Apology 34 years after girl’s murder
The man who abducted and murdered Christchurch schoolgirl Louisa Damodran has apologised for the first time and says he cannot explain why he killed her.
Peter Holdem was sentenced in 1987 to life imprisonment for murdering the 6-yearold the previous year. He abducted her as she walked home from school, throttling her and dumping her body in a river.
Before killing Louisa, Holdem had a history of sexual offending against girls between 1970 and 1982, including the attempted rape of a 10-year-old in 1982, for which he was jailed for five years.
The murder occurred a day after he was released from prison.
The 65-year-old appeared before the New Zealand Parole Board on November 19, 18 months after his last appearance in 2020.
The board said he had previously been assessed as posing a high risk of offending and was considered to have made little progress on previous programmes. He was also assessed as being a high risk of carrying out further sexual offending, and posing a medium to high risk of violent reoffending, and was recommended for more treatment.
A report from a meeting between two psychologists in March said reintegration would require a slow ‘‘step-wise’’ path with multidisciplinary supervision and input.
It was recommended Holdem attend the Te Piriti Special Treatment Unit for child sex offenders before re-integrative work commenced.
A further report from October assessed Holdem as a high risk of sexual offending and a medium risk of violent offending. He is scheduled to undertake the child sex offender programme in January 2022.
Holdem’s lawyer, Roger Chambers, said he was not seeking parole but his goal was to prepare himself properly through a process of reintegration for a safe return to the community.
He said Holdem was reluctant to commit himself to a further programme.
‘‘In counsel’s submission he has done exceptionally well in prison, that he is currently in self-care, that he is keeping himself occupied and is committed to working on a careful reintegration pathway, such as was recommended,’’ the parole report said.
One of Damodran’s relatives, whose name is redacted in the report, asked the board to put a series of questions to him including whether he was sorry. She was also unable to understand why he would hurt a child.
The woman was also concerned Holdem had not completed a child sex offender programme and believed he should not be released until he had.
She did, however, consider it ‘‘commendable’’ that he had done programmes in the past and had worked on his horticulture course and in sessions with a psychologist.
‘‘Mr Holdem reflected carefully on what he was told,’’ the report said.
‘‘He told the board that he could not begin to express how he feels about what he did to that little girl. He said that he is really sorry and that he cannot explain why he chose to take out his anger on that child.’’
After hearing the relative’s concerns about the programme, he agreed to attend.
Holdem’s case manager said the programme would take between nine and 12 months. Following the completion of the programme the board would require a report on the outcome of treatment with a further assessment of risk and recommendations as to the way forward.
There had been ‘‘very positive’’ reports on Holdem’s conduct in prison, with no complaints about his conduct.
Holdem will appear before the board once he has completed the programme. It was ‘‘unrealistic’’ to expect he would be released then, the report said.