Historic Trial Transcripts
Linda Kasabian: Day five Testimony, July 31, 1970
the witness on the stand at the time of the adjournment, resumed the stand and testified further as follows:
FURTHER CROSS EXAMINATION (CONTINUED)
BY MR. FITZGERALD:
Q. Mrs. Kasabian, when we adjourned yesterday afternoon, I was asking questions and you were answering questions in the area of a scene that took place at the back house of the ranch sometime during July; is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And you indicated that during that scene you had made love with Leslie, Tex, Snake and Clem; is that a fair statement?
A. Yes.
Q. Could you describe what you mean by making love and can you give us some sort of sequence of events in regard to these four persons that have just been named?
MR. STOVITZ: Objected to, your Honor, as being immaterial and irrelevant and has no bearing on the issues in this case.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. FITZGERALD: But with respect to Tex, you were not forced by anybody to participate; is that correct?
A. No.
Q. And with respect to Snake, you were not forced to participate; is that correct?
A. No.
Q. And with respect to Clem, you were not forced to participate?
A. No.
Q. Is it fair to characterize your testimony yesterday as indicating that you were impressionable?
A. Yes.
Q. Particularly during the months of July and August, 1969; is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Had you always been impressionable?
A. Yes. Not always, but at certain times.
Q. Would you describe yourself, at least during the period of June and July, 1969, as being naive as well?
A. Yes. I felt that I was like a blind little girl in a forest, and I took the first path that came to me.
Q. And did you look upon yourself as being innocent?
A. Yes.
Q. But actually you had a good deal of human experience in your life, hadn’t you?
A. Yes.
Q. You left home at a very early age; is that correct?
A. Yes, that is correct.
Q. How old were you when you left home?
A. I was 16.
Q. And you got married about that time?
A. Yes.
Q. How old were you when you were first married?
A. 16.
Q. Who was it that you married?
A. Robert Peaslee.
Q. And did you have a child as a result of that relationship?
A. No.
Q. Have you been on your own, so to speak, since age 16?
A. Yes, I have.
Q. And I take it that you have been in numerous different places, geographical locations throughout the United States?
A. Yes.
Q. And when were you married for the second time?
A. Let me see. It was September of ’67.
Q. And you did have a child by that relationship; is that correct?
A. Yes, that is correct.
Q. And in ’67 you had married Robert Kasabian; is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And your child’s name was Tanya; correct?
A. Yes.
Q. When was that child born?
A. March 3rd of ’68.
Q. Where was that child born?
A. Los Angeles.
Q. So you had been in the Los Angeles area before you came here in May or June of 1969; isn’t that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. When did you first come to Los Angeles?
A. Around October of ’67.
Q. When you arrived in October of ’67, where did you stay?
A. In Venice.
Q. With your husband?
A. Yes.
Q. With other people also?
A. Uh-huh, yes.
Q. Were you living in a “family situation” at that time, a communal or group living situation?
A. Yes.
Q. Was that the first time, October of ’67, that you had lived in a family or a group living situation?
A. No.
Q. When was the first time?
A. The first time?
Q. Yes.
A. In Miami Beach.
Q. When was that?
A. In ’66, the first part of ’66.
Q. For how long of a period did you live in Miami Beach in a group living situation?
A. It was sort of on and off until—I believe I left around the end of August, the beginning of September.
Q. And was it the second time that you were living in a group situation in Venice in October of ’67?
A. Oh, no. Would you like the second time?
Q. Yes, please.
A. I believe it was in New York City, in Greenwich Village.
Q. When was that?
A. No. There was a time before that. I am sorry. In Boston, which was around Christmas time. And the third time was in New York City.
Q. How long did the New York City experience last?
A. About a month.
Q. When was the next time after the New York Greenwich Village experience that you lived in a group living situation?
A. I drove across country to San Francisco to Haight-Asbury, and I lived with a commune there.
Q. For how long did you live in a commune in the Haight-Asbury District of San Francisco?
A. Just for a short time, a couple of weeks.
Q. Then when was the next time, if there was one?
A. It seems that I have always been living in communes with people.
The next time is when I met Bob. We were living at—it was called the American Psychedlic Circus in Boston.
Q. Does that name “Psychedlic Circus” have some particular significance, or did it have some particular significance?
A. It was a group of people that wanted to form some sort of a circus, you know, get buses and travel all over the country, with animals, and entertain people.
I don’t know if “psychedelic” has, you know, a specific purpose.
Q. Was it drug oriented in character?
A. Yes, we took drugs.
Q. What kind of drugs?
A. Acid, we smoked weed; whatever was there usually.
Q. In all the group living situations that you have been involved in, there was extensive use of drugs; isn’t that correct?
A. Not necessarily extensive.
Q. Moderate?
A. It just depended on the situation.
Q. More in some than in others?
A. Yes.
Q. More, for example, in the Boston situation than in the Haight-Asbury, or would a fair statement be the reverse?
A. I’d say it would be the reverse.
Q. When was the next time after Boston?
A. Well, I met Bob at this Circus, and we lived together, and then I went back to my mother’s house for a while.
And the next time—actually, it wasn’t a commune, it was with two other people that we lived with. So, it was just four people. So, it was a small commune, I guess you would call it.
And the next time after that was in Venice.
Q. And then after Venice?
A. Let me see. We went up to Washington, up to Goldmeir Hot Springs, which is outside of Seattle, Washington and I believe there were about eight or ten people living there.
And from there we decided to go to New Mexico, so we drove down, and that was sort of a commune, too, driving down. There were about eight people.
And we got to New Mexico, and people would come back and forth, people that we knew.
Q. Did you live in a commune or a group living situation in New Mexico?
A. Yes.
Q. Is that in Taos, New Mexico?
A. Yes, it was outside of Taos.
Q. Were you living with a group called the “Hog Farm”?
A. No, I never lived with them.
Q. Were they living in Taos, New Mexico, about the same time you were there with your husband Bob?
A. They were not in Taos, sir, they were outside of Taos.
Q. Were you living with some particular group there in New Mexico?
A. Particular group?
Q. Did it have a name?
A. No—yes, at one point there was a guy that was an artist who was a very good friend of ours, “Sons of the Earth Mother” on the door, that is what they referred to themselves as.
Q. Sons of the Earth Mother?
A. Yes.
Q. Did that commune or group have a particular motif, or initiative?
A. I don’t understand what you mean.
Q. Did it have a particular purpose?
A. Yes, to learn how to live off the land, you know, grow your own food, eat from the land, things like this.
Q. And your child was with you at this time?
A. Yes, uh-huh.
Q. Was it also one of the principles of this group to learn how to live with one another as human beings?
A. Oh, yes.
Q. How long did you live in the situation in New Mexico?
A. Let’s see, we arrived in July I believe. It was just a constant moving back and forth. We would go from one place to another place, but it was always with a group of people.
At one point I had my own little house with a certain girl, so it was her and I and Tanya.
Q. You would always move from place to place but always with a group, is that correct?
A. No, not always with the group.
Q. And not always with the same group?
A. Uh-huh.
Q. Frequently with another group?
A. Uh-huh.
Q. A Different group?
A. Uh-huh.
THE COURT: Do you mean yes?
THE WITNESS: Yes.
BY MR. FITZGERALD:
Q. Can you recall how long you stayed in New Mexico at Taos?
A. Let’s see, I took a trip back East on Christmas time two weeks, and I went back to New Mexico, and I left again for the East in April of ’69, and then I was called to Los Angeles at the end of June of ’69.
Q. And it was because of difficulties with your husband and the commune in Taos, New Mexico, that you left and went back East, isn’t that correct?
A. Yeah, it was mostly because of my husband.
Q. And did you hitchhike back East?
A. No, I got a ride with some people I met.
Q. You hitchhiked frequently over the years, have you not?
A. Yeah.
Q. Many times you hitchhiked all alone, is that correct?
A. No, my first real experience hitchhiking alone was with Tanya to Miami.
Q. But since 1967, or in the two or three-year period since 1967 you have lived in a number of different situations with a number of different people, isn’t that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Were you as impressionable in the living situation in New Mexico as you were in the living situation you were involved in in June and July and August of 1969?
A. Well, at first when I got to New Mexico I was impressionable; I was searching for something I was not sure of.
But I got it together with myself, and I wasn’t impressionable after that? I had my own thing.
And then the time I entered Manson’s Family I was extremely impressionable, yes, I was together—
MR. KANAREK: Your Honor, I would object to the use of the words “Manson’s Family,” as a conclusion on the part of this witness.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. KANAREK: I ask that be stricken.
THE COURT: Motion is denied.
BY MR. FITZGERALD:
Q. Did you take Tanya everywhere you went in your travels?
A. Yes.
Q. Were you ever separated from your daughter?
A. No, not until I moved in with them.
Q. Were you as innocent in the living situation in Taos, New Mexico, as you were in August and July of 1969?
MR. STOVITZ: That is objected to, your Honor, as being ambiguous.
THE COURT: Sustained.
BY MR. FITZGERALD:
Q. Actually, over a period of approximately two or three years you had considerable experience with various human beings in various living situations, isn’t that correct?
A. Yes, it is.
Q. And you were not naive in the least, were you?
MR. STOVITZ: That is objected to as argumentative, your Honor.
THE COURT: Sustained.
BY MR. FITZGERALD:
Q. You were able to take care of yourself. You were self-sufficient, were you not?
A. What do you mean by self-sufficient?
Q. You did not need to rely on anybody for your needs, did you?
A. Sometimes I did, yes.
Q. So when you went to the Spahn Ranch on the 4th of July, 1969, this was by no means the first group living situation you had ever been involved in?
A. No.
Q. As a matter of fact it was about the 10th or 11th, was it not? Isn’t that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And you were well aware, were you not, of the problems one would be likely to encounter in a group living situation?
A. Yes.
Q. In many respects you were almost a pioneer in group living situations?
A. Yes.
Q. Would it be fair to say then that when you looked into the eyes of the people you saw collected at the Spahn Ranch, and you decided to live there, that you knew what you were doing?
MR. STOVITZ: That is objected to, your Honor, as calling for a conclusion.
MR. KANAREK: Your Honor, may I be heard before your Honor rules?
THE COURT: Very well.
MR. KANAREK: I would say, if your Honor sustains this objection, it would be a denial of equal protection of the law; that your Honor has previously in connection with objections that we have made, overruled—the subject matter that has gone to the same type of subject that Mr. Fitzgerald is interrogating about, namely, her state of mind.
MR. STOVITZ: If the question was framed, she thought she knew what she was doing, I have no objection. But she knew what she was doing—
THE COURT: The objection is sustained.
Q. BY MR. FITZGERALD: Did you think you knew what you were doing?
A. Yes, I just thought they were, you know, beautiful, loving people.
Q. As a matter of fact when you left your husband, Robert Kasabian, on the 4th of July you were looking for a group situation to move into, weren’t you?
MR. STOVITZ: That assumes a fact not in evidence that she left her husband, I object to the question in that form.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. STOVITZ: They separated.
Q. BY MR. FITZGERALD: Were you living with your husband on July 4th, 1969?
A. That was the day we separated.
Q. And on the day you separated you also went to the Spahn Ranch, isn’t that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And you went to the Spahn Ranch because you were looking for a group situation in which to live, isn’t that correct?
A. No, not really.
Q. You were not seeking out a group living situation?
A. I was told about a group, a family that would accept me, so if that is what I was looking for then I guess you’re right.
I am not sure.
MR. STOVITZ: May we have about a minute and a half brief conference at the bench, your Honor?
THE COURT: Yes.
(The following proceedings were had at the bench out of the hearing of the jury:)
MR. BUGLIOSI: He at this point apparently wants to go into his $5,000 theft, and I want to compliment Mr. Fitzgerald on the record for his professional and ethical attitude in coming up here to discuss this before asking questions on it.
It is highly commendable.
MR. FITZGERALD: I have information, and as a result of the information I believe, and I intend to produce evidence on the defense case in chief that Linda Kasabian had other motives other than the motive she has stated for leaving her husband on or about July 4, 1969.
I intend to introduce evidence that she came to the Spahn Ranch about July 4th asking for some sort of amnesty or asking to be hidden, to be hidden out because she had stolen $5,000 from her husband’s roommate, one Charles Melton.
We also intend to introduce evidence that she attempted to give the $5,000 to various people at the Spahn Ranch, including one Katherine [Catherine] Share, and Charles Manson.
We also intend to introduce evidence, if Mr. Manson takes the witness stand, that she told Mr. Manson that she wanted to stay at the ranch because she was fearful of reprisals from her husband and Charles Melton.
We also intend to introduce evidence, if we are allowed to go into the area, that Charles Melton and her husband, Robert Kasabian, came to the Spahn Ranch on approximately the 5th or 6th of July, looking for Linda Kasabian, and looking for the money.
Now, I think that the evidentiary import of this evidence is that it impeaches her in terms of her stated motives, for becoming involved in the Spahn Ranch.
Number two, it impeaches her statements, or rather, her altruistic statement about her innocence, her being impressionistic and her naivete.
It also tends to establish that this woman had a criminal intent in other matters, wholly apart from any criminal intent that might be shared by people on the ranch, and it is also introduced to show that she had a criminal disposition apart and aside from any conspiracy that might later have arisen.
The problem with the prosecution case, certainly not the problem, but one aspect of the prosecution’s case is that Linda Kasabian was an innocent dupe, if not an accomplice, that she did not knowingly and intelligently participate in these acts, and that in many respects she was conned or misrepresented to or beguiled, falling under the charm or the power of Manson and the other members of the Spahn Ranch.
That this evidence would tend to rebut such inference.
MR. BUGLIOSI: Your Honor, the law in the State of California is extremely clear that the only type of crime you can impeach a witness’ testimony with is a conviction of a felony.
Now, it is a collateral matter as to why she went to Spahn Ranch.
I think the defense is going to concede that Gypsy invited her out there. I don’t think they are going to contest that at all.
She said she went out there at Gypsy’s invitation.
Assuming she stole $5,000—
THE COURT: What is the purpose of this conference now?
MR. BUGLIOSI: If he asked the question, “Did you steal $5,000,” I am going to have to object, and if the Court were to sustain the objection I would still be armed by the fact I was trying to keep this out—I think this is something we should go into before the question is asked.
THE COURT: What question do you propose to ask?
MR. FITZGERALD: I propose to ask her if she went to the Spahn Ranch for motives other than what she stated.
If she says no I would ask her, “Isn’t it a fact you went to the Spahn Ranch because you stole the money from your husband’s roommate?”
THE COURT: I think that is clearly objectionable, Mr. Fitzgerald.
MR. FITZGERALD: I think it would be objectionable if it were done in bad faith, but I think I can demonstrate it happened.
It is not one of these situations where I am just asking questions to cause prejudice by the asking of the question.
MR. BUGLIOSI: I know you are not.
THE COURT: I think it is an impermissible method of impeaching a witness. There are rules.
MR. BUGLIOSI: There are so many crimes, your Honor, that we would like to introduce at this trial against Mr. Manson, and we are not going into them because we just cannot do it. The law is clear you cannot introduce evidence of other crimes.
THE COURT: Let’s proceed, gentlemen.
MR. BUGLIOSI: All right, your Honor.
THE COURT: While you are here, Mr. Kanarek, we are not going to hear your motion at 11:00 o’clock.
MR. KANAREK: What is that?
THE COURT: I said we are not going to hear your motion—you apparently filed a motion and noticed it for 11:00 o’clock this morning. We are going to be on trial at that time.
MR. KANAREK: Because of the fact that I—
THE COURT: We are not going to hear it at that time. I told you before we would hear it before court convenes.
MR. KANAREK: The point is, this is a matter of urgency, and your Honor insisted on—
THE COURT: I have indicated to you we are not going to hear it at that time, let’s proceed, gentlemen.
MR. KANAREK: We could set it at a different time.
THE COURT: You can notice it for any time that you want, as I indicated to you.
MR. KANAREK: I know, your Honor, but this is a matter of urgency, that is the point. Well, then—
THE COURT: Let’s proceed.
(The following proceedings were had in open court in the presence and hearing of the jury:)
BY MR. FITZGERALD:
Q. On July 4, 1969, did you leave your husband because of some domestic difficulties?
A. Yes.
Q. Could these domestic difficulties be categorized as personal differences related to the marriage?
A. Yes, there was just no harmony.
Q. And at that time on or about July 4th did you feel terribly unloved?
A. Yes.
Q. And unwanted?
A. Yes.
Q. And on or about July 4th did you have a conversation with one Katherine [Catherine] Share about people who were living at the Spahn Ranch?
A. Yes, I did.
MR. STOVITZ: Counsel, may we stipulate for the record that Katherine [Catherine] Share and Gypsy are the same person?
MR. FITZGERALD: It is so stipulated.
MR. STOVITZ: Thank you.
MR. FITZGERALD: Q. You knew her as Gypsy; correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Actually, Gypsy had been to visit you and your husband and Charles Melton at your trailer earlier than the 4th of July, had she not?
A. Not that I saw her.
Q. The first time that you saw her was on July 4th?
A. Yes.
Q. She was a stranger to you on July 4th?
A. Yes.
Q. You had a conversation with that stranger, right?
A. Yes.
Q. And then you left with your daughter and that stranger?
A. Right.
Q. Based on her representations; is that correct?
A. Right.
Q. Based on her representations that there was some lovely people at a ranch; is that right?
A. Right.
Q. What was the conversation you had with Gypsy about the Spahn Ranch? Strike that.
I am sorry to interrupt you, but did you initiate the conversation, start it, or did Gypsy?
A. She did.
Q. What did she say, first of all?
A. I don’t know. I remember she was sitting there, we were both sitting there, and she started playing the guitar and singing, and she had a fantastic voice, just beautiful.
Q. Are you sure she wasn’t playing a violin?
A. No, she was playing Charlie Melton’s guitar.
Q. All right. Continue.
A. And she just started telling me about this beautiful man, and that there was a Family, and that there was a lot of love, and that there were children, and that they were going to go into the desert.
And I don’t know, I can’t remember all of it. That is basically what she said.
Q. Actually, isn’t it the case that you started the conversation and you asked her about some place to go?
A. No, not that I recall.
Q. Do you recall being inquisitive about where she came from, this Gypsy with the beautiful voice?
A. No. I may have but I don’t recall that.
Q. Did you ask her about where she was living and what she was doing?
A. I may have but I don’t recall myself saying that—or asking, excuse me.
Q. Once she told you what she told you, did you ask her any questions?
A. Probably.
Q. But you don’t recall?
A. No, I can’t.
Q. Had you ever done that before, suddenly picked up your baby and left and gone into a new living situation?
A. Yes.
Q. On a number of previous occasions?
A. A number? No. Maybe once or twice.
Q. Now, did you know Charles Melton by any other name?
A. No. Just Charlie.
Q. Did people refer to him as other than Charlie in your presence?
A. No.
Q. He wasn’t known as Crazy Charlie?
A. No.
Q. Or Charlie Blanket?
A. No.
Q. You never heard those names before?
A. No.
Q. How long did you live in a group situation with Mr. Melton?
A. With Mr. Melton?
Q. Yes.
A. I met him for the first time up in Washington, and he was with another friend of ours who we had lived with in Venice, and they turned us on to New Mexico, and ever since then, you know, I was staying with him.
Q. When you use the phrase “turned us on,” what do you mean?
A. Told us.
Q. Did your husband, Robert Kasabian, ever come to Spahn Ranch after July 4, 1969?
A. Yes, he did.
Q. Did you see him?
A. No. I saw the truck.
Q. Were you hiding from him?
A. Yes, I guess I was.
Q. You didn’t want to see him?
A. Yes.
Q. Did he come to the Spahn Ranch with Charles Melton?
A. I guess so. Since this has all happened, I know that he did. But at the time I didn’t know.
Q. When was that, do you know?
A. When was what? That he came to the ranch?
Q. That he came to the ranch.
A. No. A few days.
Q. A few days after you had initially come?
A. Yes.
Q. And you didn’t choose to leave with him, if that was his intention?
A. No.
Q. Now, you referred earlier in your direct examination to particular items of clothing that you wore on August 8th and 9th; isn’t that correct?
A. Uh-huh. Yes.
Q. And one of them was a skirt, I think, a short skirt; is that correct?
A. Oh. That was a change of clothing. I wasn’t actually wearing them.
Q. I take it you have a woman’s common interest in clothing; correct?
A. Clothes are clothes. No.
When you are in society, you have got to wear clothes.
Q. Do you recall what you were wearing on the 4th of July?
A. Yes.
Q. What were you wearing on the 4th of July?
A. A cut-off—actually, in the beginning, it was a pair of Levi dungarees, and I cut them off and split the seams and sewed it into a skirt, and I wore a white blouse that I had made.
Q. Do you remember what you were wearing on the 5th of July?
A. Possibly the same thing, I am not sure.
Q. On the 6th of July?
A. No.
Q. The 7th?
A. No.
Q. 11th?
A. No.
Q. 14th?
A. No.
Q. The 17th?
A. No.
Q. 21st?
A. No.
Q. 25th?
A. No.
Q. 26th?
A. No.
Q. 28th?
A. No.
Q. 29th?
A. No.
Q. August 5th?
A. No.
Q. August 6th?
A. No.
Q. You slept in a cave on the evening of July 5; correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Where did you sleep July 6th?
A. In the cave.
Q. Who did you sleep with in the cave, if anybody, on July 6th?
A. Let me see. I am not sure if it was that night or the night before. I slept with Charlie that night.
Q. Did you sleep with anybody the next night?
A. No. No, I don’t think so.
Q. The night you slept with Charlie, would that be the 5th or the 4th or what?
A. I think it was the 5th. I am not quite sure.
Q. And you didn’t sleep with anybody on the 6th; correct?
A. No.
Q. Therefore, you slept alone on the 6th; correct?
A. I guess so.
Q. Did you sleep with anybody on the 7th?
A. I don’t know. I can’t go back there and remember exactly, you know, dates and who.
Q. Do you remember who you slept with, if anyone, on the 8th?
A. No.
Q. The 10th?
A. No; but eventually I slept with all the men. So, I don’t know the dates.
Q. When you say “all the men,” who are you referring to?
A. The men that were staying at the ranch.
Q. Tex?
A. Tex, yes. I slept with Tex the very first night.
Q. Actually, you were very intimately associated with Tex Watson, were you not?
A. What do you mean?
Q. Well, you were emotionally involved with Mr. Watson, isn’t that correct?
A. No. Not any more so than anybody else.
Q. You were equally involved with all the men?
A. Uh-huh, yes. You know, I had no special feelings for one certain person.
Q. And there was Tex, Bruce?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you sleep with Bruce from time to time?
A. Once.
Q. Clem?
A. Once.
Q. Larry?
A. No.
Q. Who else was there?
A. There was a boy named Chuck. I slept with him once.
I can’t remember now. Oh, I slept with Danny DeCarlo once or twice. I am not sure.
And I slept with Charlie, a number of times.
Q. Charlie?
A. Yes.
Q. But you can’t remember on what particular night you slept with what particular man?
A. I remember the first night I slept with Tex.
Q. Was there some night that you slept with girls?
A. Sometimes we would, you know, sleep in the same sleeping bag, zip them together, and there would be three girls in one sleeping bag.
Q. Do you remember any particular meals you ate during July and August?
You have testified to a particular meal in August. Do you remember what you ate on July the 5th?
A. It seems to me just about every mealtime we had brown rice, vegetables or fruit, or both; and you know, we would maybe cook the vegetables or make a salad or whatever.
Lots of times we had what they call zuzus, candy and ice cream.
Q. What was your activity during the day, July the 5th?
A. My activity?
Q. What did you do during the day, the 5th?
A. Let me see. (Pause.)
MR. BUGLIOSI: Your Honor, may we approach the bench? Mr. Manson is talking out loud for the jury to hear and he is making all types of incriminatory and inflammatory statements, your Honor.
May we approach the bench?
THE COURT: Very well.
MR. KANAREK: He is approaching the bench before the Court even gives permission. May the record reflect that?
THE COURT: I don’t want to hear about that, Mr. Kanarek, except at the bench.
(Whereupon, all counsel approach the bench and the following proceedings occur at the bench outside of the hearing of the jury:)
MR. BUGLIOSI: Your Honor, very loudly, Mr. Manson was looking over—I heard him over there—I was looking at the jury, and I heard him say, “Why is Fitzgerald asking ‘What were you wearing at the time?’ Why doesn’t he ask her about the $5,000 she stole?”
He was asking that out loud.
This is just unbelievable. He was shouting out. I heard him.
THE COURT: I did not hear it.
MR. BUGLIOSI: I represent to the Court—
MR. HUGHES: I didn’t hear it.
MR. FITZGERALD: I didn’t.
MR. BUGLIOSI: I represent to the Court, as an officer of the court, that it was loud and that I heard it.
He wasn’t speaking to the jury, he was speaking in that direction to the girls, and he said, “Why doesn’t be ask her about the $5,000 she stole instead of what she wore one day?”
THE COURT: I will admonish the jury, of course, to disregard it.
I will also tell counsel, Mr. Kanarek, to advise his client that I will not tolerate speaking out in any such manner.
MR. KANAREK: Your Honor, I move for an evidentiary hearing. I do not accept the representation.
THE COURT: Don’t Interrupt me.
MR. KANAREK: I am sorry. I thought your Honor had finished. I apologize.
THE COURT: I will not tolerate that sort of conduct on the part of any defendant, and I will take the proper steps to stop it.
So, I suggest that you advise your client of that promptly and avoid any possible difficulty.
MR. KANAREK: I move to strike Mr. Bugliosi’s statement, your Honor, and I move for an evidentiary hearing under oath.
I do not accept the representations of Mr. Bugliosi.
THE COURT: Your motion is denied.
Let’s proceed.
MR. BUGLIOSI: Thank you very much, your Honor.
(Whereupon all counsel returned 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, you are admonished to disregard any remarks that Mr. Manson may have made.
All right, let’s proceed, gentlemen.
BY MR. FITZGERALD:
Q. What sort of activity did you engage in during the day July the 5th?
A. Well, first I will have to explain to you the night of July the 4th.
Q. You may do so.
A. Okay.
I met Tex, and Tex took me into a dark shed, shack, whatever you want to call it, and he made love to me, which was an experience that I had never had before.
Q. You had never had sexual intercourse before?
A. No. I am saying that the experience I had in making love with Tex was a total experience, it was different.
Q. In what respect?
A. That my hands were clinched when it was all over and I had absolutely no will power to open my own hands, and I was very much afraid, I didn’t understand it.
And I questioned Gypsy about it later and she told me it was my ego that was dying.
Tex asked me where I had come from and where I was going, and I told him that I was on my way to South America, and we had all this money, and we were going to do these things.
Q. You had all what money?
A. We had some money that Charlie Melton had inherited.
MR. BUGLIOSI: Your Honor, may we approach the bench?
MR. KANAREK: Your Honor, I object to approaching the bench at this time, if I may.
MR. STOVITZ: Then I will object to the question—the answer—as not responsive to the question.
The question was: What happened—
THE COURT: You may approach the bench.
(Whereupon all counsel approach the bench and the following proceedings occur at the bench outside of the hearing of the jury:)
THE COURT: Before I hear from counsel, would you read the answer so far of the witness. Read the question first and then the answer.
(Whereupon the record was read by the reporter.)
MR. BUGLIOSI: The way it developed is that apparently Tex told her to go steal $5,000, whereupon she did go and steal the $5,000, and gave it to Leslie, I believe. She didn’t keep it herself.
She is about to testify to this. And I think the defense now is bringing in through the back door what the Court indicated it could not do.
In other words, not only shouldn’t Mr. Fitzgerald be permitted to ask her “Did you ever steal $5,000,” but he should not be permitted to put it in in any other way.
It is the same objection, putting on evidence of another crime.
THE COURT: I don’t see it that way. She is now relating a conversation that she had with Tex, one of the defendants in this case. I think it is permissible.
I agree that he can’t drag it in by the back door, but he hasn’t attempted to do so.
MR. BUGLIOSI: He is asking for a conversation in which the conversation is the solicitation of grand theft.
THE COURT: He is not asking for that. He is asking for the conversation.
MR. BUGLIOSI: He is asking for a conversation in which he knows what the answer is going to be.
Could I ask Mr. Fitzgerald if that is what he believes the answer to be?
MR. FITZGERALD: I actually represent to the Court that I didn’t know—as a matter of fact, I thought the $5,000 had to do with Katherine [Catherine] Share.
MR. BUGLIOSI: I understand that Tex asked her to go steal it.
THE COURT: The point is that on direct you have gone into the various conversations that she had with members of the Family, and specifically the defendants, during the time at Spahn Ranch.
Now, on cross-examination, the defendants are entitled to bring out the balance of such conversations or any other conversations relating to those.
MR. BUGLIOSI: I stayed away from that, from conversations. I haven’t asked any questions about crimes.
THE COURT: At this moment, I don’t think your objection is good. I am going to overrule it.
We will take our recess at this time.
(Whereupon all counsel return to their respective places at counsel table and the following proceedings occurred in open court within the presence and hearing of the jury:)
THE COURT: Ladies and gentleman, 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.
MR. KANAREK: Your Honor, I would ask protection for Mr. Manson from Mr. Bugliosi, your Honor.
(Recess.)
THE COURT: All parties, counsel and jurors are present.
You may proceed, Mr. Fitzgerald.
MR. KANAREK: Your Honor, may we approach the bench?
THE COURT: No, you may not. Let’s proceed.
Q. BY MR. FITZGERALD: You were relating, I believe, a conversation that you had with Tex Watson on the evening of July 4th?
A. Yes, that’s correct.
Q. And I believe you had said in substance—well, at least in part, that you were going to go some place, South America or something?
A. Yes.
Q. Does that sort of refresh your recollection?
A. Yes.
Q. Would you continue with that conversation?
A. Yes. I told him that he and these people were going to go to South America by a boat and sail around the world.
And we had this money, and it seemed to me as soon as I mentioned money he started going on this trip, and telling me that it wasn’t their money; that it was everybody’s money and it was just there to take, and that there was no right and wrong. It was just theirs, ours.
I said, “Hey”—
He told me, you know, that I should go and take this money.
I said, “Hey, I can’t do that, he’s my brother.”
He said, “But there is no wrong.” And he just kept going on and on.
And I accepted it and that was about the conversation.
Q. You accepted what?
A. What he told me, that there was no wrong.
Q. Now, you asked me if you could relate what happened on the evening of the 4th in regard to Mr. Watson, when I asked you the question what you did during the day on July the 5th.
A. Yes.
Q. What did you do on the day during—I’m going to have to start over.
What did you do on July 5th during the day?
MR. BUGLIOSI: Too broad a question, your Honor, I object on that ground, ambiguous. She could have done 15 or 20 things.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. KANAREK: May I be heard on that, your Honor?
THE COURT: No, sir. Let’s proceed.
Q. BY MR. FITZGERALD: I take it you went to sleep sometime on the evening of the 4th, the early morning hours of the 5th?
A. Yes.
Q. I take it you woke up the next morning on the 5th?
A. Yes.
Q. What did you do when you got up?
A. I got dressed.
Q. Did you sleep with your baby that night?
A. No, I did not.
Q. Did you sleep with your baby any of these nights during the month of July?
A. No, they usually wanted me to stay away from Tanya; that they were killing the ego that I put into her.
Q. And that was against your will?
A. At first I agreed to it, I thought that it was a good idea that she should become her own person.
But some of the things I saw them doing, I did not agree to.
Q. So you left, then, when you saw that?
A. No, I did not leave.
Q. Why not?
A. I’m not sure.
Q. You did not want any harm to come to your baby, did you?
A. They weren’t physically harming her, no, just it was more of a mental thing.
Q. Was the child in danger of some mental or emotional trauma as a result of their conduct or behavior?
A. Well, yeah, I gave birth to her; I had her on the breast for a year and a couple of months, and all of a sudden she was taken from me.
I don’t think she really dug it.
Q. And that might be damaging to the child, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. You didn’t do anything about it?
A. Sometimes, you know, when there wasn’t anybody around, usually Charlie, I would give her my love and feed her.
They always told me not to feed her, but when nobody was around I would.
Q. They were trying to starve your baby?
A. Starve her? No.
Q. You said they wouldn’t give her anything to eat?
A. I wasn’t supposed to give her anything to eat.
Q. They gave her something to eat?
A. Yes, and at one point nobody was supposed to feed her. The little boy, Bear, was to feed her, give her the food, nobody else.
Q. Did you agree with that?
A. At first it sounded good, but then after a while Bear didn’t want to give her food, so I had to give her food.
Q. What did you do when you got up in the morning of the 5th?
A. Like I said, I dressed.
Q. What did you do after that?
MR. BUGLIOSI: Your Honor, I object. This calls for testimony which would be irrelevant in this case. I would ask for an offer of proof, your Honor, as to what she did on July 5th.
MR. FITZGERALD: I cannot make an offer of proof. I never talked to the witness.
THE COURT: Overruled, you may answer.
THE WITNESS: What did I do after I got dressed?
Q. BY MR. FITZGERALD: Yes.
A. I remember getting together with Gypsy and Mary and Tanya was with me, and we got in a car and we drove to the beach.
Q. How long were you at the beach?
A. A good part of the day.
Q. With just Gypsy and who else?
A. Mary Brunner and Tanya.
Q. What did you do at the beach?
A. I went to Topanga Lane, where we were camping before I left Bob and Charlie Melton, and Jim and Julie, and I looked for—wait—let’s see, were they there?
No, they were not there or something, I don’t know, but we looked for them and we found them.
And we sat—I can’t remember, it seems to be scattered, at one point we were up at Topanga Shopping Plaza, sitting at the back of the Plaza, and we were sitting by the stream and talking, and then we left.
I guess we were supposed to meet them down at the beach or something.
Q. Meet whom?
A. Charlie and Bob.
Q. Charles Melton and Bob Kasabian, your husband?
A. Yes.
Q. Was this before he had been to the ranch looking for you?
MR. STOVITZ: That is objected to as being immaterial and irrelevant, it has nothing to do with the issues of this case.
THE COURT: Overruled, you may answer.
THE WITNESS: Yes.
Q. BY MR. FITZGERALD: That was before?
A. Yes.
Q. Well, did you meet them?
A. Yes.
Q. Was that at the beach?
A. I am not sure which place we met them first, but we met them at both places, the shopping plaza and the beach.
Q. Did you have a conversation with your husband Bob about leaving them and going back to the Spahn Ranch?
MR. STOVITZ: That is objected to, your Honor, as being immaterial, irrelevant and calling for hearsay.
THE COURT: Sustained.
BY MR. FITZGERALD:
Q. What was your purpose in seeing your husband Robert Kasabian, meeting him?
A. Well, I remember when I come back from the East I brought back a small pouch of acid, and I had given it to him and he buried it, and I was going to take it back to the Ranch, so I remember he dug that up and gave it to me.
Q. Did you also go there to secure more belongings to take to the Ranch?
A. Yes.
Q. Was that when you picked up the kitchen knife and took it to the Ranch?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you have some conversation—without telling me what the conversation was, did you have a phone conversation with your husband about moving out certain household goods and taking them away?
A. No.
Q. You just took it without any conversation?
A. Yes.
Q. In his presence?
A. No.
Q. He was not there?
A. He wasn’t there.
Q. Was Gypsy there?
A. Yes, and Mary.
Q. Tanya?
A. Yes.
Q. Was that all you did?
MR. STOVITZ: That is objected to, your Honor, as being irrelevant and immaterial and has nothing to do with the issues in this case.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. KANAREK: Your Honor, may we approach the bench?
THE COURT: No, sir. Let’s proceed.
BY MR. FITZGERALD:
Q. Did you leave Topanga Lane at some time?
A. Yes.
Q. Approximately what time was it?
A. In the middle of the afternoon.
Q. Did you take any of the LSD that day?
A. Yes.
Q. Was that at Topanga Lane?
A. Did I take it physically in my own body?
Q. Yes.
A. No, I did not.
Q. But you took possession of it, of the pouch?
A. Yes, uh-huh.
Q. Where did you go?
A. Back to the Ranch?
Q. What was your activity, just an outline of your activity during the next day, July 6th?
A. July 6th?
MR. STOVITZ: Immaterial, irrelevant, nothing to do with the issues of this case.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. KANAREK: I would say on the basis of equal protection—well, very well, your Honor.
THE WITNESS: Would you repeat the question?
BY MR. FITZGERALD:
Q. Can you give us an outline of your activities during the day, July 6th?
A. During the day of July 6th—I believe we were staying up in the cave in back of the Ranch. You see, I get confused with these dates, I am not, you know—
Q. As a matter of fact you don’t have a mind for dates at all, do you?
A. No, not really.
Q. It’s very difficult for you to associate events with dates, isn’t it?
A. Yeah, because I don’t know the date at the time.
Q. It is also very difficult for you to associate faces with names, isn’t it?
A. Sometimes.
Q. Didn’t you testify in your direct examination that you had difficulty remembering faces?
A. Yes, at certain points I did.
Q. What did you mean by that?
A. There was a face there, but I cannot remember in my mind whose face it was.
Q. So if I were to ask you your activities during the day on July 8th, 9th, 10th, 11th, 12th, 13th, 14th, 15th, 16th, 17th, 18th, 19th, 20th, 21st, 22nd, 23rd, 24th, 25th, 26th, 27th, 28th, 29th, 30th, you could not tell me, could you?
A. I could tell you partly.
Q. Is there any day there, any one of those days that you associate some activity with?
A. Are you speaking about July or August?
Q. July.
A. Oh, no, I cannot really. I thought you were speaking about August.
Q. Actually, during the months of July and August you did not even know what day of the week it was on a particular day.
A. Yes.
Q. Isn’t that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And you did not care if you knew what day it was?
A. No, because it didn’t matter.
Q. You were not interested in what day it was, were you?
A. Uh-huh.
Q. Why?
A. Why?
Q. Yes.
A. Because it just did not matter what day it was. It was a day and night; it did not matter what the name of the day was.
Q. You didn’t have a watch at that time?
A. No, I never wore a watch.
Q. As a matter of fact you had a distaste or dislike for watches and clocks, isn’t that true?
A. I never found any use for them.
Q. Didn’t you have a philosophy or organized set of thoughts that time was irrelevant, made no sense?
MR. KANAREK: I object on the grounds the word organized—I don’t think this witness—
I object on the ground it is assuming facts not in evidence that she has an organized thought.
THE COURT: Overruled.
BY MR. FITZGERALD:
Q. Can you answer the question, Mrs. Kasabian?
A. No, I don’t think I can.
Q. Did you have a philosophy that was something to the effect that time did not make any difference?
A. Yes.
Q. And did you have a philosophy that people that paid attention to time and dates were not good people?
A. No, people are people. It doesn’t matter if they pay attention to time. It doesn’t matter—you know.
Q. Would it be fair to say that you had a set of ideas or values that were different from other people that you knew?
MR. BUGLIOSI: Calls for a conclusion, your Honor.
THE COURT: Sustained.
BY MR. FITZGERALD:
Q. Did you ever during the month of July in discussions with people at the Ranch, did you use the term “establishment”?
A. Possibly.
Q. Did you use the term “pigs”?
A. No.
Q. You never personally used the word “pig”?
A. Oh, eventually, eventually I may have, yes.
Q. In other words, you learned the term, pig, from the people at the Ranch, is that correct?
A. Piggies, yes.
Q. Piggies?
A. Piggies.
Q. Never pig alone?
A. No, they mostly said piggies.
Q. Did you ever use the term Fascist during the month—in discussions with people at the Ranch during the months of July and August, 1969?
A. Fascist.
Q. Fascist.
A. No, I don’t even know what the word means.
Q. You used to go down the hill some days, didn’t you?
A. What do you mean “down the hill”?
Q. Are you familiar with the term “down the hill”?
A. I don’t know what hill you are talking about.
Q. Santa Susanna Pass Road is a hilly road?
A. Oh, yeah.
Q. And when people left the Spahn Ranch and walked down to the vicinity of Chatsworth, did they refer to it as going down the hill?
A. I don’t recall.
Q. When you went down what did you refer to it as?
A. Garbage runs.
Q. You also went to town for things other than garbage runs, didn’t you?
A. Yes, on two occasions I distinctly remember.
Q. You used to go into town in order to panhandle on occasion, isn’t that correct?
A. Yes, on two occasions.
Q. And when people would refuse to give you money you would utter certain expletives, is that correct?
A. I don’t understand expletives.
Q. Well, you would get angry and call them names, wouldn’t you?
A. No, that is not correct.
Q. Never?
A. No.
Q. Did you ever panhandle with Sandy Goode [Good]?
A. Yes, I have.
Q. Who else did you panhandle with?
A. Panhandle with?
Q. What did you call it?
A. I understand what you mean.
Q. What do you call it?
A. Panhandle, ask for money, beg, whatever you want to call it. It means the same thing.
Q. Did you ever panhandle or beg with anybody else?
A. Yes.
Q. Who was that?
A. Sadie.
Q. Did you frequently go on garbage runs?
A. Yes.
Q. Were those during the day?
A. Yeah, in the middle of the day.
Q. Did those runs or chores require your absence from the ranch for any period, any substantial periods of time?
A. Yeah.
Q. Frequently you were gone all day, isn’t that correct?
A. Actually it depends if we hitchhiked or had a car, and I hitchhiked once.
Q. Did you ever drive the car?
A. Yes.
Q. Was that Mr. Swartz’s ’59 Ford?
A. Yes.
Q. Was that with the permission of Mr. Swartz?
A. Yes, most of the time.
Q. Did you have something to do with the license plates on that car, Mrs. Kasabian?
A. No, I don’t know what you mean by that.
Q. Did you have a driver’s license in July?
A. Yes.
Q. Under what name?
A. My own name, Linda Kasabian.
Q. You frequently went on errands, did you not, during the day, in addition to going down the hill on garbage runs or panhandling, or something like that?
A. Yes, I recall a couple of errands.
Q. You used to go all alone on those errands, right?
A. I went alone on one errand which was after the facts which we are here for, but before that, no, I never went alone.
Q. Now, during July there were a certain number of people present at the Spahn Ranch, right?
A. Yes.
Q. Was everybody there every day?
A. No, no.
Q. Some people would come some go; correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Sometimes some of the girls would go away for a few days and then come back, correct?
A. I am not sure how to answer that. I think a couple of times Snake went to the water fall, maybe a few others, for a few days.
Q. And you had seen people leave the ranch permanently, had you not?
A. Permanently?
Q. Yes.
MR. BUGLIOSI: That calls for a conclusion, your Honor.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q. BY MR. FITZGERALD: Well, was the nature of the ranch such that once you entered you never left?
MR. BUGLIOSI: Calls for a conclusion, your Honor.
THE COURT: It is ambiguous also. Sustained.
MR. FITZGERALD: All right.
Q. Was Clem at the ranch during the month of July?
A. Yes.
Q. Every day during the month of July?
A. I don’t know. One day he just showed up.
Q. Do you know where he was the day before he showed up?
A. No. But I heard that he escaped from a mental institution.
Q. Did you immediately report that to the authorities?
A. No.
Q. You wouldn’t dream of it, would you?
A. No.
Q. Was Tex there every day during the month of July?
A. No. Sometimes we would go into town for dune buggy parts.
Q. Was he there every night?
A. I don’t know. I didn’t keep track of everybody every day and every night.
Q. Well, we are going to take them one by one.
What about Bruce? Did you see him there every day during the month of July?
A. No.
Q. What about Sadie? Did you see her every day during the month of July?
A. No.
Q. Did you see Katie every day during the month of July?
A. No.
Q. Did you see Charlie every day during the month of July?
A. No.
Q. As a matter of fact, Charlie was gone for a substantial period of time during the month of July, wasn’t he?
MR. STOVITZ: That is objected to, your Honor. “Substantial” is ambiguous.
MR. KANAREK: On the basis of equal protection, I would ask your Honor not to sustain the objection in view of the Court’s ruling in connection with—
THE COURT: The objection is sustained. It is ambiguous.
MR. FITZGERALD: Q. From the day you came to the ranch until the day you left, was Charles Manson there every single day?
A. Well, I didn’t see him every single day.
Q. But he could have been there?
A. Yes.
Q. Would you say he probably was there?
A. I can’t say because sometimes I wasn’t there at the ranch.
Q. But you were there at the ranch every night, weren’t you?
A. When you speak about the ranch, do you mean the main set of buildings?
Q. Do you?
A. Yes.
Q. So, during the month of July, or during the period of time you were at the ranch, you were either at the ranch or at a camp nearby; is that correct?
A. Right.
Q. All right.
During the period of time you were at the ranch, was Mr. Manson—you refer to him as Charlie; correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Was Charles there at one place or the other every night that you know of?
A. Yes. It seems to me that he was.
Q. Would you care, then, to explain your testimony about Charlie being in Big Sur?
A. He just left one day, said he was going to Big Sur to pick up some girls.
Q. What day was that?
A. I don’t know. Just for one day.
Q. Someday during this amorphous period; right?
A. Uh-huh, yes.
MR. KANAREK: Your Honor, may that be answered yes or no, your Honor?
THE WITNESS: Yes.
MR. FITZGERALD: Q. How long was he gone, if you recall?
A. No. A few days. I don’t know how many.
Q. Did he go with anybody?
A. No. He left by himself.
Q. Did you see him leave?
A. I am not sure. I remember helping fix the truck.
Q. Did he tell you he was going?
A. Yes.
Q. Did he say goodbye to you?
A. I can’t remember him saying goodbye to me, no.
Q. Did he come back?
A. Yes.
Q. A few days later; is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. Did he come back with somebody?
A. Yes.
Q. With Stephanie Schram?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you know her?
A. I didn’t until I met her that day.
Q. Had you ever seen her before?
A. No.
Q. Did Bruce ever leave the Ranch, to your knowledge?
A. Well—
Q. The Ranch or the camp?
A. Well, sometimes when we were at the campsite the guys would go to the Ranch to do what they had to do. Sometimes when we were at the Ranch, the guys would go into town to do what they had to do.
Q. What about Larry? Was he there continuously during the period of time you were at the Ranch or the camp?
A. I never really paid much attention to Larry.
Q. What about Barbara? Was she there during that period of time continuously?
A. Barbara with the glasses?
Q. Barbara, the picture that you identified.
A. Yes.
Q. That Barbara. Do you have that Barbara in mind?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. Was she there the entire period of time?
A. No. She came—she just came one day, after I had already been there, and stayed.
Q. Did she become a member of this family?
A. Apparently she had been a member before and left for a while and then came back.
Q. Was that an unusual experience as far as you were concerned?
MR. BUGLIOSI: Calls for a conclusion—sorry.
MR. FITZGERALD: Q. —that somebody had previously left the Ranch and then returned to the Ranch?
MR. BUGLIOSI: Calls for a conclusion, your Honor.
THE COURT: Overruled.
THE WITNESS: I don’t understand your question.
MR. FITZGERALD: All right.
Q. Were there armed guards at the Ranch during the day to prevent anybody from leaving?
A. No.
Q. Were there armed guards at the Ranch at night to prevent anybody from leaving?
A. I don’t know about preventing anybody from leaving. There were armed guards at night.
Q. Weren’t those armed guards to guard against Black Panthers?
A. Yes.
Q. So those guards weren’t there to guard against you, so far as you know; right?
A. No, not that I knew of.
Q. You didn’t have to seek anybody’s permission to go into town, did you?
A. A couple of times I said I was going some place, and Sadie insisted that she come with me; and another time I said I was going some place, and Sandy wanted to go, and Sadie wanted to go also, but she didn’t go. Sandy went instead.
Q. And any time you wanted to leave the Ranch, you didn’t seek out Charlie and ask him permission to leave, did you?
A. I don’t remember now.
Q. You were not continuously at Charlie’s side during the period of time you were at this Ranch, were you?
A. No.
Q. As a matter of fact, he didn’t care to have you near him; isn’t that right?
A. He spent time with me, which was a, you know, usual thing when girls, new girls, would come into the Ranch.
Q. How many girls were at the Ranch during July, if you remember, early in July when you came to the Ranch or the camp?
A. (Pause.)
Q. 20? 40? 80? A hundred?
A. Around 20, I guess.
Q. Did Charlie divide his attention equally between and among 20 girls?
A. No, not equally.
Q. Did some girls get more time and attention than others?
A. Yes.
Q. Were you one of those that got more time and attention?
A. In the beginning, I felt that he spent quite a bit more time with me than the others.
Q. Was that time spent talking with you?
A. Yes.
Q. About his philosophies, Mr. Manson’s, Charlie’s?
A. Yes.
Q. Were you interested in those philosophies?
A. I remember the first—up in the cave, the first thing he said, he started to talk to me and I said that I already know the truth, because I didn’t know what he was going to say.
And he said, “Don’t you want to hear it?” So he started talking to me about it.
Q. What would Charlie do with you when he spent this time with you?
A. He would talk to me, he would make love to me.
Q. How many times did he make love to you?
A. Let me think. The cave, the waterfall, the trailer and the house. Four times.
Q. Do you remember each one of these experiences?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. Is there some reason for that?
A. I just remember them.
Q. Why do you remember them?
A. I don’t know why I remember them. They just stuck in my mind.
Q. And did Charlie speak with you at length about his philosophies?
A. I guess so. I can’t even remember half the things he told me. They just never seemed to take root.
Q. So, what you told the Court and the jury on your direct examination about his philosophies was an incomplete statement of what he told you inasmuch as you can’t remember some of what he told you?
A. Well, a lot of it I have forgotten, you know. I just sort of let go of it because I knew that it was not true.
Q. Did you disagree with his philosophy in some respects?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. And you told him that you disagreed with it when he told you?
A. No. Because I was always told, “Never ask why.”
Q. Were you also told that you couldn’t disagree?
A. Yes.
Q. Why would you never ask why, even if you were requested to do so?
A. If I was requested?
Q. Yes.
A. I don’t understand you.
Q. What made you follow such a request never to ask why?
A. The girls used to always tell me that, “We never question Charlie. We know that what he is doing is right.”
Q. You questioned Charlie about his philosophy, didn’t you?
A. I think I just mostly listened.
Within my own head I didn’t agree with a lot of things he said.
Q. But you didn’t say anything?
A. No.
Q. Through fear?
A. Yes, a little bit of fear.
Q. What were you afraid of?
A. I was just afraid. He is a heavy dude—man.
MR. STOVITZ: That is spelled d-u-d-e?
THE WITNESS: Yes.
Q. BY MR. FITZGERALD: What is a heavy dude?
A. A dude is a man.
Q. All right.
The word “heavy”; what did you mean to convey by using the word “heavy”?
A. Heavy. He just had something, you know, that could hold you. He was a heavyweight, you know. He was just heavy, period.
Q. Can we attach a value judgment to the word? Can we say that he was good or bad because he was heavy?
A. He seemed to be good, yes.
Q. Did you love Charlie?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. Did you love him very much?
A. Well, to be truthful with you, I felt—
Q. Please.
A. I felt that he was the Messiah come again; you know, the second coming of Christ.
Q. You thought he was God?
A. No.
Q. You thought he was a god-man?
A. Yes.
Q. You thought he was a deity in human form?
A. Well, I thought he was the Messiah.
Q. A second Jesus Christ?
A. Yes.
Q. Did it have a particular Christian connotation to you? Was he a Jesus Christ within the framework of Christianity?
A. I don’t understand your question.
Q. Well, you used the term “Messiah.” Did you mean a Christian Messiah as opposed to a Buddhist Messiah or a Jewish Messiah, or what? I don’t know.
A. I don’t know.
Q. Why did you think he was a Messiah?
A. He just seemed to generate this love, and some of the things he would say just seemed to be pure truth, and I accepted him.
This is what I had been looking for, and this is what I saw in him.
Q. You saw love and truth?
A. Uh-huh, yes.
Q. Isn’t it true, then, that you thought or you believed that Mr. Manson’s philosphy was the truth?
A. Yes, I did. Parts of it.
Q. All of it?
A. No. There were some things that I questioned in my own mind.
Q. You questioned God in your own mind?
A. Yes, I guess I did. I didn’t believe he was God.
Q. You used the term—or I believe my notes are correct—and please correct me if I am wrong—but I believe on your direct examination you said, “No sense makes sense.”
A. Yes.
Q. What did you mean by “No sense makes sense”?
A. I don’t know. That is what Charlie told me.
Q. What did you think that meant? What sort of sense did you make out of “No sense makes sense”?
A. Well, in my own mind, some of the things he would say didn’t make sense. That was just one of his phrases, “No sense makes sense.”
Q. Was it also your impression that other people at the Ranch loved Charlie?
A. Oh, yes. It seemed that the girls worshipped him, you know, just would die to do anything for him.
Q. Did it appear to you that it was out of fear, or was it out of love?
A. It seemed to be love.
Q. Now, this term “Helter Skelter”. Do you recall when you first heard the term Helter Skelter?
Incidentally, is that two words?
A. Yes.
Q. When did you first hear that term, do you recall?
A. The very first time I heard the word Helter Skelter?
Q. Yes.
A. It was in a coffee shop in Taos, New Mexico, in the record itself.
Q. On the Beatle record?
A. Yes.
Q. When was the first time that you heard anybody at the Ranch use the term?
A. I don’t know the first time, but they always used the word Helter Skelter.
Q. Did you hear it from Gypsy?
A. Possibly.
Q. Sandy?
A. All of them, you know. It was just an everyday word, Helter Skelter.
Q. And what did it mean?
A. Let me see.
When Charlie was talking to me, I believe he said that Helter Skelter was revolution, blackie against whitey and against all non-blacks; and even blacks that weren’t going to go on blackie’s trip.
And also like just every day Helter Skelter would be, I don’t know, sort of like running around.
Q. Disorganized?
A. Yes.
Q. Confused?
A. Yes.
Q. Untogether?
A. Yes.
Q. You used the term “Blackie’s trip.” What does “Blackie’s trip” mean?
A. I don’t know.
Q. What does “trip” mean the way you are using it, in the context in which you are using it?
A. Their thoughts or their way of doing things or—I don’t know.
Q. And did you believe in this concept “helter skelter”?
A. It made sense, you know, the philosophy that he laid down to me about karma.
Q. What is karma?
A. It is when you put something out, energy or a thought, or when you say something or do something, it always comes back to you, and whether it is good or bad, you pay for it. In other words, you reap what you sow.
Q. And do people as classes have karmas?
A. I never thought of it that way, no.
Q. For example, the white man has a karma, a black man has a karma?
A. No. I never thought of it that way until I got in with them.
Q. And did you believe, as a result of discussions or as a result of listening to them talk, that there was something called the white man’s karma and a black man’s karma?
A. Yes.
Q. What was the white man’s karma?
A. Well, just that whitie had been on top for all these years and, you know, blackie was sort of like the underdog and sort of sweeping away the garbage, you know, that the white man had left behind.
And Charlie would indicate that the karma is turning and that blackie is going to be on top and that whitie is going to be the underdog.
MR. KANAREK: Your Honor, may we approach the bench?
THE COURT: Let’s take it up at 12:00 o’clock, Mr. Kanarek.
MR. KANAREK: Very well, your Honor.
MR. FITZGERALD: May I have just a moment to confer with Mr. Kanarek?
THE COURT: Yes.
(Mr. Fitzgerald and Mr. Kanarek confer.)
MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, your Honor.
May I proceed?
THE COURT: You may.
MR. FITZGERALD: Q. Now, was it your understanding as a result of listening to this philosophy, that the blacks were going to start helter shelter?
A. He used to say that it was already happening.
Q. But I believe you testified on your direct examination—Page 4966, Counsel—that the blacks were going to start helter shelter.
A. The blacks were going to start helter skelter? Yes.
Q. What did you mean by that, the blacks are going to start helter skelter?
A. The revolution.
Q. And that was going to be a black-white revolution?
A. Yes.
Q. But it wasn’t the whites that were going to start any revolution, it was the blacks that were going to start the revolution?
A. I guess so.
Q. Did a particular person commonly take care of your child, Tanya?
A. Yes.
Q. Was that Brenda?
A. Yes, she usually did.
Q. Was she good to your child?
A. Yes.
Q. Kind?
A. Yes.
Q. Brenda take care of any other children at the Ranch?
A. Yes.
Q. What other children?
A. She would take care of Bear.
Q. And ZoZoZeeZee Zafrack?
A. He usually stayed at the Ranch, in the trailer, he never came to the woods with us.
MR. BUGLIOSI: Your Honor, for clarification could ZoZoZeeZee Zafrack be identified as to who he was?
BY MR. FITZGERALD:
Q. Who was ZoZoZeeZee Zafrack?
A. I knew him as Zee Zoo.
Q. Did you know the full name, ZoZoZeeZee Zafrack?
A. I think they told me once but it just, you know, left me.
Q. Who is Zee Zoo?
A. Zee Zoo was a little boy. I believe he was ten months old at the time. He was—
Q. Was he the male child of Sadie, Susan Denise Atkins?
A. Yes, he was.
Q. And did Brenda care for the children at a place separate from where you were usually during the day?
A. You are making it so specific—I mean, wherever it is—it wasn’t like that all the time.
Q. Well, you can describe it.
A. But I can’t, sometimes I am at a loss for words.
Q. Perhaps we can attack it this way:
You did not have your child constantly with you, holding her hand, or like a papoose on your back?
A. No.
Q. Frequently she was out of your line of vision, correct?
A. No, sometimes—most of the time when I was in camp she was there.
Q. But actually Brenda ministered to Tanya’s needs more frequently than you did?
A. Yes.
Q. And was there some philosophy in this so-called Family about children?
A. Yes.
Q. Was one aspect of that philosophy that children were beautiful creatures?
A. Yes.
Q. And that children should be given a great deal of attention?
A. Yes—well—attention in—what do you mean by attention, care? To watch over them?
Q. They should be allowed freedom.
A. Yes, total freedom.
Q. And that they should be given love?
A. Yes.
Q. And that the children represented the true human state?
A. Yes.
Q. Wasn’t there a philosophy that many human beings, adult human beings, are disturbed as the result of their mothers and their fathers and their child raising?
A. Yes.
Q. And there was an attempt, was there not, to free the children at the Ranch from that sort of a disability later on in life?
A. Yes, we were all the mother and father, just one.
Q. Are you familiar with the term, venerate or veneration?
A. No.
Q. Are you familiar with the term admiration?
A. Admiration?
Q. Yes.
A. Yes.
Q. Were the children admired at the Ranch?
A. Oh, yes.
Q. And observed very carefully by the adults in their play?
A. Yes, the whole thing was to follow the children.
Q. So that the children—
A. Lead.
Q. So that the children, for example, walked through the woods—
A. Yes.
Q. —and to follow the children through the woods and watch them at play?
A. Yes.
Q. And to see them in their joy and appreciation, for example, of nature?
A. Yes.
Q. To watch them look at leaves and to watch them look at trees?
A. Uh-huh.
Q. And the people at the Ranch were very kind to your daughter Tanya, were they not?
MR. STOVITZ: Objected to, your Honor, counsel is using a term “kind” as we define it, or as the way they define it at the Ranch.
THE COURT: Overruled, you may answer.
THE WITNESS: Most of the time they were, but in the very beginning Tanya, like I say, she had been with me since she was born, and she had never been without me and all of a sudden she was without me, and she was with total strangers, and sometimes she would cry and they used to put their hands over her mouth, or over Bear’s mouth or Zee Zoo’s mouth when they cried, and they would keep suppressing it until they stopped.
Sometimes they would hold their nose so they would stop crying.
BY MR. FITZGERALD:
Q. But not to suffocate them or anything?
A. Oh, no, just to make them stop crying.
Q. And your daughter Tanya reacted to being separated from you?
A. Yes, she did.
Q. Almost like taking a child to school the first day.
A. I don’t know, I never took a child to school.
Q. Or putting a child in a nursery school or something where the child for the first time is removed from its mother?
A. All I can relate is, yes, removed from the breast, because she was on my breast for all these months.
Q. For a considerable period of time?
A. Yes.
Q. Longer than you had been advised to breast feed her?
A. I was never advised. I felt when she was ready to stop breast feeding she would stop.
Q. Could you describe your child Tanya as being closer to you than it would appear most children are close to their mothers?
MR. STOVITZ: That is objected to as calling for pure speculation.
THE COURT: Do you understand the question?
THE WITNESS: No, not really.
THE COURT: All right.
BY MR. FITZGERALD:
Q. Where would Tanya sleep at night?
A. Wherever we were. When we were in the woods—well, I will take you back.
The very first night I was there she slept with Katie. Katie took care of her in the shack.
The second night, for the next few nights, we stayed up in the back of the Ranch in the cave.
Then we went to the Waterfall and she usually would sleep with Bear.
Q. Did you sleep in sleeping bags at the Ranch?
A. Yes.
Q. Did Tanya sleep in a sleeping bag with you?
A. No, she never did.
Q. Did she sleep in a sleeping bag with other people?
A. Did she?
Q. Yes.
A. It seems to me Bear and Tanya were always together in their own little bag.
Q. And Bear was Mary Brunner’s child?
A. Yes.
Q. How old was he, do you recall?
A. They were about the same age.
Q. Now, on your direct examination you said that Manson told you to make love to male visitors who came to the ranch?
A. Yes, he told all of us.
Q. To try to get them to join the Family?
A. Yes.
Q. Is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you do that?
A. Let me think. I proceeded once, but then Gypsy told me not to because it was Leslie’s love.
THE COURT: I did not hear the answer. Read the last answer, please.
(Whereupon, the reporter reads the record.)
MR. FITZGERALD: I wonder if I might approach the bench with counsel, your Honor.
THE COURT: Very well.
(The following proceedings were had at the bench out of the hearing of the jury.)
MR. FITZGERALD: I asked to approach the bench because Mr. Kanarek earlier told me he wanted to approach the bench in connection with this motion for a conditional examination of June Emmer, and it had to be done before the noon hour inasmuch as I was asking questions.
THE COURT: Why does it have to be done before the noon hour?
MR. KANAREK: I meant to approach the bench before the noon hour. The clerk tells me your Honor is not going to act on this because of some purported lack of service.
Now, if you want to get—it’s unbelievably supercritical—pardon me.
It is very supertechnical in that Mr. Hughes is here at the bench. He will swear he gave Mr. Bugliosi and Mr. Stovitz a copy, and for the clerk to require me to have an affidavit of service—
THE COURT: If the People acknowledge service, that is all that is required.
MR. STOVITZ: Yes, I acknowledge service.
THE COURT: In order to hear both sides of a motion or objection or something I have to know the other side has been advised, that is all, Mr. Kanarek. There is nothing esoteric about it.
MR. KANAREK: I am sorry, your Honor, the clerk informed me I had to have an affidavit of service before your Honor would consider this motion.
THE COURT: Don’t file the affidavit of service, if the People are willing to acknowledge service.
MR. STOVITZ: I will stipulate that at a quarter to 10:00 this morning we were served with notice of motion to have June Emmer examined.
THE COURT: I don’t want to take this up at the bench. I think it should be something that should be taken up in open court outside of the presence of the jury.
Why don’t we do this, we will recess in a minute or so, it is almost noon, then before the jury is brought back at 2:00 o’clock I will hear it then, is that agreeable?
MR. KANAREK: That is agreeable with me if agreeable with the People.
MR. STOVITZ: So stipulated.
THE COURT: All right.
MR. KANAREK: In connection with the motion as to Mr. Manson—
THE COURT: The reason I am saying this is because I have a request from the press that since the jury is selected and sequestered they would like to hear as much as possible of the things we say out of the presence of the jury, and I think they have a valid point.
MR. FITZGERALD: We would agree.
THE COURT: I cannot take the jury out every 30 seconds every time we have a bench conference, obviously, 18 people on the jury and we have some old people that cannot run up and downstairs every minute or so.
It just isn’t practical.
But on things like this which are not matters of objections or motions, in the course of taking testimony, when they can be done in open court in the absence of the jury, and I propose to do that as much as possible.
MR. KANAREK: I have another request. I would ask that the jury, both the jurors in the box and the alternates be examined on voir dire examination as to whether they know that your Honor put me in jail and Mr. Hughes in jail over the evening that your Honor—in connection with what your Honor did.
THE COURT: That motion will be denied.
MR. KANAREK: Then I ask for a mistrial, your Honor. I am informed and believe that the jury, at least some of the people on the jury do know about it and therefore I ask for a mistrial.
THE COURT: The motion is denied.
Do you wish to adjourn at this time, Mr. Fitzgerald?
MR. FITZGERALD: May we?
THE COURT: All right.
(The following proceedings were had in open court in the presence and hearing of the jury:)
THE COURT: As I have indicated to counsel we will take up Mr. Kanarek’s motion at 2:00 o’clock before the jury returns.
Ladies and gentlemen, do not converse with anyone or form or express any opinion regarding the case until it is finally submitted to you.
The Court will recess until 2:00 p.m.
(Whereupon, a recess was taken to reconvene at 2:00 p.m., same day.)
the witness on the stand at the time of the noon recess, resumed the stand and testified further as follows:
CROSS-EXAMINATION (CONTINUED)
BY MR. FITZGERALD:
Q. You have mentioned, Mrs. Kasabian, a person by the name of Danny DeCarlo who resided at the Spahn Ranch during some period of time when you were there, is that right?
A. Yes, that’s right.
Q. Did he live there at the Spahn Ranch?
A. Yes, he did.
Q. Was he a member of what you refer to as the Family?
A. Yes.
Q. And did he usually reside in what you refer to as the bunkhouse or the bunk room?
A. Yes.
Q. And as you have indicated previously, I believe, that was a small room?
A. Yes, it was.
Q. And Mr. DeCarlo was connected, was he not, with some sort of a motorcycle club or something?
A. Yes, he was.
Q. Do you know what that motorcycle club was?
A. What it was?
Q. Yes, what the name of it was.
A. No.
Q. And he used to park a motorcycle inside the bunk house, right?
A. Yes.
Q. Right next to his bed?
A. No.
Q. Now, where was it in relation to what furniture was in the room?
A. There was a chair, and I think a few shelves, and then there was a wall and a door leading to his bed, just a very small room, big enough for his bed.
Q. And on your direct examination you identified a broken, what appeared to be, a broken knife or sword of some kind with—do you remember?
A. No, I don’t know what you’re talking about.
Q. Exhibit 47, do you recall that?
A. No, I don’t know the number.
MR. FITZGERALD: May I approach the witness, your Honor?
THE COURT: You may.
Q. BY MR. FITZGERALD: Directing your attention to a photograph, People’s 48 for identification, you previously identified this photograph have you not?
A. Yes, I have.
Q. And this photograph depicts a rail-type dune buggy does it not?
A. Yes it does.
Q. Located on the left-hand driver’s portion of that dune buggy there appears to be a scabbard with what appears to be the hilt of a sword protruding, does it not?
A. Yes, that’s correct
Q. Does that refresh your recollection in term of the exhibit you identified?
A. The broken sword?
Q. The broken sword.
A. Yes.
Q. Now, whom did that broken sword belong to?
A. It belonged to everybody.
Q. That is in line with the theory that all property at the ranch belonged to everybody?
A. Yes.
Q. But did it have a—did one person particularly identify with that sword or handle?
A. Not that I can recall, no.
Q. Well, is it not a fact, in your knowledge, that that sword belonged to Danny DeCarlo?
A. No.
Q. Didn’t you ever have a discussion with Danny DeCarlo about the origin of that sword and the motorcycle group to which you belonged?
A. No.
Q. Did he leave the ranch at any time during the month of July that you know of?
A. Yes, he probably left, yeah.
Q. And your testimony is that he was some member in good standing of this so-called Family?
A. Yes.
Q. He wasn’t any different than anybody else in any respect that you know of?
A. No.
Q. Did any of Mr. DeCarlo’s Motorcycle friends come to the Ranch at any time during the Month of July and early August?
A. Yes.
Q. Were you present when they came?
A. Yes.
Q. And when was that in terms of when you arrived and when you left?
A. Well, they came a couple of times. Maybe the middle of July.
Q. Now, getting back to Mr. Manson’s so-called philosophy.
Did you learn most of what you attribute to Mr. Manson’s philosophy from Mr. Manson or did you learn about it from some other person or persons?
A. I learned part from Charlie and part from the girls themselves.
Q. Are you able to separate in your mind what you heard in connection with his philosophy from him and what you heard from other people?
A. Not at the moment I can’t, no.
Q. Did you have frequent discussions with Gypsy about Manson’s philosophy?
A. Yes. She told me a few things. We used to talk a lot.
Q. It is possible, then, is it not, that you learned much of Manson’s philosophy from other people, and maybe particularly Gypsy?
MR. STOVITZ: Objected to, your Honor, as calling for speculation. Everything is possible.
THE COURT: I don’t think the word is used in that context. Overruled.
You may answer.
THE WITNESS: What was your question?
MR. FITZGERALD: May the question be reread?
THE COURT: Read the last question.
(The question was read by the reporter.)
THE WITNESS: Yes, it is possible.
BY MR. FITZGERALD:
Q. And when you would hear about his so-called philosophy, from other people, would they tell you that this was Mr. Manson’s philosophy, or would they tell you that this was the way they felt or believed?
A. You are asking a difficult question.
I can’t really answer it. I can’t answer it.
Q. Can you tell us why you are unable to answer it?
A. I can’t really remember exact conversations, the exact words, or if she said that Charlie told her this, or it Charlie told me this. I can’t remember exactly.
I just know that he told me partly and they told me partly.
Q. Now, on the evening of August the 8th, 1969, you said in the early evening hours, you were standing on or near a porch. Is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. And you recall that vividly, I take it?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. And approximately what time of night was this, if you recall?
A. It was after sundown. It was dark. So, whatever time it is after sundown, say an hour after sundown.
Q. And sometime immediately after that, you went to look for some clothing; is that right?
A. Yes, that’s right.
Q. And who was present when you went to look for this clothing, if anyone?
A. When I was instructed to look for clothing, or when I went to look for the clothing itself?
Q. Both times.
A. Just myself and Mr. Manson when I was instructed; and when I actually went to get the clothing, Squeaky and Brenda.
Q. And were Squeaky and Brenda inside the Ranch house?
A. George Spahn’s house, yes.
Q. George Spahn’s house?
A. Yes.
Q. Where was George Spahn?
A. I don’t know. I didn’t see him.
Q. George Spahn is usually in his living room or his bedroom, isn’t he?
A. Yes. But he usually goes out to supper. He may have been out to supper this particular hour.
Q. But it was after dark?
A. Yes.
Q. And it was in the summer?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you have a conversation, with Brenda or Squeaky about that clothing?
A. About the clothing?
Q. Yes.
A. No, not that I recall.
Q. Did they assist you or help you in your search for clothing?
A. No.
Q. You didn’t think that it was unusual to get a change of clothing?
A. I didn’t think about it, no.
Q. You had never done that before, had you, while you were staying at the Ranch?
A. No.
Q. But you didn’t ask any questions?
A. Right.
Q. Because you never ask why?
A. Right.
Q. Was anybody prevent when you were looking for the knife?
A. First I went into the saloon. Nobody was there. So, no, nobody was present.
Q. Is there any particular reason you remember wearing a short denim skirt and lavender knitted top?
A. I didn’t wear it. That was a change of clothing I picked up.
Q. Any particular reason you remember that?
A. Yes. Because I used to wear that outfit quite a bit.
Q. Was the knife you were looking for the knife that you had brought from Topanga Lane to the Ranch?
A. What?
Q. Was the knife you were looking for—
A. No. No.
Q. Were you looking for a particular knife?
A. Just the knife that I had seen in the saloon.
Q. You bought a knife two days before at Sears Roebuck & Company and with a credit card, hadn’t you?
A. I bought a knife?
Q. Did you buy a knife at Sears, Roebuck with a credit card the day before?
A. I don’t recall.
Q. Did you buy a knife with a credit card at Sears, Roebuck any time during July or August, 1969?
A. I never, myself, used those credit cards.
Q. So I take it—did you buy a knife at Sears without a credit card?
A. No, I don’t believe so.
Q. Were you ever at Sears Roebuck at any one of their stores during July and August?
A. Yes, I was.
Q. Did you buy more things there?
A. Not myself.
Q. Were you with somebody who bought some things?
A. Yes.
Q. Who were you with?
A. Mary.
Q. And when was that. If you went more than once, when was the first time?
A. I believe I only went once.
Q. When was that?
A. It was in July sometime, I’m not sure when.
Q. You were just looking for any knife?
A. I don’t really recall looking for a knife. I remember we bought maybe clothes—
MR. STOVITZ: You are thinking about two different things.
Q. BY MR. FITZGERALD: On the evening of the 8th were you looking for a particular knife?
A. Yes, I was.
Q. What particular knife were you looking for?
A. A knife that I had seen in the saloon.
Q. Did you have a particular purpose in mind for which you were going to use the knife?
A. No, I was just told to get a knife, and I didn’t.
Q. I take it on occasion in the past you used particular kinds or types of knives for particular kinds or types of things, correct?
A. No, I don’t know—I don’t understand what you mean.
Q. You used a paring knife to do some paring?
A. No, I don’t think I ever used a paring knife.
Q. Are you familiar with different types of kitchen knives, a knife, for example, you might use to slice as opposed to a knife you might use for paring?
A. I just used whatever knife was there.
Q. But totally without respect to this case or anything to do with it, there are different knives for different purposes as far as you are concerned?
A. Yes, uh-huh.
Q. And there are knives that suit particular purposes and knives that don’t, isn’t that correct?
A. Uh-huh, that’s correct.
Q. You were not looking for a particular kind of knife?
A. No.
Q. Did you ask anybody whether you were to get a particular kind of knife?
A. No, not that I recall.
Q. Now, you are not looking for a big one or a small one or a wide one or anything.
A. I was just told to get a knife, so I went and I remembered seeing a knife in a certain place and I went to find it and it was not there.
Q. I take it you don’t have any particular expertise with knives.
You don’t consider yourself to be an expert on the identification of knives or anything?
A. No.
Q. You are not particularly fascinated with knives, are you?
A. No, not at all.
Q. How is it that you happened to recall the exact dimensions of the knives?
A. Because I had been handling them. I have always been handling knives.
Q. And that evening in the car you took a pretty close look at these knives?
A. I wrapped them up, yes.
Q. How many of them were there when you wrapped them up?
A. Three.
Q. Didn’t you think it was strange or unusual that somebody would give you some knives to wrap up?
A. Well, the explanation from Tex was if we got stopped to throw them out of the window, and I just did what he said.
Q. Stopped by the police?
A. Yes.
Q. Didn’t that indicate to you that there was probably some illegal purpose for these knives?
MR. BUGLIOSI: Argumentative, your Honor.
THE COURT: Overruled.
THE WITNESS: I don’t know.
Q. BY MR. FITZGERALD: Why would you have to throw the knives—what was your state of mind, what did you think as to why you would have to throw out the knives if the police stopped you?
A. I presume at that time I might have thought it was illegal to carry knives, I don’t know.
Q. What did you think those knives were going to be used for, if anything?
A. I didn’t really think about it.
Q. And you also had an opportunity to see a pistol, is that right, is that your testimony?
A. Yes, yes.
Q. Did you look at that pistol?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. Do you have any background with firearms?
A. No, none at all.
Q. Had you ever fired a gun in your life?
A. Yes.
Q. What kind of a gun?
A. A 30-30.
Q. That is a rifle?
A. Yes.
Q. Had you ever fired a pistol?
A. I may have, I’m not sure.
Q. Do you know the difference between a revolver and an automatic pistol?
A. No.
Q. Do you know the difference between a .22 caliber pistol and a .32 caliber pistol?
A. No.
Q. Do you know the difference between a .22 caliber pistol and a .45 caliber pistol?
A. No.
Q. Do most pistols look pretty much the same to you?
A. I have never really been around guns and pistols, so I don’t know.
Q. If you were to look at two guns of the same size and caliber, would they look the same to you or appear to be the same to you?
A. Probably.
Q. You don’t know that the gun you identified here in this courtroom is the gun that was in the car on the evening of August the 8th, do you?
A. Yes, I do.
MR. STOVITZ: I object to the question as ambiguous; before or after the incident, Counsel?
THE COURT: What is the objection, Mr. Stovitz?
MR. STOVITZ: I objected to the question as ambiguous, when he said it was in the car.
There were two incidents when it was in the car, before and after, so I felt the question was ambiguous.
THE COURT: The witness seemed to understand it. She answered yes.
Is that right, Mrs. Kasabian?
THE WITNESS: Yes.
BY MR. FITZGERALD:
Q. What was so peculiar about that gun that makes you identify it as the particular gun?
A. The long barrel, I guess you call it. I don’t know what you call it.
Q. Is it your understanding that that is the only gun in the world with a long barrel?
MR. BUGLIOSI: Argumentative, your Honor.
THE COURT: Overruled.
THE WITNESS: Would you phrase it a different way?
BY MR. FITZGERALD:
Q. Is it your understanding that the gun you saw that night was the only gun in the world with this same sized barrel?
A. No, I am sure there are others like it, I don’t know.
Q. How would you be able to distinguish between that one and others like it?
A. I don’t know, I guess probably I would not.
Q. Wouldn’t it be fair to say that the gun you identified in court looks like—
A. Yes.
Q. —the so-called gun you saw on the evening of the 8th?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you handle that gun any time that night?
A. I believe I wrapped it with the knives, and I am not positive, and I don’t really recall it in my mind, but I may have thrown it out of the window.
THE COURT: I could not hear the last part.
Read the last answer, please.
(Whereupon, the reporter reads the record as follows:
“A. I believe I wrapped it with the knives, and I am not positive, and I don’t really recall it in my mind, but I may have thrown it out of the window.”)
BY MR. FITZGERALD:
Q. Was that in your lap at any time?
A. In my lap?
Q. The gun.
A. I don’t think so.
Q. In the glove compartment in front of you?
A. Yes, it was in the glove compartment.
Q. When was that?
A. When we were driving away, just before he told me to wrap it up.
Q. Who told you?
A. Tex.
Q. Did somebody put it in the glove compartment?
A. I don’t know.
Q. How did it get there?
A. I don’t know.
Q. Did you know it was there?
A. No, not until he directed my attention to it.
Q. When did he direct your attention to it?
A. Once we left the Ranch and were driving.
Q. When he directed your attention to the gun in the glove compartment you already had wrapped up three knives, correct?
A. No, I believe I did it all at once.
Q. You wrapped up three knives and a gun?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you think that that was unusual in any respect?
A. I thought the whole think was unusual.
Q. But it did not prompt you to ask why?
A. No.
Q. Did you know if the gun was loaded?
A. No.
Q. Did you question at all in your own mind where you were going that night with the change of clothes, three knives and a gun?
A. Yes.
Q. But you did not ask anybody?
A. No.
Q. Were you afraid to ask?
A. They just kept putting it in my head, “Never ask why, no questions, it’s always right, no wrong,” so I just never asked why.
If I was afraid, then I was afraid.
Q. I don’t want to put words in your mouth; you tell me what you thought.
But you could have asked why, couldn’t you?
A. I felt that I could not.
Q. Was it your state of mind in early August, 1969, that you would have done anything imaginable that you were asked to do without asking why?
A. What do you mean?
Q. Is there any limit to what you could have been asked to do before you would ask why?
A. I don’t know. It would depend on what I was asked.
Q. To your knowledge did Tex have a driver’s license?
A. Not to my knowledge, no.
Q. And you were told to get a driver’s license?
A. Yes, I was.
Q. But you did not drive when the vehicle left the Ranch?
A. No, I did not.
Q. Was there any conversation when you left the ranch?
A. Yes.
Q. What was the conversation about?
A. I remember Tex saying that we were going to a house, and that he had been there before and that he knew the layout of the house, and to do what he told us to do.
Q. Were you also in love with Tex, Linda?
A. I loved everybody.
Q. Did you love Tex more than you loved anybody else?
A. No.
Q. Are you sure?
A. Yes, I am.
Q. Wasn’t Tex the father of your child?
A. No, he is not.
Q. I am referring to your second child.
A. Yes, I know who you are referring to.
Q. You had no more intimate relationship with Tex Watson than you did with any other member at the ranch; is that a fair statement?
A. I didn’t understand your question.
Q. Well, did you have any particular fondness for Mr. Watson over and above the feeling you had for any other men at the ranch?
MR. STOVITZ: All the other men, or just most of them, Counsel?
MR. FITZGERALD: Which would you prefer?
MR. STOVITZ: I feel the question is ambiguous.
There are ranch hands and—
MR. FITZGERALD: I mean the members of the so-called Family, the male members of the so-called Family.
THE WITNESS: No, I liked them all.
Q. BY MR. FITZGERALD: Did you have any more love for Mr. Watson than you did for the female members of the so-called Family?
A. Yes, I guess you could say that.
MR. KANAREK: I didn’t hear the last few words.
THE COURT: Read the last answer, please.
(The answer was read by the reporter.)
MR. FITZGERALD: Q. Were you not asking why because of your fondness for Mr. Watson?
A. I just was told, “Never ask why,” and they just kept telling me this, so I never asked why.
Q. And you went on a freeway; is that right?
A. Yes, that’s right.
Q. Do you recall, Mrs. Kasabian, which one you went on?
A. No, I don’t.
Q. Do you recall which direction you went?
A. No.
Q. Do you recall how long you were driving?
A. An hour, I guess.
Q. You were familiar by that time, by August the 8th, with Chatsworth and certain portions of the San Fernando Valley, were you not?
A. I knew Devonshire, and I knew Topanga Canyon Boulevard, and that is about—and Santa Susana Pass.
Q. And you knew certain other streets and thoroughfares in the Greater Los Angeles area, didn’t you?
A. Well, I knew how to get to the supermarket, places like that.
Q. Excuse me. Did you finish?
A. Yes.
Q. And you had been on the Hollywood Freeway before, hadn’t you?
A. Probably, yes.
Q. The Ventura Freeway?
A. I never noticed the names. I probably have been on all the freeways, and I will probably be on them a million more times, and I won’t know the names.
Q. You remember the name Fair Oaks off the Pasadena Freeway, do you?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. How do you happen to remember that particular street?
A. I don’t know. It just sticks in my mind.
Q. Do you remember passing by any street or major intersections on the way from the ranch to where you went on August the 8th?
A. I remember driving down Topanga Canyon Boulevard and going quite a ways, and then I believe we took a right onto a freeway.
MR. FITZGERALD: May I have just a moment?
(Defense counsel confer.)
MR. FITZGERALD: Q. Now, you identified certain portions of a residence, and I am now referring to Exhibit No. 8, a diagram, certain buildings located at 10050 Cielo Drive; is that correct?
A. Are you speaking about the Tate residence?
Q. The Tate residence, yes.
A. Yes.
Q. And you had been there more than once; Isn’t that correct?
A. No. I had never been there before, ever.
Q. Taking today, Friday the 31st, up until today, you have been to the Tate house more than once; isn’t that correct?
A. Oh, I thought you were talking about before.
Yes, I have been there once since after, since I have been in custody.
Q. It is your contention that you were there twice?
A. Yes.
Q. In your entire life?
A. Yes.
Q. When were you there most recently, Mrs. Kasabian?
A. I don’t remember the month. I was very much pregnant. Maybe in February. I am not sure.
Q. Did you go there during the day?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you go there while you were in jail?
A. Yes.
Q. Did somebody take you out of the jail?
A. Yes.
Q. Did somebody take you to the Tate house?
A. Yes.
Q. Did somebody do something with you there?
A. Do something with me?
Q. Do you know why you went there?
A. Yes.
Q. Why did you go there?
A. To point out where I was and to point out where the man was.
Q. Was that during the day?
A. Yes.
Q. Was it daylight outside?
A. Yes.
Q. Was it on a Sunday?
A. I don’t know what day it was.
Q. You don’t remember what day at all?
A. No.
Q. Did you go alone from the jail?
A. No.
Q. Who did you go with?
A. There were some police officers.
Q. How many police officers?
A. I didn’t count them.
Q. More than one?
A. Yes.
Q. Less than five?
A. I don’t know. I believe there were two cars.
Q. You were in one car?
A. Yes.
Q. How many police officers were in that car?
A. I remember there was a female and a male in the front seat, myself and my two attorneys, and I believe there were two officers, plainclothes officers.
Q. Do you remember who those officers were?
A. I believe Mr. Bugliosi was with us.
Q. Is he a police officer?
A. I guess, yes.
Q. What other police officers other than Mr. Bugliosi went with you?
A. I don’t know who he was.
Q. Did they tell you—did anybody tell you in advance that you were going to the Tate house?
A. I believe my attorneys told me.
Q. What did they tell you, do you recall?
MR. GOLDMAN: Objection, your Honor. That is invading the attorney-client privilege.
MR. KANAREK: May we approach the bench, your Honor?
THE COURT: I think perhaps you had better lay a little more foundation for the question, Mr. Fitzgerald. I will sustain the objection at this time.
BY MR. FITZGERALD:
Q. Did any police officers from the Los Angeles Police Department talk to you about this case before you went to the Tate house during the day, the day you went?
A. No, I don’t think so.
Q. Have any police officers—forget about Mr. Bugliosi—any police officers besides him—talked to you about this case?
A. No.
Oh, well, what is a police officer? A uniform? Is that what you mean?
MR. FITZGERALD: Are you familiar with the term “detective”?
A. Yes.
Q. Plainclothes police officer?
A. Yes.
Q. Police officers are persons employed by police departments?
A. Right.
Some detective I spoke to.
Q. When did he speak to you in relation to when you went to the Tate house?
A. On the way and while I was there.
Q. Was that the first time you had ever talked to a police officer?
A. I believe so.
MR. STOVITZ: You mean about this case, Counsel?
MR. FITZGERALD: About this case.
THE WITNESS: Yes, I believe so.
MR. FITZGERALD: Q. For the sake of a chronology, when did you come to Los Angeles County in December, if at all?
A. Well, I am here now, so I must have come.
I believe it was the first part of December. I am not sure of the day.
Q. You were indicted—
A. Yes.
Q. —by the Grand Jury of Los Angeles County for certain offenses; correct?
A. Yes, uh-huh.
Q. And you are a defendant in this case; is that correct?
A. I guess so.
Q. I mean, you are being charged with seven counts of murder; right?
A. Yes.
Q. And one count of conspiracy to commit murder; right?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, when you were brought here to Los Angeles, after you arrived, did you speak with any police officers?
A. Yes, I did.
Police officers or detectives?
Q. Either one.
A. I spoke with Mr. Stovitz, and I spoke with Mr. Patchet.
Q. Do you remember when you first talked to Mr. Stovitz?
A. Yes. The night I arrived in Los Angeles.
Q. Did he interview you in the jail.
A. No, they didn’t take me to the jail. They took me to some building, an office or something.
Q. Do you know where that was?
A. No.
Q. Who took you?
A. The people that went to New Hampshire to pick me up.
Q. Were those police officers?
A. Yes. They didn’t have uniforms on.
Q. But they flew you out here—they came with you on a commercial airline; is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And they identified themselves as police officers?
A. Yes.
Q. And they told you their names, didn’t they?
A. Yes, I guess so.
Q. You don’t remember?
A. No.
Q. You don’t remember their faces, either. I take it?
A. I remember the woman.
Q. It was a man and a woman?
A. Yes.
Q. How soon after you arrived here did Mr. Stovitz talk to you in this building or a building?
A. Well, my attorney came to me right away.
Q. Mr. Fleischman?
A. Yes.
Q. All right.
A. And I told him basically, you know, what I knew. And then Mr. Stovitz came in—
Q. Did he tell you what you were going to be charged with?
A. I don’t know.
MR. GOLDMAN: Objection.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. GOLDMAN: Any conversation between attorney and client.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. KANAREK: May we approach the bench?
THE COURT: No, sir.
MR. FITZGERALD: Q. Before you told him anything, did he tell you anything?
That question can be answered yes or no.
MR. STOVITZ: By “he” and “him,” do you mean Mr. Fleischman, Mr. Stovitz, or who, Counsel?
MR. FITZGERALD: I mean Mr. Fleischman and/or Mr. Goldman.
MR. GOLDMAN: Objection on the privilege ground.
THE COURT: Read the question.
(The question was read by the reporter.)
THE COURT: Overruled. You may answer.
THE WITNESS: I don’t think he told me anything. I don’t recall.
MR. FITZGERALD: Q. The same day that you talked to your attorney—
A. It was night.
Q. The same night—
A. Yes.
Q. —did you talk to Mr. Stovitz?
A. Yes.
Well, actually—well, yes.
Q. You were pregnant at the time; is that right?
A. Yes, I was.
Q. When was your baby born ultimately?
A. On March 9th.
Q. Was that a full-term child?
A. I think he was about a weak early.
Q. And was it in December that you talked to Mr. Stovitz?
A. Yes.
Q. So then you were anywhere from five to seven months pregnant?
A. Yes.
Q. Were you showing?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you have an unusual pregnancy in any respect?
A. No, none whatsoever.
Q. Did you have any emotional problems during your pregnancy?
A. Sure. I think every woman goes—well, I can’t say that.
Yes, I had emotional problems.
Q. Frequently woman have emotional problems during pregnancy; is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. At least according to you?
A. Yes.
Q. What sort of emotional problems were you having?
MR. STOVITZ: Objected to as being immaterial and irrelevant, your Honor. It has nothing to do with the issues in the case here.
THE COURT: Sustained.
BY MR. FITZGERALD:
Q. When Mr. Stovitz talked to you that night, when was the last time before that that you had had any sleep?
A. Sleep?
Q. Yes, sleep.
A. Before that?
Q. Before that.
A. I slept on the plane coming out.
Q. Did Mr. Stovitz talk to you about this case?
A. No, not really. He showed me pictures.
Q. What did he show you pictures of?
A. People that belonged to the Family.
Q. And did he tell you their names?
A. No. I told him their names.
Q. Did he show you any other picture?
A. No, I don’t think so.
Q. Did those pictures refresh your recollection of the people you had seen during the months of July and August, 1969?
A. Yes.
Q. Would it be fair to say that without those pictures you wouldn’t recall some of the faces of the persons you had seen during July and August?
A. No, I would recall them.
Q. How many photographs did he show you?
A. I don’t know. I didn’t count them. Most of the people in the Family.
Q. Did he show you photographs of anybody other than the people you had seen at the Ranch?
A. I think there were one or two faces that I didn’t know.
Q. Did be show you any other pictures?
A. Not that I recall.
Q. Did be show you pictures of buildings?
A. I just remember him showing me pictures of faces. But he may have shown me buildings, I don’t remember it.
MR. FITZGERALD: May I approach the witness?
THE COURT: You may.
Q. BY MR. FITZGERALD: Showing you People’s 56 and 57 for identification, photographs of a gas station, do you recognize those photographs?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. Have you previously identified those photographs?
A. Yes, I have.
Q. Have you previously identified those photographs as of a gas station, is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. Where you placed the wallet, is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. Have you ever seen those photographs before yesterday?
A. I think one of the plain clothes men showed them to me.
Q. When was that?
A. Recently.
Q. What did he say to you when he showed it to you?
A. He asked me if I knew where this place was and I told him.
Q. What did you tell him?
A. That it was the gas station where I placed the wallet.
Q. That is a Standard gas station, right?
A. Yes.
Q. Is there anything about that gas station that is depicted in that picture that makes you think it is the particular gas station you were talking about in your testimony?
A. Yes, the restaurant.
Q. The restaurant?
A. Yes.
Q. In the background?
A. Yes.
Q. Had you read the name of the restaurant?
A. No.
Q. Before you had seen the picture?
A. No.
Q. Did the picture refresh your recollection as to the name of the restaurant?
A. The orangeness of it.
Q. How many pictures of gas stations were you shown, if you were shown more than one?
A. I believe I was shown these.
Q. Those two?
A. Yes.
Q. That is all?
A. I believe so.
Q. You were not shown a series of photographs of various gas stations so you could select one or more of the various gas stations?
A. No, I don’t think so.
Q. What else did you talk with Mr. Stovitz about that evening that you came back from the East?
A. Nothing.
Q. He just showed you some pictures?
A. Uh-huh, yes.
Q. Were your attorneys present at the time?
A. Yes.
Q. When Mr. Stovitz was there?
A. Yes.
Q. Was that with your permission?
A. I guess so. I don’t know if my permission was asked. I don’t know.
Q. What did your attorney say?
A. I don’t know. I don’t recall.
Q. Did he say anything while Mr. Stovitz was present?
A. Not that I recall.
Q. Do you recall seeing Mr. Stovitz at any future time after the first day you came back here?
A. After the first day?
Q. Yes.
A. Yes. I saw him once for about 15 or 20 minutes.
Q. When was that?
A. Maybe two or three months ago.
Q. Did he talk to you about this case?
A. I cannot really remember what he talked to me about. I’m sure it was about the case.
Q. Were either one of your lawyers present?
A. Yes.
Q. Did they talk about the case with you?
A. The only thing I remember about that day was that he gave me a Rolling Stone magazine—yes, we did talk about the case a little bit.
Q. He gave you a copy of the Rolling Stone magazine?
A. Yes.
MR. KANAREK: May we approach the bench, your Honor?
THE COURT: On what subject, Mr. Kanarek?
MR. KANAREK: I would rather not enunciate it in open court.
THE COURT: You have a motion or an objection to make?
MR. KANAREK: A motion, yes, your Honor.
THE COURT: All right, you may approach the bench.
(The following proceedings were had at the bench out of the hearing of the jury:)
MR. KANAREK: Your Honor, I make a motion that we adjourn this proceedings with this witness at this time and that we be allowed to take her deposition and be allowed to make a voir dire examination of her outside of the presence of the jury.
Your Honor, I am sure, is well familiar with the Rolling Stone magazine.
MR. STOVITZ: Just take it easy now, I don’t want to interrupt counsel, but this was three months before the June 22nd edition came out and it was merely—
MR. FITZGERALD: May I interrupt? It is very important and I keep forgetting this.
Would your Honor admonish the witness, Mrs. Kasabian, not to discuss her testimony with people during the recesses?
MR. STOVITZ: I instructed her attorneys not to discuss it because they are right next to the jury box.
THE COURT: I did not hear what you said.
MR. FITZGERALD: I am sorry to interrupt, but I keep forgetting to ask the Court to admonish the witness, Linda Kasabian not to discuss her testimony with people during recesses or colloquies between counsel at the bench. I think that applies.
THE COURT: What do you mean by people?
MR. FITZGERALD: I am referring to attorneys, Ronald Goldman and Gary Fleischman. I am referring to Mr. Bugliosi and Mr. Stovitz.
THE COURT: Why shouldn’t she confer with her attorneys?
MR. FITZGERALD: Well, then every defense witness that comes in here ought to get an attorney appointed for them. They cannot obviate the standards and rules that apply to other witnesses simply because they retain an attorney, and your Honor rules that is privileged information and I cannot ask her what she said during the recess.
They may be telling her what to say.
MR. KANAREK: I make a motion also, your Honor, that during these intervals, right now there are several jurors looking right at her, your Honor may look over there. There are several jurors looking right at her as Mr. Goldman is in animated conversation with her.
MR. STOVITZ: And I request that Mr. Goldman and Mr. Fleischman not to talk to her about the case.
THE COURT: Ask Mr. Goldman to come up here.
MR. STOVITZ: Mr. Goldman.
(Mr. Goldman approaches the bench outside the hearing of the jury.)
THE COURT: Mr. Goldman, counsel are concerned that you are discussing matters with your client in close proximity to the jury.
I have no idea what you were saying if anything, but would you refrain from saying anything when she is sitting there right next to the jury.
MR. GOLDMAN: Saying anything or saying anything concerning the case?
THE COURT: I think it would be best not to say anything.
MR. GOLDMAN: All right.
THE COURT: Because where she is sitting during these conferences is very very close to the jury and even if you are talking about the time of day it conceivably could be misunderstood.
MR. GOLDMAN: We don’t even want the appearance of impropriety.
May I tell her of the Court’s instruction?
THE COURT: Yes. The only thing is that counsel are concerned about your possibly discussing with her what, while she is being examined, her testimony is. I realize the position you are in, you are her attorney; you are here to protect her rights, and so forth.
On the other hand all other witnesses have been excluded; do you see any necessity to discuss with her any aspect of her testimony during the course of her examination, direct or cross or redirect or recross examination?
MR. GOLDMAN: Your Honor, it is impossible to prognosticate as of the future, at this time.
THE COURT: You understand what I am saying, counsel are concerned she not be advised, coached or counseled regarding her testimony, until they have had their opportunity to examine her.
MR. GOLDMAN: Nothing more than any other attorney would do with his client.
I would certainly point out to the Court in no way have I or am I now coaching her.
I think questions of demeanor—
THE COURT: Would you object to my making an order forbidding you to discuss with her her testimony in this case during the course of the case?
I am trying to ascertain from you whether you see any necessity to discuss with her any aspect of her testimony.
MR. GOLDMAN: It certainly may be that I would consider it necessary to discuss the case with my client.
THE COURT: May we leave it this way, then, I will make such an order, and if you feel a compelling necessity to discuss with her her testimony, we are not talking about other matters, we are talking about her actual testimony in this case, then would you come to the bench and see what the situation is at that time?
I don’t expect you to reveal anything of a confidential nature, but you can make it known to me at that time and I can so rule accordingly.
MR. GOLDMAN: The only position I would take, your Honor, is that we are still in the position of having to advise our client, certainly not with respect to what she is going to say or what she should say, or coaching her as to evidence.
But certainly questions of advice may come up. It is difficult to interpret what they might be.
THE COURT: You have the right to give her legal advice, but I will make an order then subject to change at any time that you are not to discuss with her her actual testimony in this case during the course of her examination.
MR. GOLDMAN: Does this relate only to in the courtroom or to evenings?
THE COURT: That would relate to any time.
In other words, I will treat her the same as any other witness with respect to that.
On the other hand if you feel a compelling necessity to discuss with her some aspect of her testimony, I expect you to tell me first, and counsel can be so advised.
MR. GOLDMAN: For the record, your Honor, we will respect the Court’s order. We object to it but we respect it.
MR. KANAREK: Your Honor, I do make a motion that we have an evidentiary hearing, a voir dire hearing outside of the presence of the jury, first in which Mr. Fleischman and Mr. Goldman would be sworn and in which they would state, which I would ask their testimony be in two parts:
The first part would be what they told Linda Kasabian since there has been any communication with the District Attorney’s Office concerning immunity up until the time of the trial.
Secondly, I would ask for sworn testimony as to everything that they and she have discussed inter se, or Mr. Goldman and Mr. Fleischman—pardon me—or Mr. Goldman and Linda Kasabian, separately, and Mr. Fleischman and Linda Kasabian separately.
THE COURT: Those motions are denied.
MR. KANAREK: I would ask for an evidentiary hearing.
Your Honor, I have another motion which is that Linda Kasabian right now, she is within less than one foot of one of the alternate jurors. I ask she be physically removed.
THE COURT: She is sitting quietly.
MR. KANAREK: But she is in immediate proximity to one of the alternate jurors. I ask your Honor that this evidentiary hearing include voir dire of the jury to see if they heard anything of conversations that have gone on between Linda Kasabian and her attorneys or either of them or both of them.
Also anything that has gone on which they may have heard between Mr. Bugliosi, Mr. Stovitz and Linda Kasabian, or any law enforcement officer and Linda Kasabian.
In other words, I would like a voir dire hearing as to whether the jurors have heard anything whatsoever from Linda Kasabian’s lips or anyone concerning Linda Kasabian other than from the witness stand.
I would ask for an evidentiary hearing in that regard.
THE COURT: The motion will be denied.
MR. SHINN: Join in the motion.
MR. HUGHES: Join.
THE COURT: Now, Mr. Goldman, please remove Mrs. Kasabian a little farther. Will you have her sit in the other chair and place one chair inbetween you?
MR. GOLDMAN: So the Court and counsel will know that I am going to tell her of the Court’s order, so I won’t be in violation, but in aid of the Court’s order.
THE COURT: And after, avoid any conversation that could be overheard by the jury.
MR. GOLDMAN: We have attempted to do that.
MR. KANAREK: In view of the Court’s denying my motion we ask for a mistrial.
MR. SHINN: Join in the motion.
THE COURT: Overruled.
(The following proceedings were had in open court in the presence end hearing of the jury.)
THE COURT: Ladies and gentlemen, do not speak to anyone nor form or express any opinion regarding this case until it is finally submitted to you.
The court will recess for 15 minutes.
(Recess.)
(The following proceedings occur in open court, all defendants, attorneys and jury present.)
MR. FITZGERALD: Could we very temporarily approach the bench. There is an addendum to some materials that were mentioned earlier.
THE COURT: All counsel, parties and jurors are present.
You may approach the bench.
(Whereupon, all counsel but Mr. Bugliosi approach the bench and the following proceedings occur at the bench outside of the hearing of the jury:)
MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Kanarek represented to me that he saw some activity taking place between one of the Deputy District Attorneys and the witness in contravention of the Court’s order.
That is why I asked to come to the bench.
MR. KANAREK: It was Mr. Bugliosi so I think in fairness to him, he should be at the bench.
THE COURT: I don’t understand.
MR. FITZGERALD: I walked back into the courtroom and I sat down, and Mr. Kanarek informed me that be had observed one of the Deputy District Attorneys, Mr. Bugliosi, talking to the witness.
(Mr. Bugliosi comes to the bench.)
MR. FITZGERALD: I asked to approach the beach because after the recess, when I walked into the courtroom, Mr. Kanarek told me that Mr. Bugliosi had been discussing and had been engaged “in an animated conversation” within the hearing of the jury with the witness, in violation of the Court’s order.
That is why I asked to approach the bench.
I am only representing to the Court that that is what Mr. Kanarek represented to me.
THE COURT: Why can’t Mr. Kanarek represent it directly?
MR. FITZGERALD: He can. I don’t understand why he can’t.
MR. KANAREK: Yes, I can. Mr. Fitzgerald started talking.
During the recess I observed Mr. Bugliosi in animated conversation with Miss Kasabian, and I would ask for an evidentiary hearing, sworn testimony by Mr. Bugliosi, as to what he said to her and what she said to him.
This was in the immediate presence, your Honor, of a law enforcement officer.
MR. BUGLIOSI: As a matter of policy, your Honor, and for my own welfare—
THE COURT: He is examining this witness. Why shouldn’t he confer?
MR. KANAREK: Because we don’t get to talk to her. It’s a violation of due process and equal protection.
THE COURT: It is up to her whether she wants to talk to you. She doesn’t have to talk to Mr. Bugliosi if she doesn’t want to.
MR. BUGLIOSI: That’s right.
MR. KANAREK: I believe that is not the law.
THE COURT: Is that the basis—is that why we are here, Mr. Kanarek?
MR. KANAREK: Yes.
THE COURT: Make your motion, or whatever it is.
MR. KANAREK: The motion is for an evidentiary hearing.
THE COURT: The motion is denied.
Let’s proceed.
MR. SHINN: Join in the motion.
(The following proceedings were had in open court in the presence end hearing of the jury:)
BY MR. FITZGERALD:
Q. Did you read the Rolling Stone magazine Mr. Stovitz brought you?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. And that was at the time of Mr. Stovitz’s second conversation with you, is that right?
A. Yes, it was.
Q. What did you discuss with Mr. Stovitz at that time?
A. Oh, let me think—
Q. Was your lawyer present at that second conversation, either one of them?
A. Yes.
Q. Which one?
A. Mr. Fleischman.
Q. Mr. Fleischman was there?
A. Yes.
Q. Did Mr. Stovitz talk to you about this case?
A. Yes, I believe so. I think he mentioned something about Mary Brunner and—
MR. STOVITZ: Your Honor, I object to anything about the substance of the conversation.
That was not called for by the question, it is not responsive.
BY MR. FITZGERALD:
Q. But you cannot remember what be talked with you about in connection with this case?
A. No, I can’t recall.
Q. Did you see Mr. Stovitz a third time?
A. No.
MR. STOVITZ: Other than in court, I take it, Counsel?
MR. FITZGERALD: You have not been to Mr. Stovitz’s home or anything?
THE WITNESS: No.
BY MR. FITZGERALD:
Q. You have only seen Mr. Stovitz in court and in jail?
A. Yes.
Q. Did Mr. Stovitz go with you to the Tate residence during the day that day?
A. No, I don’t believe he did.
Q. Did Mr. Stovitz ever discuss with you on any other occasion other than the two you have mentioned the facts of this case?
MR. STOVITZ: That is objected to as assuming facts not in evidence, that we discussed the facts of the case the first time or the second time, your Honor.
MR. KANAREK: Your Honor, it is cross-examination and I believe he can ask a question of this type even though it is not in evidence.
THE COURT: Mr. Kanarek, I believe Mr. Fitzgerald is eminently capable of answering any arguments by the People.
MR. KANAREK: I agree, your Honor, but I want the record to reflect that we advocate this question most heartily.
THE COURT: Read the last question.
(Whereupon the reporter reads the pending question as follows:
“Q. Did Mr. Stovitz ever discuss with you on any other occasion other than the two you have mentioned the facts of this case?”)
THE COURT: Overruled, you may answer.
THE WITNESS: No, I cannot recall a specific thing that he said to me now.
BY MR. FITZGERALD:
Q. Have you ever told Mr. Stovitz what you told the Court and the jury in relation to what happened on the evenings of August the 8th and 9th?
A. No, not Mr. Stovitz.
Q. You never told that to Mr. Stovitz?
A. No.
Q. Now, when was the first time you met Mr. Bugliosi?
A. The first time—I think it was the day we went to the Tate residence, I’m not positive.
Q. Did he see you in the jail before you want to the Tate residence?
A. I am not sure.
Q. Did anybody inform you that you were going to be taken out of the jail to go to the Tate residence, or was it a surprise to you?
A. No, I think my attorney informed me.
Q. And did he tell you anything in connection with going to the Tate residence?
What did he say in that regard?
MR. GOLDMAN: Objection, your Honor, attorney-client privilege.
THE COURT: I take it from the question this is a conversation where no one else was present.
MR. FITZGERALD: Yes.
THE COURT: The objection is sustained.
BY MR. FITZGERALD:
Q. Did you go in the morning out to the Tate residence, was it in the Morning?
A. Yes, I think it was.
Q. And you went with Mr. Bugliosi, is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. And a female Deputy Sheriff?
A. Yes.
Q. And a police officer?
A. Yes.
Q. Was a police officer driving the car?
A. Yes, he was.
Q. Was there anyone else in the car but those people we just mentioned?
A. I believe there was one other, maybe it was Mr. Gutierrez, I am not sure, though.
Q. Have you talked to Mr. Gutierrez on occasion?
A. Yes, I have.
Q. Who is he?
A. Who is he?
Q. Yes.
A. I don’t know, he is a man that has something to do with the case, investigating.
Q. Is he in the courtroom now?
A. Yes, he is.
Q. Is he this gentleman right here I am directing my attention to?
A. Yes, he is.
Q. Is he employed by the Los Angeles Police Department?
A. I believe so.
Q. Did Mr. Bugliosi show you some photographs before you went to the Tate residence?
A. No, I don’t think so.
Q. Did you have any conversation with Mr. Bugliosi on the way to the Tate residence?
A. No, I don’t recall.
Q. Did he tell you why you were going to the Tate residence?
A. He may have but I don’t recall.
Q. Do you remember if you engaged in any conversation with him at all from the jail out to the Tate house?
A. Yeah, at one point I remembered the sports car incident and I believe I told it to him.
Q. As you were driving along you had a flash?
A. Yes.
Q. Was that the extent of the conversation you had from the jail to Beverly Hills?
A. I guess so, I can’t remember. I am sure they must have questioned me but I cannot remember if they did or what they said.
Q. When you got to the Tate residence what happened?
A. I got out of the car and I remember some dogs came up and I turned around and I started crying and I remember saying “Why weren’t the dogs here?”
I had to cry for a while.
Q. Why was that?
MR. STOVITZ: I don’t understand the question, your Honor I think the question is ambiguous or it has a dangling participle or preposition.
THE COURT: Overruled, you may answer.
THE WITNESS: Why did I cry?
BY MR. FITZGERALD:
Q. Yes.
A. Because I had seen something horrible and I was there at that same spot.
Q. You cried in this courtroom when you told us what had occurred on the evening of August the 8th; isn’t that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. How many people have you told that story to?
MR. STOVITZ: Objected to, your Honor. The form of the question is argumentative.
THE COURT: It is also ambiguous. I don’t know what you are referring to, Mr. Fitzgerald. Sustained.
BY MR. FITZGERALD:
Q. You related to us certain events that occurred on Cielo Drive on the evening of August the 8th; correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And you did that in this courtroom, didn’t you?
A. Yes.
Q. And during portions of your testimony you cried; isn’t that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. You had told that story before, had you not, the events of the evening of August the 8th, 1969?
A. Yes, I had.
Q. You had told it to numerous people, had you not?
A. What do you mean by numerous?
Q. Had you told it to Mr. Bugliosi?
A. Oh, yes.
Q. How many times had you told it to Mr. Bugliosi?
A. Two or three times.
Q. Had you ever told it to Mr. Stovitz?
A. No.
Q. Had you ever told it to your attorney?
A. Yes.
Q. How many times did you tell it to your attorney?
MR. FLEISCHMAN: I object to that, your Honor, again on the attorney-client privilege basis.
MR. KANAREK: May we approach the bench?
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. KANAREK: May we approach the bench?
THE COURT: No.
BY MR. FITZGERALD:
Q. Did you tell it to Joe Sage?
A. I just basically told him that I had seen some murders take place.
Q. Did you tell it to your husband, Robert Kasabian?
A. Yes.
Q. What other people have you told it to?
A. I believe Jeffery was in the presence of Joe Sage at that time; and that is the only people besides my attorneys and Mr. Bugliosi.
Q. Did you tell it to your mother?
A. No.
She came to me when she heard my name—
MR. STOVITZ: I object to anything else, your Honor, as not responsive.
The answer was no.
THE WITNESS: No, I did not tell my Mother.
BY MR. FITZGERALD:
Q. Did you tell it to anybody else other than the people that you have named?
A. No.
Q. Did you cry each and every time you told the story to different people?
A. Yes.
Q. Or did you just cry in this courtroom?
A. I cried every time.
I cry when I think about it in my room.
Q. What did you do when you returned to the Tate residence, or at the Tate residence, during the day after you—
A. I can’t follow your question. Would you please repeat it?
Q. All right.
The dogs barked. You saw something, and you began to cry.
Is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. What happened after that?
A. Mr. Bugliosi came over to me and put his arm around my shoulder and comforted me and told me, you know, it was okay, that I had to go through this, or something.
And I calmed down, I got myself together. The gate was opened and I walked in.
Then I pointed out the place where Tex told us to stand—get down—and then I pointed out where I thought the car was, where Tex shot the man.
Q. Were you asked questions by Mr. Bugliosi?
A. Yes. And—
Q. Did you give answers to those questions?
A. Yes.
Q. Did Mr. Bugliosi show you things?
A. No. I showed him things.
Q. Did he tell you where certain bodies were found?
A. No.
Q. Did he tell you where anything in the house was?
A. No.
Q. Did you go inside of the house?
A. No.
Q. Did you go around the side of the house to the pool?
A. No.
Q. You didn’t see the pool when you were there?
A. No.
Q. Were there any additional police officers present at the Tate house during the day when you went back other than the ones you have named in the police car?
A. Yes. I believe there was another car with investigators.
I don’t know who they were.
Q. Did any of those people ask you questions?
A. I guess so. I don’t know. People asked me where the man was standing, when I saw him come out the door, and I pointed where he was standing. Where I saw the man when Tex was stabbing him I pointed out.
I pointed out where I saw Katie chasing the girl.
Q. Was there somebody there taking down notes of your remarks?
A. No, not that I saw.
Q. To your knowledge, was somebody tape recording your remarks?
A. Not that I know of.
Q. Were you shown any pictures when you were there?
A. No.
Q. Was anyone taking any pictures while you were there?
A. I don’t remember. I don’t think so.
Q. How long were you at the Tate residence?
A. Not very long.
Q. An hour? Two hours?
A. No. Probably less than an hour.
Q. Was it in the morning?
A. I believe so.
Q. Did Mr. Bugliosi take you to lunch afterwards?
A. No. They took me straight back to SBI.
Q. You didn’t have dinner on Wilshire Boulevard?
A. No, not this time.
Q. Was there another time you were removed from the jail?
A. Yes.
Q. When was that?
A. I don’t know. A while after. We went to Pasadena.
Q. What did you do in Pasadena?
A. Eventually I found the second house on the hill.
Q. Did you drive through Pasadena looking for some houses?
A. Yes.
Q. Who was present when you want to Pasadena?
A. My attorney and Mr. Bugliosi.
Q. Which attorney?
A. Mr. Fleischman.
I don’t know who they were. They were investigators.
Q. The same investigators that were with you at Tate’s or different places?
A. I think Mr. Guttierez was there. I remember his face. I can’t remember the others.
Q. How long were you in Pasadena?
A. I don’t know.
Q. Did you drive the Pasadena Freeway to Fair Oaks Avenue?
A. Yes. I pointed out the exit.
Q. Did you drive around and point out a church?
A. Yes.
Q. How many churches were you shown before you pointed out the particular church?
A. Quite a few.
Q. How many houses were you shown before you picked out a particular house?
A. Actually, I wasn’t shown. I was more or less directing them to where I felt we had gone that night.
Q. Did you leave Pasadena and go some place?
A. Yes. I believe that was the day we went to lunch.
Q. Was that on Wilshire Boulevard?
A. I don’t know.
Q. A Chinese restaurant?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you go to Will Rogers State Park?
A. I don’t know if that was the day.
Q. Did you drive down Sunset—is there a third day that you were out of the jail?
A. Yes.
Q. Where did you go the third day?
A. I believe I went to Pasadena again looking for the first house, the one-story house, and I couldn’t find it. And I believe that was the day we went to Will Rogers, that area.
Q. Was Mr. Bugliosi present?
A. Yes.
Q. Were some of the investigating officers present?
A. Yes.
Q. Was one of your attorneys present?
A. Yes.
Q. Which one?
A. Mr. Fleischman.
Q. Were people asking you questions? Were these people asking you questions?
A. Yes.
Q. Was the purpose of the trip, as far as you were concerned, to refresh your recollection?
A. No. My purpose was to show them where we had gone.
Q. Did you ask that they take you out of the jail?
A. No.
Q. Did they ask your permission to take you out of the jail?
A. I believe they went to my attorney.
Q. Did any of those persons promise you anything if you did anything?
A. Promise me anything? No.
Q. No promises made to you?
A. Well, they promised that they would give me immunity if I testified.
Q. What did that mean?
A. Actually, it is just a piece of paper so far as I am concerned, I am just doing what I feel I have to do whether there was immunity or not.
Q. Who explained this immunity to you?
A. My attorney.
Q. What did he say?
MR. GOLDMAN: Objection.
MR. FLEISCHMAN: Same objection, attorney-client privilege.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q. BY MR. FITZGERALD: You testified is this courtroom you were testifying for two reasons:
One, because you wanted to tell the truth; and
Two, because you were granted immunity.
Is that not correct?
MR. BUGLIOSI: That is not a statement of the record, your Honor, she did not testify to that.
THE COURT: Put the question to her directly.
Q. BY MR. FITZGERALD: Why are you testifying?
A. You want me to tell you?
Q. I asked you the question.
A. Well, from the moment it happened I knew that I would be the one to tell the truth; I knew I would be the one to tell it, and I never had immunity in my mind. I never knew this was going to happen.
This is something that to me I look at as a miracle. I just know I have to do this, whether it’s immunity or not, it doesn’t matter.
MR. FITZGERALD: May I have a moment, your Honor?
THE COURT: Yes, you may.
MR. FITZGERALD: May I quote from the record in addressing the question to the witness, your Honor?
THE COURT: What is the transcript reference?
MR. FITZGERALD: It is Volume 29, your Honor, Page 4766 at Line 20, et seq.
Q. BY MR. FITZGERALD: Linda, were you asked this question and did you give this answer: the question by Mr. Bugliosi:
“Linda, are you aware of the agreement between the District Attorney’s office and your attorneys, Gary Fleischman and Ronald Goldman, that if you testify to everything you know about the Tate-LaBianca murders, the District Attorney’s Office will petition the Court to grant you immunity from prosecution and dismiss all charges against you.
“Are aware of that agreement?
“A. Yes, I am aware.”
Were you asked that question and did you give that answer?
A. Both, I believe.
Q. So you are aware of an agreement, an immunity agreement, is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. That is your awareness or understanding of that immunity agreement?
A. That I supposed to be free once I testify.
Q. Is it your understanding of that immunity agreement that if you say these defendants are innocent you are granted immunity?
A. I just have been told as long as I tell the truth I will be granted immunity.
Q. Is it your understanding that you can say anything you want and no matter what you say you will be granted immunity?
A. But I don’t want to say anything, I want to say it like it was.
Q. But is it your understanding that you can say anything you want and receive immunity?
A. No, because it’s my own conscience.
Q. You were told that if you told the truth you would be granted immunity?
A. Yes.
Q. Is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. What is your understanding as to who is going to determine whether or not you are telling the truth?
A. I don’t know, I don’t understand your question.
Q. You say that if you tell the truth you will get immunity, is that right?
A. Uh-huh.
Q. Who is going to determine whether you are telling the truth?
A. I believe it comes from above.
Q. No, I mean in terms of the immunity.
Is it your understanding that if you don’t tell the truth you won’t get immunity?
A. Repeat that again—if I don’t tell the truth I won’t get immunity?
Q. We are talking about your understanding now.
Is it your understanding that if you tell the truth you will get immunity?
A. Yes.
Q. And what does immunity mean?
A. That the charges will be dropped against me.
Q. And you will be allowed to leave the jail?
A. Yes.
Q. What if you don’t tell the truth?
A. I guess I will be perjured and tried for the case, I don’t know, I guess.
I don’t know the law, I’m sorry.
Q. I am not asking you the law, I am just asking you what your understanding of that agreement you refer to is.
A. Uh-huh.
Q. And it is your understanding that if you don’t tell the truth, what is going to happen to you?
A. That I probably will be tried.
Q. Now, in terms of your understanding, who is going to determine whether you are telling the truth?
A. I presume the Judge and jury.
Q. And if the Judge and jury determine you are not telling the truth you will not get immunity, is that your understanding?
A. Say that again.
Q. If the Judge and jury determine you are not telling the truth you will not get immunity, is that your understanding?
A. I presume, I’m not sure.
Q. Is it fair enough to say that you are attempting to convince this jury and convince this Judge that you are trying to tell the truth?
A. I am not trying to convince anybody.
I am just telling it like it was.
Q. BY MR. FITZGERALD: Do you understand the penalty for the offenses for which you are charged?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. What are those penalties?
A. The death penalty.
Q. Is that influencing you in testifying here today or any other day?
A. What do you man?
Q. Are you testifying because you don’t want to die?
A. I don’t think anybody should die, under—you know, the death penalty, I don’t believe in that.
Q. Are you testifying here because you want to spend the rest of your life with your children?
A. Yes, I would like to be with my children.
Q. And are you testifying here against these defendants in order to save your own life?
A. No, because I think I stated once before, I would give my life if none of this would have happened, if none of this had happened. I would give my life for the people that were killed.
Q. But you don’t believe you can do that, do you?
A. I don’t know, I have never tried it.
Q. But as it stands now are you testifying here because you want to save your own life?
A. It is not a matter of saving my life. It is just a matter of telling the truth.
Q. You want to tell the truth?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. Did you plead not guilty in this case?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. Was there some reason for that?
MR. GOLDMAN: Objection, your Honor, as far as the reasons for that, she was represented by counsel at the time and I believe it is part of the matters that are covered by the attorney-client privilege.
It is part of our advice to her.
THE COURT: The communication is covered, unquestionably. I don’t think her reasons are covered.
The objection is overruled.
Q. BY MR. FITZGERALD: At any time during the month of August, 1969 did you call any police agency and tell them the truth?
A. No, I did not.
Q. Did you tell them the truth during the month of September, 1969?
A. No, I did not.
MR. STOVITZ: I object to the question—
Q. BY MR. FITZGERALD: Did you—
MR. STOVITZ: Just a moment, Counsel, I was going to object to the question as being ambiguous.
The witness understood the question, so I want to withdraw my objection.
THE COURT: Read the last question and answer, please.
(Whereupon, the reporter reads the last question and answer as follows:
“Q. Did you tell them the truth during the month of September, 1969?
A. No, I did not.”)
Q. BY MR. FITZGERALD: What about October, 1969, did you call anybody, the victims’ relatives, or the police and tell them the truth?
MR. STOVITZ: I object to the question as being ambiguous, your Honor. Anybody or just police agents or just families of the victims?
The question is ambiguous.
MR. FITZGERALD: I will withdraw the question.
Q. BY MR. FITZGERALD: During the month of October, 1969 did you call any police agency anywhere in the country where you might happen to be and tell them the truth?
A. No, I did not.
Q. Did you do it during November, 1969?
A. No.
Q. You only did it after you were arrested, isn’t that correct?
A. No, I turned myself in to be arrested.
Q. It was only when you knew you were being arrested for seven counts of murder that you, quote, decided to tell the truth, unquote, isn’t that true?
A. Yes.
MR. STOVITZ: I object to the question as argumentative and move to strike the answer, your Honor.
THE COURT: Overruled.
Q. BY MR. FITZGERALD: What was your answer?
THE WITNESS: The answer was yes.
THE COURT: Read the last question and answer.
(Whereupon, the reporter reads as directed, as follows:
“Q. It was only when you knew you were being arrested for seven counts of murder that you, quote, decided to tell the truth, unquote, isn’t that true?
“A. Yes.”)
Q. BY MR. FITZGERALD: But you were motivated solely because of an interest to tell the truth, is that correct?
A. Uh—
Q. It wasn’t for any regard for your personal safety, or your personal livelihood or life or anything like that?
A. No, I was concerned about my children I really did not want to go through it while I was pregnant.
Q. You were going to delay telling the truth for a while?
A. Yes, I wanted to have my baby first.
Q. Didn’t you think in the interim that—strike that.
You went to Florida during the Month of October, 1969?
A. Yes.
Q. You spent some time with your father, isn’t that correct?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. What is his name?
A. Rosaire Drouin.
Q. Did you live with your father?
A. No, actually he got me an apartment on Miami Beach.
Q. Did you discuss what had occurred in—strike that.
Did you talk to your father about having earlier been to California?
A. Possibly.
Q. Did you tell your father you had a very nice time in California?
A. I don’t recall.
Q. Did you live with anybody else when you were in Florida?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. Who was that?
A. I lived with his boss and wife.
Q. What is the boss’ wife’s name?
A. I believe her name is Judy.
Q. Could it be June, last name Emmer, E-m-m-e-r?
A. Possibly.
Q. Have you seen that person recently?
A. I saw her today in court.
Q. Did you spend some time with her in Miami?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. Is she a friend of yours?
A. Yes.
Q. How long a period of time did you spend with her?
A. Just a couple of weeks.
Q. Did she become a friend of yours during that period of time?
A. Yes, I guess you could call her my friend.
Q. Did you discuss with her at any time during the period of time you resided with her your drug habits and use while in the State of California?
A. I don’t know if I said while in the State of California.
I know I told her that I smoked pot and I had taken acid.
Q. Did you discuss various acid trips with her?
A. She seemed curious about acid.
Q. Was she asking you questions?
A. Possibly.
Q. Were you telling her your experiences while under the influence of the drug LSD?
A. Possibly.
Q. Did you tell her that your use of LSD or acid had placed you in another world?
A. I don’t recall those words, I may have.
Q. And that as a result of taking LSD you were able to walk on air?
A. No, I don’t think so.
Q. Did you tell June Emmer at any time during your stay with her that acid trips had affected your thinking processes so that you did not care what happened?
A. No, I don’t recall those words.
Q. Did you tell June Emmer that you had a very pleasant and enjoyable time while you were living in California?
A. No, I don’t recall those words either.
Q. When, did you arrive in Miami, Florida—strike that.
When did you leave Los Angeles, California, with the destination Miami, Florida?
A. When did I leave Los Angeles with the destination of—
Q. When did you leave Los Angeles with the destination of Miami, Florida?
MR. STOVITZ: She left Los Angeles for a different destination.
MR. FITZGERALD: I’m sorry.
THE WITNESS: When did I leave New Mexico?
BY MR. FITZGERALD:
Q. I’m sorry, when did you leave New Mexico with the destination Miami, Florida?
A. Oh, maybe about two weeks after I received Tanya, so if you can, you know—
Q. Do you know what day you received Tanya?
A. No.
Q. How long did it take you to get from New Mexico to Miami, Florida?
A. How long did it take me to get to Miami from New Mexico?
Q. To Mexico from Miami.
A. You are getting it backwards.
Q. Thank you very much.
A. Yes, I remember the question.
Q. Well, make sense out of it.
A. I believe it took me two days.
Q. How much time did you spend in Miami?
A. Altogether probably about a month.
Q. And then you went where?
A. To Boston—well, I took an airplane from Miami to Boston and then to my mother’s house.
Q. Did you borrow some money from your father?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. Was there some reason you left Miami, Florida?
A. Yes.
Q. Why?
A. I wanted to go back East to my mother’s house.
Q. You wanted to go northeast?
A. Oh, yes, I consider that East, even though I guess—
Q. Do you remember when you arrived back home with your mother?
A. The date you mean?
Q. The date.
A. No.
Q. Do you remember how long you were there before you were arrested?
A. Yeah, I remember I spent Thanksgiving with them, and it was one or two days in December, and then I was arrested.
Q. Were you living at a particular address in Miami, Florida, with June Emmer?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you remember the address?
A. No.
Q. Do you remember where it was located within the City of Miami?
A. No, I cannot remember.
MR. FITZGERALD: May I have just a moment?
THE COURT: Yes, you may.
(Off the record conference between Mr. Fitzgerald and the prosecution attorneys.)
MR. FITZGERALD: Could we approach the bench, your Honor?
THE COURT: All right.
(The following proceedings were had at the bench out of the hearing of the jury:)
MR. FITZGERALD: I would like to continue my cross-examination of this witness but I wonder if I might do it Monday morning.
I have some materials and background information that I want to get together and clear in my mind before cross-examination.
It has been a long week. I wonder if we could recess.
MR. BUGLIOSI: No objection, your Honor.
THE COURT: Very well. I may remind counsel again the deposition is set for 8:00 o’clock on Monday Morning.
MR. KANAREK: Yes, your Honor.
THE COURT: I have advised the bailiff, the Sheriff’s Department to have all of the defendants present at that time.
MR. HUGHES: And all counsel, your Honor?
THE COURT: Yes, all counsel should be present at that time, at 8:00 a.m. on Monday morning.
MR. STOVITZ: I take it right after June Emmer’s deposition is taken she is going to go back to Florida and she will not be available to come back here unless you pay her way or something like that?
MR. KANAREK: You are free to interrogate her on that.
MR. STOVITZ: I am just wondering if we might bring her in in the presence of the jury and instruct her to return just in case we read the deposition of June Emmer into the record, that the jury would know who we are talking about.
THE COURT: Actually it seems—I don’t want to tell counsel how to try their case, but the woman is here, is there any reason why she just could not be put on to testify before the jury out of order?
MR. FITZGERALD: I believe Mr. Kanarek asked to do that.
MR. KANAREK: I asked to do that previously, your Honor.
THE COURT: I don’t recall that. I am not saying it did not happen. I just don’t recall it.
MR. STOVITZ: I don’t recall it. All the time he wanted to take depositions.
MR. BUGLIOSI: Why was she brought here at this time? You knew the People were going to put on their case, didn’t you?
MR. KANAREK: No, she was brought here—I may be incorrect, your Honor, Mr. Fitzgerald and I have spoken of this, whether the record reveals it or not, I don’t know for sure, about putting her on out of order, but in any event it is unimportant.
The reason she was brought here at this time was because we anticipated that your Honor would grant the evidentiary hearing on the competence.
It is our position this woman is in pain.
MR. STOVITZ: Who, June Emmer?
MR. KANAREK: Counsel is being facetious. We had her here on as evidentiary hearing on her competency.
That is what we thought your Honor would grant. In view of your denying it without prejudice previously, the motions for doctors to be appointed—
THE COURT: Do the People have any objection to the witness going on out of order?
MR. BUGLIOSI: Yes, we do, your Honor, we have no objection to her testifying in the deposition, but as far as putting her on during the People’s case, we object to it.
THE COURT: We will go ahead with the deposition on Monday morning.
MR. KANAREK: May I say this?
However, the procedure is, in the Penal Code, where the Court signs a certificate and the certificate is brought before the appropriate magistrate in the County of Dade—
THE COURT: We are not concerned with that. The motion has been granted. You are going to get your conditional examination on Monday at 8:00 o’clock.
MR. KANAREK: Very well.
THE COURT: Now, you filed another motion, Mr. Kanarek, and noticed it for 11:00 o’clock this morning regarding the Sheriff, Peter Pitchess, in regard to Mr. Manson’s treatment in the jail, or alleged treatment in the jail.
I told you this morning that we couldn’t take it at 11:00 o’clock.
There has been no declaration of service, I don’t know whether you served a copy on the People or not. They should have been served with a copy so that they have an opportunity to respond.
MR. BUGLIOSI: We have a copy.
THE COURT: And it should be noticed for some time agreeable to all sides so that the People have an opportunity to respond.
MR. KANAREK: Yes, your Honor.
I would think, because of the on-going nature of these proceedings, that your Honor could hear it now, since we are adjourning early.
THE COURT: I can’t hear it before the People have an opportunity to respond to it.
MR. KANAREK: These things are so fundamental. The People don’t have an interest in—
THE COURT: All I am saying is, Mr. Kanarek, set it down for some time next week, if you like, or any time, but I can’t hear it in the middle of the trial, during the trial day. It will have to be heard before the trial starts in the morning.
MR. KANAREK: Then may it be heard on Monday morning after—
THE COURT: No.
MR. KANAREK: —the hearing of June Emmer?
THE COURT: We won’t have time Monday Morning. Set it for Tuesday Morning, if you like, at 9:00 o’clock, and give notice to all sides.
MR. SHINN: I am having the same problem as to Susan Atkins.
THE COURT: Make your motion.
MR. BUGLIOSI: We are going to adjourn until 8:00 o’clock?
THE COURT: Yes.
MR. BUGLIOSI: By the declaration, it seems to me that it is going to be a very brief deposition.
MR. KANAREK: That is correct. Direct examination will not be very long.
THE COURT: Do you want to make it 8:30?
MR. KANAREK: Whatever the Court orders.
THE COURT: The order is tailored to meet the estimate of counsel, so that we don’t have to eat into trial time.
MR. BUGLIOSI: Right.
MR. KANAREK: If Mr. Bugliosi would rather make it 8:30, I am agreeable to that.
MR. BUGLIOSI: Based on your estimate.
THE COURT: What is your estimate of direct?
MR. KANAREK: My estimate is certainly much less than an hour. Probably on the order of a half an hour.
MR. FITZGERALD: A half hour is the most. That is reasonable.
THE COURT: She was ordered to appear at 8:00.
MR. KANAREK: She will just be here early.
MR. FITZGERALD: Could the witness, Linda Kasabian, be ordered not to discuss her testimony in connection with this case over the weekend with anybody else?
THE COURT: I have already ordered counsel, her attorneys, not to discuss it, and they have agreed that they will come back to the bench and seek relief from that if they feel a compelling need to do that.
MR. FITZGERALD: All right.
Could we get Mr. Fitzgerald here so that we make sure he understands?
THE COURT: Yes. That is a good idea.
MR. BUGLIOSI: I would like it on the record that although the court sessions are short each day, we get a tremendous amount of testimony the way things are going. The way you have allocated it, only four hours, we are getting more testimony in this trial per day than I normally get in a six-hour day.
I don’t know why. Maybe it is the way we are running things.
(Mr. Fleischman approaches the bench.)
THE COURT: Mr. Fleischman, Mr. Goldman was at the bench early this afternoon and I discussed it with him, and you can discuss with him the reason that I gave to him for making the order, but I ordered him not to discuss Miss Kasabian’s testimony with her during the course of her testimony so that she would be placed in the same status as all the other witnesses in the case who have been excluded from hearing the testimony of other witnesses.
MR. FLEISCHMAN: I am aware of the order, your Honor.
THE COURT: I want to make the order applicable to you also with the same condition, that if you feel a compelling need to discuss with her her testimony in this case, as distinguished from advising her on other matters, that you come back and let the Court know so that I will have a chance to modify that order.
I don’t want to be unreasonable about it but, on the other hand, I want to place her on the same footing as all the other witnesses insofar as possible.
So, I will make the same order with respect to you.
MR. STOVITZ: So that the order is intelligent to me, your Honor, I intended to go over certain points that were covered on cross-examination, talk to her so that I might be cognizant of her answers on redirect.
THE COURT: The order is not intended to apply to the prosecutors. They have examined her on direct examination. They obviously have to have an opportunity to confer with her on redirect.
MR. FLEISCHMAN: The problem is this: I have always been present with her at any time she has talked to either Mr. Bugliosi or Mr. Stovitz. On occasion, she will turn to me. I have no interest in these proceedings, obviously, other than to protect her rights, and to see that the agreement that we have is placed in effect as soon as she finishes testifying. But she occasionally will turn to me, and it is impossible for me to ignore the questions she asks.
I will do the best I can.
MR. KANAREK: I would like the record to reveal, there is one little statement Mr. Fitzgerald made, he asked that all people be ordered not to speak to her, and I certainly don’t want—I would object—
THE COURT: There is no such order in effect, and there isn’t going to be.
MR. KANAREK: It is our desire to speak to her over the weekend, and we would ask your Honor to order the Sheriff to allow us to be in her immediate presence in the jail at Sybil Brand.
We have been over there and they tell us—
THE COURT: Mr. Kanarek, there have been previous orders concerning this matter. There is no change in the status of things.
MR. FLEISCHMAN: Your Honor, may we, in this connection, we have no control over this courtroom, Mr. Kanarek has, on repeated occasions, attempted to talk to this lady out of our presence, and she has made clear that she does not wish to talk to him. We have no way to control it.
THE COURT: That is a matter between you and Mrs. Kasabian and Mr. Kanarek. I have no control over that.
MR. KANAREK: Very briefly, it is our position that this is not—
THE COURT: I don’t want to prolong this, Mr. Kanarek. We have gone over it many times.
(Whereupon all counsel return to their respective places at counsel table and the following proceedings occurred in open court within the presence and hearing of the jury:)
THE COURT: Ladies and gentlemen, we will adjourn at this time.
Do not converse with anyone nor form or express any opinion regarding the case until it is finally submitted to you.
The case is adjourned until Monday at 9:45 a.m. insofar as the jury is concerned. Insofar as counsel are concerned, the time previously set has been changed to 8:30 a.m. rather than 8:00 a.m.
(Whereupon at 4:12 o’clock p.m. the court was in recess.)