Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Conspiracy Nation Vol. 01 Num. 54
Conspiracy Nation -- Vol. 1 Num. 54
======================================
("Quid coniuratio est?")
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Here's what that wacky Frenchman, "Extremist" LaRouche, has to
say about the O.J. Simpson case. (Following is an excerpt from
the July 13, 1994, "EIR Talks" radio show.)
What's Behind the O.J. Simpson Media Spectacle
Q: Mr. LaRouche, I want to move on to another area. Americans
cannot turn on a TV set these days without hearing about the O.J.
Simpson case. The murder of his ex-wife and her friend captivates
the American television screen sometimes from early morning to
late evening.
I understand you have some very interesting observations to make
about this. Why don't you fill us in on that?
MR. LAROUCHE: First of all, people were conditioned, and I was
one of them, to think: Well, maybe O.J. must have done it. He's
violent toward his wife. This kind of brainwashing.
Wait a minute; hold off. There is no very good case for suspicion
against O.J. Simpson. Since he's there, he's part of the scene,
and therefore he normally comes under police-targetted
investigation. He should; there's nothing wrong with that.
But *to presume* that he must be guilty, is wrong. The case
against him is by no means ironclad; it's not even necessarily a
good one.
If he were not a star or celebrity, and if the case had not been
played up by the media the way it has, I don't think the guy
would have had to go to trial. Because they did not present a
case which in any way is conclusive for purposes of trial at that
evidentiary hearing.
But since the evidentiary hearing, new elements have also come to
light which show that it's possible and probable; that O.J.
couldn't have done it. There's a lot of evidence to that effect.
Not just the alibi defense, which his lawyer Shapiro is using;
but there's other positive evidence which indicates that it's
*probable, if not certain*, that he didn't do it. So there's more
than reasonable doubt right now that he could have done it. But
that will have to be shown by trial, I presume.
But there is another aspect to this case which is much more
shocking; and that is the way in which the press has been playing
this case up--wildly.
Now, Hollywood has two problems (apart from the obvious ones):
drugs and Satanism. Hollywood is actually the U.S. capital of
Satanism. It might be called Sodom and Gomorrah rolled into one.
That is, you have Anton LaVey's followers out there, the Church
of Satan; and you have a lot of OTO and similar kinds of Satanism
that's been there since way back--back since the 1920s, 1930s; it
was a nest of Satanism.
Also, Hollywood is the center of cocaine and other drugs.
Now, no one better symbolizes this, than a producer out there by
the name of Robert Evans; and Robert Evans has been, recently, as
identified in the press, a close friend of a guy called Korshak,
a mob attorney from Chicago who settled out there; and of the
ever-loving Henry A. Kissinger.
In terms of media, the New York daily press has been interesting
on this. Last week, there was a report from the *Daily News*
indicating the Robert Evans background to this case, which makes
it very interesting, and Evans being part of Shapiro's ambience.
The second thing is that there was a cut in the--I believe it was
Friday--*New York Daily Post*, showing a picture of Evans and a
picture of Kissinger, and describing an incident, in a little box
set up there, of Korshak being introduced to Kissinger by Evans
at some public affair. Korshak had some very unpleasant things to
say to Evans thereafter, about forcing him to meet with Kissinger
in public.
So the ambience out there is that you've got a Satanic drug-
running operation which is in the environment of the Simpson
household, and in the environment of this crime (whoever did
what); and in the environment of Simpson's defense--and in the
environment which is being played up by the press as we approach
the anniversary (which Evans touches upon), of the Tate-LaBianca
murders out there, and as we approach memories again of some
other murders that Robert Evans was close to, in the financing of
the Cotton Club film; and as we know of the connections between
the Manson murders and this other affair, the Cotton Club affair,
and the Son of Sam killings in New York City.
So it looks like we have a Satanic media event going on, which
has nothing to do with justice for O.J. Simpson or for his
deceased estranged wife.
I think that we ought to be looking at what is being done to
manipulate life in the United States, including our mass media;
and don't rush so quickly to presume that O.J. Simpson is guilty
of anything. He may have problems, but I don't think anybody in
the United States, on the basis of what's been presented
publicly, has any reason to presume that O.J. Simpson is guilty
of what he's alleged to be guilty of, but rather there is another
story which is a very interesting one about Satanism and drugs in
Hollywood, and Kissinger and Korshak and Robert Evans the
producer.
Q: And isn't it also true that Shapiro was the lawyer for Evans
in the Cotton Club murder trial?
MR. LAROUCHE: Absolutely. That's why the *New York Daily News*
got on the case on that connection, which is an ongoing one.
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
To subscribe to the LaRouche mailing list, send a message to
listserv@ccs.covici.com with a line (not the subject line)
saying subscribe lar-lst
-----------------------------------------------------------------
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 conspire My Name"
to listproc@prairienet.org -- To cancel, send a message in the
form "unsubscribe conspire" to listproc@prairienet.org
-----------------------------------------------------------------
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
