Historic Trial Transcripts
Linda Kasabian: Day four Testimony, July 30, 1970
DIRECT EXAMINATION (Continued)
BY MR. BUGLIOSI:
Q. Linda, before we continue I would like to double back a little bit and show you a few photographs.
You have mentioned yesterday in your testimony that as you were leaving the Spahn Ranch for the second night, Manson get some money from a man named Bruce, is that correct?
A. Yes.
MR. KANAREK: Objection, your Honor, on the grounds it is leading and suggestive.
THE COURT: Overruled.
THE WITNESS: Yes, he did.
BY MR. BUGLIOSI:
Q. I show you People’s 71 for identification. Do you know who is shown in that photograph?
A. Yes, that is Bruce.
Q. You also indicated that following the first night you watched television in Mr. Spahn’s trailer, and one of the persons I think you indicated who was there was a girl named Barbara, is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. I show you People’s 72 for identification. do you know who is shown in that photograph?
A. Yes, that is Barbara.
Q. A few days ago when I had you up at the diagram, People’s 8 for identification, you pointed to the telephone pole but you said that the diagram did not include some type of metal object near the pole.
Do you recall testifying to that?
MR. KANAREK: I must object to that. It is leading and suggestive.
THE COURT: Overruled.
BY MR. BUGLIOSI:
Q. Do you recall testifying to that, Linda?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. I show you People’s 73 for identification. Do you know what is shown in that photograph?
A. Yes, a telephone pole and the—I don’t know what you call it—a piece of iron that goes up and out and up again.
Q. Is this what you were referring to when you were at the diagram two days ago?
A. Yes.
Q. And talking about the first night, now, the night of the first killings, is this where Tex parked the car?
A. Yes.
Q. I show you People’s 74 for identification. Do you know what is shown in that photograph?
A. Yes, it is a closer photograph of the piece of metal.
Q. Near the telephone pole?
A. Yes.
Q. Where Tex parked the car?
A. Yes.
MR. BUGLIOSI: Your Honor, I have here a photograph of a dune buggy. May it be stipulated that this photograph may be substituted in for the photograph, which was marked People’s 43 for identification?
MR. FITZGERALD: It is so stipulated.
MR. SHINN: So stipulated.
MR. HUGHES: So stipulated.
MR. KANAREK: So stipulated.
MR. STOVITZ: Now Exhibit 43 for identification will not be by reference, but it is an original photograph.
MR. HUGHES: Subject, however, your Honor, to the same objections that were made to Exhibit 43 previously, the other objections.
THE COURT: Very well.
MR. BUGLIOSI: Your Honor, I have here some leather thongs, may they be marked People’s next in order.
THE CLERK: 75.
MR. BUGLIOSI: People’s 75 for identification.
THE COURT: They will be so marked.
BY MR. BUGLIOSI:
Q. I show you some leather thongs, Linda, have you ever seen leather thongs like that before?
A. Yes, I have.
Q. You testified earlier that you saw some leather thongs around Manson’s neck the second night?
MR. KANAREK: Your Honor, I must object to counsel’s continually leading the witness.
This is on direct examination. He should ask this witness—
THE COURT: Just make your objection.
MR. KANAREK: I object on the grounds the question is leading and suggestive, and I object to the form of the question.
THE COURT: The objection is sustained.
BY MR. BUGLIOSI:
Q. The second night when you and Charlie and Tex and Leslie and Katie and Sadie and Clem drove off, did Mr. Manson have anything around his neck?
A. Yes, he did.
Q. What did he have around his neck?
A. Leather thong.
Q. Did any of the other six people have any leather thongs around their neck?
A. Not that I saw.
Q. Did you see leather thongs on any of the persons anywhere?
A. No, sir.
Q. So Mr. Manson was the only one?
A. I had some leather thongs.
Q. Those were the thongs that Charlie gave you?
A. Yes.
Q. You put them in your pocket?
A. Yes.
Q. You don’t know what happened to those thongs?
A. No.
Q. You are looking at People’s 75 for identification, these leather thongs there, do these appear to be the same or different from the type of leather thong that was around Mr. Manson’s neck?
MR. KANAREK: I object, your Honor, on the grounds of a conclusion.
THE COURT: Overruled.
THE WITNESS: It seems to be the same.
Q. BY MR. BUGLIOSI: With respect to the wallet I showed you yesterday, Linda, when Mr. Manson gave you that wallet, I take it you opened up the wallet, is that correct?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. What did you do with the wallet after you opened it up?
MR. KANAREK: Asked and answered extensively yesterday, your Honor.
THE COURT: Overruled.
THE WITNESS: I took some change out and I pulled out a compartment that had credit cards, driver’s license, pictures.
Q. Did you look into any of the other compartments of the wallet?
A. I don’t think so, I may have, I am not sure.
Q. But you recall opening up one compartment?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, again, with respect to this wallet, you indicated that you placed it in a woman’s restroom?
A. Yes.
Q. Did Mr. Manson tell you to place it there?
A. Yes, he did.
Q. Did he tell you why he wanted you to place the wallet in the women’s restroom?
MR. SHINN: Object, your Honor, asked and answered yesterday.
I think counsel is relating all the facts he brought out yesterday again, your Honor.
MR. KANAREK: Also it is calling for a conclusion, your Honor.
The why is certainly a conclusion on the part of this witness.
THE COURT: Mr. Bugliosi, this appears to be matter that was gone over yesterday.
MR. BUGLIOSI: I did go over the matter as to why Mr. Manson wanted her to throw the wallet out of the car.
I don’t believe I asked her yesterday the reason Mr. Manson gave her for hiding the wallet in a restroom.
Now, if the transcript indicates that, then I stand corrected, but I do not believe I went into that yesterday.
May I have just a few moments, your Honor?
(Pause.)
The relevant portion of the transcript, your Honor, appears to be at Pages 5306 and 5307.
I don’t see any reference to this particular matter on those two pages.
THE COURT: The objections are overruled.
Read the question.
(Whereupon the reporter reads the pending question as follows:
“Q. Did he tell you why he wanted you to place the wallet in the woman’s restroom?”)
A. Yes, so that a black man, or a black woman, whoever, would find it, and use the credit cards.
MR. KANAREK: First of all I ask that be stricken as not responsive. The question merely elicited whether he told her—that could be answered yes or no.
THE COURT: Overruled. The motion is denied.
MR. BUGLIOSI: I am going to double back once again, Linda.
Q. Again, with respect to this wallet, the first time that Mr. Manson asked you to throw the wallet out of the car window, did you do it at that time?
MR. KANAREK: I object, your Honor, asked and answered.
MR. BUGLIOSI: This is foundational.
THE COURT: Overruled.
THE WITNESS: No, I did not.
Q. BY MR. BUGLIOSI: Why didn’t you?
MR. KANAREK: I object, your Honor, that calls for a conclusion on the part of this witness.
THE COURT: I think you can get at it in another way, Mr. Bugliosi.
The objection is sustained as to the form of the question.
MR. BUGLIOSI: Q. After Mr. Manson told you to throw the wallet out the window of the car, did he say anything shortly thereafter with respect to that?
MR. KANAREK: Calling for a conclusion, your Honor.
THE COURT: Overruled.
THE WITNESS: Yes, he did.
MR. BUGLIOSI: What did he say?
MR. KANAREK: Calling for a conclusion and hearsay, your Honor.
THE COURT: Overruled.
THE WITNESS: Not to throw the wallet out.
THE COURT: What was the answer?
(The answer was read by the reporter.)
MR. BUGLIOSI: I have here a photograph, your Honor.
Pardon me. It has already been marked, your Honor.
Q. I show you People’s 68 for identification. Do you know what is shown in that photograph?
A. A restroom.
Q. You don’t remember this particular restroom?
A. No. It looks like any other restroom.
Q. Okay.
I show you People’s 70 for identification.
Do you know what is shown in that photograph?
A. Yes. The spot where I placed the wallet.
MR. KANAREK: Your Honor, may I approach the witness?
THE COURT: Yes, you may.
MR. BUGLIOSI: Q. When you say the spot where you placed the wallet, you mean inside the woman’s restroom at the gasoline station?
A. Yes.
MR. KANAREK: Your Honor, could Mr. Bugliosi just hold it a minute until I get there?
(pause while Mr. Kanarek approaches the witness.)
MR. BUGLIOSI: Could you read back my last question? Your Honor, could you have it read back?
THE COURT: Read the last question and answer.
(The record was read by the reporter.)
MR. BUGLIOSI: Q. Would you point that spot out, Linda?
A. Right here.
Q. The top of this little bulb?
A. Yes.
Q. Beneath the lid of the toilet?
A. Yes.
MR. BUGLIOSI: Your Honor, may I mark an X there?
THE COURT: You may.
MR. STOVITZ: That is on Exhibit what, Counsel?
MR. BUGLIOSI: 70 for identification.
May I insert the words, “Where Linda placed wallet,” your Honor?
THE COURT: Yes.
MR. KANAREK: Your Honor. I would object to that language, if I may.
I think it can be marked without that hearsay statement by Mr. Bugliosi on it.
MR. BUGLIOSI: The G in silent.
MR. KANAREK: I am sorry, Bugliosi.
MR. BUGLIOSI: We have several more months. You will pick it up after awhile.
THE COURT: I think there in a good point to Mr. Kanarek’s objection there.
If you are going to label it, it should be “Where Linda testifies she placed the wallet.”
MR. BUGLIOSI: All right, your Honor.
THE COURT: It is for the jury to determine whether or not that is a fact.
MR. BUGLIOSI: Very well, your Honor.
(Mr. Bugliosi marks the photograph.)
THE COURT: That would be the same with respect to any of the markings on any of the exhibits, ladies and gentlemen.
The markings are not evidence. They are simply to assist you in recalling the witness’ testimony with respect to the placing of the mark. The mark itself is not evidence.
Any labeling of it is to be ignored by you except as an illustration with a particular mark in relation to that testimony, it is for you to determine whether or not any facts have been established and which facts.
BY MR. BUGLIOSI:
Q. Did Mr. Manson give you one of the four milk shakes that he had gotten from the restaurant?
A. Yes, he did.
Q. Did he give Clem and Sadie milk shakes also?
A. Yes, he did.
Q. And he had one also?
A. Yes.
Q. And then I take it you all drove off from the gas station?
A. Yes. I drove.
Q. You became the driver at this point?
A. Yes.
Q. Did anyone tell you to become the driver?
MR. KANAREK: Object, your Honor. Calling for a conclusion.
THE COURT: Overruled.
THE WITNESS: Yes. Charlie had me drive.
BY MR. BUGLIOSI:
Q. He told you to drive?
A. Yes.
Q. Where was Mr. Manson seated in the car?
A. On the passenger’s side.
Q. Front seat?
A. Yes.
Q. What about Clem and Sadie?
A. They were in the back.
Q. Where did you go from there?
A. We got back on the freeway.
Q. Who told you to get back on the freeway?
A. Charlie was giving me directions.
Q. Okay. You may continue.
A. And we seemed to be driving a long, long ways. I remember seeing oil wells, or oil—something to do with great big barrels and tall tanks, I don’t know what they are.
Q. Approximately how long after you left the gasoline station do you recall seeing these oil wells, or whatever it is.
A. Quite a while. An hour or so. More maybe.
Q. What is the next thing that happened?
A. We ended up at a beach. I had never been to that beach before.
Q. Off the ocean?
A. Yes.
And we—
Q. Wait one moment.
Do you know in what vicinity this place was? Near what town?
MR. KANAREK: Your Honor, if I may now, if we are not to interrupt the witness, I think the same ground rules should apply to Mr. Bugliosi.
Now, this witness was speaking, and he said, “Wait a minute, please,” or something like that.
THE COURT: The same ground rules apply to all counsel, that is correct.
MR. HUGHES: Your Honor, may we approach the bench as to the line of questioning that we are getting into now and the ground rules that have been set down earlier?
THE COURT: As to what?
MR. HUGHES: The ground rules which were agreed before these proceedings began last week.
THE COURT: I don’t know what you are referring to.
MR. HUGHES: We had certain agreements.
Could we approach the bench, your Honor?
THE COURT: Very well.
(Whereupon all counsel approach the bench and the following proceedings occur at the bench outside of the hearing of the jury:)
MR. HUGHES: Your Honor, I move that the testimony that is about to be elicited, I believe, be kept out on the basis that it tends to bring in some other purported crime, which I believe Mr. Bugliosi made the representation to the Court that he was not going to bring any other crimes or attempted crimes in before this Court.
MR. BUGLIOSI: Well, what I meant, your Honor, is murders or attempted murders other than the two nights in question, and I was specifically talking about the Hinman murder.
In fact, I did not say that we wouldn’t introduce evidence on the Hinman murder. Mr. Stovitz and I might very well ask the Court to permit us to introduce evidence on the Hinman murder. We haven’t decided that yet.
It will be ultimately up to the Court whether the Court will permit us to offer the evidence, but this is what I was referring to. I was not referring to any murders or attempted murders on the two nights in question.
I may have been vague in the way I stated my position, but I can assure the Court I was not referring to the two nights in question. I was referring to other murders.
THE COURT: What is Mr. Hughes referring to? I haven’t the foggiest idea.
MR. BUGLIOSI: He is referring to a situation which the witness will testify to shortly concerning Mr. Manson asking her, Sadie and Clem to murder a man in his apartment in Venice, and she knocked on the wrong door. She knew where the man lived but she deliberately knocked on the wrong door to prevent the murder.
MR. HUGHES: Further, I believe it would be hearsay as to Miss Van Houten.
MR. FITZGERALD: Yes. I am going to object on behalf of Patricia Krenwinkel. It is immaterial, irrelevant; and beyond that, extremely prejudicial.
It would appear that this was—if it was part of a conspiracy—it was part of a new, separate and distinct conspiracy
The defendants Patricia Krenwinkel and Leslie Van Houten were not present, according to the witness’ testimony.
The state of the testimony is such that—
THE COURT: Who was not present?
MR. FITZGERALD: Patricia Krenwinkel and Leslie Van Houten. I think counsel would agree.
MR. BUGLIOSI: The four parties involved were Manson, Mrs. Kasabian, Susan Atkins and Clem Tufts.
THE COURT: What happened to the other three?
MR. BUGLIOSI: They were dropped off at the LaBianca residence, Watson, Houten and Krenwinkel. They were already dropped off.
MR. FITZGERALD: Before this occurred, they were dropped off.
MR. BUGLIOSI: Manson, Susan and Clem are the only persons in the car after the LaBianca murders. The same night they go down to Venice and he asked them to commit another murder, and Linda knocks on the wrong door.
THE COURT: How would that be admissible against the three that were not present?
MR. BUGLIOSI: I don’t think necessarily that they have to be.
May I have just a moment, your Honor?
THE COURT: Yes.
(Mr. Bugliosi and Mr. Stovitz confer.)
MR. KANAREK: May I respond, your Honor?
THE COURT: Just a moment.
MR. BUGLIOSI: Again, we are talking about vicarious lability, your Honor; the act of one is the act of all while the conspiracy is still in effect.
I think, surely, the conspiracy was still in effect at that point. It certainly hadn’t been terminated.
I don’t think the jury is going to consider this evidence actually against Patricia Krenwinkel and Leslie Van Houten because they weren’t present, but legally speaking—legally speaking—if we had charged, let’s say theoretically, an attempted murder, and this was another count of the indictment, I think that under the law they would be responsible for that attempted murder because it was part of the conspiracy, and the act of one is the act of all.
MR. FITZGERALD: Of course, we are back begging the question again. We are still trying to determine what the conspiracy was, and we are trying to determine whether it was an over-all conspiracy to indiscriminately kill people, whoever they might be or wherever they might be; or if we are talking about a conspiracy to commit a murder at the Tate residence; and a separate and distinct conspiracy to commit murder at the LaBianca residence; or if we are talking about still a third conspiracy to kill other unidentified people.
It would appear from what I know from discovery that Linda Kasabian will testify that almost as an afterthought or on the spur of the moment or in a spontaneous fashion, Manson mentioned to her a reference to somebody who lived in the Venice area of the city, and he asked her where this person lived, and then they set out to apparently attempt to murder this person.
MR. BUGLIOSI: Right.
MR. FITZGERALD: And the evidence is extremely tenuous as to whether this was within the scope of the conspiracy or conspiracies to which Patricia Krenwinkel was a member.
MR. BUGLIOSI: The thing is, your Honor, it was the same night, and the evidence has already shown on this particular night they were selecting their victims almost at random, the two houses in Pasadena, the church in Pasadena, a white sports car on Sunset Boulevard. This was a conspiracy to murder human beings wherever they could be found, and it happened on the same night.
If it happened a week later, I could see counsel’s objection, but this is just a couple of hours after the LaBianca murders.
MR. FITZGERALD: I think you would admit that there was some method to their alleged madness, if you assume arguendo the People’s case. The evidence indicated that they were familiar with a witness, Harold True, that lived next door to the LaBiancas. The evidence also will indicate that Linda Kasabian was the only member of the group that was familiar with the victim of the attempted murder in Venice.
MR. BUGLIOSI: Sandra Goode [Good] was too, but she wasn’t in the group that night.
MR. FITZGERALD: But there is no information that Manson, Watson, Krenwinkel, Van Houten, or any of them had any information until the actual conversation took place with Linda Kasabian and Charles Manson after Patricia Krenwinkel and Leslie Van Houten and Tex Watson were left behind.
MR. KANAREK: May I respond, your Honor?
THE COURT: All right.
MR. KANAREK: First, your Honor, I would ask and I am sure, I have no reason to believe it is not inadvertent—but Mr. Bugliosi speaks quite loudly, and I would ask your Honor to ask him to lower his voice.
MR. BUGLIOSI: At the bench?
MR. KANAREK: Yes.
THE COURT: I have asked various counsel at various times, whenever I felt they were talking too loudly, and I ask all of you to be careful about that.
MR. BUGLIOSI: I apologize.
MR. KANAREK: To get to the substance, your Honor, in connection with this, the District Attorney’s Office—that is a State action—they represented that they were not going to introduce any other crimes except those that are alleged in the indictment.
Now, the solicitation for murder is a crime. It is in the Penal Code.
Now, I would ask your Honor to look at the record. This representation was made by the District Attorney’s Office to us that they were not going to introduce the showing of any other crimes.
Now, of course, if he just wanted to do it now, we have a right to rely on his representation, and the Court must enforce that—
THE COURT: There was no representation to my knowledge that they would not introduce acts that occurred during the course of the alleged conspiracy.
The question now is whether or not this evidence is admissible. It certainly is admissible as to those present.
The question is whether or not it would be admissible as to those not present.
MR. KANAREK: Well, your Honor, very well.
MR. STOVITZ: Your Honor, why don’t we do it this way, that it will be admitted as to Mr. Manson and Miss Atkins at this time, subject to a motion to strike, and then it may be admitted later on subject to a motion to add, so to speak, by the People.
In other words, we will move later on, as your Honor admonishes the jury not to consider it as to Krenwinkel and Leslie Van Houten, later on if we do show that the conspiracy continued, and we intend to show the conspiracy continued up to the time of the flight, in other words we intend to show that even the flights of these defendants was part of the conspiracy.
THE COURT: What was the relation in time between what the absent defendants were doing at the time that you contend this next occurrence was?
MR. BUGLIOSI: Her testimony would indicate she does not remember exactly; that the Venice apartment—that is, where the murder took place—took place two and a half or three hours after the LaBianca murders.
THE COURT: Where were the other defendants at that time? The evidence does not yet disclose that.
MR. BUGLIOSI: The evidence shows they were at the scene of the LaBianca murders out on the street.
THE COURT: For two or three hours?
MR. BUGLIOSI: No, no.
MR. STOVITZ: They were hitchhiking back to the ranch sometime that night, according to Dianna Lake. They hitchhiked back to the ranch.
MR. BUGLIOSI: And there is evidence from Linda, of course, that she heard Mr. Manson tell Tex to hitchhike back.
THE COURT: I would limit the evidence of the Venice affair to those actually present, and admonish the jury not to receive it against Leslie Van Houten and Patricia Krenwinkel.
MR. STOVITZ: If we give your Honor authority, I presume, and the evidence does show it was a continuing conspiracy and this was within the scope of the conspiracy, your Honor will, of course, be able to advise the jury that they may consider it as to the other two?
THE COURT: The ruling will be subject to change later, but at this time in view of the present state of the evidence I would limit its admissibility.
MR. BUGLIOSI: Would the Court be interested in any case? I can probably get one within five minutes that escape is part of the res gestae.
THE COURT: I think that is true, but here we have an isolated incident, where some of the defendants were not present.
MR. BUGLIOSI: Yes, but the issue, your Honor, is if the conspiracy is still alive, then vicarious liability is still alive.
The question is, has the conspiracy terminated.
I think the law is fairly clear a conspiracy continues on up until the time of escape, like in conspiracy to commit robbery there are cases that hold conspiracy continues up to the distribution of the proceeds.
THE COURT: I understand.
MR. BUGLIOSI: If the conspiracy is still in effect then I think, ergo, vicarious liability is still in effect.
THE COURT: No question about that. The question in my mind is whether it continued in effect as to these absent defendants for this next incident.
MR. BUGLIOSI: I think under the laws of conspiracy, your Honor, if the conspiracy is in effect, absent defendants are still liable for the acts of the perpetrators.
THE COURT: That is true, but that, of course, is a circular reason.
At the moment we are trying to determine whether in fact the conspiracy was still in existence, if there was a conspiracy.
I would at this time have to limit the evidence as to the defendants who were present and exclude it as to the others.
MR. BUGLIOSI: Okay.
(The following proceedings were had in open court in the presence and hearing of the jury:)
Q. As you were driving from the gasoline station down to the place where you say you saw oil wells, was there any conversation in the car?
MR. KANAREK: Immaterial, your Honor, calling for hearsay, calling for a conclusion, irrelevant.
THE COURT: Overruled.
THE WITNESS: Not that I can recall.
Q. But Manson was giving you all the directions, is that correct?
A. Yes.
MR. KANAREK: Just a moment, just a minute, your Honor, may I have the last answer read back?
THE COURT: The Court will sustain an objection to that question.
BY MR. BUGLIOSI:
Q. Did you ultimately stop in a beach area?
A. Yes.
Q. Was the area in which you stopped close to any city or town that you were familiar with?
A. No, I really did not know where I was.
Q. Just that it was close to the ocean?
A. Yes.
Q. What happened after—strike that.
Why did you stop the car?
MR. KANAREK: Immaterial, your Honor, calling for a conclusion.
THE COURT: Overruled.
THE WITNESS: Charlie directed me to stop the car on a hill.
BY MR. BUGLIOSI:
Q. You say “on a hill”?
A. Yes.
Q. How far was the car from the ocean at that point?
A. We had to go down two streets—how far that is.
Q. What happened after you stopped the car?
MR. KANAREK: Calling for a conclusion and ambiguous, your Honor.
THE COURT: Overruled.
THE WITNESS: We all got out of the car, started walking towards the beach.
We got down to the beach, walked on the sand, and Charlie told Clem and Sadie to stay a little bit behind us, and Charlie and I started walking hand in hand on the beach, and it was sort of nice, you know.
We were just talking and I gave him some peanuts, and he just sort of made me forget about everything, and just made me feel good.
I told him I was pregnant and started walking. I remember we got up on some concrete.
And we came to a gate, and there was a man there and we just still kept walking.
We got to a side street, a corner, and a police car came by and stopped, and asked us what we were doing, and Charlie said we were just going for a walk.
And Charlie said something like “Don’t you know who I am,” or “Don’t you remember my name?”
As if the policemen were supposed to know him.
They just said no. It was a friendly conversation. It just lasted for a minute.
Then we walked back to the car.
Q. BY MR. BUGLIOSI: With respect to this conversation with the policemen, did they write your names down?
A. Not that I saw, no.
Q. Did you see them write anything down?
A. No, they didn’t even ask our names.
Q. They did not ask your name or Mr. Manson his name?
A. No.
Q. And you were in their presence for how long?
A. Just for about a minute.
Q. Where was Clem and Sadie at that point if you recall?
A. I don’t know, but when we got back to the car they were already there.
Q. You say you told Mr. Manson that you were pregnant. Were you pregnant by him?
A. No.
MR. KANAREK: I object to that as an impossible conclusion on the part of this witness, your Honor, calling for a conclusion, and I would like to inquire on voir dire.
MR. STOVITZ: The answer was no, Counsel, do you want the answer stricken?
MR. KANAREK: I am not interested in a favorable answer or an unfavorable answer, your Honor. I am interested in evidence that has probative value.
I ask it be stricken unless we can inquire and go to the foundational aspects of it.
THE COURT: The objection will be sustained.
The answer is stricken. The jury is admonished to disregard it.
BY MR. BUGLIOSI:
Q. Why did you tell Charlie you were pregnant?
MR. KANAREK: Immaterial, your Honor, calling for a conclusion, hearsay, irrelevant.
MR. BUGLIOSI: It goes towards the relationship of the parties.
MR. KANAREK: But this witness, your Honor, is not on trial. It is self-serving.
THE COURT: It is objectionable, Mr. Bugliosi.
The objection is sustained.
Q. BY MR. BUGLIOSI: You say Mr. Manson, as you were walking with him on the beach, made you temporarily forget everything.
What do you mean by that?
MR. KANAREK: Same objection, your Honor, calling for a conclusion, hearsay, all of the objections enunciated in the previous question.
It is still her state of mind and her own thinking. She is not a defendant before this jury.
MR. BUGLIOSI: She has already testified to this, your Honor, I am merely asking her to elaborate on this now.
THE COURT: The objection is sustained.
Q. BY MR. BUGLIOSI: What was Mr. Manson saying to you as you were walking with him on the beach?
MR. KANAREK: Immaterial, your Honor.
THE COURT: Overruled.
THE WITNESS: I don’t recall the actual words. I just remember the feeling that I got, you know, he just made me feel—
THE COURT: The question is, what did he say?
THE WITNESS: I don’t recall what he said.
Q. BY MR. BUGLIOSI: Do you recall in substance what he said? I am not asking you for the exact words now, but the essence of what he said to you.
MR. KANAREK: Then I object, he is soliciting a conclusion, your Honor.
It is incompetent, irrelevant and immaterial.
THE COURT: Overruled.
THE WITNESS: I don’t understand what you mean.
Q. BY MR. BUGLIOSI: I am not asking you for the exact words, Linda, that he said to you, just the gist of what he said to you.
MR. KANAREK: Object, calling for a conclusion, your Honor, hearsay, immaterial.
THE COURT: Overruled.
THE WITNESS: I cannot say there were any words. All I just know is it was a feeling that came through his words that impressed me.
MR. KANAREK: Well, your Honor, I would ask that that be stricken, that latter portion about her feeling.
THE COURT: That portion will be stricken.
The jury is admonished to disregard it.
Q. BY MR. BUGLIOSI: You were walking hand in hand.
A. Yes.
Q. Eventually you and Charlie got back to the car?
A. Yes.
Q. Sadie and Clem were already in the car?
A. Yes.
Q. What is the next thing that happened?
A. I took over driving, still, we just pulled out of the parking spot, drove down the hill, got back the same way we had come in, and Charlie asked us if we knew any people on the beach.
We all said no.
Then he looked at me and he said, “What about that man you and Sandy met?
He said, “Isn’t he a piggy?”
I said, “Yes, he is an actor.”
MR. KANAREK: I ask that last portion be stricken on the grounds of hearsay, conclusion, irrelevant, immaterial.
THE COURT: The motion is denied.
MR. FITZGERALD: Hearsay as to Krenwinkel, your Honor.
MR. HUGHES: Hearsay as to Van Houten.
MR. BUGLIOSI: Your Honor, I have here—
THE COURT: Just a moment.
Yes, the objection as to hearsay as to Krenwinkel and Van Houten is good.
The jury is admonished that the evidence is received solely with respect to the defendants who were present, solely with respect to the defendants who were present.
Miss Van Houten and Miss Krenwinkel were not present and the evidence is not to be received with respect to them. You are not to consider it for any purpose as regards either Miss Van Houten or Miss Krenwinkel.
MR. BUGLIOSI: Your Honor, I have here a photograph of two male Caucasians and four female Caucasians. May it be marked People’s next in order?
THE CLERK: 76.
MR. BUGLIOSI: People’s 76 for identification.
THE COURT: It will be so marked.
MR. HUGHES: Let me see it.
(The exhibit is handed to defense counsel.)
THE COURT: Mr. Bugliosi, we will take our recess at this time.
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 for 15 minutes.
THE COURT: All parties, counsel and jurors are present.
You may proceed, Mr. Bugliosi.
MR. BUGLIOSI: Your Honor, I stand corrected here. This photograph, People’s 76 for identification, has three men and three girls as opposed to four girls and two men.
May the record stand so corrected?
THE COURT: Very well.
BY MR. BUGLIOSI:
Q. Linda, going back just a bit now.
You say Mr. Manson asked you all if you knew anyone and where?
A. Excuse me?
Q. Mr. Manson asked all of you if you knew someone?
A. Yes.
MR. KANAREK: Your Honor, this is the kind of thing—
MR. BUGLIOSI: I will go back and rephrase the question.
BY MR. BUGLIOSI:
Q. After you and Mr. Manson and Clem and Susan Atkins drove off from the beach area, did Mr. Manson say anything to you?
MR. KANAREK: Asked and answered, your Honor.
THE COURT: Overruled.
THE WITNESS: Yes, he did.
BY MR. BUGLIOSI:
Q. What did he say?
A. He asked me if I knew—oh, wait—he asked us all if we knew anybody, and we all said no.
MR. KANAREK: Your Honor, I ask that that be stricken because, by definition, she is now being asked after they left, after the others have left.
THE COURT: The motion is denied.
BY MR. BUGLIOSI:
Q. Go ahead.
A. And we all said no.
And then he said, “What about that man that you and Sandy met? Isn’t he a piggy?”
And I said, “Yes. He is an actor.”
And then he further questioned me and he asked me if the man would let me in?
And I said, “Yes.”
And he asked me if the man would let my friends in, Sadie and Clem.
And I said, “Yes.”
And he said, “Okay. I want you to kill him,” and he gave me a small pocketknife.
And at this point, I said, “Charlie, I am not you. I cannot kill anybody.”
And I don’t know what took place at that moment, but I was very much afraid.
And then he started to tell me how to go about doing it, and I remember I had the knife in my hand, and I asked him, “with this?”
And he said, “Yes,” and he showed me how to do it. (Indicating.)
He said, “As soon as you enter the residence, the house, as soon as you see the man, slit his throat right away.” And he told Clem to shoot him.
And then, also, he said if anything went wrong, you know, not to do it.
MR. KANAREK: Your Honor, may we 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 that this entire statement be stricken; that the jury be admonished not to consider it for any purpose.
Mere admonishment not being adequate for this kind of response, I ask for a mistrial.
THE COURT: The motion is denied.
MR. SHINN: Join in the motion.
MR. KANAREK: And also, your Honor, then I ask it be excluded on the grounds it is incompetent, irrelevant and immaterial.
It is hearsay. It is a conclusion, and furthermore, your Honor, it is violative of the prosecution’s representation that they were not going to put before the jury any crimes that were not set out as they indicated.
This was, I believe, in chambers, and this is a solicitation for murder.
THE COURT: Have you completed your argument, Mr. Kanarek? Every time I rule you make more argument.
Now, I want you to complete your argument and I will rule once and for all.
MR. KANAREK: It is not just to make a record. It is to try to convince the Court.
THE COURT: I don’t want to prolong this.
MR. KANAREK: This is a denial of due process by state action by way of representation, by way of the District Attorney’s office, Mr. Manson is being denied due process of law by what the prosecution is doing here.
THE COURT: Have you now completed your argument?
MR. KANAREK: Yes, your Honor.
THE COURT: The motion is denied. Let’s proceed.
(The following proceedings were had in open court in the presence and hearing of the jury:)
Q. BY MR. BUGLIOSI: Linda, why did you tell Mr. Manson about this man in Venice?
MR. KANAREK: I object, your Honor, calling for a conclusion, irrelevant, immaterial.
MR. BUGLIOSI: Very relevant, your Honor.
THE COURT: The objection is sustained.
Q. BY MR. BUGLIOSI: Who was this man in Venice?
MR. KANAREK: Calling for a conclusion, your Honor, no foundation.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. KANAREK: Irrelevant and also hearsay.
THE WITNESS: He was a man that Sandy and I had met some day when we were hitchhiking and he picked us up.
We went to his apartment and had something to eat, and then took showers and I made love with him.
Q. BY MR. BUGLIOSI: How long prior to this particular night did this man pick you up?
MR. KANAREK: Immaterial, your Honor.
THE COURT: Overruled.
THE WITNESS: I don’t know, a week, maybe a little bit more.
Q. BY MR. BUGLIOSI: Do you know where he picked you up?
MR. KANAREK: Immaterial, your Honor.
THE COURT: Overruled.
THE WITNESS: Yes, it was in Venice down near the pier area. It was on a road.
Q. BY MR. BUGLIOSI: I show you People’s 76 for identification, do you know who is shown in this photograph?
A. Yes.
Q. Who is that?
MR. KANAREK: I immaterial, your Honor, and—
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. KANAREK: May we approach the bench?
THE COURT: No.
THE WITNESS: Squeaky.
Q. BY MR. BUGLIOSI: Squeaky is on the far right?
A. Yes, and—
MR. BUGLIOSI: Hold it for just one moment.
Your Honor, may I write the name “Squeaky” over the girl’s photograph, here on the right?
THE COURT: Yes.
Q. BY MR. BUGLIOSI: How about the girl next to Squeaky?
A. Gypsy.
MR. BUGLIOSI: May I write “Gypsy,” your Honor?
THE COURT: Very well.
THE WITNESS: And I believe she is holding Sandy’s baby. I never met him, and then there is Sandy.
Q. BY MR. BUGLIOSI: May I write “Sandy,” your Honor?
THE COURT: Yes.
Q. BY MR. BUGLIOSI: Now, the girl whom you identified as Sandy in this photograph, is she the same girl about whom you have been referring in the testimony about this man picking you and her up?
A. Yes, and it looks like Clem, half of Clem, behind her.
Q. Behind Sandra?
A. Yes.
MR. BUGLIOSI: May I insert the name “Clem”, your Honor?
THE COURT: Yes.
Q. BY MR. BUGLIOSI: Do you recognize the two other individuals in this photograph?
A. No.
Q. After this conversation with Mr. Manson—strike that.
This man who picked you up, did he tell you what his occupation was?
MR. KANAREK: Immaterial. Your, Honor, hearsay.
THE COURT: Overruled.
THE WITNESS: Yes, he was an actor.
Q. BY MR. BUGLIOSI: Did he give you any indication or any evidence that he was an actor?
MR. KANAREK: I object, your Honor, it is hearsay, a conclusion, irrelevant.
MR. BUGLIOSI: It is not offered for the truth of the matter, your Honor.
THE COURT: I cannot hear you.
MR. BUGLIOSI: It is not offered for the truth of the matter, your Honor.
THE COURT: Overruled, you may answer.
THE WITNESS: Yes, he showed me some pictures that he had played in, a movie, something to do with Kahlil Gibran, he played a part in a movie about Kahlil Gibran. That is all I remember.
MR. KANAREK: I ask that be stricken on the grounds of hearsay, your Honor.
THE COURT: Denied.
Q. BY MR. BUGLIOSI: Did you eventually drive to this man’s apartment?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. How far was this man’s apartment from where you and Charlie had walked on the beach approximately?
A. Quite a ways.
Q. What happened after you arrived at this man’s apartment?
A. Charlie wanted me to show him where he lived.
Q. Did you do that?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. Did you get out of the car with Charlie?
A. Yes.
Q. What about Sadie and Clem?
A. No, they stayed behind.
Q. What is the next thing that happened?
A. We entered the building and we walked up the stairs. I am not sure if I took him to the top floor—I am not sure exactly what floor I took him to.
Q. What floor you took Charles to?
A. Yes.
Then I pointed out a door which was not his door.
Q. Which was not the actor’s door?
A. Yes.
Q. What is the next thing that happened?
A. Then we walked back downstairs to the car, and he gave Clem a gun.
Q. Charlie Manson gave him a gun?
A. Yes.
At this point he said something—
Q. When you say “he,” you are talking about Charles Manson?
A. Yes.
He said that if anything went wrong, you know, just hang it up, don’t do it; and of course, to hitchhike back to the Ranch, and for Sadie to go to the Waterfall.
And then he drove off.
Q. Before he drove off, when he was giving instructions, did Susan Atkins say anything to Mr. Manson about not wanting to do what Mr. Manson wanted her to do?
MR. KANAREK: I object, your Honor, leading and suggestive, conclusion, hearsay and irrelevant.
THE COURT: Sustained.
BY MR. BUGLIOSI:
Q. Did Mr. Manson tell Clem Tufts, or Clem and Sadie, what to do once you all reached the man’s apartment?
MR. KANAREK: Leading and suggestive, your Honor, hearsay, conclusion.
THE COURT: Sustained. It is leading.
BY MR. BUGLIOSI:
Q. Did Mr. Manson tell Clem and Sadie anything?
A. Yes.
Q. What did he tell than?
MR. KANAREK: Hearsay, your Honor, conclusion.
THE COURT: Overruled.
THE WITNESS: While I knocked on the door, for them to wait around the corner until I entered, and then to ask the man if they could come in.
BY MR. BUGLIOSI:
Q. Did either Clem or Sadie say anything to Mr. Manson at this point?
A. No, not that I know of.
Q. Then you say Charlie drove off?
A. Yes.
Q. What is the next thing that happened?
A. Clem, Sadie and myself walked up—I believe I took them to the fourth floor, because I knew I didn’t go all the way to the top—and I went—as I entered the hallway, whatever it is, where all the doors are, I went straight to—to the first door, and I knocked.
They hid behind the corner.
Q. When you say “they,” you are referring to whom?
A. Sadie and Clem.
And I knocked on the door, which I knew wasn’t the door, and a man said, “Who is it?”
And I said, “Linda.”
And he sort of opened the door and peeked around the corner, and I just said, “Oh, excuse me. Wrong door.”
And that was it.
Q. How long did you look at this man who opened the door?
A. Just for a split second.
MR. KANAREK: Your honor, I ask that all of that be stricken on the basis that it is not material. It is outside the presence of the defendant.
THE COURT: Denied.
MR. BUGLIOSI: Your Honor, I have here a photograph of a male Caucasian.
May it be marked People’s next in order?
THE CLERK: 77.
THE COURT: It will be so marked.
MR. BUGLIOSI: I have here a photograph of an apartment house, your Honor.
May it be marked People’s 78 for identification?
THE COURT: It will be so marked.
MR. BUGLIOSI: I have here another photograph of the same apartment.
May it be marked People’s 79 for identification?
THE COURT: It will be so marked.
BY MR. BUGLIOSI:
Q. I show you People’s 77 for identification, Linda.
Do you know who is shown in that photograph?
A. Yes. This is the man that picked us up, but he didn’t have a mustache at the time.
Q. The man in this photograph is the man that picked you and Sandra up?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you say that at the time that he picked you up he did not have a mustache as he has in this photograph?
A. No, he did not.
MR. KANAREK: Your Honor, I gather I have a continuing objection on materiality and relevancy?
THE COURT: Very well.
Q. BY MR. BUGLIOSI: I show you People’s 78 for identification, Linda.
Do you know what is shown in that photograph?
A. Yes. That is the apartment building.
Q. What is shown in that photograph?
A. An apartment building with the sign “The Beach House, Entrance.”
Below it it says, “The Beach House Market,” and there is a van and a few other buildings.
Q. What apartment house is this, if you know?
A. It is his apartment house.
Q. When you say “his apartment house,” you are referring to the man who picked you and Sandra up?
A. Yes.
Q. The man shown in this photograph here, People’s 77 for identification?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you know what floor this man lived on?
A. The top floor.
Q. I show you People’s 79 for identification.
Do you know what is shown in that photograph?
A. Yes. It is the same building.
Q. The same building where this man lived?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you know the name of that man?
A. No. I just remember he was an Arab or an Israeli guy, a foreigner.
Q. Did you actually see Mr. Manson give Clem the gun?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. You saw the gun in Clem’s hand?
A. Yes.
Q. When you knocked on the door of this apartment, did you know it was the wrong door?
A. Yes, I did.
MR. KANAREK: Object, your Honor. Calling for a conclusion, hearsay.
THE COURT: Overruled.
THE WITNESS: Yes, I did.
Q. BY MR. BUGLIOSI: Why did you knock on the wrong door, Linda?
A. Because—
MR. KANAREK: I object, your Honor, on the grounds it is a conclusion, hearsay.
THE COURT: Overruled,
THE WITNESS: Because I didn’t want to kill anybody.
MR. BUGLIOSI: All right.
Q. After the man answered the door and you had that brief exchange with him, what is the next thing that happened?
A. Sadie went to the bathroom.
Q. Where did she go to the bathroom?
A. As we were walking downstairs, on the small—I don’t know how to say it.
Q. All right.
What is the next thing that happened?
A. We got down to the beach, and it was daybreak, and we started walking on the boardwalk—the speedway, I think they call it—and Clem wanted to get rid of the gun. So, he walked down to the pier to stash it. And he came back with the gun and said that there were people around, so he didn’t stash it.
So, we kept walking. I think Sadie and I stopped in the ladies’ room for a few minutes.
Q. The ladies’ room where?
A. On the beach near the pier.
And we kept walking, and we came to a sand pile with houses, and Clem—I didn’t watch him, but he walked up to the sand pile, and I don’t know what he did with the gun, but be didn’t have it when he came down.
Q. What is the next thing that happened?
A. We kept walking, and we started hitchhiking on the entrance to Route 1, I believe it is, the ocean freeway, towards Malibu.
Q. Was this Pacific coast Highway?
A. Yes.
We got a ride. I don’t know by who.
Q. Was this a man or a woman?
A. I think it was a man, I am not positive.
And he let us off, or she let us off, at the beginning of Topanga Canyon Boulevard by the ocean.
And we stopped at a house beside the Malibu Feed Bin.
Q. All three of you stopped at this house?
A. Yes.
Q. Had you ever been to the house before?
A. Yes, once before.
Q. Could you describe this house?
MR. KANAREK: This is immaterial, your Honor.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. KANAREK: Pardon?
THE COURT: Overruled.
THE WITNESS: It had a concrete platform, I remember that, sort of like a porch but no walls, just a platform. And it had a few trees in front of it.
Should I describe the inside?
BY MR. BUGLIOSI:
Q. Well, I am interested in the outside at this point.
A. There was a big window. That is all I remember about it. It was right beside The Feed Bin.
Q. You had been there once previously?
A. Yes.
Q. To that house?
A. Yes.
Q. How long prior to this occasion had you been to that house?
A. I believe it was the day before Sandy and I went out to the beach.
Q. Did the three of you enter that house?
A. Yes, we did.
Q. How did you get in?
A. We knocked on the door and the girl came to the door and let us in. Sadia knew the girl.
Q. What happened once you entered the house?
A. Let’s see. There was a man, an older man, and there was a great big dog, I remember that, and we all sat down, and I didn’t do much talking, I was just sort of withdrawn. We smoked some pot.
Q. When you say “pot,” are you referring to marijuana?
A. Yes.
Q. When you say, “we smoked pot,” about whom are you referring?
A. The girl, the man, Sadie, Clem and myself.
Q. How long did you stay there?
A. Oh, about an hour, I guess.
Q. What did you talk about?
MR. KANAREK: Immaterial, your Honor, irrelevant, hearsay, conclusion.
MR. BUGLIOSI: I will withdraw the question.
THE COURT: Very well.
BY MR. BUGLIOSI:
Q. Was anything mentioned about what had happened that night?
MR. KANAREK: I object, your Honor, on the grounds of hearsay.
THE COURT: Overruled.
THE WITNESS: No.
MR. KANAREK: And a conclusion.
BY MR. BUGLIOSI:
Q. Do you recall what the interior of the house looked like?
MR. KANAREK: That is immaterial, your Honor, irrelevant.
THE COURT: Overruled.
THE WITNESS: As you walk in, you come into a living room, which didn’t—I don’t think it had much furniture. Then there was a small kitchen, and then I believe a bedroom off the back.
That is all I remember.
MR. BUGLIOSI: Your Honor, I have here a photograph of what looks like two homes. May it be marked People’s next in order?
THE COURT: 80 for identification.
MR. BUGLIOSI: I have here another photograph, your Honor, showing a business establishment.
May it be marked People’s 81 for identification?
THE COURT: It will be so marked.
BY MR. BUGLIOSI:
Q. I show you People’s 80 for identification, Linda.
Do you know what is shown in that photograph?
A. Yes. That is a house.
Q. What house are you referring to?
A. The house to the left.
Q. You see two houses in this photograph?
A. Yes.
Q. And you are pointing to the house on the left?
A. Yes.
Q. Is this the house that you and Sadie and Clem entered?
A. Yes.
MR. BUGLIOSI: May I mark that, your Honor, “House next to Feed Bin”?
THE COURT: Yes.
Q. BY MR. BUGLIOSI: I show you People’s 81 for identification.
Do you know what is show in that photograph?
A. Yes. That is the Feed Bin, the Malibu Feed Bin.
The house is right off—you can barely see it.
Q. The house that you and Sadie and Clem entered is to the right of the Feed Bin in this photograph?
A. Yes.
Q. Is this the house right here?
A. Yes.
There is, it looks like, a gate or something that is blocking the view.
MR. BUGLIOSI: May I mark that again, your Honor, “House next to Malibu Feed Bin”?
THE COURT: You may.
(Mr. Bugliosi marks the photograph.)
MR. BUGLIOSI: Q. What is the next thing that happened?
You say you stayed there for about an hour?
A. Yes.
Q. And you smoked some marijuana?
A. Yes.
Q. What is the next thing that happened?
A. We left and we stood across the street and started hitchhiking, and we got a ride by a young boy.
Q. Before you go into the ride, as you were walking, were Sadia and Clem saying or doing anything?
A. Yes.
Before we reached the Malibu house when we were still stashing the gun, they were singing.
Q. You say, “While we were still stashing the gun”?
A. Well, yes. I am referring to we because we were in a group, the three of us, because I didn’t stash the gun myself.
Q. Okay.
But as you were walking, the three of you, what, if anything, was Sadie and Clem singing?
MR. KANAREK: Immaterial, irrelevant, hearsay.
THE COURT: Overruled.
THE WITNESS: They were singing songs. Possibly I was singing songs, too. I don’t think so.
THE COURT: Keep your voice up, please.
THE WITNESS: I don’t think I said much of anything. I was really withdraw.
MR. BUGLIOSI: Q. What type of songs were Sadie and Clem singing?
A. I remember one song that everybody always sang, but this day I remember them singing the Beatle song about piggies and forks and knives, and eating your bacon. I don’t know the exact words.
MR. KANAREK: Your Honor, I ask that that be stricken as immaterial, irrelevant, hearsay.
THE COURT: I don’t see the relevancy of that.
MR. BUGLIOSI: May I approach the bench, your Honor?
THE COURT: All right, you may.
(The following proceedings were had at the bench out of the hearing of the jury:)
MR. BUGLIOSI: Number one, your Honor, as the Court knows by now, the word “pig” and “death to the pigs” were printed in blood at both the Tate and LaBianca residences.
One of the songs in the Beatles album is a song called “Piggies,” and in that song there is language, “The piggies need a damned good whacking.”
There will be evidence that Charles Manson used to sing the lyrics of that song all the time.
And the “piggies” to Charles Manson meant the white establishment. Part of this album goes toward the issue of motive. Mrs. Susan Atkins—
THE COURT: They weren’t present during the course of what she is testifying to.
MR. BUGLIOSI: It could be limited to Susan Atkins.
THE COURT: I don’t see the relevancy of it. There used to be a nursery rhyme called, “The Three Little Pig”, too.
MR. BUGLIOSI: But this particular song was part of his Beatles album.
This Beatles album is very relevant to motive in this case, it had a song about Piggies, “the piggies need a damned good whacking,” about a knife and a fork. The knife and fork were left in Mr. Bianca’s body.
There is a song about black birds rising up.
Mr. Manson said that means black man rising up.
THE COURT: This all may be coincidence.
MR. BUGLIOSI: It goes to the weight.
THE COURT: Because a thing is a coincidence does not mean it is relevant.
I am going to sustain the objection and strike the answer.
MR. KANAREK: Well, your Honor, if I may, it is my position that mere striking it does not accomplish it.
I ask for a mistrial.
THE COURT: Denied.
MR. SHINN: Join in the motion.
(The following proceedings were had in open court in the presence and hearing of the jury:)
THE COURT: Ladies and gentlemen, the last answer is stricken; the jury is admonished to disregard it.
BY MR. BUGLIOSI:
Q. After you left this home next to the Malibu Beach, you continued to hitchhike?
A. Yes.
Q. Did someone pick you up?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you know who this party was?
MR. KANAREK: Immaterial, your Honor.
THE COURT: Overruled.
THE WITNESS: No, I don’t know his name.
BY MR. BUGLIOSI:
Q. Could you describe him?
MR. KANAREK: Immaterial, irrelevant, your Honor.
THE COURT: Overruled.
THE WITNESS: I would say he was a straight looking guy. I remember he wore glasses and we struck up a conversation.
He said that he was a writer for a newspaper or a magazine, something like that, and that is about it.
I don’t really recall.
BY MR. BUGLIOSI:
Q. Where did this man drive you, Sadie and Clem to, if you recall?
A. Up and over Topanga Canyon, and into the Valley, I guess you would call it, still on Topanga Canyon Boulevard.
Q. And then he dropped all three of you off?
A. Yes.
Q. What did the three of you do at that point?
A. We still continued to hitchhike.
Q. Did someone else pick you up?
A. Yes.
Q. Where did that party pick you up?
A. Where?
Q. Yes.
A. We stood in the same spot where the second man let us off; the third man picked us up at the same spot.
Q. Where did he drive you to?
A. He let Clem and myself off at the beginning of the Santa Susanna Pass and we walked to the Ranch, and Sadie went on with him, I presume, to the Waterfall.
Q. Do you know about what time you and Clem arrived back at Spahn Ranch?
A. It was mid-morning I guess.
Q. What is the first thing you did after you arrived back at the Ranch?
MR. KANAREK: Immaterial, irrelevant, your Honor.
THE COURT: Overruled.
THE WITNESS: I looked for a place to sleep. I was totally exhausted.
BY MR. BUGLIOSI:
Q. Did you see Mr. Manson?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. Where was Mr. Manson?
A. He was asleep in the parachute room.
Q. In the parachute room; is that part of the building at the Spahn Ranch?
A. It’s in back of the main building.
Q. Did you see Tex and Leslie at all?
A. Yes, I did, they were in the shack next to the parachute room.
Q. And what were they doing?
A. They were sleeping.
Q. Did you eventually find a place to sleep?
A. Yes.
Q. Where did you sleep?
A. In the saloon on the stage behind the piano.
Q. Linda, do you know what LSD is?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. Have you ever taken LSD?
A. Yes, I have.
Q. About how many times?
A. Approximately 50 times. The first time I took it was in ’65.
Q. So you took it over a four-year period?
A. Yes.
Q. Off and on?
A. Yes.
MR. BUGLIOSI: Can we have just a moment?
(Pause.)
BY MR. BUGLIOSI:
Q. Have you seen other people take LSD?
MR. KANAREK: Immaterial, your Honor, calling for a conclusion on the part of the witness, irrelevant.
THE COURT: Overruled.
THE WITNESS: I have.
BY MR. BUGLIOSI:
Q. Did you ever see Charles Manson take LSD?
MR. KANAREK: I object, your Honor, on the grounds that it calling for a conclusion on the part of the witness, irrelevant, immaterial, and may we 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 do ask your Honor to admonish the jury not to consider that question for any purpose, and, mere admonishment certainly cannot erase that error, and I ask for a mistrial.
That is the most vicious type of prejudice that the prosecutor can do. It has no relevancy, no materiality.
She is not—there is no foundation that she is an expert, that she knows anything about hallucinogenic drugs or any drugs, and to inject this and prejudice the defendant—
THE COURT: How?
MR. KANAREK: By the mere association of the question itself, the philosophy of Bruton vs. the United States, and other cases where you cannot unring the bell.
This is a deliberate prejudice. I ask the prosecutor be cited for misconduct.
MR. STOVITZ: Your Honor, it’s not deliberate—
MR. KANAREK: May I finish, your Honor?
MR. STOVITZ: I’m sorry.
THE COURT: Go ahead.
MR. KANAREK: The point of the matter is, your Honor, even though Mr. Bugliosi terms this “The crime of the century,” and all of that—
MR. BUGLIOSI: I never said this was the crime of the century. You cannot quote me that way. I never used those words.
THE COURT: All right, go ahead.
MR. KANAREK: Well, your Honor, the fact of the matter is that when you impugn the character of a defendant, that is grounds for a mistrial. That is prejudice.
Now, the point is, the character of the defendant cannot be brought into issue unless he, himself, first brings it into issue. I am sure Mr. Bugliosi and Mr. Stovitz, as sophisticated prosecutors, know that is the law.
THE COURT: All right.
MR. KANAREK: I ask for a mistrial. This is so prejudicial it is beyond belief.
THE COURT: Do you wish to be heard?
MR. STOVITZ: I merely state this, your Honor:
I believe by the affidavits and the declarations of defense counsel that they are going to use this for impeachment of this witness on cross-examination.
We want to merely show that the use of LSD was a way of life at the Spahn Ranch.
We will have other evidence to show that not only was it a way of life, but Mr. Manson was the dispenser of these things that he called LSD.
It is true it does call for a conclusion.
THE COURT: What is the relevancy of it?
MR. STOVITZ: The relevancy of that is to show that Mr. Manson used this LSD to bend their minds and to make them subject to his way of life and his way of thinking.
Now, I do agree—
THE COURT: You don’t expect this witness to testify to that, do you?
MR. STOVITZ: I believe she was there on only one occasion when Mr. Manson did dispense it.
However, we were not going to go into that. We were merely going to go into the fact that Mr. Manson said this tablet was LSD.
But counsel is definitely going to go into it in their cross-examination of this witness.
THE COURT: I don’t see the relevancy of it. What difference does it make whether he used LSD or not?
MR. STOVITZ: This is the main witness for the prosecution, your Honor, they are going to attack her credibility and rationale since she took LSD, ergo, she cannot tell the truth, she is incapable of telling the truth, it destroyed her mind.
We want to put on evidence that it’s kind of a way of life out there. They are all taking LSD. It is not unusual. She is not the only person among this whole group that took LSD.
THE COURT: That may be true, I still don’t see the relevancy of it.
In other words, if the defendants on trial were claiming they used LSD, hence there was some mental aberration or something which could be used as a defense, that is one thing.
But they have not claimed that yet.
MR. BUGLIOSI: I think the Court’s position is well taken.
THE COURT: All right.
MR. KANAREK: Your Honor, I ask for a mistrial.
THE COURT: The motion will be denied.
The jury will be admonished.
Was there an answer to that question?
THE REPORTER: No.
THE COURT: Then the objection will be sustained and that is the end of it.
MR. BUGLIOSI: Thank you.
(The following proceedings were had in open court in the presence and hearing of the jury:)
BY MR. BUGLIOSI:
Q. Linda, after these two nights that you have been testifying to for the past couple of days, what was your state of mind?
MR. KANAREK: I object, your Honor, calling for a conclusion on the part of this witness, actually calling for psychiatric evaluation, self-psychiatric evaluation. May we approach the bench, your Honor?
THE COURT: Read the last question.
(Whereupon the reporter reads the pending question as follows:
“Q. Linda, after these two nights that you have been testifying to for the past couple of days, what was your state of mind?”)
MR. KANAREK: Your Honor, if I may further object on the grounds it has no relevancy, besides being a conclusion and hearsay.
THE COURT: The objection is sustained.
MR. KANAREK: Your Honor, may we approach the bench?
THE COURT: No, sir.
BY MR. BUGLIOSI:
Q. After these two nights, Linda, about which you have just been testifying, did you want to leave Spahn Ranch?
MR. KANAREK: Immaterial, your Honor, calling for a conclusion, self-serving, hearsay, not relevant.
THE COURT: Sustained.
BY MR. BUGLIOSI: After these two particular nights, Linda, that you have been testifying to for the past few days, did you try to leave Spahn Ranch?
MR. KANAREK: I object, your Honor, on the grounds it is not material, relevant, it calls for a conclusion on the part of the witness.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. KANAREK: Hearsay.
THE WITNESS: Yes, I did.
MR. KANAREK: May we approach the bench, your Honor?
THE COURT: No, sir.
THE WITNESS: Yes.
BY MR. BUGLIOSI:
Q. When did you first try to leave Spahn Ranch?
MR. KANAREK: I object, your Honor, calling for a conclusion on the part of the witness.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. KANAREK: Not material or relevant.
THE COURT: The morning after the second night, once I had woken up, everybody was still sleeping and there was nobody around, and I remember packing a sleeping bag with a few of Tanya’s clothes and a change of clothes for myself, and walking down behind the Ranch into the gully and up through the corral and planting the sleeping bag on the side of the road into some bushes.
BY MR. BUGLIOSI:
Q. Why did you plant the sleeping bag where you planted it?
MR. KANAREK: I object, your Honor, calling for a conclusion.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. KANAREK: May I make an objection?
THE COURT: Yes.
MR. KANAREK: Calling for conclusion, self-serving hearsay, your Honor, it is not competent, relevant or material.
It has only prejudicial value.
This person is not a defendant in this trial. She is a witness, your Honor.
THE COURT: Overruled.
THE WITNESS: Why did I hide it at the spot?
BY MR. BUGLIOSI:
Q. Yes.
A. Well I had to hide it because I had to hide it. I could not walk out of there. He would not let me walk out of there, knowing what I had seen.
MR. KANAREK: I ask that be stricken as a conclusion on the part of this witness.
THE COURT: The answer is stricken. The jury is admonished to disregard it.
MR. KANAREK: May we approach the bench so I can make a motion, your Honor.
THE COURT: You may make your motion right there, Mr. Kanarek.
MR. KANAREK: Your Honor is forcing me to do it from here?
THE COURT: I’m not forcing you to make any motion. If you want to make it you may make it right there.
MR. KANAREK: Then I do make a motion for a mistrial on the grounds of prejudice.
THE COURT: The motion is denied.
MR. KANAREK: Of this witness’s statement.
BY MR. BUGLIOSI:
Q. Linda, what did you do after you hid the sleeping bag?
MR. KANAREK: Immaterial, your Honor, and calls for a conclusion.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. KANAREK: Irrelevant.
THE WITNESS: I walked back to the Ranch, and I don’t know exactly what I did.
That night I remember I took care of Tanya. They called them elves, they called the children elves, so I took care of the elves. I remember Barbara was there.
BY MR. BUGLIOSI:
Q. You say Barbara. Is this the girl that you identified?
A. Yes.
MR. BUGLIOSI: Hold it for one moment.
MR. KANAREK: Your Honor, may we approach the bench at this point?
THE COURT: There is nothing pending, sir, at the moment.
MR. KANAREK: There is in connection with this, your Honor.
THE COURT: With what?
MR. KANAREK: With what Mr. Bugliosi is going into. I would like to approach the bench if I may.
THE COURT: No, let’s proceed, gentlemen.
Q. BY MR. BUGLIOSI: By Barbara, are you referring to the girl shown in People’s 72 for identification?
A. Yes.
Q. You may continue. What happened next?
MR. KANAREK: Your Honor, that is ambiguous, clearly ambiguous. What happened next in connection with what?
THE COURT: Overruled. You may answer.
THE WITNESS: I planned to leave that night, but when nighttime came I was afraid because there were people walking around with guns, the guards.
Q. Who were the guards?
A. I don’t know.
MR. KANAREK: May that last answer be stricken?
THE COURT: The portion, “I was afraid,” will be stricken and the jury admonished to disregard that portion.
MR. KANAREK: Thank you.
MR. BUGLIOSI: Q. Were these guards members of the Family?
MR. KANAREK: I object. Immaterial.
THE COURT: Overruled.
THE WITNESS: Yes.
MR. KANAREK: Already asked and answered, your, Honor.
MR. BUGLIOSI: Where were they walking?
A. Usually they walked all around the ranch. Sometimes they stood on the roof.
Q. What is the next thing that happened?
MR. KANAREK: Ambiguous, your Honor.
THE COURT: Overruled.
THE WITNESS: So I didn’t leave that night.
Then the next morning, Charlie came to me and told me that he wanted me to go to Sybil Brand to see Mary and Sandy because they were in jail, and also to go to—I don’t know the name of the building, I think it is in this district—to see Bobby Beausoleil.
MR. FITZGERALD: May this be stricken for the purpose of interposing an objection?
It is hearsay as to Patricia Krenwinkel.
May it be limited to the declarant?
MR. KANAREK: Also it is not competent, not relevant and not material, and I would like to approach the bench on the competency aspect of it, if I may.
It is hearsay, it is conclusion, and it is prejudicial in connection with a certain subject matter that is incorporated in that statement.
MR. BUGLIOSI: I will stipulate to Mr. Fitzgerald’s objection but not to Mr. Kanarek’s.
THE COURT: The testimony will be received as to Mr. Manson only.
MR. HUGHES: Hearsay also as to Miss Van Houten.
MR. BUGLIOSI: So stipulated, your Honor.
MR. KANAREK: May we approach the bench, your Honor?
THE COURT: For what purpose?
MR. KANAREK: Because I wish to make a point to the Court outside the presence of the jury, your Honor.
THE COURT: Let’s proceed.
MR. KANAREK: May I make, then, for the record, your Honor, the allegation of denial of equal protection of the law as to Mr. Manson in connection with approaching the bench, your Honor?
THE COURT: Very we’ll.
Q. BY MR. BUGLIOSI: You say Mr. Manson wanted to go into town and visit Mary and Sandra and Bobby Beausoleil?
A. Yes.
MR. KANAREK: Object as leading and suggestive.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. BUGLIOSI: Q. Did you, in fact, do that?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. How did you do it? Did you hitchhike into town?
MR. KANAREK: Immaterial.
THE COURT: Overruled.
THE WITNESS: No.
There was a new ranch hand that had just come to the ranch to help out with the horses. He was employed by Mr. Spahn, and he had a car. He told me I could use his car, and he showed me, you know, how to drive it, certain things to watch out for.
So this is the car that I used.
BY MR. BUGLIOSI:
Q. Did you actually see Sandra and Mary that day?
MR. KANAREK: Object. Immaterial.
THE COURT: Overruled.
THE WITNESS: No, I did not.
BY MR. BUGLIOSI:
Q. You were unable to see them?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you make an effort to see them?
A. Yes, I did.
MR. KANAREK: Immaterial and irrelevant.
THE COURT: Overruled.
BY MR. BUGLIOSI:
Q. What happened?
How come you didn’t see them?
MR. KANAREK: May the last question be read? I didn’t hear it.
THE COURT: Read the last question.
(The record was read by the reporter.)
MR. KANAREK: Your Honor, that is calling for a conclusion on the part of the witness.
THE COURT: Overruled.
THE WITNESS: Now come I didn’t see them?
BY MR. BUGLIOSI:
Q. Yes.
A. They were in court. Mary and Sandy were in court, and when I went to see Bobby, the men, whoever you show your identification to, wouldn’t accept my identification.
Q. Did you then return to Spahn Ranch?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. Did you tell Mr. Manson that you were unable to see these three people?
A. Yes.
MR. KANAREK: I object, your Honor, on the grounds of hearsay, conclusion; it is not material or relevant.
THE COURT: Overruled.
THE WITNESS: Yes, I did.
BY MR. BUGLIOSI:
Q. What did Manson say to you, if anything, when you told him that?
MR. KANAREK: I object on the grounds of materiality, relevancy, calling for a conclusion and hearsay.
THE COURT: Overruled.
THE WITNESS: Well, he told me he wanted me to go again the next day, and also it was around suppertime, so he told me, and I believe it was Little Patty, to go on a garbage run, and to meet at the Waterfall.
MR. BUGLIOSI: Your Honor, I have here a photograph of a female Caucasian.
May it be marked as People’s 82 for identification?
THE COURT: It will be so marked.
BY MR. BUGLIOSI:
Q. I show you Peoples 82 for identification.
Do you know who is shown in the photograph?
A. Yes.
Q. Who is it?
A. It is Mary.
Q. One of the people who Mr. Manson told you to see?
A. Yes.
Q. What is the next thing that happened, Linda?
A. Little Patty and I went and got some food. I remember we got a pizza, and we came back to the Ranch.
I can’t remember how we got to the Waterfall. It seems to me we were on a truck, and we went a different route that I had never been before.
There were a few people that I didn’t know, guests; anyway, we got to the Waterfall, and practically the whole Family was there.
I don’t think Charlie came with us. I think he stayed, at the Ranch.
And we ate, we passed out the pizza, and the children were already there.
Also, Charlie told me, and I believe Tex and Leslie and Little Patty, to come back the next morning, which we did.
And I think Larry was with us—he was half white and half black and some other guy. They used to help Tex with these dune buggies. I don’t know his name.
Q. Did Manson ever say anything about Larry being half black and half white?
MR. KANAREK: Object. That is irrelevant, immaterial, conclusion, hearsay, and nothing but the most prejudicial type of testimony.
THE COURT: Overruled.
THE WITNESS: Yes. He used to call him the drippings from a white man’s dick.
MR. KANAREK: Objection.
THE COURT: The objection will be sustained to the question, and the answer is stricken.
The jury is admonished to disregard it.
MR. BUGLIOSI: Your Honor, I have here a photograph of a male Caucasian.
May it be marked People 83 for identification?
THE COURT: It will be so marked.
Q. BY MR. BUGLIOSI: I show you People’s 83 for identification.
Do you know who is depicted in that photograph?
A. Yes. That is Larry.
Q. Now, you were all up at the waterfall, the entire family, you say, but Mr. Manson was not there?
A. I don’t think Squeaky was there either. She usually stayed with George.
Q. Was this the second day after these killings?
MR. KANAREK: Objection, your Honor, as calling for a conclusion on the part of this witness in that she has not indicated—it is assuming facts not in evidence, your Honor.
THE COURT: Well, it is ambiguous as to that, Mr. Bugliosi. The objection will be sustained on that ground.
MR. BUGLIOSI: Q. Did you have dinner then up at the waterfall?
A. Yes, we did.
Q. You ate the pizza?
A. Yes.
Q. What is the next thing that happened?
A. Eventually everybody fell asleep.
Q. Where did you sleep?
A. On the ground.
MR. KANAREK: Immaterial, your Honor.
THE COURT: Overruled.
THE WITNESS: There was a campsite set up and there were sleeping bags, and we slept on the ground in the sleeping bags, and got up fairly early, maybe before sunrise.
MR. BUGLIOSI: You did?
THE WITNESS: Yes, I did.
Q. BY MR. BUGLIOSI: Did you get up earlier than usual?
A. I don’t know.
Q. What happened after you arose that morning?
MR. KANAREK: Immaterial, your Honor. Irrelevant.
THE COURT: Overruled.
THE WITNESS: A few other people got up. I remember there was Leslie and Tex, and that guy that used to help Tex with his dune buggy, and Larry. Maybe there were more, I can’t remember.
I think Little Patty was there.
Anyway, we got into this man’s car that helps Tex with the dune buggy.
MR. BUGLIOSI: I have here a photograph of a female Caucasian.
May it be marked People’s 84 for identification?
THE COURT: It will be so marked.
Q. BY MR. BUGLIOSI: I show you People’s 84 for identification.
Do you know who is shown in that photograph?
A. Yes, Little Patti.
Q. What is the—
THE COURT: What was the name?
THE WITNESS: Little Patti.
Q. BY MR. BUGLIOSI: What is the next thing that happened?
A. We got into this man’s car. I know it was a Volkswagen, everybody was sitting on top of each other, and we drove back to the ranch.
I went into the trailer and I got dressed, you know, straight, you know, a similar dress. (Indicating) With nylons and shoes, and fixed my hair, and put makeup on.
And I want into the parachute room because Charlie was asleep with Stephanie, and I told him good bye.
Actually, I went into that room to get a bag that I had stashed with diapers, and I remember there were some candy and pins and things.
Q. Now, when you said goodbye, were you referring to going into town to see Mary again?
MR. KANAREK: Objection, your Honor. A conclusion, immaterial, irrelevant, hearsay. Her state of mind.
THE COURT: Overruled.
BY MR. BUGLIOSI:
Q. What I’m referring to, Linda, is were you trying to—I am concerned about your state of mind—were you trying to convey to Charlie that you were going into town to see Mary and Bobby Beausoleil and Sandra?
MR. KANAREK: Leading and suggestive, conclusion, hearsay, irrelevant and immaterial.
THE COURT: Sustained.
BY MR. BUGLIOSI:
Q. When you said goodbye to Mr. Manson, what were you trying to convey to him?
MR. KANAREK: Conclusion, hearsay, irrelevant.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. BUGLIOSI: Your Honor, I would like to make an offer of proof on this.
THE COURT: All right.
(Whereupon all counsel approach the bench and the following proceedings occurred at the bench outside of the hearing of the jury:)
MR. BUGLIOSI: The offer of proof, your Honor, is that she will testify that she was escaping from Spahn Ranch, and when she said goodbye to Charlie, she wanted Charlie to believe—this is her state of mind, and it is very relevant, as I indicated, Hope vs. Davidson, a witness can testify to their own state of mind on a relevant issue—she wanted to lead Charlie to believe that she was going into town again to see Mary and Beausoleil and Sandra. She did not mean goodbye Charlie forever.
Now, if the jury were to construe her remarks of goodbye to him that she was telling Charlie that she was going to leave, which she actually did do, and that Manson didn’t do anything about it, this would be strong circumstantial evidence for the defense that Manson hadn’t been involved in any murders for these two nights and he was permitting one of them who was involved to take off and he offered no objections.
So, your Honor, I would say that this is extremely crucial.
THE COURT: The conversation may be crucial, but what is in her mind isn’t.
MR. BUGLIOSI: All we have, your Honor, all we have is the word “goodbye” from her.
THE COURT: That is all Manson heard.
MR. BUGLIOSI: Pardon me?
THE COURT: That is all Manson heard if that is all that was said.
All of the unspoken thoughts in her head can’t place any interpretation in his mind as to what she meant.
MR. BUGLIOSI: All right. I see the point.
MR. KANAREK: Your Honor, if I may, I do make a motion, your Honor, that your Honor then adjourn these proceedings, continue these proceedings, and that your Honor appoint doctors, based upon the state of the record.
She said that she has taken LSD since 1965. The Court can take judicial notice of the effect of LSD upon the human mind. But over and above that, as a part of the record in this case, the Court can take notice of the declaration of Dr. Tweed, a psychiatrist who practices in this County and is appointed by judges of this Court in cases involving LSD, and I ask your Honor once again to appoint doctors, and I refer your Honor to our original motion that doctors be appointed on June the 12th, I believe it was, with the supporting declaration and affidavit.
We ask your Honor to take notice of the declaration of Rosaire Droun and the affidavit of this girl’s father.
THE COURT: I am familiar with your declaration.
I have seen no evidence whatsoever that this witness is in the slightest incompetent to testify.
Now, I am not passing any opinion on whether the witness is telling the truth. That is another matter. I am saying that there is no evidence that she is incompetent in any manner to testify or that she is presently laboring under any mental defect or deficiency of any kind.
Your motion is denied.
MR. SHINN: May I say something?
THE COURT: Yes.
MR. SHINN: I believe when a person testifies under oath that she has taken LSD, I believe neither the attorneys nor the Court nor the Judge can determine that. It takes a specialist to examine her to determine it.
We are not psychiatrists, your Honor. We are lawyers.
THE COURT: All right.
The motion is denied.
MR. SHINN: I join in Mr. Kanarek’s motion.
MR. BUGLIOSI: Are we going to take an adjournment?
THE COURT: Yes. We are going to adjourn at this time.
(Whereupon, all counsel return to their respective places at counsel table and the following proceedings occur 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 now recess until 2:00 p.m.
MR. KANAREK: Your Honor, may the witness be kept for a moment so I can bring a matter to the Court’s attention at this time? It is very important.
THE COURT: Not at this time, sir.
(Whereupon, at 12:02 p.m., the court was in recess.)
THE COURT: All parties, counsel and jurors are present,
You may proceed, Mr. Bugliosi.
MR. KANAREK: Your Honor, may we 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 would like the record to reflect that I, this afternoon, just after the Court recessed, I tried to speak with Linda Kasabian.
Two deputies, sergeant Hatchett, phoenetically, and Sergeant Gutierrez of the Sheriff’s Department told me that they would not let me speak with her without the permission of her attorney, who steadfastly refuses, that is, they both refuse, Gary Fleischman and Mr. Goldman refuse to allow me to speak with her, and Mr. Bugliosi was sitting right there.
And, your Honor, I allege on behalf of Mr. Manson that this is a denial of due process, and a fair trial because—and especially in view of the fact that she has not been granted her immunity yet.
She knows unless she says the right thing, the same thing will happen that has happened to Marry Brunner.
And I ask the Court to take judicial notice of the proceedings in the case of People vs. Manson—pardon me—in the case of People vs. Atkins, the so-called Gary Hinman murder, the case in which Bobby Beausoleil has purportedly been convicted of first-degree murder.
And I also ask the Court to take judicial notice of the proceedings of the Superior Court in the habeas corpus proceedings involving Mary Brunner wherein she was indicted in connection purportedly with the Gary Hinman matter.
All of these facts deny Mr. Manson the right that he is guaranteed to confront the witness, to speak with the witness.
I ask the Court to declare a mistrial.
MR. STOVITZ: Without admitting anything he says we submit the matter, your Honor.
MR. SHINN: Join in the motion.
MR. HUGHES: Join.
MR. BUGLIOSI: I could not hear too well, but did Mr. Kanarek say I did anything?
MR. STOVITZ: No, he did not.
MR. KANAREK: What I am saying, Mr. Bugliosi purports not to—that is, he verbalizes that it is all right for me to speak with her, but in the same breath be refers me to the Sheriff.
He refers me to her lawyers, and all of this—I ask the Court to take an evidentiary hearing, and I ask the Court to take evidence in connection with this matter under oath so that we will present the undisputed facts we are alleging.
THE COURT: What sort of relief are you asking for?
MR. KANAREK: The relief I am asking for—
THE COURT: Is this a motion, an objection, or what?
MR. KANAREK: That’s right. Well, the relief I am asking for is that we be allowed at this point of the proceedings to—
We previously have asked to take her deposition, your Honor.
THE COURT: For what purpose have you come to the bench?
MR. KANAREK: To ask the Court—to point these facts out to the Court and ask the Court to declare a mistrial.
I make a motion for a mistrial or, in the alternative, to instruct this lady that she should speak with us, to tell her.
THE COURT: Motion denied.
MR. BUGLIOSI: One further point, your Honor.
With respect to this “goodbye,” it is very relevant, and just to indicate that it is relevant, several spectators picked up the same issue that I mentioned to the Court before, and the Court said that I could not introduce into evidence what Manson’s state of mind was with respect to the “goodbye,” and I agree with the Court on that point, Linda telling him goodbye.
THE COURT: Your proposed question was to ask her what did she mean when she said goodbye, or what did she intend to convey?
MR. BUGLIOSI: I do intend to ask her, and I would ask the Court to permit this evidence to come in, what was her state of mind on that point. Again, Hope vs. Davidson. What was her state of mind?
THE COURT: What is the relevancy when all the events are over by then, the crimes have been completed?
MR. FITZGERALD: Your Honor, it is moot because the prosecution is attempting to rehabilitate a witness in advance of impeachment.
I can represent to the Court that we are certainly going to question her on cross-examination as to her complicity in these offenses; and certainly then, on redirect examination, they can attempt to rehabilitate her in terms of her culpability; but any attempt to rehabilitate a witness in advance of any issue along that line is improper.
MR. BUGLIOSI: This is not rehabilitation. I am merely asking her what is on her mind. This is SOP, standard operating procedure.
We are not dealing with automatons. She is engaged in certain conversations, and I am asking her what she means, her state of mind.
The Court’s position was that she can’t testify what is on someone else’s mind; but she can testify as to why she is doing certain things.
MR. KANAREK: Not at all, your Honor.
THE COURT: I take it you are not intending to ask her what she intended to convey?
MR. BUGLIOSI: No. Because the Court, I think properly, evaluated that. I am not going to ask her what she intended to convey, no. But I intend to ask her what was on her mind, what was her intent; not what she was trying to convey to anyone else, but did she intend to leave.
MR. KANAREK: It is immaterial and irrelevant and has nothing but prejudicial value, no probative value, because she is not a defendant here.
THE COURT: There is nothing pending at the moment, Mr. Kanarek.
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: Your Honor, I have here a photograph of a male Caucasian.
May it be marked People’s next in order?
THE CLERK: 85.
THE COURT: It will be so marked.
MR. BUGLIOSI: People’s 85.
I have here another photograph, your Honor, showing a telephone pole and a gate.
May it be marked People’s 86 for identification?
THE COURT: It will be so marked.
the witness on the stand at the time of the recess, resumed the stand and testified further as follows:
DIRECT EXAMINATION (CONTINUED)
BY MR. BUGLIOSI:
Q. I show you People’s 85 for identification, Linda.
Do you know who is shown in that photograph?
A. Yes. I didn’t know his name at the time, but he is the man that used to help Tex with his dune buggy.
Q. This is the man that was helping Tex with his dune buggy?
A. Yes.
Q. On what date?
A. He used to visit the ranch on and off.
Q. Okay.
Linda, we are going to again backtrack a little bit.
I show you People’s 86 for identification.
Do you know what is shown in that photograph?
A. Yes. It is the gate to the Tate residence and the telephone pole.
Q. All right.
Could you point out where Tex parked his car on this photograph here?
A. Right about there.
MR. BUGLIOSI: May I mark that with an X, your Honor, and put “Where Tex parked car”?
THE COURT: Yes.
(Mr. Bugliosi marks on the photograph.)
THE COURT: Mr. Bugliosi, so the record will be clear, after you marked these photographs, will you show them to the witness and ascertain whether the markings properly indicate her testimony?
MR. BUGLIOSI: Very well.
Q. Did you hear the Judge’s question, Linda?
A. That is correct.
Q. Okay.
Now, you indicated, I believe, two days ago, that you and Sadie and Katie and Tex went around the fence and climbed an embankment, is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. Could you draw a circle—strike that. Draw an arrow or indicate the path that you took in going over the fence on this photograph.
You might lean forward here.
(The witness marks.)
MR. BUGLIOSI: May I mark this “path defendants took in going over fence,” your Honor?
THE COURT: All right.
(Mr. Bugliosi marks the photograph.)
BY MR. BUGLIOSI: Do my markings correctly indicate the thrust of your testimony?
A. Yes, they do.
Q. Very well.
I believe you testified, Linda, that Mr. Manson told you to go into town and see Mary, Sandra and Bobby Beausoleil; is that correct?
MR. KANAREK: Leading and suggestive, an incompetent question, your Honor. I object to the form. What is in the record is in the record, your Honor.
MR. BUGLIOSI: Foundational.
MR. KANAREK: Irrelevant and immaterial.
THE COURT: There is something to the objection, Mr. Bugliosi. Put the question to her directly rather than with reference to her past testimony.
MR. BUGLIOSI: I was just trying to save time because of the two-hour recess. I was just laying a foundation.
I’ll go back and start all over again.
MR. KANAREK: We are not asking for that, your Honor.
MR. BUGLIOSI: If you are not asking for that—
THE COURT: Just put the question directly rather than with reference to prior testimony is what I am referring to.
MR. BUGLIOSI: Yes, sir.
Q. Did Mr. Manson ask you to go into town and see Mary and Sandra and Bobby Beausoleil?
MR. KANAREK: Leading and suggestive and, furthermore, asked and answered, your Honor.
THE COURT: Sustained on the grounds it is leading and suggestive.
MR. BUGLIOSI: Did Manson, after these two nights that you have been testifying to, ask you at any time to go into town?
MR. KANAREK: Object, your Honor, leading and suggestive, asked and answered.
THE COURT: Overruled.
THE WITNESS: Yes, he did.
MR. BUGLIOSI: Q. When did he ask you to go into town?
MR. KANAREK: Asked and answered, your Honor.
THE COURT: Overruled.
THE WITNESS: The next morning.
Q. BY MR. BUGLIOSI: And did he ask you to do anything?
MR. KANAREK: Object, asked and answered, your Honor.
THE COURT: Overruled.
THE WITNESS: Yes, he did.
Q. BY MR. BUGLIOSI: What did he ask you to do?
MR. KANAREK: Asked and answered, your Honor.
THE COURT: Overruled.
THE WITNESS: He asked me to go to the jail and visit Mary and Sandra, and also to go and visit Bobby Beausoleil.
Q. Were you successful in actually contacting these three people?
A. No.
MR. KANAREK: I would ask that the previous answer—
THE COURT: This has been gone over already, Mr. Bugliosi.
MR. BUGLIOSI: This is foundational for something else that I would like to go into, and I would like to place it in its proper perspective.
THE COURT: The foundation has been laid.
MR. KANAREK: I ask that the previous answer be stricken, your Honor.
THE COURT: The motion is denied.
BY MR. BUGLIOSI:
Q. After you came back from town, after attempting to see Bobby and Sandra and Mary, did Mr. Manson tell you anything else with respect to them?
MR. KANAREK: Immaterial, irrelevant, hearsay.
THE COURT: Overruled.
THE WITNESS: Yes, he did.
BY MR. BUGLIOSI:
Q. What did he tell you?
MR. KANAREK: Immaterial, irrelevant hearsay.
THE COURT: You may answer.
THE WITNESS: He told me to go again tomorrow.
BY MR. BUGLIOSI:
Q. He told you to go the following day?
A. Yes.
Q. In the morning?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, the following day did you see Mr. Manson?
MR. KANAREK: Immaterial, irrelevant—
THE COURT: Overruled.
THE WITNESS: Yes, I did.
BY MR. BUGLIOSI:
Q. About what time was it when you first saw him?
MR. KANAREK: Immaterial and irrelevant, your Honor.
THE COURT: Overruled.
THE WITNESS: Early in the morning.
BY MR. BUGLIOSI:
Q. Where was Mr. Manson, when you saw him?
A. He was in the parachute room.
Q. And who was he with?
A. The new girl, Stephanie I believe is her name.
Q. What did you tell Mr. Manson?
MR. KANAREK: I object, your Honor, hearsay, incompetent, irrelevant, immaterial, improper foundation.
THE COURT: Overruled.
THE WITNESS: “Goodbye.”
BY MR. BUGLIOSI:
Q. Were you supposed to go into town at that time?
MR. KANAREK: Object, calling for a conclusion, hearsay, incompetent, and irrelevant.
MR. BUGLIOSI: She is the best person, your Honor, to testify to what she was going to do.
THE COURT: Sustained.
BY MR. BUGLIOSI:
Q. Did you intend to go into town to see Mary and Bobby and Sandra when you told Mr. Manson “goodbye”?
MR. KANAREK: May I be heard, your Honor, first, before the witness has any opportunity to answer, your Honor.
It is not competent. It is not relevant.
It calls for hearsay and a conclusion on her part. She is a witness here; she is not on the stand as a defendant.
THE COURT: Anything further?
MR. KANAREK: It has nothing but prejudicial value—yes, your Honor.
THE COURT: The question is improper in form.
The objection is sustained.
BY MR. BUGLIOSI:
Q. When you said “goodbye” to Mr. Manson, did you intend to leave Spahn Ranch forever?
MR. KANAREK: I object, your Honor, on the grounds it’s calling for conclusion; it solicits hearsay; it’s incompetent and it’s irrelevant.
MR. BUGLIOSI: I will withdraw that question, your Honor.
BY MR. BUGLIOSI:
Q. When you said goodbye to Mr. Manson did you intend to leave Los Angeles?
MR. KANAREK: I object, your Honor, it’s the same question; it’s incompetent. It is not relevant. It solicits a conclusion.
It is hearsay; it is prejudicial; it is offered for prejudicial value only.
THE COURT: Overruled. You may answer.
THE WITNESS: Yes, I did.
BY MR. BUGLIOSI:
Q. Did you tell Mr. Manson that you intended to leave Los Angeles?
MR. KANAREK: Incompetent, irrelevant—
THE COURT: Overruled.
THE WITNESS: No, I did not.
MR. KANAREK: Solicitation of hearsay.
BY MR. BUGLIOSI:
Q. Why didn’t you tell him?
MR. KANAREK: I object on the ground it is not competent or relevant, no materiality; it is hearsay; it is a conclusion.
THE COURT: Overruled.
THE WITNESS: I was afraid to tell him.
BY MR. BUGLIOSI:
Q. How were you dressed at the time you said goodbye to Mr. Manson?
MR. KANAREK: Irrelevant, your Honor.
THE COURT: Overruled.
THE WITNESS: I had on a green dress. I believe there was some sort of a white collar, some sort of a thing up here, and I had nylon stockings on, and I forget the shoes.
And I had makeup on my face, and my hair was teased and fixed behind my ears.
BY MR. BUGLIOSI:
Q. Was this the same dress you wore preciously when you went to town?
MR. KANAREK: Immaterial, irrelevant.
THE COURT: Overruled.
THE WITNESS: Yes, it is.
BY MR. BUGLIOSI:
Q. When you said goodbye to Mr. Manson, did he say anything to you?
MR. KANAREK: Objection, solicitation of hearsay, calls for conclusion, it’s not competent, it’s not relevant.
THE COURT: Overruled.
THE WITNESS: Yes, he just said “bye.”
BY MR. BUGLIOSI:
Q. What is the next thing you did?
MR. KANAREK: Immaterial, your Honor.
THE COURT: Overruled.
THE WITNESS: I left the parachute room and I walked in front of the Ranch—
No, excuse me—
I walked down the end of the front building towards the corral and I spoke with the owner of the car, I believe his name is Dave Hannum, I did not know his name at the time.
And also Bruce Davis was there, and he gave me a credit card, a Shell credit card and $2, and I said “Goodbye.”
Q. BY MR. BUGLIOSI: Did you tell Mr. Hannum where you were going with this car?
MR. KANAREK: Immaterial, your Honor, irrelevant, solicitation of hearsay, conclusion.
THE COURT: Overruled.
THE WITNESS: No, I think he knew from the previous day that I was going to do the same thing or he thought I was going to do the same thing.
Q. BY MR. BUGLIOSI: In other words, go into town—
MR. KANAREK: May the last answer be stricken?
THE COURT: The answer is stricken. The jury is admonished to disregard it.
Q. BY MR. BUGLIOSI: The previous day you also received Mr. Hannum’s car?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. Did you tell him why you wanted the car at that point?
MR. KANAREK: Hearsay, conclusion.
THE COURT: Overruled.
THE WITNESS: Yes, I did.
Q. BY MR. BUGLIOSI: What did you tell him?
MR. KANAREK: Immaterial, hearsay, irrelevant.
THE COURT: Overruled.
THE WITNESS: I had to go to town to see a few people.
Q. BY MR. BUGLIOSI: Now, this last day that you are talking about you also asked him for the car?
MR. KANAREK: Leading and suggestive, your Honor.
THE COURT: Overruled.
THE WITNESS: Yes, I did.
Q. BY MR. BUGLIOSI: Why did you want the car this second day?
MR. KANAREK: It’s incompetent, it’s not relevant. It calls for a conclusion and hearsay.
THE COURT: Overruled. You may answer.
THE WITNESS: I wanted it to escape.
Q. BY MR. BUGLIOSI: Did you tell Mr. Hannum you wanted his car to escape?
MR. KANAREK: Object on the ground it is leading and suggestive, it calls for a conclusion, it’s hearsay; it is immaterial.
THE COURT: Overruled.
THE WITNESS: No, I did not.
Q. BY MR. BUGLIOSI: Did you tell Bruce Davis that you wanted to escape?
MR. KANAREK: Your Honor, I must object on the grounds that whether she told President Nixon or anyone else—he can go down the line indefinitely—
THE COURT: Overruled.
THE WITNESS: No, I did not.
Q. BY MR. BUGLIOSI: Did you then get Mr. Hannum’s car?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. Do you know what type of car it was?
A. I believe it was a Volvo. It had a back seat; it was white, it was fairly new.
Q. What was the next thing you did?
MR. KANAREK: It’s not material, it’s not relevant as to what this lady is doing at this time.
It has no bearing on the matters that are before the Court now.
THE COURT: Overruled.
THE WITNESS: I got into the car and I drove away. I drove from the ranch, and I stopped and got out of the car beside where I placed my sleeping bag, picked it up, put it in the back seat and continued to drive.
Q. BY MR. BUGLIOSI: Did you look for Tanya?
A. No, because I knew she was at the waterfall
Q. Who was she with?
A. She was in the care of a friend of mine when I last saw her.
Q. Was there any reason you did not stop and pick up Tanya?
MR. KANAREK: I object on the ground it is calling for a conclusion of the witness; it’s not competent, relevant, and it’s hearsay.
THE COURT: Overruled.
THE WITNESS: She was with the whole family and there was no way without being questioned that I could go down there and take her.
Q. BY MR. BUGLIOSI: So you left the Spahn Ranch then in Mr. Hannum’s Volvo?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. Why did you leave the Spahn Ranch without Tanya?
MR. KANAREK: I object, your Honor, calling for a conclusion, hearsay, immaterial, irrelevant.
THE COURT: Hasn’t that been asked and answered, Mr. Bugliosi?
MR. BUGLIOSI: Not quite, your Honor. It goes toward a different point.
I would make an offer of proof on it.
THE COURT: Overruled, you may answer.
THE WITNESS: I knew that I had to leave, and something within myself told me that Tanya would be all right; that nothing would happen to her, and that now was the time to leave, and that I knew I would come back and get her.
I was just confident that she would be all right.
Q. BY MR. BUGLIOSI: After you drove off from Spahn Ranch where did you drive to?
MR. KANAREK: That is immaterial, your Honor.
THE COURT: Overruled.
THE WITNESS: Well, the day before I picked up two young hitchhikers, and I told them basically about my plan, that I was escaping from this place, I had to get my daughter, and they had credit cards which were legal; they were their own credit cards and they were going to pay for the gas if I gave them a ride to New Mexico.
So I told them I would pick them up the next day, which I did.
Q. Where did you pick them up at?
A. I know it was in the vicinity—I don’t know the name of the area.
Q. The vicinity of what?
A. The ranch, maybe two or three or four miles away.
Q. Did you in fact pick them up?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. About what time of the day was it?
A. It was early morning.
Q. 7:00, 8:00 o’clock?
A. Yes.
Q. After you picked them up, then what happened?
A. We just drove, just kept driving straight to New Mexico and—
Q. Did you have any trouble with the car en route?
A. Yes, it broke down in Albuquerque.
Q. What happened at that time?
A. I hitchhiked into Albuquerque.
We were actually about 20 miles outside of the town itself.
So I hitchhiked into town and spoke with the towing man, and those guys were not willing to pay for the car repair and tow truck.
So I used the credit card that Bruce gave me and the man called up on the card, and said it was illegal, and so I had to leave the car there.
Q. In Albuquerque?
A. At the gas station, yes, in Albuquerque.
Q. Did you inform Mr. Hannum where his car was?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. How did you do that?
A. I wrote the Family a letter and enclosed the keys and told them where the car was and it would cost $20 to pick it up.
Q. What did you do after you left the car in Albuquerque?
A. I hitchhiked to Taos.
Q. T-a-o-s?
A. Yes.
Q. Is that in New Mexico?
A. Yes, it is.
Q. Why did you go to Taos?
A. Because that in the last place I saw say husband—excuse me, I don’t know if I saw him there, that is not correct, excuse me.
I had an idea that he was there.
Q. You are referring to your husband, Bob?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you hitchhike to Taos by yourself?
A. No, there was another hitchhiker that we picked up, I believe in Gallup, New Mexico.
Q. And you and he then continued to Taos?
A. Yes.
Q. After you arrived at Taos, New Mexico what did you do?
A. Oh, I spent the night at the hot springs, it’s called Yano Kimano, Ranchos de Taos.
It is a few miles outside of Taos itself, and it’s a commune, and I had a feeling maybe Bob might be here, or somebody might know where he was.
People told me he was up in Cuesta, at a commune called Lorien.
So I hitchhiked up there the next day and I found him and I just told him what I have told you the last couple of days, not in great detail, but just basically that I witnessed these murders and I would not go into it again, I told him—
Q. All right, what happened next?
A. I told him that Tanya was still back there, and he told me that we had to go back.
And I said, “Yes, I know,” “I’m afraid to to back because I am afraid we will be killed.”
So he said, “Well, he was living with another woman at the time, Susan,” and he said, “Well, I will send Susan back.”
And I said “No, that wouldn’t work either.”
So he said to give him the day, and he would think, you know, some way to go back and get Tanya out.
And I could not stay with him because he was with another woman, so I hitchhiked back into Taos, and went to Joe Sage’s house, whom I met earlier.
Q. Who is this Joe Sage?
A. He ran a—it is called Zen Buddhist Macrobiotic Retreat.
He was known for helping people in trouble, giving assistance to people and things like this.
Q. Is this why you went to him?
A. Yes.
Q. You may continue, what happened next?
A. And I asked him for $100 to take a plane back.
At first I would not tell him. I just came out and asked him for $100 to take a plane to Los Angeles; that my baby was there and I had to go and get her.
And he kept questioning me. He was not willing to help me unless I told him.
So I just very very barely went into it.
I told him I knew about the Sharon Tate murders and the people that had Tanya were these people that killed Sharon Tate, and that is basically what I told him.
Q. When you told him this, Linda—
MR. KANAREK: May she be allowed to finish, I think Mr. Bugliosi is interrupting.
THE WITNESS: I finished my answer.
BY MR. BUGLIOSI:
Q. When you told Joe Sage this, was any other person present?
A. Yes, there was.
Q. Who was?
A. A boy named Jeffrey.
Q. Did Joe Sage eventually give you some money?
A. Yes, he did.
Q. How much money did he give you?
A. He gave me a two-way ticket to Los Angeles and back.
Q. He did not actually give you money then?
A. Yes, he gave me the actual money, yes, but it was exactly enough for there and back.
Q. Did you buy a ticket?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. On an airplane?
A. Yes.
Q. And you flew back to Los Angeles?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. Do you know approximately when you flew back to Los Angeles?
A. Well, it took a few days to find out, because in the meantime from what Joe Sage told me—
Q. Without going into hearsay—
MR. KANAREK: Well, your Honor, if we are going into it, let’s hear the hearsay.
THE COURT: Do you have an objection to make, Mr. Kanarek?
MR. KANAREK: Yes, your Honor.
THE COURT: Then state it, sir.
MR. KANAREK: The objection is Mr. Bugliosi is interrupting the witness.
THE COURT: I don’t want to hear any argument, sir. You made your objection.
Had you completed your answer?
THE WITNESS: No, not really.
THE COURT: All right, go ahead.
THE WITNESS: I feel I have to say this to relate how long it took me to get back.
BY MR. BUGLIOSI:
Q. Go ahead.
A. From what Joe told me, he called Charlie at the Ranch and asked Charlie if what I had told him is the truth, and he said that Charlie said that I flipped out and my ego was not ready to die and I ran away.
Q. Joe Sage told you that Charlie told him this about you?
A. Yes, and so then I remember I called the Ranch, at first I asked for Charlie and he was not there and I believe I spoke with Squeaky.
I really cannot remember the conversation.
I asked her where Tanya was, and she told me they got busted, they got arrested, and that Tanya was in a foster home.
And I believe she gave me the name of the social worker or something, I am not sure of that.
And then I spoke with Patty Krenwinkel, and she said something to the effect, “You just couldn’t wait to open your big mouth, could you?”
And I said, “Well, you don’t have to worry about this man, he is not going to say anything,” or something like that.
Q. Referring to Joe Sage?
A. Yes.
Then I remember, I made a phone call to the Malibu Police station inquiring about my child, where she had been taken, and he gave me the name of some social worker.
Then I called the social worker. And the time was just perfect because apparently someone from the Family had gone in there and said that Tanya had belonged to her, and I had called at the right moment and told them that that was not the truth, and that I am the mother and I am coming to get her, and I am coming the next day. And I went.
Q. You say you flew in from Taos to Los Angeles?
A. To Los Angeles, right.
Q. About how many days after you left the Spahn Ranch did you return to Los Angeles?
A. Excuse me?
Q. Well, that is apparently a bad question.
You say you flew back to Los Angeles?
A. Yes.
Q. How long had you been gone from Los Angeles?
A. From Los Angeles?
Q. Yes. You indicated you left—
A. Oh, yes, I understand.
Maybe a week. Four days, a week, I am not sure.
Q. After you arrived in Los Angeles, were you able to get Tanya back?
A. Eventually. It took a while. I had to find a lawyer.
First I went to see the social worker, and we spoke, and I told them that I really wanted my child back, that I left her with these people.
And he set up an appointment, and I went and saw Tanya that afternoon. I was very upset because I couldn’t take her then and there. I couldn’t understand the red tape and things like that.
And I asked them if it would help me to get Tanya back if I had an attorney, and they said yes.
So, I went to a person that I had met a year before, Paul Rosenberg, in Topanga, in the meantime, he was in the process of getting a divorce, and his wife was living at this house.
I told her that my child was in custody and that I needed help, and she gave me the name of Mr. Fleischman.
And I called Mr. Fleischman—
Q. You mean Gary Fleischman?
A. Yes.
Q. Is Mr. Fleischman in court now?
A. Yes.
MR. BUGLIOSI: Would you stand up, sir?
(Mr. Gary Fleischman stands up.)
MR. BUGLIOSI: Q. Is the man that stood up Gary Fleischman?
A. Yes.
Q. Your attorney?
A. Yes.
Q. Go ahead.
A. And I met with Fleischman and I told him that my child was in custody.
He asked me why I left, and I told him I went to find my husband.
I sort of evaded the truth. I couldn’t come right out and tell him that I knew about these things. I didn’t know him and I was very much afraid, and I was just more concerned with getting my child back.
So he told me, you know, okay, I will get your child.
And I flew back to Taos.
Q. Did you have Tanya at that time?
A. Oh, no.
Q. You still hadn’t gotten Tanya?
A. No.
Q. You may continue.
A. And it took about three weeks, I guess, to get her back, you know, all the red tape and all those things I had to go through, and the day came when I was supposed to make the appearance in court for Tanya.
Joe Sage gave me a $600 check to pay my attorney and also the plane fare to and from.
So, I went and I made the court appearance, and the Judge granted my child to me.
Then we drove out to, I believe, Saugus, where she was kept, to the foster home, and Tanya was there waiting for me, and I took her back with me.
Q. Took her back where?
A. Taos.
Q. How long did you stay in Taos?
A. Well, I stayed with Joe Saga for a day or two days, and then I went up to Ojo Sarco.
Q. What is located there?
A. It is a small house where we used to live a year before.
Q. You and Bob?
A. Bob and a bunch of other people, and this is where Bob had gone since then.
I sort of had it in my head, you know, now that I have got Tanya, you know, maybe we could get back together, you know. I needed his help.
But no, he still was on this trip with some other girl. So, I went to live with some friends down the road.
Q. Is this kind of a hippy area, Taos, New Mexico?
A. Taos?
Q. Yes.
A. Well, it is an artists’ colony and it is a Pueblo Indian colony, and it is a Mexican colony, and recently it has turned into a hippie colony, if you want to give it a name.
Q. You went down the road where Bob was staying with Susan?
A. Yes.
Q. How long did you stay there?
A. About two or three weeks.
Q. What did you do after that?
A. I felt that I had to get Tanya back East. I wanted to go back to my mother’s house.
In the meantime, I was pregnant, you know. I was starting to show.
Q. Pregnant with Angel?
A. Yes. And I had no money. And I remember I made a few phone calls to get some money, but there was just none.
So, I started hitchhiking to Florida, because my father was in Florida.
Q. Miami?
A. Miami, right.
I got to Florida and I stayed—
Q. Very well. You hitchhiked—
MR. KANAREK: Your honor, he is interrupting her. If I may, your Honor.
MR. BUGLIOSI: This is not an interruption.
THE COURT: Are you making an objection?
MR. KANAREK: Yes, your Honor.
THE COURT: What is the objection?
MR. KANAREK: The objection is equal protection of the law.
I am asking, since Mr. Bugliosi at this time is interrupting, that—
THE COURT: What was the objection again?
MR. KANAREK: The objection is that he is interrupting, and your Honor has specified that there should not be any interruptions.
I would ask, if the witness is saying something that perhaps Mr. Bugliosi doesn’t wish to hear and he is interrupting her, I would ask—
MR. BUGLIOSI: Your Honor, I would ask the Court to tell Mr. Kanarek not to make inflammatory remarks such as that.
THE COURT: Let’s proceed. I don’t want to hear any more from either of you.
Q. BY MR. BUGLIOSI: Did you hitchhike from Taos to Miami, Florida?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. With Tanya?
A. Yes.
Q. And you were given rides along the way?
A. Yes.
Q. What happened after you arrived in Miami?
A. I met my father the next day.
Q. Is your father separated from your mother?
A. Yes. They have been separated for maybe 12, 13, 14 years.
Q. And your father works in Miami?
A. Yes.
Q. So after you met your father, what happened?
A. I stayed—well, he got me a small place in Miami Beach, and it was sort of like, to me it was like a vacation, just to unwind, and I tried to forget about all these things. I didn’t want to remember it any more. I just wanted to forget about it, and I couldn’t, and I kept reading newspapers and seeing horrible things.
And at one point I thought about getting in touch with people related, you know—you people, or relatives to these people that were killed or something.
I just couldn’t. I was too much afraid and too much pregnant, and I had Tanya with me. So I didn’t do it.
Q. Did you have any other reason for not telling the authorities?
A. That is it. I just told you, I was afraid, I was pregnant, I had Tanya, and I had this thing in my head about police, you know, that you don’t go to the police.
Q. Okay.
What is the next thing that happened?
A. My father gave me plane fare to go to Boston, which I did, and my brother picked me up in Boston.
Q. And you went home?
A. To my mother’s house, yes.
Q. Do you know approximately when you arrived at your mother’s home?
A. I believe it was about the middle of November, the second week in November, something like that.
Q. How long did you stay at your mother’s place?
A. Up until I was arrested.
Q. What were the circumstances surrounding your arrest?
MR. FITZGERALD: Objection, your Honor. I think this is immaterial and irrelevant.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. BUGLIOSI: Q. When did you eventually come back to Los Angeles?
MR. KANAREK: Immaterial, your Honor, irrelevant.
THE COURT: I think it is ambiguous, Mr. Bugliosi. Sustained on that ground.
MR. BUGLIOSI: All right. I will withdraw that question, your Honor.
Q. Do you know when you were arrested? What date?
MR. KANAREK: That is immaterial, your Honor, irrelevant.
THE COURT: Overruled.
THE WITNESS: No, I don’t know the date.
Q. BY MR. BUGLIOSI: While you were with your—strike that.
Was it in December of 1969?
A. Yes, it was.
Q. Early December?
A. Yes.
Q. While you were with your mother, living with her, did you hear over the radio or anywhere that you were wanted for these murders?
A. Yes.
When you said goodbye to Mr. Manson did you intend to leave Los Angeles? I object, your Honor, on the grounds it is immaterial and irrelevant and a conclusion.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. BUGLIOSI: May I have just a moment, your Honor?
THE COURT: Yes.
(Mr. Bugliosi and Mr. Stovitz confer.)
MR. BUGLIOSI: Q. Linda, did you surrender to the police or did the police come out and place you under arrest?
MR. KANAREK: Immaterial, your Honor, irrelevant.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. BUGLIOSI: Q. After you were placed under arrest, did your attorney, Mr. Fleischman, get in touch with you?
MR. KANAREK: Immaterial, irrelevant, conclusion and hearsay.
THE COURT: Overruled.
THE WITNESS: Yes, he did.
BY MR. BUGLIOSI:
Q. Did he give you any advice?
MR. KANAREK: I object, your Honor. That is hearsay, it’s a conclusion, it is immaterial and it is irrelevant.
And also, I will use the attorney-client privilege. Mr. Fleischman is here.
MR. BUGLIOSI: Your Honor, may I approach the bench on this?
THE COURT: Very well.
MR. FITZGERALD: I will object to Mr. Kanarek’s objection.
THE COURT: I couldn’t hear.
MR. FITZGERALD: I would object to Mr. Kanarek’s objection and ask the Court to allow the witness to finish.
(Whereupon all counsel approach the bench and the following proceedings occur at the bench outside of the hearing of the jury:)
MR. FITZGERALD: I realize my statement might be a little unusual—
THE COURT: Let’s wait until the prosecution gets here.
Very well.
MR. FITZGERALD: I realize my statement might be a little unusual but I’d just as soon allow the witness to answer so that she might waive the attorney-client privilege.
THE COURT: I don’t think that Mr. Kanarek is in any position to assert an attorney-client privilege as to Mrs. Kasabian.
MR. BUGLIOSI: Your Honor, I think her conduct and her state of mind at this point is extremely relevant.
We have people like Tex Watson who are vigorously resisting extradition. We have people like Patricia Krenwinkel, who resisted extradition for quite a while. We are trying to show the jury that from the very moment she got involved with these people in the two nights of murder, she was filled with guilt and remorse and wanted to tell the truth, that she gave herself up and didn’t fight extradition, that she came back voluntarily.
I think it is extremely important with respect to the type of girl she is, with respect to her credibility.
It goes to the issue of whether she is an accomplice, it goes toward many issues, and I would respectfully request that you permit it.
THE COURT: This is long after the conspiracy was ended, so it couldn’t go to that.
MR. BUGLIOSI: It can reflect back, your Honor. There are many, many cases of that.
For instance, you can put on evidence a year after a particular act as circumstantial evidence as to what the state of mind was at the time that the act was engaged in. Also, you can look at the conduct a year later.
When you are talking about state of mind, I don’t think you have to look at the conduct at the time in question. You are not limited to that. You can look at the conduct prior to the act in question and conduct subsequent to the act in question as reflective on state of mind at the time of the act in question.
MR. STOVITZ: I was going to say, your Honor, the record is unclear.
Actually, she heard that she was being wanted and she, through her mother, arranged for her surrender.
Just as evidence of flight shows a consciousness of guilt, evidence of surrender may show an innocence of purpose.
MR. BUGLIOSI: Some of these statements are not offered for the truth of the matter asserted.
For instance, if she hears over the radio that she is wanted for murder, we are not asking that to prove that she was in fact wanted for murder, but her state of mind was that she was wanted for murder and she decided not to fight it and come back.
I think that shows the type of girl she is. She could have gone into hiding, she could have run away.
I just think, your Honor, again, it is one of those fundamental things.
THE COURT: I can see how at some stage of the proceedings it might become relevant, but I can’t see how it is relevant at the moment.
MR. STOVITZ: Another matter, your Honor.
What do we have, about two minutes to go with this witness?
MR. BUGLIOSI: Yes.
MR. STOVITZ: I was wondering if you could delay the afternoon recess until we get finished with the witness?
THE COURT: Until when?
MR. STOVITZ: We have another few questions, that is all. If we could not have our afternoon recess until we are finished with the witness.
THE COURT: That is all right. Assuming you don’t go too long.
We won’t take the recess for another ten minutes
MR. BUGLIOSI: But the circumstances surrounding her arrest seem so fundamental. She is charged with seven counts of murder. We intend to go into the arrest of Patricia Krenwinkel in Mobile, Alabama showing her furtive conduct as showing a consciousness of guilt. Apparently she pulled down her hat over her face when the police drove by.
THE COURT: Yes, but she is a defendant being tried. Kasabian is not.
MR. BUGLIOSI: I grant you that, your Honor.
This goes toward the issue of her credibility as a witness, the type of person she is. It goes toward the issue of whether she was an accomplice.
I don’t think it comes in against her co-defendants. We are not asking that it come in against her co-defendants.
THE COURT: I don’t see it at this time, Mr. Bugliosi. As I say, it may very well become relevant at some future date, perhaps it is something that can be used on rebuttal. I have no way of knowing at this point.
I just don’t see that it is relevant now as to this witness.
MR. SHINN: May I say something?
THE COURT: Yes.
MR. SHINN: I think Mr. Bugliosi is jumping again from witness to defendant.
The statement she is going to make that she came back voluntarily is a self-serving statement, is she a witness or is she a defendant?
THE COURT: I have indicated that I will sustain the objection.
MR. BUGLIOSI: I would like to make this request, your Honor: Before the defense commences their cross-examination, could we have a rather lengthy hearing back in chambers as to what they intend to go into with respect to other crimes, if any, that they are going to cross-examine her on?
To permit them to ask a question like this—hypothetically—“isn’t it true that you stole $5,000” or “that you forged someone’s name to a check”? and then have Mr. Stovitz and I jump up and object, it looks like we are trying to conceal something.
I think there should he some hearing here as to the admissiblity of many of these things.
THE COURT: They will be bound by the same rules of cross-examination as any other lawyer is.
MR. FITZGERALD: I will represent to the Court that before I get into any other offenses I will ask to approach the bench.
MR. BUGLIOSI: Okay.
Very good. No problem.
MR. FITZGERALD: I will let you know.
THE COURT: I assume counsel are aware of the rules, and if they have any doubt about them, why, the matter should be taken up out of the presence of the jury first.
MR. BUGLIOSI: Because, as far as I know, your Honor, the only type of crime that you can bring in for impeachment purposes is a conviction of a felony.
THE COURT: That’s right.
MR. BUGLIOSI: Unless the commission of the crime is somehow relevant to the issue in the case. But just the fact that some person has committed a crime that is unrelated to the case, I don’t think they can go into that.
THE COURT: The law is perfectly clear on that.
MR. KANAREK: Based upon that statement, your Honor, I once again ask for a mistrial.
Mr. Bugliosi, in the presence of the jury, brought in irrelevant evidence that Mr. Manson committed rape, mass rape, upon this 16-year old girl; that he committed felonious conduct, and that Mr. Beausoleil committed felonious conduct.
He speaks out of both sides of his mouth, your Honor.
THE COURT: Mr. Kanarek, let me say that that is one of the most preposterous objections I have heard in a long time.
MR. KANAREK: Your Honor is certainly familiar with what I am alluding to.
He allowed this testimony to come in about that 16-year-old girl that Mr. Manson supposedly mistreated in the presence of all the other people. That is what I am speaking of. That was rape, your Honor.
THE COURT: Is there a motion of some kind?
MR. KANAREK: Your Honor, I am saying—
THE COURT: Do you want me to rule on something?
MR. KANAREK: I am reinstituting my request that your Honor create a mistrial because of that.
THE COURT: The motion is denied. Let’s proceed.
(Whereupon all counsel returned to their respective places at the counsel table and the following proceedings occurred in open court within the presence and hearing of the jury:)
BY MR. BEAUSOLEIL: [sic]
Q. You were brought back, then, to Los Angeles by the authorities in early December, 1969?
MR. KANAREK: Immaterial, your Honor, irrelevant.
THE COURT: Overruled.
THE WITNESS: Yes, that is correct.
BY MR. BUGLIOSI:
Q. You have been in custody ever since?
A. Yes, I have.
Q. And you had your child Angel while you were in custody?
A. Yes, I did.
MR. BUGLIOSI: No further questions.
The defense may inquire.
THE COURT: All right, gentlemen, I think we will take our afternoon recess before the cross-examination commences.
Ladies and gentlemen, do not converse with anyone nor form or express any opinions 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.
Mr. Fitzgerald, you may cross-examine.
MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you.
CROSS-EXAMINATION
BY MR. FITZGERALD:
Q. May I address you as Mrs. Kasabian?
A. If you like.
Q. You testified this morning, did you not, that you had taken LSD 50 times, is that correct?
A. Approximately, yes.
Q. What is LSD?
A. Lysergic acid diethylamide—something like that.
Q. Is it a chemical?
A. Yes, it is.
Q. Is it usually in tablet form?
A. It comes in various forms.
Q. Does it come in liquid occasionally?
A. Yes.
Q. Does it come in any other forms that you know of?
A. No.
Q. Liquid and tablets?
A. Yes, capsules—excuse me.
Q. Have you seen different colored capsules?
A. Yes.
Q. Different sized capsules?
A. Yes.
Q. Have you seen it in tablet form as opposed to capsule form?
A. Yes.
Q. Have you seen it in different color tablets?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you recall when you first ingested LSD?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. When was that and where was it?
A. It was in Boston, it was Christmas eve of ’65.
Q. Is the taking of LSD referred to in some fashion?
A. I don’t understand your question.
Q. Did you during the times you took LSD experience anything?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. Were those experiences usually of the same character?
A. Usually, depending on my surroundings.
Q. Would you have the same experience each time you ingested the LSD?
A. Yes.
Q. And is there some way to describe the experiences that you would experience while you were taking LSD?
A. I would call it realization.
Q. Did it appear to you that when you took LSD it affected your normal thought processes?
A. No, not really.
Q. How long does it usually take when you ingest LSD for it to take effect?
A. It depends on the acid.
Q. I did not hear that.
A. It depends on the acid.
Q. It depends on the quality?
A. The quality, yes.
Q. Acid is another name for lysergic acid diethylamide?
A. Yes.
Q. It also depends on the dosage?
A. Yes.
Q. Have you taken LSD in different dosages?
A. I never knew the exact dosage, no.
Q. Was there some reason you never knew the exact dosage?
A. Well, the dosage was not usually inscribed on the capsule or tablet, so I don’t know.
Q. It is usually obtained through illegal sources, isn’t that correct?
A. I suppose.
Q. Well, I am asking you about your experience.
A. I never obtained it illegally.
Q. Did you ever obtain it legally?
A. Well, I’m not quite sure what you mean by legal and illegal.
Q. Well, for example if you go to a doctor or drugstore and you have prescribed dosage, or frequently one knows what dosage or tablet or drug one has taken.
A. Yes.
Q. With lysergic acid you were unable to determine what dosage you were taking, is that correct?
A. Yes, that’s correct.
Q. Do you know the unit of measure to describe the dosage of LSD?
A. No.
Q. For example, does it come in milligrams, micrograms, grams?
A. I think micrograms sounds right.
Q. Would the mental state you were able to achieve be increased or altered by taking greater dosages of LSD?
A. Yes.
Q. Would it be fair to say that one could take a light dose; one could take a medium does; and one could also take a heavy dose?
A. Yes.
Q. And do you have an idea in your mind as to what a light dose is, a medium dose and a heavy dose is?
A. Yes.
Q. In describing your 50 LSD experiences, were they usually of the minor dose or medium dose or large dose?
A. A little of all.
Q. Now, how were you able to arrive at the approximate figure of 50 LSD experiences?
A. Because I can usually remember the exact trips.
Q. You are able to recall 50 separate and distinct LSD experiences?
A. Well, approximately 50.
Q. Is the nature of an LSD experience to you a vivid experience that is easily remembered?
A. Yes.
Q. And you do not have a great deal of difficulty recalling what you experienced during LSD states, is that correct?
A. No.
Q. Have you ever had a similar experience with any other drug or non-drug?
A. Yes.
Q. With another drug?
A. And non-drug. By drug I mean chemical.
Q. You have also ingested peyote, have you not?
A. Yes, I have.
Q. What is peyote?
A. Peyote is a cactus.
Q. Is the correct pronunciation peyote?
A. I call it peyote.
Q. I am sorry for interrupting you. Would you describe what that is?
A. It is a form of a cactus and it looks like a button, and it grows in Southern Texas.
Q. Is it a hallucinogenic drug?
A. Yeah, I guess you could call it that.
Q. Is LSD a hallucinogenic drug?
A. Yes.
Q. Would it be fair to say then that in LSD states you have had hallucinations?
A. Yes.
Q. And would it be fair to say that under—strike that.
Would it be fair to say that while taking peyote you have had hallucinations?
A. Yes, but they were different.
Q. Have these hallucinations been vivid?
A. Are you talking about LSD or peyote?
Q. Perhaps we ought to take them one at a time.
The peyote, were the peyote hallucinations vivid in nature?
A. No.
Q. Could you describe them?
A. No, not really.
Q. Is it an experience that defies description?
A. I have no words to describe it.
Q. Do you have a feeling to describe it?
A. It is a feeling that there are no words—I’m sorry, I have no words for it.
Q. Does it provoke, perhaps, an emotional response of some sort, anger, fear, jealousy, love?
A. Well, my sole purpose for taking it was for realization, God realization.
Q. That was to discover God?
A. Yes.
Q. Were you successful in your endeavor?
A. I realize you don’t have to take peyote or LSD to discover God.
Q. How many times did you ingest peyote, if you are able to say?
A. Twice.
Q. During some period of time you lived with Charles Melton, is that correct?
A. Yes, that is correct.
Q. And you ingested peyote on a number of occasions with Mr. Melton?
A. I have ingested peyote once with Mr. Melton.
Q. You are sure about that?
A. Excuse me, no—twice.
The last time was not the button itself, it was a mixture, a liquid, a tea, they call it.
Q. Mr. Melton made a peyote punch, didn’t he?
A. No, not that I know of.
Q. Or a drink?
A. It was called—
Q. A fruit drink, spiked with peyote, correct?
A. No.
Q. Would you describe it?
A. It was not Charles Melton that made it.
Q. Excuse me.
Do you know who made it?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. Who?
A. Harold True.
Q. Do you know in what dosages you were taking, or what dosage you were taking the peyote?
A. No, I just remember it was in a small bottle and it was tea, peyote tea, and I took a few sips.
Q. Is it possible in your experience to take dosages of LSD that render you not in control of your mental faculties?
A. Yes, you could take an overdose.
Q. How much would be an overdose?
A. I never took an overdose so I don’t know.
Q. Were the hallucinations you experienced while taking the drug, LSD, vivid in character?
A. Yes, sometimes.
Q. Could they be described as being profound?
A. What do you mean by profound?
Q. Were they minor in character, superficial?
A. Sometimes there would be colors that might not be there.
Q. In other words you would have visual hallucinations in terms of color?
A. Yes, maybe there would be a pattern that would move or something.
Q. You would see things moving that were actually stationary, is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. All right, would you also see things that did not exist in mental states when you were not taking LSD
A. I don’t think I understand that.
Q. Have you ever seen God under LSD?
A. No, I have not.
Q. Could you describe what your experiences have been under LSD?
A. Well, most of my experiences were within nature and the outdoors and the wilderness, beneath the trees end the stars and the moon.
It was more like I was exploring, like I would explore a grain of wood on a tree, or, a rock, or a feather I had picked up, the patterns in the feather, or I would gaze into the stars or the moon, things like this.
Q. You have had 50 of these experiences?
A. I have had a few experiences in the city, in a room with four walls.
Q. But each one of these experiences are vivid in the sense you can easily recall it, isn’t that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Let’s take the first LSD experience you had on Christmas Eve.
A. Okay.
Q. What did you experience?
A. Well, I was in an apartment, and there were maybe four or five other people and it was mostly a music experience.
I was listening to the record player.
I cannot remember the music that was playing, but the music just seemed to flow.
That is the experience I had.
Q. Did that experience in any way influence or affect your life?
A. I really learned to appreciate music.
Q. Did it affect you in any other way?
A. No.
Q. Did it affect your mental or thought processes in any respect at all?
A. No, not that I can say.
Q. While you were ingesting LSD on any one of these 50 occasions did you ever experience a distortion of time?
A. Usually with or without acid, I cannot relate to time because I am never usually around watches and clocks and things of this nature.
Q. But you have some concept of time within your mind, do you not?
A. Yes, yes.
Q. Does LSD in any respect alter that?
A. Possibly, I never thought about time when I was on acid.
Q. Have you ever had delusions under the influence of LSD?
A. I don’t quite understand what you mean.
Q. A delusion is a false belief?
A. False belief? Yes, I believe I have.
Q. What sort of false belief did you have?
A. For one thing, I believed that I could see God through acid.
Q. Were you able to see God through acid?
A. Yes, the acid told me it was God.
Q. And in what respect—can you describe in your own words how?
A. I don’t know, it’s just a state that the acid takes you to, and I am at a loss for words, I cannot describe it.
Q. You had frequently taken LSD in the presence of other people, had you not?
A. Yes, I have.
Q. And in your experience isn’t it quite common to take LSD in group settings and situations?
A. Yes.
Q. Is there a reason or purpose for that; as far as you are concerned?
A. No.
Q. Have you ever been present at LSD sessions or experiences where there has been a person or persons present known as guides?
A. No.
Q. You never had—are you familiar with the term “acid trip”?
A. Yes.
Q. What is an acid trip?
A. What I have been doing the last 50 times.
Q. That is an LSD experience?
A. Yes.
Q. Have you over taken an acid trip with a guide present?
A. Not acid, no.
Q. Some other drug?
A. The first hallucinogenic I ever took was Morning Glory seeds and I had a guide, if that is what you like to call it.
Q. Did you experience some hallucination when you took your first hallucinogenic drug?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. Do you recall what that hallucination was?
A. Yes, it related back to a marriage that I had when I was16, and I saw the reason why it did not work out.
Q. LSD has allowed you a certain amount of social insight as well as visual insight, is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Are you able—I am not trying to be facetious, and I take it you have not taken LSD for some period of time now.
A. That is true.
Q. Are you able now in your mind to achieve experiences in mental states that are common to acid trips without acid?
A. Without acid? No, not really. I can’t, you know—no.
Q. During your direct examination by Mr. Bugliosi you frequently used the term “flashes.”
A. Flash.
Q. What is a flash?
A. It is one word for such a wide scope of things!
Q. Are you familiar with the flashback effect of LSD?
A. Flashback effect? Have I ever had one, is that what you mean?
Q. Well, are you familiar with the term, first?
A. Yes.
Q. Have you ever had a flashback?
A. Not that I can recall at the moment, no.
Q. During your conscious non-drug state isn’t it possible for you at times to receive an instant glimpse of some past LSD or acid experience or trip?
A. Yes.
Q. Would that be referred to as flash?
A. Yes, I suppose you could say that.
Q. Is that experience vivid when it occurs in a non-drug state?
A. Would you repeat that again?
Q. When you received a flash, is it as strong and as real as the original experience under the drug?
A. No, I don’t think so.
Q. It is minor in character usually?
A. I still really don’t understand your question.
Q. Let’s say that you had seen something in LSD experience, right?
A. Uh-huh.
Q. Have you ever been able in a non-LSD state to experience the same thing, or a recall, a flashback?
A. Yes, yes.
Q. Has that occurred frequently?
A. Frequently? Well, sometimes I go back to something that I saw when I was on a trip, when I was not on a trip, and I would see that it was not real, or it was just a hallucination; that it wasn’t really there; that it was just an image, a form, a shadow.
Q. Has LSD altered your personality? If you are able to answer that question.
A. Excuse me?
Q. If you are able to answer that question.
A. Altered my personality? It showed me parts of myself so, yes, it has altered, I believe, to a certain extent.
Q. Do you attribute any change in your outlook or philosophy to LSD or any other hallucinogenic drug?
A. Yes, I do
Q. Is there anything you can compare in LSD experience to people who have not experienced an LSD state?
A. I don’t understand you.
Q. Is taking LSD like having a dream?
A. Yes, sort of, yes.
Q. Is it frequently the case that there are characters in the dream?
A. No, sir, usually the characters are there in person for real.
Q. For real?
A. Yes.
Q. Just as real as if there were no drug, is that fair?
A. I don’t understand you, I’m sorry.
Q. Let’s say on Monday you ingested some LSD and you see and experience something, correct?
A. Okay, yes.
Q. On Wednesday you are not ingesting any LSD.
A. Uh-huh.
Q. And you are seeing and hearing things, but the things you see and hear on Wednesday are as real as the things you heard and saw on Monday?
A. Usually the things I saw and heard on Monday were in my own head, and they were not real.
But the things on Wednesday when I was not under the drug were real, were stationary.
Q. Have you ever told people that as a result of your LSD experiences you were of the firm conviction that the whole world was a dream?
A. That the whole world was a dream, and I told this to somebody? You are asking me?
I don’t recall saying anything.
Q. Have you ever had conversations with a person, by the name of Katherine [Catherine] Share?
A. Is that Gypsy?
Q. Also known as Gypsy.
A. Yes, I have had conversations with her.
Q. And you had conversations with her in connection with the use of LSD?
A. Possibly, but I don’t recall them.
Q. Have you had LSD experiences with Gypsy?
A. No.
Q. Have you ever taken trips in the woods, LSD trips in the woods, with Gypsy?
A. No.
Q. Never climbed to the top of a mountain with Gypsy?
A. Climbed to the top of a mountain?
Q. Yes.
A. No. I wouldn’t call it a mountain.
Q. Did you ever tell Katherine [Catherine] Share that you completely died under the influence df LSD and you were reborn again?
A. I don’t recall that phrase, no.
Q. Do you recall ever having any experience under LSD in which you did experience death?
A. It was death of values, of thoughts, something that was put into me that died, that I rejected.
Q. Did you ever experience an actual physical death of your own self?
A. No.
Q. Are you referring in your statements to some sort of a death of an ego?
A. Possibly, yes.
Q. Have you ever experienced a birth of your self, a cosmic birth of yourself, under LSD?
A. No.
Q. Have you ever had the experience of your body melting under LSD?
A. No.
Q. Have you ever looked at your hand or some other portion of your body while you had been under the influence of LSD?
A. Yes.
Q. Have you ever had visual hallucinations in regard to a part of your body?
A. Yes.
Q. Have you ever seen a part of your body dissolved under the influence of LSD?
A. Dissolve?
Q. Dissolve, melt.
A. No.
Q. Have you ever looked into the mirror under the influence of LSD?
A. Yes.
Q. What did you see?
A. My pores.
Q. Could you see into your pores?
A. No.
Q. Could you see the blood vessels behind your pores?
A. No.
Q. Could you see your skull?
A. No.
Q. You just saw your pores?
A. Yes. Just—(indicating).
Q. Do you recall the second time you took LSD?
A. Let me think for a minute.
Yes, vaguely.
Q. Do you recall the third time?
A. It goes back so far.
Yes, I do.
Q. Have you ever experienced fear under LSD?
A. Fear?
Q. Yes.
A. Possibly, yes.
Q. Are you familiar with the term paranoid?
A. Yes.
Q. Have you ever become paranoid under LSD?
A. Possibly. I can’t recall, you know, an actual experience.
Q. Are you familiar with the term fantasy?
A. Fantasy?
Q. Yes.
A. Something that is not real?
Q. Yes.
A. Yes.
Q. Have you ever fantasized situations?
A. What do you mean? On the visual plane?
Q. On a visual plane.
A. No.
Q. Have you ever daydreamed?
A. Oh, yes.
Q. Have you ever had a daydream-like state under the influence of LSD?
A. Yes. That is sort of what LSD is.
Q. Have you heard things under the influence of LSD?
A. Heard things?
Q. Heard things. Heard noises, sounds?
A. Sounds?
Q. Heard sounds, music?
A. Oh, yes.
Q. Music that didn’t exist in reality?
A. Oh, no. There was usually music there for real.
Q. When you daydream or when you are walking in an ordinary normal state, are you able to pick up a tune in your mind and hear the music?
A. Oh, sure.
Q. Did that ever occur to you while you have been under LSD or using LSD?
A. Possibly. I can’t remember.
Q. Do you attribute any changes in the way you think or feel to LSD or any other hallucinogenic drug?
MR. STOVITZ: That is objected to as being ambiguous, your Honor.
THE COURT: Do you understand the question?
THE WITNESS: No, I didn’t.
THE COURT: Rephrase the question.
BY MR. FITZGERALD:
Q. Are you any different today than you were during July and August of 1969?
A. I sure am.
Q. In what respect are you different?
A. I have come to a lot of conclusions about reality, right and wrong.
Q. Anything else?
A. I don’t know. I can’t say.
Q. During July and August of 1969, did you have some difficulty with reality?
A. I will have to put it this way: I wasn’t really together.
Q. You were coming apart at the seams?
A. Coming apart at the seams? Maybe. I guess you could say that, yes.
Q. Well, will you describe what you mean by not together.
A. I just didn’t have it together in myself, period, so if you want to say I am coming apart at the seams, I guess that is what you would call it.
Q. Was the month of July, 1969, an emotional period in your life?
A. Extremely.
Q. You were very distraught during that period of time; isn’t that right?
A. Distraught?
Would you please—
Q. I will withdraw the question.
What was your mental state during the month of July, 1969?
A. I was extremely impressionistic. I was—I can’t think of the words—I can’t think of the words to describe it.
Q. Can you give us an example of your impressionistic aspects?
A. Well, somebody would tell me something, and at first something within myself would say that is not right, and then this person would further, you know, just keep, you know, putting it into me and putting it into me, and finally, you know, I would just give up.
Q. Were you angry and hostile during the month of July and August, ’69?
A. No, not at all.
Q. You were very angry with your husband, were you not?
A. Angry? No, I was just rejected. I felt hurt.
Q. Did you also feel depressed?
A. Depressed? If that means hurt, then I guess I was depressed.
Q. Did you feel hurt?
A. Yes.
Q. Because of some rejection on the part of your husband?
A. Yes.
Q. For that reason alone?
A. Yes.
Q. Were you taking drugs heavily during the month of July, 1969?
A. No. I hadn’t taken acid until—well, let me think—I took it in May, and that was the last time.
Q. The last time until when?
A. Until I got to New Mexico, after I had run away, and I took a tab of mescaline.
Q. So, you didn’t take acid in May, 1969, until sometime in—
A. I believe it was September.
Q. You are sure of that?
A. Yes, I know.
Q. Positive?
A. I am positive.
Q. You never took LSD at the Spahn Ranch?
A. Oh excuse me. Yes, I did. And I don’t think it was acid.
Q. Why do you happen to recall that?
A. Because I remember the actual experience, and I remember who gave it to me.
Q. So, May, ’69. Then when was the next time?
A. It was in July. It was near the end of July.
I remember Sadie came up to me, and I don’t think she knew what it was. I remember there were capsules. I am not—
Q. Sadie, in your opinion, was a little naive in this respect?
A. A little what?
Q. Naive?
A. Yes. She didn’t know what it was, acid or mescaline or psilocybin.
Q. You had seen it before?
A. No. I had never seen it before.
Q. So you were just as naive as Sadie?
A. Yes.
Q. Was that a bad trip?
A. I wanted to leave the ranch. I don’t know if it was a bad trip.
Q. Well, would you describe it as a bad trip?
A. No.
Q. Would you describe it as an unpleasant experience?
A. No, it wasn’t really unpleasant.
Q. Have you ever seen the devil under the influence of LSD?
A. The devil?
Q. The devil.
A. I have seen what I would think the devil would look like in somebody, a person’s face, but I have never seen the devil in my mind.
Q. You believe in a concept of evil, I take it?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. And you are able to see evil in other people as personified by the devil?
A. Yes, Satan, whatever you want to call it, yes.
Q. During October, 1969, you were pregnant; isn’t that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Was your LSD experiences while you were pregnant any different than those when you were in a non-pregnant state?
A. I don’t believe I took acid in October.
Q. In September?
A. Was it any different? Is that what your question asked me?
Q. Did the chemistry of pregnancy in combination with the chemistry of the acid produce any different effects?
A. No. As a matter of fact, it was a very beautiful experience.
Q. Are you familiar with the drug STP?
A. Yes.
Q. Have you ever taken STP?
A. No. I passed it up.
Q. Are you familiar with the drug psilocybin?
A. Yes.
MR. STOVITZ: Could you spell that?
MR. FITZGERALD: P-s-i-l-o-c-y-b-i-n.
Q. Have you ever taken any Psilocybin?
A. Yes, I have.
Q. Is Psilocybin an hallucinogenic drug?
A. Yes.
Q. Does it differ in character from LSD or peyote?
A. Well, I have taken the organic residue, which is the derivative from the mushroom.
Q. When you say the derivative from the mushroom, what are you referring to?
A. The actual organic mushroom.
Q. There is an organic mushroom?
A. Yes.
Q. That grows somewhere?
A. Yes.
Q. Where? Does it grow in a particular area of the United States?
A. I don’t believe so. I don’t know the area.
Q. And you have eaten the live mushroom, or whatever, the picked mushroom?
A. No, I have never eaten it. What they do—I have never seen it done—they take the mushroom and they do have some trip with it, so there is no chemical, it is just a pure mushroom, and they put it in capsules.
Q. How many times have you taken psilocybin?
A. Once to my memory, which was this time in September.
Q. And did you hallucinate under psilocybin?
A. No, not really.
Q. Are you familiar with DMT?
A. DMT?
Q. Yes.
A. I have heard of it. I am not sure what it is.
Q. Are you familiar with methydrine hydrochloride, also known as speed?
A. Yes.
Q. Have you ever taken speed?
A. Yes.
Q. On a number of occasions?
A. Yes.
Q. How many times have you taken speed?
A. I never counted them.
Q. Numerous times?
A. I believe I took it for a period of two months, three months.
Q. Speed is commonly referred to as an upper, isn’t it?
A. Yes.
Q. What sort of an experience does one have under methydrine, speed?
A. Speed? You are speedy, you know, it is just like pure electric energy, but it is not natural, the chemical.
Q. Are you familiar with the term “strung out”?
A. Strung out?
Q. Yes.
A. Yes.
Doesn’t that mean you are addicted?
Q. Are you familiar with the term habituated?
A. No.
Q. Are you familiar with the term addicted?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you know what addiction means?
A. Yes.
Q. Were you addicted to speed?
A. No.
Q. Was it necessary for you to take constantly increasing doses of speed?
A. No. As a matter of fact, I took very little because my resistance was, you know, just supersensitive to it. So, I just took very little.
Q. In other words, it would really affect you?
A. Yes.
Q. It would affect you physiologically?
A. Yes.
Q. Make you walk faster?
A. Yes.
Q. Talk faster?
A. Talk faster, think faster and I couldn’t sleep or whatever.
Q. Did you take it 50 times?
A. Well, I took it in San Francisco when I first arrived there, and I stayed in San Francisco for about a month, and I probably took it once a day for a week, which lasted probably about a month.
That is how my—that is how susceptible I was to it.
Q. At the end of that period of time, did you feel some dependency on the drug?
A. No. I was glad to not have it any more.
Q. Are you familiar with the drug belladonna?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you ever take belladonna?
A. No.
Q. You referred during your direct testimony to the hanging of little items from trees near your campsite in Devil’s Canyon during the month of July, 1969.
A. Yes, that is correct.
Q. Little pieces of string, little pieces of wire, little pieces of paper?
A. Yes.
Q. And those things had a purpose?
A. Yes.
Q. What was the purpose?
A. So that we could find our way to the campsite.
Q. Weren’t those also witchy things?
A. Yes, that is what they were called.
Q. Do you know why they were called witchy things?
A. No, not particularly.
Q. Didn’t you feel that you were a witch during the month of July, 1969?
A. I was made to feel I was a witch, yes.
Q. Did you refer to yourself as a witch?
A. While I was there, yes; and at one point, once when I left, I referred to myself as a witch.
Q. You never referred to yourself as a witch before you went to the Spahn Ranch, I take it?
A. No.
Q. You are familiar with the name Yana, the witch?
A. Yes.
Q. Is that what you used to refer to yourself as?
A. Well, when I first entered the ranch, Gypsy told me that they all assumed different names, and if I would like to pick out a name? And the name just came to me, so I assumed that name, which I was called Yana maybe once or twice. Which just, you know, sort of went down, and they called me Linda.
Q. Did you profess to have some magical powers?
A. No. I didn’t.
Q. You were very impressionistic during the month of July, and Gypsy suggested to you that you should call yourself a witch, so you called yourself a witch?
A. Well, she said that we were all witches.
Q. Did you disagree with that?
A. No, I don’t think I did.
Q. Did you feel you were a witch?
A. I think I tried to make myself believe I was a witch.
Q. How did you do that?
A. Just by thinking I was a witch.
Q. Did you act like a witch?
A. No, I acted like myself.
Q. Did you adopt or assume the role of a witch?
A. No.
Q. Was there some reason you told people or some one person later on that you were a witch?
A. Yes, there was a reason.
Q. You wanted to scare that person?
A. No, not at all.
Q. Were you a good witch or a bad witch?
A. I was a good witch, at the time when I was referring to myself as a witch.
Q. During July, 1969, didn’t you tell people, particularly Gypsy, Squeaky and Sandy that you had super-sensory powers?
A. No.
Q. Have you ever professed to read people’s minds?
A. No.
Q. Do you believe one of the defendants is the devil?
A. Do I believe one of the defendants is the devil?
Q. Yes. Do you believe one of the defendants is the devil?
A. I believe that we all have a part of the devil within us, and it is just a matter of bringing it out.
Q. So these defendants have no more or no less of the devil than any other person; is that correct?
A. Well, it just depends on what brings out more, whether they are bringing out more of the devil or the good, whatever.
Q. During the month of July and early August, 1969, were you preoccupied with the devil and witchcraft?
A. Repeat that again?
Q. During the months of July and August, 1969, were you preoccupied with witchcraft?
A. No. No.
Q. Didn’t you attempt to practice the art of witchcraft?
A. No. I don’t even know what witchcraft is. I don’t know rituals.
Q. Well, was this whole thing about calling yourself a witch just a joke?
A. I don’t know. When I came into this ranch they told me I was a witch and that they were witches, so they made me believe that I was a witch, too
Q. Did you have a mind of your own at that time?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. Did you resist them calling you a witch or telling you that you were a witch?
A. Well, I didn’t see them doing anything wrong, so I didn’t think that being a witch was wrong, so I accepted it.
Q. You didn’t take it seriously?
A. No, not really.
Q. Was it your state of mind that others at the ranch were taking it seriously?
A. No. It just sort of seemed to be like a little game, you know, but I can’t speak for them about what they thought about it.
Q. The witchcraft, if we can call it that, then, at the ranch was a game sort of?
A. Yes. That is how I saw it as.
Q. No one was serious about this witchcraft, were they?
A. No, not that I saw.
MR. BUGLIOSI: That question calls for a conclusion.
MR. FITZGERALD: Q. You didn’t see—
MR. BUGLIOSI: There is an objection.
It calls for a conclusion as to whether other people were taking this seriously.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. FITZGERALD: Q. Did it appear to you? What was your state of mind?
MR. BUGLIOSI: That is an ambiguous question.
As to what? State of mind as to what?
MR. FITZGERALD: Q. Did you ever see any ceremonial witchcraft At the Spahn Ranch?
A. Ceremonial witchcraft? Not that I can recall, no.
Q. I am not trying to be facetious, but you didn’t see any witches with brooms or ceremonies, did you?
A. No, I don’t think so.
Q. You didn’t see any black magic rites or anything like that, did you?
A. No. No.
Q. You never saw anybody at the Spahn Ranch do anything that a real witch would do, did you?
MR. BUGLIOSI: Calls for a conclusion.
MR. STOVITZ: What would a real witch do your Honor?
THE COURT: Sustained.
THE WITNESS: What is a real witch?
BY MR. FITZGERALD:
Q. Later, when you left the Spahn Ranch and you told somebody you were a witch, was it your intention or your state of mind that you wanted this person to believe that you were a witch?
A. Well, my intention—I believe I told them a few other things that were put into me by these people, and I believe I just expressed all these things to them to see what their impression would be, so that I would know if this was just, you know, if it was for real or if it was just, you know, whatever—I won’t use the word, because I can’t think of another word.
Q. In other words, you didn’t know if it was real or not?
A. No.
Q. You didn’t know if you were really a witch or not; isn’t that correct?
A. Yes, I guess that is correct.
Q. You really didn’t have any identity during the months of July and August, 1969; isn’t that correct?
MR. BUGLIOSI: That is an ambiguous question, your Honor. I will object to it.
THE COURT: Overruled.
You may answer.
THE WITNESS: I don’t know exactly what you mean by identity.
BY MR. FITZGERALD:
Q. Are you familiar with the term “identity crisis”?
A. You mean, did I know who I was?
Q. Yes.
A. Yes, I knew who I was.
Q. Who were you?
A. Myself, Linda.
Q. Linda Kasabian?
A. Yes.
Q. And you were an ordinary human being?
A. Yes. I was just like everybody else.
Q. And you didn’t have any magical powers?
A. No.
Q. Regardless of what anybody told you?
A. Yes.
Q. You didn’t believe what these other people told you?
A. I made myself believe it.
Q. Why?
A. Because I couldn’t argue with them. I could never ask why because when I did they would all come down on me at once, so what is the use. So, I just gave up and said, okay, I am a witch—but I wasn’t.
Q. But yet when you left you had to tell somebody to find out if you really were?
A. Yes.
Q. So, in a sense, you weren’t in control of your own outlook and identity?
A. I guess so.
Q. Is that correct?
A. I guess so.
Q. Now, you described in your direct examination a love scene that took place in the back house on the Spahn Ranch during the month of July; is that correct?
A. Yes, that is correct.
Q. What was the date, do you recall?
A. The date?
Q. Yes, the date.
A. No, I don’t recall.
Q. Was it during the month of July?
A. Yes, it was.
Q. Was it in the early part of July?
A. No. It was before Bobby Beausoleil left.
Q. How long were you at the Spahn Ranch?
A. I remember I was there the 4th of July.
Q. Does that date stick in your mind for any reason?
A. Yes.
Q. Celebrating the holiday?
A. Yes.
Q. In what fashion?
A. I was supposed to go to the beach that day, Topanga Canyon, the beach, and there was a bunch of people, sort of like a love-in, but I didn’t go, I went to the ranch instead.
Q. Did it take place, this scene in the back house on the Spahn Ranch, did it take place in the early part of your tenure there at the ranch?
A. No. It was more toward the middle end.
Q. Toward the middle end?
A. Yes.
Q. Where would that be? The middle of July or so?
A. I guess so.
Q. But you don’t—
A. I don’t know.
Q. You couldn’t even guess as to the date?
A. No.
Q. What time of the day did it occur?
A. Nighttime.
Q. Sometime after dark?
A. Yes.
Q. No way of telling when after dark though; is that correct?
A. No.
Q. It could have been 10:00 p.m., it could have been 3:00 a.m.; is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. Is that fair?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you know the number of persons that were present?
A. It seemed that most of the Family was there. I remember Squeaky wasn’t there.
Q. All of the Family? Is that what you said?
A. Most of the Family.
Q. Most of the Family?
A. Yes.
Q. What is the Family?
A. The people that were stationary, living at the ranch.
Q. And who might that be during the month of July and August, 1969?
A. Should I go through the names?
Q. If you would, please.
A. That I can remember?
Q. Please.
A. Ouish, Squeaky, Brenda, Sadie, Katie, Leslie, myself, Charlie, Bruce, Tex, Bobbie, Clem, Gypsy, Little Patti, some girl—she took care of the horses—I can’t remember her name.
Q. Ruby?
A. Something like that—that’s not right.
Q. Ruby Pearl?
A. No, no, no, it was a young girl.
Q. To the best of your recollection, those persons you have just named constituted the Family?
A. Yes.
MR. STOVITZ: That is objected to, your Honor—
THE WITNESS: And a few more.
MR. STOVITZ: I did not hear the last answer.
(The reporter: And a few more.)
MR. STOVITZ: Oh, I withdraw the objection.
THE COURT: Very well.
BY MR. FITZGERALD:
Q. Is the term “Family” your word, your term?
A. I consider them a Family and I considered myself a part of the Family while I was there because we were a Family.
Q. Is that how you would describe them?
A. Yes.
Q. Is that how you describe them?
A. Yes.
Q. Is it fair to say then that you coined the word “Family”?
A. That I coined the word “Family”?
Q. Yes.
A. I don’t understand what you mean.
Q. You called them a Family, is that correct, the persons you have just named?
A. Yes, I’m calling them a Family.
Q. And what did one have to do if anything to become a member of this Family you are referring to?
A. I don’t know. I don’t know if there was any special thing you had to do.
Q. Why then do you refer to yourself as a member of the Family?
A. I don’t know.
Q. Did you see people come and go to and from the Spahn Ranch during July and August?
A. Yes.
Q. You saw quite a few people come and go, didn’t you?
A. Yes, quite a few.
Q. But they were not or they were members?
A. I don’t know if they were members or not.
Q. Were you introduced to all of these people whose names you mentioned just a moment ago?
A. Oh, yes.
Q. When you came—
A. The first day I came there, uh-huh.
Q. On July 4th?
A. 4th, right.
Q. You met everybody?
A. Uh-huh.
Q. And did you have some conversation about moving in or becoming a member or anything?
A. Well, I’ll tell you exactly how it happened.
Gypsy brought me into this Ranch and we walked over to the kitchen and I remember gazing into their eyes and they gazed into mine and we were all smiling and it was just a very loving, you know, giving and receiving kind of thing and we hugged and embraced and, you know, they just made me feel really welcome.
We went into the trailer.
Q. Did—
MR. BUGLIOSI: Your Honor, I don’t believe the witness is through with her answer.
MR. FITZGERALD: Did you finish your answer?
THE WITNESS: No, it doesn’t matter, go ahead.
BY MR. FITZGERALD:
Q. Did I disturb your train of thought? I am sorry.
A. No, you can go ahead, it doesn’t matter.
THE COURT: Had you completed your answer?
THE WITNESS: No.
THE COURT: Go ahead and finish your answer.
THE WITNESS: Then we went into the trailer and they took my bag of belongings and they said “What’s ours is yours and what’s yours is ours.”
I accepted it and it was beautiful.
They also laid their trip on me about Tanya, that Tanya’s ego should die.
And there was a specific phrase I recall about one of the defendants, I don’t know if I should say it—
Q. BY MR. FITZGERALD: Well—
MR. BUGLIOSI: Your Honor, if she wants to say it I think the Court can tell her at this time she is perfectly able to say it.
I mean, she has every right to say it.
MR. FITZGERALD: So we don’t prejudice anybody, I have no objection to the witness telling your Honor out of my presence and the prosecutors’ presence, and let your Honor determine.
MR. STOVITZ: I would much rather have counsel approach the witness, Mr. Bugliosi and Mr. Fitzgerald—
THE COURT: All I am concerned with, is it in answer to the question?
Are you still answering Mr. Fitzgerald’s question?
THE WITNESS: Actually I think I am going out of it.
BY MR. FITZGERALD:
Q. When you met these people did you think they were kind?
A. Oh, yes, they were just pure loving people.
Q. Did you think they were gentle?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you think they loved you?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you love them?
A. Yes.
Q. Was there some reason for that?
A. I was just very open and they were very open and it was just, you know, you could feel the love; it was there.
Q. You felt they genuinely loved you?
A. Yes.
Q. Didn’t you think that was a little strange and peculiar?
A. No.
Q. Do you remember what time of night this love scene in the back house took place?
A. What time of night?
Q. Yes.
A. No.
Q. Was that a spontaneous sort of gathering of people there at the Ranch?
A. Yes.
Q. Actually people would come and go in and out of various buildings at the Ranch from time to time throughout the day or night, isn’t that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. So you don’t actually recall whether each one of these defendants were present when that group of people were together, do you?
A. I recall definitely Leslie. I definitely recall Charlie.
I am not quite sure about Katie and Sadie. I cannot really picture them.
Q. Were you forced in any fashion to participate in love making?
A. No.
Q. Did anybody threaten you with physical violence if you refused to participate?
A. No.
Q. You were not intimidated in any way either, were you?
A. No.
Q. Did you make love with somebody?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. Did you make love with more than one person?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. How many persons did you make love to?
A. Well, I remember I made love with Leslie and Tex, the three of us together, and then Snake made love to me, and then Clem was there and then Clem made love to me.
That is all that I recall.
Q. When you made love with the people you have just described, can you say you wanted to?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you at any time attempt to leave?
A. No.
Q. Did you at any time attempt to in any fashion stop the proceedings, if they can be referred to as proceedings?
A. No.
Q. It was with your full knowledge and consent, is that correct?
A. What do you mean by—
Q. That is probably an improper question.
It was with your consent, was it not?
A. With my consent?
Q. I mean you consented to make love to Leslie and Tex and Clem, is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. I take it during the period of time you were making love to them you were unaware of what other persons were making love with whom?
A. Sometimes I looked up, you know, but—
Q. And was this a pleasant experience for you?
A. Well, it was a different experience.
Q. Did you enjoy it?
A. Yeah, I guess I did. I will have to say I did.
THE COURT: Mr. Fitzgerald, it is 4:15.
Ladies and gentlemen, do not converse with anyone or form or express any opinions regarding the case until it’s finally submitted to you.
The court will adjourn until 9:45 tomorrow morning.
(Whereupon an adjournment was taken until the following day, Friday, July 31, 1970, at 9:45 o’clock a.m.)