Historic Trial Transcripts
Linda Kasabian: Day twelve Testimony, August 11, 1970
August 11, 1970
(The following proceedings were had in open court in the presence and hearing of the jury, all defendants and all counsel being present:)
THE COURT: All parties, counsel and jurors are present.
You may proceed, Mr. Kanarek.
MR. KANAREK: Yes, your Honor. Your Honor, I wonder if I may pass to the jury Exhibit No. 26 and offer that in evidence, your Honor?
MR. STOVITZ: No objection, your Honor.
MR. FITZGERALD: May I have just a moment?
MR. KANAREK: There is no objection—I don’t believe there is any objection from any counsel, your Honor.
THE COURT: People’s 26 is being offered in evidence, is that right?
MR. KANAREK: Yes, your Honor.
THE COURT: It will be received. It will be exhibited to the jury.
(Exhibit 26 in evidence is then given to the jury for its perusal.)
LINDA KASABIAN,
the witness on the stand at the time of the adjournment, resumed the stand and testified further as follows:
CROSS-EXAMINATION (Continued)
BY MR. KANAREK:
Q. Mrs. Kasabian, directing your attention to this exhibit—
MR. KANAREK: May I approach the witness, your Honor?
THE COURT: You may.
Q. BY MR. KANAREK: Directing your attention to this Exhibit 26, Mrs. Kasabian, would you take that.
Now, would you tell us, Mrs. Kasabian, when you looked in that window what did you see?
A. I saw this table.
Q. Pardon?
A. The table.
Q. You saw the table. What else did you see?
A. It looks like this right here, but I’m not sure, some sort of a bouquet.
Q. Here is a marking pencil, would you draw a circle at or near the table and just write “table,” and “LK” after it?
(Witness complies.)
And when you looked in the window, what else did you see?
MR. BUGLIOSI: Well, your Honor, wait a while.
Again, these photographs, I think, I would almost say it is a deliberate effort on Mr. Kanarek’s part—
MR. KANAREK: If he is going to malign me he should do it at the bench.
THE COURT: That will be enough.
MR. BUGLIOSI: He has a table here—
THE COURT: What is your objection?
MR. BUGLIOSI: I object on the ground that is improper marking of this photograph. It shows a table and it shows Linda Kasabian on top of the table.
MR. KANAREK: Your Honor, I think everyone in this courtroom recognizes that we do not have here a full-scale model of the table and this is done in courtrooms throughout the United States of America and Mr. Bugliosi is less than nit-picking.
MR. BUGLIOSI: Your Honor, I would ask that the Court direct that where this zero is that Linda Kasabian draw an arrow and put down “This is the table that she saw through the window.”
THE COURT: The marking “LK” is obviously confusing. There is no necessity to have any marking at all. She testified that she saw a table.
MR. KANAREK: Very well.
THE COURT: We will strike the letters “LK”.
MR. KANAREK: May there be some marking on this picture to show that she has stated that she saw the table, your Honor?
MR. STOVITZ: I believe the record speaks for itself. That is why we have a Daily Transcript.
THE COURT: That is correct.
MR. KANAREK: Well, I think more confusion will come about if we strike it. May we leave it?
THE COURT: Strike out the letters “LK” and leave the circle.
MR. KANAREK: Very well, your Honor. Will you do that, Mrs. Kasabian?
(The witness complies.)
MR. KANAREK: Thank you.
Q. Now, when you looked inside of this window, you say you saw something else besides the table. What did you see?
A. It looked like a bouquet of flowers. I don’t know if that was it, but it looked something like that.
MR. KANAREK: Would you put a circle right adjacent to the bouquet of flowers?
(Witness complies.)
MR. BUGLIOSI: Again, your Honor, I would object to the markings on the photograph. I see two circles here. One on a table and one near a bouquet of flowers. I would ask the Court to direct Mrs. Kasabian or Mr. Kanarek to identify what these circles mean.
I just see two circles. I think the circles should be identified, your Honor, as a bouquet of flowers, a table, something.
THE COURT: I think it is self-explanatory.
Let’s proceed.
BY MR. KANAREK:
Q. Now, Mrs. Kasabian, did you see anything else as you looked through this window?
A. No.
Q. And when you looked through the window, Mrs. Kasabian, what was your intent? What was your purpose in looking through the window?
A. I was standing at the window beside Tex.
Q. I mean, what was your purpose in looking through the window?
MR. BUGLIOSI: That assumes a fact not in evidence, your Honor, that she had a purpose in looking through the window.
THE COURT: Overruled.
You may answer.
THE WITNESS: I just looked through the window while I was standing there.
Q. BY MR. KANAREK: And you were there to assist Tex; is that correct?
A. I came from around the house to tell him that I had just been there, yes.
Q. Pardon?
A. I had just come from behind the house, and I told him that I went back there.
Q. But my question is: As you stood beside Tex, was your intent and purpose to assist Tex?
A. No, I don’t think so.
Q. What was your purpose, then, in standing beside Tex if it wasn’t to assist and help Tex?
A. To tell him that I had just gone behind the house.
Q. I see. Thank you.
Now, Mrs. Kasabian, directing your attention to a time, Mrs. Kasabian—I will withdraw that.
Were there times when you went panhandling, Mrs. Kasabian?
A. Yes.
Q. When you went panhandling, were there times when you asked for money and people didn’t give you the money?
A. Sure.
Q. And on occasions when people didn’t give you the money that you were seeking, did you call them pigs?
MR. BUGLIOSI: I object, your Honor, on the ground it is irrelevant.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. KANAREK: Q. Well, Mrs. Kasabian, during the month or so, the five weeks, that you stayed at Spahn Ranch, did you go panhandling?
A. Yes.
Q. And during the month or so that you were at the Spahn Ranch and you went panhandling, did people refuse to give you money?
A. Yes.
Q. All right.
When, during this period of time that you were staying at the Spahn Ranch, people refused to give you money, did you call them pigs?
MR. BUGLIOSI: I object, your Honor, on the grounds that it is irrelevant, and also repetitious.
MR. KANAREK: Your Honor, it is very material, because Mr. Bugliosi raised this entire issue as to this particular witness being enticed into the Spahn Ranch.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Ask your next question.
MR. KANAREK: May I make an offer of proof?
THE COURT: It won’t be necessary.
MR. KANAREK: Q. Mrs. Kasabian, you have testified previously when Mr. Fitzgerald was examining you that you have been at communes all over the country.
A. Yes.
Q. Is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. What was your intent and purpose, Mrs. Kasabian, in going to these communes all over the country?
MR. BUGLIOSI: I object as irrelevant, your Honor.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. KANAREK: Your Honor, the issue has been raised by Mr. Bugliosi. It is in the record.
THE COURT: The objection is sustained.
BY MR. KANAREK:
Q. Mrs. Kasabian, now, directing your attention to the time you tell us that was the first time that you knew of the passing away of Mr. and Mrs. LaBianca, that was when?
A. Say that again, when?
Q. When did you first come to realize that Mr. and Mrs. LaBianca had passed away?
A. Through a newspaper when I was in Miami.
Q. And would you tell us, Mrs. Kasabian, what did that newspaper say?
MR. BUGLIOSI: I object, your Honor, calls for hearsay.
MR. KANAREK: Your Honor, this has to do with her state of mind. It is not offered for the truth of the matter asserted in the newspaper.
THE COURT: It’s already testified to. That is what she discovered.
The objection is sustained.
MR. KANAREK: Your Honor, it is not offered for the truth.
THE COURT: I understand.
BY MR. KANAREK:
Q. You read this in a newspaper?
A. Yes.
Q. And would you give us the substance of what the newspaper said.
MR. BUGLIOSI: Object, your Honor. It calls for hearsay.
MR. KANAREK: May we approach the bench, your Honor.
THE COURT: Overruled. You may answer.
THE WITNESS: I don’t remember what it said.
I remember it had an article about Sharon Tate and it showed pictures, and then I saw an article on the LaBiancas.
I don’t remember what it says.
BY MR. KANAREK:
Q. You don’t remember what it said?
A. No.
Q. Then, will you tell us, Mrs. Kasabian, how do you know that the LaBiancas were murdered on the night, the second night?
How did you make that association, Mrs. Kasabian?
A. I don’t know now.
Q. Pardon?
A. I don’t know now. I cannot remember how or what made me think it was them. I don’t know.
Q. Can it be you are not telling us the truth?
MR. BUGLIOSI: I object, your Honor, it’s argumentative.
THE COURT: Overruled.
THE WITNESS: I am telling you the truth.
BY MR. KANAREK:
Q. Pardon?
A. I am telling you the truth.
Q. You are telling me the truth.
A. Yes.
Q. That you had no knowledge whatsoever about the passing away of the LaBiancas until you read it in the Miami, Florida, newspaper?
A. That’s right.
Q. Pardon?
A. That’s right.
Q. I see.
You have told us that you heard in the automobile, you say, you heard statements concerning killings on what you call the second night.
Is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. Directing your attention to that language, Mrs. Kasabian, was your state of mind such that you felt that there was going to be any killing?
A. Yes.
Q. And after you left the LaBianca’s, was your state of mind such that you thought there was any killing in the LaBiancas?
A. I don’t understand your question.
Q. When you left the LaBianca residence?
A. I never went into the residence.
Q. Pardon?
A. I never went into the house.
Q. You never went into the house?
A. Right.
MR. KANAREK: May I approach the witness, your Honor.
THE COURT: You may.
MR. STOVITZ: Your Honor, that photograph has not been marked. May we approach the bench, your Honor?
THE COURT: Do not display any photographs, Mr. Kanarek. I want to see them first.
MR. KANAREK: Yes.
THE COURT: And I want to understand what you are doing.
MR. KANAREK: Yes, your Honor.
May we approach the bench, then, if counsel wishes?
I have no objection.
But the picture was upside down when she uttered her gasp.
MR. STOVITZ: Let the record reflect the picture was upside down when she uttered her gasp, but it was faced towards her.
THE COURT: You may approach the bench.
(The following proceedings were had at the bench out of the hearing of the jury:)
MR. KANAREK: If I may, your Honor, it is my position, it is my position that this witness tied up this person with the thong that she lost that night; that I wish to interrogate her on it.
Obviously these hands are tied by a thong, the very thong, that is, I believe, in this courtroom.
I believe the prosecution is making that representation.
THE COURT: You may interrogate her on that subject, but the photograph should he marked and identified.
MR. KANAREK: Certainly, your Honor.
MR. STOVITZ: May the photograph be marked as People’s next for identification?
THE COURT: Do you have some others you intend to show her that have not been marked? I will mark them right now.
MR. KANAREK: Certainly, your Honor.
THE COURT: So we won’t waste a lot of time.
MR. STOVITZ: Does your Honor have 90 as the next number?
THE COURT: 90.
MR. STOVITZ: Grand Jury No. 49 will be marked 90. It shows a pair of hands tied with a leather lace.
MR. FITZGERALD: Hang on just for a second until the Clerk gets here.
THE CLERK: That will be 90, your Honor.
THE COURT: This will be marked 91.
MR. STOVITZ: Grand Jury Exhibit 50 will be 91.
MR. KANAREK: Yes.
MR. STOVITZ: The Grand Jury Exhibit No. 51 will be 92, your Honor.
THE COURT: 92 for identification.
MR. STOVITZ: And Grand Jury Exhibit No. 52 will be 93 for identification.
THE COURT: It will be so marked.
Now, Mr. Kanarek, when you display the picture to the witness, she does not have to hold it in her hand; all you have to do is show it to her or, if you want to, lay it on the ledge in front of her. You may do that.
She is under no compulsion to take it in her hand and hold it.
MR. KANAREK: Yes, your Honor, there is detail—
THE COURT: You ask her about the detail. You hold it yourself or lay it on the ledge.
MR. KANAREK: Very well, your Honor.
MR. SHINN: You mean face down, your Honor?
MR. STOVITZ: So the jury cannot see it.
THE COURT: If he is displaying it to the witness, I want it face up. He doesn’t have to display it to the jury.
MR. KANAREK: Your Honor can tell by the way I am handling these pictures that I am trying—
THE COURT: Let’s proceed.
(The following proceedings were had in open court in the presence and hearing of the jury:)
MR. KANAREK: Your Honor, may I approach the witness?
THE COURT: You may.
Q. BY MR. KANAREK: Now, Mrs. Kasabian, I am going to lay down in front of you—
MR. KANAREK: Would your Honor ask the jurors is it possible they can see when it is laid down. I know your Honor does not wish them to see this picture.
Maybe your Honor can interrogate.
THE COURT: Then I suggest you hold it, Mr. Kanarek.
MR. KANAREK: Very well, I will.
Q. BY MR. KANAREK: Mrs. Kasabian, would you please look at this picture.
All right, now, directing your attention, Mrs. Kasabian, to this picture which is marked Exhibit 90, it appears to be hands that are tied behind their back—behind the back of a prisoner, is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, directing your attention to the—
MR. KANAREK: May I have that thong, your Honor, from the clerk?
THE COURT: What is the identification, Mr. Kanarek?
MR. STOVITZ: What is the number, Counsel?
THE CLERK: 75. It is in that group there.
MR. STOVITZ: Here you are, Counsel.
MR. FITZGERALD: What is it?
THE CLERK: 75.
MR. KANAREK: Thank you.
Q. BY MR. KANAREK: Now, Mrs. Kasabian, I show you a leather thong that you tell us appears to be similar to the leather thong that you had, what you call the second night, Mrs. Kasabian.
I ask you, Mrs. Kasabian, does that leather thong appear to you to be the same leather thong that has—that has been used to tie the hands of this human being?
MR. STOVITZ: Object to the question. It calls for a conclusion and an expert opinion, your Honor.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. KANAREK: Q. Now, Mrs. Kasabian, is it a fair statement that you have used leather thongs and used them to tie knots?
A. To tie knots?
Q. You have used leather thongs to tie things up; is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Pardon?
A. Yes.
Q. And you have used leather thongs similar to this to tie things up?
A. To tie things together, yes.
Q. Is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, you say you were exhausted on this so-called second night, Mrs. Kasabian. Was your exhaustion such that you do not remember everything that happened that night clearly?
A. I can’t remember all the conversations and things like that.
Q. Do you remember everything that happened other than conversations that night clearly?
A. Yes.
Q. No question about it in your mind?
A. No.
Q. Pardon?
A. No.
Q. Now, did you, Mrs. Kasabian—you were mobile, you weren’t paralyzed; is that right?
A. Excuse me?
Q. You could move your body about?
A. Oh, yes.
Q. Directing your attention to the time that you say you were in an automobile and you heard conversation concerning killing—is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. On the second night.
Now, at that time, Mrs. Kasabian, had you forgotten about the events of the previous night?
A. I am not sure. I don’t remember thinking about them.
Q. That is, you don’t remember, on the second night, thinking about the events of the previous night?
A. Right.
Q. Is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Is there some reason that you weren’t thinking about what happened on the previous night?
MR. STOVITZ: That is not the answer that she gave. She says she can’t remember thinking about them, counsel, and it assumes a fact not in evidence that she wasn’t thinking about them.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. KANAREK: Q. Well, directing your attention—now, you have exhibited great shock at some of these pictures, Mrs. Kasabian; you tell us you saw these events at the Tate residence that displeased you, and so forth.
Are you telling us that right now, as you sit on the witness stand, you don’t remember, on the second night, whether or not there was still in your mind the events of the previous night?
MR. STOVITZ: I object to the question in that form as argumentative, your Honor.
THE COURT: Well, I think it is ambiguous, also.
The objection is sustained.
MR. KANAREK: Very well, your Honor.
Q. Having in mind, Mrs. Kasabian—you say you left the Spahn Ranch on this night, and you went to Pasadena, you say. Now, when you left the Spahn Ranch on the night that you went to Pasadena, did you have in mind, as you left the ranch, what had occurred the previous night?
A. Yes, I think I did.
Q. You think you did or you know you did?
A. Well, I remember one incident where I remember thinking about it.
Q. Pardon?
A. I can remember now one incident where I remember thinking about it.
Q. There was one incident when you remembered thinking about the previous night?
A. Yes.
Q. And outside of that one incident, how long in time did you think about the previous night, referring to this one incident?
MR. BUGLIOSI: It is an ambiguous question, your Honor.
THE COURT: Read the question.
(The question was read by the reporter.)
THE COURT: Do you understand the question?
THE WITNESS: Not really.
BY MR. KANAREK:
Q. Well, you have said that there was some kind of incident.
A. Yes.
Q. Well, let me ask you this: Before this incident occurred, had you been thinking about the previous night?
A. Not that I can remember.
Q. I see.
So this incident came about and you thought about the previous night?
A. Yes.
Q. How long did you think about the previous night during this incident?
A. I don’t know.
Q. Well, can you give us an estimate of the time involved that you were doing the thinking about the previous night?
A. Well, I was asked to do something, and that is what brought the previous night to my attention.
Q. Well, my question is—
A. I don’t know how long it took.
Q. Pardon?
A. I don’t know how long.
Q. You have no idea as to the duration of the time?
A. No.
Q. Then, when this incident passed, Mrs. Kasabian, the events of the previous night passed in your mind; is that correct?
A. Excuse me?
Q. After this incident that you have spoken of, after whatever time was involved in that incident, after that incident had passed, then you no longer were thinking about the previous night; is that correct?
A. I don’t know. I can’t remember thinking about it after.
Q. You don’t remember for sure thinking about the previous night after that one incident?
A. Right.
Q. So, then you are driving down from the Spahn Ranch, and you drove about the Los Angeles area; is that right?
A. I guess so. I don’t know what areas it was.
Q. You don’t know what areas?
A. I don’t know if we were in the Los Angeles area. I know we were in Pasadena.
Q. While you were on the Spahn Ranch, Mrs. Kasabian, did you, from time to time, drive an automobile from the Spahn Ranch during the month or so you were there?
A. Yes.
Q. You drove on garbage runs?
A. Yes, right.
Q. You drove the car; right?
A. Yes, uh-huh.
Q. And you drove on other—concerning other matters from the Spahn Ranch during that approximately five-week period you say you were there; is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. And you drove more than one automobile; is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. And you left the Spahn Ranch and made it back to the Spahn Ranch on your own; is that right?
A. I don’t understand.
Q. Well, what I mean is, you left the Spahn Ranch on occasions during the month when you were driving an automobile, and you drove back, you found your way back?
A. Yes.
Q. You went into the Los Angeles area, did whatever you had to do, and came back; is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. As a matter of fact, you drove automobiles into the Los Angeles area, you parked the automobile and went panhandling; is that correct?
A. No.
I went hitchhiking when I did that.
Q. Pardon?
A. I hitchhiked when I went panhandling.
Q. Then on this evening when you say you don’t know where you were driving, were you under the influence of some drug?
A. No.
Q. Had you taken some drug that day?
A. No.
Q. And your mind was completely clear?
A. Except for being tired, yes.
Q. You were exhausted?
A. Yes.
Q. Then, on this day, you drove about the Los Angeles area and went to Pasadena; is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, after you drove along going to Pasadena, you say you stopped at some house?
A. Yes.
Q. Is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, as you stopped at that house, Mrs. Kasabian, did you have in mind the offense of the previous night?
A. I am not sure.
Q. You are not sure that you did?
A. That is what I just said.
Q. I see.
And your state of mind was that a house, you tell us, was going to be picked out for someone to be killed, is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. And you didn’t have any memory of what happened the previous night?
MR. BUGLIOSI: I object. She didn’t testify to that. She said she doesn’t recall at this time whether on the second night she was thinking about the first night, not that she has forgotten now what happened the first night.
THE COURT: She can answer the question.
MR. KANAREK: I object to Mr. Bugliosi’s interruption.
THE COURT: The objection is overruled.
Let’s continue.
MR. KANAREK: Thank you.
Can we have the question put to the witness, your Honor?
THE COURT: Reframe the question, Mr. Kanarek.
MR. KANAREK: Very well.
Q. At the time, Mrs. Kasabian, that you tell us that your state of mind was that someone was going to be killed in a house in Pasadena, at that time you did not have any memory of what had occurred the night before; is that correct?
A. Not that I can remember now.
Q. I see.
You had forgotten what had occurred the night before?
A. I don’t know if I had forgotten it. I just don’t remember thinking about it.
Q. I see.
And then you went here and there, and you ended up next to a house, adjacent to a house of someone that you knew, Mr. True; is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, when you were adjacent to Mr. True, Mrs. Kasabian, did you have any memory of what had occurred the night before?
A. Not that I can remember.
Q. You weren’t thinking, you had no memory of what had occurred; is that right? Is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Then, directing your attention, while the automobile was driving from wherever it came, from the Pasadena area to wherever it came to the True home, you had no memory of what had occurred the night before; is that right?
A. I don’t remember thinking about the night before.
Q. Well, is it a fair statement that you had no memory of what had occurred during the interval of time, that is, I am now referring to your thinking during the interval of time from the time you left Pasadena until the time that you arrived adjacent, near the True residence.
MR. STOVITZ: I object.
Sorry, Counsel. Had you finished your question?
MR. KANAREK: No, your Honor.
MR. STOVITZ: I am sorry.
MR. KANAREK: Q. Mrs. Kasabian, directing your attention to your thinking, to your memory, at that time when you went from Pasadena to the area adjacent to the True house.
Had you, at that time, any memory of what had occurred the previous night?
MR. STOVITZ: I object to the question, your Honor, as ambiguous, and having been asked and answered.
MR. KANAREK: That hasn’t been asked and answered, your Honor.
THE COURT: I think it is ambiguous, Mr. Kanarek. I don’t know what you mean by having any memory.
MR. KANAREK: May I ask if the witness understands the question?
THE COURT: The Court also has to understand it so I can rule on the objection.
MR. KANAREK: Very well, your Honor.
THE COURT: The objection is sustained.
BY MR. KANAREK:
Q. Do you have any meaning in your mind as to the word “memory,” Mrs. Kasabian?
A. Yes.
Q. What does the word, memory, mean to you?
A. To remember.
Q. To remember, right?
A. Uh-huh.
Q. Now, then, may I ask, directing your attention to the time interval from the time you were in Pasadena until the time that you arrived near the True home, did you remember what occurred the night before?
A. I don’t know if I did or not. I cannot remember now if I did.
Q. Well, would you look back at that ride that you say occurred and tell us?
A. I cannot remember.
Q. I see.
Now, then, directing your attention, Mrs. Kasabian, to the time after you left the LaBiancas, after you left the area of Mr. True’s home, the time that you drove, you say, to the beach.
As you drove to the beach did you have in your mind thoughts of what had occurred the night before?
A. I don’t remember.
Q. Now, did you do anything, Mrs. Kasabian, to alert anyone to some killings that you say were to occur in the house next door to where Mr. True lived?
A. No.
Q. Pardon?
A. No.
Q. Did you go up and knock on the door of Mr. True?
A. No, I never got out of the car.
Q. Pardon?
A. I never got out of the car.
Q. Were you chained to the automobile?
MR. STOVITZ: That is argumentative, your Honor.
MR. KANAREK: I am asking her a question, your Honor.
THE COURT: Overruled, you may answer.
THE WITNESS: No, I was not chained to the automobile.
BY MR. KANAREK:
Q. Were you under the influence of any drugs?
A. No, no drugs.
Q. And you had the power to get out of the automobile and go knock on a door, is that correct?
A. No.
Q. Pardon?
A. No.
Q. You had no power to move out of the automobile?
A. I was not told to so I didn’t.
Q. I see, you were then under someone’s power, so that you could not move out of the automobile, is that what you are saying, Mrs. Kasabian?
A. I was not told to get out of the automobile, right.
Q. You were not told to?
A. Uh-huh.
Q. And directing your attention to your state of mind, was your state of mind such that you were not free to get out of the automobile?
A. Yes.
Q. I see, and what is the reason you were not free to get out of the automobile?
A. Because Charlie was telling me to do this and do that.
Q. And because Charlie was telling you to do this and to do that—
A. Yes.
Q. —you did not get out of the automobile, is that right?
A. Right, he did not tell me to.
Q. I see.
And directing your attention to your state of mind, did you want to get out of the automobile but there was this force of Charlie that was so great that you just could not resist it, is that what it was?
MR. STOVITZ: I object to the question as argumentative, your Honor.
THE COURT: Overruled.
THE WITNESS: Would you repeat that again.
MR. KANAREK: May it be read, your Honor?
THE COURT: Read the question.
(Whereupon the reporter reads the question as follows:
“Q. I see. And directing your attention to your state of mind, did you want to get out of the automobile but there was this force of Charlie that was so great that you just could not resist it, is that what it was?”)
THE WITNESS: No.
BY MR. KANAREK:
Q. Well, then, what was the reason, Mrs. Kasabian you did not get out of the automobile?
A. Because he did not tell me to get out of the automobile.
Q. Did Charlie tell you to light a cigarette?
A. Sure.
Q. Charlie told you to smoke the cigarette as far as you smoked it?
A. No.
Q. He did not tell you when to stop smoking the cigarette?
A. No.
Q. I see, did he tell you to light the cigarette?
A. I remember lighting a cigarette for him.
Q. For him?
Pardon?
A. I remember lighting a cigarette for him, yes.
Q. I am talking about did you smoke a cigarette?
A. Yes.
Q. Did Charlie tell you to light the cigarette that you smoked?
A. No.
Q. Did Charlie tell you to breathe?
A. No.
Q. Did Charlie tell you to stop smoking the cigarette you were smoking at a certain point?
A. No.
Q. So you were doing everything that you wanted to do on your own, is that correct?
A. Yes, I guess so.
Q. So that when you tell us you did not get out of the automobile because of Charlie, that is poppycock, isn’t it, Mrs. Kasabian?
MR. STOVITZ: Argumentative, your Honor.
THE COURT: Sustained.
BY MR. KANAREK:
Q. Well, Mrs. Kasabian, is it a fair statement that when you tell us that you did not get out of the automobile because Charlie told you to do something or not to do something, that is just—just an excuse, isn’t it, Mrs. Kasabian?
MR. STOVITZ: Argumentative, your Honor.
THE COURT: Overruled.
THE WITNESS: No, it’s not an excuse, it’s the truth.
BY MR. KANAREK:
Q. Well, Mrs. Kasabian, when did this hold that Charlie had upon you, when did that hold no longer exist?
A. The day I left.
Q. The day you left?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, Mrs. Kasabian, you told us previously that before you went to the Tate residence the people there were piggies, is that right?
A. I just presume they were, yes.
Q. And while you were seeing these events, while you were seeing these events they became human beings?
A. Uh-huh.
Q. Is that right?
A. Sure, there was no such thing as piggies.
Q. At that point they were no longer piggies, they became real people?
A. Yes.
Q. Well, at that point did Mr. Manson—was Mr. Manson’s hold over you gone?
A. I don’t understand.
Q. You don’t understand that.
Well, were you under Mr. Manson’s spell when you were at the Tate residence?
MR. STOVITZ: Asked and answered, your Honor, she covered this quite thoroughly yesterday.
I object to the question as being repetitious.
THE COURT: Overruled.
THE WITNESS: Well, he told me to go there but he wasn’t there to tell me what to do.
Q. Well, would you answer the question, Mrs. Kasabian?
MR. STOVITZ: Submit the question has been answered, your Honor.
THE COURT: Overruled, you may answer.
THE WITNESS: I thought I just answered it.
MR. KANAREK: May the question be read, your Honor?
THE COURT: She said she answered it, Mr. Kanarek, frame another question.
Q. BY MR. KANAREK: Mrs. Kasabian, when you went to the Tate residence were you under Mr. Manson’s spell?
MR. STOVITZ: Object to the question, your Honor, as ambiguous.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q. BY MR. KANAREK: That was just a few days, that is, the time that you were at the Tate residence was a few days before you saw the man in the desert, you talked with the tall man in the desert, Mr. Breckenridge?
A. A few days before?
Q. Is that correct?
A. No.
Q. Well, about what day was it that you talked with Mr. Breckenridge?
A. The day after I ran away.
Q. Well, the day that you say you ran away, what day was that?
A. The third day after the second night.
Q. All right, you had no problem with time then, right?
A. No, I can remember it.
Q. I see. All right, you tell us when you spoke to Mr. Brackenridge you in fact were a witch?
May I ask you, were you a witch on the night that you were at the Tate residence?
MR. STOVITZ: I object to the question, your Honor. In that form it is compound and unintelligible.
Also it calls for hearsay. The question contains hearsay within it.
THE COURT: It is also a characterization of the former testimony.
The objection is sustained.
Q. BY MR. KANAREK: On the night of the Tate—on the night that you were at the Tate residence, how many days, Mrs. Kasabian, was that before the day that you talked to Mr. Breckenridge in the desert, when you tell us you were a witch?
MR. STOVITZ: Your Honor, that is not her testimony. I object to the question.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q. BY MR. KANAREK: How many days before the time that you spoke to Mr. Breckenridge were you at the Tate residence, Mrs. Kasabian?
A. Five.
Q. About five days?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And at the time on the day that you were at the Tate residence had you prior to that time considered yourself Yana, the Witch?
A. I was made to believe that I was a witch, yes.
Q. Somebody forced you to believe that you were a witch?
A. They did not force me, no.
Q. Pardon?
A. I was not forced physically, no.
Q. Now, your state of mind was before you went to the Tate residence that you were a witch, is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And while you were at the Tate residence you believed you were a witch, is that correct?
A. I don’t remember thinking about me being a witch but—
Q. But in that period of time, Mrs. Kasabian, in that period of time you thought of yourself as a witch, is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And on what you call the second night, in that period of time you thought of yourself as a witch?
A. I guess so.
Q. Well, in fact you know so. There is no guess so.
A. I don’t know what I thought of myself on the second night.
Q. Pardon?
A. I don’t know what I thought of myself as on the second night.
Q. In fact, Mrs. Kasabian, throughout this whole period of time you considered yourself a witch?
A. I thought I was a witch, yes.
Q. During this whole period of time, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, Mrs. Kasabian, then directing your attention, directing your attention to the period of time after you left the area where Mr. True lived, in that period of time until the time that you got back to the Spahn Ranch did you have any memory of what had occurred, what had occurred the night before, did you remember what had occurred the night before?
A. I cannot remember if I did.
Q. You don’t know for sure that you did?
A. No, I cannot remember a thought.
Q. As to what you were thinking about what had happened on the night before?
A. Right.
MR. KANAREK: May I have a moment, your Honor?
THE COURT: We will take our morning recess at this time, Mr. Kanarek.
Ladies and gentleman, do not converse with anyone nor form or express any opinion regarding the case until it is finally submitted to you.
The Court will recess for 15 minutes.
MR. STOVITZ: Your Honor, before the jury returns may we have a brief audience with your Honor, may counsel talk to your Honor either in chambers or at the bench or any place.
THE COURT: Very well.
MR. STOVITZ: A very brief audience, thank you.
(Recess.)
THE COURT: All parties, counsel and jurors are present.
Did you wish to approach the bench, gentlemen?
MR. STOVITZ: Yes, please, your Honor.
(Whereupon, all counsel approach the bench and the following proceedings occur at the bench outside of the hearing of the jury:)
MR. STOVITZ: Your Honor, I would like the record to reflect that Mr. Kanarek commenced his cross-examination on Monday, August the 3rd, at page 5960 of the reporters a transcript.
On Tuesday, August the 4th, I asked Mr. Kanarek about how long he would be so that I could schedule my witnesses, and he said about two or three days.
He didn’t want to make that public, but he came to me, approached me, and said about two or three days.
We have now consumed 1,000 pages of transcript, taking out the 90 pages that we consumed of voir dire of the jury.
I think that cross-examination has become somewhat tedious. I am not objective enough to say whether he is making any points. Perhaps, in your Honor’s view—
THE COURT: I am aware of how long it has been.
Are you making some kind of a motion or objection?
MR. STOVITZ: Yes. I ask your Honor to use your Honor’s discretion in limiting Mr. Kanarek’s cross-examination to the rest of this morning.
I think he has had a fair time to cross-examine this witness on every element of this case that is pertinent to the issues in this case.
THE COURT: Do you wish to respond, Mr. Kanarek?
MR. KANAREK: First of all, I would like the record to reveal, your Honor, that I did not approach Mr. Stovitz about a week about the two or three-day estimate. I don’t know what he is talking about.
MR. STOVITZ: You told me it would be two or three days.
THE COURT: That doesn’t make any difference anyway.
MR. KANAREK: No. But the record should be as accurate as possible.
I have certain subject matter that I have outlined, and when I have finished, then I will be through.
THE COURT: I have no desire to foreclose any counsel from intensive and extended cross-examination, if that is what he wants to do. On the other hand, I think that possibly an estimate now would be of great help to the Court and other counsel.
MR. KANAREK: Yes, your Honor.
I would think—you see, if I may say this, your Honor—
I know I have stated this before and I believe a lot of this could be short-circuited if the prosecution would do what I believe is realistic, that is, to stipulate—
THE COURT: Certainly every case would be shortened if the opposition were willing to stipulate their case away.
Let’s not waste time talking about that.
MR. KANAREK: I think, your Honor, we can as lawyers agree, certainly as a matter of law she is an accomplice at this point.
THE COURT: Mr. Kanarek, all I want to hear from you is if you have an estimate.
MR. KANAREK: Since your Honor is asking me I would say—I would say—the best way I can put it in this case, it could possibly be several days.
THE COURT: Well, of course it could possibly be a month, but it isn’t going to be.
MR. KANAREK: Well, what I am saying is I am under the orders of the Court, there is subject matter here which—
THE COURT: I think you have to bear in mind one thing, Mr. Kanarek, Mr. Fitzgerald made a very extensive cross-examination in this case and covered a good many, if not all of the points, that you are now covering and there is a limit to how many times you can go over the same ground.
You are approaching that limit.
MR. KANAREK: Very well, as I say I don’t believe that I have.
THE COURT: Now, if you intend to go until I stop you, rest assured that I will stop you.
MR. KANAREK: No, I don’t intend to go until you stop me.
I might point this out to the Court, while we are at the bench, I make a motion, your Honor, that we have an evidentiary hearing—
THE COURT: That is what we are having now, that is what this trial is.
MR. KANAREK: I am talking about Mr. Bugliosi’s very cavalier attitude in connection with the discovery of Mrs. Kasabian.
Mr. Bugliosi made a—
THE COURT: I don’t want to get off into that subject.
MR. KANAREK: In other words, I would like testimony.
THE COURT: Just bear in mind what I told you about the cross-examination.
I do not intend to foreclose any counsel as long as he seems to be doing something, but yesterday, I must say, you seemed to be wandering very aimlessly and slowly. We wasted a good part of the day as far as I am concerned.
Today things have picked up a bit, but you just cannot go over the same ground endlessly.
MR. KANAREK: Your Honor, may I make this motion:
I make the motion that Mr. Bugliosi be sworn because we have certain statements that have been made by this witness, we only have been given those statements in very recent days.
Mr. Bugliosi deigned to—
THE COURT: I don’t know what you’re talking about. You put it in the form of a written motion and file it with the Court, Mr. Kanarek, and support it with some kind of declaration or affidavit.
Let’s get on with the trial.
(The following proceedings were had in open court in the presence and hearing of the jury:)
THE COURT: Let’s proceed, Mr. Kanarek, ask the question.
Q. BY MR. KANAREK: Mrs. Kasabian, would you tell us from what period of time until—I will withdraw that.
You have told us that you and your husband and Mr. Melton were planning a trip to South America.
A. Yes.
Q. Now, for what period of time were you planning this trip to South America, Mrs. Kasabian?
A. Well, they had been planning it for quite a while.
Q. Pardon?
A. They had been planning it for quite a while.
Q. In connection with this trip, was this trip discussed by you, your husband and Mr. Melton at a time—I will withdraw that and ask you this:
When was the last time you discussed this trip with your husband and Mr. Melton prior to the time that you went to the Spahn Ranch?
A. I don’t know.
Q. Well, would you give us an estimate of—
A. The last time we spoke about it?
Q. Yes, prior to the time that you went to the Spahn Ranch.
A. I don’t know when the last time was.
Q. Well, you have no idea as to what time that would be in connection with the time when you went to Spahn Ranch?
A. It seems that we were always talking about it, so maybe the day I left was the last time. I am not sure.
Q. The day you left was the last time?
A. I am not sure but it could have been.
Q. And you knew when you went to the Spahn Ranch that your husband and Mr. Melton were thinking about going to South America?
A. Yes.
MR. KANAREK: May I approach the witness, your Honor?
THE COURT: You may.
(Mr. Kanarek shows a photograph to Mr. Bugliosi and Mr. Stovitz.)
BY MR. KANAREK:
Q. Now, Mrs. LaBianca—Mrs. Kasabian—I show you a picture and ask you, Mrs. Kasabian—
MR. FITZGERALD: May we have for the record the number of the exhibit?
MR. KANAREK: It is Exhibit No. 91, your Honor.
MR. STOVITZ: Now, may counsel comply with the Court’s request previously to put it down on the witness box?
MR. KANAREK: Well, your Honor, I don’t believe that the jurors wish to see it at this time.
THE COURT: He may hold it, Mr. Stovitz, as I indicated.
BY MR. KANAREK:
Q. Now, directing your attention, Mrs. Kasabian, to this picture.
Do you recall everything that you did on what you have termed the second night?
MR. STOVITZ: Just a moment.
I object to that question, your Honor. The showing of this picture to this witness has nothing to do with that question.
MR. KANAREK: It most certainly does, your Honor. I don’t see how Mr. Stovitz—
MR. STOVITZ: Then I submit that that question is unintelligible if you show the witness the picture at the same time.
THE COURT: The objection is sustained.
MR. KANAREK: Q. Mrs. Kasabian, directing your attention to this picture. You tell us that on the night in question, the second night, you considered that you were a witch; correct?
MR. BUGLIOSI: It has no relation to the picture, your Honor. The same objection.
THE COURT: Overruled.
You may answer.
THE WITNESS: Yes, I guess so.
MR. KANAREK: Q. You considered that you were a witch; right?
A. Yes.
Q. And is your state of mind such that witches have supernatural powers?
A. That is what I thought, but I didn’t.
Q. You were a witch that did not have supernatural powers; is that correct?
A. Right.
Q. Would you tell us what your characteristics as a witch were?
MR. STOVITZ: May the record show, your Honor, that counsel is displaying Exhibit No. 91 to this witness for about a minute and a half with no relevancy to the picture at all?
MR. KANAREK: Well, your Honor, I disagree with that statement.
THE COURT: Let’s proceed.
MR. KANAREK: May I have an answer to the question?
MR. STOVITZ: May the picture be lowered. Counsel?
MR. KANAREK: Your Honor, if your Honor please, I am certain your Honor realizes that the jury at this time—
THE COURT: That is enough, Mr. Kanarek; and also you, Mr. Stovitz.
Now, you have interrupted enough times, and I have told you, I have told both of you.
MR. STOVITZ: I make the objection.
THE COURT: If you have an objection, you may make the objection.
State it with the grounds.
MR. STOVITZ: The last questions asked of this witness had nothing to do whatsoever with the showing and displaying of this photograph to this witness or to the Court.
THE COURT: Your objection is overruled.
Let’s proceed.
MR. KANAREK: May I have an answer to that question, your Honor?
THE COURT: Reframe the question.
MR. KANAREK: Q. Would you tell us, Mrs. Kasabian, as to what you thought your powers as a witch were on what you have termed the second night?
MR. STOVITZ: I object to the question. It assumes facts not in evidence, that she believed she had any powers as a witch, your Honor.
THE COURT: Overruled.
THE WITNESS: [illegible] I didn’t have any powers.
MR. KANAREK: You had no powers as a witch?
A. Right.
Q. I see.
Well, then, when you tell us that on the second night you thought you were a witch, what do you mean by that, Mrs. Kasabian?
A. I was made to believe I was a witch right from the beginning. So, I don’t know if I thought on the second night, “I am a witch.” I don’t know. I don’t recall those kind of thoughts.
Q. I see.
You were made to believe that you were a witch right from the beginning?
A. Yes.
Q. And you believed you were a witch? Is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. And you believed you were a witch because somebody made you believe you were a witch?
A. Well, not physically made me believe. They always said, “You are a witch,” you know, “we are all witches,” and things like that.
Q. They said what?
A. That we are all witches, that I am a witch, they are a witch.
Q. So, when you say that you believed that you were a witch, what did you believe that your capacity was? What did you believe you could do as a witch?
MR. STOVITZ: I object to the question, your Honor. It has no relationship whatsoever to this photograph.
I object to counsel displaying this photograph to the witness when the questions bear no relation to the photograph.
THE COURT: The question has already been answered. Sustained.
Place the photograph face down, Mr. Kanarek.
MR. KANAREK: Yes, sir.
Q. Directing your attention to this photograph which I have now placed face down, Mrs. Kasabian.
Did you see the scene that is depicted in that photograph?
A. No.
Q. Pardon?
A. No.
Q. Did you see it as a witch?
A. No.
Q. Now, then, could you tell us when you say that you thought you were a witch—I will withdraw that.
When you say that you were in fact a witch, what do you mean by that?
MR. BUGLIOSI: Objection, asked and answered.
THE COURT: Sustained.
BY MR. KANAREK:
Q. Directing your attention to your state of mind, Mrs. Kasabian, as a witch, what did that mean to you on the second night when you thought you were a witch?
MR. BUGLIOSI: Same objection.
THE COURT: Sustained.
BY MR. KANAREK:
Q. Now, you had conversation with Mr. Breckenridge concerning your capacity as a witch, is that correct?
A. Yes, I think so.
Q. And did you indicate—did you tell Mr. Breckenridge that you had powers as a witch?
A. No, I don’t recall that.
Q. What did you tell Mr. Breckenridge that your powers were as a witch?
A. I don’t recall telling him that I had any powers.
Q. Well, in your discussions with Mr. Breckenridge concerning your being a witch—
THE COURT: You may resume your examination from counsel table, Mr. Kanarek.
(Mr. Kanarek returns to counsel table.)
BY MR. KANAREK:
Q. —what did you tell him, Mrs. Kasabian?
A. I just remember telling him that I was a witch.
Q. What else did you tell him other than the fact that you were a witch?
MR. BUGLIOSI: Too broad a question, your Honor, I object on that ground, it’s too broad a question.
THE COURT: Well, if you are talking about a specific conversation the question is all right. It’s ambiguous, sustained.
BY MR. KANAREK:
Q. I am speaking of a specific conversation that you had with Mr. Breckenridge while you were on the trip to Taos, New Mexico?
A. I remember telling him that my name was Yana.
MR. BUGLIOSI: May I inquire, your Honor, are we talking about this witch conversation now, or what? I don’t know.
I cannot tell by his question what he is addressing her attention to.
Again I object. It is ambiguous and too broad.
THE COURT: You should fix the conversation more definitely, Mr. Kanarek.
MR. KANAREK: Yes, your Honor.
THE COURT: So we can tell what the answer is.
BY MR. KANAREK:
Q. Mrs. Kasabian, when you spoke with Mr. Breckenridge on your trip to Taos, New Mexico, did you have more than one conversation with Mr. Breckenridge concerning your witchcraft?
A. I did not have any witchcraft. I didn’t really know what a witch was.
Q. You didn’t?
A. And I still don’t.
Q. Then you were having a delusion when you told them that you were a witch, is that right?
A. Yes, more or less.
Q. Pardon?
A. Yes.
Q. And therefore—therefore—I withdraw that.
Then during the entire time when you thought that you were a witch, Mrs. Kasabian, you were having a delusion, is that correct?
MR. BUGLIOSI: Calls for a conclusion, your Honor.
THE COURT: Sustained.
BY MR. KANAREK:
Q. Would you say, Mrs. Kasabian, that you had feelings about being a witch at times when you took LSD?
A. No.
Q. At any time when you took LSD did you feel that you were a witch during the time you were on a trip?
MR. BUGLIOSI: Asked and answered.
THE COURT: Sustained.
BY MR. KANAREK:
Q. Now, you have told us, Mrs. Kasabian, that when you took LSD you had all kinds of strange hallucinations in your mind, right?
A. No, they were mostly visual hallucinations.
Q. They was mostly visual?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. But they are not strange to you?
A. I don’t understand what you mean by strange.
Q. Well, may I ask you, at times when you thought you were a witch were you hallucinating?
MR. BUGLIOSI: Asked and answered, your Honor.
THE COURT: Sustained.
BY MR. KANAREK:
Q. Well, have you had any hallucinations, Mrs. Kasabian, wherein you thought you were a witch?
MR. BUGLIOSI: Repetitious, your Honor.
MR. KANAREK: Your Honor, that has not been asked.
I used the word “illusion,” your Honor. The word hallucination has not been used.
THE COURT: Sustained.
BY MR. KANAREK:
Q. At times, Mrs. Kasabian, when you had taken LSD, have any of these visual things that you have seen involve witchcraft?
A. I don’t know what witchcraft is so I cannot tell you.
Q. Well, at times when you had taken LSD have these hallucinations involved visual effects of your being a witch?
MR. BUGLIOSI: Asked and answered.
THE COURT: You may answer.
THE WITNESS: No.
BY MR. KANAREK:
Q. Then at the time when you were talking to Mr. Breckenridge you had left the Spahn Ranch, right?
A. Right.
Q. Now, at that time when you spoke with Mr. Breckenridge you thought you were a witch?
MR. BUGLIOSI: Asked and answered, your Honor.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. KANAREK: This is foundational, your Honor.
THE COURT: The objection is sustained.
BY MR. KANAREK:
Q. Well, at the time, Mrs. Kasabian, when you spoke with Mr. Breckenridge and told him that you were a witch and you in fact thought you were a witch, you certainly were not at the Spahn Ranch, correct?
A. Right.
Q. And you were not under the influence of anyone, right?
A. No.
Q. You were under the influence of someone?
A. My thinking was.
Q. Your thinking was? I see.
And your thinking was that at that time your thinking was dictated by someone else?
A. No, I still had thoughts that were put into me when I was back at the Ranch.
Q. I see.
Now, directing your attention to before you ever went to the Ranch, you had been to many communes, is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And directing your attention before you went to the Ranch, you had studied witchcraft, is that correct?
A. No.
Q. Before you ever went to the Ranch, Mrs. Kasabian, had you read books about witches?
A. No.
Q. Well, you hesitate.
A. Well, I remember a book but it was not about witches.
Q. Well, my question is concerning witches?
A. No.
Q. Before you went to the Ranch?
A. No, I never read a book.
Q. You never read a book before you went to the Ranch?
A. About witchcraft.
Q. I see, and at the time—at the time that you—when you and your husband and Mr. Melton were in the Topanga Canyon area did you and your husband and Mr. Melton discuss witchcraft?
A. No.
Q. Did you at the time you were in any communes, prior to the time that you went to Topanga Canyon, thinking of all the communes you have been in throughout the United States, at any time did you discuss the occult?
MR. STOVITZ: What?
MR. BUGLIOSI: Ambiguous question.
MR. KANAREK: Occult, o-c-c-u-l-t.
MR. BUGLIOSI: Unintelligible, your Honor.
THE COURT: Do you understand the question?
THE WITNESS: Yes.
THE COURT: You may answer.
THE WITNESS: Well, I know when I was living in Taos, there was a group of people living down by the Hot Springs in a great big cave. I never went into the cave but I was told these people were practicing witchcraft.
They had a cauldron and all sorts of things.
BY MR. KANAREK:
Q. And this was before you went to the Spahn Ranch, right?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, then, directing your attention to other areas of the United States, you have been in communes in these areas where you have considered the subject of witchcraft, isn’t that right?
MR. STOVITZ: Object to the question, your Honor. She was never in that commune where they had the cauldron, your Honor, and this is a characterization of her testimony.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q. Well, directing your attention to other communes that you have been in. Have you engaged in studies and discussions concerning the workings of the human mind, Mrs. Kasabian?
MR. STOVITZ: I object to the question as immaterial, irrelevant and having nothing to do with the issues in this case.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. KANAREK: Q. One of the reasons that you took LSD, Mrs. Kasabian, is because, from your viewpoint, it expanded your mind? Is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Pardon?
A. Yes.
Q. And it allowed you to look into areas of thinking that you couldn’t see without taking the LSD; is that right?
MR. BUGLIOSI: Calls for a conclusion, your Honor.
THE COURT: Overruled.
THE WITNESS: I don’t quite understand your question.
MR. KANAREK: Q. Well, was one of your purposes for taking LSD, was one of these purposes to expand your thinking powers so that you could think and see things, visual effects, as you have told us, that you couldn’t see without the benefit of LSD?
A. I still don’t quite understand.
Q. You don’t understand that question?
A. No.
Q. Was one of the purposes that you took LSD so that you could expand your thinking powers and think and see things that you couldn’t see when you were not under the influence of LSD?
A. Possibly.
Q. Possibly?
A. Yes.
Q. The answer is yes, isn’t it?
A. Well, I took it mostly for God realization and self-realization, and if that means, you know, expanding my mind into unthinkable things, then I guess the answer is yes.
Q. And what do you mean by God-realization?
A. Well, to find out if there really is a God and who he is and what he does, and what my purpose here on earth is, and things of this nature.
Q. And that is why you took LSD?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, you stated you also took it for self-realization?
A. Yes.
Q. And what do you mean by that?
A. To find out who I am and what I am and where I am going.
Q. Now, then, directing your attention—and this was before you ever came to the Spahn Ranch; right?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, directing your attention to your experiences in connection with the God-realization.
Would you tell us what, as a result of taking LSD, you came to realize about God?
A. He is.
Q. Pardon?
A. He is.
Q. What do you mean by that?
A. God is, period.
Q. What do you mean by it when you say, “God is”?
A. He just is. He is the Supreme Being, he is the creator of this universe.
Q. I see.
And before you took LSD, you weren’t sure of it; is that correct?
A. I really had no religious background.
Q. You had no religious background?
A. Right.
Q. In your life?
A. Well, I had a little bit when, I was young, but nothing, you know—
Q. Nothing that amounted to anything until you took LSD; right?
A. Yes.
Q. Then you took LSD, and based upon the LSD you realized that God is.
A. Yes.
Q. Is that correct?
A. Yes, uh-huh.
Q. And that was before you ever went to the Spahn Ranch?
A. Yes.
Q. Would you tell us what occurred during the times you were under the influence of LSD that made you believe that God is?
MR. STOVITZ: I object to the—
THE WITNESS: That I can’t put into words.
MR. STOVITZ: I will withdraw my objection.
MR. KANAREK: Q. You can’t put it into words?
A. No.
Q. Well, would you put into words to the best of your ability?
MR. BUGLIOSI: That calls for testimony that would be irrelevant to the issues in this case, your Honor.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. KANAREK: Your Honor, it is very relevant.
THE COURT: The objection is sustained.
MR. KANAREK: Q. Now, while you were at the Spahn Ranch, you had already had—you had already taken LSD many, many times. Did you have this God-realization?
MR. BUGLIOSI: That is an ambiguous question, your Honor.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. KANAREK: Q. Did you think, while you were at the Spahn Ranch, that God is, as you have put it?
A. I think while I was at the ranch I more or less forgot about Him.
Q. You forgot about God at the Spahn Ranch?
A. Yes. I never thought about Him.
Q. Pardon?
A. I never thought about Him.
Q. In other words, from the instant you crossed over the boundary from Pasa—from Santa Susana Pass Road to the Spahn Ranch, you forgot about God; is that correct?
MR. STOVITZ: I object to the question as argumentative, your Honor.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. KANAREK: Q. At what point, Mrs. Kasabian, did you forget that God is, when you went to the Spahn Ranch?
A. I don’t know.
Q. Pardon?
A. Possibly before I got to the ranch. I don’t know.
Q. You say now possibly before you got to the ranch?
A. Yes.
Q. Well, if it was before you got to the ranch, would you tell us when it was that this change occurred?
A. I don’t know.
Q. Well, what caused the change before you got to the Spahn Ranch?
MR. BUGLIOSI: That is assuming a fact not in evidence.
MR. KANAREK: She just said it was.
MR. BUGLIOSI: She said possibly. She didn’t know.
Anything is possible, Mr. Kanarek.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. KANAREK: Q. When is it possible, Mrs. Kasabian, that you forgot that God is at a time prior to the time that you came to the Spahn Ranch?
MR. BUGLIOSI: Repetitious and ambiguous.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. KANAREK: Q. Mrs. Kasabian, did you forget about God before you came to the Spahn Ranch or afterwards?
MR. BUGLIOSI: Asked and answered.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. KANAREK: Q. Are you telling us, Mrs. Kasabian, that until this time in 1965 or 1966 when you first took LSD, that until that time you had no awareness of God; is that right?
A. I was searching. I really didn’t know.
Q. You were searching?
A. Yes.
Q. And you took LSD in your quest for God?
A. Yes.
Q. And you took peyote in your quest for God?
A. Yes.
Q. And you took hash in your quest for God?
A. Yes.
Q. And you smoked marijuana thousands of times in your quest for God?
MR. STOVITZ: I object to the question. That is not her testimony whatsoever.
THE COURT: Overruled.
You may answer.
THE WITNESS: What was your last question?
MR. KANAREK: Q. You smoked marijuana thousands of times in your quest for God; is that right?
A. Not only for God.
Q. Pardon?
A. Not only for God, but that is why I got into it.
Q. That is why you got into it?
A. Yes.
Q. Into what?
A. Smoking pot and taking drugs.
Q. You say that is not the only reason. What other reason was there?
A. Well, about smoking pot, I just really dug smoking it. It relaxed me.
Q. Made you enjoy sexual intercourse more?
MR. BUGLIOSI: That is badgering the witness, your Honor.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. KANAREK: Q. Then, what other reasons were there other than the search for God, Mrs. Kasabian?
A. I just told you.
MR. STOVITZ: Smoking marijuana, or what, Counsel?
I object to the question as ambiguous.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. KANAREK: Did you have any other reasons for taking peyote other than your quest for God?
A. No.
Q. That was your only reason?
A. Uh-huh, yes.
Q. Your only reason for taking hash was your quest for God?
A. No. I dug hash, I just liked, you know, the effect it gave me.
Q. You liked the effect it had given you?
A. Yes.
Q. Then, as far as LSD was concerned, the only reason you took that was your quest for God?
A. Yes.
Q. What about self-realization?
A. Well, that is intertwined.
Q. The two are together?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, you have, then, for a period of maybe since 1965 or ’66 taken all these drugs up until July of 1969. Then you go to the Spahn Ranch, and all of that four years of endeavor to acquaint yourself with God and to get self-realization, all of that is gone when you go to the Spahn Ranch; is that right?
MR. STOVITZ: Argumentative, your Honor.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. KANAREK: Q. After you went to the Spahn Ranch, Mrs. Kasabian, all of this seeking that you have done for God and self-realization, did all of that end when you went to the Spahn Ranch?
A. I don’t know exactly when it ended.
Q. Well, would you think for a moment and tell us when it ended?
A. Okay. (Pause.)
THE COURT: Ask your next question, Mr. Kanarek.
Let’s proceed.
MR. KANAREK: Q. When you were in Taos, New Mexico, you took LSD; right?
A. Yes.
MR. STOVITZ: Is this after the ranch or before the ranch, your Honor?
I object to the question as unintelligible.
THE COURT: Sustained.
BY MR. KANAREK:
Q. After you had been with Mr. Breckenridge, you went to Taos, New Mexico; is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And while you were in Taos, New Mexico, you took LSD?
MR. BUGLIOSI: That has been asked and answered over a week ago, your Honor.
THE COURT: Sustained.
BY MR. KANAREK:
Q. Now, Mrs. Kasabian, directing your attention to the LSD that you took after you left the Spahn Ranch.
Did you do that for God realization and self-realization?
A. I never took LSD after the Ranch.
Q. You never took LSD after the Ranch?
A. Uh-huh, yes.
Q. Then, directing your attention to Taos, New Mexico, when you were there. Did you take any drugs in Taos, New Mexico?
A. Not in Taos itself, no.
Q. Did you take any drugs after you left the Spahn Ranch?
MR. BUGLIOSI: Asked and answered over a week ago, your Honor.
THE COURT: Sustained.
BY MR. KANAREK:
Q. Did you, Mrs. Kasabian, in taking the drugs that you took after you left the Spahn Ranch, did you take them for God realization and self-realization?
A. I am not really sure. I am not sure.
Q. You are not sure?
A. Uh-huh, yes.
Q. You mean you don’t know why you took it?
A. No.
Q. Pardon?
A. No, I don’t.
Q. You took them for the same reason that you always took them, because you dug them; is that right?
A. I don’t know why I took it that day.
Q. Pardon?
A. I don’t know why I took it that day.
Q. I see.
Are you telling us that every time you took LSD before that, before you were at the Spahn Ranch, you did it only for God realization and self-realization, for no other reason?
A. Also because I liked it.
Q. Also because you liked the LSD?
A. Sure.
Q. In other words, you liked the effect it gave you; is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. And yesterday you told us that you are thanking God for the immunity that you are getting in connection with the seven counts of murder and one count of conspiracy; you are thanking God, is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, is that the God that you have come to realize as the result of taking LSD?
A. No. I have realized him more.
Q. Pardon?
A. I have realized him more than the God the LSD showed me since I have been in jail.
MR. KANAREK: May that answer be read back, your Honor?
THE COURT: Read the answer.
(Whereupon the reporter reads the record.)
MR. KANAREK: I see.
Q. In other words, the short period of time that you are speaking of has shown you a God that is higher than the God of LSD?
A. Yes.
Q. Is that correct?
A. Yes, sort of, yes.
Q. But you are seeking to get out of jail, right?
MR. BUGLIOSI: Asked and answered several days ago, your Honor.
THE COURT: Sustained.
BY MR. KANAREK:
Q. Well, then, would you prefer to stay in jail the rest of your life and maybe you will retain your feeling towards this God that is above LSD.
MR. BUGLIOSI: Argumentative, compound, ambiguous.
THE COURT: Sustained.
BY MR. KANAREK:
Q. Mrs. Kasabian, are you putting us all on?
MR. BUGLIOSI: Your Honor, this is all argumentative.
THE COURT: Sustained.
BY MR. KANAREK:
Q. Mrs. Kasabian, are you telling us the truth, Mrs. Kasabian, when you tell us that you have now as a result of this short period of time in jail, since last December, that you have now come to realize what God is?
A. Yes.
Q. Pardon?
A. Yes.
Q. You are telling us the truth?
A. Yes.
Q. I see. And directing your attention to this truth that you are telling us, did that come about because of the fact that you are getting your freedom?
MR. BUGLIOSI: That is an ambiguous question, your Honor.
THE COURT: Sustained.
BY MR. KANAREK:
Q. Now, Mrs. Kasabian, when you left the Spahn Ranch after having been there for some five weeks you left because you were scared.
Is that a fair statement, Mrs. Kasabian?
MR. BUGLIOSI: It has been gone into ad nauseam, your Honor. I object on that ground, on the ground it has been asked and answered.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. KANAREK: May I have a moment, your Honor?
(Pause.)
BY MR. KANAREK:
Q. Now, Mrs. Kasabian, you have told us that you had—that while you were at—that while you were at the Tate residence in this period of time between the time that you did not see anybody hurt and the time that you did see somebody hurt, you changed your mind that the people there were not piggies; they were human.
Do you remember telling us that?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, the next night, the next night did you consider the people that you were going out to kill that night—
MR. STOVITZ: That assumes a fact that she was going to kill, your Honor, I object.
MR. KANAREK: May I finish the question?
MR. STOVITZ: I am sorry. Your Honor, I thought he had paused sufficient for me to object.
BY MR. KANAREK:
Q. Directing your attention, Mrs. Kasabian, to the people that you were going out to the next night, you tell us, did you consider those people to be piggies?
MR. STOVITZ: Are you finished now, Counsel?
MR. KANAREK: Yes.
MR. STOVITZ: I object to the question, your Honor, as improper cross-examination, a characterization of her testimony.
She never said she considered the people to be piggies. She never said she intended to go out and kill.
THE COURT: Overruled, you may answer.
THE WITNESS: I did not consider anybody a piggy any more.
BY MR. KANAREK:
Q. You did not?
A. No.
Q. Any more?
A. No.
Q. I see. After the first night you did not consider anyone a pig?
A. No.
Q. Then directing your attention to your conversation that you say you engaged in in the automobile, where you said, “Not that house, not that house,” at the time that you uttered those words you thought that Mr. True was in that house, is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And you did not quarrel about anything happening in the house next door, is that correct?
A. No.
Q. You had no quarrel with that?
A. No.
Q. You had no quarrel with the people in the house next door getting killed, did you?
A. No, I guess not.
Q. You really did not.
And, Mrs. Kasabian, you considered your state of mind was such that you considered the people in the house next door to be piggies, is that correct?
A. I don’t think so.
Q. Well, would you tell us what did you consider the people in the house next door to be then?
A. I don’t know.
Q. Pardon?
A. I don’t know.
Q. You don’t know?
A. They were just people.
Q. They were just people?
A. Yes.
Q. And you knew, your state of mind was such that these people in the house next door were going to be killed?
A. Yes.
Q. And you tell us you were along on this trip of your own free will, is that correct?
MR. STOVITZ: I object to the question, your Honor.
We have now learned there is another definition for the word “trip” besides journey.
I would like to know what context counsel is asking the question in.
THE COURT: Do you understand the question?
THE WITNESS: No, you will have to repeat it.
THE COURT: Reframe your question.
MR. KANAREK: May it be read, your Honor?
THE COURT: She does not understand the question.
MR. KANAREK: Oh, I’m sorry.
Q. BY MR. KANAREK: Mrs. Kasabian, directing your attention to this second night, Mrs. Kasabian, you were on that journey, if I may put it that way, you were on that journey of your own free will, is that correct?
A. What do you mean by my own free will?
Q. Well, do you understand the question?
A. Not entirely, no.
Q. What is there about the question that you don’t understand?
A. I don’t understand what you mean by my own free will.
Q. You don’t understand what those words mean?
A. Well, in a sense I was not under my own free will.
Q. Well, all that we are asking, Mrs. Kasabian, is that you just answer the question.
A. I think I just did.
Q. Pardon?
A. I think I just did.
Q. Well, you were not under any drug?
A. No.
Q. Is that right?
A. No.
Q. At this point you had put God aside, is that right?
A. Yes, I never thought of him.
Q. Pardon?
A. I never really thought of him.
Q. You did not think of God?
MR. BUGLIOSI: That is what she just said, Counsel. I object to the question as being repetitious.
MR. KANAREK: Well, your Honor, the witness—
THE COURT: Ask your question, Mr. Kanarek.
MR. KANAREK: The witness is just a little bit low, your Honor.
THE COURT: Keep your voice up.
Q. BY MR. KANAREK: Directing your attention, Mrs. Kasabian, to, let us say, when you came back to California after having been somewhere else, let us say on June the 27th or June 26th, 1969.
At that point you had God, is that right?
A. No, I don’t think I did.
Q. You did not have God at that time before you ever met anyone at the Spahn Ranch?
A. No, I think I let him go when I was back East.
Q. I see. Tell us when you let go of God.
A. I don’t know exactly when.
Q. Well, about when, back when you were back East did you let go of God?
A. I don’t know.
Q. Well, can you tell us about what month and year that was?
THE COURT: I will sustain my own objection.
Will counsel approach the bench?
(The following proceedings were had at the bench out of the hearing of the jury:)
THE COURT: Mr. Kanarek, you are just wasting time now.
It is obvious to me that you have no legitimate end to your cross-examination in mind. If you have you are saving it for some other time because you are just wasting time.
MR. KANAREK: May I respond to that?
THE COURT: You may in a minute.
MR. KANAREK: Yes.
THE COURT: The second thing is, when you resume after recess I expect you to be fully prepared to start your examination the minute this Court convenes, and not stand around for ten minutes like you did the last time, looking for exhibits and fumbling for your notes and standing there in dead silence.
We have no time to waste.
MR. KANAREK: I have a mechanical problem getting exhibits.
THE COURT: You get it during the recess.
MR. KANAREK: I can’t, your Honor, the clerk isn’t there.
THE COURT: He is here. I don’t want any time wasting.
MR. KANAREK: Your Honor, I am not wasting time.
THE COURT: Yes, you are.
MR. KANAREK: Counsel, your Honor—
THE COURT: I told you, I have warned you, I don’t expect to have to do that again.
Now, let’s bear that in mind.
All right, now, you may respond.
MR. KANAREK: Well, yes, your Honor, the fact of the matter is we have a witness on the witness stand who is obviously a mental case. There is no question—well, what I am saying is this, your Honor—
THE COURT: Mr. Kanarek, there is no point in making an argument to me like you were talking to a jury.
It does not impress me one bit. Now, if you have something directed to what I said to you, you may respond, otherwise, don’t waste my time.
MR. KANAREK: What I am trying to point out to the Court—
THE COURT: All right.
MR. KANAREK: —is that the prosecution opened up this entire subject. We cannot take the words—
THE COURT: I simply told you what I think at the moment.
Now, if you have some cross-examination you wish to continue with, you may do so.
I have not foreclosed your right to cross-examine, but I am certainly going to start sustaining objections of what I think is a sheer waste of time, confusing, misleading, and that is the way it is getting very rapidly.
We will adjourn until 2:00 p.m.
(The following proceedings were had in open court in the presence and hearing of the jury:)
THE COURT: Ladies and gentleman, do not converse with anyone nor form or express an opinion regarding the case until it is finally submitted to you.
The Court will adjourn until 2:00 p.m.
(Whereupon, an adjournment was taken to reconvene at 2:00 p.m., same day.)
2:05 P.M.
(The following proceedings occur in open court, all parties, counsel and jurors present:)
THE COURT: All parties, counsel and jurors are present.
You may continue, Mr. Kanarek.
MR. KANAREK: Yes. Thank you, your Honor.
LINDA KASABIAN,
the witness on the stand at the time of the recess, resumed the stand and testified further as follows:
CROSS-EXAMINATION (Resumed)
BY MR. KANAREK:
Q. Mrs. Kasabian, during the time that you were at the Spahn Ranch, Mrs. Kasabian, did you think that Mr. Manson was Jesus Christ?
A. Yes.
Q. Pardon?
A. Yes.
Q. And you thought this from the time you entered the Spahn Ranch until the time you left to go to Taos, New Mexico; is that right?
A. I stopped thinking it the day I left, yes.
Q. The day you left you stopped? Pardon?
A. Well, no. Actually, I realized who he really was at the Tate residence.
Q. Pardon?
A. I realized who he really is at the Tate residence.
Q. I see.
Now, did Mr. Manson ask you to go to the Tate residence?
A. Excuse me?
Q. Did Mr. Manson ask you to go to the Tate residence?
A. He told me to go with Tex.
Q. Mrs. Kasabian, did Mr. Manson tell you to go to the Tate residence?
A. No.
Q. Now, directing your attention to Mr. Manson, Mrs. Kasabian, at the time you were on the Tate premises, were you doing what Mr. Watson told you to do?
A. Yes.
Q. And Mrs. Kasabian, while you were on the Tate residence, you tell us that at some point you felt that these people were no longer piggies, they were humans?
A. Yes.
Q. Is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, after you felt that they were humans, you continued to do what Tex Watson wanted you to do, right?
A. No, everything seemed to hit me at once.
Q. What is that?
A. Everything seemed to hit me at once so I was not under Tex’s influence. I realized they were just people.
Q. You were not under Tex’s influence when you realized they were just people?
A. Yes.
Q. But you were still a witch at that time, is that right?
MR. BUGLIOSI: Your Honor, that assumes a fact not in evidence. She never said she was a witch.
THE COURT: Sustained.
BY MR. KANAREK:
Q. Were you in your mind a witch at the time after you realized that these people were human?
MR. BUGLIOSI: That is an ambiguous question, your Honor, I object on that ground.
THE COURT: Do you understand the question, Mrs. Kasabian?
THE WITNESS: I think so.
THE COURT: Overruled, you may answer it.
BY MR. KANAREK:
Q. Would you speak up, Mrs. Kasabian? You are getting your immunity now; would you please speak up?
MR. STOVITZ: I object to that statement. I ask the jury to be admonished to disregard it.
THE COURT: You know that is improper, Mr. Kanarek. You are not to repeat such comments.
The jury will be admonished to disregard it.
MR. KANAREK: May she be asked—
THE WITNESS: I am sorry, Mr. Kanarek, I have been talking for so long my voice is failing me.
THE COURT: Wait for the question.
BY MR. KANAREK:
Q. Have you been speaking so long that your mind is failing you?
THE COURT: Ask your next question, Mr. Kanarek.
MR. KANAREK: May I have an answer to that question, your Honor?
MR. STOVITZ: Argumentative.
THE COURT: Reframe your question.
BY MR. KANAREK:
Q. Mrs. Kasabian, have you been speaking so long that your mind is failing you?
MR. BUGLIOSI: Argumentative, your Honor.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. KANAREK: Then may I have an answer to that question.
THE COURT: Reframe it, Mr. Kanarek.
BY MR. KANAREK:
Q. Mrs. Kasabian, at the time—at the time when all of a sudden you realized, when you say, that those people were human, at that time, Mrs. Kasabian, were you a witch?
A. I was never a witch.
Q. You were never a witch?
A. No.
Q. I see.
So between the time during the time you were on the Spahn Ranch and in these two days at the Tate residence and the time when you went to Harold True’s house, on those days you were not a witch?
A. A witch—my conception of what a real witch is, no, I was never a witch.
Q. You were never a witch?
A. Right.
Q. I see, not even on those two days?
A. Right.
Q. Now, Mrs. Kasabian, directing your attention to your thinking in August and July of 1969, did you consider death to be a hallucination?
A. No.
Q. Pardon?
A. No.
Q. Did you tell Mr. Breckenridge in August of ’69, “Death is just a”—“is just a hallucination”?
MR. STOVITZ: I object to the question. It calls for hearsay, your Honor.
MR. KANAREK: Your Honor, this is not offered certainly for the truth of the fact asserted.
THE COURT: Overruled.
THE WITNESS: I don’t recall saying anything like that, no.
Q. BY MR. KANAREK: You don’t recall saying anything like that?
A. No, I don’t. I never even thought of death as a hallucination so I don’t think that statement is true.
Q. And did you tell that to the man in the desert, the tall man in the desert?
A. No, sir, I don’t believe I did.
MR. KANAREK: May I finish the question?
THE WITNESS: Excuse me.
Q. BY MR. KANAREK: Did you tell the tall man in the desert, the man that you now believe is Mr. Breckenridge, did you tell him that death is just a hallucination?
A. No, I don’t think I did.
Q. Did you tell the man in the desert, Mr. Breckenridge, it is just an illusion that your Mommy and Daddy put into your head? Your mind, your brain, your ego dies but your body, it can live forever if you are beautiful and you are a baby, you are big and beautiful.
Did you say words to that effect to the man in the desert?
MR. STOVITZ: I object to the question, your Honor. It calls for hearsay, it is immaterial and irrelevant
MR. KANAREK: It goes to this witness’ state of mind as to death, your Honor. It goes exactly to the heart of what this witness—
THE COURT: Overruled.
You may answer.
THE WITNESS: Yes, I believe I did say that.
MR. KANAREK: Well, then, you did say that death was an hallucination?
MR. STOVITZ: I object to the question, your Honor as being asked and answered, if she did say it.
THE COURT: Overruled.
You may answer.
THE WITNESS: I don’t know if I said death is an hallucination, but what you just read I know I said.
MR. KANAREK: I will read it completely so there is no question.
THE COURT: She said she said it. There is no need to read it again, Mr. Kanarek.
Let’s go on.
MR. KANAREK: Q. Well, Mrs. Kasabian, you have told us that when you have taken LSD you have seen death.
MR. STOVITZ: That is not what she has told us, Counsel, and I think the record speaks for itself as to what she has told us.
THE COURT: Objection sustained.
MR. KANAREK: Q. Mrs. Kasabian, at times when you have taken LSD, Mrs. Kasabian, has death been a part of the visual picture that was in your mind?
MR. BUGLIOSI: Asked and answered.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. KANAREK: Q. Now, Mrs. Kasabian, at a time when you were in the desert with Mr. Breckenridge, at a time when you were hitchhiking, did you, after a pickup truck had passed up you and Mr. Breckenridge, did you run after the truck and say to Mr. Breckenridge, “You see, I just killed them. I can do that because I am a witch”?
MR. STOVITZ: I object to the question, your Honor. It assumes a fact not in evidence, being immaterial and irrelevant, and calling for hearsay.
THE COURT: Read the question.
(The question was read by the reporter.)
THE WITNESS: No, sir.
THE COURT: Overruled.
THE WITNESS: No, that is not true.
MR. KANAREK: Q. Pardon?
A. No, that is not true, I never said that.
MR. BUGLIOSI: May I make a request at this time that you advise the jury that Mr. Kanarek’s questions are not evidence, that they are not to be considered as evidence.
I know this is repetitious, but by the nature of his question he is implying they are.
I think the jury should be told that questions are never evidence.
MR. KANAREK: That is not so. Just the opposite is true.
THE COURT: I don’t care for any colloquy.
Just proceed with your examination, Mr. Kanarek.
The jury will be fully instructed on the law at the close of the trial.
MR. KANAREK: Q. Did you, Mrs. Kasabian, after saying, “I can do that because I am a witch,” and after Mr. Breckenridge said, “How?” did you say, “It is easy, you just close your eyes and erase them, and when you open your eyes, poof, they are dead”?
MR. BUGLIOSI: I object. That is not in evidence. She just said she did not say that.
MR. KANAREK: This is cross-examination.
MR. STOVITZ: It isn’t an illusion. She didn’t say she did it, she said she didn’t say it.
THE COURT: You understand the English language as well as I, Mr. Stovitz. He is not referring to prior language. He is putting a question to the witness.
MR. STOVITZ: I beg to differ with the Court. He is assuming that she has a answered the previous question in the affirmative.
THE COURT: Read the question.
(The question was read by the reporter.)
THE COURT: The question is objectionable. The objection is sustained.
BY MR. KANAREK:
Q. Now, Mrs. Kasabian, subsequent—after, Mrs. Kasabian—after first you saying, “I can do that because I am a witch,” after—do you have those words in mind?
MR. BUGLIOSI: I object already to the form of the question, your Honor.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. KANAREK: I am asking whether she has those words in mind, your Honor.
THE COURT: The objection is sustained.
Ask your question, Mr. Kanarek.
BY MR. KANAREK:
Q. Mrs. Kasabian, having these words in mind.
“I can”—words that you uttered—“I can do that because I am a witch,” after those words were uttered by you, and Mr. Breckenridge uttered the word, “How”, did you then say, “It is easy, you just close your eyes and erase them, and when you open your eyes, poof, they are dead”?
MR. BUGLIOSI: Same objection.
MR. KANAREK: Did what I have just related occur?
MR. BUGLIOSI: Same objection, your Honor.
The first five or six clauses of the question assume facts not in evidence.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. KANAREK: Your Honor, I am incorporating it all in one question.
THE COURT: The objection is sustained.
BY MR. KANAREK:
Q. Did you, Mrs. Kasabian, out there on the desert with Mr. Breckenridge, utter the words, “It is easy, you just close your eyes and erase them, and when you open your eyes, poof, they are dead”? Did you utter those words or the substance reflected by those words?
A. No.
Q. Out on the desert?
A. No.
Q. Did you state out on the desert, Mrs. Kasabian, in Mr. Breckenridge’s presence, “It is like, have you ever died on acid or something”?
A. No.
Q. Pardon?
A. No, I don’t recall that.
Q. You don’t recall that?
A. No.
Q. You mean you might have said it?
MR. STOVITZ: Objected to as argumentative, your Honor.
THE COURT: Sustained.
BY MR. KANAREK:
Q. Now, Mrs. Kasabian, in your mind, Mrs. Kasabian, have you ever considered that you have died on acid?
MR. BUGLIOSI: That is an ambiguous question, your Honor. Died on acid?
THE COURT: Sustained.
BY MR. KANAREK:
Q. Mrs. Kasabian, in your mind, have you ever considered that you have died as a result of acid?
MR. BUGLIOSI: Same objection.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. KANAREK: Your Honor, may we approach the bench?
THE COURT: No, it won’t be necessary.
Let’s proceed.
BY MR. KANAREK:
Q. Mrs. Kasabian, in your mind, have you ever had an illusion, an hallucination, while you were under the influence of acid or LSD that you died?
MR. BUGLIOSI: Same objection.
THE COURT: You may answer it.
THE WITNESS: Yes.
BY MR. KANAREK:
Q. Did you tell Mr. Breckenridge, Mrs. Kasabian,—and this is out in the desert in New Mexico after you left the Spahn Ranch—did you tell Mr. Breckenridge that “It didn’t matter if pigs were killed because they were going through changes, they would be incarnated as beautiful people that much sooner”?
Did you tell that to Mr. Breckenridge?
A. No.
Q. Now, Mrs. Kasabian, in these various other communes that you have been in, have you discussed and philosophized about life and death?
I mean, I am speaking of before you ever came to the Spahn Ranch.
MR. BUGLIOSI: I object, your Honor—
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q. BY MR. KANAREK: Now, as you testified there, Mrs. Kasabian, is your state of mind such that you recognize that you are under penalty of perjury?
A. I don’t understand.
Q. You don’t understand what I mean?
A. Uh-uh.
Q. Has anyone explained to you since you have taken the witness stand about the penalty of perjury?
A. I think my attorney did.
Q. What did he tell you about it?
MR. FLEISCHMAN: Objection, your Honor—
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q. BY MR. KANAREK: What is your understanding of the penalty of perjury, Mrs. Kasabian?
A. I believe Mr. Stovitz told me one day that in a capital case if you tell a lie and they prove it, or whatever, well, it is a capital offence, and, I don’t know, I guess you will be charged with everything.
Q. What is that?
A. You will be charged with the original things.
Q. You will be charged with the original things?
A. Yes.
Q. And this is what Mr. Stovitz told you about the penalty of perjury?
A. I think so, yes.
Q. I see. So that as you sit there on the witness stand you feel that you have this penalty of perjury, so therefore you must tell the truth?
A. I don’t understand.
Q. Well, are you telling the truth now because you are under this penalty of perjury?
A. No, I have been telling the truth all along.
Q. You mean even though you just started thinking about the penalty of perjury since you got your immunity?
MR. BUGLIOSI: Assumes facts not in evidence.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q. BY MR. KANAREK: When did you start thinking about the penalty of perjury, Mrs. Kasabian?
MR. STOVITZ: That assumes facts not in evidence that she ever did.
MR. KANAREK: I will subscribe to that.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. STOVITZ: May Mr. Kanarek’s remarks be stricken and the jury admonished to disregard Mr. Kanarek’s remarks?
THE COURT: They will be stricken. The jury is admonished to disregard them.
Q. BY MR. KANAREK: Mrs. Kasabian, I will ask you do you know what perjury means, may I ask you, what do you consider perjury?
A. To lie.
Q. Pardon me?
A. To lie.
Q. Now, what do you consider to be the penalty of perjury in your mind?
A. I really don’t know.
Q. You don’t know?
A. In this case I imagine—
Q. Not what you imagine, what you know.
Would you tell us what you know—
MR. BUGLIOSI: Your Honor, that calls for a legal conclusion.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. KANAREK: I am asking what she knows.
MR. STOVITZ: She started to answer in her mind and she was cut off. I submit the witness should be allowed to answer the question.
THE COURT: Objection sustained.
Q. BY MR. KANAREK: Would you tell us, in your mind, Mrs. Kasabian, what do you consider to be the penalty of perjury?
A. Well, I only know referring to this case here now that I will be charged with the original charges.
Q. And under what conditions will you be charged with the original charges?
A. If I tell a lie.
Q. And who is going to decide whether you are charged with the original charges?
A. I don’t know, I guess the Judge and the jury. I don’t know.
Q. Or Mr. Stovitz or Mr. Bugliosi, right?
A. Yes.
Q. These people who are granting you the immunity, they are the ones who are going to decide whether you are lying.
MR. BUGLIOSI: That is a misstatement, your Honor.
MR. KANAREK: I am asking about her state of mind.
MR. BUGLIOSI: The Court grants immunity, your Honor, not the District Attorney.
We only ask the Court.
MR. KANAREK: I am asking about her mind.
THE COURT: The objection is sustained. Go to another question.
Q. BY MR. KANAREK: Mrs. Kasabian, is your state of mind such that if you don’t tell the truth, that Mr. Bugliosi and Mr. Stovitz will charge you with whatever, or with something?
A. Yes, I think so.
Q. And your state of mind is that Mr. Bugliosi and Mr. Stovitz are the prosecutors and they are the ones to decide whether you will be prosecuted, right?
A. Yes.
Q. And so not only in connection with this case, but if you lie on the witness stand Mr. Stovitz and Mr. Bugliosi will be the ones that decide, correct?
A. I guess so.
Q. Now, you have told us, Mrs. Kasabian, that Mr. Manson, directing your attention to the night you went to the Tate residence, Mr. Manson told you to go nowhere, is that correct?
MR. BUGLIOSI: That is a misstatement, your Honor.
MR. KANAREK: I am asking her, your Honor, this is cross-examination.
THE COURT: You may answer.
THE WITNESS: Told me to go nowhere?
BY MR. KANAREK:
Q. Yes.
A. No, he never said “Go nowhere.”
Q. Did Mr. Manson tell you to go to the Tate residence?
MR. BUGLIOSI: Asked and answered.
THE COURT: Sustained.
BY MR. KANAREK:
Q. Did Mr. Manson tell you to drive down the hill?
A. No.
Q. Did Mr. Manson tell you to drive out on the freeway?
A. No.
Q. When you were in that car riding with Mr. Watson, you were riding in that car of your own free will, is that correct, Mrs. Kasabian?
MR. BUGLIOSI: That has been gone into, your Honor. I object—
MR. KANAREK: No, it hasn’t. I have not asked that. The record will not reveal that I asked that.
THE COURT: You may answer.
THE WITNESS: I was there because Charlie told me to go.
BY MR. KANAREK:
Q. You were not there of your own free will then, is that right?
A. No, I guess not.
Q. You were there against your will, is that right, Mrs. Kasabian?
A. No, I did not protest it.
Q. Pardon?
A. I did not protest going.
Q. Well, when you were arrested, Mrs. Kasabian, that was against your will, right?
You remember, back in New Hampshire when you were arrested?
A. Yes.
Q. That was against your will. You would rather not have had it happen.
But the force was overwhelming and you had to resist—you had no power to resist that force and so you are here today, right?
MR. STOVITZ: That is objected to as asking for a legal conclusion, your Honor.
THE COURT: The objection is sustained.
BY MR. KANAREK:
Q. Mrs. Kasabian, at the time that you were on the freeway you were there on the freeway riding in that car because you wanted to be there at that point and time, right?
MR. STOVITZ: Object to the question as ambiguous. There were four different occasions she was riding on the freeway, your Honor.
THE COURT: Sustained.
BY MR. KANAREK:
Q. Directing your attention, Mrs. Kasabian, on what you have yourself termed the first night after you left the Spahn Ranch, and you had not yet been to the Tate residence, as you were riding on the freeway you were riding in that automobile of your own free will, is that right?
MR. BUGLIOSI: Your Honor, I object on the ground it is ambiguous. “Free will” is a metaphysical term that no one can agree on a definition for; certainly I don’t think this witness can.
THE COURT: Sustained.
BY MR. KANAREK:
Q. At the time that you rode on the freeway, Mrs. Kasabian, after having left the Spahn Roach, before you got to the Tate residence, you were in that automobile and riding along because you wanted to be there, is that correct?
A. While I was on the freeway?
Q. Yes.
A. Yes.
Q. You wanted to be in that car at that time?
A. Yes.
Q. Nobody forced you to get into that car, did they, Mrs. Kasabian?
A. Not with physical force, no.
Q. Well, my question is, did anyone force you to get in that car?
MR. BUGLIOSI: What type of force? It’s ambiguous.
What type of force, mental, emotional, physical.
I object on that ground.
THE COURT: You may answer.
THE WITNESS: Yes, I was forced mentally to get into that car.
BY MR. KANAREK:
Q. All right, now, would you tell us, Mrs. Kasabian, how you were forced mentally to get into that car?
A. Charlie told me to.
Q. Charlie told you to?
A. Yes.
Q. I see, and is that the force?
A. Yes.
Q. That is the force, Charlie told you to?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, as you drove along in that automobile on the freeway, having left the Spahn Ranch, Charlie’s force was holding you in the automobile, is that right?
MR. STOVITZ: Object to it as argumentative, your Honor.
THE COURT: It is ambiguous. Sustained.
BY MR. KANAREK:
Q. May I ask you, was Charlie’s force holding you in the automobile as you drove along on the freeway?
A. I don’t quite understand.
Q. You don’t understand that question?
A. No.
Q. After you left the Spahn Ranch, Mrs. Kasabian, you were on the freeway?
A. Yes.
Q. Before you went there to the Tate residence was Charlie’s force holding you in that car?
THE COURT: It is ambiguous, sustained.
BY MR. KANAREK:
Q. Mrs. Kasabian, as you were in the automobile on your way to the Tate residence, having left the Spahn Ranch, was any force holding you in the automobile?
MR. BUGLIOSI: Ambiguous, your Honor.
THE COURT: Sustained.
BY MR. KANAREK:
Q. What was the reason you stayed in the automobile, Mrs. Kasabian, after the automobile left the Spahn Ranch?
A. I don’t know. I don’t know how to answer your question.
Q. What do you mean you don’t know how to answer? You mean the words aren’t clear to you?
A. Why did I stay in the car? I wasn’t about to jump out of the car.
Q. Well, my question is why did you stay in the car?
A. And I just told you I was not about to jump out of the car. That is the only answer that comes to my head.
Q. And did you tell anybody you wanted to get out of the car?
A. No.
Q. Did you ask anybody to stop by the road, by the side of the road so you could get out?
A. No.
Q. So you were in the car of your own free will?
MR. BUGLIOSI: I object, again “free will”.
MR. KANAREK: I subscribe that free will in law, your Honor, is certainly an accepted couple of words.
THE COURT: Sustained.
BY MR. KANAREK:
Q. Mrs. Kasabian, at that time when you were in the car after it had left the Spahn Ranch were you in the car driving along the freeway because you wanted to be there?
MR. BUGLIOSI: Asked and answered.
THE COURT: You may answer.
THE WITNESS: Yes.
BY MR. KANAREK:
Q. And during the events, all of the events that occurred after you got to the Tate residence, all of those events you participated in then because you wanted to participate in them, is that correct?
MR. STOVITZ: Objected to as having been asked and answered on three occasions.
THE COURT: Overruled. You may answer.
THE WITNESS: I don’t understand, what events? I don’t understand your question.
BY MR. KANAREK:
Q. Directing your attention, Mrs. Kasabian, from the time you were on the freeway, having left the Spahn Ranch until the time, Mrs. Kasabian, when you, let us say, entered the freeway again coming back to the Spahn Ranch on the night that you went to the Tate residence, did you participate in all of those events because you wanted to participate?
MR. STOVITZ: That is objected to, your Honor, the word “participate” is ambiguous and compound.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q. Were you there doing the things, Mrs. Kasabian, that you did because you wanted to do them?
MR. BUGLIOSI: Your Honor, this has been gone into several times.
MR. KANAREK: It has not.
MR. BUGLIOSI: Several times before, this whole area, and I object on that ground. It is repetitious.
THE COURT: Overruled.
You may answer.
THE WITNESS: Yes, I guess so.
MR. KANAREK: Q. Because you wanted to do them; right?
A. Yes.
Q. And Mr. Manson had nothing to do with any kind of a religious force over you at that time, did he, Mrs. Kasabian?
MR. STOVITZ: Objected to, your Honor. This calls for a conclusion of this witness.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. KANAREK: Q. Well, Mrs. Kasabian, you tell us that, at this time, when you were living at the Spahn Ranch, at that time, you had seen God through LSD.
Was LSD the God, or the God that you had seen through LSD, your God on the night that you came to the Tate residence?
MR. STOVITZ: That is unintelligible.
MR. BUGLIOSI: Ambiguous.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. KANAREK: Q. What was your God on the night that you came to the Tate residence?
MR. BUGLIOSI: Assumes a fact not in evidence, your Honor.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. KANAREK: Q. Now, Mrs. Kasabian, you are now leaving—you contemplate—your state of mind is that you are going to leave custody very shortly; is that correct?
A. I guess so.
Q. Now, have you made any plans to get psychiatric help, Mrs. Kasabian, after leaving custody?
MR. STOVITZ: That assumes a fact not in evidence, that she needs psychiatric care, your Honor.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. KANAREK: I am just asking. This goes to her state of mind.
MR. STOVITZ: No. He asked her whether she is going to see a psychiatrist.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. KANAREK: Q. Mrs. Kasabian, have you discussed with Mr. Bugliosi and Mr. Stovitz, have you discussed your getting any psychiatric help after you leave custody?
MR. STOVITZ: Same objection, your Honor.
MR. KANAREK: I think it is most material, your Honor.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. KANAREK: On the ground that it is not material, your Honor?
THE COURT: Objection sustained.
Proceed.
Q. BY MR. KANAREK: Mrs. Kasabian, directing your attention to your own state of mind. Do you feel, Mrs. Kasabian, that you are mentally sick?
MR. STOVITZ: This was covered yesterday, your Honor, and the witness answered that she didn’t feel that she was.
That was the exact question asked yesterday, your Honor, and the answer was no. I object to it as being repetitious.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. KANAREK: Your Honor, may we approach the bench on this matter?
THE COURT: No, sir.
Proceed.
MR. KANAREK: Q. Mrs. Kasabian, on how many occasions, Mrs. Kasabian, have you been in Mr. Manson’s presence alone, just you and Mr. Manson?
A. I don’t know how many times.
Q. Well, would you give us an estimate, please, of how many times?
A. I don’t know how many times.
Q. Well, you tell us that Mr. Manson had this great hold over you, Mrs. Kasabian. Would you tell us how many times—I mean, did it occur with just one glance, or did it occur over some period of time like 30 or 40 conferences or seances?
A. No.
Q. Well, tell us how many times you met Mr. Manson during the time that you were at the Spahn Ranch, how many times you met with him alone, just you and he?
A. I don’t have a number for you. I don’t know how many times.
Q. Well, was it more than 117?
A. I don’t know. I never counted those times.
Q. I see.
Was it less than 117?
A. I don’t know.
Q. You don’t know?
A. No.
Q. You have no idea of how many times it was?
A. Uh-huh, yes.
Q. Now, as a matter of fact, Mrs. Kasabian, the numbers of times that you were alone with Mr. Manson during this period when you were at the Spahn Ranch was no more than, say, two or three alone; correct?
A. Maybe. I’m not sure.
MR. KANAREK: I didn’t watch my watch completely, your Honor, but I think the witness—I think it is a fair statement that the witness must have hesitated some 10 or 15 seconds.
THE COURT: Your comment is unnecessary and uncalled for.
MR. KANAREK: I just want the record to reflect it, your Honor.
THE COURT: Proceed.
The jury is admonished to disregard the statement.
MR. KANAREK: Q. During the time—
THE COURT: Just a moment.
The jury is admonished to disregard Mr. Kanarek’s comments.
MR. KANAREK: I was just trying to make the record, your Honor, accurate.
THE COURT: You are making a record all right, Mr. Kanarek.
Let’s proceed.
MR. KANAREK: Q. Mrs. Kasabian, during these two or three times that you were alone with Mr. Manson, you spent all of your time making love, having intercourse, having different sexual acts between yourself and Mr. Manson; is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And so, this big power that Mr. Manson had over you, these two or three times, this all enveloping power that you are telling us about, occurred during some two or three times of love play; is that correct?
MR. STOVITZ: I object to the question as argumentative in form, your Honor.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. KANAREK: Q. The only time—pardon me. I will withdraw that.
The only times, Mrs. Kasabian, that you were ever with Mr. Manson alone is at times when you were having intercourse and other sexual activity with Mr. Manson; is that correct?
A. The only time I was alone with him?
Q. With Mr. Manson.
A. Was when we were making love?
Q. Yes.
A. No.
Q. Pardon?
A. No.
Q. In the two or three times you were with him, you were just making love?
A. No.
Q. All right. Would you tell us the total number of minutes, would you estimate for us the total number of minutes that you were in the presence of Mr. Manson alone, just you and Mr. Manson?
A. I don’t know. I never kept track of time.
Q. Time doesn’t mean anything to you?
A. Not—
MR. STOVITZ: Objected to as argumentative, your Honor.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. KANAREK: Q. During these two or three times that you were with him alone, Mrs. Kasabian, part of the time you were not making love; is that correct?
MR. BUGLIOSI: I object to the question. He is stating that they were together alone two or three times. She never testified to that. She says she doesn’t know. It could have been two or three times. He is stating it as a fact.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Ask your next question.
MR. KANAREK: During the times, Mrs. Kasabian, that you were alone with Mr. Manson, during those times, having those times in mind and having the times in mind when you were not—or having the portions of those times in mind when you were not engaged in love play, sexual activity, would you tell us what you and Mr. Manson were doing?
A. Would you repeat that? I was thinking of something else.
Q. What were you thinking of?
A. I was thinking of when I was alone.
Q. Pardon?
A. I was thinking of when I was alone with him, the time, and I wasn’t listening to your question.
MR. KANAREK: May the question be read, your Honor?
THE COURT: Reframe the question.
MR. KANAREK: Q. Having in mind the times, Mrs. Kasabian, when you were alone with Mr. Manson, and having in mind what you and Mr. Manson were doing at times when you were not making love, would you tell us what you and Mr. Manson were doing?
A. Talking.
Q. And the times when you were talking were portions of larger times when you were engaged in love making, and due to the fact that you were physically incapable of making love any more, you engaged in small talk with Mr. Manson?
MR. STOVITZ: Argumentative, your Honor.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. KANAREK: Q. You spoke with Mr. Manson at times when you were not actually having sexual intercourse with him; is that correct?
A. Yes, and during.
Q. And while you were having sexual intercourse with him, you also spoke with him?
A. Yes.
Q. Is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And directing your attention to the time when you were speaking with him and not engaging in sexual intercourse, at a time when you were alone with him, these were portions of times when you did, in fact, engage in sexual intercourse; is that correct?
MR. STOVITZ: I object to the question as unintelligible.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. KANAREK: Q. Every time you were alone with Mr. Manson, you had sexual relations with him; is that correct?
A. I think so, yes.
Q. All right.
And so, the only time you talked to Mr. Manson, the only time that Mr. Manson spoke with you, at a time when you and he were alone, was during periods of time when you had engaged in lovemaking, and so you were not physically together sexually but you were just passing the time for the next bit of intercourse or love play?
MR. BUGLIOSI: Ambiguous, your Honor.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. KANAREK: May I inquire, your Honor, as to what the grounds were?
MR. BUGLIOSI: Ambiguous.
THE COURT: Ambiguity, among other things.
BY MR. KANAREK:
Q. Now, when you and Mr. Manson were speaking, at times when you were having intercourse, would you tell us what you said and what did Mr. Manson say, while you were actually engaged in sexual activity.
A. During the act itself?
Q. During the act itself.
A. At the moment I don’t recall what was said.
Q. You don’t recall anything that was said by you or Mr. Manson?
A. Not during the act, no.
Q. I see.
When, in your view, is the act over?
MR. BUGLIOSI: Oh, your Honor, this is ridiculous.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. KANAREK: Your Honor, Mr. Bugliosi brought this entire subject to this courtroom.
THE COURT: The objection is sustained.
Ask your next question.
BY MR. KANAREK:
Q. Mrs. Kasabian, directing your attention to times, to these times you have spoken of when you were not actually in physical sexual contact of some type, would you tell us what you said and what Mr. Manson said?
A. Yes.
The first time we made love in the cave we were in the presence of other people.
Q. My question, Mrs. Kasabian—
A. I am just telling you. Excuse me.
Q. My question is when you and Mr. Manson were alone.
A. Oh, alone?
Q. Yes.
A. I can’t really think of anything.
Q. You can’t think of anything that was said between you and Mr. Manson when you and he were alone; right?
MR. BUGLIOSI: Your Honor, the word “alone” is rather ambiguous.
MR. KANAREK: It might be to Mr. Bugliosi, but I don’t think it is to anyone else in this courtroom, your Honor.
MR. BUGLIOSI: Within earshot?
THE COURT: Overruled.
THE WITNESS: I can’t think of anything.
MR. KANAREK: I see.
Q. Not one word?
A. No.
Q. Now, Mrs. Kasabian, you have—may I put it this way—before you ever came to the Spahn Ranch, it was your practice to engage in sexual activity in view of other people; is that correct?
MR. BUGLIOSI: That is objected to, your Honor.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. KANAREK: Your Honor, Mr. Bugliosi opened this subject up.
THE COURT: Sustained, Mr. Kanarek.
MR. KANAREK: May we approach the bench?
THE COURT: Yes, you may. I want to talk to you.
(Whereupon all counsel approach the bench and the following proceedings occur at the bench outside of the hearing of the jury:)
MR. STOVITZ: Your Honor, in view of the time, could we have a recess?
THE COURT: Just a moment.
I am going to warn each of you that I don’t want any more comments on the record.
That goes for you, Mr. Kanarek, and that goes for you, Mr. Stovitz, and each of the other counsel.
MR. KANAREK: Yes, your Honor.
THE COURT: I have had enough. When I rule on the objection or the motion, that is the end.
MR. KANAREK: All right. I shall certainly do everything I can to obey the Court’s orders.
But, your Honor, if I can make this point:
You see, this sexual—you see, your Honor, Mr. Bugliosi opened this subject of sexual activity up.
It is personally distasteful to me, very distasteful, to have to go into this in the courtroom.
Mr. Bugliosi, over our violent objection, opened it up.
THE COURT: You seem to be relishing it.
MR. STOVITZ: We only talked about one incident at the Spahn Ranch on direct examination. Mr. Fitzgerald did go into other things on his cross-examination.
Mr. Kanarek’s cross-examination is not only irrelevant, it is actually degrading.
THE COURT: It isn’t the degrading part that I am sustaining the objection to. It is the irrelevancy.
MR. KANAREK: Your Honor, the subject was opened up by Mr. Bugliosi.
THE COURT: Mr. Kanarek, I am not going to spend any time arguing with you about a ruling that is already made. If I made a mistake in ruling, I have made a mistake.
MR. KANAREK: I may say this: I don’t want—if I may put it this way—the fact that Mr. Bugliosi only goes into one, let us say, sex orgy—
THE COURT: I don’t want to go into this. We have covered it. I have ruled.
Is there anything else while we are up here?
MR. HUGHES: Yes.
I wonder if your Honor could clarify to the jury that it was not only Mr. Kanarek that you wanted to see at the bench but also the prosecutors and the other attorneys, because you did address your remarks, once we asked to come to the bench, I believe, to Mr. Stovitz and Mr. Kanarek.
THE COURT: I don’t think any clarification is necessary.
MR. HUGHES: I was thinking, your Honor—
THE COURT: He asked to approach the bench, and I said, “yes, I want to talk to you.”
MR. STOVITZ: May we have a recess? It is five-minutes to 3:00. It is very warm in this courtroom. Probably some of the colloquy has been brought on by the heat.
THE COURT: I don’t think the heat has anything to do with it, gentlemen. That is the reason that I mentioned it.
I think some of you are beginning to get a little bit lax, and I just want to again remind you that in a trial involving multiple parties and multiple counsel, you simply cannot have an orderly procedure if counsel interrupt each other or the witness, or if there is colloquy between counsel on the record or gratuitous comments are made, and I simply don’t intend to stand for it.
I said it before, and I say it again. You have had fair warning.
MR. KANAREK: Your Honor, I would like to just take respectful exception to the Court’s comment that I am relishing this examination because I am not.
THE COURT: That was a gratuitous comment on my part, Mr. Kanarek, but when you indicate, and I think with tongue in cheek, that it is very distasteful to you to conduct this line of examination, it appears to me perfectly obvious that it is otherwise.
MR. KANAREK: But, your Honor—
THE COURT: You have a right to make an examination—
MR. KANAREK: We fought all of these issues being part of this trial, as the original days of this trial will show.
THE COURT: We are going to take a recess now.
MR. KANAREK: —about the sexual aspects of this trial, your Honor, it was fought by us, we objected to any injection of sexual activity into this trial.
(The following proceedings were had in open court in the presence and hearing of the jury:)
THE COURT: Ladies and gentlemen, do not converse with anyone, or form or express any opinion regarding the case until it is finally submitted to you.
The court will recess for 15 minutes.
(Recess.)
THE COURT: All parties, counsel and jurors are present.
You may proceed, Mr. Kanarek.
MR. KANAREK: Yes, thank you, your Honor.
Q. Now, Mrs. Kasabian, directing your attention to this so-called hold that Manson had over you, Mrs. Kasabian.
This hold came about without any words being uttered by Mr. Manson.
A. No.
Q. Well, would you tell us what words Mr. Manson uttered that so swayed you that you went out and participated in seven murders?
MR. STOVITZ: That is objected to, your Honor, that she knew she was going to go out and participate in seven murders, your Honor.
THE COURT: Sustained.
BY MR. KANAREK:
Q. Would you tell us, Mrs. Kasabian, would you tell us what words Mr. Manson uttered that affected you so that you were under his spell?
MR. BUGLIOSI: Object on the ground that “spell” is ambiguous, your Honor.
THE COURT: Sustained.
BY MR. KANAREK:
Q. Do you know what it is, Mrs. Kasabian, to be under the spell of someone?
MR. BUGLIOSI: Calls for a conclusion, your Honor.
THE COURT: Sustained.
BY MR. KANAREK:
Q. May I ask, what does the word spell mean to you, Mrs. Kasabian?
A. A hypnotic trance.
Q. All right, now, directing your attention to your state of mind, were you in a hypnotic trance, where the one that is doing the trancing, and all of the hypnotism is Mr. Manson?
A. No, I was not in a hypnotic trance.
Q. Then what kind of a trance was it, then, that you were in?
MR. BUGLIOSI: Assuming a fact not in evidence.
THE COURT: Sustained.
BY MR. KANAREK:
Q. Were you in a trance, Mrs. Kasabian?
MR. BUGLIOSI: Calls for a conclusion.
THE COURT: Sustained.
BY MR. KANAREK:
Q. What does a trance mean to you, Mrs. Kasabian?
A. To be under the influence.
Q. To be under the influence?
A. Yes.
Q. And so were you in a trance as far as Mr. Manson was concerned?
A. Yes.
Q. All right, then, would you tell us what words Mr. Manson uttered to put you in this trance.
MR. BUGLIOSI: Assumes a fact not in evidence, that it was his words.
THE COURT: Sustained.
BY MR. KANAREK:
Q. It was not his words, Mrs. Kasabian, that put you in a trance?
A. It was everything about him.
Q. Pardon?
A. Everything about him.
Q. Everything about him?
Well, you have told us that you cannot remember any of the words that he spoke.
So now we have gone from the vocal, we are now departing from words.
Would you tell me what was it that—about him—that put you in this trance?
A. Everything, the way he spoke, the way he walked, he danced, the way he sang, the way he made love, just everything about him.
Q. All right, now, Tex made love, didn’t he?
A. Yes.
Q. And did Tex dance?
A. Yes.
Q. And did Tex sing?
A. Yes.
Q. And you made love to Tex before you ever saw Charlie Manson.
A. Yes.
Q. Right?
A. Yes.
Q. And so without Mr. Manson uttering any words at all you entered this trance, is that correct?
MR. BUGLIOSI: That is a misstatement of her testimony. She said it was a combination of everything.
THE COURT: Sustained.
BY MR. KANAREK:
Q. Mrs. Kasabian, directing your attention to your state of mind, was your state of mind such that, let us say, because as far as you were concerned, because of the drugs you had consumed, because of the LSD you had consumed, because of the peyote you had consumed, because of the hash, because of the marijuana that you smoke, that you could be put into a trance by a tree by the side of the road.
A. No.
Q. As a matter of fact, Mrs. Kasabian, your trance was self-induced, and it only depended upon what you happened to focus your particular eyes upon at any particular time.
MR. BUGLIOSI: Compound question.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q. BY MR. KANAREK: Well, Mrs. Kasabian, directing your attention to these other communes that you have been in, have you considered that you were put into a trance by other men and other women before you ever met Charlie Manson?
MR. STOVITZ: Unintelligible, your Honor.
THE COURT: Overruled, you may answer.
THE WITNESS: Nothing that I could recall at the moment.
Q. BY MR. KANAREK: All right.
A. I cannot recall anything at the moment.
Q. You cannot recall anything at the moment?
A. Yes.
Q. But you think maybe something like this did happen before?
A. I may have been swayed by somebody’s influence, yes.
Q. Pardon?
A. I may have been swayed by somebody’s influence.
Q. And have you ever been swayed, Mrs. Kasabian, by focusing your attention upon an object that had no life in it, like a chair or a table?
Have you ever at a time when you were taking drugs been swayed by such an object?
A. No.
Q. It is always a live object, is that right?
MR. STOVITZ: That is objected to. It has never been always a live object. It is a characterization of her testimony.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q. BY MR. KANAREK: Mrs. Kasabian, have you ever been—have you ever been swayed by an animal, a dog or a cat or some animal that you have considered to have some kind of power over you?
MR. STOVITZ: Irrelevant and immaterial, your Honor.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q. BY MR. KANAREK: Now, have you discussed, Mrs. Kasabian, have you discussed with Mr. Stovitz and Mr. Bugliosi before you ever came to this courtroom this trance that you have spoken of in this courtroom?
A. Yes.
Q. You have discussed it with Mr. Bugliosi and Stovitz?
A. Yes, I never called it a trance, though.
Q. What did you call it, Mrs. Kasabian?
A. Just the influence he had over me.
Q. The influence that he had over you?
A. Yes.
Q. I see. Are you sure it wasn’t an influence that you had over yourself?
MR. STOVITZ: Argumentative, your Honor.
THE COURT: Overruled.
THE WITNESS: I don’t quite understand that.
Q. BY MR. KANAREK: Well, Mrs. Kasabian, Mr. Manson was in this area, the Spahn Ranch area, with about 25 or 26 girls, right?
A. Yes.
Q. And Mr. Manson hardly knew that you lived, Mrs. Kasabian—
MR. STOVITZ: Calls for a conclusion, your Honor.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q. BY MR. KANAREK: Mrs. Kasabian, Mr. Manson had the attention of these other girls, is that correct?
MR. STOVITZ: Calls for a conclusion, your Honor.
THE COURT: It is ambiguous, sustained.
Q. BY MR. KANAREK: Now, Mrs. Kasabian, when you came to the Spahn Ranch you came to hide, right?
MR. STOVITZ: That is objected to, that has been asked and answered, your Honor.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. KANAREK: It is merely preliminary to this, your Honor.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. KANAREK: Very well.
Q. BY MR. KANAREK: Mrs. Kasabian, did you, after you came to the Spahn Ranch and engaged in this—in this hiding from your husband, after you came there, you had very little contact with Mr. Manson, is that correct?
A. No.
Q. Well, you had no words with him, he did not speak any words. You cannot remember any words that he said to you?
MR. STOVITZ: Objected to as argumentative, your Honor.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. STOVITZ: And a characterization of the evidence.
Q. BY MR. KANAREK: Now, Mrs. Kasabian, is it a fair statement that you fell in and out of love quite frequently?
MR. STOVITZ: Objected to as argumentative, your Honor.
THE COURT: Overruled.
THE WITNESS: I am not quite sure what you mean.
Q. You don’t know what I mean by falling in and out of love?
A. Yes, I know what that means.
Q. In the year 1969, did you fall in and out of love quite frequently?
A. Yes, I guess I did.
Q. And in the year 1969, while you were falling in and out of love, you were also using various types of drugs; right?
A. Yes.
Q. So, directing your attention to your state of mind as far as Mr. Manson was concerned, your state of mind was self—was induced by yourself, by what you did? Is that correct, Mrs. Kasabian?
MR. BUGLIOSI: That is an ambiguous question.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. KANAREK: Q. You say you fell in love with Mr. Manson; right?
A. Yes.
Q. You fell in love with Tex a few hours before you saw Mr. Manson; right?
A. Yes.
Q. You fell in love with Bobby Beausoleil within a few hours after that; right?
A. I don’t know if it was a few hours.
Q. A few days?
A. Maybe, yes.
Q. And then you fell in love with Clem?
A. Yes.
Q. And you fell in love with Bruce?
A. Yes.
Q. And you fell in love with maybe a dozen other people?
A. Yes, I fell in love with everybody.
Q. Pardon?
A. I was in love with everybody.
Q. You were in love with everybody?
A. Yes.
Q. So really, you were—whatever feeling you had so far as Mr. Manson came about because of your personality, because of what you had done in your life by taking drugs, by going from commune to commune, going from man to man, going from person to person?
MR. BUGLIOSI: Ambiguous and argumentative, your Honor.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. KANAREK: Q. Mrs. Kasabian, rather than Mr. Manson influencing you, you were influencing yourself, weren’t you, Mrs. Kasabian?
A. I let myself be influenced.
Q. What do you mean by that, you let yourself be influenced?
A. I didn’t usually reject what was said to me or done to me.
Q. Pardon?
A. I usually didn’t reject what was said or done to me.
Q. And Mr. Manson was one of the many men that you made love to in the year 19—let’s say in July and August of 1969?
MR. BUGLIOSI: Asked and answered, your Honor.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. KANAREK: Q. Now, directing your attention, Mrs. Kasabian, to your state of mind. You have had many conversations with your lawyers, you have had many conversations with Mr. Bugliosi and Mr. Stovitz; right?
A. Yes.
Q. Is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, have Mr. Bugliosi and Mr. Stovitz discussed with you the word “accomplice”?
A. No.
Q. Has the word “accomplice” ever been uttered between yourself and Mr. Stovitz and Mr. Bugliosi?
A. Not that I can recall.
Q. You mean but it might have?
A. Well, we had many conversations. I didn’t remember the word “accomplice.”
Q. You don’t remember the word “accomplice”?
A. No.
Q. Now, when you spoke with Mr. Bugliosi on many occasions, did Mr. Bugliosi take notes?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, did you tell Mr. Bugliosi that you knew that the people in the house next door to Mr. True, that those people had died?
Did you tell him that you knew that? Did you tell that to Mr. Bugliosi?
A. Yes, I guess I did.
Q. Pardon?
A. I guess I did, yes.
Q. What do you mean you guess you did? Don’t know whether you did or not?
A. I am sure I did, yes.
Q. Will you tell us when you told that to Mr. Bugliosi?
A. I don’t know.
Q. On how many occasions did you tell that to Mr. Bugliosi?
A. I don’t know.
Q. Did your attorneys instruct you not to say anything to Mr. Bugliosi?
MR. STOVITZ: Objection—
MR. GOLDMAN: Objection, your Honor, privileged.
THE COURT: Sustained.
BY MR. KANAREK:
Q. You have had many words with Mr. Bugliosi and Mr. Stovitz, have you not?
A. Many with Mr. Bugliosi, a few with Mr. Stovitz.
Q. All right.
Now, when Mr. Bugliosi was speaking with you on many occasions, would you say this was over 15 or 20 times that you spoke with him?
A. I don’t know. I never counted them.
Q. After this morning’s session, Mrs. Kasabian, did you speak with Mr. Bugliosi?
A. Yes, I believe I did.
Q. Do you, Mrs. Kasabian, as a result of your conversation with Mr. Bugliosi and your getting to know him, would you say that you are friendly, that you like Mr. Bugliosi?
A. Yes, I think he is good people.
Q. You don’t think he is dishonest, do you?
A. No, not that I can see.
Q. But you think I am dishonest; right?
A. Well, from what I have been told, yes.
MR. KANAREK: I see.
Q. Has Mr. Bugliosi told you that I was dishonest?
A. No, he never did.
Q. Has Mr. Goldman told you that I was dishonest?
MR. STOVITZ: That is objected to as immaterial and irrelevant.
THE COURT: Sustained.
BY MR. KANAREK:
Q. Anyway, no matter what the source may be, as you sit there in the witness stand, you feel that I am dishonest?
MR. STOVITZ: Immaterial and irrelevant.
MR. KANAREK: It goes to her state of mind.
THE COURT: Also asked and answered.
Sustained.
BY MR. KANAREK:
Q. Has it changed?
May I ask you that, Mrs. Kasabian?
A. No, it hasn’t.
Q. It hasn’t?
A. No.
Q. I see.
It hasn’t changed since you got immunity?
A. It has never changed.
Q. It has been that way consistently throughout; that is one thing for sure; right?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, as you look at yourself, Mrs. Kasabian, is it a fair statement that you think a lot about your thoughts, that you sit and think a lot, you sit and meditate?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. Quite a bit about your thoughts, right?
A. About my thoughts?
Q. Yes. You think about these visual happenings that you have seen in the past as a result of your LSD experience and your peyote experience and your marijuana relaxing, you sit and dwell quite a bit upon yourself; right?
MR. BUGLIOSI: Argumentative, and unintelligible, your Honor.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. KANAREK: Q. During these past months, Mrs. Kasabian, you have thought quite a bit about yourself; is that a fair statement?
A. Yes, I have.
Q. In fact, you have thought about yourself to the exclusion of anyone else, from a practical standpoint; is that correct?
MR. BUGLIOSI: Argumentative, your Honor.
THE COURT: It is ambiguous, too.
Sustained.
MR. KANAREK: Q. These last months, since you have been taken into custody, Mrs. Kasabian, have dealt with plans on how to save Linda Kasabian from prison and the gas chamber, so far as you are concerned; right?
A. No.
Q. That is not so?
A. No.
Q. I see.
In what way is that not so?
MR. STOVITZ: That is objected to, your Honor, as unintelligible.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. KANAREK: Q. Since you have gone into custody, sometime in December, 1969, until this very minute, is it a fair statement that your every waking moment has been concerned with Linda Kasabian?
A. No.
Q. It hasn’t?
A. No.
Q. I see.
Is it a fair statement that a good percentage of your waking moments have been concerned with Linda Kasabian?
MR. STOVITZ: Ambiguous, your Honor.
THE COURT: Overruled.
THE WITNESS: No.
MR. KANAREK: I see.
Q. Now, when you have spoken with your attorneys and you have spoken with Mr. Bugliosi and you have spoken with Mr. Stovitz, all of that had to do with planning for this trial?
MR. STOVITZ: That is objected to, your Honor, as compound, ambiguous, and may also be privileged.
MR. KANAREK: I don’t know how it can be privileged with Mr. Bugliosi and Mr. Stovitz.
MR. STOVITZ: That’s right, but then it is ambiguous and compound.
THE COURT: Read the question.
(The question was read by the reporter.)
THE COURT: Overruled.
You may answer.
THE WITNESS: No.
MR. KANAREK: Q. Well, will you tell me how, speaking with Mr. Stovitz and speaking with Mr. Bugliosi, it had to do with anything other than this trial?
A. I mostly spoke with them for the trial, yes.
Q. Then just a moment ago when you said that it didn’t have anything to do with this trial, that wasn’t true?
MR. BUGLIOSI: That is a misstatement, your Honor. The question asked about planning for the trial.
THE COURT: Sustained.
THE WITNESS: I thought in your question that you asked me if I spoke to my attorneys about the trial only.
MR. KANAREK: Q. Mrs. Kasabian, everything that you have done with Mr. Stovitz and Mr. Bugliosi has been in contemplation, planning, or whichever way you want to call it, it had to do with this trial that we are in right now?
A. Yes.
Q. And that is what you were concerned with when you spoke to Mr. Stovitz and Mr. Bugliosi; right?
A. Yes.
Q. And when you spoke with them, you were concerned with saving your skin? right?
A. No, not necessarily.
Q. Not necessarily, but that is a part of it?
A. Yes, I guess you could say this.
Q. It is a good part of it; right?
MR. STOVITZ: That is objected to as argumentative your Honor.
THE COURT: Overruled.
You may answer.
THE WITNESS: No. I think the most important thing is that I tell the truth.
MR. KANAREK: Q. That is more important than anything else, that you tell the truth?
A. Yes.
Q. Right?
A. Yes.
Q. So, when you were thinking, or speaking with these two gentlemen, you were thinking of just telling the truth?
A. Say that again?
Q. You were thinking of just telling the truth?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, then, may I ask you, when you look at your state of mind, Mrs. Kasabian, when you came into contact with Mr. Manson your state of mind was trying to figure out how to protect Linda Kasabian from her husband.
I see you smiling about that.
That wasn’t your state of mind the first time you saw Mr. Manson?
You were trying to influence Mr. Manson to hide you from your husband, is that correct?
MR. STOVITZ: Objected to, asked and answered, your Honor.
THE COURT: Overruled, you may answer.
THE WITNESS: I was trying to influence him to hide me?
BY MR. KANAREK:
Q. From your husband.
A. From my husband? No, I don’t believe so.
Q. That is why you went up into the woods; that is why you went to the cave with Brenda, Gypsy—
A. Yes, that is why I went up there.
Q. That’s right, and that was an area that Mr. Manson knew, right?
A. Right.
Q. And you wanted Mr. Manson to hide you from your husband, right?
A. I don’t know.
Q. You don’t know?
A. I don’t think so.
Q. Well, then—would you please tell me what was the purpose.
A. It was—
THE COURT: Just a moment. What purpose?
BY MR. KANAREK:
Q. What was the purpose of going to the cave, Mrs. Kasabian?
MR. STOVITZ: Your Honor, this was asked and answered at great length yesterday.
Objected to on the grounds of repetition.
THE COURT: Sustained.
BY MR. KANAREK:
Q. Mrs. Kasabian, you were influencing Mr. Manson. Mr. Manson wasn’t influencing you at the first meeting you had with Mr. Manson, you wanted something from him for No. 1, Linda Kasabian, right?
MR. STOVITZ: Argumentative and ambiguous, your Honor.
THE COURT: It is ambiguous and compound, Mr. Kanarek. Reframe the question.
BY MR. KANAREK:
Q. The first time in your life that you ever saw Charles Manson you wanted to use him, Mrs. Kasabian, didn’t you?
A. No.
Q. You did not want to use him?
A. No, I wanted to help him.
Q. You wanted to help him?
Now, how did you want to help Charles Manson, would you tell us, please.
A. I believe it concerned something that the Judge ordered us not to talk about.
Q. You believe it concerned something the Judge ordered us not to talk about?
A. Yes.
THE COURT: Answer the question.
BY MR. KANAREK:
Q. Answer the question.
A. Would you ask me another question? I just lost my trend.
MR. KANAREK: May that last be read, your Honor?
THE COURT: Read the question.
MR. BUGLIOSI: May we approach the bench?
MR. STOVITZ: May one of us approach the witness and find out what the purported answer will be?
MR. KANAREK: I say let the chips drop where they may and let the witness answer. That is what I ask.
MR. STOVITZ: I submit that is not the proper legal procedure. We don’t want the chips to fall where they may.
MR. KANAREK: May we have an answer to the question, your Honor.
THE COURT: Mr. Kanarek, just wait a moment while I take care of another matter.
MR. KANAREK: Yes, your Honor.
May the record reflect that I do object—
MR. STOVITZ: May Mr. Kanarek approach the bench with Mr. Bugliosi?
MR. KANAREK: I object to Mr. Bugliosi talking to the witness at this time. I object on the grounds it is a denial of fundamental due process under the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution, and it is state action as its worst for the prosecutor to talk to the witness at this stage of the proceedings.
MR. BUGLIOSI: Come up and be our guest.
THE COURT: It is perfectly all right. The objection is overruled.
MR. KANAREK: Then may I approach?
THE COURT: You have already been so advised, Mr. Kanarek.
MR. KANAREK: Thank you.
May the reporter take this down outside the presence of the jury, then, your Honor, whatever is going to be uttered at this time, I ask it be made a matter of permanent record, word for word.
THE COURT: I suggest you listen to it first and then if you want to take it down you can take it down.
MR. KANAREK: Mr. Bugliosi and I may not agree on what was uttered. I ask whatever is uttered be uttered outside of the presence of the jury.
THE COURT: You may confer, Mr. Bugliosi. Mr. Kanarek, you may join if you like.
(Whereupon, there was an off the record discussion between Mr. Bugliosi and Mr. Kanarek and the witness.)
MR. KANAREK: Your Honor, I would ask that—I must ask, your Honor, either we do it in the presence of the jury or else I ask that the jury—I must have this down in writing.
THE COURT: Will counsel please approach the bench on the other side.
(Whereupon, counsel approach the bench and the following discussion is had outside the hearing of the jury:)
MR. BUGLIOSI: She told me the way she was going to help Mr. Manson was to give him the $5,000 she had stolen so that Manson and the Family could use the money to go to the desert with.
Again we are getting into this Grand Theft.
I will just state on the record again, your Honor, Mr. Stovitz and I would love to put on the other crimes Mr. Manson committed, such as assault with intent to commit murder—
THE COURT: That has nothing to do with that.
MR. BUGLIOSI: This is Grand Theft, and not a proper ground for impeachment.
THE COURT: Not if that is the sole purpose. Here the question came up on cross-examination in the context of whether he was influencing her or she was influencing him.
From this it went on to who was trying to help whom.
MR. BUGLIOSI: Well—
THE COURT: I think this now becomes relevant not for impeachment but for the question of state of mind as to the circumstances, the background of the so-called Family on this Spahn Ranch.
MR. BUGLIOSI: It’s kind of ambiguous here, your Honor, because she has testified—
THE COURT: Obviously it’s very important as to whether or not—well, it’s important for a number of different reasons:
What her relationship with Manson was, and this is directly relevant.
It also may have a minor aspect to impeach her, under the facts of this case. I don’t really think the jury is going to be too impressed by the fact she may have stolen $5,000.
I think they already heard her confess in participating in a double murder.
Whether or not she is an accomplice, she has indicated knowledge about the situation.
I think she has already used all the shock value she has in front of the jury.
MR. BUGLIOSI: She never testified that the reason why she came to Spahn Ranch to help Manson was to give him $5,000.
THE COURT: It has now come out, or it is about to come out. I am going to overrule the objection and let her testimony.
MR. BUGLIOSI: I will ask the Court if the Court permits that, will the Court permit us to go into all of the circumstances surrounding the taking of the money, because there are circumstances which are explanatory.
Now, we just have on the record that she stole $5,000 without going into the circumstances.
THE COURT: Well, yes, in other words I think that will depend on Mr. Kanarek.
If he is content to let her testimony that she was going to give Manson $5,000 for a certain purpose, that is one thing.
But if he goes further and elicits the fact that it was stolen, the People on redirect examination will have a right to go into the mitigating circumstances surrounding that.
So that would be up to Mr. Kanarek.
MR. BUGLIOSI: Thank you.
MR. KANAREK: Well, your Honor (Interrupted off the record by Mr. Fitzgerald)—
I would ask your Honor as to the same thing, your Honor, I would ask, it is now five minutes of 4:00, I would ask your Honor that we adjourn and your Honor take evidence on this issue outside of the presence of the jury because—
THE COURT: Why should I do that?
MR. KANAREK: Because, your Honor, I would like the record to reveal what she said when Mr. Bugliosi and I were there.
THE COURT: You wanted to cross-examine on this point I have told you you may do so.
MR. KANAREK: I know, your Honor, but now I don’t know what she will say.
THE COURT: That is your problem.
MR. KANAREK: What I am saying is that is why Mr. Manson is being denied due process.
THE COURT: He is not being denied due process.
If you don’t want to cross-examine on that point you don’t have to, but you are not going to get a private cross-examination to see if you should put your cross-examination on before the Court.
MR. KANAREK: I want the record to reveal, your Honor, that I asked that all of this be on the record, every word that was uttered by her.
THE COURT: Mr. Kanarek—
MR. KANAREK: When she was on the witness stand it was my contention—
THE COURT: You don’t want to cross-examine her further on that point? You don’t have to.
I am telling you you may if you like.
MR. KANAREK: What I am trying to do, I want to make a record. I would like the record to reveal—
THE COURT: You don’t need to make a record. I already ruled in your favor.
MR. KANAREK: I know.
THE COURT: Then let’s proceed.
MR. KANAREK: I am speaking, your Honor, of your Honor not allowing this witness’ exact words, or Mr. Bugliosi’s exact words.
I don’t know what she is going to say now. I have no way of knowing.
THE COURT: You didn’t know before when you asked the question.
MR. KANAREK: I know, but she has been approached by the prosecution with whom she has rapport.
THE COURT: You were standing right there. You heard everything that was said.
MR. KANAREK: It is not a matter of—
THE COURT: I don’t know what you are talking about now. If you want to go ahead, all right; if you don’t, all right.
MR. KANAREK: If your Honor will allow me to make the point.
The point is she stated previously she does not trust me; she trusts Mr. Bugliosi.
There was certain colloquy between her and Mr. Bugliosi.
Now I don’t know what this witness will now say at this time.
THE COURT: You have said that three times.
MR. KANAREK: That is a denial of a fair trial and a denial of due process under the Fourteenth Amendment.
THE COURT: I don’t want to hear anything further.
MR. BUGLIOSI: I told him the other circumstances of mitigation, the mitigating circumstances concerning this $5,000. He doesn’t want me to go into it now, so now be has second guesses about going into it.
THE COURT: I already told him if he goes into that question you will have the right on redirect examination to—
MR. KANAREK: Your Honor, the point is it is the frame of mind.
THE COURT: If he doesn’t ask the questions there won’t be any answers to hurt him.
MR. KANAREK: Your Honor, it is the state of mind of this witness.
THE COURT: Let’s proceed.
(The following proceedings were had in open court in the presence and hearing of the jury:)
Q. BY MR. KANAREK: Mrs. Kasabian, when you first came to the ranch, the first time you came to the ranch you saw Tex?
A. Yes.
Q. Is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. And you came to the ranch to see Tex because you, Linda Kasabian, wanted sexual satisfaction which you were not getting from your husband?
MR. BUGLIOSI: Repetitious, your Honor.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q. BY MR. KANAREK: Mrs. Kasabian, when you came at first contact with Tex Watson you came to satisfy Linda Kasabian.
MR. BUGLIOSI: Repetitious.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q. BY MR. KANAREK: The first time you came to the ranch, Mrs. Kasabian, you came because you wanted to come, is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. And you decided that you were going to leave your husband and seek new men?
MR. BUGLIOSI: This has already been gone into ad nauseum, your Honor.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q. BY MR. KANAREK: And your coming to the ranch, Mrs. Kasabian, was to satisfy a need that you felt, is that correct?
MR. BUGLIOSI: Asked and answered.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. KANAREK: Did your Honor rule?
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q. BY MR. KANAREK: Now, Mrs. Kasabian, you stated you hated your step-father.
A. Yes.
Q. You still hate your step-father, right?
A. No.
Q. You don’t hate him now?
A. No.
Q. But in this trial you have told us that you hated your step-father.
MR. BUGLIOSI: Asked and answered.
Q. BY MR. KANAREK: Now,—
MR. KANAREK: May I continue, your Honor?
THE COURT: Are you asking a question or just repeating yourself?
MR. KANAREK: I don’t know. Mr. Bugliosi interjected something sort of halfway.
THE COURT: The objection was it was asked and answered, which was correct. Then you went on.
MR. KANAREK: All right.
Q. BY MR. KANAREK: Now, would you tell us, Mrs. Kasabian, in any of your LSD trips did you see your step-father in the illusions?
A. No.
Q. The hallucinations that you underwent in your LSD trips?
A. No.
Q. You never saw your step-father in any of those visions?
A. No.
Q. Did you ever see your mother in any of the visions in connection with any of your LSD trips?
A. You mean visions within my own self?
Q. You tell me.
A. I don’t understand your question.
Q. Well, have you seen your mother in any visions that you have seen in your mind as a result of taking LSD?
A. I am still not quite sure what you mean, again.
Q. Well, Mrs. Kasabian, you have told us that when you take LSD you have visions, you have visual effects that you feel, that you see, is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, in any of these visual effects that you have spoken of have you seen your mother in any of these sequences of events which may be in your mind during the LSD trips?
A. No.
Q. Your mother never appeared?
A. No.
Q. Has your husband ever appeared in any of those visions?
A. No.
Q. Has any person ever appeared in these visions, these LSD trip seances?
MR. STOVITZ: I object to the question as ambiguous, when counsel says “appear,” does he mean a person that was not there, or what?
I don’t understand the question.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q. BY MR. KANAREK: Mrs. Kasabian, in any of the visions that you have seen while under the influence of LSD, in any of those visions have you ever seen any members of your Family?
A. Do you mean within my own mind, or person to person? I don’t understand what you mean.
Q. Within your own mind.
A. No.
Q. Have you ever seen any people at all?
A. No.
Q. In these visions?
A. No.
Q. These LSD visions?
A. No, not that I can recall.
Q. These LSD visions that you have, they are strictly color?
A. Excuse me?
Q. You just see masses of color?
A. No.
Q. Well, what do you see?
A. You mean within my own mind or outwardly, I still don’t understand you.
Q. Well, when you are on an LSD trip can you tell the difference as to whether you are seeing it inside your own self or whether you are seeing it outward?
A. It seems to be outwardly.
Q. You mean when you are on the trip while you are taking the trip it appears to be outwardly?
A. Yes.
Q. It appears to be detached from your body?
A. Yes.
Q. All right, now, in these observations, on these LSD trips that you take, is anyone in your family present as far as your thinking is concerned, outwardly?
A. Yes.
Q. Your mother?
A. Yes, she was.
Q. Your step-father?
A. No.
Q. That you hate, your step-father, since 1966, has he ever appeared in any of these visions that you have spoken of?
A. No.
Q. Any other members of your family appeared in any of these visions that you have spoken of?
A. Yes, I have been with one of my brothers.
Q. Pardon?
A. I have been with one of my brothers.
Q. And during the trip you visualized your brother while under the influence of LSD, is that correct?
A. No, they were actually there, outwardly, they were there.
Q. Outwardly they were there?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, during these fantasies, during these LSD fantasies have you ever seen Mr. Manson?
A. I don’t understand you.
Q. You don’t understand that question?
A. No.
Q. During the LSD trips that you have taken have you ever seen Mr. Manson, Charlie Manson?
A. No.
Q. You have never seen him.
Did you ever see Gypsy?
A. Yes.
Q. You have seen Gypsy in these LSD visions, right?
A. She was there in person.
Q. Pardon?
A. She was there in person, yes.
Q. Well, I am now talking about in a vision.
Did you ever see her in the vision?
A. Well, no.
Q. How did you know she was present while you were on the trip?
A. Because I spoke to her.
Q. Pardon?
A. I spoke to her.
Q. How do you know, while you are on a trip—this is after the hour has elapsed; right?
A. Yes.
Q. And you are now in this period of time, depending upon how much LSD you had, you are in this period of time when you are fantasizing, when you are hallucinating; is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. And so, in fact, you don’t know whether someone is there or not?
A. I am positive she was there.
Q. You are positive? Now, upon what do you base that?
A. She was there in person, in the flesh. She was there.
Q. She was there?
A. Yes.
Q. But you were on an LSD trip at the time?
A. I don’t know if it was LSD, but it was a drug, yes.
Q. Oh, it was some other drug?
A. I don’t know what it was.
Q. Well, what was the drug? You tell me?
A. It seemed to be weak mescaline.
Q. It was weak mescaline?
A. It seemed to be. I don’t know.
Q. How do you differentiate between weak mescaline and LSD?
A. LSD is more vivid, more intense, and mescaline is, I don’t know, just sort of flows.
That is all I can tell you.
Q. You mean, from your experience, from your experience with mescaline, that you find it to be weaker drug than LSD?
A. Yes.
Q. Well, now, directing your attention to the particular time that you are speaking of.
You did see Gypsy in the vision; is that correct?
A. It wasn’t a vision. She was there.
Q. But you were actually on a trip, whether you call it LSD or whether you call it mescaline, the fact remains that you were on a trip at that time?
A. Yes.
Q. Is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, did you see your husband also?
A. No.
Q. In this vision?
A. No.
Q. Now, you have taken LSD in the presence of your husband; is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And you have taken mescaline in the presence of your husband; is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Then, would you describe for us the people that you have seen in the visions that you have had while taking mescaline or LSD?
MR. STOVITZ: Objected to as ambiguous and no foundation as to time and place.
THE COURT: Sustained.
BY MR. KANAREK:
Q. Did you ever see, on all of the trips that you have taken, on all of the drugs that you have taken, have you ever seen Charlie Manson in any of these visions?
MR. BUGLIOSI: Asked and answered.
THE COURT: Overruled.
THE WITNESS: No.
BY MR. KANAREK:
Q. Never once in your life have you seen Charlie Manson; is that right?
A. Of course I have seen him.
Q. I am speaking, Mrs. Kasabian, at times when you are relaxed, when your mind is in the drug world. Have you ever seen Charlie Manson?
MR. STOVITZ: Object to the question, your Honor, as ambiguous as to the words “drug world.”
THE COURT: Sustained.
BY MR. KANAREK:
Q. At any time, Mrs. Kasabian, while you were under the influence of any drug, have you seen Charlie Manson?
MR. STOVITZ: I object to the question as ambiguous, as to whether or not counsel is including marijuana as a drug.
I believe that is a matter of controversy now.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. FITZGERALD: Not according to the District Attorney.
THE COURT: You may answer.
THE WITNESS: Well, it is true, I don’t consider marijuana a drug. And I have seen Mr. Manson while I have been smoking marijuana.
BY MR. KANAREK:
Q. Pardon?
A. I have seen and been in his presence while I was smoking marijuana.
Q. You don’t consider marijuana a drug?
A. No, not really. Not a chemical like acid or anything like that.
Q. May I ask you: What do you consider marijuana?
MR. BUGLIOSI: Immaterial.
THE COURT: Sustained.
BY MR. KANAREK:
Q. Well, then, you say that Mr. Manson has never appeared to you, has never appeared to you in any kind of what you call chemical drug, if we may call it that, say a chemical drug interlude?
MR. BUGLIOSI: I object, your Honor.
The question is repetitious.
THE COURT: Sustained.
BY MR. KANAREK:
Q. Then, Mrs. Kasabian, when you went up into that cave area, you came over to make use of the Spahn Ranch for your purpose?
MR. BUGLIOSI: Asked and answered, your Honor.
THE COURT: Sustained.
BY MR. KANAREK:
Q. Now, Mrs. Kasabian, do you have in your mind at the present time any different idea of what time is than you had before you started taking drugs?
MR. STOVITZ: Ambiguous, your Honor.
THE COURT: Sustained.
BY MR. KANAREK:
Q. Directing your attention back, Mrs. Kasabian, to a time in the past, let’s say about 1965 and 1966, to a time before you had entered the drug world. Would you compare your ideas of time in that far distant past with your ideas of time at the present time?
MR. STOVITZ: Objected to as immaterial—
MR. KANAREK: I haven’t finished the question, your Honor.
MR. STOVITZ: I am sorry.
BY MR. KANAREK:
Q. And are your ideas of time different today than they were before you started taking drugs?
MR. STOVITZ: Object to the question, your Honor, as immaterial.
MR. KANAREK: It is most material, your Honor, as to whether or not—
MR. STOVITZ: I didn’t mean to interrupt you, Counsel, your questions, and I haven’t finished my objection.
MR. KANAREK: I am sorry.
THE COURT: It is ambiguous. Sustained.
MR. STOVITZ: Thank you, your Honor.
BY MR. KANAREK:
Q. Now, you have told us, Mrs. Kasabian, that time doesn’t have any meaning for you; right?
MR. STOVITZ: Objected to as asked and answered, your Honor.
THE COURT: Sustained.
BY MR. KANAREK:
Q. Well, is it a fair statement that as you sit there on the witness stand now time has no meaning to you?
A. I don’t quite understand what you mean.
Q. Well, does time have any meaning to you?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, as you look into your mind and think of what the meaning of time is, is the meaning of time, as you sit there on the witness stand now, different than the meaning of time as you considered it before you entered the drug world?
MR. STOVITZ: Unintelligible, your Honor.
THE COURT: Sustained.
BY MR. KANAREK:
Q. Well, before 1965 or 1966, at some point you had never used drugs?
A. Right.
Q. Never used LSD, peyote, hash, marijuana; right?
A. Right.
Q. Speed? You used speed, too; right?
A. Yes.
Q. Is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Methydrine? You have used methydrine?
A. That is the same thing.
MR. BUGLIOSI: Asked and answered.
MR. KANAREK: All right.
BY MR. KANAREK:
Q. Now, before you used these chemical drugs, or whatever way you wish to denominate them, Mrs. Kasabian, you had a certain idea of time; is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, compare, Mrs. Kasabian, your idea of time in those years before 1965 and 1966, and let us say your idea of time between the years 1965 and—
A. Excuse me, I am losing what you are talking about.
Q. Compare your idea of time, Mrs. Kasabian. before you first took, let us say, LSD, compare that meaning of time, whatever it was in your mind, to the meaning of time between, let us say, the first time you took LSD and the date of your arrest.
MR. BUGLIOSI: Ambiguous, your Honor.
MR. KANAREK: I haven’t finished the question, your Honor.
MR. BUGLIOSI: My apologies.
BY MR. KANAREK:
Q. Were your ideas of time the same before you started taking drugs as they were after you started taking drugs but before the date of your arrest?
A. I don’t understand your question. You have got so many words, I am not following you.
THE COURT: Will counsel approach the bench, please?
(Whereupon all counsel approach the bench and the following proceedings occur at the bench:)
THE COURT: Mr. Kanarek, it is apparent to me that you are now simply being very, very repetitious and going nowhere.
I think you had better be prepared to wind up your cross-examination.
MR. KANAREK: I am, your Honor.
The point is that when we have a witness on the stand, all of us—
THE COURT: That is not the point I made.
Did you understand what I said?
MR. KANAREK: Yes, I understand what your Honor said, yes.
What I am saying is that when we have a witness of this type, some of our ordinary ground rules don’t apply; otherwise we are in danger of going off completely.
THE COURT: What ground rules are you talking about?
MR. KANAREK: What I am talking about, we have previously asked this Court to appoint doctors to examine this witness. We asked for it before this trial started.
THE COURT: Let’s not get off into that subject.
MR. KANAREK: Well, this witness’s ideas, her meanings—
THE COURT: I have told you what I thought, Mr. Kanarek.
Now, we are going to adjourn for the day. I suggest that if you have anything important, that you arrange your thoughts and examination so that you can complete it tomorrow morning.
Apparently you have simply run out of examination.
MR. KANAREK: No, I haven’t, your Honor.
THE COURT: You are asking the same questions over and over again.
MR. KANAREK: Well, your Honor is sustaining what I think are improper objections.
THE COURT: All right. I have told you what I think.
MR. FITZGERALD: We wonder, with the Court’s indulgence, if we might meet, the defendants and counsel, for five-minutes?
It is all right with the Sheriff if we ask you first.
THE COURT: All right.
(Whereupon all counsel return to their respective places at counsel table and the following proceedings occur in open court within the presence and hearing of the jury:)
THE COURT: Ladies and gentlemen, do not converse with anyone nor form or express any opinion regarding the case until it is finally submitted to you.
The court is now adjourned until 9:45 tomorrow morning.
(Whereupon at 4:15 o’clock p.m. the court was in recess.)