Conspiracy Nation -- Vol. 7 Num. 77

("Quid coniuratio est?")


By Brian F. Redman

So you think you know about the O.J. Simpson case. So did I, but when I began to look into it a bit I found that the more I looked, the more there was. We know that the jury found O.J. "not guilty". But what if, what if -- suppose that Simpson is actually innocent?

The case has been called "the trial of the century". But there have been quite a few "trials of the century" in the last 96 years. How about the 1906 Stanford White murder trial? Or the trial of Fatty Arbuckle in 1921? Or the Lindbergh Kidnapping Trial? Then in 1951, there was the trial of Ethel and Julius Rosenberg. And the trial of Jack Ruby. And the Manson case. Also, there was the Leopold and Loeb trial, with attorney Clarence Darrow for the defense. Darrow also was at another "trial of the century", the Scopes Monkey Trial. Or what about the trial of Sacco and Vanzetti?

One thing all our "trials of the century" have in common is that, as time passes, additional facts come to light. For example in the case of Sacco and Vanzetti, they were executed in 1927 and then pardoned by President Carter in the late 1970s. So it looks like somebody goofed! So too with the Lindbergh kidnapping case: folks were certain at the time that Bruno Hauptman did it, but now, decades later, they're not so sure after all. In an exclusive article written for "Conspiracy for the Day" (predecessor of "Conspiracy Nation"), Carol Wallace told us that in 1993, "two books came out claiming that there never had been a kidnapping; that Lindbergh and his family were actually covering up a killing." Two theories were argued: "The first, presented in Noel Behn's Lindbergh: The Crime, is that the child was murdered by Anne Lindbergh's sister, Elizabeth Morrow." In the second theory, put forward in the book Crime of the Century by Ahlgren and Monier, it is charged that the Lindbergh baby died inadvertantly, as the result of one of Charles Lindbergh's "practical jokes". [Wallace]

Two things can be said with certainty: one, that in the coming years, many new books will be written about the O.J. Simpson case and, two, that as the years go by, more and more facts regarding it will surface. I offer one other prediction: that when, years or even decades later, the truth about this case is known, that the public will have been led along, childlike, to the next circus and will no longer care about the Simpson case. "Sacco and Vanzetti? Who were they??"

At present, the waters are murky surrounding the Simpson case. It is a puzzle that does not add up, no matter which side you favor, guilty or innocent. Yes, the DNA from specks of blood did match that of O.J. But reading the autopsy report we find that this was a ferocious crime. Ron Goldman's autopsy report shows a "transection of [the] left internal jugular vein... multiple stab wounds of chest, abdomen, and left thigh: Penetrating stab wounds of chest and abdomen... Multiple incised wounds of scalp, face, neck, chest..." [Autopsy Report 94-05135]. Nicole Brown Simpson's autopsy report shows an "incised wound of [the] neck" with "[t]ransection of left and right common carotid arteries... Incisions, left and right internal jugular veins... Incision into cervical spine... Multiple stab wound of neck and scalp (total of seven)." [Autopsy Report 94-05136]. Nicole Brown Simpson had been nearly decapitated [Resnick, 16]. Not only are we talking about quite a lot of blood here, but furthermore, a decapitation is not that easy to do, especially with a supposed knife. See, for example, what seems beyond doubt to be the diary of "Jack the Ripper" where he writes that "I was more than vexed when the head would not come off. I believe I will need more strength next time." [Harrison, 70] Yes, you may say, but Simpson is a powerful ex-football player. Ah, I would then reply, but the "Ripper" was supercharged with arsenic when he did his evil deeds. So what, you might say, Simpson may have been supercharged with cocaine. But what about the relative lack of blood found trailing away from the scene? The "Ripper" notes in his diary that he has "not allowed for the red stuff, gallons of it in my estimation. Some of it is bound to spill onto me. I cannot allow my clothes to be blood drenched..." [Harrison, 291] To that you might answer that the "Ripper" diary has not been confirmed as authentic beyond doubt and so any argument based on it is suspect. Okay, I could then come back, then how about Alexander Cockburn, writing in The Nation, where he casts doubt on Simpson having been the perpetrator due to the impossible "time line":

Simpson, the prosecution argued, had six minutes between return from the murder and entry into the limo to get rid of his bloody clothes, dump the weapon, take a shower and present himself as a relatively calm person. Try doing it. [Cockburn, 491]

You, of course, might come back with........ And so on. My point is that, at the moment, this case is unsolved. True, the L.A.P.D. have folded their arms, gone into their pouting corner, and declared that the case is solved. And if you are the sort who is satisfied to just "trust the authorities" then that saves you the trouble of thinking. But for the thinking reader, the bottom line is that this case does not add up!! At the moment, it most definitely is an "unsolved mystery". It is a classic "whodunit", a Sherlock Holmes mystery, a puzzle. Those who prefer not to use the grey matter between their ears unless they really have to will exclaim, "Gee whiz! Why can't you quit asking questions!" But readers of Conspiracy Nation, I think, are likely to be intrigued by a little puzzle, a little "mental exercise".

But be forewarned: as of now, the waters are murky. It may take years before we solve this one.

Here are some pieces of the puzzle:

-+- Faye Resnick -+-

To hear Faye Resnick tell the tale, O.J. was a Jekyll and Hyde sort, fooling the world but not those who knew him well. In an incident which, according to Resnick, occured in May of 1993, we see the ex-football star turn into "the Wolfman": "O.J.'s face twitched uncontrollably. His body language was extremely aggressive. Horrified, I watched as sweat poured down his face. The veins in his neck bulged. His cheekbones bunched up, twitching beneath his skin." Ooohh! Scarey stuff, kids! "Count Floyd" of Second City TV fame would be impressed. Resnick alleges that she then hid in the ladies room of the "trendy restaurant" she, Nicole and O.J. were at. But then, she says, O.J. kicked down the door and urinated there, in her presence, in the ladies room! Finally, she says, the L.A.P.D. showed up and fawned all over big football hero Simpson. [Resnick, 9-13]

Anyway, so the story goes, Nicole, subsequent to her divorce from O.J., began to practice "random acts of kindness" on strangers -- i.e., she began to surprise various men by giving them impromptu blow jobs. For example, Nicole is said to have one time "slipped out of the living room and into [a stranger's] bedroom. He was sleeping, so without taking off her clothes, Nicole gently pushed the covers aside and teased him into an erection. Without suggesting that she wanted anything in return, she gave him what she later described as 'a lovely surprise -- the blow-job of his life.'" [46]

But it turns out that O.J. supposedly began to be hiding in the bushes and watching some of these "lovely surprises"! [47 & 182] Not only did O.J. have a problem with intensely possessive jealousy, according to Resnick, but he also apparently had a cocaine problem. [88 & 120] Resnick even believes that Simpson may have hired detectives to follow Nicole and spy on her. [134]

Most of Faye Resnick's book, Nicole Brown Simpson: The Private Diary of a Life Interrupted, would be better served by a title such as Lives of the Vapid and Meaningless. The book lets us all in on the lives of petty Hollywood types, torn between the ennui they suffer while lying on beaches in Mexico and the ennui they suffer when the latest pop psychology just doesn't seem to help. I am reminded of a line from the movie, "True Stories," where one of the characters says, "These aren't people I want to know -- not in this life!" The book also has a big flaw in that its veracity depends on how credible Faye Resnick is. She rarely offers any corroboration for her statements. True, she does bring in a National Enquirer article as backup at one point [150]. But most of the time the reader has to just trust that she is telling the truth. What if Resnick is lying? Or what if, as would be normal, she is offering a one-sided version of the marital conflict between Orenthal and Nicole?

Resnick's basic story on the murder is that O.J. had a split persona: fooling the world but underneath a potential total maniac. She tells us that, on several occasions, Nicole had confided in her the fear that her sometime husband was going to kill her some day. [144 & 164] She next tells us that O.J. himself has told Resnick that he may murder Nicole. [173] Things become more ominous as O.J. begins "stalking" his ex-wife [181] and then finally Resnick gets the news that her friend Nicole has been murdered. To the casual reader, the conclusion seems obvious: O.J. did it.

But how believable is Resnick? Her book is extraordinarily one-sided: O.J. Simpson is the "villain" and Nicole is the "free spirit" being tyrannized by male domination. No marital conflict is ever that simple, with one side all good and the other all bad, yet that is what Resnick is trying to put forward in her book. What is more, she has had a long-lasting drug problem: "Over the past eight years, she has twice done stints at the Betty Ford Center, and in June of last year, the week before Nicole's murder, she did check into the Exodus Recovery Center..." [Toobin, 33] So her recollections come to us through a drug-induced haze.

This book by Resnick is slick: it pushes all the fashionable feminist buttons and is assured of winning a following among the man-hating branch of the womyn's movement. The author lays her snares well. Right from the start we are introduced to the Devil -- O.J. Simpson starring as THE MALE OPPRESSOR. "[Nicole] never had a chance. Standing between her and the mastery of not just her life, but the lives of her two children, was ex-husband and father, O.J. Simpson." [Resnick, 6] We find out that O.J. had never allowed his wife to smoke in public [27], that he routinely ascribed Nicole's grievances to PMS ("Oh, you're just having your period.") [170], that he began "stalking" Nicole [181], and even that he is to blame for Resnick's cocaine problem! [187]. High crimes in the feminist pantheon!

True, Simpson did physically abuse his wife, which is wrong. But Resnick's account of the abuse does not match Simpson's account. Here is a relevant excerpt from the police interrogation conducted by Philip Vannatter and Thomas Lange:

VANNATTER: How long were you together? SIMPSON: Seventeen years.
VANNATTER: Seventeen years. Did you ever hit her, O.J.? SIMPSON: Ah, one night we had a fight. We had a fight and she hit me. And they never took my statement, they never wanted to hear my side, and they never wanted to hear the housekeeper's side. Nicole was drunk. She did her thing, she started tearing up my house, you know? I didn't punch her or anything, but I...
VANNATTER: ...slapped her a couple of times. SIMPSON: No, no, I wrestled her, is what I did. I didn't slap her at all. I mean, Nicole's a strong girl. She's a... one of the most conditioned women. Since that period of time, she's hit me a few times, but I've never touched her after that, and I'm telling you, it's five-six years ago. [Star]

Indeed, the London Telegraph concurs: "...the evidence is that there was only one occasion when the couple's spats resulted in actual physical harm -- a black eye for Nicole -- and that was six years before the murder." [Electronic Telegraph]

But I don't want to get bogged down here with, "Which side is telling the truth?" I suspect that each side is favoring their own perceived interests in the particular slant they give to the spousal abuse story. Perhaps the truth lies somewhere in the middle. Time will tell.

What I do want to emphasize, as the London Telegraph pointed out shortly after the "not guilty" verdict was handed down, is the "pervasiveness of the 'a little learning is a dangerous thing' syndrome. Most people, including those who would otherwise rely on meticulous independent research, have based their reaction to the Simpson case on press cuttings and sound bites." [ibid.] Everything you "know" is wrong. The waters are deep here. Forget about what Laurie Levinson or whatever her name is was telling you night after night on the CBS Evening News. It is going to be years before the truth emerges on this case.

-+- A Theory -+-

I offer in speculation my own thinking on the Resnick book. Number one, it was fast out of the stall -- meaning that they sure didn't waste any time writing it. Boom! October 1994, it's published. Number two, Judge Lance Ito, "the gatekeeper", suspended jury selection the day after the book came out. "The firestorm immediately propelled Resnick's book to the No. 1 spot on the New York Times best-seller list..." [Toobin, 33] Ito's reaction to the book seems to have helped its sales -- did Ito realize that the "firestorm" might help the book's sales? This book went on the fast track to the minds of those closely following the case. It had a major influence on the public's first impressions of the case.

Number three, the book is loaded with "red flags" for thinkers of the feminist persuasion. O.J. the "male oppressor", the "wife beater" who "stalked" his "free spirited" ex-wife who was desperately trying to establish her independent selfhood. O.J. wouldn't allow her to smoke in public. O.J. used to attack Nicole's assertiveness with claims that "It's just your period." Read the book. You'll see that the snares are laid well. It's no surprise that many women have become enraged at O.J. after reading it -- so enraged that, in some cases, it has clouded their judgement.

This book is a false trail. It is meant to divert you from a possible and plausible alternative scenario as to what this double murder really involved. The public has purposely been led to become so distracted in their outrage at the spousal abuse that they do not see a second angle in this case.

This case absolutely reeks of drugs. Why aren't you aware of that angle? The answer is partly that you haven't been told (not to the extent that you've been told about the spousal abuse) and partly because you have been led on a "wild goose chase". Sherman Skolnick, veteran investigator with the Citizens' Committee to Clean Up the Courts, in Chicago, tells us that "one of Nicole's girlfriends" owed $300,000 to dope traffickers. [CN 6.24] Hmmm.... I wonder which girlfriend that could be? Defense lawyer Johnnie Cochran had hinted that "four men may have followed [Ron] Goldman to the murder scene." [Toobin, 32] "The most compelling, if sinister, possibility is that the defense may suggest that Resnick's drug use had a role in Nicole's murder." [ibid.]

Because Resnick was on drugs, she would have needed to purchase them illegally. An illegal drug habit can get quite expensive. It is well-known that those who become hooked on drugs often find themselves forced to turn to crime to support their habit -- the sums of money needed can be that tremendous. Mr. Skolnick contends that celebrities are often given dope on credit and can run up quite a tab. [CN 6.23] Consider that Resnick may have found herself heavily in debt. In such a case, drug dealers do not hire a collection agency to get their money.

Resnick moved in with Nicole Brown Simpson on or about June 3rd of 1994 [Toobin, 32] There are indications, as noted, that she was massively in debt to potentially vicious drug dealers. So what does she do? She hides out at a drug treatment facility on June 8th. On June 12th, a person or persons brutally murder, at Nicole's residence, both Nicole Simpson and Ron Goldman.

We find that after these murders, Resnick is "paranoid". She is afraid that she is going to be killed. [34] Allegedly $300,000 in debt, she leaves the drug treatment facility and teams up with Mike Walker of The National Enquirer to write a book. They hide out in Vermont, all the way on the other side of the American continent. While there, Resnick is still "paranoid". [35] The book is hurriedly completed, Resnick has been paid some in advance and now the money really begins to roll in. We can presume that, if she were massively in debt to drug dealers, she would have been sure to pay them back by this point.

Resnick's book also serves to turn attention away from the drug angle by focusing on spousal abuse. The National Organization of Women and others of their ilk seized on the opportunity offered to educate the public about the problem. More attention was focused on the wife beating angle.

Perhaps too, there would be certain persons in high places in Los Angeles and elsewhere who would prefer that the possibility of drugs being the motivator for the murders not be too closely looked into -- especially considering that this is a very high profile case and that there will be a lot of coverage. So Resnick's book would suit them fine and they would give it their blessing. Far better to focus on spousal abuse than on possible corruption in the "War on Drugs".

As I say, just a theory. It will be years before we really know what happened. But for now, it is worth noting that O.J. Simpson himself sees something in a Resnick connection to the double murder: "I know in my heart that the answer to the death of Nicole and Mr. Goldman lies somewhere in the world that Faye Resnick inhabited," he writes. [Simpson, 194]

-+- Judge Lance Ito -+-

Judge Lance Ito functioned as the "gatekeeper" in this trial. It was he who decided what testimony and evidence would or would not be allowed. The defense wanted to contend that the double murder was a "drug hit" but Ito wouldn't allow that line of argument. [CNN Presents] Yet, off the record, Drug Enforcement Administration officials have told Chicago researcher Skolnick that they know the murders "were perpetrated by a dope reprisal gang." [CN, 6.13] I have double-checked that these murders were most likely a "dope hit": in a conversation on October 18, 1995 with ex-NYPD Vice Squad detective Jimmy Rothstein, he told me that his sources confirm that that is what happened. Additionally, one can surmise just from reading the autopsy reports and with no special expertise that it is more likely that the murders were done by multiple perpetrators than by a single individual.

Judge Ito, according to Skolnick, was initially connected in some way to the trial of the "Hollywood madame," Heidi Fleiss. What is more, this information ought to be fairly easy to corroborate (but unfortunately, as we go to press, I have not yet found time to double-check this.) Heidi Fleiss, you may recall, was widely-reported to have a "little black book," said to contain the names of prominent persons, including politicians. "A lot of people are afraid of me." says Fleiss, "And they should be. Leaders of countries called me and asked for sex. You look at any picture of a politician with some girls around him and at least three of them will be mine... If I really came out and talked I could have stopped NAFTA." [Hirschberg, 90]

Skolnick says that Ito, reportedly, somehow got hold of Heidi Fleiss' "little black book." This is uncorroborated at this point. However it is worth noting that mention of this book disappeared. When Fleiss first was arrested, there was much talk of "Wait until they give out the names she has." Whatever happened in that? Why did that story go away?

Ito also was involved in the trial of Charles Keating, Jr., the S&L crook. [Glines, 28] He served as assistant district attorney in Los Angeles, "prosecuting those involved in gang-related crimes." [27] He eventually was assigned to the organized crime and intelligence division. [28] Judge Ito is married to Margaret York, a captain in the Los Angeles Police Department who once headed their Internal Affairs department, responsible for investigating police corruption.

Judge Lance Ito: Mystery Man. A theory seems to be that he, for unknown reasons, gently steered the trial away from certain areas. [CN 6.48] But why? Was he just acting on orders that he must absolutely keep a lid on things? Or did he have personal reasons for avoiding certain areas of inquiry?

-+- Suspicious Deaths -+-

The blockbuster name here is Michael Nigg. Unfortunately I have been unable to corroborate any information about him. He is supposed to have been a fellow waiter and friend of Ron Goldman. Nigg, allegedly, was brutally murdered in September of 1995.

Thus far I have been unable to verify the alleged death of Robin Clark, a reporter covering the Simpson trial who is supposed to have been killed in a suspicious traffic accident.

Antranik Geuvjehehizian, a bailiff in the Simpson trial, was murdered the evening of July 18, 1995. The death of this bailiff was scheduled to be a featured segment on the October 27, 1995 NBC program, "Unsolved Mysteries." However, the segment did not air as planned. I called to inquire as to why, but could not get a definite answer. It seemed as if there was an "unsolved mystery" as to why the segment was pulled. The segment did air, unannounced, two weeks later on November 10, 1995.

The murder of Geuvjehehizian, nicknamed "Deputy G-12," occured at about 9:30 pm. He and his wife were taking out the garbage. Mrs. Vicki Geuvjehehizian spotted a masked man in the adjoining yard. She alerted her husband and then ran back into their garage. In the meantime, the masked man, for unknown reasons, came toward Deputy G-12 and shot him in the chest. Although police arrived within minutes, the killer vanished.

-+- Conclusions -+-

At this point there are no conclusions, except that we don't have all the facts and that the facts we have don't add up. I will try to pry loose an exact date for when Nigg's death was printed and in what, if any, newspaper this was in. As new information comes to light, I will try to pass it along. The only valid conclusion at this point is that on this, as on so many other news items of the day, we remain uninformed.

-+- (Postscript) -+-

[Above first appeared in the Dec. 1995 Conspiracy Nation Newsletter] (Thanks to feedback from CN readers, Nigg's death confirmed.)

+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +

Works cited

Cockburn, Alexander. "Beat The Devil". The Nation, 30 October 1995, p. 491

CN. All references to "CN" refer to the electronic version of "Conspiracy Nation", archived on Internet at ftp in the subdirectory pub/users/bigred

CNN Presents. Downloaded from Cable News Network on Internet, at site

Electronic Telegraph. Internet version of the London Telegraph, 9 October 1995. "L.A. Law: A Triumph For Justice" by Barbara Amiel

Glines, Carole. "Committed To Justice." LFP Presents O.J. Simpson: Trial of the Century. Beverly Hills: L.F.P., Inc., 1995

Harrison, Shirley. The Diary of Jack the Ripper. New York: Pocket Star Books, 1995

Hirschberg, Lynn. "Heidi Does Hollywood." Vanity Fair, February 1994

Resnick, Faye D. with Mike Walker. Nicole Brown Simpson: The Private Diary of a Life Interrupted. Beverly Hills: Dove Books, 1994

Simpson, O.J. I Want To Tell You. Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1995

Star. Originally presumed to be from the November 29, 1994 issue of The Star, a supermarket tabloid. I downloaded a transcription of the interrogation from Internet and have no reason to doubt its authenticity.

Toobin, Jeffrey. "Blaming Faye?" The New Yorker, February 6, 1995

Wallace, Carol. "The Kidnapping of the Lindbergh Baby." Conspiracy for the Day, 14 January 1994. Will be archived at ftp pub/users/bigred in the near future.

I encourage distribution of "Conspiracy Nation."

If you would like "Conspiracy Nation" sent to your e-mail address, send a message in the form "subscribe cn-l My Name" to (Note: that is "CN-L" not "CN-1")
For information on how to receive the new Conspiracy Nation Newsletter, send an e-mail message to
Want to know more about Whitewater, Oklahoma City bombing, etc? (1) telnet (2) logon as "visitor" (3) go citcom

See also:

See also: ftp pub/users/bigred

Aperi os tuum muto, et causis omnium filiorum qui pertranseunt. Aperi os tuum, decerne quod justum est, et judica inopem et pauperem. -- Liber Proverbiorum XXXI: 8-9