Review from someone who once worked with the Cassidy Family.

Just. Plain. Awful.


I would go as far as to say: Five Alarm Liar.



I see so many people reviewing and acting like this is factual and, while that is a logical conclusion in the case of an "autobiography," this isn't. Far from it.



What this book contains are innacuracies (how to you flub dates and identifications of your own children in pictures?), inconsistancies and downright fabrications mixed with stories so numbingly boring that no matter who would be telling them, your eyes glaze over.



Reviewers are stating they can't believe "Mrs Partridge" would do these things....but the fact is that the most disgusting thing she did in these pages was lie.



How do I know this? I have worked for members of this family and have written the short bios for two members - including Jack Cassidy. I know this may bring a fan-backlash from those who dont want to hear actual honesty here. I might anger some people but this needs to be said. In conversations and correspondence with family and friends of Jack, either the world lied or she is. The flubs are on many levels and are obvious to those who even know a basic amount. Hell, if you read her first book alone, you can see the actual contradictions. Now, I can see filling in the blanks from book to book or expanding, but what she pulled from the past book and used was edited to remove context, explanation and substance to where it doesn't make sense and somehow moves to the point of inaccuracy. There are events I know as fact that have been edited between the books to mostly accurate to just plain wrong. Other events I can't explain in any logical way. How can someone make a point of pages of elaborate story surrounding an event in one book to COMPLETELY voiding the event with another story - without meaning and even without explanation. One of the two is a lie. And no explanation for the change.



There are also events mentioned elsewhere by other people placed in the wrong time, place and context here. Things she has denied knowing for decades are suddenly known and include her in ways that are improbable.



There are so many things that contradict decades of writing and interviews and in ways that don't make sense - and without any explanation for the discrepancy. If you are going to change your story in so many ways and in things that really don't matter except to exploit? It doesn't make sense.



Let's look at some odd factors in this book. For an autobiography, 95% of the photos used are press photos or photos that have been available for decades. Nothing is personal and one of her own sons is misidentified in one photo. Then there is the fact that her last book has input from the entire family and this one has NONE. How about the fact that with all her stories, the other players are mostly given fake names or are dead. One of the few livng people, Joan Collins, called her out on the lies, served cease and desist papers - and the publisher republished without a fight.



I can go into reasons why I'd call BS on most (not all but most) of the Jack Cassidy stories but there are reasons. Jack deserved better treatment than this. He may have been a rogue but there were certain lines he wouldn't cross. There were certain standards he kept. If he was here today, he would be outraged and disgusted. He didn't deny his sexuality (in fact, he loved to make it part of his schtick) but there was a level of sophistication and dignity. The suggestion was there but to the public, it was a wink and a smirk and no more than that. Discretion.



But I asked myself why she would do this. Why take such a distinguished reputation with a hint of naughty and drag yourself through the gutter. I do have one theory that I've been told but will keep to myself. But here is another: Years ago, Florence Henderson made a little bit of a name for herself as "Flo Ho" with candid banter about sexuality and her past. It worked for her and gave her a boost. The two have always been competitive on some level. Now think about a teenage locker room. The boy that doesn't have much of a reputation but wants one and the attention that goes with it, speaks up with lacivious details about either a girl who already has a bad reputation or that ellusive "girl he met at camp" that is just a shadow. People that can't disprove the dirty details. The less a person has actually done, the more gusto they put into their story. I am guessing that these are actually the stories she thinks about during her "special alone time." Because the secret to a good lie is to know when to hold back and not cross the line - and she crossed it again and again. Think about people known for their conquests and sexcapades. Warren Beatty, Hugh Hefner, Charlie Sheen....have they ever written a book with these details? Nope. Part of it is class and discretion but part of it is knowing that giving details is desperate and they don't need to try. Even Wilt Chamberlain that claimed to sleep with 1000 women, didn't go into these sorts of details. Joan Collins who is known for her sexuality, as I said, served Shirley and her published legal documents over her inclusion. Elizabeth taylor and Zsa Zsa Gabor are known for sensuality and multiple marriages and never wrote anything like this.



Sadly, Shirley does have a story to tell and it could have been classy and interesting. She could have taken a dignified approach and have it do just as well. No, the shock value wouldn't have been as heightened but I'd believe any tabloid before I give this book and credence. The irony? Shirley sued The National Enquirer thirty years ago because she didn't want the world believing lies about her. Now she is planting her own.



And for God's sake, if you are going to write a book of trash? Make it readable. This book is so poorly written that it is pathetic. There is no flow. The grammar is questionable. Fire that ghost writer. Fire the editor. It is a book of garbage written like garbage.


As I told a friend of mine, it is toilet paper with a binding. If I could give it negative stars, I would.

Such an interesting life with such a sterling reputation - It is so sad to see someone personally implode it without any productive reason.

And my conclusion about this "review" of Shirley's book? Just. Plain. Awful. If you're going to harp on and on about how the book is full of lies, have the courage to put evidence behind your statements. And give some friggin' examples of what you're talking about! Anyone can call someone a liar. That's easy. But if you can't be specific, and can't provide evidence for your claim, then what you have to say is pretty useless. Why doesn't this person have the courage to give examples and back them up? Perhaps he/she is afraid that giving specifics might cause them to wind up being sued by Shirley . . . for lying?

And my conclusion about this "review" of Shirley's book? Just. Plain. Awful. If you're going to harp on and on about how the book is full of lies, have the courage to put evidence behind your statements. And give some friggin' examples of what you're talking about! Anyone can call someone a liar. That's easy. But if you can't be specific, and can't provide evidence for your claim, then what you have to say is pretty useless. Why doesn't this person have the courage to give examples and back them up? Perhaps he/she is afraid that giving specifics might cause them to wind up being sued by Shirley . . . for lying?

First you post threads slamming David and now you're doing the same to Shirley. You don't seem like a Partridge Family fan.

This review was written by someone who worked for the Cassidys. She did research about Jack's life. Shirley made up stories to sell a book. If you don't believe how bad this book is go to www.amazon.com or www.goodreads.com. If you really want to verify what I am saying. Unfortunately, Shirley needs the money.

This article was not written by me. It was written by someone who worked for the Cassidys at one point and has done research on Jack Cassidy's life . You need to go to www.amazon.com or www.goodreads.com. If you need to see the other bad reviews go there. It is unfortunate that Shirley has to resort to lying to sell a book.

This review was written by someone who worked for the Cassidys. She did research about Jack's life. Shirley made up stories to sell a book. If you don't believe how bad this book is go to www.amazon.com or www.goodreads.com. If you really want to verify what I am saying. Unfortunately, Shirley needs the money.

Shirley signed her name to her book. Who is this coward who is unwilling to identify herself or to give any specifics about what she claims to be lies? What's she so afraid of if the truth is on her side?

This article was not written by me. It was written by someone who worked for the Cassidys at one point and has done research on Jack Cassidy's life . You need to go to www.amazon.com or www.goodreads.com. If you need to see the other bad reviews go there. It is unfortunate that Shirley has to resort to lying to sell a book.

Shirley signed her name to her book. Who is this coward who is unwilling to identify herself or to give any specifics about what she claims to be lies? What's she so afraid of if the truth is on her side?

I know who she is and the Cassidy family know who she is. Shirley sold out. At least Jack's 1st wife and David's mother never sold out. It is a tacky thing to do.

This post got my attention, yet there is absolutely no info. in it.
What lies?
All it is repetive ranting without backing up what you are so upset about.

And my conclusion about this "review" of Shirley's book? Just. Plain. Awful. If you're going to harp on and on about how the book is full of lies, have the courage to put evidence behind your statements. And give some friggin' examples of what you're talking about! Anyone can call someone a liar. That's easy. But if you can't be specific, and can't provide evidence for your claim, then what you have to say is pretty useless. Why doesn't this person have the courage to give examples and back them up? Perhaps he/she is afraid that giving specifics might cause them to wind up being sued by Shirley . . . for lying?

IMO, the funniest thing about the "review" is that it complains how poorly written Shirley's book was, but the review itself has poor punctuation and meanders all over the place. I'm calling BS on the "insider info".

Shirley's book is full of bad reviews. People are missing the point here. I know Shirley needs the money. She doesn't get that much acting work. He voice is shot. She can't sell her house because it is in need of repairs. She could have written a good book but went tabloid.
By the way, her goon of a husband Marty just sold a piece to the National Enquirer on how David only has 3 months on live. They don't even like each other.

Shirley's book is full of bad reviews. People are missing the point here. I know Shirley needs the money. She doesn't get that much acting work. He voice is shot. She can't sell her house because it is in need of repairs. She could have written a good book but went tabloid.
By the way, her goon of a husband Marty just sold a piece to the National Enquirer on how David only has 3 months on live. They don't even like each other.

No caro, we aren't missing the point at all. In fact, I think this so-called review was written by YOU. But even if it wasn't, it doesn't matter because it's a worthless piece of garbage. As everyone keeps telling you, there are no specifics. There is nothing in that "review" telling us specifically what lies are in Shirleys book, and there's nothing there proving they are lies. Who are the witnesses who can prove they are lies? And most importantly, whoever wrote this review doesn't even have the guts to sign their name to it. Shirley has the guts to put her name behind her book. As such, her credibility is way, way higher than the writer of this slanderous review. And as for you, your constant ranting about, and obsession of, David Cassidy and Shirley Jones tells me that you're obviously insanely jealous of them.

David is up for his 2nd and 3rd DUI. Marty Ingels sold information to the National Enquirer for an Article title David Cassidy has 3 months to live. Shirley Jones got sued by Joan Collins and wins. David has gotten banned from places by showing up drunk. Jealous? The is factual. I know the person who wrote the article and it wasn't me. PM me and I will tell you the name. She has worked with the Cassidy Family and did research and interviews with people who worked with Jack Cassidy. Shirley Jones can't sell her house and can't afford to make repairs. Jealous?

David is up for his 2nd and 3rd DUI. Marty Ingels sold information to the National Enquirer for an Article title David Cassidy has 3 months to live. Shirley Jones got sued by Joan Collins and wins. David has gotten banned from places by showing up drunk. Jealous? The is factual. I know the person who wrote the article and it wasn't me. PM me and I will tell you the name. She has worked with the Cassidy Family and did research and interviews with people who worked with Jack Cassidy. Shirley Jones can't sell her house and can't afford to make repairs. Jealous?

Why a PM and not a public acknowledgement? Shirley Jones has publicly put her name on her book, so why can't the person who wrote this review do the same? And why can't this person articulate what the purported lies are that she's claiming? This just makes it look like she is worried about being sued by Ms. Jones for libel, and losing. As for David Cassidy's alcohol problems, Shirley Jones' house, Marty Ingels and all the rest of this stuff you relentlessly keep harping on, why do you care? Why don't you just go live your own life and let other people worry about theirs? What has it got to do with you?

Michele put her name on there. She knows who she is. Last I looked we are on a discussion board. If you don't want to discuss this fine. Why are you preventing me and anyone else from doing so. Michele pointing out discrepancies from people she has interviewed about Jack Cassidy because she wrote a biography and was in charge of getting Jack recognized in certain entertainment establishment. Shirley book goes into describing his she masturbates and genital sizes. If you looked at the reviews many said they wish they never read it. I am surprised anyone would want to defend the actions of Shirley!

I like Shirley Jones. She was on Days of our Lives a few years ago playing the role of Colleen Brady.

Michele put her name on there. She knows who she is. Last I looked we are on a discussion board. If you don't want to discuss this fine. Why are you preventing me and anyone else from doing so.

I'm preventing you from discussing this? That's hilarious. We're discussing it now? :lol: Nobody has stopped you. :) Discussion goes two ways. Or do you think only your point of view should be allowed, and you should be able to post whatever you want and not be challenged?

Michele pointing out discrepancies from people she has interviewed about Jack Cassidy because she wrote a biography and was in charge of getting Jack recognized in certain entertainment establishment.

Who is Michele and why, again, does she gives no specifics about the so-called lies she's claiming in her "review"? What is she afraid of?

Shirley book goes into describing his she masturbates and genital sizes. If you looked at the reviews many said they wish they never read it. I am surprised anyone would want to defend the actions of Shirley!

You think some of the things Shirley wrote were tasteless, that's fine. But you're diverting the subject away from "Michele's" claims that Shirley Jones is telling lies, without identifying what those lies are and showing evidence they are lies. And again, why do you care?

She is going to be on General Hospital soon too.

What lies? :confused:

Shirley's book got a lot of bad reviews. You may need to go and read the reviews on Amazon and www.goodreads.com. LittleRickyII doesn't appear to believe anything I say. I just thought I would open this for discussion. Shirley could have had a nice book but she instead went tabloid because she needs the money.

Shirley's book got a lot of bad reviews. You may need to go and read the reviews on Amazon and www.goodreads.com. LittleRickyII doesn't appear to believe anything I say. I just thought I would open this for discussion. Shirley could have had a nice book but she instead went tabloid because she needs the money.

Hahahaha! You're cracking me up. Yes, this is open for discussion and we're trying to get you to discuss. You said this person, Michele, who wrote this review saying the book is full of lies, knows Shirley Jones and the Cassidys. We just want to know what specific incidents in Shirley's book Michele is talking about when she says they are lies, and how she knows. I don't care about the reviews on Amazon, I want to know what Michele is talking about. And I also want to know why Shirley Jones' and David Cassidy's private lives matter so much to you. You keep dodging these questions. Let's discuss!

Shirley's book got a lot of bad reviews. You may need to go and read the reviews on Amazon and www.goodreads.com. LittleRickyII doesn't appear to believe anything I say. I just thought I would open this for discussion. Shirley could have had a nice book but she instead went tabloid because she needs the money.
That's not being specific. It sounds like speculation. Please be specific and point out the exact lies.

I asked that people go to the reviews and read them just to discuss. Some people are making this out to be more about me than Shirley. I thought we were not allowed to attack each other here. Anywhere here are some of the reviews.
I grew up in the small town of Smithton, Pa. I have always followed Shirley's career as we went to the same high school and had the same music teacher. My experience of growing up there was 180 degrees from hers. I find she is a much better actress than writer. I would not recommend this book.

After all the hoopla, the book comes across as boring, factually incorrect (at least one time), and a bit nasty. Even so, some of the behind-the-scenes descriptions of her early career, and observations on directors and co-stars provide interesting tidbits. Despite the hype, the book is not especially sensational. The author's descriptions of her sex life and affairs, particularly about the physical attributes of her husband and stepson, do not add much to the story. Her description of Stephen Elliot, with whom she alleges to have had an affair, as the actor who played Liza Minelli's father in "Arthur" is incorrect. Elliot's played Jill Eikenberry's father in that movie. Are there other errors of fact in the book? The author's comment in the photos, "Eat Your Heart Out Florence Henderson" seems spiteful. Other than appearing on a competing TV show, did Henderson deserve this? All in all, a book one could leave on the shelf.
The book is filled with contradictions that also make no sense. At one point she claims she never cheated on Cassidy, then goes on to tell stories of how she passionately kissed other men and even went to bed with one! She says a director never gave any on-set directions, then tells a story about a direction he gave! She says she didn't cheat on husband Marty Ingels, then gives an example of cheating on him. Her distorted view of reality shows that she has no real moral base and is nothing like her on-screen persona.

Even worse are the various small errors in the book. Jack Cassidy didn't play Ted Baxter's "twin brother" in the Mary Tyler Moore show and his series He & She was in the 1960s, not the 1970s. Music Man was not shot in Mason City, Iowa. Fred Silverman wasn't the one who "created All in the Family, The Waltons and Charlie's Angels." He was just the network programmer who put them on the air. The biggest whopper is that she claims the role she played on Partridge Family was the "first working mother" on TV (not even close--just think of Julia as a nurse years earlier). And her stepson David Cassidy certainly wasn't a "rock God" nor the biggest rock star of the century (which she claims twice). The entire book has the feel of someone who doesn't quite have all of her facts straight, and the co-author didn't do the work to fact check.


I hope I gave some examples here. Too bad people couldn't go to Amazon.

I thought we were not allowed to attack each other here.
Asking you to point out the lies is an attack? :confused:

I hope I gave some examples here. Too bad people couldn't go to Amazon.
You pointed out a few inconsistencies. I didn't read any LIES.

I was not talking about you. The book is something that was sold for tabloid value and Shirley could have cared less about factual content be it a the name of her children under the wrong photo and datelines.

I hope I gave some examples here. Too bad people couldn't go to Amazon.

Like I said, I don't care about the reviews on Amazon, I want to get to the bottom of the review in your original post, that this thread is supposed to be about. You said someone named Michele wrote it and that she knows David Cassidy and Shirley Jones. Her review says Shirley's book is full of lies. For the 20th time, what were those lies???? Again, I could care less about the reviews on Amazon because that's not what you started this thread to talk about. You're only using that to divert the conversation because apparently you can't back up the "Michele" claims made in the post that started this thread. So at this point, I can only conclude that, in fact, Shirley is being truthful. Nevertheless, I'll give you another chance and repeat the two questions that you keep avoiding:

1) What specifically are the lies in Shirley Jones' book that "Michele" is referring to?
2) Why are you so concerned about the private lives of Shirley Jones and David Cassidy?

I guess sex sells. After reading the reviews, I guess I will pass.

I was going to make an original post, but I think it is better here.

What was up with Shirley and her two husbands, both who were (and one is) certifiably insane?

Jack Cassidy? The man seems like a primadonna to me. Seemed like a jerk and a half. Did not want to do the Ted Baxter role on Mary Tyler Moore show because he did not want to be on a show headed by a woman. A guy who thought that he was much bigger that he was in the entertainment business. In the end, became a raging alcoholic, watering his plants outside naked and then once Shirley saw him reading a book and him telling her that he thought he was Christ. An alcoholic nutter. He was also jealous of David's success and was critical of him, a jerk and an alcoholic nut job.

Marty Ingels? This guy is just nuts. I have seen them in interviews. He is just out there. Probably not a bad guy, but seems to be from the outset to be difficult to live with, with many quirks and just.....nutty. Made me wonder, what does Shirley see in this nutter? A has been, much like Jack but much worse. Probably (and I say probably) not a drunk, just crazy. Probably like living with Ozzy Osbourne's crazy uncle who didn't drink or drug because he did not need too. Dunno.

Seemed that Shirley could have done better than these two idiots.

I just read the book and it was indeed an eye opener. The co writer helped Barbara Eden with her book "Genie out of a Bottle" and Barbara's was nothing like Shirley's. I expected a little more info about Shirley's career versus love life info. It was interesting to hear about her son Ryans substance abuse problem. Shirley seemed very close to stepson David. Very little was mentioned about David's mother. Shirley didn't seem to mind to write about subjects I would be embarrass to have my neighbors, children or friends know. I don't remember Arthur but didn't Steve Elliot play Jane Wyman's husband in the first few episodes of Falcon Crest.

I was going to make an original post, but I think it is better here.

What was up with Shirley and her two husbands, both who were (and one is) certifiably insane?

Jack Cassidy? The man seems like a primadonna to me. Seemed like a jerk and a half. Did not want to do the Ted Baxter role on Mary Tyler Moore show because he did not want to be on a show headed by a woman. A guy who thought that he was much bigger that he was in the entertainment business. In the end, became a raging alcoholic, watering his plants outside naked and then once Shirley saw him reading a book and him telling her that he thought he was Christ. An alcoholic nutter. He was also jealous of David's success and was critical of him, a jerk and an alcoholic nut job.

Marty Ingels? This guy is just nuts. I have seen them in interviews. He is just out there. Probably not a bad guy, but seems to be from the outset to be difficult to live with, with many quirks and just.....nutty. Made me wonder, what does Shirley see in this nutter? A has been, much like Jack but much worse. Probably (and I say probably) not a drunk, just crazy. Probably like living with Ozzy Osbourne's crazy uncle who didn't drink or drug because he did not need too. Dunno.

Seemed that Shirley could have done better than these two idiots.
I am a blogger for findadeath and I made Scott look up the info on Jack's death. Jack did not want the Ted told because if you looked on YouTube he is played a similar character on the He and She show which preceded it. Ted Knight did not even want the role and was always trying to get out of it. Jack was not diagnosed until late in life with bi polar disorder. There was little you could do for it then. If you think he was a primadonna then why did people hire him. Jack got an Emmy nomination for the Andersonville Trial and George C. Scott won and told Jack to accept it. Also Jack alcohol level was 1.1 and not the 2.0 which is past out drunk. Jack tried to get out but was found near the porch. Both Shirley and David are broke and were told the way to sell a book was to push the envelope. I guess you think it is fair to make up stories about a dead guy.

Wow!! Now I'll look at her the same ever again.

http://images.sodahead.com/polls/002262879/1523342297_128908207412107036_answer_3_xlarge.jpeg

Both Shirley and David are broke and were told the way to sell a book was to push the envelope.


Told by whom?