Historic Trial Transcripts
Linda Kasabian: Day two Testimony, July 28, 1970
LINDA KASABIAN,
a witness called by and on behalf of the People, having been previously duly sworn, resumed the stand and testified further as follows:
DIRECT EXAMINATION (Continued)
BY MR. BUGLIOSI:
Q. Linda, let’s go back a little, please, to your first meeting with Manson.
You say he felt your legs and seemed pleased, and then the next night you say he came to you?
A. Yes.
MR. KANAREK: I object, your Honor, on the grounds that it is leading and suggestive; and also on the grounds of hearsay and conclusion and immaterial.
MR. SHINN: Join.
MR. BUGLIOSI: This is preliminary, your Honor.
THE COURT: It appears that it may be leading and suggestive, Mr. Bugliosi. Reframe the question.
MR. BUGLIOSI: All right.
BY MR. BUGLIOSI:
Q. Did you indicate yesterday that after the first time you met Mr. Manson you saw him the following night; is that correct?
A. Yes.
MR. KANAREK: I object.
What the record indicates is hearsay, your Honor, and it is immaterial. Her recollection of what she said yesterday is not competent evidence, your Honor.
THE COURT: Overruled.
You may answer.
MR. SHINN: Join.
MR. BUGLIOSI: You may answer, Linda.
THE WITNESS: Yes, that is correct.
BY MR. BUGLIOSI:
Q. Where were you this other night when Manson saw you?
MR. KANAREK: Object as ambiguous and immaterial.
MR. SHINN: Join.
THE COURT: Overruled. You may answer.
THE WITNESS: In a cave in back of the Ranch.
BY MR. BUGLIOSI:
Q. Did anything take place between you and Mr. Manson in the cave?
MR. KANAREK: Immaterial.
MR. SHINN: Join.
THE COURT: Overruled.
You may answer.
THE WITNESS: He made love to me and we had a slight conversation.
BY MR. BUGLIOSI:
Q. What was that conversation?
MR. KANAREK: Then, your Honor, I would ask to approach the bench and make a motion.
THE COURT: You may state your motion, sir.
MR. KANAREK: Your Honor, I would like to do it outside the presence of the jury.
THE COURT: Just state the motion and the grounds without argument.
MR. KANAREK: Very well, your Honor.
My motion is for a mistrial in that it impugns the integrity, the moral integrity, of Mr. Manson by this allegation of conduct.
It is clearly an allegation of moral—
THE COURT: Not the arguments, just the motion.
MR. KANAREK: May I approach the bench?
THE COURT: No. The motion will be denied.
MR. SHINN: Join.
THE COURT: Let’s proceed.
MR. FITZGERALD: This testimony, your Honor, I would object to on the grounds that this is immaterial and irrelevant as it applies to Defendant Patricia Krenwinkel.
May the jury be instructed to limit this evidence to the person to whom it refers?
THE COURT: What do you mean by “this evidence”?
MR. FITZGERALD: The previous statements of the witness apparently refer to Mr. Manson. May it be so limited?
THE COURT: The last question and answer will be limited to Mr. Manson only, and the jury is admonished to so regard it.
Let’s proceed.
MR. KANAREK: Then I object.
May I approach the bench, your Honor, so I don’t do this in open court?
THE COURT: No.
MR. HUGHES: I join in Mr. Fitzgerald’s motion and objection on behalf of Miss Leslie Van Houten.
THE COURT: Very well. Let’s proceed.
BY MR. BUGLIOSI:
Q. What conversation did you have with Mr. Manson while you were making love, or about that time?
MR. KANAREK: I object on the grounds of hearsay and immateriality.
THE COURT: Is that all?
MR. KANAREK: Yes, your Honor.
MR. HUGHES: Join.
THE COURT: Overruled.
Let’s proceed.
THE WITNESS: I don’t recall the complete conversation, but he told me that I had a father hangup, and I said—
BY MR. BUGLIOSI:
Q. This is after you had sexual intercourse with him?
A. No.
MR. KANAREK: I make a motion that that be stricken as immaterial. It has only prejudicial value.
MR. SHINN: Join.
MR. HUGHES: Join.
MR. FITZGERALD: Join.
THE COURT: Motion denied. Overruled.
Q. BY MR. BUGLIOSI: Was this after you had sexual intercourse?
A. No I think it was before.
MR. KANAREK: Objection. Immaterial.
MR. BUGLIOSI: Q. Did this impress you when he said you had a father hangup?
A. Very much so.
MR. KANAREK: Objection. Immaterial. Calling for a conclusion of the witness.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. SHINN: Join.
MR. BUGLIOSI: Q. Why did it impress you?
MR. KANAREK: Immaterial. Calling for a conclusion. Also hearsay.
MR. SHINN: Join.
THE COURT: Overruled.
THE WITNESS: Because nobody ever said that to me, and I did have a father hangup. I hated my stepfather.
MR. KANAREK: Your Honor, may we approach the bench, then?
THE COURT: No.
MR. KANAREK: Then I ask that this last answer be stricken on the grounds that it is a statement of hearsay, a conclusion, immaterial, and has nothing but prejudicial value. The prejudicial value far outweighs any probative value that this testimony may have.
THE COURT: The motion is denied.
Let’s proceed.
MR. SHINN: Join.
Q. BY MR. BUGLIOSI: With respect to the first camping site, the one by the waterfalls, to your own personal knowledge, do you know who selected this camping site?
MR. KANAREK: Objection as a conclusion and hearsay, your Honor.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. SHINN: Join.
THE WITNESS: I believe Charlie selected it.
MR. BUGLIOSI: Okay.
Q. What, if anything, did Mr. Manson tell you girls to do at this first camping site?
MR. KANAREK: I object on the grounds of improper foundation, calling for a conclusion, hearsay, immaterial.
Who were the people present, if any? We are entitled to know.
MR. BUGLIOSI: Let me withdraw that question, your Honor, and lay a foundation.
Q. How many members of the Family went to this first camping site?
MR. KANAREK: Immaterial, your Honor.
THE COURT: Overruled.
THE WITNESS: There was myself and Tanya, Bear, Mary Brunner, Gypsy, Snake, Brenda, and I believe that was all.
Q. And Mr. Manson?
A. Off and on, yes.
Q. Okay.
Did he tell you girls to do anything at this camping site?
MR. KANAREK: Object, calling for a conclusion, hearsay, improper foundation and immaterial.
MR. SHINN: Join.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. FITZGERALD: Hearsay as to Defendant Krenwinkel.
MR. HUGHES: Hearsay as to Miss Van Houten.
THE COURT: Overruled.
THE WITNESS: Not that I can remember.
MR. BUGLIOSI: Okay.
Q. What about the second camping site, the one that was two or three miles from the waterfall? Do you know who selected that camping site?
MR. KANAREK: I object as calling for a conclusion, immaterial and hearsay.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. SHINN: Join.
THE COURT: Overruled.
You may answer.
THE WITNESS: I believe Charlie selected that.
Q. BY MR. BUGLIOSI: You indicated yesterday that you took quite a bit of personal property or belongings to this second camping site; is that correct?
A. Yes.
MR. KANAREK: I object on the grounds of the form of the question, what she testified to yesterday, her editorializing it is incompetent evidence. The record speaks for itself.
MR. SHINN: Join.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. BUGLIOSI: Q. Were any of these personal belongings camouflaged at the second camping site?
A. Yes.
MR. KANAREK: Calling for a conclusion and immaterial. I object.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. KANAREK: Your Honor, I would be willing, on the materiality, not to—
THE COURT: I don’t want to hear any argument, Mr. Kanarek. I have ruled on your objection. Sit down.
MR. KANAREK: May I have a continuing objection so Mr. Bugliosi is not interrupted?
THE COURT: No, you may not.
MR. KANAREK: Very well.
THE COURT: Let’s proceed.
BY MR. BUGLIOSI:
Q. Do you recall my last question?
A. Yes.
There was a parachute that was set up above the dune buggy parts in the trees so that, you know, because there were helicopters flying above, and they apparently must have spotted us, so we were instructed to camouflage it.
MR. KANAREK: I ask that that statement be stricken your Honor, on the ground that it is not responsive to the question.
THE COURT: The motion is denied.
MR. BUGLIOSI: Q. What color parachute?
MR. KANAREK: Hearsay and a conclusion.
MR. SHINN: Join.
BY MR. BUGLIOSI:
Q. What color parachute was this?
MR. KANAREK: Immaterial, your Honor.
MR. SHINN: Join.
THE COURT: Overruled.
THE WITNESS: I believe it was white or—I can’t remember the color.
BY MR. BUGLIOSI:
Q. Now, who put this parachute up?
MR. KANAREK: Immaterial. Calling for a conclusion your Honor.
MR. SHINN: Join.
THE COURT: Overruled.
THE WITNESS: I don’t know because I didn’t, and I didn’t watch the others put it up, but it was there.
BY MR. BUGLIOSI:
Q. Do you know who directed that the parachute be put up?
A. Not really.
MR. KANAREK: I object on the grounds that it is a conclusion.
May the witness be instructed—I think your Honor asked her yesterday, and would your Honor reinstruct her to refrain from answering before—
THE COURT: Delay your answer, Mrs. Kasabian, so counsel may object.
The objection is overruled.
MR. KANAREK: I haven’t finished it, your Honor.
This is calling for a conclusion and hearsay.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. KANAREK: And immaterial.
THE COURT: Let’s proceed.
BY MR. BUGLIOSI:
Q. Was a walkie-talkie system set up at this campsite?
MR. KANAREK: I object on the grounds that it is leading and suggestive, immaterial, calling for a conclusion of the witness.
MR. SHINN: Join.
THE COURT: Overruled.
THE WITNESS: Yes, it was.
BY MR. BUGLIOSI:
Q. Do you know who ordered that the walkie-talkie system be set up?
A. Charlie did.
MR. KANAREK: I object on the grounds of conclusion, hearsay and immateriality.
THE COURT: Overruled.
THE WITNESS: Charlie did.
BY MR. BUGLIOSI:
Q. Did he indicate why he wanted a walkie-talkie system?
MR. KANAREK: Objection on the grounds of hearsay, conclusion and it is immaterial.
MR. SHINN: Join.
THE COURT: Overruled.
THE WITNESS: Yes, because—
MR. KANAREK: That can be answered yes or no, your Honor, whether he indicated.
THE COURT: Go ahead.
THE WITNESS: Do you want my reason?
BY MR. BUGLIOSI:
Q. What did Charlie tell you the reason was for setting up this walkie-talkie system?
MR. KANAREK: I object on the grounds of immateriality, improper—may I approach the bench?
THE COURT: No.
Your objection is overruled.
MR. KANAREK: This is hearsay.
THE COURT: Overruled.
Go ahead.
THE WITNESS: Ask your question again.
BY MR. BUGLIOSI:
Q. Did Charlie give any reason at all, Linda, for setting up this walkie-talkie system?
MR. KANAREK: Immaterial, your Honor.
THE WITNESS: Yes.
THE COURT: Overruled.
THE WITNESS: Yes. We had been spotted. Maybe it was the Fire Department, or some trucks were going back and forth, and we had been spotted. So, we had a walkie-talkie system set up a little ways from the camp that we would make phone calls if they would come by, you know, to let people at the camp know.
MR. KANAREK: I ask that be stricken on the grounds of hearsay. It is statement of hearsay, a conclusion. It is immaterial.
THE COURT: The motion is denied.
Q. BY MR. BUGLIOSI: The walkie-talkie system connected this campsite with the building up at the front of the ranch?
MR. KANAREK: Leading and suggestive, your Honor.
THE WITNESS: No.
THE COURT: Overruled.
Q. BY MR. BUGLIOSI: What was the setup of the walkie-talkie system?
MR. KANAREK: Ambiguous, your Honor, leading and suggestive.
THE COURT: Overruled.
THE WITNESS: Well, there was a road leading up to the campsite, and right at the beginning of this road a part of the walkie-talkie system was set up, and then there was a wire going all the way up to the road, camouflaged, leading to another part of the walkie-talkie system at the camp.
Q. BY MR. BUGLIOSI: Were there any guard shifts at the second camping site?
A. Yes.
MR. KANAREK: Immaterial, your Honor, calling for a conclusion on the part of the witness.
It has nothing but prejudicial value, has no probative value as to any issue in this case.
MR. FITZGERALD: It is immaterial and irrelevant as to Defendant Patricia Krenwinkel. She was not present at this time or place.
THE COURT: Overruled.
THE WITNESS: Yes.
Q. BY MR. BUGLIOSI: Who composed those guard shifts?
MR. KANAREK: Objection on the grounds it is immaterial, your Honor.
THE COURT: Overruled.
THE WITNESS: I am not sure that Charlie did—
Q. BY MR. BUGLIOSI: Let me reframe that question.
Who acted as guards?
MR. KANAREK: Calling for a conclusion and immaterial.
THE COURT: Overruled
THE WITNESS: All us girls in different shifts.
Q. BY MR. BUGLIOSI: What were you guarding?
MR. KANAREK: Object on the grounds it’s a conclusion, immaterial.
THE COURT: Overruled.
THE WITNESS: Actually just like a watch-out tower, we would sit there with the walkie-talkie system, watching out if a truck went by or if, you know, somebody came walking through that would spot us.
Q. BY MR. BUGLIOSI: Who ordered you to serve as guards?
MR. KANAREK: Objection, conclusion, hearsay, immaterial.
THE WITNESS: I am not really sure but I believe—
THE COURT: Just a moment, Mrs. Kasabian, wait for the ruling.
I think that assumes a fact not in evidence.
MR. BUGLIOSI: All right, your Honor.
THE COURT: The objection will be sustained on that ground.
MR. HUGHES: Can your Honor’s remarks be read back? I was unable to hear.
(Whereupon, the reporter reads back the record as follows:
“THE COURT: The objection will be sustained on that ground.”)
Q. BY MR. BUGLIOSI:Who, if anyone, ordered you girls to stand guard?
MR. KANAREK: Objection on the ground it is a conclusion, hearsay and immaterial.
THE COURT: Overruled.
THE WITNESS: I can’t?
THE COURT: You may answer.
THE WITNESS: I cannot say positively, but I believe Charlie did.
Q. BY MR. BUGLIOSI: Did Charlie ask you girls to do anything while you were at the second camping site?
MR. KANAREK: Object, leading and suggestive, calling for a conclusion and hearsay and immaterial.
THE COURT: Overruled.
THE WITNESS: Yes, a number of things.
Q. BY MR. BUGLIOSI: What did he ask you to do?
MR. KANAREK: Object on the grounds of hearsay, conclusion, immaterial, improper foundation.
MR. FITZGERALD: Hearsay as to Krenwinkel.
MR. HUGHES: Hearsay as to Van Houten.
THE COURT: The answer will be limited as to Mr. Manson only.
The objection is overruled as to Mr. Manson.
Q. BY MR. BUGLIOSI: You may answer.
A. First he instructed us to make little witchy things to hang in the trees to show our way from the campsite to our road in the dark.
MR. KANAREK: I object on the grounds of immateriality.
Q. BY MR. BUGLIOSI: What witchy things?
MR. KANAREK: I object, immaterial.
THE COURT: Overruled.
THE WITNESS: Things made from weeds, rocks, stones, branches, some kinds of wires, I don’t know, all different little things.
Q. BY MR. BUGLIOSI: Why do you use the word “witchy”?
MR. KANAREK: Object, your Honor, that is immaterial, calling for a conclusion and hearsay.
THE COURT: Overruled.
THE WITNESS: Because they called themselves witches.
MR. BUGLIOSI: Who called themselves witches?
A. All the girls, Charlie called us witches.
MR. KANAREK: May the witness be asked to wait—
THE COURT: The objection is overruled.
Q. BY MR. BUGLIOSI: Charlie called all of you girls witches?
A. Uh-huh.
MR. KANAREK: Object, your Honor. May the witness be asked to refrain from answering so I can make the objection?
I am willing, as I have said, your Honor, I am willing to make my objections on materiality to be continuing so we don’t have this interruption.
I don’t want the onus to be upon me.
If we have this, then we have a continuing objection to materiality, then I don’t have to do this.
I am making these objections because he is asking improper questions, your Honor.
THE COURT: All right, I will give you a continuing objection on that ground only.
MR. KANAREK: Very well, your Honor.
THE COURT: You may proceed.
MR. HUGHES: I will join in that objection.
MR. KANAREK: A juror is raising his hand.
A JUROR: I cannot hear Mr. Hughes over there, it sounds like he is mumbling.
MR. HUGHES: I will join in that objection, your Honor.
MR. BUGLIOSI: Now I believe I forgot the question.
BY MR. BUGLIOSI:
Q. Linda, who called you witches?
A. Charlie—everybody called us witches at the Ranch.
MR. KANAREK: That is a conclusion.
THE COURT: Overruled.
BY MR. BUGLIOSI:
Q. You called yourselves witches?
A. Yes.
MR. KANAREK: Object. Leading and suggestive.
THE COURT: Overruled.
BY MR. BUGLIOSI:
Q. Now, when you say Charlie, you are talking about Charles Manson, is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Did Mr. Manson ever say why he wanted to go to these campsites?
MR. KANAREK: Object, calling for conclusion and hearsay.
MR. FITZGERALD: Hearsay as to Krenwinkel.
MR. HUGHES: Hearsay as to Van Houten.
THE COURT: The answer will be limited to Mr. Manson only and the jury is so admonished.
The objections are overruled.
THE WITNESS: I cannot really recall what his reason was or if there was a reason.
BY MR. BUGLIOSI:
Okay, were there any male visitors who came to the ranch and visited the Family?
MR. KANAREK: Immaterial, your Honor, ambiguous.
THE COURT: Overruled.
THE WITNESS: Yes.
BY MR. BUGLIOSI:
Did Charlie ever tell you girls to do anything with these male visitors?
MR. KANAREK: Object, leading and suggestive, your Honor, and calling for a conclusion.
Those are my bases.
MR. FITZGERALD: Hearsay as to Krenwinkel.
MR. HUGHES: Hearsay as to Miss Van Houten.
THE COURT: The answer will be limited to Mr. Manson only.
The objections are overruled.
You may answer.
THE WITNESS: What was the question again?
THE COURT: Read the last question.
(Whereupon the reporter reads the pending question as follows:
“Q. Did Charlie ever tell you girls to do anything with these male visitors?”)
THE WITNESS: Yes, he told us to make love to them, and try to get them to join the family, and if they would not join the Family, not to give them our attention, not to make love to them.
MR. KANAREK: Your Honor, I ask that be stricken.
May I approach the bench?
THE COURT: No. The motion is denied.
MR. KANAREK: May I approach the bench to make a motion, your Honor?
THE COURT: If you want to make another motion, state the motion and the grounds.
MR. KANAREK: Your Honor wishes me to do it in open court?
THE COURT: State the motion.
MR. KANAREK: I make a motion for a mistrial on the grounds it impugns Mr. Manson’s moral character and his integrity, this last statement in the presence of these jurors it is elicited for no purpose except to put into these jurors’ minds prejudicial information concerning Mr. Manson’s sexual activities, purportedly.
MR. STOVITZ: Submit the motion, your Honor.
THE COURT: The motion is denied.
BY MR. BUGLIOSI:
Q. What work did you girls do at the Ranch if anything?
MR. KANAREK: Immaterial.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. KANAREK: I am sorry—
THE WITNESS: Anything and everything there was to do.
BY MR. BUGLIOSI:
Q. Can you give the Judge and the jury some idea of the work you did out there?
A. We helped the men, you know, with their dune buggy parts, cleaning, and just more or less serving them if they needed something, taking care of the children, cooking, sewing, you know, mostly domestic things like that, and always on service, you know, for the men.
Q. Who told you you were supposed to be on service for the men?
MR. KANAREK: Object on the grounds of improper foundation, conclusion, hearsay, your Honor, it is ambiguous.
MR. BUGLIOSI: I will withdraw the question.
BY MR. BUGLIOSI:
Q. What about the men, what type of work did they do out at the Ranch?
MR. KANAREK: Your Honor, I must object on the grounds—I would like to implore—
THE COURT: State your objection, sir.
MR. KANAREK: It is outside of the scope of the pleadings.
THE COURT: Overruled, let’s proceed.
THE WITNESS: What was the question.
BY MR. BUGLIOSI:
Q. What type of work did the male members of the Family do out at Spahn Ranch?
A. Mostly work on their dune buggies.
Q. Did you ever see Charles Manson do physical work of any kind whatsoever?
MR. KANAREK: Immaterial, your Honor.
THE COURT: Overruled.
THE WITNESS: Very seldom.
Q. BY MR. BUGLIOSI: Did you see the other male members of the Family do physical work?
A. Yes.
Q. How did the Family get their food, how did you eat?
MR. KANAREK: I object, your Honor.
Q. BY MR. BUGLIOSI: Where did you get your food from?
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. KANAREK: I must object on the grounds it is outside the scope.
He is not eliciting anything that happened between August 8th and 10th.
THE COURT: Overruled.
THE WITNESS: We used to go on garbage runs.
Q. BY MR. BUGLIOSI: What do you mean by garbage runs, Linda?
MR. KANAREK: I object on the grounds it is calling for a conclusion, hearsay.
THE COURT: Overruled.
THE WITNESS: We used to go in the back of supermarkets and restaurants, into the garbage cans and take the throw away food, take them home, clean them and eat them.
Q. BY MR. BUGLIOSI: What type of food did the Family eat?
MR. KANAREK: Immaterial—I know I have a continuing objection, your Honor, but this is so beyond the scope of anything.
MR. BUGLIOSI: This is foundational, your Honor.
MR. FITZGERALD: I am going to object it is immaterial and irrelevant. They are not on trial for violation of the Sanitation Code, your Honor.
THE COURT: Overruled.
Q. BY MR. BUGLIOSI: What type of food did the Family eat?
A. Mostly vegetables and brown rice.
Q. Did they eat any meat?
A. No.
Q. Why no meat?
MR. KANAREK: That is calling for a conclusion and hearsay, your Honor.
THE COURT: Overruled.
THE WITNESS: They just never ate meat.
Q. BY MR. BUGLIOSI: Did Charlie ever say anything about what type of food you should eat?
MR. KANAREK: Object on the grounds of hearsay and conclusions, your Honor.
THE COURT: Overruled.
THE WITNESS: Not really, he used to really dig zusus, as they call them.
Q. BY MR. BUGLIOSI: What are zusus?
A. Candy and ice cream.
Q. Did Charlie say anything to the effect no one should eat meat in the Family?
MR. KANAREK: Conclusion, hearsay, leading and suggestive.
THE COURT: Overruled.
THE WITNESS: I cannot recall him telling me that, no.
Q. BY MR. BUGLIOSI: Had you eaten meat before coming to Spahn Ranch?
A. Yes, on and off.
MR. KANAREK: Your Honor, that is immaterial. I know I have a continuing objection but—
THE COURT: You want to make it twice, is that it?
MR. KANAREK: I understand, your Honor.
THE COURT: Overruled, let’s proceed.
THE WITNESS: Yes, I had eaten meat on and off.
Q. BY MR. BUGLIOSI: You stopped eating meat once you got to Spahn Ranch?
A. Right.
Q. Would the Family go into town frequently?
A. Usually once a day to get the food for supper.
Q. How would you get into town?
A. If we didn’t have a car we hitchhiked, if we had the car we would drive.
Q. Who would drive the car if you did have a car?
A. In the beginning, let me see, we used to use Johnnie Schwartz’s car, and anybody would drive it, whoever was going in, and after a while he specified, Charlie specified, that only the people—
MR. KANAREK: Your Honor, I object and ask this witness not to state—
THE COURT: Don’t interrupt the answer. Wait until it is concluded.
MR. KANAREK: Then the jury would have heard it and the prejudice will have come about. We wish to keep the jury—
THE COURT: Go back and read the question, please.
(Whereupon, the reporter reads the pending question as follows:
“Q. Who would drive the car if you did have a car?”)
MR. KANAREK: That is calling for a conjecture, your Honor.
THE COURT: Overruled.
Q. BY MR. BUGLIOSI: You may answer, Linda.
A. Charlie specified later on that only the people with driver’s license should drive the car.
Q. Who were those people?
A. I had a driver’s license.
MR. KANAREK: Calling for a conclusion and hearsay, and I would like to inquire on voir dire as to whether or not this witness has seen any driver’s licenses.
THE COURT: Overruled.
THE WITNESS: Yes, I had a driver’s license and Mary Brunner had a driver’s license.
Q. BY MR. BUGLIOSI: To your knowledge did anyone else have a driver’s license?
A. No.
MR. KANAREK: Conclusion, your Honor.
THE WITNESS: No, not that I know of.
Q. BY MR. BUGLIOSI: Did Charlie ever tell you girls in the Family how to dress?
MR. FITZGERALD: I object as to Patricia Krenwinkel.
MR. KANAREK: I object on the grounds that it calls for a conclusion, hearsay.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. HUGHES: Hearsay as to Defendant Van Houten.
MR. KANAREK: Leading and suggestive, your Honor.
Q. BY MR. BUGLIOSI: You may answer the question, Mrs. Kasabian.
A. Yes, at night we were told to wear dark clothes.
Q. Who told your this?
A. Charlie—everybody told me.
Q. On any other occasion did he tell you girls how to dress?
MR. KANAREK: I object, your Honor, ambiguous, calling for a conclusion, improper foundation.
THE COURT: Overruled.
THE WITNESS: I don’t understand your question.
Q. BY MR. BUGLIOSI: Well, other than how to dress at night did Charlie ever make any other statement to you girls on the type of clothing he wanted you to wear?
MR. KANAREK: I object on the grounds of a conclusion.
Q. BY MR. BUGLIOSI: —size, color?
A. No, he never did.
MR. KANAREK: Improper foundation, your Honor.
THE COURT: Overruled.
BY MR. BUGLIOSI:
Q. Do you recall any conversation between Charlie, Mary Brunner, Bruce Davis, Bobby Beausoleil, with respect to getting the girls certain types of clothing?
MR. KANAREK: Hearsay, conclusion, ambiguous.
I object to the form of the question.
THE COURT: Overruled.
THE WITNESS: Yes, one day Mary Brunner and Bobby Beausoleil—
MR. KANAREK: Your Honor, that question has been answered.
THE COURT: Don’t interrupt the answer, Mr. Kanarek.
Proceed.
MR. KANAREK: She is going further than the question solicited. It only solicited a yes or no answer, and the jury—I am sure we wish to keep the jury free of improper answers.
THE COURT: Do you have the question in mind?
THE WITNESS: No, not really.
THE COURT: Go back and read the question.
(Whereupon the reporter reads the pending question as follows:
“Q. Do you recall any conversation between Charlie, Mary Brunner, Bruce Davis, Bobby Beausoleil, with respect to getting the girls certain types of clothing?”)
MR. KANAREK: That can be answered yes or no, your Honor.
THE WITNESS: Yes.
BY MR. BUGLIOSI:
Q. What was that conversation?
MR. KANAREK: I object on the grounds of hearsay, conclusion.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. KANAREK: May we approach the bench, your Honor?
THE COURT: No, you may not.
MR. KANAREK: May we have a foundation as to who was present?
THE COURT: Sit down, Mr. Kanarek.
THE WITNESS: One night at suppertime he told Mary Brunner to go out with some credit cards and buy all kinds of clothing for us and the children, and to buy certain parts for dune buggies.
Shall I tell you the things he wanted?
MR. FITZGERALD: Move to strike, hearsay as to Patricia Krenwinkel.
BY MR. BUGLIOSI:
Q. Yes, you may relate the conversation.
MR. FITZGERALD: Hearsay as to Krenwinkel.
MR. KANAREK: I make a motion to strike on behalf of Mr. Manson because of the prejudicial aspect of the answer. It alleges crime.
MR. STOVITZ: It does not allege any crime at all.
He said he gave them credit cards.
MR. KANAREK: It is a solicitation—
THE COURT: I don’t want to hear the argument. State the motion and the grounds.
MR. KANAREK: I object on the grounds, your Honor it is a statement of improper hearsay, conclusion.
It is a statement of prior bad conduct on the part of Mr. Manson, prior to the time that this witness took the witness stand.
She is alleging that Mr. Manson solicited people to go out and commit crimes.
THE COURT: Just the grounds, Mr. Kanarek, you understood what I said.
MR. STOVITZ: Nothing in the answer suggests that.
THE COURT: The motion is denied.
Let’s proceed.
MR. HUGHES: May I make a motion also?
Join in the motion to strike, hearsay as to Van Houten.
THE COURT: The motion is denied.
MR. KANAREK: I would further ask the Court to admonish the jury not to consider the answer for any purpose.
MR. STOVITZ: May we, your Honor, ask the jury to disregard the objections and try to concentrate on the witness’s questions and answers.
I know it is a little difficult—
THE COURT: Let’s proceed, Mr. Stovitz.
BY MR. BUGLIOSI:
Q. Continue with the conversation, Linda.
A. Yes, he wanted each one of us girls to have two sets of clothing, like a straight dress to wear during the day and maybe on the weekends if we were in front of the Ranch when the riders would come by.
Q. The riders of horses?
A. Yes, uh-huh, we each should have a pair of moccasins, and then a pair of Levi pants, and a shirt or a blouse or whatever.
And some straight, you know, clothes for Tanya or Bear, diapers, things like that.
And he ordered sleeping bags.
MR. KANAREK: I ask that the witness be ordered—
THE COURT: Do not interrupt the answer. Wait until its conclusion, Mr. Kanarek.
Go ahead.
THE WITNESS: We got sleeping bags, and there were a whole bunch of pocketknives for each person.
Also he said that he wanted each one of us girls to take care of our own set of clothing—which never happened.
MR. KANAREK: Your Honor, I ask that all of that he stricken on the grounds of hearsay, conclusion—it has nothing but prejudicial value.
It has no probative value.
THE COURT: The motion is denied.
BY MR. BUGLIOSI:
Q. Did Mary Brunner, Bruce Davis and Bobby Beausoleil return with the clothing, et cetera?
A. Yes, they did.
MR. KANAREK: I object on the grounds it’s ambiguous.
THE COURT: Overruled.
Q. The clothing then was distributed to you girls?
A. Yes.
Q. Approximately when did this take place, Linda?
MR. KANAREK: Immaterial.
THE COURT: Overruled.
THE WITNESS: Near the beginning when I first got there, as close as I can relate it to time.
BY MR. BUGLIOSI:
Q. Linda—do you know what a sexual orgy is?
A. Yes, I do.
MR. KANAREK: Oh, your Honor, I must, and must, and I ask that the jury be admonished not to consider that question for any purpose.
May I approach the bench?
THE COURT: Very well.
(The following proceedings were had at the bench out of the hearing of the jury:}
MR. KANAREK: Your Honor, I ask you to approach the bench.
THE COURT: Let me tell you something, Mr. Kanarek, and I want you to get it straight right now.
I do not want you to interrupt. I don’t want you to interrupt me; I don’t want you to interrupt another attorney and I don’t want you to interrupt the witness.
Do you understand, sir?
MR. KANAREK: Yes, your Honor.
THE COURT: You will be given every opportunity to state whatever you want to state, but you are not going to continually interrupt.
MR. KANAREK: I understand.
THE COURT: Now just a minute, that means right now also.
MR. KANAREK: Yes.
THE COURT: If you continue to interrupt I’m going to find you in contempt. I want you to clearly understand that.
When a question is asked wait until that question is completed before you make your objection or motion.
When an answer is being given, wait until that answer is given before you make a motion to strike.
When I am speaking, don’t interrupt.
MR. KANAREK: Well, your Honor, it’s certainly not intentional.
THE COURT: I believe it is.
MR. KANAREK: Not to interrupt the Court.
THE COURT: But I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt, that is what I want to make perfectly clear to you now.
MR. KANAREK: The point is this, your Honor, if Mr. Bugliosi solicits a question, if it not a proper question and the witness is uttering matters which are prejudicial, which the jury will hear, then—
THE COURT: You heard what I said. Now, I mean it.
MR. KANAREK: Then Mr. Manson is being denied due process.
THE COURT: Do you have anything else to say?
MR. KANAREK: May I make the record, your Honor is interrupting me.
THE COURT: There is no record to make.
MR. KANAREK: The point is—
THE COURT: Now, Mr. Kanarek, I order you to stop talking this moment, do you understand, sir?
MR. KANAREK: Very well.
THE COURT: You are not making any motion; you are just talking now.
MR. KANAREK: I am trying to convince the Court.
THE COURT: All right.
Now, Mr. Bugliosi?
MR. BUGLIOSI: May I get in here?
MR. HUGHES: Did you want me to stand where I can’t hear?
Your Honor, there is nowhere to go.
THE COURT: Step back.
MR. BUGLIOSI: Your Honor, as the Stevens case has indicated, you can show many other transactions showing the inter-relationship of the members of the Family, in fact in Stevens they put on evidence of plans of other kidnapings, two or three years later.
Now, kidnaping, of course, is a very serious crime. We did not make these transactions and these occurrences that Manson had with the Family. He made them.
Now, the sexual orgy offer of proof is that she will testify that there were about 30 people and four guests.
There was one new girl; she was shy and afraid and about 15 or 16 years old.
Manson stood her in the middle of the room and took off her clothing; she was unwilling, so Manson pushed her to the floor; all she had on were her bikini underpants.
Charlie touched her from head to toe, started kissing her on head and cheek; she started fighting him; he kept pushing her back; she hit him on the shoulder; he punched her in the face. Then he told everyone in the room to touch her.
The girl lay there in a state of shock.
Manson ripped off her panties; then he told Bobby Beausoleil to make love to her; then he told everyone to make love to everyone else.
Again, this is a transaction, your Honor, showing the inter-relationship between Manson with his Family, the association he had with them, his domination over the Family, his power and his control over them, your Honor.
THE COURT: Now, who do you contend was present at this time?
MR. BUGLIOSI: I will ask her, your Honor. There were almost the whole Family and four guests.
THE COURT: Among the defendants.
MR. BUGLIOSI: May I approach her on that, your Honor, and ask her which particular defendants—
Of course, Manson was present and she was present.
May I approach her as to the particular defendants—if these particular defendants were also present?
MR. SHINN: May we take this witness on voir dire before the evidence comes in, your Honor?
MR. BUGLIOSI: The orgy, your Honor, is something I am not responsible for. This is just an illustration.
MR. FITZGERALD: The orgy did not occur, your Honor, and I have reason to doubt the veracity of the prosecutor.
This is recently fabricated. If it wasn’t we would have received it on discovery and we received no such information.
MR. SHINN: This is not in furtherance of the conspiracy. This happened way before August 8th and 9th and has no objective at all towards the furthering of the conspiracy.
MR. HUGHES: Besides, we are not trying the sex lives of these people. We are trying to murder lives of these people.
THE COURT: The cases are perfectly clear, circumstantial evidence may come in in regard to the relationship between the parties, their transactions and conversations, because it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to tell exactly in what point of time a conspiracy comes into being.
That evidence is absolutely essential in many, if not all, cases to determine at what point. There is no written agreement constituting the conspiracy.
The evidence is admissible, that is, the evidence which has come in so far. The question is whether this is part and parcel of that.
I think it depends on who was there.
MR. BUGLIOSI: Yes, your Honor, that is why—may I ask her?
THE COURT: You will have to lay a foundation for it.
MR. BUGLIOSI: May I ask her out of the presence of the jury, if I may approach her on the stand and ask her if Patricia Krenwinkel, Leslie Van Houten and Susan Atkins were present.
If they weren’t, then I would like to make further argument.
I think it still would be admissible, but at least tentatively may I establish from her whether the three female defendants were present?
MR. KANAREK: May I make an argument? I am the one that asked to come to the bench.
THE COURT: An argument about what?
MR. KANAREK: In connection with what we are speaking of here.
THE COURT: Argue.
MR. KANAREK: The Court—
MR. HUGHES: I am unable to hear Mr. Kanarek.
MR. KANAREK: —has an obligation to weigh, to balance the prejudicial effect against the probative value.
This has no probative value. It is offered strictly for the prejudicial effect upon the jury. That is one point.
The other point, your Honor, is that the conspiracy is alleged—we didn’t bring these pleadings, the District Attorney’s Office has brought the pleadings, made the pleadings—between August the 8th and August the 10th.
There is no foundation—the foundation is not—assuming arguendo that it is admissible, that it isn’t prejudicial—which it clearly is—it is also leading and suggestive and conclusionary as to what a sexual orgy is.
MR. STOVITZ: Let’s find out what it is.
MR. KANAREK: It is strictly conclusionary.
There are some people in the days of old that thought—
THE COURT: I agree that the characterization as a sexual orgy is improper, assuming that it were otherwise admissible.
MR. BUGLIOSI: All right.
THE COURT: You can have her describe what occurred, but to characterize it at the outset is improper.
MR. KANAREK: I haven’t finished, if I may?
THE COURT: All right.
MR. KANAREK: What I am asking the Court to do in this case is to admonish the jury not to consider this last question and answer for any purpose.
A mere admonishment not sufficing, we can’t lose perspective of the fact that we are in a court of law, I ask—
THE COURT: Sometimes I think you do lose perspective.
MR. KANAREK: But I have an obligation.
They have brought this between August the 8th and August the 10th. There has not been any other time aspect. And what happened at the time, evidently around July the 4th, in this connection is immaterial and prejudicial.
Without that foundation, your Honor, without that showing—
THE COURT: That just doesn’t happen to be the law, Mr. Kanarek. The fact that it occurred before the overt acts alleged in the conspiracy is immaterial.
MR. KANAREK: Your Honor, that is not what their pleading says. The pleading says that the conspiracy itself was from August the 8th to August the 10th. That is clear. Therefore, your Honor, what he is asking is clearly improper, and we ask for a mistrial on the basis that mere admonishments cannot suffice.
THE COURT: The motion is denied.
MR. SHINN: Join in that motion.
MR. HUGHES: Join Mr. Kanarek’s motion.
MR. FITZGERALD: Join in the motion.
MR. BUGLIOSI: May I speak to Mrs. Kasabian and find out who was present? Or do you want me to ask her that on the stand?
THE COURT: I am going to sustain the objection to the last question.
MR. BUGLIOSI: As to the word “orgy”?
THE COURT: And I will admonish the jury to disregard the last question.
I think you will have to start out and lay a foundation as to time, place and persons present, and go from there.
MR. BUGLIOSI: Thank you, your Honor.
(Whereupon, counsel return to their respective places at counsel table and the following proceedings occurred in open court within the presence and hearing of the jury:)
THE COURT: The objection to the last question was sustained, ladies and gentlemen, and you are admonished to disregard that question.
You may proceed, Mr. Bugliosi.
MR. BUGLIOSI: Q. Linda, did you ever participate with other members of the Family in any form of group sexual activity?
MR. SHINN: Objection,
MR. KANAREK: Object, your Honor. It is the same question asked over again.
I have a continuing objection on materiality.
THE COURT: It is leading and suggestive. The objection is sustained.
MR. BUGLIOSI: May I have just a moment, your Honor?
THE COURT: Yes.
(Mr. Bugliosi confers with Mr. Stovitz.)
MR. BUGLIOSI: Q. Linda, did you ever participate at Mr. Manson’s suggestion or order while at Spahn Ranch in any type of sexual relationship while a large number of people were present?
MR. KANAREK: Objection, your Honor. It is exactly the same substance as the other two questions. Need I go further, your Honor?
MR. BUGLIOSI: This is just foundational, your Honor.
THE COURT: The objection is sustained.
MR. BUGLIOSI: Do you recall, Linda, in mid-July—strike that.
There was a back house at the Spahn Ranch?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you recall the back house?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. A little past mid-July, 1969, did a large group of members of the Family and guests gather at the back house?
A. Yes, they did.
MR. KANAREK: Objection, immaterial, your Honor, and calls for a conclusion.
THE COURT: Overruled.
THE WITNESS: Yes, they did.
MR. BUGLIOSI: Q. About how many people?
MR. KANAREK: Objection. Ambiguous as to time, your Honor, and also calling for a conclusion.
THE COURT: Overruled.
THE WITNESS: As many people as there were in the Family. —maybe 20—and I believe there were three guests, four guests.
MR. BUGLIOSI: Q. Was defendant Susan Atkins present?
A. Yes, she was.
Q. Was the defendant Patricia Krenwinkel present?
A. Yes, I believe she was.
Q. Was Leslie Van Houten present?
A. Yes, she was.
Q. Was Charles Manson present?
A. Yes, he was.
Q. Were you present?
A. Yes, I was.
MR. SHINN: May the record reflect, your Honor, that the witness is laughing, your Honor, smiling?
THE COURT: Let’s proceed, gentlemen.
MR. BUGLIOSI: Q. What took place—strike that.
About what time of day was it?
A. It was nighttime.
Q. What took place back at the back house?
MR. KANAREK: Object, your Honor, on the grounds that it is calling for a conclusion of this witness.
And your Honor, may we approach the bench?
THE COURT: No, you may not.
The objection is overruled. Let’s proceed.
Do you have the question in mind?
THE WITNESS: Yes, I do.
There was one particular girl—I don’t remember her name—
MR. KANAREK: Your Honor, in view of the—if the offer of proof that Mr. Bugliosi—
THE COURT: Don’t interrupt the answer, Mr. Kanarek.
Let’s proceed.
THE WITNESS: She was fairly young. I’d say maybe 16, and she was very shy and very withdrawn, and I remember she was laying in the middle of the room, and Charlie took her clothes off and started making love to her and kissing her and, you know, and she was really rejecting him and, you know, trying to push him off, and he just sort of pushed her back down and kissed her. And at one point she bit him on the shoulder, and he hit her in the face, and then she just sort of let go and got behind it, or whatever.
Then he told Bobby Beausoleil—no, excuse me—yes. he told Bobby Beausoleil to make love to her, and he told everybody to touch her and to kiss her and to make love to her. And everybody did.
MR. FITZGERALD: Motion to strike the entire answer as nonresponsive, hearsay, and it is immaterial.
MR. SHINN: Join.
MR. KANAREK: Join in the motion, and may we approach the bench?
MR. HUGHES: Join.
THE COURT: The motion is denied.
MR. KANAREK: Then may I make a motion?
THE COURT: I think you have already made that motion.
MR. KANAREK: No, your Honor. I have another motion to make.
THE COURT: Make your motion.
MR. KANAREK: My motion, your Honor—
THE COURT: Just the grounds.
MR. KANAREK: —is that the jury be admonished not to consider this last answer for any purpose.
Would your Honor so instruct the jury?
THE COURT: No. The motion is denied.
MR. KANAREK: Then may I approach, the bench to make another motion?
THE COURT: Make your motion, sir.
MR. KANAREK: Very well.
I make a motion for a mistrial, your Honor, on the grounds of the prejudicial nature of this last enunciation by the witness.
THE COURT: The motion is denied.
MR. SHINN: Join in the motion, your Honor.
MR. HUGHES: Join in that motion, your Honor.
MR. BUGLIOSI: Q. You say everyone made love to her. Are you referring to the male members of the Family?
A. Everybody that was in the room, yes.
MR. KANAREK: Well, your Honor, may I have a continuing objection and a continuing request to admonish, because this is most prejudicial what Mr. Bugliosi is eliciting.
MR. BUGLIOSI: The “G” is silent, sir. It is Bugliosi.
MR. KANAREK: I am sorry.
THE COURT: Let’s proceed.
MR. KANAREK: May I have such a continuing objection?
THE COURT: No, you may not.
MR. KANAREK: A continuing request for admonishment?
THE COURT: You may not.
MR. BUGLIOSI: Q. Did anyone—strike that.
BY MR. BUGLIOSI:
Q. When you say “make love,” do you mean sexual, physical love?
A. Are you referring to this girl?
Q. Yes.
A. Yes. Touching her and kissing her, you know, but not the entering in.
MR. KANAREK: Your Honor, I ask that the—is the witness finished?
THE WITNESS: Yes.
MR. KANAREK: Then I ask that the jury be admonished not to consider the answer for any purpose because of its prejudicial effect; and mere admonishment not sufficing, I ask for a mistrial.
MR. SHINN: Join.
THE COURT: Motion denied.
MR. BUGLIOSI: Q. Did anyone who was present touch this girl before Charlie told them to do it?
MR. KANAREK: Immaterial, calling for a conclusion.
THE COURT: Overruled.
THE WITNESS: No, I don’t believe so.
MR. BUGLIOSI: Q. After everyone touched the girl, then what happened?
A. Then he told everybody to make love to everybody.
MR. KANAREK: Objection. Calls for a conclusion, your Honor.
THE COURT: Overruled.
Read the last question and answer.
And you wait until the question is completed, Mr. Kanarek, before you make your objection.
MR. KANAREK: I am sorry, your Honor. I thought it had been finished.
(The record was read by the reporter.)
MR. KANAREK: Your Honor, then I ask that that answer and the question be—that the jury be admonished not to consider it for any purpose, it is hearsay, it is a conclusion.
THE COURT: The motion is denied.
Let’s proceed.
MR. BUGLIOSI: Q. When you say he ordered everybody to make love to everybody, when you say “he,” you are referring to Charles Manson?
A. Yes.
Q. What followed thereafter?
MR. KANAREK: Objection. Immaterial, your Honor.
I know I have a continuing objection, but it is by way of emphasis, your Honor, and it is calling for prejudicial statements on the part of this witness, a conclusion, possibly hearsay.
THE COURT: Overruled.
THE WITNESS: Everybody made love to everybody.
MR. BUGLIOSI: Q. When you say “made love”—
MR. KANAREK: Can I ask that the answer—may the jury be admonished not to consider the answer for any purpose?
THE COURT: Motion denied.
MR. KANAREK: Then I ask for a mistrial because of the prejudicial nature of what has been stated.
THE COURT: Motion denied.
Let’s proceed.
MR. BUGLIOSI: Q. Could you define in more detail what you mean by making love?
MR. KANAREK: Objection, your Honor, on the grounds that it is calling for a conclusion.
THE COURT: Overruled.
THE WITNESS: Well, we all shed our clothes, and we were laying on the floor, and it was just like—it didn’t matter who was beside you, if it was a man or a woman, you just touched each other and made love with each other, and the whole room was like this. It was sort of like just one.
Q. Was everyone in the nude?
A. Yes.
Q. Was there sexual intercourse?
A. Yes. That is what I just said.
MR. KANAREK: Your Honor, I ask that the last question and answer be stricken on the grounds of its prejudicial effect. It has no probative value.
THE COURT: The motion is denied.
MR. BUGLIOSI: Do you know Charles “Tex” Watson?
A. Excuse me?
Q. Do you know Charles “Tex” Watson?
A. Oh, yes.
Q. Was Tex Watson present?
A. Yes, he was.
MR. BUGLIOSI: Your Honor. I have here a photograph. May it be marked People’s next in order?
THE CLERK: 36, your Honor.
THE COURT: It will be so marked.
MR. BUGLIOSI: I show you People’s 36 for identification, Mrs. Kasabian.
Do you know who is shown in that photograph?
A. Yes. That is Tex.
Q. That is Tex Watson?
A. Yes.
MR. HUGHES: Could we see that picture, Mr. Bugliosi?
MR. STOVITZ: Yes.
(The photograph is handed to defense counsel.)
MR. BUGLIOSI: Do you want me to continue, your Honor, or do you want me to wait for them to look at the picture.
THE COURT: You may continue if you wish.
MR. BUGLIOSI: Q. While you were at Spahn Ranch, Linda, did you ever have any discussions with Charles Manson?
MR. KANAREK: Object—
THE WITNESS: Yes.
MR. KANAREK: Just a minute.
I will object, your Honor, on the grounds as to time.
The conspiracy is alleged to have taken place between August the 8th and August the 10th. So, it is ambiguous.
MR. BUGLIOSI: I am going to ask her, in my next question, your Honor, when these discussions took place.
THE COURT: Overruled.
BY MR. BUGLIOSI:
Q. When did these discussions take place with Mr. Manson, Linda?
A. At different intervals.
THE COURT: What was the answer?
(The answer was read by the reporter.)
BY MR. BUGLIOSI:
Q. Between what date and what date?
A. I have no idea as to date.
Q. Well, you first came there July 4th, 1969; is that correct?
A. Yes.
MR. KANAREK: Leading and suggestive.
THE COURT: Overruled.
BY MR. BUGLIOSI:
Q. And you left approximately how long thereafter? How long were you at the Ranch?
A. About a month.
Q. Would the conversations, the discussions, have taken place within that one-month period? Is that correct?
A. Yes, that’s right.
Q. In your discussions with Mr. Manson. did he ever say anything about right and wrong?
MR. KANAREK: Object on—
THE WITNESS: Yes.
MR. KANAREK: —the grounds that it is leading and suggestive.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. KANAREK: Hearsay and a conclusion.
BY MR. BUGLIOSI:
Q. What did he say?
MR. KANAREK: Immaterial, your Honor.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. KANAREK: Leading and suggestive, ambiguous, hearsay and a conclusion.
THE WITNESS: That everything was all right, there was no wrong.
BY MR. BUGLIOSI:
Q. Did he ever say anything about sense?
A. Yes.
MR. KANAREK: Objection. Leading and suggestive, hearsay, a conclusion.
THE COURT: I didn’t hear the question. What was the question?
MR. BUGLIOSI: Q. Did he ever say anything about sense, s-e-n-s-e, sense?
MR. KANAREK: Your Honor, Mr. Bugliosi is testifying by these types of questions. It is leading and suggestive.
MR. BUGLIOSI: I have to direct her attention and lay the foundation, your Honor.
THE COURT: I still didn’t get the word.
(The question was read by the reporter.)
THE COURT: The objection is overruled.
MR. BUGLIOSI: What did he say?
THE WITNESS: He said—
MR. KANAREK: Objection on the grounds that it is hearsay, a conclusion.
THE COURT: I have already ruled on the objection.
THE WITNESS: Yes.
He used to say “No sense makes sense.”
BY MR. BUGLIOSI:
Q. Did he ever say anything about how not to get caught?
A. Yes.
MR. KANAREK: Object. Leading and suggestive, hearsay and a conclusion.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. BUGLIOSI: What did he say?
THE WITNESS: He used to say, “If you don’t get caught, you won’t get caught in your head.”
I mean—I have got it wrong—“You won’t get it caught thought in your head.”
BY MR. BUGLIOSI:
Q. Did Mr. Manson say anything to you about being willing to kill and be killed?
MR. KANAREK: Object, your Honor, on the grounds—may we approach the bench on this, your Honor?
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. FITZGERALD: May the preceding answer of the witness be stricken as unintelligible?
THE COURT: The motion is denied.
THE WITNESS: What was the question?
MR. BUGLIOSI: Q. Did he ever say anything to you about willing to kill and be killed?
MR. KANAREK: That is leading and suggestive, your Honor.
THE COURT: Overruled.
THE WITNESS: Yes.
He used to say, “if you are willing to be killed, then you should be willing to kill.”
MR. BUGLIOSI: Q. Did he say this many times, Linda?
MR. KANAREK: Objection. Leading and suggestive, your Honor, hearsay, a conclusion.
MR. BUGLIOSI: Let me withdraw that question, your Honor.
Q. Did he say this once or many times, Linda?
A. I heard him say it just once.
MR. KANAREK: Objection. Leading and suggestive.
MR. BUGLIOSI: Q. Did you ever hear him say it to anyone else?
A. No, not that I recall.
MR. KANAREK: Leading and suggestive.
THE COURT: If you make your objection while other people are talking, Mr. Kanarek, I can’t hear it, and if I can’t hear the objection, I can’t rule on it.
MR. KANAREK: She answered before I had the opportunity to make the objection.
THE COURT: You interrupted, too.
THE WITNESS: Am I supposed to wait?
THE COURT: Wait after the question is asked.
THE WITNESS: Okay.
THE COURT: Until counsel makes his objection.
THE WITNESS: Yes.
MR. BUGLIOSI: Q. Mrs. Kasabian, one day in the woods at the Spahn, Ranch, did Mr. Manson indicate to you that he was someone other than Charles Manson?
MR. KANAREK: Object. Leading and suggestive, calling for a conclusion, hearsay, and ambiguous as to time.
THE COURT: Overruled.
THE WITNESS: Yes.
I remember he took me in his arms and he said, “Don’t you know who I am?”
And I said, “No. Am I supposed to know something?”
And he didn’t answer. He just sort of swung me around; just sort of played with me.
MR. FITZGERALD: Objection. Hearsay as to Krenwinkel.
MR. HUGHES: Hearsay as to Van Houten.
THE COURT: The jury is admonished that the answer is received against Mr. Manson only.
MR. KANAREK: Your Honor, may I inquire of the Court as to on what issue this answer is received as to Mr. Manson? On what issue?
THE COURT: Let’s proceed, gentlemen.
MR. BUGLIOSI: Did Charles Manson ever talk to you about the Beatles?
A. Yes.
MR. KANAREK: Immaterial, your Honor.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. BUGLIOSI: Q. What did he say to you?
MR. KANAREK: Object on the grounds of hearsay, conclusion, foundation—improper foundation as to who was present, the time when it occurred.
THE COURT: Place?
MR. KANAREK: Place, right. Thank you, your Honor.
THE COURT: Overruled.
THE WITNESS: Yes.
There was a certain passage in one song where he said that he thought he heard—or he did hear, I am not sure if it was thought or whatever—that the Beatles were calling him, saying, “Charlie, Charlie, send us a telegram,” or “Put out a song,” or something. I can’t exactly remember what it was. But yes, he felt that the Beatles were calling him.
MR. KANAREK: I ask that the answer be stricken, your Honor, on the grounds that it is this witness’ conclusion as to what she thought he felt, and on the grounds that it is hearsay, that it has nothing but prejudicial value, it has no probative value as to any issue in this case.
THE COURT: Overruled. The motion is denied.
MR. BUGLIOSI: Q. In his discussion about the Beatles, did he ever—
THE COURT: Mr. Bugliosi, we will take our recess at this time.
Ladies and gentlemen, do not converse with anyone or form or express any opinion regarding the case until it is finally submitted to you.
The Court will recess for 15 minutes.
(Recess.)
THE COURT: All parties, counsel and jurors are present.
You may proceed, Mr. Bugliosi.
BY MR. BUGLIOSI:
Q. In discussing the Beatles, did he say anything about the Government?
MR. KANAREK: Object, your Honor, on the grounds—your Honor, may I—if the Court, by its ruling, is going to continue to overrule my objections, I would, if I could have a standing objection, your Honor, wherein I am asking the Court to admonish, after making the objection—
THE COURT: Just state your objection, sir. Do you have one now?
MR. KANAREK: Yes, your Honor.
THE COURT: What is it?
MR. KANAREK: Well, it is calling for a conclusion and hearsay; and by way of emphasis, even though I have a continuing objection, in order to convince the Court, it is not just to make a record. I object on the grounds that it is immaterial. It has nothing to do, your Honor, with any—
THE COURT: Any other grounds?
MR. KANAREK: No, your Honor. But then I make a motion—
THE COURT: The objection is overruled.
MR. KANAREK: May I make a motion to the Court?
THE COURT: Yes.
MR. KANAREK: The motion is so that Mr. Bugliosi can ask these questions and I not interrupt him, my motion is that it be deemed that every time I make the objection and your Honor overrules it, that there also be a request to admonish the jury not to consider it for any purpose.
And mere admonishment not sufficing, that it be deemed that I have made a motion for a mistrial.
Now, if your Honor will agree to this, then Mr. Bugliosi can ask his questions and there won’t be the interruption.
The vice is with Mr. Bugliosi’s questions, your Honor—that is my position—and we can accomplish and have the smoothness that your Honor wishes by allowing this to be deemed as I have indicated.
May I have that?
THE COURT: Well, I am not clear at all as to what you are proposing, Mr. Kanarek.
MR. KANAREK: What I am proposing is this: It is our position that everything that Mr. Bugliosi is asking this witness is immaterial, it solicits hearsay, there is no foundation for a lot of the questions, as it is conclusionary.
Now, if we can have an objection—maybe we can work out certain grounds that would be continuing other than materiality—
THE COURT: If you wish to do that, I suggest that you prepare something in writing, Mr. Kanarek, and I will be happy to consider it.
MR. KANAREK: Your Honor, I am not the one asking the improper questions, Mr. Bugliosi is.
THE COURT: We are going to proceed, gentlemen.
Ask your next question.
BY MR. BUGLIOSI:
Q. In the discussion about the Beatles, did Mr. Manson mention anything about the Government?
MR. KANAREK: Object, your Honor, on the grounds that there is an improper foundation. There is no showing who was present, when it occurred, where it occurred. It is ambiguous as to time. It is calling for a conclusion, and hearsay.
THE COURT: The objection will be sustained on the grounds of no proper foundation.
MR. BUGLIOSI: Q. When did you have this discussion with Mr. Manson about the Beatles?
A. I don’t know the time.
Q. Okay.
Within the one-month period?
A. Yes.
Q. Who was present at the time?
MR. KANAREK: Then I object, your Honor, on the grounds, that it has clearly no materiality; it is a conclusion, hearsay; improper foundation as to who was present.
THE COURT: Overruled.
THE WITNESS: I don’t really recall who was present. It seems that all the faces were the same way back then.
MR. BUGLIOSI: Q. You remember that there was you and Mr. Manson?
A. Yes.
MR. KANAREK: Object. Leading and suggestive.
THE COURT: Overruled.
Pull the microphone a little closer, please.
MR. BUGLIOSI: Q. Did he say anything about the government?
A. Yes, he did.
He was referring to a certain song.
MR. KANAREK: May that last question be read back? I didn’t hear it.
THE COURT: Read the question.
(The record was read by the reporter.)
MR. KANAREK: I must object, your Honor, on the grounds that that is a conclusion and hearsay.
What government are we talking about?
THE COURT: Overruled.
THE WITNESS: He was referring to a certain song that John Lennon sings about Christ, you know, “It ain’t easy,” “How hard it is going to be,” “They are going to crucify me.”
And he said—Charley said—that they are not going to crucify him this time like they did last time. That he is going to go and hide in the hole. And that John Lennon, through this song, is programming the people, the Establishment people, to crucify him.
MR. FITZGERALD: Motion to strike John Lennon’s remarks as hearsay.
MR. KANAREK: Motion to strike your Honor, on the ground that it is a statement—a hearsay statement. It has no probative value whatsoever.
THE COURT: Motion denied.
MR. BUGLIOSI: What were the words of those songs again? You went over it rather quickly.
MR. KANAREK: Object, your Honor, what the words were.
May we approach the bench, your Honor?
THE COURT: The objection will be sustained.
The question has been answered.
MR. BUGLIOSI: Q. Approximately how many children were at the ranch?
MR. KANAREK: Immaterial, your Honor.
THE COURT: Overruled.
THE WITNESS: There were three children, and near the end there was an addition. I believe there was a little boy. I don’t know his name.
MR. BUGLIOSI: Who were the other three?
A. Tanya, Bear and Zeezoo.
Q. Who took care of Bear?
MR. KANAREK: Immaterial, your Honor.
THE COURT: Overruled.
THE WITNESS: In the beginning it was mostly Little Patti. I don’t know her last name. I just knew her as Little Patti. And Leslie took care of them most of the time.
Q. Do you know whose child Bear was?
MR. KANAREK: That is calling for a conclusion.
THE COURT: Overruled.
THE WITNESS: Yes. Mary Brunner’s.
Q. How about Zeezoo?
A. Sadie’s
Q. Sadie’s child?
A. Yes.
Q. A girl or a boy?
A. A boy.
Q. Did Mr. Manson ever say anything about protecting these children from anyone?
MR. KANAREK: Object, your Honor, on the ground—your Honor, it is calling for a conclusion, hearsay, has no probative value, only prejudicial value.
THE COURT: Overruled.
DEFENDANT MANSON: May I object to my lawyer’s objections?
THE COURT: No, you may not, sir.
THE WITNESS: Yes.
He wanted us to keep the children out of sight. In other words, not to let them walk around in front of the ranch.
MR. BUGLIOSI: Why? Did he say why?
MR. KANAREK: Calling for a conclusion.
THE WITNESS: We were being watched.
MR. KANAREK: And hearsay.
THE COURT: Don’t interrupt, Mr. Kanarek, I warned you before. Wait until the question is completed or until the answer is completed.
MR. KANAREK: Would your Honor ask her not to answer until I have an opportunity, your Honor? She is answering almost automatically when Mr. Bugliosi asks the question.
THE COURT: Read the last question.
THE REPORTER: “Why? Did he say why?”
THE COURT: Is there an answer?
THE REPORTER: The answer was “We were being watched.”
MR. KANAREK: I believe I interposed an objection as a conclusion and hearsay, your Honor.
THE COURT: Overruled.
THE WITNESS: Yes, he told us we were being watched by Black Panthers.
BY MR. BUGLIOSI:
Q. Did he say what the Black Panthers might do with the children?
MR. KANAREK: I object, your Honor, on the grounds of conclusion and hearsay, conjecture.
THE COURT: Overruled.
THE WITNESS: Well, the Black Panthers hate white people and these were our children, from us, and that they probably would kidnap them or kill them or whatever.
MR. KANAREK: Your Honor, may we approach the bench?
THE COURT: No, you may not, sir.
MR. KANAREK: I make a motion to strike this last statement, your Honor.
THE COURT: The motion is denied.
BY MR. BUGLIOSI:
Q. Did Mr. Manson say anything about the Panthers killing the adult members of the Family?
MR. KANAREK: I object, leading and suggestive, conclusion, hearsay, improper foundation as to time.
It is ambiguous.
THE COURT: The objection will be sustained on the ground there is no proper foundation.
BY MR. BUGLIOSI:
Q. Did Mr. Manson ever have a conversation with you in which he said that the Panthers might have some designs on the adult members of the Family?
MR. KANAREK: I object on the grounds of improper foundation, leading and suggestive, calling for a conclusion of the witness, hearsay, ambiguous as to time.
THE COURT: Overruled.
THE WITNESS: Yes.
THE COURT: Answer that yes or no.
BY MR. BUGLIOSI:
Q. When did this conversation take place?
A. Again I am not sure of the time. It was within that month.
Q. Do you know who was present?
A. I know there was a group of people.
Q. Do you remember any of them?
A. No, I cannot see the faces.
Q. Okay, what did he say?
MR. KANAREK: I object on the grounds of hearsay, conclusion, improper foundation, ambiguous as to time.
She said she doesn’t know when, your Honor.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. KANAREK: It has to be between August 8th—
THE COURT: You may answer.
THE WITNESS: Well, he said that we were being watched and that black people would come to the Ranch at the weekends and take the horses out and go up into the hills behind the Ranch, and they probably—he thought—may have the setup of the Ranch and that we were supposed to keep out of sight during the night, that is why we had to wear black clothing and we had guards.
MR. KANAREK: Motion to strike the answer, your Honor, as having only prejudicial and no probative value.
THE COURT: Denied.
BY MR. BUGLIOSI:
Q. What guards are you talking about?
A. At nighttime there would be one or two men with guns walking around the Ranch.
Q. Who were these men?
A. Whoever, you know, the men who were there, Tex or Bruce or—I can’t remember all their names, Larry I believe is one.
Q. Members of the Family?
A. Yes.
MR. KANAREK: I object to the use of the word “Family” as a conclusion, a solicitation of a conclusion.
I checked Webster’s Dictionary and I don’t believe there is any foundation in this regard that there is any family in this record that has been shown by testimony.
THE COURT: Overruled.
BY MR. BUGLIOSI:
Q. Do you know who ordered the men to stand guard?
A. No.
MR. KANAREK: Calling for conclusion, your Honor.
THE COURT: Overruled.
BY MR. BUGLIOSI:
Q. Did you ever sleep on the roof of the saloon?
A. Yes, the first night I was there.
Q. Okay, were there guards on the roof that first night?
A. Excuse me?
Q. Were there guards on the roof that first night?
A. Yes, there was.
Q. Did you ever hear Manson say anything about discontinuing sleeping on the roof?
MR. KANAREK: Solicitation of hearsay and conclusion, your Honor, and improper foundation.
THE COURT: Overruled, you may answer that yes or no.
THE WITNESS: Yes.
BY MR. BUGLIOSI:
Q. What did he say?
A. He did not want—
MR. KANAREK: Your Honor, she is answering automatically. She is not following the Court’s order.
May I please interpose an objection?
THE COURT: There is no foundation, Mr. Bugliosi. The objection is sustained.
BY MR. BUGLIOSI:
Q. How long did you sleep up on the roof, how many nights?
A. One night.
Q. Were there other people sleeping up on the roof at that time?
A. Yes, there was.
Q. Okay, and then you discontinued sleeping up on the roof, is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Did Mr. Manson say anything which caused you to stop sleeping up on the roof?
MR. KANAREK: Calling for a conclusion, hearsay, improper foundation.
THE COURT: Overruled.
THE WITNESS: Not directly to me, but to Gypsy, I believe it was.
THE COURT: Just a moment, you answered the question.
Q. BY MR. BUGLIOSI: Go ahead.
THE COURT: No, just a moment, she answered the question. There is no foundation for anything further.
Q. BY MR. BUGLIOSI: There were horses on the ranch, is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And Mr. Spahn would rent those horses to people?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you ever see black people actually rent the horses?
A. Yes.
MR. KANAREK: Object, your Honor, on the grounds of the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment on top of the others, your Honor.
THE COURT: Overruled.
Q. BY MR. BUGLIOSI: Did Manson say anything to you as to why he believed the Black people were coming out there to rent horses?
MR. KANAREK: I object on the grounds it calls for a conclusion, hearsay, no foundation as to time and people present.
THE COURT: He has not asked for the conversation, Mr. Kanarek.
The objection is overruled. You may answer yes or no.
THE WITNESS: Yes.
Q. BY MR. BUGLIOSI: When did he say this to you?
A. Right when I first got there, near the very beginning.
Q. Who was present at the time?
A. Who was present? Would you ask another question so I can go back?
Q. Well, when he made the statement to you as to—
MR. KANAREK: Your Honor, may I inquire on voir dire?
THE COURT: No, you may not, sir.
Q. BY MR. BUGLIOSI: You say that he made a statement to you about why he thought black people were coming out to the ranch to rent horses?
MR. KANAREK: Leading and suggestive, your Honor.
THE COURT: Overruled.
Q. BY MR. BUGLIOSI: Now, when he made the statement to you was he alone with you or was anyone else present?
A. I cannot say definitely.
Q. Okay. What did he say?
MR. KANAREK: Objection on the grounds of hearsay, improper foundation, conclusion.
THE COURT: Do you recall who was present?
THE WITNESS: I think Gypsy was, but I am not positive.
THE COURT: Anyone else?
THE WITNESS: I cannot remember.
THE COURT: Overruled. You may answer.
THE WITNESS: What was the question again?
Q. BY MR. BUGLIOSI: Did Mr. Manson indicate to you why he thought Black Panthers were coming out there to rent horses?
MR. KANAREK: Leading and suggestive, conclusion, hearsay.
THE COURT: Overruled.
THE WITNESS: Well, they knew that we were super-aware, much more than other white people, and they knew we knew about them and that they were eventually going to take over, his whole philosophy on the black people, that they wanted to do away with us because apparently they knew that we were going to save the white race or go out to the hole in the desert.
MR. KANAREK: I ask that be stricken on the grounds it is a statement of a conclusion, it is hearsay, it is a denial of Mr. Manson’s right to a fair trial.
It has nothing but prejudicial matter in it.
THE COURT: Denied.
Q. BY MR. BUGLIOSI: Did he say why they were coming out to the ranch to rent horses?
MR. KANAREK: Object, calling for a conclusion, hearsay, improper foundation, ambiguous as to time.
THE COURT: Overruled.
THE WITNESS: I don’t know.
Q. BY MR. BUGLIOSI: Did it have anything to do with the layout of the ranch?
MR. KANAREK: Calling for a conclusion on the part of the witness and leading and suggestive and hearsay.
THE COURT: Overruled.
THE WITNESS: Yes, I remember because one day we went up to around where the cave was, and there were candy wrappers and things like that, and there was some sort of a comment made that maybe they had binoculars and were checking us out, the setup at the ranch, to see, you know, just exactly how we were positioned.
MR. KANAREK: I ask the entire answer be stricken except the word “yes.” The rest is not responsive.
THE COURT: Denied.
Q. BY MR. BUGLIOSI: Did Manson ever mention the term to you, Linda, Helter Skelter?
A. Yes.
MR. KANAREK: I object, leading and suggestive, conclusion.
THE COURT: Overruled.
THE WITNESS: Yes.
MR. KANAREK: Ambiguous as to time, your Honor.
MR. BUGLIOSI: Mr. Kanarek knows I am going to go into time, your Honor, I would ask the Court to admonish Mr. Kanarek to wait and give me an opportunity to lay a foundation, one he knows that I am going to lay.
MR. KANAREK: I have no knowledge of what this man is going to do, your Honor.
MR. BUGLIOSI: If you would listen to my questions you would learn, Mr. Kanarek.
THE COURT: I don’t want any colloquy, gentlemen, let’s proceed.
Q. BY MR. BUGLIOSI: When did Mr. Manson mention the term Helter Skelter to you?
A. When?
Q. You said he mentioned the term Helter Skelter. Do you know approximately when?
Was it within this one-month period?
A. Yes, it was.
MR. KANAREK: Leading and suggestive, your Honor.
THE COURT: Overruled.
Q. BY MR. BUGLIOSI: Did he tell you what the term Helter Skelter meant?
MR. KANAREK: Calling for a conclusion, hearsay, improper foundation and ambiguous as to time.
MR. FITZGERALD: Can we have the spelling of the word Helter Skelter, your Honor?
THE COURT: By whom?
MR. FITZGERALD: Excuse me, if the Court please, I am not familiar with the term, by the party offering the term.
MR. STOVITZ: I will show counsel how to spell it, your Honor.
MR. KANAREK: Has he a reference book for it, your Honor?
MR. BUGLIOSI: May I continue, your Honor?
THE COURT: Yes.
Q. BY MR. BUGLIOSI: What did Mr. Manson say Helter Skelter meant?
MR. KANAREK: I don’t know if I objected, but I must on the grounds of hearsay, conclusion, no foundation, ambiguous as to time.
THE COURT: I think you’d better lay a foundation, Mr. Bugliosi.
Q. BY MR. BUGLIOSI: Do you know when he told you what Helter Skelter meant to him?
MR. KANAREK: Again, your Honor, that is the “When did you stop beating your wife” type of question.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. KANAREK: Conclusion and hearsay, leading and suggestive.
THE WITNESS: Excuse me, I don’t understand the question.
BY MR. BUGLIOSI:
Q. All right, you say Manson mentioned the term Helter Skelter to you, is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Was it within this one-month period you lived out at Spahn Ranch?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you know when within this one-month period he mentioned Helter Skelter to you?
A. Possibly around the very beginning.
MR. KANAREK: May I ask your Honor that all of this he stricken on the grounds of materiality, and it is not anywhere near August the 8th and August the 10th?
THE COURT: Overruled. The motion is denied.
BY MR. BUGLIOSI:
Q. Were you alone when he mentioned what Helter Skelter meant to him or were there other people present?
MR. KANAREK: Assuming facts not in evidence, conclusionary hearsay, I object on those grounds.
THE COURT: Overruled.
THE WITNESS: There may or may not.
BY MR. BUGLIOSI:
Q. You don’t specifically recall?
A. No.
Q. What did Manson say about Helter Skelter?
MR. KANAREK: Object on the grounds it’s a conclusion and hearsay.
THE COURT: Overruled.
THE WITNESS: It is a revolution where blacks and whites will get together and kill each other and all non-blacks and brown people and even black people who do not go on the black people’s terms—
MR. KANAREK: I make a motion that that last answer be stricken on the grounds of its prejudicial nature, on the ground it states hearsay and conclusions.
THE COURT: Denied.
BY MR. BUGLIOSI:
Q. Did he say who was going to start Helter Skelter?
MR. KANAREK: Object, assumes facts not in evidence, conclusionary, hearsay, and ambiguous as to time and place, no proper foundation.
THE COURT: Overruled.
THE WITNESS: Blackie.
BY MR. BUGLIOSI:
Q. Were the words Helter Skelter written anywhere at Spahn Ranch?
MR. KANAREK: Object, your Honor—I will withdraw that, your Honor.
I object on the grounds that there is no foundation as to who wrote, so in that sense it is hearsay and conclusion.
It has nothing but prejudicial value unless there is some showing that Mr. Manson, even assuming arguendo it has some kind of materiality, there has to be a showing that Mr. Manson had something to do with it.
Every tree on Spahn Ranch is not Mr. Manson’s doing.
Unless there is a foundation shown that Mr. Manson had something to do with this, it is absolutely improper and prejudicial.
THE COURT: I think you will have to lay a foundation, Mr. Bugliosi.
The objection, is sustained.
BY MR. BUGLIOSI:
Q. Did you ever see the words Helter Skelter written anywhere on Spahn Ranch?
A. Yes, I did, I saw it on a jug.
Q. What type of a jug?
A. I don’t know, it was painted black and it had the words “Donation” or just “Helter Skelter” written in paint.
Q. And where was the jug located?
A. I saw it in the parachute room.
Q. Is that in the front part of the Spahn Ranch?
A. It is in the back of the main building.
Q. And you saw the words Helter Skelter?
A. Yes.
Q. And something to do with donations?
A. Something like that.
Q. Like donations, like Helter Skelter?
A. Possibly, I just remember definitely Helter Skelter.
MR. KANAREK: Then I ask that all of that be stricken unless there is some showing Mr. Manson wrote those words.
Mr. Manson is not responsible for 30 people. It could have been Mr. Spahn; it could have been a traveling salesman, anybody could have written those words, your Honor.
THE COURT: The motion is denied, let’s proceed.
BY MR. BUGLIOSI:
Q. Did Charles Manson ever speak to you, Linda, about the unity of the black man as opposed to the white man?
MR. KANAREK: Object on the grounds of conclusion, hearsay, no foundation, ambiguous as to time.
MR. BUGLIOSI: And that it is also a question.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. KANAREK: Your Honor, I will object on the grounds it is an improper question.
The vice of what is going on here is Mr. Bugliosi’s improper questions.
THE COURT: I have already ruled, Mr. Kanarek, sit down.
THE WITNESS: Yes. He used to say that blackie was much much more aware than whitey and super together, and whitey was just totally untogether, just could not get together; they were off on these side trips, and blackie was really together.
MR. KANAREK: I ask that the answer be stricken on the basis that it is gibberish, your Honor, and gobbledygook; you cannot understand it.
It has no meaning.
BY MR. BUGLIOSI:
Q. Did you talk to Mr. Manson about this, are these his words?
MR. FITZGERALD: Objection, your Honor.
THE COURT: The motion is denied.
I admonish counsel to not engage in colloquy.
MR. HUGHES: I also move that counsel’s remarks be stricken.
THE COURT: The jury is admonished to disregard counsel’s remarks.
BY MR. BUGLIOSI:
Q. Did Mr. Manson say anything about bringing the white man together?
MR. KANAREK: Objection on the grounds of conjecture, leading and suggestive, hearsay, conclusion, improper foundation, your Honor, ambiguous as to time.
THE COURT: Overruled, you may answer.
THE WITNESS: Yes, he told me that he had—
Q. BY MR. BUGLIOSI:
Q. Your answer is yes, Linda?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay, when did he have this conversation with you?
A. I wish you wouldn’t ask me time because I don’t know time.
Q. All right. Well, was it within the one-month period that you resided at Spahn Ranch?
A. Yes.
MR. KANAREK: Leading and suggestive.
THE COURT: Overruled.
Q. BY MR. BUGLIOSI: Was it in the early, middle or last part of the one-month period?
A. I will say in the beginning, the early part.
Q. Okay, who was present at the time that he mentioned this to you?
MR. KANAREK: Your Honor, may the last question be rescinded so I can make an objection to the previous question?
THE COURT: No, sir, your objection is overruled.
THE WITNESS: I don’t know.
Q. BY MR. BUGLIOSI: Was there just you or was there more than one person present?
A. There was possibly more than one person, we were usually in groups.
Q. What did he say about bringing the white man together?
MR. KANAREK: Objection, your Honor, on the grounds that it calls for a conclusion, hearsay, and it goes—I ask that the Court take into consideration the fact that she has stated that it was the first part of July when she first got there, and the pleadings, the District Attorney has indicated, say, August 9th and August 10th, so therefore, your Honor, I ask that all of this witness’ testimony on this subject be stricken.
THE COURT: Denied.
[BY MR. BUGLIOSI:]
Q. What did he say about bringing the white man together to be more like blackie?
A. He said he had a way to do it and his way was the only way to bring the white man together.
Q. Did he say what that way was?
A. No.
MR. KANAREK: Objection, calling for a conclusion, hearsay, improper foundation.
Was there an answer, your Honor?
THE COURT: Not yet.
MR. STOVITZ: There was an answer.
MR. BUGLIOSI: The answer was no, your Honor.
THE COURT: I did not hear the answer. Did you answer?
THE WITNESS: Yes, I did.
Q. BY MR. BUGLIOSI: Did you ever see during your one-month period, Linda, any other member of the Family instruct Charles Manson to do anything?
MR. KANAREK: Objection on the grounds it calls for a conclusion, hearsay, and there is no foundation for the question.
THE COURT: Overruled.
THE WITNESS: Not really, maybe Bruce would show him how to put a nut on a bolt or something like that.
Q. BY MR. BUGLIOSI: I am referring to ordering him or instructing him to do anything.
A. No.
MR. KANAREK: Objection, may I object on the grounds of conclusionary hearsay?
THE COURT: Overruled.
Q. BY MR. BUGLIOSI: Did you ever see, hear or observe any member of the Family disobey Charles Manson?
MR. KANAREK: Objection on the grounds it is calling for a conclusion, hearsay, it is compound. There is no proper foundation for it. It has only prejudicial value.
It suggest—it is leading and suggestive.
THE COURT: Overruled.
THE WITNESS: Mary confided to me once that—
MR. KANAREK: Your Honor—
THE COURT: Don’t interrupt, Mr. Kanarek.
THE WITNESS: —when we were staying out at the waterfall Mary confided to me and told me, you see, we weren’t supposed to—
MR. FITZGERALD: Objection, your Honor, what Mary said is hearsay.
THE COURT: Overruled.
THE WITNESS: I was not supposed to like give my attention to Tanya, because I was supposed to let her be her own person.
In other words, I put my ego into her, and she was supposed to be her own person, so I wasn’t allowed to touch her or even feed her.
Q. This was your own child?
A. Right, and the same for Mary, but one day Mary told me she didn’t care what Charlie or anybody said, she told me she was going to love Bear.
Q. She was going to love her own child?
A. She was going to love him, right.
Q. Did you ever see, or observe any member of the Family disobey Charlie?
A. No.
MR. KANAREK: Hearsay, conclusion, assuming facts not in evidence. Leading and suggestive.
THE COURT: The objection will be sustained on that ground.
MR. BUGLIOSI: Your Honor, it was asked but it was not answered.
I asked the question did she see or hear any member of the Family disobey Mr. Manson.
She mentioned the Mary Brunner incident.
My question is did she actually ever see or observe, any member of the Family disobey Charlie Manson, disobey Charlie.
I don’t believe she answered that question.
MR. FITZGERALD: May her preceding answer be stricken then as not responsive?
THE COURT: It was responsive in part.
MR. FITZGERALD: May the part that is not responsive be stricken?
THE COURT: The answer was responsive. She did not complete the answer to the question.
MR. BUGLIOSI: May I re-ask the question, your Honor?
THE COURT: You may.
Q. BY MR. BUGLIOSI: Did you ever see, yourself, or observe any member of the Family disobey Charles Manson?
A. No.
MR. KANAREK: I object, your Honor, on the basis that the word “disobey” calls for a conclusion, the use of that word, it is hearsay and it is an improper question.
THE COURT: It is ambiguous, Mr. Bugliosi. The objection is sustained.
Q. BY MR. BUGLIOSI: Did you ever see or observe any member of the Family refuse to do anything that Manson told him or her to do?
MR. KANAREK: Same question, calling for hearsay and a conclusion, and again whether someone refuses or not, your Honor, is a matter of interpretation
That is why we have rules of evidence.
Mr. Bugliosi is asking improper questions when he asks for these conclusionary responses.
THE COURT: Overruled.
THE WITNESS: No, nobody did.
We always wanted to do anything and everything for him.
BY MR. BUGLIOSI:
Q. On the date, August 8th, 1969, Linda, were you still living at Spahn Ranch?
A. What was the date?
Q. August 8th, 1969?
A. I presume.
Q. At any time during the day do you recall Mr. Manson saying anything about Helter Skelter?
MR. KANAREK: Object, your Honor, on the grounds of improper foundation, assuming a fact not in evidence.
The witness just said she presumed, which is undoubtedly the result of much interrogation.
I object on the grounds—may we approach the bench so I can do this outside of the presence of the jury?
THE COURT: No, you may not, sir, your objection is overruled.
MR. KANAREK: May I also have the objection on the grounds of hearsay besides the other objections, your Honor?
THE WITNESS: May I ask you something?
THE COURT: No, just answer the question.
BY MR. BUGLIOSI:
Q. Do you recall my last question, Linda?
A. No.
Q. During the day of August 8th, do you recall Mr. Manson saying anything about Helter Skelter?
A. Yes, I do.
MR. KANAREK: I object on the grounds of conclusion, hearsay.
THE COURT: Go ahead.
THE WITNESS: I believe that was the day he came back from Big Sur or wherever he came back from.
BY MR. BUGLIOSI:
Q. He came back from some place?
A. Yes.
MR. KANAREK: May that be stricken as not responsive, that had nothing to do with it, his coming back.
THE COURT: Overruled.
THE WITNESS: And he was telling us—I remember I was sitting on the couch in front of—they call it the gun room—where Danny used to sleep.
BY MR. BUGLIOSI:
Q. Danny DeCarlo?
A. Yes.
Q. About what time was this in the day?
A. It was in the middle of the afternoon.
Q. Okay.
A. And I remember the new girl that he brought back, Stephanie, I believe her name was Stephanie, now, and maybe a few other people were there, Clem, maybe.
I cannot remember faces again.
Q. Clem Tufts?
A. Yes, and he was telling us about his trip up in Big Sur and that the people were really not together, they were just off on their little trips, and they just were not getting together.
So he came out and said “Now is the time for Helter Skelter.”
MR. KANAREK: Your Honor, I ask all of that be stricken. It is not responsive.
I ask the last question be read back and I am sure your Honor will agree her answer is not responsive and I object and ask it be stricken, further on the grounds she has stated hearsay and conclusions.
THE COURT: Denied.
BY MR. BUGLIOSI:
Q. The night of the afternoon that Mr. Manson said “Now is the time for Helter Skelter,” were you still at the Ranch that night?
A. Yes.
Q. Was this the evening of August 8th, 1969?
A. I believe so.
Q. What took place that evening, Linda, at the Ranch?
A. It was the same, you know, we went through a supper thing. I believe we ate in the saloon.
Q. You say “we.” You are referring to the Family?
A. The Family, yes.
MR. KANAREK: I object on the grounds of ambiguity, what took place is much too broad a question.
THE COURT: I think you’d better ask a more specific question, Mr. Bugliosi.
MR. BUGLIOSI: All right, your Honor.
THE COURT: The objection is sustained.
BY MR. BUGLIOSI:
Q. Did the Family normally eat together?
A. Yes, they did.
Q. Where did you normally eat at Spahn Ranch?
A. Wherever we were living, if we were living at the back house, we would eat there.
If we were living in the area of the building we would eat in the saloon or the campsite, if out in the woods.
Q. On this evening of August 8th, 1969, did the Family eat together that night?
A. Yes, they did.
Q. Do you know where they ate?
A. I believe the saloon.
Q. Do you know about what time you commenced to eat?
A. It was usually after sundown, so whatever time that is, I don’t know.
Q. How long did it take you to eat your dinner?
A. Oh, dinnertime was really funtime, so maybe an hour, and then we—maybe we would talk or sing songs or maybe he would play his guitar or whatever.
Q. How many members of the Family were present?
MR. KANAREK: I object to the use of the word “Family”.
There is no showing in this record that there is anything called a family.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. KANAREK: No foundation, assuming facts not in evidence.
THE COURT: You may answer.
BY MR. BUGLIOSI:
Q. How many members of the Family had dinner together in the saloon area?
A. I believe all that were living there except for Bobby Beausoleil.
Q. And did anything unusual happen after dinner that night?
MR. KANAREK: Calling for a conclusion, your Honor.
THE COURT: Overruled.
THE WITNESS: Yes, I remember I was in the kitchen, cleaning up, and maybe just sitting around.
BY MR. BUGLIOSI:
Q. How long after dinner was this?
A. Maybe an hour or so.
Q. You may continue?
A. And there were people sitting out front, you know, on chairs or on the rocks, which was a usual thing after we eat, talking, whatever.
I remember I was standing out front at this one point and Charlie came up to me and pulled me off the porch, and I was standing at the very end of the porch, closest to George Spahn’s house, and he told me—
MR. KANAREK: Your Honor, I object to what was stated on the grounds of hearsay.
THE COURT: Don’t interrupt, sir.
THE WITNESS: He told me I needed a change of clothing, to get a change of clothing, a knife and my driver’s license.
BY MR. BUGLIOSI:
Q. He told you what?
A. He told me to get a change of clothing, a knife and my driver’s license.
Q. Did Mr. Manson tell you to change the clothing you already had on or to bring an additional change of clothing?
A. To bring an additional.
MR. KANAREK: Compound, your Honor, and also ambiguous.
THE COURT: Overruled.
BY MR. BUGLIOSI:
Q. To bring an additional change of clothing?
A. Yes.
Q. After Mr. Manson told you to get a knife and a change of clothing and your driver’s license, what did you do?
A. Well, I went into George Spahn’s house to look for my driver’s license, because when I first came in I handed everything over to them, and they took charge of my driver’s license and my identification.
Q. When you say “they,” about whom are you referring?
A. I don’t know, just the girls, I remember going into the trailer, and the girls just took my bag and, you know, it was theirs.
What was mine was theirs and what was theirs was mine.
Q. Okay, you may continue.
A. Then I went into his house to look for my driver’s license which I could not find and I told Squeaky—
MR. KANAREK: I object on the grounds what she told someone is hearsay to Mr. Manson who was not present.
THE COURT: Will counsel approach the bench, please.
(The following proceedings were had at the bench out of the hearing of the jury:)
THE COURT: Now, Mr. Kanarek, I have warned you repeatedly about interrupting either a counsel’s question or a witness’ answer or the Court, and you have continued to do it.
Now, consider this to be your last warning.
MR. KANAREK: May I ask the Court then what can I do?
THE COURT: You can wait until the person who is speaking has concluded and then you may make your motion or your objection.
MR. KANAREK: But your Honor, it becomes a sterile act, what I am saying, your Honor, the point is what is going on here is clearly improper conduct by the District Attorney’s office.
THE COURT: I order you not to interrupt either a question or an answer.
The only way that we can have an orderly trial is to proceed in an orderly manner, and we cannot do it by constant interruption, one attorney interrupting another or one attorney interrupting the witness’ answer, or an attorney interrupting the Court.
It is simply impossible to maintain an orderly trial under those circumstances and I will not permit it.
MR. STOVITZ: Your Honor, may we ask that the jury be excused about ten minutes to 12:00 this morning and that we be able to talk about the constant interruptions of Mr. Kanarek.
I think that Mr. Kanarek’s motives are devious. I think that he is attempting to block the jury from following this witness’ testimony because he realizes that this witness is a very important witness in the proof of the People’s case.
I think that by his constant objections and constant interruptions he is trying to block the jury from following this witness’ testimony.
THE COURT: He has a right to make his objections and motions, but he does not have the right to interrupt the proceedings.
MR. STOVITZ: Yes, your Honor.
However, by making improper objections, in other words, if a question calls for immaterial evidence, he can object on the grounds that it is immaterial; but when he says it is immaterial, calling for hearsay, incompetent, irrelevant, and names every other objection, like he said “unequal protection of the law, the 14th Amendment,” I think it is obvious that what he is trying to do is disconcert the jury.
Your Honor has to control the proceedings so that the jury can understand this testimony in an intelligent fashion.
THE COURT: I don’t want to prolong it, Mr. Stovitz.
I told Mr. Kanarek again. Now, consider this to be—
MR. KANAREK: Yes.
THE COURT: —the final warning.
MR. KANAREK: I understand.
I want to obey all orders of the Court. As a matter of fact, I try to obey each and every order of the Court, but I would refer—
THE COURT: You are not trying hard enough.
MR. KANAREK: —the Court to Cooper vs. the Superior Court.
THE COURT: I am familiar with that case.
MR. KANAREK: There are times when the Court makes an order which is an illegal order.
In other words, Manson is on trial here for his life. When this witness, who has been coached by the prosecution—the prosecution is now soliciting information from her that is not in any of the discovery, not even the discovery that Mr. Bugliosi—
THE COURT: This has nothing to do with what we are talking about.
MR. KANAREK: Because of the statements she makes—
THE COURT: I have given you the warning now. I suggest that you let it sink in.
MR. KANAREK: Yes. I will try to follow each and every order of this Court.
THE COURT: Let’s proceed.
MR. FITZGERALD: Your Honor, so that it is not necessary for me to object in front of the jury, I wonder if, for those portions of the evidence that counsel wishes to introduce against Mr. Manson solely, if the Court would instruct the jury that they are to be limited to the declarant, Mr. Manson?
What the prosecution is doing, I think, they are introducing some evidence on the conspiracy count on the theory that statements of Manson are admissible against the other defendants; but, at the same time, or additionally, they are attempting to elicit statements for motive.
Those hearsay statements as to motive should be limited to Manson; or hearsay statements of Manson for other purposes should be limited to Manson; but it is difficult for me to determine which evidence is coming in for what purpose.
THE COURT: They have the right to show the background of this alleged conspiracy; that is, the relationship between the parties, the transactions that occurred between them.
Now, so far there is no evidence of any conspiracy. It may be that subsequent evidence will link up what has already happened to form the nucleus of a conspiracy. I don’t know, I haven’t heard the evidence, and I can’t tell in advance. But they have a right to make this showing now.
In other words, if they stopped at this point, they would have shown nothing.
MR. FITZGERALD: I agree.
Manson’s hearsay statement as to his—Manson’s—racial attitudes should be limited to Mr. Manson unless the prosecution is contending that—
THE COURT: What I am saying is—
MR. FITZGERALD: That you don’t know yet.
THE COURT: —that the evidence, at this point, isn’t going in against anybody. It is simply background evidence which may or may not connect up with some subsequent evidence to form a conspiracy or show something else, I don’t know.
MR. SHINN: Then later, your Honor, if it is not connected up, can we make a motion to strike the entire testimony?
MR. STOVITZ: I think that is proper.
THE COURT: Yes. I think that is perfectly proper. If they can’t show a conspiracy, then all of this is irrelevant.
MR. KANAREK: I make a motion to strike it.
MR. SHINN: But in the meantime, your Honor—
THE COURT: You can’t make it before they complete it.
MR. KANAREK: They don’t have a right, absent the showing of the conspiracy, to—
THE COURT: Let’s proceed.
(Whereupon, all counsel return to their respective places at counsel table and the following proceedings occurred in open court within the presence and hearing of the jury:)
MR. BUGLIOSI: Q. I believe you indicated that you went looking for your driver’s license?
A. Yes.
Q. And you went to George Spahn’s house?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you find your driver’s license there?
A. No.
Q. Did you eventually get it?
A. Yes.
Q. Who gave it to you?
A. Brenda.
Q. Brenda McCann?
A. Yes.
Q. After you got your driver’s license, what did you do?
MR. KANAREK: Objection. Ambiguous, your Honor.
THE COURT: Overruled.
THE WITNESS: Well, Charlie was standing there when she gave me the driver’s license.
No, this was before. I couldn’t find the knife. I remembered seeing one in the saloon, and it wasn’t there.
Then—I believe his name was Larry—he was half white and half black—he wasn’t really a member but, you know, he was sort of halfway in between,
Q. He wasn’t a member of the Family, you say?
A. Yes. He gave me a knife.
Q. All right.
A. Then Brenda came along, and Charlie was with her, or they were standing together in a group, and she gave me the driver’s license.
And Charlie told me to go with Tex and to do what Tex told me to do.
MR. KANAREK: May I make a motion that that be stricken, the statement that Mr. Manson—whatever it was—on the grounds, your Honor, that it is hearsay, a conclusion there is no foundation for it, and actually it is not even responsive to any question, your Honor, that is before the witness at this time.
THE COURT: The motion is denied.
MR. FITZGERALD: It is hearsay as to Defendant Krenwinkel. May this be limited to the declarant?
MR. HUGHES: Hearsay as to Defendant Van Houten also.
THE COURT: Yes. The statement is received only with respect to Mr. Manson.
I admonish the jury to consider it solely for that purpose and not with respect to any other defendant.
MR. BUGLIOSI: After you got the driver’s license and the knife, did you get a change of clothing?
A. Yes. I had done that in the house before I got the driver’s license.
Q. All right. Let’s go back a little bit.
A. All right.
Q. Mr. Manson told you to get a driver’s license, a change of clothing and a knife?
A. Right.
Q. Now, to the best of your recollection, what did you do thereafter?
MR. KANAREK: Your Honor, there are a lot of things. She is in this courtroom. It is ambiguous. She has been to a lot of places since then.
It is an unfair question, your Honor, and it allows the witness to just ramble on and on.
THE COURT: Is that an objection, Mr. Kanarek?
MR. KANAREK: Yes. I will object that the question is ambiguous.
THE COURT: Overruled.
THE WITNESS: As soon as he told me to do these things, I went into George Spahn’s house, I remember rummaging through a box looking for a change of clothing. I picked up a short denim skirt, and I believe it was a lavender knitted top.
MR. BUGLIOSI: Q. The denim shirt, what color was it?
A. Denim skirt.
Q. The denim skirt. What color was it?
A. Navy blue. A darkish color.
Q. Then what happened?
A. I asked Squeaky where my driver’s license was, and she told me to look in a drawer.
MR. KANAREK: May I ask that that be stricken on the grounds of hearsay, whatever Squeaky said, the statements?
THE COURT: Motion denied.
MR. KANAREK: And also on the grounds of materiality.
May I have a continuing objection on the grounds of materiality?
THE COURT: Bear in mind what I told you?
MR. KANAREK: Yes, your Honor.
MR. BUGLIOSI: Q. After you spoke to Squeaky, what happened?
A. She told me to look in these drawers. So I did. I believe I looked through all of them, and I couldn’t find the driver’s license
She told me to look in a box on the mantle, and I looked, and it wasn’t there.
So I left. I think I told Brenda to look for it also.
Then I went into the saloon because I remembered seeing a knife there. The knife wasn’t there.
Then I saw Larry in front of the kitchen. He gave me the knife.
At the same time, Charlie—Brenda gave me the driver’s license in Charlie’s presence.
MR. KANAREK: Your Honor, then I make the motion—and I am trying, your Honor, not to interrupt the witness—her statement about “She told me,” may it be read back?
There is, in this answer, there were certain statements about—I think she referred to either Squeaky or someone else telling her to do something, which is clearly outside of the presence of Mr. Manson, and it is hearsay, and I think it is immaterial.
THE COURT: Read the last question and answer.
(The question and answer were read by the reporter.)
MR. KANAREK: Your Honor, I would ask that those portions beginning with “she told me,” which I think occurred twice, and “what I told Brenda,” I make a motion that those be stricken on the grounds of hearsay, your Honor. They are outside the presence of Mr. Manson.
THE COURT: The motion is denied.
Let’s proceed.
MR. BUGLIOSI: Your Honor, I have here a photograph of a female Caucasian. May it be marked as People’s next in order?
THE CLERK: 37.
THE COURT: 37 for identification.
MR. BUGLIOSI: Q. I show you People’s 37 for identification, Linda.
Do you know who is depicted in that photograph?
A. Yes. That is Squeakie.
Q. Did you also know her as Lynn Fromme?
A. No. I knew her as Squeakie.
Q. What is the next thing that happened? You had the knife, the change of clothing and the driver’s license. What happened next?
MR. KANAREK: Objection.
Ambiguous, your Honor.
THE COURT: Overruled.
THE WITNESS: Charlie told me to go with Tex and to do what he told me to do. And I got in the car, and I believe Sadie and Katie were already in the back seat, and I remember Tex was standing over on the driver’s side with the door partly open.
Q. Before you go any further, when you say “Tex,” are you referring to Charles Watson?
A. Yes.
Q. When you say Sadie, who are you referring to?
A. Susan Atkins.
Q. The Defendant Susan Atkins? In this case?
A. Yes.
Q. When you say Katie, who are you referring to?
A. Patricia Krenwinkel.
Q. You are going a little fast. Just try to slow down a little bit.
A. Okay.
Q. You entered a car?
A. Yes.
Q. Where was the car parked?
A. Right at the very end of the boardwalk, closest to George Spahn’s house.
Q. I show you People’s 29 for identification, Linda, showing the front portion of the Spahn Ranch.
Could you indicate where the car was parked?
A. Right there where the truck is.
THE COURT: Keep your voice up, please.
THE WITNESS: Right at the very end of the boardwalk where the truck is.
MR. BUGLIOSI: Your Honor, may I mark an X on the photograph and insert the word “car”?
THE COURT: Let’s let the witness mark the spot on the photograph.
MR. BUGLIOSI: All right.
(The witness marks.)
MR. BUGLIOSI: May the record reflect that the witness has marked on X on People’s 29 for identification.
May I now insert the word “car,” your Honor?
THE COURT: Yes, you may.
(Mr. Bugliosi marks.)
MR. BUGLIOSI: Your Honor, I have here a photograph of an automobile. May it be marked People’s next in order?
THE COURT: 38 for identification.
MR. BUGLIOSI: Q. I show you People’s 38 for identification, Linda.
Have you ever seen that car before?
A. Yes. That was the car we used that night.
Q. This is the car that you say Katie and Sadie—referring to Patricia Krenwinkel and Susan Atkins—were inside of?
A. Yes.
Q. You are referring to the yellow car in this photograph?
A. Yes.
Q. When Manson told you to go with Tex and do whatever Tex told you to do, where was Manson at that time?
A. The same place where Brenda gave me the knife—excuse me—the driver’s license.
Q. Now, when you walked up to the car, you say Katie and Sadie—that is Patricia and Susan—were inside the car. Where was Tex?
A. He was standing over by the driver’s side.
Q. Was he talking to anyone?
A. I think he was talking to Charlie.
Q. What is the next thing that happened?
A. He got in the car and we started to drive away
Q. Who got in the car?
A. Tex got in the car.
Q. Were you in the car at that time?
A. Yes.
Q. Where were you seated in the car?
A. On the passenger’s side in the front seat.
Q. And Katie and Sadie, where were they?
A. In the back seat.
Q. Did Tex get behind the driver’s seat?
A. Uh-huh.
THE COURT: Is your answer yes?
THE WITNESS: Yes.
MR. BUGLIOSI: Q. When you say “back seat,” was there physically a back seat to this car?
A. No, there wasn’t.
It was just a floor.
Q. But they were in the back of the car?
A. Yes.
Q. Behind the front seat?
A. Yes.
Q. When I say “they,” I am referring to Katie and Sadie; is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, you say Tex started to drive off the front lot of Spahn Ranch?
A. Yes.
Q. What happened at that point?
MR. KANAREK: Objection. Ambiguous, our Honor.
THE COURT: Overruled.
THE WITNESS: We got about the middle of the driveway, you know, and Charlie called us, told us to stop.
And he came to the car, to my side of the window, and stuck his head in, and told us to leave a sign. He said, “You girls know what I mean, something witchy.”
And that was it.
MR. FITZGERALD: May that statement be limited to the declarant?
MR. KANAREK: Your Honor, I ask that that be stricken on the grounds—I’d like to do this at the bench, if I may, your Honor.
MR. BUGLIOSI: This was in the present, of course, of Patricia Krenwinkel and Susan Atkins.
THE COURT: Will counsel approach the bench, please.
(Whereupon all counsel approached the bench and the following proceedings occurred at the bench outside of the hearing of the jury:)
THE COURT: Do you wish to be heard, Mr. Fitzgerald, on that?
MR. FITZGERALD: On that request?
MR. STOVITZ: I was wondering, your Honor, it is so close to the noon hour, whether we can just excuse the jury.
It is very uncomfortable here at the bench.
I have to crowd next to somebody, get under somebody’s arm.
I don’t avoid you people because of bad breath or anything.
THE COURT: Let’s proceed.
MR. FITZGERALD: I will object on the ground that it is hearsay, that it is immaterial, and irrelevant also; and that its admissibility—its admission into evidence is prejudicial.
Obviously, the mere presence of Patricia Krenwinkel does not obviate the hearsay rule. She obviously has no control over the declarant, and there is no indication that she was a party to any conspiracy or agreement.
THE COURT: The question I am thinking of at the moment is whether it is hearsay at all.
MR. STOVITZ: We don’t feel it is hearsay at all, your Honor.
Mr. Manson comes up to the car and makes a statement like this, just as they are going out to commit their acts for the evening. It is a verbal act with the other defendants present. We will definitely be able to show that either Patricia Krenwinkel or Susan Atkins was the one that did leave the sign, and it was not Linda Kasabian. So that he was making the comments to all four persons in that car.
It was a verbal act, your Honor.
MR. BUGLIOSI: Like Mr. Stovitz says, it is a verbal act or an operative fact. It is a part of the res gestae of the conspiracy, and I think I have authority on that in my notebook.
THE COURT: I think it goes to the question of the relationship between the parties and the control, if any, exercised by one over the others.
Was that a motion to strike or a motion to limit the evidence?
I am going to deny the motion.
MR. KANAREK: It is a motion to strike, your Honor.
THE COURT: All right. That is a separate motion. I will deny that also.
It is time to recess at this time, gentlemen.
(Whereupon all counsel return to their respective places at counsel table and the following proceedings occurred in open court within the presence and hearing of the jury:)
THE COURT: Ladies and gentlemen, do not converse with anyone nor form or express any opinion regarding the case until it is finally submitted to you.
The court will recess at this time until 2:00 p.m.
(Whereupon at 12:00 o’clock noon the court was in recess.)