Actually, the reviewer below seems to be misinformed about the reviewer below him/her being misinformed, unless he/she has access to some credible but obscure source (which should certainly be named if it exists, since the closest thing I've been able to find to a refutation of the contra Bridey Murphy argument is some X Files slash fiction.
Sure, the paper that came up with the damaging claims against the case was a rival of the paper that popularized it: does that prove that they were wrong? Remember Occam's Razor.

No matter what you have read about this story and choose to believe, as the saying goes, "the proof is in the pudding." I would like to point out that Morey Bernstein never once in his life said that this story was proof of reincarnation. Not even close. He said that it definitely warrants further invesigation into the phenomenon. At the time the book came out, the western world was against any idea of reincarnation as it flew in the face of western thinking (Although, lets take a look: hundreds of millions of people take reincarnation as a fact of life as part of their religion). The discreditors of the story never once found any way to show the story was a fraud. In fact, the discreditor happened to be a Chicago TABLOID!!! The women allegedly named Bridey Murphy who lived across the street upon further investigation turned out to be the mother of the TABLOID's owner. The person below me mentioned occum's razor (the simplest solution tend to be correct) Think about that. In fact, when a more credible Chicago paper picked up the TABLOID's story, it had to cut out a whole bunch of arguments because they were just way too outrageous. ex: When Ruth Simmons was a girl she had a park accross the street which she played in many times. This explains why she would have said she lived in "the meadow."
Now that is just ridiculous, especially when a hand-drawn 1800's map of the city Cork, the area in which Bridey lived according to Ruth's sessions was called "The meadow." Now Ruth, living in America her whole life, and having never even heard of the town called Cork, recalls an area of only a couple square miles in the 1800's in Ireland. None of this was made up. Everything Ruth said under hypnosis has been verified to be real and not a hoax. am i saying that reincarnation exists? After reading the book, i believe. But please, read the book and don't read anything trying to close your mind to one of the most amazing cases of age-regression hypnosis ever told.

Like the reviewer below, you've perhaps heard that the Bridey Murphy saga has "all been explained" in mundane terms. As Carnac the Magnificent might've said to Ed McMahon: "WRONG, reincarnation breath." The "next-door-neighbor-named-Bridey" explanation itself has been thoroughly discredited for 40 years (although the debunkers won't concede this), and this book remains as one of the classics that anyone with an interest in reincarnation must read. It's from 1956 and is by no means as compelling as one of Ian Stevenson's exhaustive studies, but it is a serious case that was well-handled by the standards of the time and has a number of inexplicable features. In any event, don't be put off by the misinformation that the case has been explained away. There have indeed been a number of high-profile cases that have proved to have mundane explanations, but this isn't one of them. (As an aside, I was amused a couple of years ago when a debunker website made a snide comment about Morey Bernstein, assuming he must've died 25 years ago. This brought a quick response from Bernstein, who was very much alive and quite feisty.)