The article makes a lot of sense in light of the way Kelley presents certain things in his book, but I can see how it would be largely "?" if you don't have access to a copy.
Yes, perhaps. Although I would point out Schlesinger herself states she hadn't read the entire book at the time she wrote the piece. My takeaway from her article is that she wanted to correct some of Kelley's misuse of terms, but then goes on to make suppositions about Monk's mental state herself that seem loosely grounded. Sort of a "could be this, could be that," kind of thing. And really, that's probably the best that can be managed at this point.
Is there any indication in the footnotes that Kelley consulted with a psychologist during the writing of the book?