I hover between 2 and 3 stars for this one - mostly because I'm not sure how many I want to dock for its poor scholarship.
Once upon a time, the Bender family were among the most notorious serial killers in America. In the Wild West of 1870s Kansas, they murdered weary travelers who stopped by for shelter on the empty plains. It was a deadly breach of hospitality in a harsh land where the elements and outlaws could kill you as you traveled across the open landscape.
Jonusas provides insightful context into the time and place and writes in a way to make the history come alive. Unfortunately, she does so by adopting the Truman Capote style of narrative nonfiction. The primary sources are often sensationalist enough on their own (she rightfully points out in her introduction that "nineteenth-century newspapers can be unreliable" and the memoirs can be self-serving). It's imperative that the historian examine sources with a critical eye and not take them at face value, as Jonusas acknowledges ("It is always necessary to look at source in conjunction with one another, to understand who they were created by and for what purpose..."). And yet Jonusas relies on a single, unreliable source for her adamant assertions on what "really" happened to the Benders. The Benders snuck out of Kansas in the dead of night to avoid the hangman's noose they surely knew was coming and they were never heard from again. No one knows their fates. But Jonusas writes as if she does, relying on statements from Sam Merrick, a prisoner who told tales to fellow inmates bragging that he knew the Benders and caught the attention of officials who gave some credence to his story. But nothing came of it and it was never corroborated. It would be one thing if Jonusas acknowledged in the text that this was one possible theory about what happened to the Benders, but she writes as if it was gospel that this really happened. The reader has to dig into the Notes section (this book is not properly footnoted, which is its own problem) to realize that all these supposed true details are coming from one source. The Bender family saga is full of false accusations that ruined lives (people jailed for being suspected accomplices and even jailed in a clear case of mistaken identity as being the actual Bender women in disguise, as Jonusas does a good job of describing in this book), so to put forth a new theory over a hundred years later with the fanaticism of these early accusers is, at the least, ironic. Especially in today's world where misinformation is causing havoc, it is irresponsible for a writer and publisher to not make clear what is true and what is pure speculation.
Jonusas not only overrelies on an unreliable source, she also makes up dialogue and details out of whole cloth. There are several places where it is clear that she is projecting feelings or thoughts onto historical personages when there is no way that she has any source for it (i.e., a victim after they set out for their final fated journey to the Benders, when no one hears from them again and they didn't leave any writing behind; or dialogue between the Bender family members when there was no one there to hear it and Jonusas states plainly that the Benders did not leave any surviving writings behind). She also appears to take the primary source and then use creative license on what she suspects the emotions, conversations, and actions of the people were. Here is a comparison of the source Jonusas quotes and how she puts it in her book -
Source from the Notes section (statement of Samuel Merrick): "Kate dressed like a man most of the time. She was complaining how poor they were and how they had to live. John said they would always be worth at least a thousand dollars apiece no matter how poor they got."
Book: Kate was pleased to have a new person to complain to. "I hate living like a prairie dog," she hissed to Merrick. "No bed, no dresses," she spat, "And no money to fix up even a little bit."
"No matter how poor we get, Katie, we'll always be worth a thousand dollars apiece," John teased, then laughed at his own joke. Kate curled her lip and moved away from him. "Shame we can't see none of it."
I understand the urge to make a book more exciting. It is hard when you have dry text. I am seeing this sort of creative license more and more often in popular history books. If the authors would just be very clear and honest about what is real and what is fake, that would be one thing. But it is disguised as historical accuracy, and most people do not check the footnotes or think critically about sources or what the author is likely making up. They are just there to enjoy the book and learn something. Which they should be able to do, in the trust that the author is being clear and honest. Jonusas did write an interesting, readable book, but at what cost?