Historic Trial Transcripts
Linda Kasabian: Day eighteen
Testimony, August 19, 1970
THE COURT: All parties, counsel and jurors are present.
You may continue your examination, Mr. Kanarek.
MR. KANAREK: Yes, your Honor, thank you.
LINDA KASABIAN,
called as a witness on behalf of the People, having been previously duly sworn, resumed the stand, was examined and testified further as follows:
RECROSS EXAMINATION (Continued)
BY MR. KANAREK:
Q. Mrs. Kasabian, you have told us that some of the things you have told from the witness stand, you got the information by way of vibrations.
MR. STOVITZ: That was not her testimony, your Honor.
MR. KANAREK: That is clearly her testimony.
THE COURT: Put the question directly, Mr. Kanarek.
Sustained.
MR. KANAREK: Yes.
BY MR. KANAREK:
Q. Now, Mrs. Kasabian, other than from vibrations, what other sources have you used, Mrs. Kasabian, for the information for the statements you have made from the witness stand?
A. Sources?
Q. Yes.
A. My eyes and my ears and my mind.
Q. Your eyes, your ears and your mind?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, directing your attention to your conversation with Mr. Bugliosi and Mr. Stovitz, or your conversations—is it a fair statement that your state of mind was such when you spoke with Mr. Bugliosi and Mr. Stovitz that you knew that they wished to obtain convictions of the defendants in this case for seven counts of murder and one count of conspiracy.
MR. BUGLIOSI: Irrelevant, argumentative.
MR. KANAREK: Your Honor, it goes to this witness’s state of mind as to what she said to Mr. Bugliosi, what she said from the witness stand.
It clearly is material of the credibility of the witness.
MR. BUGLIOSI: Wholly irrelevant, calls for a conclusion, ambiguous.
MR. KANAREK: What was your Honor’s ruling?
THE COURT: I haven’t ruled yet.
MR. KANAREK: I am sorry.
THE COURT: Overruled, you may answer.
THE WITNESS: What was your question?
MR. KANAREK: May that be read, your Honor?
THE COURT: Yes, read the question.
(Whereupon the reporter read the pending question as follows:
“Q. Now, directing your attention to your conversation with Mr. Bugliosi and Mr. Stovitz, or your conversations—is it a fair statement that your state of mind was such when you spoke with Mr. Bugliosi and Mr. Stovitz that you knew that they wished to obtain convictions of the defendants in this case for seven counts of murder and one count of conspiracy?”
(The question was read by the reporter.)
THE WITNESS: Yes.
MR. KANAREK: Q. And your state of mind was such that you knew that the immunity that would be granted to you would be granted in a case, in the very case, where these defendants were charged with first-degree murder, seven counts, and one count of conspiracy?
A. I don’t understand your question.
Q. You don’t understand it?
A. No.
Q. Your understanding, when you spoke with Mr. Bugliosi and Mr. Stovitz, was that the testimony that you would be giving would be given in the very case wherein these defendants were charged with seven counts of murder and one count of conspiracy?
A. Yes.
Q. And directing your attention to your state of mind when you spoke with Mr. Bugliosi, did Mr. Bugliosi have some papers with him?
A. Papers writing down notes.
Q. I mean, did Mr. Bugliosi have some papers with him that he brought to the area where you spoke with him?
A. I don’t know. He had a briefcase. I am sure he had papers in his briefcase.
Q. Well, my question is: As you spoke with Mr. Bugliosi, did he have papers in front of him?
MR. BUGLIOSI: That is too broad, your Honor.
Papers with something on it? Or just empty sheets of paper? I don’t know what he is asking.
THE COURT: The objection is sustained.
MR. KANAREK: Q. Well, whether the papers were empty or filled, Mrs. Kasabian, were there papers in front of Mr. Bugliosi as you spoke with him?
MR. BUGLIOSI: Objection again as ambiguous.
When he says paper, does he mean note pads?
It is too broad, your Honor.
I would ask that the Court instruct Mr. Kanarek to be more specific.
THE COURT: I think it is irrelevant.
MR. KANAREK: Pardon?
THE COURT: I think it is irrelevant.
The objection is sustained.
MR. KANAREK: Pardon me?
THE COURT: Let’s proceed. The objection is sustained.
MR. KANAREK: Q. Were there documents?
Do you know what I mean by documents?
A. Yes.
Q. Were there documents, papers, or any kind of written material in front of Mr. Bugliosi as you spoke with him?
MR. BUGLIOSI: Immaterial and ambiguous, your Honor.
Before or after I spoke to her?
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. KANAREK: Q. Mrs. Kasabian, did Mr. Bugliosi make handwritten notes as he spoke with you?
A. Yes.
Q. And on different occasions when he came to you, he made handwritten notes; right?
A. Yes, he did.
Q. Now, directing your attention to the things that you told Mr. Bugliosi. Did some of the things that you told Mr. Bugliosi come from vibrations?
A. I can’t really think at the moment if it did, anything, any one thing.
Q. Well, can you think about that? Just reflect on that for a moment.
A. (Pause.) Not that I can think of.
Q. Nothing that you told him came from vibrations?
A. No.
Q. Now, did you discuss your taking of drugs with Mr. Bugliosi?
A. Just very briefly.
Q. Well, Mrs. Kasabian, did you discuss your taking of drugs with Mr. Bugliosi?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you discuss your smoking of marijuana with Mr. Bugliosi?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you discuss your taking of LSD with Mr. Bugliosi?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you discuss the taking of Mescaline with Mr. Bugliosi?
A. I didn’t go down the whole list. I just, you know, briefly talked to him about my drug taking.
Q. What did you tell him about drug taking?
MR. BUGLIOSI: I spoke with her for 12 or 14 hours. Do you want to go into the whole conversation, Mr. Kanarek?
THE COURT: The objection is sustained.
Proceed.
MR. KANAREK: May I answer Mr. Bugliosi?
THE COURT: No.
MR. KANAREK: Then would your Honor admonish the jury not to consider Mr. Bugliosi’s comments?
THE COURT: The jury is admonished to disregard the comments of both counsel.
Ask your next question.
MR. KANAREK: Q. You have told us briefly, Mrs. Kasabian, that some of the matters pertaining to drugs came to you by way of vibrations.
Do you remember telling us that yesterday?
A. Yes.
Q. My question is: When you spoke with Mr. Bugliosi, you spoke with him concerning drugs; right?
A. Yes.
Q. And you spoke with him concerning drugs, the information pertaining to which came to you by way of vibrations; right?
MR. BUGLIOSI: Ambiguous.
MR. STOVITZ: Assumes facts not in evidence.
I am sorry. Had you finished?
THE COURT: Objection sustained.
MR. KANAREK: I haven’t finished the question.
I was going to ask her if that is correct.
May I reframe the question?
THE COURT: Yes, reframe your question.
MR. KANAREK: Would your Honor ask Mr. Stovitz not to interrupt me?
MR. STOVITZ: Sorry.
THE COURT: Apparently we all thought you had finished the question, Mr. Kanarek.
Reframe the question.
Q. BY MR. KANAREK: Now, Mrs. Kasabian, you have told us previously that some of the information that you obtained concerning drugs came to you by way of vibrations; is that correct?
MR. STOVITZ: I object to the question as an improper characterization of her testimony.
THE COURT: Overruled.
THE WITNESS: Concerning my drug taking?
While I was under the influence of a drug certain things came to me through vibrations.
I am not sure whether that is what you are asking, but that is my answer.
Q. BY MR. KANAREK: That is your answer to this question?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, when you spoke with Mr. Bugliosi you spoke with him concerning the whole subject of your taking of drugs, right?
MR. STOVITZ: I object to the question as having been asked and answered, your Honor.
THE COURT: Overruled.
THE WITNESS: No, we just spoke briefly.
Q. BY MR. KANAREK: You spoke briefly?
A. Yes.
Q. Well, in what you call brief, Mrs. Kasabian, during this period of time you did, you have told us, you did speak of drugs.
Now, my question is what did you tell Mr. Bugliosi concerning the subject matter of drugs that came to you by way of vibrations?
MR. STOVITZ: Your Honor, that assumes a fact not in evidence; that calls for hearsay.
It is immaterial and irrelevant.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q. BY MR. KANAREK: Mrs. Bugliosi—Mrs. Kasabian—a Freudian slip, your Honor.
Directing your attention to the conversation you had with Mr. Bugliosi, concerning drugs, Mrs. Kasabian, did any of the information that you gave Mr. Bugliosi concerning your taking of drugs come to you by way of vibrations?
MR. BUGLIOSI: Same objection that Mr. Stovitz has made, your Honor.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. KANAREK: May I inquire what grounds your Honor sustained the objection?
THE COURT: Irrelevant.
MR. KANAREK: Pardon?
THE COURT: Irrelevant.
MR. KANAREK: Well, then, may I approach the bench, your Honor?
THE COURT: No—yes, I would like to see all of counsel at the bench.
(The following proceedings were had at the bench out of the hearing of the jury:)
THE COURT: Now, not only is it irrelevant but it is time-consuming; it tends to confuse the jury, and I will exercise my discretion under Section 352 of the Evidence Code; I will exclude it. It simply has no probative value whatever in my opinion.
MR. KANAREK: May I respond?
THE COURT: Yes.
MR. KANAREK: We have a witness who purports to use the English language and is stating certain material.
Your Honor, we believe that this witness is insane.
The words—as your Honor well knows, from not only practicing law but from your time on the bench, doctors are many times testifying about people who appear to be completely lucid when they say things—
THE COURT: What has this to do with what we are talking about?
MR. KANAREK: Because what she told in this courtroom came from vibrations.
THE COURT: She testified that the vibrations were simply insights, thoughts that she thought, that she projected her thoughts. That is what she is talking about.
MR. KANAREK: I believe that is your Honor’s interpretation.
THE COURT: That is what she said.
MR. KANAREK: No, your Honor, she stated—
THE COURT: All right, let’s get to the point, Mr. Kanarek. We are not going to spend the rest of the morning arguing about some insignificant matter, and I consider this to be insignificant.
MR. KANAREK: Well, your Honor, it is my position that it is very significant.
THE COURT: I know that. That is what I say. I am still trying to understand why.
MR. KANAREK: Because, your Honor, if the woman is making up stories based upon some synthetic vibration, something that never occurred, or that our science and our technology tells us does not happen, then the woman is insane and the jury is entitled—
THE COURT: I don’t really know what you are talking about.
MR. KANAREK: Her statements on this witness stand, your Honor, I allege are based upon the statements of an insane person who is mixed up with drugs.
THE COURT: That is absurd. There isn’t the slightest evidence that I have been able to see that there is anything wrong with this woman by way of mental defect, mental illness or insanity.
Now, you may of course argue and contend otherwise, as you do, but there is no reason that I can see that you should be permitted to go on in this remote area that has no probative value whatever.
Now, let’s continue.
(The following proceedings were had in open court in the presence and hearing of the jury:)
BY MR. KANAREK:
Q. Mrs. Kasabian, after you left the Spahn Ranch in Mr. Hannon’s car, you still called police officers “pig,” is that correct?
A. Yeah, I thought of them as pigs.
Q. Pardon?
A. I thought of them as pigs.
Q. And directing your attention then to people who were rich, people—
Well, first I will ask it this way:
After you left the Spahn Ranch in Mr. Hannon’s car you called rich people “piggies.”
MR. BUGLIOSI: Beyond the scope of the redirect examination.
THE COURT: Sustained.
BY MR. KANAREK:
Q. Well, then, directing your attention, Mrs. Kasabian, to your conversations with Mr. Bugliosi, during those conversations was anyone else present at the time when you spoke with Mr. Bugliosi?
A. Yes.
Q. Who else was present?
A. All the time my attorneys were there—once Mr. Stovitz was present; a few times some of the police officers were there and sometimes he was by himself.
Q. There were times when Mr. Bugliosi was there by himself?
A. Yes.
Q. Well, you told us now when Mr. Bugliosi spoke to you very recently in the last couple of days—I will withdraw that.
Now, directing your attention to the two boys that you drove to Arizona with, or New Mexico with, how old were these boys?
MR. STOVITZ: Objected to as immaterial, outside the scope of the redirect examination, your Honor.
THE COURT: Sustained.
BY MR. KANAREK:
Q. Mrs. Kasabian, you spoke with those boys after what you called the second night, right?
A. After, yes.
Q. Now, directing your attention to the time that you spoke with them, this was at a time—the first time you spoke to them you were away from the Spahn Ranch, is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. What is the reason that you did not tell them of the events that you participated in concerning which you now tell us you know you did wrong?
Is there some reason you did not tell them about these matters so that they could go to the police?
MR. STOVITZ: Ambiguous, compound, assuming a fact not in evidence, your Honor.
THE COURT: Sustained.
BY MR. KANAREK:
Q. You had conversation with these boys, I take it, Mrs. Kasabian?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you tell them of anything to the effect that you wanted the police called?
A. No.
Q. You have told us in this courtroom, Mrs. Kasabian, that you did not know how to get hold of the police, do you recall stating that in this courtroom?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you ever ask any advice of someone as to how you dial a number to call the police?
A. That is not what I said.
I said I did not know how to go to them and talk to them and tell them.
Q. You did not know how to go to them and talk to them and tell them?
A. Yes.
Q. And what do you mean when you say you did not know how to go to them and talk to them and tell them?
A. I just did not know how to go about walking into a police station and laying out the whole thing that I saw.
I just did not know how to do it.
Q. You mean you didn’t have the courage to do it; is that it, Mrs. Kasabian?
A. I don’t know.
Q. Well, would you think about that for a moment?
A. I just told you, I don’t know if it had anything to do with my courage. I just didn’t know how to do it.
Q. Were you, at that point—did you feel that you were mentally ill at that point?
A. No.
Q. You mean that you couldn’t walk, you didn’t know how to walk into a police station, you didn’t know how to propel your body into a police station, Mrs. Kasabian?
MR. STOVITZ: That is argumentative, your Honor.
MR. KANAREK: I am trying to ferret this out, your Honor.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. KANAREK: Mrs. Kasabian, when you say you didn’t know how to go to the police, are you telling us that you did not know how to get your body into a room where a police officer would be across the desk from you?
MR. STOVITZ: Argumentative, your Honor.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. KANAREK: Were you capable, at that time, Mrs. Kasabian, of walking around?
A. Yes.
Q. Well, then, when you tell us that you didn’t know how to go to the police, would you tell us what you really mean by that?
MR. STOVITZ: Argumentative, your Honor.
THE COURT: It has also been asked and answered.
Sustained.
MR. KANAREK: Q. Mrs. Kasabian, is it a fair statement that when you didn’t go to the police—you tell us you didn’t know how to go to the police—is it a fair statement that what you mean is that you didn’t want to go to the police?
A. Not at that time, no.
Q. What do you mean by that, “not at that time, no”?
A. I wanted to see my husband first and tell him.
Q. You wanted to see your husband first and tell him; right?
A. Yes.
Q. So you went to New Mexico and you saw your husband?
A. Yes.
Q. Right?
A. Yes.
Q. And then after you told your husband—did you tell your husband?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. You told your husband about your participation in these events that you have told us about?
A. Yes.
Q. Is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. All right. Did you then go to the police?
MR. STOVITZ: That has been asked and answered several times, your Honor.
MR. KANAREK: I haven’t asked her.
MR. STOVITZ: On 14 different occasions, and I can cite the record, page, volume and verse number.
MR. KANAREK: Your Honor, Mr. Bugliosi reopened this.
THE COURT: All right, gentlemen—
MR. KANAREK: Pardon me?
THE COURT: Don’t interrupt me, Mr. Kanarek, when I am ruling.
MR. KANAREK: I am sorry.
THE COURT: The objection is sustained. Go on with your next question.
MR. KANAREK: Yes, sir.
Q. At that time, when you spoke with your husband, Mrs. Kasabian, where was that?
A. Where?
Q. Yes, where.
A. In Cuesta.
Q. Cuesta?
A. Cuesta.
Q. Is that a city in New Mexico?
A. A small town.
Q. How far was the police station from you when you spoke with your husband?
MR. STOVITZ: Immaterial.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. KANAREK: On the grounds of immateriality, your Honor?
THE COURT: Sustained.
Let’s proceed.
MR. KANAREK: Q. Would you tell us, Mrs. Kasabian, what did you tell your husband?
A. What did I tell him?
Q. Yes.
A. Basically, what I have told everybody here now.
Q. Well, my question is: Would you tell us what you told him, and not make the conclusion, Mrs. Kasabian.
Just tell us what you told him.
A. I told him that I left Tanya back with the people at the ranch, and I remember my words were something to the effect that Charlie flipped out and had a whole bunch of people killed, and I told him that I saw some people get killed.
And that is basically about what I said.
Q. Now, you have told us this in about, maybe, certainly less than a minute, about 30 to 45 seconds. How much time did you consume telling your husband what you have just told us?
A. I don’t know, I didn’t keep track of time.
Q. Could you give us an estimate of how much time you took?
A. We spent the afternoon together sitting down. It was an extremely emotional time for me because I hadn’t been able to let it out, and I let it all out with him. So, I didn’t keep track of the time.
Q. So it took maybe a couple of hours, and you told him various and sundry matters; right?
A. Excuse me?
Q. I mean, you told your husband various things?
A. Yes.
Q. This took, perhaps, a few hours; right?
A. Yes.
Q. Then, while you were talking to your husband, did you tell your husband that you wanted to go to the police?
A. No.
Q. There was no discussion, you didn’t tell him that you wanted to go to the police but you didn’t know how to get there; is that right?
A. No.
Q. Did you tell your husband you wanted to go to the police but you didn’t know how to go about it?
A. No.
Q. And you talked to him for some two to three hours; right?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, then, you also talked to Joe Sage?
A. Yes.
Q. And did you tell Joe Sage, sit down and take a couple of hours to tell Joe Sage what had occurred?
MR. STOVITZ: That is objected to, your Honor, as outside of the scope of the redirect. It has been asked and answered thoroughly on cross-examination.
MR. KANAREK: Your Honor, Mr. Bugliosi opened up this entire subject.
MR. STOVITZ: Not on this point at all, your Honor.
THE COURT: Objection sustained.
MR. KANAREK: Q. Did you have conversation, Mrs. Kasabian, with Mr. Sage?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. You remember earlier, after Mr. Bugliosi spoke to you again the last couple of days, you had a conversation with Mr. Bugliosi right here in open court wherein you stated various reasons why you didn’t go to the police.
Do you remember that?
MR. STOVITZ: Are you talking about testimony, Counsel, or are you talking about conversation?
I object to the question as ambiguous.
THE COURT: Do you understand the question?
THE WITNESS: Not completely.
THE COURT: Reframe the question.
MR. KANAREK: Yes, sir.
Q. Now, Mrs. Kasabian, you spoke with Joe Sage; right?
A. Yes.
Q. And did you tell Joe Sage, or did you ask Joe Sage how you could go to the police?
MR. STOVITZ: I object to the question as immaterial and irrelevant, outside of the scope of redirect examination and it has been covered thoroughly on cross.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. KANAREK: May I be heard on that?
THE COURT: Sustained.
BY MR. KANAREK:
Q. Mrs. Kasabian, when you left the Spahn Ranch, as you were driving out in Mr. Hannon’s car, you didn’t go to the police; right?
MR. STOVITZ: That is objected to, your Honor.
MR. KANAREK: This is the exact subject that Mr. Bugliosi opened up, your Honor.
I could refer your Honor to the transcript.
MR. STOVITZ: Yes, your Honor, and it has been thoroughly covered on cross-examination.
She did not go to the police. I think that everybody knows that, including counsel.
THE COURT: All right. Give me the transcript reference, Mr. Kanarek, that you are talking about.
MR. STOVITZ: Page 7874, your Honor, through page 7876.
This entire subject matter was covered on re-direct.
THE COURT: Seventy-eight?
MR. STOVITZ: Yes. In Volume 58, your Honor. It actually starts about 7876 and goes on through 7882. Why she didn’t contact the police, and all of her intentions.
(Pause while the Court reads.)
THE COURT: Do you have some other reference, Mr. Kanarek?
MR. KANAREK: No, your Honor. Counsel has indicated the reference to the Court.
They reopened this subject, your Honor, and we have a right to interrogate on it.
THE COURT: The objection is sustained.
Ask your next question.
BY MR. KANAREK:
Q. Referring, Mrs. Kasabian, to the transcript at page 7879. A question by 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.”
Now, Mrs. Kasabian, going on—pardon me, I will go on to the next question.
“Q. BY MR. BUGLIOSI: Do you have any other reason?
“THE WITNESS: I was afraid everyone, everybody would say I was crazy, and maybe Charlie would kill me and kill my little girl.”
Now, Mrs. Kasabian, directing your attention to those questions and answers, do you remember giving them?
A. Yes.
Q. Well, now, Mrs. Kasabian, was it because you didn’t know how to go to the police—you have told us today, this morning, that you didn’t go because you didn’t know how to go to the police—or was it, Mrs. Kasabian, because you were afraid that Mr. Manson was going to kill you and kill your little girl?
MR. BUGLIOSI: That assumes a fact not in evidence, your Honor, that her state of mind was in the disjunctive.
There could have been several reasons, and the way he frames the question it has to be one way or the other.
I object on that ground, your Honor.
THE COURT: Sustained.
BY MR. KANAREK:
Q. Well, Mrs. Kasabian, did you have two reasons? Were you afraid that Mr. Manson was going to kill you and your little girl, and you also didn’t know how to go to the police?
A. Yes.
Q. Both of those are true now; right?
A. Yes.
Q. So now we have two reasons why you didn’t go to the police, fear and a lack of ability to go to them; right?
MR. BUGLIOSI: That assumes facts not in evidence. She didn’t say there were only two reasons, your Honor.
He is implying there were only two. There may have been many reasons.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. KANAREK: Q. Will you give us all the reasons now, at this time, 10:25 on this date, Mrs. Kasabian? Would you give us all the reasons as to why you didn’t go to the police? Would you enunciate those for us, please?
A. Okay.
The police were pigs.
I didn’t know how to go to them.
I was afraid they would say I was crazy. Take my little girl away.
I didn’t know where Charlie and the other people were. Possibly they would find me and kill me and my little girl.
That is all I can think of at the moment.
Q. But there were others?
A. I was pregnant later on.
That is it.
Q. Now, you figured out—have you told us all of them now, Mrs. Kasabian?
A. I think so, yes.
Q. I see.
Directing your attention to the reasons that you now have told us, were all of these reasons in your mind as you drove away from the Spahn Ranch? Were they all in your mind and the reasons, in fact, why you didn’t go to the police?
MR. STOVITZ: That is objected to as compound and unintelligible.
THE COURT: Overruled.
THE WITNESS: No.
MR. KANAREK: Q. That is not true?
A. No.
Q. In what way is it not so?
A. Not all of those reasons were my reasons when I drove away from the ranch.
Q. I see.
Well, would you tell us, would you break down for us, the reasons that you had as you drove away from the ranch?
A. I wanted to go to my husband and tell him about it.
And his reaction was: Well, you have got to hurry up and get your little girl out of there.
It was sort of like he didn’t see the reality of it.
Q. I see.
Your state of mind was such that Mr. Kasabian didn’t see the reality?
A. At the time, yes.
Q. And in what way, would you tell us in what way, you thought Mr. Kasabian wasn’t seeing the reality?
MR. STOVITZ: That is objected to, your Honor. It calls for a conclusion of this witness.
MR. KANAREK: Your Honor, it goes to her state of mind.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. KANAREK: Q. And your state of mind was such, Mrs. Kasabian, that you saw the reality of it all; is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. I see.
Now, then, you had conversation with Joe Sage; is that right?
A. Yes.
MR. STOVITZ: Immaterial, your Honor. Asked and answered.
THE COURT: Let’s proceed.
MR. KANAREK: I can refer your Honor to the transcript here where Mr. Bugliosi refers to the New Mexico aspect of this.
THE COURT: Proceed.
MR. STOVITZ: And is Joe Sage mentioned in there? You may have a different transcript than I have.
THE COURT: Let’s proceed. The answer is in.
MR. KANAREK: What was the answer, your Honor?
MR. STOVITZ: Yes.
Q. BY MR. KANAREK: Now, Mrs. Kasabian, is it true, Mrs. Kasabian, that your state of mind was such when you spoke to Joe Sage that you wanted him—you wanted to manipulate Joe Sage so that he would write, contact the Superior Court here in Los Angeles and get your child without the Superior Court knowing about the events that you participated in on these two nights that we are speaking of?
MR. STOVITZ: Argumentative and 14 other objections that I could cite, your Honor.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q. BY MR. KANAREK: Was your state of mind such, Mrs. Kasabian, when you spoke to Mr. Saga, that you wished to influence Mr. Sage to write, to contact the Superior Court to assist you in obtaining the physical possession of Tanya?
MR. STOVITZ: Outside the scope of redirect examination, your Honor.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q. BY MR. KANAREK: Now, you have told us, Mrs. Kasabian, that you thought the police might think you were crazy, is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, do you have any trouble thinking, Mrs. Kasabian?
A. No, not really.
Q. Not really? What do you mean by not really?
A. Sometimes when I am overtired my thinking process is slow and it takes me a while to grasp things.
Q. I see. But other than that you are clear as a bell?
A. Yes.
Q. Right?
A. Yes.
Q. Well, now, let me ask you this: You thought that the police would think you were crazy, right?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you go one step further, and in your thinking processes, and think that the police would not think you were crazy?
After all, there were seven people dead, seven people went to the coroner’s office, right?
A. I guess so, yes.
Q. Did you go that one step further and say, “Well, if anybody thinks I am crazy, there are seven bodies to prove I am not”?
MR. BUGLIOSI: I object on the ground it is compound and also I object to the lecture, your Honor.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q. BY MR. KANAREK: Well, Mrs. Kasabian, did you in fact think in your mind, all three eyes, that the police would think you were crazy in view of what you say you have seen on TV?
MR. BUGLIOSI: Argumentative, sarcastic and compound.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q. BY MR. KANAREK: Would you, Mrs. Kasabian, please tell us why do you think the police would have thought you were crazy?
A. Because when I told Joe Sage the story, extremely briefly, he said, “Linda, I don’t want to believe that,” he said, “I just don’t want to believe it is true.”
That was it. That was his reaction which sort of I reacted to it also.
Q. But Mrs. Kasabian, when you were going down the hill from Spahn Ranch you had not yet spoken to Joe Sage, had you?
A. That is true.
Q. Would you tell us why you think you were crazy then?
A. I did not think about being crazy then.
Q. You did not think about it then?
A. No.
Q. Now, you are telling us you did not think that the police would think you were crazy before you got to New Mexico?
A. I already told you that.
Q. Pardon?
A. I just already told you that.
Q. You already told me what?
A. That I did not think about the police, going to the police, even, when I left the ranch.
Q. I see. You are now telling us that when you left the ranch you had no thought of going to the police.
A. That’s right.
Q. I see. It did not even occur to you that you should walk into a police station, is that right?
A. Maybe the thought occurred to me, but I did not dwell upon the thought. My main intent was to go to my husband.
Q. I see. And you are now telling us that before you got to New Mexico, Mrs. Kasabian, you are telling us that you did not go to the police, not because you did not know how to get there, but you just did not think about it.
Is that what you are telling us, Mrs. Kasabian?
A. I don’t remember thinking about it, no.
Q. My question is, Mrs. Kasabian, now, directing your attention to the time interval, Mrs. Kasabian, between the time you left the Spahn Ranch and the time that you got to New Mexico, in that time interval did you fail to go to the police because you did not know how to go to the police?
A. No.
Q. That is not your reason now?
A. I did not want to go to the police at that time.
Q. So you did go to the—you did think about going to the police?
A. Possibly the thought might have occurred, but like I said I did not dwell upon the thought.
Q. But you did think about it?
A. Possibly, I am not sure.
Q. When you say possibly, you mean you did, don’t you, Mrs. Kasabian?
A. I cannot recall thinking about going to the police during that time.
Q. Well, can you tell us, Mrs. Kasabian, that no longer did you think that Mr. Manson was Jesus Christ?
A. That’s right.
Q. You had no restraints upon your thinking whatsoever, right?
A. I guess not.
Q. There was nothing holding you back, no one had you under any hypnosis or any trance, and you did not think about going to the police, is that correct?
A. That’s right, yes.
Q. So then, after—then in the period after you left—after you left the Spahn Ranch and until you were arrested did you utter out of your mouth the word “piggies”?
MR. STOVITZ: That is objected to, your Honor. It is immaterial.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. KANAREK: Your Honor, may I approach the bench? I want to conform to the Court’s order, at the same time I have the subject here, your Honor.
THE COURT: Ask your next question, Mr. Kanarek.
BY MR. KANAREK:
Q. Well, directing your attention to the conversations that you had with Mr. Breckenridge, Mrs. Kasabian, did you speak with Mr. Breckenridge concerning members of the establishment?
A. Not that I recall.
Q. Did you talk with Mr. Breckenridge concerning rich people?
A. Not that I recall, no.
Q. You mean you may have but you just don’t recall it now?
A. No I don’t recall it.
Q. At the time when you spoke with Mr. Breckenridge, at that time even though you tell us you no longer thought that Mr. Manson was Jesus Christ, that you at that time had told us that you were a witch, at that time, in your mind?
MR. STOVITZ: Objected to, immaterial; covered and recovered, your Honor.
THE COURT: Sustained.
BY MR. KANAREK:
Q. Directing your attention to Mr. Manson, and your thinking of him as Jesus Christ, Mrs. Kasabian, did you think of yourself, Mrs. Kasabian, as any Biblical character that in your mind lived in the time of Christ?
A. No.
Q. Did you associate yourself with any other person that in your view lived at the time of Christ?
A. Not that I know of, no.
Q. And having in mind the story, the Biblical statements concerning the life of Christ, did you associate in your mind yourself with anything that you had heard had happened during the life of Christ while Christ was actually on this earth, and after Christ had left this earth?
MR. BUGLIOSI: Unintelligible, beyond the scope of redirect examination.
THE COURT: Sustained.
BY MR. KANAREK:
Q. Mrs. Kasabian, while you were driving to New Mexico, Mrs. Kasabian, you had conversation with these two boys, is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. Where, Mrs. Kasabian, did these two boys part from your company?
MR. BUGLIOSI: Irrelevant.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. KANAREK: Well, your Honor, I would like to approach the bench if I may.
THE COURT: Ask your next question, sir.
BY MR. KANAREK:
Q. You told us, Mrs. Kasabian, that you feel that you are an emissary from God.
A. That is not my word.
Q. Pardon?
A. Those are not my words.
Q. You don’t feel you are an emissary from God?
A. I don’t know what an emissary is.
Q. You don’t know what emissary means?
A. No, not really.
Q. Do you feel that you are the representative of God?
MR. BUGLIOSI: Beyond the scope of the redirect examination.
MR. KANAREK: Your Honor, I have a right to cross also on what Mr. Hughes and Mr. Fitzgerald have questioned this witness.
THE COURT: The objection is sustained.
BY MR. KANAREK:
Q. Well, would you tell us, Mrs. Kasabian, what did you tell Joe Sage?
MR. STOVITZ: Objected to, your Honor—
MR. KANAREK: Your Honor, she has just—
MR. STOVITZ: I let counsel finish his question. Would you kindly let me finish my objection?
MR. KANAREK: I don’t want to be deemed to have interrupted him; but if your Honor rules too fast I will have interrupted him.
THE COURT: That will be enough, Mr. Kanarek.
MR. STOVITZ: I object to the question, hearsay, outside the scope of redirect examination.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. KANAREK: May I be heard on that, your Honor?
THE COURT: I have ruled.
Ask your next question.
BY MR. KANAREK:
Q. Mrs. Kasabian, you walked, you told us, with Mr. Manson on the second night.
You were with Mr. Manson, you rode with Mr. Manson after you left the area of Harold True, is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And Mr. Manson was with you and you were with him, right?
A. Yes.
Q. You went with Mr. Manson all the way back to the Spahn Ranch, right?
A. No.
Q. All right, how close to the Spahn Ranch did you go with Mr. Manson?
A. He dropped us off at the Venice Beach.
Q. Pardon?
A. He dropped us off at Venice Beach.
Q. All right, when did you see Mr. Manson next?
A. I saw him sleeping in the parachute room later on that day.
Q. Well, when he dropped you off, you say, at Venice Beach, he dropped you off with other people, is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, directing your attention, Mrs. Kasabian, to your presence at the Spahn Ranch the next day, right?
Will you think about that?
A. The next day?
Q. The day that you went to the Spahn Ranch after, you say, having been at Venice with Mr. Manson, right?
A. Yes.
Q. It was that day in the morning, right?
A. Right.
Q. Now, can you tell us, Mrs. Kasabian, was there any discussion at the Spahn Ranch concerning the events of the second night?
MR. STOVITZ: That she was present, is that right, Counsel, is that what you are asking?
MR. KANAREK: Your Honor, I take my orders from the Court.
MR. STOVITZ: I object to the question. It is ambiguous.
THE COURT: Sustained.
We will take the recess at this time.
Ladies and gentlemen, do not converse with anyone nor form or express an opinion concerning the case until it is finally submitted to you.
The court will recess for 15 minutes.
(Recess taken.)
THE COURT: All parties, counsel and jurors are present.
You may continue, Mr. Kanarek.
MR. KANAREK: Yes. Thank you, your Honor.
Your Honor, may I have the last question and answer read back?
THE COURT: It is not available, Mr. Kanarek.
MR. STOVITZ: See if you can improvise.
MR. KANAREK: Q. Well, Mrs. Kasabian, when you left the Spahn Ranch, did you intend to visit your husband?
A. Yes.
Q. And you intended to visit your husband in New Mexico?
A. That’s right.
Q. Isn’t that right?
A. Yes.
Q. And you intended to discuss these matters with your husband; is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. As a matter of fact, you didn’t know where your husband was when you left the Spahn Ranch; is that correct?
A. I didn’t know exactly where he was.
Q. You had no knowledge that he was in New Mexico? No one had told you that he was in New Mexico?
MR. BUGLIOSI: That has been gone into before in great depth, your Honor.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. KANAREK: Q. Now, directing your attention, Mrs. Kasabian, to your state of mind.
Your step-father had rejected you; is that correct?
MR. BUGLIOSI: Irrelevant, and already gone into.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. KANAREK: Your Honor, may I—
THE COURT: You may ask your next question, sir.
MR. KANAREK: Very well, your Honor.
Q. Is this a fact, Mrs. Kasabian: Looking at your life since 1966, really, the only place, the only time you haven’t been rejected is by the District Attorney of Los Angeles County?
MR. BUGLIOSI: Oh, your Honor, that is ridiculous. There has to be an amendment to the Evidence Code.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. KANAREK: Your Honor—
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. KANAREK: Q. Your state of mind, Mrs. Kasabian, directing your attention to your life and what you have done, Mrs. Kasabian, since 1965 or 1966, is it a fair statement that as far as your state of mind is concerned, the only place, the only group of people that have ever accepted you are the people that revolve around the prosecution of this case?
MR. BUGLIOSI: Immaterial and irrelevant.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. BUGLIOSI: And ridiculous.
MR. KANAREK: May we approach the bench, your Honor?
THE COURT: No.
Ask your next question.
MR. KANAREK: Q. As you sit on that witness stand, Mrs. Kasabian, is it a fair statement that you think of Mr. Manson as a devilish man?
A. Yes.
Q. Right?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. And is it a fair statement, Mrs. Kasabian, and is your state of mind such that a devilish man is someone that you don’t like? Is that right?
A. It is not necessarily the man I don’t like—
Q. Well, let’s not—
A. —it is the principle.
MR. BUGLIOSI: Wait a minute.
She is talking and he is interrupting her, your Honor.
MR. KANAREK: I apologize.
THE WITNESS: It is the principle behind the man.
BY MR. KANAREK:
Q. I understand you recognize your position in this case, Mrs. Kasabian, but may I have an answer to the question.
MR. STOVITZ: I submit the question was answered to the witness’s best ability, and I don’t like the comments of counsel, your Honor.
I submit that is an improper question.
THE COURT: The question was answered, Mr. Kanarek.
BY MR. KANAREK:
Q. What I am asking you now, Mrs. Kasabian, you have told us Mr. Manson in your view is a devilish man?
A. Yes.
Q. Now that you have had this resurrection of goodness that you have indicated to us:
You now are a free woman; you are free of seven counts of murder and one count of conspiracy; you are free of all of the other crimes that you may have committed in your mind, right?
MR. STOVITZ: Objection—just a moment, just a moment—your Honor, I would like to ask the Court to ask counsel to reserve his arguments to the end of the case. That is the proper time.
THE COURT: Let’s proceed. Ask your next question.
BY MR. KANAREK:
Q. Your state of mind, Mrs. Kasabian, is it involves, certainly, you recognize that there are other crimes that you have committed other than the seven counts of murder and the one count of conspiracy?
MR. STOVITZ: Unintelligible, immaterial.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. KANAREK: Your Honor, it goes to the immunity.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. KANAREK: May we approach the bench?
THE COURT: No. Ask your next question.
BY MR. KANAREK:
Q. Now, directing your attention to your present state of mind as you now sit on that witness stand, Mrs. Kasabian, is your state of mind such that you like a person who is a devilish man?
A. I like a person?
Q. Yes.
A. No.
Q. You don’t like someone who is a devilish man, right?
A. No.
Q. Pardon?
A. No.
Q. And so, since Mr. Manson is equated to a devilish man you don’t like Mr. Manson, is that right?
A. In that way, no.
Q. Pardon?
A. No.
Q. You don’t like him, right?
A. In that way, no.
Q. Well, I am not speaking anything but English here—hopefully—Mrs. Kasabian.
Now, if there is anything about that question that you want to explain, please do. I am sure Judge Older will let you and I am sure the ladies and gentlemen—
THE COURT: I think the answer was responsive, Mr. Kanarek.
MR. KANAREK: It seems to me—
MR. STOVITZ: I think Mr. Kanarek was talking when he should have been listening, your Honor.
THE COURT: Put the question again.
MR. KANAREK: Certainly. May it be read, your Honor?
THE COURT: Well, it is too time consuming to go back, for the reporter.
Just put the question again.
BY MR. KANAREK:
Q. Would you care to explain your last answer, Mrs. Kasabian?
A. As a man, as a part of mankind Charles Manson, from God, I love, as I do all mankind.
But the principles behind Charles Manson that makes him do the things he does I don’t like.
Q. I see. In other words, if I should ask you, do you like the memory of Lee Harvey Oswald, the man who supposedly killed President Kennedy, you would say the same thing?
A. What I just said, yes.
Q. What you just said about Mr. Manson?
A. Yes.
Q. A person who assassinated Robert Kennedy, you would say the same?
MR. STOVITZ: Immaterial and irrelevant.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. STOVITZ: Not only that, your Honor, if he hasn’t used the words “allege,” I think it’s an improper question.
BY MR. KANAREK:
Q. Then what you are saying is, Mrs. Kasabian, is that as you sit there from the witness stand, though, there is no question in your mind that you don’t like Mr. Manson, is that right?
MR. BUGLIOSI: Asked and answered, your Honor.
THE COURT: Sustained.
BY MR. KANAREK:
Q. Now, you told Mr. Bugliosi—I will withdraw that.
Now, directing your attention to the time that you say that you realized that Mr. Manson was not Jesus Christ.
You tell us that that occurred when you looked into the eyes of Mr. Frykowski, right?
A. Yes.
Q. Would you tell us, Mrs. Kasabian, how long did that process occur?
In other words, at some instant in time you believed that Mr. Manson was in fact Jesus Christ, the Messiah who had returned to earth, is that correct?
MR. STOVITZ: That is objected to. That has been gone into 33 times.
MR. KANAREK: I have not gone into this.
THE COURT: The objection is sustained.
MR. KANAREK: I have not gone into this—
THE COURT: Sustained, let’s proceed.
BY MR. KANAREK:
Q. There was an instant in time—
THE COURT: I sustained the objection.
MR. KANAREK: What is that, your Honor?
THE COURT: Don’t ask the same question again. I sustained the objection.
Let’s proceed.
MR. KANAREK: Your Honor does not wish me to interrogate on this time interval?
THE COURT: I said don’t ask the same question.
MR. KANAREK: May I approach the bench for guidance, your Honor?
THE COURT: No, you may not.
Let’s proceed.
BY MR. KANAREK:
Q. Would you tell us what effect, Mrs. Kasabian, what effect your looking in the eyes of Mr. Frykowski had upon you?
MR. FITZGERALD: Immaterial and irrelevant.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. KANAREK: Did your Honor sustain that on the ground that it is immaterial?
THE COURT: Sustained.
Ask your next question.
MR. KANAREK: Q. Now, do you read lips, Mrs. Kasabian?
A. Sometimes.
Q. I see.
You have the capacity to read lips?
MR. BUGLIOSI: Beyond the scope of redirect.
MR. KANAREK: Your Honor—
THE COURT: Overruled.
You may answer.
Was there an answer?
THE WITNESS: I said sometimes.
MR. KANAREK: Q. Would you read my lips now? I am going to say something without—may I?
MR. FITZGERALD: It will be impossible for the record to reflect what he is saying if he doesn’t say it audibly.
MR. STOVITZ: And unless he takes the witness stand and swears that is what he is really saying, or writes it out ahead of time, your Honor, and seals it some place, he can change his mind and we wouldn’t know what his state of mind was.
MR. FITZGERALD: I will also object on the grounds that it consumes undue time.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. KANAREK: Your Honor, may I?
THE COURT: No. Proceed.
MR. KANAREK: Q. You have told us on whatever the examination was by Mr. Bugliosi, whatever we deem it to be at a certain time, the last couple of days, you have told us that you heard Mr. Manson make an utterance of certain words, Mrs. Kasabian.
A. Yes.
Q. Did you hear those with your ears?
A. Some of the things I heard, yes, with my ears.
Q. Now, if you would watch my lips, please, and would you tell me what I am saying.
I am not going to say it audibly.
THE COURT: The objection has been sustained.
Let’s proceed with the next question.
MR. KANAREK: Your Honor, I may not do that?
THE COURT: You may not.
Let’s proceed.
MR. KANAREK: I would be willing to swear, your Honor.
THE COURT: Let’s proceed, Mr. Kanarek.
MR. KANAREK: Very well, your Honor.
Q. Would you tell us, Mrs. Kasabian, what words you heard uttered with your ears?
A. With my ears?
Q. Yes. That Mr. Manson said.
A. Once he said something like, “You are lying.”
I was sitting up here.
Q. All right.
Now, let’s take it one at a time so we won’t be compound.
From where you are sitting now, you heard Mr. Manson say, “You are lying”?
A. Yes.
Q. You heard the words?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. Would you utter those words at the same level that you heard them?
MR. STOVITZ: With or without the microphone, Counsel?
MR. KANAREK: Without the microphone.
What we will do, we will stand over here and we will see whether we can hear what this lady is saying.
MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Kanarek is not the trier of fact, your Honor.
THE COURT: That’s right. If that is an objection, it is sustained.
MR. KANAREK: Then, your Honor, may the witness be asked to stand some place in the courtroom distance from the jury equal to Mr. Manson’s distance from her and have her utter those words?
MR. STOVITZ: There is no foundation for this experiment, your Honor.
THE COURT: The objection is sustained.
Let’s proceed.
MR. KANAREK: I may not have that?
Very well, your Honor.
Q. Would you tell us, Mrs. Kasabian, what other words you heard uttered by Mr. Manson?
A. I heard with my ears?
Q. With your ears.
A. I heard the word “time.”
Q. You heard the word “time”?
A. Yes.
Q. All right.
Where were you sitting and where was Mr. Manson sitting?
A. I was sitting over there where Mr. Fleischman is sitting.
Q. I see.
A. Mr. Manson was sitting where he is sitting.
Q. That was with your ears?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, would you tell us, what did you hear with your lips?
MR. BUGLIOSI: Your Honor, I don’t think she has said that she is through relating what she heard with her ears.
MR. KANAREK: Then counsel can attempt to question her when he examines her.
MR. BUGLIOSI: He is the one that asked the question: Tell the jury everything you heard with your ears. Now he cuts her off.
THE COURT: Had you completed your answer?
THE WITNESS: Yes.
THE COURT: All right.
MR. KANAREK: Q. Now, would you tell us what you heard him say wherein you didn’t hear it but you read his lips?
A. He said with his lips, “I am your father.”
Q. Now, wait a minute, if we may. Just for a moment.
Those are the words that he said with his lips?
A. Yes.
Q. You didn’t hear that with your ears?
A. I don’t think so.
Q. Did you or didn’t you, Mrs. Kasabian?
A. No.
Q. Do you read lips?
A. Yes.
MR. KANAREK: I see.
Well, then, your Honor, I believe that fairness, fair play, would allow us to interrogate this witness and see if she can read lips.
THE COURT: Go ahead and ask the question.
MR. KANAREK: All right.
Q. I am now going to say something, and then I want you to tell me—I would ask you to read my lips.
THE WITNESS: Okay.
THE COURT: That is not what I meant, Mr. Kanarek. I have already sustained an objection to that.
MR. KANAREK: What is your Honor’s ruling?
THE COURT: You said you wanted to ask her whether she could read lips. You may ask her.
MR. KANAREK: That is a conclusion. I don’t accept anything this witness says.
MR. BUGLIOSI: This is argument again.
We will argue about three months from now, Mr. Kanarek.
MR. FITZGERALD: Hopefully.
THE COURT: Ask your next question.
MR. BUGLIOSI: I would ask the Court to admonish the jury to disregard that gratuitous remark, your Honor, by Mr. Kanarek.
THE COURT: Yes. That remark the jury is admonished to disregard.
MR. KANAREK: I didn’t say “hopefully,” your Honor.
MR. STOVITZ: The remark before that, Counsel.
THE COURT: Mr. Kanarek, do you wish to continue your examination?
MR. KANAREK: Yes, your Honor.
THE COURT: Then continue it.
MR. KANAREK: Yes, sir.
Q. Do you hold yourself out, Mrs. Kasabian, as being able—I will withdraw that.
You have told us that there are some things that you—information that you receive by way of vibrations?
MR. STOVITZ: Asked and answered.
MR. BUGLIOSI: Objection.
MR. KANAREK: I haven’t finished the question.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. KANAREK: I haven’t finished.
May I reframe the question, your Honor?
THE COURT: You can try.
BY MR. KANAREK:
Q. Mrs. Kasabian, directing your attention now to your method of getting information by way of vibrations.
Did this, what you call lip reading, did this information that you heard by way of reading Mr. Manson’s lips, you say, did that come to you by way of vibrations?
A. No.
Q. Pardon?
A. No.
Q. You know that for sure?
A. Yes.
Q. It came to you by way of your reading his lips?
A. Right.
MR. KANAREK: I see.
Then, your Honor, I would like to approach the bench on this subject.
THE COURT: Let’s proceed, Mr. Kanarek.
BY MR. KANAREK:
Q. Now, Mrs. Kasabian, the second night, the daylight period of the second night, when you say that you came back and you saw Mr. Manson sleeping in the parachute room, and you came back with Clem.
Is that who you came back with?
A. Clem and Sadie, yes.
Q. Clem and Sadie?
A. Yes.
Q. Directing your attention to that period of time when you came back. Was there any discussion about anyone getting killed the night before?
MR. BUGLIOSI: Beyond the scope of redirect.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. KANAREK: Your Honor, Mr. Bugliosi opened—
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. KANAREK: Then I would like to approach the bench, your Honor.
THE COURT: Ask your next question, sir.
Let’s proceed.
MR. KANAREK: Your Honor, then I would make a motion, if your Honor deems that this is outside the scope, for me to reopen in connection with this question.
THE COURT: The motion is denied.
MR. KANAREK: Then may I approach the bench on that?
THE COURT: No, you may not.
Proceed, Mr. Kanarek, if you wish to complete your examination.
Now, you are wasting time.
MR. KANAREK: I am trying to obey the Court’s orders.
THE COURT: All right.
Let’s proceed.
BY MR. KANAREK:
Q. You told us, I think, while Mr. Bugliosi was examining you, Mrs. Kasabian, that you had a vision and Charlie entered your head.
Do you remember saying that?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, would you describe that vision for us?
A. Well, I saw Charlie in the back of my mind, and it was just his image, his form. And I realized who he was.
Q. Well, now, this vision, what color was this vision?
A. I don’t remember any colors.
Q. Well, was it—
Give us your best estimate of what color it was, Mrs. Kasabian.
A. I don’t remember any colors.
Q. Well, in other words, why do you call that a vision, Mrs. Kasabian?
MR. BUGLIOSI: Your Honor, I am going to object on the ground a proper foundation has not been laid.
At what particular time is Mr. Kanarek referring to when she saw this?
MR. KANAREK: She understands it, if Mr. Bugliosi has not read the record, your Honor, it is not my fault.
THE COURT: Overruled.
Now, Mr. Kanarek, don’t make remarks like that again. I admonished you before and I admonish you now, make your objections in a legal form.
MR. STOVITZ: May the question be put to the witness, your Honor?
THE COURT: Do you have the question in mind?
THE WITNESS: Yes.
THE COURT: You may answer it.
THE WITNESS: I don’t know why I called it a vision, but I visualized within my own mind Charlie, that is why I call it a vision.
MR. KANAREK: I see.
Q. You visualized in your own mind.
Now you are telling us you visualized in your mind and you saw this picture of Charlie in your mind, is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. And what occurred just prior to the time you saw this vision or what you say you visualized, just instants before?
A. Instants before that?
Q. Yes.
A. Screams. I was running towards the house.
Q. I see.
MR. BUGLIOSI: Your Honor, I submit, based on my observations here that Mr. Kanarek and Mrs. Kasabian are keeping time to different drummers on this particular issue.
They are talking about different points in time.
MR. KANAREK: I submit that is an improper comment at this stage of the proceedings.
MR. BUGLIOSI: I again request that he specifically pinpoint that point of time when she is talking about this vision.
There were several visions she had on the night of the Tate murders.
THE COURT: She stated what she was talking about.
Overruled.
Ask your next question.
MR. KANAREK: Your Honor, I believe Mr. Bugliosi interrupted. I don’t believe the witness finished.
THE COURT: Reframe the question.
MR. KANAREK: May that be read?
THE COURT: No, reframe the question, sir, let’s proceed.
Q. BY MR. KANAREK: Mrs. Kasabian, would you tell us what happened instants before you saw this vision or what you say you visualized?
A. I heard screams and I started running towards the house, and I saw a man come out of the door.
Q. And at what point in time, would you tell us precisely at what point in time you got this vision?
A. As soon as I looked into his eyes.
Q. You looked into Mr. Frykowski’s eyes?
A. Yes.
Q. Is that right?
MR. FITZGERALD: That has been asked and answered, your Honor.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q. BY MR. KANAREK: And at that point, Mrs. Kasabian you saw a vision of Charlie—
MR. FITZGERALD: That has been asked and answered.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. KANAREK: I am trying, your Honor—
Q. BY MR. KANAREK: Would you tell us how long that vision lasted, Mrs. Kasabian?
MR. FITZGERALD: Immaterial and irrelevant.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q. BY MR. KANAREK: Did that vision, Mrs. Kasabian, did you think that that vision came from God at that instant?
MR. FITZGERALD: Objection, calls for speculation and conjecture.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. KANAREK: Your Honor, I would like to approach the bench on this.
THE COURT: Ask your next question.
MR. KANAREK: Your Honor, I wish to obey the Court’s orders but I cannot without approaching the bench.
THE COURT: Yes, you can.
Q. BY MR. KANAREK: Well, Mrs. Kasabian, when you talk to someone, like you have spoken with Mr. Bugliosi about your mother, right?
A. Yes.
Q. When you talk about your mother, does your mother spring up as an image in your mind?
MR. BUGLIOSI: Your Honor, this is beyond the scope of redirect.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q. BY MR. KANAREK: Your Honor, we have a right—may I approach the bench a minute?
THE COURT: No. The objection is sustained.
Let’s get on with it.
Q. BY MR. KANAREK: Would you tell us, Mrs. Kasabian, the difference between the vision that you say that you got in your mind when you saw Mr. Frykowski, you looked into his eyes, you say.
Will you tell us the difference between that vision and—that you saw in your mind, if there is any difference, and the vision or the thinking of your mother, when you talked to Mr. Bugliosi, and merely mentioned her name.
MR. BUGLIOSI: Irrelevant and beyond the scope of redirect examination.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q. BY MR. KANAREK: Mrs. Kasabian, is it a fact, Mrs. Kasabian, that when you say that you thought that Mr. Manson was Jesus Christ, and directing your attention to the entire period of time when you say that Mr. Manson was Jesus Christ, is it a fact that you were, during that entire period of time—
A. Mr. Kanarek, I have not been following your question.
There are so many words and you are taking so much time with one question, I am not following you so I don’t know what you are saying.
MR. STOVITZ: May the record show there was an undue length—
THE COURT: The record already reflects it.
MR. STOVITZ: But the record does not reflect the pauses.
THE COURT: Reframe your question.
BY MR. KANAREK:
Q. Mrs. Kasabian, as you sit there on the witness stand and testify are you testifying based upon—partially based upon vibrations that come to you?
MR. FITZGERALD: Irrelevant, your Honor.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. KANAREK: Then, your Honor, if I may I will—
(Pause.)
BY MR. KANAREK:
Q. Mrs. Kasabian, how long did it take you to get to New Mexico after you left the Spahn Ranch?
MR. FITZGERALD: Asked and answered.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. KANAREK: Your Honor, then I must approach the bench.
THE COURT: Ask your next question.
BY MR. KANAREK:
Q. Mrs. Kasabian, while you were in New Mexico talking to your husband, Mrs. Kasabian, had you ingested a drug while—previous to talking to him?
MR. FITZGERALD: Beyond the scope of redirect examination.
MR. KANAREK: Your Honor, this goes to her state of mind.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. KANAREK: May I make an offer of proof, your Honor?
THE COURT: No, sir. Ask your next question.
MR. KANAREK: Well, then, your Honor, I allege—
THE COURT: Don’t state anything in front of the jury.
MR. KANAREK: Then I will do it at the bench. May I do it at the bench?
THE COURT: It is not necessary. This is cross-examination. Your record is made for you, Mr. Kanarek.
Now, ask your next question.
MR. KANAREK: Well, your Honor, I want to obey that—
THE COURT: Proceed.
MR. KANAREK: I cannot ask any questions.
THE COURT: Then sit down, sir.
MR. KANAREK: But I wish to make the record—
May I make the record then, your Honor?
THE COURT: You have made your record, Mr. Kanarek.
MR. KANAREK: No, your Honor—
THE COURT: Ask the question. You asked a question; an objection was made; it was sustained. That is all the record you need.
MR. KANAREK: On constitutional basis I must enunciate it at the earliest opportunity.
May I approach the bench to do that?
THE COURT: If you have a constitutional ground you may state it right from where you are standing.
MR. KANAREK: Yes, your Honor, I will.
I state, I allege—
MR. BUGLIOSI: I object—
MR. KANAREK: We cannot have it both ways.
THE COURT: I am not talking about an argument. If you have a constitutional ground, state it.
MR. KANAREK: I state that the Court’s orders are denying due process of law to Mr. Manson.
He is being denied a fair trial, a fair hearing.
And I allege to the Court—your Honor is asking me to do this in open court so I am doing it that way.
I allege—
MR. BUGLIOSI: Your Honor, this type of stuff, this type of garbage—I call it that advisedly, should be at the bench, your Honor.
It is a legal issue. It should not be within the earshot of the jury.
THE COURT: Mr. Kanarek, either ask your next question or sit down, sir.
MR. KANAREK: In view of your Honor’s statements I want to obey the Court’s order.
THE COURT: Then do so.
MR. KANAREK: But I also wish to make the record.
THE COURT: Mr. Kanarek, if you don’t ask your next question I will terminate the examination and we will proceed to something else.
You understand that, don’t you, sir?
MR. KANAREK: I understand that, your Honor.
THE COURT: All right, then let’s proceed.
MR. KANAREK: Then I would ask your Honor to ask the jury to disregard the most unprofessional remark by Mr. Bugliosi.
THE COURT: Don’t compound it, Mr. Kanarek, by stating your remarks in front of the jury.
Let’s proceed, sir. Ask your next question or you will sit down and examination will be terminated.
MR. KANAREK: I wish to obey the Court’s order so I must sit down.
THE COURT: All right.
Mr. Hughes, do you care to examine?
MR. HUGHES: Yes, I do, your Honor.
THE COURT: All right, you may proceed.
CROSS-EXAMINATION
BY MR. HUGHES:
Q. There was a girl at the ranch by the name of Snake while you were there, is that correct?
MR. BUGLIOSI: Beyond the scope of redirect examination.
THE COURT: Sustained.
BY MR. HUGHES:
Q. You testified that you made love with Snake, is that right?
MR. BUGLIOSI: Beyond the scope of redirect.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. HUGHES: Your Honor, this was Mr. Bugliosi’s—
MR. KANAREK: Your Honor, in order that—
THE COURT: I don’t wish to hear from you, Mr. Kanarek. Ask your next question, Mr. Hughes.
BY MR. HUGHES:
Q. Did you observe her on a number of occasions, this girl by the name of Snake?
MR. BUGLIOSI: Irrelevant, beyond the scope of redirect.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. HUGHES: Your Honor, in this area may I reopen cross-examination?
THE COURT: You may not, sir.
MR. HUGHES: I have about four or five questions.
THE COURT: The motion is denied. Let’s proceed.
BY MR. HUGHES:
Q. Did you notice anything abnormal about Snake’s mental state?
MR. BUGLIOSI: Beyond the scope of redirect examination; calls for a conclusion.
THE COURT: Sustained.
BY MR. HUGHES:
Q. Mrs. Kasabian, have any of your answers here in this courtroom been influenced by your belief in astrology?
MR. BUGLIOSI: Beyond the scope of redirect, calls for a conclusion, irrelevant.
THE COURT: Overruled. You may answer.
THE WITNESS: I don’t understand how astrology has anything to do with it.
BY MR. HUGHES:
Q. Well, certain of your answers you have told us have come as answers to vibrations that you sent out into the universe, isn’t that right?
A. Answers pertaining to my own personal experience?
Q. Answers pertaining to what you have testified here in court.
A. Which basically are my own personal experiences within myself.
Q. And you sent these questions through vibrations out into the universe, isn’t that right?
MR. BUGLIOSI: It’s a misstatement, your Honor. I object on that ground.
THE COURT: Sustained. It is unintelligible.
BY MR. HUGHES:
Q. Did you believe you were sending vibrations into the universe?
MR. BUGLIOSI: Irrelevant and ambiguous.
THE COURT: Sustained.
BY MR. HUGHES:
Q. You felt, did you not, that you had received certain vibrations from the universe?
MR. BUGLIOSI: Irrelevant, ambiguous, beyond the scope of redirect examination.
THE COURT: Sustained.
BY MR. HUGHES:
Q. You felt, did you not, that you had received certain instructions from the universe?
MR. BUGLIOSI: Irrelevant, a misstatement of the evidence, beyond the scope of redirect examination.
THE COURT: Sustained.
BY MR. HUGHES:
Q. Did you so feel that you had received certain instructions from the universe?
MR. BUGLIOSI: Same objection.
THE COURT: Don’t reask a question after I just sustained an objection to it.
MR. HUGHES: I beg your pardon.
THE COURT: Don’t reask a question after I just sustained an objection to it.
MR. HUGHES: I thought it was a different question, your Honor.
THE COURT: The objection is sustained.
BY MR. HUGHES:
Q. You are not able to tell us, are you, Mrs. Kasabian, which of the questions that you answered were answered by use of vibrations, are you?
MR. BUGLIOSI: Ambiguous, unintelligible.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. KANAREK: Your Honor, may the record reflect that these questions that Mr. Hughes is asking, may all of them be deemed that I join in Mr. Hughes’ questions, your Honor?
THE COURT: They may not.
BY MR. HUGHES:
Q. But you do feel vibrations from time to time, is that correct?
MR. BUGLIOSI: Irrelevant, repetitious.
THE COURT: Sustained.
BY MR. HUGHES:
Q. Do you feel vibrations from the universe from time to time?
MR. BUGLIOSI: Repetitious, irrelevant.
THE COURT: Sustained.
BY MR. HUGHES:
Q. You are able to tell us that in your heart you feel that Mr. Manson is the devil, right?
A. Yes.
Q. And you are able to tell us that you believe that God sent you to show that Charles Manson is a false prophet, is that correct?
MR. BUGLIOSI: A misstatement, she did not testify to that.
THE COURT: Sustained.
BY MR. HUGHES:
Q. And you are able to say that some of your answers to these questions came from vibrations, isn’t that right?
MR. BUGLIOSI: Repetitious.
THE COURT: Sustained.
BY MR. HUGHES:
Q. The vibrations that you felt, are those vibrations the result of meditation and yoga?
MR. BUGLIOSI: Irrelevant, repetitious, beyond the scope of redirect.
THE COURT: Sustained.
BY MR. HUGHES:
Q. Through meditation and yoga are you able to contact the universe?
MR. BUGLIOSI: Beyond the scope of redirect.
THE COURT: Sustained.
BY MR. HUGHES:
Q. Meditation and yoga gave you mind trips similar to those that you had on acid and other hallucinogenic drugs, isn’t that correct?
MR. BUGLIOSI: Beyond the scope of redirect, it’s immaterial.
THE COURT: Sustained.
BY MR. HUGHES:
Q. While on drugs you have had hallucinations, haven’t you?
MR. BUGLIOSI: Repetitious.
THE COURT: Sustained.
BY MR. HUGHES:
Q. While on drugs you have had delusions, haven’t you?
MR. BUGLIOSI: Repetitious.
THE COURT: Sustained.
BY MR. HUGHES:
Q. Are delusions and hallucinations beliefs which are not true?
MR. BUGLIOSI: Beyond the scope of redirect; calls for a conclusion.
THE COURT: Sustained.
BY MR. HUGHES:
Q. Is it possible that any of your testimony here in this courtroom has been based on a delusion?
MR. BUGLIOSI: Beyond the scope of redirect and calls for—
THE COURT: Sustained. It calls for a conclusion.
BY MR. HUGHES:
Q. But you don’t know, Mrs. Kasabian, which of the testimony that you testified to here has been based on vibrations?
MR. BUGLIOSI: Repetitious.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q. You stated that one of the reasons you were afraid to go to the police was because you thought that they would think you were crazy; is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you think you were crazy then? Did you, yourself think you were crazy then?
A. No.
Q. Have you ever thought you were crazy?
A. No.
Q. And are you willing to be examined by a psychiatrist?
MR. BUGLIOSI: Oh, your Honor
MR. STOVITZ: Objection.
MR. BUGLIOSI: —ridiculous.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. HUGHES: Was there a ruling?
THE COURT: There certainly was. Sustained.
MR. HUGHES: I have no further questions.
MR. STOVITZ: May we approach the bench for about two seconds, your Honor?
THE COURT: You may.
(Whereupon, all counsel approach the bench and the following proceedings occur at the bench outside of the hearing of the jury:)
MR. BUGLIOSI: I would ask the Court permission to ask three questions, and they do relate to what was brought up by Mr. Kanarek.
First, about being alone with me, about Linda Kasabian being alone with me, your Honor.
I was never alone with her during the whole session. I think once Mr. Fleischman showed up late.
I would like to go into that.
THE COURT: What difference does it make whether she was alone with you or not?
MR. FITZGERALD: I am going to object on the basis of Evidence Code Section 352, Subdivision A in that it will necessitate undue consumption of time.
THE COURT: I agree.
MR. KANAREK: Your Honor, may I—
THE COURT: Just a minute, Mr. Kanarek. One at a time.
MR. KANAREK: Very well.
MR. BUGLIOSI: The other question: She testified that Charlie dropped her off at Venice Beach.
Of course, her prior testimony was that he dropped her and Clem and Sadie off at an apartment.
I think this is crucial. Just one question.
THE COURT: Venice Beach is an area like Santa Monica.
MR. BUGLIOSI: Right. Just one simple question, “Where in Venice Beach?”
Because many times, your Honor, people will hear the word “beach,” and they think of a beach.
It was not a beach, your Honor, and it is contradictory on the face of it to her prior testimony.
I wish to ask her what she meant by “beach.”
It is not creating any new issue. It is not taking up a lot of time or doing anything except giving an explanation of what she meant by beach.
I never heard of Venice Beach. I know of the beach at Venice. She says, “Venice Beach,” and it sounds like they dropped her off at the beach.
THE COURT: That is a common expression, “We are going to the beach.”
MR. BUGLIOSI: Right.
I definitely want to ask her what she meant.
MR. FITZGERALD: Three questions on the part of the prosecutor, or four questions on the part of the prosecutor, may lead to a hundred and three questions by the time we conclude cross-examination.
MR. BUGLIOSI: This is an extremely narrow question.
MR. FITZGERALD: I am not suggesting that your questions aren’t honed and sharpened. I am suggesting that once you reopen, the defense attorneys are entitled to cross-examination.
MR. SHINN: I join in Mr. Fitzgerald’s objection.
THE COURT: It has been gone into over and over and over again. The answers are in.
I don’t see anything inconsistent about that. You can argue it.
MR. KANAREK: I would like to make the record.
MR. BUGLIOSI: But why should we have to argue something, your Honor, when he brings it up, “Venice Beach,” and then he goes on to a different subject without an explanation.
I don’t know what Venice Beach is. If I were on the jury and I heard “Venice Beach,” I would think of a beach, I would not think of an apartment house.
It is just one, single question.
How can this open up a lot of cross-examination?
THE COURT: It is perfectly clear what she meant.
I am not going to permit you to reopen.
MR. KANAREK: May I make the record?
THE COURT: We have gone over these subjects time after time after time.
MR. KANAREK: Your Honor, I would like to make the record.
THE COURT: All right.
MR. KANAREK: I would allege, your Honor, that your Honor’s rulings deny us equal protection of the law.
THE COURT: You have already stated that, Mr. Kanarek.
MR. KANAREK: I didn’t get to finish.
I did not wish, even though your Honor invited it, to make it in the presence of the jury.
THE COURT: Go ahead.
MR. KANAREK: But your Honor—
THE COURT: Go ahead.
MR. KANAREK: Your Honor, I—
THE COURT: You can’t take yes for an answer.
MR. KANAREK: Pardon me?
THE COURT: I said you can’t take yes for an answer.
MR. KANAREK: I would like to allege a violation of equal protection of the law under the 14th Amendment, and also a violation of due process and a fair trial under the 14th Amendment, and California law in your Honor’s suspention of the objections wherein your Honor wouldn’t allow me to approach the bench to make argument.
Your Honor allows the prosecution. Your Honor has allowed, for instance, right now the prosecution to make argument.
THE COURT: This is after the close of the examination.
We are not up here to argue a routine objection to a simple question.
MR. KANAREK: Well, your Honor, specifically, when we are talking about this witness, this specific witness’ state of mind—
THE COURT: Do you have anything else to say?
MR. KANAREK: I am trying to make argument, and perhaps the Court will reverse itself.
THE COURT: Go ahead.
MR. KANAREK: The point is, with this witness’ ingestion of drugs, with her testimony concerning the supernatural, the testimony concerning witches, her testimony concerning the third eye and all of that, I—
THE COURT: I heard all the testimony. What is the point you are trying to make?
MR. KANAREK: My point is, for your Honor not to allow us to interrogate as to matters that we ask for—
THE COURT: These matters were gone into time after time after time by all of counsel.
You simply don’t know when to stop, Mr. Kanarek.
MR. KANAREK: The point is, your Honor—
THE COURT: In other words, as I think I made it clear at some other point during this trial, it appears to me, and I want the record to be perfectly clear, that you, and perhaps also Mr. Hughes, seem to have adopted the position that you are not going to voluntarily stop, that you are going to keep going until the Court forces you to stop and then you will have something to appeal on in case there should be a conviction.
I want the record to show, because the record doesn’t always catch the atmosphere of the trial and the manner in which the questions are asked, all it does is reflect the bare question itself, I want the record to clearly reflect that I have concluded after careful observation of both of you that this is done as a tactical trial weapon, device, and not in good faith.
MR. KANAREK: May I respond to your Honor?
THE COURT: You have already responded.
MR. HUGHES: May I respond to that?
THE COURT: If I am wrong, I apologize to you, but that is the way I see it.
All right.
MR. KANAREK: Your Honor—
THE COURT: There is no point in arguing about it.
MR. KANAREK: Very well.
MR. BUGLIOSI: I am very happy that the Court has placed its position on the record. I think that is extremely important.
I have a couple of other points, your Honor.
THE COURT: Very well.
MR. BUGLIOSI: May I step over here?
MR. SHINN: Yes.
MR. BUGLIOSI: You have told me that I can’t go into those two areas. There is another area, again under Section 356.
He said: Did Manson tell you anything? And one thing she testified that he told her is, “You are lying.”
MR. STOVITZ: That is when she was on the witness stand the first time it was brought up it was by Mr. Kanarek.
MR. BUGLIOSI: Under 356 of the Evidence Code, I would like to ask her one question: Did you say anything to him in response?
He brought up the conversation.
THE COURT: While she was sitting on the witness stand?
MR. BUGLIOSI: Yes.
She looked over and she said, “You know I am telling the truth, Charlie.”
To bring in the fact that he is sitting there telling her she is lying, I think is damaging to the prosecution.
Again, I looked over to the jury, and they all wrote it down.
I think that her response, under 356, is very relevant. She said, “You know I am telling the truth, Charlie.”
Again, Your Honor, it is just one question, and I don’t think it requires cross. I don’t know how you can go beyond this very narrow question right here. It is so narrow. I just don’t see that it opens up the flood gates.
If it does, I am wrong, but I don’t see how it could.
MR. KANAREK: I object on the grounds of equal protection of the law. I object on the grounds it would be arbitrary and an abuse of discretion.
Things that happen at particular times in a trial are of more importance than other times, and I cite the Court Cooper vs. Superior Court.
For him to allow her, a person that we allege is insane, to comment on her own credibility in this manner is a denial of a fair trial to Mr. Manson.
If Mr. Bugliosi is allowed all of this—
THE COURT: Of course, that isn’t the point at all.
MR. FITZGERALD: I think, in addition to being self-serving, I think the probative value is substantially outweighed by the probability that its admission would involve an undue consumption of time.
MR. BUGLIOSI: We have an extremely broad situation regarding these two nights of murder.
I think, unquestionably, your Honor, we have made substantial yardage. We are narrowing it down now to the point that there is hardly anything left.
If he brings up issues on cross and leaves them dangling in the air, I think we should clear it up.
There is no question in my mind that we are nearing the end of the road for Linda Kasabian. She is about to take off for New Hampshire. We are making great yardage and we are getting down to the point where there is nothing left. I don’t think that because I ask her one or two questions that all of a sudden—
THE COURT: Do you contend that her answer was audibly said to him?
MR. BUGLIOSI: Yes. She spoke to him.
THE COURT: I was sitting at the bench all the time that she was testifying and I heard nothing like that.
I didn’t hear his statement either.
MR. BUGLIOSI: It could have been at a time when the Court wasn’t on the bench, I don’t know; or it could have been at a time when the Court was—
THE COURT: Any time she was in the witness box, I was on the bench.
MR. BUGLIOSI: It has come into the record that he told her she is lying. That goes to the heart of our case. If she is lying, then Charles Manson is not guilty, if she is lying. It goes to the heart of the case.
Here he is sitting at the counsel table, without being under oath, making a statement, “You are lying.”
This has gotten into the record. The jury has taken notes that Charles Manson has told her that she is lying.
I submit that goes to the very heart of our case, your Honor, and that if there is a response, under Section 356, I think it should come in.
MR. FITZGERALD: If he asks that question, I can think of 15 legitimate relevant questions: What was the date? What was the time? What was the place? Who was present in the courtroom? What area of the testimony were we in at the time?
MR. BUGLIOSI: Mr. Kanarek raised this.
MR. KANAREK: No, I did not.
He opened the whole thing, your Honor, Mr. Bugliosi.
THE COURT: Whether Mrs. Kasabian is lying isn’t going to be determined by what Mr. Manson said from counsel table.
MR. BUGLIOSI: If he took the stand under oath, your Honor, he couldn’t testify that she is lying.
Here we have something in the record, something that he stated at counsel table, that Mr. Kanarek opened up.
MR. KANAREK: We didn’t open it up.
MR. BUGLIOSI: And you never asked her for her response.
MR. KANAREK: The fact of this matter is that this woman is programmed by the prosecution and it is absolutely unfair for Mr. Bugliosi, who initiated all of these extra proceedings, for him to be able to get before the jury this last utterance, this last gasp, by this person here.
It is absolutely a denial of a fair trial, and pinpoints the—
THE COURT: I don’t think it has any value.
MR. BUGLIOSI: All right.
I have one more thing, your Honor. I am crossing this out. One more thing.
I spoke to Juan Flynn last night, and when I get around to it, when I am not so very busy, and before I call him to the stand, I will type up a statement of what he told me and give it to the defense under discovery.
Mr. Flynn told me that there was one night, about a week or so before he was arrested, which was August 16th, when he was in the trailer and he looked out the window and he saw the seven people, who Linda said took off on the night of the LaBianca murders, get into a car and drive off.
He remembers that Sadie was dressed in black.
I just learned this last night.
I wanted to talk to Flynn for several months but he hasn’t been cooperative. Now he has agreed to talk.
I would like to ask Linda if there was any other night other than the two nights in question when she left Spahn Ranch with these other six people and Charles Manson.
It is reopening direct.
THE COURT: This is August 16th?
MR. BUGLIOSI: No. He was arrested on August 16th.
So, we are using August 16th as a base of reference. He says a week or so before August 16th. He remembers he was in a trailer and he looks out the window and he sees Linda, Charlie, Tex, the whole group, get into a car.
MR. FITZGERALD: What has that got to do with this witness?
MR. BUGLIOSI: To get her testimony into the record that there was no other night.
MR. KANAREK: Your Honor, we would object.
MR. SHINN: May I say something in that regard?
I talked to Mr. Flynn about a week ago and I asked him a lot of questions and he gave me a lot of answers, and he did not mention this incident, your Honor.
MR. BUGLIOSI: Did you ask him about this?
MR. SHINN: I went through it all.
THE COURT: He can testify to it.
MR. BUGLIOSI: Yes, your Honor, but if she testifies to it before he testifies to it then it is more valuable than if he takes the stand and testifies after she leaves and hasn’t testified to it.
It is not in the record that they left on any other occasion to go down to, say, the Dairy Queen. I am just speaking hypothetically. I don’t know.
MR. KANAREK: I would object.
THE COURT: I am not going to permit any further reopening.
All right. Now, are you going to be ready to proceed at 2:00 p.m.?
MR. BUGLIOSI: At 2:00 o’clock, yes, your Honor.
THE COURT: All right.
(Whereupon all counsel return to their respective places at counsel table and the following proceedings occurred in open court within the presence and hearing of the jury:)
THE COURT: Ladies and gentlemen, 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.
MR. STOVITZ: Your Honor, before we do that, may Mrs. Kasabian be excused? She is subject to the subpoena of the court.
THE COURT: Mrs. Kasabian is excused.
MR. STOVITZ: Thank you.
(Whereupon at 12:02 p.m. the court was in recess.)