Hello and welcome. Today I have a bit of a different kind of episode for you. But before we get started, I have to potentially disappoint anyone that thinks this episode is about my experiences of talking to serial killers. It’s not - I think I have only ever spoken to two serial killers in my life, and for the most part they were fairly benign conversations, and the serial killers I spoke to were for the most part very friendly. Also, so there’s that. I will explain the title of the podcast in a little bit. But for now, today’s episode is about books.
I love books, and I love talking about books - I think I might do more of that on this podcast, or maybe not. Who knows. I seem to have lots of ideas that I don’t always seem to follow through with. But today, instead of talking about the usual serious things I typically bang on about, I will instead be talking about books. Well, more specifically about an author and the books they write. Even more specifically it is about an author and the books they write, which I would class as not the best books ever written. And if you want to be absolutely precise, it is about an author and the books they write which are (in my humble opinion) godawful and should (probably) never really be read. Let me explain…
Context
For those of you who don’t know (I would be very surprised if you’ve found this podcast through means other than my Instagram page, but just in case) every now and then I like to make enquiries about what my followers are currently reading. I like to get ideas of what to read for myself (to add to my never ending to-be-read list) and to share those ideas with the rest of my followers (so they can then add books to their own never ending to-be-read lists; I like to think I’m a philanthropist in that way). Over time there have been a number of followers who have shared that they have been reading (or would soon to be reading) books by Christopher Berry-Dee.
Mr Berry-Dee likes to write books about serial killers – more specifically, the times in which he has spoken to serial killers. Titles in Mr Berry-Dee’s bibliography include such gems as: Talking with Serial Killers (there’s the podcast title) and Talking with Serial Killers: World’s Most Evil and Talking with Serial Killers: Stalking; and then there’s Talking with Psychopaths and Savages and Talking with Psychopaths and Savages: Beyond Evil; also Talking with Female Serial Killers; Dead Men Talking: The World’s Worst Serial Killers in Their Own Words… you get the picture. In fairness to Mr Berry-Dee not all of his book titles contain the word “talk”, but they are all about killers and promise some manner of being able to provide insight into the minds of these individuals.
Well, that all sounds jolly good, you must be thinking. As a Forensic Psychologist that kind of thing must be right up your street. And you’re not wrong. Not too long ago, must be about a year ago or so, I bought a copy of Talking with Psychopaths and Savages: Beyond Evil the apparent follow up to Talking with Psychopaths and Savages – at the time I did not know that Beyond Evil was a follow up as I had never heard of Mr Berry-Dee, but was excited to get stuck into a newly discovered true crime author. I had never really read much true crime up to this point – I was reasonably new to reading non-fiction in general, but I think I had read The Dark Side of the Mind by Kerry Daynes (which is excellent, by the way), and so I thought Beyond Evil would be an interesting read. The fact that it was such a sensationalistic title should have been a warning; but as I say, I was pretty new to true crime non-fiction, so I was none the wiser (and besides the cover looked creepy as fuck, so I was hooked in by that – you know what they say about books and covers, right?). And so, I read Beyond Evil. Jesus. I wish I had not.
Which brings me back round to why you are listening to this particular episode. The book that seems to be most regularly suggested as a current read by followers of my Instagram page is the original Talking with Serial Killers, published in 2001, which was recently recommended again – and so, as a means to doing those of you who give a shit a service, I thought I would spend some time going through the reasons why I dislike Mr Berry-Dee’s books, which might then inform your decision to read his books… or not.
At this point, I would like to point out that while I will be critically analysing Mr Berry-Dee and his books, this is not intended as a personal attack on the man. I have no idea who he is, and I am fully aware that it takes a lot of work to write a book. I have never written a book, although I have completed a Doctoral thesis (which is about as long as one of Mr Berry-Dee’s books), which involved a lot of research and multiple edits and re-writes – so I am somewhat familiar with the process and rigors involved with producing a piece of written work. Therefore, I have some appreciation of what it takes to write a book, and at the same time I have some awareness of what it takes to produce a piece of good(ish) writing. So, on that basis this is not a personal attack or a vendetta, and I am certainly not about the cancel culture – but rather it is my intention for this podcast to serve as an an in-depth look into why (in my view) you should not bother with reading any books written by Mr Berry-Dee. Just for clarity, I am not saying don’t ever read them, but I would advise that you maybe you spend your time more constructively or seek out alternative sources of true crime non-fiction if reading about killers is your bag.
Additionally, I will admit that I have not read the particular book by Christopher Berry-Dee that seems to be continually recommended (i.e. Talking with Serial Killers). As noted earlier, I had the misfortune of reading Talking with Psychopaths and Savages: Beyond Evil. Therefore, while I can’t comment on Talking with Serial Killers per se, I have had several discussions with others who share similar views about his other books; enough discussion for me be confident that the issues I noticed while reading Beyond Evil are universally characteristic of his books in general. In fact, I remember telling a colleague of mine who was finishing off their Forensic Doctorate at the time how bad the book was and offered it to them to read (again, see how much of a philanthropist I am), and they were so infuriated with the book they were unable to finish it. They wanted to give it back to me and I told them I would rather they burn the book than it ever be in my possession ever again. I think it was eventually donated to a charity shop. Or binned. Which in my view is equally as fitting
Also, I don’t remember Beyond Evil all that well. I can remember the impression it made, but I can’t remember all the detail - bit like a bad pull on a night out: a decision you made at a the time based on all the information available (in this instance a morbid interest in people who kill other people, a freaky cover, a sensationalistic title, and the promise of learning something about what makes killers tick), only to be disappointed at the outcome and for it to be an instance in your life you’d sooner forget rather than hold onto any concrete memory of. As such, you know it was something that happened that you’re not best pleased about, but the specifics are a bit fuzzy.
Having said that, here is what I didn’t like.
What Qualifies Mr Berry-Dee to do What he Does?
Firstly, I’m not clear on what Mr Berry-Dee’s qualifications are. In all fairness, I’m not entirely sure what qualifications one needs to write a book about those who have committed murder. But, aside from a keen interest in a particular topic, I would imagine that a career in journalism, or some profession that is associated with the Criminal Justice System would be desirable. Or at the very least some experience in writing non-fiction books. And I am not too sure that Mr Berry-Dee has any of these; okay, I lie. He has experience in writing non-fiction books, but not very well. This aspect of the quality of the books will be explored a little later.
Coming back to his qualifications. In an (admittedly very brief) internet search of Mr Berry-Dee, the only thing that comes up that gives some indication to his credentials is the claim that he is an “investigative criminologist”… Now I am not sure if that’s a thing. It might be, but I have certainly not heard of one (and I don’t claim to know every job role in the whole world that does or does not exist). But I have heard of a criminologist and I have heard of an investigative journalist, but not the combination of the two. But, okay, yes, you are right, there is the very outside possibility that a “investigative criminologist” could exist.
If this is indeed what Mr Berry-Dee is he is not very transparent about where he qualified to get this interesting (i.e. probably self-dubbed) title. What he seems to be more interested in letting his fans know (on his website) is that he used to be a Green Beret Commando in the Royal Marines and that he is (and here I quote directly) a “direct descendant of Dr John Dee, Court Astrologer to Queen Elizabeth I” and that he is (another direct quote of the website) “entitled to use his ancestors coat-of-arms”. Okay - was anyone saying he couldn’t?
Additionally, in the biography section of his website, he highlights that at the age of 49 (he is now 74) he became the owner and Editor-in-chief of The Criminologist (more quotes) “the worlds oldest and most respected journal…on matters concerning: law enforcement; penology; forensic psychiatry/psychology; penal reform; the judiciary, and all matters under the criminology masthead” (so quite a lot). Alongside this, he was appointed as Director of “The Criminology Research Institute” [there are quotation marks around the name of this institute on his website]. Now, again, I am not saying that you need to have specific qualifications in order to have an interest in a particular topic, nor that you have to have a specific degree or qualification to write about a particular topic either. But, if you are going to claim that you are a criminologist - which, to be fair, I’m not sure if it is a protected title or not, but I would hazard that if you are going to call yourself one then perhaps you might need some kind of evidence that backs this title up, even at undergrad level. Having said that, maybe it is the ownership and editorial position held within The Criminologist journal and being Director of “The Criminologist Research Institute” that affords Mr Berry-Dee the privilege of holding the title of “investigative criminologist”. Let’s take a closer look at these two titles shall we.
What I can find on the old Google search engine (after another admittedly very basic and not at all involved search) doesn’t quite align with what Mr Berry-Dee states in his biography. Firstly, the only (easily findable, and therefore one could argue most likely the actual “world’s most respected”) journal called The Criminologist is an American journal from the American Society of Criminology, of which the Managing Editor is Kelly Vance. Next on the list in terms of Google hits (and to be fair, I actually thought I was onto something here) is a magazine called The Criminologist. However, on the Wikipedia page for the magazine it is noted that the magazine went out of publication in 1998. Mr Berry-Dee was 50 at this point, which means that if this is the magazine (which he calls a journal) he claims to have been owner and Editor-in-Chief of at the age of 49, it went out of publication one year after he took ownership of it. However, seeing as his name does not appear at all in the two paragraph write up for The Criminologist on Wikipedia, I am going to assume this is not the journal in question (because it is after all a magazine and not a journal).
As for the “The Criminology Research Institute”, another (very basic) internet search reveals that in the UK there are only a handful of criminology institutes that have the words “criminology” or “research” or “institute” in their title. The first Google hit is for the Institute of Criminology at the University of Cambridge and Mr Berry-Dee does not appear on the current academic or research staff list on the institutes website. The second hit is for the Institute for Research in Criminology, Community, Education and Social Justice for De Montfort University in Leicester. Again, a quick look at the academic staff listed for De Montfort Uni does not list Mr Berry-Dee… are we starting to notice a pattern yet by any chance…? For someone who appears to claim an authority of knowledge and experience in a particular field, Mr Berry-Dee’s qualifications and so-claimed positions of expertise within that field do not seem to square up (or even exist if we’re being honest - again, this is all based on very brief and cursory internet searches. I would happily be proven wrong if someone else is able to verify any of the organisations and positions Mr Berry-Dee claims to hold).
Mr Berry-Dee’s Books Have a Self-Published Feel
Moving onto the next issue I have with Mr Berry-Dee’s book, and this relates to the fact that at the time of reading Beyond Evil I got the sense that it was self-published. Now before you come at me about self-published books and how there are perfectly good books out there that have been self-published, I know there are. I’m not taking a swing at self-publishing itself, but what I am taking issue with is badly self-published books, which is exactly what I thought Mr Berry-Dee’s books are. At the time of reading Beyond Evil I had no proof of it’s self-publication-ness other than the really bad (and that’s being kind. Some might say “atrocious”) writing. We’ll come back to that. Having looked into this further, on his website Mr Berry-Dee notes that that he is the “writer of some 36 separate book titles listed with Public Lending Right (PLR), published by W.H. Allen, Virgin Books and long time loyal friend and publisher John Blake (London) and now also Blake/Bonnier”. Again, some pretty basic internet searching reveals that the publishers listed exist and are legit. However, this is where things breakdown again and it appears that Mr Berry-Dee is trying to paint a picture more grand than the one that exists.
The Public Lending Right that Mr Berry-Dee speaks of is an agreement that forms part of being part of The British Library (which, if you search his name in the British Library catalogue, his books do appear, which is great). But all the Public Lending Right relates to is the fact that authors receive payment from a central fund as remuneration their books being available in the library, i.e. they get some cash for their books being loaned out to people for free. Which is fair enough, but I am not quite sure what telling us he is listed with the Public Lending Right is meant to prove, other than to sound fancy, maybe?
Furthermore, although he noted that he has been published by W.H. Allen and Virgin Books, which both appear to be subsidiaries of Penguin books, he is no longer listed on the Penguin books website. Now, from this I can’t know if he has ever been published by W.H. Allen or Virgin Books, but if he is no longer published by them is is a bit of false advertising to say that he is? I don’t know. Just seems a bit iffy to put that in your bio if that is not the current case - and it if was the case in the past then is it more appropriate to highlight that you were formerly published by a particular publishing company? I don’t know. Again, it seems to be geared towards portraying a bit of a façade. Anyway, moving on.
So, John Blake publishing also appears to be a legit publishing company and appears to be an “imprint” of Bonnier UK Publishing. I had to look up what an imprint was and apparently an imprint is like a subsidiary company of a bigger publishing company. So, the same way that W.H. Allen and Virgin Books are imprints of Penguin books. Imprint publishing companies allow parent publishing companies to focus on specific genres and/or demographic populations. In looking up John Blake Publishing, there is an actual copy of Talking with Serial Killers on the publisher’s page, so it seems that Mr Berry-Dee’s books are not in fact self-published.
What that doesn’t explain then is why the books are so badly written. As noted before, I have not read all the books, but when I say the books are badly written I mean that the book I read, Beyond Evil, made Fifty Shades of Grey seem like a literary classic. The structure was fairly formulaic in that each person Mr Berry-Dee supposedly interviewed was written about as if it were their individual Wikipedia page entry, which if that is what you wanted then that’s fine. But then you could just read the Wikipedia pages of the supposedly interviewed serial killers lives instead of a book about them. From what I can remember, the Mr Berry-Dee makes a big deal about having access to those he writes about; in that he has somehow managed to get the subjects in his books to speak to him and give him unparalleled access and the opportunity to hear never before heard facts and insights into the murders and the murderers lives. From the perpetrators themselves. However, this was not always the case. In Beyond Evil I think he wrote about one prisoner he interviewed, and then the rest of the book was just about murders and the murderers written from a fact-based research perspective (almost as if Mr Berry-Dee just looked up the Wikipedia pages). Mr Berry-Dee did not, for the rest of the book, seem to speak to anyone. But even the one person he interviewed felt a bit off in some way… I can’t put my finger on it, but I got the sense he didn’t actually speak to the person. There was something about the tone of Mr Berry-Dee’s supposed interactions that left me questioning the authenticity of what was being written. But we’ll get to the tone a bit more in a second.
The other thing that is very surprising seeing as Mr Berry-Dee’s books are in fact published is the number of spelling and grammatical errors that are peppered throughout the book. Badly constructed sentences, incorrectly spelled words, odd usage of punctuation (I think I remember the intermittent use of double full stops at the end of sentences). The reason it is surprising is because I would assume that the publishing company would edit Mr Berry-Dee’s work. I am not familiar with the intricacies of how publishing works, but I would just naturally assume that if someone ran a publishing company they would have editors to check things like spelling, grammar and punctuation use - my understanding is that this comes right at the end and that structure and narrative are focused on first. But it seems like focus on the final touches were omitted and the end result is just shy of a final draft. By no means am I implying that Mr Berry-Dee didn’t have anyone read through his work and edit it - it just seems like it way maybe not done enough. I have picked up on the occasional printing and editorial mishaps in books before, but the number and frequency of the overall writing mistakes in Beyond Evil seemed way outside what might be considered normal for human/editorial error. And it just added to the overall disillusionment of the book, and really made me feel like I had wasted the five quid I had spend on the book in Tesco.
The Tone
In all fairness, everything I have just spoken about doesn’t make much of a difference in the grand scheme of things: Mr Berry-Dee has written a number of books about an area of interest that a lot of people have, and he is well within his right to do so. Technically, he doesn’t need any qualifications to do this, and so what if his claims of authority don’t seem to match anything that exits on the internet? Who gives a shit that his books aren’t the most cleanly finished articles publication-wise, right? Just so long as he can give us a balanced, objective view of what we want to read about, right?
Well… maybe this is where my biggest issue with Mr Berry-Dee comes in.
Obviously we all have biases and we all have agendas. I have my own internal biases that guide my decision making, things I choose to speak about, things I post on my Instagram page (or, in some cases, don’t). And I guess the same thing applies when writing a book. Only thing is, as best I can I try and check my biases, and I think about my agendas. Based on this singular book I read by Mr Berry-Dee, I think he has three very strong agendas, and I do wonder about them. Firstly, I think he wants us to think he is hard. Secondly, he wants us to think he is either anointed, or blessed, or in some way savvy enough to be the only person who can get into the minds of these dangerous individuals. And thirdly, I think he dislikes serial killers very much, despite spending what feels like a very long period of his life writing about them.
So, the reason I think he wants his readers to think he’s hard is because in the book I read it feels like he spent quite a lot of time telling the reader (that would be me) how much he held his own in the one and only interview with a serial killer in the book (serial killer and psychopath; remember, the book is about psychopaths and savages). And then, if I remember correctly, he kind of says the same thing about the other interviews he’s conducted (oh, he also references his other books - a lot. At time it felt like he was trying to advertise his other books in the book I was reading. It felt so odd. Anyway). He seemed to give the sense that the only way he could speak to his interviewee was by not being intimidated, and he gave this impression in the book by giving it the textual version of the “the big I am”. I think I remember him writing that he had like a staring competiton of something with the interviewee in Beyond Evil. It felt like a very alpha male, ego-driven rhetoric.
It is very possible that Mr Berry-Dee is hard as nails, he was after all a Green Beret… but it felt a little forced, like it was being done for dramatic effect or something; almost as if he was saying, “This shit is fucking bonkers, it is not for the faint of heart, and I am the only one who can do this.” I can’t quite put my finger on it. It’s almost as if he wants the reader to be grateful for putting himself at risk. And he seems to give the impression that it is because of this hard as nails, take-no-shit demeanour that he has that he is able to gain access to the people he interviews. That no one else but he could do it. Overall, it’s a weird vibe for the book.
And finally, I got a distinct lack of empathy for the people Mr Berry-Dee was writing about, and this includes both the serial killers and their victims. Now, whether or not you think that someone who has killed a number of people deserves empathy is not my concern at this present moment and it is not something I am going to try and convince you of at this stage. That is a very complex position to take, and I might discuss it one day. I suppose in relation to this book, perhaps I didn’t necessarily expect an overwhelming degree of empathy for those who had committed the murders, but I did kind of expect some form of objectivity. I am not very knowledgeable about the field of criminology, but my understanding is that part of the field entails trying to understand why offenders commit their offences. And, as part of his role as a “investigative criminologist”, one might expect a degree of objective curiosity and critical investigation on the part of Mr Berry-Dee into the reasons why the serial killers under interview did what they did. It is possible the book contained some of that, but it doesn’t stand out from memory, which for me highlights that this particular aspect of the book (which, is meant to be a selling point of the over all series of book) was - maybe not missing - but perhaps distinctly lacking.
But what you do get instead is a seemingly unrelenting barrage of disparagement of those who had committed the killings. I can’t remember all the words used, but within the text there was frequent references to the people who had committed the multiple murders as “monsters” and other terms of that ilk. It felt very sensationalistic, demeaning, and it basically read as a purposeful way for Mr Berry-Dee to express his contempt for the subjects he wrote about, which is weird. I am not saying he had to like the interview subjects, but it gave the impression that Mr Berry-Dee held himself to a much higher moral standard and positioned himself as the authority - in everything. It was this seemingly grandiose hubris (that’s a polite way of saying narcissistic arrogance) that led me to question Mr Berry-Dee’s qualifications in writing the book. He writes with such authority and confidence, which is hard to not notice because it is amplified by the seemingly lack of any major journalistic integrity.
Alongside this, Mr Berry-Dee did not seem to have much empathy for the victims included in the books. I can’t quite remember the details on this part, I must admit, bit I have some memories him potentially victim-blaming or being very judgemental of the victims in his recounting of the details of their deaths. I certainly don’t remember the victims being written about with any compassion.
All of this being said, his books are available in Waterstones and Tesco and I am sure other places that books are sold, so he does seem to be popular - or at the very least he has managed to market himself very well. And he seems to have tapped into a market for which there is a demand. Which I can understand - I myself got to where I am in life with the job that I am in due to a similar morbid fascination and interest in people who do really horrible things. I guess my issue is that the books that Mr Berry-Dee writes (which I know is based mostly based on the singular book of his that I have read) don’t feel very… and I am trying to think of a constructive way of saying this… they don’t feel very nice. I know that is a weird way to phrase it, but the book I read didn’t make me feel comfortable. Not that you should feel comfortable reading about horrible things, but it was the tone and the attitude, I guess, of Mr Berry-Dee that left me feeling uncomfortable.
Perhaps I am too biased with the work I do and the professional requirement (and personal value I have) of unconditional positive regard for my fellow human being that impacted the way in which I read Mr Berry-Dee’s book. I am also aware of the contradiction that exits in that I made a comment about Mr Berry-Dee’s supposed moral superiority he held over those he has written about in his books and what I have just said about holding people unconditional positive regard. It is very possible that I now come across as holding some kind of moral superiority, and it is very possible that I now come across as a hypocritical prick; but I guess I am just highlighting why the book left an unpleasant mark on me.
Anyway, as I said at the start of all this, I am not telling you to not read any of his books - I am not your parent. You are free agents able to make your own decisions and to do what the fuck you want; but perhaps this might shape your views of the bools if you do read any of them. Actually, if you do end up reading it, let me know your thoughts. Let me know if I am completely off the mark. Also, if you like trashy, sensationalistic books then they might be right up your street. I mean, they are still non-fictional books, and from what I can tell you will learn about the basic series of events that occurred for all the murders that he writes about. I am just not sure you will gain anything insightful, is all I’m saying. At the same time, if you have listened to this and I have put you off reading his books, but you already have one on your book shelf and can now be considered a waste of money… sorry!
But that’s it from me for this episode. The usual spiel still applies - if you liked listening to this or any of my previous episodes, please rate, subscribe or leave a comment wherever you get your podcasts. And please tell your friends and family about me. I would be ever so grateful. And as always, have a great day. Or not. Whatever, no pressure. Cheers!
I have exciting news to share: You can now read The Nice-ish Ramblings in the new Substack app for iPhone.
With the app, you’ll have a dedicated Inbox for my Substack and any others you subscribe to. New posts will never get lost in your email filters, or stuck in spam. Longer posts will never cut-off by your email app. Comments and rich media will all work seamlessly. Overall, it’s a big upgrade to the reading experience.
The Substack app is currently available for iOS. If you don’t have an Apple device, you can join the Android waitlist here.
6: "Talking with Serial Killers"