
              Conspiracy Nation -- Vol. 7  Num. 77
             ======================================
                    ("Quid coniuratio est?")
 
 
-----------------------------------------------------------------
 
INNOCENT SIMPSON
================
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.shout.net in
  the subdirectory pub/users/bigred
 
CNN Presents.  Downloaded from Cable News Network on Internet, at
  site http://www.cnn.com
 
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.shout.net  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 
listproc@cornell.edu          (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 bigred@shout.net
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Want to know more about Whitewater, Oklahoma City bombing, etc? 
(1) telnet prairienet.org (2) logon as "visitor" (3) go citcom
-----------------------------------------------------------------
       See also: http://www.europa.com/~johnlf/cn.html
-----------------------------------------------------------------
          See also: ftp.shout.net  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 

