‘A grave mistake’
Pumpkin’s killer dad says sorry
It was the murder that made headlines around the world, a man strangling his wife to death and leaving her body in a boot only to escape to Australia and abandon his 3-yearold daughter at a train station. Months later he would be found in the United States. Now, Nai Yin Xue has confessed to the crime and says he’s sorry. Sam Sherwood was granted access to his first parole hearing.
Sitting inside a room at Springhill Prison wearing a black shirt with his hair cut short, Nai Yin Xue is flanked by his lawyer, interpreter and a prison guard. Behind sit three of his supporters.
The group stare at a screen relaying video to Rolleston Prison where, in another office, members of the New Zealand Parole Board listen to the 65-year-old make his first appeal to be released from prison.
The last time the New Zealand public heard from Xue was June 2009, when, after being convicted of murdering his wife, he was hauled from the dock at the High Court in Auckland screaming and punching the air, yelling ‘‘unfair, unfair’’.
‘‘I am innocent,’’ he called as security took him away.
But today, Xue strikes a more conciliatory tone.
About halfway through his parole
hearing as he is asked how he had addressed his propensity for violence, Xue confesses to the crime publicly for the first time.
‘‘Firstly, I’m very remorseful,’’ he says through a Mandarin translator. ‘‘I would like to apologise to everyone who has been hurt.’’
On the evening of Tuesday, September 11, 2007, Xue strangled his 28-year-old wife An An Liu with a necktie. It took about three minutes for her to die.
Liu had been living in fear of her abusive husband for years prior to her murder, having previously taken a protection order out against him after a particularly violent attack.
After dumping Liu’s body in the boot of his car, Xue fled New Zealand with his 3-year-old daughter, Qian Xun.
Three days later amid an international man hunt, he abandoned her at a Melbourne train station where she stood abandoned on the concourse. Qian was later nicknamed Pumpkin, after the Pumpkin Patch clothing she wore when she was found.
On September 19, eight days after the murder, two detectives opened the boot of Xue’s car and found An An’s body.
Xue escaped to the United States where members of the Chinese community in Atlanta, Georgia, recognised and captured him the following February.
Xue’s trial heard how he had terrorised his wife prior to her murder, forcing her to seek shelter in a Woman’s Refuge and with a friend in Wellington.
He claimed to have been angered by alleged infidelity, and tried to paint her as a secretive, dishonest person who had recently discovered a fetish for autoerotic asphyxiation.
Xue’s lawyer Chris Comeskey conceded that 99 per cent of New Zealanders thought he was guilty of Liu’s murder.
The 12 jury members had no doubt, and he was convicted and sentenced to life with a minimum non-parole period of 12 years.
After arriving in prison, Xue said he chose to learn how to paint, and for the past 10 years had painted daily. At one point in the hearing he held up a painting of a shepherd with a stick in one hand and a lamb in another.
‘‘I have found that painting can pacify one’s mood. It has resulted in some mental change of my character.’’
Xue said he had also found God and was now a Christian. He was working well in the prison as a cleaner and said he did deep breathing exercises every morning.
‘‘It gives me peace of mind for the whole day.’’
The chairman of the board Sir Ron Young, asked Xue when he first admitted to killing his wife. Xue replied it was in 2010 when he realised he had to account for what he had done.
‘‘When I was first sentenced I did not have enough understanding of this. Later through my work and study conducted in prison I came to realise that my offence was really very serious.’’
He said the reason he killed his wife was his ‘‘extremely bad temper’’.
The timing of his admission of guilt set out to the parole board is at odds with Xue’s actions at the time.
Between 2009 and 2010 Corrections received multiple requests from the NZ Chinese Herald to interview Xue.
All the requests were declined, with Corrections explicitly citing concerns that any interview was likely to have a negative impact on the victims of his crime, deputy national commissioner Andy Milne told the Sunday Star-Times.
In 2010, a NZ Chinese Herald reporter informed Corrections they had received a 10-page document from the prisoner.
‘‘Corrections responded that we did not support the publication of the document, and we urged the NZ Chinese Herald to consider the effect of its publication on the victim’s family.’’
Because the document was not the result of a prisoner interview, the regulations could not prohibit its publication and a book titled I Was Not The Murderer proclaiming Xue’s innocence was published.
Back at the parole hearing, questions turned to his daughter, who would now be in her mid teens. When asked by the board where his daughter was, Xue said he did not know.
Another member of the board, Chris King, asked why he was a violent man before he killed his wife.
‘‘There was always difference in opinions – one reason was due to the gap in ages.’’
King challenged him on his comment, noting it was the nature of relationships that there were difficulties sometimes, but that didn’t mean that violence occurred.
‘‘It was my fault, I’m really sorry about it,’’ Xue responded.
Judge Phil Gittos, sitting on the far right of the table facing the screen in front of Xue, asked what mistake he was referring to in his submission to the board when he said he would ‘‘never make this mistake again’’.
‘‘Violence and murder,’’ he responded.
Xue then said the murder was a ‘‘grave mistake’’.
Judge Gittos challenged him on the
terming of the word.
‘‘I know [the murder] has brought great harm to my family, my wife’s family and the whole society. My mother who was in her 80s after hearing this had severe haemorrhage, became paralysed and confined to the bed.’’
Xue, who struggles to speak English in full sentences, then said his understanding was that mistake meant the same thing as crime.
‘‘By mistake, I meant that I had no right to harm her life. At the time, divorce would have served the problem. I should not have committed this kind of extremely serious mistake.’’
Gittos asked if it was also a mistake to abduct his daughter and leave her at the railway station.
‘‘Yes,’’ Xue replied.
‘‘At the time I brought my child to Australia in order to escape from this, it was very inconvenient to bring her along.
‘‘While I saw the police coming I became relieved, I was convinced the police would look after this. I realised that she was safe and the police would bring her back to Auckland.’’
Xue’s counsel, Roger Chambers, said he had entered into rehabilitation and integration programmes and seemed to have done well, except for the language barrier.
His prison record demonstrated good behaviour, compliance and seemed to be a man who adhered to rules and constraints.
‘‘It seems to me in my discussion with him he’s genuinely contrite, has learnt his lesson and takes great stock of his abilities as a painter.’’
He said Xue had no problem with a proposed GPS monitor or residential restrictions, adding parole would give some ‘‘flexibility’’ to continue the rehabilitation process.
‘‘He’s learnt from his experience, we all know the prison environment is not particularly ideal, but he is well aware that if he had the privilege of parole if he erred in any way I’m sure the board would recall him.’’
There was an apparent conflict between the parole assessment report (PAR) and the psychological report. The PAR said he was of low risk of reoffending and could usefully do the short rehabilitation programme in prison as a way of attending to his rehabilitative needs.
The board found two problems with the assessment, citing the psychological report deeming Xue a far higher risk of violent re-offending.
Secondly, Xue could not do the rehabilitation programme because his English was not good enough.
‘‘In addition, we doubt whether in any event it would be of sufficient significance to address his worrying propensity for violence.’’
After a short adjournment the board came back and declined Xue’s application for parole because he had been unable to do any programmes to address his violence and the murder of his wife, mainly because of his poor English and remained an undue risk.
A psychological report suggested he complete one on one work with a psychologist with an interpreter. The board agreed it was the appropriate way forward.
‘‘Once that has been completed he can turn his mind to reintegration. He will no doubt by the end of that treatment have developed a safety plan.
‘‘The question will then become when it is safe to release Mr Xue, and under what circumstances.’’
The board will see Xue again in about 12 months.
‘‘By mistake, I meant that I had no right to harm her life. At the time, divorce would have served the problem. I should not have committed this kind of extremely serious mistake.’’
Nai Yin Xue