Historic Trial Transcripts
Linda Kasabian: Day eleven Testimony, August 10, 1970
LINDA KASABIAN,
a witness called by and on behalf of the People, having been previously duly sworn, resumed the stand, was examined and testified further as follows:
FURTHER CROSS EXAMINATION
BY MR. KANAREK:
Q. Mrs. Kasabian, you stated last Friday that you thought that Mr. Fitzgerald was dishonest; that is why you have not spoken to him.
In what way do you feel Mr. Fitzgerald is dishonest?
MR. BUGLIOSI: Your Honor, we object to this line of questioning on the rationale it is irrelevant to the charges in this case.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. KANAREK: It goes to this witness’s state of mind, your Honor.
THE COURT: Sustained.
BY MR. KANAREK:
Q. Why do you feel that Mr. Fitzgerald is dishonest?
MR. BUGLIOSI: Same objection, your Honor.
THE COURT: Sustained.
BY MR. KANAREK:
Q. Mrs. Kasabian, over the weekend have you signed any papers?
A. No.
Q. You have signed no paper?
A. No.
MR. KANAREK: Your Honor, may we approach the bench then?
THE COURT: I see no necessity for it, Mr. Kanarek, let’s proceed.
BY MR. KANAREK:
Q. Well, Mrs. Kasabian, have you seen any immunity papers?
A. Yes, I have.
Q. What immunity papers have you seen?
A. I saw immunity papers Friday and I saw them this morning, but I did not read them.
Q. I see. Now, were the immunity papers that you saw Friday the same immunity papers that you saw this morning?
A. I don’t know because I did not read this morning’s papers.
Q. You did not read them. Well, what is your state of mind in connection with any immunity that you may have, Mrs. Kasabian?
A. I don’t understand.
Q. You don’t know what “immunity” means?
A. I don’t understand what you are asking me.
Q. Well, what is your state of mind? What do you think your immunity is?
A. I don’t know. I don’t understand.
Q. Do you know what immunity is?
A. Yes, I think I do.
Q. What do you think immunity is?
A. That I won’t be prosecuted in this case.
Q. And you won’t be prosecuted for seven counts of murder and one count of conspiracy?
A. Yes.
Q. What was your state of mind as to your immunity up until last Friday?
A. I don’t understand.
Q. What kind of immunity did you think that you had? I will withdraw that.
You remember on direct examination you were interrogated by Mr. Bugliosi?
A. Yes.
Q. And you remember Mr. Bugliosi asking you questions about immunity?
A. I can’t remember at the moment.
Q. You don’t remember Mr. Bugliosi asking you, interrogating you, concerning immunity?
A. I can’t remember it at the moment.
Q. You don’t remember any such interrogation?
A. No.
Q. Well, over the weekend, with whom have you spoken, Mrs. Kasabian?
A. Nobody.
Q. You spoke with nobody at all?
A. No.
Q. You didn’t speak with your lawyers?
A. No.
Q. You didn’t speak with Mr. Bugliosi?
A. No.
Q. Or Mr. Stovitz?
A. No.
Q. Now, where are you now living?
A. In the infirmary, the jail.
Q. The jail?
A. Yes.
Q. Is it your understanding that you will be leaving the jail?
A. I guess so. I am not really sure.
Q. What is your understanding as to when you will be leaving the jail?
A. I don’t know
MR. BUGLIOSI: Irrelevant.
MR. KANAREK: It goes to her state of mind, your Honor.
THE COURT: Overruled. You may answer.
THE WITNESS: I don’t know.
MR. KANAREK: Q. Do you think that you are going to be leaving the jail in the next day or so?
A. I guess so.
Q. I see.
And you are leaving the jail the next day or so because of the order that the Court signed? Is that your state of mind?
A. I guess so, yes.
Q. Because now you are no longer a defendant in this case and you can come and go as you please?
A. I guess so.
Q. You guess so, or do you know so?
A. I know so.
Q. You know so; that is for sure?
A. Yes.
Q. So you will be leaving the County Jail?
A. Yes.
Q. So, your state of mind is such that you are now completely discharged of seven counts of murder; you are discharged of those counts and also the conspiracy count; is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. Directing your attention to this state of mind that you have, how did you get this state of mind if you didn’t talk to anybody over the weekend?
MR. BUGLIOSI: Argumentative, your Honor.
THE COURT: Overruled.
You may answer.
THE WITNESS: What was your question?
MR. KANAREK: Q. Well, Mrs. Kasabian, you have stated that your state of mind now is that you are going to be leaving the jail maybe even today; right?
A. I guess so.
Q. You mean you know so?
A. Well, I don’t know if I am going to leave today or tomorrow, or whatever. I don’t know.
Q. And you don’t care?
A. Not particularly, no.
Q. You feel that you sort of have a mission to perform now; right?
MR. STOVITZ: That is objected to as argumentative.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q. BY MR. KANAREK: Well, then, you tell us that you didn’t speak to anybody over the weekend. How did you get this information that you are now going to be leaving the jail?
A. I believe I heard the Court say this morning that he signed the immunity papers, and I guess he has the power to release me.
Q. So, you are going to leave the jail, as far as your mind is concerned, because of what the Judge said this morning?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, Mrs. Kasabian, how far is it from the top of the hill to the bottom of that hill at the Tate residence?
A. I don’t know.
MR. KANAREK: Your Honor, I make a motion that we have proceedings at the Tate residence, that we adjourn these proceedings and go to the Tate residence and take evidence, your Honor.
MR. STOVITZ: Your Honor, this is a motion that should definitely be made outside of the presence of the jury.
MR. KANAREK: I see no reason for that, your Honor.
THE COURT: The motion is denied.
Let’s proceed.
MR. KANAREK: May I approach the bench, your Honor?
THE COURT: All right.
MR. STOVITZ: May we all approach the bench on this issue, your Honor?
THE COURT: Very well.
(Whereupon counsel approach the bench and the following proceedings occur at the bench outside of the hearing of the jury:)
MR. STOVITZ: The reason that I asked to approach the bench, your Honor, is that this is a matter that we, Mr. Bugliosi and I, were considering, but we feel that this is an improper time.
It takes a great deal of trouble and effort to go. We understand that arrangements would have to be made for the defendants and all the jurors and court personnel; and therefore, we did want to talk about it at a time when it would be convenient for everyone to express their opinions on it.
We are not opposed to going to the Tate residence. It is just that it is something that should be taken up outside of the presence of the jury and not be made at the frivolous drop of a hat as counsel made it.
MR. KANAREK: It was not frivolous.
THE COURT: With respect to this witness or just a view of the scene?
MR. STOVITZ: We feel that after the police officers testify and they testify to where the particular bodies were found. At that time.
THE COURT: Just a view of the premises itself?
MR. STOVITZ: There should be a view of the premises, yes. There may be some probative value to go there, to show the length and distances that are not shown by a diagram as easily as it is by actually seeing the location.
THE COURT: The diagram and the photographs seem perfectly clear to me. I can’t imagine why a view of the premises would be required in this case.
At any rate, I understood your motion was that you wanted to adjourn now and go out there for the purpose of what, Mr. Kanarek, examining this witness on the scene?
MR. KANAREK: Yes, your Honor, because this witness is not being candid with the Court, and there are physical objects.
THE COURT: Not being candid with the Court? What do you mean?
MR. KANAREK: Well, she is not telling the truth, in my view, from what I can ascertain from these pictures, from what I can ascertain from the diagram.
Now, the point is this, your Honor: Mr. Altabelli, Rudy Altabelli, has the place completely sealed off. It would require a court order for us to get in there, I believe.
That is a fair statement that that is the case, your Honor.
I myself have been unsuccessful in any attempt to get on those premises to view the actual home itself and the surrounding area.
I think Mr. Fitzgerald had a similar experience.
MR. FITZGERALD: We have been unsuccessful.
MR. BUGLIOSI: Did you use that phone number I gave you?
MR. STOVITZ: The distance from the bottom of the hill to the house, you don’t have to go to Altabelli’s residence for that.
MR. KANAREK: What I am saying, in order to orient this witness’ testimony with the physical setup, it is necessary that she be at the scene.
THE COURT: I don’t see that at all. I think this is a relatively simple matter of orientation. You have a good diagram, you have got good photographs, and there is no difficulty about it at all.
I see no necessity whatever for going out there.
MR. KANAREK: Well, your Honor, a fair trial for Mr. Manson requires that we go out there.
THE COURT: The motion will be denied.
Let’s proceed, gentlemen.
MR. HUGHES: Join in the motion.
(Whereupon, all counsel return to their respective places at counsel table and the following proceedings occur in open court within the presence and hearing of the jury:)
MR. KANAREK: Q. Mrs. Kasabian, would you step over to this diagram, please?
(The witness leaves the witness stand and approaches the diagram.)
MR. KANAREK: May we have a pointer, your Honor?
(A pointer is handed to Mr. Kanarek.)
MR. KANAREK: Now, would you take that pointer, please, Mrs. Kasabian.
Q. Now, would you show us, Mrs. Kasabian, where you were when you gave a knife to someone who came out of the house after you had seen a man killed, shot four times?
THE WITNESS: Right about in here. (Indicating)
MR. STOVITZ: May the record show that the witness has pointed to People’s Exhibit 8 and an area near a fence where it says “100 feet.”
Is that word “frosted,” Counsel?
MR. KANAREK: There is the word “frosted.”
MR. STOVITZ: It was about a quarter of an inch from there that she pointed; is that right?
MR. KANAREK: That’s right.
THE COURT: Let’s have the witness mark it K-1.
MR. STOVITZ: Very well. K-1.
(The witness marks.)
MR. KANAREK: Q. Now, after you gave that knife to someone, Mrs. Kasabian—I will withdraw that.
At the time you gave that knife to someone, did you have a conversation with that person?
MR. SHINN: Your Honor, I am going to object to that question, your Honor.
THE COURT: What is the ground for your objection?
MR. SHINN: On the ground that the answer will probably be a self-serving answer.
MR. STOVITZ: I think the question can be answered with a yes or no. It doesn’t say with whom she had the conversation.
MR. SHINN: I think the next question leading up to that will be to whom she talked.
On behalf of Defendant Susan Atkins, I will object.
THE COURT: The question can be answered yes or no. What was the answer?
THE WITNESS: What was the question?
MR. KANAREK: May it be read?
THE COURT: Read the question.
(The record was read by the reporter.)
THE WITNESS: Yes.
MR. KANAREK: Q. Now, what was said by you? And what was said by this person?
A. Katie asked me for my knife, and I gave it to her. And she told me to stay there and listen for sounds.
Q. And listen for what?
A. Sounds.
Q. Listen for sounds?
A. Yes.
THE COURT: Just a moment. Read the answer.
(The record was read by the reporter.)
Q. BY MR. KANAREK: And what did you think you were listening for sounds for?
MR. BUGLIOSI: Assumes a fact not in evidence, your Honor, that she did listen for sounds.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. KANAREK: What went through your mind as to why you were told by this person to listen for sounds?
MR. BUGLIOSI: Calls for a conclusion.
MR. FITZGERALD: Objection, your Honor, as vague, immaterial and irrelevant.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. KANAREK: Q. When you did, after you gave her the knife, Mrs. Kasabian, did you subsequently hear any sounds?
A. After?
Q. Yes.
A. Yes.
MR. STOVITZ: May we, your Honor, if counsel is all through with the diagram—
MR. KANAREK: No, I am not all through with the diagram, your Honor.
MR. STOVITZ: Okay. I am sorry for the interruption. “It was how long after” you were starting to ask.
BY MR. KANAREK:
Q. How long after, Mrs. Kasabian, did you hear any sounds?
A. I don’t remember the time. It didn’t seem too long after.
Q. Could you speak up?
A. Didn’t I? I can hear myself coming back.
Q. Pardon?
A. I can hear it coming back, so I think I was talking loud.
MR. STOVITZ: Are any of the jurors having difficulty hearing?
MR. KANAREK: Q. Now, from where did you hear the sounds that you heard after you gave this person the knife, having seen someone killed?
MR. STOVITZ: Just a moment. That assumes a fact not in evidence, or rather arguing with the witness that the knife was given after the shooting.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. KANAREK: Well, I think the evidence is clear, your Honor. She says the knife was given after the shooting.
THE COURT: The objection is sustained.
BY MR. KANAREK:
Q. Well, Mrs. Kasabian, did you give this knife to someone that came out of the house after the shooting?
A. The shooting that took place at the car? Yes.
Q. Did any other shooting take place that night?
A. Not that I heard.
Q. Then my question is: Did you give the knife to someone after you witnessed four bullets shot into someone in the automobile?
A. Yes.
Q. And directing your attention to your state of mind, what did you think was the purpose that that knife was going to be used for?
MR. BUGLIOSI: Calls for a conclusion, your Honor.
THE COURT: Sustained.
BY MR. KANAREK:
Q. What was your reason for giving the knife, Mrs. Kasabian?
A. Katie asked for it.
Q. And were you under the influence of Katie?
A. No.
Q. Pardon?
A. No.
Q. Directing your attention at that time, your purpose was to give her the knife in order to accomplish the mission that you were there for; is that right?
A. I don’t understand.
Q. Pardon?
A. I didn’t understand you.
Q. You don’t understand the question?
A. No.
Q. There is no question that you gave Katie the knife; is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. And you gave Katie the knife in order to help accomplish the reason that you came to the Tate residence; is that right?
A. I don’t know.
Q. You don’t know why you gave it to her?
A. I just gave it to her because she asked for it.
Q. And she was your friend, and you and she were there to go creepy-crawling; is that right?
MR. BUGLIOSI: It calls for a conclusion as to why Katie Krenwinkel was there, your Honor.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. KANAREK: Well, you were there to go creepy-crawling?
THE WITNESS: Yes.
BY MR. KANAREK:
Q. And you gave her the knife—the reason for giving her the knife was to help the creepy-crawl mission; is that correct?
A. At that point I wasn’t sure of what was really happening.
Q. You weren’t sure of what was really happening?
A. Yes.
Q. What did you think was happening?
A. I don’t know. I don’t know if I even thought at that point.
Q. You mean you were in shock?
A. Yes.
Q. I see. But you don’t have any difficulty remembering?
A. No. I can remember.
Q. Pardon?
A. I remember.
MR. STOVITZ: Your Honor, it is now six minutes since my last interruption. If we are still needed at the diagram, I have no objection to waiting, but it is much more comfortable if we do this at the witness stand.
MR. KANAREK: I have a lot of questioning to do at the diagram. I prefer to do it at the Tate residence, but since all your Honor is allowing is the diagram, I have to use the diagram.
MR. STOVITZ: May I suggest, then, counsel, that you get on with the questions dealing with the diagram so we can proceed.
THE COURT: Let’s proceed, Mr. Kanarek.
MR. KANAREK: That is what I am trying to do.
THE COURT: Do you have some questions regarding the diagram?
MR. KANAREK: Yes, your Honor.
THE COURT: Ask them so the witness may resume the witness stand.
MR. KANAREK: Q. Now, how far away, Mrs. Kasabian, how far away were you from the front door when you gave the knife to Katie?
A. Well, as I pointed out before, right here. (Indicating) So, wherever the front door is.
Q. Where is the front door on that diagram?
A. Right here.
MR. STOVITZ: May the record indicate that she pointed to a room marked “Entry” on People’s Exhibit 8, your Honor.
Is that a fair statement, Counsel?
THE WITNESS: Do you want me to mark it?
MR. KANAREK: In that general area. That is a fair statement, your Honor.
MR. STOVITZ: Thank you.
MR. KANAREK: Would you mark that K-2?
Is that permissible, your Honor?
THE COURT: Yes, it is.
MR. BUGLIOSI: What does K-2 stand for, Mr. Kanarek?
MR. KANAREK: Ask Mrs. Kasabian.
MR. BUGLIOSI: You were the one that asked for it.
MR. STOVITZ: I think the record shows that it stands for the front door.
MR. BUGLIOSI: K-2?
MR. STOVITZ: Yes.
THE COURT: Hold the microphone horizontally and speak directly into the end of it, please, Mrs. Kasabian.
MR. BUGLIOSI: Is there a stipulation that K-2 stands for the front door or represents the front door?
THE COURT: What question is that an answer to, Mr. Kanarek?
MR. KANAREK: I believe I asked her to mark K-2 as to where the front door was.
THE COURT: All right.
MR. KANAREK: Q. Now, Mrs. Kasabian, at some time you approached that front door: Is that correct?
A. I started down the walkway. I never made it to the front door.
Q. But you were approaching the front door; is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And is it a fair statement, Mrs. Kasabian, that your intent was to go inside the house?
When you were walking—directing your attention to your thinking and your state of mind as you are walking down the walkway—was it your intent to go inside the house?
A. I guess so. I don’t know.
Q. You don’t know for sure?
A. No.
Q. Can you reflect upon that for a moment and tell us?
A. I just remember now running towards the house and stopping short.
Q. And your idea, your purpose was to go inside the house, isn’t that correct?
A. I guess so, I don’t know. I don’t know if I intended to go in the house.
I intended to make it stop.
Q. You intended what?
A. I intended to make it stop. I wanted it to stop screaming.
Q. You wanted it, the screaming, to stop?
A. Yes.
Q. The screaming was annoying you.
MR. BUGLIOSI: Argumentative, your Honor.
THE COURT: Sustained.
BY MR. KANAREK:
Q. Now, was the screaming annoying you, Mrs. Kasabian?
A. I don’t understand what you mean “annoying” me.
Q. You were hearing screams here. Were the screams annoying you?
A. I still don’t understand.
Q. That question is not clear to you?
A. No.
Q. Do you know what the word annoying means?
A. Bother.
Q. Yes.
A. Would you repeat your question.
Q. Do you know what the word annoy means?
A. Yes.
Q. And was the screaming that you heard, was it annoying you?
A. I guess so, yes.
Q. It was bothering you to hear those screams?
A. Yes.
Q. Is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And so your intent was to go inside the house, is that right?
A. I guess so. I don’t remember that thought entering my head.
Q. And when you came to the door, when you came to the door there was someone at the door, is that right?
A. I did not go to the door.
Q. Pardon?
A. I did not go to the door.
Q. Well, you came close to the doorway, to the area of the doorway?
A. Yes.
Q. And when you got to the area of the doorway there was a person standing there?
A. Yes.
Q. Is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. And this person appeared to you—that person was alive, is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. That person was breathing?
A. Yes.
Q. And did that person appear to be wounded to you?
A. Yes.
Q. In what way was that person wounded?
MR. STOVITZ: Your Honor, again I would like to call attention to the fact that for none of these questions do we have to be present at the board.
These questions could have been properly asked, and they were asked at the witness stand three days ago.
I object to remaining here at the blackboard if it is not necessary.
MR. KANAREK: If your Honor wishes we can go back and forth. I am trying to do this as expeditiously as possible, your Honor.
MR. STOVITZ: I don’t think so, your Honor.
THE COURT: If you have any questions regarding the diagram, Mr. Kanarek, let’s get to them.
The witness may then resume the witness stand.
MR. KANAREK: Well, your Honor, I have to integrate the question—
THE COURT: All right.
MR. KANAREK: There has to be continuity.
BY MR. KANAREK:
Q. Now, you saw this person standing at the door.
Did you say the person appeared to be wounded?
A. Yes.
Q. And would you tell us where? Would you tell us in what way the person appeared to be wounded?
A. He had blood on his face.
Q. And you have seen blood before in your life, is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And the person was standing up, right?
A. Yes.
Q. He was standing on his two feet?
A. He was leaning against a pole.
Q. I see, and was there anyone other than you—let me withdraw that.
How close were you to this person?
A. I don’t know, not very.
Q. How many feet?
A. I can’t relate it in feet.
Q. How far away with respect to—
A. Maybe from here to where my attorneys are, about that far.
Q. The distance between yourself and your attorneys?
MR. STOVITZ: Stipulate to being between 12 and 18 feet, Counsel, or do you think it is more than that?
MR. KANAREK: That seems reasonable, your Honor.
BY MR. KANAREK:
Q. Would you put a mark on the diagram as to where the person was that you saw, the person with the blood on his face.
(Witness complies.)
A. He was leaning against the pole. There is nothing here to indicate a pole.
Q. Well, you draw a circle.
MR. KANAREK: May she draw a circle, your Honor, and may we label that “Pole”?
THE COURT: Very well.
THE WITNESS: Right there.
BY MR. KANAREK:
Q. Would you draw an arrow from that.
MR. STOVITZ: Your Honor, if the Court would supply us with a red Crayon I think it would show up a lot better than the blue pen she is using, because the diagram is drawn mostly in blue.
May we substitute a red Crayon here, Counsel?
MR. KANAREK: No problem.
(Red Crayon supplied to the witness.)
BY MR. KANAREK:
Q. And the person—could you lift that up (referring to microphone)—would you write the word M, or the letter M—that was the man at the pole, is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Would you put the letter “M” under the word “Pole”?
MR. BUGLIOSI: There is confusion here, your Honor. Are you saying the man is where you have written pole or is the man where you have a circle?
MR. KANAREK: If he has an objection to the question he can address the Court, if he does, your Honor.
MR. BUGLIOSI: There is an obvious—there is an obvious confusion here, and I think it is precipitated by his line of questioning.
THE COURT: I suggest you complete this questioning at the diagram very shortly. We have too many technical problems testifying over there.
It cannot be seen, for one thing, by the jury at that distance.
MR. KANAREK: That is why I was asking we go to the Tate residence, your Honor.
THE COURT: All right, sir, get on with your examination.
MR. KANAREK: Your Honor, may I have the pictures of the Tate residence, since your Honor says—
MR. BUGLIOSI: Before we go any further, your Honor, I think there should be some clarification as to the markings she made on People’s 8 here.
THE COURT: Let the witness identify it.
MR. KANAREK: Mr. Bugliosi will be able to interrogate your Honor.
THE COURT: I want you to identify it first, Mr. Kanarek, since your question called for the mark.
MR. KANAREK: Yes.
THE COURT: What is it?
MR. KANAREK: The “M”, your Honor? The “M” is intended to indicate that there was a person, a male person standing next to the pole that she has drawn on the diagram, or where she has indicated the circle as the pole.
MR. BUGLIOSI: I would ask Mr. Kanarek to ask her if the “M” here stands for a man next to where she has written p-o-l-e, or next to where she made a circle.
It is completely ambiguous.
MR. KANAREK: Then he can object to the question if it is ambiguous.
THE COURT: All right, Mrs. Kasabian, resume the witness stand.
Ladies and gentlemen, do not converse with anyone nor form or express any opinion regarding the case until it is finally submitted to you.
The court will recess for 15 minutes.
(Recess.)
THE COURT: All parties, counsel and jurors are present You may proceed, Mr. Kanarek.
Q. BY MR. KANAREK: Mrs. Kasabian, when you saw this man that was wounded, he just appeared to have blood on his face?
A. Yes.
Q. Right?
A. Yes.
Q. And you saw that—what did you do just after you saw him?
A. I stood there—I don’t know how long it took, not very long, I guess, and he fell down—and then Sadie came running out and we had a conversation.
MR. KANAREK: I am asking what you did.
May that be stricken as not responsive?
THE WITNESS: I just stood there.
THE COURT: Let’s hear the answer. Read the answer.
(Whereupon, the reporter reads the answer as follows:
“A. I stood there—I don’t know how long it took, not very long, I guess, and he fell down—and then Sadie came running out and we had a conversation.”
THE REPORTER: The witness then said, “I just stood there.”)
Q. BY MR. KANAREK: And as you stood there and saw this man wounded did any words come out of your mouth?
MR. STOVITZ: That has been asked and answered, your Honor, on three occasions on cross-examination, and I submit that it is tedious at this time.
THE COURT: Overruled you may answer.
THE WITNESS: No, nothing came from my mouth.
Q. BY MR. KANAREK: You said nothing, right?
A. Yes.
MR. STOVITZ: That is not what she said. She said nothing came from her mouth.
On three previous occasions she said she did say something but not out loud.
THE COURT: That is not necessary, Mr. Stovitz.
The jury will disregard that remark.
We have the answer. Let’s go to the next question.
Q. BY MR. KANAREK: So in fact you said nothing, is that right, Mrs. Kasabian?
A. Yes.
Q. No words came out of your mouth?
A. Yes.
Q. And at this time as far as what you are relating to us, it was perfectly clear in your mind, there is no question about what you are telling us now, your mind was not befuddled by anything?
A. No.
Q. Is that right?
A. Right.
Q. And what you were doing at that time you were doing of your own free will; you were not under anybody’s spell, were you?
A. No.
Q. As you stood there on the lawn, or in the area of the Tate residence?
A. No.
Q. What do you mean by no?
A. I was not under anybody’s spell.
Q. And directing your attention then to your state of mind and your acting, doing things under anyone else’s spell, is it a fair statement that at no time, at no time that evening were you under anybody’s spell?
MR. BUGLIOSI: Your Honor—
Q. BY MR. KANAREK: Is that a fair statement, Mrs. Kasabian?
MR. BUGLIOSI: I object on the ground that “spell” is too ambiguous.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q. BY MR. KANAREK: Well, do you know, Mrs. Kasabian, do you know the word “spell” as it was used in the last question?
A. Yes, I think so.
Q. Then, Mrs. Kasabian, looking at what occurred that first night, is it a fair statement that you were not under anybody’s spell?
MR. BUGLIOSI: I object again, your Honor.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q. BY MR. KANAREK: You were acting, the first night, is it a fair statement, you were acting freely and voluntarily, on your own; is that correct?
MR. BUGLIOSI: I will object again. Freely and voluntarily what? That she had the physical capacity to move from Point A to Point B? or was she under anyone’s influence?
I don’t know what that language means.
THE COURT: Do you understand the question?
THE WITNESS: Not now I don’t.
THE COURT: Objection sustained. Reframe your question.
Q. BY MR. KANAREK: That evening, the first night, what you call the first night, Mrs. Kasabian, everything that you did you did because you wanted to do what, in fact, you did; is that correct?
A. Yes, I guess so.
Q. Now, directing your attention to Mr. Watson. Is it a fair statement, Mrs. Kasabian, that you, at no time, saw or heard Mr. Manson give any specific orders to Mr. Watson?
A. No.
Q. Is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Just so we have it clear. Did you ever see Mr. Manson present with Mr. Watson at a time when Mr. Manson gave any orders or instructions to Mr. Watson?
MR. BUGLIOSI: I object, your Honor, on the grounds it is ambiguous. What night? The night of August the 9th or the night of August the 10th?
MR. KANAREK: Any night, your Honor.
THE COURT: Overruled.
You may answer.
THE WITNESS: Well, that night.
MR. KANAREK: Q. I am talking—pardon me, let me withdraw that. I will withdraw the question.
Directing your attention to August the 9th and August the 10th, did you see Mr. Manson in the presence of Mr. Watson give Mr. Watson any instructions?
A. Is this the first night?
Q. Let’s call it the first night and the second night.
Did you, at any time, see Mr. Watson in the presence of Mr. Manson when Mr. Manson gave any instructions to Mr. Watson?
A. Yes.
Q. You did?
A. Yes.
MR. KANAREK: Your Honor, may I approach the witness?
THE COURT: You may.
(Mr. Kanarek shows the document to Mr. Bugliosi and Mr. Stovitz.)
MR. KANAREK: Q. Mrs. Kasabian, I show you a piece of paper that appears to be handwritten. It appears to be a copy of a handwritten page.
Does that appear to be your writing?
A. Yes.
Q. Would you look at the first three lines at the top of that page.
Did you write those lines?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you write those lines since you have been in custody?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you write: “I have looked back and remember all that I have written, and I can’t rightly recall any specific orders given to Tex by Charlie”?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you write that?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. So, you came to the Tate residence on your own, doing your own thing, so to speak.
Do you know that expression, doing your own thing?
A. Yes, I know the expression.
Q. And when you were there that night, you were doing your own thing as far as what you did; is that correct?
A. Yes, I guess so.
Q. Pardon?
A. Yes.
Q. And on the second night, on the second night when you went out, after having seen everything on TV that you saw and having witnessed what you saw the first night, when you were out that night you were doing your own thing as far as you were concerned; is that correct?
A. I didn’t want to go.
Q. Pardon?
A. I didn’t want in go the second night.
Q. You didn’t want to go?
A. Right.
Q. But whether you wanted to go or you didn’t want to go—
A. I had no choice.
Q. Pardon?
A. I had no choice.
Q. You had no choice?
A. Yes.
Q. The second night you were not doing your own thing?
A. No.
Q. You were forced to go?
A. Not physically, no.
Q. You were forced to go mentally?
A. Yes, I’d say.
Q. And you were forced to go mentally because you were exhausted; is that right?
A. I don’t understand.
Q. Well, you were forced to go mentally. What force, what mental force, was used upon you?
A. Charlie told me to do something, and you don’t tell Charlie no.
Q. What is that?
A. Charlie told me to do something and you never tell Charlie no, you do it.
Q. You do it?
A. Yes.
Q. So, the first night you were completely on your own doing your own thing, without anybody telling you what to do; is that right?
A. Well, Charlie told me to go with Tex, but I was still on my own more or less.
Q. You were on your own the first night?
A. More or less, yes.
Q. The second night you weren’t on your own?
A. No, not really.
Q. I see.
And in your mind, on the second night, you were there because of some strange force that was exerted over you; is that correct?
A. If you want to call Charlie’s force strange, yes.
Q. Well, what about Tex’s force?
A. Tex didn’t tell me to do anything that night.
Q. Tex did not tell you to do anything that night?
A. Uh-huh.
Q. Now, when you were under this force, the second night, were you exhausted, were you tired?
A. Yes.
Q. I see, and would you tell us your state of mind, what was going on in your mind such that you were so pliable that you did what Charlie told you to do?
MR. STOVITZ: That is objected to as ambiguous and unintelligible, your Honor.
THE COURT: Sustained.
BY MR. KANAREK:
Q. Well, directing your attention to the second night, Mrs. Kasabian, you state that—were you able to get out of the car on your own?
A. Yes.
Q. And were you able to walk around on your own?
A. Yes.
Q. And were you able to find the place to place the wallet in the lady’s room on your own?
A. No, I was given directions.
Q. Pardon?
A. I was given directions.
Q. You were given directions?
A. Yes.
Q. But you were able to move in there and lift the top of the toilet bowl and put the wallet in there?
A. Yes.
Q. You were able to do all that on your own?
A. Yes.
Q. So, as far as your thinking was concerned, you were under your own steam, so to speak, is that right?
A. What do you mean—
MR. BUGLIOSI: “Steam,” your Honor—
THE COURT: Sustained.
BY MR. KANAREK:
Q. Has any doctor ever told you you had any mental illness, Mrs. Kasabian?
A. No.
Q. Have you been to a doctor to determine whether you had any mental illness?
A. No.
Q. So you don’t know whether you have or not, is that true?
A. Medically I don’t, but within myself I know I don’t.
Q. Pardon?
A. Medically I don’t know if I would be categorized as mental, but within my own self I don’t feel that I am.
Q. You don’t feel that you are mentally ill?
A. No.
Q. You don’t feel that you are?
A. No.
Q. I mean, taking all these drugs and all the LSD and the peyote and the smoking marijuana thousands of times, you don’t feel you are mentally ill?
MR. BUGLIOSI: She never testified she smoked marijuana thousands of times.
MR. KANAREK: Counsel does not remember the record. The record reveals that this witness has testified she’s taken marijuana thousands of times.
THE COURT: Let’s proceed.
MR. KANAREK: May we have an answer to the question, your Honor?
THE COURT: Do you understand the question?
THE WITNESS: I forgot it.
MR. KANAREK: May it be read?
THE COURT: You’d better reframe it, Mr. Kanarek.
BY MR. KANAREK:
Q. Do you feel, Mrs. Kasabian, directing your attention to the LSD that you have taken, the hash that you have taken, peyote, smoked marijuana thousands of times, you feel that none of this is any indication as far as you are concerned that you have any mental illness?
A. No.
Q. When you say no, exactly what do you mean?
A. I don’t feel that it’s made me ill, my smoking pot and taking acid.
Q. You mean it has not made you mentally ill?
A. Right.
Q. So then, directing your attention, Mrs. Kasabian, to the second night—
A. Uh-huh.
Q. —were you mentally ill on the second night?
A. No.
Q. And everything you did and thought on the second night you did and thought on your own, right?
A. No.
Q. Well, did anybody else—was there anybody else inside your skull, so to speak?
A. No, but you said when I did—well, when I was taking lefts and rights, I didn’t do it until someone told me to.
Q. When you took lefts and rights?
A. When I was driving the car, yes.
Q. But as far as turning the wheel is concerned and all of that, your mind told your hands, and your feet, to move and do whatever was necessary to move the car?
A. Yes.
Q. Is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And while you were in that automobile you did everything that you did on your own, by yourself?
A. As far as operating the automobile?
Q. Yes.
A. Yes.
Q. Now, when your attorneys told you not to talk to me, for instance, do you remember saying that your attorney told you that?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, are you under the domination of your attorneys?
MR. BUGLIOSI: Argumentative, your Honor, calls for a conclusion.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q. BY MR. KANAREK: Well, was that—when you decided not to talk to me, was that your will or was that your attorney’s will speaking?
A. He made a suggestion and then I agreed to it.
Q. He made the suggestion?
A. Yes.
Q. I see, so that he spoke with you and suggested that you don’t speak to me, and you did what he suggested?
A. Yes.
Q. The same with Mr. Fitzgerald and Mr. Hughes and Mr. Shinn?
A. Yes.
Q. Right? He suggested that?
A. Yes.
Q. Is that correct?
A. Yes.
MR. BUGLIOSI: Your Honor, for clarification purposes, we are referring to an attorney. I think the record should indicate who this attorney is.
THE COURT: I think it should.
MR. KANAREK: Certainly, your Honor.
Q. BY MR. KANAREK: What attorney are you referring to that suggested to you that you not speck with Mr. Fitzgerald, Mr. Hughes, Mr. Shinn and myself?
A. Both of my attorneys, Mr. Fleischman and Mr. Goldman.
Q. From time to time they have told you this, is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. They have told you this on more than one occasion?
A. Yes.
Q. Told you this on maybe more than ten occasions?
A. I don’t know how many times.
Q. Maybe 20 occasions?
A. I don’t know how many times.
Q. Now, then, when you followed this suggestion, as far as your state of mind is concerned, were you following the will of Mr. Goldman and Mr. Fleischman or were you following your own will?
MR. BUGLIOSI: Ambiguous question.
MR. STOVITZ: “Both”?
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q. BY MR. KANAREK: On the second night, Mrs. Kasabian, the second night, directing your attention to the thongs that you had on your person, Mrs. Kasabian, did you take those thongs and go into the LaBianca house, Mrs. Kasabian?
A. No, I did not.
Q. How do you know my question until I finished it?
MR. STOVITZ: You dropped your voice, Counsel, the record is quite clear that that was your question.
MR. KANAREK: I defy Mr. Stovitz to show how the record indicates I dropped my voice.
MR. STOVITZ: Two normal persons thought you did.
THE COURT: Enough colloquy, let’s proceed.
Q. BY MR. KANAREK: When you left the Tate residence, Mrs. Kasabian, you had those thongs on your person, right?
MR. STOVITZ: Now just a moment, your Honor, this is another example—counsel says “on the second night you leave the Tate residence,” is this an attempt to confuse the witness or is this serious cross-examination?
MR. KANAREK: Is counsel trying to clue this witness in?
MR. STOVITZ: No, I am not trying to clue. I’m trying to get truth in cross-examination.
MR. FITZGERALD: Object to Mr. Stovitz’s questions. They are totally improper.
THE COURT: Approach the bench, Counsel.
(The following proceedings were had at the bench out of the hearing of the jury:)
THE COURT: All right, now, Mr. Stovitz, you are asking for this. You are asking for this colloquy, not that it justifies what Mr. Kanarek is saying in response, but you are inciting him to these responses, which are understandable in the heat of battle, when one counsel says something that incites another; then it triggers off a whole chain reaction of—I don’t say any of it is justified, but the same rules apply to you as apply to Mr. Kanarek and all other counsel. When you make remarks like that in front of the jury, that are not legal objections or motions.
MR. STOVITZ: He starts off the second night, and then he says in the Tate residence.
THE COURT: He is entitled to try to—
MR. STOVITZ: —trick the witness? I don’t think so.
THE COURT: Not trick, but he is entitled to bring out any inconsistencies that he can, and the fact that he changed questions on her, there is nothing wrong with that. That is something you can bring out on redirect.
MR. STOVITZ: Something we can argue to, your Honor.
THE COURT: Absolutely.
MR. STOVITZ: Thank you very much, your Honor.
THE COURT: All right, gentlemen, let’s proceed.
(Whereupon, all counsel return to their respective places at counsel table and the following proceedings occur in open court within the presence and hearing of the jury:)
THE COURT: You may proceed, Mr. Kanarek.
MR. KANAREK: Yes, your Honor.
Q. Mrs. Kasabian, directing your attention to the thongs. At the Spahn Ranch were there many garments that had thongs?
A. I don’t understand. Garments?
Q. You don’t know what a garment is?
A. I know what a garment is. I don’t know what you are asking me.
Q. May I have a moment, your Honor?
(Mr. Kanarek gets an exhibit from the clerk.)
MR. KANAREK: Q. I have here, Mrs. Kasabian, Exhibit No. 75; right?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you call this a leather thong?
A. Yes.
Q. And this appears to be about the size of the leather thong that you had on your person?
A. I don’t know. It was rolled up. I didn’t unroll it.
Q. Pardon?
A. It was rolled up and I didn’t unroll it, so I don’t know what size it was.
Q. You say you didn’t unroll it?
A. Yes.
Q. I am not asking you whether you unrolled it.
Does this appear to be it?
A. I don’t know.
Q. Let’s roll it.
Now, rolled up, does it appear to be the leather thong that you had on your person?
A. Possibly, yes.
Q. When you had this leather thong on your person, you knew that you were going out on a creepy crawl mission; is that correct?
MR. BUGLIOSI: I object, your Honor. What night is he talking about again?
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q. BY MR. KANAREK: Mrs. Kasabian, on the second night. Mrs. Kasabian, you knew you were going out on a creepy crawl mission; is that correct?
A. No.
Q. Pardon?
A. No.
Q. That isn’t correct?
A. Right.
Q. On the second night, you had this leather thong on your person; right?
A. Yes.
Q. What did you intend to do with this leather thong?
MR. BUGLIOSI: Assumes a fact not in evidence, your Honor, that she intended to do anything with it.
THE COURT: Overruled.
You may answer.
THE WITNESS: I don’t know, it was handed to me and someone told me to keep it in my pocket, and I did.
MR. KANAREK: Q. Someone told you to keep it in your pocket?
A. Yes.
Q. Who told you?
A. Charlie did.
Q. Someone or Charlie?
A. Charlie did.
Q. Now it is Charlie?
MR. BUGLIOSI: That is argumentative, your Honor.
THE COURT: Overruled.
THE WITNESS: Yes.
MR. KANAREK: Q. And you went to the house near the LaBiancas?
A. Yes.
Q. Is that right?
A. We parked.
Q. Pardon?
A. Excuse me. Would you say it again?
Q. You went to the house adjacent to the LaBiancas?
A. No, I didn’t go to any house.
Q. Well, in any event, Mrs. Kasabian, did you enter the LaBianca house, Mrs. Kasabian, and tie up someone with this leather thong?
A. No, I did not.
Q. You did not? Your mind is clear about that?
A. I am very positive.
Q. Pardon?
A. I am very positive.
Q. You are very positive?
A. Yes.
Q. When did you first miss the leather thong, Mrs. Kasabian?
A. I don’t know if I missed it. It may have been in my pocket all night.
I never paid attention to it. My attention was never directed to it after it was given to me.
Q. I see.
Now, on how many different occasions have you, while in the County Jail, written notes for Mr. Bugliosi?
A. How many occasions?
Q. Yes.
A. I don’t know. A few.
Q. Well, would you tell us on what dates you wrote the notes for Mr. Bugliosi?
A. I don’t know.
Q. Do you know how many sheets of paper, altogether you wrote for Mr. Bugliosi?
A. I don’t know the exact number, but quite a few.
Q. And was this done at the suggestion of your attorneys?
MR. GOLDMAN: Objection, your Honor. This calls for privileged communications.
THE COURT: Sustained.
BY MR. KANAREK:
Q. Was this done at the suggestion of Mr. Bugliosi?
A. Yes.
Q. But you don’t know the total number of pages that you wrote?
A. No.
Q. Now, after you saw this tall man at the Tate residence, did you look through a window?
A. No.
Q. In the Tate residence?
A. No.
Q. On how many different occasions did you look through a window or windows in the Tate residence?
A. When Tex was at the window cutting the screen, after I had come back from behind the house, I glanced through the window.
Q. And what was going through your mind?
What did you think the reason was that Tex was cutting the screen?
MR. BUGLIOSI: That calls for a conclusion, your Honor.
THE COURT: Overruled.
THE WITNESS: To climb in the window.
BY MR. KANAREK:
Q. And at that time, Tex had a knife on him; is that right?
A. I think so. I am not sure what he was cutting with.
Q. Pardon?
A. I am not sure what he was cutting the screen with.
Q. And at that time, Tex had a gun; is that correct?
A. I guess so. I didn’t see it.
Q. Well, after the person had been shot four times, you say by Mr. Watson, what did Mr. Watson do with the gun?
A. I don’t know.
Q. Well, would you step to this diagram as it is now positioned, Mrs. Kasabian.
May I approach the witness now?
Mrs. Kasabian, would you hold up this leather thong? Would you hold that for me, please.
Now, Mrs. Kasabian, would you just hold this leather thong out like this.
Have you ever held a leather thong before?
A. Sure.
Q. Have you ever held a leather thong like that in your hand before?
A. No, not that I recall.
MR. STOVITZ: I can’t hear the witness.
THE WITNESS: Not that I recall.
MR. KANAREK: Pardon?
THE WITNESS: Not that I recall.
BY MR. KANAREK:
Q. Have you ever tied anything up with a leather thong?
A. Shoes.
Q. Pardon?
A. Shoes.
Q. You have tied shoes with a leather thong?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, have you tied anything else up with a leather thong?
A. I used to use leather thongs to tie up pieces of leather for clothing.
Q. Would you speak up? I am sorry?
A. I used to take leather thongs and tie two pieces of leather together for clothing.
Q. And it is a fair statement that before you came to the Spahn Ranch you were familiar with leather thongs?
A. Yes.
Q. Is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And you have, from time to time, used leather thongs long before you ever saw Mr. Manson?
A. Yes.
Q. Is that correct?
A. Uh-huh, yes.
Q. Now, on the night that these events occurred at the Tate residence, Mrs. Kasabian, did you have a leather thong on your person that you intended to use to tie someone up, one or more persons up, in the Tate residence?
A. No.
Q. You had no leather thong on your person the first night?
A. No.
Q. You are sure of that?
A. I am positive.
Q. While you were at the Spahn Ranch, Mrs. Kasabian, did you use leather thongs from time to time for—
MR. STOVITZ: That is objected to as being immaterial.
THE COURT: All right. Resume the stand.
The examination now doesn’t pertain to the diagram.
MR. KANAREK: Yes, it does, your Honor.
THE COURT: You haven’t asked any questions yet that pertain to the diagram.
Let’s get on with the examination.
MR. KANAREK: May I at this time?
THE COURT: Are you going to start now?
MR. KANAREK: Yes.
THE COURT: All right.
MR. KANAREK: May I have an answer to that last question, your Honor?
MR. STOVITZ: She has answered the question, that she used leather thongs at the Spahn Ranch from time to time, and I object to further questions on that as immaterial and irrelevant.
THE COURT: Did you understand the question, Mrs. Kasabian?
THE WITNESS: No, I didn’t.
THE COURT: Reframe the question.
BY MR. KANAREK:
Q. While you were at the Spahn Ranch, Mrs. Kasabian you did use leather thongs for various purposes; is that correct?
A. I can’t think of anything offhand.
Q. Now, directing your attention to the window you looked through when you say Tex was cutting the screen.
Would you show us where that window is?
A. It is hard to tell on the diagram.
MR. KANAREK: May I have the exhibits, your Honor?
THE COURT: Yes, Mr. Kanarek. All you have to do is ask for them.
MR. KANAREK: Thank you, your Honor.
THE CLERK: Which ones do you want, Mr. Kanarek?
MR. KANAREK: The photos of the house exhibits.
(The Clerk hands some documents to Mr. Kanarek.)
MR. KANAREK: No, the smaller ones.
THE CLERK: You will have to give me the numbers.
THE COURT: You decide what you want and they will be made available.
MR. GOLDMAN: Your Honor, may the witness resume her seat at the witness stand if he is going to go into photographs?
THE COURT: Resume the witness stand.
MR. KANAREK: I want to orient the pictures with the diagram, your Honor.
THE COURT: In the meantime, Mrs. Kasabian will sit down.
(Mr. Kanarek, the Clerk and Mr. Stovitz confer, and certain photographs are produced for Mr. Kanarek.)
MR. KANAREK: May I approach the witness, your Honor?
THE COURT: You may.
MR. KANAREK: Or may the witness approach the diagram?
THE COURT: You may show her the photographs at the witness stand.
MR. KANAREK: Very well.
Q. Mrs. Kasabian, I show you this picture which is Exhibit No. 26.
Would you take that, please? Would you hold that picture, please?
(The witness holds the photograph.)
MR. KANAREK: Q. Now, does that appear to be the screen that Tex was cutting?
A. Yes.
Q. I show you a picture of a house. Exhibit No. 4, and ask you: Does that appear to be—
A. Yes.
Q. —the house?
A. Yes.
Q. Directing your attention to the lighting, Mrs. Kasabian, was there any light in the grassy area?
A. I don’t understand.
Q. Was there any light, artificial light?
A. Not that I remember.
Q. That lighted up the grassy area?
A. No, not that I remember.
Q. And the only light that you saw was the light that came from inside the house; is that correct?
A. Yes. There was a light on when the door was opened.
Q. And there was light visible at the window that Tex was working at; is that correct?
A. No, I don’t think there was.
Q. There was no light at the window where Tex was working?
A. No.
Q. Now, when the door opened up, directing your attention to the hedge, would you tell us, would you show us on this picture that is Exhibit No. 4, would you show us on this picture where the man was that you say was bleeding?
A. Right here. (Indicating).
MR. STOVITZ: May that be marked with an X, Counsel?
MR. KANAREK: Yes.
MR. BUGLIOSI: I object to the question on the ground that it is ambiguous. Bleeding at what time, your Honor?
I believe on direct examination she testified that he fell into the bushes and then got up and moved somewhere else. So, the question is ambiguous and, consequently, the marking on that exhibit would not be accurate.
THE COURT: Do you understand the question, Mrs. Kasabian?
THE WITNESS: No, not now.
THE COURT: Reframe the question.
MR. KANAREK: Q. Mrs. Kasabian, at the time when you saw the man emerge from the door, at that time you say you saw him bleeding?
A. Yes.
Q. Would you show us on this picture, Exhibit No. 4, would you show us where he was?
MR. BUGLIOSI: Again I object. Where he was when? When he first came out of the door? Or later on when Tex was stabbing him? I don’t know and I can’t tell by the question, and I don’t think the witness can.
THE COURT: I think you should clarify it, Mr. Kanarek.
MR. KANAREK: Very well.
Q. BY MR. KANAREK: At the time, Mrs. Kasabian, when a man came out of the door bleeding, would you show us on the picture where you saw him?
(Witness complies.)
Would you mark it?
MR. BUGLIOSI: At what time, right after he came out of the door or when, later on?
THE COURT: He said at the time, I think the question is clear.
Do you understand it now, Mrs. Kasabian?
THE WITNESS: Yes.
THE COURT: All right.
THE WITNESS: Right here.
MR. KANAREK: Your Honor, the witness has put an X on that picture. I think that will—do you want to put an X and a circle around it?
MR. BUGLIOSI: May the photograph, your Honor, reflect on the photograph what that X means? Three months from now when the jury looks at that X it has absolutely no significance whatsoever.
MR. KANAREK: I have no objection to the witness putting down—
MR. BUGLIOSI: Would you like to put down “where Mr. Frykowski was when he came outside the door”?
MR. KANAREK: Your Honor, I have no objection to the witness putting it down. Do you want to put an F there?
MR. BUGLIOSI: F could stand for many things.
Folger’s name starts with an F, too.
MR. KANAREK: Your Honor, I take my directions from the Court.
THE COURT: Mark it Frykowski.
THE WITNESS: How do you spell it?
MR. KANAREK: I think it’s going to use up a lot of space on the picture.
MR. STOVITZ: We can mark it VF. I don’t think Folger’s first name begins with a V.
MR. BUGLIOSI: May it be written right on the document or photograph where Mr. Frykowski was when Mrs. Kasabian first saw him?
MR. KANAREK: We will run out of space on the picture
THE COURT: I don’t think that is necessary. Mark the photograph and get on with something else.
MR. KANAREK: May we mark a VF?
THE COURT: Very well, mark it so it is clearly legible.
MR. KANAREK: Your Honor, I move this be offered into evidence so it can be distributed to the jurors as we speak.
MR. STOVITZ: No objection, your Honor.
THE COURT: Any other counsel object?
(No response.)
THE COURT: There being no objection, this is People’s 4?
MR. STOVITZ: Yes, your Honor.
THE COURT: It will be received in evidence.
MR. KANAREK: May I hand it to the jurors?
THE COURT: Yes, they may see it.
(Pause while jurors examine the exhibit and then return it.)
Q. BY MR. KANAREK: Now, at the time, Mrs. Kasabian, that you saw the man that you say was bleeding at the pole, would you show us on this picture where you were?
A. About right in here.
Q. All right, would you put—would you put—
You were heading towards the house, is that correct?
A. I guess so.
Q. Pardon?
A. I guess so.
MR. KANAREK: Your Honor, may I write the letters LK, with an arrow in the direction of the house?
THE COURT: Yes, put a circle to indicate the position, and an arrow to indicate the direction, with the initials LK.
MR. KANAREK: Thank you, I will put a circle and then LK in the circle and then an arrow.
THE COURT: Does the circle now correctly depict the location where you were, Mrs. Kasabian?
THE WITNESS: I think so, yes.
Q. BY MR. KANAREK: Now, that time when you were heading towards the house, Mrs. Kasabian, was that at the time after Tex had removed the screen and entered the house?
A. Yes.
Q. Pardon?
A. Yes.
Q. And that was at a time after Tex had removed the screen and entered the house—what length of time had elapsed?
A. I don’t know.
Q. Well, will you give us an estimate of the length of time that elapsed?
A. A few minutes, I guess.
Q. Well, would you say 10 minutes, 15 minutes?
A. No, probably five minutes.
Q. Now, then, the man who had been at the pole ended up somewhere on the grass, is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Would you show us, Mrs. Kasabian, on this picture, on Exhibit No. 4, would you show us where the man ended up on the grass?
MR. STOVITZ: That is assuming a fact not in evidence, that this picture shows that area, your Honor.
I object to the question on that basis.
THE COURT: Can you answer the question by referring to that photograph, Mrs. Kasabian?
THE WITNESS: I think so.
THE COURT: The objection is sustained.
MR. KANAREK: Pardon?
THE COURT: The objection is sustained. She apparently is unable to answer the question by reference to that photograph.
THE WITNESS: I think so.
MR. KANAREK: She said, I think so, your Honor.
THE COURT: I misunderstood you, go ahead.
THE WITNESS: I would say right at the end of the picture.
Q. Would you show us where, Mrs. Kasabian?
A. Right around in this area.
MR. KANAREK: Your Honor, may I call that VF-2?
THE COURT: Yes.
MR. KANAREK: Is this the place, Mrs. Kasabian?
THE WITNESS: Yes.
MR. KANAREK: I am writing a VF-2, your Honor, and I will put a circle around it.
Q. That is where—that is where the man ended up?
A. Yes.
Q. Is that correct?
A. When I saw him, yes.
Q. Now, directing your attention to the time between the time the man was at the pole, and the man was at VF-2, what time interval was that, Mrs. Kasabian?
A. It seems to me just a few seconds.
Q. Pardon?
A. Just a few seconds.
Q. A few seconds later he was at VF-2?
A. Yes.
Q. And you were where, in connection with this diagram, this picture—I’m sorry.
A. Right about in the same spot.
Q. You were in the same spot?
A. Yes.
Q. And when Mr.—or when the man was at VF-2 was there any other person immediately adjacent to him or near him?
A. I don’t understand.
Q. Pardon?
A. I don’t understand what you mean.
Q. When the man was at VF-2 was there any other person right next to him or near him?
A. Yes.
Q. Who was right near him?
A. Tex.
Q. And was Tex touching VF-2—that is, touching VF, if we call VF the man?
A. Yes.
MR. KANAREK: Your Honor, may I make another circle and call it Tex?
THE COURT: You may.
MR. STOVITZ: Why don’t you let her put in where Tex was, Counsel?
MR. KANAREK: No problem.
THE WITNESS: What do you mean?
BY MR. KANAREK:
Q. Would you put a circle and then the word “Tex” in the circle as to where Mr. Watson was?
A. Well, he was on top of him.
Q. He was on top of him?
A. Yes.
Q. Well, then, would you put a circle immediately right next to that—
MR. BUGLIOSI: Wait a moment now, she said that Tex Watson was on top of Mr. Frykowski; why do you want a circle next to Frykowski’s circle?
MR. KANAREK: Your Honor, I will let the Court—
MR. BUGLIOSI: I object. There is no relevancy.
THE COURT: It indicates what the mark means. It does not make any difference if it is immediately adjacent to it.
MR. BUGLIOSI: I think the mark will maybe, at least Mr. Kanarek will want it to mean that this was where Tex was, and her testimony is Tex was not where the circle was.
MR. KANAREK: It is physically impossible—
THE COURT: All right, gentlemen, just draw a line out from the existing circle and mark it Tex.
BY MR. KANAREK:
Q. Now, at that time when Tex and this man were together, Mrs. Kasabian, you were still where it is indicated LK?
A. Yes.
Q. Is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, you saw Mr. Watson doing something with the physical body of VF after you had seen the blood on VF’s face, is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you, Mrs. Kasabian, come over and approach the area where Mr. Watson and VF were located?
A. No.
Q. Did you come over and try to pull Mr. Watson off of VF?
A. No.
Q. You saw Mr. Watson doing what, in connection with the physical body of the person we are calling VF?
A. Stabbing him.
Q. Pardon?
A. Stabbing him.
Q. You saw him stabbing him?
A. Yes.
Q. How many times did you see Tex stab VF?
A. I don’t know how many times.
MR. KANAREK: Excuse me, your Honor. May I get another picture?
THE COURT: It is 12:00 o’clock now, Mr. Kanarek. 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 at 12:00 o’clock noon the court was in recess.)
2:00 PM
THE COURT: All parties, counsel end jurors are present.
You may proceed, Mr. Kanarek.
(No response.)
THE COURT: Are you ready, Mr. Kanarek?
MR. KANAREK: Yes, your Honor.
May I proceed, your Honor.
THE COURT: You may proceed.
MR. KANAREK: Your Honor, Mr. Fleischman has some documents which he says he will give me if I ask your Honor to have him give them to me.
MR. BUGLIOSI: This should all be done outside the presence of the jury.
THE COURT: I don’t know what you’re talking about, Mr. Kanarek. Let’s get on with the cross-examination.
MR. KANAREK: Your Honor, may we approach the bench? I need these documents.
THE COURT: I don’t have them.
MR. KANAREK: Mr. Fleischman has them.
THE COURT: You take it up with Mr. Fleischman during the recess then. Let’s proceed.
MR. KANAREK: Very well.
May I approach the witness, your Honor?
THE COURT: You may.
the witness on the stand at the time of the noon recess, resumed the stand, was examined and testified further as follows:
CROSS EXAMINATION (Continued)
BY MR. KANAREK:
Q. Now, Mrs. Kasabian, I have here a picture—
MR. BUGLIOSI: May I see this photograph first, please.
MR. KANAREK: You have seen the photograph previously.
MR. BUGLIOSI: If I am not mistaken, your Honor, this photograph has already been shown to the witness.
MR. KANAREK: Your Honor, we are not going through a ritual here of showing something once or twice—
THE COURT: There is nothing before the Court. Let’s proceed.
BY MR. KANAREK:
Q. I show you, Mrs. Kasabian, a picture of a man on some grass.
Would you look at that, please.
A. Yes.
MR. KANAREK: Would you open your eyes?
THE WITNESS: I have already looked.
MR. BUGLIOSI: You can’t direct her to open her eyes, Mr. Kanarek.
She has already looked at the photograph.
MR. KANAREK: I take my orders from the Court.
MR. BUGLIOSI: You cannot direct her what to do.
THE COURT: Mr. Bugliosi. Let’s proceed.
She has looked at the photograph, Mr. Kanarek.
MR. KANAREK: I know, your Honor, but it is necessary for me to have this witness take this photograph, and I have a definite purpose which has nothing to do with any kind of harassment, and she knows it, your Honor.
THE COURT: Place the photograph on the ledge in front of the witness.
MR. STOVITZ: May the record show, your Honor, that that is Exhibit 89 for identification, please?
THE COURT: Very well.
Q. BY MR. KANAREK: Now, Mrs. Kasabian, will you please look at that photograph?
A. Yes.
Q. Would you look at it closely because there is some detail on it that I must interrogate you on.
THE COURT: Well, ask your question and then she can look as closely as she needs to to answer the question.
MR. KANAREK: Very well.
Q. BY MR. KANAREK: Mrs. Kasabian, you have told us that when you first saw a man at the pole, that this man had blood on his face?
A. Yes.
Q. Is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, would you tell us what was the condition of his clothing when you first saw him?
Is Mr. Bugliosi here to protect the witness, your Honor, may I inquire?
THE COURT: He apparently wants to see what you are showing the witness.
MR. BUGLIOSI: I don’t think it is any of your business, Mr. Kanarek, why I am here.
THE COURT: All right, let’s proceed, gentlemen.
MR. KANAREK: Did I get an answer to that question?
MR. STOVITZ: There wasn’t any question completed, Counsel. You interrupted with your inquiry.
THE COURT: Reframe the question.
MR. KANAREK: Certainly, your Honor.
Q. Mrs. Kasabian, when you first saw this man on the grass with the blood about his face, would you tell us the condition of his clothing?
A. I couldn’t. He was just covered with blood.
Q. My question is as to his clothing.
What was he wearing on the upper portion of his body?
A. When he was on the grass?
Q. No. When he was at the pole.
A. A shirt.
Q. He was wearing a shirt?
A. Yes.
Q. A shirt covered his body, is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. That is, no skin was visible below his shoulders; is that correct?
A. No.
Q. Pardon?
A. I don’t understand your question.
Q. Well, having in mind this man standing at the pole and the shirt that was upon the upper portion of his body.
A. Yes.
Q. Is it a fair statement that there was not visible to your eyes any skin between his shoulders and his hips?
A. No.
Q. Pardon?
A. There was no skin visible.
Q. No skin was visible; right?
A. No.
Q. And directing your attention, then, Mrs. Kasabian to this picture that is in front of you, would you look at that picture, please, and tell us what portion of his body was struck by the knife that was wielded by Tex?
A. I don’t understand.
Q. You don’t understand that question?
A. No.
Q. You have told us, Mrs. Kasabian, that this man that was at the pole at some time reached a position that we, I believe, have marked as VF-2.
Do you remember that?
MR. STOVITZ: FV-2, Counsel. FV-2.
Oh, VF-2. That’s right. You are correct.
MR. KANAREK: Thank you, Mr. Stovitz.
Q. In any event, Mrs. Kasabian, having in mind the place that this gentleman was reposing on the grass, would you look at this picture and tell me, does that appear to be the position that he was in?
A. No.
Q. What difference was the position that you see here from the position that you saw when he was on the grass at what we have marked as VF-2?
A. He was more on his hands and knees.
Q. He was more on his hands and knees?
A. Yes.
Q. And at the time that he was on his hands and knees Mr. Watson was striking him with a knife?
A. Yes.
Q. Is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, what portion of his body was being struck by the knife?
A. It looks like his back, I don’t know. I did not watch it long enough.
Q. It looked like his back?
A. Yes.
Q. Was it the lower portion of his body, that is, above his hips but below, let us say, his shoulders?
A. I guess so, I don’t know.
Q. Well, would you look, Mrs. Kasabian, at this picture and you will notice some markings and what appears to be a visible portion of what we might call the stomach and side area.
Would you look at those markings and let me know whether or not that is the area that you saw Tex strike the gentleman?
A. I guess so, I don’t know.
Q. Pardon?
A. I guess so, I don’t know.
Q. You guess then—you see those markings—
MR. STOVITZ: May I hear the whole answer? I think counsel interrupted the witness before she finished her whole answer.
MR. KANAREK: I am sorry if I did.
THE COURT: Did you complete your answer?
THE WITNESS: Yes.
THE COURT: Let’s go back and read the question and the answer.
(Whereupon the reporter reads the record as follows:
“Q. Well, would you look, Mrs. Kasabian, at this picture and you will notice some markings and what appears to be a visible portion of what we might call the stomach and side area.
“Would you look at those markings and let me know whether or not that is the area that you saw Tex strike the gentleman?
“A. I guess so, I don’t know.
“Q. Pardon?
“A. I guess so, I don’t know.
“Q. You guess then—you see these markings—”)
BY MR. KANAREK:
Q. Mrs. Kasabian, directing your attention to this area, this portion of the body above the hips and below the shoulders that appears to be visible, is that the general area that you saw Tex striking the gentleman who was originally at the pole?
A. I cannot be sure. I just saw Tex on top of him.
Q. Well, what portion of the man’s body was being struck by the knife?
MR. STOVITZ: Asked and answered, your Honor.
THE COURT: Sustained.
BY MR. KANAREK:
Q. Now, as the man was striking, as Tex was striking the man who was on his hands and knees, you say, what noises if any did you hear from the man on his hands and knees?
A. Screams.
Q. What was he screaming?
A. It wasn’t words. It was more—I don’t know, I cannot describe it.
Q. Now, directing your attention to the pants that this man is wearing, you see the pants?
A. Yes.
Q. Do those appear to be the pants that you saw on the man who was on the ground?
A. Yes.
Q. And do those pants appear to be in the condition—I am asking you to look at the color, for instance, of those pants—what was the color of the pants as you saw them when Tex was striking the man on the ground?
A. I don’t know.
Q. You don’t remember what color they were?
A. No.
Q. And before the man came to the position on the grass where you saw him on his hands and knees, just before that he was at the pole, right?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, when he left the pole, at the instant that he left the pole was Tex still in the house?
A. Would you say that again?
Q. At some instant the man at the pole left the pole, is that correct?
A. Well, he fell down.
Q. Pardon?
A. He fell.
Q. He fell?
A. Yes.
Q. And at the time he fell was Tex in the house?
A. I guess so, yes.
Q. Now, how was he propelled from the place that he fell to the place where Tex was striking him about the body with the knife?
A. How—I don’t understand.
Q. What caused him to move from where he fell to a place on the grass where Tex was striking him with the knife?
A. What caused him to move?
Q. Yes.
A. I don’t know.
Q. Well, did he move himself?
A. Yes.
Q. He propelled himself from one place to the next?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, at that time while he was propelling himself from one place to the next you viewed that? You saw that?
A. No, I did not see him.
Q. Well, what were you doing after the time you fell until the time that he came to a place on the grass where Tex was striking him with the knife?
A. What was I doing?
Q. Yes.
A. I was standing there, and Sadie came running out.
Q. And Sadie came running out at the time that—during this time interval when he moved from where be fell until the place where he came to repose on the grass?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, did you ask Sadie to help this man who appeared to you to be bloody?
MR. FITZGERALD: Objection, calls for hearsay.
THE COURT: I did not hear you.
MR. BUGLIOSI: May I inquire if counsel is through with that photograph? If so, we can go back to the table.
MR. KANAREK: Your Honor, I am not through with the photograph.
MR. FITZGERALD: I would also like to object on the grounds the question solicits hearsay.
MR. KANAREK: Part of the res gestae.
THE COURT: Overruled, you may answer.
MR. KANAREK: May that be read, your Honor?
THE COURT: Read the question.
(Whereupon, the reporter reads the pending question as follows:
“Q. Now, did you ask Sadie to help this man who appeared to you to be bloody?”)
THE WITNESS: I said to her, “Sadie, please make it stop.”
Q. BY MR. KANAREK: My question is did you ask—
Right practically before your eyes this man had, or in fact before your eyes this man had moved in a state of extreme pain, obvious to you, from the pole to a place on the grass.
MR. FITZGERALD: The question is compound, complex, and argumentative.
Object on those grounds.
MR. STOVITZ: Join in the objection.
THE COURT: I am not sure I understand you, Mr. Kanarek.
MR. KANAREK: I will be glad to read—
THE COURT: Reframe the question.
MR. KANAREK: I will be glad to, your Honor.
Q. BY MR. KANAREK: Mrs. Kasabian, having in mind the time interval, the time interval from the time you saw the man at the pole until he came to repose on the grass, and Tex was striking him, during that time you were telling us Sadie came out and spoke to you.
A. Yes.
MR. SHINN: Your Honor, before the answer comes in can I take this witness on voir dire, your Honor?
THE COURT: No, sir.
MR. KANAREK: Was there an answer, your Honor?
MR. STOVITZ: Yes, the answer was yes.
THE COURT: I don’t think you asked a question.
MR. STOVITZ: The question was asked and the answer was yes, there was a conversation.
THE COURT: Reframe the question.
MR. KANAREK: Very well.
THE COURT: Proceed.
Q. BY MR. KANAREK: Directing your attention, Mrs. Kasabian, to the time interval from the time that this gentleman was at the pole until he was on the grass, with Tex striking him with a knife, directing your attention to that time interval, did you during that time interval have a conversation with Sadie?
A. Yes.
Q. And in that conversation with Sadie did you ask Sadie to do something to help this man who appeared to be injured and perhaps in pain?
MR. STOVITZ: Your Honor, I object to this. That question was asked and the witness answered it. Maybe she didn’t answer it the way Mr. Kanarek wanted her to, but she was asked that exact question and the witness answered it just before.
MR. KANAREK: I don’t believe she did.
THE COURT: Overruled.
You may answer.
THE WITNESS: I just said, “Sadie, please make it stop.”
BY MR. KANAREK:
Q. Then you didn’t ask Sadie to render—to assist you in helping a man who appeared to be very bloody right in front of you?
MR. FITZGERALD: Objection—
MR. STOVITZ: Object as argumentative.
MR. FITZGERALD: Join in the objection.
THE COURT: Sustained.
BY MR. KANAREK:
Q. Did you, Mrs. Kasabian, in your conversation with Sadie, ask for assistance to be given to this gentleman who appeared to you to be bloody?
MR. BUGLIOSI: Asked and answered.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. KANAREK: Your Honor—
THE COURT: She told you what she did say, sir.
BY MR. KANAREK:
Q. Well, may I ask it this way, then: Have you told us, Mrs. Kasabian, all the words that issued from your mouth at a time when you saw a man bloody, being stabbed, on the ground in front of you?
MR. STOVITZ: I object to the form of the question.
MR. FITZGERALD: I object to the form of the question also as argumentative.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. GOLDMAN: If the Court please, this last series of questions have nothing to do with the photograph that is there.
If counsel wants to turn the photograph over, I think, pursuant to our discussion in chambers, I think it should be done.
MR. KANAREK: Your Honor, I don’t understand this solicitous attitude.
THE COURT: Proceed. Just ask your next question.
BY MR. KANAREK:
Q. Now, Mrs. Kasabian, at this point, when you were speaking with Sadie about, you say you said to Sadie, “Please, Sadie, make it stop,” you were under no one’s control or will except your own; right?
A. What do you mean?
Q. Well, what you said and did was completely up to you?
A. Yes.
Q. Is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And you weren’t under the spell or under an hypnotic trance that anyone put on you?
MR. BUGLIOSI: That calls for a conclusion, and it also ambiguous, your Honor.
THE COURT: Sustained.
BY MR. KANAREK:
Q. After you had this conversation with Sadie, Mrs. Kasabian, would you tell us—let me withdraw that and ask you—
Did Tex come out the door while you were having this conversation with Sadie?
A. I didn’t see him until he was on top of the man.
Q. And when he was on top of the man, had Sadie disappeared from your view?
A. No.
Q. Pardon?
A. No.
Q. You were still talking to Sadie?
A. Yes.
Q. And how long was it before Sadie left your presence while Tex was on the man?
MR. BUGLIOSI: I object to the question. It is ambiguous.
THE COURT: Do you understand the question, Mrs. Kasabian?
THE WITNESS: No.
THE COURT: Reframe the question.
BY MR. KANAREK:
Q. Mrs. Kasabian, you tell us that Sadie was in your immediate presence while Tex was on top of this man?
A. Yes.
Q. How long were you conversing with Sadie while Tex was on top of the man?
A. Just a matter of seconds.
Q. And then Sadie left your immediate presence?
A. Yes.
Q. And Sadie went into the house?
A. She ran towards the house.
Q. Pardon?
A. She ran towards the house. I don’t know if she went in.
Q. Did she disappear from your view?
A. Well, yes, because I turned and went the other way.
Q. Pardon?
A. Because I turned and went the other way. I didn’t see where she was going.
Q. What is the reason that you turned and went the other way?
A. I am not sure.
Q. Well, would you reflect upon it for a moment and let us know why?
MR. STOVITZ: Your Honor, the same questions were asked by Mr. Kanarek on Thursday afternoon in the same tone, “Reflect upon it and tell us why.” At that time the witness said she wasn’t sure, she didn’t know why, and she has just given the same answer now.
I submit that it has been asked and answered.
MR. KANAREK: That is not so, your Honor, and I would welcome a study of the record.
THE COURT: Overruled.
Are you able to answer the question?
THE WITNESS: I am not sure what my reason was but there was nothing I could do.
MR. KANAREK: Q. There was nothing you could do?
A. Yes.
Q. That is the reason that you left, because there was nothing you could do?
A. Yes, I think so.
Q. I see.
And you just threw up your hands and said, “Well, there is a man getting killed there, there is nothing I can do, so I will just”—
A. No, that is not the way it happened.
MR. FITZGERALD: I object to the form of the question.
MR. STOVITZ: It is argumentative, your Honor. Objection.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. KANAREK: Q. Did you, Mrs. Kasabian, approach the place where Tex was immediately over the man that we see in the picture?
A. I don’t understand.
Q. You don’t understand that question?
A. No.
Q. Did you approach Tex—let me withdraw that.
Tex’s back was to you; is that right?
A. I guess so. I am not sure.
Q. Did you approach Tex and put your arms around him and try, from the rear, to remove his physical body from the gentleman that we see in this picture?
MR. BUGLIOSI: That is a compound question.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. KANAREK: Q. Did you approach—I will withdraw that.
Did you put your arms around Mr. Watson and try to remove his body from the immediate vicinity of the man whose picture we see in this picture?
MR. BUGLIOSI: Same objection.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. KANAREK: Q. Did you put your arms around Mr. Watson at that time, the time when you saw him stabbing the man that we see in this picture?
A. No.
Q. Now, Mrs. Kasabian, I have another picture here.
MR. STOVITZ: Has that been marked, Counsel?
MR. KANAREK: Yes, it has. It is Exhibit No. 88.
MR. STOVITZ: Thank you.
MR. KANAREK: Your Honor, I would move this in evidence and I would ask that the jury be allowed to view it at this time.
MR. FITZGERALD: I will object, your Honor.
May we approach the bench?
MR. STOVITZ: And by “this’” would you identify it by number?
MR. KANAREK: Yes. Exhibit No. 89.
MR. FITZGERALD: I will object to the introduction of the exhibit into evidence on the grounds, among others, that there has been no foundation.
MR. STOVITZ: I stipulate with counsel there has been no foundation, your Honor.
MR. KANAREK: It is a most unique stipulation, your Honor, but I can’t enter into it because I believe this witness has testified that this appears to be the very person that was at the pole, and I don’t know how much foundation we need.
MR. FITZGERALD: I will also object on the grounds that it is prejudicial and inflammatory that any probative value it might have is outweighed by its inflammatory and prejudicial character.
MR. KANAREK: Your Honor—
THE COURT: If you want to argue this point, come to the bench.
(Whereupon all counsel approach the bench and the following proceedings occur at the bench outside of the hearing of the jury:)
MR. FITZGERALD: I will object to the introduction into evidence of photograph No. 83 for identification, which depicts one Abigail Folger lying on the lawn covered the length of her body with blood.
This is an 8 x 10 color photograph that I contend, your Honor, is inflammatory and prejudicial, and any probative value that may be contained within the photograph is outweighed by the inflammatory and gruesome nature of the photograph.
Furthermore, there has been a lack of foundation as to this photograph. There has been no testimony as to how and when the photograph was taken, under what conditions; there has been no expert testimony as to the manner in which it was taken and the method under which it was developed.
MR. SHINN: Join in the motion.
MR. KANAREK: I think, Mr. Fitzgerald, it is a different number. We are talking, I believe, about 89.
I ask that 89—
THE COURT: Which one is that?
MR. FITZGERALD: Would you show it to the Court?
THE COURT: Is that Frykowski?
MR. FITZGERALD: The same objection, your Honor.
THE COURT: Well, there hasn’t been sufficient foundation.
MR. KANAREK: Pardon?
THE COURT: There hasn’t been a sufficient foundation yet.
MR. KANAREK: She said this appears to be the person, your Honor. I don’t know how much foundation we need.
THE COURT: That is part of it, but I am not satisfied yet.
In any event, why do you want it in evidence?
MR. KANAREK: Because it is my position—Mr. Bugliosi has forced this approach because he has taken the very cavalier position—now, if he was willing—
THE COURT: Get to the point.
MR. KANAREK: The point is an accomplice point.
If he is willing to stipulate that, as a matter of law, Linda Kasabian is an accomplice, I will not go into this. But I have an obligation to my—
THE COURT: Go into what?
MR. KANAREK: To what I am doing at this point in connection with showing this woman’s criminal responsibility.
THE COURT: Nobody is stopping you from doing that. We are talking now about the receiving of an exhibit in evidence.
MR. KANAREK: That is part of the picture, part of the process of the proof of the fact that she is an accomplice.
THE COURT: I assume eventually the picture will come into evidence.
I think the foundation at this point is insufficient.
MR. KANAREK: May I inquire, your Honor, what is it that is insufficient?
THE COURT: No one has testified as to when the picture was taken, who it is in the photograph, whether or not it is a true and correct photographic representation of what was seen.
MR. KANAREK: That, your Honor, only goes to the weight. This witness says that this appears to be the person.
I have every reason to believe that the prosecution is going to introduce this very picture.
THE COURT: I assume that they intend to at some time, yes. What difference does it make to you whether they do it now or some other time?
MR. KANAREK: It makes a big difference.
THE COURT: Why?
MR. KANAREK: Because the witness is on the stand, and my position is that she is an accomplice.
THE COURT: You are not precluded from examining her on the picture.
MR. KANAREK: But I would like the jury to view it.
THE COURT: That is the difference?
MR. KANAREK: I would like the jury to view it as she testifies to it.
THE COURT: We will have to have some proper foundation before that occurs, before that picture will be received in evidence.
MR. KANAREK: Very well, your Honor. Very well.
THE COURT: I will sustain the objections at this time without prejudice, of course, to renewing the offer.
MR. KANAREK: Very well, your Honor.
(Whereupon, the attorneys return to open court and are recalled to the bench where the following proceedings were had out of the hearing of the jury:)
THE COURT: When we come to the bench, Mr. Kanarek, you have in mind what you want to say. We are just wasting time now.
I am getting a very strong feeling as the day wears on you are wasting time in your cross-examination.
MR. KANAREK: I am not.
THE COURT: Without any purpose or aim whatever.
MR. KANAREK: The aim is to show that this woman is an accomplice.
THE COURT: Well—
MR. KANAREK: She is supposedly under someone’s will. What I am saying is this can be cut down. If Mr. Bugliosi wants to be realistic, and Mr. Stovitz, if we can have the representation they will stipulate that as a matter of law she is an accomplice, I can cut a lot of this out, your Honor.
THE COURT: Is this what you called them back to the bench for?
MR. KANAREK: Yes, to invite through the Court that stipulation.
THE COURT: You are perfectly free to talk to Mr. Bugliosi any time you want to.
MR. KANAREK: We can cut this very much shorter. That is why I am doing it right now.
MR. BUGLIOSI: I am not going to enter such stipulation.
(The following proceedings were had in open court in the presence and hearing of the jury:)
THE COURT: Mr. Kanarek, put the photograph face down on the ledge and ask your questions. If they pertain to the photograph you may then show it to the witness.
MR. KANAREK: Yes, your Honor.
Q. BY MR. KANAREK: Referring you now, Mrs. Kasabian, to the lady in the white gown that you spoke of, how long—
Or may I ask it this way:
Would you tell us from the standpoint of time when it was that you saw the lady in the white gown, and I am now using as the measuring rod for time the time that you saw the man being struck by Mr. Watson with the knife.
MR. FITZGERALD: Objection, your Honor, it is ambiguous, unclear.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. STOVITZ: May the record show that refers to 88 for identification?
MR. KANAREK: No, I have Exhibit 4 in front of the witness.
MR. STOVITZ: Oh, Exhibit 4, I am sorry, Exhibit 4. Okay, I thought you were back to the lady.
Q. BY MR. KANAREK: Mrs. Kasabian, when was it, Mrs. Kasabian, that you saw the lady in the white gown?
A. The same time I saw the man with Tex on top of him.
DEFENDANT MANSON: Your Honor, I would like to object to this attorney. He is not speaking for me.
THE COURT: Now Mr. Manson, you recall earlier in the trial I told you you were not permitted to speak directly to the Court or to anyone except your own counsel.
I will remind you of that, sir, and you know I have a way to enforce that rule.
I don’t want to hear any more, sir. You are disrupting the trial.
Let’s proceed.
MR. KANAREK: May I have an answer to that question, your Honor?
THE COURT: Reframe the question.
Q. BY MR. KANAREK: Mrs. Kasabian, would you tell us—
MR. KANAREK: I will withdraw that.
Q. BY MR. KANAREK: Mrs. Kasabian, would you tell me, using this People’s Exhibit 4, would you show me where you saw the lady with the white gown when you first saw her?
A. It was near the end of the house. I don’t know the exact spot.
Q. Well, would you look at this picture and tell us where it was?
A. It looks like where that body is.
Q. Well, will you put a mark where you best think this lady was when you first saw her?
A. Around in here.
Q. Well, would you mark it?
There is nothing wrong with your ability to write, is there?
MR. BUGLIOSI: This is argumentative.
Q. BY MR. KANAREK: Would you put a circle there, Mrs. Kasabian, please?
(Witness complies.)
And would you put an A next to that circle?
THE COURT: Draw a line down from the circle to the lighter grass so it is visible.
MR. BUGLIOSI: What does the A stand for, Mr. Kanarek?
MR. KANAREK: The Court asked it be put there.
MR. BUGLIOSI: What does the A stand for, your Honor?
THE COURT: I don’t know.
MR. BUGLIOSI: For the record, now we have an A, the jury will get this three or four months from now—
THE COURT: What is the question to which that mark relates?
MR. KANAREK: That is the place where the lady—was first seen, according to this witness, and I have asked that it be marked with a circle and the A is what I believe to be the lady’s first name, the initial of her first name.
But the record, whether we enunciate it or not, there are other questions that are going to come, and Mr. Bugliosi is merely obstructing the trial with these constant interruptions.
THE COURT: Does the mark now properly reflect the position of the lady, Mrs. Kasabian?
THE WITNESS: Yes.
MR. BUGLIOSI: May the record reflect then, your Honor, the witness has indicated the position of Miss Folger by an X, and a zero around it, not by the A, which is some distance from the X and the zero.
MR. KANAREK: I think that is obvious to every one in this courtroom except Mr. Bugliosi.
MR. BUGLIOSI: I apologias for being so thick.
MR. STOVITZ: May the record show it is on Exhibit 4 for identification.
BY MR. KANAREK:
Q. Now, at that time, or statement, then, that Mr. Watson—that you saw Mr. Watson over the man—you saw the lady in the white gown, is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And directing your attention to that lady in the white gown, was your state of mind such that you felt that she had suffered any physical injury?
A. I could not see. I just caught a glimpse of her and Katie chasing her.
Q. She was actually mobile, she was running?
A. Yes.
Q. And did you do anything to interpose yourself between the person who was chasing her and the lady in the white gown?
A. No.
Q. Why didn’t you, Mrs. Kasabian?
A. I don’t know.
Q. You didn’t because—because—do you have any reason whatsoever? I don’t want to put words in your mouth.
Do you have any reason other than saying you don’t know?
MR. BUGLIOSI: Your Honor, he is badgering the witness and also argumentative.
MR. FITZGERALD: I make a motion to strike the question as gratuitous.
MR. STOVITZ: If counsel has no further need to be that close to the witness I think common courtesy—
THE COURT: All right, Mr. Stovitz, you may sit down, sir.
The objection is sustained.
BY MR. KANAREK:
Q. We have the picture, Mrs. Kasabian, that you were standing there, your mind was free and clear, is that correct?
A. I guess so.
Q. You know so, Mrs. Kasabian.
MR. BUGLIOSI: Argumentative. He is badgering the witness.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. STOVITZ: Again I ask that counsel return to counsel table and question the witness from this position so that there would be no chance—
THE COURT: He is examining the witness on the photograph, Mr. Stovitz, and has the same rights the prosecutors had when they were examining.
When that examination relating to the photographs is over, Mr. Kanarek, you will return to the counsel table.
The objection is sustained.
BY MR. KANAREK:
Q. Well, Mrs. Kasabian, that lady at the time that you saw her was running under her own power, is that correct, Mrs. Kasabian?
A. Yes.
Q. And there was another human being some distance behind her, is that right, Mrs. Kasabian?
THE COURT: All right, now, Mr. Kanarek, you may return to the counsel table.
MR. KANAREK: Very well, your Honor.
THE COURT: Do you have the question in mind, Mrs. Kasabian?
THE WITNESS: I didn’t know there was a question.
THE COURT: Read the question.
(Whereupon the reporter reads the pending question as follows:
“Q. And there was another human being some distance behind her, is that right, Mrs. Kasabian?”)
THE WITNESS: Yes.
BY MR. KANAREK:
Q. How far was that other human being, Mrs. Kasabian, from the lady in the white gown?
A. I don’t know.
Q. Well, give us an estimate.
A. I don’t know.
Q. Well, was it a hundred feet?
A. She was right behind her.
Q. And did you do anything, Mrs. Kasabian, whatsoever, to place yourself or put anything between that lady in the white and whoever person was that was right behind her?
A. No.
Q. At that point, Mrs. Kasabian, you in fact, you in fact left the area of the man who was on the grass with Mr. Watson and this lady, is that correct?
MR. STOVITZ: I object to the question as a characterization, and argumentative, your Honor.
THE COURT: Overruled.
THE WITNESS: Yes, I left.
BY MR. KANAREK:
Q. And you left, Mrs. Kasabian, for what reason?
MR. BUGLIOSI: Asked and answered, your Honor.
THE COURT: Overruled.
THE WITNESS: I don’t know. There was nothing I could do. I just left.
BY MR. KANAREK:
Q. The reason you left was because there was nothing you could do, is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. And is there some reason there was nothing you could do?
A. I don’t know, I don’t know.
Q. In fact, Mrs. Kasabian, you left because you knew that there was wrongdoing occurring and you did not want to have any part of it and you wanted to get out of there so that you could possibly save your own skin.
MR. BUGLIOSI: Compound, your Honor, also argumentative.
THE COURT: Sustained.
BY MR. KANAREK:
Q. Did you leave, Mrs. Kasabian, because you felt that it was just too hot of a place to be in view of everything that had occurred that night, in view of what you were seeing there, you felt it was time for you to save your own skin.
Is that right?
MR. BUGLIOSI: Same objection, your Honor, argumentative. It is also ambiguous.
THE COURT: Sustained.
BY MR. KANAREK:
Q. Well, is your statement, Mrs. Kasabian, that you don’t know why you left, is that the reason?
A. I think so, I just felt that there was nothing I could do.
Q. I see, and when that lady, the lady in the white, was traveling, moving, was she screaming?
A. I don’t know.
Q. You don’t know?
A. I can’t remember if I heard her.
MR. KANAREK: May I approach the witness then, your Honor?
THE COURT: You may.
Q. BY MR. KANAREK: I show you another picture, Mrs. Kasabian, and ask you, does that appear to be the white gown?
A. Yes.
Q. Pardon?
A. Yes.
Q. Does that appear to be the lady that was in the white gown that we have just been talking about?
A. Yes.
MR. KANAREK: Your Honor, may the record reflect that the picture I am referring to is Exhibit No. 88?
Q. BY MR. KANAREK: Mrs. Kasabian, you have told us, Mrs. Kasabian, certain reasons that you went, that you went to the Spahn Ranch originally.
Now, did you go to the Spahn Ranch—
The first time you went to the Spahn Ranch after having a conversation with a girl that you knew as Gypsy—
MR. BUGLIOSI: Your Honor, there is no formal objection by this name, but I object on the grounds this has been gone into ad nauseum.
MR. KANAREK: No, it hasn’t, your Honor, not what I am going into now has not been gone into.
MR. BUGLIOSI: Your Honor, I would request a conference at the bench to find out what area we are going into.
This has been gone into over and over again.
THE COURT: Read the question.
(The reporter starts to read the record.)
THE COURT: The question is bad in form as far as its gone. Objection sustained.
Q. BY MR. KANAREK: Mrs. Kasabian, did you go to the Spahn Ranch because you wanted to seek out fresh men, men that you had not had previous relations with?
A. No.
Q. Did you tell Gypsy the day that you met Gypsy that your husband was inadequate sexually as far as you were concerned, and you wished to go somewhere where there were a lot of men that you could come in contact with sexually?
A. No.
Q. You never said that?
A. I think I said something about my husband and I were sexually inadequate, we were not in harmony with each other.
But I did not believe I said anything about wanting to be with a bunch of new men.
Q. You don’t believe you did but you may have?
MR. STOVITZ: That is objected to, your Honor, it has been asked and answered.
THE COURT: Overruled.
THE WITNESS: What was your question?
MR. KANAREK: May it be read, your Honor?
THE COURT: Read the question.
(Whereupon, the reporter reads the pending question as follows:
“Q. You don’t believe you did but you may have?”)
THE WITNESS: She told me about a bunch of men.
Q. BY MR. KANAREK: Mrs. Kasabian, did you tell Gypsy that you were looking for a commune, an area where there were a lot of men that you might associate with sexually?
MR. BUGLIOSI: Asked and answered.
THE COURT: Overruled.
THE WITNESS: No.
Q. BY MR. KANAREK: Did you tell Gypsy that your husband was going to New Mexico and you did not want to go with him because he did not do anything for you sexually?
A. No.
Q. Did you tell Gypsy that your husband was incapable of making love to you the way you wanted it done?
A. I’m not sure of your question.
Q. In what way aren’t you sure of the question, Mrs. Kasabian?
A. I remember telling her that we were not together sexually.
I don’t understand your question, what kind of an answer you want.
Q. Mrs. Kasabian, I want you just to listen to the question and answer it. It is not what I want that counts.
A. I just told you my answer, then.
Q. You don’t understand the question?
A. No, I don’t.
Q. Did you have a discussion with Gypsy—this is the first time you ever saw Gypsy, right?
A. Yes.
Q. The first time you ever saw her in your whole life did you have a discussion with her in which you told her that your husband was not satisfying you sexually?
MR. STOVITZ: I object to the question as having been asked and answered, irrelevant and immaterial to any issue in this case.
THE COURT: Overruled. You may answer.
THE WITNESS: Yes, I did.
Q. BY MR. KANAREK: You said that, right?
A. Yes.
Q. And then the first day that you came to the ranch, Mrs. Kasabian, you did not see Mr. Manson, did you?
A. No.
Q. The first day that you came to the ranch Mr. Manson was also there; he was not at the ranch?
MR. STOVITZ: Objected to as calling for a conclusion of the witness.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q. BY MR. KANAREK: Now after, Mrs. Kasabian, after the first day when you had had sexual relations with Mr. Watson, you returned to the area where your husband was living, is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And, Mrs. Kasabian, you then returned and had a conversation with Mr. Manson.
A. Yes.
Q. The first conversation that you had with Mr. Manson, Mrs. Kasabian, did you tell Mr. Manson that you wished to hide from your husband?
A. No.
Q. For sure you did not say that?
A. No, I don’t recall saying that.
Q. But you could have?
MR. STOVITZ: That is objected to, your Honor, as argumentative.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q. BY MR. KANAREK: In fact, directing your attention, Mrs. Kasabian, to the time when you first spoke to Charles Manson, the first conversation you ever had with him, did you discuss with him the subject matter of your intent as to why you wished to stay at the Spahn Ranch?
A. I remember saying something like that.
Q. Yes; and you told Mr. Manson that you wanted—I will withdraw that for a moment.
Between the time that you first came and saw Tex, when Mr. Manson wasn’t at the Ranch, you left and went back to where your husband was staying and you got some articles, you took something from that area; is that correct?
MR. STOVITZ: I object to the question as compound and unintelligible, and assuming a fact not in evidence, that Mr. Manson wasn’t at the Ranch.
MR. KANAREK: She has so stated, your Honor.
MR. STOVITZ: She said she didn’t know where he was Counsel.
THE COURT: Objection overruled.
Do you understand the question?
THE WITNESS: No, I don’t know what he is asking.
THE COURT: Reframe the question.
BY MR. KANAREK:
Q. Mrs. Kasabian, after the first day when you were at the Spahn Ranch you left and went back to the area where Mr. Melton and your husband were staying; is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And you entered the truck where your husband and Mr. Melton were staying at a time when your husband and Mr. Melton were not in the truck; is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And you took something, is that correct, Mrs. Kasabian, at the time when you were in that truck?
A. Yes.
Q. And the first time that you had a conversation with Mr. Manson, the very first time in your life that you had ever laid eyes on Mr. Manson, you spoke to Mr. Manson and told him that you wished to hide because of what you had done in connection with the occurrences when you went there to the truck when Mr. Melton and Mr. Kasabian were not present?
MR. STOVITZ: I object to the question as unintelligible, your Honor.
MR. KANAREK: I think it is intelligible, your Honor.
THE COURT: Overruled.
You may answer.
THE WITNESS: Maybe I did, I don’t recall.
BY MR. KANAREK:
Q. Maybe you did? You know you did, don’t you?
A. I don’t recall saying—
MR. STOVITZ: I object to the question as argumentative.
THE COURT: Just a moment.
MR. STOVITZ: I object to the question as argumentative. When he says “you know you did,” and she just answered that she doesn’t know she did.
THE COURT: Go back and read the question and the answer.
MR. KANAREK: I didn’t hear you, your Honor?
THE COURT: I want to hear the question and the answer.
(The record was read by the reporter.)
BY MR. KANAREK:
Q. The first time, Mrs. Kasabian, the first time that you spoke with Mr. Manson, did you tell him that you wanted to hide from your husband?
A. I don’t think so.
Q. Would you reflect on that for a moment.
You don’t think so?
A. Yes.
Q. What do you mean by that when you say you don’t think so?
A. Because he asked me why I had come to the Ranch, and I remember what I said, and it had nothing to do with wanting to hide.
Q. You didn’t tell Mr. Manson that you wanted to hide?
A. No.
Q. Your state of mind was such that you didn’t wish to hide? You did not wish to hide at the Ranch at the time, the first time that you ever spoke with Mr. Manson?
MR. STOVITZ: Your Honor, I submit that this question has been asked and answered, and now I object to the question in this form as being a characterization of her previous testimony and not soliciting anything on cross-examination.
THE COURT: Overruled.
THE WITNESS: You are asking me if I wanted to hide?
MR. KANAREK: I just want an answer to the question. May it be read, your Honor?
THE COURT: Reframe the question, Mr. Kanarek.
MR. KANAREK: Yes, your Honor.
BY MR. KANAREK:
Q. Mrs. Kasabian, directing your attention to the first time that you saw Mr. Manson, after having been to the truck where Mr. Melton and Mr. Kasabian were living, was your state of mind such that you wanted to hide from your husband?
A. Yes.
MR. KANAREK: Then may we approach the bench, your Honor?
THE COURT: For what purpose?
MR. KANAREK: I wish to obey the Court’s orders in connection with a certain subject matter. However, I wish to approach the bench.
THE COURT: All right.
MR. STOVITZ: Your Honor, it is 3:00 o’clock.
THE COURT: We will have the bench conference first.
(Whereupon, all counsel approach the bench and the following proceedings occur at the bench outside of the hearing of the jury:)
THE COURT: Mr. Kanarek, is there any reason why we need the blackboard in the middle of the room?
MR. KANAREK: Pardon?
THE COURT: Is there any reason why we need the blackboard in the middle of the room, in its present position?
MR. KANAREK: This?
THE COURT: Yes.
MR. KANAREK: They put it there, your Honor. I didn’t ask that it be put there.
THE COURT: I asked that it be put there because I thought you were still examining the witness about it.
MR. KANAREK: I am going to examine on it.
THE COURT: It is blocking the view of some of the people, and I prefer to move it back against the wall.
You don’t seem to be examining on it now.
MR. KANAREK: I could only do one thing at a time, your Honor.
THE COURT: You haven’t done anything at all on it this afternoon. You haven’t mentioned the diagram.
MR. KANAREK: I would certainly have no objection to having it go back for this afternoon and defer that.
THE COURT: What is your purpose for coming to the bench?
MR. KANAREK: I wish to obey the Courts order, but what I am saying is this: This woman’s intent—she stole $5,000, and the reason that she came to the ranch, your Honor, we have a right to show.
The prosecution has brought this up and—
THE COURT: Brought what up?
MR. KANAREK: The area of her intent.
MR. FITZGERALD: The offer of proof would be that this witness, Linda Kasabian, did, in fact, steal $5,000 from Charles Melton, a roommate of her husband, from the trailer located on Topanga Lane in Topanga Canyon on or about July 5, 1969, and this was, in fact, her true motive for going to the Spahn Ranch. That is to say, she went to the Spahn Ranch and asked Charles Manson for amnesty or protection because she felt her husband and Charles Melton were looking for her because of the theft of the $5,000.
MR. KANAREK: That is correct.
MR. BUGLIOSI: I want to briefly be heard.
MR. KANAREK: May I finish? I haven’t finished. The point of the matter is that the prosecution injected this matter. There is no surprise here.
THE COURT: Injected it how?
MR. KANAREK: By putting before the jury her intent, the fact that she was enticed there, that Gypsy—that there is some kind of a big conspiracy to get girls to go there, when, in fact, this woman came there to hide because she stole the money.
Mr. Manson has a right for the jury to know that, that that was her reason, her entire relationship there, that she came there because she stole the $5,000.
To deprive Mr. Manson of that testimony, despite all the other felonies that this woman committed, is to deny him a fair trial, we would like to show that the motivation for her going there was because she wished to hide because of the theft of the $5,000. I represent that to the Court.
MR. BUGLIOSI: May I be heard?
THE COURT: Assuming that is true, how would it make it relevant so far as you are concerned?
MR. KANAREK: Because they have said that she was enticed there, that she was told about a beautiful man, that she came there because of the fact that Mr. Manson—
THE COURT: Who is “they”?
They haven’t testified. No one has testified but Mrs. Kasabian.
MR. KANAREK: That’s right. But Mr. Bugliosi has elicited it. He brought the entire matter up.
We tried to keep it out on the basis that it wasn’t material.
THE COURT: Assume what you say is true, that she didn’t go there to join the commune, that she went there to hide. What difference does it make?
MR. KANAREK: Then their original evidence as to why she went there must be stricken, because we have a right to meet it.
THE COURT: It doesn’t have to be stricken. The credibility of her testimony may be called into question.
MR. FITZGERALD: Exactly.
She testified that she went to Spahn Ranch for a particular reasons, and the defense attorneys are suggesting that she went to the Ranch for another reason.
MR. BUGLIOSI: I would like to be heard on two points.
MR. FITZGERALD: We contend that is permissible impeachment.
THE COURT: That’s what I am trying to find out. Why do you contend it is permissible impeachment?
It would seem to be an attempt to impeach her by a specific wrongful act not amounting to a felony, not amounting to a conviction of a felony.
MR. FITZGERALD: It happens to be that what we contend was her real motive also happens to be a crime.
It is not our purpose to bring in the crime in order to show her character for committing offenses or anything, it just happens to be the real reason was to—
THE COURT: I know what you are saying, but what is the relevance of it?
MR. FITZGERALD: It impeaches her in terms of her statement as to her state of mind as to why she went to the Spahn Ranch and to Charles Manson.
MR. KANAREK: Exactly.
MR. BUGLIOSI: I want to be briefly heard, on two points, your Honor.
THE COURT: You just keep going around in circles. Admittedly, that would have the effect, but what is the relevance?
MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Kanarek stated that the prosecution, under direct examination, elicited from this witness, Linda Kasabian, over objection by defense attorneys, her motive for going to the Ranch. It also fits in this whole area wherein she testified that she was naive and impressionable and innocent.
I think it places her testimony in a framework from which it can be more easily examined by the jury.
Her statements in regard to her original motives were self-serving, and we simply want to round out the picture.
THE COURT: Mr. Bugliosi?
MR. BUGLIOSI: I would like to just make two brief points, your Honor.
No. 1, by Mr. Kanarek’s own question, by his very own question, he got out from her, if you look at the record, that she did not go there because of any theft.
This happened on the second day, after Tex Watson had told her to steal the five thousand.
Her reason for going there, and Kanarek—Mr. Kanarek—has brought this out himself, is because Gypsy invited her.
MR. KANAREK: No.
MR. BUGLIOSI: She never said right now during cross-examination that the reason she went there was because she took anything. It was the second day that she came back and took something.
The first day she did not go out there for that purpose, and you have not elicited anything contrary to what I am saying right now.
The second point is that I would ask the Court to hold Mr. Kanarek in contempt of court.
The Court has specifically directed that this is not a proper area to go into.
Mr. Fitzgerald properly complied with that court order. Mr. Kanarek has deliberately violated that court order. He has already gotten in front of the jury the fact that she committed a theft. The only issue now is what was the theft and how much was it? The jury doesn’t know. But he has already gotten into the record that she committed a theft, after being told by the Court that this was an impermissible area to go into.
THE COURT: I think obviously that was Mr. Kanarek’s intent, this line of cross-examination. What I fail to see is what the relevance of her purpose, her state of mind, was at the time that she went to the ranch.
What possible difference does it make to any of the issues in this case?
MR. KANAREK: If I may respond to that?
MR. BUGLIOSI: I agree with the Court.
THE COURT: It is only a way of getting in improper impeachment.
MR. FITZGERALD: We have no objection to it being limited solely as to impeachment of her motive.
THE COURT: That is precisely why it is not permissible, He is only trying to show a theft, He has already elicited the fact that she—
MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, that she took something out of the presence of Charles Melton. But that could have been any one of a number of things.
THE COURT: And that she wanted to hide.
MR. FITZGERALD: Yes.
THE COURT: So you have impeached her.
If she testified earlier that she wanted to go there for some other reason, you have already impeached her. Going one step further and pulling out by the teeth the information about the theft is simply the improper form of impeachment that I am talking about,
MR. KANAREK: Your Honor, if I may answer your Honor just a moment.
The point is that it shows her intent, it shows that she sought out the Spahn Ranch instead of the Spahn Ranch seeking her out.
THE COURT: Assume that is true. How is that relevant?
MR. KANAREK: Because it shows, your Honor—in other words, if someone is wanted for murder, that is one thing; if someone is wanted for stealing a Hershey bar, that is something else. The reason that she stayed there the whole month, the reason that she wanted protection, was because of the $5,000.
It goes to show her intent.
THE COURT: I am going to sustain the objections, Mr. Kanarek, and I think you have gone as far as you can go by legitimate means of cross-examination impeaching the witness on this particular point.
In fact, I think you have gone further than perhaps I should have let you go.
You do have a contradiction, as I recall her testimony, but now to go on still further and to get the evidence of the theft itself can serve no purpose except to do that which the law says you can’t do.
MR. KANAREK: May I say this? The prosecution has brought this whole area in.
For instance, what is the reason for the sex orgy?
THE COURT: You have argued that a dozen times. I think I have already heard all the arguments and I have considered them carefully.
MR. HUGHES: I think we can bring in what was taken. It does not necessarily have to be alluded to as a theft. They can say that she took $5,000. It may have been her own $5,000.
THE COURT: I am going to sustain the objection.
Gentlemen, we will take our recess at this time.
(Whereupon, all counsel return to their respective places at counsel table and the following proceedings occur in open court within the presence and hearing of the jury:)
THE COURT: Ladies and 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.
(Recess.)
THE COURT: All parties, counsel, and jurors are present.
You may proceed, Mr. Kanarek.
MR. KANAREK: Yes, your Honor, thank you.
Q. So, Mrs. Kasabian, in fact when you went to the ranch, Mrs. Kasabian, you had asked Gypsy about coming to live wherever Gypsy was living?
A. No.
Q. Is that correct?
A. No.
Q. Well, but as a matter of fact you were not getting along with your husband, whichever way we—whatever the reasons may be.
A. Yes.
Q. And so you took the opportunity of asking Gypsy about coming to live with her?
MR. STOVITZ: Object to the question as argumentative, your Honor.
THE COURT: Overruled, you may answer.
THE WITNESS: No, I did not ask her.
Q. BY MR. KANAREK: Pardon?
A. I did not ask her. She asked me.
Q. You told her that you were unhappy because of your husband’s sexual inadequacy, is that correct?
MR. STOVITZ: I object to the question, your Honor, as not accurate cross-examination.
It is a characterization of her testimony and assumes a fact not in evidence.
MR. KANAREK: First of all, I am not alluding to any testimony at all.
THE COURT: Overruled.
THE WITNESS: What was your question?
MR. KANAREK: May that be read, your Honor?
THE COURT: Read the question.
(Whereupon, the reporter reads the pending question as follows:
“Q. You told her that you were unhappy because of your husband’s sexual inadequacy, is that correct?”)
THE WITNESS: Yes.
Q. BY MR. KANAREK: You told her that?
A. Yes.
Q. And you asked her if you could come and live wherever Gypsy lives, is that correct?
MR. STOVITZ: Objected to as having been asked and answered, your Honor.
THE COURT: Overruled, you may proceed.
THE WITNESS: She invited me to go with her.
Q. BY MR. KANAREK: This was after you told her of your husband’s sexual inadequacy, is that correct?
A. I don’t know. I don’t know what took place first.
Q. I see. Now, Mrs. Kasabian, directing your attention—may I say this:
Do you have a feeling of gratitude, Mrs. Kasabian, to Mr. Bugliosi and Mr. Stovitz and the prosecution for allowing you to walk out on seven counts of murder and one count of conspiracy?
A. No, not to them.
Q. You have no feeling of gratitude to these two gentlemen at all for that?
A. I think it is above them. I think it is the power of God.
Q. You believe what?
A. It is the power of God.
Q. And your gratitude is to God for giving you this—this—blessing, or this good fortune?
A. Yes.
Q. And you think that this is something of a religious type of result—
MR. STOVITZ: Object to the question, immaterial, irrelevant, ambiguous and unintelligible, your Honor.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q. BY MR. KANAREK: Do you feel, Mrs. Kasabian, that this is a supernatural type of force that has given you this unity?
A. I feel it’s God’s mercy, yes.
Q. You feel it is God’s mercy that is giving you this immunity?
A. Yes.
Q. And directing your attention to your state of mind today as compared to last Friday, for instance, your state of mind is such that you know that today the Judge signed the order giving you immunity.
A. Yes.
Q. And so you know for sure as of this morning that you will not be prosecuted on seven counts of murder and one count of conspiracy?
A. So the paper says.
Q. Pardon?
A. So the piece of paper says.
Q. My question is as to your state of mind, Mrs. Kasabian.
Today—today you know for sure that you will not be prosecuted for seven counts of murder and one count of conspiracy, is that right?
MR. STOVITZ: That asks for a legal conclusion of this witness, your Honor. I object to the question on that ground.
THE COURT: Overruled.
THE WITNESS: I don’t understand your question.
MR. KANAREK: May the question be read?
THE COURT: I think you should reframe it, Mr. Kanarek.
MR. KANAREK: Yes, your Honor.
Q. BY MR. KANAREK: Is your state of mind today as of this morning, Mrs. Kasabian, is it your state of mind that you feel for sure that you are not going to be prosecuted for seven counts of murder and one count of conspiracy?
A. For sure, yes. I felt it all along.
Q. Pardon?
A. I have been feeling it all along, but today for sure.
Q. Today is for sure?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, you say you have been feeling it all along. You mean you felt that God was going to help you out all along?
A. Yes.
Q. Is there some reason that you felt that God should help you?
A. I don’t know.
Q. Pardon?
A. I don’t know.
Q. I mean do you feel—it there some reason why you should be singled out for His blessings?
MR. STOVITZ: Your Honor, I think this gets into a field that is going to take us far far away from the issues of this case and I object on that basis.
THE COURT: Sustained.
BY MR. KANAREK:
Q. Well, last Friday, Mrs. Kasabian, upon, until last Friday, let’s say, you did not know for sure that you were going to get this immunity?
A. Not from these people here, no.
Q. You did not know, that is, the Judge had not signed the papers yet last Friday?
A. Right.
Q. Is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. [illegible] so that as you testified previously you were aware that the judge had not signed the papers?
A. Excuse me.
Q. As you testified previously, previous to today, you were aware that the Judge had not yet signed the papers?
A. Yes.
Q. And so you found out this morning that this morning he signed the papers?
A. Yes.
Q. Right?
A. Yes.
Q. And the gratitude—you have no gratitude, no feeling of thanks to Mr. Bugliosi or Mr. Stovitz?
MR. BUGLIOSI: Irrelevant.
MR. STOVITZ: It is not this witness’s testimony at all, your Honor.
MR. KANAREK: It is her state of mind we are talking about.
THE COURT: Overruled, you may answer.
THE WITNESS: Sure, I have gratitude.
BY MR. KANAREK:
Q. Pardon?
A. Yes, I do have gratitude.
Q. Now you are saying you do have gratitude, right?
MR. STOVITZ: I object to the question as argumentative.
THE COURT: Sustained.
BY MR. KANAREK:
Q. And why do you have gratitude, Mrs. Kasabian?
A. They have given me an opportunity to tell the truth.
Q. And the gratitude is just because they have given you the opportunity to tell the truth, is that right?
A. I think so, yes.
Q. Pardon?
A. Yes.
Q. You think so?
A. I am not quite sure, what—
Q. What is that?
A. I am not quite sure what you are asking me.
Q. Do you know what I mean by gratitude?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. Then would you tell us why do you have the gratitude toward Mr. Bugliosi and Mr. Stovitz and the prosecution?
MR. STOVITZ: The question was just asked and answered, the answer was just given.
I object to the question as having been asked and answered.
MR. KANAREK: Your Honor, it has not been answered.
THE COURT: Yes, it has, the objection is sustained.
BY MR. KANAREK:
Q. Is the gratitude you feel, Mrs. Kasabian, is the gratitude of an earthly type? Do you feel it is like getting a present?
A. I am grateful to them because they were more interested in the truth.
Q. Pardon?
A. Because they are interested in the truth, I have gratitude towards them.
Q. Because they are interested in the truth?
A. Yes.
Q. And the fact that your physical welfare is involved and you leave the jail and are completely and absolutely free, that does not have any part of your gratitude?
A. I don’t understand.
Q. Well, your gratitude does not involve your being able to leave the jail, your being able not to have to go to the gas chamber and die? Your gratitude doesn’t involve that?
MR. STOVITZ: I object to the question as unintelligible, your Honor.
THE COURT: Do you understand the question?
THE WITNESS: Not really.
THE COURT: Reframe the question.
MR. KANAREK: Yes, your Honor.
MR. STOVITZ: There is a difference, your Honor, I think, between gratitude and gratefulness, and I think counsel’s lack of grammar is the thing that is causing the inadequacy of the question.
MR. KANAREK: Q. Mrs. Kasabian, if I use the word gratefulness instead of gratitude, would that make it clearer?
A. It means the same thing.
Q. Gratitude and gratefulness mean the same thing?
A. Yes.
Q. Then call it gratitude, call it gratefulness, call it what you will, does your gratitude or gratefulness include your being to leave the jail completely free and your not having to go to the gas chamber and be gassed to death?
MR. STOVITZ: Objection.
MR. BUGLIOSI: That is a compound question.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. KANAREK: I will ask it one at a time.
BY MR. KANAREK:
Q. Does your gratefulness and gratitude include your own physical desire not to be in a jail?
MR. BUGLIOSI: That is an ambiguous question, your Honor.
THE COURT: Sustained.
BY MR. KANAREK:
Q. Mrs. Kasabian, directing your attention to the gratefulness or gratitude that you have to the prosecution. Are you grateful—do you feel gratitude to the prosecution because you are not going to be locked up any more on seven counts of murder and one count of conspiracy?
A. Yes.
Q. Does your gratitude and gratefulness include in it the fact that you will not go to the gas chamber and be gassed to death?
A. Yes.
Q. For the seven counts of murder and one count of conspiracy?
A. Yes.
Q. It includes that; right?
A. I guess so, yes.
Q. And as you testify, do you have in your mind the fact that you have been given this immunity? Is it in your mind as you testify?
A. No. I am just doing what I have been doing before we signed the papers.
Q. Pardon me?
A. I have just been doing the same thing that I have been doing the last two weeks before the papers were ever signed.
Q. My question is: Do you have in your mind as you testify the fact that you are being given this immunity, that you are being given the benefit of not spending time in prison, in jail, and not going to the gas chamber?
A. This is in my mind while I testify?
Q. Yes.
A. I am mostly concerned with just testifying.
Q. Well, may I have an answer to the question?
MR. STOVITZ: She has answered the question, your Honor.
MR. KANAREK: She said “mostly,” your Honor. I haven’t got an answer to the question.
MR. STOVITZ: I am sorry if counsel doesn’t have the answer that he wants. I object to the question as having been asked and answered.
THE COURT: I think the question is ambiguous. I will sustain my own objection.
Ask your next question.
MR. KANAREK: Yes, your Honor.
Q. Is it in your mind, Mrs. Kasabian, as you testify, that you are getting the benefit of not being locked up in prison as a result of the immunity?
THE COURT: I think that is ambiguous, Mr. Kanarek. I don’t know what it means.
I will sustain my own objection to the question.
BY MR. KANAREK:
Q. Mrs. Kasabian, as you testify—may I ask you—do you know what immunity is?
A. Yes.
Q. Pardon?
A. I think so, yes.
Q. Now, directing your attention to this matter of immunity, your immunity from having to undergo the misery of spending your life, perhaps, in prison—
MR. BUGLIOSI: Your Honor, I object to the lecture being given to the jury by Mr. Kanarek on our penal system.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. KANAREK: Well, your Honor—
THE COURT: Let’s proceed.
Ask your next question.
MR. KANAREK: Very well, your Honor.
Does your Honor wish me to approach the bench on this?
THE COURT: No.
Q. BY MR. KANAREK: As you testify, Mrs. Kasabian, you are aware that—or are you—I will rephrase it and ask you—are you aware, as you testify of the immunity, of the fact that you will not have to go to prison in connection with these charges?
MR. BUGLIOSI: Repetitious.
MR. STOVITZ: That assumes a fact not in evidence, that she would be convicted, your Honor.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q. BY MR. KANAREK: Mrs. Kasabian, as you testify, are you aware of your immunity?
MR. BUGLIOSI: That is a repetitious question, your Honor.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. KANAREK: Q. Directing your attention to your state of mind, Mrs. Kasabian, as you testify from the witness stand here, are you aware of the problems that beset Mary Brunner?
MR. STOVITZ: That is objected to, your Honor.
MR. BUGLIOSI: Oh, gee.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. KANAREK: It goes to her state of mind, your Honor.
THE COURT: The objection is sustained.
MR. KANAREK: Then may we approach the bench?
THE COURT: You may not.
Ask your next question.
MR. KANAREK: Q. In connection with your state of mind, Mrs. Kasabian, have you discussed with anyone else who, as far as you knew, was getting immunity, have you discussed with any person—
MR. STOVITZ: I don’t think the question is intelligible, your Honor, and I will object to it on that basis.
MR. KANAREK: I haven’t finished.
MR. STOVITZ: Sorry.
MR. KANAREK: Q. Have you discussed with any person whom you thought was getting immunity—
MR. BUGLIOSI: Objection.
MR. STOVITZ: I will renew the objection.
MR. KANAREK: May I finish?
MR. STOVITZ: Sorry.
MR. KANAREK: Q. Have you discussed with any person whom you thought was getting immunity their testimony and the problems that they may have had in connection with their presence in court?
MR. STOVITZ: Now, I don’t understand the question still, your Honor, and I object to the question on that basis.
MR. KANAREK: I think the witness does.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. KANAREK: Excuse me a moment, your Honor.
(Mr. Kanarek and Mr. Shinn confer.)
MR. KANAREK: Q. Now, Mrs. Kasabian, are the words “rip off,” are those words familiar to you?
A. Yes, I think I know what they mean.
Q. Pardon?
A. Yes, I think I know what they mean.
Q. What does “rip off” mean?
A. To steal.
Q. Mrs. Kasabian—
THE COURT: Just a moment.
What was the answer?
(The answer was read by the reporter.)
THE COURT: Go ahead, Mr. Kanarek.
MR. KANAREK: Q. Now, in connection, Mrs. Kasabian, with the trip that you took the first night, did you and Mr. Watson have a conversation where you used the words “rip off”?
MR. STOVITZ: Objection.
MR. BUGLIOSI: Your Honor, I will object. There was no testimony that she was on an acid trip the first night that she went to Spahn Ranch, so it assumes a fact not in evidence.
MR. KANAREK: This is cross-examination anyway.
THE COURT: I didn’t understand the question to refer to that night.
MR. KANAREK: It didn’t, your Honor.
Your Honor, I think he is losing his cool.
MR. BUGLIOSI: He is talking about Mr. Watson.
THE COURT: Apparently the question is ambiguous inasmuch as none of us seem to understand it, Mr. Kanarek, so reframe it.
MR. KANAREK: Very well.
Q. Mrs. Kasabian, directing your attention to the first night when you were in the presence of Mr. Watson.
Did you use the term “rip off”?
MR. BUGLIOSI: Irrelevant, your Honor. It also calls for hearsay.
THE COURT: Overruled.
THE WITNESS: No.
BY MR. KANAREK:
Q. Now, do you, Mrs. Kasabian, remember the first time that you met Mr. Manson?
A. Do I remember the first time?
Q. Yes.
A. Yes.
Q. And after you met Mr. Manson for the first time, did you, in the presence of Gypsy, go up into the hills?
A. Yes.
Q. And did you, when you got up into the hills, did you go into a cave?
A. Yes.
Q. When you went up into that cave, was there a person named Brenda in that cave?
A. We all went up together.
Q. You and Brenda and Gypsy; is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And Mr. Manson?
A. No.
Q. Pardon?
A. No.
Q. Only you and Brenda and Gypsy; right?
A. Yes.
Q. Pardon?
A. No, there were two other people.
Q. Who were the other people?
A. Snake and Mary Brunner.
Q. So that makes five people?
A. Yes.
Q. And did you have some spyglasses with you when you were in the cave?
A. Yes, I think we did.
Q. Right?
A. Yes.
Q. And did you use those spyglasses to look out to see if your husband was coming into that general area?
A. Well, we used to look at the Ranch, and one day we just happened to see the truck pull in.
Q. I am talking now, Mrs. Kasabian, of the time, the first time that you saw Mr. Manson and you discussed with him your desire to hide. I am speaking in connection with that incident.
Did you then go up into the hills, to a cave area, and use some spyglasses to keep an eye out for your husband?
A. Not to keep an eye out, no.
Q. Well, was your state of mind such that you used the spyglasses to look and see if your husband was coming into the area?
A. We just used the spyglasses to spy on the Ranch, and we just happened to see my husband come one day.
Q. My question is: Was your state of mind such that you were looking for your husband through the spyglasses?
MR. STOVITZ: On the very first time? Is that it, Counsel?
I object to the question as being ambiguous the way it is framed now, your Honor.
THE COURT: Do you understand the question?
THE WITNESS: I thought I answered it.
MR. KANAREK: I don’t believe so. At least I didn’t hear an answer, your Honor.
THE COURT: Let’s go back and read the question.
(The record was read by the reporter.)
THE COURT: You may answer it.
THE WITNESS: I guess so. I am not sure.
BY MR. KANAREK:
Q. You guess so? In fact, you are sure, aren’t you, Mrs. Kasabian?
A. No, I am not.
Q. But you guess so, that that is the reason that you looked through the spyglasses?
A. The reason that I remember was just to spy on the ranch, to see what was going on.
Q. I see, and when you looked through the spy glasses you were not looking for your husband?
A. No, not until we saw the car pull up, the truck.
Q. What I am asking you is when you came to that ranch and spoke to Mr. Manson for the first time, the first time you spoke to Mr. Manson did you ask Mr. Manson for protection from your husband?
MR. STOVITZ: I object to the question, your Honor. That is not his previous question.
This assumes facts not in evidence, and it is improper cross-examination at this point.
THE COURT: Overruled, you may answer.
THE WITNESS: Did I ask for protection? No.
Q. BY MR. KANAREK: There was no discussion of protection between you and Mr. Manson the very first day you saw Mr. Manson?
A. No.
Q. You did not speak of your troubles with your husband the very first time you spoke to Mr. Manson?
A. I don’t think so, I can’t recall.
Q. You don’t know for sure, though?
A. Uh-uh.
Q. You don’t know for sure whether you asked for protection?
A. I don’t think I did.
Q. I see. Well, what was your purpose, the very—
You met Mr. Manson for the first time at what time of the day?
A. Afternoon sometime.
Q. In the afternoon?
A. Yes.
Q. And how soon after you met Mr. Manson did you go into the hills with Gypsy, Brenda—anybody else?
A. Snake.
Q. Who else?
A. I believe Tanya, my little girl, Mary.
Q. Tanya, your little baby?
A. Yes.
Q. You, Tanya, Snake, Gypsy, Brenda—
MR. STOVITZ: —Mary, Counsel.
Q. BY MR. KANAREK: —Mary Brunner—thank you, Mr. Stovitz.
You went into the hills how long after first meeting Mr. Manson?
A. Oh, I don’t know, he took us up to the caves sometime that day.
Q. That very day, right?
A. Yes.
Q. And what was your purpose in going to the caves?
A. Yeah, I guess it was to hide.
Q. To hide from your husband, right?
A. Yes, I think it was.
Q. Now, it’s coming clear now, right?
A. Yes.
Q. Pardon?
A. Yes.
Q. And you had the spy glasses with you, Mrs. Kasabian, so that you could, you know, maybe hide a little further if your husband came into sight, right?
A. The spy glasses were there, and we used them.
Q. You had the spy glasses there and used them for the purpose of being able to protect yourself from your husband, Mr. Kasabian, is that right?
A. I don’t know, I don’t know.
Q. Would you reflect upon that for a moment maybe?
A. I just remember the spy glasses were there.
Q. And you used them?
A. Yes, we all used them.
Q. And your state of mind was such that you felt your husband was looking for you, is that correct, the very first time that you spoke with Mr. Manson?
MR. STOVITZ: That is objected to, your Honor, as being immaterial, irrelevant, calling for a conclusion as to whether or not her husband was looking for her.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q. BY MR. KANAREK: And, as a matter of fact, Mrs. Kasabian, you, as far as Mr. Manson was concerned, you begged, you pleaded with Mr. Manson to find a place for you so that your husband would not find you that very first meeting you had with him, is that correct?
A. No.
Q. That is not correct?
A. No.
Q. I see—I see. Well, tell us, Mrs. Kasabian, what was said by you and what was said by Mr. Manson the very first meeting you had with him.
Did you discuss your husband?
MR. BUGLIOSI: That is a compound question. First he is asking for a general conversation and now it is something specific.
MR. KANAREK: All right, I will concede, your Honor, I am sorry, that is an improper question.
Q. Would you tell us the conversation?
A. Yes.
Q. The conversation that you had with Mr. Manson the very first time you saw him.
A. I remember him asking me why I came.
Q. And what did you tell him?
A. I believe I told him that my husband did not want me any more, and that Gypsy told me I would be welcome here as part of the Family and—
I cannot remember any more conversation. That is all I remember.
Q. Did you tell him that you wanted to hide from your husband?
MR. BUGLIOSI: Repetitious.
MR. KANAREK: Well, this is the conversation. She is supposedly giving us all of the conversation, your Honor.
THE COURT: Overruled, you may answer.
THE WITNESS: I don’t recall saying that.
Q. BY MR. KANAREK: Pardon?
A. I don’t recall saying I wanted to hide.
Q. Well, then, what conversation took place just before you went up into the cave area?
MR. STOVITZ: With Charles Manson, Counsel?
BY MR. KANAREK:
Q. With Charles Manson, with Linda, with Brenda, with Tanya, with Gypsy, Mary Brunner—
A. —Snake.
I don’t know, I can’t remember.
Q. And Mr. Manson took you girls up, and Tanya, and left you, left you in the cave area, is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And Mr. Manson left immediately after dropping you off in the cave area with the spyglasses?
A. Yes, he left a few things.
Q. Pardon?
A. They left a few things.
Q. Including the spyglasses?
A. Yes.
Q. Is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, while, Mrs. Kasabian, while you were in the cave area with the spyglasses did you see your husband come into the Spahn Ranch?
A. I saw the truck.
Q. You saw the truck that you knew was your husband’s truck?
A. It was Charlie Melton’s truck.
Q. Pardon me, it was Charlie Melton’s truck. You recognized the truck?
A. Yes.
Q. And you saw the truck through the spyglasses, is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And that is before you ever had any sexual relations with Mr. Manson, right?
A. Right.
Q. Right?
A. Yes.
Q. But after you had had sexual relations with Tex the night before?
A. Yes.
Q. And when you saw your husband, when you saw your husband in the Spahn Ranch area, did you tell anyone that you wished to go down and meet with your husband?
A. No.
Q. Pardon?
A. No.
Q. What conversation if any did you have with the people you were with as you were looking through the spyglasses at your husband?
What did you say concerning your husband?
A. Nothing that I could recall.
Q. Did you state that the person that was within your view by way of the spyglasses was your husband?
A. I did not see him. I just saw the truck.
Q. Did you state that it was your husband’s truck to the girls that were with you in the cave area?
A. I don’t recall stating it, no.
Q. Well, did you discuss the truck?
A. We probably did, but I don’t recall the conversation.
Q. Well, after you saw—you don’t know what, what was the substance of the conversation?
A. I don’t know, I just remember we were looking at the truck with the spyglasses.
Q. And you stated that that was your husband’s truck?
A. I don’t recall stating that, no.
Q. Pardon?
A. I don’t recall stating that.
Q. You don’t recall stating it. You mean that you could have stated it?
A. Well, they knew for themselves, I did not have to state it.
Q. You say they knew. Now, how, to your knowledge, did they know that that was your husband’s truck?
A. Because Mary and Gypsy went with me the day before to the truck.
Q. Mary and Gypsy went with you the day before to the truck?
A. Yes.
Q. And that is when you took something out of the truck?
A. Yes.
Q. Is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And was your state of mind such that—
Well, let me put it to you this way:
Then how long did you stay up there with the truck in view?
A. Excuse me?
Q. How long did you stay up in the cave area watching the truck?
A. I don’t know.
Q. Well, was it five minutes or an hour or how long was it?
A. I don’t know.
Q. Well, while you were up there what time of the day was this?
A. Afternoon, sometime.
Q. In the afternoon?
A. Yes.
Q. And you were watching the truck through the spy glasses, right?
A. Yes.
Q. And at some time did the truck leave the Spahn Ranch area?
A. Yes, it did.
Q. And between the time—between the time that the truck came and the truck left did you cause yourself to be in the immediate presence of your husband?
A. No.
Q. Did you tell anybody to tell your husband you were there?
A. No.
Q. Did you in fact ask people not to tell your husband you were there?
MR. STOVITZ: Objected to as being immaterial and irrelevant.
MR. KANAREK: Most material as to the motive for the witness being at the Spahn Ranch.
MR. STOVITZ: I will withdraw the objection upon counsel’s representation.
THE COURT: You may answer.
THE WITNESS: What was your question?
Q. BY MR. KANAREK: Did you tell anyone at the Spahn Ranch that you did not want your husband to know where you were?
A. Not that I recall.
Q. When you say not that you recall, you mean—well, let me ask you this:
Was your state of mind such that you did not want your husband to know where you were?
A. Yes.
Q. That was your state of mind, right?
A. Yes.
Q. So it’s a fair statement that you told people not to tell your husband you were up in the cave area?
MR. BUGLIOSI: I don’t believe it’s a fair statement at all, your Honor.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q. BY MR. KANAREK: Now, did you convey your state of mind by using the English language to people at the Spahn Ranch, that you did not want your husband to know where you were?
MR. STOVITZ: I object to the question as being immaterial, irrelevant, calls for hearsay and having been asked and answered.
She said she didn’t know, she did not believe she did.
THE COURT: Do you understand the question?
THE WITNESS: Yes.
THE COURT: You may answer it.
THE WITNESS: I don’t recall telling anybody this, but I may have, I may have but I don’t recall.
Q. BY MR. KANAREK: But you may have?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, do you recall a time after you were at the Spahn Ranch, do you recall a time you were hitchhiking with Sandra Goode [Good]?
A. Yes.
Q. And the hitchhiking that you did with Sandra Goode [Good], did it take you down to Topanga Canyon?
A. Yes.
Q. And did you, in hitchhiking, you got a ride with a man driving a car, is that correct?
A. I don’t know who gave us a ride.
Q. Well, did someone pick you up who gave you and Sandra Goode [Good] a ride?
A. Yes.
Q. And you were going from the Spahn Ranch area to the beach area?
A. Right.
Q. Over Topanga Canyon, is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. And as you went over Topanga Canyon did you see some people that you recognized?
A. No.
Q. On this hitchhiking that you did with Sandra Good?
A. No.
Q. How long after you came to the Spahn Ranch did this hitchhiking with Sandra Good take place?
A. I had been there a couple of weeks.
Q. Pardon?
A. I had been there for a couple of weeks.
Q. Did you have a conversation with the driver concerning the speed that the driver should go as he went through the area where your husband’s truck had been parked?
A. Hitchhiking with Sandra Good?
Q. You don’t understand the question?
A. No.
Q. On this occasion when you hitchhiked with Sandra Good, did this hitchhiking take you past the area where your husband had his truck parked?
A. Yes, but the truck wasn’t in view.
Q. Pardon?
A. Yes, but the truck wasn’t in view, it was down a side road.
Q. As you approached the area where the truck was, did you have a conversation with the driver of the automobile?
A. No, not that I recall.
Q. Did you tell the driver of the automobile to speed up as you drove by the area where your husband’s truck was?
A. No.
Q. You never uttered such words to the driver?
A. Not on that occasion, no.
Q. What is that?
A. Not on that occasion, no.
Q. Well, did you utter those words on some other occasion?
A. Yes.
Q. What other occasion was it when you uttered the words that you are alluding to?
A. I believe it was when I hitchhiked with Sandy.
Q. And would you tell us what occurred on that occasion?
MR. BUGLIOSI: It appears that we are asking for irrelevant testimony.
MR. KANAREK: It goes to her state of mind. Mr. Bugliosi brought it out.
THE COURT: Let’s find out what occasion she is referring to. I don’t know. Bring that out.
MR. KANAREK: Yes.
Q. When did this other occasion occur, Mrs. Kasabian?
A. When?
Q. Yes.
A. Wait. I am not really quite sure when.
It may have been with Sandy Good. I am pretty sure it was now.
Q. It was with Sandy Good?
A. Yes.
Q. And you told the driver to speed up as you went through the area where your husband was?
A. No, that is not right.
Q. Well, what is right? What did happen?
A. We were driving by Topanga Shopping Plaza and a certain person that lived in the truck was hitchhiking, and the driver started to pick her up, and I said, “No, please don’t stop, go fast.” And he did.
Q. And that was because you knew people in that area?
A. Yes.
Q. And you didn’t want your husband to know where you were?
A. Right.
Q. Correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, Mrs. Kasabian, you have seen Mr. Manson on the Ranch; is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Have you seen Mr. Manson clean the toilets on the Ranch?
A. No.
Q. You never have?
A. No.
Q. Directing your attention to the times, the number of times, Mrs. Kasabian, that you have been in Mr. Manson’s presence, in his immediate presence.
How many times, while you were at the Ranch, were you in Mr. Manson’s immediate presence; that is, right in the same—within a few feet of him?
MR. STOVITZ: I object to the question as now being ambiguous and compound. “Presence” and “a few feet” are two different things.
THE COURT: Do you understand the question?
THE WITNESS: Yes.
THE COURT: You may answer it. Overruled.
THE WITNESS: I don’t know how many times.
BY MR. KANAREK:
Q. Well, would you give us an estimate?
A. No, I can’t. I don’t know.
Q. Well, you told us that you had, during the entire time you were there, sexual relations 11 times; right?
A. Right.
Q. And of those 11 times you were with Mr. Manson four times you said?
A. Right.
Q. Now, other than those four times, on how many other occasions were you in Mr. Manson’s immediate presence?
A. A number of times.
Q. Well, would you give us an estimate of how many times?
A. I don’t know. I can’t give you a number. I just know a number of times.
Q. Can you think about it for a moment and tell us?
A. I don’t have a number to give you.
MR. KANAREK: I see.
MR. FITZGERALD: With the Court’s indulgence, may I interrupt the proceedings and make a request that we approach the bench before the adjournment?
THE COURT: It is about that time anyway, Mr. Fitzgerald, so you may approach the bench now.
MR. STOVITZ: May the witness and the jury be excused then, your Honor?
THE COURT: Well, let’s just see what we have here first, gentleman, before I excuse the jury.
(Whereupon all counsel approach the bench and the following proceedings occur at the bench outside of the hearing of the jury:)
MR. FITZGERALD: I asked to approach the bench because there has been a motion that had been filed previously, and all counsel would like the matter set down for hearing.
I found it in the Superior Court file, and Mr. Kanarek has it in his hands.
MR. KANAREK: Your Honor, this is a Notice of Motion requesting the Court to order Peter J. Pitchess, et cetera, et cetera. Rather than belabor it, you can read it.
MR. STOVITZ: Can we have the date of the motion, Counsel, so we have some intelligence?
THE COURT: It was filed on July 29th, and I recall this motion because at the time you filed it I told you that it couldn’t be heard at 11:00 o’clock, to set it down for some other time not during trial hours, which you indicated you were going to do, but you never did.
In other words, when you filed it, you had it noticed on July 31st at 11:00 a.m. As a matter of fact, I believe that the filing stamp was put on it at a time when it didn’t have any date on it or time.
MR. KANAREK: Because of the urgency, your Honor.
I don’t believe that this type of motion—
THE COURT: I am just telling you the genesis of what happened, the chronology of what happened.
If you want it heard, I will hear it.
MR. KANAREK: Yes.
The relief that we ask is a very fundamental type of relief, that Mr. Manson does not have to interview witnesses through a screen with a Deputy Sheriff listening to our conversations. It is preposterous.
We have to interview witnesses through a screen. We ask your Honor to make the immediate order that we can interview witnesses. There are four or five Deputies watching everything. Nothing is going across the attorney room desk, your Honor.
THE COURT: You confer with Mr. Manson in the lockup here all day long, do you not?
MR. KANAREK: I am talking about witnesses, your Honor. We need witnesses to prepare our case.
MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Kanarek is referring to a situation wherein the attorney, be it Mr. Kanarek or any attorney, proceeds to the attorney room of the County Jail to interview Mr. Manson or other defendants in the presence of and with a person who is admitted to the jail as a material witness.
Prior to approximately two weeks ago, those interviews were confidential in the typical attorney-client situation.
Recently, for reasons unknown to the defendants, the Sheriff has altered his policy with regard to this case and Mr. Manson and the female defendants particularly. Henceforth, when the attorney comes to the attorney room of the County Jail with a material witness, that conversation is overheard.
I mean, your Honor, it is deliberately overheard for security reasons. It takes place at a different portion of the jail, through a screen, with an officer standing immediately behind the respective defendant.
It is all counsels’ contention that it violates the attorney-client privilege and proscriptions in re Poe, among others and we would like to have the matter set down for hearing and let the Sheriff present his side of it.
THE COURT: That is what I was going to say.
Now that the matter has been apparently—of course, the motion still has a July 31sts 11:00 a.m. date and time on it.
When did you want the matter heard?
MR. KANAREK: Right now.
MR. FITZGERALD: Tomorrow morning, the next morning.
THE COURT: This is precisely the point that I am trying to make, you have to give the other side an opportunity to respond.
You can’t set these down with 30 seconds’ notice. That was what I was trying to tell you the first time.
MR. STOVITZ: May we have it at 1:30 tomorrow afternoon?
THE COURT: It will be heard, but you have to give the Sheriff an opportunity to respond.
MR. FITZGERALD: Wednesday or Thursday is agreeable.
MR. SHINN: Your Honor, may I say something in this regard?
I believe I did talk to, I believe, Chief Kramer, regarding this matter, and he said that this was an order of a Judge of the Superior Court.
I said, “What Judge?”
And he said, “Judge Older and Judge Dell,” your Honor.
THE COURT: Well, let’s see what Mr. Kramer has to say about it, if he is going to respond.
I don’t know who is going to respond and I don’t know what order he is referring to.
I have had conversation from time to time about security matters with the Sheriff. I don’t recall anything about interviewing witnesses.
MR. STOVITZ: Wednesday morning at 9:00 o’clock?
THE COURT: Thursday would be better.
MR. FITZGERALD: Thursday at 9:00 a.m.?
THE COURT: Thursday at 9:00 a.m.
MR. STOVITZ: Thank you.
THE COURT: Can you arrange to have the Sheriff or the People, or whoever want to respond to this declaration, here?
MR. STOVITZ: I think it would be better if you call Sergeant Maupin and have him call the right parties.
THE COURT: Will you bring this to the right parties? I don’t care who responds, but I think they should have a proper notice.
MR. HUGHES: That will not require the presence of other attorneys; is that correct?
MR. FITZGERALD: I think we all should be here.
THE COURT: If you are joining in the motion, you will have to be present, and so will the defendants.
Mr. Darrow, we are setting this down for hearing on Thursday, this Thursday, 9:00 a.m., this motion of Mr. Kanarek to require Peter Pitchess to do certain things or not to do certain things, so we will need the defendants present at that time.
THE CLERK: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: Anything further?
MR. FITZGERALD: No.
MR. SHINN: Will the record indicate that Susan Atkins joins in the motion?
MR. FITZGERALD: Yes. Patricia Krenwinkel also joins.
MR. HUGHES: Defendant Leslie Van Houten will join.
THE COURT: Yes, I assume you all do.
(Whereupon, counsel return to their respective places at counsel table and the following proceedings occur in open court within the presence and hearing of the jury:)
THE COURT: Do not converse with anyone nor form or express any opinion regarding the case until it is finally submitted to you.
The Court will adjourn until 9:45 tomorrow morning.
(Whereupon, at 4:21 p.m. the court was in recess.)