Historic Trial Transcripts

LINDA KASABIAN,

called as a witness by and on behalf of the People, having been previously duly sworn, resumed the stand and was examined and testified further as follows:

THE BAILIFF: Speak into the microphone and state your name.

THE WITNESS: Linda Kasabian.

CROSS EXAMINATION (Continuing)

BY MR. KANAREK:

Q. Mrs. Kasabian, have you ever called yourself Yana the Witch?

A. Yana.

Q. The Witch?

A. I never said I am Yana the Witch.

I said that I was a witch one time.

Q. Have you ever called yourself Yana? Have you ever told anyone you were Yana—

A. Yes.

Q. —the Witch?

A. I said my name was Yana. I never said I am Yana the Witch.

Q. Well, directing your attention to the time you were driving from Los Angeles to New Mexico—

A. Yes.

Q. —were you in the company of some other people?

A. Yes.

Q. During that trip, while you were in the company of these other people, did you call yourself—did you say that you were Yana the Witch?

A. I don’t think I ever said I am Yana the Witch.

I said my name was Yana and that I was a witch.

Q. Right. In other words—

A. I thought I was a witch.

Q. You thought you were a witch?

A. Yes.

Q. And that was in the summer of 1969?

A. Yes.

Q. Are you saying to us that you didn’t call yourself Yana the Witch, but you said you are Yana, a witch?

A. Yes.

Q. So you were finding a difference between a “the” and an “a”?

A. Yes, I think so.

Q. In that connection, did you discuss death with these people on this trip?

A. I don’t know. I can’t remember what, you know, I discussed with them.

I just remember I told them what was told to me, and I don’t remember the conversation.

MR. KANAREK: Your Honor, may that be stricken, “I told them what was told to me”?

The question doesn’t ask for that answer. That is not responsive.

MR. STOVITZ: I submit that it is, your Honor, but if counsel wants it stricken—

THE COURT: It appears to be responsive.

Overruled. The motion to strike is denied.

MR. KANAREK: Q. Is your state of mind such, Mrs. Kasabian, that you feel that you can avoid criminal responsibility in this case by always saying “Somebody told me this”?

A. No.

MR. BUGLIOSI: That is argumentative.

MR. GOLDMAN: That is an argumentative question. “Criminal responsibility”?

THE COURT: The answer is in, gentleman.

MR. KANAREK: Your Honor, I have the greatest respect for Mr. Goldman and Mr. Fleischman, and I know she is a defendant in this case, but I don’t believe they have any standing at this time to make objections on evidence in that regard.

THE COURT: All right. Let’s proceed, gentlemen.

MR. KANAREK: May I have a ruling on that, your Honor?

THE COURT: On what?

MR. KANAREK: I ask your Honor to order Mr. Goldman and Mr. Fleischman, in connection with these proceedings, to cease and desist as far as objections and all of that is concerned.

Mr. Bugliosi and Mr. Stovitz are here prosecuting the case.

THE COURT: I don’t see any necessity for any such order, Mr. Kanarek. It is the first time that it has happened.

I am not sure that they don’t have a right to represent the woman.

MR. KANAREK: Then may we approach the bench so we can perhaps get it clarified?

THE COURT: There is no necessity.

Let’s proceed.

MR. HUGHES: May I have the question read back? I missed the question.

THE COURT: Read the question and answer.

MR. STOVITZ: Wasn’t there an objection to the question?

THE COURT: The answer came in.

(Whereupon, the record was read by the reporter.)

Q. BY MR. KANAREK: Now, directing your attention to your state of mind at the time when you said that you were a witch, Mrs. Kasabian.

Would you tell us, did you think that you were a witch?

A. Yes, I guess I did.

Q. You thought, in fact, your state of mind was that you were a witch at that time when you stated, you verbalized those words?

A. I didn’t really know what a witch was, but I thought.

Q. Whatever a witch was, you thought you were a witch; correct?

A. Yes.

Q. Would you tell us, Mrs. Kasabian, in whose presence you were when you thought you were a witch and stated you were a witch?

A. I don’t remember their names. They were hitchhikers.

Q. Would you describe these individuals for us?

A. Let me see. The two that I picked up here in Los Angeles were just young school boys that hitchhiked across the country; and I believe somewhere in Arizona I picked up a third hitchhiker.

Q. Now, can you give us, with a little more precision, would you describe how tall they were?

A. Well, the first two were just, maybe they were 17 years old. They were still in high school. I don’t remember how tall they were.

The third person that I picked up was tall. He had blond hair. He was very nice looking.

Q. Was that near Gallup, New Mexico?

A. Yes, I think so.

Q. That was where you picked him up?

A. Yes. Around that area.

Q. Pardon?

A. Around that area.

Q. I see.

You say he was tall. Would you state his height?

A. Maybe six feet.

Q. About how much did he weigh?

A. I don’t know.

Q. And what color hair did he have?

A. Blond.

Q. And about what would be—what was his weight?

MR. STOVITZ: You just asked that question. She said she didn’t know.

I object to it as being asked and answered, your Honor.

MR. KANAREK: Your Honor, this is cross-examination.

THE WITNESS: Well, he wasn’t skinny and he wasn’t fat. He was just in between. A good build.

BY MR. KANAREK:

Q. And do you remember, did he tell you his name?

A. He might have, yes, at the time.

Q. What was his name?

A. I don’t remember.

Q. Did he tell you where he was going?

A. Yes. I think he said he was going to Texas. I think he said he had a construction job, or something to do with construction.

Q. Now, did you tell this person that your name, at that time, when you spoke with him, was Yana, but that your name used to be Linda?

A. Maybe.

Q. Well, would you reflect upon that for a moment and tell us whether, in fact, you did state that your name was Yana and it used to be Linda?

A. Yes, I probably said that.

Q. Pardon? Excuse me?

A. I probably said that.

Q. Well, did you, in fact, say that?

A. Well, I can’t remember if I did say it.

Q. Well, what makes you think that probably you said it?

A. It just sounds right.

Q. May I ask you what sounds right about it?

A. That I would say my name is Yana but it used to be Linda. It just sounds right.

Q. Well, may I ask you why it sounds right?

A. I don’t understand.

Q. You don’t understand what?

A. Didn’t I answer it the way I am supposed to answer it?

Q. Well, has anyone told you that you are supposed to answer questions a certain way?

A. No, but I thought I answered your question, but you keep asking.

Q. Well, my question is—may that question be read back, your Honor?

MR. STOVITZ: Which question, Counsel?

THE COURT: Reframe the question, Mr. Kanarek. We have long since gone by it.

MR. KANAREK: Very well.

BY MR. KANAREK:

Q. Why, Mrs. Kasabian, why did you say it sounds right that Yana was your name at that time rather than Linda?

A. I still don’t understand.

Q. Well, may I ask you—you don’t understand that last question?

A. No, I don’t.

Q. Well, did you in fact, Mrs. Kasabian, say “My name is Yana, but my name used to be Linda”? Did you in fact say that?

A. I probably did, yes.

Q. Then may I ask you, then, why do you say “probably”? Is there any doubt in your mind as to whether you said “My name is Yana but it used to be Linda”?

MR. STOVITZ: Objected to as argumentative, your Honor. She answered the question three or four times.

MR. KANAREK: I submit she hasn’t, your Honor.

MR. STOVITZ: I submit the record speaks for itself, your Honor.

THE COURT: You may answer.

THE WITNESS: I remember telling them that my name was Yana and I just might have said “It used to be Linda,” but I am not sure.

BY MR. KANAREK:

Q. May I ask you then, now, would you listen to this carefully, Mrs. Kasabian:

Why aren’t you sure as to whether or not you said that your name used to be Linda?

MR. STOVITZ: To which we object as being argumentative, your Honor.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. KANAREK: I am asking her why, your Honor.

THE COURT: She already told you she did not know. Proceed.

BY MR. KANAREK:

Q. Is it true you don’t know, Mrs. Kasabian, why you probably said “Linda—”

A. Yes.

Q. —“used to be your name”?

You have no reason for knowing why?

A. Uh-huh.

Q. Now, directing your attention to the time that you were driving Gallup, New Mexico.

Was there a discussion as to the ownership of the automobile?

A. Maybe.

Q. Well, when you say maybe, Mrs. Kasabian, what do you mean by maybe?

A. Well, I don’t remember the actual conversation but I remembered that article on Yana the Witch, and some of it sounded familiar and some of it just did not seem to be true.

Q. I am asking you did you say that this automobile that you were driving was your automobile?

A. I think I just said it belonged to everybody, something like that.

Q. Now, directing your attention to your state of mind.

When you said that that automobile belonged to everybody, did you in fact believe that that automobile belonged to everybody?

MR. STOVITZ: That is objected to, your Honor, as being immaterial and irrelevant, her state of mind at that time is not in issue in this case.

MR. KANAREK: Your Honor, this is exactly the subject matter that Mr. Bugliosi went into in detail in his examination of this witness.

He went into all of her excursions, I think, up until the time that she went to New Hampshire.

THE COURT: That does not make it relevant.

MR. KANAREK: Pardon?

THE COURT: That does not make the question relevant.

MR. KANAREK: Yes, it does, your Honor, because she related to us matters concerning this excursion from Los Angeles to wherever she went, and we have a right to know—the jury has a right to know—all of us have a right to know as to whether or not this witness is in touch with reality.

MR. STOVITZ: Your Honor, if counsel is going to make further statements like that I think we should approach the bench.

We will have a full discussion at that time, and counsel can make any type of remarks he wants at the bench.

THE COURT: The jury is admonished to disregard the remarks of both counsel.

The objection is overruled. You may answer the question.

MR. KANAREK: May the question be read, your Honor?

THE COURT: Reframe the question.

BY MR. KANAREK:

Q. Directing your attention, Mrs. Kasabian, to your state of mind, your thinking when you stated, as you have indicated you have stated there, near Gallup, New Mexico, that the automobile you were driving belonged to everybody, was your state of mind such that you believed that the automobile belonged to everybody?

MR. STOVITZ: Just a moment, your Honor, that was not her testimony, this is a characterization of her testimony.

This assumes facts not in evidence.

The witness stated that she was not aware of what her exact words were.

I think if your Honor will allow us to approach the bench on this subject matter we might enlighten the Court as to the surrounding circumstances of this entire matter.

MR. BUGLIOSI: May we approach the bench, your Honor?

MR. KANAREK: I don’t think Mr. Stovitz can enlighten the Court. He was not there, your Honor.

MR. STOVITZ: Neither were you, Counsel.

THE COURT: Approach the bench.

(The following proceedings were had at the bench out of the hearing of the jury:)

MR. BUGLIOSI: Your Honor, Mr. Kanarek is going into statements at this time that she made to some hitchhiker.

Now, I don’t think that is admissible. In our direct examination we brought out the trip where she picked up some hitchhikers and drove from Point A to Point B.

Now he is going into conversations.

MR. STOVITZ: Not only that, but he does not have the witness in case Mrs. Kasabian were to answer, “No, I did not say that, we talked about the moon flight and things like that.”

Mr. Kanarek does not have the witness, so this is in the form of the case of People vs. Locigno, where counsel could not ask a question on cross-examination of a witness that he could not later on show that the witness was in error.

MR. BUGLIOSI: That is the exact case, can I get it in my notebook? The counsel knows they cannot disprove if they get a negative answer.

I got the applicable language of Locigno which I would like to read to the Court.

MR. KANAREK: They are deliberately avoiding the issue.

MR. FITZGERALD: I think we can produce them.

MR. KANAREK: The issue is this, your Honor, this witness is insane, and her testimony has to be stricken.

The issue goes to whether—

THE COURT: You are not going to prove insanity by asking her some questions, Mr. Kanarek.

MR. KANAREK: I am not going to prove insanity by asking some questions—

THE COURT: Let’s get on with the cross-examination.

MR. KANAREK: But the point of the matter is, if her state of mind is such that she has no state of mind, that she is absolutely not with it, then all of her testimony including what she testified to to the prosecution has to be stricken.

MR. STOVITZ: So the Court may be further aware, there was an article that appeared in the Long Beach Sunday Supplement called “Yana, The Witch.”

This article was written by a correspondent for the Sunday Supplement and it was based upon an interview that that correspondent had with some college student who wished to remain anonymous.

The college student described the trip that he took from Arizona to New Mexico in which he met a girl called Linda who called herself Yana, and that this girl described some of her experiences in Los Angeles.

This anonymous college student also said he had sexual intercourse, I believe.

That is the substance of the article as well. That he left her at that time when the car broke down in New Mexico.

We know we have not been able to find this hitchhiker. I don’t think counsel has been able to find him.

So no matter what conversations Mrs. Kasabian had with him, it would be inadmissible because, first of all, it is after the fact.

Secondly, it has nothing to do with the issues in the case because nothing in the article discusses the murders or anything of that nature.

And, thirdly, assuming for the moment she says, “I cannot remember whether I said it or not,” they cannot prove that she does remember it.

They are just arguing with the witness on an immaterial matter.

MR. BUGLIOSI: Right.

Your Honor, first of all it is hearsay, what she told another party.

Now, if the defense argues that it is not hearsay, that it is not being offered for the truth of the matter asserted, but we are only going into impeachment matters, then we are dealing with Locigno, 193 Cal. Ap. 360 at Page 388, where the Court states that it is improper to ask incriminating questions of a witness, knowing that the answer will be in the negative when these questions insinuate or imply the existence of facts that the questioner knows he cannot prove and doesn’t intend to try to prove.

Now, if they know—

THE COURT: All he is asking for is her state of mind.

MR. KANAREK: That’s correct, your Honor, so I don’t think Locigno covers this point.

THE COURT: He is asking her for her state of mind.

MR. BUGLIOSI: He is going into conversations now.

THE COURT: I would agree the conversations are probably objectionable, but I don’t see going into her state of mind is objectionable.

MR. BUGLIOSI: The problem is if he asks these questions—

THE COURT: I have difficulty in seeing the relevancy of this—

MR. BUGLIOSI: He asks questions about conversations and we object, of course we are put in a bad light in front of the jury that we are trying to keep out information.

The point we are trying to make is the questions should not be asked in the first place because of the Locigno case.

THE COURT: I would agree on the conversations.

MR. KANAREK: Your Honor, the point of the matter is, first of all, I would like to make the allegation that, again, because of the way that Linda Kasabian has been sequestered and the way—

THE COURT: Now, let’s not go into that, Mr. Kanarek. We are up here for a very limited purpose.

Your question was objected to.

MR. KANAREK: But I must make this record.

He, Mr. Stovitz, says we cannot find the man; we have not found the man. Because of the way this case has been handled we have had no opportunity, and from this interrogation we may get information where we could find this man and bring him to this courtroom.

THE COURT: Why don’t you ask her if she knows where he is?

MR. KANAREK: There has been a suppression of evidence.

THE COURT: There is no such evidence of that. Now let proceed.

(The following proceedings were had in open court in the presence and hearing of the jury:)

BY MR. KANAREK:

Q. Mrs. Kasabian, directing your attention to your state of mind, and the automobile that you were driving, was your state of mind such that you believed that that automobile belonged to everybody?

A. Yes.

Q. You believed that it belonged—would you name the people that you believed that automobile belonged to.

A. There were no names; it just belonged to anybody and everybody.

Q. I see. Now, directing your attention, Mrs. Kasabian, to credit cards.

Did you have credit cards with you when you were in that automobile?

A. Yes, I had one.

Q. All right. Did that credit card—may I ask you to whom did that credit card belong?

A. I don’t know his name He is a doctor.

Q. Did the credit card belong to everybody or did the credit card belong to three or four people or the doctor—or who did the credit card belong to?

A. I imagine it belonged to the doctor in the beginning.

Q. Pardon?

A. To the doctor in the beginning.

Q. I see, in the beginning?

A. Yes.

Q. I see.

Then when you used that credit card—did you use that credit card?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. When you used that credit card you knew that the credit card did not belong to you?

A. Yeah, I guess I did.

Q. You guess you did?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. Pardon?

A. Yes.

Q. You knew that it did not?

A. Yes, I knew it, yes.

Q. I see, and directing your attention to that credit card, did you in using that credit card find that the credit card was picked up, taken from you?

A. Yes.

Q. And directing your attention to your state of mind and your purpose in using the credit card, that you did use, it was to get as much mileage as possible out of the credit card before it was taken away from you, is that correct?

MR. STOVITZ: That is objected to as argumentative, your Honor.

THE COURT: Sustained.

BY MR. KANAREK:

Q. Directing your attention to your state of mind, Mrs. Kasabian, in the use of that credit card, is it true that you used the credit card with the thought that you would use it until it was taken away from you?

MR. STOVITZ: That is objected to as argumentative, your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled, you may answer.

THE WITNESS: For as long as I needed it.

BY MR. KANAREK:

Q. In other words, you were going to use the credit card as long as you needed it?

A. Yes.

Q. But in your mind you knew that at some point, perhaps, someone would check that credit card with a list of no good credit cards and it would be taken away from you, is that correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And you felt that this device of using a credit card this way would give you as much mileage as possible in using the credit card, and still you would not get in trouble with the law?

MR. STOVITZ: That is objected to as being argumentative, your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled.

THE WITNESS: I did not understand your question.

BY MR. KANAREK:

Q. Well, was your state of mind such that you felt there was a risk in using this credit card; that the credit card might be taken away from you?

A. I probably felt it eventually would, yes.

Q. Now, you probably, Mrs. Kasabian, would you tell us, this is in fact true, it is not probably true, is it?

MR. STOVITZ: It is objected to as argumentative, your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled.

THE WITNESS: Yes, it is, in fact.

BY MR. KANAREK:

Q. It is in fact true?

A. Yes.

Q. And it was your intent to use that credit card as long as possible before it was taken away from you?

MR. STOVITZ: That is objected to as immaterial.

BY MR. KANAREK:

Q. Is that correct?

THE COURT: Overruled.

THE WITNESS: Yes.

BY MR. KANAREK:

Q. And so at some point this credit card was taken away from you because the credit card was not yours, and some list of credit cards which were dishonored—

MR. STOVITZ: That is objected to as calling for a conclusion of this witness, your Honor.

THE COURT: Sustained.

BY MR. KANAREK:

Q. Now, may I ask you, Mrs. Kasabian, where did you get that credit card?

A. From Bruce Davis.

Q. And, Mrs. Kasabian, directing your attention to that credit card, did you steal that credit card, Mrs. Kasabian?

A. I don’t think so.

Q. You don’t think so?

A. Huh-uh.

Q. Now, would you tell us whether you did steal it or you did not steal it.

A. Well, I know I went out one night and stole some credit cards but I don’t know whether that was one of them.

Q. I see, so referring to this doctor’s credit card, you don’t know whether the particular credit card that we are speaking of now is one that, you stole or not?

A. Yes.

Q. And on how many occasions did you go out and steal credit cards?

A. Once that I went out and actually took the credit cards.

Q. I see.

And where was that that you went to steal the credit cards?

A. I don’t know the area.

Q. Pardon?

A. I don’t know the area.

Q. Well, was it in the Los Angeles area?

A. I guess so.

Q. You guess so or do you know so, Mrs. Kasabian?

A. I don’t know what area it was.

Q. Well, when was it that you stole the credit card that you are speaking of?

A. Near the end of July, I would say.

Q. Pardon?

A. Near the end of July.

Q. Near the end of July?

A. Yes.

Q. And when you stole this credit card—let me withdraw that.

You have stated that you stole other credit cards.

A. I don’t understand.

Q. Well, have you—let me withdraw that.

Directing your attention, Mrs. Kasabian, to your theft of credit cards, on how many different occasions in your lifetime have you stolen credit cards?

MR. STOVITZ: Objected to as being immaterial, irrelevant, and having nothing to do with the issues of this case.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. BY MR. KANAREK: Now, at some time that automobile that you were driving ran out of gas, is that right?

A. No.

Q. The automobile broke down?

A. Yes.

Q. And when the automobile broke down did you hitchhike somewhere?

A. Yes.

Q. And did you hitchhike in the presence of this tall person that you are speaking of?

A. Yes, I think I did.

Q. Pardon?

A. Yes, I think I did.

Q. Now, while you were in the presence of this tall person did you speak of death?

A. Possibly. I don’t recall the conversation.

Q. Well, when you were at the Tate residence, Mrs. Kasabian, did you think of death?

A. I don’t understand.

Q. You don’t understand?

A. When I was there?

Q. Yes.

A. Did I think of death?

Q. Yes.

A. Well, death was right in front of me so I guess I thought about it.

Q. I see, and directing your attention to your thinking of death at that time—

A. Uh-huh.

Q. —would you compare for us that thinking of death with the thinking of death that you have thought of when you were hallucinating under the influence of LSD?

MR. BUGLIOSI: Another fact not in evidence.

MR. STOVITZ: I also object to the question as ambiguous, unintelligible.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. BY MR. KANAREK: Mrs. Kasabian, you have taken LSD, is that correct?

A. Yes, I think that is pretty well known.

Q. You seem exasperated with the question.

A. Well, I think I have answered these questions a number of times.

Q. And you feel that we are imposing upon you to ask these questions?

THE COURT: Proceed, Mr. Kanarek.

Q. BY MR. KANAREK: Now, directing your attention to the first time, Mrs. Kasabian, that you ever took an acid trip.

A. Yes.

Q. Will you describe for us what—what was going on in your mind during this first time that you took an acid trip.

MR. STOVITZ: I object to the question, your Honor, as being immaterial, irrelevant, and having nothing to do with the issues in this case.

It is completely remote.

THE COURT: Overruled, you may proceed.

THE WITNESS: The first time I took acid was in Boston in an apartment, and I remember it was mostly a music trip, listening to music on a stereo.

I don’t think I really got into my mind on this first trip, I was more interested in the music.

Q. BY MR. KANAREK: And in later trips you had gotten into your mind?

A. Yes.

Q. Well, will you tell us what did you think of, say, on your 23rd trip?

A. Well, if you want me to go to my 23rd trip I will have to take an awful lot of time to think about it.

Q. Please do.

MR. STOVITZ: I object, your Honor. It is immaterial, irrelevant.

Counsel characterizing the 23rd trip as just a middle trip, maybe he should explain that to the witness.

MR. KANAREK: Well, your Honor, Mr. Stovitz certainly was free to frame his questions and I would like to be free to frame mine.

MR. STOVITZ: I object to the question as being immaterial and irrelevant, it has nothing to do with the issues of the case.

THE COURT: I suggest you go to another question now and we will come back to it after she has had a chance to think about it.

Q. BY MR. KANAREK: Well, do you want to think about it until, say, the afternoon recess, Mrs. Kasabian?

A. Sure.

Q. And then you will come back and tell us what the 23rd trip was about?

A. If I can remember the 23rd trip I will try.

Q. Right now can you tell us what happened on the second trip? What did you think about on the second trip?

A. I am not sure if it was my second trip, but right around the very beginning I took a trip in New York City and I met this guy and he told me about California, about the Haight-Asbury District and we talked about love, lovemaking, things like that.

He asked me what I thought.

Q. What was going on in your mind? Tell us what was going on in your mind during the second trip.

A. Can you direct it to a specific thing? Lots of things were going on in my mind.

Q. Well, would you tell us what the lots of things are that were going on in your mind, that went on in your mind during the second trip?

A. No, I don’t think I can tell you.

Q. Is there some reason that you cannot tell us?

A. No, I guess not, I just can’t.

Q. You have no reason?

A. Yeah.

Q. Well, would you tell us what happened on your third trip?

A. I cannot tell you right at this moment. I have to sit down and think about it by myself.

Q. I see, and if you sit down and think about it by yourself you will be able to tell us what happened on the third trip?

A. Possibly, yes.

Q. And if you sit down will you be able to tell us what happened, let us say, on the seventeenth trip, if you sit down and think about it long enough?

A. Yeah, maybe.

Q. I see. Now, Mrs. Kasabian, directing your attention to the LSD that you had taken, is it a fair statements, Mrs. Kasabian, that you have not kept a score card on how many LSD trips you have taken?

A. Yes.

Q. Is that correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And what is it, Mrs. Kasabian, that determines in your mind as to when you take a trip?

A. I don’t understand you.

Q. How do you decide that you are now going to take a trip?

A. I still don’t understand—how do I decide?

Q. Yes.

A. I don’t understand your question.

Q. Well, what is the reason that at any particular time you decide to take a trip, to take LSD inside your body?

A. Usually somebody comes with it or I just decide I want to take some acid, and I go out and get it.

Q. And when you decide you want to take some acid you go get it or you find a fellow who will supply it for you or something, is that correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And when you have decided at any particular time it is just because like someone might decide, without any reason, is that it, just decide you want to take it right now and that is the way it is going to be?

A. Yeah.

Q. Is that right?

A. Yes.

Q. Now, would you say that you looked forward to taking acid trips?

A. Yeah.

Q. And since you started taking acid you have enjoyed it. You have enjoyed taking these acid trips?

A. Yes.

Q. Now, during the time that you have taken acid have you ever seen death during any acid trip that you take?

A. You mean a person dying?

Q. Any aspect of death?

A. No.

Q. Have you ever considered that you were near death in an acid trip?

A. Yeah.

Q. Which acid trip was it that you considered you were near death?

A. I don’t know which acid trip it was, but in New Mexico I remember one trip.

Q. You took a trip while you were in New Mexico?

A. Yes.

Q. And that is while you were in Taos?

A. Yes, this was long before what we are here for now.

Q. What are we here for now, Mrs. Kasabian?

A. The Tate case, I believe.

Q. Pardon?

A. The Tate case.

Q. I see, we are here for doing what in the Tate case?

A. To find out the facts.

Q. I see, and what is your reason for being here?

A. To give the facts that I know about.

Q. I see.

And you are not here because you want to save yourself from imprisonment or the death penalty?

A. No, not really.

Q. Not really, I see.

Now, then, tell us about this—

First of all, when was it that you took this acid trip in New Mexico wherein you saw death—

MR. STOVITZ: It is not what she said, your Honor, it is the characterization of her testimony, I believe it is not proper cross-examination.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. BY MR. KANAREK: Would you tell us, Mrs. Kasabian, what went on in your mind during this time when you say you viewed death in this New Mexico trip?

A. Well, I don’t know if you would call it death, but I remember laying in a field and looking up at the clouds, and I felt that part of myself—I don’t know, I cannot explain it.

Q. A part of yourself was apart from your physical body?

A. Yes.

Q. Is that correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And what part of your body was apart from your physical body?

A. I don’t know what you call it.

Q. Was there any particular portion of your body that you felt was—

A. Oh, no, my body was intact.

It is hard to explain. I don’t have the words to explain it.

Q. Well, would you explain it to the best of your ability?

A. Well, somebody once told me that it’s called the ego death.

Q. Ego death?

A. Yes, and so I guess that is what I experienced, but I cannot put it into words for you.

Q. I see, so is it a fair statement that you felt that your personality, your soul and your spirit was removed from your physical body?

A. I don’t know.

Q. Is it a fair statement that you felt that your soul and your spirit had died even though your physical body was alive?

A. No.

Q. What do you mean by it is ego that you have just spoken of?

A. Well, ego is sort of like a personality, I guess, I am not really sure, and this is what I believe died on that trip.

MR. KANAREK: May those last few words be read back?

THE COURT: Read the answer, please.

(Whereupon the reporter reads the answer as follows:

“A. Well, ego is sort of like a personality, I guess, I am not really sure, and this is what I believe died on that trip.”)

MR. KANAREK: I see.

BY MR. KANAREK:

Q. Then when you say that that is what died during that trip, you felt that your mind or your spirit had ceased to exist?

A. I believe my mind and spirit are two different things.

Q. Well, do you believe that your mind ceased to exist during that trip?

A. No. My mind was still there.

Q. Do you believe your spirit ceased to exist during that trip?

A. No.

Q. Well, then, what ceased to exist during that trip, Mrs. Kasabian?

A. I don’t know, I just told you I cannot really explain it.

I think it was ego because somebody told me that is what it is.

Q. I see, and that was what, during the year of 1967?

A. No, ’68.

Q. During the year of 1968?

A. Yes.

Q. And about what month in 1968?

A. July, I believe.

Q. And that would be approximately two years ago?

A. Yes.

Q. And who else was with you during that ego death trip?

A. I was by myself.

Q. Lying in a field of grass in New Mexico?

A. Yes.

Q. Now, directing your attention, Mrs. Kasabian, to a number of trips that you have taken, would you tell us whether you have any measuring rod for the number of trips you have taken, how frequently have you taken trips?

A. Well, I sat down one day and thought about it and I came up with about 50.

Q. And would you tell us upon what basis you came up with 50? Would you tell us how you figured that out?

A. Well, I tried to go from the first to the second to the third, you know, I just sat down and really thought about it and this is what I came up with.

Q. Well, would you tell us exactly what went through your mind as you figured out the number of trips?

A. I don’t understand your question.

Q. Well, how did you come up with the number 50 instead of the number 12, for instance?

A. I just told you, I just sat down and thought about it.

Q. And what were the things you thought about that made you say the number was 50?

A. Remembering where I was, trying to remember who was there, trying to remember the exact experience that I experienced.

The things surrounding the experience—does that answer your question?

Q. I don’t know, Mrs. Kasabian.

A. Well, I am finished. I am asking you.

Q. Are you finished?

A. Yes.

Q. Now, so this number, 50, that you have come up with, is a number whereby you figured out each and every trip that you took, is that right?

A. Yes, approximately, yes.

Q. All right, now, then you feel that you can tell us where you were and who was present with you and what you thought on the 23rd trip after you think about it over the noon recess?

A. Yeah, I think I can.

Q. I see. Will you be able to do that from 1 to 50, is that right?

A. It might take longer than the noon recess.

Q. I see. How long would it take for you to figure out those facts as to people?

A. I don’t know. I have had a lot of time, to think about it.

Q. I see. Directing your attention then to the No. 50, do you think that the number of trips you have taken is exactly 50?

A. No, it’s probably not exactly.

Q. I see. Well, what would you say—

Well, what would you say the true number is, the exact number of trips?

A. I could not say. I am just saying approximately; it could be more or less.

Q. It could be more than 50?

A. I have doubts that it is more, but it could be.

Q. I see, and would you state on what reason do you base your statement that you have doubts that it is more?

A. I don’t understand your question.

Q. Why do you state that you have doubts that it is more?

A. That it is more?

Q. Yes.

A. Because I have tried to go back to the first and the second and the third.

I may have forgotten a few, I don’t know, I am not perfect.

Q. Mrs. Kasabian, you say from December of 1965 on to the present time you have taken acid, is that right?

A. Excuse me.

MR. STOVITZ: That is not her testimony, Counsel. I object to it as being—

MR. KANAREK: Your Honor, may we approach the bench?

THE COURT: No—go ahead, put the question to the witness directly, avoid that problem.

BY MR. KANAREK:

Q. How often, Mrs. Kasabian—how often, let us say, per month have you taken acid trips?

A. Some months I took it more than others.

Q. And the frequency that you have taken acid trips is dependent only upon your whim and caprice, when you decide to take an acid trip you go out and get the acid and take the trip, is that correct?

A. Yes.

Q. Are there occasions when you take acid trips maybe three, four, five, six times a week?

A. No, I don’t think I ever took it that much so close together.

Q. Why, is there some reason why you did not take acid trips that close together?

A. Well, it is physically exhausting.

Q. When you take acid trips you get tired?

A. Yes.

Q. Is that right?

A. Yes.

Q. You don’t even have enough energy to lift a sugar cube to your mouth? What kind of exhaustion is it?

A. Well, after a while it just becomes a physical exhaustion. You are tired and you don’t, you know—

MR. KANAREK: I see.

Oh, yes, your Honor, may we approach the bench for a matter of physical necessity?

THE COURT: Very well. Do you wish to take a recess?

MR. KANAREK: Yes, your Honor.

THE COURT: Ladies and gentlemen, do not speak to anyone nor form or express an opinion regarding the case until it is finally submitted to you.

We will recess for 15 minutes.