Historic Trial Transcripts
Linda Kasabian: Day sixteen Testimony, August 17, 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:
FURTHER RECROSS EXAMINATION
BY MR. KANAREK:
Q. Mrs. Kasabian, directing your attention to the one day that you say you took something that you say was a—created a weak trip, as far as you were concerned.
Was that the day that you went to the beach?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, is it a fact that your state of mind as to whether something is psilocybin or not is dependent upon the language of the person that gave you what you thought to be psilocybin?
A. I don’t understand your question.
Q. Well, when you took psilocybin, how did you know for sure it was psilocybin?
MR. BUGLIOSI: I object on the ground it is ambiguous when she took psilocybin, at what time, your Honor?
MR. KANAREK: Any time in her life.
MR. BUGLIOSI: Withdraw the objection.
THE WITNESS: I was told it was psilocybin.
BY MR. KANAREK:
Q. So that is what your state of mind depended upon, is what somebody was telling you, is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, did you have a conversation at the beach with someone wherein someone told you that some material that they were giving you was psilocybin?
A. That day at the beach, or any day?
Q. At any time, at or near the beach?
A. Here in California?
Q. That question is not clear to you, Mrs. Kasabian?
A. Yes, it is. No, I did not speak to anybody about that.
Q. Pardon?
A. I did not speak to anybody at the beach about that.
MR. KANAREK: Your Honor, may I have the question read to the witness.
THE COURT: For what purpose? She answered it.
MR. KANAREK: Very well, your Honor.
BY MR. KANAREK:
Q. Then it is a fair statement that your intent as to whether or not you took psilocybin, let’s say, during the period of time that you were at the Spahn Ranch, living at the Spahn Ranch, that your thinking as to whether anything was psilocybin depended upon the language that was uttered by the person who gave you the material.
MR. STOVITZ: Unintelligible, your Honor, compound and ambiguous.
THE COURT: Do you understand the question?
THE WITNESS: Not exactly.
THE COURT: Sustained.
BY MR. KANAREK:
Q. Directing your attention to the time when you were at the Spahn Ranch, Mrs. Kasabian, is your state of mind such that whether or not a material that you took into your body, that you thought was psilocybin, was based upon somebody telling you it was psilocybin.
MR. STOVITZ: That assumes a fact not in evidence, your Honor, that she took psilocybin at the ranch and somebody told her it was psilocybin. The question is ambiguous and unintelligible.
THE COURT: Read the question.
(Whereupon the reporter reads the question as follows:
“Q. Directing your attention to the time when you were at the Spahn Ranch, Mrs. Kasabian, is your state of mind such that whether or not a material that you took into your body, that you thought was psilocybin, was based upon somebody telling you it was psilocybin?”)
THE COURT: Overruled, you may answer.
THE WITNESS: I don’t understand your question still.
MR. KANAREK: You don’t?
THE WITNESS: No.
BY MR. KANAREK:
Q. Did you have a good weekend, Mrs. Kasabian?
MR. STOVITZ: That is objected to as immaterial, your Honor.
THE COURT: Ask your next question.
MR. KANAREK: Yes, your Honor.
BY MR. KANAREK:
Q. Mrs. Kasabian, you tell us that at no time—let me withdraw that.
I believe it is fair statement that you have told us that whether or not a material that you took into your body was psilocybin was dependent upon somebody telling you it was psilocybin, is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. At any time when you have taken psilocybin, this has been what has made your thinking think.
Let me put it better:
Has made your mind think you were taking psilocybin at any time that you took it, your mind thought it was psilocybin because somebody that gave it to you told you it was, is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And directing your attention, then, Mrs. Kasabian to the time, the time period while you were living at the Spahn Ranch, you say; that period of time from the beginning of July sometime until sometime in August of 1969; at any time in that period of time did you take some material that you had asked for wherein you asked for psilocybin?
A. No.
Q. At any time during that month or that period of time that we have spoken of, from the beginning of July to some time in August of 1969, did you have a conversation with anyone concerning psilocybin?
A. Not that I recall, no.
Q. Not that you recall? But you may have; is that right?
A. I really doubt it but I may have, yes.
Q. Now, would you tell us, Mrs. Kasabian, what was there about this one time that you took something that you say gave you a weak trip, what is there about that that made you remember that on that day or at or about that time you went to the beach?
A. I don’t understand what you are asking me.
Q. You have told us, I believe, Mrs. Kasabian, that on the day or about the time that you took this material that gave you a weak trip, the one time that you took any material that gave you a weak trip while you were at the Spahn Ranch, that at or about that time you went to the beach; right?
A. Late in the afternoon, yes.
Q. Now, what is there about that that makes you remember that on that day you went to the beach, the only day that you took any material that gave you any kind of a trip at all while you were at the Spahn Ranch?
A. Because I thought of going to see my husband down in Topanga Lane, and I believe I told Sadie, and Sadie wanted to go with me.
Q. And you went with Sadie; right?
A. Yes.
Q. And you went into the general beach area; is that correct?
A. Not on the beach itself.
Q. Well, how close to the beach did you get?
A. This side of the highway.
Q. Well, Mrs. Kasabian, whereabouts on this side of the highway?
A. Topanga Lane.
Q. And how far is that from Pacific Coast Highway?
A. Not very far. I don’t know how far.
Q. Well, can you give us an estimate in feet?
A. No, I can’t. I don’t know.
Q. Was it a block away, or two blocks away?
A. From the highway or the beach?
Q. From the highway?
A. Maybe two blocks.
Q. Maybe two blocks?
A. Yes.
Q. And immediately on the other side of the Pacific Coast Highway is the beach?
A. Right.
Q. That is the beach where people go swimming?
A. Right.
Q. Is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. The swimming beach?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, while you were at the beach, Mrs. Kasabian, and while Sadie—I will withdraw that.
While you were at the beach area, the general area of the beach, and while you were at the beach area with Sadie, did you take any material that you thought was psilocybin?
A. No.
Q. While you were at the beach area, the time you were there with Sadie, did you take any material that somebody told you was psilocybin?
A. I didn’t take anything.
Q. You took nothing? You put nothing into your oral cavity whatsoever that you obtained from another person?
A. Right.
Q. Now, Mrs. Kasabian, is it true that at the time that you thought that Mr. Manson was Jesus Christ, at the same time you thought you were a witch; is that a fair statement?
A. Yes.
MR. KANAREK: Thank you.
Thank you, your Honor.
Thank you, Mrs. Kasabian.
THE COURT: Mr. Shinn, do you have some questions?
MR. SHINN: Yes, your Honor. I have a few questions left from last week.
RECROSS-EXAMINATION
BY MR. SHINN:
Q. Mrs. Kasabian, I was asking you about this middle eye last week.
Do you recall that conversation we had?
A. Yes.
Q. And I believe you stated that the middle eye was an eye between the two eyes that you have?
A. In the center of the forehead.
Q. I believe you said that when you close your eyes, you could see this middle eye.
A. No. You can’t—well, it is hard to explain.
Q. In other words, did you visualize an eye that is there?
A. No, it is not a physical eye.
Q. What kind of an eye is it?
A. It is not an eye like you see an eye, you know, a physical eyeball, it is not that.
Well, it is an opening within the self leading to the spiritual realm.
Q. And how many times did you see this eye?
I believe this eye appears when you are doing yoga without drugs; is that correct?
A. Yes. Just meditating.
Q. Just meditating?
A. Yes.
Q. How many times did you see this eye, this so-called eye?
A. I don’t know. I don’t count.
Q. Well, was it more than once?
A. Yes.
Q. Was it more than ten times?
A. I don’t know. I have never counted them.
Q. Then would it be, say, many, many times?
A. Yes.
Q. And everytime you see this eye, do you have to close your eyes to see it?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you recall what size it is? Is it a big size?
A. It is not a size. It is not tangible. I can’t explain it to you. I thought I did the best I could.
Q. You do see this type of an eye, you said, correct?
A. What type of eye?
Q. This third eye that you are talking about.
A. Yes. But I don’t think you understand me.
Q. Well, then, would you explain so I could understand you?
A. I thought I just did.
Q. Do you know what color this eye is?
A. It is not a color. It is not tangible. It is not a physical material thing.
Q. But you visualize it in your mind; is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And when you visualize it, don’t you have a picture of what it looks like in your mind, to an extent?
A. It doesn’t have boundaries, it is limitless. It is colorless so far. I have been told that you are supposed to see a white light, but I have never seen that.
Q. Who told you this?
A. I don’t know. Just people throughout the years.
Q. Well, does this eye wink?
A. No, not that I know of.
Q. It does not wink?
A. No.
Q. Then what do you see after you see this eye?
A. I don’t know.
Q. Well, is that the extent of this eye?
A. I really don’t have the ability to explain it to you because I don’t have the words to explain it.
I believe that it is a state of mind and it is beyond expression through words.
Q. And I believe you stated that there are various stages you go through?
A. Yes.
Q. And how many stages are there?
A. I think there are seven stages. I am not sure.
Q. And what is the ultimate stage?
A. God.
Q. Do you actually see God in the ultimate stage?
A. Well, I have just been told that it is beyond thought, beyond comprehension.
Q. And what state are you in at the present time?
A. I don’t know. I really don’t know.
Q. Is this a substitute for drugs?
A. No.
Q. Well, you started to practice yoga, I believe you said you used to get high without drugs while you were in jail; is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And I believe you also stated that you started to practice this while you were in jail?
A. Oh, no. I have been doing it on and off for a few years.
Q. On and off for a few years?
Was it in connection with your taking the drugs that you meditated in this fashion?
A. I don’t know.
Q. I think you stated that you were arrested at one time for being in and around where there were drugs; is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And you know that to possess or to take LSD, or any other drugs not prescribed by a doctor, is against the law?
You know that, don’t you?
A. Yes.
Q. And you also know that taking marijuana, smoking marijuana, is against the law?
A. Yes.
Q. And yet, I believe you testified that you took over a thousand—you smoked marijuana over a thousand times?
MR. BUGLIOSI: I object.
A. That was somebody else’s number. I don’t know how many times.
BY MR. SHINN:
Q. So many times you can’t remember them; is that correct?
A. I never counted them.
Q. And you also stated that you took LSD for approximately 50 times?
A. Well, I said acid, but I meant, actually, all my trips together, mescaline and—
Q. Speed?
A. Not speed. Mescaline, psilocybin, peyote cactus.
Q. Directing your attention to a time when you were about to smoke marijuana cigarettes. Would you direct your attention to one of those incidents.
A. What is that again?
Q. I am trying to direct your attention to a time when you were about to smoke a marijuana cigarette.
A. About to smoke?
Q. Yes. The last time you were about to smoke a marijuana cigarette.
A. Yes?
Q. Do you recall that time?
A. It wasn’t marijuana though. I smoked hash.
Q. Hash. Okay.
Do you recall that last time now, just before you started to smoke hash?
A. Yes.
Q. You knew in your mind, your state of mind was such, that it was against the law to smoke this hash; correct?
A. Yes. But I never usually thought about that.
Q. I mean, at that time, you knew that it was against the law to smoke this hash. You had hash in your hand and you were ready to smoke, and you knew, at that time, your state of mind was, that it was against the law to smoke it; is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. But anyway, you did smoke it; correct?
A. Yes.
Q. You knew it was wrong to smoke it, but you felt in your mind it was right to smoke it, otherwise you wouldn’t have smoked it?
A. It was wrong as far as, you know, the legal point of view; but at the time, I didn’t feel it was wrong for myself to do it.
Q. In other words, you felt it was right to smoke it?
A. At the time, yes.
Q. And you knew, at that time, that it was against the law to smoke it?
A. Yes.
Q. In other words, there was a difference between right and wrong but you were confused; right?
A. No.
I don’t understand.
Q. Well, you knew it was against the law to smoke it; correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And you felt, your state of mind was such, that, at that time, you wanted to smoke it, and you felt it was right to smoke it?
A. Yes.
Q. In other words, you had a conflict between right and wrong?
MR. BUGLIOSI: That is ambiguous, your Honor.
THE COURT: Sustained.
BY MR. SHINN:
Q. Just before you smoked this hash the last time, there was a conflict—was there not a conflict in your mind—I mean, in your mind at that time?
A. Concerning what?
Q. Knowing that it was wrong to smoke it?
A. Like I just said a little while ago, I usually didn’t think about the legal point of view when I smoked it.
Q. But you knew it was wrong to smoke it; right?
A. Now I do, yes.
Q. I mean before?
A. Before, sure, I realized it, but it didn’t impress upon my mind.
Q. But you felt, in your mind, although it was wrong to smoke it, you felt it was right to smoke it in your mind; correct?
MR. BUGLIOSI: Asked and answered, and also ambiguous.
MR. SHINN: Your Honor, she didn’t answer the question.
MR. BUGLIOSI: And also irrelevant.
THE COURT: The objection is sustained.
BY MR. SHINN:
Q. Would it be fair to state, Mrs. Kasabian, that at times when you smoked marijuana or hash, or when you took LSD, that you did not know the difference between which is right and which is wrong?
MR. BUGLIOSI: Ambiguous and irrelevant.
MR. SHINN: I think the question is clear, your Honor.
THE COURT: Sustained.
BY MR. SHINN:
Q. Now, just before you started to smoke this hash the last time, I believe you stated that you knew it was wrong to smoke it; correct; it was against the law?
A. Yes.
Q. But you did, in fact, smoke it?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, was this impulse that you had to smoke the cigarette so strong that you couldn’t resist not smoking the cigarette, the hash?
MR. BUGLIOSI: Irrelevant.
THE COURT: Sustained.
BY MR. SHINN:
Q. In other words, Mrs. Kasabian, did you have an irresistible impulse to smoke that hash cigarette?
MR. BUGLIOSI: It is conclusionary, ambiguous and irrelevant, your Honor.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. SHINN: I have nothing further, your Honor.
THE COURT: Any questions, Mr. Hughes?
MR. HUGHES: Yes, your Honor.
RECROSS-EXAMINATION
BY MR. HUGHES:
Q. Whom was your source of drugs in Topanga Canyon?
A. Who?
MR. BUGLIOSI: I object, your Honor, on the grounds that it is irrelevant.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. HUGHES: Q. Isn’t it true that your husband, Bob, sold drugs?
MR. BUGLIOSI: Irrelevant, your Honor.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. HUGHES: Q. Isn’t it true that Mr. Melton, whom you were living with, sold drugs?
MR. BUGLIOSI: Irrelevant.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. HUGHES: Q. Is it true that Mr. Melton was an authority on peyote?
MR. BUGLIOSI: I object, your Honor. It is irrelevant.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. HUGHES: Q. Did the peyote you took, did you get it from Mr. Melton?
MR. BUGLIOSI: Same objection as before, your Honor. Irrelevant.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. HUGHES: Q. Did you pick it yourself?
MR. BUGLIOSI: Irrelevant.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. HUGHES: Q. How did you know it was peyote?
A. I was told it was peyote.
Q. And who told you that?
A. Some people that gave it to me.
Q. And who were those people?
MR. BUGLIOSI: Irrelevant.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. HUGHES: Q. Were there other people present when you had this conversation?
MR. BUGLIOSI: Irrelevant.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. HUGHES: Q. Now, you said that when the man came out of the Tate house and fell down, that you had a vision; is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And what was that vision?
A. Well, all of a sudden I saw this man’s eyes and I realized, through the man himself, what Charles Manson was doing, and that he was just leading myself into self-destruction.
Q. And did that vision tell you who Charles Manson really was?
A. Yes. I felt that he was the devil.
Q. And what was that vision like, Mrs. Kasabian?
A. You mean, was it pictures?
I don’t understand what you mean.
Q. Would you describe it for us?
A. They were just thoughts. They didn’t take form or anything. They were just thoughts.
Q. Were these very strong thoughts?
A. Yes.
Q. They were very vivid?
A. Yes.
Q. They rushed through your mind?
A. Yes.
Q. And yet you didn’t have any vision when you saw the first gentleman shot in the car, did you?
A. No.
Q. Was this vision similar to anything you had had on an acid trip or any other trip?
A. Yes.
Q. So you had had visions before this time?
A. Yes.
Q. And have you had any visions since that time?
MR. BUGLIOSI: Ambiguous, your Honor. Vision as to what, your Honor? It is ambiguous. I don’t know what the questioner is propounding.
MR. HUGHES: Your Honor, nor do we. We have never had an opportunity to question—
MR. BUGLIOSI: Wait a minute.
Before you make inflammatory remarks, let’s approach the bench.
MR. KANAREK: Your Honor—
THE COURT: Sit down, Mr. Kanarek.
Do you understand the question?
THE WITNESS: I don’t know what he means. By visions, I just mean thoughts.
THE COURT: Reframe it.
MR. HUGHES: Q. You had other times when your thoughts have been very vivid and so strong that you felt that you could call them visions; isn’t that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you feel that this vision up at the Tate residence—that this was a vision from God?
A. I don’t know.
Q. Could you hear voices within your head?
A. No.
Q. Did you feel that you could see God or see the real Jesus at that time?
A. No.
Q. Did you feel you were in contact with some God-like symbol?
MR. BUGLIOSI: Ambiguous, your Honor.
THE COURT: Overruled.
THE WITNESS: I don’t know.
MR. HUGHES: Q. Did you see Mr. Manson in your mind at that time?
A. Yes.
Q. And did you see any other people in your mind at that time?
A. Well, they were him and he was they, they were all one, that was their thing.
MR. KANAREK: Your Honor, may that be stricken, “That was their thing”? It is certainly a conclusion on the part of this witness, your Honor.
THE COURT: Read the question and the answer.
(The question and the answer were read by the reporter.)
MR. KANAREK: I ask that that be stricken, your Honor. It is a conclusion as to this witness, making some kind of observations as to an indefinite “they.”
I ask that it be stricken, your Honor.
THE COURT: That is the answer to the question.
Overruled. Motion is denied.
MR. HUGHES: Q. So, you have had these thoughts in your mind since that time which are of equal strength and equal vividness; is that correct?
MR. STOVITZ: Ambiguous, your Honor.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. HUGHES: Q. Since that time, you have had strong thoughts which you would characterize as a vision; is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you feel that a vision is part of your brain telling another part of your brain something?
MR. BUGLIOSI: That is ambiguous, your Honor.
THE COURT: Do you understand the question?
THE WITNESS: Yes, I do.
THE COURT: Overruled.
You may answer.
THE WITNESS: Part of my brain? Possibly. I am not sure.
MR. HUGHES: Q. Did you feel that this vision was from the universe? From some power or some source outside of yourself?
A. Yes.
MR. BUGLIOSI: Ambiguous.
MR. HUGHES: Q. You felt that this vision had some supernatural origin?
A. I guess so.
Q. But you felt you were not able to control this vision, is that correct?
MR. STOVITZ: Are you talking about the vision at the Tate house, Counsel, is that what we are talking about?
MR. HUGHES: Yes.
THE WITNESS: I don’t understand what you mean by control it.
BY MR. HUGHES:
Q. You were not able to stop the vision you were having, were you?
A. No.
Q. And you were not able to start that vision at will, were you?
A. No.
Q. So some outside force was making you have that vision, is that correct?
MR. BUGLIOSI: That calls for a conclusion and is assuming a fact not in evidence.
BY MR. HUGHES:
Q. Was it your belief that some outside force was making you have that vision?
MR. BUGLIOSI: Calls for a conclusion, your Honor.
THE COURT: Sustained.
BY MR. HUGHES:
Q. You didn’t do anything to create that vision, did you?
MR. BUGLIOSI: Calls for a conclusion.
THE COURT: Sustained.
BY MR. HUGHES:
Q. Do you believe you did anything to create that vision?
A. I think just being there created the vision.
Q. Did you feel at the time of the vision that some supernatural force was contacting you?
MR. BUGLIOSI: Calls for a conclusion, very ambiguous also, your Honor.
THE COURT: Sustained.
BY MR. HUGHES:
Q. Did you feel that God was contacting you in this vision?
MR. BUGLIOSI: Same objection, your Honor, calls for a conclusion. It is ambiguous.
THE COURT: Sustained.
BY MR. HUGHES:
Q. Would you describe the visions that you have had since that time.
MR. BUGLIOSI: Too broad, your Honor, way too broad.
She may have been daydreaming and had a thousand visions, your Honor.
Is that what he is asking for?
THE COURT: Sustained.
BY MR. HUGHES:
Q. Was there a ruling, your Honor?
THE COURT: Sustained.
BY MR. HUGHES:
Q. Have you had any subsequent visions?
MR. BUGLIOSI: Too broad, your Honor.
THE COURT: Overruled, you may answer.
THE WITNESS: Yes.
BY MR. HUGHES:
Q. Would you describe the first vision that you had after the vision at the Tate house?
A. I don’t know if I can remember that far.
Q. But it was a vivid experience, is that correct?
A. After the Tate house?
Q. Yes.
A. I don’t know, I really cannot recall. There was a lot of confusion, I don’t know.
Q. How about the second vision, can you recall that?
MR. BUGLIOSI: Your Honor, I object. I don’t know what counsel means by the word “vision.” is he talking about daydreaming or seeing something?
It’s just ambiguous.
THE COURT: Sustained.
BY MR. HUGHES:
Q. What does a vision mean to you, Mrs. Kasabian?
A. Insight, I guess.
Q. And is this insight related some way to the supernatural?
A. I don’t know.
Q. Is it related in some way to your God awareness?
MR. BUGLIOSI: Your Honor, these are metaphysical questions that I don’t think a psychiatrist can answer.
I object on that ground. It is totally ambiguous and irrelevant.
MR. HUGHES: Let’s get a psychiatrist to answer them, your Honor.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. KANAREK: Your Honor, if I may, I would ask your Honor to order Mr. Bugliosi to make legal objections and not make comments inter se, your Honor—
May I?
THE COURT: May you what?
MR. KANAREK: I do ask, your Honor, to order Mr. Bugliosi to make legal objections.
THE COURT: Ambiguous is a legal objection.
MR. KANAREK: His last comment certainly was not a legal objection.
THE COURT: I agree. All counsel are admonished again to confine their objections to the legally recognized objections, the same as your motions.
Gratuitous comments should not be made.
The jury is admonished to disregard the comment of counsel.
Let’s proceed.
BY MR. HUGHES:
Q. Do you feel that in this action against Charles Manson and these girls that you are an emissary from God, from the universe?
MR. BUGLIOSI: I object on the ground it is vague and ambiguous and conclusionary, on those grounds, your Honor.
MR. KANAREK: May we approach the bench, your Honor?
THE COURT: The objection is overruled. You may answer.
Do you understand the question?
THE WITNESS: Yes. I cannot say yes and I cannot say no because I don’t know definitely.
BY MR. HUGHES:
Q. Can you explain that, then, what your feelings are?
MR. STOVITZ: Objected to, your Honor, improper recross examination, irrelevant, and immaterial.
MR. KANAREK: Your Honor, if I may be heard, it is perfectly permissible at all times; your Honor has so ruled previously. This witness may explain her answer.
As a matter of fact I recall in connection with a question—
THE COURT: We now have a new question. The objection is sustained to that question.
BY MR. HUGHES:
Q. Would you explain your answer, it may be yes; it may be no?
THE COURT: I don’t understand that, Mr. Hughes, what are you asking?
MR. HUGHES: May I have a moment, your Honor?
(Off the record consultation between Mr. Hughes and Mr. Fitzgerald.)
BY MR. HUGHES:
Q. You previously testified that you cannot answer my question whether you are an emissary from God or from the universe, yes or no.
Can you explain that yes or no answer?
A. I don’t have the answer.
Q. But you feel you may be an emissary from God, is that correct?
MR. BUGLIOSI: That’s a misstatement, your Honor. I object on that ground.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q. BY MR. HUGHES: Do you feel you are an emissary from God?
MR. BUGLIOSI: Asked and answered.
THE COURT: Overruled.
THE WITNESS: I thought I just answered you.
THE COURT: Answer the question.
THE WITNESS: Do I feel that I am an emissary from God? Yes.
Q. BY MR. HUGHES: To bring the wrath of God upon this false prophet, Charles Manson?
MR. BUGLIOSI: Your Honor, this is an ambiguous, ridiculous question.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. KANAREK: Your Honor, I would ask your Honor to once again caution Mr. Bugliosi.
THE COURT: All right, Mr. Kanarek, sustained.
Q. BY MR. HUGHES: In what respect, then, are you an emissary from God?
A. I cannot say.
Q. Why can’t you say it, Mrs. Kasabian?
MR. STOVITZ: I object to the question, your Honor, argumentative.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q. BY MR. HUGHES: Is it to see that the defendant gets justice?
A. No, that is not up to me to do.
Q. How do you know that you are an emissary from God?
A. I don’t really know, definitely.
Q. But in your heart you feel that?
A. Yes.
Q. And what makes you feel that?
MR. BUGLIOSI: Your Honor, I object to the line of questions on the ground the word “emissary” is ambiguous.
Before there is some definition of what emissary is in this witness’ mind I object on the ground it is ambiguous.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q. BY MR. HUGHES: Do you feel that you are an agent from God?
MR. BUGLIOSI: Same objection, your Honor.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q. BY MR. HUGHES: Do you feel that you are an ambassador from God?
MR. BUGLIOSI: Same objection.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q. BY MR. HUGHES: Do you feel that your mission is to tell who Charles Manson really is, isn’t that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And this is what God has sent you here to do?
MR. BUGLIOSI: It calls for a conclusion, your Honor.
THE COURT: I think you should reframe the question, Mr. Hughes.
Sustained.
Q. BY MR. HUGHES: Do you feel that God has sent you to tell who Charles Manson really is?
A. That is what I feel in my heart; I don’t know for sure.
MR. BUGLIOSI: I object to this line of questions, your Honor, and also there is a motion to strike on the grounds that God sent a person is totally ambiguous, your Honor.
God sent someone.
THE COURT: Overruled.
Q. BY MR. HUGHES: Now, that mission is to tell that Charles Manson is really the devil and not Jesus.
A. He is a false prophet.
Q. That he is a false prophet?
A. Yes.
Q. What is a false prophet?
A. A person that prophesies to delusions, false beliefs, puts in confusions and lies and a little bit with the truth.
Q. And have you ever thought that anyone else was Jesus Christ?
A. No, just Jesus Christ from the Bible.
Q. And the time you felt Mr. Manson was Jesus Christ.
A. Excuse me?
Q. And you had also testified that you thought Mr. Manson at one time was Jesus Christ?
A. Yes.
MR. STOVITZ: Asked and answered, your Honor.
THE COURT: Overruled.
THE WITNESS: Yes.
Q. BY MR. HUGHES: And have you ever thought that anyone else besides Mr. Manson was the devil?
MR. BUGLIOSI: She never testified he was the devil, your Honor.
She said he was a devilish man, so it is a misstatement. I object on that ground.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q. BY MR. HUGHES: Didn’t you just testify earlier this morning that the vision told you that Mr. Manson was not Jesus but the devil?
MR. STOVITZ: I object to that, your Honor, the record speaks for itself.
The question is argumentative.
THE COURT: Sustained
Q. BY MR. HUGHES: Was it your belief that Mr. Manson was the devil?
A. Yes.
Q. And have you ever thought that anyone else was the devil?
A. Yes.
Q. And who is that?
A. I don’t remember names, people that I have met along the way.
Q. Many people?
A. No.
Q. And have you seen the devil and have you seen Jesus Christ when you meditate?
A. No.
Q. Now, on the second night you went along even though you no longer felt that Charles Manson was Jesus Christ, isn’t that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And you were disenchanted with Charles Manson at that moment, weren’t you?
A. Yes, I was.
Q. And you were disenchanted on the beach when you walked along and held his hand, weren’t you?
A. No, I was very much enchanted.
Q. Were you disenchanted driving to the beach?
A. I cannot remember.
Q. Were you disenchanted when the police drove up and asked who you were?
MR. BUGLIOSI: That is ambiguous, your Honor, disenchanted when the police drove up.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. KANAREK: Your Honor, my I be heard on that?
THE COURT: Mr. Hughes is capable of answering the objections.
Q. BY MR. HUGHES: Did you believe that, when the police came up, that Mr. Manson was Jesus Christ?
A. I don’t think Jesus Christ of him entered into my mind. I don’t know what it was. I cannot explain it.
MR. STOVITZ: I could not hear the witness’ answer. She lowered her voice, your Honor.
THE COURT: Read the last question and answer, please.
(Whereupon, the reporter read the last question and answer as follows:
“Q. BY MR. HUGHES: Did you believe that, when the police came up, that Mr. Manson was Jesus Christ?
“A. I don’t think Jesus Christ of him entered into my mind. I don’t know what it was. I cannot explain it.”)
BY MR. HUGHES:
Q. Even though you felt this disenchantment, you point out a house where someone might be killed at the beach.
MR. STOVITZ: Argumentative, your Honor.
THE COURT: Sustained.
BY MR. HUGHES:
Q. Did you point out a house at the beach where someone lived that you knew?
MR. STOVITZ: That was covered fully in direct and cross-examination, your Honor, it was not gone into on redirect examination.
THE COURT: Sustained.
BY MR. HUGHES:
Q. You did not say anything to the policeman at the beach to make the murders stop, did you?
A. No.
Q. And you felt that there were murders going on, didn’t you?
A. I don’t remember feeling it at that moment, but, yes, I knew about it.
Q. At the house next to Harold True’s?
A. Yes.
Q. And you could have told those police to stop the killing, could you not have?
MR. STOVITZ: Argumentative.
THE COURT: Overruled.
THE WITNESS: What was the question.
BY MR. HUGHES:
Q. You could have told the police to stop the killing at the house next to Harold True’s?
A. I feel if I could have I would have, so I don’t feel I could have.
Q. There was nothing wrong with your voice then, was there?
A. I guess not.
Q. And you had already determined through a vision that Mr. Manson was no longer Jesus Christ?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you see accounts of the murders at the Tate house on television?
A. I don’t understand.
Q. Did you see accounts on television of the murders that took place at the Tate residence?
A. You mean the people’s names and faces? I don’t understand.
Q. Yes.
A. Yes.
Q. You saw news reporting on that?
A. Yes.
Q. And did you read about it in the newspaper?
A. Yes.
Q. And did you hear about it on the radio?
MR. STOVITZ: Are you talking all on the same date Counsel? Or are you talking about subsequent—
MR. HUGHES: Your Honor, if Mr. Stovitz wishes to interpose an objection I would be glad to have him do it.
MR. STOVITZ: I object to the question as being ambiguous and unintelligible.
THE COURT: Overruled, you may answer.
THE WITNESS: What was your question?
THE COURT: Did you hear it on the radio?
THE WITNESS: No, I never heard it on the radio.
BY MR. HUGHES:
Q. Did you go to the Tate house before or after you heard it on television?
A. What? Say that again?
MR. HUGHES: Can we read the question, your Honor?
MR. STOVITZ: The same emphasis, or without the emphasis?
THE COURT: Read the question.
(Whereupon the reporter reads the pending question as follows:
“Q. Did you go to the Tate house before or after you heard it on television?”)
THE WITNESS: Oh, before.
BY MR. HUGHES:
Q. Isn’t it true—
MR. BUGLIOSI: Your Honor, I would object to Mr. Manson vocalizing things to Mrs. Kasabian on the stand within earshot on the jury.
He just made a statement, “Are you sure?”
It was rather loud.
THE COURT: I did not hear it.
If you are making statements, Mr. Manson, I will ask you not to.
You may confer with your counsel. You should by not speak with such a voice that may be heard by anyone else.
Let’s proceed.
BY MR. HUGHES:
Q. Isn’t it true that you did not actually know of any murders until after they had taken place?
A. No, that is not true.
Q. Aren’t you painting Charles Manson as the devil so that you can blame him for the $5,000 that you stole from Charles Melton?
A. No, it has nothing to do with that money.
Q. And aren’t you blaming him now so you can get out of the guilt of abandoning your child, the guilt of stealing the car, the guilt of running off to New Mexico with underaged boys?
A. I cannot put that guilt—
MR. STOVITZ: Just a moment, argumentative.
THE COURT: Overruled.
THE WITNESS: I cannot put that guilt on him. That is within my own soul.
BY MR. HUGHES:
Q. And you do feel guilty about those things?
A. Sure I do.
Q. While you were in the County Jail at Sybil Brand, you could not use drugs, is that correct?
A. I took tranquilizers a couple of times.
Q. But basically you could not take the drugs which you normally had taken in the past?
A. Right.
Q. The peyote?
A. Right.
Q. The LSD?
A. Uh huh.
Q. The psilocybin.
MR. STOVITZ: Your Honor, I submit this question has been asked and answered.
THE COURT: Overruled, you may answer.
THE WITNESS: No, I have never taken any of those drugs at Sybil Brand.
Q. Nobody brought you any marijuana?
A. No.
Q. Or hashish.
A. Somebody tried to give me hashish once, but I refused it.
Q. In the jail?
A. Yeah.
Q. So you turned to mysticism, to yoga in the jail?
MR. STOVITZ: That is objected to as argumentative, your Honor.
THE COURT: Overruled.
THE WITNESS: What was your question?
Q. BY MR. HUGHES: You turned to mysticism, to yoga in the jail, is that right?
A. Well, I have been in and out of it for the last few years, but I was really into it in jail, yes.
Q. It was more convenient in jail when there weren’t any other drugs around, isn’t that correct?
MR. STOVITZ: Argumentative, your Honor.
THE COURT: Ambiguous, sustained.
Q. BY MR. HUGHES: This was a way of getting into your head, was it not?
A. Yes.
Q. And this was a way of getting into your head without the use of drugs?
A. Yes.
Q. And you could get into your head through yoga in a manner very similar to that that drugs would produce, isn’t that correct?
A. I cannot really say.
Q. Was it dissimilar?
A. Yeah.
Q. In what way was it dissimilar from your use of drugs?
A. Well, when I take drugs I am aware of chemical effects, and I am actually aware of the chemical in my system.
When you meditate there is no chemical in your system. There is a difference—I cannot really tell you.
Q. So you could go to the drug awareness and not have the chemical holding you back, is that right?
A. What?
MR. STOVITZ: I object, immaterial, argumentative, unintelligible, your Honor.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q. BY MR. HUGHES: Could you attain through meditation an awareness similar to that on drugs?
A. Well, I feel by meditating, that is the pure and natural way, and drugs is the chemical way.
That is my answer.
Q. But basically the result or the goal is the same goal, is that correct?
MR. STOVITZ: That is ambiguous, your Honor.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q. BY MR. HUGHES: One of the goals on drugs was to reach a God awareness, isn’t that right?
A. Yes.
Q. And the major goal on meditating is to reach God, isn’t that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And to reach a oneness with the universe?
A. Uh-huh, yes.
Q. And you were able to do this without the use of drugs now?
A. I am not really sure of what I have attained through meditating. I am not really sure. I am just not really sure.
Q. You have said that in yoga you sit at a full lotus position, is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And that is with the legs crossed?
A. Yes.
Q. And do you do something special with your hands?
A. You can.
Q. Do you?
A. Sometimes.
Q. And you will sit in this position for how long a period?
MR. BUGLIOSI: This is irrelevant, your Honor.
THE COURT: Sustained.
We will take our recess at this time, Mr. Hughes.
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 continue, Mr. Hughes.
BY MR. HUGHES:
Q. The full lotus position that you sit in is actually a discipline of the body at the mind; is that right?
MR. BUGLIOSI: Irrelevant.
THE COURT: Sustained.
BY MR. HUGHES:
Q. Is that uncomfortable for the body?
MR. BUGLIOSI: Irrelevant.
THE COURT: Sustained.
BY MR. HUGHES:
Q. Will you tell us how long you sit in this position?
MR. BUGLIOSI: Irrelevant.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. HUGHES: May I inquire, your Honor, as to the reason your Honor is cutting off this whole line of inquiry?
THE COURT: Ask your next question, Mr. Hughes.
BY MR. HUGHES:
Q. Would you demonstrate the full lotus position for us?
MR. BUGLIOSI: Irrelevant. I object that it is irrelevant, your Honor.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. SHINN: Your Honor, may I be heard in this matter, your Honor?
THE COURT: No, you may not.
MR. SHINN: Very well.
BY MR. HUGHES:
Q. What is the longest time that you have sat in the full lotus position?
MR. BUGLIOSI: Irrelevant.
THE COURT: Sustained.
BY MR. HUGHES:
Q. When did you first start yoga?
MR. BUGLIOSI: This is irrelevant, your Honor.
THE COURT: Sustained.
BY MR. HUGHES:
Q. Is it true that you first learned yoga from the Self-Realization Fellowship?
MR. BUGLIOSI: Irrelevant.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. HUGHES: May we approach the bench, your Honor, for an offer of proof?
THE COURT: Very well.
(Whereupon all counsel approach the bench and the following proceedings occur at the bench outside of the hearing of the jury:)
MR. HUGHES: Your Honor, this whole area of yoga was brought out by Mr. Stovitz on redirect. Volume 54, page 7367.
I plan—my questions are designed to elicit answers from this witness which will show that her reality is so different from the reality of your Honor and the general public at large that our original motion for appointment of a psychiatrist should have been granted and that, indeed, at this time, this witness is not in touch with reality as we know it.
I am hoping to lay the foundation and the groundwork to show this through these questions.
THE COURT: I don’t think it has any relevancy whatever, Mr. Hughes.
I think all counsel have been given wide latitude to go into all aspects of her state of mind as well as other facts surrounding the various events. Now we are getting into the realm of mysticism.
MR. HUGHES: Indeed, this witness is well entrenched in the realm of mysticism.
THE COURT: The lotus position has nothing to do with this case.
Let’s get on with the trial.
MR. KANAREK: May the record reflect that I join in Mr. Hughes’s comments, all his comments.
THE COURT: Join in his comments? What do you mean?
MR. SHINN: Join
MR. KANAREK: I am asking also for the doctor.
Everything that he enunciated just now, I would ask that it be deemed to be enunciated on the part of Mr. Manson.
MR. STOVITZ: We object to the offer of proof, your Honor.
THE COURT: Let’s proceed, gentleman.
(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. HUGHES: Q. Are there several different types of Yoga?
MR. BUGLIOSI: Irrelevant.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. HUGHES: What type of Yoga do you practice?
MR. BUGLIOSI: Irrelevant.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. HUGHES: Q. Do you know of a form of Yoga that deals with mysticism?
MR. BUGLIOSI: Irrelevant.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. HUGHES: Q. Do you know of a form of Yoga that deals with werewolves?
MR. BUGLIOSI: Irrelevant.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. HUGHES: Q. Devils?
MR. BUGLIOSI: Irrelevant.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. HUGHES: Q. Monsters?
MR. BUGLIOSI: Irrelevant.
THE COURT: Sustained.
That will be enough, Mr. Hughes, on that subject.
MR. HUGHES: Q. Is one of your purposes in using yoga to blank out the thought in your mind?
MR. BUGLIOSI: Irrelevant.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. HUGHES: Q. Is one of the purposes in using yoga to lose your mind?
MR. BUGLIOSI: Irrelevant.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. HUGHES: Q. Is the purpose of yoga to have your mind leave through the third eye, to leave the body and travel effortlessly through space?
MR. BUGLIOSI: Irrelevant, your Honor.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. HUGHES: Q. Have you ever left your body through the third eye?
MR. BUGLIOSI: Irrelevant.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. HUGHES: Q. Are you in full control of your faculties now, Mrs. Kasabian?
A. Yes.
Q. Are you in full control of your faculties when you are, indeed, meditating?
A. Not all the time.
Q. Is it like a dream state when you meditate?
A. Yes. Similar.
Q. And can you see yourself through the third eye?
A. No.
MR. BUGLIOSI: Irrelevant, your Honor.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. HUGHES: Q. Do you imagine your mind leaving through the third eye?
MR. BUGLIOSI: Irrelevant.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. HUGHES: Q. Do you imagine your body moving rapidly through space?
MR. BUGLIOSI: Irrelevant.
THE COURT: It is also ambiguous.
Sustained.
MR. HUGHES: When meditating, do you imagine your body moves rapidly through space?
MR. BUGLIOSI: Irrelevant.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. HUGHES: Do you imagine your body moving rapidly through time?
MR. BUGLIOSI: Irrelevant.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. HUGHES: Q. Do you imagine your body moving through walls?
MR. BUGLIOSI: Irrelevant.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. HUGHES: Q. You have a strong belief in the power of meditation; is that correct?
A. Yes.
BY MR. HUGHES:
Q. And do you feel that this is part of your mission, to turn other people to meditation?
MR. BUGLIOSI: Irrelevant.
THE COURT: Sustained.
BY MR. HUGHES:
Q. Are you going to tell about your meditation experiences in the book that you are writing with Joan Didion?
MR. BUGLIOSI: Irrelevant and also assumes a fact not in evidence.
She said she wasn’t writing a book.
THE COURT: Sustained.
BY MR. HUGHES:
Q. Are you writing a book with Joan Didion?
MR. BUGLIOSI: Asked and answered.
THE COURT: Sustained.
BY MR. HUGHES:
Q. Did Joan Didion ask you about your experiences in meditation?
MR. BUGLIOSI: Asked and answered.
THE COURT: Sustained.
BY MR. HUGHES:
Q. What did you tell Joan Didion about your meditation?
MR. BUGLIOSI: Calls for hearsay, and it also immaterial.
THE COURT: Sustained.
BY MR. HUGHES:
Q. Did you explain to Mrs. Didion what meditation was like?
MR. BUGLIOSI: Same objection, your Honor.
THE COURT: Sustained.
BY MR. HUGHES:
Q. Did you tell Mr. Bugliosi about meditation?
MR. BUGLIOSI: Same objection, your Honor.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. HUGHES: It goes, your Honor, to the idea of whether or not—
THE COURT: Mr. Hughes, modulate, your voice, sir.
MR. HUGHES: Your Honor, it goes to the idea of whether or not we have had full discovery and, for that reason, I oppose the objection of Mr. Bugliosi.
MR. BUGLIOSI: This is a legal issue, your Honor, and should be discussed up at the bench instead of verbalizing it in front of the jury, and Mr. Hughes knows that.
THE COURT: The objection is sustained.
Let’s proceed, gentlemen.
BY MR. HUGHES:
Q. Did you tell Mr. Stovitz about these experiences?
MR. BUGLIOSI: Irrelevant and calls for hearsay.
THE COURT: Sustained.
BY MR. HUGHES:
Q. Did you practice this yoga with Mr. Joe Sage?
MR. BUGLIOSI: Irrelevant.
THE COURT: Sustained.
BY MR. HUGHES:
Q. Is this meditation similar to astral projection?
MR. BUGLIOSI: Your Honor, this calls for conclusion, and it is irrelevant.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Approach the bench, please.
(Whereupon all counsel approach the bench and the following proceedings occur at the bench outside of the hearing of the jury:)
THE COURT: Mr. Hughes, you apparently have exhausted all legitimate avenues of recross-examination. If you continue in the same vein I am simply going to terminate your examination and get on with the trial.
This has now reached the point of absurdity.
MR. HUGHES: Your Honor, I feel that you may be tired of—
THE COURT: You don’t have to respond.
MR. HUGHES: May I respond, your Honor?
THE COURT: All right, you may.
MR. HUGHES: I feel that indeed you may be tired of having this witness on the stand, as indeed I am tired.
THE COURT: That has nothing to do with it. I am talking about your examination.
MR. HUGHES: Well, your Honor, I believe that my examination is germane and to the point.
THE COURT: I have told you how I feel. Now, either resort to some legitimate recross-examination or terminate it. If you don’t, I will.
All right, 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:)
BY MR. HUGHES:
Q. You testified that you felt certain vibrations from Mr. Manson; is that correct?
A. Here in this courtroom?
Q. Anywhere?
A. Yes.
Q. And these vibrations don’t have anything to do, necessarily, with any hand motions or eye motions which he makes, do they?
A. No.
Q. They are actually independent of hand motions and eye motions, aren’t they?
A. Yes.
Q. And these vibrations consist of a power or a force radiating from Mr. Manson, don’t they?
THE COURT: Mr. Hughes, I cautioned you once about modulating your voice. I remind you of that again, sir.
I want the record to show that you have been asking a number of questions in what is almost a yelling voice, and I am admonishing you, sir, not to do so.
MR. STOVITZ: May the record also show that there is a microphone right in front of counsel that he has not availed himself of.
THE COURT: Let’s proceed.
MR. HUGHES: May the record also reflect that the microphone is out of adjustment and gives feedback when used.
Q. BY MR. HUGHES: would you like the question read back?
A. Yes.
THE COURT: Reframe it.
MR. HUGHES: May the question be read?
THE COURT: Reframe the question.
Q. BY MR. HUGHES: These vibrations consist of a power or a force field radiating from Mr. Manson, don’t they?
MR. BUGLIOSI: That is ambiguous, your Honor.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q. BY MR. HUGHES: You feel some power radiating from Mr. Manson, don’t you?
A. Here now?
Q. Yes.
A. Not at the moment I don’t.
Q. You have at times past?
A. Yes.
Q. And it isn’t necessary to have eye contact with Mr. Manson to feel this power, this power you felt in the past, is it?
A. Right.
Q. You can feel that power when Mr. Manson is not seen by you, when your eyes are not on him, isn’t that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And he doesn’t have to be touching you for you to be feeling that power.
A. Right.
Q. And he doesn’t have to be making love to you for you to feel that power?
A. Right.
Q. And he can be all the way across the room and you can still pick that power up, isn’t that correct?
A. Yeah.
Q. And these vibrations might get weaker if he were outside the room, and if he were behind the wall, but you knew he was there, but you would still feel the power, wouldn’t you?
MR. BUGLIOSI: Calls for a conclusion.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q. BY MR. HUGHES: But if Mr. Manson were out of your sight you would still be able to feel these vibrations isn’t that correct?
MR. BUGLIOSI: Calls for a conclusion, your Honor.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q. BY MR. HUGHES: Have you been able to feel the vibrations from Mr. Manson when he is out of your sight?
A. No.
THE COURT: What was the answer?
THE WITNESS: No.
Q. BY MR. HUGHES: But it is not necessary to have eye contact with him to feel those vibrations, is it?
A. No.
Q. Do you feel it is necessary that he be in the same room for you to feel those vibrations?
A. Well—
MR. BUGLIOSI: It’s irrelevant, also, calls for a conclusion.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q. BY MR. HUGHES: Do you feel, Mrs. Kasabian, that it is relevant or irrelevant whether or not Mr. Manson is in the same room for you to feel the vibrations?
MR. BUGLIOSI: Argumentative.
THE COURT: Mr. Hughes, you recall our bench conference just a few moments ago.
Proceed with your cross-examination bearing it in mind, sir.
The objection is sustained.
Q. BY MR. HUGHES: Are you afraid of Mr. Manson?
A. Not now.
Q. Are you afraid to look at him?
A. No.
Q. Are you afraid to talk with him?
A. No.
Q. Do you feel that someone else is Christ now?
A. Not in a physical body, no.
MR. KANAREK: Your Honor, may I have that last question and answer read back?
THE COURT: Read the last question and answer, please.
(Whereupon, the reporter reads the record as follows:
“Q. Do you feel that someone else is Christ now?”
“A. Not in a physical body, no.”)
MR. KANAREK: Thank you.
Q. BY MR. HUGHES: It’s true, isn’t it, Mrs. Kasabian, that at the ranch Mr. Manson was always pleasant with you?
A. Yeah.
Q. And he never hit you, did he?
A. No.
Q. And when he made love was he gentle?
A. No, it wasn’t gentle.
Q. Did he bite you?
A. No, he didn’t bite—
MR. BUGLIOSI: Apparently there is a cold problem, they are all coughing.
THE COURT: I cannot hear you.
MR. BUGLIOSI: Apparently all the defendants have a cold, they are all coughing in unison.
I want to bring it to the Court’s attention.
MR. KANAREK: If Mr. Bugliosi is attempting sarcasm, your Honor, I would ask your Honor to admonish the jury not to consider that for any purpose.
I imagine that is a sarcasm attempted on his part.
MR. BUGLIOSI: It is a response to the unison of coughs. Perhaps they need medication.
THE COURT: Ask your next question.
Q. BY MR. HUGHES: He never hit you?
A. No, he never did.
Q. He never bit you?
A. No.
Q. He never pulled you by the hair?
A. No.
Q. He never fought with you physically?
A. No.
Q. He never yelled at you?
A. No.
Q. Isn’t it true that Mr. Manson said that each person must decide in his own mind the difference between right and wrong?
A. I never heard that.
Q. Isn’t it true that Mr. Manson said no man can judge another?
A. I have never heard him say that.
Q. And isn’t it true that you never heard him give any specific orders to anyone, not just to Tex Watson?
A. Say that again.
Q. Isn’t it true that Mr. Manson not only did not give specific orders to Tex Watson, he did not give specific orders to anyone?
MR. BUGLIOSI: Your Honor, that assumes facts not in evidence.
She said the second night Mr. Manson did give instructions to Tex Watson.
It assumes a fact not in evidence, your Honor.
THE COURT: Do you understand the question?
THE WITNESS: Not exactly, no.
MR. KANAREK: Your Honor, may we approach the bench?
THE COURT: That won’t be necessary, Mr. Kanarek. Reframe your question.
BY MR. HUGHES:
Q. Did you ever hear Mr. Manson give specific orders to anyone?
A. Yes.
Q. Was it more in the line of “bring me a drink of water”?
A. Yes, sometimes.
Q. Was it more in the line with asking people to do things around the ranch?
A. Yeah.
Q. And you never heard Mr. Manson tell anyone to go kill anyone, did you?
A. The second night.
Q. What—withdraw that.
MR. STOVITZ: Just a moment, may we inquire from the Court if the witness has finished her answer? I don’t know whether or not counsel interrupted the witness before she finished the answer.
THE COURT: Did you finish your answer?
THE WITNESS: Yes, I did.
BY MR. HUGHES:
Q. What specific orders did you hear Mr. Manson give the second night?
A. He told them to hitchhike back, and he told Katie to go to the Waterfall.
He said something about not to cause fear and panic to the two people in the house.
I am not positive, but I thought I heard him say “Don’t let them know you are going to kill them.”
BY MR. HUGHES:
Q. You are not positive but what?
A. I am not positive but I think that is what I heard.
Q. So when you say you are not positive, you mean you don’t know?
A. Well, something in my mind says that is what I heard.
Q. And when you say you are not positive you mean you are not sure?
A. Sure.
Q. And why do you have doubt?
A. I don’t know. I don’t know if I want to believe it.
Q. And you no longer believed that Mr. Manson was Jesus Christ at that time, did you?
A. No.
Q. So you really don’t know if you heard Mr. Manson say those things or not?
MR. BUGLIOSI: Say what things? It’s ambiguous.
THE COURT: Sustained.
BY MR. HUGHES:
Q. The statements that you said you weren’t sure if Mr. Manson said them, you don’t really know if he said them or not?
A. I don’t know if he said “Don’t let them know you are going to kill them.” Something in my own mind said yes, that is what I heard, but I am not positive.
Q. But this something in your own mind could have been the same as the visions you have had?
A. No, because I actually heard the voice.
Q. It could have been the vibrations that you received from Mr. Manson?
A. If it was, then it’s true, I am positive.
Q. Could it have been the immunity?
A. The what?
Q. The immunity that you received far saying those things, Mrs. Kasabian?
A. No.
Q. Did you ever tell Gypsy that you were an angel?
A. No.
Q. What is the significance of your having named your son Angel?
MR. STOVITZ: Immaterial, your Honor, outside the scope of redirect examination.
THE COURT: Sustained.
BY MR. HUGHES:
Q. Did you pick out that name?
A. No.
MR. STOVITZ: Immaterial, outside the scope of the direct examination.
THE COURT: Sustained.
BY MR. HUGHES:
Q. Do you think of yourself as an angel for coming here as an emissary of God to bring wrath upon Charles Manson?
MR. STOVITZ: That assumes a lot of facts not in evidence, your Honor.
THE COURT: Overruled.
THE WITNESS: I don’t know.
BY MR. HUGHES:
Q. You might be?
A. I don’t know.
Q. Does that state of not knowing whether you are an angel or not, has that state influenced the choice of the name Angel for your son?
MR. STOVITZ: Ambiguous, your Honor.
She never said that she was an angel, she said she didn’t know whether she was an emissary, or something like that.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. HUGHES: Q. But now you just told us you don’t know whether you are an angel or not?
A. Is that your question?
Q. Yes.
A. I don’t think I am an angel.
Q. But you are not sure?
A. I know I have a lot of imperfections, so I don’t see how I can be an angel.
Q. Are you trying to be an angel?
MR. STOVITZ: That is immaterial, your Honor.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. HUGHES: Q. Do you feel you are getting approval from the whole universe by telling us about Charles Manson?
MR. STOVITZ: Immaterial, your Honor.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. HUGHES: Q. Mr. Manson never told you that he was Jesus Christ, did he?
A. No, not in words.
Q. And he never told you that he was the devil, did he?
A. Not the words, no.
Q. Would you have believed him if he had said he was Jesus Christ?
A. I believed him and he never even said it.
Q. Isn’t it true that you actually had decided that Mr. Manson was the devil before the Tate murders took place?
A. No.
Q. Earlier you discussed reincarnation. You said that your soul enters into another body, that it keeps going through cycles until you reach a plane of maybe purification, you said, perfection. Then you go straight to God and you become one with God.
A. Once you reach that plane of perfection, you are one with God.
Q. What do you mean being one with God?
MR. BUGLIOSI: Immaterial, your Honor.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. HUGHES: Q. You have said that you have had extrasensory perceptions on a couple of occasions; is that correct?
MR. STOVITZ: Immaterial, your Honor, outside the scope of redirect.
MR. HUGHES: Q. Would you tell us what extra sensory perceptions are?
THE COURT: All right, that will terminate the recross-examination.
MR. HUGHES: Your Honor, I have more recross-examination.
THE COURT: That will be all.
MR. HUGHES: I will object on the grounds—
THE COURT: We will recess at this time.
Ladies and gentleman, do not converse with anyone nor form or express any opinion regarding the case until it is finally submitted to you.
The Court will recess until 2:00 p.m.
(Whereupon, at 11:53 a.m. the court was in recess.)
the witness on the stand at the time of the recess, resumed the stand and testified further as follows:
REDIRECT EXAMINATION (REOPENED)
BY MR. BUGLIOSI:
Q. Linda, several times in your testimony you referred to the group of people you lived with out at Spahn Ranch as “the Family.”
When is the first time, if at all, that you heard any member of that group refer to themselves as “the Family”?
A. Yeah, when I met Gypsy the first day.
Q. What did she say?
A. She told me—
MR. KANAREK: Your Honor, I object on the grounds of hearsay and also a conclusion.
Gypsy is not a party to this lawsuit.
MR. FITZGERALD: Join in the hearsay objection.
MR. HUGHES: Join in the hearsay.
MR. SHINN: Join in the hearsay.
THE COURT: Read the answer, please.
(Whereupon, the reporter reads the previous two questions and the answers as far as they went as follows:
“Q. Linda, several times in your testimony you referred to the group of people you lived with out at Spahn Ranch as “the Family.”
“When is the first time, if at all, that you heard any member of that group refer to themselves as ‘the family’?
“A. Yeah, when I met Gypsy the first day.
“Q. What did she say?
“A. She told me—”)
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. BUGLIOSI: I offer this under Section 356 of the Evidence Code. The conversation was—
MR. KANAREK: May we approach the bench if he is going to argue?
THE COURT: He is stating the grounds.
MR. BUGLIOSI: The conversation she had with Gypsy was gone into not only on direct but on cross-examination.
This is just a further part of that conversation.
Furthermore, your Honor, we are not offering it for the truth of the matter asserted, but it is part of that first conversation, and I think under Section 356 of the New Evidence Code, when a part of a conversation comes in, I believe the entire conversation comes in.
MR. KANAREK: I don’t wish to make argument in the presence of the jury, but I would welcome making argument on this point.
THE COURT: That won’t be necessary, Mr. Kanarek. Mr. Bugliosi is correct.
This is a portion of a conversation that has previously been testified to. I will vacate the previous ruling.
The objection is overruled. You may answer the question.
THE WITNESS: What was your question?
Q. BY MR. BUGLIOSI: What did Gypsy tell you with respect to the Family?
A. They are a group of people that lived together, and they were living together like a family, and that I would be accepted.
Q. You testified earlier, Linda, that on July 4th when you first spoke to Gypsy she told you that there was a, quote, beautiful man that we all had been waiting for, unquote.
Did Gypsy tell you who this beautiful man was?
MR. KANAREK: Object, your Honor, on the ground it is a clear solicitation of hearsay and a conclusion.
THE COURT: Overruled.
THE WITNESS: Yes, she told me his name is Charlie, and a group of other people.
Q. BY MR. BUGLIOSI: Referring to Gypsy again, Linda, you testified she was present during a mescaline trip you took at Spahn Ranch.
What trip was that?
A. The one and only trip I took there.
Q. Was that the one with Sadie?
A. Yes.
Q. Gypsy was present?
A. Yes.
Q. When you left your husband on July 4th, 1969, with Gypsy for Spahn Ranch, had you stolen the $5,000 at that point?
A. No.
Q. Did you intend to steal the $5,000 at that point?
A. No.
MR. KANAREK: Your Honor, may that answer be stricken—may the witness be asked not to respond so automatically, your Honor?
THE COURT: All right, delay your answer, Mrs. Kasabian and give counsel an opportunity to make their objections.
Do you have an objection, Mr. Kanarek?
MR. KANAREK: Yes, your Honor, it is calling for a conclusion on the part of this witness.
THE COURT: Overruled.
You may answer.
Q. BY MR. BUGLIOSI: Did you intend to take the $5,000 on the date that you went to the Spahn Ranch with Gypsy on July 4th?
A. No.
Q. When did you take it, the following day?
A. Yes.
Q. You left Spahn Ranch and returned to the truck where you had lived with your husband and Charles Melton and took the 5,000?
A. Yes.
MR. KANAREK: Leading and suggestive, your Honor.
THE COURT: Well, it was, Mr. Bugliosi.
Q. BY MR. BUGLIOSI: When did you take the $5,000?
A. The next day.
Q. July 5th, 1969?
A. Yes.
Q. How did you get to the place where you took the 5,000?
A. In a car.
Q. You left the Spahn Ranch?
A. Yes.
Q. And you went to the truck?
A. Right.
Q. When you took this $5,000. Were you accompanied by anyone?
A. Yes.
Q. Who were you accompanied by?
A. Mary and Gypsy.
Q. When you say “Mary,” you mean Mary Brunner?
A. Yes.
Q. And Gypsy?
A. Right.
Q. Did they leave Spahn Ranch with you that day?
A. Yes.
Q. For the truck?
A. Uh-huh.
Q. I show you Volume 53, Page 7329.
Directing your attention, Linda, to Volume 53, page 7329, specifically Line 20 through Line 22, would you read those three lines to yourself.
MR. KANAREK: May I have a moment in order to get the transcript that counsel is alluding to or may I approach the witness to save time?
THE COURT: Yes.
MR. KANAREK: What lines were those?
MR. STOVITZ: 20 through 22, Counsel.
Q. BY MR. BUGLIOSI: Have you read those three lines to yourself, Linda?
A. Yes.
Q. To this question did you give this answer: By Mr. Hughes on cross-examination.
“Q. Actually what took place at this orgy primarily was a lot of hugging and kissing; isn’t that true?
“A. Right.”
Did you give that answer to that question?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. And in addition to hugging and kissing at that orgy did any other type of sexual activity take place?
MR. KANAREK: Asked and answered, your Honor, on direct examination previously.
THE COURT: Overruled.
THE WITNESS: What was your question again?
Q. BY MR. BUGLIOSI: In addition to the hugging and kissing that took place at the orgy did any other type of sexual activity take place?
A. Yes.
MR. KANAREK: Also, your Honor, on the basis it is not relevant and not material.
THE COURT: Overruled.
THE WITNESS: Yes.
Q. BY MR. BUGLIOSI: What other type of sexual activity took place?
A. The actual entering in of the man into the woman.
Q. You are talking about sexual intercourse?
A. Yes.
Q. You had sexual intercourse with Tex and Clem?
A. No intercourse with Tex, with Clem, I did, yes.
Q. But you did have some type of sexual activity with Clem also?
A. Yes.
Q. Directing your attention to Volume 36, Page 5600, and specifically Lines 8 through 14, would you read those lines to yourself.
(Witness complies.)
Q. 8 through 14, have you read those lines to yourself?
A. Yes.
Q. To these questions did you give these answers?
MR. KANAREK: Your Honor, may I object on the grounds counsel is reading the question to the witness, and then allowing her to editorialize on it, and on the basis that that is improper.
THE COURT: What do you mean, “editorialize”?
MR. KANAREK: He is asking questions of her and he doesn’t like what she said previously and he is just asking her to re-answer the questions. I think that is improper.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. BUGLIOSI: (Reading)
“Q. BY MR. FITZGERALD: Did you disagree with his—Charles Manson’s—philosophy in some respects?
“A. Yes, I did.
“Q. And you told him that you disagreed with it when he told you?
“A. No. Because I was always told, ‘Never ask why.’”
Did you give those answers to those questions?
MR. KANAREK: I object, your Honor, counsel has not read verbatim from the record, he has interlineated his own words in at least one place.
THE COURT: What is the claimed error?
MR. KANAREK: He put in the name of Mr. Manson, that is not in the record.
MR. BUGLIOSI: On Page 5599 they are talking about Charles Manson, they are not talking about Joe Shmalzburger.
MR. STOVITZ: How do you spell Shmalzburger?
THE COURT: All right, gentlemen.
MR. KANAREK: I object, your Honor, on the grounds of the form of the question.
If he is going to read this transcript, your Honor, he has to read it verbatim.
THE COURT: That is absolutely correct. The objection will be sustained.
Q. BY MR. BUGLIOSI: Did you give those answers to those questions, Linda?
MR. KANAREK: I object to the form of that, your Honor. If he is trying to impeach the record—
THE COURT: All right, Mr. Kanarek, you made your objection and I have sustained it.
MR. BUGLIOSI: I would have to go back a little further, then.
Q. Linda, directing your attention—
MR. KANAREK: Before approaching the witness, your Honor, our rules provide he must ask the Court for permission to approach the witness.
If he cannot perform, your Honor, as a lawyer properly, I ask your Honor for the relief of this man—may we approach the bench?
Q. BY MR. BUGLIOSI: Directing your attention to Volume 36, Page 5559, read lines 23 through 26 to yourself to the bottom of the page, Lines 23 through 26.
(Witness complies.)
Now, will you read Lines 1 through 14 on Page 5600.
A. 1 through 14?
Q. 1 through 14 on page 5600.
(Witness complies.)
Have you read those lines to yourself?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you give these answers to these questions?
A. Yes, I did.
MR. KANAREK: I object, your Honor, that is an improper question.
If he is trying to impeach the record then what he must do is call the reporter. It is not a question—
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. BUGLIOSI: (Reading)
“Q. BY MR. FITZGERALD: And did Charlie speak with you at length about his philosophies?
“A. I guess so. I can’t even remember half the things he told me. They just never seemed to take root.
“Q. So what you told the Court and the jury on your direct examination about his philosophies was an incomplete statement of what he told you inasmuch as you can’t remember some of what he told you?
“A. Well, a lot of it I have forgotten, you know. I just sort of let go of it because I knew that it was not true.
“Q. Did you disagree with his philosophy in some respects?
“A. Yes, I did.
“Q. And you told him that you disagreed with it when he told you?
“A. No. Because I was always told, ‘Never ask why.’”
Did you give those answers to those questions?
A. Yes.
MR. KANAREK: I object to the form of the question.
THE COURT: Overruled.
THE WITNESS: Yes, I did.
Q. BY MR. BUGLIOSI: Did Charles Manson ever, himself, tell you never ask why?
MR. KANAREK: I object, your Honor, leading and suggestive.
THE COURT: Overruled.
THE WITNESS: Yes, he used to say, “Never ask why,” and would add, “Love will never die.”
MR. FITZGERALD: I didn’t hear the last part of that. May that be read?
THE COURT: Read the answer.
(Whereupon, the reporter reads the answer as follows:
“THE WITNESS: Yes, he used to say, ‘Never ask why,’ and would add, ‘Love will never die.’”)
Q. BY MR. BUGLIOSI: Linda, did the group which you have referred to as “the Family,” did you used to eat together at night?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you call that supper time or dinner?
A. Supper, dinner, whatever.
Q. You were talking about the evening meal?
A. Yes.
Q. And where would you normally have your supper?
A. If we were staying at the ranch it would be in the saloon, or if we were staying in the woods it would be around the campfire, and we ate in the back house quite a bit.
Q. Would the Family normally eat all together?
A. Yes.
MR. KANAREK: I object on the grounds it is leading and suggestive.
THE COURT: Overruled.
THE WITNESS: Yes.
Q. BY MR. BUGLIOSI: At suppertime did Charles Manson ever discuss his philosophies to the group?
MR. KANAREK: Irrelevant, your Honor, immaterial.
THE COURT: Overruled.
THE WITNESS: Yes.
Q. BY MR. BUGLIOSI: Would he discuss his philosophies at every supper?
A. Maybe not every supper. Most of the time.
Q. This was almost every night, then?
A. Yes.
Q. What were some of the philosophies he discussed?
MR. KANAREK: Irrelevant, your Honor, immaterial, hearsay and a conclusion.
THE COURT: Overruled.
THE WITNESS: He talked about the ego and the soul.
Q. BY MR. BUGLIOSI: What did he say about the ego and what did he say about the soul?
MR. KANAREK: Irrelevant, immaterial, your Honor, hearsay and a conclusion.
THE COURT: Overruled.
THE WITNESS: That the ego should die and that—what did he used to say about the soul—
The soul never knows the word “no,” or “don’t.”
I don’t know, I cannot think of anything right; now.
Q. Did he ever say anything about helter skelter at these supper discussions?
MR. KANAREK: I object, your Honor, it is leading and suggestive, calling for a conclusion and hearsay.
THE COURT: Overruled.
THE WITNESS: Helter skelter was an every day word.
Q. BY MR. BUGLIOSI: Did he discuss what helter skelter meant at these supper discussions?
MR. KANAREK: I object, irrelevant, immaterial, a conclusion and hearsay.
THE COURT: Overruled.
THE WITNESS: It meant a lot of things; it meant revolution; it meant not being together within yourself or not being together as a group, you know, being scattered.
Q. Do you remember all of the philosophies he discussed over supper?
A. No.
Q. Were there many others that he discussed which you cannot recall at the present time?
A. Yeah, a lot of them I just, you know, just like I let go of them.
Q. Now, at these discussions at suppertime would only Charlie talk?
Let me ask you this, who would do most of the talking?
MR. KANAREK: Calling for a conclusion, your Honor.
MR. BUGLIOSI: She was there, your Honor, a percipient witness.
THE COURT: Overruled.
THE WITNESS: Charlie would.
Q. BY MR. BUGLIOSI: Charlie would do all of the talking?
A. Not all the talking, you know, everything was directed at him. If somebody said something, you know, he was the center.
Q. Did he do most of the talking?
A. Yeah.
Q. Would Tex Watson be present at these supper discussions?
A. Yeah, usually everybody was together at supper.
Q. Did Charles Manson ever say anything, Linda, about Jesus Christ in relation to the devil?
MR. KANAREK: Calling for a conclusion, your Honor, hearsay, immaterial and irrelevant.
THE COURT: Overruled.
THE WITNESS: Once he said that Jesus Christ and the devil were in one body, something like that.
MR. KANAREK: Your Honor, may we approach the bench on that?
THE COURT: Do you have a motion to make?
MR. KANAREK: Yes, your Honor.
THE COURT: State it.
MR. KANAREK: Your Honor wishes me to state—
THE COURT: State the motion.
MR. KANAREK: Well, I would like to do it at the bench, if I may.
THE COURT: Is this the same motion you made the last time?
MR. KANAREK: No, your Honor.
THE COURT: Very well, you may approach the bench.
(The following proceedings were had at the bench out of the hearing of the jury:)
THE COURT: What is it?
MR. KANAREK: Your Honor, I make a motion that your Honor strike the last question and answer and admonish the jury not to consider it for any purpose.
THE COURT: Why couldn’t you make that from counsel table?
You have been making them all through the trial.
MR. KANAREK: I know, but this one is particularly significant in that probably many of these people on the jury are Christians; they are undoubtedly God fearing people, and for counsel to solicit that kind of a question prejudices Mr. Manson beyond belief, with these people who may be of the Christian faith.
THE COURT: Mr. Kanarek, defense counsel have spent literally days examining this witness on various aspects of her philosophy, Mr. Manson’s philosophy, and so forth.
MR. FITZGERALD: That is correct, and I will join with the District Attorney in proving that evidence.
I think the question was proper and I think the answer was proper.
THE COURT: The motion to strike will be denied.
MR. KANAREK: It is my position—
THE COURT: You are overruled, Mr. Kanarek.
(The following proceedings were had in open court in the presence and hearing of the jury:)
BY MR. BUGLIOSI:
Q. Linda, you testified on cross-examination. “We all have a part of the devil in us.”
What did you mean by that?
A. We all have the principle of good and bad within us.
Q. Okay, I believe you testified this morning on cross-examination that you thought other people were the devil.
What did you mean, by that?
A. I had seen, you know, the evil principle, you know, of certain people come out rather than, you know, the pure, the good principle.
Q. You said that you had seen the devil in other people, did you mean you had seen what you believed to be Satan?
MR. KANAREK: Leading and suggestive, your Honor?
THE COURT: Sustained.
BY MR. BUGLIOSI:
Q. You testified, Linda, on cross-examination by Mr. Kanarek, and also by Mr. Hughes, that you stopped believing that Charles Manson was Jesus Christ when you saw Mr. Frykowski covered with blood.
Do you recall testifying to that?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, why did the sight of Mr. Frykowski being covered with blood cause you to stop believing that Manson, Charles Manson, was Jesus Christ?
MR. KANAREK: I object to that as assuming a fact not in evidence.
She testified, your Honor, that she stopped when she looked into his eyes.
THE COURT: Sustained.
BY MR. BUGLIOSI:
Q. Why did the sight of Mr. Frykowski when you looked into his eyes, Linda, cause you to stop stop believing that Charles Manson was Jesus Christ?
A. It was like the reality of what was happening there all of a sudden hit me.
It was coming from this man that I saw at the post, and at the same instance a vision came into my head and I saw who Charlie was and what he was doing and what I was doing here.
Q. When was the first time, Linda, that you believed that Charles Manson was Jesus Christ?
A. The first time?
Q. Yes.
A. Well, the very first time I saw him he was dressed in buckskins, and long hair, and beard and he just looked so beautiful that I think up in the cave is when I really started to believe it.
Q. Now, between that time, the time in the cave and the time you looked at Mr. Frykowski did you have any doubts that Charles Manson was Jesus Christ?
MR. KANAREK: May I have that read back, your Honor?
THE COURT: Read the question.
(Whereupon the reporter reads the question as follows:
“Q. Now, between that time, the time in the cave and the time you looked at Mr. Frykowski did you have any doubts that Charles Manson was Jesus Christ?”)
MR. KANAREK: Your Honor, I object to that on the grounds it is calling for a conclusion on the part of this witness; it is ambiguous in the context of these proceedings.
THE COURT: Do you understand the question?
THE WITNESS: Yes.
THE COURT: Overruled, you may answer.
THE WITNESS: Well, a couple of times I saw him beat up the girls—not girls—I only saw him beat up two girls.
BY MR. BUGLIOSI:
Q. What girls did you see?
MR. KANAREK: Then, your Honor, may we approach the bench?
THE COURT: For what purpose?
MR. KANAREK: To make a motion, your Honor.
THE COURT: Make your motion.
MR. KANAREK: Pardon?
THE COURT: Make your motion.
MR. KANAREK: Very well, your Honor, your Honor, I make a motion that this interrogation, this statement about the purported beatings of these girls is offered for prejudicial purposes only. It has no probative value.
THE COURT: Are you moving to strike it?
MR. KANAREK: I am moving to strike it.
THE COURT: The motion is granted. It is not responsive.
The jury is admonished to disregard it.
BY MR. BUGLIOSI:
Q. Linda, let’s go back to that question. I think you can answer it yes or no.
The question is this:
Linda, between the time in the cave when you first believed that Manson was Jesus Christ, between that time and the time at the Tate residence when you looked into Mr. Frykowski’s eyes, did you have any doubt that Charles Manson was Jesus Christ?
MR. KANAREK: Leading and suggestive, your Honor.
THE COURT: Overruled.
THE WITNESS: Yes.
BY MR. BUGLIOSI:
Q. How and when did those doubts arise?
MR. KANAREK: It is ambiguous, your Honor, and compound, “How and when”.
THE COURT: Separate them, Mr. Bugliosi, separate the questions.
BY MR. BUGLIOSI:
Q. When did these doubts arise?
A. When?
Q. Yes, in terms of time, how long after the cave incident did you start having doubts that Charles Manson was Jesus Christ?
A. I don’t think I was there too long. I remember we went for a dune buggy ride late at night, so maybe a week after I was there.
Q. And did these doubts continue during this period of time?
MR. KANAREK: Leading and suggestive, your Honor.
THE COURT: Overruled.
THE WITNESS: No, I found a justification for it.
BY MR. BUGLIOSI:
Q. How did you find a justification for it?
A. I questioned one of the girls.
Q. Who was that?
A. Gypsy.
Q. What did Gypsy tell you?
MR. KANAREK: I object on the grounds of hearsay, your Honor.
THE COURT: Sustained.
BY MR. BUGLIOSI:
Q. Directing your attention to Volume 51, page 7141, Linda.
MR. KANAREK: Your Honor, may I have an opportunity to get that?
MR. STOVITZ: Here you are, Counsel (handing volume to Mr. Kanarek).
BY MR. BUGLIOSI:
Q. And specifically lines 10 through 17. Will you read those lines to yourself.
MR. KANAREK: What page?
MR. STOVITZ: 7141.
(Witness complies.)
BY MR. BUGLIOSI:
Q. Have you read those lines to yourself?
A. Yes.
MR. KANAREK: Now, wait, your Honor, are you beginning at line 10?
THE COURT: Mr. Kanarek, listen more carefully and don’t interrupt the examination.
MR. KANAREK: I don’t believe he put the question.
THE COURT: That’s right, but there is nothing to object to.
MR. KANAREK: Very well, your Honor.
BY MR. BUGLIOSI:
Q. Did you give this answer to a previous question: “Concerning my little girl, he”—
MR. BUGLIOSI: Mr. Kanarek, we are referring to Charles Manson, unless you want me to go back a couple of pages.
MR. KANAREK: Your Honor, for my part he doesn’t have to proceed at all. He is not asking the proper question, your Honor.
THE COURT: You are not making a proper objection.
MR. KANAREK: I object to the form of the question.
BY MR. BUGLIOSI:
Q. (Reading.)
“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.”
Where you used the word “he,” about whom were you referring?
A. Charlie.
Q. Charles Manson?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you testify that he told you not to feed but that you were supposed to give her your attention?
MR. KANAREK: I object, leading and suggestive, immaterial as to what she testified to.
THE COURT: Sustained.
BY MR. BUGLIOSI:
Q. Is the record correct, Linda? I read this particular portion “concerning my little girl he told me not to feed her but to give her my attention.”
Is that correct?
MR. KANAREK: I object to that. If there is going to be a voir dire proceeding it should be a truly adversary voir dire proceeding.
I object to the form of the question.
THE COURT: Sustained.
BY MR. BUGLIOSI:
Q. Did Charles Manson tell you to give your attention to your little girl, Tanya?
MR. KANAREK: I object, leading and suggestive.
THE COURT: Overruled.
THE WITNESS: No, I wasn’t supposed to give her my attention.
BY MR. BUGLIOSI:
Q. He told you not to give her your attention, is that correct?
A. Yes.
MR. KANAREK: I object.
MR. BUGLIOSI: He is objecting while she is talking.
MR. KANAREK: I will be—
MR. BUGLIOSI: I will have to ask her the question again then, your Honor.
Q. Did Charles Manson tell you to give your attention to your daughter Tanya?
A. No.
Q. He told you not to?
A. Right.
MR. KANAREK: I object, that is leading and suggestive, your Honor, in the context of the last—
THE COURT: Overruled, you may answer.
THE WITNESS: I already did, “Right.”
THE COURT: Read the last question and answer.
(Whereupon the reporter reads the record as follows:
“Q. He told you not to?
“A. Right.”)
BY MR. BUGLIOSI:
Q. You testified that you thought you knew when Angel, your baby boy, was conceived. When was that?
A. I believe it was with my husband around the end of June. As a matter of fact it was the first night we got together.
Q. The first night you came back from New Hampshire?
A. Yes.
Q. This was while you were living in the truck with your husband?
A. Right.
Q. You had not yet met Gypsy?
A. No.
Q. You had not yet gone to the Spahn Ranch?
A. No.
Q. BY MR. BUGLIOSI: Volume 37. Directing your attention, Linda, to Volume 37, Page 5682, specifically Lines 17 through 22, will you read those lines to yourself?
(Witness complies.)
MR. KANAREK: Your Honor, may I approach the witness. That volume is not handy for me.
THE COURT: Wait until the witness reads it first, Mr. Kanarek.
MR. KANAREK: Certainly, your Honor.
Q. BY MR. BUGLIOSI: Have you read those lines to yourself?
A. Yes.
MR. KANAREK: May I read them, Mr. Bugliosi?
(Mr. Bugliosi hands the volume to Mr. Kanarek.)
Q. BY MR. BUGLIOSI: To this question did you give this answer:
“Q. BY MR. FITZGERALD: When you got to the Tate residence what happened?
“A. I got out of the car and I remember some dogs came up and I turned around and I started crying and I remember saying, ‘Why weren’t the dogs here’.
“I had to cry for a while.”
Q. What did you mean when you said, “Why weren’t the dogs here?”
A. Well, the dogs weren’t there the first night.
Q. You mean the night you went there with Tex?
A. Right.
Q. And Sadie and Katie?
A. Right, and when I went there with you the dogs were there and I just, you know, said to myself, “why weren’t the dogs there?”
Q. What do you mean by that?
A. Maybe if the dogs were there it would not have happened, I don’t know.
MR. KANAREK: Your Honor, I ask that be stricken, this conjecture on the part of the witness that if the dogs were there maybe it would not have happened.
THE COURT: It is her state of mind, overruled.
Q. BY MR. BUGLIOSI: Before you began to testify at this trial, Linda, did I or anyone else show you any photographs of any of the victims in this case either in life or in death?
MR. KANAREK: Immaterial, irrelevant.
THE COURT: Overruled.
THE WITNESS: No.
Q. BY MR. BUGLIOSI: Do you recall that once you took the stand I did show you a photograph of Steven Parent, dead, behind the steering wheel of his car?
A. Yes.
MR. KANAREK: Immaterial, improper, irrelevant.
THE COURT: Overruled.
Q. BY MR. BUGLIOSI: Is that the first time you ever had seen a photograph of any of the victims of this case?
A. Yes.
Q. Linda, you testified on cross-examination by Mr. Kanarek that after you saw Steven Parent shot in the car, from that point on you were in a state of shock at the Tate residence.
Now, when you say “state of shock,” what did you mean when you said you were in a state of shock at the Tate residence?
A. Well, it was an experience I never, you know, experienced before, and it was just unbelievable. It was something I never expected to see.
I felt helpless, I don’t know, I cannot explain that.
THE COURT: Read the last part of the answer.
(Whereupon, the reporter reads the record.)
Q. BY MR. BUGLIOSI: Though you were in what you call a state of shock, did you feel you were completely aware of everything that occurred in your presence?
MR. KANAREK: Objection, leading and suggestive and argumentative, your Honor.
THE COURT: Overruled.
THE WITNESS: Yes.
Q. BY MR. BUGLIOSI: Any question in your mind about that?
MR. KANAREK: I object, leading and suggestive.
THE COURT: Overruled.
THE WITNESS: No.
Q. BY MR. BUGLIOSI: I show you People’s 16 for identification and draw your attention to a zero, or a circle you have on the picture.
What does that designate?
A. The light at the garage or some sort of a building.
THE COURT: Keep your voice up.
THE WITNESS: A light on a building.
Q. BY MR. BUGLIOSI: Okay, and what did you mean to point out when you drew a circle around that light?
A. I believe the question was asked if the light was on that night, and I said yes, and this is the light.
MR. BUGLIOSI: Your Honor, may I draw an arrow and insert the words “light that Linda saw” on it?
THE COURT: Very well.
MR. KANAREK: Your Honor, may it say “light that Linda says she saw” on it?
THE COURT: Very well.
MR. BUGLIOSI: “Light that Linda testified she saw on,” your Honor.
THE COURT: May I see that, Mr. Bugliosi?
(Photograph handed to the Court.)
THE COURT: The photograph now indicates the following words:
“Light that Linda testified she saw on.”
You may examine it if you like, Mr. Kanarek.
MR. KANAREK: If your Honor says it’s there, I have faith that it is there.
BY MR. BUGLIOSI:
Q. Linda, would you step down off the witness stand for a moment and approach People’s 8 for identification, this diagram.
A. (Witness approaches the diagram.)
I direct your attention, Linda, to a zero or a circle by the door of the Tate residence.
MR. STOVITZ: Counsel, I don’t believe these alternate jurors can see unless you use a pointer there. Here is a ruler.
(Bailiff hands a pointer to Mr. Bugliosi.)
THE COURT: Let’s have Mr. Manson move over two seats, Mr. Kanarek, in the corner there so the jurors may see the diagram.
BY MR. BUGLIOSI:
Q. I direct your attention, Linda, to a circle which is near a front door of the Tate residence.
Did you put that circle on this diagram?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. What was that circle supposed to designate?
A. To show where Mr. Frykowski was.
Q. To show where Mr. Frykowski was or where Mr.—
THE COURT: Mr. Kanarek, kindly step back so the jurors can see.
MR. KANAREK: May Mrs. Kasabian move over there?
Thank you.
BY MR. BUGLIOSI:
Q. Where Mr. Frykowski was or where the post was?
A. I guess it’s the post. It says p-o-l-e, pole there, I am not sure.
Q. It was you who inserted the word, p-o-l-e?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. You put an “M” by the pole?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. What did you mean by “M”?
A. I don’t know, I believe it was his question, I forget.
Q. Did he tell you to put the “M” by the pole?
A. Oh, yes, it meant man.
Q. When you were saying “man,” you were referring to Mr. Frykowski?
A. Yes.
Q. Was Mr. Frykowski near where you have written p-o-l-e, or was he near where you placed a circle?
A. He was near the circle.
MR. BUGLIOSI: Your Honor, may I then delete from this diagram the “M”?
MR. KANAREK: Not at all, your Honor, the record is what it is.
If anyone in the jury wants it read back it is there. I object to anything being deleted.
MR. BUGLIOSI: Your Honor, the record is clear that Mr. Kanarek told Linda to place an M where she had written the word pole, not where she made a circle.
I say that is confusing, and I think she cleared it up right now.
THE COURT: Leave the diagram as it is. The record will reflect her testimony.
BY MR. BUGLIOSI:
Q. Will you please put a “VF” for Voityck Frykowski, where Voityck was in relation to the pole?
(Witness complies.)
MR. BUGLIOSI: Thank you, you may resume the witness stand.
(Witness resumes stand.)
MR. STOVITZ: May the record show on Exhibit 8 for identification the witness put “VF” where, Counsel?
MR. BUGLIOSI: Right next to a circle near the front door of the Tate residence.
BY MR. BUGLIOSI:
Q. Do you recall testifying on cross-examination by Mr. Kanarek, Linda, that you ran to the bottom of the hill after seeing Tex stab Frykowski and after talking to Sadie and testifying that the reason you ran to the bottom of the hill was because there was nothing you could do to stop what was happening?
Do you recall testifying to that?
MR. KANAREK: Leading and suggestive.
MR. FITZGERALD: He misquotes the witness.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. BUGLIOSI: It is just foundational, your Honor.
THE COURT: Either put the question directly to the witness or read it from the transcript.
BY MR. BUGLIOSI:
Q. Do you recall, Linda, after you saw Tex stab Mr. Frykowski, and after talking to Sadie, do you recall running to the bottom of the hill?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. Why did you run to the bottom of the hill?
A. I was afraid and there was nothing to do, I just ran.
Q. So there were two reasons then, you were afraid, and also you felt there was nothing you could do?
A. Yeah.
MR. STOVITZ: Volume 45, Counsel. I don’t have my copy with me.
MR. BUGLIOSI: Q. Directing your attention to Volume 45, Page 6603.
Would you read to yourself Lines 1 through 8?
MR. FITZGERALD: This is an improper procedure and I am going to object to it.
If this is going to be introduced for past recollection recorded, it is proper. Also, it is proper to refresh a witness’ recollection. And it is proper for impeachment.
Taking it in the reverse order, I suggest that he is not attempting to impeach her. In fact, he is trying to rehabilitate her.
Furthermore, that he is not trying to refresh the witness’ recollection because there has been no foundation laid that she doesn’t have a recollection.
And I suggest that this isn’t for the purpose of impeachment.
THE COURT: You suggest it is not?
MR. FITZGERALD: I suggest it is not.
THE COURT: It doesn’t appear to be.
MR. FITZGERALD: Unless he wishes to impeach his own witness.
THE COURT: I don’t understand your objection, Mr. Fitzgerald.
What is objectionable about it? He apparently is referring to a specific question and answer for the purpose of asking another question.
MR. FITZGERALD: Well, he shows her the question and the answer. Then he comes back here to counsel table and reads it to her and asks her if she didn’t in fact testify to that.
Well, she has just seen the record.
THE COURT: That’s right.
If it were impeachment, it might be objectionable, but simply as a means of orientation for the purpose of asking another question, I don’t see anything wrong with it.
Overruled.
MR. BUGLIOSI: Q. Did you read those lines to yourself, Linda?
A. No, I didn’t.
MR. KANAREK: May the record reflect that I join in with Mr. Fitzgerald’s comments?
MR. HUGHES: Join, your Honor.
MR. BUGLIOSI: Would you read Lines 1 through 8 to yourself.
(Pause while the witness reads.)
MR. BUGLIOSI: Q. Have you read those lines to yourself?
A. Yes. I don’t have to read them, because I know.
MR. KANAREK: Now, may we have that explained, your Honor?
MR. BUGLIOSI: I am conducting the examination, Mr. Kanarek. You will have an opportunity to examine later.
MR. KANAREK: She made some kind of a statement there, your Honor.
THE COURT: I didn’t hear it if she did.
MR. KANAREK: She said something to the effect that she doesn’t have to read it. I didn’t quite get all the words.
THE COURT: Did you get that remark?
Read back the answer.
(The answer was read by the reporter.)
THE COURT: That remark will be stricken. It is gratuitous.
Let’s proceed.
The jury is admonished to disregard it.
MR. BUGLIOSI: Q. Have I ever shown you this transcript before, page 6603?
A. I don’t remember the number.
Q. Have I ever shown you lines 1 through 8 at any time prior to now?
A. That I just read?
Q. Prior to about a half a minute before. Before a half a minute ago, at any other time, did I show you this page, and have you read these lines?
A. No.
Q. Have you read these lines to yourself now?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you give these answers to these questions:
“Q. BY MR. KANAREK: What were you doing when you were on the ground?
“A. I was thinking, trying to get my thoughts together.
“Q. I see. What were you thinking about?
“A. My first thought was to go to the police and get help.”
Now, what period are you talking about there?
A. Right after I ran down the hill, I laid down on the ground.
Q. Why didn’t you go to the police and get help?
MR. KANAREK: Object. Calling for a conclusion, your Honor.
THE COURT: Overruled.
THE WITNESS: Again, I had a vision. It was sort of a vision. Charlie entered in my head again, Tanya was there, and I was just afraid for Tanya’s life.
Q. Where did you think Tanya was?
A. I knew she was back at the ranch.
Q. Where did you think Charlie was?
A. I knew he was back at the ranch.
MR. BUGLIOSI: Volume 38.
You have quite a bit of reading to do here, Linda.
Q. Directing your attention to Volume 38, will you first read at page 5864, lines 7 through 26.
(Pause while the witness reads.)
THE WITNESS: Yes?
BY MR. BUGLIOSI:
Q. Have you read these lines?
MR. KANAREK: May I read those lines?
THE COURT: Where is your transcript?
I suggest that you get it out.
MR. KANAREK: I am more than willing to, your Honor. There are many many transcripts. I don’t know which one Mr. Bugliosi is referring to.
THE COURT: Each of them is numbered.
MR. KANAREK: Pardon me?
MR. BUGLIOSI: Q. Directing your attention to page 5865, Linda. Will you read lines 1 through 7 to yourself.
(Pause while the witness reads.)
THE WITNESS: Yes.
BY MR. BUGLIOSI:
Q. Have you read those lines to yourself?
A. Yes.
Q. Directing your attention to page 5873. Strike that. Page 5872, lines 21 through 26.
Will you read those lines to yourself?
(Pause while the witness reads.)
THE WITNESS: Yes.
BY MR. BUGLIOSI:
Q. Have you read those lines to yourself?
A. Yes.
Q. Directing your attention to page 5873, lines 1 through 10.
Will you read those lines to yourself.
(Pause while the witness reads.)
THE WITNESS: Yes.
BY MR. BUGLIOSI:
Q. Have you read those lines to yourself?
A. Yes.
Q. To these questions, Linda, did you give these answers:
MR. KANAREK: May we have a line and page, your Honor?
THE COURT: You still haven’t found it?
MR. KANAREK: I didn’t get the first one. I didn’t locate the transcript by the time he was reading the very first one.
This is a most unusual proceeding, your Honor I didn’t have the transcript when he first enunciated the first page and lines.
MR. BUGLIOSI: Page 5864, Lines—
THE COURT: Write down the transcript reference Mr. Kanarek, when the question is first given.
MR. KANAREK: Yes, your Honor.
THE COURT: Go ahead.
MR. BUGLIOSI: (Reading)
“Q. BY MR. FITZGERALD: There is a telephone at the ranch, isn’t there?
“A. Yes.
“Q. There was a telephone at the ranch in the vicinity of the corral; isn’t that correct; a pay telephone?
“A. Yes.
“Q. Did you attempt to use that telephone to call anybody?
“A. No.
“Q. Now, there were certainly people at the ranch who had some connection with the care and feeding of the horses; isn’t that right?
“A. Yes.
“Q. And they didn’t have anything to do with the other people who were present on the ranch; isn’t that correct?
“A. We spoke, but they weren’t, you know, in with the Family, no.
“Q. Did you tell any of these people about what had occurred the preceding two nights?
“A. No.
“Q. Did you ask any of those people for help?
“A. No.
“Q. There is also a phone in George Spahn’s house, isn’t there, on the ranch?
“A. Yes.
“Q. Did you attempt to use that phone at any time?
“A. No.
“Q. Did you attempt to tell Mr. Spahn what had occurred the preceding two nights?
“A. No.”
And then:
“Q. The next day when you went downtown, you actually came into the Hall of Justice, this very building, didn’t you?
“A. I guess it was this building. I am not sure of the building.
“Q. Did you see any police officers wearing uniforms in this building?
“A. Possibly. I don’t remember.
Oh, yes, I think I did.
“Q. Did you see signs in the building that said Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Office?
“A. I don’t remember signs.
“Q. Did you attempt to tell any of these sheriffs or any of the personnel in this building what had occurred on August the 8th and 9th?
“A. No.”
Did you give those answers to those questions?
MR. KANAREK: I object. That is an improper question, your Honor.
If he is challenging the record—
THE COURT: Overruled.
THE WITNESS: Yes.
MR. BUGLIOSI: Q. Why didn’t you tell, Linda, these various people what had happened these two nights?
A. I was just afraid.
Q. What were you afraid of?
A. I thought that policemen were pigs.
Q. Any other reason?
MR. KANAREK: Your Honor, I think counsel is interrupting the witness. He is not allowing her to finish, your Honor.
THE COURT: Had you finished?
MR. BUGLIOSI: Do you have any other reason?
THE WITNESS: I was afraid everybody would say I was crazy, and maybe Charlie would kill me, and kill my little girl.
MR. BUGLIOSI: Q. You testified, Linda, that when you left the Spahn Ranch for Taos, New Mexico, in Dave Hannon’s car, that you didn’t believe that Tanya, who was still at the ranch, would be harmed.
Do you recall that?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, when you left Spahn Ranch for Taos, New Mexico, did you intend to contact the police at that time and tell the police about these two nights?
MR. KANAREK: Object. That is irrelevant and immaterial, your Honor, and calls for a conclusion.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. STOVITZ: Your Honor, we anticipate an answer other than the conclusionary answer that counsel objected to.
I think the purport of the question is to explain the previous answer that she had given on her cross-examination.
MR. KANAREK: Then he can ask a proper question, your Honor.
MR. BUGLIOSI: I am asking her, your Honor, if, when she left—
THE COURT: Let’s go back and read the question.
(The record was read by the reporter.)
MR. KANAREK: Furthermore, it is ambiguous, your Honor.
Did she intend to do it as she went through Artesia, or as she went through Phoenix?
MR. BUGLIOSI: I will make it more specific then, your Honor.
THE COURT: Very well. Reframe your question.
MR. BUGLIOSI: Q. As you were leaving Spahn Ranch; that is, as you departed from Spahn Ranch for Taos, New Mexico, and Tanya was still at Spahn Ranch, at that time, was it your intent at that time to contact the police and tell them about these two nights of murder?
MR. KANAREK: I object on the grounds it is ambiguous.
Was it her intent to contact the police in the West Valley, or in Los Angeles, or where? It is immaterial.
THE COURT: Overruled.
THE WITNESS: No.
MR. BUGLIOSI: Q. If you had intended to contact the police at that point and tell them about these two nights of murder, would you have left Tanya back at the ranch?
MR. KANAREK: Object, your Honor. Calling for conjecture.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. BUGLIOSI: It goes to her state of mind, your Honor.
THE COURT: The question is objectionable.
MR. BUGLIOSI: Q. Did the fact that you didn’t intend to call the police or contact the police and tell them about these two nights of murder, did that have anything to do with your leaving Tanya behind?
MR. KANAREK: Object, calling for a conclusion. It is leading and suggestive. It calls for conjecture.
The form of the question is improper. It is ambiguous.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. BUGLIOSI: Q. Why didn’t you want to contact the police at that time; that is, when you left Spahn Ranch for Taos?
MR. KANAREK: That is assuming facts not in evidence. As a matter of fact, your Honor—
MR. BUGLIOSI: She already testified that she didn’t intend to call the police at that time, your Honor. Now I am asking her why she didn’t intend to do so.
MR. KANAREK: Your Honor, it is ambiguous. It assumes facts not in evidence. As to what time?
THE COURT: What facts?
MR. KANAREK: Pardon?
THE COURT: What facts?
MR. KANAREK: Well, your Honor, he is asking her wherein the question has an ambiguity in it.
The question he is asking her does not relate to time sufficiently definite so that whatever the witness answers it has any meaning.
THE COURT: Your response to my question doesn’t have any meaning to me.
The objection is overruled.
MR. STOVITZ: May the question be put to the witness so that the jury can also hear it.
THE COURT: Yes.
(The question was read by the reporter.)
MR. KANAREK: That is what I am saying, your Honor. I don’t believe the record is clear—
THE COURT: The objection is overruled.
THE WITNESS: Would you read the question again?
(The question was again read by the reporter.)
THE WITNESS: Why didn’t I want to contact the police?
Well, my only intent at that time was to go to my husband and talk to my husband about it and tell him about it.
I was afraid of the police. I didn’t know how to go to the police.
MR. BUGLIOSI: Q. Well, what I am concerned about now, Linda, is that you left Tanya back at Spahn Ranch and you left the Spahn Ranch for Taos; is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. The question I am concerned about is: If you had intended to call the police at that particular moment, would you have left Tanya back at Spahn Ranch with Charlie?
MR. KANAREK: That is the same question, your Honor. It calls for conjecture.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. BUGLIOSI: It only goes to her state of mind. It is not a conclusion as to any ultimate fact in the case.
THE COURT: It calls for conjecture.
BY MR. BUGLIOSI:
Q. What was your state of mind with respect to leaving Tanya at the ranch when you left Spahn Ranch for Taos?
A. Now was the time to leave. And the situation—it was impossible for me to take her, and I just knew within myself that she was going to be all right, no harm was going to come to her.
Q. Was one of the reasons—
MR. KANAREK: Can she finish her answer?
MR. BUGLIOSI: Are you finished?
THE WITNESS: That is it.
BY MR. BUGLIOSI:
Q. Was one of the reasons that you felt no harm would come to her because you didn’t intend to call the police?
MR. KANAREK: Leading and suggestive.
MR. BUGLIOSI: She can answer yes or no.
It is relevant to her state of mind.
THE COURT: You may answer.
Overruled.
THE WITNESS: I guess so.
BY MR. BUGLIOSI:
Q. I don’t want you to guess, Linda. I am concerned about your state of mind.
Do you want that question read back to you?
A. Yes.
THE COURT: Read the question.
(The question was read by the reporter.)
THE WITNESS: I still really don’t understand the question.
MR. BUGLIOSI: Very well.
Q. I believe you testified that when you left Spahn Ranch for Taos, New Mexico, you didn’t think any harm would come to Tanya who was still back at Spahn Ranch; is that correct?
A. Yes.
MR. KANAREK: I object to the form of that question, your Honor, as to what she testified to.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. KANAREK: It is an improper question, your Honor.
THE WITNESS: Yes.
BY MR. BUGLIOSI:
Q. Is your answer yes to that?
A. Yes.
Q. I believe you also testified that when you left Spahn Ranch for Taos, New Mexico, you did not intend to contact the police at that time and tell them about these two nights of murder; is that correct?
MR. KANAREK: I object, your Honor, on the grounds that it is leading and suggestive.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. KANAREK: I object to the form of the question.
THE WITNESS: Right.
BY MR. BUGLIOSI:
Q. Now, the question is:
If you had intended to contact the police at that particular moment in time, would you have left Tanya back at Spahn Ranch?
MR. KANAREK: That is the third time that he asked that same question, your Honor. It is calling for conjecture.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. BUGLIOSI: May we approach the bench on this issue, your Honor?
THE COURT: It is not necessary.
It calls for conjecture, Mr. Bugliosi.
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 until 9:45 tomorrow morning.
(Whereupon at 4:16 o’clock pm. the court was in recess.)