Historic Trial Transcripts
Linda Kasabian: Day six Testimony, August 3, 1970
FURTHER CROSS EXAMINATION
BY MR. FITZGERALD:
Q. Mrs. Kasabian, how many times have you discussed with Mr. Bugliosi your testimony?
A. Oh, I never counted them—quite a number.
Q. Were there a great number of times?
A. Yeah, maybe five times, six times.
Q. When you discussed your testimony with Mr. Bugliosi, was that done in the Los Angeles County Jail?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you ever discuss your testimony here in court with Mr. Bugliosi during a court recess or after court adjourned?
A. Yes.
Q. And during those conversations with Mr. Bugliosi about your testimony did he suggest some possible questions that might be asked of you?
A. By him?
Q. Yes.
A. I don’t think so.
Q. What did those conversations consist of?
MR. STOVITZ: Objected to as ambiguous.
Does he refer to the ones here in the courtroom, the ones at Sybil Brand?
It is ambiguous, your Honor.
THE COURT: I think it should be narrowed down, Mr. Fitzgerald.
BY MR. FITZGERALD:
Q. What was the nature of the conversations you had with Mr. Bugliosi in court in connection with your testimony?
A. I don’t know, I cannot say.
Just usually told him everything I have always told him.
Q. Would he tell you questions he planned to ask you?
A. I don’t think so.
Q. You cannot remember what he discussed with you?
A. No, I cannot remember him, you know, saying that he was going to ask a certain question.
Q. Did he tell you general areas in which he was going to ask you questions?
A. Possibly, I don’t know.
Q. In the jail did he ask you questions?
A. Yes.
Q. Did he ask you questions similar to the questions you have been asked in court?
A. Yes.
Q. Has he ever asked you the same questions you have been asked in court?
A. Well, I really did not keep track of the questions.
Q. Did he ask you at any time the same questions he asked you in court?
Are you able to answer that question?
A. No, not really.
Q. Were you shown photographs by Mr. Bugliosi at any time in the jail?
A. Possibly. I cannot really think of any.
Q. Were you shown any items of physical evidence, any clothing, any guns?
A. Oh, yes.
Q. What were you shown?
A. The clothing.
Q. When was that?
A. I believe it was about the second meeting or third meeting.
Q. Were you shown any other items of physical evidence?
A. No, not that I can recall.
Q. Were you shown any diagrams?
A. Diagrams? Of what?
Q. Diagrams of anything.
A. No, not that I recall.
Q. Were you shown any other physical objects by Mr. Bugliosi?
A. Not that I can think of at the moment.
Q. Have you ever discussed your testimony with Mr. Stovitz?
A. Yeah, a little bit.
Q. Was that in the jail?
A. Yes.
Q. On how many occasions?
A. Twice.
Q. Have you ever had a conversation in this courtroom or in this building with Mr. Stovitz in regard to your testimony in court?
A. I don’t think so.
Q. I take it you have talked to your attorneys about your testimony, have you not?
MR. FLEISCHMAN: Your Honor, I think again that goes into the area of attorney-client privilege.
THE COURT: Overruled.
You may answer.
THE WITNESS: Yes, I have.
MR. FITZGERALD: Q. On a number of occasions?
A. Yes.
Q. Have they discussed with you—your attorneys—possible questions that might be asked of you on the witness stand?
MR. GOLDMAN: Objection to that question, your Honor.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. KANAREK: Your Honor, then I have a motion here, your Honor.
In view of—
THE COURT: Wait until after Mr. Fitzgerald is finished with his examination, Mr. Kanarek, and then you may take up the motion.
MR. KANAREK: Your Honor, it is timely now, if we may approach the bench.
THE COURT: I don’t see how it can be timely now. Wait until he finishes his examination.
MR. KANAREK: Yes, sir.
MR. FITZGERALD: Q. Have you discussed with your attorneys what would be necessary for you to say in order for you to obtain immunity?
MR. GOLDMAN: Objection, your Honor, on the grounds of attorney-client privilege.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. FITZGERALD: If I might, your Honor, I think this witness has indicated that one of her motivations for testifying was to obtain immunity, and I think it goes to her understanding of that immunity agreement.
MR. BUGLIOSI: Your Honor, she has never testified that that was one of her reasons.
THE COURT: The objection is sustained.
Q. BY MR. FITZGERALD: Have you discussed with your attorneys any item of physical evidence?
MR. GOLDMAN: Objection, your Honor. Again it is an invasion of the attorney-client privilege, anything said between attorney and client.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. KANAREK: Your Honor, may we approach the bench?
MR. FITZGERALD: May we, your Honor?
THE COURT: Very well.
(Whereupon, counsel approach the bench and the following proceedings occur at the bench outside of the hearing of the jury:)
MR. KANAREK: Your Honor, I have here a Notice of Motion for a mistrial.
THE COURT: Is this what you wanted to approach the bench for, Mr. Fitzgerald?
MR. FITZGERALD: Yes.
I also want to point out to the Court that if I am going to be precluded from going into this area, I think I will therefore be precluded from a substantial area of cross-examination.
It is obvious that this witness has discussed her testimony with her attorneys.
THE COURT: How can it be obvious? Obvious from what?
MR. FITZGERALD: Because she said she talked over her testimony with her attorneys on numerous occasions. So, I think it is obvious that she has talked it over with them.
If I am not allowed to go into the specific conversations, I think that it is possible that fraud can even be perpetrated on the court.
THE COURT: You are familiar with the attorney-client privilege, Mr. Fitzgerald.
MR. FITZGERALD: I am, and I would ask this—
THE COURT: It is simply one of those privileges that she is entitled to invoke, or her attorneys are entitled to invoke on her behalf. The Court has no choice. It is not a matter of discretion. It is an absolute privilege.
MR. FITZGERALD: I would suggest that if the People intend to give this witness immunity, that they give her immunity at this time, your Honor.
THE COURT: Immunity has nothing to do with that.
MR. FITZGERALD: Just so the record is clear.
THE COURT: Even if the immunity were effected at this moment, it wouldn’t have any effect on the attorney-client privilege.
MR. FITZGERALD: It is my understanding that it would.
MR. SHINN: May I be heard on that matter, your Honor?
THE COURT: Unless there was an express waiver.
MR. SHINN: May I he heard on that?
THE COURT: Or consent.
Yes, Mr. Shinn.
MR. SHINN: Your Honor, I believe under the New Evidence Code, where a witness testifies substantially the same as the statement that she made to her attorney, this is an implied waiver.
I believe if you read the new Evidence Code, Section 912, either A or B, carefully, there is an implied waiver, because all conversations with her attorney are not privileged, only those that are confidential.
Once she has testified under oath to statements substantially the same as those which are made to her attorney, your Honor, I feel there is an implied waiver. It is not confidential any longer, your Honor.
THE COURT: This isn’t signed, Mr. Kanarek, and there is no evidence that it has been served.
I am referring now to your Motion For Mistrial.
MR. KANAREK: Oh, yes. I see.
Your Honor, I would ask your Honor to consider, along with this Walter case, People vs. Spivak, 166 Cal. Ap. 2d 796.
Your Honor, it is clear that the People just can’t hold off the immunity because of the fact that the witness then knows that if she doesn’t testify the way the People want, then you have the Mary Brunner kind of situation, of which the Court can take judicial notice what happened in the case, the so-called Gary Hinman matter.
The law is clear that they must grant that immunity at the earliest possible moment. The cases say so.
THE COURT: This is a matter of cross-examination, of course, which Mr. Fitzgerald has gone into at some length.
What is the citation?
MR. KANAREK: People vs. Spivak, 166 Cal. Ap. 2d 796; and also this Walter case, 27 Cal. Ap. 2d 583, which I have cited.
THE COURT: I read the Walter case.
MR. KANAREK: Moreover, retaining a person as a party defendant throughout the trial who has been promised immunity from prosecution in reward for his evidence may become a mere subterfuge to award—
I have read that case. There is no point in reading the opinion into the record here.
I have read the case, Mr. Kanarek. I am familiar with it.
MR. KANAREK: Then Mr. Manson is being denied a fair trial.
The Spivak case makes it clear, your Honor.
THE COURT: Let’s proceed, gentlemen.
The motion for a mistrial is denied.
MR. SHINN: Join in the motion.
MR. KANAREK: May I refer also to the Penal code, Section 1099, and I would like the Court—
THE COURT: I am familiar with 1099.
MR. KANAREK: Very well.
Your Honor, it is our position that—
THE COURT: You have made your position clear, Mr. Kanarek. Let’s proceed.
The motion for a mistrial is denied.
MR. KANAREK: I have it set down for hearing at 2:00 p.m., your Honor.
THE COURT: I will read the Spivak case. I am not familiar with that by name.
I will read that case and if there is any change in my thinking on the subject, I will let you know.
MR. KANAREK: Very well, your Honor.
THE COURT: Let’s proceed.
(Whereupon, all counsel return to their respective places at counsel table and the following proceedings occur in open court within the presence and hearing of the jury:)
MR. FITZGERALD: How many times have you discussed your testimony with police officers?
A. Do you mean investigators? Is that a police officer?
Q. Yes.
A. I think they came to see me once or twice.
Q. Have you ever discussed your testimony with any police officer in this courtroom or any other building?
A. Yes. I think I have.
Q. You first testified here on July the 27th; isn’t that correct?
A. I guess.
Q. Did you discuss your testimony with anybody during the recesses on that day?
MR. BUGLIOSI: Your Honor, I am going to object to this line of questioning. It is too broad a question: Have you discussed your testimony?
I would ask that counsel be much more specific: Did anyone tell you what questions were going to be asked of you? Did you tell anyone what your answers would be? Things like that.
To ask a question: Did you discuss your testimony? is far too ambiguous, far too general, your Honor.
So I would request that counsel ask much more specific questions.
THE COURT: Overruled.
You may answer.
THE WITNESS: What was your question?
THE COURT: Read the last question.
(The question was read by the reporter.)
THE WITNESS: The first day?
MR. FITZGERALD: Yes.
THE WITNESS: Possibly. I can’t really remember.
MR. FITZGERALD: What about on the next day, the 28th?
A. I don’t know which day it was, but I remember there was one day during the lunch hour.
Q. Who did you discuss your testimony with one day during a lunch hour?
A. Mr. Bugliosi.
Q. Did he ask you questions?
A. No.
Q. What was the nature of the discussion?
A. I told him my answers, what I was going to say.
Q. Did you know what questions he was going to ask you?
A. No, I don’t think so.
Q. What prompted you to tell him what you were going to say?
A. Let me see. I think what he did was read my answers back and ask me if that was correct. And I said, “Yes.” Or if it wasn’t, I would tell him the answer.
Q. Do you remember in what particular area he read your testimony back? Do you remember what testimony it was?
MR. BUGLIOSI: She didn’t say “testimony,” your Honor. She didn’t say her testimony was read to her. She said her answers.
MR. KANAREK: I suggest that Mr. Bugliosi be sworn if he is going to make a statement like that.
THE COURT: Overruled.
You may answer.
THE WITNESS: No, I don’t remember the area.
BY MR. FITZGERALD:
Q. You don’t remember what testimony was read back to you?
A. No. Probably the whole thing.
I don’t know the specific, you know, area.
BY MR. FITZGERALD:
Q. Are the events of July, 1970, more clear in your mind than the events of July, 1969?
A. Certain parts.
Q. Would it be fair to say that you do not necessarily recall things that happened just a few days ago more vividly than you recall things that happened a year ago?
A. Sure.
Q. Did you discuss your testimony with anybody on the 30th?
A. I haven’t been keeping track of the days.
Q. Did you discuss your testimony with anybody last Friday, the 31st?
A. Yes, I think I did.
Q. Do you recall with whom you discussed your testimony?
A. I believe Mr. Bugliosi.
Q. Do you recall the nature of that conversation?
A. No.
Q. You have had conversations with people here in court, haven’t you?
A. In the courtroom itself?
Q. In the courtroom itself?
A. Yes.
Q. You have discussed things with your attorneys, have you not?
A. Yes.
Q. And you have discussed things with Mr. Bugliosi, haven’t you?
A. I think so.
Q. Mr. Stovitz has talked to you from time to time, hasn’t he?
MR. STOVITZ: In the courtroom, Counsel? The building?
BY MR. FITZGERALD:
Q. In the courtroom?
A. I think he just said, you know, that I was doing all right. I don’t think he ever said anything about the case.
Q. Did you discuss your testimony with him, talk to him, have a conversation with him?
A. In the courtroom?
Q. Yes.
A. No, not about the case. Not that I recall.
Q. Did you talk to investigator Gutierrez?
A. Yes.
Q. Have you talked to him on a number of times here in the court?
A. In the courtroom itself?
Q. In the courtroom itself?
A. Yes.
Q. Have you talked to investigator Pachet from the Los Angeles Police Department here in court?
A. Yes.
Q. Have you talked to any other police officer about your testimony here in court? Strike that.
Have you talked to anybody else in this courtroom?
A. You know, I have mouthed a few things to the defendants, you know, “Hi,” or whatever.
Q. I mean, to anybody connected with the prosecution in this case?
A. No, not that I recall.
Q. Is there some anteroom in the building where you are kept before and after you testify?
A. Yes.
Q. Where is that, do you know?
A. No. It is just a room. I believe it is a jury room.
Q. Have you been visited in that room by anybody connected with the prosecution since you have been testifying here beginning on July the 27th?
A. Yes.
Q. During the recesses?
A. No, not usually.
Q. During the noon hour?
A. Yes.
Q. Who have you talked to during the noon hour?
A. Mr. Bugliosi came up a few times.
Q. A few times?
A. Yes.
Q. Could we say four or five, one or two, or seven or eight?
A. More like one or two.
Q. Have you talked to anybody else during the noon hour?
A. Well, Mr. Pachet is with me and Mr. Gutierres.
Q. Mr. Pachet and Mr. Gutierres have discussed your testimony during the noon hour?
A. Not usually.
What they will tell me is that I am doing okay and not to be nervous.
Q. Did they, at any time, discuss with you the subject matter of your testimony?
A. No, I don’t think so.
Q. Did they ever attempt to refresh your memory as to details?
A. No.
Q. Were you ever shown any photographs or physical items of evidence during the recesses or during the noon hours?
A. Yes. I was once.
Q. What were you shown, if you recall?
A. A whole bunch of pictures of people, lots of people I didn’t know, and a car, and that is all I remember.
Q. Have you discussed this case with your husband in the jail?
A. In the jail? Yes.
Q. Have you discussed this case with Charles Melton?
A. By the case, do you mean what happened?
Q. The subject matter of your testimony.
A. No, not really.
Q. Have you ever discussed with Charles Melton the events that transpired on August 8 and 9th, 1969?
A. No, not really.
Q. Have you ever discussed the events that occurred on August 8th and 9th, 1969, with your husband, Robert Kasabian?
A. While I was in the jail or at any time?
Q. While you have been in jail.
A. I think I might have, yes.
Q. Have you discussed the events of August the 8th and 9th with anybody else since you have been in jail?
A. Excluding my attorneys and the people you have mentioned?
Q. Excluding your attorneys.
A. No, I don’t think so.
Q. Now, when you went to the Cielo Drive address, on August 8th, you were not driving the vehicle; is that correct?
A. Let me go back. No, I wasn’t.
Q. You were a passenger?
A. Right.
Q. And you crawled over an embankment in order to circumvent a gate at that location; isn’t that correct?
A. Right.
Q. And one of the first things that happened was that you saw Tex Watson shoot somebody in a car; isn’t that correct?
A. Yes, that’s right.
Q. What was your reaction to that?
A. I couldn’t believe it. I never expected anything like that.
I don’t know. I don’t have any words for it.
Q. Did you attempt to run?
A. No, I don’t think I attempted to do anything.
Q. Did you attempt to scream?
A. No.
Q. Did you scream?
A. Inside.
Q. Did you try to stop Tex?
A. No.
Q. Did you say anything at all to Tex?
A. No.
Q. You didn’t ask him why, I take it.
A. Right.
Q. Tex then directed you to go to the rear of the house; is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. And did you do so?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. When you got to the rear of the house, did you attempt to hide?
A. No.
Q. Did you attempt to run away?
A. No.
Q. There was foliage back there; is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you attempt to scream?
A. No.
Q. When you came back from the rear of the house, did you have a conversation with Tex?
A. Yes.
Q. And you were able to speak clearly, weren’t you?
A. I guess so.
Q. Did it appear that what you said was understood by Mr. Watson?
A. Yes.
Q. You then followed Mr. Watson’s orders; is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And you went to the vicinity of the Parent vehicle; isn’t that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you look in the car?
A. I think I glanced.
Q. Did you see the dead body of Mr. Parent?
A. Just saw his head. It was dark. I couldn’t—I just saw that he was slouched.
Q. It was dark there?
A. Yes.
Q. There wasn’t any lighting outside?
A. Not that I could see in the car, no.
Q. Was there any lighting outside there at all?
A. Yes.
Q. Where was it located?
A. There was a building with a great big light like a spotlight or something.
Q. Where was the building with the great big light?
A. At the end of the driveway.
Q. At the end of the driveway?
A. Yes. I guess. The beginning or the end, I don’t know. The end.
THE COURT: Keep your voice up, please.
THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.
BY MR. FITZGERALD:
Q. Is that where the gate was?
A. No.
Q. Near the embankment?
A. No. It was at the other end.
Q. There wasn’t any light where the Parent car was; is that right?
A. No, I don’t think so.
Q. When you looked in the car, did you scream at that time?
A. No.
Q. Did you attempt to run?
A. No.
Q. Did you attempt to hide?
A. No.
Q. Did you attempt to sound any alarm of any kind?
A. No.
Q. When you heard these people screaming from within the house, did you attempt to run?
A. Yes.
Q. Where did you run?
A. Towards the house.
Q. And that is when you had a conversation with—
A. Sadie.
Q. With Sadie?
A. Yes.
Q. After that conversation with Sadie, did you attempt to leave the premises in any way?
A. Yes.
Q. How did you do so?
A. I just ran.
Q. Did you run up the embankment?
A. Yes.
Q. And at that time you were in a total state of shock; isn’t that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. That has been your previous testimony, that you were in a total state of shock.
A. Yes.
Q. You were able to run though, were you not?
A. Yes.
Q. And when you ran over the embankment—did you run over the embankment?
A. I had to climb over the fence. I don’t know if I could run over the fence.
Q. Did you climb over the fence?
A. Yes.
Q. Were you able to climb over it all right?
A. Yes.
Q. When you got down to the street, did you go some place?
A. I laid down on the ground for a few minutes trying to get myself together.
Q. And then did you go some place?
A. Yes. I sat in the car.
Q. How did you get from where you were lying on the ground down to the car?
A. I walked.
Q. Did you walk by some houses?
A. I ran by some houses.
Q. When you were walking or when you were running?
A. What?
Q. Did you walk down to the car or did you run down to the car?
A. I ran down to the car.
Q. Did you run by some houses?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you attempt to stop at any one of those houses?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you attempt to sound an alarm in any way?
A. No.
Q. Did you attempt to find a telephone to report what you had seen?
A. No.
That is why I laid down and tried to get it together.
Q. When you got to the car, you started the car; isn’t that right?
A. Yes.
Q. Was that so you could assist in some sort of fast getaway?
A. I don’t know. I just started the car, and then they were right there.
Q. Was it so that you could leave?
A. I was thinking about it.
Q. Alone?
A. I guess.
Q. Did you do it?
A. No.
Q. Were you still in a state of shock when you assisted Tex in taking off his clothing?
A. Yes.
Q. Were you still in a state of shock when you wrapped up the clothing and tied it together?
A. I didn’t tie it together.
Q. Who tied it together?
A. I don’t believe it was tied together.
Q. Was it just wrapped in a ball?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you wrap it up?
A. I didn’t wrap it. It was just, you know, in a ball.
Q. When it was handed to you, were you still in a state of shock?
A. Yes.
Q. When you threw it out, were you in a state of shock?
A. Yes.
Q. When you threw out the weapons, were you in a state of shock?
A. Yes. The whole two nights, and thereafter.
Q. But you were able to function, were you not?
A. Yes.
Q. You could walk and talk and throw things?
A. Yes, uh-huh.
Q. The shock didn’t impair any motor ability you had, did it?
A. No.
Q. When you got to the gas station, at one point Tex left the vehicle, didn’t he?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you attempt to leave when he left?
A. No.
Q. Did you attempt to start the car and take off?
A. No. The girls were still in the car with me.
Q. Did you tell the gas station attendant what had happened?
A. No.
Q. Did you try to take anybody aside and talk to them?
A. No.
Q. And tell them what you had seen?
A. No.
Q. Did you attempt to get out of the car and run away?
A. No.
Q. When Tex and these girls came back to the car, did you ask them why these people were killed?
A. No, I don’t think so.
Q. Didn’t it occur to you to ask why?
A. Well, I remember there was some money involved. Tex said that he had some money.
I thought to myself, “Wow. You killed these people for money?” But I didn’t say it.
Q. You weren’t curious?
A. I just was afraid to say anything.
Q. Did somebody threaten to kill you?
A. No.
Q. That night you went to sleep when you got back to the ranch; is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. And you slept late the next morning; correct?
A. I guess so, yes.
Q. Did you have any difficulty sleeping that night, Mrs. Kasabian?
A. I don’t know. I don’t remember going to sleep.
Q. Didn’t you testify previously in this court that you slept late the next day?
A. I remember getting up and it was daytime, in the afternoon.
Q. Do you remember what time you went to bed?
A. No.
Q. Did you go to bed before daybreak?
A. No.
Q. After daybreak?
A. Oh, before daybreak? You mean nighttime?
Q. Yes.
A. Yes.
Q. So, you slept from sometime while it was dark until about noon; is that a fair statement?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you have any difficulty sleeping?
A. I guess not.
Q. When you got up, did you attempt to leave the ranch?
A. No.
Q. Did you attempt to run or flee in any respect?
A. No.
Q. Did you attempt to tell anybody what had occurred?
A. No.
Q. What did you do that day from noon until 6:00 p.m., if you remember?
A. I remember going into the trailer and watching television.
That is all I can remember during the day.
Q. And that night you were told approximately the same thing as you had been told the night before, isn’t that correct, to get a change of clothing, et cetera?
A. And my driver’s license.
Q. And your driver’s license?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you attempt in some way to beg off or ask not to go?
A. I did it with my eyes, but I didn’t voice it.
Q. Did you try to get sick or tell anybody you were sick?
A. No.
Q. Or did you attempt to faint or anything?
A. No.
Q. Did you attempt to cry?
A. No. You couldn’t cry at the ranch.
Q. You couldn’t cry at the ranch?
A. No.
Q. And when you were told to get a change of clothing and a driver’s license, you didn’t ask why this time either, did you?
A. No.
Q. Wasn’t it your state of mind that other people were going to be killed, additional people?
A. I didn’t know at the moment, no.
Q. You didn’t say no, did you?
A. I said it with my eyes and my heart, but not with my voice.
Q. You were able to speak that day, weren’t you?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you select the home of Leno and Rosemarie LaBianca, Mrs. Kasabian?
A. No, I did not.
Q. You knew where Harold True lived, didn’t you?
A. I could never find my way there. It was just a matter of circumstances that we parked there.
Q. Is it your testimony, Mrs. Kasabian, are you telling us that on the evening of August the 9th you didn’t go in the vicinity of Harold True’s home?
A. Is this the second night? I don’t know August the 9th. Is this the second night?
Q. I don’t know if it was the fourth night or what.
A. You will have to rephrase your question because I don’t understand.
Q. Do you remember some night you went to Pasadena?
A. Yes.
Q. And you went by a church?
A. Yes.
Q. Is that the night you went to the vicinity of Harold True’s residence?
A. Yes.
Q. On Waverly Drive?
A. Yes.
Q. You were driving the car at the time, were you not?
A. Yes, I was.
Q. And you knew Harold True; isn’t that correct?
A. Yes, I did. I had met him once.
Q. Did you suggest to some people that they go to the home of Harold True to kill some people?
A. I certainly did not.
Q. You suggested, though, didn’t you, that some people go to Venice in order to kill an actor?
A. I suggested it?
Q. Yes.
You suggested it?
A. I was asked, and at first I said no, and then I was questioned, and then I said yes.
Q. But the actor was an acquaintance of yours, was he not?
A. I had met him once, yes.
Q. To your knowledge, had Mr. Manson ever met him?
A. No, not that I knew of.
Q. Had Miss Krenwinkel ever met him?
A. No, not that I knew of.
Q. Had Miss Atkins ever met him?
A. No, not that I knew of.
Q. Had Leslie Van Houten ever met him?
A. No, not that I knew of.
Q. Had Clem ever met him?
A. Not that I knew of.
Q. But you had met him; isn’t that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And you had been to his house; isn’t that right?
A. Yes.
Q. And you drove the car there; isn’t that right?
A. Yes.
Wait. I think I did. Yes, I did.
Q. And you drove the car right to his house; isn’t that correct?
A. Yes, I think I did.
Q. What time did you get back to the Ranch the so-called second night?
A. It was early in the morning. Mid-morning.
Q. Did you go to sleep that night?
A. It was morning.
Q. That morning?
A. Yes. I attempted to go to sleep.
Q. Did you?
A. Not very well.
Q. Did you attempt to slip out that night, or that morning?
A. Yes. Well, I attempted to go that night.
Q. Did you call the police that night?
A. No.
Q. Are you presently taking any medication?
A. No, I haven’t been.
Q. You are not taking any tranquilizers of any kind?
A. No. I stopped taking them before I made my testimony.
Q. Have some tranquilizers been prescribed for you?
A. Yes. If I felt that I needed them.
Q. By whom?
A. A Doctor.
Q. A Doctor in the jail?
A. In the jail, yes.
Q. They were prescribed if you needed them for what?
A. If I couldn’t go to sleep.
Q. What did you do the next day when you woke up after you came back from Venice?
A. I put a sleeping bag together and I crawled down behind the ranch to the creek, and I crawled up a hill down by the corral and planted the sleeping bag in some bushes.
Q. 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 certain 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 those 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.
Q. And the reason you didn’t is because you were afraid for your child; correct?
MR. STOVITZ: Just a moment.
Your Honor, I would like to approach the bench with counsel on this matter. May I?
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. STOVITZ: Both Mr. Bugliosi and myself cautioned this witness, in answering questions about fear, not to bring out three items of fear that she knew about while she was at the ranch, and these three items, for counsel’s benefit, so that he might approach this question of fear very carefully, are as follows:
That when she first came to the ranch, she had heard that Charlie Manson had killed a black man. It turned out that the man is still alive, but the gossip among the girls was that this black man was killed by Charlie Manson.
After she was at the ranch for about three or four days, some plain clothes detectives, who she didn’t know were from the Sheriff’s Department, but who it turned out were from the Sheriff’s Department, questioned the girls at the ranch about a boy by the name of Walts.
The boy had been found in Topanga Canyon down at the bottom of a cliff. They thought that it was an automobile accident, but it turned out that the boy had been shot. The boy’s brother stated that the boy had been at the ranch, and so they checked the ranch out.
On August 1st, 1969, Bobbie Beausoleil came back from an episode at the Gary Hinman house, and at that time Mary Brunner told her, Linda Kasabian, about the killing of Gary Hinman, and stated that a bullet had been shot at Gary Hinman and that the bullet had almost hit Mary Brunner, going right by her face and landing in the house.
So, these three items also cause the fear in this witness.
Counsel should know about that.
If the witness is told to answer the question fully about her fear, I have told her not to answer those questions dealing with any other homicide or any other shootings that she might have heard of. But in order to give the witness an opportunity to fully answer these questions, I think that you should do it outside of the presence of the jury, so that the jury would not be influenced by this line of questioning.
THE COURT: Do it outside of the presence of the jury?
MR. STOVITZ: Yes. So far as this—
THE COURT: What is the purpose of that?
MR. STOVITZ: I do not, at this stage of the proceedings, want the witness—I think the name of the case is Butler, I am not sure—where a prosecution witness, I think it was a police officer, was asked: Were there any other reasons why you were watching this defendant? And he answered: Well, I knew he was a dope peddler, or something like that.
I don’t want the witness to come out with any statements like that.
THE COURT: I know why you are not doing this, but I don’t understand about talking about it out of the presence of the jury.
MR. STOVITZ: So the record will show that she is not trying to hide anything in her testimony but that I cautioned the witness, and Mr. Bugliosi has cautioned the witness, not to bring out any of these three prior incidents.
MR. KANAREK: Your Honor, there is also an aspect—
THE COURT: Let’s have the record perfectly clear. Did you hear everything that was said, Mr. Shinn?
MR. SHINN: Yes.
THE COURT: Mr. Hughes, did you hear what Mr. Stovitz just said?
MR. HUGHES: Yes.
THE COURT: And you heard it?
MR. FITZGERALD: Yes.
THE COURT: Mr. Kanarek?
MR. KANAREK: And I heard it.
And I ask for a mistrial. If the prosecution has put ideas into this woman’s mind, I do not accept Mr. Stovitz’s statement that this woman had these fears—
THE COURT: Are you making a motion or objection or something?
MR. KANAREK: Yes, your Honor.
THE COURT: What is it?
MR. KANAREK: The motion is, your Honor, that in view of the prosecution’s—
THE COURT: Never mind in view of anything, Mr. Kanarek. What is your motion?
MR. KANAREK: My motion is that this woman be put under sodium Pentothal, that there be administered to her truth serum.
THE COURT: The motion is denied. Let’s proceed.
MR. KANAREK: Very well, your Honor.
(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:)
MR. KANAREK: Your Honor, may we return to the bench for just a half a minute?
THE COURT: Let’s take it up at 12:00 o’clock, Mr. Kanarek.
MR. KANAREK: Very well.
BY MR. FITZGERALD:
Q. You weren’t afraid to call the police because you were worried about some harm that might come to your child, were you?
A. To both of us.
Q. Didn’t you previously testify in this case that “I knew I had to leave and something within myself told me that Tanya would be all right”?
A. Yes.
Q. “That nothing would happen to her, that now is the time to leave, and that I knew I would come back and get her. I was just confident she would be all right.” Did you make that statement?
A. Yes.
Q. In response to a question by Mr. Bugliosi?
A. Yes.
Q. And when you left, you left without your child; isn’t that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. What day was it that you finally left the Ranch, Mrs. Kasabian?
A. I don’t know the day. Two days.
Q. What did you do for that two-day period before you left?
A. Before I left?
Q. Yes.
A. Well, the next day I took care of Tanya and the elves, the children.
The next day Charlie asked me to go into town and see Mary and Bob and Sandy, which I did.
And that night I went to the Waterfall. Most of the people were out there. Tanya was out there and she was with Brenda.
And the next day I was supposed to go into town again, and instead I went to New Mexico.
MR. KANAREK: Your Honor, I ask that that portion be stricken where it alludes to supposedly Charlie asking me to go into town on the grounds that it is hearsay and it is irrelevant and immaterial and has nothing to do whatsoever with any—has no probative value, your Honor.
THE COURT: I didn’t hear it that way, Mr. Kanarek. Read the answer.
MR. STOVITZ: May we have the question and the answer?
THE COURT: Yes, the question and the answer.
(The record was read by the reporter.)
THE COURT: The motion is denied.
MR. FITZGERALD: Q. So, one day before you left you were with your child, Tanya?
A. Yes, that night, the next time.
Q. Did you make any attempt to slip out with her that night?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. And you were unsuccessful?
A. Yes.
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 8th and 9th?
A. No.
Q. When you decided to leave, was it your state of mind that you were going to leave your child with a band of murderers?
A. Well, I knew she was with—I knew Tanya was with Brenda, and I didn’t consider Brenda a murderer.
I don’t know, just something within myself told me it was okay, she would be all right.
Q. But you abandoned your child, did you not?
A. Yes.
Q. With the very people you professed to be afraid of; isn’t that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And how long was it before you contacted the ranch to determine the welfare of your child?
A. My sole purpose of going to New Mexico was to find Bob, and it took me a few days to find him.
Then when I found him I told him the story. He said, “Well, we have to go back and get her.”
And I said, “Yeah, I know, but we can’t just walk in there.”
Q. But Bob was uppermost in your mind as opposed to your daughter, Tanya, is that right?
MR. KANAREK: I ask that the last hearsay statement of this witness be stricken on the grounds of hearsay, conclusion, immaterial, irrelevant, and the conversation between her and Bob, allegedly between her and Bob Kasabian—
THE COURT: Read the question and answer, please.
(The question and answer read as follows:
“Q. And how long was it before you contacted the ranch to determine the welfare of your child?
“A. My sole purpose of going to New Mexico was to find Bob, and it took me a few days to find him.
“Then when I found him I told him the story.
“He said, ‘Well, we have to go back and get her.’
“And I said, ‘Yeah, I know, but we can’t just walk in there.’”)
MR. KANAREK: And also it is not responsive to the question.
THE COURT: Everything starting with “My sole purpose” will be stricken.
The jury is admonished to disregard that portion of the answer.
Q. BY MR. FITZGERALD: How long was it after you left the ranch that you contacted the ranch in order to determine the welfare of your child?
A. For about three days.
Q. And you saw Mr. Paul Rosenberg in Topanga Canyon, is that correct?
MR. STOVITZ: Objected to as immaterial, irrelevant, no foundation as to time.
THE COURT: Overruled, you may answer.
THE WITNESS: Yes, I did.
Q. BY MR. FITZGERALD: And that was before you went to New Mexico or after?
A. After.
Q. You don’t recall the date you left Los Angeles, is that right?
A. No.
Q. Do you recall the date you returned?
A. No.
Q. Do you recall the date you had Mr. Sage contact the ranch?
A. No.
Q. Did you tell Mr. Sage about the events that had occurred on August the 8th and 9th, 1969?
A. Just briefly.
Q. Did you stay with Mr. Sage for a period of approximately 10 days?
A. Yes.
Q. Was that at a Buddhist monastery retreat?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you discuss with him thoroughly and in detail what had occurred on August 8th and 9th?
A. No.
Q. Was there some reason for that?
A. That I did not discuss it thoroughly?
Q. Yes.
A. No, I just—
Q. Were you afraid to confide in Mr. Sage?
A. I don’t know, I just did not tell him thoroughly.
Q. Didn’t he ask you numerous questions about what you told him?
A. What?
Q. Didn’t he ask you questions when you told him what had occurred on August 8th and 9th?
A. Yes, he asked me a few questions.
Q. He asked you a lot of questions, didn’t he?
A. I don’t think so.
Q. And there was a man by the name of Jefferies present during the time you had conversation with Mr. Sage, isn’t that right?
A. Yes.
Q. Evidently you called the Malibu Sheriff’s Station, isn’t that right?
A. Yes.
Q. When was that?
A. I don’t know.
Q. How long after you left the ranch did you call the Malibu Sheriff’s Station?
A. I don’t know, I just remember the same day as I called the ranch.
Q. When you called the Malibu Sheriff’s Station and talked to the Sheriffs, did they tell you that your daughter was in custody?
A. Yes.
Q. So you knew then when you were talking to them on the telephone that your daughter was all right, she was in the custody of the authorities of the State of California, right?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you then tell the Sheriffs what had occurred on August the 8th and 9th?
A. No.
Q. What was the name of the social worker you contacted?
A. I don’t remember his name.
Q. Was it a he?
A. Yes.
Q. Where did you see the social worker physically?
A. In his office.
Q. Where was his office located?
A. I don’t remember the name of the section.
Q. When did you see the social worker, do you recall?
A. I don’t know the date.
Q. And you don’t recall his name?
A. Uh-uh.
Q. That took place in September, 1969?
A. Possibly.
Q. Could it have been October?
A. No, not that late.
Q. And you took a three-week delay in order to obtain an attorney, is that correct?
There was a three-week delay during which time you went back to Mexico.
A. Because I had to wait for the court appearance.
Q. Did you appear in the Los Angeles County Superior Court, Juvenile Division?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. Did you make a representation to a judge concerning your fitness as a mother?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you tell that judge or any of those court authorities about what you had seen or heard on August the 8th or 9th?
A. No.
Q. After you went up to Saugus and obtained your child from a foster home, did you then contact the police?
A. No.
Q. Did you contact any of the authorities in connection with this case?
A. No.
Q. Are you writing a book about your life?
A. Am I writing a book?
Q. Are you writing a book about your life?
A. No, I am not.
Q. Are you participating in someone else’s writing a book about your life?
A. Yes.
Q. Who is that?
A. Joan Didion.
Q. In connection with the preparation of that book have you talked with Joan Didion on numerous occasions?
A. Yeah, about three times.
Q. Just three times?
A. I don’t count the visits. I would say three times, maybe more, maybe less.
Q. And did she see you at the Los Angeles County Jail?
A. Yes.
Q. Did she see you in a particular area of the jail?
A. In the infirmary.
Q. The three times that she saw you did she see you in the infirmary each time?
A. Yes.
Q. And she has not seen you outside of the time times she saw you in the infirmary?
A. Yes, she has.
Q. Where did she see you?
A. She was here one day in court.
Q. In court?
A. Yes.
Q. Did she talk to you in court?
A. No, in one of the little rooms.
Q. Did the sheriffs bring her in to talk to you?
A. Yes.
Q. Is she a reporter also from Life magazine?
A. I don’t know about that.
Q. You don’t know her background or anything or by whom she is employed?
A. Yes, I think she does do something for Life.
Q. Are you to receive some money from the sale of this book, Mrs. Kasabian?
A. Yes.
Q. How much are you to receive?
A. I have no idea.
Q. Have you been promised a certain amount of money in connection with the sale of your book?
A. Yes.
Q. How much have you been promised?
A. 25 percent of whatever comes in.
Q. Is that influencing your testimony here today?
A. No.
Q. Or any day?
A. No.
Q. Have you made statements to—is it Miss Didion or Mrs. Didion?
A. Well, she is married, but I guess she goes under Miss Didion, I believe, I am not sure.
Q. Have you told Miss Didion about the facts and circumstances of this case?
A. No, we never even discussed the case.
Q. Is there some reason for that?
A. The book isn’t really about the case.
Q. What is the book about?
A. About me.
Q. Is it your background and history?
A. Yes, my travels.
Q. Is it about your life?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you have conversations with Mrs. Didion in respect to drugs you have used in the past?
A. Possibly.
Q. Did you talk to her about narcotics you had used in the past?
A. Possibly.
Q. You have no recollection of that, is that correct?
A. I do not remember specifically telling her I dropped acid on a certain day, not anything like that.
Q. Was Miss Didion interested in your whole background and history?
A. Yes.
Q. Did it appear that she was interested in your whole background and history?
A. Yes, she seemed to be.
Q. Did you tell her about your narcotic and drug involvement?
A. Possibly, yes.
Q. Do you recall making it a point to hide it from her?
A. No.
Q. Were these interviews that you had with Miss Didion tape recorded, to your knowledge?
A. No.
Q. Were they stenographically reported?
A. What is that?
Q. Did you have a stenographer like the gentleman seated before you?
A. No.
Q. Was there a stenographer present taking shorthand notes?
A. No.
Q. Is it your understanding that upon the publication of your book you will be quote famous unquote?
A. I don’t care.
I don’t care if I am famous or not. It doesn’t matter.
Q. The purpose of the book is to secure money, isn’t that right?
A. Actually my purpose for the book is so that maybe younger people can relate to me and see that this road I went down is not the way, and they will go another way.
That is my purpose.
Q. They will profit from the mistakes you have made in the past, is that right?
A. Yes.
MR. FITZGERALD: I have no further questions.
THE COURT: You may step down, Mrs. Kasabian.
Did you wish to approach the bench, Mr. Kanarek?
MR. KANAREK: Yes, your Honor.
(The following proceedings were had at the bench, out of the hearing of the jury:)
THE COURT: Before I hear Mr. Kanarek, I told him that we would take whatever his matter was up at noon.
It is now five-minutes to 12:00. Do we have any kind of an estimate on cross-examination?
MR. BUGLIOSI: I was interested in it myself so we can know whether to start calling in some of our witnesses.
THE COURT: I don’t intend to hold anybody to it, but if you can give us some kind of an estimate, perhaps it can expedite the matter.
MR. SHINN: A couple of hours, maybe an hour.
MR. BUGLIOSI: You will be an hour?
MR. SHINN: About an hour.
MR. BUGLIOSI: How about you, Mr. Kanarek?
MR. KANAREK: I can be several days, probably a weak, no question about it. I don’t know, it all depends, I’ve got plenty—I mean, I don’t want to—
MR. STOVITZ: No one is going to hold you to it. The only thing is we want to get other witnesses.
The only thing is when Tuesday morning rolls around and we don’t have witnesses the Court might get angry with us.
Of course, our redirect examination would only take a half hour to 45 minutes.
MR. KANAREK: Actually what I approached the bench for, your Honor, was in connection with requesting the Court to declare a mistrial, and asking, in connection with Mr. Stovitz’s representations as to something about killings and all of that, that this witness has been told by the prosecution—
I mean, I don’t accept—
THE COURT: I don’t know what you’re talking about.
MR. KANAREK: He is talking about a man being killed or shot.
THE COURT: Didn’t you understand what he said when he was up here before?
MR. KANAREK: I heard what he said.
THE COURT: What are you objecting to?
MR. KANAREK: What I am objecting to: This denies the defendants a fair trial.
It specifically denies Mr. Manson a fair trial in that the prosecution—
THE COURT: Because she knows something that has not been disclosed yet?
MR. KANAREK: No, because we were not allowed to interrogate her.
Life magazine gets into the jail, gets to talk to her in the infirmary—
THE COURT: Are you making a motion of some kind?
MR. KANAREK: Yes, your Honor.
THE COURT: What is it?
MR. KANAREK: The motion is that your Honor suppress all of the statements of Linda Kasabian on the basis that the People did not make rediscovery, and on the alternate basis that the People have, by their conduct, as a result of State action, it has not been possible to interview Mrs. Kasabian.
This constitutes a denial of due process.
THE COURT: You raised that motion several times.
MR. KANAREK: It is a suppression of evidence under—
THE COURT: I am talking about your claimed lack of access to Mrs. Kasabian.
Your motion to suppress will be denied.
MR. KANAREK: Then I asked for a mistrial, your Honor.
THE COURT: That motion is denied.
MR. KANAREK: Then I ask, your Honor, also I would like to have all of the make sheet of Linda Kasabian; that is, all the prosecution has in connection with her.
MR. STOVITZ: We furnished it to you, we will furnish it again.
MR. BUGLIOSI: She has no make sheet. She just has a traffic ticket.
MR. STOVITZ: One traffic ticket. We will furnish it to you again, Counsel.
THE COURT: We will adjourn at this time until this afternoon.
MR. KANAREK: Did I make a motion for mistrial, your Honor?
THE COURT: Yes, you did. It was denied.
(The following proceedings were had in open court in the presence and hearing of the jury:)
THE COURT: Ladies and gentlemen, do not converse with anyone, nor form or express an opinion regarding the case until it is finally submitted to you.
The Court will recess until 2:00 p.m.
(Whereupon, a recess was taken to reconvene at 2:00 p.m., same day.)
the witness on the stand at the time of the noon recess, resumed the stand and testified further as follows:
THE COURT: Do you wish to cross-examine, Mr. Shinn?
MR. SHINN: Yes, your Honor.
THE COURT: You may proceed.
MR. SHINN: Thank you, your Honor.
CROSS-EXAMINATION
BY MR. SHINN:
Q. Mrs. Kasabian, you stated just before the lunch break that you were writing a book, or someone is helping you write a book?
A. I am not helping anybody—
MR. BUGLIOSI: That is a misstatement, I object to it on that ground.
THE COURT: Sustained. You may put the question to her directly, Mr. Shinn.
BY MR. SHINN:
Q. Is someone writing a book on your behalf?
A. Yes.
Q. You stated her name was what?
A. Joan Didion.
Q. Didion?
A. Yes.
Q. And when was the first time you met Joan Didion?
A. I don’t recall the date.
Q. Did you meet her in the County Jail?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. Did someone bring her to you?
A. Yes.
Q. What is the name of that person?
A. My attorney Mr. Fleischman.
Q. Did Mr. Fleischman say anything to you about her before he brought her to you?
A. Possibly, I am not sure.
Q. Well, do you recall any conversation—don’t tell me the conversation—but do you recall any conversation with Mr. Fleischman regarding this person?
A. Yeah, I think so.
Q. And then did you at that time decide to go ahead and help this person write a book?
A. I wanted to meet her first.
Q. And I believe you stated the purpose of this book was to, what, show other young people the right road?
A. Well, just to show that the road I have been on is not the way.
Q. And you feel that the road you took, because of the drugs, and so forth, was not the way?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you feel that the drugs have affected you in any manner?
A. I am sure they have, yes.
Q. Well, did it affect you in a bad manner or in a good manner?
A. It depends on what you feel is good and bad.
Q. Do you feel in your mind that the drug did you some good?
A. Now I feel they did me some good, yes.
Q. In what way?
A. That you don’t need to take drugs, drugs are not the way.
Q. Is that the only thing?
A. Yeah, basically.
Q. Do you know what a “rat fink” is?
A. No, not really.
Q. Do you know the word “rat fink”?
A. Yes, but I don’t know what it means.
Q. Did you ever use that term before along with piggy, pig, establishment?
A. No.
Q. You were at the Spahn Ranch through the month of July of 1969?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you know a Bobby Beausoleil?
A. Do I know whom?
Q. Bobby Beausoleil? Do you know who Bobby Beausoleil is?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. Do you know a Squeaky, also known as Lynne Fromme?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. Do you know Sandy, also known as Sandy Goode [Good]?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you know Gypsy, known as Katherine [Catherine] Share?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you recall a conversation with them regarding a rat fink?
A. No. I don’t believe I ever heard that word.
Q. You never heard that word before?
A. I don’t recall it, no.
Q. Is the first time that you heard it today in court?
A. Not at the ranch, no.
Q. Did you not say at the ranch to these people I just mentioned—
A. No.
Q. —that in the event that you get in a position like Bobby Beausoleil that you would be a good rat fink?
A. Oh, wow, no.
Q. And you would do anything to get out of it?
A. No.
Q. You don’t recall that conversation?
A. No. I don’t believe it really happened.
Q. Maybe you forgot?
A. Possibly, but I don’t believe it happened.
Q. If I told you I could get three witnesses under oath to swear to that—
MR. STOVITZ: Objection.
MR. BUGLIOSI: This is argumentative, your Honor. Objected to.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. SHINN: Q. Mrs. Kasabian, you testified that, I believe, July the 4th, 1969, you were living in a truck?
A. Yes.
Q. With your husband?
A. Yes.
Q. Then you went to the Spahn Ranch to live?
A. Yes.
Q. What was it, the next day or the same day?
A. The same day.
Q. And I believe your testimony was that you went to the Spahn Ranch because you had a fight with your husband, or you couldn’t get along with your husband; is that correct?
A. Yes. We just weren’t together. I was offered another place to go and I took it.
Q. Is that what you said?
A. Yes, that is what I just said.
Q. Didn’t you make a statement to Gypsy, also known as Katherine [Catherine] Share, that the only reason you came to the ranch is because you wanted to hide from your husband and Charles Melton because you stole $5,000 from Charles Melton?
A. That is why I went to the ranch?
Q. Yes.
A. No.
MR. BUGLIOSI: I Object.
MR. SHINN: On what grounds?
MR. BUGLIOSI: Argumentative.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. SHINN: May I rephrase the question, your Honor?
THE COURT: I don’t know. You can try.
MR. SHINN: The purpose of my question, your Honor, is to assert a prior inconsistent statement for matters of impeachment, and I believe under the Evidence Code that I can do so.
THE COURT: On what subject?
MR. SHINN: I beg your pardon?
THE COURT: Do you wish to approach the bench?
MR. SHINN: Yes.
MR. BUGLIOSI: Yes, your Honor.
THE COURT: All right.
(Whereupon, all counsel approach the bench and the following proceedings occurred at the bench within the hearing of the jury:)
MR. BUGLIOSI: Do you want to speak first, or can I?
MR. SHINN: I will tell the Court why I am here.
MR. BUGLIOSI: All right.
MR. SHINN: Your Honor, this is for the purpose of impeachment with a prior inconsistent statement.
THE COURT: What is the prior inconsistent statement?
MR. SHINN: She stated on her direct testimony that the only reason she went to the ranch was because of a fight with her husband.
She then went to the ranch and made a subsequent statement to the girls why she went to the ranch.
THE COURT: What difference does it make why she went to the ranch?
MR. SHINN: This is for the purpose of impeachment, not for substantive evidence.
THE COURT: I don’t understand, but you don’t have the right to impeach on anything, any time, anywhere, it has got to have some relevancy.
MR. SHINN: It does have some relevancy. She lied about why she went to the ranch. I have a right to go into it.
MR. BUGLIOSI: It was a collateral matter, your Honor, and Mr. Shinn was here a couple of days ago when the Court told Mr. Fitzgerald that the theft of the $5,000 should not be gone into. After hearing the Court say that, he insists on going into this matter.
I find this shocking conduct. I really do.
MR. SHINN: Your Honor, at that time, I believe, an exception under the Evidence Code was discussed about that conduct.
Now, this is coming in under Evidence Code Section 780, (h), I believe, and it is permissible, but it is not for the purpose of substantive evidence or affirmative evidence. I have a right to impeach her on any statement she made on direct examination.
MR. BUGLIOSI: It is a collateral matter.
THE COURT: No, you don’t have that right. In the first place, your statement is incorrect. You do not automatically have the right to impeach her on any statement.
If the statement that you are referring to is something that should not have come in in the first place, or if it is a collateral matter which bears little on any issue in the case, or it is remote or it is time consuming, or more likely to confuse than enlighten the jury, all these reasons—
MR. SHINN: Your Honor, this is the reason that—
THE COURT: May I finish?
MR. SHINN: I am sorry.
THE COURT: —all of these are reasons for excluding the evidence.
So, it isn’t automatic.
MR. SHINN: Are you finished, your Honor?
THE COURT: Yes.
MR. SHINN: I think this is a crucial point where she states that—
THE COURT: What is the relevancy of why she went to the ranch?
MR. SHINN: This is attacking her credibility.
THE COURT: You keep saying that, but it doesn’t make it relevant.
MR. SHINN: I believe Mr. Kanarek objected to it, and I believe the record will show that you overruled him.
MR. BUGLIOSI: Instead of having her deposited at the ranch for the first time, it is just background to show why she went there.
It is a totally collateral matter. It has no relevance to the guilt or innocence of these defendants why she went to the ranch, and to impeach her by showing she had stolen $5,000 is a subterfuge.
THE COURT: I will sustain the objection.
MR. KANAREK: May I be heard briefly on this?
THE COURT: No. Mr. Shinn is capable of arguing his own position.
MR. BUGLIOSI: To save coming up to the bench another time, your Honor, I understand that Mr. Kanarek has been directed by Mr. Manson to go into this $5,000 theft.
THE COURT: I am not interested in what Mr. Manson has directed anybody to do.
MR. BUGLIOSI: I realize that; but I am just saying that Mr. Kanarek was present when the Court told Mr. Fitzgerald that this is an improper matter to go into, and I am assuming that Mr. Kanarek is going to go into it despite the Court’s ruling on the matter.
THE COURT: Let’s proceed, gentlemen.
MR. KANAREK: I would ask for an evidentiary hearing.
THE COURT: Oh, Mr. Kanarek.
MR. KANAREK: He makes statements that he understands what Mr. Manson told—
THE COURT: I don’t want to hear anything further. There is nothing before me at the moment.
Let’s proceed.
(Whereupon all counsel return to their respective places at counsel table and the following proceedings occur in open court within the hearing of the jury:)
THE COURT: You may proceed, Mr. Shinn.
MR. SHINN: Yes, your Honor.
BY MR. SHINN:
Q. Mrs. Kasabian, you left the Ranch, I believe, sometime in July, I think it was the 10th or the 11th, on your way to New Mexico; is that correct?
A. July?
Q. July, August? What date was it, do you recall?
A. It was in August. I don’t know the date.
Q. Was it after these two events?
A. Yes, it was.
Q. And I believe you testified the first time you left the ranch after these two events you went to the County Jail to visit somebody; is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And I believe you testified that you didn’t report these two incidents or two homicides to any police officers or peace officers; is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And I believe you went back to the ranch again; and the next day did you leave?
A. Yes.
Q. And how did you leave?
A. In a car, an automobile.
Q. Hitchhiked?
A. In a car, an automobile.
Q. Whose car was this?
A. I believe his name was Dave Hannon, a ranch hand.
Q. Did you tell Dave Hannon at the time that you took the car that you would bring it right back the same day?
A. No, I don’t think I told him that.
Q. Did you tell him that you were going to drive it to New Mexico?
A. No.
Q. Did you have any conversation regarding this automobile when you took it from him?
A. I think he just thought that I was going to do what I did the day before.
Q. In other words, he expected the car back the same day?
A. Yes.
Q. But instead, you took it for what? Three or four weeks?
A. Well, I don’t know when he picked it up. I had it two days, I guess.
Q. In other words, you left it on the road, it was broken down?
A. No, I didn’t leave it on the road. I left it in a garage.
Q. But it was not running any more at that time?
A. Yes.
Q. And you sent the key back to him?
A. Yes.
Q. And told him to come and pick up the car?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. Now, all during your travels—I mean, from Los Angeles where did you go?
A. After?
Q. Yes. You left Los Angeles?
A. Yes.
Q. With his car?
A. Yes.
Q. What was your first stop?
A. My first stop?
Q. Yes.
A. I believe I stayed overnight in Gallup.
Q. Did you say Gallow?
A. Gallup.
Q. Is that in California?
A. No. It is near the border of Arizona and New Mexico.
Q. Do you know whether or not they have a police station there?
A. I am sure it does.
Q. But you didn’t report these last two incidents to the police?
A. No, I did not.
Q. And from there where did you go?
A. Well, the car broke down about 20 or 30 miles outside of Albuquerque, and I hitchhiked in, and I got a tow truck, and I had the car towed into Albuquerque, and then I hitchhiked to Taos.
Q. In Taos did you go to the Police Department and report these two incidents?
A. No, I did not.
Q. And eventually you came back and talked to one of your attorneys, is that correct, in Los Angeles again?
A. Yes.
Q. And I believe you stated that you went to a court, a Superior Court, on an adoption hearing?
A. Yes.
Q. Not an adoption hearing, but—
MR. STOVITZ: Custody.
THE WITNESS: A custody hearing.
Q. BY MR. SHINN: And at that point, you didn’t tell the judge about these two incidents?
A. No.
Q. And eventually you went back East, and you were brought back some time in December; is that correct?
A. Excuse me?
Q. You went back East some place?
A. Yes.
Q. Boston or New Hampshire?
A. Yes.
Q. And you talked to your mother back there?
A. Concerning the case?
Q. Yes.
A. No, I did not.
Q. You made no attempts at that time to contact any police or peace officers?
A. No.
Q. And then you were arrested?
A. I gave myself up.
Q. You knew they were looking for you?
A. Yes. They were looking for me in New Mexico, so I let them know I am right here in New Hampshire.
Q. Why didn’t you let them know you were in New Mexico?
A. Well, because I didn’t want them to know where I was until after I had the baby.
Q. Until after you had the baby?
A. Until after I had the baby that I was carrying with me.
Q. Now, when you flew back to Los Angeles, did a couple of police officers from the Los Angeles Police Department or Sheriff’s Department come and pick you up?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you know their names?
A. No.
Q. Do you see them in court today?
A. No.
Q. Do you know Mr. Gutierres?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. It wasn’t him?
A. No.
Q. Did you discuss these two events with these officers?
A. No.
Q. Well, you were arrested at that time, were you not?
A. Yes.
Q. And you did not relate anything to them?
A. No, I did not.
I was told not to tell anybody, not to talk about it.
Q. Who told you that?
A. My attorney.
Q. Oh, you contacted which attorney, Mr. Fleischman or Mr. Goldman?
A. Mr. Fleischman contacted me.
Q. By phone?
A. Yes.
Q. And he advised you not to talk to anyone?
A. Yes.
Q. And is that the only reason for not being honest at that time?
MR. STOVITZ: That is objected to as argumentative, your Honor.
THE COURT: Sustained.
BY MR. SHINN:
Q. And then I believe you stated that when you arrived in Los Angeles, Mr. Stovitz met you; is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Where did he meet you? At the airport?
A. No.
Q. Were you taken to him?
A. Excuse me?
Q. Were you taken to Mr. Stovitz?
A. I guess so.
I was taken to a building and Mr. Stovitz was there.
Q. And who escorted you, the two police officers?
A. Yes.
Q. And your attorney, Mr. Goldman?
A. No. I met him—Mr. Fleischman.
Q. Mr. Fleischman, I am sorry.
A. Mr. Fleischman.
Q. You met him at Mr. Stovitz’s office?
A. I don’t know if it was his office. It was an office.
Q. And do you recall whether or not you had a long conversation or a short conversation with Mr. Stovitz at that time?
A. Fairly short.
Q. Do you recall the conversation?
A. No, not the actual words, just—
Q. Well, generally what was said?
A. In substance, what was said by Mr. Stovitz, he showed me pictures and asked me if I knew who they were, and I told him.
Q. Did he mention anything to you about the gas chamber?
A. The what?
Q. Did he mention anything about the gas chamber to you?
A. No, not that I recall.
Q. Did he tell you that you were charged with seven counts of murder and one count of conspiracy?
A. Possibly, I don’t recall him saying it.
Q. All of these events, are they kind of foggy in your mind?
A. I can’t remember the actual conversation with him, I’m sorry.
Q. Don’t you recall the substance of the conversation?
A. The substance of the conversation was about the pictures.
Q. Nothing was said about you being charged with seven counts of murder, one count of conspiracy, and if you are convicted you would go to the gas chamber?
A. He may have said it, but I don’t recall it.
Q. Were you going to say something?
A. No.
Q. Did he mention the fact also that if you would confess he would help you, and all that?
A. What?
Q. Did he say that if you cooperated with Mr. Stovitz and the police that he would see that you would be helped?
A. No, not at all.
Q. Nothing?
A. No. I was willing to cooperate at that time, but I had an attorney to go through.
MR. KANAREK: Your Honor, I ask that that be stricken, “I was willing to cooperate at that time,” I ask that be stricken on the grounds of hearsay, on the grounds that it’s a conclusionary statement and self-serving.
MR. SHINN: Self-serving, your Honor.
THE COURT: Denied.
Q. BY MR. SHINN: When was the next time you saw Mr. Stovitz?
A. I have seen him in court a few times.
Q. I mean after the first time in December.
A. Yes.
Q. Did you see Mr. Stovitz again?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. When was that?
A. Outside of court.
Q. Outside of court?
A. He came to the jail one afternoon.
Q. Now, was this closer to the first time he saw you?
A. Yes, I was still pregnant; this may have been around the 1st of February.
Q. Not the 1st of January?
A. I don’t think so.
Q. You don’t know, in other words?
A. No.
Q. You are just guessing.
A. I don’t keep track of the dates.
Q. Now, who was present at that time?
A. Mr. Bugliosi and my attorney, Mr. Fleischman.
Q. Do you recall what was said at that time by Mr. Stovitz?
A. By Mr. Stovitz? Yeah, be asked me a few questions.
Q. Do you recall the substance of the conversation?
A. No, not really I can’t.
Q. Was there anything he said about the gas chamber at that time?
A. No. He told me to tell the truth. They have all told me to tell the truth.
Q. You don’t recall the conversation you had with Mr. Stovitz the second time?
A. Well, he asked me a few questions about the case and I can’t remember the questions.
Q. When you say a few questions, did he stay two or three minutes?
A. He stayed about a half hour, I guess, not very long.
Q. And then you don’t recall even the substance of the conversation you had with Mr. Stovitz?
A. It was not particularly about the case.
I mean, there were, you know, he gave me a Rolling Stone magazine.
Q. That I know, he gave you a Rolling Stone magazine, but if he talked about the case do you know what he talked about?
A. He mentioned Mary Brunner.
He, I know, he asked me why I said yes to Charlie when Charlie asked, “What about that man”—
MR. KANAREK: Your Honor, may that be stricken? I ask that be stricken on the grounds of hearsay, immaterial, irrelevant and a conclusion, the reference to Charlie.
THE COURT: The motion is denied.
The jury is admonished the answer is received; that they should not consider the answer for any purpose as to Mr. Manson.
Q. BY MR. SHINN: Was your attorney present at that time?
A. Yes, he was.
Q. Before Mr. Stovitz arrived did he tell you that Mr. Stovitz was going to arrive?
MR. GOLDMAN: Objection, your Honor.
MR. SHINN: Your Honor, I’m not asking for conversation.
MR. GOLDMAN: He just asked for a conversation.
MR. SHINN: May I approach the bench? I don’t think this is a confidential conversation, your Honor.
I believe the privilege attaches only to a privileged conversation.
THE COURT: The objection is sustained.
MR. KANAREK: May I object to Mr. Goldman participating in this proceeding, in that sense may I approach the bench?
THE COURT: No, you may not, sir.
Let’s proceed.
Q. MR. SHINN: Now, during this conversation by Mr. Stovitz did you observe him take some notes?
A. No, I don’t think he did.
Q. You don’t think he did?
A. No, I don’t think he did.
Q. Did you see a pencil in his hand?
A. No.
Q. Did he have a tape recorder?
A. I did not see one.
Q. Was your attorney taking notes?
A. No.
Q. Was there a stenographer there?
A. No.
Q. Now, when was the next time you talked to Mr. Stovitz from the District Attorney’s Office?
A. He came by yesterday.
Q. I am talking about before yesterday, before yesterday now.
You said you saw him the first time about the early part of February.
A. Yes.
Q. You saw him again?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you see Mr. Stovitz again after that time?
A. In court, you know, court appearances.
Q. What court appearances, a 995 motion?
A. I don’t know, I don’t know any of those things.
Q. When you say “court appearances,” you don’t mean this court appearance session, do you?
A. No.
Q. Did he have a conversation with you at that court appearance?
A. No.
Q. Would it be fair to state that after that court appearance you had no other conversation with Mr. Stovitz until this court appearance?
A. Until this today?
Q. This trial.
A. Right, I have never spoken to him.
Q. When did you speak to him recently, then?
A. Yesterday.
Q. Before that time?
A. Before that time?
Q. Yes.
A. You mean today?
Q. Let me start back again.
You saw him twice in jail, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And after that you saw him in a court appearance, is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. When was that court appearance?
A. In here.
Q. This room?
A. Uh-huh.
Q. Do you know what a 995 motion is, a motion to dismiss?
A. No.
Q. Did you go to a 995 motion to dismiss?
A. Possibly, yes.
Q. With your attorney Mr. Fleischman or Mr. Goldman?
A. I made several court appearances, but I don’t know the legal names and why I was there.
Q. Your attorney never explained to you why you were in court?
MR. STOVITZ: Objected to as immaterial.
THE COURT: Sustained.
BY MR. SHINN:
Q. You talked to Mr. Bugliosi instead, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. The District Attorney’s Office?
A. Yes.
Q. He is not a police officer; he is a District Attorney?
A. Yes.
MR. BUGLIOSI: I am not even a District Attorney actually.
MR. SHINN: A Deputy, I am sorry.
BY MR. SHINN:
Q. When was the first time you talked to Mr. Bugliosi?
A. The first time?
Q. Yes.
A. I don’t know the date.
Q. Approximately the date is all right.
A. Probably around the first of the year.
Q. And was this at the Sybil Brand jail?
A. Yes.
Q. And was your attorney present at that time?
A. Yes.
Q. And how long did this last with Mr. Bugliosi?
A. Quite a few hours.
Q. And was he taking notes?
A. Yes, he seemed to be.
Q. And did you tell him substantially the same thing you told your attorney about this case?
MR. STOVITZ: Objected to. That calls for a conclusion and for a conversation she had with her attorney, thereby getting in that which they cannot get directly.
THE COURT: Sustained.
BY MR. SHINN:
Q. Do you recall what Mr. Bugliosi said to you the first meeting?
A. What he said to me?
Q. Yes.
A. Well, he has always stressed for me to tell the truth.
Q. Besides the truth I am talking about.
(Pause.)
MR. SHINN: Did she answer the question, your Honor?
THE WITNESS: I was waiting for you. I thought you were busy.
BY MR. SHINN:
Q. You can answer the question, I am sorry.
A. I have no question to ask.
MR. SHINN: I did not get the last answer, your Honor.
MR. STOVITZ: She was waiting for you, she did not want to be discourteous and answer your question when you had your back turned.
THE COURT: I would suggest you put the question to her again, Mr. Shinn.
MR. SHINN: I forgot the question.
May the reporter read the question back, your Honor?
THE COURT: Let’s go back and read the record.
(Whereupon the reporter reads the record as follows:
“Q. Do you recall what Mr. Bugliosi said to you the first meeting?
“A. What he said to me?
“Q. Yes.
“A. Well, he has always stressed for me to tell the truth.
“Q. Besides the truth I am talking about.”)
THE COURT: I think the question is ambiguous, Mr. Shinn.
BY MR. SHINN:
Q. [illegible] did you discuss with Mr. Bugliosi these two homicides?
A. Yes, I did, in great detail.
MR. BUGLIOSI: There were seven homicides.
MR. STOVITZ: You mean the two incidents?
MR. SHINN: The two incidents, the two events.
BY MR. SHINN:
Q. Now, before you talked to anyone about this, did you read about these two events in the newspaper?
A. No, I don’t think so.
Q. You did not read about it in the newspapers, in New Mexico or Miami or Boston?
A. Oh, yeah, when I was in Miami I saw something about Sharon Tate.
Q. Did you read it?
A. Yes, I think I did.
Q. Were there any pictures in the newspaper?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you look at the pictures very closely?
A. It was just a picture of Mrs. Tate when she was pregnant.
Q. Did it show any pictures of the house?
A. No, just Miss Tate.
Q. Did you see this on TV?
A. No.
Q. You did not see these events on television?
A. When I was at the ranch?
Q. At any time.
A. When I was at the ranch I did, yes.
Q. And what did you observe on TV as to the Tate incident?
A. Just their names and faces.
Q. Did it show the house?
A. It probably did, yes.
Q. Now, do you recall what part of the house they showed?
A. No.
Q. Is that the only time you saw it on television?
A. Yes.
Q. And you did not see it on television any other place?
A. No, no.
Q. How about the magazines, did you read about this in magazines?
A. Yes, just before I turned myself in.
Q. What magazine was that?
A. Life or Look.
Q. Is that the edition where it had Charlie’s picture on the front?
A. No, it was just a small article and it had a small picture of Miss Tate.
All I remember is that they thought it had something to do with homosexual killing, or something.
Q. And is it your testimony that is all the news that you read about?
A. Yes.
Q. About these two incidents?
A. Yes.
Q. Only three items?
A. Yeah.
Q. Are you sure or you don’t remember?
A. I think I am pretty sure, yes.
Q. And did you talk about this with anyone else before you talked to Mr. Bugliosi and Mr. Stovitz?
A. My attorney.
Q. Did your attorney show you any magazines, books, newspapers?
MR. FLEISCHMAN: Object to that as going into the attorney-client matters.
MR. KANAREK: I must object, your Honor—
THE COURT: The objection is sustained.
MR. KANAREK: Your Honor, may I approach the bench, then?
THE COURT: No.
Q. BY MR. SHINN: Now, when you were brought back to Los Angeles, were you put in a cell with about 40 or 50 people?
A. Yes, before they gave me jail clothes.
Q. For what?
A. Before they gave me jail clothes; before I was booked in I was put in a room with maybe 20 or 30 girls.
Q. The next day were you in the same cell block?
A. No, I’m saying before I was booked in I still had my regular clothes.
Q. But then the next day were you put in a cell?
A. Yes, I was.
Q. How many persons were in that cell?
A. I was in a cell by myself.
Q. And you have been in a cell all by yourself up to today?
A. No.
Q. At one time you were in a cell with other girls, other inmates?
A. Yes.
Q. When was that?
A. Well, they kept me downstairs in a lock-up or something like that for about nine days, a week, and then they took me upstairs and I had my own cell locked, but it was with other girls.
Then they unlocked my cell and I got to walk around.
Q. Now, let’s get back to your second meeting with Mr. Bugliosi, when was that?
A. By “second meeting”—
Q. Yes, you were at the first meeting already; now we go to the second meeting.
A. I don’t know when it was, but it was while I was still pregnant.
Q. Was it a short time after the first meeting?
A. Possibly, I can’t really remember it.
Q. Do you recall how long he stayed, at the second meeting?
A. How long he stayed?
Q. Yes.
A. It seems that each time he came he stayed quite a while.
Q. Was be taking notes again?
A. Yes.
Q. Who was present at that time, your attorney?
A. Yes.
Q. Did he—when I say he I mean Mr. Bugliosi—did he say something about the gas chamber?
A. No.
Q. And you cooperated with him at that time?
A. Yes.
Q. He was taking notes?
A. Yes.
Q. How about the third time now, when was the third meeting, shortly after?
A. Possibly.
Q. You don’t remember?
A. No.
Q. How long did he stay at that time?
A. Well, each visit he usually stayed for a few hours.
Q. Was this night or day?
A. He usually came up during the day.
Q. And what was said at the third meeting?
A. It seemed as though each time he came he wanted me to go over it again.
Q. In other words, did you tell him, say, all of the events the first day, most of the events the first day?
A. Yes.
Q. In other words, you came back the second, or he kept asking for you or did he tell you?
A. No, he mostly just asked me and I told him.
Q. In other words, it was substantially the same questions the first time, the second, the third time?
A. Well, if there was a certain area, you know, that he did not understand, he would question me about it and I would give him the answer.
Q. And in case you gave a wrong answer; did he correct you?
MR. BUGLIOSI: Your Honor, that calls for a conclusion.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q. BY MR. SHINN: Did Mr. Bugliosi ever at any time during these three meetings, tell you that some of your answers are wrong, or some of your answers are not logical, or did not make sense?
A. No, not that I recall.
I told him; he never told me.
Q. He asked you questions, did he not?
A. Yes.
Q. And these questions were all about the same, each of these three meetings, the same questions?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, the fourth meeting, what happened? Do you recall what happened at the fourth meeting?
A. Usually it is always the same thing.
Q. The same thing.
A. Um-hmm.
Q. In other words, he went over with you the questions and answers each meeting, the first, second, third, fourth—substantially the same questions and answers?
A. Yes.
Q. And he spent what, about two or three hours with you again?
A. Yes.
Q. When was the fourth meeting or the fifth meeting?
A. I don’t know if there was a fourth or fifth meeting. I never counted the meetings.
There were a few.
Q. You mean, four, five, six?
A. I don’t know, I just said I never counted them.
Q. There was a little more than three, was there not?
A. Yes, there probably was.
Q. There were more than four, were there not?
A. I don’t know.
Q. If I told you that Mr. Bugliosi had a statement of Mrs. Linda Kasabian and he states that—
MR. BUGLIOSI: Your Honor, I don’t know what he is going to go into now, but it appears to be an improper question.
He is telling her something rather than asking a question.
This is cross-examination as far as I know.
MR. SHINN: I am trying to refresh her memory as to how many meetings she had with Mr. Bugliosi, that is all.
THE COURT: Proceed with your question.
BY MR. SHINN:
Q. Does five sound pretty correct, five meetings?
A. Yeah.
Q. Approximately five meetings?
A. Yes.
Q. Did he tell you that he is going to put all of these notes into a statement form?
A. Into a statement form?
Q. Yes, into a statement form?
A. No.
Q. Did he ever show you a statement like this?
A. No, but he told me that—just recently he told me that it was in a statement form and he gave it to the defense.
Q. He told you that he put your conversation in a statement form and gave it to the defense counsel?
A. Yes.
Q. Did he ever show you the statement?
A. No, he did not.
Q. You never did read it?
A. No.
Q. You don’t know what is in it?
A. Right.
Q. You don’t know whether it is correct or incorrect?
A. Well, I am sure he took it from what I told him.
MR. KANAREK: Your Honor, I would strike that as a conclusion, your Honor.
THE COURT: The answer will be stricken. The jury is admonished to disregard it.
BY MR. SHINN:
Q. Now, was that five meetings with Mr. Bugliosi? Was there another meeting after that?
A. Possibly. Like I say, I never counted those meetings.
Q. When did you come to court first for this trial?
A. This trial?
Q. Yes, when did you come to court?
A. Last Monday.
Q. Monday.
Now, before Monday did Mr. Bugliosi come to see you?
A. I believe he did.
Q. Approximately how many days before you came to court, two days, one day, three days?
A. I am trying to remember. I believe he came on the weekend.
Q. When you say “weekend,” Saturday, Sunday?
A. Yes, I think he came Saturday.
Q. Was it in the afternoon?
A. I am not positive of the day.
Q. On either Saturday or Sundays, the weekend?
A. I think so, yes.
Q. Was there anybody else present besides Mr. Bugliosi?
A. My attorney was there.
Q. How long did this meeting last?
A. Oh, about a couple of hours.
Q. Did you go over the same questions and answers, the questions again, this time?
A. No, what he did this time, I believe, was he read my answers back and asked me if it was correct, and if it was—
MR. KANAREK: Your Honor, I object and ask all this be stricken on the grounds of hearsay, your Honor.
THE COURT: Overruled. The motion is denied.
BY MR. SHINN:
Q. At that time did he show you a statement?
A. This is the first time—this is when he told me about the statement. That is the first time I ever saw it.
Q. The next time you saw it, when was that?
A. Monday.
Q. That is when you came to testify?
A. Yes.
Q. Did he talk to you during the lunch hour that day?
A. Monday?
Possibly, I am not sure.
Q. You are not sure? That is last week.
A. Yes.
Q. You are not sure you talked to Mr. Bugliosi upstairs?
A. He had come to me a number—not a number—two or three times. I am not sure if he came Monday, Tuesday or Wednesday, but he came.
Q. But he came upstairs?
A. Yes.
Q. And did he say the questions he was going to ask you, did he tell you “These are the questions I am going to ask you”?
A. No, I think he just read back the answers again and asked me if that was correct.
Q. Just the answers without the questions?
A. Yes.
Q. How about Mr. Stovitz, did you see him during this trial?
A. Yes, I have seen him in the courtroom.
Q. Did he talk to you?
A. Briefly, yes.
Q. Did he come upstairs and see you at lunchtime?
A. No, he never did.
MR. SHINN: May I have a moment?
(Off the record discussion between Mr. Shinn and Defendant Van Houten.)
BY MR. SHINN:
Q. Do you spend the whole lunch period upstairs?
A. Excuse me?
Q. Do you spend the whole lunch period upstairs?
A. Do I spend the lunch—
Q. Yes.
A. Yes, I do.
Q. What did you have for lunch today?
A. I had a peach—
MR. BUGLIOSI: That is irrelevant.
THE COURT: Sustained.
BY MR. SHINN:
Q. Now, besides talking to Mr. Bugliosi did you talk with police officers, with detectives?
A. Yes.
Q. After you arrived in Los Angeles?
A. Can you put it more specifically?
Q. Okay, when you arrived in Los Angeles you were at Sybil Brand, right?
A. Right.
Q. Did detectives or the police come to talk to you?
A. Yes.
Q. Which one was that, Gutierrez?
A. Yes, he came.
Q. This gentleman here?
A. Yes.
Q. How many times did you talk to him?
A. I didn’t count the visits.
Q. Was it more than five times?
A. No, he never came all these times.
Q. Did his partner come?
A. He has come with his partner usually.
Q. Is that his partner right here, sitting at counsel table?
A. I believe I spoke to him once.
MR. STOVITZ: May the record indicate he is indicating Mr. Calkins.
BY MR. SHINN:
Q. When you talked to these police officers the first time, were they taking notes?
A. Possibly, I am not sure.
Q. Did you see a pencil in their hand?
A. I don’t remember, Mr. Shinn, if I did or not.
Q. How long was the first visit of Mr. Gutierrez, how long was the first meeting?
A. How long was the first meeting?
Q. Yes, how long did it last?
A. I believe the first meeting was with Mr. Bugliosi.
Q. I am talking about police officers now, not Deputy District Attorneys.
A. I know, a few hours.
Q. With this gentleman a few hours?
A. Yes, I think so, yes.
Q. Did you see him take any notes?
A. I don’t recall.
Q. Did he show you any pictures, photographs?
A. Yes, I know what pictures are, yes, he did.
Q. Now, do you recall approximately how many photographs he showed you? Were there lots?
A. No, I don’t know.
Q. So many you can’t remember?
A. No, I don’t think he showed me that many.
Q. Do you recall what photograph he showed you?
A. Yes.
Q. Was it a house or a person, or what?
A. I believe it was him that showed me photographs of the Israeli actor.
Q. Did he show you any pictures about the Tate residence, the Tate home site?
A. I don’t think so.
Q. You don’t think so? You don’t know? Maybe you have forgotten?
A. Are you speaking about before this court appearance?
Q. Yes.
A. No, I don’t think he ever did.
Q. When did he show you the pictures, the first time?
A. Some time last week.
Q. Is that when you were testifying?
A. Yes.
Q. He showed you pictures before you testified?
A. I had already testified. I was in the middle of testifying, and during a dinner break be showed me some pictures.
Q. And what did you and Mr. Gutierrez talk about the first time you met him?
A. I believe the first time I met him was when he came with Mr. Bugliosi.
There were so many faces, I am not quite sure.
Q. In other words, you talked to a lot of police officers then; is that right?
A. Yes. Quite a few.
Q. So many that you forgot their faces?
A. I remember the faces, but there is another one that looks like him, and I am not sure.
Q. And every time you saw these police officers, you would give them information when they would ask you questions?
A. Yes.
Q. And did, at any time, they take notes that you recall?
A. Yes, sometimes they did.
MR. SHINN: Can we take the afternoon break, your Honor?
THE COURT: Do not converse with anyone, ladies and gentlemen, nor form or express any opinion regarding the case until it is finally submitted to you.
The court will recess for 15 minutes.
(Recess.)
(The following proceedings were had in open court, defendants, counsel and jury present:)
THE COURT: All parties, counsel and jurors are present.
You may continue, Mr. Shinn.
MR. SHINN: Thank you, your Honor.
Q. Getting back to the book for one moment, the book we were talking about before recess.
A. Yes.
Q. Did you tell this lady that is helping you write the book?
MR. BUGLIOSI: Wait a while. This is a misstatement.
She never testified that anyone is helping her write the book, so I object on that ground.
MR. SHINN: Helping to write a book, your Honor.
MR. BUGLIOSI: That is simply not her statement.
THE COURT: Sustained. Reframe the question.
MR. SHINN: Q. Did you tell this lady that is writing the book in your behalf how many trips you took, acid trips?
A. No.
Q. You did not tell her that?
A. No.
Q. Now, I want to direct your attention back to August the 8th, the night of August the 8th.
A. Yes.
Q. Do you recall August the 8th?
A. I believe that is the first night; is that correct?
Q. And directing your attention back to the Tate residence.
A. Yes.
Q. I believe you testified that you stayed outside as a lookout?
A. Yes.
Q. Is that correct?
MR. STOVITZ: That is not her testimony; but that she stayed outside is her testimony. Whether it is as a lookout or not is for the jury to draw its conclusion.
I object to the question as argumentative.
MR. KANAREK: Your Honor, I would ask that Mr. Stovitz’s statement be stricken.
MR. SHINN: Is there an objection by Mr. Stovitz? I don’t know.
MR. STOVITZ: Yes. I object to the question, your Honor, as being ambiguous.
THE COURT: The objection is overruled.
Let’s proceed.
THE WITNESS: What was your question?
MR. SHINN: May I have the question read back?
THE COURT: Yes.
(The question was read by the reporter.)
MR. BUGLIOSI: I object.
THE COURT: That is a characterization, Mr. Shinn, of the testimony. I will sustain the objection to that question.
Put the question directly, if you care to. Don’t characterize the testimony.
MR. SHINN: All right.
Q. Did you stay outside to watch the people?
A. Yes, I did. I guess.
Q. And I believe at that time you were pregnant, were you not?
A. Yes. Not showing. I didn’t really know at that time for sure.
Q. How many months pregnant were you at that time?
A. Probably about a month.
Q. About a month?
A. Yes.
Q. And was that the only reason you didn’t go into the house, because you were pregnant? It was difficult for you to participate?
A. Would you say that again?
Q. What I am asking you is: The fact that you were pregnant, wasn’t that the reason that you stayed outside instead of going inside to participate?
A. Whether I was pregnant or not, I would never have killed anybody.
MR. KANAREK: Your Honor, may that answer be read back?
THE COURT: Read the answer.
(The answer was read by the reporter.)
MR. KANAREK: Your Honor, I ask that that self-serving statement be stricken.
MR. BUGLIOSI: The question prompted it, your Honor.
MR. SHINN: It did not, your Honor.
THE COURT: The question prompted it, but it is not responsive.
The answer will be stricken. The jury is admonished to disregard it.
Read the last question.
(The question was read by the reporter.)
THE WITNESS: No.
Q. BY MR. SHINN: You testified that you did take all types of drugs, is that correct?
A. Excuse me?
Q. You testified that you took all types of drugs.
A. Yes.
Q. LSD, speed, and some of the other ones that you mentioned which I don’t know the names of.
A. Yes.
Q. And I believe you testified that you took approximately 50 LSD trips?
A. Yes, about.
Q. That doesn’t include speed or marijuana and other drugs, does it?
A. No.
Q. What is your favorite drug?
A. I don’t have any favorite.
MR. BUGLIOSI: Immaterial, your Honor.
MR. STOVITZ: I objection.
THE COURT: I didn’t hear the question.
(Whereupon, the question was read by the reporter.)
MR. STOVITZ: The objection is that it is ambiguous as to time, your Honor.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. SHINN: Q. Do you have a particular drug that you like better than other drugs?
A. Then or now?
Q. Then and now.
A. And now?
Now I have no particular care for any kind of drugs.
Q. I know you don’t right now.
A. Well, you asked me then and now.
Then I think I liked peyote best of all.
Q. How many times did you take peyote?
A. Three times.
Q. Now, all during your testimony you stated that you had no conception of time, no conception of dates or place; is that correct?
A. Yes, usually.
Q. And you stated that time means nothing to you; is that correct? It is not important to you, I mean?
A. I never really paid that much attention to time, no.
Q. I believe you stated that you have been taking drugs for approximately four years?
A. Yes.
Q. Then, would it be fair to state that you started taking drugs when you were about 16 years old?
A. Yes.
Q. Is that when you left high school, or grammar school, or junior high?
A. High school, yes.
Q. Did you finish high school?
A. No. I quit.
Q. You did have to go to school on time when you went to high school?
A. I didn’t hear you.
Q. You had to go to school on time when you went to high school, didn’t you?
A. Yes.
Q. You went to school around 8:00 o’clock, and you knew you got off for lunch around 12:00?
A. Yes.
Q. And then you got off again around 3:00, 3:30?
A. Yes.
I never took drugs in high school.
Q. In those days, you didn’t take drugs, and you had a conception of time; is that correct? You had to get to school at a certain time?
A. Sure. I had an alarm clock.
Q. And you knew what time you would get off for lunch and all that?
A. Yes.
Q. And time did mean something to you at that time, did it not?
A. Yes. Sure.
Q. Now, you did have discussions with various people when you started to take LSD and those other drugs, did you not?
A. Say that again?
Q. Well, you had discussions with various people, did you not, regarding these drugs that you were taking?
A. Yes.
Q. And people who took drugs would relate to you that it may damage your brain, LSD?
A. Yes. I think somebody told me that once.
Q. And you must have read various articles on the effects of LSD on a person’s brain, thinking power?
MR. BUGLIOSI: I object to these questions.
MR. SHINN: I didn’t finish the question.
MR. BUGLIOSI: I am sorry.
THE WITNESS: I did very little reading.
MR. BUGLIOSI: Just a moment. There is an objection.
MR. STOVITZ: Did you finish your question?
MR. SHINN: Yes.
MR. BUGLIOSI: It is an improper question.
THE COURT: Read the question.
(The question was read by the reporter.)
MR. STOVITZ: The objection is that it calls for hearsay, your Honor, it is irrelevant and immaterial.
MR. SHINN: I asked her if she read it, your Honor.
THE COURT: She can answer the question yes or no. Overruled.
THE WITNESS: No.
MR. SHINN: Q. Do you know, then, whether or not various drugs like LSD does affect a person’s brain?
MR. BUGLIOSI: That calls for a conclusion, your Honor.
THE COURT: Are you talking about generally, or are you talking about her?
MR. SHINN: I am just asking her whether she knows. I haven’t narrowed it down yet, your Honor. I am just asking her whether she knows. She can answer yes or no.
THE COURT: The objection is sustained.
Q. BY MR. SHINN: Did you read somewhere in a magazine or newspaper or a pamphlet that LSD would sometimes damage the brain?
MR. BUGLIOSI: Objection as irrelevant.
MR. STOVITZ: Objected to. It calls for hearsay, and it is also irrelevant and immaterial.
THE COURT: Overruled. She can answer yes or no.
THE WITNESS: I don’t believe I ever read anything about it. Somebody told me.
MR. SHINN: Q. Do you think that the fact you have been taking LSD and various other drugs that it kind of affected your thinking power?
A. Say that again? I can’t understand your accent.
THE COURT: Read the question.
(The question was read by the reporter.)
THE WITNESS: I am sure it did, yes.
MR. SHINN: Q. It did?
A. Sure.
Q. Now, the other day I believe you stated that you thought Mr. Manson was a Messiah?
A. Yes, I thought he was.
Q. A God man?
A. A Godly man, yes.
Q. You came to that conclusion, I believe, on the basis of your conversations with him; is that correct?
A. Yes. And through other people and just from looking at him.
Q. Did you ever see Mr. Manson walk on water?
A. No.
Q. You did not?
A. No, I never did.
Q. Did you ever see him fly?
A. No.
Q. Did you see a halo over his head?
A. No.
Q. But yet you thought he was a God man; is that right?
A. A Godly man, yes.
Q. A Godly man or a Messiah come again, the way you stated it?
A. Yes.
Q. And it is difficult for you at times to tell the difference between fact and fancy; isn’t that true?
A. I don’t understand you.
Q. Well, sometimes it is difficult for you to determine whether it is fact or fancy? You thought Mr. Manson was a God man and in fact he was not a God man?
A. True.
Q. Is that true?
A. Yes, it is.
Q. And I believe you also stated that you have hallucinations sometimes?
A. Under the drug?
Q. Under the drug or not under the drug; hallucinations?
A. Well, sitting here right now, when I look at all those holes, they just sort of seem to all go together. I don’t know if that is hallucination.
Q. What holes?
A. Excuse me. The holes in the tiles on the walls.
Q. What else do you see?
A. I see a clock, and I see wood, and I see people.
Q. Do you believe in Santa Claus?
MR. STOVITZ: Then or now, Counsel?
I object to the question as ambiguous, your Honor.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. FITZGERALD: Join in the objection.
BY MR. SHINN:
Q. Did you, at any time, believe in Santa Claus?
A. Yes, when I was a little girl.
Q. Do you still believe in Santa Claus?
A. No.
Q. Do you sometimes see Santa Claus while you are under the influence of drugs?
A. No. I don’t think I have ever seen him.
Q. And I believe you stated that you saw God once under drugs at one time?
A. The drug told me that it was God, but now that I am not under the drug, I know it wasn’t.
Q. And I also believe you stated that you took drugs, you wanted to because you wanted to find God?
A. That is correct.
Q. Did you ever try going to church looking for God?
MR. STOVITZ: That is objected to as argumentative, your Honor.
THE COURT: Sustained.
BY MR. SHINN:
Q. What is your full legal name now?
A. My full legal name?
Q. Yes.
A. Linda Darlene Kasabian.
Q. Have you used any other name?
A. I have used my maiden name.
Q. What is that?
A. Drouin.
Q. How do you spell that?
A. D-r-o-u-i-n.
MR. SHINN: May I have a moment, your Honor?
THE COURT: Yes.
(Mr. Shinn and Mr. Kanarek confer.)
BY MR. SHINN:
Q. Now, I believe you stated that you went to a court hearing to get your child back; is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And did you go to a juvenile court? Was that a juvenile court?
A. I guess so. I don’t know.
Q. And do you recall under what name the file was made?
Was it under Linda Kasabian or Tanya Kasabian? The file I am referring to.
A. What file? I don’t understand.
Q. The file that I believe your attorneys filed to recover your child.
A. I guess my name, Linda Kasabian.
Q. You also stated that you were testifying in court because you want to tell it like it was; is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And you didn’t care nothing about immunity?
A. No, not really.
Q. And you still don’t care about the immunity?
A. I think it is a nice thing to have, but it doesn’t matter.
Q. But isn’t your, main purpose for testifying to get the immunity so you can walk out of the courtroom?
A. No, that is not my main purpose.
Q. Your main purpose is just to tell it like it was?
A. Yes.
Q. Would you now give up your immunity and sit down beside the defendants and defend yourself, then?
MR. STOVITZ: Objected to as argumentative, your Honor.
THE COURT: Sustained.
BY MR. SHINN:
Q. [illegible] isn’t it a fact, Mrs. Kasabian, that the only time you wanted to tell it like it was is when you were arrested, when you got arrested?
A. Would you repeat that? I didn’t quite get the first part.
Q. I said, the only reason that you wanted to tell it like it was was because of the fact that you were arrested and you were facing the death penalty; isn’t that correct?
A. No.
I wanted to tell it like it was, like it happened, that same moment that it happened, but I just wasn’t able to do it then.
Q. But you did tell it at a time when you felt you could save yourself?
A. No, because I didn’t know I could save myself.
Q. When you found out you could save yourself, then you decided to tell the truth, is that correct?
A. No, I decided to tell the truth right from the very beginning.
Q. From the beginning of what?
A. The moment it happened, the moment I got arrested right up until now.
Q. You had other opportunities, did you not, to tell the police?
A. Yes.
Q. Before you got arrested?
A. Yes.
Q. And you also went to a court proceeding called a 995 motion to dismiss your case, is that correct?
A. I guess so, yes.
Q. At that time you did not tell the Judge, “Your Honor, I want to tell the truth—”
MR. STOVITZ: I object to the question, argumentative.
Furthermore, it is very misleading to the jury to think she had an opportunity to testify at that time.
THE COURT: The objection is sustained.
MR. KANAREK: Your Honor, may the jury be instructed to not consider Mr. Stovitz’s comment for any purpose?
I mean, I don’t want to belabor it, but I cannot agree with Mr. Stovitz.
THE COURT: I am not sure I understand what you are saying, Mr. Kanarek.
MR. KANAREK: What I am saying, your Honor, is, when a person is before the Court and wishes to makes the statement, the District Attorney is there to take the statement, as you and I have both seen in court at various stages of criminal proceedings, and Mr. Stovitz’s statement is hardly factual.
MR. STOVITZ: Counsel is attempting to deliberately mislead the Court.
In all my years in court I never have taken a single statement from a defendant on a 995 motion, as counsel well knows.
MR. KANAREK: I do not very well know that.
THE COURT: The jury is instructed to disregard the comments of both counsel.
Let’s proceed.
Q. BY MR. SHINN: Mrs. Kasabian, did you know about a $25,000 reward?
A. No.
Q. Did someone ever tell you about a $25,000 reward?
A. No—about what?
Q. About this case.
A. No.
Q. You never heard of it?
A. No.
Q. You never read about it?
A. No.
MR. SHINN: I have nothing further.
THE COURT: Nothing further?
MR. SHINN: Nothing further.
THE COURT: Mr. Kanarek, do you have any cross-examination?
MR. KANAREK: Your Honor, I wonder if we might have the good services of the Court to find out the true name of the juvenile court file of Mr. Fleischman.
MR. STOVITZ: I believe I can relate to you it is “In re Tanya Kasabian.”
MR. KANAREK: The clerk informs me he cannot find the file under Tanya or Linda Kasabian.
It is a Superior Court file and I was hoping it would come in here to the Court merely by asking for it.
THE COURT: From where?
MR. KANAREK: To here.
THE COURT: It won’t come here unless someone sends for it.
MR. KANAREK: I am informed that there is no file under that name.
THE COURT: This is something you can investigate on your own, Mr. Kanarek.
Let’s proceed.
CROSS-EXAMINATION
BY MR. KANAREK:
Q. Linda, could you tell us, have you had any medication at all since you have been in custody in the Los Angeles County Jail?
A. Yes, I have.
Q. Would you tell us what medications have been given to you?
A. Well, while I was pregnant they gave me calcium and iron pills for about two weeks after I had the baby they gave me calcium pills, and I stopped taking them.
And just within the last month when I felt that I needed to go to sleep they gave me tranquilizers.
Q. What tranquilizers have they given you?
A. I don’t know what they were.
Q. And who was the doctor that has prescribed these medications for you?
A. I believe his name is Dr. Natale, I’m not sure.
Q. Did Dr. Natale make a special trip to Sybil Brand to see you?
MR. BUGLIOSI: Calls for a conclusion, your Honor.
THE COURT: Overruled.
THE WITNESS: I don’t know if he made a special trip. I have only seen him once, after the baby was born, that is all.
Q. BY MR. KANAREK: Have you seen any other doctors other than Dr. Natale?
A. When I was in the hospital, I did.
Q. Who prescribed the Librium for you?
A. Librium! Is that what I was taking?
Q. Is that what you are taking?
A. I don’t know what they are.
Q. You are taking some tranquilizers?
A. Yes.
Q. Who decides whether you get tranquilizers or not?
A. I guess the doctor, I don’t know.
Q. Did you tell someone that you wanted tranquilizers?
A. They told me. I never asked for them, and they all of a sudden came to me and asked me if I wanted them.
Q. How long ago was that?
A. A month or two months, I guess, I am not sure of the time.
Q. Someone suddenly came to you and asked you if you wanted tranquilizers?
A. Yes.
Q. Was that a Deputy Sheriff?
A. No, it was a nurse.
Q. A nurse?
A. Yes.
Q. And what did you tell the nurse concerning your desire for tranquilizers?
A. I first stated I did not want them, and then I find it difficult to go to sleep at night.
She told me that was the purpose of the tranquilizers, so I started taking them.
Q. This came up all of a sudden?
A. Yes.
Q. You did not ask for them originally?
A. No.
Q. And what is that nurse’s name?
A. Oh, there were a number of nurses. I didn’t, you know, remember her name.
Q. Would you give us the names of the nurses that you do remember?
A. There is Miss Campbell; there is Miss Saunders; the supervisor, I believe, is Miss See.
I cannot recall all their names.
Q. You cannot recall all their names?
A. Well, I will have to sit and think about it.
Do you want me to think about it, about the names and tell them to you?
Q. Take half a second to do that for us.
A. There is Miss Pertussi, Miss Gomez; there’s quite a number of them. I cannot recall all of their names.
They are not, you know, on the tip of my tongue.
Q. And these are all nurses?
A. Yes.
Q. And are these nurses at Sybil Brand Institute?
A. Yes.
Q. And would you tell us, directing your attention from the time that you first entered Sybil Brand Institute until today, tell us the people with whom you have shared quarters?
MR. STOVITZ: I object to that as immaterial, irrelevant, your Honor.
It has nothing to do with the issues in this case.
THE COURT: Overruled, you may answer.
THE WITNESS: There were so many girls, you know, coming in and out, in and out, I cannot really remember their names. I never really got to know them that well.
BY MR. KANAREK:
Q. You cannot remember any of the names of any of the people with whom you shared quarters?
A. I remember there was one girl, well, she was in the same cell block as I, not in the same room; Kelly. Her name was Kelly.
There was one girl I shared a room with named Cheryl.
Q. What was her last name?
A. I don’t know, I think she went under an alias or something, I don’t know.
I remember one girl named Cookie. I can’t remember—there were so many girls I did not know.
Q. Well, directing your attention to your quarters, do you have a cell, that is, to you all alone?
A. Yes.
Q. And immediately adjacent to you are there other girls?
A. Well, I am in a room in the infirmary and all there is is a steel door with a little glass window and then a window looking outside.
Q. You are in this room, this infirmary all alone?
A. Yes.
Q. Is there some reason you are in the infirmary?
MR. STOVITZ: Objected to as being immaterial and irrelevant.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. STOVITZ: Just a moment, I would like to approach the bench in this matter, your Honor, because it may be after I consult with counsel, maybe he will withdraw the question.
THE COURT: Very well.
(Off the record discussion between counsel.)
MR. STOVITZ: Withdraw the request to approach the bench.
Do you want to put the same question to her?
BY MR. KANAREK:
Q. Miss Kasabian, did you ask to be put in a room by yourself?
A. No.
Q. Pardon?
A. No, I did not.
Q. You did not?
A. No.
Q. In other words, law enforcement officials decided to put you in a room by yourself, right?
A. I guess so.
Q. They decided to put you in a room by yourself how long ago?
A. Well, they decided to put me in there when they thought I was going to have the baby, but I did not have it and I was there for about a week or nine days, and then they decided I was going to have the baby and they took me to the hospital, which I was not about to have the baby but I had the baby three or four days later.
Q. Mrs. Kasabian, would you listen to the question, please.
A. Sorry.
Q. The question was, how long ago?
MR. STOVITZ: She told you right after she had the baby, Counsel, why don’t you listen to the answer.
MR. KANAREK: May we have an answer, your Honor?
THE COURT: Did you understand the question?
THE WITNESS: No.
BY MR. KANAREK:
Q. How long has it been, Mrs. Kasabian, since you have had quarters all alone where you had nothing but a little hole in the wall to look out?
A. Around the end of February.
Q. From then until the present time?
A. Yes.
Q. Is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, you got sort of a taste as to what it would be like to live in prison, is that correct?
A. Yes, uh-huh.
Q. As you testified on the witness stand, you told us you don’t believe in the death penalty?
A. No, I don’t think it’s right.
Q. All right, now, so, living in that cell, day in and day out, you have an idea as to what it would be like to be in prison.
MR. STOVITZ: That is objected to as being immaterial and irrelevant.
MR. KANAREK: It goes to her state of mind, your Honor, in connection with her testimony and the immunity she is getting.
MR. STOVITZ: I will withdraw the objection if that is the purpose of it, your Honor.
THE COURT: Do you understand the question?
THE WITNESS: No, you will have to repeat it.
MR. KANAREK: May it be read, your Honor?
THE COURT: Read the questions please.
(Whereupon, the reporter reads the pending question as follows:
“Q. All right, now, so, living in that call, day in and day out, you have an idea as to what it would be like to be in prison.”)
THE WITNESS: Yes, I do.
Q. BY MR. KANAREK: And you have seen people from Sybil Brand Institute leave Sybil Brand and go over to the women’s prison in Corona, is that correct?
A. I have seen them go? No, I never have.
Q. You have not seen them physically leave the prison?
A. No.
Q. You know of your own knowledge that people who have been in Sybil Brand, leave Sybil Brand to go to the women’s prison, in Pomona, near Corona?
A. Would that be CRC?
Q. Well, I am asking you.
A. Well, one woman told me about a prison situation which is CRC, I don’t know.
Q. And your state of mind is such that you know if you do a prison term you don’t do your time in Sybil Brand Institute.
A. Oh, yes, yes.
Q. You understand that.
A. Yes.
Q. You are well aware of that, as you talk from the witness stand?
A. Yes.
Q. That is in your mind constantly as you talk from the witness stand, right?
A. I don’t understand you.
Q. You don’t understand that question.
A. No, not really.
Q. Or are you looking for time to answer it?
A. No, I just don’t understand your question.
Q. Oh, I see. Well, Mrs. Kasabian, is your state of mind such that you recognize that the prosecution is going to ask this Court, supposedly, to grant you immunity if you testify the way the prosecution wants you to?
MR. BUGLIOSI: Your Honor, this is argumentative.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q. MR. KANAREK: May I ask you, Mrs. Kasabian, what is your state of mind in connection with the immunity agreement that supposedly [illegible] your phalanx of attorneys here have with Mr. Bugliosi?
A. Just when I am through testifying they will petition the Judge about the immunity program and if he agrees to give me immunity I am immune.
Q. I see, and has the prosecution told you if you testify from their viewpoint properly they will petition the Court for that immunity?
A. Not their viewpoint, just my viewpoint as to the truth.
Q. I see. It is strictly up to you as to whether or not what you say from the witness stand is true, it is your decision as to what is true.
A. From what I saw and heard, yes, and what I did.
Q. So you are the one who is going to decide what truth is here, right?
A. No—
MR. STOVITZ: Objected to as argumentative.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q. BY MR. KANAREK: If you don’t tell the truth, Mrs. Kasabian, what, in your mind, will happen to you?
A. I guess I will be impeached, is that the word?
Q. What is going to happen to you if you are impeached?
A. I guess I will be charged with the seven counts of murder and one of conspiracy.
Q. Who is going to decide whether you are impeached?
A. I believe the Judge and jury.
Q. They will decide whether you are impeached?
A. I think so.
Q. Who is going to decide whether you are charged with seven counts of murder?
A. I don’t understand you again.
Q. Well, as you sit there on the witness stand now, you know that you are actually a defendant in this case, is that correct?
A. I guess so, yes.
Q. Well, do you guess so or do you know so?
A. Yes, I am.
Q. You are a defendant?
A. Yes.
Q. You have seven counts of murder and a conspiracy to commit murder count?
A. Yes.
Q. And you stated that you would do anything if you could do something about these people who passed away, is that correct?
A. Yes, I think I said something to that effect.
Q. What do you mean, “to that effect”?
A. I believe I said I would give my life if none of this had to happen.
Q. You would give your life?
A. Yes.
Q. Well, then, would you go one step away from giving your life and agree to become a defendant in this case and let these people decide whether you are guilty of murder or not?
MR. BUGLIOSI: This is ridiculous, your Honor, it’s argument.
MR. KANAREK: This is not ridiculous.
THE COURT: The objection is sustained, let’s proceed, gentlemen.
BY MR. KANAREK:
Q. When you make that statement, Mrs. Kasabian, that you would give your life, you know that that statement is poppycock, isn’t it?
MR. STOVITZ: That is objected to as argumentative, your Honor.
THE COURT: Sustained.
BY MR. KANAREK:
Q. That statement, Mrs. Kasabian, concerning that you would give your life—
A. Uh-huh.
Q. —when you make that statement you know that there is no way whatsoever, no way—
A. I am well aware of that.
Q. So that statement is just idle chatter?
A. It is what I feel in my heart.
Q. You feel it in your heart?
A. Yes.
Q. What did you feel in your heart, Mrs. Kasabian, when you were driving, you say, from the Spahn Ranch with three other people in the summer of 1969, what did you feel in your heart then?
A. About what?
Q. About anything, Mrs. Kasabian.
MR. BUGLIOSI: That is too general, too broad.
THE COURT: Sustained.
BY MR. KANAREK:
Q. What was in your mind, Mrs. Kasabian, when you were driving from the Spahn Ranch in the summer of 1969?
MR. BUGLIOSI: On the first night, your Honor? He is not specific.
MR. KANAREK: I don’t believe, your Honor, whether this witness knows there was a first night or a second night or a twentieth night.
MR. BUGLIOSI: Why don’t you ask her, Counsel.
THE COURT: The objection is sustained.
BY MR. KANAREK:
Q. Mrs. Kasabian, how many times did you drive away from the Spahn Ranch in the year or 1969?
MR. STOVITZ: Is the three people as you first questioned or at any time?
MR. KANAREK: May I have an answer to the question?
MR. STOVITZ: I object to the question as ambiguous your Honor.
THE COURT: Do you understand the question, Mrs. Kasabian?
THE WITNESS: How many times did I drive away from the ranch in ’69?
BY MR. KANAREK:
Q. Yes.
A. A number of times. I used to go on garbage runs and things like that.
Q. And directing your attention, Mrs. Kasabian, to your state of mind—let me withdraw that.
During the summer of 1969 were you taking LSD?
A. During the summer of ’69—yes, I took it once, in May, and I took—I’m not sure if it was LSD or what it was, that Sadie gave me, it was some sort of a psychedelic.
And I took some Psilocybin when I was in New Mexico.
Q. During the period of July and August, 1969, did you take any LSD in that month, in those two months?
A. I don’t know if it was LSD.
Q. Well, directing your attention to what happens when you take LSD and comparing what happened to you in July and August of 1969 did you take any LSD?
A. Yeah, I guess it was LSD, I mean, I am not sure, I am not a chemist or whatever.
Q. You are not a chemist—
A. Or whatever it is that makes you know what it is.
Q. Have you ever known what LSD was because you analyzed it chemically?
A. No.
Q. So right now you are jockeying with me, as I speak to you?
MR. BUGLIOSI: This is argumentative, your Honor.
THE COURT: Sustained.
BY MR. KANAREK:
Q. Mrs. Kasabian, directing your attention to the effect of the material that you were speaking of when you spoke with—do you know June Emmer, Mrs. June Emmer?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. And you discussed with her the taking of LSD, is that correct?
A. Possibly, yes.
Q. Possibly for sure?
A. Yes, I think for sure.
Q. Now, you have taken LSD continuously since 1965, is that correct?
MR. BUGLIOSI: I object to the word “continuously,” ambiguous, compound and argumentative.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q. BY MR. KANAREK: Since 1965 you have taken LSD, is that right, Mrs. Kasabian?
A. Yes.
Q. And since 1965 you have had the effects of LSD—
MR. BUGLIOSI: That calls for a medical conclusion.
THE COURT: Overruled.
THE WITNESS: I guess the effects, I don’t know.
Q. BY MR. KANAREK: You guess?
A. What do you mean by effects, I don’t understand your question.
Q. You have experienced what happens to you by way of taking LSD?
A. Yes.
Q. And then my question is, during the months of July and August, 1969 did you feel the same effects that you had felt on other times when you had taken LSD?
A. This time I took it at the ranch, is that what you’re asking?
Q. My question is, during July and August of 1969 did you feel the effects from taking LSD?
A. No.
THE COURT: The question is ambiguous. Are you talking about whether or not she took it in July and August?
MR. KANAREK: Pardon, your Honor?
THE COURT: I don’t understand your question.
Are you referring to effect, whether or not she took it in July and August?
MR. KANAREK: I will rephrase the question, your Honor.
THE COURT: All right.
Q. BY MR. KANAREK: Mrs. Kasabian, during July and August of 1969 did you take LSD?
A. What I believed was LSD once, yes.
Q. Once only?
A. Yes.
Q. Mrs. Kasabian, directing your attention to that pouch, do you remember that pouch of LSD?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. You brought that pouch of LSD to the Spahn Ranch?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. In that pouch of LSD there were many, many portions of LSD.
A. There were, I believe, 30 tablets.
Q. 30 tablets?
A. Yes.
Q. You took that pouch—did you count the tablets?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. And you counted the tablets and there were 30 of them?
A. Yes.
Q. You took them to the Spahn Ranch?
A. Yes.
Q. And while you were at the Spahn Ranch you took some LSD—you swallowed it, is that right?
A. Not from this pouch, I didn’t, no.
Q. But you swallowed LSD. I’m not asking you where it came from.
MR. STOVITZ: Your Honor, this is ambiguous because he talks about a pouch and about taking LSD.
I think the witness should be allowed to explain her answer before he gets to the next question on this.
THE WITNESS: It is too confusing.
THE COURT: Overruled.
THE WITNESS: What was your question?
MR. KANAREK: May it be read, your Honor?
THE COURT: Read the last question.
(Whereupon, the reporter reads the pending question as follows:
“Q. But you swallowed LSD. I’m not asking you where it came from.”)
THE WITNESS: Yes, once.
Q. BY MR. KANAREK: Only once?
A. Yes.
Q. I see. What was the date you swallowed the LSD that you took only once?
A. The date?
Q. Yes.
A. I don’t know.
Q. You don’t know what date it was?
A. No.
Q. Well, now, directing your attention, then, Mrs. Kasabian, to your state of mind on the day that you say that you went to the Tate residence, what was in your mind as you drove along the streets of the County and City of Los Angeles on that day?
A. To the Tate residence?
Q. Yes.
A. I thought it we going to be a creepy, crawly mission.
Q. Your intent was to go out and steal, right?
A. Yes.
Q. And your intent was to steal and you did not care where, or what you were stealing came from, did you?
A. I was told it was mine to begin with.
Q. But Mrs. Kasabian, I am not asking you what you say someone told you.
My question is as to your state of mind.
A. Okay.
Q. Your state of mind was that you were going out to steal and you did not care who or what it was, as far as getting something was concerned that night?
A. Yes, that’s right.
Q. Is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. And you had been on creepy, crawly missions before, is that correct?
A. Yeah, I guess it was creepy, crawl. It wasn’t roaming into a house, that is what I consider creepy, crawl.
Q. But you had stolen from people before this night, isn’t that correct?
A. This night?
Q. Before the night we are speaking about.
A. I thought you meant I stole something that night.
Q. Might the question be read, your Honor? Perhaps it hasn’t been finished.
I will rephrase the question.
THE COURT: All right.
Q. BY MR. KANAREK: Mrs. Kasabian, before that night had you done any stealing? Have you taken anything that did not belong to you?
MR. STOVITZ: That is objected to, your Honor, as being immaterial, irrelevant and incompetent, your Honor.
THE COURT: It is too broad, Mr. Kanarek. The objection is sustained.
BY MR. KANAREK:
Q. On that night, your intent—directing your attention to your state of mind, Mrs. Kasabian—your intent was to go out and get something that didn’t belong to you; is that right?
A. But I thought it belonged to me.
Q. Well, do you know an hallucination is?
A. Sure.
Q. Then you were hallucinating on that night; is that correct?
A. Well, is an illusion and an hallucination the same thing?
Q. Well, if an illusion and an hallucination are the same things, on that night you were hallucinating, were you not?
MR. STOVITZ: Objection, your Honor. Compound and ambiguous.
THE COURT: Sustained.
BY MR. KANAREK:
Q. Mrs. Kasabian, on that night, did you have strange sights in your mind?
A. No.
Q. Pardon?
A. No, not really.
Q. Not really?
A. No. I just—
Q. Pardon?
A. No, I didn’t.
Q. You were going there and your mind was completely clear, you were going there with the idea that you were going to steal; right?
A. Yes.
Q. Correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And you knew that when you go to steal somebody’s property that possibly the people who are being stolen from might not like it?
A. Sure.
Q. And so it was within your thinking and within your contemplation that maybe there might be a fight or something at the place you were going to do this stealing?
A. I didn’t even look that far ahead.
Q. You didn’t look that far ahead?
A. No.
Q. You were just going out to steal indiscriminately; right?
A. Yes.
Q. And you and the people in the automobile with you spoke of stealing; is that correct?
A. No. I don’t think they spoke at all about it.
Q. They didn’t say anything at all about it?
A. I don’t think so.
Q. What was spoken about?
A. All I recall is that Tex said that he had been to a certain house before and that he knew the layout of the house, and told us to do what he told us to do.
Q. Have you finished?
A. Yes. Go ahead.
Q. And the things that he would tell you to do were to steal; you were going there with the idea of stealing?
A. He didn’t tell me, no, but that is what I thought.
Q. That is what you thought?
A. Yes.
Q. And so you, in your mind, knew that you were assisting, you were aiding, you were helping people going there to steal?
A. Yes.
Q. And when you got there and got out of the car, you were assisting somebody to steal?
A. Yes.
Q. Is that correct?
A. Yes. Uh-huh.
Q. And you knew that the people that were there with you were going to enter a residence?
A. Yes.
Q. Is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. As a matter of fact, you assisted these people in entering that residence; is that correct?
A. No. Do you mean the house?
Q. Pardon?
A. You mean entering the house?
Q. What do you mean by residence?
A. The house.
Q. So, you were assisting these people to enter a home?
A. No.
Q. You were assisting these people to enter a residence?
A. A residence and a home is the same thing to me.
Q. I see.
A. The house. You know, the house itself.
Q. So, you were going to assist these people to enter a home for the purposes of stealing from people inside the home?
A. Yes.
Q. That is what the plan was?
A. Yes.
Q. Is that correct?
A. That is what I thought the plan was, yes.
Q. Right.
And so, as you entered this establishment, you tell us that someone in an automobile showed up, and this person was interfering with your intent to steal?
MR. STOVITZ: That is objected to, your Honor, as a characterization of her testimony.
MR. KANAREK: I am asking concerning her state of mind, your Honor. I am not asking for anything—
THE COURT: Read the question, please.
MR. KANAREK: Pardon?
(Whereupon, the question was read by the reporter.)
MR. KANAREK: Is that correct?
MR. STOVITZ: I will still object to the question as a characterization of her testimony, being ambiguous and compound.
He doesn’t ask her what her state of mind was anywhere in the question nor in the previous question.
MR. KANAREK: Your Honor, I am not obliged to use certain words in the English language.
THE COURT: All right, Mr. Kanarek. I don’t think that is a good objection. However, I think the question is unclear.
MR. KANAREK: Very well. I will be glad to reframe it, your Honor.
THE COURT: The objection will be sustained on that ground.
MR. KANAREK: I will be glad to reframe it, your Honor.
Q. Mrs. Kasabian, directing your attention to your thinking, to what was going on in your mind, at the time that this automobile approached—
A. Yes.
Q. —and there was a driver in the automobile.
Was it your state of mind that this person was interfering with the theft that was to occur, which was to take place, by you and the people that were with you?
A. I didn’t really think about it.
Q. You didn’t think about it?
A. No.
Q. I see.
A. I didn’t really have time to. It just happened so fast.
Q. I see.
Would you say that your state of mind is such that it would be unusual for someone to be on a roadway driving an automobile in a residence? Is that unusual as far as you are concerned?
MR. STOVITZ: That is objected to as being immaterial and irrelevant, your Honor, and also unclear as far as what he means by unusual.
MR. BUGLIOSI: It also calls for a conclusion, your Honor.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. KANAREK: Q. Now, directing your attention to this automobile, Mrs. Kasabian—excuse me just a moment—may I have the exhibits?
(The clerk hands some exhibits to Mr. Kanarek.)
MR. BUGLIOSI: Your Honor, since it is ten minutes after 4:00—
MR. KANAREK: I know that Mr. Bugliosi wishes to speak to Mrs. Kasabian and is anxious to do so, but may we go to 4:15, your Honor?
MR. BUGLIOSI: Would the Court admonish the jury to disregard that preposterous remark by Mr. Kanarek?
THE COURT: Gentlemen, I have told both of you before that I don’t wish colloquy between counsel. If you have something important enough to be said, you may approach the bench.
The jury is admonished to disregard the comments of both counsel.
We still have five-minutes. Let’s proceed.
MR. BUGLIOSI: Very well, your Honor.
MR. KANAREK: Thank you, your Honor.
Q. Now, Mrs. Kasabian, long before you ever came to the Spahn Ranch you carried a knife, did you not?
A. Yes.
Q. Correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And you carried a knife because of the fact that you felt that occasions might arise when you might want to use it?
A. No. I carried it because—oh, well, yes.
Q. You carried it—did you carry it for ornamentation?
A. No. I carried it to use it.
Q. You carried it to use it.
If the occasion arose, you were going to use it; right?
A. In cooking and things like that.
Q. Pardon?
A. In cooking and things, you know, of that nature.
Q. In cooking?
A. Sure.
Q. All right.
I have here Exhibit No. 39. This is your knife?
A. Yes.
MR. KANAREK: May I approach the witness, your Honor?
THE COURT: You may.
MR. KANAREK: I have it open. Maybe I better shut it.
BY MR. KANAREK:
Q. Mrs. Kasabian, showing you this knife, I ask you:
Is this a knife that you carried primarily for purposes of cooking?
A. Yes.
Q. Just for cooking, no other reasons?
A. Right.
Q. I see.
And you carried it in your handbag?
A. Yes.
Q. You carried it in your handbag because you never knew when you might want to slice a potato?
A. Yes.
Q. Is that right?
A. Sure.
Q. Now, Mrs. Kasabian, I show you this rope.
You have seen this rope before?
A. Yes.
Q. You have testified concerning this rope?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, directing your attention to this rope, Mrs. Kasabian—
MR. STOVITZ: May it be identified for the record, your Honor?
MR. KANAREK: Yes. Exhibit No. 41.
MR. STOVITZ: Thank you.
BY MR. KANAREK:
Q. Mrs. Kasabian, you say someone, you say, carry this rope to the Tate residence?
A. Yes.
Q. Who was that person?
A. Tex.
Q. And as you saw this rope being carried, what was your thinking? What was your state of mind as to what Tex was going to do with this rope?
A. I don’t know.
Q. You had no idea what he was going to do with it?
A. No.
Q. I see.
Directing your attention to this rope, Mrs. Kasabian, you say this rope was in the automobile as you were driving from the Spahn Ranch?
A. It must have been, but I don’t remember seeing it.
Q. You don’t remember seeing it until—
A. Until Tex was carrying it.
Q. I see.
Now, directing your attention to this gun, Mrs. Kasabian.
Did you see this gun while you were driving from the Spahn Ranch?
A. Yes.
Q. And what was your intent? What did you think that your fellow passengers in the automobile had this gun for?
A. I wasn’t sure.
Q. You weren’t sure?
A. No.
MR. BUGLIOSI: Watch out how you hold that gun, Mr. Kanarek.
MR. KANAREK: Is it loaded?
MR. BUGLIOSI: Just be careful.
MR. KANAREK: Very well.
Counsel says to be careful and I will. May I approach the witness, your Honor?
THE COURT: Yes.
MR. KANAREK: Q. Now, Mrs. Kasabian, I show you this gun.
Would you pick that gun up, please?
(The witness complies.)
Q. Now, would you hold that gun as if you were going to shoot it? Put it in your hand as if you were going to shoot it.
A. (The witness complies.)
Q. Now, would you just raise it up?
A. (Witness complies.)
Q. Now, Mrs. Kasabian, you say that you must have thrown that gun out the window?
A. Possibly.
Q. Pardon?
A. Possibly. I don’t remember throwing it out.
Q. When you say possibly, what do you mean?
A. I don’t remember throwing it out. I may have thrown it out but I don’t remember it.
MR. KANAREK: I see.
THE COURT: Mr. Kanarek, it is 4:15 now.
MR. KANAREK: Yes, sir.
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 adjourn until 9:45 tomorrow morning.
MR. STOVITZ: May the record show that the exhibit that was being shown to the witness is Exhibit No. 40 in this case, your Honor?
THE COURT: Yes, the record will so reflect.
MR. STOVITZ: Thank you, your Honor.
(Whereupon, at 4:15 p.m. the Court recessed.)