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
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
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
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
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. 
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
. 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.  Things
become more ominous as O.J. begins "stalking" his ex-wife 
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 , that he routinely
ascribed Nicole's grievances to PMS ("Oh, you're just having your
period.") , that he began "stalking" Nicole , and even
that he is to blame for Resnick's cocaine problem! . 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.
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
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."
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.  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".  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
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."  He eventually was assigned to the organized crime
and intelligence division.  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.)
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
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.shout.net in
the subdirectory pub/users/bigred
CNN Presents. Downloaded from Cable News Network on Internet, at
Electronic Telegraph. Internet version of the London Telegraph,
9 October 1995. "L.A. Law: A Triumph For Justice" by Barbara
Glines, Carole. "Committed To Justice." *LFP Presents O.J.
Simpson: Trial of the Century*. Beverly Hills: L.F.P., Inc.,
Harrison, Shirley. *The Diary of Jack the Ripper*. New York:
Pocket Star Books, 1995
Hirschberg, Lynn. "Heidi Does Hollywood." *Vanity Fair*,
Resnick, Faye D. with Mike Walker. *Nicole Brown Simpson: The
Private Diary of a Life Interrupted*. Beverly Hills: Dove
Simpson, O.J. *I Want To Tell You*. Boston: Little, Brown and
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,
Wallace, Carol. "The Kidnapping of the Lindbergh Baby."
*Conspiracy for the Day*, 14 January 1994. Will be archived at
ftp.shout.net pub/users/bigred in the near future.