Something is very familiar about that story 
Was there a Lifetime movie about them or a documentary on A & E or something? Didn't she play the victim card?
There is a movie, but it makes Karla look like an innocent victim in the whole thing.
http://www.amazon.com/Karla-Laura-Prepon/dp/B000MNOXX0/ref=cm_cr_pr_pb_iHere is a great review:
15 of 17 people found the following review helpful:
1.0 out of 5 stars
Factually corrupt., June 16, 2009By
Andrew MacEwen "His Imperial Majesty, Grand H... - See all my reviews
This review is from: Karla (DVD)
When I saw a woman in the writing credits, I immediately knew what I was in for.
1) Although Paul had committed two rapes and attempted a third before meeting Karla, he did not plunge headlong into his solo career as the Scarborough Rapist until after they had met and she had started encouraging his sickest fantasies and most deviant behavior. The film reverses the sequence of events: it has Bernardo well into his career as rapist before he and Karla start to commit their mutual depredations. (e.g., A notorious police sketch of the Scarborough rapist that led to Paul's being detained and questioned was published after his eleventh rape, two-and-half-years after he and Karla met. In the film, this occurs almost immediately once they start dating.) This rearranging of events absolves Karla of having any real effect on Paul's fantasies and behavior.
2) The film omits Karla's encouragement of Paul's activities as a solo rapist. Paul's claim that Karla "set him off" is mentioned, but the filmmakers chose not dramatize any influence on Karla's part. See #1.
3) The film portrays their relationship as abusive, with Paul constantly using Karla as a punching bag, escalating in frequency as their relationship spirals, thus creating the fraudulent possibility that some kind of "learned helplessness" syndrome contributed to her behavior. The dramatization certainly asserts quite openly that she couldn't leave him because of this "learned helplessness." In actuality, Paul did not hit Karla until the night he pounded her with a flashlight, at which point she immediately turned him in. And yet we are shown, instead of the brief flashlight attack, an extended and thoroughly bogus sequence in which Paul punishes Karla for having made a half-hearted attempt to leave him by sodomizing her with a gag in her mouth and then throwing her down the stairs and beating her some more. Then the story resorts to that familiar and facile standby with which we are all familiar from Lifetime and Oxygen and "Sleeping with the Enemy" -- Karla can't leave Paul because he'll hunt her down and kill her. Again, the real-life scenario was completely different: their relationship was mutual bliss until her beat her with the flashlight. And she left him immediately.
4) The film does not portray Karla procuring Paul's victims. Instead, it has Paul finding his own victims and bringing them back to the house to the surprise of Karla. This lie of omission is unforgivable.
5) Karla Homolka was aroused watching her loverboy rape his victims. This is mostly ignored by the filmmakers. Particularly dishonest is a scene in which she is seen reading American Psycho in bed while Paul is in the basement with a victim. In actuality, Karla was in the same room with Paul and his victim while reading the Ellis book. The book was intensifying the arousal she felt at what Paul was doing. When asked at the trial how she could read a book and watch her husband rape a girl, she responded by saying, "I'm capable of doing two things at once." This is a classic sociopath's comment, as it is not clear just how seriously the answer was intended and to what extent she was goading her interrogator. But there is no true sense of Karla as a sociopath in this film, despite the coda that informs us that the real-life psychiatrist assessed her as one.
6) Initially, Karla displays curiosity when witnessing Paul's assault on a girl and following his instructions to kiss her. As the film progresses, however, she experiences pangs of conscience and is portrayed as a horrified onlooker. After one murder, we are treated to a risible scene in which she symbolically scrubs herself clean in the shower as Paul violates a Catholic schoolgirl in a nearby room. These are outrageous lies, since anyone who has seen the videotapes can testify that Karla was a perverted and slavering participant who needed no threats of violence or psychological manipulation to join in these depredations. During the climax of this second torture killing, we see that Karla has become hardened and emotionally deadened and that her moral qualms are gone, but this is a far cry from the perverted deviant she actually was all along.
Choosing to tell the story via Karla's self-serving accounts allows the filmmakers to sidestep the otherwise unavoidable conclusion that she was an eager, willing, and sadistic accomplice. While the interviewing psychiatrist in the wraparound narrative framework provides a reference point for the viewer that makes it clear Karla's words cannot necessarily be trusted, the dramatization itself manages to suggest that Karla was essentially a woman whose low self-esteem ran so deep that she participated in these activities mostly to keep Paul happy and ensure that she wouldn't lose him. Any faint glimmerings of sadistic enjoyment (and they are very few and very faint) displayed by Karla are subtly passed off as the ill effects of Paul's "victimization" of her.
Relationships like these are mutually toxic, though not necessarily equally so in both directions. If we can assume as a matter of course that Karla would not have done these things without a partner like Paul, then we should be able to consider the possibility that Paul's behavior was, to some extent, affected by the presence of Karla.
Alas, we live in a society which steadfastly refuses to believe in female depravity unless its presence is attributed to the pernicious influence of a patriarchal, white-male "hegemony." Films like this are factually corrupt and disgusting.
