their life in a mental asylum. Instead they completed a finite time in prison, where research will show anyone who wants the truth of the matter, they came to repentence. It hit home , the enormity, of what they had done, when sanity returned.
    Besides other factors in the lives of the two,which culminated in a very sad decision, was the fact that as young girls they had spent very long periods apart from their parents, in hospitals and sanitoriums. Medication given, it was found out much later, impairs judgement in people. We are talking about two young girls. Not mature adults.
    We, all, should be glad, that other members of the human race, have come through such an horrendous confusing set of circumstances, which led to a horrendous offence, and have fully repented and have since been contributing in a good positive way towards others.
    Carl Rosel
    Auckland NZ

    • Van Jennings Says:

      ‘Juliet Hulme (Anne Perry) and Pauline Parker were living in a fantasy world and were temporarily insane at the time of the killing of Honora Rieper. And that was obvious…’ Obvious to whom? Why was it obvious? There’s no evidence of it! No one found them insane. No doctors, psychiatrists, counsellors, nurses, family, friends, police – no one! Not the defense, not the prosecution, not the judges – no one! Not one person who examined, questioned, interviewed or had dealings with them found them insane! They weren’t insane! Stop making things up in order to pretend Juliet Hulme was innocent. She’s a murdering psycho no-talent hack – and you know it.

    • Tom Baldwin Says:

      You said: ‘Anyone researching all there is to know about Anne Perry ( Juliet Hulme ) will know that she came to repentence while in Prison. It hit home what her and Pauline Parker had actually done.’

      How did this coming to repentance manifest itself? What did she do? Cry a bit? Pretend to pray? Wear sack-cloth? Admit she’d murdered someone? Promise to compensate the family she’d helped destroy? Apologize to the surviving Rieper family? Hulme lied in her first statement to the police. She’s a professional liar by trade; she constantly reinvents the past to make herself less culpable. Every interview she gives she says something different about why she murdered Honora Reiper. Nothing she has said, does say, or will say can ever be trusted.

      Exactly how did she ‘come to repentance’? And how do you know she did? Did she tell you? Were you there? Do you have real proof? If not, it’s just hearsay. Gossip. And more Hulme lies. She has done nothing to show remorse or repentance.

      Repentance is a change of thought to correct a wrong and to gain forgiveness from the person who is wronged, and a determination and a resolution to live a more responsible and humane life. It includes an admission of guilt; a promise or resolve not to repeat the offense; an attempt to make restitution for the wrong; to attempt to reverse the harmful effects of the wrong where possible.

      You say she ‘came to repentance’, but Juliet Hulme has not tried to correct a wrong; has not gained (nor ever tried to gain) forgiveness from the person(s) she wronged; has made no promise not to repeat the offense; has not made any attempt to make restitution for the wrong; nor tried in any way to reverse the harmful effects of the wrong where possible.

      I see no proof or evidence in Hulme’s actions to back up any idea that she ever ‘came to repentance’. The millionaire writer’s deliberate decision to ignore the surviving Rieper family’s financial struggles and debts (which she caused) and to pay out half a million to have her garden re-landscaped is an act that is cruel beyond belief… and then to give permission to have the article/interview about her having her garden re-landscaped reprinted in New Zealand is a calculated insult.

      ‘Came to repentance’. I don’t believe it for a second!

  33. Jane Redding Says:

    Carl – according to Pauline Parker’s diary, in which ‘moider’ is murder and ‘Deborah’ is Juliet Hulme:

    19 June: “…our main idea for the day was to moider Mother. …it’s a definite plan we intend to carry out. We have worked it out carefully and are thrilled by the idea. Naturally, we feel a trifle nervous but the pleasure of anticipation is great.

    21 June: “Deborah rang and we decided to use a rock in a stocking rather than a sandbag. We discussed the moider. I feel keyed up, as if I were planning a surprise party.”

    22 June: “The day of the happy event.” I am writing a bit of this on the morning of the death. I felt very excited and the-night-before-Christmassy last night. I didn’t have pleasant dreams, though.

    So when you say ‘It had not been planned for Juliet to have any part in the physical assault…’ I’m not sure where you got that information from; according to Parker’s own diary, co-written with Hulme, Hulme seems the main contributor to the crime – the one who came up with the brick, the stocking, the ‘moider’ itself.

    Parker clearly says: ‘we decided to use a rock’ and not ‘I decided to use a rock’. She also quite clearly says: ‘our main idea for the day was to moider Mother. …it’s a definite plan we intend to carry out. We have worked it out carefully and are thrilled by the idea. Naturally, we feel a trifle nervous…’ Not sure if I’m misreading, but I think Parker’s (a highly literate teenager) use of the plural ‘we’, rather than the singular ‘I’, indicates that it was a joint plan, a joint execution and a joint prison sentence.

    Interesting you think it was all Parker and Hulme/Perry was the innocent and contrite. Documentary evidence, eh! Who needs it?

  34. copper04Carl Rosel Says:

    Jane – If you want to research – say – excerpts from Pauline Parker’s diary for a starter, you will find the comment that she wrote concerning not having told Juliet ( Deborah ) yet of her plans to be rid of Mother. You will also hear her character say it in the very well researched Peter Jackson movie – Heavenly Creatures.

    It was not planned for Juliet to take part in the actual physical assault ( swinging the brick in the stocking ) That was Pauline’s role. The originator of the plan to ‘ Moider Mother ‘ They were under the deluded impression at the time that it was only going to take one bonk on the head.

    Go back in time with a little bit with the diary entries. I see you are quoting all the entries the same month as the actual offence was committed.

    Regards
    Carl

    • Alan Harmon Says:

      You say: ‘It was not planned for Juliet to take part in the actual physical assault ( swinging the brick in the stocking ) That was Pauline’s role. The originator of the plan to ‘ Moider Mother ‘ They were under the deluded impression at the time that it was only going to take one bonk on the head.’

      According to Juliet Hulme: “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 according to Hulme, there wasn’t a plan to murder Mrs Rieper! There was a plan to ‘frighten’ her, but nothing at all in Parker’s diary about planning a murder; no phone calls where the girls refined their plans; in short, absolutely NO PLAN AT ALL to murder Mrs Rieper.

      When you say: ‘They were under the deluded impression at the time that it was only going to take one bonk on the head.’… who do you mean was under the deluded impression it was only going to take one bonk on the head? You certainly can’t mean Hulme, because Hulme has already said there WAS only a plan to ‘frighten’ Mrs Rieper and NO PLAN TO MURDER MRS RIEPER!!! – and you can’t mean Parker, because Hulme has already said there WAS only a plan to ‘frighten’ Mrs Rieper and NO PLAN TO MURDER MRS RIEPER, so there can’t be any diary entries planning the murder – or only fictional ones! So Parker was lying, according to Hulme. And according to Hulme, you’re lying too.

      Either there was a murder plan or there wasn’t. You’re saying there was a murder plan – Hulme’s saying there wasn’t a murder plan. You say Hulme ‘always tells the truth in interviews’, so which one of you is telling the truth here? You – or her?

  35. Jane Mayfield Says:

    Fuck you, Perry, how can you be writing books like this after you killed an innocent woman! You, lady, should be in prison!

  36. RRuin Says:

    Some of the language used against this woman is disgusting.
    No one who approaches this rationally is defending the crime. But it was the decision of the court to give these two girls a chance to grow up and out of their delusions, escape their fantasy world, and rebuild their lives.
    For people to hurl foul language at Anne Perry is childish and stupid.
    BTW, she wasn’t handed a publishing contract, but earned it because she’s a talented writer. It’s how she makes her living.
    As others have said, you don’t have to buy her books.

  37. Winterton Harley Says:

    To RRuin:
    1. When you say Perry wasn’t handed a publishing contract, but earned it because she’s a talented writer, you’ve either got inside information, or you’re making a mistake about publishing – she’d have been handed the contract first, then written the books, not the other way around…. maybe she had a chapter or two, possibly one book, but that’d be about it. Publishers don’t work that way…. What came first, the books or the contract? So the way you suggest it happened makes no sense – unless you actually know otherwise…

    2. When you say that it’s childish and stupid to hurl foul language at Perry, you’re mistaken. I have evaluated Perry’s childhood literary aspirations, her writing down the murder plan, her murderous actions, and her subsequent literary success which consists of boasting of her murder in each of her books, and in an adult and intelligent way, I have reached the conclusion that she’s a murdering piece of shit. Please do not refer to me untruthfully as either childish or stupid for having reached this reasoned, thought-out, and carefully-worded conclusion.

    Love, light, peace – WH

  38. Carrie Etter Says:

    Winterton Harley,
    With your warped, demented mindset, I doubt that you are capable of doing any research with an open honest mind. You are a closed shop.
    Anne Perry’s credentials as a writer were well-established long before people knew she was involved with a matricide, as a young girl, over half a century ago.
    You are obviously incapable of doing any research because of your mindset. She did not write down the murder plan.
    Everyone else around the world knows that was written by Pauline Parker in her diary. Everyone except you.
    Boasts of her murder in each of her books. Anne Perry and Pauline Parker were living in a fantasy world when they were young girls. You are a grown man. You may be able to obtain some help for your delusions. You don’t want to be a nasty pork chop all your life do you?

    • Jim Taylor Says:

      Here you say: ‘ You don’t want to be a nasty pork chop all your life do you?’ to someone with a different viewpoint to you. Why are you calling this person that offensive name? Why not just say: ‘Let’s agree to disagree, shall we?’ Or why not say: ‘I don’t agree with you’, or: ‘Well, you’ve got your thoughts on this subject, and I’ve got mine.’ Why do you constantly have to be offensive and insulting? You need to accept that your opinion of Hulme is a minority one and one that is in direct contrast to the evidence. When that evidence is shown, you could at least acknowledge it, or accept it. You’re stuck in a loop. You admire someone who’s a murderer, a bad writer and an unrepentant, callous psychopath… Good luck with that.

  39. Winterton Harley Says:

    Have you read this:

    ‘As their relationship began to intensify, so did their writing. By the time they murdered Honora Parker, they had completed six books between them, as well as plays, poetry and an opera. Spending more and more time together, their fictional family became entangled in escapades of highway robberies, bedroom scenes and violent death. Suddenly, the girls were torn apart when Juliet fell ill with tuberculosis, spending three months in a sanatorium.’

    Now, let’s face facts, shall we? Fact 1: Juliet Hulme wrote the murders of men and women over and over again in her notebooks. Fact 2: Eventually, she co-committed a murder. Fact 3: She moved to England and continued writing about the murders of men and women. Fact 4: She was given a publishing contract for one of her murder stories. Fact 5: She became a successful and popular author, praised by fans and critics for the authenticity of her murder scenes.

    My mind is wide open – I’d love to hear genuine facts that refute any of the ones I’ve just enumerated.

    Love, light and peace to you…

  40. Winterton Harley Says:

    Sorry, but I couldn’t resist commenting on this one:

    ‘Anne Perry’s credentials as a writer were well established long before people knew she was involved with a matricide, as a young girl, over half a century ago.’

    Let’s just look at the fallacy that lies at the centre of that claim, shall we?

    ‘Anne Perry’s credentials as a writer were well established long before people knew she was involved with a matricide, as a young girl, over half a century ago.’

    Are you seriously suggesting that NO ‘people (not the family of the murdered woman, not the NZ police, not the courts, not the prison officers, not the NZ and other governments, not the world press) knew she (Hulme) was involved with a matricide, as a young girl’?

    Ridiculous! Poor research! FACT: Thousands of people ‘knew she was involved with a matricide, as a young girl’ – not only in NZ either – it was in the world press. As was her prison release. Her credentials as a writer were established later – many years after these thousands of people knew.

    Come on, open your mind a little wider, please….

  41. Winterton Harley Says:

    Sorry, one more: ‘Anne Perry’s credentials as a writer were well established long before people knew she was involved with a matricide, as a young girl, over half a century ago.’

    I love how you use the phrase ‘involved with a matricide’ to mean ‘ferociously smashed her friend’s mother over the head with a half-brick 23 times – and then handed the bloody brick to her friend and held the victim down by the throat as her friend continued to smash in her mother’s skull’. Nice use of euphemism there. Very open-minded of you.

    Involved with a matricide, indeed.

  42. Carrie Etter Says:

    Winterton Harley,
    That is right. I am suggesting that no one knew who Anne Perry was, besides being a brilliant author of Historical fiction, until after the release of the Sir Peter Jackson movie, Heavenly Creatures. She was very well established by then. Do you understand that?
    Have you seen the movie? It is not based on the arrest and trial or anything. It is based on the, then girls, fantasy life. Their sicknesses and the build up to the matricide.
    Are you having any thoughts of extending, love, light and peace to Anne Perry and Hillary Nathan ( P. Parker )?

    • Winterton Harley Says:

      Well, as any research into the crime will reveal – it was known of all around the world due to its brutality.
      No – absolutely no love, light or peace for the murderers Juliet Hulme or for Pauline Parker. As someone else has pointed out, the other names are merely personas, in other words, fictions. Juliet Hulme still lives inside Anne Perry. That’s why she writes gruesome murder stories.

  43. Brian James Says:

    Winterton Harley, did you not say that Anne Perry was involved in the writing of six books, plays, poetry and an opera? Was that before the offence or after?

    • Winterton Harley Says:

      Yes, but it was obviously juvenilia – that is, childish writing (written before and just prior to the murder) that was not good, well-written or mature enough to interest a publisher. It’ll all probably be published after Perry dies, due to its curiosity value to gore-hounds.
      Incidentally, calling the brutal, bloody, pre-meditated, cold-blooded execution of a defenceless woman an ‘offence’ is taking the use of euphemism to an unprecedented level. An offence is a football team line-up or a parking misdemeanor.

  44. Dan Wright Says:

    I worship the power of these lovely two
    With that adoring love known to so few

    ‘Tis indeed a miracle, one must feel,
    That two such heavenly creatures are real

    Both sets of eyes, though different far, hold many mysteries strange
    Impassively they watch the race of man decay and change

    Hatred burning bright in the brown eyes with enemies for fuel
    icy scorn glitters in the gray eyes, contemptuous and cruel

    Why are men such fools they will not realize
    the wisdom that is hidden behind those strange eyes.

    And these wonderful people are you and I.

    by Pauline Parker.

  45. chatelaa Says:

    She paid for her crime many, many years ago. She hasn’t committed any crime since. Leave her alone. She has rehabilited herself as much as possible and has become a productive part of society. Creativity was her way out of a nightmare.

  46. Steph Dillane Says:

    Winterton Harley and Emilia – you two should get together. The offspring of your union would be Juliet Hulme….

  47. chatelaa Says:

    I’d like to remind those of you who are Christians: St. Paul (when he was known as Saul) killed hundreds and hundreds of people just because they were followers of a man named Jesus. Saul tortured and killed men, women and children! Then he became Enlightened (literally) on the road to Damascus. Now, if this man Saul was accepted into the Christian fold after all that, surely we can forgive someone who paid for her crime, decades ago. I don’t know about you all, but I’m a totally different person now that I’m in my 60′s—from when I was a teenager. Perry is now a brilliant writer and I admire the fact that she was/is willing to talk about her past.

    • Ian Richardson Says:

      And what about those of us who are either atheist, agnostic, hindu, muslim, jew, jehova’s witness, or simply rational people who believe (based on historical evidence) that the christian religion is a tyranny based on suffering and pain and anguish and terror? No wonder hulme is accepted into it and forgiven!!! Hardly an equivalent to saul though, is she? And yes, before you accuse me of not understanding christianity, I have read the bible – all of it – including the septaugint and the apocrypha, which is more than most so-called christians. If one hasn’t read one’s sacred text in full, one can’t call oneself a christian – because how can one possibly know what it really means to be a christian…? For example, did you know that jesus said there’s no such thing as sin? No, I bet you didn’t. Why not? ALL CHRISTIANS NEED TO LEARN THE BASIC TENETS OF THEIR RELIGION BEFORE THEY SPOUT OFF!!!!

      • chatelaa Says:

        Well, I was addressing ‘those who are Christians’; I must admit I don’t know everything about everyone else. And I didn’t feel I was ‘spouting off’. You need to relax some (I never said I was a Christian). Please.

  48. Ian Richardson Says:

    Sorry, but for the last however many years, Anne Perry has been hiding behind a false name and has used religion as a sop in her interviews. She is now a murdering christian with a false name – capitalising on death. These facts make me angry. Pauline Parker’s mother is still dead. I wonder if the deeply religious Anne Perry prays daily for the murdered Mrs Rieper? I doubt it… Weekly? Monthly? Yearly? Perhaps she prays as she fills in her tax returns. I wonder which is the biggest, her tax bill or her donations to christian organizations – or to the family she ruined! Deep down we all know the answers, don’t we. And sorry, I should not have assumed you were a christian, simply from what you said.

  49. chatelaa Says:

    You see a different Anne Perry in your mind’s eye than I do. And whether she prays for someone is really none of my business. I know of a heart surgeon, who as a young teenager was part of a gang and killed several people. He was caught and was sentenced to juvenile detention. But he was very lucky in that someone recognized his intellectual brilliance… and became his benefactor and send him to Medical School, eventually. Now… Should I just look at this wonderful man, this heart surgeon with disgust and say to myself, “He’s scum because years ago he killed.” ? After all, the people he killed are still dead. And as a surgeon, he’s making big bucks.

  50. Candi Benson Says:

    Hulme/Perry’s just another killer who pretends she ‘got’ religion so that decent people would/will go easy on her about the murder. Some on here say how nice she is and some say how she’s repented or paid her debt to society. Honora Rieper’s still dead. Her family have stated that Hulme/Perry has never paid them a cent or a penny from her thousands and thousands of dollars or pounds of royalty money…. money for books that describe brutal, bloody murders. Hmmm, where does Perry get her inspiration from?

  51. Kelly Says:

    Wow. I just read about this murder in the “author notes” on a book I was planning to request from the library. I have read every single one of her books and have been a huge fan. I’ve spent the last few hours reading everything I could find in a Google search about it and I have very mixed feelings. I wish that I could roll back time and not read that author note so that I could enjoy Anne Perry’s books in blissful ignorance.

    I remember reading about the murder at some point and being shocked by it. This was years ago, but I never knew that Anne Perry was Juliet Hume.

    One thing that strikes me is the conflicting information printed. I’ve seen newspaper articles from the period that contradict each other with details of the account. I’ve also seen published articles from the time that don’t make sense at all. I don’t think that it’s possible to come up with an accurate account of how judgement was made in the case without reading the entire court transcript.

    I saw one article that stated the girls were given new identities as part of their release, which made me wonder if it was common practice in New Zealand at that time and not a decision made by the girls.

    I find it funny that some people will complain that she is “hiding her past” and then turn around and say she got her publishing contract from her “notoriety”. Which is it? That her first book was published in 1979 while her prison release would have been around 1960, suggests that the two aren’t linked.

    Studies have shown that a juvenile brain does not have a fully matured capacity for reason and judgement. Additionally, children who have long term hospitalizations often live through a fantasy world since they are confined for long periods of time and can be very lonely. They also lose out on a lot of practice in socializing with others. Not that any of this excuses murder but it can help a jury to decide if someone has the potential for rehabilitation. Had this happened now in the US and they had been tried as juveniles, they would have been released at 18 and the records would have been sealed and their names never released to the public.

    The legal system decided that these two girls deserved to be punished but to be given a second chance after their punishment. This decision was made by those individuals who heard all the evidence in the case. Because I wasn’t there, I cannot judge what truly happened and wouldn’t presume to second guess the jury. But I would hope that they would have taken into account the probability that the girls would commit another crime if released after punishment.

    I don’t think Anne Perry is hiding from her background. She’s never denied it. I don’t think you have to bring up a subject constantly to have it be a huge part of your life or something that you think about continuously.

    If you’re read Anne Perry’s books, you would know that while she does include murders, they are not as gory as some of the accounts about the real life murders would lead you to believe. All of the murders take place “off-screen”. The reader first learns about the murder when the body is found. The murder and it’s details are usually are completed by the end of the first chapter. The focus is on bringing criminals to justice. In fact, one could reasonably say that Anne Perry writes about social injustice in the Victorian era, usually focused on how the unprotected are victimized by the privileged. She writes about the treatment of rape victims and homosexuals in that era. She writes about how the wealthy and privileged class are not immune to being the victim or perpetrator of horrible crimes. A common theme is that things in the upper are not as rosy as outward appearances seem to suggest. And she is NOT reliving her crime in the pages of every one of her books. The murder is not the focus. The murder is the catalyst which brings hidden secrets to light and forever alters the future of those close to the crime.

    I will definitely read her next book with a much different understanding.

  52. copper04Carl Rosel Says:

    Kelly, your comment was very well thought out and made sense. The legal system deemed that the time they did in prison was appropriate. Some people talk as if Juliet and Pauline decided how long they were to do. All they did was five years etc, etc. So many people are jumping on Anne Perry (Juliet Hulme).

    They also did the same in 1954. She was the ringleader, she was this, she was that. Well they are wrong. The powers that be knew who triggered the events that happened. It is significant that they released Anne (Juliet) first, and she was allowed to leave the country. Pauline was released 2nd and had to stay on stringent parole until 1965. She also then left the country.

    Kelly, you are spot on about the amount of conflicting newspaper articles etc in 1954. There was a lot of sensationalist garbage being fed to the public. It is proven on this site and many others, that people have read that, and they then have a mindset about the two involved. Particularly Anne Perry (Juliet Hulme).

    It is gross discrimination and injustice.

    Carl Rosel

    • Jim Patterson Says:

      Ha ha ha – ‘allowed to leave the country’! I love your understatement. The murdering bitch was kicked out of NZ and she’s not allowed back here – ever! Good job too…. no decent country needs a lying murderer… poor Scotland.

  53. Jodi Duffy Says:

    I have spent the past 24 hours reading and thinking on this crime and its aftermath. According to recent additions to the internet, Pauline Parker aka Hilary Nathan resides in the Orkney Islands, and Juliet Hulme aka Anne Perry in Portmahomack, Scotland, on the east coast of Scotland.

    Their homes today are less than 200 miles apart, probably a three hour drive one way. And once again, as in their adolescent years, they are living on a relatively remote island that is part of the Commonwealth.

    I am interested in others’ thoughts on this. The coincidence begs for exposure and commentary. It seems to point to an eventual meeting and a convenient ending for a too painful, too ugly and too poignant saga.

  54. copper04Carl Rosel Says:

    Hilary Nathan is only in the Orkney Islands through circumstance. She was very settled in England, untill journalists turned up on her doorstep, attempting to cross examine her. Imagine the trauma being pushed in her face after all those years. So she was virtually forced to move to a more isolated part of the British Isles to obtain some semblance of peace again. I doubt if she would have a clue where Anne Perry is residing. It is written that she leads a fairly spartan existence. No Television, newspaper etc. It is over half a century since they had their schoolgirl friendship. That is how long ago it was, that the enormity of what they had done hit them and they repented. So I do not think that anything can be read into the proximity of their living arrangements. Simply circumstantial.
    Carl Rosel

  55. Amy Sue Says:

    Wow ok, a very entertaining blog! The movie was good! It’s very sad that a loving mother would be killed by her own daughter, and her best friend. I feel most for the families that had to go through all the pain. To know that your child or your sister was capable of doing such a horrible act. How to cope with something like that is beyond me. I would like to know if the two woman have ever contacted each other without anyone knowing, and what would they say about what they did all those years ago? Do they still have feelings for each other, or think that there is a world beyond the clouds?

  56. Diana M Says:

    This woman once wrote stories and made them true by killing an innocent mother, what is the purpose of her books? Since she can’t make them true she will give ideas for serial killers to accomplish her dream? She has a sick mind and if she really found God in her life she should know that God leaves your past in the past and gives you a new beginning and if He uses your past it will be for good, not to make you proud and continue sickening your mind.

  57. copper04Carl Rosel Says:

    Diana M,
    Are you able to send your e-mail address to me and I will send you an article on Anne Perry and her writing. It may help to give you a completely different view to what you have. That can be hard of course, because people get a mindset on someone or something, and they are either unwilling or unable to change from that which is lodged in their psyche. You may have some luck.
    Regards
    Carl Rosel

    carlroselnz@gmail.com

    • Tony Balcher Says:

      Have you ever thought of taking a completely different view to what you have? That can be hard of course, because people get a mindset on someone or something, and they are either unwilling or unable to change from that which is lodged in their psyche. You may have some luck. You may stop idolizing Juliet Hulme, her poor writing skills, her huge bank balance, her (according to you) IQ of 179, her genius…

      If you’ve seen Interiors, then you’ll be aware of the moment her ‘friend’ Meg says to Hulme (without a trace of irony) that she wants everyone know the real ‘Anne’, and Hulme closes her eyes, pretends to cry, then starts a calculated, camera-ready, pre-stated monologue on how she was scared into killing an innocent woman. Nothing she says in that disgustingly self-serving, friend-betraying monologue appears in ANY of the transcripts or documents from the trial. Therefore, she’s obviously lying. Anyone can see that. If they have an open mind. Don’t forget… according to you, she an amazing creator of fiction. In that moment, it’s true. She’s an amoral sociopath who’s used her ‘genius’ to fool everyone, including herself.

    • Mike Patten Says:

      Have you read this:

      http://www.stuff.co.nz/entertainment/film/3544438/Killer-revisted-50-years-after-murder

      It may help to give you a completely different view to what you have. That can be hard of course, because people get a mindset on someone or something, and they are either unwilling or unable to change from that which is lodged in their psyche. You may have some luck.

      Regards

      Mike Patten

    • James Redding Says:

      ‘…it’s not very difficult to hit someone on the head, if they trust you and are not expecting anything of the sort…’ Anne Perry

  58. Ian Richardson Says:

    So now Pauline Parker (aka Hilary Nathan) resides in the Orkney Islands, and Juliet Hulme (aka Anne Perry) resides in Portmahomack, on the east coast of Scotland. That’s a train ride away from each other. It’s interesting that they’re getting nearer and nearer to each other as time passes – and it’s even more interesting that they’ve both chosen an out-of-the-way location, a small isolated community. Remember what happened last time they got together in a small isolated community?

  59. copper04Carl Rosel Says:

    Did anyone else know there was an underwater train tunnel between Scotland and the Orkney Islands.
    Christchurch is not a small isolated community. It is New Zealands second largest city.

  60. chatelaa Says:

    I sure know quite a few MEN who belongs to street gangs when they were teenages, and after jail sentences were served became doctors, lawyers, writers,…yet never have I seen such hatred extended to them in their adulthood as I have on this site towards Anne Perry. It makes me wonder; is it because Anne Perry is a WOMAN that she’s getting such vitriolic statements said to and about her?

  61. Ian Richardson Says:

    You can get from Portmahomack to Tain by train, and from Tain you can then ferry across to the Orkney Islands. It takes three hours in total by train and ferry. I’ve made that journey several times. And so have hundreds of people.
    I wasn’t belittling Christchurch. I was focussing on what happened when they last got together. It’s not a good idea to let these two people meet again… we all know it.

  62. Jodi Duffy Says:

    Surely the two women know that the whole world is watching, so to speak, and they will probably never intentionally meet again.

    Still, it is curious that they ended up in such close proximity on the other side of the globe from where the crime occurred.

  63. copper04Carl Rosel Says:

    Jodi and Ian,
    I made a comment about the reason Hilary (Pauline) is living in the Orkney Islands. About six or seven comments back. Are you able to consider that? If it were not for those circumstances, Hilary (Pauline) would still in all likelihood be living in England where she was settled and you two wouldn’t have the radar out worried about them being closer.

    • James Mason Says:

      You made a comment about why she moved from Kent, but not why she specifically moved to the Orkney Islands. No one but her knows that particular reason. She could have gone anywhere… but CHOSE instead to move near to her former lesbian-lover-co-murderer…

  64. copper04Carl Rosel Says:

    Chatelaa,
    You are so right. There are thousands and thousands of people who have done horrendous things in the past and they don’t cop the vitriolic attention Anne Perry does. Why? Because she is a success and the people making the septic comments aren’t. It is amazing how she has had the intelligence, the strength and the spirit to lift herself up off the canvas, from where she was as an adolescent girl suffering psychic trauma and extreme stress and be where she is today. People should be applauding her, not continually taking ignorant potshots at her.
    People who actually know her speak and write very highly of her. People that do not know her speak dribbling s – - t.

  65. Ian Richardson Says:

    Yes, I read your comment, but don’t really understand how the cause of Pauline Parker moving to the Orkneys makes a difference to the (now) very close proximity of her and Juliet Hulme. A condition of their release from prison was that they never meet again – or try to contact each other. Pauline Parker and Juliet Hulme could easily meet now… either by accident or design…

    • Jodi Duffy Says:

      When you consider that their relationship began in NZ and now they both live approximately 12,000 miles away from that starting point — yet still in close proximity, it does generate some thought, and commentary.

      I think it is more than a coincidence. They had a strong connection at one time, and many common interests and likes. Some aspects of this remain evident and alive. I don’t imply motive or intent to either of the women, this is just an observation.

      And the outer coasts of Scotland are not the only remote areas of the world, or even the British Isles. A person wishing to avoid prying eyes has many locales to consider.

  66. copper04Carl Rosel Says:

    Anne Perry ( Juliet Hulme ) and Hilary Nathan ( Pauline Parker ) have had over half a century to get together if they had wanted to, but they have not. What logical reason would anyone have for thinking that they would now.
    They are not two girls anymore. They are two mature women in their seventies for goodness sake.

    • Tori Levant Says:

      Pauline Parker did not know where Juliet Hulme lived until Peter Jackson’s movie came out. (That’s Peter Jackson, by the way, not Sir Peter Jackson. He didn’t get knighted until 16 years AFTER making Heavenly Creatures. So Peter Jackson made Heavenly Creatures.) Once Parker knew where Hulme lived, she started moving towards her. Does she want her lesbian lover, co-murderer back in her life, or does she want to punish Hulme for what she did? Let’s wait and see, huh?

  67. Ian Richardson Says:

    Carl, you’re obviously a very caring (and forgiving) and trusting man. Personally, I’m a bit nervous about PP’s and JH’s close proximity. I live a few miles away from Tain. Who really knows the mind of a murderer? Two murderers? All I can do is repeat the important point: ‘A condition of their release from prison was that they never meet again – or try to contact each other. Pauline Parker and Juliet Hulme could easily meet now… either by ACCIDENT or design…’ I’m not being horrible or selfish when I say I don’t want the two of them to meet – even by accident. It could happen. The probability rate is high – one mathematician calculated it to be: 2 people + 3 hours apart + both mobile = 67% chance of meeting accidentally…

    • chatelaa Says:

      So, what you’re saying is that these two ‘murderers’ – in their early 70′s – have the potential to murder YOU? Because you live nearby??? You are also assuming as to WHY the original court decision was declared – that they were not to meet again. And did the court mean – FOREVER??? Even if they both live to 106 years old? You need to relax. Try some slow deep breathing. First of all, your chances of dying in a car accident are a thousand times higher, statistically. No, you are not being ‘horrible or selfish’, but you are being very unrealistic at the very least. If you truly want to find out what is in the ‘mind of a murderer’, go to your local library and read some first-hand accounts by murderers. My first job was transcribing tapes made by serial killers who were in prison. I learned a lot about murderers that way. You need more information before you start being unrealistically fearful.

      • Ian Richardson Says:

        No, not nervous or ‘fearful’ for myself, obviously. Was thinking of others. Does anyone really want them as neighbours?

        Do murderers stop being murderers (or potential murderers) after the age of 70?

        The condition of their release is pretty clear. There are no grey areas in it, no ambiguity: ‘A condition of their release from prison was that they NEVER meet again – or try to contact each other.’ You see: NEVER MEET AGAIN OR TRY TO CONTACT EACH OTHER. Incontravertible.

        There’s no need to be sarcastic. We are talking about two people who (as teenagers) systematically and brutally (45 times with a half-brick) smashed a woman’s head to pulp, simply because they couldn’t have things their own way. Most teenagers just sulk for a while.

      • Ian Richardson Says:

        Laura Lundquist, a 98-year-old woman, was indicted on charges of murdering her 100-year-old roommate at the Brandon Woods Nursing Home in Massachusetts.

      • chatelaa Says:

        So, then that means one will kill the other. No need to worry about yourself, Ian.

        ….but I do think you need a hobby!

      • Ian Richardson Says:

        It obviously means that there’s no age limit to being a murderer.

        As stated, I am not concerned for myself.

        A hobby? Oh. I see, more sarcasm, simply because I don’t like the idea of PP and JH unleashed on an unsuspecting public…

        You do know what they did when they were last together, don’t you? They committed one of the world’s most brutal murders.

      • soliony Says:

        From the trailer for “Heavenly Creatures II” –

        “It was the crime that shocked a nation! Two girls — who laughed together … wrote books together … loved together .. and killed together.

        “After serving terms in prison, they were paroled only on condition that [with a deep reverberating voice] ‘YOU NEVER MEET AGAIN OR TRY TO CONTACT EACH OTHER.’

        “And everyone thought the story was over … and the nightmare was at an end.

        “And everyone was WRONG!!!!

        “Emilia … Julia … Ian … Carl. They thought they were only contributing comments to a particularly interesting web log.

        “What they didn’t know was that two women in Scotland were following this blog with more than casual interest –

        First woman’s voice (whispering) – “Do you see? This one only lives a hop, skip and a jump from here.”

        Second woman’s voice (ominously) – “Yes, I see … I see.”

  68. copper04Carl Rosel Says:

    At the time the matricide was committed, Anne Perry ( Juliet Hulme ) and
    Hilary Nathan ( Pauline Parker ) were suffering extreme psychic stress and emotional trauma. They were adolescent girls in the throes of ” folie ‘a ‘ deux “. The build up to june 22nd 1954 was full of emotional suffering.
    Even if they had been adults, they would have been in the category of :-
    diminished responsibility and/or temporary insanity.
    From very young girls they spent large amounts of time apart from their parents. Five years at one time in Anne Perry’s ( Juliet hulme’s ) case.
    Their was a huge separation anxiety ( psyche ) existed. That helped create the ( we will never be separated )syndrome.
    Pauline Parker the originator of the plan to ” moider mother ” was subjected to severe corporal punishment at home. Hilda Hulme testified to that effect. Hilda Hulme said that after quarrels with her mother, Pauline would be in great distress.
    Excerpt from Parker’s diary:- We were having another argument in the bathroom. I said something which annoyed her. She slapped my face seven times.
    Sir Peter Jackson has portrayed the build up of stress and trauma as much as was possible in the movie ” Heavenly Creatures ”
    Another factor in the time leading up to the matricide was that, medication given at the hospital and sanitorium had to be withdrawn because it was found to impair judgement. Once again, we are not talking about mature adults but adolescent girls who had only been on this earth 15 years.
    It was not planned to do what they eventually did. They thought that it would take one bonk on the head and mother would go to heaven, and they could stay together so they could take their novels to New York.
    When it did not work out like that, fear and trauma at the reprisal lead to the continued onslaught. They were s——g their pants. It was not planned for Juliet to take part in the actual physical assault. It would take one bonk and be all over.
    A normal thinking reasonable jury today would find them ” Not Guilty ” on the grounds of diminished responsibility/ temporary insanity with a proviso that they were given the help they so desperately needed. With the trauma, stress and exceptional emotional pain they had a diminished capacity for reason. They would not have understood that they were acting in ” Folie ‘a’ deaux ”
    They are not murderers. They were two girls who were charged with that over half a century ago, and who should have been found ” Not Guilty ”
    Are all those circumstances going to come together again. Even if they were to meet up. Of course not!!!

    • Trevor Jones Says:

      Not sure why you keep saying ‘They were adolescent girls in the throes of folie ‘a‘ deux.’ It was established over 5 years ago that the defense team made that up – and they have repeatedly admitted it was just a strategy, not an actual diagnosis. You can read the defense lawyer admitting this in So Brilliantly Clever by Peter Graham, and in Parker and Hulme: A Lesbian View by Julie Glamuzina and Alison J. Laurie.

      The only reason Hulme killed is because she’s a cold-blooded, arrogant, untalented psychopath and the only way she could get noticed was by murdering someone. Notoriety really helps sell units, as anyone knows. I bet she authorises an ‘official’ biography in the next year or so… to follow the disgustingly cowardly Interiors. And I bet the ‘biography’ will contain everything she’s said up to now… just lie after lie after lie.

    • Illya Kravda Says:

      My brother and I endured parental violence and abuse during our childhood, and severe (life-threatening) illness, and traumatic separation from friends too – but we’ve never murdered anyone, not even one of our parents, nor would we have allowed ourselves to be cajoled into doing so by a sociopathic ‘friend’ from England. The reason: because no matter how much we were made to suffer, we knew that murder was not the answer! In my country, anyone who murders a family member to get revenge is regarded as a worthless piece of shit! And anyone who murders because they are a psychopath is a psychopathic piece of shit!

  69. MC Says:

    5 years in a detention center is a complete joke. One could argue that neither was punished and that one in particular changed her name and made a profit from her murderous past.

    It’s despicable that this woman is allowed to publish and make money from mystery novels. It’s the equivalent of buying murder mysteries by Lyle and Eric Menendez. Let that comparison sink in for a while. Would you read or buy a fictional book by the Menendez brothers and give them your money so that they could go back to being rich after murdering their parents?

    Probably not, but that’s what we’ve done with Juliet Marion Hulme AKA Ann Perry. And her titles include things such as “I’d Kill for That,” “Defend and Betray,” and “Slaves of Obsession.” Think if Casey Anthony (who was found not guilty) or Patsy Ramsey (who was never tried) started a career writing books like these.

    People would be up in arms and Nancy Grace would never let it go.

    It disgusts me that Perry has made millions profiting from her crime and using it as inspiration. It may have been in 1954, but she robbed that woman of 40 more years of life.

  70. copper04Carl Rosel Says:

    MC, You can stop being disgusted about Anne Perry making millions from a crime, because she isn’t. She does not write about the matricide she was involved in as an adolescent girl, so it is demented waffle to say she gets the inspiration from that to write about mysteries set in the victorian era and also a series on world war one.
    Five years in prison was deemed a long enough time by the authorities, given the age of the girls and the extenuating circumstances. People talk as if the two girls chose how long they would do. Ridiculous! It is worth noting that the Justice Department showed who they thought was the most culpable. They released Juliet first. She was allowed to leave the country and rejoin her family under no parole conditions. Pauline Parker was released a short time after, but was kept under strict parole until 1965. She, then also left the country. They were released in 1959.
    Does anyone else think that Patsy Ramsey had anything to do with her daughter’s death, because they were also sucked in by the boof-headed Boulder Police and have a mind-set. Most people are now fully aware that she had nothing whatsoever to do with that.
    People also have a mind-set about Juliet Hulme because they have read the false garbage and sensationalist nonsense that came out in 1954. She was the ringleader, she was this, she was that, they were lesbians, etc, etc. Utter rubbish.
    We should applaud other human beings who have come from the depths of despair and lost hope, especially as children, and then made good. For over half a century Anne Perry (Juliet Hulme) has been a good and positive inspiration to others and been a tremendous help to them. She had the spirit, the strength, the guts and the intelligence to get up off the canvas from where she was as a distraught and extremely emotionally stressed adolescent girl to where she is today.

    Excerpt from one of her books :-

    What are you going to teach your children?
    Are you going to teach them, honour, chastity and how to care for others. And be, loyal and patient and decent?
    Or how to take anything you can for yourself. Make sure you know all of your rights and none of your duties.

    Carl Rosel

    • Ben Foster Says:

      In the same book she says: ‘Killing is one of the few pleasures left for the jaded…’

      As she’s never had any children, but has committed murder, I know which one is the true statement…

  71. John Goodsir Says:

    Every fiction is symbolic auto-biography… we all know that.

    If someone co-murders someone, then spends the rest of their life writing about murder, its aftermath and its resolution, you don’t really need to be all that bright to figure out that the writing might really be about their unresoved issues…..

    And if the writer’s earning’s are substantial, and if said writer can live anywhere in the world but chooses, yes CHOOSES, to live near to the aforementioned co-murderer… then you don’t really need to be all that bright to figure out that…..?

  72. Jodi Duffy Says:

    I wonder if Anne/Juliet sent money to Christchurch after the earthquake.

  73. copper04Carl Rosel Says:

    So every murder mystery writer is writing a symbolic auto-biography.
    We do not all know that, because it is delusional waffle. It would mean there are a huge stack of unresolved murders committed by murder mystery writers, while they carry on writing and living free.
    Mind-sets have been mentioned and we get it in bucket loads on this page.
    Anne Perry has been living in the highlands of Scotland for many years. Pauline Parker ( Hilary Nathan ) was living in England, teaching,untill journalists turned up on her doorstep shoving already resolved trauma in her face from half a century ago. She moved to a more isolated spot in the British Isles to attempt to regain some semblance of peace again. She moved to the Orkney Isles off the North-west coast of Scotland. It is written that she had been living a very spartan lifestyle. Does not have TV or read newspapers etc, so I doubt if she has a clue where Anne Perry lives. But the crux of this discussion is the fact that Anne Perry has been living where she is years before Hilary Nathan was forced to move. Why then surreptitously accuse her of choosing to live near her co-accused. Everyone reading this can see that it is a blatant false accusation by someone with, what. A MINDSET that is wrong. Let us see how honest you are with an apology to Anne Perry.
    There are thousands and thousands of people who have done horrendous things but they are not copping the vitriolic attention that Anne Perry is. Why? Is it because she is successful. It is blatant injustice and discrimination.
    Carl Rosel

  74. John Goodsir Says:

    Juliet Hulme, despite the fact that you co-murdered someone innocent by smashing their skull to pieces with 22 – or was it 23 – brutal blows of a half-brick, Carl Rosel thinks I should apologize to you for quoting Balzac, for saying you live – by choice – near to your co-murderer, and that you use your fiction to rewrite the brutal murder you committed. My apology is this: Fuck you! And my message to you, Carl Rosel is this: Stop defending murderers.

  75. copper04Carl Rosel Says:

    John. I will be an advocate for Anne Perry as long as I live, for the reasons I have quoted several times on this page.
    I have read a report by the prison authorities on Anne Perry in relation to the high regard they had for her as an adolescent girl, when she finally realised the enormity of what they had done, and she came to full repentance.
    You were half way right with the number of blows. The amount was in fact 45.
    There is a crucial factor that you are not aware of. I will put it before you again.
    It was not planned for Juliet ( Anne ) to take part in the actual physical assault. That was Paulines role. The originator of the plan to ( moider ) mother. They were under the impression that it would take one bonk on the head. Mother would go to heaven and they would stay together so they could take their novels to New York.
    When that did not happen fear and trauma at the thought of the reprisal lead to the continued onslaught.
    I have related the psychological state of the girls at the time leading up to and the day the matricide was committed, and that is what I factor into my reasoning. With those conditions prevalent, a normal reasonable thinking jury today would find adults, Not Guilty on the grounds of temporary insanity/diminished responsibility, let alone two adolescent girls. They could not have you on the jury though.
    It would be good if you could stop judging them as if they were like they are now. ( Adults ) Do some research and give some thought to the state they were in at the time and the circumstances that led up to that fateful day at the park.
    Tell me something John. Although Anne Perry was living where she is years before Hilary Nathan moved within a few hundred miles of her. Is she now expected to move away herself to appease the likes of you, so she does not get falesly accused of being near her co-accused. Are you able to think that through. Be moderately reasonable for once. Try it. You will feel better within yourself and your blood pressure will go down.
    Carl Rosel

    • chatelaa Says:

      Thank you for your sane comments, Carl. Your notes are sensible and you’re right; we need to stop judging. Her crime was paid for. Not to acknowledge that is to say there’s not such thing as redemption on any level. If that is the case, this world is in a sorry mess. There are a lot of people out there who simply want to argue.

  76. John Goodsir Says:

    You said ‘You were half way right with the number of blows. The amount was in fact 45…’

    When I said that Juliet Hulme ‘co-murdered someone innocent by smashing their skull to pieces with 22 – or was it 23 – brutal blows of a half-brick,’ I meant exacty that – that Juliet Hulme co-murdered someone innocent by smashing their skull to pieces with 22 – or was it 23 – brutal blows of a half-brick, and that Pauline Parker also co-murdered someone innocent by smashing their skull to pieces with 22 – or was it 23 – brutal blows of a half-brick. The 2 numbers (23 + 22) add up to 45, you see. It’s simple maths.

    I was exactly right.

    I wonder what else you misunderstood…?

  77. copper04Carl Rosel Says:

    End of our discussion John. Sadly, you are being contentious for the sake of it.
    Carl Rosel

    • Judith Neale Says:

      You’re a very funny man, Carl. In your rush to defend a murderer, you insult John by very patronisingly saying ‘You were half way right’; ‘There is a crucial factor that you are not aware of’; ‘They could not have you on the jury’; ‘It would be good if you could stop judging them’; ‘Do some research’; ‘the likes of you’; ‘Are you able to think’; ‘Be moderately reasonable for once. Try it. You will feel better within yourself and your blood pressure will go down’ – and then you immediately end the debate the moment he corrects you on a mistake you clearly made. Aw, did the nasty man upset you by pointing out your obvious error? Ha ha.

  78. Chas Says:

    Isn’t ‘End of our discussion John’ the same as ‘I’m taking my ball home and not playing any more’? Grow up. This is a serious topic and the debate is very good.

  79. copper04Carl Rosel Says:

    I said a normal reasonable jury. That means no-one who can swear and curse and say f–k you to someone about who they do not know and have not done any research on. People who actually know Anne Perry speak and write about her very highly. People who do not know her… (well look at this page)
    Carl Rosel

  80. copper04Carl Rosel Says:

    Thank you Chatelaa. Yes, there are those who just want to argue for the sake of it.
    It is a proven fact that being nasty and angry causes blood pressure to rise, and so causes a bad negative effect on health and well-being. That transmits to others in contact with a person of that ilk. Not nice all round.
    Carl Rosel

  81. soliony Says:

    What I’d like to know is: why was O.J. Simpson, who was exonerated of murder and maintains his innocence to this day, not allowed to publish a book about it (remember If I Did It?) and thereby make a boatload of money; while Anne Perry, who was convicted of murder and has never denied committing murder, is entitled to write any number of books about murder, thereby making any number of boatloads of money?

  82. copper04Carl Rosel Says:

    Hi Solionay,
    Why shouldn’t Anne Perry earn a living from her talent, which is immense. She writes murder mysteries from the Victorian era. She has also written a series on the 1st world war, which are brilliant.
    Here is an excerpt from one of her books. I am fairly sure it was from a 1st world war book.

    What are you going to teach your children?
    Are you going to teach them, honour, chastity and how to care for others. And be loyal and patient and decent?
    Or, how to take anything you can for your self, make sure you know all of your rights and none of your duties.
    That is a different view of what you and many others have of her. ( Anne Perry ) The false garbage that has been written and spoken about her. It is so easy to paint a false picture of someone.
    Carl Rosel

    • Tony Balcher Says:

      When you quote:

      What are you going to teach your children?
      Are you going to teach them, honour, chastity and how to care for others. And be loyal and patient and decent?
      Or, how to take anything you can for your self, make sure you know all of your rights and none of your duties.

      it’s important to remember that it’s fiction… in other words Juliet Hulme made it up. It’s not real. She’s a highly-paid professional liar. She’s just writing down lies and selling them. The above quote is just a piece of made up nonsense.

  83. Chas Says:

    Sorry Carl… but Anne Perry’s talent is not immense: Dostoyevsky’s talent is immense; Shakespeare’s talent is immense; Edmund Spenser’s talent is immense; John Milton’s talent is immense; Cervantes’s talent is immense; Sophocles’ talent is immense; TS Eliot’s talent is immense; Byron’s talent is immense; Chaucer’s talent is immense; Goethe’s talent is immense; Baudelaire”s talent is immense; Dante’s talent is immense; Boccaccio’s talent is immense – Anne Perry is merely a minor scribbler of hate-driven ephemera… nothing more.
    And you keep quoting the same piece of text, as though it means something significant. It doesn’t. It’s just populist, sentimentalist, self-serving tripe… and that’s all. If any of the above authors had written it, they’d have been laughed out of print. Let’s not fool ourselves into thinking otherwise.

  84. Jodi Duffy Says:

    Whether or not Anne Perry’s talent is “immense” is subjective, one individual’s opinion. To me, her “talent” is modest, but her verbosity is immense. Still, her popularity cannot be denied, and her bank accounts hold “immense” sums.

    This woman systematically rejected the ethos of our society; she sought to break all Ten Commandments, and in doing so embraced madness and evil. She co-murdered an innocent party, then giggled and smirked her way through the trial that followed. Both the defense counsel and the defense psychiatrist were shocked by her superior and imperious manner. The lawyer wrote that Juliet’s arrogance was the primary reason they kept her off the stand.

    The supercilious attitude is still apparent in readings and interviews today. Despite claims that she is “a lovely woman.”

    Wouldn’t it be interesting to see the out takes, or even the original director’s cut of “Interiors,” that short documentary the German filmmaker released. Word is out that the initial version was not to Juliet/Anne’s liking. Not positive enough for milady, and perhaps too revealing. So the director recut it to a milder and more flattering slant.

    In interviews, she claims that she was not allowed to speak at her trial, and that she was under the influence of mind-altering drugs during the time of the crime. Neither of these statements can stand as completely true once a bit of research is applied. Her own lawyers didn’t want her speaking due to what would come across to the jury as “conceit and arrogance.” And the judge definitely gave her a chance to make a statement. This is part of the official record.

    As to the drugs, this is what Dr. Medlicott wrote in his paper about the case, “Both isoniazid and streptomycin were used, but there was no evidence that they produced any psychological changes.”

    Isoniazid is an anti-bacterial used to fight TB, and streptomycin is an antibiotic. Both can produce side effects, but none appear to “impair judgement” as Anne Perry has stated. And after all these years, both are still on the market, not withdrawn, as she also has averred.

    Anne Perry went to prison because she and her friend worked themselves up into a frenzy via their voluminous writings. Together, they killed a woman. And now, Anne Perry is a millionaire due to voluminous writing …. of fiction centering around crime, usually a murder.

    At least Pauline had the good sense to stay out of the public eye.

    Juliet seeks publicity in order to sell her books, and so she has made herself a public figure. As members of the public, we have every right to discuss this subject.

    Juliet/Anne committed a shocking, brutal crime. She was found guilty and she served a sentence. She remade herself with a new name and a fresh start on life. The fact that she has made a fortune writing about murder is a cold irony. A less flexible conscience — or more delicate stomach — would have great difficulty bringing this paradox to terms.

  85. copper04Carl Rosel Says:

    Jodi,
    You are yet another one who seems to want to judge Anne Perry / Juliet Hulme as she is now. ( This woman did this, did that etc. )
    A woman with her wits about her.
    She was an adolescent girl, fifteen years old, suffering huge emotional trauma at the period involved. Sir Peter Jackson has portrayed that the best he could in the movie – Heavenly Creatures.
    Besides other factors, she had a diminished capacity for reason at the time.
    The excerpt from one of her books that I have quoted, shows the ideals she holds now. Why do people still want to spear her to the wall for something that occurred over half a century ago under completely different circumstances. So what is it about (this woman ) then? Why the ongoing vitriol? Jealousy at her success, or what.
    Any author who has their books turned into movies and television serials has an immense talent, whether there are people who don’t like it or not.
    Carl Rosel

    • Jim Garner Says:

      Carl, you state quite categorically: ‘Any author who has their books turned into movies and television serials has an immense talent…’

      Really?

      I repeat your statement: ANY AUTHOR WHO HAS HAD THEIR BOOKS TURNED INTO MOVIES… HAS AN IMMENSE TALENT…

      Well, I beg to differ. I have read Mein Kampf by Adolph Hitler and found it to be a nasty, contemptible, vitriolic piece of hate-filled trash. Recently it was turned into a movie.

      I’m sorry, but I’ve read Mein Kampf in German and in English, and no matter how much you might defend him, Adolph Hitler, an author who has had his book turned into a movie, is not a writer with ‘an immense talent’, despite what you have said to the contrary.

      I hesitate to use strong language, but to many, many people, myself included, the above-named author could best be described as a murdering cunt with absolutely no literary talent whatsoever…

    • Megan Harris Says:

      ‘The excerpt from one of her books that I have quoted, shows the ideals she holds now.’

      I’m not sure what you mean by this – aren’t you simply quoting a piece of made-up fiction? Where is it documented that that’s what Anne Perry actually believes? How do we know she wasn’t laughing as she wrote it? She might think it’s a piece of nonsense – authors often write what they don’t believe – that’s why it’s called fiction, not fact.

      With regards to the ideals (if any) Anne Perry holds now, no one but her knows what they are. The answer’s certainly not in any of her works of fiction.

  86. Jodi Duffy Says:

    Carl,
    I know you are dedicated to the defense of Anne Perry on this, and many, blogs. Your commitment is sweet. I admire it.

    I do not wish to argue with you.

    Anne Perry’s behavior as a teen and as an adult has placed her on the world stage. We fellow citizens of the world have a right to discuss this unusual situation.

    I am interested in ideas, facts and concepts, and I try not to be threatened or discouraged by those who disagree with me.

    I do not wish to defend your charges of my being vitriolic or jealous. But I would like to discuss the case with you. As a resident of NZ you surely bring an important and unique perspective.

    Cheers,
    Jodi

    • copper04Carl Rosel Says:

      Hi Jodi,
      Thanks for your letter.
      This blog is perhaps not a good forum to discuss anything in a normal way. Just look at the content of other comments. Maybe I would be able to obtain your e-mail address somehow.
      I was not meaning you were being vitriolic and jealous. I was meaning people like the one or ones I am going to answer following this note to you.
      Let me know if there is a way I can receive your e-mail address without demented nutcakes also seeing it.
      Regards
      Carl

      • Jodi Duffy Says:

        Carl,
        Thanks so much for the nice note. I will see if I can find a way to send my email address.

        Thank you for mentioning the “Argus Weekender” piece. I love reading primary sources, and would consider this one due to its publication place and date.

        I appreciate your contributions.

        Cheers,
        Jodi

  87. Frederic Starkin Says:

    ‘Any author who has their books turned into movies and television serials has an immense talent’

    What!!!!!

    ‘Any author who has their books turned into movies and television serials has an immense talent’

    Ha ha ha ha ha!!!!

    So O J Simpson, who wrote If I Did It (which was made into a 2007 Law & Order episode ‘Murder Book’) is a writer of ‘immense talent’, is he?

    Strange, because I’ve read If I Did It and it’s a badly-written piece of shit. I’ve also watched the Law & Order episode it was adapted into – and that sucked big-time too.

    Millions of people, me included, think that O J Simpson has no literary talent whatsoever – not mediocre, not average, and certainly not ‘immense’. He’s actually a very bad writer. Very poor at constructing sentences, and unable to narrate a scene of tension and drama. Odd that, when you think of the source material.

    Carl, did you actually stop to think what your statement actually meant? Or did you just go charging in without rational thought, in order to defend the murderer Juliet Hulme once again?

    She doesn’t care about anything you say. She just lives in that huge house, doing exactly what she wants, raking in huge piles of cash from her murder stories. She’ll never acknowledge you. Soon she’ll die… rich and unrepentant.

    I’ve just read the other comments here and according to you, Anne Perry, Adolph Hitler and O J Simpson have ‘an immense talent’. Why? Because, according to you, ‘any author who has their books turned into movies and television serials has an immense talent’.

    I hope this has indicated how you might be wrong about that. And if you’re wrong about that, just think what else you might be wrong about…

    Happy thinking!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    • copper04Carl Rosel Says:

      Frederic Starkin and whatever other name you use to proclaim your vitriolic, malicious garbage.
      There are several factual sources that you can gain information that was reported about Anne Perry/ Juliet Hulme.
      One is an article compiled by Merton Woods in the Argus Weekender on Saturday – December 18th 1954.
      The NZ Justice Department had stated that Juliet Hulme had come to a realization of the enormity of what her and her close friend had actually done, and had reached a point of a tremendous act of contrition and repentance.
      The report stated she is receiving the utmost sympathy from prison officials who find her the most likeable girl.
      She was reported to have an intelligence quotient of 179 and had the mind of a genius. She was brilliant and if she survived the time in prison they are positive she will develop into one of the most intellectually brilliant young woman in the world.
      She had started to write in prison and at the time this report was written she had written a short story. The brilliance of her story had amazed literary men who had read it. They rated it equal to the work of a first class writer much older.
      In addition she composed poems, scribbled pieces of sheer fantasy. Airy ephemeral verse of startling brilliance, almost incomprehensible to the average mind.
      Well, Frederic Starkin, Jim Garner and anyone else who wants to quote pork chops like Hitler and OJ Simpson. There is no comparison with the person or the circumstances.
      Yes!! She has immense talent. Every normal person on earth knows it and admits it.
      Carl Rosel

      • Frederic Starkin Says:

        No need to be offensive just because we disagree. Honest debate and difference of opinion over emotive topics is good and healthy. It’s how new things get discovered. Try this contradiction:

        ‘Juliet is in Mt. Eden Gaol, Auckland, one of the most forbidding gaols in the world. Her dailv associates are 27 women prisoners, including two other murderesses, drunks, thieves, and prostitutes.’ Merton Woods.

        ‘When I got there I was given 3 months solitary confinement. I saw no one. It was decided before I got there.’ Anne Perry/Juliet Hulme – Interiors.

        Someone’s lying – I wonder who?

      • Martin Thomas Says:

        1. You’re just quoting everything in the article… that’s all.

        2. What ‘literary men’? Any names? Why no women? Writers or academics? Is there a record of who is meant here? or is it simply some unknown, unnamed ‘literary men’? If so, it means nothing, as it’s unprovable.

        3. What ‘tremendous act of contrition and repentance’ is that then? What was the specific act? Saying sorry? Scrubbing floors? Wearing sackcloth? Or are you just quoting the article again? If it’s just another quote from the article, it means nothing.

        4. Perhaps your ‘most likeable girl’ smiled as she killed.

        5. ‘Airy = light, ephemeral = throwaway, verse = substandard poetry, startling = surprising, brilliance = brightness, almost = nearly, incomprehensible = gibberish, average = normal, mind = intellect.’

        so:

        Airy ephemeral verse of startling brilliance, almost incomprehensible to the average mind.

        means:

        Light throwaway substandard poetry of surprising brightness, nearly gibberish to the normal intellect.

        That’s not a review of good writing.

        6. She had written a ‘brilliant’ short story in prison. And what story’s that then? Is it the one that ‘contains inconsistencies and inaccuracies… irrelevant to the drama of the story’?

        That’s not a review of good writing.

        7. Dr Medlicott described the young Juliet Hulme as ‘excitable and intolerant of criticism. She found it difficult to stop play-acting… Increasingly, the writings became a morbid preoccupation with evil.’

        In Interiors, the 72 year old Hulme could easily be described as: excitable and intolerant of criticism… someone who finds it difficult to stop play-acting… and whose writings express a morbid preoccupation with evil.

        8. Juliet Hulme always thought she was right. She was a schizophrenic displaying signs of exalted paranoia, according to the defence psychiatrist Dr Reginald Medlicott. London born Brian McClelland now aged 71 and a Queen’s Counsel, has no doubt Juliet Hulme was schizophrenic. ‘I believe that was so because she was an extremely nice girl to meet – attractive and clever. She was fine as long as you didn’t ask her about her own beliefs. She thought that she was a superior person. That was why we couldn’t possibly call her to give evidence.’

        Parker and Juliet Hulme pleaded insanity but they were found guilty of what was, according to the Crown Prosecutor, ‘a callously planned and premeditated murder, committed by two highly intelligent, precocious and dirty-minded girls.’

        9. So there we have it. In the words of the psychiatric and legal experts: a precocious play-acting paranoid schizophrenic murderer, a dirty-minded hack writer of incomprehensible verse and inconsistent and inaccurate prose, with a morbid preoccupation for evil and possessing an attitude of arrogance, an intolerance of criticism, and a superiority complex.

        10. Let’s be clear here: these are not my words, but the words of the highly-trained and highly-qualified legal and psychiatric professional experts in their fields who met, talked to and interviewed Hulme.

      • Mike Lancaster Says:

        Carl, just because someone has an opposite point of view to you, it doesn’t mean that what they say is garbage. There are far more than two sides to any argument. Every fact has umpteen facets. If someone disagrees with you, or you disagree with them, that’s a good thing – it encourages thought, reflection and debate. Many people believe that Juliet Hulme is an unrepentant murderer. That’s their prerogative. There’s no proof she isn’t; just as there’s no proof she is. It’s people’s thoughts on the subject. If someone believes she is an unrepentant murderer, then you have to accept that it’s one possibility out of several possibilities, none of which may ever be proved. Other points of view to yours are just as valid.

      • Jim Spencer Says:

        Which literary men were they. Can I have some names, please?

        Oh, and what story was it?

      • Coral Harrow Says:

        What ‘literary men’? Any names? Why no women? Writers or academics? Is there a record of who is meant here? You keep quoting this. Do you have names? If so, could you provide them, please? Do you know who the ‘literary men’ are, or is this just an easy, convenient, but ultimately empty, quote?

      • Tim Hallett Says:

        ‘…and anyone else who wants to quote pork chops like Hitler and OJ Simpson. There is no comparison with the person or the circumstances.’

        That’s true. OJ Simpson did not commit murder; Juliet Hulme did. OJ’s innocent; Hulme’s a convicted murderer.

        Why are you defending a ‘nasty pork chop’ like Hulme?… nothing better to do with your time?

  88. Jodi Duffy Says:

    For what it’s worth, the author of this piece in the “Argus Weekender,” dateline Saturday 18 December 1954, appears to be Merton Woods, not Merion Woods. I read this from the photocopy of the original typeset page, not the transcript on the left hand sidebar.

    The article offers a few interesting details. Sadly, none can be accepted as fact without corroboration from a different source since there are numerous errors and inconsistencies throughout the piece. Not to mention an embarrassing bias against Pauline.

    Class distinction and anglophilia run rampant through this case, but this is rarely admitted or discussed.

    Both girls, now women, are of above average intelligence. This is obvious. Woods’ piece is the only place where I have seen Juliet’s IQ pegged at 179. Other sources site 170, and since “9″ is next to “0″ on the keyboard, I suspect the 179 is a typo. The writings in Pauline’s diary also point to a very high intelligence.

    So why did these very smart, artistic girls commit such a brutish, mindless crime?

    And why does Hulme’s “genius mind” not produce “genius” works of literature? She’s made all the money she will ever need. She could write for the art of it, if she wished.

    A frank autobiography, written with an intent for posthumous publication, would be an interesting read.

  89. chatelaa Says:

    (1) You are assuming that having a ‘genius mind’ makes behavior ‘perfect’. It doesn’t. (2) Have you ever written a book? To answer your question (‘and why does Hulme’s ‘genius mind’ not produce ‘genius’ works of literature’), you might try to write a 400 page book yourself. You will then find the answer to your question.

    • Jodi Duffy Says:

      I thought this discussion was about Anne Perry/Juliet Hulme, not me. Your assumptions about my thought processes, conclusions — and writing experience — are incorrect. But that is really not the point of this discussion.

      It is obvious that AP/JH is a highly intelligent and gifted woman.

      If her intellect is really so extraordinary, as some say, shouldn’t we expect that she would create great, innovative works to stand with the output of Tolstoy, Flaubert, Stendhal, Woolf, Yeats, Dante, and yes, Dickens? Instead, she steadily produces formulaic fiction that enjoys great popularity with a certain audience.

      Nothing wrong with that, per se, except for the fact that her fiction centers around morbid, criminal themes while she dances around the truth of her own notorious history and life.

      • chatelaa Says:

        Jodie, your thoughts (above) are about Anne Perry; I see a problem with your argument (your assumptions), hence my own comments. There’s no need to take them personally. I experience these kinds of thoughts in others everyday; and it boils down to the same thing; walk in the other person’s shoes (or in this case, write a book yourself). It’s the best way of learning, of answering your own question. Establishing whether a person is a genius is simply measuring ones intellectual capacity; don’t confuse that measurement with any end result.

  90. Anna Quigley Says:

    Just because a book is turned into a film or a tv series doesn’t mean the author is any good. Hundreds of substandard (in the literary sense) books have been filmed and televised. The authors are still without literay talent. Hacks.

    • copper04Carl Rosel Says:

      What if the authors are given several literary awards including New York literary awards? Doesn’t mean a damn thing, eh! Must be just a conspiracy to give people top awards that they do not deserve because they are just hacks.
      Would that delusion suit your mind-set?
      Carl Rosel

      • Martin Thomas Says:

        Anne Perry’s story “Heroes”, which first appeared in the 1999 anthology Murder and Obsession, edited by Otto Penzler, won the 2001 Edgar Award for Best Short Story. It did not win a Pulitzer, a Man-Booker or the Nobel Prize for Literature. Surely you can see a qualitative difference? I’m not being deliberately provocative here; I just want you to understand that Hulme/Perry’s writing is not actually that good in terms of literary quality. It is what it says on the tin: formulaic airport crime fiction – nothing more. She’ll never win a Pulitzer, a Nobel or a Man-Booker Prize, because she’s not that good a writer. It’s a simple truth.

  91. copper04Carl Rosel Says:

    Frederic,
    Juliet Hulme was in prison for five years. The first three months was in solitary confinement. No lies there.
    Carl Rosel

    • Sparrow Says:

      That’s weird… I read that she was in partial confinement with a prostitute mentor who clipped her nails. And that she was in the company of several women during the day… Perhaps you have a different definition of solitary confinement to the usual one.

  92. copper04Carl Rosel Says:

    Jodi,
    There is immense corroboration about Anne Perry / Juliet Hulme’s immense talent. Not just the NZ’s Justice Department files and Psychological services and literary men who read her writings. (Note: men of the Christchurch Museum among other places in NZ. Also several places around the world.) She has been given several literary awards because (repeat) of her immense talent, including a New York Literary award. It was to New York that she wanted to take the novels written by her and her close friend Pauline Parker when they were girls. She stated at the age of fifteen that that was where the best publishing houses were.
    The Christchurch Museum has her writings and prose but it is not online. You must go to the Museum. You can corroborate that yourself.
    Yes, Pauline Parker is also very intelligent. Her poems feature in the movie “Heavenly Creatures”. She was also involved with the novel’s writing with Juliet. Last week I went to a secondhand book shop in Auckland. I asked at the counter if there were any Anne Perry books in stock. A man standing near the counter said that he had been with Pauline Parker at a Library course after her release, although he did not know it at the time. He knew her as Hilary Nathan. He said she was very, very bright. He admired her for it. It was an amazing coincidence him being in the shop just then.
    Carl Rosel

    • Jodi Duffy Says:

      Hi Carl,
      Thanks for sharing the bookshop conversation, and the information about the Christchurch museum. This is the kind of information you have access to due to your living in NZ. Here in the U.S., I can only learn about it second, or third hand.

      The Christchurch museum must have a permanent exhibit on the P/H murder, or is the collection part of the holdings, and not necessarily on view?

      Thanks so much,
      Jodi

      • copper04Carl Rosel Says:

        Hi Jodi,
        I will ascertain whether the section on Juliet, Pauline and Honora, bless her soul, are part of the holdings, and not on view, or if they are on view. That is at the Christchurch Museum.
        I am full on at the moment. Am blessed to be crew on my friends motor yacht, and am doing interior varnishing before we go on our next trip. It is 50 metres long and 32 ton. Good value!
        We fish when we are away. There is nothing better than fresh fish and vegetables. We kill the fish straight away after we pull them up. It is cruel to leave them flapping around in a bucket, gasping.
        I’m not skiting by the way. Ha ha.
        Cheers
        Carl

      • Jodi Duffy Says:

        Fresh-caught fish, nothing can compare. I hope you have a wonderful time. Are you staying close to the coast or moving out into the open sea?

        It may interest you, if you haven’t found it already, that there is a page on the web dedicated to poor Honora. (I don’t have the URL, but don’t think it would be difficult to find.)

        Turns out she spelled her name “Honnora,” and she was born in England, not far from Blackheath, Juliet’s birthplace.

        Poor woman. Her death haunts me. I was hoping to find a photograph, but have not been successful yet.

  93. Telly MacKillop Says:

    This is a fantastic blog/forum about Juliet Hulme. This is the kind of information that needs to be discussed across the internet. Shame that it is not ranked higher than it is. You’ve got a controversial subject being discussed by many intelligent people. Good work.

  94. Raphael Gordon Says:

    Some of the comments here are incredible! I find it amazing (and slightly worrying) that certain people insist on defending and glorifying ‘a precocious play-acting paranoid schizophrenic murderer, a dirty-minded hack writer of incomprehensible verse and inconsistent and inaccurate prose, with a morbid preoccupation for evil and possessing an attitude of arrogance, an intolerance of criticism, and a superiority complex…’ It just goes to show that standards really are being deliberately lowered daily, and that some people will accept anyone as a so-called ‘genius’ these days. I always thought Leonardo da Vinci, Albert Einstein, Stephen Hawking, Isaac Newton and Beethoven were genuises. Now I’m being told, without any substantiating evidence, that Juliet Hulme/Anne Perry is a genius. Maybe I’m being dense, but I seriously doubt that The Cater Street Hangman is of the same worldwide cultural importance as Leonardo’s Notebooks; or that “Heroes” is as socially significant as “Does the Inertia of a Body Depend Upon Its Energy Content?”; or that Defend and Betray contains the same insight and depth as A Brief History of Time; or that The Face of a Stranger has as much cultural significance as Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica; or that Tudor Rose is as complex and groundbreaking as The Ninth Symphony. Nothing Hulme/Perry has written comes close to the seismic power of the works of the five geniuses mentioned here. Objectively, Hulme/Perry is a far less-talented crime writer than Arthur Conan Doyle, Agatha Christie, Raymond Chandler or Georges Simenon. Anyone who proclaims her a genius is clearly misunderstanding the word ‘genius’.

    • copper04Carl Rosel Says:

      Raphael Gordon, and all the other aliases that you use continually to throw garbage at another person. Here is a message for you. Make sure you get in touch with all the authorities that have given Anne Perry literary awards and tell them how wrong they are and how superior you are, because you know better. No use making comments on this page to us inferior, to you, beings. Tell them. And in fact do it in an open forum, because you are so sure and you are so right, and everyone else is wrong.
      But you wont do that will you. Because you have not got the guts or the honesty.
      Do the same with the movie makers that filmed a series on Anne Perry’s inferior storylines, and tell them the same.
      Tell the NZ Justice Department that had close contact with Anne Perry for five years, that they are talking false crap and have made it all up.
      Tell the Christchurch Museum, that they are brain diseased dickheads, for keeping writings and prose of such substandard work.
      You must do it after what you have written on this blog.
      We are all waiting with bated breath.
      Carl Rosel

  95. Raphael Gordon Says:

    Carl… I’m a bit confused about why you say I’m using an alias… My name is Raphael Gordon, and unlike Anne Perry’s name, it’s never been anything else.
    When you say I’m throwing garbage at another person, which person do you mean? I have the utmost respect and admiration for Einstein, Beethoven, Hawking, Newton and da Vinci. Which part of what I was saying is garbage? Do you think that the five people I mentioned were not geniuses? Or do you think that Anne Perry’s ‘genius’ is greater than Einstein’s, Beethoven’s, Hawking’s, Newton’s and da Vinci’s? If you do, you’re sadly mistaken.
    Where do I suggest that I consider other people ‘inferior’? I have nothing but absolute respect for people in general, particularly those who have created or discovered something wonderful that has changed the world for the better.
    I’ve never defended or glorified murderers – and I never will.
    The word genius… and Hulme is not one… keeps being bandied about.
    Here’s a quote: ‘There is no scientifically precise definition of genius, and indeed the question of whether the notion itself has any real meaning is a subject of current debate. The term is used in various ways: to refer to a particular aspect of an individual, or the individual in their entirety; to a scholar in many subjects (e.g. Isaac Newton or Leonardo da Vinci) or a scholar in a single subject (e.g. Albert Einstein or Stephen Hawking).’ Weird how it doesn’t mention Hulme. Quick! Someone’s overlooked her! Oh no, how can they not know she’s a genius!
    I was being sarcastic there, Carl, because you seem very hostile to anyone who tells the truth about Hulme. That quote that Martin Thomas (whose factual comments I notice you chose to ignore) quoted above: ‘In the words of the psychiatric and legal experts [Hulme was] a precocious play-acting paranoid schizophrenic murderer, a dirty-minded hack writer of incomprehensible verse and inconsistent and inaccurate prose, with a morbid preoccupation for evil and possessing an attitude of arrogance, an intolerance of criticism, and a superiority complex…’ will always be true, even if you deny it, or even if you call it garbage. If you deny the solid, factual, expert evidence of the people who interviewed, tested, defended and knew Hulme, you’re just dealing in your own opinion, not fact. And the FACTS are that Hulme was (according to the qualified and experienced experts) ‘a precocious play-acting paranoid schizophrenic murderer, a dirty-minded hack writer of incomprehensible verse and inconsistent and inaccurate prose, with a morbid preoccupation for evil and possessing an attitude of arrogance, an intolerance of criticism, and a superiority complex…’
    If you refute this, may I ask this: in what ways are you more qualified and more experienced than the doctors, lawyers, psychiatrists, etc, who interviewed, knew and defended Hulme? Are you suggesting that your amateur after-the-fact opinion is more accurate, more factual, more objective, more truthful, than their at-the-time (based on extensive observation, discussion, and interview) expert professional findings?

  96. copper04Carl Rosel Says:

    Raphael,
    The so-called legal expert that you are quoting was the crown prosecuter at the trial. All the description you quoted was what he used. Why didn’t you use the quotes from other legal experts? The defence side? Is that all you can come up with? A diatribe of rubbish from a crown prosecutor? They would love people like you on their juries. Everyone would be found guilty. The one good thing that is happening around the world now though is the ‘Innocence Project’ which is starting to get innocent people released. People who were railroaded into prison by the likes of you that are only capable of listening to one side of any matter and making a decision on it.
    I will still say here that if the trial of Juliet Hulme and Pauline Parker were held today, they would have been found not guilty on the grounds of temporary insanity / diminished responsibility. There were a huge amount of extenuating circumstances connected with that whole affair (which you with your mind set would not be capable of considering).
    They were miscast in 1954, to a jury of 1950′s red-necked – hang-em males, as dirty-minded evil girls (lesbians included. Which was false.) and as fully rational calculating killers. The crown prosecuters descriptions. Today would be completely different. The whole picture of that sad affair would be presented to a jury of rational people and a decision in keeping with the whole situation would be delivered.
    But maybe not where you live, wherever that is. Where is that? Do people still stand around grinning and jeering at hangings and beheadings where you are, or put people down after listening to one side of a story?
    Have you told the institutions that gave Anne Perry awards how wrong they are yet? That would take you some time to do.
    Carl Rosel

    • Tim Hollings Says:

      Carl, please can you help? Where is the source of information for your comment that the jury were ‘a jury of 1950s red-necked – hang-em males’? Where exactly can I find this information? Which book, library or online archive is it in? Thanks.

    • Jean Hammond Says:

      Carl, could you advise please? It’s about your ‘lesbians included. Which was false’ comment. Which of the murderers (or their families or friends) has told you they weren’t lesbians? Look forward to hearing from you about this. I thought there was the distinct possibility that Juliet Hulme was a lesbian. If you know different, could you provide the evidence for/of that very valuable piece of information, please?

  97. Natalie Aspinoll Says:

    I’m impressed by this blog and its responses, I must say. I hardly ever encounter a blog that’s informative, educational and entertaining. The information, the links, the forum for discussion are excellent. It’s a pity that not everyone is debating calmly, rationally. You also seem to have a few obsessives going over the same old ground, stating the same old ideas, over and over again, as though by repeating their beliefs (beliefs are not truths) over and over again, they’ll force people to believe them. On the other hand, a few people take the time to quote primary material and back up their points with facts. It’s a fascinating debate on an important subject. Good work.

  98. Raphael Gordon Says:

    Carl, I’ve just re-read your comments (and mine) and I’m still a bit confused about some of the things you’ve said.

    First of all, you say: ‘The so-called legal expert that you are quoting was the crown prosecuter at the trial. All the description you quoted was what he used. Why didn’t you use the quotes from other legal experts. The defence side?’

    My answer is this: I did use quotes from the defence side. I quoted Dr Medlicott (defence psychiatrist), who described Juliet Hulme as ‘excitable and intolerant of criticism. She found it difficult to stop play-acting… Increasingly, the writings became a morbid preoccupation with evil.’ He also referred to Hulme as ‘insane’ and suffering from ‘immense delusions of grandeur’.

    I also quoted Brian McClelland (Queen’s Counsel for the defence), who had no doubt Juliet Hulme was schizophrenic. ‘I believe that was so… because she was extremely clever. She was fine as long as you didn’t ask her about her own beliefs. She thought that she was a superior person. That was why we couldn’t possibly call her to give evidence.’

    I also quoted the journalist Merton Woods (who you also quote quite extensively), who said that Hulme was a writer of ‘incompehensible…emphemeral verse’ and a short story that ‘contains inconsistencies and inaccuracies… irrelevant to the drama of the story’. I think this might be some of the substandard material that is in the museum. In fact, if you’re familiar with this material, you yourself might very well be able to shed light on Hulme’s ‘incomprehensible’, ‘ephemeral’, inconsistent and inaccurate juvenile writings that Woods has reported.

    You also demand (quite rudely): ‘Make sure you get in touch with all the authorities that have given Anne Perry literary awards and tell them how wrong they are and how superior you are, because you know better.’

    My response is this: I’m not sure what you mean by this, because I can’t find any reference to me saying anything about any authority or institution, or anything about any ‘literary’ awards.

    Carl, I’ve responded politely to your comment, but this is not about me, this is about Juliet Hulme.

    I now notice that you chose to not answer my question, so I’ll ask it again: in what ways are you more qualified and more experienced than the defence and prosecution doctors, lawyers, psychiatrists, etc, who interviewed, tested, knew and defended Juliet Hulme and between them found her to be ‘a precocious play-acting paranoid schizophrenic murderer and a dirty-minded insane hack writer of incomprehensible verse and inconsistent and inaccurate prose, with delusions of grandeur, a morbid preoccupation for evil and possessing an attitude of arrogance, an intolerance of criticism, and a superiority complex…’ ?

    • Jodi Duffy Says:

      As far as I understand, the late Brian McClelland was on the defense team for the two girls. He himself was quite a young man at the time. He seems to have been charmed by Juliet’s open demeanor, because in later interviews he recalled a friendly nickname she had given him, and he commented on her affability.

      However, he also spoke and wrote about her apparently schizoid outbursts and hyperverbal rants. He commented on her outsized arrogance, but attributed it to the manner of her upbringing. (I find this charitable, since her parents and brother are not described as arrogant, yet “arrogant” and “conceited” are the bywords for Juliet, according to McClelland, Medlicott and the schoolmates who were interviewed by Peter Jackson and Fran Walsh.)

      The tony, posh accent and affect are still very much in evidence on the Ian Rankin video interview.

      The lawyers and the doctor also refer to her insulting, verbally abusive manner at times during the days of the trial.

      It would be interesting to read an unbiased account of the girls’ lives in prison, since the “Argus Weekender” piece is filled with inaccuracies and reads like it was lifted entirely from the Hulme PR machine. I wonder if “Merton Woods” was a family friend.

      McClelland expressed regret that the girls were not hospitalized, since it was his opinion that they were mentally ill. And surely they were during this time of their lives. Yet, they both acknowledged the murder, and at the time of the trial, expressed no remorse.

      It was a bizarre, brutal act, and probably best left to the annals of criminal history. Except for the fact that one of the parties continued aspects of the behavior that landed her in prison in the first place. Just as she did when a girl, Juliet continues to spin tales of murder and unspeakable crimes, and this has made her famous and very rich.

      After years of anonymity on this point, she was finally confronted publicly with her bloody past. Anne Perry’s tightly staged and rigidly controlled responses give cause for pause, and in many cases, outrage.

      Dr. Medlicott cites a line from the girls’ writing, attributed to their violent (and favorite) character, Diello, “I would like to kill someone sometime because I think it is an experience that is necessary to life.”

    • copper04Carl Rosel Says:

      Raphael,
      Dr Medlicott’s evidence re-heard by a jury of rational people today would in part help to bring a verdict in keeping with the situation.
      He also stated that the two girls were in the throes of Folie ‘a’ deux or Folie ‘a’ simultanee.
      Temporary insanity is not a mental illness but can be triggered by extreme stress and trauma. Thousands of people have suffered temporary insanity. Actions commited in a fugue state of non-insane automatism.
      I have read from a legal source, that because of the extreme extenuating circumstances prevalent in the lives of the two immature adolescent girls in the time leading up to the matricide, there could also have been a concept of mental alienation put forward ( not a sound mental state at the time ) by the Defence.
      People still today are still judging them like they did in 1954. There were extenuating circumstances to consider in 1954, but they were’nt considered. People were going on the sensational newspaper reports and sensational gossip and talk prevalent. Judging them as if they were adults, cold calculating with their wits about them. That false picture needs to be removed.
      Carl Rosel

      • Raphael Gordon Says:

        You’ve made some interesting points, Carl, although your comment: ‘Dr Medlicott’s evidence re-heard by a jury of rational people today’, implies that the original jury of 14 was irrational. This seems a little unfair. You state they were ‘a jury of 1950s red-necked – hang-em males’ – so where can I find this information, please? Is it a newspaper quote? All I can find is a reference to ‘the jury of fourteen professional men’, but nothing that mentions their rationality, or lack of it. Any chance of a link to your source, please?

        Also, something that’s not really been mentioned much is this: Juliet Hulme was diagnosed by defending medical and psychiatric doctors as insane, schizophrenic, obsessive, delusional, etc. She was not diagnosed with temporary insanity. The diagnoses of these skilled professional experts was not accepted by the court. As a result, Juliet Hulme was never allowed to receive (and has never received) any treatment or counselling or therapy for her insanity, schizophrenia, obsessions, delusions, etc. In other words, she’s never had help with her serious (and not temporary) mental illnesses from a qualified, experienced professional – and I’m sure we all know the damage that has been done to the insane (and to those near to them) by allowing the insane to remain untreated.

        One of Hulme’s lethal obsessions was the writing of gory murder scenes, an obsession that led to murder. A skilled psychiatrist would have helped wean her off her obsessions – this clearly has not happened… in fact the opposite has occurred. She was actively encouraged to continue with her obsessions by a family member. This is ultimately deeply psychologically damaging, and was, in part, initially caused by the court’s refusal to accept that severe mental illness was a factor.

        Finally, I notice you take issue with people ‘judging them as if they were… cold, calculating…’ Both girls were cold and calculating, because the murder was pre-meditated. They were cold because they carried out a brutal murder and showed no remorse in court, and they were calculating because it was a meticulously-planned pre-meditated murder.

        Anyway, I’ve read everything I can find on this case, in books, online, in archives, etc, many times, so any references to material I haven’t read – such as the source of your description of the jury and their lack of rationality – would be greatly appreciated.

        Thank you.

  99. Jessica Barker Says:

    I believe that there are very few people in the world who are/were geniuses – as in meaning that they are/were hugely creative people who have created something that has enriched and changed the culture they live(d) in.

    Here is a partial list of people who have been touched by genius and have changed the world into a better place because of it:

    Newton, Hawking, Einstein in science

    Beethoven, Hendrix, Stravinsky and Mozart in music

    Da Vinci, Michelangelo, Dali and Picasso in art

    Joyce, Aeschylus, Beckett, Wilde and Burroughs in literature

    Aristotle, Foucault, Galileo and Wittgenstein in philosophy

    Anne Perry? Ha ha ha ha ha…

    • copper04Carl Rosel Says:

      Jessica Barker,
      Make communication with the author of the article on Juliet Hulme, and give your views.
      No use coming on this blog with ha ha ha ha ha.
      No one on this blog wrote the article.
      Carl Rosel

      • Jessica Barker Says:

        Since when did you have the right to tell me what I can and can’t do, or can and can’t say? I am an autonomous adult. If I wish to write Ha ha ha ha ha at the end of one of my own comments about a subject on an open forum, I have a perfect right to do so, free from censorship or censure.

  100. Barry Bailey Says:

    Carl, you say ‘The one good thing that is happening around the world now though is the ‘Innocence Project’ which is starting to get innocent people released. People who were railroaded into prison by the likes of [those] that are only capable of listening to one side of any matter and making a decision on it.’

    I think it’s important to remember that Juliet Hulme was/is not innocent. She carefully co-planned and deliberately co-committed the ferocious, brutal and bloody murder of an innocent woman, by smashing her skull in repeatedly (23 blows) with a half-brick, simply because she believed that that woman was stopping her from doing what she wanted.

    If she’d been three years older she’d have been executed. Ah well.

  101. copper04Carl Rosel Says:

    Hi Raphael,
    Their actions in court and with interviews prove fully the mental state they were in. It was not rational. They were alienated from reality. That had been building up for years. They both, had in different ways, horrendous experiences as younger girls. That is what cemented the bond they had, and they could not bear to be separated.
    I have stated before that, when apart and in prison, the enormity of what they had done hit home. It was then that Juliet Hulme came to full repentance. It did prove that certain point that Dr Medlicott told the court. That together, they were in the throes of, Folie ‘a’ deux or Folie ‘a’ simultanee. A rational jury would have taken just that point alone and found them Not Guilty on the grounds of Temporary insanity / Diminished responsibility, with a rider that they received the help they desperately deserved to have.
    Being haughty, intolerent of criticism, etc has nothing to do with the real serious issues in that whole sad situation.
    Carl Rosel

    • Tom Baldwin Says:

      In a blackly humorous way, I like how you say ‘the enormity of what they had done hit home’ as you comment on a killer who used a brick to smash in a defenceless woman’s skull.

      ‘…hit home’! Nice one.

    • Coral Timmins Says:

      Carl, everything you say about the Hulme murderer is wrong!

      According to Hulme’s defense lawyer, the folie a deux defence was made up!

      According to Peter Graham (lawyer, author, etc), if they were retried today, they’d get exactly the same punishment, probably harsher.

      According to Dr. Medlicott: “Both Isoniazid (an anti-bacterial) and Streptomycin (an antibiotic) were used, but there was no evidence that they produced any psychological changes.”

      Neither of these medicines “impair judgement” 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’.

      According to NZ Immigration, Hulme was deported and banned from ever returning to NZ.

      According to Parker’s diaries (and comments by Hulme’s brother), Hulme is very likely a lesbian.

      According to Amazon, some of her books are out of print.

      In her first interview, Hulme lied. It’s on record. Therefore, Hulme lies in interviews.

      Have you any facts that are actually based on the truth?

      What personal psychological defect do you have that has made you continue your fruitless support of lying, murdering scum?

      • Shona Wilson Says:

        John, I think you’ll find he’s as big a liar as Hulme. Nothing he says (or has ever said) has any basis in fact or reality. He just copies everything Hulme or Hulme’s PR team states. It’s almost as though he’s unaware that Hulme has a highly-efficient PR team that follows her orders to the letter regarding the type of information (and its timing) that is made public. He might be an idiot, a dupe, or he might work for Hulme; I don’t know which.

  102. Jonathan Yates Says:

    ‘She was mad. She genuinely thought she was a philosopher…’ Juliet Hulme always thought she was right. She was a schizophrenic displaying signs of exalted paranoia, according to the defence psychiatrist Dr Reginald Medlicott…

    Brian McClelland (defence lawyer) never saw Juliet again after the trial. “Frankly I did not want to. There was nothing I could do. Juliet needed a doctor, not a lawyer. Juliet Hulme began her sentence interned “at Her Majesty’s pleasure” – in Auckland’s Mount Eden Prison, sewing mail bags.

    “They just said she was sane. They wouldn’t let her have a radio.” “Was she happy?” “She was mad. She used to write to me, saying “Isn’t it funny the only men I have ever admired have been Italian.” “She genuinely thought she was a philosopher, a genius.”

    “There was nothing I could do. Juliet needed a doctor, not a lawyer… They just said she was sane… She was mad. Juliet needed a doctor, not a lawyer… They just said she was sane… She was mad. Juliet needed a doctor, not a lawyer… They just said she was sane… She was mad…”

    Here’s the source:

    http://christchurchcitylibraries.com/Heritage/Digitised/ParkerHulme/Page26.asp

  103. Jonathan Yates Says:

    ‘The pathologist who examined the body of Mrs. Parker said that death had resulted from multiple head injuries and a fracture of the skull. There were forty-five discernible injuries, twenty-four being lacerated wounds on the face and head. The injuries showed that a crushing force had been applied while the head was immobile on the ground. If the brick had been in the stocking and swung with considerable force it could have caused the injuries. The bruises on the throat indicated that Mrs. Parker had been held by the throat. A laceration on the finger suggested she received the injury when she put up her hand to defend herself.’

    Source:
    http://christchurchcitylibraries.com/heritage/digitised/parkerhulme/Page23.asp

    Hulme: “I knew it was wrong to murder and I knew at the time I was murdering somebody. You’d have to be an absolute moron not to know murder was against the law.”

    “The accused,” said Dr. Stallworthy, “had some justification for conceit. Hulme displayed a shrewdness in appreciating difficult questions and a shrewdness in answering them more like that of an older, sophisticated person…”

    Source:
    http://christchurchcitylibraries.com/heritage/digitised/parkerhulme/Page23.asp

    “The pair were insane at the time of the killing”, he (Dr Bennett, Psychiatrist for the Defence) said. “They are still not sane. In my opinion they will never be sane.”

    Source: http://christchurchcitylibraries.com/Heritage/Digitised/ParkerHulme/Page25.asp

    It wasn’t a wrong jury decision: they (Parker/Hulme) knew exactly what they were doing; it was premeditated; had been planned meticulously for months; you’ve read the diaries, so you know this. An insanity plea (always) means diminished or no responsibility… these two were insane and knew what they were doing and were fully responsible.. no other choice for the jury; punish them or let them off… because they were both too young to hang:

    Mr. Justice Adams told the jury that the burden of proof of insanity rested on the defence. “The gravamen of this case,” he said, “is the defence of insanity. If the jury found it established their duty was to return a verdict of not guilty. Your proper choice lies between ‘ guilty ‘ and ‘ not guilty ‘ on the grounds of insanity.”

    Source:
    http://christchurchcitylibraries.com/heritage/digitised/parkerhulme/Page23.asp

    You see: two choices only: Guilty or Not Guilty on the grounds of insanity. What about Guilty on the grounds of insanity?

    Oh, and then there’s this:

    “On the day of the outing Juliet Hulme took with her part of a brick from her home. After the accident they both told the same story.”

    ‘outing’!!!
    ‘accident’!!!

    Source:
    http://christchurchcitylibraries.com/heritage/digitised/parkerhulme/Page23.asp

    Coda: ‘The defence relied heavily on the evidence of a psychiatrist Dr Reginald Medlicott. He argued that Juliet’s insanity affected Pauline…’

    Juliet’s insanity affected Pauline… Juliet’s insanity… Juliet’s insanity…

    “They are still not sane. In my opinion they will never be sane.”

    ‘They are still not sane…. they will never be sane…. They are still not sane…. they will never be sane…. They are still not sane…. they will never be sane….’

    And now they’re a mere train-ride away from each other and one’s a millionaire… hey ho! Who says justice does not prevail?

  104. Jonathan Yates Says:

    ‘Juliet was an extremely bright and, by her own description, a mischievious and precocious child, but she was also a sickly one, suffering from several different, serious, respiratory ailments when young. In addition, she suffered severe psychological trauma during the London Blitz, when she was two. It was reported that she suffered from debilitating screaming nightmares for several weeks after this episode, perhaps for months, and on and off during her childhood.’

    Source: http://members.tripod.com/hc_faq/3.2.4.htm

    Thus is documented the origins of Juliet’s insanity…

  105. copper04Carl Rosel Says:

    It has now been proven on this blog that the wrong decision was delivered by the 1954 jury. It was so obvious. In the throes of folie ‘ a ‘ deux. A rare symptom which required help for those so young, not vilification. That was not going to happen in that 1954 climate. Not now either by some.
    Pauline Parker was the originator of the plan to ” Moider Mother ”
    Diary entry :- April 29th 1954. – I have not told Deborah ( Juliet ) of my plans to remove Mother.
    Diary entries in the month of the matricide.
    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 definitely are mad but pleasingly so.

    June 20th 1954. Is it peculiar we are so mad. I have worked out a little more of the plan to Moider Mother.

    Would anyone deny that those girls actually needed help badly at the time. The NZ Justice Department saw it at the time, thankfully.

    They took a more paternalistic approach with the girls rather than a punishment role, except for the very beginning of their sentence.

    When they realized Juliet Hulme was a completely different girl from the young monster she was portrayed as, she was given every help, and she responded. She was allowed visits and help by the ” Howard League ” of which is still in operation with Peter Williams QC as its President. The head warder of the prison also allowed her out of the prison on sunday evenings to join his family for dinner. She was motivated to carry on with her immense talent for writing. Anne Perry has been named in the list of top 100 crime writers of the century. Nothing to do with the crime they were charged with, that some people spout. It was early in the sentence that she came to full repentance. People that have known her very well for years speak and write about her very highly, including people in the village where she lives. They all know about the case she was involved in as an adolescent girl.

    I will repeat what I have said before. Sadly there are still people in this day and age that have the attitude of people who would stand around grinning and jeering at hangings and beheadings of those who did not have any extenuating circumstances considered in their case. People can read sensational garbage about an event or a person and then ride along on that false mindset refusing to see anything else, or even seek it out.
    Carl Rosel

    • James Whitby Says:

      ‘June 7th 1954 We rose this morning’… Does this mean that Juliet and Pauline climbed out of the same bed at the same time, after having spent the night together? And it’s such a momentous and noteworthy event that it’s recorded in a diary! Some people could deduce that the girls’ relationship was a lesbian relationship.

    • Dan Mitchell Says:

      ‘It has now been proven on this blog that the wrong decision was delivered by the 1954 jury. It was so obvious. In the throes of folie ‘ a ‘ deux.’

      Will you please stop talking shit! There is obviously no (and never will be any) proof that the wrong decision was made by the 1954 jury, because the right decision was made. A prison sentence for a calculated, brutal murder. Hulme or Parker were not suffering from folie a deux – everyone knows that! Including you. The defense made it up! They admitted it. It’s on record! In the public domain. Do you work for Hulme? Have you a low IQ? Or are you a pathological liar?

  106. Jonathan Yates Says:

    You say: ‘She was motivated to carry on with her immense talent for writing.’

    At that time (and some would argue, to this day) there’s no evidence of ‘immense talent’. On the contrary:

    ‘On the twenty-eighth of February the first mention of the ‘Plan’ occurred. Pauline was at Juliet’s home and wrote: ‘Deborah and I started discussing our quest for “Him”. We have now decided to hurry things up terrifically, in fact to start now. We had a marvelous time planning the life and the flight and how we will obtain all the money and what we will do.’ The plan was to get to New York together, where they would find someone to publish their books and then they would go to Hollywood where they expected to be hailed as actresses. Shortly after this Pauline was visiting shipping companies, and between then and the murder they collected money by various means including stealing. Ambitious plans are not unusual in adolescents but there was more than usual neglect of reality here. Their books were mostly unfinished and untyped and they were completely uncritical about them. When Juliet started writing she used to read her novel chapter by chapter to her mother but later guarded her writings from everyone and was, like Pauline, completely contemptuous of anyone’s opinion. By this time they had not the slightest doubt that they were outstanding geniuses so far removed from the common people as to need no one’s approval but their own. There was no jealousy between them and they congratulated each other on their productions. In actuality their writings, although profuse and imaginative, did not show talent and there was nothing to suggest that they would be published. During the next three months [March, April, May. jp] the girls spent an increasing amount of time together, with Pauline staying frequent week-ends in Juliet’s home. In the diary one can sense the mounting tension in that time with increasing exaltation broken only by either irritable bad-tempered episode or depression with suicidal thoughts. As Pauline expressed it in one entry, they soared between heaven and hell.’

    Source: http://members.tripod.com/hc_faq/7.8.1.htm

    You see: ‘Their books were mostly unfinished and untyped and they were completely uncritical about them… In actuality their writings, although profuse and imaginative, did not show talent and there was nothing to suggest that they would be published.’

    I think the key phrase here is ‘did not show talent’. You may want to rethink your ‘immense talent’ idea.

    You state: ‘Pauline Parker was the originator of the plan to ” Moider Mother ” Diary entry :- April 29th 1954.

    And yet:

    ‘On the twenty-eighth of February the first mention of the ‘Plan’ occurred. Pauline was at Juliet’s home and wrote: ‘Deborah and I started discussing our quest for “Him”. We have now decided to hurry things up terrifically, in fact to start now.’

    Sorry, which came first: February or April? You may want to rethink your ‘originator of the plan’ idea. You may want to check your dates too.

    You say: ‘People that have known her very well for years speak and write about her very highly…’ Okay, please could you provide one link to anyone who has ‘known her very well for years’ and who has written ‘about her very highly’? Just one link to one piece of writing by someone who’s ‘known her very well for years’. Go on, just one little, little link to back up your claims. Otherwise it’s just your opinion, not fact. One link. Just one. Please. Fact, not opinion.

    You state: ‘It has now been proven on this blog that the wrong decision was delivered by the 1954 jury.’ Sorry, but nothing’s ‘been proven on this blog’. It’s just a forum for discussion and contemplation and re-evaluation in the light of new information. You’re not doing the original blog writer any favours by making such wild and unfounded claims. People come here to share serious information on the Parker/Hulme murder case and how it pertains to one of the murderers; the one who’s chosen to make herself a public figure.

    You say: ‘People can read sensational garbage about an event or a person…’ Are you seriously suggesting that the Heavenly Creatures Research Information Archive:

    http://members.tripod.com/hc_faq/contents.htm

    and the Christchurch City Library Digitalised Parker/Hulme Archive:

    http://christchurchcitylibraries.com/heritage/digitised/parkerhulme/

    contains ‘sensational garbage’ rather than actual interviews, reports, statements testimonies and transcripts from the murderers, their families, the police, friends, doctors, lawyers, psychiatrists, etc, as well as respected academic articles, the whole collection of contemporary newspaper and magazine reports, and links to factual, objective, contemporary and current serious analysis of one of the world’s most brutal murders? If you are, I hope you’re joking. In light of this information, you may want to rethink your ‘sensational garbage’ idea.

    Here’s hoping that no one (including yourself) continues to ‘ride along on that false mindset refusing to see anything else, or even seek it out’.

    The truth is this:

    ‘The pathologist who examined the body of Mrs. Parker said that death had resulted from multiple head injuries and a fracture of the skull. There were forty-five discernible injuries, twenty-four being lacerated wounds on the face and head. The injuries showed that a crushing force had been applied while the head was immobile on the ground. If the brick had been in the stocking and swung with considerable force it could have caused the injuries. The bruises on the throat indicated that Mrs. Parker had been held by the throat. A laceration on the finger suggested she received the injury when she put up her hand to defend herself.’

    Nothing else matters. Everything else (such as Hmmm, I’ve been told the murderer is a genius) is self-serving apologistic bullshit.

  107. Jonathan Yates Says:

    I think we know what we need to about Hulme’s juvenile literary ‘talent’:

    “In September she began to write a great deal. Portions have been read to me and it is grandiose and unreal. In the second book, parts are unpleasant and unbalanced…’ Hilda Hulme (Juliet’s mother) – Trial Testimony.

    Source: http://www.adamabrams.com/hc/faq2/Section_7/7.5.4.html

    Dr. Bennett.. (for the defence) had read both Pauline’s diaries and a large part of Juliet’s novel. He stated: “They think they are superior to the general race of man. They have written a great deal, but I do not consider it of outstanding literary merit. Intellectually they are a little higher than girls of their own age, but they are not intellectual giants.”

    Source: http://www.adamabrams.com/hc/faq2/library/7.6.1.html

    Hmm… so, no sign of an ‘immense talent’ by the people who have actually read Hulme’s scribblings. Yet you state she had an ‘immense talent’. Have you read her juvenilia, then? If so, could you provide a link to it, please? I (and many others who read this blog) would find such a link to Hulme’s ‘unpleasant and unbalanced’ juvenile scribblings very helpful.

    You say: ‘I will repeat what I have said before.’ There’s no point repeating opinion. No matter how many times you say it, it just remains your opinion… and if it’s opinion, it’s of no value to anyone but you. Why not share some of your knowledge by providing links to the information (websites, libraries, archives, etc) that you claim is fact? That would shed some light on this subject. Would you do that, please?

    • copper04Carl Rosel Says:

      Jonathan,
      What particular part of what I have stated here on this blog would you want to verify. Do I detect doubt that there are those that would treat another human being in a humanistic way.
      Carl Rosel

      • Jonathan Yates Says:

        I’m just asking for links to back up what you say. I see you’ve been asked before, but have ignored such requests.

        You say: ‘People that have known her very well for years speak and write about her very highly…’ I said: Okay, please could you provide one link to anyone who has ‘known her very well for years’ and who has written ‘about her very highly’? Just one link to one piece of writing by someone who’s ‘known her very well for years’, please.

        If there is no link to someone has who has ‘known her for years’ and written ‘very highly’ about her, then obviously it’s just your opinion, not fact that she’s written about in this way.

        You also state Hulme (as a teenager) had ‘an immense talent’. I asked: Have you read her juvenilia, then? If so, could you provide a link to it, please? I (and many others who read this blog) would find a link to Hulme’s ‘unpleasant and unbalanced’ juvenile scribblings very helpful.

        If there is no link, then obviously it’s just your opinion that she had ‘an immense talent’ as a teenager, because those who have actually read her teenage scribblings (her mother and father and psychiatrist, for example) found it to be ‘unpleasant and unbalanced’, ‘grandiose and unreal’ and ‘without any literary value’.

      • Dennis Waters Says:

        Having read what Juliet Hulme and Pauline Parker did to Honorah Rieper, I know that there there are some people in the world who treat others in the most vile and disgusting way.

  108. Jonathan Yates Says:

    Here are some (hopefully) useful links to some online Juliet Hulme/Anne Perry resources:

    http://www.anne-perry-interiors.com/index.php?lang=en

    http://members.tripod.com/hc_faq/contents.htm

    http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/23441272

    http://christchurchcitylibraries.com/heritage/digitised/parkerhulme/

    http://boards.library.trutv.com/showthread.php?293164-Juliet-Hulme-Is-Anne-Perry-Minimizing-Her-Motive

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parker%E2%80%93Hulme_murder

    http://www.gaynz.net.nz/history/Parker&Hulme.html

  109. copper04Carl Rosel Says:

    Jonathan,
    Yes, I have read and seen friends of Anne Perry you-tube interviews. Also what people in Portmahomack ( the village in Scotland near where her residence is ) have said about her. I do not dream things up and then write them on a blog page. That sort of nonsense would be so easy to refute. At the same time it is so easy to verify. I can tell you I have read and in fact retain pages and pages of information on Anne Perry ( Juliet Hulme ) I am not computer savvy and do not know about – paste – save or being able to go to a certain page straight away. Each page of relevant information I have wanted to save, has been retained by sending it in e – mail to myself. So it means going back through the pages and reading them. But, some of the pages about a certain aspect can be gained just by keying in that subject. You are able to do that and verify yourself that what I have ever written has indeed been witnessed, stated about and true.
    I can say now that the fact about the NZ Justice Department realizing that Juliet Hulme was a vastly different girl than the one portrayed in papers, in court by the crown prosecutor and in peoples minds was first told to me first hand by the Auckland President of the Howard League for penal reform, Peter Williams QC. I have since also read that, which you will be able to do.
    As an aside, I have known Peter Williams QC for many years, as I have crewed on the different boats he has owned. I am also a member of the Auckland Howard League, and in fact we had a meeting in the Freemans Bay Community Hall last night. If you are in New Zealand, you would be able to make contact with Peter Williams QC yourself and further verify matters.
    A person does have to repeat things now and then, like now. I have read about people reading a short story that Juliet Hulme wrote in Mt Eden Prison and other material. The brilliance of her story amazed literary men. They rated first class work equal to a top rate writer much older. There was also other written work by her in that period. ( That is literary people. Not me. )
    I will repeat something else. Key in the subject that you want to verify. In the meantime I will attempt to find exactly what the different subjects are ( Headed as )
    Carl Rosel

    • Damian Whorley Says:

      Carl Rosel, you say: ‘I have read about people reading a short story that Juliet Hulme wrote in Mt Eden Prison and other material. The brilliance of her story amazed literary men. They rated it first class work equal to a top rate writer much older. There was also other written work by her in that period.’

      Here’s the article you got that info from:

      http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/23441272

      Conveniently, it doesn’t actually name that ‘first class’ story that ‘amazed literary men’, and strangely, it doesn’t actually name the ‘literary men’ either. So who were those ‘literary men’? Do you know? Or are you just quoting from the article?

      You also say: ‘There was also other written work by her in that period.’ Where is that work? What ‘written work’ is it? Could you tell me the name of that work, please? I’ll buy it and read it if it’s really that ‘amazing’. I wouldn’t want to miss out on reading ‘amazing… written work’. Could you give me a title, please? Is it under the Hulme or the Perry name? Where can I find it? Where did you find it? Could you perhaps give us a four-line review, please?

      Frankly, I’m surprised that written work of such ‘amazing’ quality hasn’t been snapped up and published by Perry’s publisher? So could you direct me to that ‘amazing’ juvenile writing of Hulme’s, please? I’m glad that you’ve read and enjoyed it – and obviously felt so amazed by it that you’ve had to tell everyone on an open forum about it. So how about sharing, Carl? I’d be very interested in reading the ‘other written work’ you speak of, as would several other people interested in Juliet Hulme and Anne Perry. Please could you provide some information: a link, an url, a title, a location, anything at all, to that ‘other written work’?

      Thank you.

      Damian Whorley.

      • Debbie Holland Says:

        Damian, Carl won’t answer you. He doesn’t post comments on this blog any more. There is now far too much fact-based evidence on here that gets in the way of his fictional, prejudiced and pro-Hulme biased opinion.

  110. Jonathan Yates Says:

    You say: ‘I have read and seen friends of Anne Perry you-tube interviews. Also what people in Portmahomack ( the village in Scotland near where her residence is ) have said about her.’ Yes, I’ve seen (not read) the youtube video clips, and I’ve seen (not read) the Interiors DVD too – and all I saw was a documentary with a few comments made by Hulme, her employees, her ‘friend’, and her ‘friend’s son, who also was an employee of Hulme’s.

    http://www.anne-perry-interiors.com/index.php?lang=en

    No one in it was really going to say anything other than complimentary things, were they? Especially as she pays their salaries. Do you really believe that anyone Hulme pays will say something (anything) she may dislike or be unhappy hearing? Do you really think that everything her hirelings say will be free from bias? Also, you do know that Dana Linkiewicz had to give Hulme script approval and final edit control in order to make the documentary, don’t you? If you think it’s an objective, truthful or unbiased documentary about the ‘real’ ‘Anne Perry’, then you’re being deliberately naive. It’s quite obviously a Hulme-controlled PR exercise, made just in time to promote the new book, which was why it was made in the first place, just as her interview with Ian Rankin is an exercise in damage limitation.

    http://minguo.info/usa/node/81

    You say: ‘I have read about people reading a short story that Juliet Hulme wrote in Mt Eden Prison and other material. The brilliance of her story amazed literary men. They rated it first class work equal to a top rate writer much older. There was also other written work by her in that period.’

    Yes, I read that badly-written and incredibly biased article too. It’s here:

    http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/23441272

    Conveniently, it doesn’t actually name that ‘first class’ story that ‘amazed literary men’. Strangely, it doesn’t actually name the ‘literary men’ either. Hmm. Who were they? Do you know? Or are you just taking the word of the journalist? Now, I’ve read Perry’s stories and there is none that can be described as ‘amazing’ or ‘first class’. They’re mostly average, often dull, sometimes plodding, crime stories. And before you criticize my analysis of her stories, let me make it clear that I have studied crime fiction to Masters Degree level and I know what I’m talking about. I recognise well-written crime stories when I read ‘em… and Perry’s ain’t!

    You say: ‘There was also other written work by her in that period.’ Is there really? What ‘written work’ is that then? Could you tell me the name of that work, please? I’ll buy it and read it if it’s that ‘amazing’. I wouldn’t want to miss out on reading ‘amazing… written work’. Could you give me a title, please? Is it under the Hulme or Perry name? Where can I find it? Where did you find it? Could you give us a four-line review, please? I ask because it’s certainly not any of her novels or stories currently in print… as none of them is ‘amazing’ or ‘first class’. Also, if it really was that ‘amazing’, wouldn’t it have been snapped up and published by Perry’s publisher? Odd they’re not remotely interested in it, don’t you think? It also makes you wonder why no one’s interested in publishing her juvenilia, doesn’t it? I think we all know why it’s never been published, don’t we? It’s because it has no literary merit whatsoever (and that’s not me saying that, that’s according to those who’ve read it…)

    You say: ‘I have known Peter Williams QC for many years, as I have crewed on the different boats he has owned.’ Right. Is that the same ex-convict boat-owning Peter Williams who in 1978 defended a man arrested at Wellington Airport importing heroin? I’ve read (in Michael Field’s brilliant Peter Williams article/interview) that Williams described the man as: “A smallish guy with thinning hair and not much to say … a very pallid type of person.” Wasn’t that man Terry Clark, aka Mr Asia, who went on to head a multi-million dollar criminal gang that move Golden Triangle heroin to Britain, Australia and New Zealand? In the 1980s, wasn’t Clark worth $50 million dollars? Didn’t Clark pay Williams a $30,000 retainer? Hasn’t Williams subsequently owned a string of yachts? After Williams defended Clark and got him off, wasn’t he (Williams) then investigated by the Law Society on suspicion of corruption? Also, didn’t Clark’s girlfriend, Karen Soich, once work for Peter Williams as a junior lawyer? And weren’t three of Williams’ colleagues dismissed due to their ‘close proximity’ to Clark? And wasn’t Williams’ partner Eb Leary struck off until 2007? And wasn’t it Eb Leary’s brother, John, who build Terry Clark’s $500,000 Okaito Point mansion? And on the back cover of Peter Williams’ latest book, isn’t there a painting of his racing yacht Fidelis that was painted by Mr Asia? And do I hear correctly that Mr Williams has just retired and is pursuing his interests in ‘yachts, dogs and women’? Why did you not mention any of this? It’s quite important!

    The key words in the above seem to be: heroin, $50 million, yachts, women, a $30, 000 retainer and retirement. Hmmm.

    Source: http://www.michaelfield.org/peterwilliams.htm

    I’m not sure all of your so-called ‘information’ is free from bias. Sorry, but I’m not continuing our conversation because I believe that you are not in any way impartial on this subject. You never present any facts; you only ever offer your opinion; you never back up anything you say with a genuine quote from a ‘reliable’ or even a findable source; you ignore repeated requests for proof of what you say; you make wild, unprovable claims; you gloss over or refuse to mention significant details or important points; and you constantly side with the criminal, the corrupt, the biased and the murderers.

    ‘The pathologist who examined the body of Mrs. Parker said that death had resulted from multiple head injuries and a fracture of the skull. There were forty-five discernible injuries, twenty-four being lacerated wounds on the face and head. The injuries showed that a crushing force had been applied while the head was immobile on the ground. If the brick had been in the stocking and swung with considerable force it could have caused the injuries. The bruises on the throat indicated that Mrs. Parker had been held by the throat. A laceration on the finger suggested she received the injury when she put up her hand to defend herself.’

    I wonder when you’ll accept that according to Hulme’s family, doctors, defence lawyers, defence psychiatrists, policemen, friends and a QC, this disgusting crime was committed by two girls, one of whom (Hulme) was ‘a precocious play-acting paranoid schizophrenic murderer, a mad, dirty-minded hack writer of incomprehensible verse and unbalanced and unpleasant, inconsistent and inaccurate prose of no literary merit, with a morbid preoccupation for evil and possessing an attitude of arrogance, an intolerance of criticism, and a superiority complex…’

    • copper04Carl Rosel Says:

      Jonathan,
      You have one hell of a very nasty hang up. You point the finger just too much.
      For a starter, you have accused Peter Williams of false and malicious garbage, just like the police did in the days of the Mr Asia drug ring. You selected to avoid stating what the result of the the investigation by the Law Society was, in the allegations against Peter Williams QC haven’t you. Why!! Because it was found to be false and malicious, and to boot, to further vindicate him, he was made a Queens Counsel not long after that. Why have you not said that. You are doing exactly what you accuse others of. You have one huge hate on and there has to be a reason behind it that needs dealing with one way or the other.
      Would you like to repeat the dribbling crap that you have stated about Peter Williams QC in a court of law.
      You say Anne Perry has a hulme controlled pr exercise going. That statement is just as warped and bent as your others.
      You ask, am I just taking the word of the journalist. So the journalist is telling lies also. Everyone that has said anything that is against your mindset is telling lies. It is a pr exercise. And it is biased.. And brilliant you has a masters degree in crime fiction.
      You would know of Carlotta Holton then. The author of – Salem Pact and Touching the Dead and is a member of the National Federation of Press Women and an affiliate member of the Horror writers association. She interviewed Anne Perry.

      Question from Carlotta Holton :- Critics have said your victorian novels attain the societal sweep of Trollope or Thackeray. What is your response.

      Answer from Anne Perry :- They are Masters of the art. I never thought of myself like that, but I wont look a gift horse in the mouth. It’s a nice compliment.

      Masters of the art. What do you say about that. A hack writer?

      Are the critics who stated that telling lies. Is Carlotta Holton telling Lies. And did Anne Perry somehow arrange the whole thing. And her friends and people who know her really well are telling lies. The population of Portmahomack are telling lies. The Literary community are telling lies. The Superintendant of Mt Eden Prison was telling lies, and his whole family and all the staff at the Prison. There has been a world wide conspiracy and jack up to all tell lies about Anne Perry ( Juliet Hulme ) because it does not suit your warped mindset.
      Carl Rosel

  111. Jonathan Yates Says:

    I think you’ve mis-read me. You say: ‘For a starter, you have accused Peter Williams of false and malicious garbage, just like the police did in the days of the Mr Asia drug ring…’ I’d just like to point out that I haven’t accused anyone of anything. I thought I’d made it quite clear that I was quoting Michael Field’s article/interview. I even included the link to the article/interview that contains those comments. Everything I say or ask is there in Michael Field’s article/interview, which is in the public domain for anyone to read and to use to form their own opinion. If you don’t like Michael Field’s truth (which he had a perfect right to write, by the way), why don’t you write to him and say so, instead of ranting at me?

    I don’t understand this: ‘Would you like to repeat the dribbling crap that you have stated about Peter Williams QC in a court of law.’ 1. Are you saying I said those things, not Michael Field? 2. Are you suggesting that Michael Field’s well-written and carefully chosen words are ‘dribbling crap’? 3. Are you acting on the ex-convict Williams’ behalf and inviting me to court? Please can you clarify? I am keeping a copy of your comments.

    I don’t think we’re ever going to agree about Juliet Hulme. You clearly think she’s wonderful, and a great writer, whereas I know she’s a despicable murderer and an average writer. Why not agree to disagree? After all, differences of opinion are what make the world interesting.

    And there’s no need to be sarcastic because I’ve had a reasonable education.

    • copper04Carl Rosel Says:

      Jonathan,
      It has been proven internationally what a top class writer Anne Perry is. Maybe your vitriole against her is because you have wanted to write, but wouldn’t come anywhere near her. Jealousy is a nasty trait.
      She has also been compared with Charles Dickens for her portrayal of the Victorian period ( verify it ) Yet you want to continue to portray her as an average hack writer.
      Anne Perry is not a despicable murderer. She was charged with murder over half – century ago as an adolescent girl, with extreme extenuating circumstances prevalent. They weren’t beyond the authorities to understand and that is why she was released after only five years of a life sentence.
      She has had the spirit, the guts and the intelligence to rise above all that she had been through in her life, from a very young girl, and we should be applauding another human being who can do that.
      Carl Rosel

      • Tom Jennings Says:

        I like how you say ‘She was charged with murder’. Obviously what you really meant was: ‘She murdered… she is a murderer…. she’ll always be a murderer…. she chose to be a murderer….’

        Murder is a despicable crime… therefore Hulme IS a despicable murderer!

      • Martin Goodsir Says:

        You seem to have forgotten that Honora Rieper is the victim in all this – not Juliet Hulme. Hulme’s a murderer, not a victim. Sympathy to the victim, Honora – but nothing but contempt for the murdering scumbag, Hulme. Got it?

  112. Chris Squire Says:

    What a funny guy you are, Carl. You insult, threaten, and generally bad-mouth anyone who states (quite honestly) that ‘Hulme’ was a calculating murderer. You’ve no proof she wasn’t. She said at the time and has since said she knew exactly what she planned and did. She’s admitted it was a calculated murder. But you cannot admit it. Weird that. Have you thought of embracing the truth, not some delusion? Try admitting this: Perry admits she planned it; did it; was put in prison for it. And now she’s reinventing the past to make it all Parker’s fault (bulemia/ drugs/ suicide threat/ etc). She’s a professional liar/story-teller. Remember that. You yourself tell everyone how good she is at fiction… so therefore, why not accept that she’s better at it than you could ever have thought? She’s certainly got you fooled, buddy. Ha! Some of us see through the charade and recognise fiction when we see it.

  113. Lyndsey Collison Says:

    I don’t think you’re funny at all, Carl. I think you post some very nasty comments about people just because they express their views on Hulme/Perry, and those views don’t coincide with yours. Anyone is entitled to comment here on whatever they believe without having to put up with your abuse. You’re becoming a cyber-bully, Carl. Some of the things you’ve said about some of the contributors on this forum are absolutely disgusting. If you ever spoke to me the way you spoke to Jonathan Yates, I’d have my lawyer on to you within minutes.
    And just so you know: some people are very well informed about ex-convict Peter Williams, his (struck off till 2007) partner, Eb Leary, Eb’s brother John, and ‘Terry Clarke’s’ Leary-built $500 000 Okaito Point mansion. These facts are on public record, so don’t dispute me! Some people are also very aware of how author Greg Hallett was treated by Williams and the NZ justice system over his book: New Zealand: A Blackmailer’s Guide. Again, this information is also on public record, so don’t bother disputing it! Anyway, enough of Williams and back to Hulme.
    Listen, if someone is of the opinion that Hulme is an unrepentant murderer, then they are entitled to that opinion. If someone thinks she’s a mediocre writer, they’re entitled to that opinion. If that’s not your own opinion, fine. But please accept that many, many others do not share your opinions or beliefs. (Incidentally, beliefs are just that: they’re beliefs, not truths. Just because one believes something doesn’t make it true – that’s why it’s called a ‘belief’, and not a ‘truth’.) As D H Lawrence (now there is a great writer) so rightly said: ‘One can be just as attached to futilities as to anything else.’

  114. copper04Carl Rosel Says:

    Anne Perry is telling the truth in interviews, and excerpts from Pauline Parker’s diary prove that.
    I have quoted what critics and the literary community have said about Anne Perry’s writing. How that has changed into my views and my beliefs is beyond me.
    If someone wants to repeat false and malicious lies that they have read about someone, when it has been proven fully that, that is what it is, they will have to cop it being called demented garbage and any other adjective.
    Tell us all what is on public record about Hallets book – A blackmailers guide. Everyone will be waiting for you to write down here, what the judgement was. What is on public record.
    Was Hallet ordered to pay $144,000 for the slanderous false tripe that he has accused people of. Yes! he was.
    A cyber bully. That accusation is false and malicious. Well, it’s really petty nonsense.
    Carl Rosel

    • Gary Barlow Says:

      Hulme’s a lying, murdering piece of shit and a mediocre hack… always has been, always will be… nothing will ever change that. And deep down, you know it’s true.

    • Stephen Bird Says:

      According to this article in the NZ Herald, Peter Williams was Mr Asia’s defence lawyer.

      http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10682531

      When you say ‘false and malicious lies’, what you really mean is accurate, provable truth that Peter Williams was the defence lawyer for a murdering, drug-dealing piece of shit! Guess where his retainer and fee came from? Guess what was sold to provide that money?
      And then he took Hallett to court over a work of FICTION… and got more money. And he’s your friend. Lovely. Nice friend.

    • James Hatfield Says:

      ‘Anne Perry is telling the truth in interviews…’

      Really! Where in the trial transcripts or the trial interviews or the pre-trial statements does Juliet Hulme state that she committed murder because she feared Pauline Parker was bulemic?

      I’ll tell you where – NOWHERE! And the reason for that is because Hulme is a LIAR!

      Got it?

    • Steve Allcott Says:

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

      And yet, here are 5 contradictory excuses given by the murderer for her actions:

      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.”

      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.”

      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’.”

      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.’

      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!

      As Randall P. McMurphy (in One Flew Over the Cuckoos’s Nest) says: ‘She’s something of a cunt, ain’t she?’

    • Dallas Bryce Says:

      Really! So where in Parker’s diary does it say that Hulme ‘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.’

    • Josh Barker Says:

      ‘Anne Perry is telling the truth in interviews, and excerpts from Pauline Parker’s diary prove that.’

      Juliet Hulme own admission about this is: “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.’

      So if Anne Perry is telling the truth in interviews, as you insist, that means that Pauline Parker’s diary, with its carefully-plotted murder plan, is total fiction and lies.

      It also means that Heavenly Creatures is one of the most badly-researched movies in cinema history, because the voice-overs are all untrue.

      Finally, it means that anyone who says there was a murder plan is an absolute liar – and is calling Juliet Hulme a liar too.

    • Gail Ashcroft Says:

      ‘Anne Perry is telling the truth in interviews, and excerpts from Pauline Parker’s diary prove that… How that has changed into my views and my beliefs is beyond me.’

      It is your view and your belief, but it’s false. Juliet Hulme states quite clearly: “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.’

      So unless Pauline Parker’s diary contains an entry that reads:

      We’re taking mother to the park to try and frighten her with a brick into consenting to let us stay together…

      then it means that Hulme is lying and that she lied in an interview.

  115. Lyndsey Collison Says:

    You’ve never quoted what the people who’ve read Hulme’s early work say:

    “In September she began to write a great deal. Portions have been read to me and it is grandiose and unreal. In the second book, parts are unpleasant and unbalanced…’ Hilda Hulme (Juliet’s mother)

    “They (Hulme & Parker) think they are superior to the general race of man. They have written a great deal, but I do not consider it of outstanding literary merit. Intellectually they are a little higher than girls of their own age, but they are not intellectual giants.” (Dr. Bennett)

    You’ve never once quoted any of the more critical reviews of Hulme’s writing. I’ve checked.

    As for reviews of Greg Hallet’s New Zealand: A Blackmailer’s Guide, there are many, including:

    ‘One of the best books ever to come out of New Zealand!’ Lenny Bloom, Canada Radio Political Scientist

    ‘Tremendously brave…’ Dr. Stefan Grossmann, Ph.D (Law), Germany:

    ‘I found everything in Blackmailer’s to be 100% true . . .’ Freemason Lawyer, Hamilton

    ‘Other authors are now saying what you’ve been saying for the last five years . . .’ Optometrist, Auckland City

    ‘It’s the book on New Zealand . . .’ Bridget Saunders, Sunday Star Times

    ‘Magnificent!’ Ole Gerstrøm, Former Member of Parliament, Denmark

    All the reviews of Greg Hallett’s books can be found here: http://www.greghallett.com/

    There are no ‘false and malicious lies’ in Michael Field’s interview with Williams.

  116. Lyndsey Collison Says:

    Let’s have a look at some recent reviews of Perry’s books:

    ‘I think her Tathea books were badly written, painfully badly written and heavy handed and artless…’

    http://ruleofrosemysteries.com/2009/09/08/uncategorized/heavenly-creatures-juliet-hulme-anne-perry-and-rule-of-rose/

    ‘Just failed to draw me in. Poor characterization (granted, I haven’t read the first book in the series), tedious dialogue…’

    http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/72750.Shoulder_the_Sky

    ‘I find her writing difficult to read – the clunky dialect, the constant repetition of the obvious, the painfully awkward renderings of characters’ inner lives…’

    http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/72750.Shoulder_the_Sky

    ‘I’ve been rereading these early William Monk novels while travelling recently. I appreciate Perry’s research and am sympathetic to her views on Victorian social conditions, (poverty, child labour, the position of women). So far, however she doesn’t construct the novels well. Every idea, question about motive, puzzle about clues takes pages to discuss. Each lead character has the same internal voice, and they all repeat (ad nauseum) the author’s perspective.’

    http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1241091.Defend_and_Betray

    ‘I found the novel a bit of a drag and not much of a page-turner…’

    http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1241091.Defend_and_Betray

    ‘According to the book jacket reviews, Tathea is “riveting from the first page,” “crafted with depth of thought,” and “filled with symbolism.” I can’t help but wonder if the reviewers who wrote those blurbs actually read the book, or only some promotional material from the publisher. I found this book immensely dull, trite and self-conscious, a work that constantly drew attention to its own supposed profundity while actually sermonizing on pretty simplistic and not-very-original themes. After a hundred pages of monotonous situations, depthless characters and heavy-handed allegory, I couldn’t take any more. This isn’t a fantasy novel; it’s a Fundamentalist tract. Reading it made me feel like I was being hit over the head with a dull axe. I’ve never read anything else by the author and I don’t intend to. Ace did a disservice to all readers of fantasy by publishing this.’

    Tathea

    Tathea

    Buy from Amazon

    ‘Do not buy this book!’

    http://www.amazon.ca/product-reviews/0441009700

    So now we know.

    Will you be mentioning any of THESE reviews in your future corrspondence, Carl? Now you have read them, surely you won’t forget to mention them in your OBJECTIVE assessment of Hulme/Perry’s writing, will you?

    For example, an honest and fair assessment of Hulme/Perry’s writing would now be something like this:

    ‘Although initially, readers found Hulme/Perry’s writing to be ‘unbalanced and unpleasant’ and ‘without literary merit’, she began to produce critically-acclaimed ‘well-researched’ award-winning fiction ‘with the societal sweep of Trollope or Thackeray’, which many readers found to be ‘immensely dull, trite and self-conscious’ and akin to ‘being hit over the head with a dull axe’ or ‘difficult to read’, with ‘clunky dialect… constant repetition of the obvious’ and ‘painfully awkward renderings of characters’ inner lives.’

    I hope you include such a combination of the positive and the critical in your own assessments of Hulme/Perry’s writing, Carl. Anything less is untrue.

    • copper04Carl Rosel Says:

      Yes Lyndsey,
      Tathea has nothing to do with what we have been discussing, which is murder mystery’s in the Victorian era.
      You will have to make contact with the literary people behind the New York Times Honour list and many others lauding Anne Perry’s writing talent, and let them know how damn wrong they are.
      Include such as :- Publishers weekly :- Surpassingly excellent historical and psychologically intricate mystery’s.
      Look up Sharyn McCrumb :- Master storyteller Anne Perry moves closer to Dickens. ( Dickens ) who is he.

      • Lyndsey Collison Says:

        I thought Hulme/Perry’s abilities (or lack of) as a writer was the subject of this discussion. I don’t remember specifying the genre. I was talking about the poor quality of her writing in general. It’s not good. I’ve read a few of her novels – Victorian crime, WW1 crime, Christmas crime, etc, and have found the prose to be barely adequate, the pace often slow, and the author does have a tendency to go on a bit about certain ideas. I know it’s only popular fiction or what’s know as airport novels… but that doesn’t mean it has to verge on the mediocre. As it is, it’s nothing amazing, there’s no great style, certainly nothing to equal the world’s great writers…. Joyce, Beckett, Burroughs, Woolf, Proust, Hemingway, et al. Apart from you, I think everyone’s aware of that.

      • copper04Carl Rosel Says:

        You mean ,apart from the critics and the Literary community, that I have quoted, who laud her work as very high. Do you realize that, that is what you meant now. Not me!
        I remind you to get in touch with them all and let them know how wrong they are and how right you are.

      • Lyndsey Collison Says:

        As we all know, sometimes writing can be very poor and still win awards. It’s still poor writing. Think of James MacIntyre, for example:

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_McIntyre_(poet)

        Or perhaps you’re more familiar with Julia A. Moore.

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julia_A._Moore

        How about William McGonagall. McGonagall was a very popular, award-winning poet, whose work was and is loved by thousands. Nonetheless he still one of the worst poets ever.

        In fact, if you have a read of this:

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_McGonagall

        and this:

        http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-tayside-central-12688346

        I think you’ll see what I mean.

        Now then, the fact that many, many people love McGonagall’s writing and the fact that his writing has won awards has absolutely no bearing on the fact that his writing is absolutely abysmal. It truly is the pits.

        So when you say that Anne Perry’s novels have won awards and are loved by many, it has absolutely no bearing on the lack of quality of her prose; the poor story-telling skills, the boring dialogue, the predictable story-lines, etc. As I hope you can now see, those major flaws obviously can and do exist together in an award-winning work.

        She can win awards and have a huge readership. It doesn’t mean that she’s a good writer. Surely you can understand that?

      • Les Tanner Says:

        I think it’s strange you didn’t respond to the above comment, Carl. I thought you’d have trouble with it because it makes a very valid point.

  117. David Arden Says:

    ‘Anne Perry is telling the truth in interviews, and excerpts from Pauline Parker’s diary prove that.’

    Yeah, let’s not question those sources, eh?

    How the hell do you know she’s telling the truth? Prove it!

    Pauline Parker’s diary proves nothing. You say she was mad, you quote that from the diary. You must know that the writing of the mad is inadmissable as evidence – therefore it can’t be believed or used as evidence. Therefore, Pauline Parker’s diary proves nothing about anything. And it never will!

    • copper04Carl Rosel Says:

      People have stated that Anne Perry is telling lies in interviews, when she says that she participated in the matricide out of loyalty to her close friend, because she felt if they were to separate, Pauline would commit suicide.

      Two excerpts from Pauline Parkers diary :-

      November 2nd 1953. The thought of suicide is heavenly.

      April 28th 1954. Seriously considered suicide.

      Face to face we do not know how many times she conveyed that.

      Anne Perry is telling the truth in interviews, and excerpts from Pauline Parkers diary proves that.

    • copper04Carl Rosel Says:

      Good on you for highlighting the insanity aspect. They should have been found ‘ Not Guilty ‘

      • David Warwick Says:

        They wouldn’t have been found not guilty because (for no reason other than a desire to kill) they carefully planned and callously committed the murder of an unarmed innocent woman. They are totally guilty. A not guilty verdict would mean the murderers went unpunished – and the victim’s mental and physical agony at being murdered by her daughter and daughter’s friend ignored. Please don’t say the murderers were in the throes of folie a deux, because we all know that the defense team made that up – they’ve admitted it in several interviews; and don’t bother saying Hulme was the least culpable, because her defense lawyer has said she planned it all; and please don’t say the Hulme murderer ‘came to repentance’, because according to the Reiper family, she’s never given them a cent from her murder story royalties, despite destroying that family with a murder; and please don’t bother saying the Hulme murderer was considered least culpable, because she was the one immediately deported and banned from ever returning to New Zealand. It’s a real pity she wasn’t eighteen at the time of the trial.

  118. David Arden Says:

    ‘Although initially, readers found Hulme/Perry’s writing to be ‘unbalanced and unpleasant’ and ‘without literary merit’, she began to produce critically-acclaimed ‘well-researched’ award-winning fiction ‘with the societal sweep of Trollope or Thackeray’, which many readers found to be ‘immensely dull, trite and self-conscious’ and akin to ‘being hit over the head with a dull axe’ or ‘difficult to read’, with ‘clunky dialect… constant repetition of the obvious’ and ‘painfully awkward renderings of characters’ inner lives.’

    What a fantastic review! Thanks.

  119. Rob Duff Says:

    The Times article says Anne Perry insists the film (Heavenly Creatures) is a “grotesque and distorted portrait of herself” and quotes her as calling Fran Walsh and Peter Jackson (who have won an Oscar nomination for the screenplay) “idiotic moviemakers.” She now denies making those accusations, but Walsh and Jackson, as one might imagine, have a problem with the high-profile attacks from a woman who has never seen the film. Walsh bristles at the name-calling in the press. “We don’t appreciate being referred to as `idiotic moviemakers.’ In all the interviews we’ve done for the movie, we’ve treated her with absolute respect. And while it’s clear she has no respect for us.” When asked how she could trash the filmmakers without seeing the movie, Perry replies, “That was an unfortunate quote, and I don’t remember saying it – it must have been the heat of the moment.” And Perry now denies ever calling the movie ‘grotesque and distorted’.

    taken from:

    http://www.adamabrams.com/hc/faq2/library/7.9.6.4.html

    And Perry now denies ever calling the movie ‘grotesque and distorted’.

    ‘In the Times article, written by John Darnton, Perry insists the film is a “grotesque and distorted portrait of herself,” and quotes her as calling Fran Walsh and Peter Jackson (who are nominated for an Oscar for their “Heavenly” screenplay) “idiotic movie-makers.”

    She now denies making those accusations, but Walsh and Jackson, as one might imagine, have a problem with the high-profile attacks from a woman who has never seen the film.

    Walsh bristles at the name-calling in the press. “We don’t appreciate being referred to as ‘idiotic movie-makers.’ In all the interviews we’ve done for the movie, we’ve treated her with absolute respect.”

    When asked how she could criticize the filmmakers without seeing the movie, Perry backpedals. “That was an unfortunate quote and I don’t remember saying it–it must have been the heat of the moment.” Perry also denies having called the movie “grotesque.” “From what I’ve been told, I don’t feel the movie was grotesque and distorted at all–as the Times said.” Alex Ward, deputy culture editor at the Times, said, “We stand by John Darnton’s story.”‘

    Taken from The Los Angeles Times

    http://articles.latimes.com/1995-02-18/entertainment/ca-33317_1_author-anne-perry

    Okay, let’s see what she did say in the Times article:

    ‘To counter what she insists is a grotesque and distorted portrait of herself, she has participated in a publicity campaign to tell the world “who I really am.” What began as “damage control” has turned into a single-minded and self-absorbed crusade of revelation, obfuscation and attack.’

    http://www.adamabrams.com/hc/faq2/library/7.9.6.1.html

    One of the comment posters says: ‘Anne Perry is telling the truth in interviews’ (although how he can possibly know that is beyond me), but having read these articles, I’d say that someone is quite clearly lying.

  120. Simone Hamilton Says:

    Lyndsey

    I’ve just read the reviews of Greg Hallett’s book: New Zealand: A Blackmailer’s Guide and I’ve just read all the reviews you posted of Anne Perry’s novels.

    Based on what I’ve read on Hallett’s website (thanks for posting the link, by the way), I’d say that Hallett’s the better author: his books sound as though they’d be the better to read: more provocative, more challenging, certainly more entertaining than anything Perry could come up with.

    I’m not interested in ‘pages of monotonous situations, depthless characters and heavy-handed allegory…’, so I’ll avoid Perry’s books and read Hallett’s instead.

  121. Simone Hamilton Says:

    Sorry, what do you mean by that?

    • copper04Carl Rosel Says:

      Well, have you actually read a Greg Hallett book yet. When you do you will understand what I mean.

      • Simone Hamilton Says:

        I was actually thanking Lyndsey for posting the link to Greg Hallett’s website.

        I wasn’t quite sure why you were questioning me. However, on this occasion, I’ll answer you.

        Yes, I’ve read all three volumes of Hallett’s The Sex Collectors. I’ve now purchased and am reading New Zealand: A Blackmailer’s Guide. My assessment so far is this: The techniques and literary devices Hallett uses are similar to those used by William S Burroughs, Hubert Selby, Jr, Brion Gysin and B S Johnson. In his role of literary technician/scientist/outlaw, Hallett seems to be pushing at the envelope of what fiction is, what it can do, and what it can be, in much the same way that J G Ballard did with his seminal classic, The Atrocity Exhibition. Hallett’s use of surreal and/or bizarre juxtapositions, pseudo-histories, and text/image mash-ups, as well as the cut-up and fold-in techniques, is pure Burroughs, of course. And as Burroughs never really finished his literary experiments, who better than Greg Hallett to pick up the baton from (and emulate) Burroughs, who as we know, was “one of the most politically trenchant, culturally influential, and innovative artists of the 20th century.”

  122. Harry George Says:

    Hey copper04Carl Rosel, why’d you keep on saying the same things over and over again. Just cos you repeat stuff doesn’t make it true. Any fool knows that. I’ve read 4 of Perry’s novels and they were crap. Stephen King is way better. The world knows it. That’s why even tho they started writing about the same time, he’s sold more books than she ever will. You know it’s the truth.

    • copper04Carl Rosel Says:

      If you do repeat facts over and over again, it does not change. It is still facts. But it is proven time and time again it does not get through to people with mindsets. There are many people who read about someone and that is the finish. There minds are incapable of delving any further or deeper. They have a mindset with what they first read and that’s the finish. They are hell bent on sticking to that mindset view.
      You saying, you have read four of Perry’s novels, and they are crap, doesn’t mean a damn thing to trained literary people. Tell them, and then put their answer on this page. Same with anyone else that wants to say her writing is no good. Get in touch with all the people who laud her writing and let us know the reaction.

      • Harry George Says:

        What exactly do you mean by ‘trained literary people’?

      • Donna Kettering Says:

        Carl, any chance you could give a definition of trained literary people, please?

      • Jonathan Yates Says:

        When you say ‘trained literary people’, do you mean someone who has published a few books and who has a Masters degree in literature? I’ve had a few books published and have a Masters degree in literature. Do I qualify as one of those ‘trained literary people’? Or did you mean something else by it? If so, what?

      • Mathew Chisolm Says:

        Didn’t comment on the point about Stephen King being a better writer, did you? He’s written more books, won more awards, had more films and tv shows made out of his stories than Hulme/Perry. He’s a very good writer. She’s a hack. He doesn’t even know who she is! A review of one of his books says: ‘A gripping read.’ A review of one of her books says: ‘Don’t buy this book!’ Enough said.

  123. David Arden Says:

    An Objective Review of Anne Perry’s Writing

    Although initially, readers found Hulme/Perry’s writing to be ‘unbalanced and unpleasant’ ‘grandiose and unreal’ and ‘without literary value’, she began to produce ‘surpassingly excellent historical and psychologically intricate mysteries’. Although critics acclaimed her ‘well-researched’ award-winning Dickens-like novels, claiming they had ‘the societal sweep of Trollope or Thackeray’, many readers found her stories to be ‘immensely dull, trite and self-conscious’ and akin to ‘being hit over the head with a dull axe’ or ‘difficult to read’. Her novels were described as being filled with ‘clunky dialect… constant repetition of the obvious’ and ‘painfully awkward renderings of characters’ inner lives’. In short, her fiction was found by readers to be ‘badly written and heavy handed and artless…’.

  124. Ahmet Nagar Says:

    Contrary to current fashion, I really like Anne Perry’s novels. Okay, she’s no great shakes at narrative pacing, and her dialogue’s a bit dull, but her characters are interesting and her research is fantastic. As to whether she’s a repentant murderer or not, what does it matter any more? She’s either serving a useful social function as a crime novelist, or she’s not. That’s all that matters.

    • Jodi Duffy Says:

      Hello Ahmet,

      Your point addressing Anne Perry’s rehabilitation is interesting. I agree that it is a better use of a human life and resources to rehabilitate that person and return her to society, which is what the NZ penal officials decided to do with Juliet Hulme. Her ability to write, publish and sell escapist fiction is undisputed.

      There are aspects of the case that I find difficult to live with.

      The fact that she was given a second chance after committing a brutal, bloody crime on an unsuspecting and unarmed victim, to turn around and make a fortune writing about grisly murders —– and then deny that she ever realized the connection —- is, to me, unacceptable. I think she continues to flout society, its mores, as well as the forgiveness it has shown to her.

      There are aspects of the case that people the world over find extremely disturbing. Juliet and Pauline convinced themselves that they were superior to others, and they were accountable to no one. They embraced evil, sought it out, and perpetrated it in a horrible crime.

      The prosecutor in the murder trial was so overcome that he could not control tears flowing down his cheeks as he argued for the Crown. He suffered severe anxiety and depression afterwards, never really recovering.

      The trial placed extreme financial burdens upon Pauline’s father, breaking his bank, so to speak. He lost his wife along with most of his resources.

      Pauline’s family was destroyed. Her sister Rosemary, born with Downs Syndrome, lost a loving mother. Her sister Wendy ended up pulling a good deal of weight for the family and also had to deal with losing her mother in a brutal, horrible, shocking, senseless way.

      According to family members, Pauline spends much of her time on her knees in prayer. She lives the life of a recluse, and has devoted much of it to teaching children like her sister Rosemary to ride horses, something that has been found to be very therapeutic for the developmentally disabled.

      Meanwhile, Anne Perry parlayed her talent of spinning grisly tales into a very lucrative career. Did she have to concentrate on the subjects of murder and crime in her writing? Couldn’t she have chosen another genre? Are there no other literary themes to develop?

      And where is the restitution to the people who paid the biggest price?

      Perry claims to be repentant but where is the evidence? I am not saying it does not exist, but if it does, she certainly is quiet about it.

      The documentary “Interiors” is a strictly controlled statement about her life and her “repentance.” Squared against trial transcripts and interviews with lawyers, law enforcement and family members, one realizes this film is filled with lies, as is the interview with Ian Rankin. Perry mitigates her involvement and motivations, but she does not deny co-committing the brick attack in any interview or any setting.

      Regarding the research that you find so impressive, according to “Interiors,” it is Perry’s brother, retired physician Jonathan Hulme, who now performs much of the historical research that provides the structure and backstory for these novels.

  125. Don Kent Says:

    I’m very puzzled!

    I’ve looked at these literary lists:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Top_100_Crime_Novels_of_All_Time

    No mention of Anne Perry !

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/books/3671363/50-crime-writers-to-read-before-you-die.html

    No mention of Anne Perry !

    http://addictivebooks.com/bookrank/bookrank_1.htm

    No mention of Anne Perry !

    http://thegreatestbooks.org/

    No mention of Anne Perry !

    http://home.comcast.net/~dwtaylor1/keating.html

    No mention of Anne Perry !

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_fiction_authors

    No mention of Anne Perry !

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2003/oct/12/features.fiction

    No mention of Anne Perry !

    http://www.modernlibrary.com/top-100/100-best-novels/

    No mention of Anne Perry !

    http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/completelist/0,29569,1951793,00.html

    No mention of Anne Perry !

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_winners_and_shortlisted_authors_of_the_Booker_Prize_for_Fiction

    No mention of Anne Perry !

    http://thisrecording.com/today/2009/8/3/in-which-these-are-the-100-greatest-writers-of-all-time.html

    No mention of Anne Perry !

    I’d even heard that an early short story of hers had been described as ‘amazing’ by some anonymous ‘literary men’, so I checked out:

    http://www.onlineclasses.org/2011/01/20/the-50-best-short-stories-of-all-time/

    and found… No mention of Anne Perry !

    I also checked out Amazing Stories magazine, figuring that it would probably have published Hulme’s ‘amazing’ story at some point in its 79 years of publishing amazing stories:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amazing_Stories

    but I found… no mention of Juliet Hulme or Anne Perry !

    For goodness sake! I don’t understand this! Don’t these people (the literary community) realise the sheer authorial brilliance and absolute literary genius of Anne Perry? How on earth could she be excluded from any (in fact all) of these lists? Our guardians of literary culture have obviously made a huge mistake here!

    Of course, I (and others) could simply be over-estimating Anne Perry’s fiction-writing abilities. I (and others) may have to reluctantly accept that Anne Perry might not be a great writer, or even a very good one, at all. I suppose it’s possible that her writing really is, as someone has found, ‘painfully badly written and heavy handed and artless…’ which is one of several possible reasons for her books not being on ANY of the above significant literary lists, strangely, not even the crime fiction lists, which are where you’d expect anyone with an exceptional or ‘immense’ talent for crime writing to reign.

    Perhaps it’s all a deliberate conspiracy by the ‘literary community’ to exclude her from their ranks?

  126. Donovan Pearlman Says:

    This is a really interesting discussion. I don’t know Perry’s work, and based on most of the comments on this forum, I don’t think I’ll bother to acquaint myself. Who needs another crime novelist? Anyway, her stories sound boring! Actually, her crime and its attendant publicity and furore sound much more interesting than anything she could ever write. I’ll stick to reading the ‘greats’, but I enjoyed reading the blog and all of the comments. There are some very intelligent contributors, but boy, there are some rabid nutters too.

  127. Helen Abbott Says:

    What I love about this blog and this discussion is that there really does seem to be a serious attempt underway to analyse and understand the Juliet Hulme/Anne Perry dichotomy/enigma.

    I’m looking forward to reading Peter Graham’s So Brilliantly Clever, details of which can be found here:

    http://www.penguin.com.au/products/9781877551123/so-brilliantly-clever-parker-hulme-murder-shocked-world

    I can’t seem to find any reviews as yet. If anyone can suggest an objective one to read, it’d be greatly appreciated.

    • copper04Carl Rosel Says:

      Helen,
      If you key in :- Peter Grahams book on Pauline Parker and Juliet Hulme, you will find Peter Grahams own take on things, in particular a bias against Juliet Hulme, as to her reasons for taking part in the matricide. Have not read review of book so far.
      Carl Rosel

      • Van Conan Says:

        Being critical of Hulme, her writing and many of the conflicting things she says is not a bias. It is objective and factual reporting. Being totally pro-Hulme is being biased.

  128. copper04Carl Rosel Says:

    Go the All Blacks! Go New Zealand! Go Anne Perry! Many years ago, over half a century in fact, you showed and displayed repentance and contrition for the matricide you took part in. That lead to your being released after five years in prison. You were allowed to leave the country with no parole conditions. Your close loyal friend was also released after five years also, but was kept on strict parole conditions for several years. The NZ Government and the Justice Department showed who they thought the most culpable was.
    You do not need now, to continue displaying contrition to appease the judgemental finger-pointers, most of who were not even born in 1954.
    There are many who applaud you for having the honesty and the guts as a young girl, to front up with your sincere repentance. There are many who are extremely glad that you have shown that you had the spirit, guts and intelligence to be where you are today.
    Your detractors, some of who must be extremely unhappy people to continue judging and finger pointing in a situation like this, about something that happened before they were born, need to be reminded that one day the finger will turn and point at them. Some of them may indeed have unresolved issues in their lives, which prompts them to point elsewhere.

    Carl Rosel

    • Robert Mappley Says:

      So an English girl came to NZ, befriended a shy, handicapped NZ girl, murdered the shy, handicapped ‘friend’s’ mother, then fucked off back to England and made a fortune as a murder writer – and you think that’s a good thing! Shame on you!

    • Tom Jennings Says:

      How did she show and display ‘repentance and contrition’? Did she cry a little bit, then say what she always says in every interview, including the phoney interview in Interiors? I’d like to see the first edit of that particular documentary! That’d shake up all Hulme-worshippers… It shook her up so much she made them change the film. Someone’s lying!!!

  129. Les Tanner Says:

    “The Day of The Happy Event.”
    [*] 10:30 *JMH collects half-brick from a pile beside Ilam
    garage. She is driven downtown by HR Hulme, dropped off
    at Beaths Store, on Cashel St, just east of Colombo St,
    one block south of Cathedral Square, for “personal”
    shopping. HM Hulme describes JMH as happy, calm and
    affectionate that morning.
    [*] 11:00 *JMH arrives @ Riepers with half-brick. Chat with HM
    Parker in kitchen. Went up to PYP’s room where PYP
    placed half-brick in stocking, knotting it. PYP placed
    weapon into school shoulder bag. JMH had pink stone in
    her pocket, taken from a brooch.
    [*] 11:45 *HD Rieper arrives home and works in garden.
    [*] Noon *Lunch, a happy affair, with laughing, jokes. PYP, JMH,
    HD Rieper, HM Parker, Wendy Parker. HD Rieper and Wendy
    return to work after lunch, leaving HM Parker, JMH and
    PYP to clean up.
    [*] 1:30 *HM Parker, JMH and PYP leave house for Cathedral
    Square where they catch #2 bus to The Tahake, Victoria
    Park Terminus in Cashmere Hills.
    [*] 2:35 *JMH, PYP, HM Parker arrive @ The Tahake, Victoria Park
    Terminus. Walk uphill to the Tea Kiosk. HM Parker had
    tea, JMH and PYP had soft drinks (one lemon, one
    orange). All ate cakes and scones. Chatted to Agnes
    Ritchie. Two other customers.
    [*] 3:05 *HM Parker, PYP and JMH leave tea kiosk, enter the Park
    through a gap in stone wall and set off on a steep
    path.
    [*] 3:20 *(approx). 420 yards along they cross a small wooden
    bridge. JMH drops stone. The three turn back after a
    few more metres. PYP points out pink stone to HM
    Parker. Murder of Honora Mary Parker by PYP and JMH.
    [*] 3:30 *Agnes Ritchie states PYP and JMH arrive at kiosk with
    bloodsoaked clothing, white-faced and hysterical,
    screaming that HM Parker was hurt and crying for help.
    PYP had blood on face and hands, JMH had much blood on
    her hands.

    from: http://www.adamabrams.com/hc/faq2/Section_7/7.3.2.html

  130. Twinkle Says:

    When asked how she felt about the world knowing the truth about her past, Anne Perry described it as ‘one of the worst days of my life…’

    Strange that! You’d think that her ‘worst day’ would be the day she murdered someone by smashing their skull to pieces with a half-brick, but no, her ‘worst day’ is the day the world finds out about it!!!

    • Mark Allen Says:

      Boo hoo… bulemia… sob sob… separated… wah… suicide… sniff… trapped… blub blub… meant it… oh oh… frighten… Boo hoo… bulemia… sob sob… separated… wah… suicide… sniff… trapped… blub blub… meant it… oh oh… frighten… Boo hoo… bulemia… sob sob… separated… wah… suicide… sniff… trapped… blub blub… meant it… oh oh… frighten… Boo hoo… bulemia… sob sob… separated… wah… suicide… sniff… trapped… blub blub… meant it… oh oh… frighten… Boo hoo… bulemia… sob sob… separated… wah… suicide… sniff… trapped… blub blub… meant it… oh oh… frighten… Boo hoo… bulemia… sob sob… separated… wah… suicide… sniff… trapped… blub blub… meant it… oh oh… frighten… Boo hoo…

      If I go on repeating this shit a thousand times, that won’t be anywhere close to the number of times everyone’s favorite murderer has said it (and will continue to say it).

  131. Tony Bolton Says:

    What I don’t get is this:

    Who are the ‘literary men’ who rated Hulme’s teenage scribblings so highly?

    Why wasn’t the director of Interiors allowed to show the first cut of the documentary?

    Why didn’t Ian Rankin question AP more rigorously?

    Since when was ex-jailbird Peter Williams a man of integrity?

    In which interview, ever, did Juliet Hulme tell the truth?

    Does anyone have answers to these questions, please?

  132. Sharon Herbert Says:

    Does anyone know how or where I can watch Anne Perry: Interiors…? Is it available online or as a DVD? I know it’s a ‘soft’ approach to Hulme/Perry, but I’d still like to watch it…

    • Jodi Duffy Says:

      Hi Sharon,
      There is a link at the top of this blog page. When I watched this film, I had to pay 99¢, I believe at the Journeyman site.

      The piece moves at a slow pace and the content is dull, in my opinion. Too bad the filmmaker could not have been left to her own artistic will.

      • Sharon Herbert Says:

        Thank you. I’ll watch it, then review it on here. It’s good there are more studies (documentaries, biographies, etc) of Hulme/Perry becoming available.

  133. Theresa Sarsen Says:

    Christ… does anyone on here actually like Anne Perry’s novels and stories?

  134. Buddy Billings Says:

    I don’t think that the books are really the issue here, Theresa. I think this discussion is more about the visible gap between who Juliet Hulme was/is and who ‘Anne Perry’ is/was… It’s about uses of persona or personae to simultaneously hide and reveal terrible truths…

  135. Christine Loach Says:

    This particular blog and this ongoing discussion are really important at the moment. With the release of the Anne Perry Interiors and Reflections of the Past documentaries and the publication of the new book, So Brilliantly Clever, there needs to be a forum where any Hulme/Perry topics can be discussed and clarified. I know not everyone on here makes rational comments, but it’s an emotive subject and it’s bound to draw exteme views, both pro-Hulme and anti-Hulme. I think Hulme’s entering a new phase of her career and she’s going to be very, very well-known. I also think that very soon she’ll tell her own version of what happened – and make a lot of money from it.

  136. Alan McTearney Says:

    She committed a murder – now she writes stories with a murder at their centres – and gets very well paid for it. Very enterprising. It doesn’t mean she’s going to kill again. It doesn’t mean she isn’t repentant. It doesn’t mean she’s boasting. All it means is that she’s continuing her fascination with murder and death that started in childhood – and is capitalizing on it. It’s important to remember that she couldn’t and wouldn’t be successful unless people actually wanted what she was selling. It’d be interesting to know if her sales figures went up (and are still going up) once her identity and crime were common knowledge. Do people buy her books now because she was Juliet Hulme? I did.

  137. Aaron Trent Says:

    Lawyer and crime writer Peter Graham has written a book, entitled: So Brilliantly Clever about the murder. Anne Perry refused to be involved in the 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 [Interiors] 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’.”

    Here’s the link to Peter Graham’s comments:

    http://bookchase.blogspot.com/2011/05/anne-perry-juliet-hulme-revisited-again.html

    And here’s the link to his book:

    http://www.penguin.com.au/products/9781877551123/so-brilliantly-clever-parker-hulme-murder-shocked-world

  138. John Marshall Says:

    Here’s an accurate review of Anne Perry: Interiors

    http://thetfs.ca/2010/05/11/review-anne-perry-interiors-hot-docs/

  139. Diane Cooper Says:

    I really don’t think it matters any more how Anne Perry may or may not feel about her part in the murder. She served the allotted time in prison that the state gave her as punishment, she kept to the conditions of release by not meeting or trying to meet Pauline Parker, and she got on with her life, becoming a hard-working, productive human being. I don’t personally like her fiction, but what of it?

    • John Marshall Says:

      I think most people are angry about her because there’s no discernible difference in what she did as a child (wrote gory murder stories/had delusions of grandeur/was haughty and arrogant/had a superior attitude) to how she is as an adult (writes gory murder stories/has delusions of grandeur/is haughty and arrogant/has a superior attitude)… and the general message that is conveyed by the murder and the aftermath seems to be that crime does pay – handsomely. If you compare the post trial career of O.J. Simpson (who didn’t commit a murder) to the post trial career of Juliet Hulme (who did commit a murder), then you’ll see how injustice can work.

  140. Charlotte Church Says:

    Some writers have crime and/or controversy in their lives and yes, it’s a talking point, but that’s all it is. Mary Lamb, sister of essayist Charles Lamb, stabbed her mother with a kitchen knife. William S. Burroughs shot and killed his wife; Jean Genet was a thief; Ezra Pound broadcast anti-American Fascist propaganda on Italian radio during the war – and was declared insane and imprisoned for treason by the US; Rimbaud was a gun-runner and a slave trader; Jeffrey Archer was imprisoned for insider trading, perjury and perverting the course of justice; Bruno Bettelheim has been accused of being a child abuser; and Anne Perry committed a murder when she was a teenager. The only thing that matters is this: is the writing any good? Burroughs’ writing has been responsible for huge cultural changes; Genet revitalized theatre; Rimbaud redefined poetry; Pound’s poetry wavers from the amazingly brilliant to the out-and-out dull; Bettelheim’s books are always informative and entertaining; Perry’s books are mildly entertaining detective yarns that point out the hardships of Victorian and Word War One life. Has she made a positive difference to the culture she lives in? Many people enjoy her books, so, yes.

  141. Andy Taylor Says:

    It’s all about the brutality of the crime and the apparent lack of culpability, sorrow, guilt – or anything that would indicate that the murderer is appalled by what she did. There’s nothing like that; just fake tears, repeated phrases, a shifting of blame, the same words: bulemia, suicide, threat, afraid, believed, choice, illness, repeated over and over again, ad nauseum…

  142. Jamilla Storey Says:

    She wrote many murder stories as a child, then worked herself up to committing murder, then carried on writing many murder stories… that makes some people feel uncomfortable…

  143. Iain Fett Says:

    The debate here is obsolete – the Parker-Hulme murder case is old news. Hulme (co-)murdered, was caught, convicted, released, emigrated, changed her name – and now writes murder/ crime/ detective fiction. So what?

    • Liz Simmons Says:

      It’s not old or obsolete news. It’s still relevant because the murder is still being publicly scrutinized, analysed, debated, argued about, and generally commented on and reacted to in movies, documentaries, non-fiction studies, plays, novels and screenplays, including: Don’t Deliver Us From Evil (Dir. Jöel Séria) / Heavenly Creatures (Dir. Peter Jackson) / Anne Perry: Interiors (Dir. Dana Linkiewicz) / Reflections of the Past (Dir. Alexander Roman) / So Brilliantly Clever by Peter Graham / Parker and Hulme: A Lesbian View by Julie Glamuzina and Alison J. Laurie / Daughters of Heaven by Michelanne Forster / Minor Murder by Reginald Denham and Mary Orr / Where Are They Now (1996) by Cyndi Williams / The Evil Friendship by Vin Packer / Harriet Said… by Beryl Bainbridge / Obsession by Tom Gurr and H.H. Cox / The Christchurch Murder by Angela Carter / Heavenly Creatures by Peter Jackson and Fran Walsh / Fallen Angels by Louis Nowra / Sugar and Spice by Wayne McDaniel / The Pursuit of Happiness by Fiona Samuel

      By contributing (or by refusing to contribute) to the various reactions, commentaries, debates and arguments, Juliet Hulme/Anne Perry is continuing to comment on the murder. It’s an ongoing dialogue.

      It’s very much a ‘live’ contemporary issue that desperately needs analysis, criticism and evaluation.

      Besides, if it’s such a dead issue, why did you feel compelled to make the 246th comment?

  144. Tamara Allen Says:

    Found this:

    http://bookchase.blogspot.com/2008/04/anne-perry-juliet-hulme.html

  145. Walter Parsons Says:

    This is a fantastic discussion of a serious subject. It makes me wonder if society in general is equipped to deal with the rehabilitation of murderers. Is Anne Perry’s post-murder success (writing about murder) a cause of envy or concern or both? Do some of the proceeds of her fiction go directly to the family she helped destroy?

    • Jodi Duffy Says:

      Members of the Parker/Rieper family who have spoken out publicly say that Juliet Hulme/Anne Perry has done nothing in the way of restitution to them.

      The murder of Honora was a grievous loss and Pauline’s trial was a tremendous financial burden.

    • Walter Parsons Says:

      I wonder if the current subject of discussion has a pre-scripted and ready-to-use ‘get-out’ explanation/denial in order to avoid the law on this issue:

      http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2239/how-are-criminals-prevented-from-profiting-from-their-crimes

      • Jerome Williams Says:

        This is interesting:

        http://dcn.davis.ca.us/~gizmo/1997/perry.html

        particularly when she says: “I think that’s quite a good thing to do with money – supply work for those who need it,”…

        What she could have said was: ‘I think that quite a good thing to do with money is provide ample financial restitution to those whose relatives you’ve deliberately destroyed…”

        But she obviously doesn’t think that, because it seems that’s not as important as hiring two gardeners to turn her land into a formal British garden with beds and a long lawn…Priorities, eh? Morals, huh? Remorse? Guilt?

        Why give a fuck about your victims when you’re a millionaire and your garden needs work?

  146. May Tarrant Says:

    This blog and this discussion is based on envy of Anne Perry’s success as a great writer. As an author she’s written over 60 books: crime fiction, World War One fiction, fantasy fiction, and religious (LDS) fiction. Go ahead: name one author as good, as prolific, as versatile, as inventive as Ms Perry.

    • James Whitby Says:

      Anthony Burgess, Ray Bradbury, Terry Harknett, Georges Simenon, Enid Blyton, Ursula Bloom, Isaac Asimov… and that’s just a few of the very talented authors who’ve each written over 100 books…

  147. Joanna Varton Says:

    ‘Murder’s sort of personal.’ – Anne Perry

  148. B.B. Zetterling Says:

    Well, I read http://bookchase.blogspot.com/2011/05/anne-perry-juliet-hulme-revisited-again.html and couldn’t find anything that could be described as ‘a bias against Juliet Hulme’. I did notice that Peter Graham commented on AP’s ‘egotistical… narcissism’, but that’s not bias, that’s simply an observation of AP’s general demeanour and attitude and behaviour, which many people have commented on… and which is very apparent in the Interiors documentary.

  149. Adam Leonard Says:

    This blog contains some really attention-grabbing stuff. There’s more and more information on Perry becoming available – Interiors, Heavenly Creatures, Reflections of the Past, So Brilliantly Clever – so forums like this are essential.

  150. Darren Harvey Says:

    Here’s the link to buy Peter Graham’s book, So Brilliantly Clever:

    http://www.awapress.com/products/published/books/HistoryHeritage/sobrilliantlyclever

  151. Horst Cooper Says:

    Anne Perry: Interiors is a misnomer! There’s no insight into her interior world. There’s no analysis of her interior thoughts on the murder she committed. There’s no indication she’s ever had (or is capable of having) an intimate relationship. All we get is a portrait of an ice maiden, a disingenuous, distant, frosty, reserved, cold, uncommunicative person. Has she ever been a woman? I doubt it. Is that the result of the murder, or was she always like that and (therefore) able to murder?

  152. Laura Forsythe Says:

    NOTE: The following text is a work of fiction:

    A shy, handicapped, over-needy, slightly autistic New Zealand girl is dazzled and seduced and then emotionally manipulated into a killing frenzy by a coldly calculating, highly intelligent English sociopath, because the latter has always wanted to kill.

    After carefully and deliberately ensnaring the gullible autistic, the sociopath introduces the notion of their inevitable separation to the autistic and blames the autistic’s mother for the impending end of their relationship. The sociopath (a wannabee writer) carefully keeps no diary or journal of her involvement in the autistic’s life, but simply writes ‘fictional’ stories, plays, etc, that feature lots of gory murders, which she then gives to the autistic to read, to steer her in the ‘right’ (murderous) direction. In order to accrue documentary evidence against the autistic, the sociopath encourages the autistic’s parents to buy the autistic a diary, so the autistic can record her thoughts.

    To ensnare the autistic further, the sociopath tells the autistic to refer to her as ‘Deborah’, so as not to implicate her (the sociopath) by name, in anything criminal. To make this seem a shared idea, the sociopath begins to call the autistic ‘Gina’, telling her it is short for ‘vagina’, thereby adding another layer of apparent secrecy and intimacy to their ‘relationship’. The autistic quickly becomes besotted with the sociopath.

    Lo and behold, the stage is set, the murder planned, the dupe primed, the weapon (and the colored stone) carefully provided by the sociopath (who meticulously plans and orchestrates every detail). The murder is committed, the murderers are imprisoned. The sociopath has killed.

    Upon release, the sociopath is deported, goes to England, changes her name, continues writing, tries to become a professional writer, isn’t successful initially, so her father bails her out financially, then she writes a gory murder story, sells it, writes another, sells it, writes another, sells it… ad infinitum.

    Meanwhile, the confused, distraught autistic doesn’t know where the sociopath has gone, until told by the media after a film about the murder is released.

    Slowly, gradually, the autistic moves across the world, towards the location of the sociopath who dazzled and seduced her and wanted them to stay together so badly she managed to persuade the autistic that the only way they could stay together was by committing a murder together.

    But… is the autistic now moving closer to the sociopath in order to kiss her – or to kill her for what she did?…

    Find out in the next episode…

  153. Jane Parton Says:

    Why don’t the surviving Reiper family members take out a civil suit against her for compensation. She’s guilty. She’ll happily pay it. She’s a deeply religious woman who believes in repentance and justice.

  154. Courtney Stevens Says:

    An extract from PP’s diary:

    http://www.adamabrams.com/hc/faq2/library/7.8.1.html

    ‘We returned home and talked for some time about It, getting ourselves more and more excited. Eventually we enacted how each Saint would make love in bed, only doing the first seven as it was 7:30 a.m. by then. We felt exhausted and very satisfied…’

    (The next night): ‘We came to bed quite early and spent the night very hectically. We went to sleep after getting almost through. We had a simply marvelous time and we definitely are mad but very pleasingly so…’

    On the thirteenth: ‘…the whole day was very amusing and exciting… We spent a hectic night going through the Saints. It was wonderful! Heavenly! Beautiful! and Ours! We felt very satisfied indeed. We have now learned the peace of the thing called Bliss, the joy of the thing called Sin.’

    On the fourteenth: ‘…We were feeling absolutely exhausted which was scarcely surprising. We discussed which Saints we wished to have about us at such a time… and loved it. We discussed the spicy ideas whom (s’queerly) we have grown to love… Two more spicy ideas became Saints… I am very happy. We have both spent a glorious Saintly day.’

    On the fifteenth: ‘…We came home late and we intend to sleep. It is a glorious night… On the sixteenth: ‘…We came to bed late and spent a very hectic night. It was wonderful. We only did 10 Saints altogether but we did them thoroughly. I prefer doing longer ones. We enjoyed ourselves greatly and intend to do so again. We did not get to sleep until about 5:30. Obviously I am writing this to-morrow.’

    On the seventeenth: ‘…confessed we were disappointed in the Saints so we had an absolute clean up and threw out 8 of them. We discussed the ones left fully and felt very happy over them. We did not misbehave last night.’

    Some people think that a lesbian relationship between JMH and PYP was a distinct possibility.

  155. Courtney Stevens Says:

    Pauline Parker’s art:

    http://www.flickr.com/photos/29018755@N04/sets/72157622146971428/with/3854777731/

    and a timeline:

    http://cmm.lefora.com/2009/10/26/honora-parkerrieper-pauline-parker-juliet-hulme-th/

    and an interesting quote from Pauline Parker’s sister: Although Pauline Parker’s defence said she was insane at the time, Wendy says her sister understood what she was doing and intended to kill her mother…. “After it happened, she was very sorry about it. It took her about five years to realise what she had done.”

    Two essential points there:

    1: If anyone says PP was mad, or insane, or deranged, or anything like that, they’re clearly wrong, because Pauline Parker told her sister that she ‘understood what she was doing and intended to kill her mother…’

    2: ‘It took her about five years to realise what she had done.’ So, if anyone says PP reached a state of repentance during her five year prison sentence, they’re wrong, because as Pauline Parker has told her sister, and her sister has repeated: ‘It took her about five years to realise what she had done.’

    It’s this kind of information that makes one realize how off-point some of the comments are on here.

  156. copper04Carl Rosel Says:

    Excerpts from the just released book on Juliet Hulme and Pauline Parker ‘So Brilliantly Clever’ show , that the authorities and psychologists who monitored the two for five and a half years, endorsed the Defence Psychiatrists view that , they were suffering the rare disease of ‘folie simultanee’ That was factored into the reasons for their release after only five and a half years. It states in the book that normally a crime by adolescents as gruesome would bring a time of fifteen or so years.

    Further excerpts from book.

    ( The Parole Board had concluded that individually, neither girl 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. )

    Further excerpt.

    The Minister of Justice Stated :-

    Miss Hulmes release was unconditional.

    Miss Parkers release was subject to General Control as to her residence, employment and the like.

    Who was deemed more culpable? There you have it.

    • David Rowlett Says:

      That’s because Parker was a NZ citizen, whereas Hulme wasn’t!

      • Jodi Duffy Says:

        Thank you for stating this, David. It’s a salient point.

        The fact that Hulme was academic-class England, born and bred, also made a huge difference.

    • Marty Hughes Says:

      Of course it was unconditional!

      ‘She (Hulme) was deported to the UK after five years in prison…’

      http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/real-life/2010/04/18/writer-who-helped-murder-friends-mum-reveals-her-torment-86908-22194592/

      It’s important to remember that Hulme didn’t leave New Zealand because she was the less culpable of the two murderers… what happened was the government unceremoniously kicked her out of New Zealand because she was an English murderer. They deported the undesirable foreign killer as soon as they could…

      The (obvious) reason Pauline Parker wasn’t deported was because she was a New Zealand citizen. So the government kept an eye on her for five years after her release from prison. It’s standard probationary practice. Meanwhile, they got rid of Hulme as quickly as they could – the moment her sentence was served, they immediately kicked the foreign murderer out of the country. And Section 161 of the Immigration Act as pertaining to a residence class visa holder convicted of a serious criminal offence, means there’s a lifetime ban (‘Permanent prohibition’) on Hulme returning to NZ. It’s simply the NZ government making sure that foreign murdering scum stay out of NZ.

      Hulme’s current status is of a ‘non-desirable’ non-citizen who has been deported and permanently prohibited from New Zealand. The ‘serious’ crimes stipulated in Section 161 of the Immigration Act that incur ‘Permanent prohibition’ from New Zealand include: ‘armed robbery (including robbery involving the use of imitation weapons); murder, manslaughter, assault or any other form of violence against persons’.

      The Immigration Office had Hulme’s papers ready weeks before her sentence ended in 1958. She was handed her papers at the prison and driven to the airport by police. They put her on the first available plane leaving New Zealand; it was flying to Rome in the early hours of the next morning. Juliet Hulme had to be met by her father in Rome, and from there he took her back to England, where she changed her name to Perry. This is public knowledge. It was reported in national and international news items at the time.

    • Matt Lewis Says:

      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.”

      http://www.pridenz.com/print_audio_transcript.html?id=2-1295247402-251

      This means that the ‘folie à deux’ defence is NOT REAL! It was MADE UP by the defense team! It is not a REAL diagnosis of Hulme’s and Parker’s mental state at the time of the murder. That’s important!

      It cannot be used by anyone as an excuse for Hulme’s or Parker’s behaviour, because to suggest that will now clearly be passing on false information. The folie à deux argument is false – according to the team that dreamed it up and used it to defend the murderers.

      In reality, there was/is no defense for the murder – it was a coldly calculated brutally executed murder by an English psychopath and her New Zealand dupe….

      Hopefully, more people will realise this as more and more information about Hulme is brought into the light for examination…

  157. Dylan Miller Says:

    I find it hard to believe that Peter Graham doesn’t use possessive apostrophes!

  158. Albert Lapp Says:

    A link to Reflections of the Past:

    http://www.reflectionsofthepast.net/

  159. Helen D'Abo Says:

    “My initial approach to Reflections [of the Past] was to interview both Ms Parker and Ms Hulme. They are both very well aware of my film. I did not deal with Ms Hulme directly; it was through her literary agent, who conveyed that there would be no co-operation in regards to my film.’

    Alexander Roman (Writer, Producer, Editor & Director of Reflections of the Past)

    “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.”

    Juliet Hulme (teenage murderer)

    I’ve been trying very hard to find an answer to a question that the above statement by Juliet Hulme has provoked. It is this: Once Juliet Hulme ‘knew it was necessary for [them] to kill [Pauline's mother]‘ how on earth did she convey that knowledge to Pauline?

    The only answer I can come up with is that she must have told her, because I don’t believe the two girls were telepathic, no matter how strong their relationship or bond.

    Therefore, it’s quite possible – even probable – that during the flurry of blows with the brick to Mrs Rieper’s skull, Hulme looked at Parker and said: ‘We’re going to have to kill her!’

    ‘After the first blows were struck I knew it was necessary for us to kill her.’ (Juliet Hulme)

    ‘I did not deal with Ms Hulme directly…’ (Alexander Roman)

    • Jodi Duffy Says:

      “After the first blows were struck I knew it was necessary for us to kill her.” Hulme/Perry has made this statement in several interviews and accounts.

      I find the statement absurd. Honora was not armed, so it was not a matter of self-defense. And the girls did not hide or remove the weapon, so thoughts of selling a smashed skull as a trip & fall accident were not completely attended to.

      I realize the crime was irrational, but today AP is asking the public to accept her as a rational, creative, productive member of society. Therefore, reasonable statements are expected.

      I wonder why no interviewer has challenged AP after she has repeated this offensive statement! Within the circumstances of the Parker murder, how could it ever be ‘necessary’ to kill this person?

  160. Gemma Parks Says:

    I think that ‘Walter Perry was also involved in the destruction of other damning evidence that night, including Juliet Hulme’s diaries and writings’ is a particularly interesting sentence, and one that needs further analysis and research.

  161. Daffyd Evans Says:

    An analysis of: ‘After the first blows were struck I knew it was necessary for us to kill her.’ (Juliet Hulme)

    ‘After the first blows were struck…’ suggests a lull or a brief pause for reflection after the intial brutality. Hulme omits to mention the identity of the one(s) administering the ‘first blows’ of the skull smashing.

    ‘I knew…’ contains the arrogance and curtness Hulme is known for.

    ‘it was necessary…’ is very impersonal, perfunctory, machine-like, emotionless, cold, and calculating.

    ‘for us…’ Not ‘for me’, but ‘for us’. There’s the seed of the denials, lies, dissembling, retractions, forgetfulness, obfuscations and backtracking that are rife in later years.

    ‘for us…’ Not ‘for me’, but ‘for us’. Here’s the beginnings of the JMH revisionism – apportioning blame in the early moments of the murder.

    ‘for us…’ Not ‘for me’, but ‘for us’. Here is the deliberate inclusion of Parker in Hulme’s murder scheme. It does not allow Parker to change her mind or walk away.

    ‘to kill her…’ No name, just ‘her’. Again, very impersonal, perfunctory, machine-like, emotionless, cold.

    ‘After the first blows were struck I knew it was necessary for us to kill her.’ (Juliet Hulme)

  162. Kay Says:

    Yes, I read detective and murder fiction because it is fiction. I will not read Anne Perry’s books. This is not because she committed a horrible murder. She can repent of that and she has completed her imprisonment for it. But because: (a) both then and since she has reconstructed the murder as forced upon her – most recently as a desire to prevent Pauline from committing suicide; (b) she has commented that she does not think of her victim because she barely knew her; (c) she has chosen to write on the very subjects that she and Pauline titillated themselves with prior to the murder of Mrs Parker; and, (d) she clearly wants to be seen as the ‘famous’ writer – her desire for fame, to be seen as different and to be seen as extraordinarily talented is precisely the desire, arrogance and conceit that was apparent in the evidence presented in the trial by both the prosecution and the defence. And why do these things matter? If an individual who was a sex offender or sexual abuser of children, after they had finished their prisone sentence, showed a similar lack of empathy evident in b – above, lack of sense of accountability in a – above, and had constant engagement with the very things that titillated them and encouraged their behaviour (see c – above) and appears to seek narcissitic satisfaction (see d – above), we would all have genuine fears about their sincerity and remorse. I cannot set aside the loss of a person’s life simply to amuse and entertain myself. Nor am I prepared to be part of a group of people that feed and gratify the ego of someone whose search for gratification has generated so much tragedy.

    • Vee Alexis Says:

      Brilliantly stated!! You’ve expressed my sentiments exactly in a way I would be unable to articulate.

  163. Jodi Duffy Says:

    Here is a link that is of some interest, it covers Peter Graham’s new book:

    November 19, 2011 at 3:37 am | Reply edit

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/lifestyle/mainlander/5954279/Sensational-murder-revisited

    And it also reveals that Joanne Drayton is working on an authorized biography of La Hulme/Perry.

  164. Herb Lardner Says:

    Try this for an example of bad writing:

    ‘Barshey Gee staggered up the trench, his arms flying….’

    Did you read that? It said:

    ‘his arms flying’!

    That is incredibly bad writing. Unless one’s arms have been blown off and are being forcibly propelled through the air, arms do not fly. To suggest that they do actually fly while still attached to the human body is incredibly poor descriptive writing, suggesting the writer’s imagination is rather mediocre.

    And how about this as an example of inherent racism:

    ‘…you could tell the nationality of a dead man by the odour of his corpse.’

    I’ve worked in a hospital morgue and that simply is untrue. Also, considering who wrote this, does it mean that Honora Rieper had – and gave off – a distinctly NZ national odour as she lay on the ground, dead at JH and PP’s feet? Did a NZ odour waft out of her smashed skull?

    Or is it that AP is suggesting that it’s only men – and not women – who have a national odour? If so, then her writing is laughable, as well as poorly-written.

    I’m not trained or qualified to the same level as Jonathan Yates, but in my opinion, the above extracts from Anne Perry’s novels, used for illustrative purposes, show that she is a mediocre hack writer, with no great skill for description, nor for believable generalizations.

    I’ll never read anything written by her again. There are thousands of better writers. I’ll read them instead. At then, least I won’t be wasting my time.

  165. copper04Carl Rosel Says:

    Who was the originator of the plan to be rid of mother?

    Parkers diary : – April 30th 1954.

    I have not told Deborah ( Juliet of my plans to remove Mother )

    • Coral Peters Says:

      On 28th February, 1954, the first mention of the ‘Plan’ occurred. Pauline was at Juliet’s home and wrote: ‘Deborah and I started discussing our quest for “Him”. We have now decided to hurry things up terrifically, in fact to start now.’

      Who was the originator of the plan to murder mother! NO ONE KNOWS FOR SURE! According to Parker, Hulme is mentioned first. If you say Parker was the originator, you’re ignoring what she wrote in FEBRUARY.

      Don’t keep saying she was the originator of the plan. She wasn’t. She says so in the above February diary entry. Hulme and her started discussing it then – IN FEBRUARY. Stop distorting written evidence to suit your fixed mindset!

      • Jodi Duffy Says:

        All of the facts about the “plan” remain unknown.

        Juliet’s diaries and jottings were burned or hidden from the authorities, and neither girl testified about their motives, plans or intent before, during or after the trial.

        Pauline declined to give a reason for the murder during her police statement.

        After her first weak denial of culpability, Juliet has never denied participating in the attack.

        There is much we simply don’t know, and probably never will.

      • copper04 Says:

        Excerpt from diary of Pauline Parker. April 28th 1954.
        ( I have NOT told Deborah ( Juliet ) of my plans to remove mother)

      • Karen Black Says:

        Are you claiming that everything in Pauline Parker’s diary is out-and-out true, beyond any shadow of a doubt? Are you saying the diary contains no fiction whatsoever? If so, how do you know? Also, how do you know that the extract you’ve posted above is true? Answer: You don’t know. You’re just guessing. It’s your opinion, that’s all. It might be a lie. It might be a work of fiction, as was most of Pauline Parker’s writing. It might be deliberately misleading, to save Juliet Hulme from getting into trouble (as you know, Parker was over-protective of Hulme). I hope you’re not trying to post it as a statement of fact. It means nothing.

      • copper04 Says:

        Wrong!! Pauline was at her own place on the 28th April 1954. She wrote in her diary that day. ( I have not told Deborah ( Juliet )of my plans to remove mother). Her character in the Sir Peter Jackson movie ‘Heavenly Creatures’ also says that.

      • Karen Black Says:

        Wrong!!! You’re deliberately missing my point, Carl. Just because she was ‘at her own place’ that day, doesn’t make the diary entry true. No one except Pauline Parker knows the truth of anything written in those diaries. All anyone can do is speculate. You’re speculating – and you could very easily be wrong. I’m speculating – and I could be wrong too, although I have tried to cover all of the options by pointing out that the diary entry for that day could be true, false, a fiction or a cover-up. You (obviously) don’t know which one of those it is unless Pauline Parker has told you, which I sincerely doubt! Why pretend otherwise? You’re just guessing, as is everyone else. You’ve no exclusive knowledge regarding the murder – in fact, based on your other comments on here and other forums, you seem to know very little about the murder.

    • David Fabian Says:

      There was no plan to murder mother. Juliet Hulme/Anne Perry has stated repeatedly that no such plan existed.

      “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.”

      There’s the important bit: “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.”

      So no murder plan at all. Just an idea to ‘frighten Mrs Rieper with the brick’.

      I hope you’ve given that statement some thought and now fully understand the implications of what the murderer has stated. To now claim there was a murder plan, it means Hulme was and is lying. And if there was no murder plan, it means Hulme was and is lying.

  166. copper04Carl Rosel Says:

    Annes publishing career began with – The Cater Street Hangman :-
    published in 1979. This was the first book in the series which features the Victorian policeman Thomas Pitt, and his well born wife Charlotte. It was adapted for television and broadcast by ITV in 1998.
    There are now 25 titles in this series; arguably the longest sustained crime series by a living writer.
    Anne Perry was selected by the London Times as one of the Twentieth Century’s ” 100 Masters of Crime ”
    None of her books has ever been out of print, and they have received critical acclaim and huge popular success : 25 million copies are in print world wide. Her books are published in 13 foreign languages and have appeared on Best seller lists in several countries.

    • Davina Mills Says:

      As most people know, the longest-running crime series by a living writer is the Inspector Wexford series of novels and stories, written by the incredibly-talented and prolific Barbara Vine.

      The series was started in 1964 and is still going.

      It’s also been made into a 48 episode series for television!

      Not a one-off for tv, but 48 episodes!

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inspector_Wexford

      It means that the Thomas Pitt series is not ‘the longest sustained crime series by a living writer’, as you have stated.

      Please stop making false claims on behalf of the murderer Juliet Hulme! It indicates that you have a fixed mindset and that you cannot accept evidence that contradicts your false beliefs.

      In your above comments, you have tried to impart false information. Are you deliberately trying to mislead people with regards to the Hulme murderer?

      Why not simply tell the truth?

      • copper04Carl Rosel Says:

        Point out what claims are false. I have written word for word what is written about Anne Perry. Stop makinf false accusations.

      • Davina Mills Says:

        I think it’s your mindset. You just repeat what’s written without checking its accuracy.

        You said none of her books were out of print – Not true!

        You said ‘arguably the longest sustained crime series by a living writer’ – Not true! In fact nowhere near true.

        If you want to know what is ‘the longest sustained crime series by a living writer’ then read my comment above.

        Then perhaps you could admit you were wrong about two of your so-called ‘facts’ – or does your pro-Hulme mindset not allow you to acknowledge your mistakes?

    • Tom James Says:

      So, at least you know now that several of your so-called ‘facts’ are actually false information. When will you correct your misinformation? When will you provide the truth about Hulme? When will you tell everyone that the folie à deux defense was totally made up by Hulme’s and Parker’s defense team? When will you state publicly that the medication Hulme was given did not ‘impair judgement’, nor was it ever withdrawn from the market? When will you state publicly that Hulme lies about her role in the murder in every interview she gives? When will you state publicly that Hulme was deported and banned forever from New Zealand as an undesirable? When will you tell everyone that several of her books are out of print – and have been for years? When will you state publicly that the Monk series is one of the least successful detective series ever written – and that Barbara Vine’s Inspector Wexford series is the longest-running and most successful detective series ever, followed by the Poirot series, the Marple series, the Sherlock Holmes series, the Sam Spade series, the Philip Marlowe series, the Jules Maigret series? Most have never heard of Monk (or the other one Hulme writes about) and no one really cares that much. There’s far more interest in her as a murderer than as a writer.

      Personally, I think you’ll ignore these comments because you’ve got a very fixed mindset and you’re one of those people who never allows the truth to alter the misinformation you’ve decided to accept (and to spread) about the murderer you admire so much.

      • Iain Leggatt Says:

        Some very important and valid facts, Tom. Thank you for posting them. I think it’s strange that Copper04Carl Rosel did not respond, especially as he claims to be interested in furthering the ‘truth’ about Juliet Hulme.

    • Daniel Herring Says:

      ‘None of her books has ever been out of print, and they have received critical acclaim and huge popular success…’ Oh yeah! Try and buy a copy of Letters From the Highlands by Anne Perry from the publisher. They’ll tell you (as they told me) that it’s out of print and has been for over 6 years. Please stop repeatedly giving people the WRONG information!

    • Janet Henfrey Says:

      ‘None of her books has ever been out of print, and they have received critical acclaim and huge popular success…’ That text is written by Hulme for her own website. You’ve just copied it. As a small amount of research soon shows, it’s not true; five Anne Perry books are currently out of print. Why did you say they weren’t? Are you deliberately trying to deceive people? Why don’t you just tell the truth? Carl, if you repeat lies, you’re lying too. Hulme’s a lying turd! Always has been, always will be!

      • Becky Dalrymple Says:

        Janet, it doesn’t matter how much truth you state; Carl Rosel (a former long-term inmate himself, according to
        http://www.nzlawyermagazine.co.nz/LinkClick.aspx?link=4237&tabid)
        is only interested in defending Hulme against every true and factual claim. He doesn’t care that the folie à deux defense was totally made up (as was admitted) by Hulme’s and Parker’s defense team; or that the medication Hulme was given (according to Hulme’s doctor) did not ‘impair judgement’, nor was it (according to the manufacturers) ever withdrawn from the market; or that Hulme constantly lies about her role in the murder in every interview she gives; or that (according to the Reiper family) Hulme has never financially compensated the family she helped destroy and bankrupt, despite supposedly ‘coming to repentance’; or that Hulme was (according to immigration) deported and banned forever from New Zealand as an undesirable; or that, (according to her brother), she’s most likely a lesbian; or that (according to her publisher) several of her books are out of print – and have been for years; or that the Monk series is one of the least successful detective series ever written. You can give him the facts – and the links to the primary sources of those facts and he simply ignores them all. He’s got a false, idealised picture of Hulme in his mind (he actually thinks she’s a great writer – better than Burroughs, Hallett, Beckett, Joyce, Hemingway, et al) and he definitely doesn’t like any provable truth to disturb that picture. My advice: Don’t bother with him – there’s no point; he’s got nothing of interest or of use to contribute towards a better understanding of one of the world’s most ruthless and callous killers.

      • Anthony Lee Says:

        Ah, now I understand why CR ranted at Jonathan Yates on October 18, 2011 at 12:28 am. In that rant, CR accused Jonathan of writing ‘nasty’, ‘false and malicious garbage’, and ‘dribbling crap’ and of ‘having one huge hate on’. In that rant, CR refused to accept that the murderer (Hulme) and the lawyer (Williams) were guilty of anything criminal. The truth is that they (Hulme, Williams and CR) all have criminal records and are all ex-convicts. It’s like a not-so-secret fraternity. CR protects Hulme online and crews Williams’ multi-million dollar yachts. Williams employs CR and was a top criminal defense lawyer. Hulme murdered, and now writes lucratively about murder. CR also ranted that NZ author Greg Hallett (who wrote a book exposing many NZ high-ranking lawyers – including Williams – as criminals) was a poor writer who wrote lies, but that Hulme was a world-class author. Now I see why. Well, I don’t trust anything that any of them say. They’re all crooked.

      • Dennis Wilson Says:

        So two of these ex-convicts are millionaires and the other one is the lackey of one of them and the self-appointed defender of them both,, and he hates anyone saying anything truthful and factual about them that reveals them to be calculating and corrupt… How disgusting.

      • Ethan Walker Says:

        Oh, I get it! Carl Rosel spent several years in prison, where he got religion and ‘repented’. He now thinks he can fully understand Juliet Hulme, who also spent several years in prison, where she too allegedly ‘repented’ and got religion. I suppose he thinks they’re similar – which is why he defends her by using lots of lies: remember, this is the man who falsely stated that the murderers were suffering from folie a deux; this is the man who falsely stated that Hulme’s medication was withdrawn because of its mind-altering side effects; this is the man who falsely stated that none of Hulme’s books were out of print; this is the man who falsely stated that Hulme was not deported and banned forever from returning to NZ; this is the man who falsely stated that Hulme had ‘repented’, despite the fact she’s deliberately never apologised to the Reiper family, nor paid them anything in compensation, nor asked for their forgiveness; this is the man who falsely stated that Hulme never lies in interviews, despite the fact that she’s blatantly contradicted herself in every interview she’s ever given; this is the man who falsely stated that Hulme’s detective series is the most successful detective series ever, despite no one ever having heard of it. (Sherlock Holmes, Hercule Poirot, Miss Marple, anyone?) Now, would you buy a used car from Carl Rosel?

  167. Alan Vaughn Says:

    Just found an out of print Perry book. It’s here:

    Death by Horoscope: Anne Perry: 9780786711536: Amazon.com: Books

    Death by Horoscope: Anne Perry: 9780786711536: Amazon.com: Books

    Buy from Amazon

    So if anyone says Perry’s books have never been out of print, they’re talking ‘demented garbage’. What they say is not to be trusted. They don’t do any research.

  168. Bernard Jameson Says:

    “After the first blows were struck I knew it was necessary for us to kill her.”

    Does that mean that Pauline Parker’s February diary entry regarding the ‘discussion’ that Hulme and she had regarding killing Mrs Rieper is false – and that Hulme (for once) is telling the (chilling) truth?

    Or does it mean that Hulme is (as usual) lying and the February diary entry regarding the ‘Plan’ to murder Mrs Rieper is true?

    It can’t be both, because they’re contradictory and mutually exclusive.

    • Brian Cox Says:

      There was no plan to murder mother. Juliet Hulme/Anne Perry has stated repeatedly that no such plan existed.

      “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.”

      There’s the important bit right there: “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.”

      So there never was any murder plan at all. Just an idea to ‘frighten Mrs Rieper with the brick’.

      If one gives Hulme’s statement some thought, one soon understands the implications of what the murderer has stated. To claim there was a murder plan means that Hulme was and is lying.

      And to claim there was no murder plan, as Hulme (above) states, still means Hulme was and is lying, because she told Ian Rankin she felt she had no choice but to kill Honora Rieper, and she told The Times that the murder was ‘a debt of honour’, and she stated in Interiors that she was manipulated into killing to ‘save’ Parker. In fact, every time she opens her mouth, more lies come out.

      So, either Hulme is lying in the above statement, or she’s lying in the various interviews, because the statements are contradictory. Either way, she’s a liar!

      • Becky Page Says:

        Obviously there was no ‘real’ murder plan. Hulme’s telling the truth now. It was only at the pre-trial interviews that she lied. Oh, and in the Ian Rankin video, where she says it was pre-planned. Oh, and in Interiors, where she said she had no choice. Oh, and in every interview she’s ever given where she says she was forced into it… Other than that, she’s as honest as any criminal.

      • Terrence Meers Says:

        There was a murder plan, so she’s obviously a liar!

  169. George Hampton Says:

    Ngaio Marsh’s Roderick Alleyn, a British CID detective has had a 48 year career and appears in 32 novels and various short stories. The first novel to feature him was A Man Lay Dead, published in 1936. Thomas Pitt’s career has only been a mere 32 years. For Pitt to rival Alleyn in terms of longevity, Pitt needs to be around for another 16 years and appear in another 6 novels.

  170. Diana Hart Says:

    For anyone interested in some of Pauline Parker’s (edited) diary entries for 1953-54, there is a link here:

    http://www.adamabrams.com/hc/faq2/Section_7/7.4.3.html

  171. Daniel Simmons Says:

    I think it’s a matter of interpretation. When Parker wrote:

    1954, Feb. 13 (Sat)… ‘Dr Hulme is going to do something about it I think. Why could not Mother die? Dozens of people are dying all the time, thousands, so why not Mother and Father too? Life is very hard.’

    was she thinking of killing her mother, or of her mother dying, on Feb 13th, as she writes above… or is that a fake diary entry?

    And when she wrote:

    1954, Feb. 28 (Sun). ‘Deborah and I started discussing our quest for ‘Him.’ We have now decided to hurry things up terrifically, in fact to start now. We had a marvellous time planning the life and the flight and how we will obtain all the money and what we will do.’

    were Hulme (Deborah) and her ‘discussing’ their plan or ‘quest’ to kill Mrs Rieper, after which they ‘decided to hurry things up terrifically, in fact to start now’, on Feb 28th, as Parker writes above… or is that a fake diary entry too?

    Personally, I think the diary entries are genuine, but their interpretation is subjective. Hulme and Parker may have been discussing a different plan or ‘quest’, despite the fact that no other plan is mentioned in the diary.

    Also, when Parker writes:

    1954, June 19 (Sat). “We practically finished our books to-day and our main idea for the day was to moider Mother. This notion is not a new one, but this time it is a definite plan which we intend to carry out. We have worked it out carefully and are both thrilled by the idea. Naturally we feel a trifle nervous, but the pleasure of anticipation is great. I shall not write the plan down here as I shall write it up when we carry it out (I hope). We both spent last night and the one before having a simply wonderful time in every possible way.

    it may not actually mean that it was a joint plan. When Parker uses ‘we’ to describe the creators of the ‘main idea’ to ‘moider mother’, she may have suddenly become unintelligent and illiterate and mistakenly used ‘we’ for ‘I’ throughout the whole entry for the day.

    Also, when she states: ‘This notion is not a new one, but this time it is a definite plan’, it may not mean that the ‘main idea’ was ‘not a new one’ and had been ‘discussed’ by the two girls before, say on Sun, Feb. 28, 1954, as it states in the diary entry for that day.

    And when Parker says: ‘We both spent last night and the one before having a simply wonderful time in every possible way’, there can be no possibility of any lesbian activity at all, despite ‘every possible way’ being an all-inclusive phrase that includes lesbian love-making.

    As I say, it’s all a matter of interpretation.

  172. Heather Kelly Says:

    In an episode of his television series Ian Rankin’s Evil Thoughts, crime novelist Ian Rankin interviewed Anne Perry, who spoke about her part in the murder. Here is a pertinent clip from that interview, complete with a transcript of the interview:

    http://minguo.info/usa/node/81

    Here is a link to Anne Perry: Interiors, a documentary film about Perry and the ongoing conflicts between her past, her present and her future:

    http://www.anne-perry-interiors.com/index.php?lang=en

    And here’s a link to the Christchurch Library Digital Archives on the Parker-Hulme murder case (1954):

    http://christchurchcitylibraries.com/heritage/digitised/parkerhulme/

    And here’s the link to the Heavenly Creatures website, containing all of the documents, diary entries and transcripts – as well as a wealth of other material – used for research by Peter Jackson and Fran Walsh in the making of the film:

    http://members.tripod.com/hc_faq/contents.htm

    And here is a link to details of Peter Graham’s book on the Parker-Hulme murder case – So Brilliantly Clever:

    http://www.penguin.com.au/products/9781877551123/so-brilliantly-clever-parker-hulme-murder-shocked-world

    And here’s a link to Reflections of the Past, Alexander Roman’s documentary about the relationship between Juliet Hulme and Pauline Parker:

    http://www.reflectionsofthepast.net/

    And here is a link to Anne Perry’s website, where any reference to her murderous past is absent:

    http://www.anneperry.net/

  173. copper04Carl Rosel Says:

    We do know for sure, who the originator of the plan to be rid of mother was. Yes, it is repetitive,so you look up Pauline Parkers diary entry for April 30th 1954.
    It is on the internet. In court transcripts, and in the Sir Peter Jacksons movie ‘ Heavenly Creatures ‘.
    That fact is one of the main reasons Juliet Hulmes release was unconditional and Pauline Parkers was not. She was further monitored for another five years after her release.
    People don’t like that because they are so hell bent on laying everything on Juliet Hulme. Read all this blog page, and you will see that. What do you think the reason is. Probably jealousy. She could write any of them under the table, and she lives and travels well because of it.

    • James Martin Says:

      She’s certainly better at murder than anyone commenting on this blog.

    • Randy Connor Says:

      45 blows to the head with a half-brick is also quite repetetive…

    • Don Kenton Says:

      She could definitely murder them ‘under the table’.

    • Heather Hill Says:

      This blog IS about Juliet Hulme, so of course she gets the brunt of people’s comments. She’s the subject.

    • Toby Martin Says:

      Her writing may be sub-standard, but her ability to crack a skull open and sniff the nationality of the corpse is up there at doctorate level…

    • Sandra Bullock Says:

      You say ‘We do know for sure, who the originator of the plan to be rid of mother was’… but you seem to have forgotten (according to Juliet Hulme) that there was no plan to murder mother. Juliet Hulme/Anne Perry has stated repeatedly that no such plan existed.

      Hulme said (and continues to say): “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 one of the murderers, 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.

      Are you saying Hulme is lying? Are you finally admitting she is lying in this interview? 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?

      So, unless you’re calling Hulme a liar, we certainly ‘do know for sure, who the originator of the plan’ was… don’t we? It was Juliet Hulme. By her own admission…

    • reg varney Says:

      Carl. I’ve made Anne Perry my role model. Like you, I admire her very much. As Juliet, she murdered her friend’s mother (Honora Rieper) by smashing her skull in with a half-brick; she went to prison and got a free university education; she used her morbid obsession with death to fuel her writing, and (as Anne Perry) has produced 4 series’ of books of murders, crimes, hypocrisy and lies, which have made her very rich. Like you, I also admire her resolve in refusing to financially compensate the Rieper family, even though the trial bankrupted them, and the murder destroyed the Rieper family completely. The other reason I admire her so much is because of her single-minded determination to totally forget Honora Rieper, despite the fact that Honora invited Juliet to her house on many occasions and also vistited Juliet three times in the sanatorium. What a superb role model Anne Perry is. What a wonderful person. Religious too, I hear. Rich, religious, hard-working, single-minded, prolific, guilt-free, successful, reclusive. A credit to us all.

  174. Nola Perron Says:

    Antisocial Personality Disorder (ASPD) is described by the American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, fourth edition (DSM-IV-TR), as an Axis II personality disorder characterized by “…a pervasive pattern of disregard for, and violation of, the rights of others that begins in childhood or early adolescence and continues into adulthood.”

    The World Health Organization’s International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, tenth edition (ICD-10), defines a conceptually similar disorder to antisocial personality disorder called (F60.2) Dissocial personality disorder.

    It is characterized by at least 3 of the following:

    1. Callous unconcern for the feelings of others and lack of the capacity for empathy.

    2. Gross and persistent attitude of irresponsibility and disregard for social norms, rules, and obligations.

    3. Incapacity to maintain enduring relationships.

    4. Very low tolerance to frustration and a low threshold for discharge of aggression, including violence.

    5. Incapacity to experience guilt and to profit from experience, particularly punishment.

    6. Markedly prone to blame others or to offer plausible rationalizations for the behavior bringing the subject into conflict.

    7. Persistent irritability.

    There is a pervasive pattern of disregard for and violation of the rights of others occurring since age 15 years, as indicated by three or more of the following:

    1. Failure to conform to social norms with respect to lawful behaviors as indicated by repeatedly performing acts that are grounds for arrest;

    2. Deception, as indicated by repeatedly lying, use of aliases, or conning others for personal profit or pleasure;

    3. Impulsiveness or failure to plan ahead;

    4. Irritability and aggressiveness, as indicated by repeated physical fights or assaults;

    5. Reckless disregard for safety of self or others;

    6. Consistent irresponsibility, as indicated by repeated failure to sustain consistent work behavior or honor financial obligations;

    7. Lack of remorse, as indicated by being indifferent to or rationalizing having hurt, mistreated, or stolen from another.

  175. Will Stark Says:

    This contains some interesting information:

    http://cmm.lefora.com/2009/10/26/honora-parkerrieper-pauline-parker-juliet-hulme-th/

  176. Angela Foster Says:

    Most of the critical comments on here are absolutely spot-on. The opinion-based comments that present Hulme as some sort of repentant literary genius are just plain daft and can safely be ignored. The most useful sort of comments on Hulme/Perry are those that tackle the Hulme-scribbler-murderer – Perry-murder-writer dichotomy. Anything that can help us understand the complexity and the cause (and ultimately the treatment) of a savage, callous, dissembling, emotionlessness sociopath is a step in the right direction. Or am I missing the point?

  177. Carl Roach Says:

    Juliet Hulme on why she committed murder: “It [the murder] was a debt of honour… it was violent, and quick.”

    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.”

    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.”

    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’.”

    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.’

    • Jim Lewis Says:

      “It [the murder] was a debt of honour… it was violent, and quick.” – Juliet Hulme’s telling the truth here!

      • Pete Lewis Says:

        “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.” – Juliet Hulme’s telling the truth HERE, not in the above statement.

      • Tanya Lewis Says:

        “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.” – Juliet Hulme’s telling the truth HERE, not in the above statements.

      • Mitch Lewis Says:

        ‘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.’ – Juliet Hulme’s telling the truth HERE, not in the above statements.

      • Carol Lewis 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. After the first blows were struck I knew it was necessary for us to kill her.” – Juliet Hulme’s telling the truth HERE, and not in any of the above statements.

  178. Barry Noble Says:

    ‘She (Hulme) had been deported to the UK after five years in prison and had adopted her stepfather’s name of Perry…’

    http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/real-life/2010/04/18/writer-who-helped-murder-friends-mum-reveals-her-torment-86908-22194592/

    It’s important to remember that Hulme didn’t leave NZ because she was the less culpable of the two murderers… what happened was the NZ government kicked her out of NZ because she was an English murderer. They deported the undesirable foreign killer as soon as they could…

    • Tina Hart Says:

      Good point, Barry. The reason Pauline Parker wasn’t deported was because she was a New Zealand citizen. So the government kept an eye on her for five years after her release from prison. Meanwhile, they got rid of Hulme as quickly as they could – they immediately kicked the foreign murderer out of the country. And if I properly understand Section 161 of the Immigration Act as pertaining to a residence class visa holder convicted of a serious criminal offence, it means there’s a lifetime ban (‘Permanent prohibition’) on Hulme returning to NZ. It’s simply the NZ government making sure that foreign murdering scum stay out of NZ.

      • Marty Hughes Says:

        Your assessment of Hulme’s status of visa-holding non-citizen being deported and permanently prohibited from New Zealand is correct. The ‘serious’ crimes stipulated in Section 161 of the Immigration Act that incur ‘Permanent prohibition’ from New Zealand include: ‘armed robbery (including robbery involving the use of imitation weapons); murder, manslaughter, assault or any other form of violence against persons’. The Immigration Office had Hulme’s papers ready weeks before her sentence ended. She was handed her papers at the prison and driven to the airport by police. They put her on the first available plane leaving New Zealand; it was flying to Rome in the early hours of the next morning. Juliet Hulme had to be met by her father in Rome, and from there he took her back to England, where she changed her name to Perry. This is public knowledge. It was reported in national and international news items at the time.

  179. Cody Cooper Says:

    I understand that Mary Lamb, sister of essayist Charles Lamb, murdered her mother by stabbing her with a kitchen knife. Mary Lamb went on to have a very successful literary career, writing several novels, plays and poems, as well as Tales From Shakespeare, which has never been out of print.

  180. Liz Simmons Says:

    Here’s a link to information about the play Daughters of Heaven by Michelanne Forster:

    http://www.adamabrams.com/hc/faq2/Section_6/6.1-6.1.4.html

  181. Liz Simmons Says:

    Here’s a link to information about the play Minor Murder by Reginald Denham and Mary Orr. The play is about the Hulme-Parker murder:

    http://dramalist.com/plays/1767/minor-murder/reginald-denham/mary-orr

    and:

    http://www.dramatists.com/cgi-bin/db/single.asp?index=0&key=2098

  182. Liz Simmons Says:

    And here’s a link to Beryl Bainbridge’s Harriet Said… a fictionalized account of a murder, inspired by the Hulme-Parker murder:

    http://www.nytimes.com/books/98/11/29/specials/bainbridge-harriet.html

  183. Ricky Thomas Says:

    Some very interesting facts have come out of the shared information here.

    Fact 1: Juliet Hulme was deported on the day after her release from prison – and is prohibited from ever returning to NZ

    Fact 2: the folie a deux defense was totally made up by the defense psychiatrist and lawyer and has no basis in fact or reality

    Fact 3: some of Anne Perry’s books are out of print

    Fact 4: Anne Perry is the author of one of the least successful detective series ever

    Fact 5: Hulme often contradicts herself – for example she states there was NO plan to murder Honora Rieper and she says there WAS a plan to murder Honora Rieper

    Fact 6: Pauline Parker says she and Hulme had ‘wonderful’ lesbian sex and pleasured themselves and each other ‘in every possible way’

    Fact 7: Juliet Hulme’s defense lawyer believes the carefully planned murder ‘was worked out by Juliet’ Hulme and not Pauline Parker

    Facts can be very annoying because they often get in the way of opinion and blind prejudice, but these facts are all carefully documented by the people involved.

    • Janet Friar Says:

      I think these facts are the reason that Carl Rosel no longer leaves inaccurate and misleading comments on this forum. Good. Let’s have nothing but evidence-based truth, eh!

      • copper04 Says:

        Ha ha

      • Janet Friar Says:

        Are you laughing at the idea of leaving evidence-based information on here?

      • copper04 Says:

        Evidence based information??

        Point one: -
        Juliet Hulme was not deported on the day after her release from prison nor prohibited from ever returning to New Zealand. That is false.
        The Minister of Justice in the New Zealand Government made the following statement : -
        ” Miss Hulmes release is unconditional ” In other words she could come and go as she pleased.

        Miss Parker’s release is subject to general control as to her residence, employment and the like.
        Pauline Parker was kept under Parole conditions for several years after her release. She was deemed the more culpable of the two.

        Point two : -
        . The folie ‘a’ deux defense was not totally made up and did have a basis in fact and reality.

        Point 3 :-

        Anne Perry is the author of the most successful detective series ever.

        Point 4 : -
        Excerpt from diary of Pauline Parker April 29th 1954.

        ‘I have not told Deborah ( Juliet ) of my plans to remove mother. ( Also in court transcripts ) Also, in the Sir Peter Jackson movie ‘Heavenly Creatures’

        Point 5 : -

        Pauline Parker has never said, her and Juliet Hulme had wonderful lesbian sex and pleasured themselves and each other in every possible way. Another blatantly false and warped statement to make.

        Point 6 : -

        What Juliet Hulmes defense lawyer believes himself is just that. Not a proven fact. It is what he thought and believed himself. It was well known during the trial period that he had a bias against Juliet Hulme because she actually run rings around him intellectually. Her I Q was 170 at age fifteen.

        What did you say about facts ?? Get real.

      • Janet Friar Says:

        Point 1: Are you suggesting that Immigration has deliberately lied to me about this? I’m the research assistant for an author who’s writing a book about Hulme, and during my phonecall with the Immigration Archives Coordinator, she said that the document in front of her clearly stated Hulme was deported and permanently prohibited from returning to New Zealand, due to Hulme being a non-New Zealand citizen, as well as due to the brutality of the crime. It might be an idea to phone her yourself to verify this. It’s a FACT!

        Point 2: Dr Alison Laurie says: ‘The Defense says they’ve got a joint insanity known as folie à deux. When we interviewed the Defense counsel, Brian McClelland, he said, “Well, the problem was they’d both confessed to it, 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, as the defense team admitted, the folie à deux defense was TOTALLY MADE UP by the defense team! FACT!

        http://www.pridenz.com/queer_history_parker_hulme_murder_transcript.html

        Point 3: You’re definitely wrong about Anne Perry being the author of the most successful detective series ever, Carl, as a bit of very basic research will reveal! As most people know, the longest-running (and most successful) crime series by a living writer is the Inspector Wexford series of novels and stories, written by the incredibly-talented and prolific Barbara Vine.

        The series of 25 novels and stories was started in 1964 and is still going. It’s also been made into several films and a number a television movies. It’s also been made into a 48 episode series for television! Not a one-off for tv, but 48 episodes!

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inspector_Wexford

        It means that Anne Perry is NOT the author of the most successful detective series ever. What it DOES MEAN is that the talented and prolific Barbara Vine is the author of the most successful detective series ever. FACT!

        Point 4: The diary extract you’ve posted above may not be true? You’re just guessing, hoping. It’s your opinion, that’s all, not fact. It might be a lie. It might be a work of fiction, as is most of Pauline Parker’s writing. It might be deliberately misleading, to save Juliet Hulme from getting into trouble (as you know, Parker was over-protective of Hulme). I hope you’re not trying to post it as a statement of fact. It means nothing factual. Just because Parker was ‘at her own place’ that day, doesn’t make the diary entry true. No one except Pauline Parker knows the truth of anything written in those diaries. All anyone can do is speculate. You’re speculating – and you could very easily be wrong. You want it to be true, that’s all. FACT!

        Point 5: An extract from PP’s diary:

        http://www.adamabrams.com/hc/faq2/library/7.8.1.html

        ‘We returned home and talked for some time about It, getting ourselves more and more excited. Eventually we enacted how each Saint would make love in bed, only doing the first seven as it was 7:30 a.m. by then. We felt exhausted and very satisfied…’

        (The next night): ‘We came to bed quite early and spent the night very hectically. We went to sleep after getting almost through. We had a simply marvelous time and we definitely are mad but very pleasingly so…’

        On the thirteenth: ‘…the whole day was very amusing and exciting… We spent a hectic night going through the Saints. It was wonderful! Heavenly! Beautiful! and Ours! We felt very satisfied indeed. We have now learned the peace of the thing called Bliss, the joy of the thing called Sin.’

        On the fourteenth: ‘…We were feeling absolutely exhausted which was scarcely surprising. We discussed which Saints we wished to have about us at such a time… and loved it. We discussed the spicy ideas whom (s’queerly) we have grown to love… Two more spicy ideas became Saints… I am very happy. We have both spent a glorious Saintly day.’

        On the fifteenth: ‘…We came home late and we intend to sleep. It is a glorious night… On the sixteenth: ‘…We came to bed late and spent a very hectic night. It was wonderful. We only did 10 Saints altogether but we did them thoroughly. I prefer doing longer ones. We enjoyed ourselves greatly and intend to do so again. We did not get to sleep until about 5:30. Obviously I am writing this to-morrow.’

        On the seventeenth: ‘…We did not misbehave last night.’

        Not lesbians, eh? These are Parker’s words. FACT!

        Point 6: Not sure what you mean by this – obviously that IS what Juliet Hulme’s defense lawyer believes about Hulme. So how exactly is what you believe more accurate than what he believes? Did you know Hulme to the extent he did? Did Hulme ever discuss the murder with you? Did Hulme ever write revealing letters to you? Please explain how you are more qualified to assess her mental state than her defense lawyer taking advice from her doctor? Are you more qualified than both of them? Either of them? Are you a qualified, experienced lawyer? Are you a qualified doctor? Are you a qualified psychologist? Do you work for Immigration? Or are you just an unqualified person who obsesses over Juliet Hulme? I know you’ll ignore this one, because it asks for your professional credentials, qualifications, experience and FACTS!

      • Janet Friar Says:

        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:

        http://members.tripod.com/hc_faq/3.2.4.htm

        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, 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 banned from ever returning to New Zealand. It’s only gullible people like you that thought the release was unconditional. Cold, calculating murderers NEVER get an unconditional release. They get instant deportation and a lifetime ban on returning. Good job too. New Zealand has no use for foreign killers.

  184. Andrea Tailby Says:

    Here’s a link to a review of the non-fiction book, Parker and Hulme: A Lesbian View by Julie Glamuzina and Alison J. Laurie:

    http://gaybookreviews.info/review/3134/673

    and to the book on amazon:

    Parker & Hulme: A Lesbian View

    Parker & Hulme: A Lesbian View

    Buy from Amazon

  185. Liz Simmons Says:

    And here’s a link to information about Vin Packer’s The Evil Friendship, a novel inspired by the Hulme-Parker murder:

    http://hangfirebooks.blogspot.com/2007/10/evil-friendship-by-vin-packer.html

    and to the book on amazon:

    Whisper His Sin / The Evil Friendship (Stark House Suspense Classics)

    Whisper His Sin / The Evil Friendship (Stark House Suspense Classics)

    Buy from Amazon

  186. Liz Simmons Says:

    And here is a link to information about the movie Don’t Deliver Us From Evil.

    Don’t Deliver Us from Evil (original title: Mais ne nous délivrez pas du mal) is a 1971 French film directed by Joël Séria. It is loosely based on the Parker–Hulme murder of 1954.

    http://sunsetgun.typepad.com/sunsetgun/2008/10/pretty-poison-d.html

  187. Liz Simmons Says:

    The Parker-Hulme murder has inspired:

    2 feature films:
    Don’t Deliver Us From Evil (Dir. Jöel Séria)
    Heavenly Creatures (Dir. Peter Jackson)

    2 documentaries:
    Anne Perry: Interiors (Dir. Dana Linkiewicz)
    Reflections of the Past (Dir. Alexander Roman)

    2 non-fiction books:
    So Brilliantly Clever by Peter Graham
    Parker and Hulme: A Lesbian View by Julie Glamuzina and Alison J. Laurie

    3 plays:
    Daughters of Heaven by Michelanne Forster
    Minor Murder by Reginald Denham and Mary Orr
    Where Are They Now (1996) by Cyndi Williams

    3 novels:
    The Evil Friendship by Vin Packer
    Harriet Said… by Beryl Bainbridge
    Obsession by Tom Gurr and H.H. Cox

    and 5 screenplays:
    The Christchurch Murder by Angela Carter
    Heavenly Creatures by Peter Jackson and Fran Walsh
    Fallen Angels by Louis Nowra
    Sugar and Spice by Wayne McDaniel
    The Pursuit of Happiness by Fiona Samuel

    so far….

    • Terry Owen Says:

      It is an interesting paradox that a brutal murder can inspire so many artistic interpretations…

      Is it that the writers are using their skills to try and make sense of something that makes no sense… are they using art to try and discover motive…

      or is it exploitation?

  188. Liz Simmons Says:

    Here’s the Heavenly Creatures screenplay:

    http://members.tripod.com/peter_jackson_online/hc/script.htm

    and here:

    http://www.awesomefilm.com/script/heavenlycreatures.html

  189. Liz Simmons Says:

    Daughters of Heaven info:

    http://www.adamabrams.com/hc/faq2/Section_6/6.1-6.1.4.html

    http://www.theatreview.org.nz/reviews/review.php?id=3616

  190. Liz Simmons Says:

    Book cover for Obsession by Tom Gurr and H.H. Cox:

    http://www.flickr.com/photos/thelastsummer/4510308332/

  191. Neil Austen Says:

    Here’s some information on Where Are They Now? by Cyndi Williams:

    http://www.austinchronicle.com/arts/2006-03-24/349694/

    and:

    http://austinist.com/2006/03/09/fantasy_comes_to_life_in_where_are_they_now.php

  192. Vernon Watts Says:

    Here is some info on Angela Carter’s The Christchurch Murder:

    http://secondstogo.blogspot.com/2011/05/willows-become-agitated-angela-carter.html

  193. Terry Owen Says:

    An academic essay on Angela Carter’s The Christchurch Murder and Peter Jackson’s Heavenly Creatures:

    http://adaptation.oxfordjournals.org/content/4/2/167.full.pdf?keytype=ref&ijkey=XcZv9U5KfNyyonO

  194. Jane Wills 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. After the first blows were struck I knew it was necessary for us to kill her.”

    http://christchurchcitylibraries.com/heritage/digitised/parkerhulme/Page24.asp

    ‘Honora Parker… was held down by the throat as she was bashed with a brick. Her lower denture was half-buried in clay. Her jaw was at an angle, her skull was exposed in places. The tip of the little finger of her left hand was hanging by a piece of skin, indicating that she had tried to defend herself as her daughter and her daughter’s friend killed her.’

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/lifestyle/mainlander/5954279/Sensational-murder-revisited

  195. Juliet Bolton Says:

    “I mean certainly we [Pauline and I] were good friends, but 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… Like any other traumatic experience, nature helps you to put it away.” (Anne Perry)

    According to the above comments:

    Hulme and Parker (who ‘spent last night and the one before having a simply wonderful time in every possible way… a hectic night… It was wonderful! Heavenly! Beautiful! and Ours! We felt very satisfied indeed. We have now learned the peace of the thing called Bliss, the joy of the thing called Sin.’) were not lesbian lovers, but merely ‘good friends’.

    The words ‘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’ actually mean the opposite of their usual meaning; in this context they mean that the murder was a pre-meditated, pre-planned, pre-agreed ‘debt of honour’.

    Peter Jackson and Fran Walsh are a pair of ‘idiotic movie makers’, not a multiple-award-winning world-renowned immensely talented screenwriting, producing, directing team.

    Although Mrs Rieper ‘took a bit more killing than we thought’ and was held down by the throat as she was bashed with a brick. Her lower denture was half-buried in clay. Her jaw was at an angle, her skull was exposed in places. The tip of the little finger of her left hand was hanging by a piece of skin, indicating that she had tried to defend herself as her daughter and her daughter’s friend killed her’, the violent murder itself ‘was… quick’.

    “Like any other traumatic experience, nature helps you to put it away…” Anne Perry.

  196. Bernie Walters Says:

    This is a very interesting news clip, looking at the mural Pauline Parker painted in her Kent house:

    http://tvnz.co.nz/close-up/monday-november-28-4577506/video

  197. Dylan Miller Says:

    Some interesting Interiors information:

    http://www.listener.co.nz/culture/film/the-thing-that-happened/

  198. John Denham Says:

    How about this for a crock of shit:

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10371147

  199. Donna Panther Says:

    In his book, ‘So Brilliantly Clever’, Peter Graham says that if they [Hulme and Parker] were tried today, it was likely the outcome would be the same. Insanity is a very rare and difficult defence to prove.

    Astonishingly, throughout the trial the girls appeared disinterested in the proceedings and instead spent most of their time whispering happily to each other – “They were so pleased with themselves”, says Graham.

    The pair were saved from hanging only by their young ages, but far greater punishment for the girls than the prison sentences before them, was being separated.

    Pauline was sent to Arohata Borstal, north of Wellington and Juliet to Auckland’s notorious Mt. Eden Prison.

    The female police officer who escorted them from the court was shocked to overhear Juliet whisper to Pauline, “The old girl took a bit more killing than we thought”.

    When the officer took her to task over the remark, Juliet jeered back, “Oh aren’t we the perfect little policewoman”.

    For crime writer Anne Perry, her dark past as Juliet Hulme has paid off. The ongoing international interest in the murder has added to her allure and mystery as an author writing from personal experience.

    Did she ever think about Honora Parker?

    “No. She was somebody I barely knew,” she said.

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10765998

  200. Mark Betts Says:

    I’ve just noticed that in the Ian Rankin interview, Anne Perry says she was not allowed to speak in court

    IR: It must have been an extraordinary sensation at such a young age to be going through that process of judgement, I guess, by society.

    AP: Yes. And when you were that age, you were not allowed to speak.

    IR: In court, you mean?

    AP: Yes. So you cannot say anything about what you did or why you did it.

    from: http://minguo.info/usa/node/81

    But in the Star-Sun, 30 August 1954, p.4, which reported the details of the Parker-Hulme trial, it clearly states that in court:

    ‘Each prisoner was asked if she had anything to say, but neither responded.’

    http://christchurchcitylibraries.com/Heritage/Digitised/ParkerHulme/Page16.asp

    I’m not sure I understand fully, but it seems that ‘Each prisoner was asked if she had anything to say, but neither responded’ might mean that Parker and Hulme were given the opportunity to speak in court, but chose not to take the opportunity.

    So for Anne Perry to say many years later that ‘when you were that age, you were not allowed to speak… So you cannot say anything about what you did or why you did it…’ is very strange, for it implies that as a supposedly intelligent 15 year old, Juliet Hulme was unable to understand the very simple question: ‘Have you anything to say?’

    It also suggests that she has a very poor memory for facts, or else she has some sort of profound learning difficulty, and is/was unable to process (and remember) a very simple question. It also suggests that as a supposedly intelligent adult, operating (according to some) at ‘genius’ level, she is still unable to remember she was asked if she had anything to say in court, but decided that she would decline to answer.

    I find this quite intriguing.

    Of course, it might simply mean that either the newspaper report is totally wrong, or that Anne Perry is lying about documented court procedure. I wonder which one it is?

    • Jodi Duffy Says:

      There is another reason Juliet did not speak on her own behalf during the trial. Here, in the words of her defense counsel Brian McClelland, “(Juliet) was fine as long as you didn’t ask her about her own beliefs. She thought that she was a superior person. That was why we couldn’t possibly call her to give evidence. She appeared completely arrogant and conceited, but she wasn’t at all. It was just the way she was brought up.”

      (Source: “Murder without remorse,” The Press (Christchurch), 5 October 1991, p.5)

      McClelland believed that Juliet was schizophrenic. He also expressed a belief that the murder plan was actually Juliet’s, but as we know, both girls carried it out.

      So Anne Perry’s claim that her age prevented her from having her say in court does not appear to be true. Her lawyers realized she would cook her own goose if she spoke before the jury, and as you point out, Mark, the judge did provide an opportunity to make a statement. But not even an apology was uttered by the “wordsmith.”

  201. Ryan Harris Says:

    An extensive Peter Graham interview about So Brilliantly Clever:

    http://www.listener.co.nz/culture/books/peter-graham-interview/

  202. Vanessa Says:

    OH MY. All of you who leave such negative comments seriously need to stop. For starters, she was fifteen when she committed this crime – the time in which it was committed a lot of young offenders didn’t see the inside of a jail cell for a long time. Not like they do nowadays. Also, someone commented on the fact she was a young teenager & there are a lot of emotional oddities in one’s chemical make-up during that time period. I also would like to add that most of the murder was formulated & planned by her friend… I believe the facts they found point to her friend manipulating her & preying upon their intense friendship to get her to help. Also, Juliet Hulme was going through a tumultuous time, her parents divorcing, wanting to uproot her to a relative’s, all of this should be taken into account. While I am not excusing her behavior in helping to carry out this vicious crime, I would like to stand by those who have pointed out she has paid her dues. Just because the dues paid aren’t to your precise liking means nothing. Also, when i was a child, I fell prey to a conniving & manipulative girl… she actually got me to call up the boy she liked who had a girlfriend & tell him a complete lie… that his girlfriend was cheating on him! My “friend” thought if he broke up with his g/f, he’d date her. When you’re young & impressionable you are more likely to commit acts that an older wiser person would be horrified at. Sure, murder is extreme, & what she did is awful, but she has paid her dues – even if this was my own mother I would still grudgingly accept that she paid her dues for the crime. This seems more like her friend manipulated her [much like my friend did to me] & the outcome was horrendous. I urge all of you who are negative to just shut up. If you disagree with how she paid her dues or whatever then don’t read or buy her books. it’s as simple as that. Coming on here leaving comments about how she “doesn’t deserve” any of her fame or money is stupid. You have no idea, no real idea how she feels to this day. She will always have to live with what she did, in a prison or not. Money & freedom will never erase it. How dare you all think she doesn’t care or is “cold blooded” you only see what she projects in her writings, you don’t know her. So stop acting like you do. With that said, I don’t know either if she does feel bad… but because I don’t know either or [like you folks] I am not going to sit here & spout hate. I hope she regrets it & I hope she can forgive herself. She’s a human too… & we just don’t know. That’s the bottom line.

    • Janet Savory Says:

      Vanessa… do you mean that it’s okay to leave pro-Hulme comments here, but not Hulme-critical comments?

      Where I come from that’s what’s known as a double standard!

      Anyone in the public arena is open to criticism, praise, blame, etc.

      Juliet Hulme is a publicity-seeking murderer selling murder stories and everyone is free to comment on her behaviour, psychology, public image, abilities, stories and so on.

      That’s what this blog and comments forum is for…

      • Vanessa Says:

        Janet…you have the right to your own opinion, as do I..& my opinion is simply that people like you should say your piece & not argue with every “pro-Hulme” person. In case you haven’t noticed this forum that you have pointed out as being “open for everyone to praise OR criticize” is largely for criticism & those who dare to try to keep a keen perspective on the matter or who even say they like her/her writings are immediately jumped upon. Is that what YOU call a fair & okay environment? All I said was there are other workings at hand & we don’t know anything about how she feels, she’ll have to live every day with what she did. Everything, including what I think/said could be wrong. She could indeed be an awful person OR she could be sincerely sorry for her deed. We just don’t know. That’s MY personal take on the issue here, as well as MY personal opinion on people who like to jump on everyone who dares to disagree that she is a cold blooded murderer who didn’t pay her dues. In your own words- “That’s what this blog and comments are for..” They are for everyone to have their own personal opinion on her & what they see others writing.

        You should double check the meaning of ‘double standards’ because to me..double standards are people like you who say what you said & proceed to jump on those who don’t agree with you.

    • Janet Savory Says:

      Vanessa

      My response was because you said: ‘OH MY. All of you who leave such negative comments seriously need to stop…’ which suggests you do not want anyone to post Hulme-critical comments. Perhaps I misread you.

    • Mike Rikfoss Says:

      When you suspect that the well is poisoned, you have a moral duty to tell everyone…

    • Kerry Harvey Says:

      ‘OH MY. All of you who leave such negative comments seriously need to stop…’

      Which specific comments here are the negative ones?

      And why do the people who wrote them ‘need to stop’?

  203. Myah MacIntosh Says:

    Narcissistic personality disorder (NPD) is a personality disorder in which the individual is described as being excessively preoccupied with issues of personal adequacy, power, prestige and vanity.

    Narcissistic personality disorder is closely linked to egocentrism.

    Symptoms of this disorder include, but are not limited to:

    Reacts to criticism with anger, shame, or humiliation
    May take advantage of others to reach his or her own goal
    Tend to exaggerate their own importance, achievements, and talents
    Imagines unrealistic fantasies of success, beauty, power, intelligence, or romance
    Requires constant attention and positive reinforcement from others
    Easily becomes jealous
    Lacks empathy and disregards the feelings of others
    Obsessed with oneself
    Mainly pursues selfish goals
    Trouble keeping healthy relationships
    Are easily hurt and rejected
    Set unreal goals
    Want “the best” of everything
    Appear as tough-minded or unemotional

    Narcissists also tend to be physically attractive on first impression, giving them advantages when first meeting people.

    Individuals believe that Narcissistic personality disorder makes it seem as though the person suffering has high confidence and a strong self-esteem, however those suffering from the disease actually start to highly think of themselves and they put themselves on a pedestal.

    To conclude, people that tend to have high self confidence and self esteem don’t value themselves over others. Also the individual suffering cannot handle criticism and to make themselves feel better they react with rage or contempt and try to make the person feel small, to make themselves feel better.

    The cause of this disorder is unknown, according to Groopman and Cooper. However, they list the following factors identified by various researchers as possibilities:

    An oversensitive temperament at birth is the main symptomatic chronic form
    Being praised for perceived exceptional looks or abilities by adults
    Excessive admiration that is never balanced with realistic feedback
    Excessive praise for good behaviors or excessive criticism for poor behaviors in childhood
    Overindulgence and overvaluation by parents
    Severe emotional abuse in childhood
    Unpredictable or unreliable caregiving from parents
    Valued by parents as a means to regulate their own self-esteem

  204. Ryan Harris Says:

    http://christchurchcitylibraries.com/Heritage/Digitised/ParkerHulme/Page26.asp

    ‘Posing a bigger problem for the defence of Juliet Hulme was the diary of Pauline Parker. That, perhaps more than anything, lifted the murder trial from the macabre to the remarkable. Crown prosecutor Adam Brown repeatedly stung the defence with reference to the diary making much of several passages indicating some pleasure in planning Honora Parker’s death. Parker wrote of their murder “We have worked it all out carefully and are both thrilled with the idea. Naturally we feel a trifle nervous but the anticipation is great.’

    “Parts of the diary quite clearly indicated that it was planned in some detail,” says Brian McClelland. “I think the idea was worked out by Juliet but what Pauline wrote in her diary legally was not anything to with Juliet.”

    So Brian McClelland, Juliet Hulme’s defence lawyer, believes that Honora Rieper’s murder was ‘planned in some detail’ and ‘worked out by Juliet’, and not Pauline Parker. Interesting!

    This admission makes Laura Forsythe’s work of ‘fiction’ (see above: November 12, 2011) far less fictional that it initially appeared to be. Very good work, Laura.

  205. Jim Aykroyd Says:

    DEPORTATION: OTHER CONSIDERATIONS (1958)

    1. It is the Government’s view that in considering the issue of deportation and permanent prohibition, other matters, although not primary considerations, will be relevant. It is appropriate that these matters be taken into account but given less weight than the primary considerations. Decision makers should give due regard to the Government’s view in this respect.

    2. It is the Government’s view that factors to be considered here include:
    (a) Government and the community.
    (b) organised criminal activity resulting in a conviction in New Zealand;
    (c) armed robbery (including robbery involving the use of imitation weapons);
    (d) murder, manslaughter, assault or any other form of violence against persons;
    (e) terrorist activity;
    (f) kidnapping;
    (g) blackmail;
    (h) extortion;
    (i) serious theft (including “white collar” crimes);
    (j) any other crimes involving violence or the threat of violence.

    3. Ancillary offences in respect to any of the above offences include:
    a] convictions for attempting to commit any of the above offences;
    b] convictions for conspiracy to commit any of the above offences;
    c] convictions for being an accessory before or after the fact in any of the above offences.

    Decision makers should give due regard to the Government’s view in this respect. It is the Government’s view that deportation and permanent prohibition should follow the sentence imposed for any of the above crimes as an indication of the seriousness of the offender’s conduct against the community.

  206. Martina Ballam Says:

    I enjoy reading Anne Perry’s books very much. I find her stories entertaining and informative.

    With regards to her crime of over fifty years ago, she served her prison sentence and rehabilitated herself. She relocated, changed her name, put her past behind her and moved forward as a crime writer.

    No one will ever know if she’s sorry for what she did or not, and it’s no longer relevant. The murder was committed and the criminals punished.

    She’s moved on… and so should we all.

    • Kay Says:

      A women beaten viciously to death can not move on. Her voice has been silenced. Juliet Hulme has her voice still. Some may be entertained by it. Some may be horrified. What is clear is that Juliet Hume has not moved on.

  207. Bill Tanner Says:

    In Pauline Parker’s diary there are a number of references to her lover, Nicholas. This was mentioned in some detail at the trial:

    Mr. Brown quoted extracts from Pauline’s diary, referring to nocturnal visits by Pauline to a boy named Nicholas.
    Mr. Brown: Was she not in Nicholas’s bed as far back as July, 1953, and was she not there from 11:30 p.m. to 5:30 a.m.
    Dr. Medlicott: That is so.
    Mr. Brown read later diary references to visits paid by Pauline to Nicholas at his new address after he left the Rieper household.
    Dr. Medlicott replied: “The visits to Nicholas continued for a long time after that.”
    In earlier diary references it was Nicholas who was “making the pace,” he said.

    http://www.adamabrams.com/hc/faq2/library/7.6.1.html

    What Parker says in her diary about her sexual relationship with Nicholas in early October, 1953 is:

    1953, early October. “Nicholas was pleased that I was so early. We sat around and talked for an hour and then went to bed. I declined the invitation at first but he became very masterful and I had no option. I discovered that I had not lost my virginity on Thursday night. However, there is no doubt whatsoever that I have now.”

    http://www.adamabrams.com/hc/faq2/Section_7/7.4.3.html

    Now have a look at this as an example of Hulme’s deliberate obfuscation and dissembling. It shows the depths of her jealousy – and the lengths she’ll go to to retrospectively cloud and confuse the waters of the past in order to bring the court decision into disrepute – and thereby vindicate herself:

    Anne Perry: “Pauline wrote about seeing ‘George in the night.’ I believe that in North America the equivalent is ‘the john,’ but the prosecution tried to make out that she had a lover.”

    http://www.adamabrams.com/hc/faq2/Section_4/4.9.html

    Yet another crock of shit in a long line of shit crocks!

    And as for ‘the prosecution tried to make out…’, what about what Pauline Parker herself said about the loss of her own virginity? Or doesn’t that count?

    Nicholas/George/john… What’s in a name, eh, Hulme/Perry?

  208. Marlon Bowyer Says:

    ‘Juliet (Hulme) held her fingers in her ears as (Mr A W) Brown (Crown Prosecutor) lashed out at the girls for killing Mrs. Parker because she wanted to separate them.’

    The Oakland Tribune, Saturday August 28, 1954, p. 2.

    So the allegedly well-bred, intelligent Hulme (co-)murdered her friend’s mother, and whilst in a court of law awaiting her deserved sentence, put her fingers in her ears so she didn’t have to hear the prosecutor point out to her the sheer moronic and senseless stupidity that was given as the ‘reason’ for her murderous actions.

    ‘Juliet (Hulme) held her fingers in her ears as (Mr A W) Brown (Crown Prosecutor) lashed out at the girls for killing Mrs. Parker.’

    ‘The thing about breeding is, you can’t buy it. You can’t buy class.’ (Anne Perry)

    No, you can’t, can you? Not even if you’re a millionaire (murderer).

  209. Nazneen Says:

    As a pregnant woman I wish I had never found out about this horrific murder. What must the mother have gone through? She was bashed 45 times in the head. It must have taken ages, all the time during which she must have suffered so much, looking at her daughter, wondering why these people she trusted were beating her to death. She must have begged them to stop. Her own daughter whom she raised tirelessly 24/7 for many years. In eastern religions the mother has the status of a queen. But here we have all of these so called liberal ‘intellectuals’ forgetting the status of a mother after everything she does and acting like this is any old murder (which is still very bad). This is a VERY backwards outlook to think this is like any other wrong act that you would do. This crime is not like any other crime. Nor is this like having an affair, or being a drug dealer. Would you put the twin towers perpetrators in prison for 5 years and then say ‘they’ve paid their dues’ whilst they go on to become successful middle class people writing about bombs and explosives as a hobby? If Hulme regretted it she wouldn’t write about murder! She wouldn’t be able to! It would be too painful to write about it! Can the victim move on? She must have begged them to stop. It was a long, carefully-planned murder. And 15 year olds aren’t babies; they know right from wrong. We need to stop making excuses for the young. Teenage life then was nowhere near as messed up as it now, as we all know.

  210. Marcus Rutter Says:

    Juliet Hulme’s second statement to the police, obtained after they realized that her first statement was false:

    “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.”

    http://www.adamabrams.com/hc/faq2/Section_7/7.5.7.html

    • Todd Milligan Says:

      It seems that the lying, the dissembling, the obfuscation, and the damage limitation really came into play here, almost as though Hulme’s first (false) statement to the police had successfully bought her enough time to create and polish a new Hulme-friendly second statement.

      It’s interesting to note that the real attempt at distancing herself starts with a reference to the brick Hulme took to Pauline’s house:

      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…

      What an appalling abuse of English in that particular labyrinthian, serpentine, mobius-strip of a sentence:

      I KNEW that IT WAS proposed that WE SHOULD take a brick in a stocking to the park WITH US. PAULINE rang me…

      and then to juxtapose it with Pauline’s name, implying the proposal had come from Parker.

      It’s Hulme killing the English language to save herself. Still doing it too, I see…

      • Tabby Spruce Says:

        So Hulme made two statements – one that was false, and which the police rejected; and another – a second statement (above) – which was still false in places, but which Hulme signed and which the police accepted to be read out in court.

        I find it interesting that there are rabid Hulme defenders who still maintain that Hulme has never lied in an interview – even when the evidence of the two statements – one rejected as false, one full of contradictions – so overwhemingly proves she did and does lie.

      • Clifford Gaye Says:

        Because Juliet Hulme’s first (false) statement to the police was rejected due to its falsity, the delay successfully bought her enough time to create and polish a new Hulme-friendly second statement.

        It’s interesting to note that the real attempt at distancing herself starts with a reference to the brick Hulme took to Pauline’s house:

        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…

        I KNEW that IT WAS proposed that WE SHOULD take a brick in a stocking to the park WITH US. PAULINE rang me…

        And then to juxtapose it with Pauline’s name, thereby implying the proposal had come from Parker, despite Juliet Hulme’s own defense lawyer Brian McClelland stating ‘the idea was worked out by Juliet but what Pauline wrote in her diary legally was not anything to with Juliet.’

  211. Pam Accauley Says:

    Okay, I’ll agree that persons should be forgiven for things they did when they were very young and if they are remorseful. But how much remorse could this murderer have if she makes her living writing about murder?

  212. Morag Peters Says:

    Yes, I see what Carl Rosel has done: he’s just copied the info from Anne Perry’s website and presented it as fact. It isn’t fact; it’s Perry’s own ‘version’ of things. Most of the so-called information is out-of-date, incorrect, false, misleading or pure fiction. The gaps in the info are huge. There’s no mention of anything Juliet Hulme-related. Weird really, when you think of who has actually written these books.

    I think there’s material here for a psychology paper on the division of identity in the aftermath of a murder… it’s very likely that Juliet Hulme died in that park too…

    • James Weatherfield Says:

      Morag, what you say here is very interesting. Shirley Mason (Sybil Dorsett) had multiple personalities due to childhood trauma induced by abuse, and so did Truddi Chase. Truddi Chase would not reintegrate because her central core identity was abused into oblivion. Let’s suppose that ‘Juliet Hulme’ died in Victoria Park, then became ‘Nobody’ during her incarceration, then became ‘Anne Perry’ after being deported, and we have the classic case of identity shedding common to the psychoticaly-damaged.

  213. Sean O'Connor Says:

    Deported (and banned forever) from New Zealand, murderer Juliet Hulme never suffered from folie a deux. That was simple a convenient diagnosis totally made up by the defense psychiatrist and lawyer and has no basis in fact or reality.

    http://www.pridenz.com/queer_history_parker_hulme_murder_transcript.html

    After being deported, Hulme changed her name to Anne Perry.

    http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/real-life/2010/04/18/writer-who-helped-murder-friends-mum-reveals-her-torment-86908-22194592/

    She is the author of one of the least successful detective series ever, and some of her books are out of print.

    In interviews, she often contradicts herself – for example she has stated there was a plan to ‘frighten’ Honora Rieper, but NOT to murder her; and she has also stated there WAS a plan or ‘debt of honour’, to murder Honora Rieper.

    http://minguo.info/usa/node/81

    and

    http://members.tripod.com/hc_faq/7.5.7.htm

    In her diary, Pauline Parker says she and Hulme had ‘wonderful’ lesbian sex and pleasured themselves and each other ‘in every possible way, until they knew ‘Bliss’ and ‘Sin’ and were ‘exhausted’.

    http://members.tripod.com/hc_faq/7.4.3.htm

    Juliet Hulme’s defense lawyer believes the carefully-planned murder ‘was worked out by Juliet’ Hulme and not Pauline Parker.

    http://christchurchcitylibraries.com/Heritage/Digitised/ParkerHulme/Page26.asp

  214. Mike Turner Says:

    A very interesting and informative video:

  215. Seattle in the Snow Says:

    What does it matter what any of us thinks of Anne Perry/Juliet Hulme?

    • Toby Hill Says:

      What does it matter what anyone thinks about anything? In fact, why think at all! Why not live in ignorance, rather than try and understand human extremes and dichotomies?

      Formulating an opinion on a controversial topic/subject is a way of increasing human knowledge. That’s why it matters.

  216. Seattle in the Snow Says:

    “Formulating an opinion on a controversial topic/subject is a way of increasing human knowledge.”

    How? Increasing what kind of knowledge?

    • Toby Hill Says:

      An opinion is (hopefully) based on fact and evidence, which, when shared, disseminates knowledge and thereby increases, through discussion and debate, understanding.

      In this case, the knowledge is an attempt to understand a (seemingly inexplicable) murder and its aftermath, and the way it was and is dealt with by the murderers and the victims, as well as to understand the psychology of the murderers, and the role of the media (including this blog).

      If we can understand why people murder, we might be able to prevent it.

      • Sally Horton Says:

        I’d like to understand why Juliet Hulme helped to murder her best friend’s mother, and then spent the rest of her life writing murder stories. If I can understand that, I might begin to understand what society can do to help decrease violence. Some of the comments on this blog and its associated video clips, audio clips, book links, etc, have provided information that has been very useful in helping me begin to understand the murder.

      • Karen Macklusky Says:

        Can we ever really understand a murderer? Will our attempts to understand evil really help to negate evil? I’m a criminal psychologist and I believe we can help prevent potential murderers from becoming actual murderers if we have enough personal information, and thereby are well enough equipped to provide psychological and emotional support and counselling to those who desperately need it.

        The Parker-Hulme murder (and its aftermath) showed all criminal psychologists that not enouigh had been done to support Parker or Hulme in the ways they needed – in order to circumvent a murder.

        And that’s why discussions such as this are important.

  217. Seattle in the Snow Says:

    It seems in the hundreds of comments posted before these that there is not a lot of willingness to understand or accept others’ opinions on the matter. Anger, insults, and judgment seem to crowd out thoughtful discussion.

    • Toby Hill Says:

      Agreed, but some knowledge (now shared) has come out of discussion over individual comments. Having read this blog (and many other sources) I know more about the Hulme-Parker murder, and about the reasons Anne Perry has given for the murder, that I did before I read it and the posted comments.

      This kind of post attracts the fantatics and the fearful – as well as those who genuinely want to make a contribution to human understanding.

    • Emilia Says:

      It seems the people who chose to forget Perry’s horrendous crime, like to protect her “honour” by attacking people who believe a crime is a crime, especially when the perpetrator has not repented.

  218. Gemma Christian Says:

    ‘Injustice makes most of us furious. We seem to come into the world with a powerful sense of what is fair, and what is not… It burns inside us and we cannot let it go. And how hard is it for us as adults to be wronged… and not desire what we believe to be justice… But if there is a wrong done to us, do we really need to find vengeance for it? I burn with fury for some of the things done to my family that I am certain are monstrous, and the people who have done them are not sorry.’ Anne Perry

    • David Allen Says:

      What’s this: an exerpt from an unsent letter to Herbert Rieper?

      • Tina Smart Says:

        Or is it a transcript of what Hulme said as she hit Honora with the brick?

      • David Evan Bailey Says:

        I’ve read this in her book and she doesn’t put a question mark after the word ‘justice’, despite the sentence being a question. Very sloppy use of grammar/punctuation by a supposedly professional writer.

        As for the content, well, such blatantly heartless hypocrisy makes me feel physically sick. Someone – in a comment above – said that every book of Perry’s is a boast by her about her part in the murder. The book that this exerpt is from is clearly one of those books. The above text is almost evil in its callousness.

      • Mike Antrobus Says:

        Perhaps it’s an exerpt from a letter FROM Herbert Rieper to Juliet Hulme…

    • Geoff Barton Says:

      What a f***ing hypocrite!

    • Gary Van Zant Says:

      OMG! This is disgusting! How can anyone who’s done what she’s done say something like this – and mean it! It indicates that there is no empathy; it implies no regret, no sorrow, no nothing!

    • Toni Clarke Says:

      Is this for real? Is this really Anne Perry who said THIS! How can someone who’s smashed her friend’s mother’s head in with a brick ever say something like this? You see, evil does prosper in this world.

    • Dennis Wilson Says:

      Yeah, this is an extract from an OUT OF PRINT Anne Perry book. According to the publisher, it’s been OUT OF PRINT for over six years! If anyone says that no Anne Perry books are OUT OF PRINT, they are misinformed and are unable to do the most basic research. They are also deliberately disseminating false information. Several of Anne Perry’s books are OUT OF PRINT!

  219. Shelley Martin Says:

    I think we all have to ask ourselves this – would the victim (Honora Rieper) be happy that her killer had moved on and become a money-making prolific author?

    Would she be happy knowing her killer had a very large fanbase, and that many readers were happy to forgive the author’s brutal crime in order to be entertained by her writing?

    In this particular case, meticulous premeditation is involved, as is hitting the victim forty-five times with a brick.

    If my favorite author had done that to anybody I’d never read them again. Maybe I’d consider reconsidering if they were donating all (or most) of their royalties to the bereaved family or to charity or to both… because that would show the murderer felt some remorse…

    As it is, this particular author mocks us all by saying: ‘I burn with fury for some of the things done… that I am certain are monstrous, and the people who have done them are not sorry…’

    She quite openly states: ‘the people who have done them are not sorry…’

    It’s quite clear!

    I admit, I was fooled… for a while.

    • Leah Says:

      Barrister Peter Graham, who’s written a book “So Brilliantly Clever” (2011) about the case, also states in an radio interview that there’s no remorse present in Anne Perry’s interviews. It’s interesting to look back on how Anne Perry talks about the case in her early interviews after being discovered as Juliet Hulme. This is what Perry said about the murder to John Darnton in the New York Times, February 14, 1995:

      “The reason that I’m sticking my head over the parapet at all is that other people have made such a noise,” she said. “It never occurred to me that 40 years on, something that had been dealt with and paid for, that anybody would care anymore. It’s like somebody rushing in with the news that Queen Anne is dead. For Pete’s sake, is there anybody who didn’t know? I really didn’t think it would surface again so long afterward. And it if did, it would be, you know, so what?”

      I froze when I read the final sentence.

      • Emilia Says:

        Leah, Perry not only doesn’t repent from her horrendous crime, she doesn’t believe it was a crime. She clearly needs help!

      • Leah Says:

        I agree with your conclusion, Emilia. She does need help, but sadly I think she’s the kind of person who keeps saying she doesn’t need any help. Perry has also told media several times that her closest family member didn’t want her to talk about 1954 or her time in jail. Personally I don’t believe that. I do think her mother must have tried to reach her several times after her release. She went to live with Hilda and Bill Perry in UK for at least 2 years after she was released. I’m sure they must have tried. At least that’s what I’d like to think, but again we only have Perry’s version to rely on. And that’s not much…

  220. Roger Hammett Says:

    Pauline Parker’s art – in her former home in Kent, UK:

    http://www.flickr.com/photos/29018755@N04/3855564858/in/set-72157622146971428/

  221. Bob Says:

    Just watched the movie and wondered if they ever got back in touch? I would think that by now it would be okay. The question is, would seeing each other bring back memories of thier friendship or memories of shame for the murder? It is never to late to ask for forgiveness and never to late to receive it. I doubt you would end up with two 70 some year old ladies running around killing people because they were in love. It would make a great story for 20/20, or 60 minutes.

  222. Emilia Says:

    “Life at the Bottom” by psychiatrist and physician Theodore Dalrymple has a very interesting take on this case. According to him “[t]he murder was premeditated, as the jocular tone in which Parker anticipated the happy event in her diary proved.” He is amazed at what he calls “[t]he shift in the interpretation of the Parker-Hulme case” and crime in general in the Western world. At the time it occurred it was universally condemned, but “[n]owadays a different interpretation is almost as universal”—case in point. He cites two lesbians who wrote a book called “Parker and Hulme: A Lesbian View” according to which the crime was merely “the natural, inevitable outcome of a grand passion thwarted by narrow-minded social prejudice and intolerance.” And as Dalrymple explains: “The primordial wrongness of bashing people with bricks has vanished altogether.” Continuing, the authors interviewed “a number of lesbians who grew up at the time of the case for their reaction to it.” Not only didn’t they condemn it, but they empathized with the criminals, because they often experienced thoughts of murdering a parent. And as Dalrymple explains, they—like the staunch defenders in this blog—“overlooked the significant moral difference between occasionally wishing one’s mother would drop dead and causing her actually to do so”—and, I’d add, planning the murder with cold blood determination. He continues—and it perfectly explains the pathos in this blog!—“Parker and Hulme now appear almost martyrs […]. Public opinions admires them […]”—what he accurately explains as “moral neutrality, which begins with intellectuals, soon diffuses into the rest of society,” and Lenin would happily call “useful idiots”! He continues stating that this “provides an absolution in advance for those inclined to act upon their impulses.” Now, let’s imagine a teenager who raped a woman, went to prison briefly, and when he came out of it became a best-seller writer of books which main subject is the rape of women; how many of these here who defend Perry, would also defend him?

    • Leah Says:

      I’ve been looking into the Parker & Hulme case for some time now and I’m also amazed about the overwhelming sympathy these young killers have gained from people coming from an academic tradition, like Alison & Glamuzina and now Joanne Drayton who has written a very sympathetic and a totally non-critical biography ‘the search for anne perry’. They both appeared quite recently on prime time New Zealand TV… Perry’s first interview with New Zealand media although she has never been back there. Drayton has also appeared in many interviews on radio talking about Anne Perry and her biography. She’s sympathetic to Perry and said on TV that Perry’s is one of New Zealand’s best products… her praise of Perry knows no bounds and she also said it is time for New Zealand to forgive this killer. Perry made her usual remorse with excuses (unfair trial, Pauline’s diaries misinterpretated…) and said it’s (golly) 60 years now. Well, I think the entire situation speaks for itself. I also wonder how the family of the murder victim respond to the fact that Anne Perry has dragged up this story in almost every interview since her discovery in 1994.

      • Emilia Says:

        Interesting take, Leah. It is a shame that people like Drayton absolutely ignore the suffering these two beasts inflicted to their victim (a crime they clearly planned ahead); that there is no mention that the killers spent very little time in prison; that the fact that one of the killers spent her entire life re-enacting the crime–how else can one describe her stories?–is made irrelevant and labeled as “talent”; that the cold-blooded killers are presented as victims of an oppressing, zealous society! And in this blog you can see the result of their propaganda: blinded by the rhetoric of these self-anointed intellectuals, their mouthpieces rejoice in belittling the ones who dare see a grotesque murder for what it was!

      • Jodi Duffy Says:

        A “peek” into Joanne Drayton’s book is available on the Harper Collins website, at http://browseinside.harpercollins.com.au/index.aspx?isbn13=9781869508883

        Every chapter is represented by its first few pages. Fortified with an espresso, I slogged through every one. What a bore.

        Drayton’s mother apparently was a schoolmate of Hulme and Parker, but this inside connection is not used to best advantage.

        After I had read it, my fatigue made way for anger. This book is an outrageous whitewash attempt. Again, the victims are left unrepresented, and the truth is distorted in myriad ways.

        Peter Graham’s book took a truthful, balanced, and well-researched approach. Unfortunately, Drayton’s is a hagiography of a convicted murderess who has profited handsomely from her writing on the grisly subject.

      • Leah Says:

        Jodi, my guess is that Drayton was in a hurry when she wrote the biography. Graham’s book was released only some months before this biography so they were probably eager to catch up with a better story since he is critical about Perry’s statements to media about her role in the murder. Regrettably I bought the biography, putting more money in Drayton and Perry’s pockets! Peter Graham’s book is only mentioned in the bibliography, but nowhere in the biography does Drayton refer to him or cite him. He’s done major research and treated all the sources from trial-transcripts, interviews to diaries with objectivity. If Drayton still wish to call herself an “academic” she should at least have mentioned his book. I’ve read some interviews with Drayton as well. She brags a lot about her mother who knew both Pauline and Juliet in school. She also made a claim that she talked to Pauline’s older sister Wendy. When I looked into the biography, the only statements from Wendy come from an interview made in 1997 when Pauline’s new identity was outed. It’s the only interview the Parker-Rieper’s have ever given and the interviewer was not Drayton. Now, my guess is that Wendy wasn’t that eager to talk to Drayton after all. Most of the information concerning Pauline’s whereabouts after trial and after prison are facts probably copied from newspaper articles and Peter Graham’s book.

      • Jodi Duffy Says:

        Thank you, Leah, for your well-reasoned insights. Drayton appears to be a very gifted writer, but there are traces of being driven by the whip hand. She probably was hurried to press.

        I found many small inaccuracies in my perusal, such as polygamy still being part of Mormonism, and Pauline now living in Hoo, Kent instead of the Orkneys, to name just two. Fact-checkers probably had two days to cover a good deal of material.

        It is obvious that Perry held tight editorial control, just as she did with the “Interiors” documentary. This vice grip makes for a boring product despite the talent or ability of the authors. The film managed to portray the truth of Perry’s bleak, closeted drudgery all the same. I wonder, does the book manage a similar feat?

        There are enough people who know the truth, and I believe it will come out eventually, in all its detail. Despite the efforts and desires of Ms. Perry.

        With any luck, Peter Graham will write a follow-up that includes the missing pieces.

  223. Tabby Spruce Says:

    Here’s a link to Joanne Drayton’s radio interview about her book, The Search For Anne Perry: http://www.radionz.co.nz/national/programmes/afternoons/audio/2526394/the-search-for-anne-perry

  224. Leah Says:

    Here is the link to the 2012 interview with New Zealand TV3 60 minutes. Her biographer also in this 19 minutes long clip talking about her mission to re-write the story of Anne Perry: “who’s a good person, great writer and who once made a mistake”:

    http://ondemand.tv3.co.nz/60-Minutes-Murder-Re-Wrote/tabid/59/articleID/7436/Default.aspx

    The following link is another interview with Perry from the same TV channel and is about 40 minutes. In the interview Perry makes her usual comments about being sorry and then go on to how unfair the trial was. She complains she was not allowed to speak in court, but everyone who has read Peter Graham’s great book “So Brilliantly Clever”, knows the defence team of both girls wouldn’t allow them to speak up because they were afraid the girls would alinate the jury by being rude.

    http://ondemand.tv3.co.nz/60-Minutes-Murder-Re-Wrote/tabid/59/articleID/7436/Default.aspx

    • Emilia Says:

      Leah, if you read “1984″ you are familiar with this: “62,400 repetitions make one truth.” Again, this blog is proof Orwell was right. Big Brother IS watching us! (Incidentally, I thought a mistake was running through a stop sign. In this case, they actually bashed a woman’s scull 40 times with a brick… Oops, mistake! My bad!)

      • Leah Says:

        Yes, I think it’s quite horrible. Today I read that a book launch concerning Perry’s biography has been cancelled in New Zealand: “Unfortunately the Wellington book launch for The Search for Anne Perry has been cancelled. The word just came through from the publisher – we’re very sorry if you were planning to go , as it would have been a wonderful event. But circumstance has not been kind, leading to the launch and talk’s cancellation.”
        I do wonder how some people think about “a wonderful event”. Things were certainly not a wonderful event back in June 1954. My sympathy is with the dead woman and her family, not with the killers.

  225. Tabby Spruce Says:

    Joanne Drayton says: ‘Anne Perry’s publishing life is every bit as fascinating as any other aspect of it – even the most sensational. It is a story… of great flair and strategizing on the part of others. MBA launched her career after years of spectacular failures and manuscript turndowns… it was her agents, Meg Davis and Don Maass that brilliantly built it… without the in-put of her agents, and her publishers (Ballantine of Random House), and the support of the book world – Anne Perry would not be the best-selling author she is today…’

    So there it is – great flair and strategizing on the part of others… not writing ability, skill, talent, or anything to do with writing…

    I should have known.

    • Leah Says:

      I think Drayton has used up every superlative that exists in her praises of Perry and Perry’s novels. I didn’t find one single critical review of her books in the biography. I think Perry has written more than 60 novels. As far as I know of those 60+ she’s only gained 1 prestigious literary award (!).
      She’s an opportunist for sure and Peter Graham has also complained about her using the murder to sell more books. If this was Perry’s idea or her publisher’s idea to talk about 1954 he didn’t know. Perry has talked about the murder in almost every book interview since her discovery.
      Drayton tries to analyze how Perry’s novels relate to Perry’s own experiences. Still, there’s no deep analysis of her first novel “The Caterstreet Hangman” with a plot that (to me) relates a lot to 1954.
      The main figure in that plot is a lesbian who kills other women. The killer is the vicar’s wife which indicates a strong connection to religion (both Juliet and Pauline turned to religion as adults). One may wonder if it’s a portrait of herself or Pauline? Of course, this is not touched upon in the biography since Drayton leaves out everything in Pauline’s diary which relate or suggest Pauline and Juliet had sex. Once discovered, Perry denied intensely they were lovers.

      • Emilia Says:

        Interesting points, Leah. I read two of her novels. One of them had part of the story in Egypt. I asked some pertinent question about “facts” she relates in the book–before I knew she was a murderess–and never got an answer. I think she is a less than average writer. But again, there are many less than average writers who have stellar careers… I guess good PR is the basis of success! ;-)

      • Leah Says:

        Sorry, I forgot to announce spoilers in my previous reply! :) I guess Perry may be a bit sensitive about literary criticism. She’s not my type of entertainment, but no doubt many people enjoy reading her books and have followed her plots and characters for over a decade. Some critics have pointed out similar historical anachronisms like you did. One complained she was using cockney dialect in one Victorian novel. By the way. Check this book description of the novel Acceptable Loss: ‘Give her a good murder and a shameful social evil’, The New York Times Book Review declares, ‘and Anne Perry can write a Victorian mystery that would make Dickens’s eyes pop.’ Well, that sort of nails it, I guess.

      • Tabby Spruce Says:

        She must have a couple of books due out quite soon – and an imminent book tour – that’s when she usually talks about the murder. Time will tell.

  226. Carl Rosel Says:

    http://www.nytimes.com/1994/11/24/movies/making-a-film-out-of-the-horror-of-mother-murder.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm

    Past interview with Sir Peter Jackson and Fran Walsh about the movie Heavenly Creatures.

  227. Carl Rosel Says:

    It will be good to read all the apologies from the vitriolic, punitive finger pointers falsely accusing Anne Perry of having sex with Pauline Parker. And of her not having any contrition and repentance.
    The Secretary for Justice in the New Zealand Government, Sam Barnett, stated that the (girls at the time they were in prison )were under the closest watch and monitored. The Parole Board concluded that individually neither girl would have committed the crime. It was the nature of their association that led to them planning such an outrageous act.
    You can read above, that Sir Peter Jackson said, they were not evil. Not psychopaths.
    The link here helps people judge Parker and Hulme as they were at the time of the matricide. Schoolchildren!! Not adults with their wits about them.

    • Emilia Says:

      Let’s apply the Parole Board’s theory to another crime: was it only because of their association with Charles Manson that his followers butchered Sharon Tate? Individually they would have never committed any crime? The truth is, had they no inclination to evil, no crime would have resulted from their association, same with Hulme/Parker. If they were lesbians or not is of no consequence; the fact is that they had enough wits about them to coolly calculate all the steps necessary to murder a human being—and the mother of one of them to boot! I guess the Board’s conclusion could also read something like “if it was not for their association with the brick”…

    • Digby Down Under Says:

      Carl, you say that ‘You can read above, that Sir Peter Jackson said, they were not evil. Not psychopaths.’ So what? Why are you suggesting that his years-later armchair opinion of someone he has never met is more accurate than all of the psychological, psychiatric, medical, etc tests that were carried out and administered at the time on Hulme by qualified medical and psychiatric practitioners for the defense and for the prosecution? Such an idea is preposterous. He’s a film-maker, not a doctor. His opinion is only that – an unqualified amateur opinion. As is yours. And mine.

      Also, let’s not forget – Heavenly Creatures is NOT a documentary. It is a fiction. A totally made-up story that dramatises and distorts and fictionalises some bits of an event. Characters are deleted, events are telescoped, situations and locations are changed to suit the story.

      If you use Heavenly Creatures as a method of insight into the minds of two real (murdering) people, then you are confusing a fictional (made-up) fantasy (Heavenly Creatures) with the reality of a brutal murder (the Parker-Hulme murder).

      The inability to distinguish between fantasy and reality is known as psychosis.

      I see that in ‘The Present Day Ethos of the Howard League’ section of one of his Howard League speeches
      (http://www.nzlawyermagazine.co.nz/NZLawyerextraarchive/Bulletin48/extra48F2/extra48F2print/tabid/4237/Default.aspx)
      Peter Williams refers to you as ‘Carl Rosel, a former long-term inmate’. Is that one of your reasons for your continued fascination with the murderer Hulme? Do you see yourself as similar to her? Did you become religious in prison too? Are you both part of an ex-prisoner fraternity? If so, you might be one of the most biased people who has ever commented (repeatedly) on Juliet Hulme and on her pre-planned vicious murder of an unarmed, unsuspecting, defenceless woman.

    • Digby Down Under Says:

      My name is Paul Digby and I live in Melbourne, Australia. Digby Down Under is my nickname and my internet user name.

      You say ‘To quote a factual source is not bias’, but you have presented Peter Jackson’s amateur unqualified opinion on Hulme’s mental state as ‘fact’. It is not fact. It is nothing other than Peter Jackson’s amateur unqualified opinion on Hulme’s mental state.

  228. Carl Rosel Says:

    Well, you had better take Sir Peter Jackson to task, and those that closely monitored Juliet Hulme for five years and the Parole Board that don’t fit in to your continual anti – Anne Perry mindset.
    Mindsets are shown everywhere to be very powerful. People start off with a horrendous bias and seem stuck with it no matter what is put in front of them to the contrary.

    • Emilia Says:

      Once someone commits murder, they are forever a murderer. I haven’t killed anyone, nor planned to kill. Yet, somehow I am the one who is despicable…

    • Digby Down Under Says:

      Carl: You say ‘Mindsets are shown everywhere to be very powerful. People start off with a horrendous bias and seem stuck with it no matter what is put in front of them to the contrary…’ and yet you have continually spread misinformation regarding Hulme due to your own biases.

      You keep saying Juliet Hulme came to repentence while in prison. You say that it hit home what her and Pauline Parker had actually done.

      So how exactly did this coming to repentance manifest itself? What did she do? Cry a bit? Pretend to pray? Wear sack-cloth? Admit she’d murdered someone? Promise to compensate the family she’d helped destroy? Apologize to the surviving Rieper family? Hulme lied in her first and in her second statement to the police. She’s a professional liar by trade; she constantly reinvents the past to make herself less culpable. In every interview she gives she says something different about why she murdered Honora Reiper. Nothing she has said, does say, or will say can ever be trusted.

      Exactly how did she ‘come to repentance’? And how do you know she did? Did she tell you? Were you there? Do you have real proof? If not, it’s just hearsay. Gossip. And more Hulme lies. She has done nothing to show remorse or repentance.

      As you know, repentance is a change of thought to correct a wrong and to gain forgiveness from the person who is wronged, and a determination and a resolution to live a more responsible and humane life. It includes an admission of guilt; a promise or resolve not to repeat the offense; an attempt to make restitution for the wrong; to attempt to reverse the harmful effects of the wrong where possible. That is what repentance is. That is what ‘repentance’ means.

      You say she ‘came to repentance’, but Juliet Hulme has not tried to correct a wrong; has not gained (nor ever tried to gain) forgiveness from the person(s) she wronged; has made no promise not to repeat the offense; has not made any attempt to make restitution for the wrong; nor tried in any way to reverse the harmful effects of the wrong where possible.

      I see no proof or evidence in Hulme’s actions to back up any idea that she ever ‘came to repentance’. The millionaire writer’s deliberate decision to ignore the surviving Rieper family’s financial struggles and debts (which she caused) and to pay out nearly a quarter a million to have her garden re-landscaped is an act that is cruel beyond belief…

      So Carl – in what way did Hulme’s repentance manifest itself?

      I’m really looking forward to hearing the ‘facts’ about this one!

    • Van Jennings Says:

      Carl: You say ‘Mindsets are shown everywhere to be very powerful. People start off with a horrendous bias and seem stuck with it no matter what is put in front of them to the contrary…’ and yet you have continually spread misinformation regarding Hulme due to your own biases.

      Examples of your biases/mistakes:

      folie a deux
      medication
      writing skill
      premeditation
      best detective series

  229. Carl Rosel Says:

    http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/23441272

    The above link had already been put on this page but it mysteriously disappeared. See if we can get it on here again.
    Sad you seem to think that Sir Peter Jackson did not do any research, concerning Juliet Hulme and Pauline Parker. Do you think he makes statements that he hasn’t verified. You tell him he doesn’t know what he is talking about.
    You will also read about Juliet Hulme’s (Anne Perry’s) repentance in Biographer Joanne Drayton’s book ‘Searching for Anne Perry’ And the time leading up to that in the above link.
    Virtually everything that I have said about the whole situation has come from sources as above.
    In ‘Searching for Anne Perry’ people who have known her for a very long time and spent time with her describe her as – a gentle, good, intensely moral person, and has been for over half a century. But it is proven on many pages including here, that people who do not know her and have not spent even a minute with her, have a nasty, punitive, judgemental, finger pointing description of her.
    And now the attack is on me also. But that is to be expected on a forum such as this.
    Digby, I am now glad you have put the link here to Peter Williams QC’s speech at the inaugral meeting of the Wellington branch of the ‘Howard League’ People can read the history of the ‘Howard League and what it stands for and receive a completely different view than the false one you have presented here. ie= a fraternity of ex – prison inmates. And because I am into murder also. You are running very close to the mill. But you are Australian, that’s right. You are into under arm bowling.
    Even if GOD himself came down and spoke to some people, they would not agree. That is their character. And people can only expect more of the same.
    Emilia, I have not read myself that you are despicable. But there you go. It will be from someone who hasn’t got a clue what you are like.
    I hope you both like the book ‘Searching for Anne Perry’ You do not have to admit it, But just things on board and chew them over, without the bias getting in the way of your thought faculties.

    • Digby Down Under Says:

      Sorry, exactly how did Hulme’s repentance manifest itself?

    • Digby Down Under Says:

      The above link has appeared on this forum before. You’ve debated its dubious value with someone else. The Woods piece is still a badly-written piece of Hulme praise, that’s all. And it’s full of mistakes. You’ve been touting this piece of pseudo-journalism for years. October 4 last year you quoted from it and commented on it at length on this forum. It’s not proof of anything. There’s nothing to take on board other than there’s some stuff about Hulme’s plots being poorly-constructed and full of holes. Most discerning readers know that already and don’t need some hack pointing it out to them.

      Anyway, I need to check something, Carl. You say: ‘Sad you seem to think that Sir Peter Jackson did not do any research, concerning Juliet Hulme and Pauline Parker. Do you think he makes statements that he hasn’t verified.’ I think that you should have put a question mark at the end of that, it being a question. Anne Perry makes that very basic mistake in her writing too, but that’s because she’s not very skilled at writing. You’d think with her tax-payer-funded prison education, she’d know how to use a question mark, wouldn’t you?

      In answer to your questions, I said: ‘you have presented Peter Jackson’s amateur unqualified opinion on Hulme’s mental state as ‘fact’. It is not fact. It is nothing other than Peter Jackson’s amateur unqualified opinion on Hulme’s mental state…’ You see, it doesn’t matter how much research Peter Jackson did (which I’m sure was an immense amount) – the fact is he’s not medically trained and so cannot give an accurate diagnosis of anyone’s mental state. He’s a skilled film-maker, but he has absolutely NO medical or psychiatric knowledge or training. He is an armchair amateur and his diagnosis is incorrect, according to the qualified doctors, psychiatrists and psychologists who did analyse and assess Hulme’s mental state.

      So, I think he did huge amounts of research, but his opinion is still only an amateur unqualified opinion and nothing more.

    • Gerry Grotowski Says:

      ‘Even if GOD himself came down and spoke to some people, they would not agree….’ Isn’t that why we all have free will – to make our own minds up about everything for ourselves, irrespective of what others might think?

    • Barney Winfield Says:

      Carl, you say: ‘And now the attack is on me also. But that is to be expected on a forum such as this…’

      How exactly is pointing out that you are referred to as ‘Carl Rosel, a former long-term inmate’, in a public forum (in ‘The Present Day Ethos of the Howard League’ section of one of Peter Williams’ Howard League speeches)
      (http://www.nzlawyermagazine.co.nz/NZLawyerextraarchive/Bulletin48/extra48F2/extra48F2print/tabid/4237/Default.aspx) an attack on you?

      Also, how is pointing out the many discrepancies/ inaccuracies/ contradictions in what Juliet Hulme/Anne Perry has said over the years about her part in the murder an ‘attack’? Isn’t it just reporting the facts?

    • Barney Winfield Says:

      Why the attack on an Australian, Carl? Are you a racist?

  230. copper04 Says:

    Barney Winfield. Ask Digby Down Under about the under arm bowling incident being a source of ribbing and humour between Kiwis and Aussies ever since it was undertaken. In fact look it up yourself and get rid of your nonsense racist talk.

    http://www.pacs.canterbury.ac.nz/documents/melbourne.pdf

    The last words of the discourse in the above link : read :-

    In Dr Medlicotts all too adequate words, “Comments (about the trial) from throughout New Zealand and overseas almost unanimously found the normalising of two very abnormal girls tragic if not ridiculous.”

  231. Carl Rosel Says:

    The above links prove that Anne Perry has been telling the truth after all about subjects she has been attacked and vilified for.
    Parker and Hulme did not have a lesbian relationship. The people who closely monitored and interviewed them for five years have stated that.
    Anne Perry showed great contrition and came to repentance while in prison. Pauline Parkers sister Wendy has stated that it took about five years for Pauline to realise the enormity of what the two (then)girls had done.

    • Duncan Herbert Says:

      The above links don’t prove anything. It’s someone’s opinion, that’s all. Also the information is full of errors – for example, it still mentions the folie a deux defense, which Medlicott admitted was a false diagnosis years ago. There’s nothing in the document that states Hulme was/is not a lesbian. Besides, if she is, so what? And you certainly don’t know whether she is or not, so please don’t claim otherwise. I notice you still haven’t attempted to answer the question about Hulme’s supposed repentance that you been asked by several people, so I’ll ask you.

      As you know, repentance is a change of thought to correct a wrong and to gain forgiveness from the person who is wronged, and a determination and a resolution to live a more responsible and humane life. It includes an admission of guilt; a promise or resolve not to repeat the offense; an attempt to make restitution for the wrong; to attempt to reverse the harmful effects of the wrong where possible. That is what repentance is. That is what ‘repentance’ means.

      You say she ‘came to repentance’, but Juliet Hulme has not tried to correct a wrong; has not gained (nor has ever tried to gain) forgiveness from the person(s) she wronged; has made no promise not to repeat the offense; has not made any attempt to make restitution for the wrong; nor tried in any way to reverse the harmful effects of the wrong where possible.

      I see no proof or evidence in Hulme’s actions to back up any idea that she ever ‘came to repentance’. The millionaire writer’s deliberate decision to ignore the surviving Rieper family’s financial struggles and debts (which she caused) and to pay out nearly a quarter a million to have her garden re-landscaped is an act that is cruel beyond belief…

      So Carl – in what ways has Hulme’s repentance manifested itself?

    • James Nesbitt Says:

      Carl, you often repeat that Juliet Hulme ‘came to repentance while in prison’… but Juliet Hulme has not tried to correct the wrong she committed; she has not gained (nor has ever tried to gain) forgiveness from the person(s) she wronged; she has never promised not to repeat the offense; she has never made any attempt to make restitution for the wrong; nor has she tried in any way to reverse the harmful effects of the wrong where possible.

      So when you say she ‘came to repentance while in prison’, it’s not really clear what you mean, because the acts mentioned above are the actual acts of repentance, and Hulme has NEVER carried out ANY of the above. In fact, she often goes out of her way to avoid any such acts, such as stating she ‘never knew’ Honora Reiper, despite the fact that the thoughtful Honora visited Hulme three times while she was in a sanitorium; or such as describing herself as ‘an accomplice to a crime’, rather than more truthfully describing herself as ‘a murderer’.

      Please can you provide proof or evidence regarding which of Hulme’s (officially reported) actions show that she ever ‘came to repentance’. And please don’t bother saying she cried for a while or that she did a bit of praying – they are NOT – and never have been – forms of repentance.

      Repentance means doing your damndest to redress the balance, to try diligently to undo what you’ve done, to try and reverse the terrible thing you’ve done with all of the power at your disposal.

      So Carl, what actual form did Juliet Hulme’s repentance take?

  232. Emilia Says:

    There is a saying where I come from that I believe might be translated this way: “There is no one more blind than the one who does not want to see…”

  233. Carl Rosel Says:

    Yes Emilia. So true.

  234. Carl Rosel Says:

    The professional people who closely monitored Juliet Hulme and Pauline Parker for five years, also the well regarded visitors of Juliet Hulme’s are all wrong. The Digby down under’s and the Duncan Herbert’s of this world can come along over half a century after the issue in point, and state so. And they are right.What phenomenal human beings you must be. Amazing. In fact you are fantasising as much as Juliet Hulme and Pauline Parker did when they were girls. And it is childish.

    • Duncan Herbert Says:

      I see you forgot to answer the question again – so how exactly did Hulme’s repentance manifest itself?

    • Duncan Herbert Says:

      Carl, where is the link to the report (that you’ve obviously read) by the prison authorities monitoring Hulme? I mean the one that specifically details the ways in which Hulme’s ‘repentance’ manifested itself.

      Perhaps, as you’ve read it, you could share the ways that it states that Hulme’s repentance manifested itself, remembering, of course, that repentance is a change of thought to correct a wrong and to gain forgiveness from the person who is wronged, and a determination and a resolution to live a more responsible and humane life. It includes an admission of guilt; a promise or resolve not to repeat the offense; an attempt to make restitution for the wrong; to attempt to reverse the harmful effects of the wrong where possible. That is what repentance is. That is what ‘repentance’ means.

      Looking forward to hearing from you with that link to that detailed report. I think there are many other people who would like to read it too, it being such an important document that you keep quoting from.

  235. Emilia Says:

    For a fleeting moment I thought you had an epiphany, Carl… My mistake!

  236. Lyndsey Collison Says:

    Duncan Herbert, you’ve made a mistake; you’ve asked Carl Rosel for proof of the ways in which Juliet Hulme’s so-called repentance manifested itself. I can tell you now, quite categorically, he has no proof, will never have proof, and doesn’t want proof. He just wants to insult people and offer opinions with no evidence to back up his claims. Recently he suggested that the film-maker Peter Jackson was a fully trained, medically-qualified psychologist. He also constantly claims that Hulme is a victim, rather than a violent unrepentant murderer… You’ve asked him an outright question. You’ve asked for real evidence. I’ll bet you $100 you’ll never see that proof. All you’ll get is time-wasting comments and insults – but nothing to take this debate forward into the realms of attempting to understand a murdering psychopath in order to make the world safer for everyone.

  237. copper04 Says:

    The most up to date account concerning the repentance of Anne Perry can be found in the book ‘Searching for Anne Perry’ by Joanne Drayton. Do people actually want the truth of the matter, then obtain the book and read.
    The following is written inside the front cover. It may seem a bit long winded but people reading it will know who they will be dealing with.

    About The Author

    Joanne Drayton is associate Professor in the Department of Design at UNITEC, Auckland, New Zealand, where she lectures in art history and theory. Her critically acclaimed Ngaio Marsh: Her Life in Crime (2008) was a Christmas pick of the Independant when it was released in the United Kingdom in 2009. Her other biographies include Edith Collier: Her Life and Work, 1885-1964 (1999); Rhona Haszard: An Experimental Expatriate New Zealand Artist (2002); and Frances Hodgkins: A Private Viewing (2005). She has curated exhibitions of Collier, Haszard, Hodgkins, and DK Richmond, and publishes in biography and art, and design history and theory. She was awarded a National Library Fellowship in 2007 to write her biography of Marsh, and lives in Auckland with her partner and two cats. She is currently carving a post-colonial chess set in response to the Lewis pieces in the British Museum, and her interests include long-distance running, art, music and reading.

    As an aside. Is there anyone else who has read that I have suggested that Sir Peter Jackson was a fully trained, medically qualified psychologist. Or have you read that I stated, that Sir Peter Jackson and Fran Walsh did extensive research on Pauline Parker (Hilary Nathan) and Juliet Hulme (Anne Perry)

    Has anyone else read that I have stated that Juliet Hulme (Anne Perry) is a victim.

    Do people really think that a violent unrepentant murderer ( and other descriptions of juliet Hulme above, would be released after only five years. Anyone can find out and read what I have about the ( then) two girls. About them being monitored and under the closest study during their imprisonment. Those reports were put to the executive council of the New Zealand Government. Their release was ordered by that council. ( Here is another repeat ) The Parole Board also concluded that individually neither girl would have committed the crime; It was a one-in-million chance that their association had been of such a nature as to lead to their planning such an outrageous act. That conclusion gives creedance to the link below, which is also a (repeat) that no person has commented on.
    Some of the information that I have gleaned actually comes from Peter Grahams book ‘So Brilliantly Clever’ although I feel he also started with a bias against Juliet Hulme (Anne Perry)
    If people have only read the 1954 accounts of the two girls and the case, they are going to have a picture of two monsters. But the true picture is very different with a huge amount of depth.

    Carl Rosel

    • Audrey Hillyard Says:

      So, how did Juliet Hulme’s alleged ‘repentance’ manifest itself. Why not just state the ways that you know of (with accompanying proof of course)? Looking forward to hearing from you regarding how Juliet Hulme’s alleged ‘repentance’ manifested itself, as no one but you seems to know.

  238. copper04 Says:

    http://www.pacs.canterbury.ac.nz/documents/melbourne.pdf

    The link below

  239. Tim Anthony Says:

    So where are those reports that were put to the executive council of the New Zealand Government, Carl? And how did you get to read Government documents? Where is the report from the Parole Board? Where are these documents you claim to have read? Could you share your knowledge to further our understanding, please? Could you please explain how to access these crucial documents, or perhaps provide links to them so that others can also benefit from them, as you clearly have? Thanks Carl. Looking forward to hearing from you regarding these invaluable reports.

  240. Bellatrix Lestrange Says:

    So, exactly how did Juliet Hulme’s alleged ‘repentance’ manifest itself?

  241. copper04 Says:

    I have already stated here different places I have gleaned information. People are either too lazy to now look for themselves, do not want to obtain books or other sources containing information or their biased mindsets will not allow them to.
    There is a huge amount of background information about different aspects of this situation.
    You will even read in ‘So Brilliantly Clever’ that Sam Barnett, the secretary of justice in the New Zealand government, stated that the executive council ordered the release of the then two girls.
    Crucial documents!! Invaluable reports!! They aren’t in my kitchen cupboard.
    The whole thing here is that there are those that can not be appeased no matter what they read themselves or what is put in front of them. They will cling to their mindsets and pull down and pull apart anything that differs from those mindsets. The whole situation then just feels like spear throwing back and forth. It becomes farcical.
    (Alleged repentance) has surfaced again. How biased can you be.You still haven’t bothered to read about it. But it would not make any difference anyway, would it.

    • Tim Anthony Says:

      You are a rude and ignorant person. You’re insulting me when all I asked for was for some information that you have access to. Don’t you believe in sharing important information? Okay, forget it.

  242. Tim Anthony Says:

    Obviously I don’t mean other people’s opinions of those reports, as they’re just that – opinions, therefore totally worthless as fact. I mean the documents themselves, the ones you keep quoting from. The ones you’ve read. Where did you obtain copies/photocopies from?

  243. Mike Philbin Says:

    Obviously he doesn’t mean other people’s (Graham, Drayton, Glauzima & Laurie, etc) opinions of those reports, as they’re just that – opinions, therefore totally worthless as fact. He quite clearly means the documents themselves, the ones that you keep quoting from. The ones you’ve read. He’s asking: Where did you obtain copies/photocopies of those documents from? He’s saying that you keep quoting from them so you must have read them. As for me, I don’t think you’ve read those documents at all; I think you’re just quoting second-hand opinions of others who have actually read those documents. I could be wrong, but i sincerely doubt it…

  244. copper04 Says:

    http://www.adamabrams.com/hc/faq2/section7/7.1.html

    The above link is the closest I can retrieve at this point in time which shows that regular reports on Juliet Marion Hulme and Pauline Yvonne Parker were indeed sent to the highest level in the New Zealand Government’s Justice Department.
    Scroll down to Barnett, Samuel Thompson.
    It is about three years since I have taken a re-interest in the whole situation concerning JMH and PYP.
    What has kept me delving deeper than the sensationalist newspaper reports and nonsense that came from 1954, are legal, and lay people who presented a wholly different aspect to the people involved. Particularly Juliet Hulme (Anne Perry) who I was told was falsely perceived as the more culpable of the two. The originator of the plan to be rid of the mother. The ringleader. And now of course she is falsely accused of not showing any contrition or of coming to repentance.
    I have gone over a voluminous amount of material in three years. I cannot put my finger on things straight away.
    The situation has changed for some information, and an approach through the Official Information Act is needed. And written information at Canterbury Museum, Christchurch, New Zealand requires a person to be there, sign information out, and read it while there. Just like some books in Libraries labeled – Research. They can not be taken away. So that cuts many people who are not in this country out of the equation.
    As the conjecture in latter times has been about whether Anne Perry had repented or not I will put down here an excerpt from a talk the author of ‘Searching for Anne Perry’ Joanne Drayton had, with Diana Wichtel, after the latter had interviewed Anne Perry. That interview and talk comes from the ‘New Zealand Listener’ August 4 – 10, 2012. Page 23 in a box labeled – The Biographer – The Kiwi who finally won Anne Perry over.

    “The woman is repentant. I swear to God. I’ll get down on the floor if you want me to, get the Bible out. And I don’t think she has forgiven herself.”

    I do not have statements from the Archbishop of Canterbury or the Pope to appease the high standards of proof of anything said here, but Joanne Drayton’s credentials are written above and I believe her implicitly, like many other people do.

    To highlight impossible standards set. Reverse things. Put proof here that Anne Perry has not repented. Why is it stated so much. It has been read. Not related from people who know her extremely well and spent time with her. From them you gain the true picture.

    Carl Rosel

    • Mike Philbin Says:

      Just as I thought: a link that leads to nothing. And Drayton swears Hulme has repented, then offers no tangible proof or examples of exactly how she has repented, or what form it has taken. How convenient. I also notice Hulme herself says nothing (and has never said anything) about having repented.So no information, no details, no nothing. Exactly how did Hulme’s so-called repentance manifest itself? Strange there’s no reference, evidence, or witness to those many acts of repentance, don’t you think?

    • Tessa Wyatt Says:

      I notice you say: ‘What has kept me delving deeper than the sensationalist newspaper reports and nonsense that came from 1954, are legal, and lay people who presented a wholly different aspect to the people involved. Particularly Juliet Hulme (Anne Perry) who I was told was falsely perceived as the more culpable of the two.’ That’s very interesting, Carl. Would you mind sharing exactly which person with irrefutable evidence and proof ‘told’ you that Hulme ‘was falsely perceived as the more culpable of the two’? Obviously they had incontrovertible proof in order for them to be able to persuade someone as unbiased as you of this. So what was that unrefutable proof and evidence? And who was that person? I ask because I’d like to see the evidence they shared with you. Thanks.

  245. Mike Philbin Says:

    Carl, you say Hulme repented. Exactly what did she do that has convinced you that she has truly repented? Did she do anything at all to correct that terrible wrong; did she attempt to gain forgiveness from the person(s) she had wronged; did she admit her guilt, promise and resolve not to repeat the offense; did she attempt to make restitution for the wrong; did she attempt to reverse the harmful effects of that terrible wrong wherever possible? The reason I ask, Carl, is because those acts listed above are what repentance is. Those specific acts are what ‘repentance’ means. Which of the above do you categorically know (from documented evidence) that Hulme did? I’ve never found any evidence that suggests she has repented. I’m obviously not interested in opinion or hearsay or gossip – only solid, verifiable facts, please. Thank you.

  246. Winterton Harley Says:

    Carl Rosel is known on many public forums as a former long-term inmate who scrubs out and paints the luxury yachts of millionaires. He claims to be a friend of Peter Williams, the former QC who was paid huge sums of money to successfully defend Terry Clark, the international heroin trafficker. Carl Rosel is also known for time-wasting, insulting people and defending the unrepentant murderer, Juliet Hulme. He is banned from commenting on many public forums due to his cyber abuse of other commenters. He never provides proof of anything – and until recently (by his own admission) didn’t know how to embed links to online documents. Based on the above dead link, he still doesn’t, but I bet he’ll use his own incompetence at cutting and pasting accurately to accuse and abuse someone else. He’s got nothing of any value to say – he’s not worth listening to. He constantly spreads misinformation (folie a deux, medication withdrawn, Hulme’s lesbianism, Hulme’s lack of repentance, etc). He has no facts at all. He only deals in other people’s second-hand opinions. Everything he says is designed to muddy the waters and to waste yours and my time. You’ll never get those wasted minutes back. This is a health warning.

    • David Delane Says:

      I see what you mean. He’s totally unreliable. It’s all his opinion, nothing else. He made a spurious claim, and then when he was asked to provide a link to the provable source, he said: ‘Crucial documents!! Invaluable reports!! They aren’t in my kitchen cupboard…’ Such is the seriousness of his contribution to this debate.

      • Jimbob Thornton Says:

        Personally, I think it means he hasn’t read any official documents at all. I think he just regurgitates other people’s words and simply states that anything pro-Hulme is true and anything Hulme-critical is false. I’ll follow your advice and just ignore his waffle. The latest one of his so-called pieces of evidence is that because Drayton said: “The woman is repentant…’ it must be true. Since when has someone just opinionating without evidence ever been proof of anything?

        Drayton also says: ‘And I don’t think she has forgiven herself.’ Drayton says quite clearly that she does not actually know whether Hulme has or not; she quite clearly says ‘I DON’T THINK SHE HAS FORGIVEN HERSELF.’ There’s no statement of fact there. Nothing evidential at all. Just musings and speculations that prove nothing. In Carl Rosel’s words, this is some of the most ‘delusional waffle’ I’ve ever read. But then Drayton’s book is badly-researched, badly-written, and the subject not interviewed fully and properly. The book’s a waste of money. And Rosel’s waffle is a waste of time.

  247. Leah Says:

    Not everyone is given the opportunity to view the Department Prison Files on Pauline Yvonne Parker and Juliet Marion Hulme. When Galmuzina & Laurie wrote “Parker & Hulme: A Lesbian View” they were granted access to these files which is revealed in the Preface:

    “We were given the access to the Department of Justice prison files for Juliet and Pauline. These files included transcripts of the Supreme Court trial. Special conditions, outlined in Chapter 7, were placed on our use of these files.” (Glamuzina & Laurie, 1995, page 11).

    These conditions included that: They were allowed to study the papers and take notes, but not to make photocopies. They were not allowed to directly quote or “reference specific reports by institutional or specialist personnel”, not to include names of staff or inmates. (G&L, page 100)

    They also had Department staff to view any material drawn from these sources approved before publication.

    Peter Graham who has written the most recent update on the case “So Brilliantly Clever: Parker & Hulme and the Murder that Shocked the World”, Nov. 2011 also address these matters in Acknowledgments:

    “I also owe a good deal to my friend Christopher McVeigh, QC, who made an application to the High Court on my behalf seeking access to the official manuscript of the trial of Pauline Parker and Juliet Hulme, and a subsequent application to view and copy a typescript of Pauline’s 1954 diary.” (Peter Graham, 2011, page 329)

    Since Peter Graham’s book give so much more about the case than Glamuzina & Laurie he also was given permission to view other papers on the case, including Peter Mahon’s personal papers:

    “There were other interesting items in the Crown’s Proof of evidence that had not come out at trial: witnesses do not always say everything counsel leading them hope and expect they will.”
    (Graham, P page 329)

    Not so sure to whom or what he’s referring to.

  248. copper04 Says:

    Now when I click the link in my last comment, it states that, Something is ever so slightly amiss. Youv’e requested a page which isn’t here.
    Why has it mysteriously disappeared when the discussion was about whether reports on JMH and PYP were sent to the executive council of the New Zealand Government. Also concerning Juliet Hulme (Anne Perry )displaying contrition and coming to repentance.
    Gremlins??
    So, here is an excerpt of what is written under the heading – Barnett, Samuel Thompson.

    Barnett rose to be Secretary of State for Justice (Minister for Justice) by the time PYP and JMH were released. As Justice Minister he took personal interest in their progress while incarcerated, receiving regular reports and authorizing special treatment, such as private tutoring. As Minister of Justice, Barnett of course was a member of the executive council.

    The showing of contrition by Juliet Hulme was some months into the sentence when her and Pauline Parker had been apart for that time, and the enormity of what they had done hit home. Horace Haywood the Superintendant for Mt Eden Prison took that opportunity to further any rehabilitative side of the issue and ordered at different times the release of Juliet Hulme (Anne Perry) to attend meals with him, his wife and family. That opportunity was not for unrepentant murderers as Anne Perry has been described here. Common sense comes into play when assessing different aspects.

    Many people believe and know that Juliet Hulme came to repentance all those years ago. Yes, she has displayed all that Mike Philbin has stated above, are signs of repentance. Besides anyone else, ask the whole village of Portmahomack in Scotland of the kindness and altruism she displays. Always attempting to do them anonomously. Yes, she has stated orally, those other points.
    Probably long before a lot of people making comments were even born. Does she now have to come on TV everyday or release statements conveying her contrition to appease those people.

    Glamuzina and Laurie released their book in 1991, but the fact has been established that reports on PYP and JMH were sent for executive council perusal on a regular basis. That was the issue.

    I do not have photographs of Anne Perry on her knees with a tape recording of her stating she is contrite and repentive.

    One statement from Anne Perry when she was interviewed by Diana Wichtel concerning life after the matricide.

    “The only way you can possibly achieve anything is from then on to be the best person you know how”

    Anne Perry described in Joanne Drayton’s Biography :-

    She is a gentle,good, intensely moral person.

    Carl Rosel

    • James Sullivan Says:

      So, exactly when did she attempt to gain forgiveness from the Reiper family for killing one of their family? It’s not on public record. So, when did she admit her guilt, and promise and resolve not to repeat the disgusting offense? It’s not on public record. So, when did she attempt to make financial and other forms of restitution for her evil act? It’s not on public record. So, when did she attempt to reverse the harmful effects of that terrible act wherever possible? It’s not on public record. Why am I not surprised?

    • Yang Iyip Says:

      ‘Besides anyone else, ask the whole village of Portmahomack in Scotland of the kindness and altruism she displays. Always attempting to do them anonomously.’ So she smashes in Honora’s skull with a half-brick, then ‘anonymously’ ‘displays’ ‘kindness and altruism’ in Portmahomack in Scotland and that’s repentance, is it? If she does this anonymously, how do you know? If it’s in a remote village on the other side of the world to you, how do you know? How does one go about asking a whole village? Have you done this? If not, why not? – especially as you are advocating that everyone else do it.

    • Van Conan Says:

      “The only way you can possibly achieve anything is from then on to be the best person you know how” Anne Perry

      ‘I burn with fury for some of the things done…that I am certain are monstrous, and the people who have done them are not sorry.’ Anne Perry

      ‘Sir Peter Jackson said, they were not evil. Not psychopaths.’ Carl Rosel

      So what? He’s not medically qualified to give a clinical diagnosis. Medically, he doesn’t know what he’s talking about. Great fictional film, though.

  249. Terry Reed Says:

    With regards to Juliet Hulme’s alleged ‘repentance’, there is nothing on record that offers any proof of this.

    There is no record of her ever doing anything at all to correct that terrible wrong;

    there is no record of her ever attempting to gain forgiveness from the person(s) she had wronged;

    there is no record of her ever admitting her guilt;

    there is no record of her ever promising and resolving not to repeat the offense;

    there is no record of her ever attempting to make restitution for the terrible wrong she did;

    there is no record of her ever attempting to reverse the harmful effects of that terrible wrong she did wherever possible.

    What she does (and all of these are on record in the public domain) is: claim she ‘never knew’ Honora Reiper; refuse to compensate the surviving Reiper family; pretend she was only an ‘accomplice’ to murder and not a murderer; calls Peter Jackson and Fran Walsh ‘idiotic’; blames TB medication for her actions, claims she was coerced into murder by someone who was not a ‘friend’.

  250. Terry Reed Says:

    Here’s a link to a review of the latest book about Anne Perry: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/lifestyle/news/article.cfm?c_id=6&objectid=10830032

  251. Timothy Winters Says:

    The following text is a work of fiction:

    In 19–, Juliet Hulme realised the enormity of what she had done and decided to do everything in her power to try and make restitution and amends. She located the surviving members of the Reiper family and, through her lawyer, made an appointment to meet them. At the meeting, which was uncomfortable for all concerned, Juliet Hulme expressed her sorrow and her shame and stated she wished to seek forgiveness for her crimes. She offered to compensate the family in any way she could that was humanly possible. The family accepted the apology, and the offer of compensation. They pointed out that while money could not replace a murdered person, they fully accepted that money could ease some of life’s hardships. Consequently, they agreed to accept a generous monthly stipend from Hulme in the form of compensation, received as a sign of the beginning of their forgiveness of Hulme for the terrible crime she had committed against the Reiper family. All parties signed the necessary contracts and made the necessary arrangements. In a subsequent interview, one of the members of the Reiper family stated that they believed, based on her recent acts, that Juliet Hulme had truly repented and was sorry and ashamed of her part in the brutal murder of Honora Reiper.

    • entropy tango Says:

      Brilliant! Total fiction. Love it.

    • Davina Ellison Says:

      This is a very good work of fiction. It’s so good it makes me sad because it’s also very poignant. Timothy Winters, your fiction has managed to make me very angry with Juliet Hulme. All I can say is I wish your fiction was truth – but sadly, I sincerely doubt it ever will be.

  252. Andrew Pelt Says:

    Fiction, eh! This is fantastic – there’s not a word of truth in it. It’s totally made up.

    Excellent!

  253. Julie Mays Says:

    Anne Perry claims she has no recollection of murdering Honora Reiper. What I’m now wondering is – if she’s telling the truth, which I’m sure she is – how can she ever dispute anything anyone says about the murder? For example, I think she’s an unrepentant, manipulative sociopath. Anne Perry obviously cannot refute or dispute this, because she has no recollection of the murder, doesn’t remember Honora, and in her own words, has ‘blanked out’ everything to do with the ‘event’. It’s impossible to be repentant about something you have no recollection of – therefore she isn’t repentant. When asked what she felt about Honora, she said she felt ‘nothing’, because she ‘never knew her’.

    • Leah Says:

      Honora, the murder victim was by no means a stranger to young Juliet Hulme. They had met each other several times before the murder happened and the mother of Juliet (Hilda Hulme) also gave Honora presents when returning from England. Honora was also present when Pauline visited a sick Juliet in TB sanatorium. Even if the Riepers and Hulmes families didn’t socialize they had brief contact because of their daughters’ friendship. When Anne Perry says she didn’t know the victim she’s distorting the truth once again, which is exactly what one should expect from someone with her personality. Once again, we are left with multiple excuses and it’s quite clear she cannot apologize for her own involvement without blaming someone else or false circumstances.

  254. Lara Stone Says:

    Wow, I’ve just heard Anne Perry state that the contents of Pauline Parker’s diaries are ‘fantasy’ – that is, fictional or made up. In other words, not true.

    Anne Perry, as we all know, always speaks the truth. Many have said so. Carl Rosel has said so, so it must be true.

    That means that all of the ‘facts’ in Parker’s diaries are really examples of fiction and cannot be trusted; all of them are unreliable as evidence of what PP or JH were really doing, thinking, saying or feeling at any of the dated and the recorded times.

    So ANYONE who uses Parker’s diary extracts to back up any point they make is not being accurate at all – they are in fact, helping to spread misinformation.

    Either that, or they think JH is a liar.

    Personally, I believe the devout and honest Anne Perry. The diaries are full of fiction, lies and ‘fantasy’. Nothing in them is remotely true.

    • Tom Hagen Says:

      Juliet Hulme’s comment about Pauline Parker’s diary being pure ‘fantasy’ and not in the least bit true, means – if she’s telling the truth, which I’m sure she is – that there are huge implications for Peter Jackson’s Heavenly Creatures, which was based heavily on the diaries. Some commenters on this forum (Carl Rosel, for example) have stated that Heavenly Creatures was a very well-researched film,. Others have also stated that Hulme is always truthful. If that is correct, then Heavenly Creatures (being based on what Hulme states as pure ‘fantasy’ and not on what really happened at all) is one of most factually inaccurate and entirely misleading films of all time. So thanks for putting us all straight about that (Carl). It’s good to know that we can rely on Hulme’s honesty to clarify a detail of this terrible crime.

  255. chris cooper Says:

    I’m sure Anne Perry realized in prison what she did was wrong and now is a much better person, her arrogance and contempt that was apparent when she was fifteen probably disappeared as she grew into a woman like with most teenagers. I think she has, after all this time, earned the right to move on with her life.
    BUT… by choosing to have a career in the public eye she is opening herself up for judgement. Pauline Parker, now Hilary lives a quiet life as a recluse while Anne has given interviews, made her own documentary about herself, and also millions of pounds from writing about murder which is a little creepy given she once took park in bashing someone’s head in till they died.
    She doesn’t just seem to have changed an awful lot since 1954 which makes me wonder if she really does feel bad for what she did! During her time with Pauline they began writing novels, being creative, but their writings became quite disturbing and violent. They had various grandiose plans of how to become rich and famous. Over fifty years later she still writes about murder and hasn’t let the mere trifle of murdering someone get in the way of her desire for success.
    Of course she has the right to rebuild herself and move on but you would have thought murder is the last thing she would want to think about after what she did. Her statement about what happened contradict all the evidence in the trail, everything in Pauline’s diary, and even her own statements. Back in 1954 when she was arrested she can conflicting statements to the police and she still gives conflicting information now which again leads me to think that she hasn’t changed that much. She certainly seemed to be in control of Pauline and years later she seems to be shifting the blame onto her. She wasn’t an ‘accomplice’ as she claims, and she wasn’t ‘trapped’. If she hasn’t agreed to help Pauline murder her mother, then Pauline wouldn’t have been able to do it on her own. It was her fault but she never says that, never says how bad she felt for the family of the woman she murdered and has even said she doesn’t think about the woman she killed because she didn’t know her. Well, that’s a lie in itself she did know her – and even if she didn’t just because you don’t know someone that doesn’t mean you shouldn’t feel any guilt about murdering them.
    Anne claims she never wanted to murder Pauline’s mother, sometimes she even claims she just thought they would frighten her. I would love to hear her explain her behaviour during their trail when she laughed and whispered to Pauline all the way through the trail and even was heard to say ‘the old girl took more killing than we first thought.’ Doesn’t sound like the statement of someone who felt ‘trapped’ into killing someone.
    In short, still a liar!

  256. JAMES Says:

    I HAVE READ A FEW COMMENTS ON THIS SITE. LET ME TELL YOU SOMETHING ABOUT MURDER. I STUDIED THE ONE KILLER WHO BEAT THE SYSTEM. I STUDIED OTHER MURDERERS. ANN PERRY COMMITED A HORRIBLE CRIME YEARS AGO. SHE IS NOT A MURDERER AS ADULT. SHE DOES NOT HAVE A BORDERLINE PERSONILTY. SHE PAID FOR HER CRIME AND WENT TO A SUCCESSFUL CARRER. SHE NEEDS TO BE PRIASED FOR REPENTED AND NEVER THE SAME CRIME TWICE. I APPLAUD HER.

    • Leah Says:

      Well, your comment just proved itself the most stupid one in this discussion so far and why do you write with caps on? Go back to school.

  257. Tina MacElhone Says:

    Well, all I can say about this is that if Juliet Hulme thinks that Pauline Parker’s diary should not have been used as evidence at her trial, there’s probably a lot of truth in that diary – including the references to Juliet’s own diary. There are three references in it to a diary that was kept by Juliet Hulme. Most likely burned by a family servant on orders from Juliet’s mother or father. If Hulme casts doubt on the veracity of Pauline’s diary, it muddies the water more and more… and in the end, people will accept Hulme’s version of what happened on that day in the park.

  258. Simone Henrikson Says:

    Right, so Pauline Parker’s diary is nothing but ‘fantasy’ according to Juliet Hulme. Why then do people commenting on this blog (and on others) keep insisting that:

    Juliet Hulme is telling the truth

    or

    Pauline Parker’s diary is a factual record of the months before, during and after the murder of Pauline’s mother by Pauline and Juliet

    ?

    The thing is, it can’t be both because they’re mutually exclusive.

    If PP’s diary is accurate; Hulme’s a liar – and if Hulme’s telling the truth, the diary’s worthless as fact and can’t be believed at all.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 89 other followers