Historic Trial Transcripts
Linda Kasabian: Day thirteen
Testimony, August 12, 1970
LINDA KASABIAN,
called as a witness by and on behalf of the People, having been previously duly sworn, resumed the stand, was examined and testified further as follows:
CROSS EXAMINATION (Continued)
BY MR. KANAREK:
Q. Now, Mrs. Kasabian, could you tell us, Mrs. Kasabian. have you ever been convicted of a felony?
A. A felony?
I am not sure what a felony is.
MR. STOVITZ: May we approach the bench on this?
MR. KANAREK: Your Honor, I see no reason to approach the bench. I have questions to ask and I have verification of it, your Honor.
MR. STOVITZ: Then, on that representation, your Honor, I will sit down and allow counsel to cross-examine.
THE COURT: Read the last question and answer, please.
(The record was read by the reporter.)
BY MR. KANAREK:
Q. Mrs. Kasabian, in Boston, on April the 14th, 1967, were you convicted of unlawful possession of harmful drugs?
MR. STOVITZ: Your Honor, I object to that question and ask to approach the bench at this time.
MR. KANAREK: Well, your Honor, I can represent to the Court that I have made conversation with—and I have the name of the clerk—
MR. STOVITZ: Unlawful possession of harmful drugs is a misdemeanor in Massachusetts, and counsel knows that.
MR. KANAREK: No, I don’t.
I was told it was a felony.
THE COURT: Approach the bench.
(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, we have thoroughly searched this young lady’s background and we find no convictions of any felonies whatsoever.
She was arrested for this charge. Whether or not she was convicted or not, I don’t know, but we searched that too, and we found out that that was a misdemeanor conviction at that time, and it is a misdemeanor conviction at this time.
MR. KANAREK: I can represent to the Court that I called Boston and I spoke to a Mrs. Scarinci—
THE COURT: I am not interested in hearsay conversation from Boston, Mr. Kanarek.
Do you have some legally admissible proof?
MR. KANAREK: This is the vice of not talking to the witness. I can only do it this way.
THE COURT: You are talking to the witness now and she says she doesn’t know what a felony is.
Do you have some legally admissible proof that there is a prior felony conviction?
MR. KANAREK: I have the charge, and the lady, Mrs. Scarinci—
THE COURT: That is not admissible.
MR. KANAREK: We have a right to interrogate on this.
THE COURT: You have a right to ask her, and she has given an answer.
MR. STOVITZ: People vs. Perez.
MR. BUGLIOSI: I would like to have the Court ask Mr. Kanarek if he has information that this is a felony.
MR. KANAREK: The clerk of the Court told me. I asked her, “Is it a felony?”
MR. FITZGERALD: People vs. Perez provides that the question be asked in good faith.
THE COURT: Yes. I am not criticizing Mr. Kanarek for asking the question.
MR. FITZGERALD: I thought that was the thrust of the remarks.
THE COURT: You have asked the question and she says she doesn’t know what a felony is.
MR. KANAREK: Then, your Honor, we have a fact question for the jury to determine, and I have a right to interrogate on the question.
THE COURT: What do you mean a fact question? What are you talking about?
MR. KANAREK: A factual determination by the jury as to whether or not it is a felony. Your Honor would give them the law, and then they would decide.
MR. STOVITZ: Counsel walks over to the Law Library and takes out books and keeps them out for two or three weeks. He can very easily take out a Massachusetts law book.
MR. HUGHES: I think an interesting sidelight of this is that although we requested a rap sheet on discovery, we were never provided with a rap sheet, your Honor.
MR. BUGLIOSI: Yes, you were.
MR. KANAREK: Only in California.
MR. BUGLIOSI: All we had were traffic violations. That is all we had.
We are not going to manufacture anything for you.
MR. STOVITZ: And she was 17 years of age at that time.
MR. BUGLIOSI: Or 18. She is 21 now. 17?
THE COURT: Let’s proceed.
(Whereupon, all counsel return to their respective places at counsel table and the following proceedings occur in open court within the presence and hearing of the jury:)
MR. BUGLIOSI: Your Honor, could you admonish the jury to disregard the gratuitous remarks of Mr. Kanarek about his conversations, et cetera?
THE COURT: I will admonish the jury to disregard the gratuitous remarks of all counsel.
Let’s proceed.
MR. KANAREK: Q. Mrs. Kasabian, were you in court in Boston on April the 14th, 1967?
MR. BUGLIOSI: That is an improper question, your Honor.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q. BY MR. KANAREK: Mrs. Kasabian, did you go into the truck the day after you saw Tex and take anything out of that truck?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. What did you take out of the truck?
A. I took some money and a knife.
Q. And how much money did you take out of the truck, Mrs. Kasabian?
A. About five thousand dollars.
Q. And your state of mind was such that you knew that that money belonged to whom?
A. At that time? I believed that it belonged to everybody.
Q. Mrs. Kasabian, before you ever saw Gypsy or came to the Spahn Ranch, you knew of the existence of that five thousand dollars; right?
A. Yes.
Q. And you knew that that $5,000 belonged to Charles Melton; is that correct?
A. Well, it belonged to him, but it was for all of us.
Q. Well, that $5,000, your state of mind told you, was $5,000 that Mr. Melton had received from an inheritance; is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And you knew that that money was in the truck; is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And you stole that money before you ever saw Mr. Manson; is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And Mrs. Kasabian, the time, the very first time, that you saw Mr. Manson, your motive and your intent and your purpose was to go and ask Mr. Manson to take you into the hills and hide you because you were afraid of the wrath of your husband and Mr. Melton because of the money you took; is that correct?
A. I don’t know if I asked him to hide me.
Q. You were present in Mr. Manson’s presence after you had taken this money, this five thousand dollars; correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And your purpose and your intent of being in Mr. Manson’s presence was to try to get yourself hidden from Mr. Melton and your husband; is that correct?
A. I guess so. I am not really sure.
Q. You are not sure?
A. I am not sure if I asked him to hide me.
Q. My question is as to your state of mind, Mrs. Kasabian, your thinking, your purpose.
Your purpose was that you wanted to be somewhere where your husband and Mr. Melton couldn’t get at you; right?
A. I guess so.
Q. When you say you guess so, you mean yes, don’t you; you know so?
A. I am not sure. I really don’t know.
Q. What is unclear in your mind about that? Why do you tell us that you don’t know?
A. If I went there to hide?
Q. Yes.
A. I don’t understand.
Q. Did you feel at that time that you were a witch?
A. No.
Q. Mrs. Kasabian, have you ever become ill as a result of taking drugs?
MR. STOVITZ: I object to the question, your Honor, as ambiguous.
What type of drugs? Penicillin?
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. KANAREK: Q. Mrs. Kasabian, you have told us that you have taken LSD, you have taken hash, you have taken peyote, you have taken marijuana, you have taken methedrine or speed.
Can you tell me, as a result of taking any of those drugs, have you ever become sick, ill?
A. Physically sick?
Q. Yes.
A. Yes.
Q. And as a result of taking these drugs, they have made you feel bad; is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. As a result of taking these drugs, you have sometimes felt dizzy; is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And this has happened on numerous occasions after you have taken the drugs that you have told us you have taken; is that correct?
MR. STOVITZ: I object to the question, your Honor. The word “numerous” is ambiguous.
THE COURT: Overruled.
THE WITNESS: When I was taking speed, I used to get dizzy and sick.
MR. KANAREK: Q. And you took speed before you ever came to the Spahn Ranch; is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Methedrine?
A. Yes.
Q. How many times did you take Methedrine?
A. I don’t know. I never counted.
Q. Well, would you give us an estimate?
A. I took it for about three or four months straight.
Q. And Mrs. Manson, directing your attention.
A. Mrs. Kasabian.
Q. Pardon me. Mrs. Kasabian.
Mrs. Kasabian, when you took this money, this $5,000, to whom did you give that money, Mrs. Kasabian?
A. I think I gave it to Leslie. I am not sure, because—or else I gave it to Tex. I am not sure.
Q. There is no question in your mind, you gave it to Mr. Watson.
A. No. I am not sure.
Q. You are not sure? Why? Were you on a trip, that is, a drug trip at that point?
A. No, but—
Q. Pardon?
A. I remember Leslie was there, and I don’t know if I handed it to her or if I handed it to Tex. I am not sure.
Q. I see.
At that time, were you under the influence of some drug?
A. No.
Q. And directing your attention, Mrs. Kasabian, to this $5,000, you knew that that $5,000 was intended for a trip to South America by your husband and Mr. Melton; is that correct?
MR. STOVITZ: I object to the question, your Honor, as asked and answered.
MR. KANAREK: I am sure that hasn’t been asked and answered.
THE COURT: It was yesterday, Mr. Kanarek.
Sustained.
BY MR. KANAREK:
Q. Well, Mrs. Kasabian, was your state of mind such—let me ask you—what was, as far as you knew, that five thousand dollars intended for?
MR. BUGLIOSI: That calls for a conclusion.
THE COURT: I think it is also ambiguous.
Sustained.
BY MR. KANAREK:
Q. Did you, Mr. Melton and your husband discuss, Mrs. Kasabian, what that five thousand dollars would be used for?
A. Yes.
Q. And what was said by you, your husband and Mr. Melton before you ever saw Mr. Manson, before you ever saw the Spahn Ranch, as to what that money was to be used for?
A. We were going to South America.
Q. With that five thousand dollars?
A. Yes.
Q. Is that right?
A. Yes, uh-huh.
Q. Mrs. Kasabian, would you please tell us, tell the jury, all of the words uttered by Mr. Manson to you in your lifetime.
MR. BUGLIOSI: That is ambiguous, and impossible also, your Honor.
THE COURT: Sustained.
BY MR. KANAREK:
Q. Well, Mrs. Kasabian, do you have in mind conversations you have had with Mr. Manson?
A. Some of them.
Q. Pardon?
A. Some of them.
Q. Well, on how many occasions have you had conversations with Mr. Manson?
MR. STOVITZ: I object to the question, your Honor, as asked and answered yesterday afternoon.
MR. KANAREK: Not so, your Honor.
If you search the record, you will find that that question has not been asked.
MR. BUGLIOSI: Your Honor, he might change a comma here and there, but it is basically the same question.
MR. KANAREK: Counsel doesn’t remember the record, your Honor.
I represent to the Court that that question was not asked, and I would like an answer to the question.
THE COURT: I think that question, in substance, was asked, Mr. Kanarek, but I will permit her to answer it again.
THE WITNESS: What was your question?
BY MR. KANAREK:
Q. On how many occasions, Mrs. Kasabian, have you spoken with Mr. Manson?
A. Have I spoken to him?
Q. Yes.
A. A number of occasions. I can’t give you a number.
Q. Pardon?
A. I can’t give you a number.
Q. Would you tell us, Mrs. Kasabian, on each occasion that you spoke with Mr. Manson? Would you first give us the time and place and who was present, and tell us what Mr. Manson told you on each of those occasions?
A. Okay.
On our first meeting, I believe Charlie and myself, Tanya, Mary, Snake, Gypsy and Brenda were present up behind the Ranch.
Let’s see. He asked me why I had come?
I told him that my husband didn’t want me, and that Gypsy told me I would be welcome as a member of the Family.
And he asked me why I stole the money?
And I told him so that I could help him go to the desert.
And I remember he was feeling my legs, checking me out.
Q. My question now—
A. Excuse me.
Q. Is for conversation.
A. Those are the only words I can remember.
Q. All right.
Now, give us the next conversation.
A. Which was up in the cave.
Excuse me? I thought you said something.
Q. No. Just tell us the next conversation.
A. Charlie and I were in the cave and the girls were outside of the cave.
I remember he started to talk to me, and I remember saying, “I already know the truth,” or something like that.
And he said, “Don’t you want me to talk to you?”
And I said, “Yes.” I can’t remember that very well.
Then he started making love to me.
Q. Right now I am asking for conversation.
A. Right. I am going over it in my mind and not speaking it out loud.
MR. KANAREK: I am asking for conversations at this point, your Honor.
THE WITNESS: He told me I had a father hangup.
And I said, “Yes,” I hated my stepfather. That is all I remember.
MR. KANAREK: Q. Those are the conversations that you had with Mr. Manson?
A. Oh, no.
Q. All right. Give us the next conversation.
A. (Pause.)
MR. KANAREK: Your Honor, I didn’t keep the exact time, but I feel that the witness hesitated some ten seconds before answering.
THE WITNESS: Is that wrong?
MR. STOVITZ: I object to that observation.
I think the witness has been attempting to think about the absurd question of counsel.
I think the jury can see how long it takes counsel to ask the question, and I think that the reflection of the witness has nothing to do with her testimony.
THE WITNESS: One time at the waterfall, I believe, Gypsy and Brenda were present, and we were sitting down in the sand, and Charlie asked me what I thought of him, and if I thought he was doing the right thing, or something like that. I am not quite sure what it was.
MR. BUGLIOSI: Your Honor, maybe we should take a recess. All three of the female defendants seem to have a bad cold. Maybe they need some medication. They are coughing in unison, perhaps trying to interrupt the witness.
MR. KANAREK: May the jury be admonished to disregard the remarks of Mr. Bugliosi?
THE COURT: The jury will be admonished to disregard the remarks of both counsel.
Let’s proceed.
THE WITNESS: Oh, he asked me what I thought of him and, you know, I thought he was really beautiful, and I guess I told him.
It is hard to remember the conversations right here and now.
Q. Well, would you tell us, Mrs. Kasabian, the next conversation, please.
A. They were all sort of going together for a while—
MR. KANAREK: Your Honor, may that be stricken as not responsive? I am asking for conversations, your Honor, not anything else at this time.
MR. STOVITZ: I submit, your Honor, that a witness is always entitled to explain her answer, your Honor.
THE COURT: The answer will be stricken as not responsive.
Reframe the question.
Q. BY MR. KANAREK: Would you please tell us, Mrs. Kasabian, the next conversation.
A. The next conversation. I don’t know what the next conversation was. I cannot think of it, and, as I just said, it seems that a lot of our conversations sort of went into each other, like at suppertime, you know, he would be talking to everybody, not necessarily just me, and—
MR. KANAREK: Your Honor, may that be stricken as not responsive?
The question is for conversations between her and Mr. Manson.
THE COURT: Motion is denied.
MR. KANAREK: That is all I am asking for, your Honor.
MR. STOVITZ: That was not the question.
THE COURT: All right.
MR. KANAREK: Then I would ask that it be re-read to Mr. Stovitz. I believe that is the question.
THE COURT: Proceed. Have you finished your answer to that question?
THE WITNESS: Yes.
THE COURT: Ask your next question.
Q. BY MR. KANAREK: Would you tell us the next conversation, Mrs. Kasabian, that you had with Mr. Manson?
MR. STOVITZ: I object to the question as ambiguous, whether counsel means alone with Mr. Manson or with other persons present.
THE COURT: Overruled.
THE WITNESS: With other people, is that what you are asking?
THE COURT: The next conversation.
Q. BY MR. KANAREK: I am asking for the next conversation between yourself and Mr. Manson, Mrs. Kasabian.
A. Didn’t you ask if other people were present?
MR. KANAREK: May the question be read to the witness, your Honor?
MR. STOVITZ: Your Honor, I submit that the witness, like myself, is thinking back to the first question that counsel asked when he asked for times and persons present, and all the foundational matters.
The witness is trying to keep those things in mind. I think it is about 18 questions back.
THE COURT: Just listen to the questions, Mrs. Kasabian, and answer the question asked.
Reframe the question.
Q. BY MR. KANAREK: Mrs. Kasabian, would you please tell us the next conversation that you had with Mr. Manson.
A. Well, I don’t know the sequence but there is one conversation I recall where he tried on a black cape, and people were standing in front of the ranch, and Leslie was present, and I think Little Patti and Charlie and myself, and he tried on this long black cape, and he sort of scrouched over, crunched over, whatever the word is, and he said, “Ah, now when I go creepy-crawling people won’t see me. Maybe they will think I am a tree or a bush.”
Everybody just sort of laughed.
Q. All right, tell us the next conversation.
A. I am thinking. It is so hard for me to think.
Q. You generally find it hard to think, is that correct?
MR. BUGLIOSI: Argumentative, your Honor.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q. BY MR. KANAREK: May I ask you, Mrs. Kasabian, have you found it hard to think since you have been on the witness stand?
A. For the last few days, yes, I am totally exhausted.
Q. I see.
THE COURT: Are you going to ask another question?
MR. KANAREK: Yes, your Honor, I am asking for the next conversation after the last one.
THE WITNESS: I am not able to grasp anything, I am sorry.
MR. KANAREK: Your Honor, I believe that it was about a half minute before she spoke.
THE COURT: Your comment is uncalled for.
MR. KANAREK: I am trying to make the record, your Honor.
THE COURT: Ask the next question.
Q. BY MR. KANAREK: Now, Mrs. Kasabian, have you now told us all of the conversations that you had with Mr. Manson?
MR. STOVITZ: That is objected to, your Honor, that is not what the witness said. She said that is all she can remember at this time.
THE COURT: Overruled.
THE WITNESS: No, I am not able to think of anything.
Q. BY MR. KANAREK: Would you tell us—now, let me ask you, would you tell us now, regardless of any particular time, tell us any other conversation that you had with Mr. Manson other than the ones you already told us.
MR. STOVITZ: I object to the question as ambiguous and unclear, your Honor.
THE COURT: Overruled.
THE WITNESS: Would you repeat it again?
Q. BY MR. KANAREK: All right, would you tell us, state to us any other conversations between yourself and Mr. Manson.
A. Just between him and I alone?
Q. Mrs. Kasabian, you and I are having conversations now, right?
A. Yes.
Q. There are other people in this room, right?
A. Yes.
Q. All right, it matters not whether anyone else was present or not.
I am asking you for any other conversation that you had with Mr. Manson in your lifetime other than the ones that you have told us.
MR. STOVITZ: Your Honor, object to the question.
It is not clear as to whether or not counsel intends to go into matters that he’s already covered or whether he is asking for additional conversation.
THE COURT: Overruled.
THE WITNESS: Yes, another time in front of the ranch he had a sore, or something on his arm—who was there—I don’t remember who was there, there were a few people there.
And he said something like that he could heal himself, or some day he would have the power to heal himself, which really impressed me.
MR. KANAREK: Your Honor, may that be stricken? I am not asking for this at this point.
THE COURT: Conversation, Mr. Kanarek, that is what you’re asking for.
MR. KANAREK: She said it impressed her.
THE COURT: You don’t want all of the answer stricken?
MR. KANAREK: No, just where it is not responsive to the question.
THE COURT: That portion of the answer will be stricken. The jury is admonished to disregard it.
THE WITNESS: Once I heard him say that—
BY MR. KANAREK:
Q. I am not asking for what you heard him say—
MR. STOVITZ: Your Honor, this is—
MR. KANAREK: I am talking about conversation, your Honor, if someone is making a speech on a street corner and she listens to it, that is not conversation.
I am asking for conversation between her and Mr. Manson.
THE COURT: Wait until you get the answer, Mr. Kanarek, and let’s find out what her answer is.
MR. KANAREK: That is what I am asking for.
MR. STOVITZ: I hope the record shows that the witness started to answer when she was interrupted by counsel.
THE WITNESS: So you don’t want me to tell you what I heard him say? It is not just necessarily just me and everybody, but just me.
BY MR. KANAREK:
Q. The question is not clear to you, Mrs. Kasabian?
A. No, it is really not.
Q. My question is, you understand you and I are now having conversations?
A. Yes.
Q. There are other people in the room?
A. Yes.
Q. But you are conversing only with me, right?
A. Right.
Q. My question is for you to state any other conversation that you had with Mr. Manson, please.
MR. BUGLIOSI: Your Honor, I object on the grounds that a person could have a conversation with more than one person at the same time.
One person can talk to four people. She may be among those four, ergo, that would be a conversation.
THE WITNESS: That is mostly what I have been responding to.
THE COURT: Overruled.
Go ahead, Mrs. Kasabian.
THE WITNESS: Concerning my little girl, he told me not to feed her but to give her my attention.
Another time he said to let Bear do it all, that none of us was to feed her; that Bear was the only one to feed her.
And when she cried I was supposed to put my hand over her mouth. All the girls were supposed to suppress her crying.
MR. KANAREK: Your Honor, “All the girls were supposed to,” may that be stricken?
MR. STOVITZ: I submit, your Honor, that that was part of the conversation.
MR. KANAREK: Unless it was part of the conversation, your Honor.
THE COURT: Perhaps you’d inquire and find out if it was.
BY MR. KANAREK:
Q. Yes, would you tell us, Mrs. Kasabian, I am now asking for conversation between yourself and Mr. Manson.
A. Just about everything I have been telling you is in the presence of other people. I don’t know if he was directing it all just at me or if he was directing it to everybody.
Q. Well, my question is conversation which your state of mind accepted it as conversation between yourself and Mr. Manson.
MR. STOVITZ: That is objected to, your Honor, it makes the question ambiguous.
THE COURT: Sustained.
BY MR. KANAREK:
Q. Mrs. Kasabian, have you told us now all of the conversations between yourself and Mr. Manson?
A. No.
Q. Well, then, would you tell us any other conversations that you had between yourself and Mr. Manson?
A. I cannot think of anything right now.
Q. That is all you can think of, is that correct?
A. At the moment, yes.
Q. Well, now is the time.
A. Now is the time—yes—that is all we mentioned.
MR. STOVITZ: I object to that question “Now is the time,” as unintelligible, your Honor.
THE COURT: Are you going to pose another question, Mr. Kanarek?
MR. KANAREK: Pardon?
THE COURT: Are you going to pose another question?
MR. KANAREK: Yes.
BY MR. KANAREK:
Q. You have answered that, Mrs. Kasabian.
A. All I can think of at the moment, yes.
Q. Now, Mrs. Kasabian, would you, Mrs. Kasabian, point out for us on the diagram where you went back of the Tate house—
MR. STOVITZ: That is objected to, your Honor, it has been asked and answered.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. KANAREK: Your Honor, I have not asked this witness that.
THE COURT: We will take our recess at this time.
Ladies and gentlemen, do not converse with anyone nor form or express an opinion regarding the case until it is finally submitted to you.
The court will recess for 15 minutes.
(Recess.)
THE COURT: All parties, counsel and jurors are present.
You may proceed, Mr. Kanarek.
MR. KANAREK: Yes, your Honor. I would like, your Honor, for Mrs. Kasabian to mark the back area.
She hasn’t marked where she went around in back of the house, your Honor. It is not on there.
THE COURT: All right. You may mark it.
Will you escort her around to the board, Mr. Stovitz?
(The witness leaves the stand and approaches the board.)
MR. KANAREK: May the path be drawn, your Honor, as to where she started when she said that Tex told her to go around the back, where she started and where she went to.
THE COURT: I suggest that the starting point be marked first and then the path could be drawn in.
MR. KANAREK: Q. Would you please mark, Mrs. Kasabian, the place where you say that Tex was and where you were when Tex told you to go around to the back of the house.
A. Somewhere in here.
Q. Would you mark it, please.
A. Well, I don’t know the exact spot.
Q. Well, would you pick what you think is the place.
A. I guess about right here.
MR. STOVITZ: May the record show that on People’s Exhibit 8 for identification there is a red X that has been placed near a two-story garage building.
MR. KANAREK: Would you put a circle around it and put an LK next to it, and also a TW.
(The witness complies.)
MR. KANAREK: Now, would you trace for us, by using the marking pencil, your path in going to the area you went as a result of Tex’s instruction?
(The witness complies.)
MR. STOVITZ: May the record show now that there is a solid red line drawn from LK-TW to a position where there is a point on an arrow.
MR. KANAREK: Q. There are two windows there. Do you see the two “W’s”, Mrs. Kasabian?
A. Yes.
Q. Are those two windows that you looked into?
A. I didn’t look into any of the windows.
MR. STOVITZ: May the record show that counsel pointed to two windows in a room marked “dressing room” on People’s 8 for identification?
MR. KANAREK: Q. When you got to that area, Mrs. Kasabian, what did you do?
A. Turned around and walked back.
Q. Pardon?
A. Turned around and walked back.
Q. What was your intent in going there?
A. To do what Tex told me to do.
Q. What did Tex tell you to do?
A. To look for open windows and doors.
Q. So you looked for open windows and—
A. Not really.
Q. Pardon?
A. I didn’t look for them. I mean, I don’t know how to answer.
Q. Would you answer so the jury can hear you?
A. I didn’t try to open windows and doors. I just looked. I didn’t make any effort to open them.
Q. But you were looking for open windows; is that correct?
A. Yes, I guess so.
Q. And your intent and purpose was to follow Mr. Watson’s instructions?
A. Right.
Q. New, did you look through the windows?
A. No.
Q. Was there any light in that dressing room?
A. No.
Q. Was the dressing room dark?
A. I guess so. I didn’t look into the window.
MR. KANAREK: Thank you.
(The witness returns to the witness stand.)
MR. KANAREK: Q. Now, when you returned, Mrs. Watson—Mrs. Kasabian—did you return to Tex’s immediate presence?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. After being at the windows in accordance with his instructions?
A. Yes.
Q. Is that right, and you had conversations with him?
A. Yes.
Q. You told him there were no open windows?
A. Yes, I guess I did.
Q. Did you?
A. Yes, I think I did.
Q. Now, Mrs. Kasabian, did Mr. Manson, Mrs. Kasabian, tell you to go to the Tate residence?
MR. BUGLIOSI: That has been asked and answered.
THE COURT: Sustained.
BY MR. KANAREK:
Q. Mrs. Kasabian, I will read to you your testimony from yesterday, page 6950, and ask you whether this is a true statement, beginning at page 6950, line 5:
“Q. You don’t understand that? Well, you were under Mr. Manson’s spell when you were at the Tate residence”—
MR. BUGLIOSI: Your Honor, I object, the language is: “Well, were you under Mr. Manson’s spell.”
He said, “Well, you were under”—
MR. KANAREK: I think I read it correctly. I will read it again, your Honor:
“You don’t understand that.
“Well, were you under Mr. Manson’s spell when you were at the Tate residence?”
The witness answers at line 12:
“Well, he told me to go there but he wasn’t there to tell me what to do.”
Is that a true statement, Mrs. Kasabian?
A. He did not say “Linda, go to the Tate residence,” he told me to go with Tex.
Q. Mrs. Kasabian, is that a true statement that I just read to you?
MR. BUGLIOSI: I object, your Honor, it is argumentative. The record speaks for itself.
THE COURT: Overruled, you may answer.
THE WITNESS: Would you read it.
BY MR. KANAREK:
Q. Did Mr. Manson tell you to go to the Tate residence?
A. No.
MR. KANAREK: Thank you.
Your Honor, I have no further questions at this time, but I would like to approach the bench in view of a certain matter.
THE COURT: Very well.
(The following proceedings were had at the bench outside of the hearing of the jury:)
THE COURT: All right, Mr. Kanarek.
MR. KANAREK: Yes, your Honor, here on July 17th, 1970, there was a letter directed to Mr. J. Miller Leavy and Aaron Stovitz, a copy of which I have here.
It purports to be directed by Gary B. Fleischman and Ronald Goldman, in which Mr. Goldman and Mr. Fleischman state that they have sent a 20-page statement summarizing Linda Kasabian’s anticipated testimony furnished by your office for the defendants, and so forth, presently being tried.
“We have received a copy.”
The letter is self-explanatory. I ask that your Honor issue an order to show cause in re contempt against Mr. Stovitz and Mr. Bugliosi in that they deliberately flouted the discovery motion. Mr. Bugliosi, instead of giving us the 20-page statement at that time or giving us what we could use, Mr. Bugliosi previously gave a purported synopsis of Linda Kasabian’s testimony and he left out—there is no mention in that statement of LSD—
THE COURT: Before you go into the merits of whatever you are saying, Mr. Kanarek, if you wish to initiate a contempt proceeding the Code of Civil Procedure provides the method.
Then the other side alleged in the contempt order may respond to that, if they see fit, and the Court may take it from there.
MR. BUGLIOSI: May I be briefly heard; it could save a hearing if I could briefly be heard.
Could I see this document?
MR. KANAREK: I haven’t finished.
If I may—
MR. BUGLIOSI: May I address myself to this point?
MR. KANAREK: That is up to the Court.
MR. BUGLIOSI: This is dated July 17, 1970. I gave a copy of this 20-page summary of Linda Kasabian’s testimony to Mr. Fitzgerald, to Mr. Shinn, to Mr. Kanarek several months before July 17th and I think Mr. Fitzgerald will agree that he got that 20-page summary, he and Mr. Shinn will agree he got it before July 17th.
MR. FITZGERALD: I agree.
MR. SHINN: I agree.
MR. STOVITZ: It was about May 15th.
THE COURT: The same summary?
MR. BUGLIOSI: Yes, I gave it to each of defense counsel.
THE COURT: Did you give it to Mr. Kanarek?
MR. BUGLIOSI: Yes.
MR. KANAREK: The point is, Mr. Stovitz did not give us what this lady wrote.
Mr. Bugliosi gave us his summary. He did not give us the handwritten documents of this lady.
We were not given those documents until just a few days ago.
MR. BUGLIOSI: Those documents have been available in my tubs. Mr. Fitzgerald has been down there.
I said “Paul, you may look through the tubs and take whatever you want.”
THE COURT: I have indicated to you, Mr. Kanarek, the Code of Civil Procedure provides the method, if you want to use it you may do so; that is your right, and it will be handled in that manner.
Anything else?
MR. KANAREK: Yes, I make a motion to strike all of this witness’s testimony, a motion to suppress it, on the basis of failure of discovery.
We made a motion of discovery to the Court and Mr. Bugliosi, instead of responding with the documents that were handwritten—
THE COURT: Apparently there hasn’t been any failure of discovery.
If you want to attempt to prove it by any addition or something else, of course, you may do so, but as of this time it appears that counsel provided you with everything.
MR. KANAREK: He didn’t give us the handwritten notes which he had all the time. He gave us merely his summary.
So, therefore, in order to proceed with this witness, we want to know whether or not we have now been given all the handwritten notes, and there is no way of doing it except by swearing Mr. Bugliosi and/or Mr. Stovitz and finding out what they have.
You cannot depend upon what they represent because they gave us only a summary, and a summary is not—
THE COURT: Mr. Fitzgerald, do you contend that you have been denied any discovery in the case?
MR. FITZGERALD: No, I don’t contend that I have been denied discovery in regard to Linda Kasabian.
Everything Mr. Bugliosi has said is true. He did provide us with what purported to be a 17 or 20-page compilation of five separate and distinct conversations that Mr. Bugliosi had with Linda Kasabian in the jail.
My recollection is that the compilation was provided to me and that I subsequently, almost immediately, provided it to all the other attorneys.
My recollection is that that was about the end of May, the first of June, although I could check my records and find out.
The other day, I believe last Thursday, Mr. Bugliosi and Mr. Stovitz provided us with original handwritten notes of Linda Kasabian to the prosecution.
MR. KANAREK: None of which were even alluded to in the so-called summary by Mr. Bugliosi. All he spoke of were conversations. He did not make any mention that there was any handwritten notes by this lady.
So, your Honor, Mr. Manson is denied due process, denied a fair trial, and denied discovery that has been deliberately withheld by the prosecution.
They know full well that their summary, from their viewpoint of what her testimony is, is a far cry from actual handwritten notes.
THE COURT: When did you receive the handwritten notes?
MR. KANAREK: Just a couple of days ago.
THE COURT: Before your cross-examination started?
MR. KANAREK: During. No. Afterwards, afterwards.
We have been denied the right to prepare. People vs. Crovedi. We have been denied due process under the Fourteenth Amendment because of the deliberate, intentional and malicious actions of the District Attorney in withholding the handwritten statements of Mrs. Kasabian.
We have made timely discovery, and instead of giving us the handwritten notes, they have given us Mr. Bugliosi’s summary of conversations with her, which is a far cry from her own handwritten notes.
I ask that all her testimony be suppressed, and I ask that your Honor issue the order to show cause re contempt.
MR. BUGLIOSI: I would like to make a further statement.
It is my understanding that the primary purpose of discovery is to prevent surprise by the defense, and I represent to this Court, and the record will so reflect, something that I think is unbelievable that has happened in this case.
Out of that 20-page summary, which went into complete detail and depth as to everything Linda Kasabian was going to testify to, she has been on the stand for 12 days, and not once, not one single solitary time, did any of the three attorneys who cross-examined her thus far say, “Mrs. Kasabian, didn’t you tell Mr. Bugliosi such-and-such,” and indicate that this was in contradiction to her present testimony.
The point I am trying to make is that that 20-page statement that I gave is almost identical to her testimony on this witness stand.
I think that is marvelous. I think that is unbelievable. It shows the great amount of discovery that the defendants were given prior to the time that she took the witness stand.
Not once have they looked at that 20 pages and said, “Isn’t it true, Mrs. Kasabian, that at a prior time you told someone something else.” Not once out of the 12 days. And I think this shows the extent and the depth and the accuracy—the accuracy—of that 20-page statement.
She was not impeached on it one single, solitary time, and the record proves that.
MR. KANAREK: Well, your Honor, that is not so.
First of all, Mr. Bugliosi has a short memory. She was impeached. I read her several lines from one of the pages she wrote.
MR. BUGLIOSI: I am talking about the 20-page statement I gave you.
MR. KANAREK: The 20-page statement of Mr. Bugliosi used to program Mrs. Bugliosi—
MR. BUGLIOSI: Mrs. Bugliosi?
THE COURT: I have your motion in mind, Mr. Kanarek. I have heard your argument.
MR. KANAREK: Mr. Fitzgerald joins with me that he did not receive these handwritten notes until a few days ago.
MR. FITZGERALD: That is correct.
I was unaware of their existence until cross-examination by Mr. Kanarek, when the matter was brought up. I think it was brought up on Thursday a.m., Thursday noon, and we all went to Mr. Bugliosi’s office, and Mr. Bugliosi gave me the originals, and I photocopied the originals.
THE COURT: I understand—and correct me if I am wrong—that at the outset you were given access to all of these documents and records for the asking. In other words, all you had to do was to go down there and look through it and take out whatever you wanted.
MR. KANAREK: Your Honor, that is not discovery.
What I am saying, if I tell you that there is a book in the library, go look for it—
THE COURT: Is what I said true?
MR. KANAREK: Yes. They said, “come into the District Attorney’s office and look around.”
That is not discovery.
THE COURT: They said look through the files that they have pertaining to this case.
MR. KANAREK: Your Honor, as to the prime witness, Mr. Bugliosi well knew that they had handwritten statements by her. He knew it and he deliberately withheld it, deliberately withheld that discovery and gave us his synopsis.
THE COURT: But you have received it.
MR. KANAREK: During cross-examination.
THE COURT: Assuming what you say is true, you have received it.
MR. KANAREK: The purpose of discovery is to prepare for trial.
THE COURT: How have you been prejudiced?
MR. KANAREK: I haven’t had a chance to use those in terms of my investigation, in preparation for the case.
THE COURT: Is there something in the handwritten notes that is contrary to or inconsistent with or that provides some surprise to you that wasn’t contained in the 20-page summary? Is that what you are saying?
MR. KANAREK: Yes, your Honor.
I am saying that with these 20 pages of notes, you can’t digest all of what Mrs. Kasabian wrote for the District Attorney and at the same time conduct a trial, prepare.
That is the reason for discovery, and this was thwarted by the District Attorney’s technique of taking the handwritten notes and deliberately concealing them.
MR. SHINN: Your Honor, I believe we can solve this problem by directing the witness to return for further cross-examination at a later time, your Honor, and at that time Mr. Kanarek and all defense counsel will have an opportunity to examine these handwritten notes.
MR. BUGLIOSI: Mr. Fitzgerald told me personally, your Honor, that he has looked over all the handwritten notes, and the information in them was astonishingly identical to her testimony on the witness stand.
Mr. Fitzgerald told me that himself.
THE COURT: If there is any question about it, we can put the handwritten notes—make them a special exhibit, and also the summary.
MR. KANAREK: That isn’t the point.
THE COURT: If you want to use it as an exhibit to your motion.
Do you want to do that?
MR. KANAREK: Pardon?
THE COURT: I said, do you want to do that?
MR. KANAREK: If we can have an evidentiary hearing.
THE COURT: I am not talking about an evidentiary hearing.
You apparently claim that the notes contain something of substance that the summary doesn’t. I am asking you now: Do you want to use that to support your motion?
You can put it in as an exhibit to support your motion.
MR. KANAREK: Your Honor, the fact of the matter is—
THE COURT: Do you want to do that?
MR. KANAREK: That is part of it. I would use the notes as part of the motion.
I also want sworn testimony from Mr. Bugliosi and Mr. Stovitz, because I think that these notes are the result of a programming of this witness, where she was programmed.
In other words, Mr. Bugliosi told her what he wanted in fact, and then she wrote the notes, and then the notes come back, lo and behold, just exactly like the summary.
THE COURT: If you want to prepare a motion with all the exhibits and declarations to support this, very well. I have no knowledge, Mr. Kanarek. You are going to have to show it to me. Then I will be glad to rule on the motion.
MR. KANAREK: By depriving us of this at the very beginning, Mr. Manson has been denied due process and a failure of discovery, and I ask that all the witness’s testimony be stricken.
THE COURT: I take it you don’t intend to go further?
MR. KANAREK: Yes.
THE COURT: I won’t rule on it at this time, until you have completed your presentation.
MR. KANAREK: Very well.
THE COURT: If you want me to rule on the motion, you will have to indicate to me.
MR. KANAREK: Very well.
THE COURT: Anything further, gentlemen?
Are you prepared to cross-examine now, Mr. Hughes?
MR. HUGHES: I would like to make a motion, your Honor, before beginning the cross-examination, and that is to renew the earlier motion for a psychiatric examination of this witness.
I ask that we suspend the proceedings at this time and have a psychiatric examination of this witness, because I believe, by her own words, your Honor, we have gone into the large amount of drug abuse that she has undergone in the last four years, and specifically at the time these events were taking place, and we also brought out as a result of cross-examination that she was apparently laboring under certain delusions, which may very well have been the result of this large scale drug abuse that Linda Kasabian has undergone. These delusions were, number one, that Charles Manson is Jesus Christ; number two, that she herself was a witch. These are things that she has said that she actually believed to be the state of facts at that time.
I believe, your Honor, that these delusions support that earlier motion for psychiatric examination of this witness, and I would so move the Court.
THE COURT: Do you wish to be heard?
MR. BUGLIOSI: Your Honor, I don’t think there is any question—at least my opinion is that she has been extremely articulate, extremely alert. She catches all of the nuances of the questions.
A question will be asked: Were you forced to do something? And she will say: Physically or mentally?
She couldn’t be more sharp. Her memory is excellent.
I don’t think there is any question whatsoever, your Honor, that although she has taken drugs, it has not affected her in the least. It has not destroyed or impaired her mental faculties in any fashion whatsoever, your Honor.
I don’t think an issue like this should be inserted into this case.
I don’t think there is any question that she is sane, that she is rational, that she is sensible.
What I am saying is not evidence now, but everybody has told me in this court that they have been very, very impressed listening to her, that she has complete command of her mental faculties, and I would object to creating any further issue in this case.
True, she was naive and she was impressionistic, but that does not mean that she has lost any of her mental faculties.
MR. HUGHES: Your Honor, going back, we are talking about her ability to recall and recollect things that happened a year ago.
Now, I am concerned largely with her state of mind a year ago, more concerned about her state of mind a year ago than I am with her state of mind now.
How candid or how lucid she can be at this point when she apparently has not taken any drugs for some eight months, is not what we are concerned about.
However, her testimony supports the idea that at that time she was laboring under major hallucinatory delusions as to her identity and the identity of other people, that she believes certain things having to do with the occult, and the fact that Mr. Manson is Jesus Christ.
I submit, your Honor, that these are major delusions that were occurring at that time, a year ago, in her mind as a result of drugs, and that to be really fair, to have a fair trial for Miss Van Houten and the other defendants, it is imperative that this witness be examined psychiatrically before, number one, we lose control and jurisdiction.
She is still a defendant, your Honor, but I understand that in a few days she will not be. Then it may never be possible to examine her.
I submit, your Honor, that this is an absolute necessity to go into her state of mind a year ago.
THE COURT: Well, I find no basis for an order for a psychiatric examination in this case.
She appears to be perfectly lucid, responsive and articulate. I find no evidence of aberration of any kind insofar as her ability to recall, to relate. In all respects she has been remarkably articulate and responsive.
I would call her an unusually good witness in the sense that she is able to respond and to understand and to relate.
The motion will be denied.
MR. KANAREK: Your Honor, may the record reflect that I am joining with Mr. Hughes on the motion?
THE COURT: Very well.
MR. KANAREK: May my joining be deemed prior to your Honor’s ruling?
THE COURT: Yes.
MR. SHINN: Susan Atkins joins in the motions of Mr. Hughes.
MR. FITZGERALD: So the record may be clear, we would like to resubmit points and authorities, and the declarations attached thereto in the motion presented to your Honor.
I believe on June 12th, wherein we asked under Ballard vs. Superior Court that she be examined prior—at that time your Honor told us you were denying the motion without prejudice to be resubmitted at such time as she testified.
We would like the record to be clear that we are submitting that motion.
THE COURT: The record will so indicate, and the motion will be denied.
Anything else, gentlemen?
MR. KANAREK: I join with Mr. Fitzgerald’s comments.
MR. HUGHES: If possible I would appreciate if I could start my cross-examination at 2:00 o’clock, so there would be continuity. I would hate to break it in ten minutes.
THE COURT: There has to be a break. There will be a break at 3:00 o’clock when we recess and another at 4:15.
We have 15 minutes, let’s proceed.
MR. SHINN: I join in Mr. Fitzgerald’s motion.
THE COURT: Very well.
MR. HUGHES: May I remain seated for cross-examination so I can use the microphone?
THE COURT: Yes.
MR. HUGHES: Thank you.
(The following proceedings were had in open court in the presence and hearing of the jury:)
THE COURT: You may cross-examine, Mr. Hughes.
CROSS EXAMINATION
BY MR. HUGHES:
Q. Now, Mrs. Kasabian, to continue the cross-examination, can you hear me?
A. Yes, I can.
Q. What do you feel love is?
A. What do I feel love is?
Q. Yes.
A. Well, there’s different degrees of love.
There is an earthly love between people, a physical love.
There is also an impersonal love where, you know, you feel love towards all living things, which is more of a universal love.
Q. Does it come and go to you?
A. Excuse me?
Q. Does love come and go to you?
A. The earthly love, yes.
Q. How do you feel about the defendants in this case now, Mrs. Kasabian?
MR. STOVITZ: I cannot hear the question, your Honor.
MR. HUGHES: Could it be read back, your Honor?
THE COURT: Read the question.
(Whereupon the reporter reads the question as follows:
“Q. How do you feel about the defendants in this case now, Mrs. Kasabian?”)
THE WITNESS: Well, I feel compassion for them. I wish that they would be up here and do what I am doing, tell the truth.
That is about the size of it.
BY MR. HUGHES:
Q. What was your opinion of Patricia Krenwinkel at the ranch?
MR. STOVITZ: Objected to, your Honor, as immaterial—
I will withdraw the objection if other counsel does not object to the question.
Withdraw the objection.
THE COURT: You may answer.
BY MR. HUGHES:
Q. Will you answer.
A. What was your question?
Q. What was your opinion of Patti while at the ranch?
A. I didn’t really know her that well. She was just like the others.
Q. What was your opinion of Sadie?
A. I did not really know her all that well.
THE COURT: Keep your voice up, please.
THE WITNESS: I think I knew her better than the others. I just loved everybody.
BY MR. HUGHES:
Q. And what was your opinion of Leslie?
A. The same.
Q. Mrs. Kasabian, you stated earlier that you felt that Mr. Manson was the Messiah. Do you still feel the same?
A. No.
Q. Do you consider yourself a jealous woman?
A. A jealous woman? Concerning what?
Q. Isn’t it true that Mr. Manson ignored you at the ranch?
A. No.
MR. STOVITZ: A hand is being raised.
AN ALTERNATE JUROR: I did not hear Mr. Hughes’ question.
THE COURT: You will have to keep your voice up, Mr. Hughes. It is difficult to hear you.
Repeat the question, please.
Q. BY MR. HUGHES: Isn’t it true that Mr. Manson ignored you at the ranch?
A. Well, he gave me his attention when he could; he gave everybody his attention when he could.
I would not say he ignored me.
MR. KANAREK: Move to strike “when he could” as a conclusion, your Honor, by this witness.
THE COURT: The motion is denied.
Q. BY MR. HUGHES: Isn’t it a fact he really did not care what you did?
MR. BUGLIOSI: Calls for a conclusion, your Honor.
THE COURT: Read the question.
(Whereupon, the reporter reads the pending question as follows:
“Q. BY MR. HUGHES: Isn’t it a fact he really did not care what you did?”)
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q. BY MR. HUGHES: Were you with the women or the men mostly at the ranch?
A. Well, there were different intervals.
Sometimes I was mostly with the women; sometimes I was mostly with the men.
Q. Did you compete for attention at the ranch?
A. No.
Q. Whose attention did you wish to have at the ranch, Mrs. Kasabian?
MR. STOVITZ: If anyone, your Honor.
I object to the question as assuming a fact not in evidence.
Q. BY MR. HUGHES: —if anyone.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q. BY MR. HUGHES: If anyone—whose attention, if anyone’s, did you want at the ranch?
A. It didn’t matter, I don’t know if I was looking for any, you know, person’s attention.
Q. Did you love the women as much as you loved the men?
A. Well, no, not exactly.
Q. Did you ever compete with your mother for your father’s attention?
MR. STOVITZ: I object to the question, your Honor, as remote.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q. BY MR. HUGHES: Isn’t it true, Mrs. Kasabian, that the girls would go into town with you because of your discontent?
A. Because of my discontent? I don’t quite understand.
Q. Were you discontented at the ranch?
A. I don’t quite understand what you mean by discontent.
Q. Isn’t it true that the girls tried to make you feel at ease because Mr. Manson ignored you?
A. No.
Q. Mrs. Kasabian, when you were asked if you were a defendant you said, “I guess so.”
Does this mean that you place yourself above the other defendants in intelligence?
A. No.
Q. Let’s take a situation, Mrs. Kasabian, where A talks to B; B comes and tells C what his interpretation of A’s conversation with him was.
Now C turns around and tells someone else what B said about A and B’s conversation.
Is it not a fact that all C heard was what B told him?
MR. STOVITZ: I object to the question. It’s improper algebra.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q. BY MR. HUGHES: In fact he never really talked to A did he?
MR. STOVITZ: Object to the question, your Honor.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q. BY MR. HUGHES: Mrs. Kasabian, do you consider yourself ignorant and slow?
A. Ignorant and what?
Q. Slow.
A. Slow? Yes, sometimes.
Q. Do you follow the truth you see or the truth you hear?
A. Say that again.
Q. Do you follow the truth you see or the truth you hear?
A. Both.
Q. Do you believe there is any truth but your own?
A. I don’t understand that either.
MR. HUGHES: Could the question be read back, your Honor?
THE COURT: She said she did not understand it. I assume she heard it; she does not understand it.
Reframe the question.
Q. BY MR. HUGHES: What is truth to you, Mrs. Kasabian?
A. The reality, the actual reality.
Q. Do you judge others from your reality or from the reality you feel in someone else’s mind?
MR. BUGLIOSI: Ambiguous; it doesn’t even make sense, your Honor.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q. BY MR. HUGHES: Mrs. Kasabian, you said you did what you did because someone told you.
Are you still told what to do as a lost child?
A. Sometimes.
Q. Then you feel you are a judge, am I right?
A. Do I feel that I am a judge?
Q. Yes.
A. No, I am not a judge.
Q. Mrs. Kasabian, when you were mixing with other women in the jail did you make an attempt to communicate with any defendant in this case?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you send Leslie a kite?
A. Yes, I returned a message that she sent to me.
Q. And what did the kite that you sent Leslie say?
MR. STOVITZ: Is that spelled k-i-t-e, Counsel?
MR. HUGHES: K-i-t-e.
BY MR. HUGHES:
Q. What is a kite, Mrs. Kasabian?
A. A note. They call it a kite in the jail.
Q. And what did that kite that you sent Leslie say?
MR. BUGLIOSI: Your Honor, I have no objection to this being gone into if Leslie’s letter to her would also be gone into. Otherwise it is just hearsay.
THE COURT: Overruled.
You may answer.
THE WITNESS: I don’t really remember what was said.
BY MR. HUGHES:
Q. Didn’t you stress to the other defendants a need for them to change attorneys?
MR. STOVITZ: That is objected to, your Honor, as to when counsel is talking about.
Is this while she is in jail? Or what period of time?
THE COURT: Sustained.
BY MR. HUGHES:
Q. In the kite, did you not stress this need for the other defendants to change attorneys?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. Now, directing your testimony—I believe it is proper to characterize that you referred to the defendants as “them” and to yourself as “me.”
At one time you considered yourself part of this Family. What do you consider yourself now?
MR. KANAREK: I will object to that question on the grounds that there is no showing of any Family, your Honor. It is assuming facts not in evidence. It is a matter of sheer and absolute lifting by the bootstraps.
I must object to the question and also object on the grounds that it is calling for a conclusion, hearsay.
THE COURT: Sustained.
BY MR. HUGHES:
Q. Very well, Mrs. Kasabian.
You testified—you continued to refer to yourself as “me” and to the other defendants as “them,” but at one time you considered yourself part of this alleged or so-called Family—
MR. KANAREK: I object on the same grounds. It calls for conjecture.
MR. HUGHES: May I finish my question?
MR. KANAREK: I am sorry.
BY MR. KANAREK:
Q. —now what do you consider yourself?
MR. KANAREK: I will object to that on the grounds it is a solicitation of hearsay.
THE COURT: The form of the question is improper.
The objection is sustained.
BY MR. HUGHES:
Q. Do you consider yourself to still be a member of the so-called Family, Mrs. Kasabian?
MR. KANAREK: I must object on the ground that it is calling for a conclusion, hearsay, it solicits—I would welcome approaching the bench on this, if I may, your Honor.
THE COURT: Overruled.
You may answer.
THE WITNESS: Do I consider myself a part of the Family as it is now? Is that what you are asking me?
MR. HUGHES: Yes.
THE WITNESS: No.
BY MR. HUGHES:
Q. When you are released, what do you plan to do? Be a writer or a secretary?
A. No.
Q. What do you plan to do?
A. To take care of my children.
Q. Mrs. Kasabian, do you cry with remorse at the mutilated children in Biafra?
MR. STOVITZ: That is objected to as being immaterial.
THE COURT: Sustained.
We will recess at this time, Mr. Hughes.
Ladies and gentlemen, do not converse with anyone nor form or express any opinion regarding the case until it is finally submitted to you.
The court will recess until 2:00 p.m.
(Whereupon at 12:00 o’clock noon the court was in recess.)
2:00 o’clock p.m.
THE COURT: All parties, counsel and jurors are present.
You may continue, Mr. Hughes.
MR. KANAREK: May I address the Court, your Honor?
THE COURT: Yes.
MR. KANAREK: Your Honor, I would like to apologize for being a few minutes late.
I had lunch out here at Sears Roebuck with some people; I miscalculated a few minutes.
THE COURT: Very well.
MR. KANAREK: I apologize to the jury, counsel and the Court and the witness, your Honor.
THE COURT: You may proceed, Mr. Hughes.
LINDA KASABIAN,
the witness on the stand at the time of the noon recess, resumed the stand and was examined and testified further as follows:
CROSS-EXAMINATION (Continued)
BY MR. HUGHES:
Q. What is a reality?
A. What is a reality? The actual happening.
Q. Is God a reality to you?
A. Yes.
Q. Does man work for God’s reality?
MR. STOVITZ: That is objected to, your Honor, as being immaterial.
MR. BUGLIOSI: Calls for a conclusion.
THE COURT: Sustained.
BY MR. HUGHES:
Q. Is your personal life as an individual important to you?
A. You.
Q. You said you did not understand what this discontent means, are you in such a state of mind now, Mrs. Kasabian, that you could sit on a rock for the rest of your life and be satisfied?
MR. STOVITZ: Objected to, your Honor, as immaterial.
THE COURT: Sustained.
BY MR. HUGHES:
Q. Now, earlier in your testimony you stated that you found God once again after you left the ranch.
Now, Mrs. Kasabian, you say that you thought Mr. Manson was the Messiah. Do you think that now is the time for the Messiah to return?
MR. KANAREK: Your Honor, may that be read back? I was speaking to Mr. Shinn.
I just would like to have that, I’m sorry.
THE COURT: Do you understand the question?
THE WITNESS: Yes.
THE COURT: You may answer.
Pay attention, Mr. Kanarek.
MR. KANAREK: Yes, your Honor.
THE WITNESS: I feel that mankind is in need of Messiah at every moment.
Q. If you believed that Mr. Manson was a Messiah, would you again doubt his word?
MR. BUGLIOSI: Oh, that calls for a conclusion; it is argumentative, your Honor, beyond the scope of the direct.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. BUGLIOSI: I can’t think of anything else.
MR. HUGHES: Q. Would you again let public opinion crucify the truth?
MR. BUGLIOSI: Assumes a fact not in evidence. Argumentative.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q. BY MR. HUGHES: Would you have enough faith to follow Christ to the cross?
MR. STOVITZ: That is objected to, your Honor.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. HUGHES: Q. Christ said, “To enter the kingdom of heaven you must be as the child,” is that right?
A. Excuse me?
MR. BUGLIOSI: Argumentative.
MR. STOVITZ: Assumes a fact not in evidence.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. HUGHES: Q. Do you follow Tanya and Angel?
A. Do I follow them?
Q. Yes.
A. In what respect?
Q. I will let you answer the question.
A. I don’t understand you.
Q. Are you going to send Angel to war when he is 18?
MR. STOVITZ: That is objected to, your Honor, and it assumes a fact not in evidence that we have a war when he is 18.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. HUGHES: Q. Mrs. Kasabian, do you believe in two forces, good and evil?
A. Yes. I do.
Q. Is it not true that they both come from the same place?
MR. BUGLIOSI: Calls for a conclusion, your Honor.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. HUGHES: Q. Mrs. Kasabian, let us say some one was holding something in his hand and you thought that he wanted you to take it from him but, in reality, he wasn’t giving it to you at all.
May I have that question struck out so I can rephrase it?
Mrs. Kasabian, you stated that you believed that Mr. Manson was the Messiah; is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And you stated that you no longer believe he is the Messiah; is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Have you had conversations with your husband since you were arrested?
A. Yes.
Q. And in those conversations has your husband told you who Mr. Manson really is?
MR. BUGLIOSI: Calls for hearsay, your Honor.
THE COURT: Sustained.
BY MR. HUGHES:
Q. Is Mr. Manson really the devil?
A. Really the devil?
MR. BUGLIOSI: Calls for a conclusion, your Honor. It is irrelevant.
MR. KANAREK: I think it calls for a conclusion which the witness can make.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. HUGHES: I think it goes to her state of mind, your Honor.
THE COURT: Well, you didn’t ask her her opinion. You asked it as a fact.
BY MR. HUGHES:
Q. It is your opinion that Mr. Manson is the devil, is it not?
A. A devilish man, yes.
Q. The devil in man’s form?
A. Yes.
Q. The devil in the body of a man?
A. Yes.
Q. The devil in the classical sense of the word devil?
MR. BUGLIOSI: Calls for a conclusion, your Honor, as to what the classical sense is.
MR. HUGHES: Do you understand?
MR. BUGLIOSI: There in an objection.
MR. HUGHES: Excuse me.
THE COURT: Do you understand the question?
THE WITNESS: No.
THE COURT: Sustained.
BY MR. HUGHES:
Q. Now, when you were first at the ranch, Mr. Manson was the Messiah?
A. Yes.
Q. And you were a witch?
MR. STOVITZ: Is that a question?
THE WITNESS: I was told I was a witch, yes.
BY MR. HUGHES:
Q. And you believed you were a witch?
A. Yes.
MR. KANAREK: Just a minute, your Honor.
I would object and ask that that be stricken, this witness’s statement that she was told she was a witch, because the record reveals that she stated she was a witch.
MR. BUGLIOSI: She never said she was a witch, your Honor, she stated she was told she was a witch.
MR. KANAREK: I would ask that the record—
THE COURT: The objection is overruled.
The motion is denied.
Let’s proceed.
MR. KANAREK: Would your Honor instruct the jury, tell the jury and ask the jury to keep in mind that they are the judges of the evidence, and neither Mr. Bugliosi, myself, or anyone else is?
Would your Honor so state to the jury?
THE COURT: Well, thank you for the suggestion, Mr. Kanarek. I will instruct the jury at the proper time.
Proceed, Mr. Hughes.
BY MR. HUGHES:
Q. So, at first Mr. Manson was Jesus Christ—
MR. BUGLIOSI: Asked and answered.
THE COURT: Apparently the question isn’t completed yet.
MR. BUGLIOSI: It will be compound.
BY MR. HUGHES:
Q. —and you are a witch, and now Mr. Manson is the devil?
MR. BUGLIOSI: Compound.
MR. HUGHES: I have not finished my question.
Q. BY MR. HUGHES: Are you now an angel, Mrs. Kasabian?
MR. BUGLIOSI: Compound.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q. BY MR. HUGHES: How many communes or families have you lived with, Mrs. Kasabian?
A. A number, I don’t know how many.
Q. More than 20?
A. Would you let me reflect? I’ll tell you.
Q. Sure, just since you were 16.
A. Well, that’s when it first started.
Q. When what first started?
A. Living in communes. Maybe around 20, yes.
Q. 20?
A. Maybe, yes. Not exactly, I am not sure.
Q. It is hard for you to tell exactly.
A. Well, I might have skipped a few.
Q. It’s hard for you to keep track.
MR. BUGLIOSI: It’s ambiguous, your Honor, keep track of what and when.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q. BY MR. HUGHES: It is hard for you to remember how many communes you actually lived in?
A. At this moment, yes.
Q. Do you think if I asked you the same question tomorrow you would be able to think about it over night?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you think you’d know the answer tomorrow?
A. I would try to give you the answer. Do you want me to think about it?
Q. Would you, please?
A. Okay.
MR. HUGHES: Thank you.
MR. STOVITZ: I think it’s immaterial to the issues in this case and I think it would be just time consuming now.
Q. BY MR. HUGHES: Have you sought acceptance from people at these various communes?
A. Say that again.
Q. Have you sought acceptance from people at these various communes?
A. I guess so, yes.
Q. Did you seek acceptance from Mr. Manson?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you accept yourself?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you a year ago?
A. Yes.
Q. Is it true that what you characterize as the second night you had stayed up some 72 hours without sleep?
A. No, I don’t think so.
Q. But you were not able, when Mr. Kanarek questioned you on this, to remember if you had fallen asleep the night after the first night, is that correct?
MR. BUGLIOSI: Argumentative. The record speaks for itself.
THE COURT: Overruled. You may answer.
THE WITNESS: I don’t remember going to sleep. I don’t remember where I laid down, but I woke up the next morning so I imagine I slept.
Q. BY MR. HUGHES: You specifically remember awakening?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you remember what awoke you?
A. No.
Q. Do you remember the first thing you saw when you awoke?
A. No.
Q. Do you remember the first thing you did when you awoke?
A. Yes.
Q. Are you sure during this period of time between the two days you did not take something to stay awake?
A. Yes.
Q. When you get out of jail are you going to use grass, marijuana, acid, peyote—any of the various drugs or substances or organic substances you used in the past to get high with?
Are you going to use them again?
A. No, I don’t feel I have to use them to get high.
Q. Can you get high without drugs now?
A. Yes.
Q. How do you do that?
A. Just by closing your eyes and meditating.
Q. Are you able to have hallucinations when you do that?
A. Not really, just optical illusions.
Q. Do you see things?
A. I see things that are there.
Q. Do you see patterns?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you see designs?
A. Designs that are there.
Q. With your eyes closed?
A. Yeah.
Q. They are real to you?
A. When I close my eyes?
Q. Yes.
A. No, they are shadows.
Q. Do you feel that, in this high state you are now able to attain without drugs, that songs, music, noises, that these things are augmented in some manner?
A. I did not understand your question.
Q. Do you feel in this new high state that you can get without drugs that noises and sounds and music are changed in some way when you attain this state?
A. Are changed? I still don’t understand what you are saying.
Q. When you get high can you change how things sound?
A. When I get high?
Q. When you used to get—let me rephrase that: When you used to get high on drugs, music sounded different?
A. It seemed to be more intense.
Q. You could hear it in different patterns than you had heard before?
A. Not that I can recall.
Q. What do you recall about the intensity of music when you were stoned?
A. It’s just more intense. I cannot really describe it.
Q. You have turned other people on to drugs in the past, LSD and grass, is that correct?
MR. BUGLIOSI: Immaterial, your Honor.
THE COURT: I did not hear the first part of the question.
Read the record, please.
(Whereupon the reporter reads the pending question as follows:
“Q. You have turned other people on to drugs in the past, LSD and grass, is that correct?”)
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. KANAREK: May I inquire, your Honor, is that on the grounds of immateriality?
THE COURT: Irrelevancy.
BY MR. HUGHES:
Q. Would you recommend grass or LSD to anyone again?
MR. BUGLIOSI: Irrelevant, your Honor.
THE COURT: Sustained.
BY MR. HUGHES:
Q. Do a lot of hippies carry leather thongs to tie their hair with?
A. Yes.
Q. To tie their clothes with?
A. If they are in to making leather clothes, yes.
Q. To adorn their bodies with?
A. Yes.
Q. To wear around their necks?
A. Yes.
Q. To wear as head bands?
A. Yes.
Q. To tie to their belts?
A. Yes.
Q. You have seen them tied to people’s legs, around the legs?
A. Ankles, yes.
Q. Ankles?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you smoke cigarettes?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. Did you ever smoke in the courtroom here?
A. Yes, I have.
Q. Do you usually smoke after the jury goes out?
MR. BUGLIOSI: Irrelevant, your Honor.
THE COURT: Sustained.
BY MR. HUGHES:
Q. You never smoked any cigarettes in here when the jury was in the room?
MR. BUGLIOSI: Irrelevant, your Honor.
THE COURT: Sustained.
BY MR. HUGHES:
Q. Did Mr. Bugliosi tell you not to smoke in front of the jury?
A. No.
Q. Did anyone tell you that?
A. In front of the jury?
Q. Yes.
A. No.
Q. But you never have smoked in front of the jury, have you?
A. Yes, I have.
Q. Have you?
A. Once.
Q. Was it a mistake that you smoked that one time in front of the jury?
MR. BUGLIOSI: It is ridiculous, your Honor, and I object on that ground.
THE COURT: Sustained.
BY MR. HUGHES:
Q. Did Mr. Bugliosi tell you to try to look as innocent as possible on the witness stand?
A. No.
Q. Now, did you think that the Black Panthers were going to actually attack Spahn Ranch, or was that part of what we would call a magical mystery tour?
A. Yes, I actually thought they were.
Q. What was the magical mystery tour at the Spahn Ranch?
MR. BUGLIOSI: Assumes a fact not in evidence.
THE COURT: I can’t hear you.
MR. BUGLIOSI: Assumes a fact not in evidence.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. HUGHES: Q. Did things happen at the ranch which were referred to as the magical mystery tour?
A. Not that I recall.
Q. Did people assume different roles and different characters at the ranch from day to day?
A. Something like that.
I am not sure how to answer it.
Q. Tell me what you remember of that.
A. Well, they used to say that when you are not willing to be somebody, then you should be it. And sometimes they would be something they didn’t want to be. Sometimes they would let themselves get fat, if they didn’t want to get fat. Or whatever.
MR. KANAREK: Your Honor, I ask that that be stricken, that “they.”
Mr. Manson is a defendant here. These “they” are not before the Court, and I ask that that be stricken as immaterial and conclusionary and not responsive to the question, and has nothing to do with this case.
THE COURT: Read the question and the answer.
(The question and answer were read by the reporter.)
THE COURT: The motion is denied.
MR. HUGHES: Were you ever really at the ranch, Mrs. Kasabian?
A. Yes, I was.
Q. This magical mystery tour, did different people parade around as different individuals?
MR. BUGLIOSI: Assumes a fact not in evidence.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. HUGHES: Q. Did people from time to time parade around, portraying different individuals?
A. Not that I can recall.
Q. Did someone play the Sheriff or the jailer?
A. No, not that I recall.
Q. Spahn Ranch is a movie set, is it not?
A. What?
Q. Spahn Ranch is a movie ranch and it has a movie set on it; is that correct?
A. What is a movie set?
Q. Have you ever seen a place where movies are being made on a lot?
A. No.
Q. Have you ever been to the front part of Spahn Ranch?
A. The what?
Q. The front part as you come in on Santa Susana Pass?
A. Yes.
Q. And there are groups of buildings there?
A. Yes.
Q. Would you describe what those buildings look like?
A. Sort of like a miniature ghost town.
Q. Is there a saloon?
A. Yes.
Q. Is there a bunk house?
A. Yes.
Q. Is there a sign that reads “Rock City Cafe”?
A. Yes.
Q. Nobody calls Spahn Movie Ranch “Rock City,” do they?
MR. BUGLIOSI: Calls for a conclusion, your Honor.
THE COURT: You may answer.
THE WITNESS: Not while I was there.
MR. HUGHES: Q. Is there the “Longhorn Saloon” there?
A. The Longhorn Saloon?
I don’t know if that is what it was called. It was called “the saloon” while I was there.
Q. Did you think that this was actually a ghost town?
A. No.
Q. Did you think it was a movie set?
A. I think I was told that movies used to be made there.
Q. You didn’t see any movies made there while you were there, though?
A. No.
Q. Did you have the feeling that some of the buildings were mere fronts?
A. Mere what?
Q. Fronts.
A. I don’t understand.
Q. Did you have the feeling that some of the buildings did not have any depth to them, that they only appeared to be buildings, that if you went behind them, there were no rooms that corresponded with what the outside appearance was?
A. No. They were all rooms.
Q. There was one room that said “Jail,” right?
A. Not that I can remember at the moment.
I know there was a room that looked like it had bars. I don’t remember the word “Jail.”
Q. Did you ever go into that room that had bars?
A. Yes, I believe so.
Q. Did you ever touch the bars?
A. Possibly. I don’t know.
Q. Did you notice what the bars were made out of?
A. Maybe at the time, but I don’t remember now.
Q. Did you notice that the bars were made out of wood?
A. I don’t know. I don’t remember.
Q. If you would have noticed that the bars in the jail were made out of wood, do you think you would have gotten the idea that it was a movie set rather than a ghost town?
MR. BUGLIOSI: Calls for a conclusion, and is also irrelevant, your Honor.
THE COURT: Sustained.
BY MR. HUGHES:
Q. Did you feel that that had once been a real jail?
MR. BUGLIOSI: Immaterial, your Honor. Irrelevant.
THE COURT: Overruled.
You may answer.
THE WITNESS: Did I think it was a real jail? No.
BY MR. HUGHES:
Q. And yet you couldn’t make up in your own mind that that was a movie set?
A. That is what you are saying. I never said that.
MR. HUGHES: May I have a moment, your Honor?
(Mr. Hughes and Mr. Fitzgerald confer.)
MR. HUGHES: Your Honor, I have a picture of a photograph which has a truck with a sign on it.
May this be marked Defendants’ next in order?
THE CLERK: It will be C, your Honor.
MR. HUGHES: I have another photograph—
THE COURT: It will be so marked. C.
MR. HUGHES: I have another photograph, your Honor, of a cafe with two trucks in front of it.
May that be marked as Defendants’ next in order?
THE COURT: D for identification.
MR. HUGHES: I have a picture of a saloon, your Honor.
May that be marked as Defendants’ next in order?
THE COURT: E for identification.
MR. HUGHES: I have a picture, your Honor, of a cafe and a saloon and two trucks.
May that be marked Defendants’ next in order?
MR. STOVITZ: Did you say a cafe and saloon, or did you say a cafe and spoon?
MR. HUGHES: And saloon.
THE COURT: F for identification.
MR. HUGHES: May I approach the witness, your Honor?
THE COURT: Yes, you may.
BY MR. HUGHES:
Q. I show you Defendants’ Exhibit D.
Do you recognize what is shown in that picture?
A. Yes.
Q. Would you tell us what is shown in that picture, please?
A. Two trucks, and the end of the boardwalk in front of the kitchen, and the Rock City Cafe sign.
Q. Is that at Spahn Ranch?
A. Yes, it is.
Q. I show you Defendants’ F.
Would you please describe what you see in that picture?
A. Two trucks, and it shows the saloon and the kitchen, and the hills in the background.
Q. That is at Spahn Ranch?
A. Yes.
Q. And you recognize the buildings?
A. Yes.
Q. I show you Defendants’ E.
Do you recognize what is shown in this picture?
A. Yes.
Q. What is shown in that picture?
A. The saloon and the entrance to the kitchen.
Q. At Spahn Ranch?
A. Yes.
Q. I show you Defendants’ C.
Do you recognize that picture?
A. Yes.
Q. What is shown in that picture, Mrs. Kasabian?
A. It is the truck with the sign “Spahn’s Movie Ranch” written on it, and the saloon and the cafeteria in the background.
Q. Have you seen that truck before?
A. Yes.
Q. Have you seen that sign on that truck?
A. Yes.
Q. Would you tell the jury again what that sign reads?
A. “Spahn’s Movie Ranch.”
Q. Now, drawing your attention to those pictures and those buildings. When you were there, did people play different roles on the ranch?
A. Like what? I don’t know what you mean.
Q. Did Mr. Manson ever play the Sheriff?
A. No.
Q. Did you ever play a role?
A. No. I was just me.
Q. Did you play a lot of fear and paranoia trips when you were on acid?
A. Did I what?
Q. Play a lot of fear and paranoia trips.
A. Play?
MR. BUGLIOSI: Irrelevant, and also calls for a conclusion, and it is unintelligible; beyond the scope of the direct.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. HUGHES: Q. Has anyone told you that you should be very careful answering certain questions, Mrs. Kasabian?
A. No.
Q. Have you been told to think very carefully on certain questions before you answered?
A. Yes.
Q. Have you been told to try to avoid answering certain questions?
A. No.
Q. Have you been told that there are certain things you should not say?
A. No.
Q. Have there been questions asked of you in which you held information back? That can be answered yes or no.
A. No.
Q. What is this power of Charlie’s that you talk about?
MR. STOVITZ: Now or then. Counsel? I object to the question as ambiguous.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q. BY MR. HUGHES: What was this power of Charlie’s that you talk about?
MR. KANAREK: Your Honor, I object on the grounds it’s assuming facts not in evidence.
There is no power of Charlie’s—
MR. BUGLIOSI: I think it’s a proper question. It goes to her state of mind.
MR. KANAREK: Your Honor, I object, it is assuming facts not in evidence.
THE COURT: The form of the question is objectionable. Sustained.
Q. BY MR. HUGHES: Did Charlie have some power over you then?
MR. KANAREK: I object, your Honor, I object on the grounds it’s leading and suggestive. It assumes facts not in evidence; it is a conclusion and hearsay.
THE COURT: Overruled. You may answer.
THE WITNESS: Yes.
MR. HUGHES: What was that power, Mrs. Kasabian?
MR. KANAREK: I object, your Honor, on the grounds it is assuming facts not in evidence, a conclusion, hearsay, irrelevant and immaterial.
MR. BUGLIOSI: I think it’s a proper question, your Honor.
THE COURT: Overruled, you may answer.
THE WITNESS: Would you repeat your question?
MR. HUGHES: May it be read?
THE COURT: Reframe the question, Mr. Hughes.
Q. BY MR. HUGHES: What was that power?
MR. KANAREK: I object, your Honor, on the grounds it is assuming facts not in evidence, it is a conclusion and hearsay.
THE COURT: There has already been a ruling, Mr. Kanarek.
MR. KANAREK: I beg your pardon.
THE COURT: There has already been a ruling.
MR. KANAREK: I thought it was different language.
THE COURT: You may answer.
THE WITNESS: I just wanted to do anything and everything for him.
Q. BY MR. HUGHES: Why was that, Mrs. Kasabian?
A. Why?
MR. KANAREK: I object, your Honor, calling for a conclusion, immaterial, irrelevant, hearsay.
THE COURT: Overruled.
THE WITNESS: Because I loved him and he made me feel good and he was just beautiful.
MR. KANAREK: May I have that last alleged answer read back, your Honor?
THE COURT: The alleged answer?
MR. KANAREK: Yes.
MR. HUGHES: I don’t think there is anything alleged about the answer.
I had difficulty hearing it myself.
THE COURT: Read the answer.
(Whereupon, the reporter reads the answer as follows:
“THE WITNESS: Because I loved him and he made me feel good and he was just beautiful.”
BY MR. HUGHES: When you were at Spahn Ranch didn’t people sometimes play the role of hillbillies?
A. Hillbillies? Yes, that sounds about right.
Q. Sometimes people would play gypsies?
A. No, it was more like hillbillies.
Q. More like what?
A. Hillbillies. It’s more like hillbillies.
Q. Sometimes people would pretend that they were bikers; they would act as though they were bikers.
MR. BUGLIOSI: You mean motorcycles?
THE COURT: I could not hear the word.
MR. HUGHES: The word is bikers. I believe she understands the question.
MR. STOVITZ: B-i-k-e-r-s, Counsel?
MR. HUGHES: That’s correct.
Q. Do people act as if they were bikers? Did the people at the ranch on various occasions act as if they were bikers?
A. Well, people would come into the ranch that were bikers. I never saw people living at the ranch act like they were bikers.
Q. BY MR. HUGHES: What is a biker?
A. A person that owns a motorcycle.
Sometimes it is a motorcycle group.
Q. Do people at the ranch have any motorcycles?
A. Yes.
Q. Did Mr. Manson have a motorcycle?
A. Not that I saw.
Q. Did people sometimes play cowboys and Indians at the ranch?
A. Yes, sort of like a cowboy trip.
Q. It was a good place to do it, wasn’t it?
A. Yes, perfect.
Q. Did people ever play servants of King George?
A. No, not that I know of.
Q. Whom do I mean by George when I say King George?
MR. BUGLIOSI: Irrelevant what he means.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q. BY MR. HUGHES: Whom do you mean when I say King George?
A. I don’t know who King George is or what he did.
Q. Have you ever been to the ranch?
A. Yes, I have.
Q. People played wood nymphs?
A. Wood nymphs?
Q. Yes.
A. Well, we lived in the woods.
Q. Did people play wood elves?
A. Wood elves?
Q. Elves.
A. Yes, well, that is children.
Uh-uh, not that I know of.
Q. Did people play “Flat Land Furriners,”?
A. It sounds familiar but I don’t know.
Q. Did you play any of these games, Mrs. Kasabian, while you were at the Ranch?
A. I may have.
Q. What was your favorite game?
A. I can’t really recall.
Q. Was it murder?
A. No.
Q. What game are you playing now?
A. What game—I am not playing a game.
Q. If you thought of yourself as a witch, was it a delusion?
A. A delusion is a false belief?
Q. Right.
A. At the time it was not.
Q. At the time it was not a delusion?
A. I thought I was a witch.
Q. Were you really a witch then?
MR. KANAREK: I object, your Honor, calling for a conclusion on the part of this witness that I don’t think she is capable of making, your Honor, because at this time—if your Honor wishes me to approach the bench?
MR. HUGHES: It goes to her state of mind, your Honor.
MR. KANAREK: When, though?
THE COURT: Sustained.
BY MR. HUGHES:
Q. When you were at the ranch you were a witch, is that right?
A. When I was at the ranch I was a witch?
Q. Is that right?
A. I thought I was a witch, yes.
Q. That was a delusion?
A. Now it is, yes.
MR. KANAREK: Now, your Honor, that is not responsive to the question.
MR. STOVITZ: The question was “That was a delusion,” speaking about the past tense, her answer into the past tense.
MR. KANAREK: That calls for a conclusion, your Honor, I object on the ground that this witness is no judge of the present.
MR. STOVITZ: Let the record speak for itself.
MR. KANAREK: I object, your Honor, on the grounds it is irrelevant, immaterial, calling for hearsay and a conclusion.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. STOVITZ: May we ask the reporter to read the question.
MR. KANAREK: May I also say it is ambiguous.
MR. STOVITZ: I believe there was an answer.
MR. HUGHES: Can I have the question and answer read back? All this colloquy between counsel has led me to forget it.
THE COURT: Read the question and answer.
(Whereupon the reporter reads the record as follows:
“Q. That was a delusion?
“A. Now it is, yes.”)
BY MR. HUGHES:
Q. You were having delusions then at the time that you lived at the Ranch—
MR. BUGLIOSI: That calls for a conclusion, what a delusion is.
MR. KANAREK: Equal protection of the law, your Honor. They can’t have it both ways.
THE COURT: Overruled, you may answer.
THE WITNESS: Would you repeat it again.
BY MR. HUGHES:
Q. You were having delusions while you lived at the ranch, is that correct?
A. No, I did not think they were delusions at the time.
MR. KANAREK: Your Honor, I submit that is not responsive to the question.
THE COURT: Overruled.
BY MR. HUGHES:
Q. Did you have any other delusions while you were at the ranch?
MR. KANAREK: It is in evidence, your Honor, this record reveals that this witness has stated—
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. KANAREK: Thank you, your Honor.
MR. HUGHES: May we have the question read back to the witness, your Honor?
THE COURT: Reframe the question.
BY MR. HUGHES:
Q. Did you have any other delusions while you lived at the ranch?
A. While I was there? I don’t quite understand.
Q. Would you like me to read it again?
A. No, you have read it twice.
Do I feel now that those were delusions or while I was there did I feel that those were delusions?
I don’t understand.
MR. KANAREK: Your Honor, may the question be read to the witness?
THE COURT: She does not understand the question.
Reframe the question.
BY MR. HUGHES:
Q. Both ways, did you have other delusions while at the ranch then?
A. Say it again.
Q. Then did you feel you were having delusions, other delusions?
A. No.
Q. Do you now feel that you had other delusions while you lived at the ranch?
A. Yes.
Q. Was one of those other delusions the fact that you felt Mr. Manson, that you knew Mr. Manson to be Jesus Christ?
A. Yes.
Q. Was another delusion that it was necessary for you to hide from your husband?
A. Yes.
Q. Was there another delusion, the fact that you thought the Black Panthers were going to attack Spahn Ranch?
MR. BUGLIOSI: Calls for a conclusion. She doesn’t know whether they were or not, your Honor.
MR. KANAREK: This is a proper question.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q. BY MR. HUGHES: Did you see any Black Panthers up there?
A. I saw black people, yes.
Q. Did they have guns?
A. Not that I saw.
Q. Did they have shaved heads?
A. No.
Q. Were they wearing berets?
A. No.
Q. Did they have bandoliers on them?
THE COURT: Wait for the completion of the answer before you ask the next question.
Q. BY MR. HUGHES: Did they have bandoliers?
A. No, not that I saw.
Q. Did they have holsters?
A. No.
Q. Did they have bulges where guns could be concealed?
A. Not that I saw, no.
Q. They might have had concealed newspapers.
MR. BUGLIOSI: Calls for a conclusion, your Honor.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q. BY MR. HUGHES: Did you have any other delusions while you were up there that you can now say were delusions?
A. Yes, practically the whole trip that was made out was a delusion.
MR. KANAREK: Well, your Honor, I ask that be stricken in that it states conclusions on the part of this witness.
The question solicits her state of mind.
THE COURT: Overruled. The motion is denied.
Q. BY MR. HUGHES: You said practically the whole trip as laid out was a delusion.
A. Uh-huh.
Q. And you are not having any delusions now, are you?
A. About what?
Q. About anything?
A. No, not at the moment.
Q. Mr. Manson is the devil, isn’t he?
A. A devilish man, yes.
Q. The devil in man’s form, come to earth?
MR. KANAREK: May I ask that the answer “a devilish man,” be stricken as not responsive.
The question was whether Mr. Manson was the devil.
And the witness did not respond to that. I ask that that be stricken.
MR. STOVITZ: I think a proper admonition should be to the jury that this is her state of mind and not the real fact, your Honor.
MR. KANAREK: She still did not respond to the question.
THE COURT: The motion is denied. Let’s proceed.
Q. BY MR. HUGHES: Was your mind influenced up at the ranch by Mr. Manson or was it influenced by drugs?
MR. KANAREK: I object, your Honor, on the grounds this witness is incompetent to testify as to that because of her state of mind and because of the foundation laid in this record, which shows that this witness cannot respond to that question competently.
THE COURT: The form of the question is objectionable. Objection sustained on that ground.
Q. BY MR. HUGHES: Was your thinking up there influenced by drugs, Mrs. Kasabian?
MR. KANAREK: Object, your Honor, calling for a conclusion on the part of this witness, hearsay.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q. BY MR. HUGHES: Would you kill anyone for God?
A. No.
Q. Would you do it for the devil?
A. No.
Q. Now, Mr. Manson was the Messiah, a God like man.
When did he turn into the devil?
MR. BUGLIOSI: Your Honor, assuming a fact not in evidence.
THE COURT: Sustained.
BY MR. HUGHES: When did he turn into a devil like man?
A. Well, he was a devil like man the whole time, but I saw him differently.
Q. You loved him then.
A. Yes.
Q. Do you love him now?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you love the girls now?
A. Sure, I love everybody.
Q. You don’t love Mr. Kanarek, who you feel is dishonest, do you?
A. Sure I love him.
Q. Could God and the devil be the same person in your mind?
A. No. God is all good.
Q. Is the devil all bad?
A. Yes. The devil is below God.
Q. You have thought about the devil a lot, haven’t you?
MR. STOVITZ: That is objected to, your Honor, as immaterial.
THE COURT: Sustained.
BY MR. HUGHES:
Q. Now, you said you were a witch at Spahn Ranch; you believed you were a witch.
Isn’t it true that you believed you were a witch before you came to Spahn Ranch?
A. No.
Q. Didn’t you practice witchcraft up in Haight-Asbury?
A. No.
Q. Now, if you thought Mr. Manson was Jesus Christ at the ranch, wasn’t it strange for you to think of yourself as a witch up there?
MR. STOVITZ: That is argumentative, your Honor.
THE COURT: Sustained.
BY MR. HUGHES:
Q. Is a witch an anti-God in your mind?
A. I am not really sure what a witch is.
Q. In your mind, is a witch a person who could work with God?
A. I don’t know. I really don’t know what a witch is.
Q. So, your identity last year was that you were a witch but you didn’t know what a witch was; is that right?
MR. STOVITZ: Argumentative, your Honor.
THE COURT: Overruled.
You may answer.
THE WITNESS: Yes.
BY MR. HUGHES:
Q. Don’t you feel that witches and witchcraft is tied up with the devil?
A. I guess so.
Q. Wasn’t it sort of strange to be at Spahn Ranch where you felt Jesus Christ resided and for you to be tied up with the devil?
A. Say that again?
MR. HUGHES: Could the question be read back, your Honor?
THE COURT: Wasn’t there an answer?
MR. STOVITZ: The answer was “Say that again, please.”
THE COURT: Read the question.
(The question was read by the reporter.)
THE WITNESS: I don’t quite understand your question.
BY MR. HUGHES:
Q. Wasn’t it strange to have Mr. Manson, who was Jesus Christ in your mind—Manson was Jesus Christ in your mind; is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. Wasn’t it strange to have Mr. Manson, who was Jesus Christ, there and for you to be a witch tied up with the devil?
A. He used to say that Jesus Christ and the devil were the same person.
MR. KANAREK: Your Honor, may that be stricken as not responsive?
The question did not solicit what Mr. Manson said, it solicits this witness’s state of mind.
MR. BUGLIOSI: I think her answer is completely responsive, your Honor.
THE COURT: The answer will be stricken as non-responsive.
The jury is admonished to disregard it.
Reframe the question.
MR. HUGHES: Q. Did Charles Manson ever lie to you, Mrs. Kasabian?
A. Not that I know of, at the time.
Q. Do you feel that your change of mind about Mr. Manson being—going from Jesus to a devil like man, and your other state of mind of yourself going from a witch to a person who is not a witch now, do you feel that that is influenced at all by the fact that you haven’t taken any drugs in the last eight months?
A. I am not quite sure what you are asking me.
Q. Do you feel that these delusions you had at the Spahn Ranch were in part caused by the fact that you had taken drugs?
A. Possibly. I don’t know. I can’t say.
Q. Then, how do you explain your change in thinking over Mr. Manson’s identity?
MR. KANAREK: I will object to that as calling for a conclusion, hearsay, irrelevant and immaterial; no foundation.
THE COURT: And argumentative. Sustained.
MR. HUGHES: Q. And have you had any drugs in the last eight months in jail?
A. I have had a few tranquilizers.
Q. How many?
A. I took them for about a week, a week and a half, straight.
Q. When was that?
A. A couple of months ago.
Q. And you haven’t had any for a couple of months?
A. I took one the first day when I came to court.
Q. The first day you came to court?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you have any the next day?
A. No.
Q. The day after?
A. No.
Q. The day before the first day you came to court?
A. No.
Q. So, is it fair to say, then, in the last two months, you have only taken tranquilizers once?
A. No.
Q. Is it fair to say that in the last—is it fair to say that beginning a week before the first day you came to court until now, in other words, that would be like the last two to three weeks—you came to court on the 27th—since the 27th, have you only had tranquilizers once?
A. Say that again? The dates mixed me up.
Q. Since July 27th, have you had tranquilizers only once?
A. Yes.
Q. And did you have any—
THE COURT: We will take our recess at this time, Mr. Hughes.
Ladies and gentleman, 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. Hughes.
MR. HUGHES: Thank you, your Honor.
Q. Have you ever used marijuana?
A. Yes, I have.
Q. Have you ever used hashish?
A. Yes.
Q. Have you ever used THC?
A. Yes, once.
MR. KANAREK: Your Honor, may I be informed as to what THC is.
BY MR. HUGHES:
Q. What is THC, Mrs. Kasabian?
A. I was told it was synthetic grass.
Q. Is it also known as Tetra Hydra Cannabinol?
A. I never heard of that name.
Q. Have you ever smoked Gypsum weed?
A. No.
Q. Loco weed?
A. No.
Q. Have you ever smoked anything besides cigarettes, marijuana, hashish and THC?
A. I never smoked THC.
Q. How did you use THC?
A. It was in a capsule.
Q. Did you swallow the capsule?
A. Yes.
Q. You only used THC one time?
A. Yeah.
Q. Would you tell us what the effects were like.
MR. STOVITZ: Could we have a date or time, your Honor? I wouldn’t object but I think it’s immaterial without the date or time.
Q. Would you tell us when you used what you believed to be THC?
A. When I was in New Mexico.
Q. And when was that?
A. When?
Q. Yes.
A. The Summer of ’68.
Q. Would you tell us what the effects were?
A. It was like a super tranquilizer. I wasn’t really able to move.
Q. You weren’t able to move?
A. Yes, uh-huh.
Q. How long did that last?
A. For about—not very long. I don’t know. A few hours.
Q. Five hours?
A. Let me think.
It lasted for about half a day.
MR. HUGHES: Your Honor, I have here a clear plastic bag which appears to contain a green, leafy substance.
May this be marked Defendants’ Exhibit G?
MR. STOVITZ: I don’t want it.
MR. BUGLIOSI: I think maybe Mr. Hughes should be advised of his constitutional rights, your Honor.
THE COURT: Approach the bench. Counsel.
(Whereupon, all counsel approach the bench and the following proceedings occur at the bench outside of the hearing of the jury:)
THE COURT: What is in the bag?
MR. HUGHES: Catnip. It resembles marijuana.
THE COURT: What is the purpose?
MR. HUGHES: I want to bring out, your Honor, the extent of her knowledge about drugs, her ability to recognize that this, although it appears very much to be marijuana, is not; but this is a normal way in which marijuana is packaged and in which it comes; to show that she had extensive knowledge of drugs and extensive usage of these drugs, your Honor.
THE COURT: She has admitted to the use of marijuana, on numerous occasions.
You haven’t laid any foundation by which you could show that this is the way it appears or is packaged, unless you simply want to ask her: Is this the way it is?
MR. HUGHES: That is what I wish to do.
THE COURT: I see no objection to that.
MR. BUGLIOSI: I thought this was actually marijuana that he was carrying around with him.
MR. HUGHES: I assure you I have no actual marijuana.
THE COURT: All right.
(Whereupon, counsel return to their respective places at counsel table and the following proceedings occur in open court within the presence and hearing of the jury:)
THE COURT: The bag and its contents will be marked Defendants’ Exhibit G for identification.
MR. HUGHES: May I approach the witness, your Honor?
THE COURT: You may.
MR. HUGHES: May I inquire which exhibit this is marked?
MR. STOVITZ: G, like in George, King George.
MR. HUGHES: Q. I show you Exhibit G, Mrs. Kasabian.
A. Yes.
Q. Have you seen a plastic bag like that before?
A. Yes.
Q. On numerous occasions?
A. Yes.
Q. Would you describe what you see inside the plastic bag?
A. A green, weedy substance.
Q. What does that green, leafy substance appear to you to be?
A. It looks like, really, fine marijuana with a lot of stems.
Q. Would you smell it?
(The witness smells and laughs.)
MR. HUGHES: Q. Does it smell like marijuana?
A. No. I believe it is catnip.
Q. On how many previous occasions have you seen bags that resemble that?
A. How many?
MR. STOVITZ: That is objected to.
I use those bags myself for packing sandwiches and, therefore, the objection is that it is immaterial and irrelevant.
THE COURT: Overruled.
You may answer.
THE WITNESS: Would you repeat your question again?
BY MR. HUGHES:
Q. On how many previous occasions have you seen bags resembling this bag with the green leafy substance?
A. On a number of occasions.
Q. Hundreds?
A. I don’t know how many.
Q. Do you think if you reflected on it you could be able to tell if it was more than 100 or less than 50?
A. No, I think that is a little bit beyond my thoughts. I cannot tell you just the number of occasions.
Q. Have you ever seen—have you believed green leafy substances in bags like this to be marijuana?
A. Have I what?
Q. Have you believed, when you have seen green leafy substances in bags like this on previous occasions, have you believed it to be marijuana?
MR. BUGLIOSI: It’s irrelevant, your Honor, also unintelligible.
THE COURT: Sustained.
BY MR. HUGHES:
Q. How many times have you smoked marijuana?
A. Many many times.
Q. You stated on the record before thousands of times, is that correct?
A. He said thousands. I said maybe.
Q. It could have been more than thousands of times?
A. I don’t know.
Q. Did you ever smoke mellow yellow?
A. I don’t know what it is.
Q. Did you ever ingest wood rose or wood rose seeds?
A. No, I never did.
Q. Do you know what wood rose seeds are?
A. I believe I was told that they were a seed from a flower from Hawaii or something like that, I never took it, though.
Q. You stated that you used morning glory seeds, and that is the first hallucinogen that you had used, is that correct?
A. Right.
Q. When was that that you first used morning glory seeds?
A. The date, time, is that what you are asking?
Q. Roughly, yes.
A. I believe it was in ’66.
Q. 1966?
A. Yes.
Q. Towards the beginning of the year?
A. Yeah.
Q. Did you buy the morning glory seeds?
MR. STOVITZ: That is objected to as immaterial, your Honor.
THE COURT: Sustained.
BY MR. HUGHES:
Q. Were you in high school at the time?
A. No.
Q. Had you dropped out of high school?
A. Yes.
Q. Were you married then?
A. No.
Q. Was it six months before you were married?
A. Before? No.
Q. In what quantity did you use these morning glory seeds?
A. What quantity?
Q. Yes.
A. Well, it was fixed for me. I don’t really know what the quantity was.
Q. Did you see the seeds themselves?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you recall how many there were?
A. Lots.
Q. Hundreds?
A. Yeah.
Q. What is a normal dose?
A. I think 300 seeds or 200 seeds, something like that. That is supposed to be normal.
Q. Were you present when the seeds were purchased?
A. No.
Q. Did you have to pay money for them?
MR. STOVITZ: That is objected to as immaterial, your Honor.
THE COURT: Sustained.
BY MR. HUGHES:
Q. Who gave you the drug?
A. Who gave it to me? A few people that I knew in Miami.
Q. And yet this was on one occasion?
A. That I took the morning glory seeds?
Q. Yes.
A. Yes.
Q. You never took morning glory seeds again?
A. No.
Q. Several people gave the drug to you?
A. There were three people present, yes.
Q. Did the other people get high on this drug also?
MR. BUGLIOSI: Irrelevant, your Honor.
THE COURT: Sustained.
BY MR. HUGHES:
Q. Did you use it outdoors or indoors?
MR. BUGLIOSI: Irrelevant.
THE COURT: Sustained.
BY MR. HUGHES:
Q. Did you have chills?
MR. BUGLIOSI: Irrelevant, your Honor.
THE WITNESS: Chills?
THE COURT: Overruled, you may answer.
THE WITNESS: Chills?
BY MR. HUGHES:
Q. Chills?
A. No.
Q. Did you have nausea?
A. No.
Q. Did you become constipated?
A. No.
Q. Did you lose your appetite?
A. No.
Q. Do you remember anything about the trip?
A. Yes.
Q. What do you remember?
A. We went to a park and there were a lot of trees and there was a lake and there were swans on the lake and I remember I played on some swings and a merry go round and that is about it.
Q. Did you have hallucinations?
A. Not that I can recall.
Q. Did colors look different to you?
A. Well, it was dark at night.
Q. Were you able to see the swans?
A. Yes.
Q. Did the swans look normal?
A. Yeah.
Q. Did anything look different that evening?
A. No.
Q. What was the state of your mind then; how did your thinking change when you took this drug, if at all?
A. There was one person that was there with me and he was sort of guiding me, and telling me that the way I was living was not the way to live, things to this nature.
Q. Do you often seek people out to give you advice?
A. Do I seek people to give me advice?
Q. Yes.
A. Sometimes.
Q. Are most of those people men?
A. Yes, it has been.
Q. Does that have anything to do with your father hangup?
A. My father hangup?
MR. STOVITZ: I believe this would call for psychiatric testimony, your Honor, if a psychiatrist could answer this at all.
I object to the question as it calls for a conclusion.
MR. HUGHES: I would be glad to bring in a psychiatrist.
MR. STOVITZ: I don’t think a psychiatrist could answer that.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. KANAREK: May the record reflect that I join in Mr. Stovitz’s objection?
THE COURT: You may answer.
THE WITNESS: What was your question?
MR. HUGHES: Q. Does that have to do with your father hangup?
A. What has to do with it?
Q. The fact that most of the people from whom you seek advice are men?
MR. KANAREK: That is calling for a conclusion, your Honor.
THE COURT: Overruled.
THE WITNESS: I don’t know if it had to do with a father hangup. It just seemed to be that I was always with men more than women.
MR. HUGHES: Q. When you took the morning glory seeds, did you look at your face in a mirror?
A. No.
Q. Did it change your ability to see things at all, being on morning glories?
A. What do you mean?
Q. Did objects become blurred?
A. I remember riding down the highway and lights were blurred, yes.
Q. Did the lights that you saw merge into patterns?
A. Not that I recall.
Q. Did your face become flushed?
MR. STOVITZ: Objected to, your Honor, as immaterial and remote.
THE COURT: Overruled.
THE WITNESS: Not that I recall.
MR. HUGHES: Q. Have you used magic mushrooms?
A. The organic substance itself, the mushroom itself?
Q. Yes.
A. I ate the mushrooms when I was in Seattle, Washington that were said to be psychedelic, but they didn’t seem to be.
I have taken psilocybin.
Q. How many times have you taken psilocybin?
A. A few times. I don’t know how many times.
Q. In what form did it come to you in?
A. A capsule.
Q. A few times?
A. Yes.
Q. When was that?
A. I took it in ’68, the Summer of ’68, and the first of the year in ’69, and I took it again in September of ’69.
Q. Would you describe the effects that you felt from psilocybin as being very similar to the effects that you felt when you used LSD?
A. Yes.
Q. Did they very in any way?
A. Not really.
Q. Was your thinking less confused on psilocybin than it was on LSD?
MR. STOVITZ: That assumes a fact not in evidence, that her thinking was confused on LSD, your Honor.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. HUGHES: Q. When you took LSD, was your thinking confused?
A. Sometimes.
Q. Was it difficult to communicate ideas between people?
A. Yes, sometimes.
Q. Was it difficult to think in the abstract on LSD?
MR. BUGLIOSI: Ambiguous, your Honor.
THE COURT: Overruled.
THE WITNESS: I don’t quite understand what you mean.
MR. HUGHES: Q. Was it difficult to solve problems while you were on LSD?
A. I am not quite sure. I can’t really think of a problem that I tried to solve.
Q. Would it have been difficult on LSD to play cards?
A. To play cards?
I don’t dig playing cards when I am not on LSD, so I don’t know.
MR. HUGHES: Could that answer be read back, please?
THE COURT: Read the answer.
(The answer was read by the reporter.)
Q. BY MR. HUGHES: Have you ever put a jigsaw puzzle together while on LSD?
A. No.
Q. On any drug?
A. No.
Q. What, in your mind, are hallucinogens?
A. What are they?
Q. Yes.
A. Drugs that make you hallucinate.
Q. In other words, you feel that the name comes from the word “hallucination,” is that correct?
A. Yes, uh-huh.
Q. And all the drugs that we have been speaking about which you have taken have been drugs which caused hallucinations; is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. They are all drugs which you would term to be hallucinogens; is that correct?
A. All the drugs?
Q. Yes.
A. Well, I don’t hallucinate on pot, and I don’t hallucinate on hash, so I’d have to say no.
Q. Is problem solving more difficult on marijuana?
A. I can’t recall trying to solve a problem.
Q. Is it sometimes difficult to do things when you are on marijuana?
A. It depends on what it is.
Q. Is it sometimes difficult to drive when you are on marijuana?
A. It is not difficult, but I never usually want to drive.
Q. Have you driven when you were on marijuana?
A. Yes.
Q. Have you driven when you were on hashish?
A. Yes.
Q. Would you tell us what hashish is?
A. It is a derivative—I think that is the word; I can’t quite say it—of marijuana, it is much more potent than marijuana.
Q. Would you tell us how much hashish would be equivalent to the amount of the green, leafy substance which appears to be marijuana which is in the bag, Exhibit G?
MR. STOVITZ: I object to the question. It calls for expert opinion, your Honor.
MR. KANAREK: Your Honor—
MR. HUGHES: We submit, your Honor, that she is an expert on drugs.
THE COURT: I think the question is ambiguous also.
Sustained.
MR. KANAREK: Your Honor, I want the record to reflect that I don’t submit that she is an expert on drugs.
THE COURT: I have ruled on the objection. There is no need for any comment.
Let’s proceed.
MR. KANAREK: Very well, your Honor.
MR. HUGHES: Q. How much hashish would be equivalent to the amount of marijuana which would occupy the place of Exhibit G?
MR. STOVITZ: I object to the question. It calls for an expert opinion, your Honor. It is also ambiguous and unintelligible.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. KANAREK: Your Honor, may I be heard as to that objection?
Your Honor, it is my position that it doesn’t call for an expert opinion, but it calls for an addict’s or a user’s opinion, which I think there is foundation in the record that this person does have the experience to make the equivalency test that Mr. Hughes is asking.
THE COURT: The question is ambiguous.
The objection is sustained.
MR. HUGHES: Q. Mrs. Kasabian, if you had as much marijuana as appears in Exhibit G, how many marijuana cigarettes would you be able to make?
MR. STOVITZ: How much wood could a wood chuck chuck?
THE WITNESS: Well, it would depend on how much marijuana you would want to put in one cigarette.
Q. Does that appear to be about a lid of marijuana?
A. Yes.
Q. Is a lid about an ounce?
A. Yes.
Q. Would that be able to make about 30 to 40 joints or cigarettes?
A. Yes.
Q. Have you done so in the past?
A. I don’t recall ever sitting there and just rolling and rolling a lid of grass.
Q. You have rolled up joints in the past?
A. Oh, sure, but I never sat there and took a lid and just kept rolling until it was gone.
And I never counted how many joints came out of a lid.
Q. Now, would one marijuana cigarette get you high if the grass was of average quantity?
MR. STOVITZ: With or without inhaling, Counsel? I object to the question as ambiguous.
THE COURT: Sustained.
BY MR. HUGHES:
Q. Mrs. Kasabian, when you smoke marijuana do you inhale the smoke?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you know anybody who smokes marijuana who does not inhale the smoke beside Mr. Stovitz?
MR. STOVITZ: Counsel is being facetious I hope, of course. If he resembles that remark I don’t mind.
MR. BUGLIOSI: It’s irrelevant, your Honor.
THE COURT: Sustained.
BY MR. HUGHES:
Q. Have you ever heard of anyone getting high on marijuana without inhaling the smoke?
MR. BUGLIOSI: Irrelevant.
THE COURT: Sustained.
BY MR. HUGHES:
Q. When you got high on marijuana, you inhaled the smoke?
MR. STOVITZ: She said she never got high on marijuana. This is a characterization of her testimony.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. KANAREK: I must take exception. She said she hasn’t hallucinated. She did not say she hadn’t gotten high on marijuana.
THE COURT: Sustained.
BY MR. HUGHES:
Q. Did you ever get high on marijuana?
A. Yes.
Q. It was fun, wasn’t it?
A. Yes.
Q. It was a lot of fun, wasn’t it?
A. Yes.
Q. You really dug it, didn’t you?
MR. BUGLIOSI: Irrelevant.
THE COURT: Sustained.
BY MR. HUGHES:
Q. Now, how many times have you used LSD?
A. Approximately 50.
Q. How many times have you used mescaline?
A. I have included mescaline and acid and psicylobin 50 times.
Q. You did not tell us that before though, did you?
A. No, I did not.
Q. Did you ever use DMT?
A. No.
Q. Do you know what DMT is?
A. Not really.
Q. Do you know if it is DI Methyltriptamine?
A. I never heard that name.
Q. Have you ever used DET?
A. DET? No.
Q. Do you know if that is DI Ethyl Triptamine?
A. I don’t know.
Q. Have you ever used any substances to get high which you were able to purchase in a drugstore or a store without a prescription?
MR. BUGLIOSI: Irrelevant, your Honor.
THE COURT: Overruled, you may answer.
THE WITNESS: Yes.
BY MR. HUGHES:
Q. What was that?
A. Amylnitrites.
Q. Have you used that in connection or in conjunction with the use of other drugs?
A. Yes.
Q. Would you describe to us in what manner you used Amylnitrites?
A. In what manner?
Q. Yes.
A. I don’t quite understand.
Q. Would you describe to us what the Amylnitrites looked like?
A. What it looked like?
Q. Yes.
A. It was just a little yellow capsule with cloth cover.
Q. Was it a grass capsule?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you have to crush it between your fingertips?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you then hold this up to your nose and inhale the fumes?
A. Yes.
Q. What was the effect?
A. Sort of like a spinning effect.
It only lasted for about a minute. I don’t know, it’s sort of like when you pass out.
Q. Did you get hot flashes?
A. Yeah.
Q. Did you hear ringing in your ears?
A. Yeah.
Q. Did you get a headache afterwards?
A. Yes.
Q. You didn’t like that drug, did you?
A. No.
Q. How many times did you use it?
A. Just a couple.
Q. Five times?
A. No, not even that many.
Q. Did you throw the rest of the container away?
A. Well, there were other people in my presence and I think I used them two times or three times.
Q. You usually get stoned with other people around, don’t you?
A. Yes.
Q. You very seldom used to get stoned alone, isn’t that correct?
A. I usually get stoned with other people and then sort of drift off and go by myself somewhere.
THE COURT: Read the answer.
(Whereupon, the reporter reads the record as
follows:
“A. I usually get stoned with other people and then sort of drift off and go by myself somewhere.”)
Q. BY MR. HUGHES: What do you mean by “drift off”?
A. Leave their presence, go someplace else and sit by myself, or just go off by myself.
Q. That is so you can do your own thing?
A. Yeah.
Q. Unencumbered by other people bothering you?
A. Yes.
Q. Because mostly these drugs are mind trips, is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. They mostly affect your mind?
A. Yeah.
Q. Sometimes they affect your physical person, too, though, don’t they?
A. Sure, uh-huh.
Q. Did acid sometimes make you shake?
A. No.
Q. Did it ever upset your stomach?
A. Yes.
Q. Did it ever upset your stomach to the point that it interfered with your bowel movements?
MR. BUGLIOSI: Irrelevant, your Honor. This seminar in narcotics—
Q. BY MR. HUGHES: Did it ever make you vomit?
A. No.
Q. Did it ever make you tremble?
A. No.
Q. Did you ever feel chills?
A. Sometimes my hands and feet would be cold but the rest of me would be at normal temperature.
Q. Have you ever used a drug called asthmador?
A. No.
Q. Have you ever used a drug called Telachi?
A. What?
Q. Telachi.
A. Telachi? No.
Q. Have you ever heard of Telachi?
A. Sounds familiar, I don’t know what it is.
Q. Did you ever use a white flower that grows in the desert?
A. A white flower? That was a drug?
Q. Yes.
A. No.
Q. You stated that you used methedrine.
A. Yes.
Q. In what form did you use it?
A. In what form?
Q. Yes.
A. I first started taking it in pill form, diet pills.
Then I started taking it in powder form.
Q. And what did you do with the pills?
A. Swallowed them.
Q. And in what quantity?
A. Usually one.
MR. HUGHES: I am sorry, I wasn’t able to hear the answer.
THE REPORTER: “Usually one.”
Q. BY MR. HUGHES: And when you started to use methedrine in powder form, how do you use it?
A. Sometimes I wrapped it up in toilet paper and swallowed it. Sometimes I shot it with a needle.
Q. Did you have a hypodermic kit?
A. No, I never had one of my own.
Q. Did you borrow someone else’s hypodermic kit?
A. Somebody else always did it for me.
Q. They would actually do the injecting for you?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you sterilize that kit before you used it?
MR. BUGLIOSI: Irrelevant.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q. BY MR. HUGHES: Without telling me where it is, do you have a tattoo on your body?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. How many times, Mrs. Kasabian, did you inject methedrine or have methedrine injected into your body?
A. About three or four times at one interval, and then maybe two months later—I don’t know how many times. I did it for about a month.
Q. Would it be fair to say that you probably did it daily for that month?
A. No, because my resistance was really high—or low—a little bit would really space me out.
MR. HUGHES: Could you have the answer read back?
THE COURT: Read the answer.
(Whereupon, the reporter reads the answer as follows:
“A. No, because my resistance was really high—or low—a little bit would really space me out.”)
Q. BY MR. HUGHES: What do you mean by “resistance”?
A. I don’t know how to put it into words. My chemical makeup—I don’t know how to put it into words.
Q. So would you just shoot up speed every other day?
A. Maybe.
Q. Did it make you lose sleep?
A. Yeah.
Q. Isn’t it true you stayed up pretty much for that whole month?
A. Yeah, more than I slept.
Q. You hardly got any sleep during that time?
A. Right, uh-huh.
Q. Did you lose weight?
A. Yeah.
Q. Did you lose a lot of weight?
A. I don’t know, I didn’t weigh myself.
Q. Did you ever look in your face in a mirror? Did your face become swollen?
A. Started to.
Q. Did you get bags under your eyes?
A. Yes.
Q. Was it ruining your health?
A. Yes.
Q. What did it do to your head?
A. My head? Everything was like electrified, things were really going fast and I just did not like it.
Q. You have heard the word “rush”?
A. What?
Q. Rush?
A. Rush? Yeah.
Q. What is a rush?
A. Sort of like the same thing when you take an Amylnitrite, and—
Q. Is it like a flash?
A. Yes.
Q. Is it like a flash on acid?
A. No.
Q. Was it a pleasant experience?
A. Shooting speed?
Q. When you had the rush?
A. Yeah.
Q. It was difficult to get off of shooting speed, wasn’t it?
A. No.
Q. Did you have to use increasingly larger quantities of speed every time you used it?
A. No.
Q. Did you become very paranoid while you were using speed?
MR. STOVITZ: Object to the question as calling for a conclusion of this witness.
THE COURT: Sustained.
BY MR. HUGHES:
Q. Did you feel that people were watching you?
A. Yeah.
Q. You feel that people were talking about you?
A. I don’t know.
Q. Did you feel that people could read your mind?
A. No.
Q. Did you feel that people were doing things to you behind your back?
A. No.
Q. What did you feel?
A. I felt—I mostly felt that the police were watching us, watching me. It was that kind of a paranoia.
Q. Anything else?
A. About paranoia?
Q. Yes.
A. No.
Q. The police were not actually watching you, were they?
A. Yeah, they were.
Q. Where was that?
A. New Hampshire.
Q. In what year?
A. ’67.
Q. Do you know why the police were watching you?
A. Well, I was living in a commune-type situation with a group of people, and they were just known by the police for having narcotics in the house.
Q. Did they arrest you?
A. No.
Q. Did they arrest anybody there?
A. No.
MR. BUGLIOSI: Irrelevant.
MR. HUGHES: It goes to her state of mind as to whether she was actually being watched by the police.
MR. STOVITZ: May I, with the Court’s permission, remove the catnip.
(Removing the marijuana.)
BY MR. HUGHES:
Q. Have you ever used the drug MDA?
A. MDA?
No.
Q. Have you ever used cocaine?
A. No.
Q. How about opium?
A. No, I didn’t.
Q. Did you say no?
A. Yes.
Q. Have you ever smoked hashish?
A. Yeah.
Q. Have you ever heard people say that some of the hashish you smoked was opiated?
A. No.
Q. Have you heard that some of the hashish you smoked had opium in it?
A. No.
Q. You have smoked hashish on a large number of occasions, is that correct?
A. Yeah.
Q. And not all of the effects were the same, is that correct?
A. Some of the hash was weaker than others, yes.
Q. Some of the hash, then, was stronger than others?
A. Yes.
Q. So you smoked from a great many different sources of hashish; is that correct?
A. A great many sources?
Q. Different sources.
MR. BUGLIOSI: Irrelevant, your Honor.
THE COURT: Do you mean different kinds of hashish?
MR. HUGHES: Q. They all weren’t from the same package of hashish?
A. Oh, no.
Q. So there were a great many different packages of hashish from which you smoked?
A. Yes.
Q. And you don’t know if some of that hashish had opium in it or not, do you?
A. I was never told that it did.
Q. But you have heard of hashish having opium in it, haven’t you?
MR. BUGLIOSI: Irrelevant.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. HUGHES: Q. Have you ever used a drug called Fairy Dust?
A. No.
Q. Angel Dust?
A. No.
Q. Have you ever sniffed a drug?
A. Sniffed?
MR. STOVITZ: Besides Amylnitrate, counsel?
MR. HUGHES: Besides Amylnitrate.
THE WITNESS: No. Just Amylnitrates.
MR. HUGHES: Q. Do you know what I mean when I say “sniff”?
A. Oh, I take that back. I have sniffed some Methydrine once.
Q. You sniffed some Methydrine?
A. Yes.
Q. Will you tell us how you sniffed Methydrine?
A. I put it on the end of a match stick and held it to my nose and sniffed it.
Q. Did you ever sniff any glue?
A. No.
Q. Did you ever sniff vapors from any cans, or any vapors?
A. No.
MR. STOVITZ: Intentionally or accidentally?
MR. HUGHES: Intentionally.
THE WITNESS: No.
MR. HUGHES: Q. Did you ever use a drug called PCP?
A. I don’t think so.
Q. Have you ever heard it said that most tetrahydracannabinol on the market is actually PCP?
MR. BUGLIOSI: Calls for a conclusion.
THE COURT: Overruled.
THE WITNESS: I don’t know.
MR. HUGHES: Q. Have you ever used a drug called Peace?
A. A drug called peace?
Q. Yes.
A. No.
Q. Have you ever used a substance called Peace?
A. I have taken acid that was called Peace Pills.
Q. When was that?
A. When?
Q. Yes.
A. In New York City in April of ’69.
Q. On how many occasions?
A. Just that once.
Q. Have you ever used Freon?
A. No.
Q. Have you ever taken large amounts of nutmeg?
A. No, never did.
Q. Have you ever taken a cough syrup called Romillar?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. On how many occasions, if you remember?
A. Once.
Q. And when was it?
A. It was in Miami in ’66. Yes.
Q. Have you ever taken large amounts of dramamine?
A. Dramamine?
Q. Yes.
A. I don’t think I know what it is.
Q. Did you ever take demerol?
A. Demerol? No, not that I know of.
Q. Now, have you ever tried to get high or stoned on any other substance other than the ones that we have gone over?
A. No.
Q. Is there a drug called Cyclone?
A. Cyclone? Not that I know of.
Q. Could you explain the difference between an acid flash and a speed rush?
A. The difference between?
Q. Yes.
A. No, I can’t explain that.
Q. Does one last longer than the other?
A. No.
Q. Is one of stronger intensity than the other?
A. Yes.
Q. Which one is stronger?
A. Speed.
Q. The speed rush is stronger than an acid flash?
A. Yes.
Q. And for about a month you were constantly on speed and having these rushes; is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, LSD comes in several different forms, does it not?
A. Yes.
Q. Will you tell us what forms you have seen it in?
A. I have seen it in little bottles, clear bottles; I have seen it in tablet form, I have seen it in capsule form; I have seen it in liquid dropped on paper, liquid dropped on sugar cubes.
That is it.
Q. And you have seen it in different colors when it is in tablet form, have you?
A. Yes.
Q. What colors have you seen it in?
MR. STOVITZ: That is objected to as immaterial, your Honor.
THE COURT: Overruled.
THE WITNESS: What colors have I seen it in?
MR. HUGHES: Yes. In tablets?
THE WITNESS: Let’s see.
I have seen it in orange, I have seen it in white, I have seen it in blue, I have seen it in pink, I have seen it in pink and white, peppermint. I have seen it in an off brown.
That is all I can think of.
Q. And how many colors have you seen it in—that was in tablets—how many colors have you seen it in capsules?
MR. STOVITZ: That is objected to as immaterial, your Honor.
THE COURT: Overruled.
THE WITNESS: Let’s see.
I have seen it in white, blue—that is all I can remember seeing it.
BY MR. HUGHES:
Q. You have seen it in liquids, in vials; is that correct?
A. Yes.
MR. STOVITZ: Objection—withdraw the objection.
BY MR. HUGHES:
Q. How big were the vials?
MR. STOVITZ: Objected to as immaterial, your Honor.
THE COURT: Overruled.
THE WITNESS: Two inches.
BY MR. HUGHES:
Q. Two inches tall?
A. Yes.
Q. How wide?
A. Half an inch, an inch, I guess.
Q. Did the top screw off of these vials or did you break the top off?
A. They screwed off.
Q. And did you ever use any of the liquid acid?
A. Yes.
Q. When was that?
A. When?
Q. Yes.
A. In Boston—or was it New York?—no, Boston, in ’67, I believe.
Q. And was it your belief, Mrs. Kasabian, that that liquid acid was much stronger and much purer than any other acid you have had?
A. Yes. It was one of the best acids.
Q. Was it your belief that that was pharmaceutical acid?
A. That is what I was told.
Q. Has it been your belief that all the other acids you have used have been street acid?
A. No. I have had some pharmaceutical acid.
Q. Since then?
A. Since what?
Since when?
Q. Since you used the acid in Boston?
A. Yes.
Q. When else did you have pharmaceutical acid?
A. When I was in New York I had what they call pure Owsley acid.
THE COURT: Mr. Hughes, it is 4:15.
Ladies and gentlemen, do not converse with anyone nor form or express any opinion regarding the case until it is finally submitted to you.
The court will adjourn, for the jury, until 9:45 tomorrow morning; for counsel, 9:00 a.m.
MR. STOVITZ: Do you want counsel at 9:00, your Honor?
THE COURT: Yes.
MR. STOVITZ: Thank you.
(Whereupon at 4:15 o’clock p.m. the court was in recess.)