SIDEBAR #57 - Travis Alexander forum

[GigiG]

Snipped

You have to remember (and I do too :sheesh: ) that these are Laurence's thoughts before the trial started, so things happened during/after the trial/retrial and his thoughts changed because of those things. I'm waiting to see what happens and how his thoughts gradually changed or if they, in fact, changed. I don't think he will change his views about TA too much because I think he truly thinks that TA emotionally abused the murderer. I don't know how he can think those things because he knows how manipulating the murderer was/can be and most of TA's anger was because of her manipulations/lying. So- how can he say/still say that he knows what/who the murderer was/is and still say that TA was an abuser? :thinking:

I think Lawrence was a victim of the murderer in the beginning because he didn't know what a mess he was getting himself into (he gradually found out and wanted out, but he couldn't get out because of the ethics that attorney's have to follow). He had to follow what his client wanted and his hands were tied. I wonder if that is why his team (Wilmott, et. al) came to a disagreement on how to handle the trial and their client???? (he was tired of all the bull and lies and didn't want to do it anymore?). They were friendly before whatever happened.

I don't know if Lawrence was "boasting" about being the murderer's attorney- he definitely wasn't happy about that. I think he knew he would be "infamous" instead because most people think, IMO, that the defendant's lawyers are "guilty by association", so there's a tendency to not like them. And everyone who followed the trial/read/listened to the news does know him and not in a good way. I'm sure all the bad publicity he received may have affected his business. Even tho' the murderer received LWOP and he "won", it wasn't because it had anything to do with what he did, as the jury was 11 for the DP and juror 17's hold-out. Surely if JM was able to get her kicked off and replaced with an alternate, she would be on death row right now. Just a fluke, IMO.

Right now, as I'm reading more of the book, I'm letting my emotions get in the way of seeing how difficult a job that Lawrence had and I'm getting angry with words he uses to describe what was happening at the time- especially about Dr. DeMarte and his bashing of TA, but...it's his first thoughts/feelings and I do hope they change when the trial gets underway. We will see.....I still have an open mind at this point.

All :moo: of course

BBM

I'm not buying into his whole "before" story. Memories are not that reliable. He might think he remembers things that way, but it's almost impossible to go back and be certain of one's feelings at a certain point in time. I believe he's telling this story in hindsight, knowing what he knows now. I highly doubt he was that perceptive regarding JA right from the start. This is revisionist history. JMO

 

[GigiG]

YoNo, I have a hard time believing these were Numi's thoughts BEFORE trial as he has written this book with 20/20 hindsightand brings the trial references in and out. For some reason, his discourse sounds like recall rather than from a journal he kept contemporaneously.

haha! Zuri, I just posted something along the same lines before I read this post from you...

 

[GigiG]

I'm confused, then. All of book 1 is from N's point of view BEFORE the trial? Why then the excerpts that directly address (and challenge) " the trial watchers" ? What watchers, if this is before the trial even began? Doesn't he defend LaV and Samuels' testimony in this book?

I'm personally not interested whatsoever in a book 2 or 3 if his opinion about Travis Alexander wasn't changed over the course of discovery and trials.

The man just doesn't seem willing or able to connect some very basic dots, even though they are lit up with bright red flashing neon lights and are the size of planet Earth.

His client feels "rejected" by him because he wanted off her case, manipulates the judge into keeping him on against his will, then turns on him after she gets what she wants, threatens him that she'll destroy his reputation, and acts out against him in ways that are both passive aggressive and outright "aggressive, " he being her lawyer responsible for trying to save her life rather than, let's say, an expendable BF?

And....Nurmi sees so little, grasps so little, and is tangled up so much that he is believes Travis is at fault in any way at all for his own death?

Nah.

Totally agree!

 

[ILikeToBendPages]

1940 - Cannon’s went off in Lynn, Massachusetts on this day in 1940, when baby Frederick Anthony Picariello arrived on the scene. Little Freddy and his mom got along just fine. They even collaborated in the writing of a song when Freddy was 16. They titled their piece, Rock ’n’ Roll Baby. By this time Freddy was driving a truck while he was trying to make the move to show biz. The first thing he did was take on the stage name of Freddy Karmon.
Then he made a demo of the song and presented it to Philly DJ, Jack McDermott. What happened next made rock ’n’ roll history. Producers Frank Slay and Bob Crewe heard the song, took Freddy under their wings, changed his stage name to Freddy Cannon and the title of the song to Tallahassee Lassie. Freddy Cannon exploded onto the music charts and on June 29, 1959, he had a #6 hit. From that day on, in the late 1950s and early 1960s, when you’d turn on a rock station, you could count on hearing jocks introducing Freddy ‘Boom Boom’ Cannon and hits like Way Down Yonder in New Orleans (#3 on January 11, 1960), Palisades Park (#3 on June 23, 1962), and Transistor Sister.

After recording several hit LPs in the mid-1960s, Freddy, no longer a teenage idol, promoted other singers’ recordings for Buddah Records, and participated in an oldies revival; having some success with his 1981 recording, Let’s Put the Fun Back in Rock ’n’ Roll.


[video=youtu;4cVjrUGGkBA]http://youtu.be/4cVjrUGGkBA[/video]

 

[Zuri]

haha! Zuri, I just posted something along the same lines before I read this post from you...

And I just want to say that I meant no disrespect to my darling YoNo when I posted my Nurmi theory. I realize that this book is supposed to be from his perspective from the moment he got the case.

The more I read YoNo's notes on the book, the more he sounds like he is doing damage control because so many THOUSANDS of people don't like him or respect him. It's almost as though his EGO can't handle that thought IMO. I hope he never runs for political office lol.

In his appearance on TV the other night, I almost felt badly for him as he looked to have regained some of the weight he lost. I realize I may be being very unfair to him because it is if he has also been sentenced to life, just for having represented CMJA. I have not seen Wilnott out there talking about this case. Has she been?

 

[GigiG]

And I just want to say that I meant no disrespect to my darling YoNo when I posted my Nurmi theory. I realize that this book is supposed to be from his perspective from the moment he got the case.

The more I read YoNo's notes on the book, the more he sounds like he is doing damage control because so many THOUSANDS of people don't like him or respect him. It's almost as though his EGO can't handle that thought IMO. I hope he never runs for political office lol.

In his appearance on TV the other night, I almost felt badly for him as he looked to have regained some of the weight he lost. I realize I may be being very unfair to him because it is if he has also been sentenced to life, just for having represented CMJA. I have not seen Wilnott out there talking about this case. Has she been?

Of course. YorN has done all of us a great service by reading the book so we don't have to. I really appreciate how well she's condensed his writings into bite-sized pieces. While I would never buy the book myself, I do enjoy hearing what he has to say via YorN.

What is coming across to me is that Nurmi has his own issues. He really, really wants approval and really, really wants to be liked and understood. I find this an odd characteristic for a defense attorney to have. Most of them seem to have much thicker skins than he has.

While I feel for him as a person, I am growing weary of his: 1) playing the victim (much like his client), 2) seeing JA's manipulation as it pertained to him, but not how it pertained to TA?, and 3) going back and forth in terms of "before" and "after." It seems he doesn't hold his thoughts straight in his own mind...

 

[Hope4More]

Of course. YorN has done all of us a great service by reading the book so we don't have to. I really appreciate how well she's condensed his writings into bite-sized pieces. While I would never buy the book myself, I do enjoy hearing what he has to say via YorN.

What is coming across to me is that Nurmi has his own issues. He really, really wants approval and really, really wants to be liked and understood. I find this an odd characteristic for a defense attorney to have. Most of them seem to have much thicker skins than he has.

While I feel for him as a person, I am growing weary of his: 1) playing the victim (much like his client), 2) seeing JA's manipulation as it pertained to him, but not how it pertained to TA?, and 3) going back and forth in terms of "before" and "after." It seems he doesn't hold his thoughts straight in his own mind...

You are all such gentle kind folks here at the SB. . Please excuse my bull in the china shop manners that I mention the very best antidote to feeling the least bit sorry for Nurmi is to watch a few minutes of his PP2 performance. One suggestion: check out when he asks a Mormon bishop in succession whether or not vaginal sex and anal sex and xyz sex is considered a trangression....

Or on the same tape, when he spends over an hour insinuating that the good Bishop brought an attorney etc. because he was going to or already had perjured himself.

And for an even stronger antidote, check out the day Nurmi accused Detective Flores of sneaking into the evidence room to view *advertiser censored* on T's computer.

Nurmi owed his client a great defense, but it is pretty difficult to refute that he went deep deep into some muck for his own purposes, none of them professional or relevant to her defense.

 

[Zuri]

You are all such gentle kind folks here at the SB. . Please excuse my bull in the china shop manners that I mention the very best antidote to feeling the least bit sorry for Nurmi is to watch a few minutes of his PP2 performance. One suggestion: check out when he asks a Mormon bishop in succession whether or not vaginal sex and anal sex and xyz sex is considered a trangression....

Or on the same tape, when he spends over an hour insinuating that the good Bishop brought an attorney etc. because he was going to or already had perjured himself.

And for an even stronger antidote, check out the day Nurmi accused Detective Flores of sneaking into the evidence room to view *advertiser censored* on T's computer.

Nurmi owed his client a great defense, but it is pretty difficult to refute that he went deep deep into some muck for his own purposes, none of them professional or relevant to her defense.

Couldn't agree more with you Hope. I snapped out of it lol. Truthfully, I really despise Nurmi.

My DH's cousin is a Defense Attorney and would never HAVE TO stoop as low as Nurmi did to provide his clients an effective defense. He is just smarter and more eloquent and knows what boundaries not to cross. He would NEVER treat the Bishop the way Nurmi did.

 

[Hez]

You are all such gentle kind folks here at the SB. . Please excuse my bull in the china shop manners that I mention the very best antidote to feeling the least bit sorry for Nurmi is to watch a few minutes of his PP2 performance. One suggestion: check out when he asks a Mormon bishop in succession whether or not vaginal sex and anal sex and xyz sex is considered a trangression....

Or on the same tape, when he spends over an hour insinuating that the good Bishop brought an attorney etc. because he was going to or already had perjured himself.

And for an even stronger antidote, check out the day Nurmi accused Detective Flores of sneaking into the evidence room to view *advertiser censored* on T's computer.

Nurmi owed his client a great defense, but it is pretty difficult to refute that he went deep deep into some muck for his own purposes, none of them professional or relevant to her defense.

BBM - I'm no psychologist, but it almost seems like on a sub-conscious level, Nurmi did this (and way more) to impress his client. I mean, why would he do all this muck-raking for someone who he didn't like 9 days out of 10? :moo:

 

[GigiG]

You are all such gentle kind folks here at the SB. . Please excuse my bull in the china shop manners that I mention the very best antidote to feeling the least bit sorry for Nurmi is to watch a few minutes of his PP2 performance. One suggestion: check out when he asks a Mormon bishop in succession whether or not vaginal sex and anal sex and xyz sex is considered a trangression....

Or on the same tape, when he spends over an hour insinuating that the good Bishop brought an attorney etc. because he was going to or already had perjured himself.

And for an even stronger antidote, check out the day Nurmi accused Detective Flores of sneaking into the evidence room to view *advertiser censored* on T's computer.

Nurmi owed his client a great defense, but it is pretty difficult to refute that he went deep deep into some muck for his own purposes, none of them professional or relevant to her defense.

Agreed, but what was really going on there? My impression is that Nurmi was so over it that he went all in with JA's idea of what her defense should look like. I think that at that point, he hated her so much that he was like, "Okay, you want me to go after Deanna, you want me to go after the Bishop? Done." Issues for appeal after that: NONE.

I think what he did with the state's witnesses was awful, but I think he did it to spite JA, not to help her.

That said, is someone who takes such actions morally bankrupt, or serving the higher good (e.g.: making certain that there will be no issues for her to use in an appeal)?

I believe he wrote this book to specifically address this dilemma. But he has huge blind-spots in his thinking, which are very telling of his own moral, ethical, emotional and professional shortcomings.

JMO

 

[Spellbound]

Taking my grandson our for lunch at his favorite place. Two Guys From Italy. He just got his first job. It's night stocking at the smaller Walmart. It pays $10.40 an hour, and he can work 32 hours a week. Four days @ eight hours and three days off. I think this will help change his world. He was beaten down by his mother and her second husband. He told his psychologist that they called him a dumb f, and stupid. You can't undo the damage when the person is autistic, you can only hope they can forgive and forget someday.

Woohooo!! Congratulations to the grandson on his good job.... and for making grandma so proud. :congrats:

 

[YESorNO]

YoNo, I have a hard time believing these were Numi's thoughts BEFORE trial as he has written this book with 20/20 hindsightand brings the trial references in and out. For some reason, his discourse sounds like recall rather than from a journal he kept contemporaneously.

He didn't say he kept a journal, so it is recall, I guess.

 

[ILikeToBendPages]

More Freddie Cannon

[video=youtu;JBgaf5gXJcc]http://youtu.be/JBgaf5gXJcc[/video]

 

[YESorNO]

I'm confused, then. All of book 1 is from N's point of view BEFORE the trial? Why then the excerpts that directly address (and challenge) " the trial watchers" ? What watchers, if this is before the trial even began? Doesn't he defend LaV and Samuels' testimony in this book?

I'm personally not interested whatsoever in a book 2 or 3 if his opinion about Travis Alexander wasn't changed over the course of discovery and trials.

The man just doesn't seem willing or able to connect some very basic dots, even though they are lit up with bright red flashing neon lights and are the size of planet Earth.

His client feels "rejected" by him because he wanted off her case, manipulates the judge into keeping him on against his will, then turns on him after she gets what she wants, threatens him that she'll destroy his reputation, and acts out against him in ways that are both passive aggressive and outright "aggressive, " he being her lawyer responsible for trying to save her life rather than, let's say, an expendable BF?

And....Nurmi sees so little, grasps so little, and is tangled up so much that he is believes Travis is at fault in any way at all for his own death?

Nah.

BBM 1 The people who are reading his book are the trial watchers and he's asking them, if we read/saw the evidence that he saw at the time, what would we think at the time that he saw it? I don't know but, it makes perfect sense to me. If you didn't know, let's say TA/ the trials, and just read the texts, emails, listened to the phone calls, what would you conclude about him (never mind that we actually know the real/whole story)? Try to go back and put yourself in his shoes. That's what he's asking, IMO.

He does defend Samuels and ALV, but they are his "experts" and he didn't think that DeMarte knew what she was talking about since she was no expert on DV (and ALV suppositly was). Since the story they were going with at the time (because that's what the murderer insisted upon), DV, as opposed to the "mentally ill little girl" thingy who has BPD , he had to think that his expert was correct and DeMarte was wrong. Of course he had to have changed his mind eventually because they did use the BPD that DeMarte diagnosis in the retrial. Was that just to "win" because he knew that the jury didn't believe the DV/self-defense story and voted for 1st degree pre-med murder, so he used the next best thing? I hope to see how he came to use Dr. DeMarte's diagnosis when he opposed it so much in the 1st trial, since it didn't fit well with self-defense.


BBM 2 I too am waiting to see if his opinions differ when the trials gets going, but I don't know, because I'm only about 1/2 thru the book, when he will actually start talking about what changed, if anything, his views ( as he did say this book is about things/thoughts that happened before the trial started, it probably won't be in this book).

BBM 3 I think he was stunned by what kind of a client he had at that time and just went with what he knew of his former clients. You must admit that the murderer is just unbelievably unique if you have never been exposed to someone like her. If you recall, and he does say it in the beginning of his book, that he was looking at a girl who had no previous criminal convictions (unlike most of his clients), who he thought was sexually abuse because of what he knew of abuse victims, and according to the evidence, whatever that was at the time, he saw TA as abusive, but he does say that TA did not ever deserve to die for that. It could be that he will eventually see that it was the murderer who in fact was the actual aggressor/abuser and not TA in his other books. I don't know and I won't speculate because it's a waste of time. I am not projecting myself into the future- to the trial and I'm just where Lawrence is in his book right now.

I don't think that Lawrence was unwilling to connect the dots, because he connected them as he saw them at the time.

Anyway- I wasn't going to really comment on the book until I read this whole book. I will not make excuses for Lawrence when I hear the whole story (3 books?). I normally don't take prisoners in my judgement (but I do have patience). I'm just trying to say what I see so far (and I know I see some things differently sometimes- people are always telling me that- but that's just me). I'm patiently waiting................ for what??? :thinking: for Lawrence to see the light. :dunno:

I think I do still want to see what happens to his initial thoughts later on as the trial/retrial starts/ends and then make a determination of just who Lawrence is (and it may take reading all the books- who knows). I'm trying to keep my emotions out of what Lawrence has to say (and that's a hard thing to do) and trying to read the book as a (badly written) textbook.

All :moo: of course

 

[Niner]

Hi - thought I'd check in before turning off my laptop for the night!

I :luv: Freddy Cannon! And yes, I have Palisades Park on my CD! I'll have to get the other ones on there too! :happydance:

Another BIG thanks to YESorNO for the excerpts! I'm expecting the book any day now... :read: I'll have to check back and see what you posted on the book, and maybe post some other stuff from the chapters!

coffeejunkie - you can read this book after me, if you like! :thinking: I'm supposed to pass it along to you all; so if anyone here wants to read it - please let me know!

Okay - off to read my book!

:seeya:

eta: forgot to say - hope you had a great lunch with your grandson ILikeToBendPages!!

 

[ILikeToBendPages]

I wonder if I need to clean my house in case I go nuts. I'm watching a news crews that are inside of the terrorists home giving an interview, going room to room, and peeking insides of drawers and closets.


I have had " Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him: and all kindred's of the earth shall wail because of him." in my minds a lot lately.

I always wondered how that could happen. How could everyone see him, but in today's world it's an everyday occurrence. We are able to watch acts of terrorism from around the world instantly. Everyone on Earth will see him when he returns in real time.

 

[Hope4More]

BBM 1 The people who are reading his book are the trial watchers and he's asking them, if we read/saw the evidence that he saw at the time, what would we think at the time that he saw it? I don't know but, it makes perfect sense to me. If you didn't know, let's say TA/ the trials, and just read the texts, emails, listened to the phone calls, what would you conclude about him (never mind that we actually know the real/whole story)? Try to go back and put yourself in his shoes. That's what he's asking, IMO.

He does defend Samuels and ALV, but they are his "experts" and he didn't think that DeMarte knew what she was talking about since she was no expert on DV (and ALV suppositly was). Since the story they were going with at the time (because that's what the murderer insisted upon), DV, as opposed to the "mentally ill little girl" thingy who has BPD , he had to think that his expert was correct and DeMarte was wrong. Of course he had to have changed his mind eventually because they did use the BPD that DeMarte diagnosis in the retrial. Was that just to "win" because he knew that the jury didn't believe the DV/self-defense story and voted for 1st degree pre-med murder, so he used the next best thing? I hope to see how he came to use Dr. DeMarte's diagnosis when he opposed it so much in the 1st trial, since it didn't fit well with self-defense.


BBM 2 I too am waiting to see if his opinions differ when the trials gets going, but I don't know, because I'm only about 1/2 thru the book, when he will actually start talking about what changed, if anything, his views ( as he did say this book is about things/thoughts that happened before the trial started, it probably won't be in this book).

BBM 3 I think he was stunned by what kind of a client he had at that time and just went with what he knew of his former clients. You must admit that the murderer is just unbelievably unique if you have never been exposed to someone like her. If you recall, and he does say it in the beginning of his book, that he was looking at a girl who had no previous criminal convictions (unlike most of his clients), who he thought was sexually abuse because of what he knew of abuse victims, and according to the evidence, whatever that was at the time, he saw TA as abusive, but he does say that TA did not ever deserve to die for that. It could be that he will eventually see that it was the murderer who in fact was the actual aggressor/abuser and not TA in his other books. I don't know and I won't speculate because it's a waste of time. I am not projecting myself into the future- to the trial and I'm just where Lawrence is in his book right now.

I don't think that Lawrence was unwilling to connect the dots, because he connected them as he saw them at the time.

Anyway- I wasn't going to really comment on the book until I read this whole book. I will not make excuses for Lawrence when I hear the whole story (3 books?). I normally don't take prisoners in my judgement (but I do have patience). I'm just trying to say what I see so far (and I know I see some things differently sometimes- people are always telling me that- but that's just me). I'm patiently waiting................ for what??? :thinking: for Lawrence to see the light. :dunno:

I think I do still want to see what happens to his initial thoughts later on as the trial/retrial starts/ends and then make a determination of just who Lawrence is (and it may take reading all the books- who knows). I'm trying to keep my emotions out of what Lawrence has to say (and that's a hard thing to do) and trying to read the book as a (badly written) textbook.

All :moo: of course

Thank you for your thoughtful reply. The central question for me that you asked was- what would I have thought after reviewing T's communications with her.

I have read every single email and text and chat between them that has been made public anywhere. Even if I based my opinion on those communications alone, I can say with all honesty that there is no way I'd believe that Travis abused her or mistreated her at all.

What those communications make crystal clear is that she did in fact stalk him, stole from him, invade and violate his privacy, initiate most of their sexual encounters, ask constantly for his assistance in every way imaginable (and received it), and that she literally never left him in peace.


Nurmi knew from the very beginning,according to his own words, that his client was more interested in destroying T's reputation than in saving her own life. He knew she was manipulative, a liar, and vindictive.

He also had access early on to Flores' interviews with T's friends, so knew that aside from the killer, literally every person (large numbers) who knew Travis liked and respected him at the very least. As opposed to his client, for whom he could find no friends at all. Cognitive dissonance?

I think any objective person trying to see the truth of the matter would at the very least be deeply suspicious about any of the allegations being made by the killer, early on, from the very beginning.

 

[YESorNO]

Thank you for your thoughtful reply. The central question for me that you asked was- what would I have thought after reviewing T's communications with her.

I have read every single email and text and chat between them that has been made public anywhere. Even if I based my opinion on those communications alone, I can say with all honesty that there is no way I'd believe that Travis abused her or mistreated her at all.

What those communications make crystal clear is that she did in fact stalk him, stole from him, invade and violate his privacy, initiate most of their sexual encounters, ask constantly for his assistance in every way imaginable (and received it), and that she literally never left him in peace.


Nurmi knew from the very beginning,according to his own words, that his client was more interested in destroying T's reputation than in saving her own life. He knew she was manipulative, a liar, and vindictive.

He also had access early on to Flores' interviews with T's friends, so knew that aside from the killer, literally every person (large numbers) who knew Travis liked and respected him at the very least. As opposed to his client, for whom he could find no friends at all. Cognitive dissonance?

I think any objective person trying to see the truth of the matter would at the very least be deeply suspicious about any of the allegations being made by the killer, early on, from the very beginning.

I do understand the anger that everyone has with Lawrence- I have it too. Is Lawrence being objective in writing this book? I don't think so. He's trying to have people excuse him his "trespasses" because he was "only doing his job" ("and doing it well"- according to him) in the public's eye only and not because he did anything wrong and at the same time, saying "screw you all". And it's like a confession where he is dumping all this "stuff" on his readers and then saying a Hail Mary and going on his merry way because he has been absolved, in his mind. I feel this book is also like a "so there" book and "go choke yourself" after you have read it, too. Kinda screwy, huh.

I do think that Lawrence was deeply suspicious and did say that the murderer's main objective was to slander TA at all costs- even at the cost of her case. He also had a case to make out of the trash that the murderer was spouting from her mouth and he did make one, whatever it was, to do his job as her atty. He couldn't be concerned that she was a liar, etc, She was his client, for better or worse and, so be it, he made that disgusting case for her.

I do think that his initial thoughts, as he read /saw all the evidence, was just that at the time- his initial thoughts according to his experiences with his other clients. Granted, he didn't normally have texts, emails, etc.- this was something new for him- he put them all together, without any thought of just who his client is- a pycho- and just made his determination off of just TA's words, IMO.

I think, just as I have thought with the juror W. Zervakos (?), that he is of a different mindset as to how he viewed what TA had to say to the murderer- in it's ferocious attack of a woman and the things TA said to her- to him, were not something a "normal" man would say, if you will. There were very harsh/hurtful criticisms- some unforgivable words, IMO. Now, we all know that she deserved them, if you think of the whole picture and she did stalk TA, invade his privacy, etc. but Lawrence's contention is-- he still continued to see her, have sex, with her, so what does that mean? He didn't, according to the evidence he had at hand, dump her- he had sex with her, or so the pics show, up to the very time before she murdered him. Why did he keep seeing her, Lawrence says? if she did all those things, why not dump her? Why keep seeing a crazy lady? He must have liked it. Why does a person moan about how their life is horrible all the time and doesn't change it for the better or get rid of the person who is tormenting them? They must like it that way, can't get away from it, for whatever reason?

And I do know all the reasons TA didn't get rid of the murdering manipulator, even tho' he tried.

I do not think TA abused her, just as you said, but that's our opinion and Lawrence had his assessment/opinion and he did think what he thinks at the time was correct- no matter what we think, IMO. :dunno: Believe me, I'm not making any excuses for Lawrence- this is just my assessment/interpretation off of what he is saying in his book.

So as we go in circles......thanks for your thoughts.

Link: https://media.giphy.com/media/lbpkTsWti55kY/giphy.gif

:floorlaugh::floorlaugh:

 

[ILikeToBendPages]

1965 - The United States launched Gemini 7 with Air Force Lt. Col. Frank Borman and Navy Cmdr. James A. Lovell, who grew up in Milwaukee, aboard on a two-week mission. (While Gemini 7 was in orbit, its sister ship, Gemini 6A, was launched on Dec. 15 on a one-day mission; the two spacecraft were able to rendezvous within a foot of each other.)


[video=youtu;qURM12UZxcg]http://youtu.be/qURM12UZxcg[/video]

 

[ILikeToBendPages]

1969 - President Richard Nixon, Vice-President Spiro T. Agnew, and forty US governors view "simulated acid trip" films and listen to rock music in order to comprehend the generation gap. Now this I'd want to see.


[video=youtu;Jz3yhYYV5MQ]http://youtu.be/Jz3yhYYV5MQ[/video]