Historic Trial Transcripts
Linda Kasabian: Day eight Testimony, August 5, 1970
LINDA KASABIAN,
called as a witness by and on behalf of the People, having been previously duly sworn, resumed the stand, was examined and testified further as follows:
THE BAILIFF: Speak into the microphone and state your name.
THE WITNESS: Linda Kasabian.
THE COURT: You may continue your cross-examination, Mr. Kanarek.
MR. KANAREK: Thank you, your Honor.
May I have a moment? The Clerk is getting me some exhibits, your Honor.
CROSS-EXAMINATION (Resumed)
BY MR. KANAREK:
Q. Mrs. Kasabian, directing your attention to the times that you have come to this courtroom, have you been given any medication on the morning or the day before you come to the courtroom?
A. I believe the first day I took medication.
Q. And other than that first day you had no medication?
A. Yes, that’s right.
Q. Is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, you have had time to think since the last time we spoke as to the period of time, let us say, on the 23rd trip that you took—
A. Uh—
Q. Yes, go ahead, do you wish to say something?
A. I believe I told you I would think about it yesterday afternoon, but I had a headache, and I just did not think about it last night, I went to sleep.
Q. Rather than think about it?
A. Yes.
Q. I see, and the same thing applies to trip No. 4?
A. Yes, I really did not even think about it. I just needed to go to sleep.
Q. I see, so you did not think about it?
A. Yes.
Q. I see. Now, then, directing your attention to the times that you have taken trips, is it a fair statement that you don’t know—you don’t know the days when you took trips, do you?
A. Not at this moment, no.
Q. Well, when you say not at this moment, what do you mean?
A. I cannot tell you the day that I took a trip at this moment.
Q. I see.
And is it a fair statement that while you were at the Spahn Ranch you took trips?
A. I took a trip.
Q. You took one trip only?
A. Yes.
Q. You caused a pouch of LSD to be taken to the Spahn Ranch, and you took only one trip?
A. Yes.
Q. And do you know what day you took that one trip?
A. No, I don’t remember the day.
Q. I see. Well, was it in August or July?
A. I believe it was in July.
Q. And what makes you believe it was in July?
A. Because it did not seem to be too far from the things in question.
Q. What do you mean by that when you say it did not seem to be too far from the things in question?
A. It seems to me I took it about a week or nine days, something like that, before the thing in question, why we are here.
Q. What is the thing in question that is in your mind?
A. Well, the case. I don’t know how to put it, why we are here now.
Q. Well, what do you mean by why we are here now?
A. To discuss the facts of the case.
Q. Pardon?
A. To discuss the facts of this case.
Q. We are here to discuss the facts of this case?
A. I guess so, yes.
Q. And upon what do you base your statement that you took this trip about, a week before?
MR. BUGLIOSI: You say “a week before,” a misstatement.
Your Honor, it was a week or nine days. I object on that ground.
THE COURT: Sustained.
BY MR. KANAREK:
Q. All right, upon what do you base your statement that you took this trip about a week or nine days before?
A. I really cannot—I don’t know how to answer your question.
Q. In other words, there is no basis for your answer; you just stated whatever came into your mind for a moment, is that correct?
A. No, not really.
Q. Well, then, upon what do you base it?
A. Well, I remember Mr. Manson was not at the ranch; he had just left for Big Sur, and that night I went out with Sadie on maybe what you could call a creepy-crawly mission.
Q. What I would call a creepy-crawly mission?
A. I was just saying what anybody would call a creepy-crawly mission.
Q. When did you first hear the words, creepy-crawly?
A. At the ranch.
Q. You heard that at the ranch?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. I see, and you never heard those words before in your life?
A. Not creepy-crawly, no.
Q. I see, and then you are saying it’s a week or nine days?
A. Approximately, yes.
Q. I see, and concerning what you are testifying now, have you spoken with Mr. Bugliosi?
A. Concerning this trip that I took?
Q. Yes.
A. Possibly.
Q. You possibly did?
A. Yes.
Q. And you have spoken with Mr. Bugliosi in connection with when you have taken trips at the Spahn Ranch?
MR. STOVITZ: That is objected to as a characterization of her testimony.
She said “a trip.”
Either counsel had a hissing “s” or a plural leak. She said “one trip,” Counsel. You keep on saying trips.
MR. KANAREK: May I have an answer to the question?
MR. STOVITZ: I object to the question as being improper cross-examination.
THE COURT: Sustained. Reframe the question, Mr. Kanarek.
BY MR. KANAREK:
Q. On how many occasions have you spoken with Mr. Bugliosi concerning your taking LSD while you were at the Spahn Ranch?
A. Maybe just once or twice.
Q. Maybe just once or twice?
A. Yes.
Q. Maybe—could it be more than once or twice perhaps?
A. It could be, I’m sure.
Q. It could be maybe five or six times?
A. No, I don’t think so.
Q. You don’t think so. Well, when was it you last spoke with Mr. Bugliosi concerning your taking LSD at the Spahn Ranch?
MR. BUGLIOSI: Your Honor, that also was a mischaracterization.
The record is clear she did not actually take LSD. She said she took a trip, and the record is clear that she thinks it was not LSD but something analogous to LSD.
So I object on that ground.
MR. KANAREK: If we are to have argument I would welcome argument, if your Honor wishes us to speak in the presence of the jury.
THE COURT: I think the difficulty is your characterizing the witness’ previous testimony instead of putting the question directly.
The objection will be sustained.
Q. BY MR. KANAREK: Mrs. Kasabian, while you were at the Spahn Ranch did you take any LSD?
A. I thought it was LSD, I am not positive.
Q. You are not positive that it was LSD?
A. Yes.
Q. And what makes you be unpositive as to whether it was LSD or something else?
A. Well, Sadie did not know what it was when she gave it to me and it was sort of a weak trip, if it was LSD, I’m not sure what it was.
Q. I see, so you have here—let’s see—you now have told us that beginning in Christmas, ’66, except for your periods of pregnancy you have taken LSD regularly, is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, then you were at the Spahn Ranch for how long?
A. Approximately a month, a little bit longer.
Q. Pardon?
A. About a month.
Q. All right, now, during the time that you were at the—pardon?
A. I didn’t say anything.
Q. During the time that you were at the Spahn Ranch was there some reason that you only took LSD once?
MR. BUGLIOSI: Your Honor, again I object.
She said she did not know what it was and he is saying—
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. BUGLIOSI: —he is saying it was LSD.
THE COURT: Overruled. You may answer the question.
THE WITNESS: What was your question?
MR. KANAREK: May it be read, your Honor?
THE COURT: It may be read.
(Whereupon, the reporter reads the pending question as follows:
“Q. During the time that you were at the Spahn Ranch was there some reason that you only took LSD once?”)
THE WITNESS: No.
Q. BY MR. KANAREK: Then perhaps maybe you took it more than once, is that possible?
A. No, it is not possible.
Q. It is not possible.
And what makes you sure that it was only once?
A. Because I only ingested one tablet, once, while I was at the ranch.
Q. You know that for sure?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. And then during that period of a month did you have any desire to take LSD while you were at the Spahn Ranch?
A. No, not really.
Q. What was there about the month at the Spahn Ranch that was of such a nature that you changed your pattern of taking LSD that you had previously?
A. Well, you know LSD is not my whole trip.
There are other things to life and I just did not think about taking acid every single moment.
Whenever it was there and if I felt like taking it, I would take it, and I never thought about it at the ranch.
Q. And so when you took what you say is this one trip of LSD at the ranch, there was no reason for you to remember that you were just taking one trip in that period of time, was there?
A. I don’t understand your question again.
MR. KANAREK: May it be read, your Honor?
THE COURT: Read the question.
(Whereupon, the reporter reads the pending question as follows:
“Q. And so when you took what you say is this one trip of LSD at the ranch, there was no reason for you to remember that you were just taking one trip in that period of time, was there?”)
MR. BUGLIOSI: I have to object to that question again.
Her testimony is clear that she did not know what it was, yet he says it is LSD.
Now, he was not there so I object to that question. I suggest that he frame the question to take a tablet which may have been LSD.
He says it is LSD, your Honor, and it is an improper question.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q. BY MR. KANAREK: Mrs. Kasabian, directing your attention to your state of mind and what occurred in your mind, did you, while you were at the Spahn Ranch, have any effects that you felt in your mind that were effects similar to the effects that you have had previously when you took what you thought to be LSD?
A. That trip, really, you know, doesn’t leave an impression on my mind because it was, you know, so weak, so I don’t know.
Q. It was so weak?
A. Yes.
Q. Is there some reason that you remember that it was so weak?
A. Because it really did not impress my mind, it didn’t you know, leave anything.
Q. I see, that was the reason you remembered it, is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. Because it was so weak?
A. Well, you asked me if I ever took acid at the ranch or something like acid and I answered your question.
MR. KANAREK: Your Honor, may I have an answer to the question?
MR. STOVITZ: I submit the question has been answered the best way the witness knows how, not the best way Mr. Kanarek knows how.
THE COURT: Let’s proceed, Mr. Kanarek, she has responded.
MR. KANAREK: She has uttered words, yes, your Honor, but I don’t believe she responded to the question.
THE COURT: Let’s proceed.
Q. BY MR. KANAREK: Well, Mrs. Kasabian, when you spoke, how recently have you spoken with Mr. Bugliosi concerning your taking LSD at the ranch?
A. Didn’t you just ask that question? I think I answered it.
THE COURT: Answer the question.
THE WITNESS: What was the reason—what was the question?
MR. KANAREK: Might it be read, your Honor?
THE COURT: Read the question.
(Whereupon, the reporter reads the question as follows:
“Q. Well, Mrs. Kasabian, when you spoke, how recently have you spoken with Mr. Bugliosi concerning your taking LSD at the ranch?”)
THE WITNESS: I don’t know.
Q. BY MR. KANAREK: You don’t know the last time?
A. No.
Q. Now, have you spoken with Mr. Bugliosi since you last testified on the witness stand?
A. No.
Q. Pardon?
A. No.
Q. You did not speak with Mr. Bugliosi yesterday in this chair while—after you left the witness stand?
A. Yes, but not concerning what I have been saying.
Q. Well, my question is when did you last speak with Mr. Bugliosi?
A. Oh, I see. Yesterday.
Q. I see. Now, directing your attention to the times that you have been removed from the Sybil Brand Institute, the jail wherein you are housed, how many times were you removed in the presence of Mr. Bugliosi to the Tate residence?
A. To the Tate residence?
Q. Yes.
A. One time.
Q. Now, you only went to the Tate residence once?
A. Yes.
Q. With Mr. Bugliosi?
A. Yes.
Q. How many times have you been to the Tate residence all told?
A. With what?
Q. How many times since you have been in custody have you been to the Tate residence?
A. Once.
Q. Just that one time?
A. Yes.
Q. I see. Now, while you were at the Tate residence did you discuss with Mr. Bugliosi your taking of LSD?
A. No, I don’t believe so.
Q. You mean you may have?
A. I may have but I doubt it.
Q. And upon what do you base your statement that you doubt it?
A. Because I was there to show them positions of things that I had seen and where I was standing, things to that nature.
It had nothing to do with LSD.
Q. And directing your attention to your conversations with Mr. Bugliosi, you have discussed with him on how many different occasions the subject matter of LSD?
A. I don’t know.
Q. Well, can you give us an estimate?
MR. STOVITZ: Your Honor, this question was asked and answered about 18 minutes ago.
The witness said about two or three times.
Counsel said, “Could it have been as many as five or six times?”
She said, “No.”
I object to the question as having been asked and just 18 minutes ago.
MR. KANAREK: Your Honor, this is cross-examination.
MR. STOVITZ: And I object to the question as being asked and answered, your Honor.
THE COURT: Overruled, you may answer.
THE WITNESS: I did not count how many times we talked about my acid taking.
Q. You did not?
A. No.
Q. I see, but there were several times?
A. Yes, there were a few times.
MR. KANAREK: Then, your Honor, may we approach the bench?
THE COURT: For what purpose, to make a motion?
MR. KANAREK: Yes, your Honor, because of the failure of the prosecution to make discovery.
MR. BUGLIOSI: Your Honor—
MR. STOVITZ: Does your Honor want us to approach the bench?
THE COURT: Very well.
(The following proceedings were had at the bench out of the hearing of the jury:)
MR. KANAREK: Your Honor, I am making the motion. May I be heard?
THE COURT: Let’s proceed.
MR. KANAREK: Yes, your Honor.
The point of the matter is that LSD, the state of mind of this witness is very important. We were—
THE COURT: What is the motion?
MR. KANAREK: The motion is, your Honor, that we adjourn these proceedings; that Mr. Bugliosi be sworn so that we can effectively or try effectively to examine this witness.
Obviously we may discover Mr. Bugliosi in his—
THE COURT: State the grounds. I don’t know what you’re talking about, Mr. Kanarek.
MR. KANAREK: Well, your Honor, under the discovery rules we are entitled when we make a motion for discovery and ask for conversations and ask for statements, which we did, we are entitled to get everything that occurs, not just what Mr. Bugliosi decides to put down on several pieces of paper.
Now, the motion that I have is that this witness’ testimony be suppressed and stricken, or, in the alternative, that we be furnished statements that she made to Mr. Bugliosi in connection with the taking of acid, LSD, and drugs.
Now, I can offer into evidence to the Court by reference, if I may at this time—
May I get a certain document from my place at the bench?
THE COURT: You’d better speed it up, Mr. Kanarek, because I think you are just wasting time now.
MR. KANAREK: I am not, your Honor.
MR. BUGLIOSI: May I make a statement?
MR. KANAREK: The point is this, your Honor, Mr. Bugliosi purported to furnish us with discovery concerning Linda Kasabian.
There is not one mention in that about one thing concerning LSD, drugs or narcotics.
THE COURT: Let’s hear from the other side. You have had your chance.
MR. BUGLIOSI: I told several members of the defense she had taken LSD; there is no question about it. I told them “50 times”.
I told them we were going to put that evidence on, ourself, because I understood they were going to say 300 times.
I said “I will put on evidence myself about 50 times.” Mr. Fitzgerald, you remember that.
THE COURT: I recall hearing you say that, I don’t remember where it was, it may have been in chambers.
MR. BUGLIOSI: It’s never been hidden. I told the defense we were going to put on evidence that she had taken LSD 50 times.
MR. STOVITZ: Not only that, but I think we furnished, I think it was Mr. Fitzgerald, with a copy of “Yana The Witch.” Did I show it to you, Mr. Fitzgerald?
MR. FITZGERALD: No, I obtained a copy myself.
MR. STOVITZ: In which it goes on and explains—
THE COURT: Well, let’s proceed.
MR. STOVITZ: Was your Honor going to have an 11:00 o’clock recess?
THE COURT: I was not intending to.
MR. STOVITZ: May I be excused?
Mr. Bugliosi will carry on in my absence.
MR. KANAREK: The point is this, it is just not a matter of saying—
THE COURT: What is it a matter of, Mr. Kanarek? Get to the point, will you.
MR. KANAREK: It’s a matter of getting evidence so we can cross-examine and impeach.
THE COURT: Get the evidence.
MR. KANAREK: I cannot if Mr. Bugliosi is the one who receives statements.
THE COURT: What evidence are you talking about?
MR. KANAREK: I am talking about her words, what she talked to him.
THE COURT: That was not in the discovery?
MR. BUGLIOSI: Yes.
MR. KANAREK: Yes, it was.
THE COURT: How do you discover words? He was not required to give a deposition.
MR. KANAREK: Your Honor, it is a denial of due process and an effective right to counsel when the prosecution is going to take steps—
THE COURT: I don’t want to hear any more, Mr. Kanarek, I have heard enough on this subject.
You raised it before. There is nothing to it. There is not one shred of evidence that the People failed to make discovery.
Let’s proceed.
MR. HUGHES: I join in Mr. Kanarek’s motion.
(The following proceedings were had in open court in the presence and hearing of the jury:)
MR. KANAREK: Your Honor, may the record reveal that when we go to the bench and Mrs. Kasabian leaves the bench and goes immediately to an area—
THE COURT: Let’s proceed with the examination.
MR. KANAREK: I am just trying to make the record.
THE COURT: There is no need to make any such record. Let’s proceed.
BY MR. KANAREK:
Q. Now, Mrs. Kasabian, then, during this period—during this period of time that you are speaking of, of one month, were you in the presence of—were you during that period of time in the presence of Mr. Melton?
A. No.
Q. During that period of time that you were at the Spahn Ranch were you in the presence of a girl named Crissy?
A. I don’t recall the name.
Q. Pardon?
A. I don’t recall the name.
Q. You don’t recall the name?
A. Crissy? No.
Q. Were you in the presence of a girl named June?
A. I don’t recall that name either.
Q. Were you in the presence of a girl named Alice?
A. I don’t recall that name.
Q. I see. Now, directing your attention to the names that I have just mentioned, did you take LSD in the presence of any of those girls?
A. I don’t know their names.
Q. Pardon?
A. I don’t know who they are, their names.
Q. I see.
You don’t know those people?
A. No.
Q. I see.
Now, when you took this one dose of LSD that you are speaking of—
MR. BUGLIOSI: I object again to that characterization your Honor, she did not say that.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. KANAREK: She said she does not know what it is.
Q. Well, comparing, as you have compared that one time that you have spoken of with other times that you had taken LSD, and the effect seemed the same, don’t they?
A. Similar, yes.
Q. So that as far as your state of mind is concerned that was LSD which you took in that one time that you have spoken of to us?
A. It could have been mescaline.
Q. Pardon?
A. It could have been a weak mescaline.
Q. It could have been a weak mescaline?
A. Yes.
Q. And would you describe for us what are the effects of mescaline?
A. Similar to acid but it is not quite as intense. It is mellow.
Q. What do you mean by mellow?
A. It’s just mellow, the trip itself.
Q. What do you mean by that, Mrs. Kasabian?
A. That is the only word I can describe for it.
Q. Well, on this one trip that you took would you tell us what went through your mind, what you thought of during that trip?
A. I am not sure what I thought of. I know I went up into the woods; I sat down under a tree for a while, and I don’t know what I thought of.
Q. And while you sat down under a tree, you gulped down—took down some kind of a pill or something like that?
A. No, I took that pill at the ranch itself.
Q. I see, and then did you wait for this hour period?
A. I don’t know, I guess I did.
Q. And you don’t know for sure whether you took anything or not, is that correct?
A. I knew for sure I took something, yes.
Q. Just once?
A. Yes.
Q. The whole time you were at the Spahn Ranch you only took one pill?
A. Yes.
Q. I see.
Now, then, directing your attention, Mrs. Kasabian, to who was present with you when you took down this one pill this one time that you took whatever you took at the Spahn Ranch, who was present?
A. I remember Sadie was there and a girl named Barbara took some.
There were a few more faces that were there. I don’t know if they took any.
Q. All right, now, directing your attention then to this full month, the entire month—
Now we are talking about the time that you came to the Spahn Ranch until the time that you left.
A. Yes.
Q. To go to Arizona.
Do you have that all in mind, that whole period of time?
A. To New Mexico, you mean?
Q. To New Mexico.
A. Yes.
Q. I am sorry, to New Mexico.
Having that in mind, you only took one pill?
A. That’s right.
Q. And you took no other drugs, is that correct?
A. I smoked weed if that is what you want to consider a drug.
Q. By weed—
A. Marijuana.
Q. —you mean marijuana?
A. Yes.
Q. On how many occasions did you smoke weed?
A. A number of occasions.
MR. KANAREK: Your Honor, may we have a recess for personal privilege of one of the defendants?
THE COURT: All right. Ladies and gentlemen, do not converse with anyone nor form or express any opinion regarding the case until it is finally submitted to you.
The court will recess for 15 minutes.
(Recess.)
THE COURT: All parties, counsel and jurors are present.
You may proceed, Mr. Kanarek.
MR. KANAREK: Q. Mrs. Kasabian, directing your attention to last Sunday. Do you remember last Sunday?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, did you meet with Mr. Stovitz last Sunday?
A. Yes.
Q. And did you meet with Mr. Stovitz for about three and half hours last Sunday?
A. Possibly about that long, yes.
Q. Three and one-half hours?
A. Possibly, yes. I didn’t look at the time.
Q. And Mr. Fleischman was there, too?
A. Yes.
Q. Is that correct?
A. Yes.
MR. KANAREK: May we approach the bench, your Honor?
THE COURT: No. Let’s proceed.
MR. KANAREK: Then may I make a motion?
THE COURT: You may state it without argument.
MR. KANAREK: The motion is, your Honor, that we take the deposition of Mr. Stovitz and Mr. Fleischman to see what was discussed, in view of this Court’s order concerning certain matters.
THE COURT: I don’t know what you are talking about. You can take it up at noon.
Let’s proceed with the cross-examination now.
MR. KANAREK: Very well.
Q. What did you discuss, Mrs. Kasabian, in that three and a half hours?
A. We did a lot of talking about the political situation of the world; just every day life, mostly. We didn’t talk too much about the case.
Q. You didn’t talk too much about the case?
A. No.
Q. What did you talk about, what your state of mind was in the case?
A. Excuse me? I didn’t understand your question.
Q. Very well. I will rephrase it.
What did you talk about concerning the case?
A. I believe he told me that he would be putting me back on redirect, and he told me I was doing very well. Also, tell the truth, and to answer the question direct and not to go off on side trips, as I put it. That is not how he put it. I don’t know how he put it.
Q. Well, for three and a half hours you discussed politics, and he gave you instructions on how to testify for three and a half hours?
A. He just told me to tell the truth at all times.
Q. He told you for three and a half hours to tell the truth?
A. No.
Q. Well, then, what else did you discuss if he didn’t tell you that for three and a half hours?
A. Oh, I think he asked me about a certain murder that happened up in Northern California, which I knew nothing about.
Q. I see.
A. He showed me some sort of a legal paper, if I didn’t want to talk to the press to give it to them.
Q. Mr. Stovitz did?
A. Yes.
Q. And what else did Mr. Stovitz discuss?
A. That is basically about it, that I can think of at the moment.
Q. Well, what did you discuss concerning going to the Tate house?
A. Going to the Tate house?
Q. Yes.
MR. BUGLIOSI: It assumes a fact not in evidence.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. KANAREK: Q. What did you discuss concerning the case?
You say very little of it was concerning the case?
A. Yes.
Q. As you termed it, what we are here in court for; what did you discuss concerning that?
A. I can’t really remember a specific thing that we talked about.
Q. Well, will you reflect for a few seconds and tell us?
A. I have been reflecting on your last few questions, and I think that I have answered it to the best of my ability.
Q. So, for three and a half hours you discussed politics?
A. No, that is not what I said.
Q. Well, for three and a half—one of the things that you discussed for three and a half hours was politics?
A. Did you ask me a question?
Q. Yes.
Is that true?
A. Yes, that is one of the things.
Q. Well, what did you discuss?
What did you discuss concerning matters that we have had come up in this courtroom?
A. I just told you, I can’t remember what specific matter we spoke about.
Q. You can’t remember?
A. Yes.
Q. Well, did you discuss your husband, Mr. Kasabian?
A. I don’t think so.
Q. Did you discuss Mr. Melton?
A. I don’t think so.
Q. Did you discuss how many trips of LSD you took during the month—
A. We did discuss Mr. Melton and my husband.
Q. I see.
Did you discuss how many trips of LSD, or whatever you took during the month that you were in Spahn Ranch?
A. Not that I recall.
Q. But you may have?
A. I may have, sure, but I don’t recall.
Q. You don’t recall it now?
A. No.
Q. Did you discuss Judy Emmer?
A. Yes, I believe we did.
Q. You did discuss Judy Emmer?
A. Yes.
Q. And did you discuss what had occurred in the State of Miami, Florida, in the fall of 1969?
A. When I was there?
Q. Pardon?
A. When I was there?
Is that what you mean?
Q. Well, did you discuss matters which occurred when you weren’t there?
A. No.
Q. So, you discussed matters that occurred while you were there?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you discuss Judy Short?
A. Who is that?
I don’t think so.
Q. Well, you know Judy Emmer, Mrs. June Emmer, whose nickname is Judy?
A. Yes, I knew her as Judy.
Q. And she had a friend named Judy?
A. Oh, yes.
Q. Did you discuss this lady, Judy Short?
A. No.
Q. But you did discuss Judy Emmer?
A. Yes.
Q. And did Mr. Stovitz discuss with you what Judy Emmer had said concerning you in court?
A. Yes. I think he asked me if I had said these things.
Q. The things that Mrs. Emmer spoke about concerning whatever—
A. The things she said that I said.
Q. In court here?
A. I guess.
Q. At a time when the jury was not present?
A. I guess.
I don’t know.
MR. KANAREK: May we approach the bench, your Honor?
THE COURT: For what purpose?
MR. KANAREK: Well, your Honor, I wish to make a certain point to the Court, if I may.
THE COURT: You can do that at noon, Mr. Kanarek. Let’s proceed.
MR. KANAREK: Very well, your Honor.
Q. Then, during this month, Mrs. Kasabian, you say you took this one item, whether it was mescaline or whether it was LSD, and keeping in mind the fact that you say you had smoked marijuana during this month, were there any other drugs that you took that month or that period of time from the time you left living in the back of a truck and came over to live at the Spahn Ranch?
A. No.
Q. Now, you say that you took marijuana on how many occasions?
A. Quite a few. I didn’t count them.
Q. Now, had you smoked marijuana before?
A. Sure.
Q. And on how many occasions had you taken—had you smoked marijuana?
A. On many, many. I didn’t count them.
Q. Perhaps hundreds?
A. Sure.
Q. Maybe thousands?
A. Possibly.
Q. And describing the effect that marijuana has on your mind, would you tell us. What effect did the taking of marijuana have upon your thinking processes?
MR. BUGLIOSI: That assumes a fact not in evidence, your Honor, that it does, in fact, have an effect on the mind.
THE COURT: Overruled.
You may answer.
THE WITNESS: It relaxes me.
I don’t know what you mean, you know, by what I think?
Whatever I am thinking about when I don’t smoke it, I am sure that I think about when I am smoking it.
Q. BY MR. KANAREK: And so you smoke marijuana to relax and sort of unwind; that is your way of—
A. Yes.
Q. Pardon?
A. Sure. Yes.
Q. And that was a few times during this month?
A. Yes.
Q. Is that right?
A. Quite a few, yes.
Q. Directing your attention, then, Mrs. Kasabian, let us say, to the first week of August, 1969, during that week, Mrs. Kasabian, did you take any drugs?
A. Not that I recall.
Q. But you may have?
A. I may have smoked some weed, yes, if you want to consider that a drug.
Q. You don’t consider weed a drug?
A. No. Not a chemical, no.
Q. Pardon?
A. No, not a chemical. I consider drugs chemicals.
Q. I see.
Do you consider, in your mind, that weed, as you put it, meaning marijuana, is hallucinogenic?
A. No.
Q. You don’t?
When you smoke marijuana, you don’t get the feelings that you get when you take LSD?
A. No.
Q. Now, during the first week of August, 1969, you didn’t take any drugs and you didn’t take any marijuana?
A. I don’t recall that I did. I may have smoked. I am not sure.
Q. And you for sure didn’t take any LSD?
A. No. Just that one time, if it was acid.
Q. And you didn’t take any during the first week of August?
A. I didn’t take what?
Q. Any LSD during the first week of August.
A. I just took it that one time. If that was the first week of August. I didn’t keep track.
Q. You may have taken it during the first week of August?
A. I didn’t keep track of time, Mr. Kanarek, so if that was the first week of August that I took it.
Q. You may have?
A. I may have, yes.
Q. And you may have taken it sometime during the first ten days of August; is that correct?
A. Possibly.
Q. That may have been the time that you took the LSD?
A. Yes.
Q. Or the mescaline?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, directing your attention, Mrs. Kasabian, to the time that you—let me withdraw that and ask you—you came to California in order to reconcile with your husband at the end of June, 1969; is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And the reconciliation with your husband ended because of—what was the reason that this reconciliation didn’t work out?
A. We just weren’t together.
Q. When you say you weren’t together, what do you mean by that, Mrs. Kasabian?
A. Well, I don’t feel that he was together to take care of, you know, a little child all of a sudden. You know, there was a baby there and he just didn’t seem to be ready for it.
I don’t know, just being together. We weren’t, you know, in harmony with each other.
Q. I see.
And this little baby, was this little baby Tanya?
A. Yes.
Q. And you felt that you were capable of taking care of Tanya?
A. Of course.
Q. I see.
So your reconcilation didn’t work out with your husband?
A. Right.
Q. Now, how long did this reconcilation last?
A. Not very long. A week.
Q. About a week?
A. Yes.
Q. And the reason that you left your husband was because you decided to leave your husband; is that correct?
A. No, not really.
Q. All right. Then what is the reason that you left your husband?
A. He didn’t really want me any more. This all happened at once, on this one particular day.
Q. On the same day what all happened at once?
A. He just didn’t want me around, and I wanted to leave, and Gypsy was there and she was my way out.
Q. So Gypsy, from your state of mind, you were using Gypsy as a way out of what?
A. Somewhere else to go. I wasn’t wanted here, and I wasn’t happy in this place; so she gave me another place to go.
Q. So, it was because you decided that you wanted to leave, of your own free will, you decided that you wanted to leave your husband and go with Gypsy?
A. Because he didn’t want me any more, yes.
Q. And that is the reason you left?
A. Yes.
Q. And there was no other reason, was there?
A. No.
Q. So, when you went to the Spahn Ranch to live, you went because you decided to go?
A. Because I wasn’t wanted, yes.
Q. And when you left the Spahn Ranch—pardon me—when you left living with your husband, what did you take with you?
Would you tell us all the items that you took with you when you left living with your husband?
A. I took a Mexican bag, which is made out of straw, different colors; and I believe I packed diapers and Tanya’s clothing, and I had a green dress, a long green dress.
Do you want to know what I was wearing, or just what I put in this bag?
Q. Tell us everything you took, whether you were wearing it or however.
A. I had on a blue cut off denim skirt and a white shirt that I had made.
I took a pair of moccasins.
Oh, I took a Mexican blanket, sort of like a saddle blanket, for Tanya.
Oh, I took a green, I don’t know what you call it, it is a camouflage—we used to use it for a sheet on our bed—it is a camouflage piece of cloth.
That is about all I remember.
Q. And some LSD?
A. Oh, yes. Right.
No, not that day.
Q. Not that day?
A. No.
Q. Well, my question is not limited to any particular day. Whatever the time. You don’t remember time anyway, what particular time is not important to you, but in making the move, would you tell us everything that you took with you?
MR. BUGLIOSI: It is too broad a question, your Honor.
If he is talking about the particular day she moved to Spahn Ranch, swell.
If he is going to another day, I think he should direct the question to that.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q. BY MR. KANAREK: Mrs. Kasabian, directing your attention to everything that you took in the move, without regard to when you took it, would you tell us everything you moved.
MR. BUGLIOSI: Same objection, your Honor.
MR. KANAREK: Your Honor, I believe this question is clear.
MR. BUGLIOSI: I would like to approach the bench on this, your Honor.
THE COURT: I did not hear you, Mr. Bugliosi.
MR. BUGLIOSI: I have the same objection to the question. It is too broad.
THE COURT: The ambiguity is what the move consisted of.
MR. KANAREK: I will try to rephrase it.
THE COURT: Clarify it.
The objection is sustained.
MR. KANAREK: Very well.
Q. BY MR. KANAREK: Mrs. Kasabian, how many days did it take you to move?
A. That one day.
Q. You moved just in one day?
A. Yes.
Q. And then have you told us everything that you took with you in the move to the Spahn Ranch?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, in moving to the Spahn Ranch did you take any items from the area where you were living with your husband at a date other than that which you called that one day?
A. Yes.
Q. All right, what items did you take to the Spahn Ranch other than the items you have told us?
MR. BUGLIOSI: Ambiguous question, your Honor. We don’t know what day he is talking about.
I would like to approach the bench on this.
THE COURT: Very well.
(The following proceedings were had at the bench out of the hearing of the jury:)
MR. BUGLIOSI: I represent to the Court, your Honor, that I know exactly what Mr. Kanarek is doing.
He is flaunting the Court’s position.
He wants Mrs. Kasabian to testify that she took $5,000 with her the second or third day.
I have no doubt in my mind whatsoever that that is what he is seeking to do, and I am sure if the Court were to ask him, he would admit it, and I think the issue is this, it is just a simple issue: Is this evidence admissible or not?
If it is admissible I will not object any more.
If it is inadmissible then I think it is shocking that Mr. Kanarek would do something like this.
Now, Mr. Fitzgerald, in a very professional, ethical manner did not go into it.
The Court held this was inadmissible matter.
Mr. Kanarek was present and heard the Court’s discussion, yet there is no doubt in my mind this is what he is seeking right now.
MR. KANAREK: Your Honor, in order to obtain this witness’ state of mind we have to know what she does.
We cannot rely, your Honor—
THE COURT: State of mind?
MR. KANAREK: That’s right, in other words, a person’s state of mind is indicated by their actions, not just by their self-serving statements.
THE COURT: Is that what you are trying to get at, the $5,000, Mr. Kanarek?
MR. KANAREK: Your Honor, I am trying to get at everything she took. She may have taken mescaline.
THE COURT: I think you can limit it, then.
MR. KANAREK: I don’t think we have to.
What I am saying is this, your Honor, I believe that the defendants are at least entitled to make a record outside of—Mr. Bugliosi is apprehensive of this, that I would ask the Court to excuse the jury and there could be no reason, no reason whatsoever why she cannot testify to this outside the presence of the jury and then your Honor can evaluate.
Because, you see, we have this, your Honor—
THE COURT: All you have to do is limit your questions.
MR. KANAREK: I know, your Honor, but we also have a right to prove our position.
Now, if your Honor will bear with me I will try to indicate to the Court what I am alluding to.
THE COURT: Very well.
MR. KANAREK: The point is she has indicated, first of all she says that she came over to the ranch for certain reasons when she was on direct examination, and she was under some kind of an influence.
If we can show that her motive and intent in going to the Spahn Ranch was different than what she has stated on cross-examination, not only is the impeachment as to her integrity as a witness, because of the inconsistency—
THE COURT: What do you mean her motive, her motive why she is going to Spahn Ranch?
MR. KANAREK: Because the prosecution is talking about the ability of Mr. Manson to mesmerize.
THE COURT: She hadn’t even met Mr. Manson at that time.
MR. KANAREK: Mr. Bugliosi even put on evidence of a sex orgy.
THE COURT: What has that to do with it?
MR. KANAREK: It is to show Mr. Manson controls people through people.
THE COURT: What has that to do with it?
MR. KANAREK: Gypsy is there; Gypsy is supposedly influencing her mind to come, according to the prosecution; we have a right to show this is not the motive.
If he wants to strike the evidence about Gypsy influencing her, telling her about this wonderful man—
THE COURT: Let’s get back to the point, Mr. Kanarek. Isn’t it a fact that you are trying to drag in testimony regarding this $5,000?
MR. KANAREK: No.
THE COURT: Isn’t that true?
MR. KANAREK: No, your Honor, what I am trying to do—
THE COURT: Then tailor your questions so you can avoid that.
MR. KANAREK: Your Honor, then I am saying—
THE COURT: You will not in any way be limited in your cross-examination by simply tailoring your questions around that particular point.
Let’s get on with it.
MR. KANAREK: The point is this, your Honor, so there will not be any chance whatsoever of anyone saying that I am trying to do anything improper.
After all, your Honor—
THE COURT: Let’s get to it. Stop talking so much, and get to the point.
MR. KANAREK: Well, your Honor, wouldn’t listen to me.
THE COURT: I am listening to you. Get to it.
What are you saying?
MR. KANAREK: Let’s take her testimony outside the presence of the jury.
THE COURT: No, we are not going to do that.
You had other motions to take up at noon. It is five-minutes to noon. I will hear them right now.
MR. KANAREK: Yes, your Honor.
In direct violation of this Court’s order that there was to be no discussion concerning her testimony, in direct contravention of that order the prosecution spent three and a half hours with her on Sunday.
THE COURT: No discussion—what are you talking about?
MR. KANAREK: The Court made an order that there was not to be any discussion with Linda Kasabian as to her testimony.
THE COURT: I don’t know what you’re talking about.
MR. FITZGERALD: Your Honor cautioned Mr. Fleischman, Mr. Goldman, Mr. Stovitz and Mr. Bugliosi not to discuss with Linda Kasabian during any recess or holidays or any time that the court was in recess.
THE COURT: I see what you mean.
Of course Mr. Bugliosi has to re-examine her on redirect examination, and she has a right to be present with her attorney.
Her testimony was not that she discussed it with Mr. Fleischman, he was simply present.
If I understand the testimony, that is going to have to be an exception, Mr. Kanarek, to whatever I said before.
MR. BUGLIOSI: In fact, the Court made it clear at that time, your Honor, that the prosecutors could talk to her.
THE COURT: Is there anything you want to take up?
MR. KANAREK: The thing I want to get across is, I am denied access to this person to speak to her.
Then I am—
THE COURT: You are not denied by anyone I know other than the witness herself.
MR. KANAREK: At every recess the deputy sheriffs surround her.
THE COURT: Of course, she is under custody; she is under extreme security matters. There is nothing unusual about that.
MR. KANAREK: The fact of the matter is they make her physically unavailable to me. They make it so I cannot even come near her.
THE COURT: We have gone over this many times. Is there anything else you want to take up?
MR. KANAREK: Well, your Honor, I wish, I wish, I wish to get her complete state of mind as to why she left.
THE COURT: If you are going back to the cross-examination, I told you about this particular point. I will sustain objections to questions to elicit and bring out the incident about the $5,000, which is simply an improper way of attempting to impeach her.
You can tailor your questions around that point without any way decreasing the effectiveness of the cross-examination.
Now let’s proceed.
MR. BUGLIOSI: If you ask a question, “What did you take with you that day”; that will include the $5,000.
The Court indicated you are to tailor your questions to avoid it.
MR. KANAREK: Your Honor, to obey the Court’s order, which I wish to do, although I allege that your Honor’s order does deny us a fair trial, a right to effective counsel guaranteed by the due process clause of the 14th Amendment, in that we did not create this woman’s state of mind, and if there is something there, whatever she did is the motivation, we have a right to know it.
In view of the fact the prosecution—
THE COURT: We covered this now, Mr. Kanarek, you are repeating yourself.
MR. KANAREK: I am trying to convince the Court.
THE COURT: All right. Denied.
Let’s proceed, gentlemen.
It’s 12:00 o’clock. We will take our noon recess.
(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.
(Recess taken until 2:00 o’clock p.m. of the same day.)
2:03 o’clock p.m.
(The following proceedings occur in open court, all defendants, counsel and jury present:)
THE COURT: All parties, counsel and jurors are present.
You may proceed, Mr. Kanarek.
MR. KANAREK: Thank you, your Honor.
the witness on the stand at the time of the noon recess, resumed the stand and testified further as follows:
CROSS-EXAMINATION (Continued)
BY MR. KANAREK:
Q. Mrs. Kasabian, is it a fair statement that during the first, let us say, ten days of August, 1969, that you don’t know when in that period of time you took any LSD or mescaline?
A. I am not even sure if it was in August.
Q. You are not even sure if it was, but it could have been?
A. It could have been.
Q. Now, on August—what was the date, Mrs. Kasabian, that you left Los Angeles in August?
A. The date?
Q. Yes.
A. I don’t know.
Q. You don’t know dates very well?
A. No.
Q. Is it a fair statement that, let us say, about a year ago, during the year of 1969, you didn’t know dates very well?
A. Excuse me?
Q. Has it always been your characteristic not to know dates too well?
A. Yes.
Q. And time hasn’t meant too much to you?
A. Yes.
Q. And then, is it a fair statement, then, that you don’t know when you left Los Angeles?
A. I know it was two days after the second night. I don’t know the date.
Q. Two days after the second night?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, in your conversations with Mr. Bugliosi and Mr. Stovitz and Mr. Fleischman, have they discussed with you what dates or what is the date of what you call the second night?
A. Yes.
Q. And what date is that they have discussed with you as the second night?
MR. STOVITZ: That is objected to, your Honor, as being immaterial as to what our discussion was.
THE COURT: Overruled.
THE WITNESS: I think the second night was the 10th.
BY MR. KANAREK:
Q. And the first night would be what date?
A. The 9th.
Q. Wasn’t in fact that the first night, the 9th, and the second night, the 10th?
A. What?
Q. Was in fact the first night the 9th, and the second night the 10th?
A. Yes.
MR. KANAREK: May I have a moment, your Honor?
THE COURT: Yes.
(Pause.)
Q. BY MR. KANAREK: Now, Mrs. Kasabian, directing your attention to your state of mind when you want something; is it a fair statement that you will lie, if necessary, in order to get an objective?
MR. BUGLIOSI: Your Honor, it is beyond the scope of the direct examination.
It is irrelevant; it is also argumentative.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q. BY MR. KANAREK: Now, directing your attention, Mrs. Kasabian, to your state of mind in connection with getting Tanya in August of 1969.
Did you lie, Mrs. Kasabian, in order to get Tanya from the Juvenile Court?
MR. STOVITZ: That is objected to, your Honor, as being immaterial, irrelevant and outside the scope of these issues.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q. BY MR. KANAREK: Now, Mrs. Kasabian, directing your attention to your state of mind, would you tell us, Mrs. Kasabian, when did you tell the juvenile officers, the social worker in the Juvenile Court, that you left Los Angeles?
MR. BUGLIOSI: Assumes a fact not in evidence, objected to on that ground.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q. BY MR. KANAREK: Did you have a conversation, Mrs. Kasabian, with people connected with the Juvenile Court in connection with your obtaining Tanya?
MR. STOVITZ: That is objected to as being immaterial, irrelevant and outside the scope of the issues of this case, your Honor.
THE COURT: Overruled.
THE WITNESS: Would you repeat your question.
MR. KANAREK: Might it be read, your Honor?
THE COURT: Read the question.
(Whereupon, the reporter reads the pending question as follows:
“Q. BY MR. KANAREK: Did you have a conversation, Mrs. Kasabian, with people connected with the Juvenile Court in connection with your obtaining Tanya?”
THE WITNESS: Yes, I did.
Q. BY MR. KANAREK: Directing your attention to your state of mind, would you look back to your conversations with the people connected with that Juvenile Court matter and tell us did you consciously tell untruths in order to obtain Tanya?
MR. STOVITZ: That is objected to, your Honor, as being immaterial, irrelevant, calling for hearsay.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q. BY MR. KANAREK: Did you, Mrs. Kasabian, leave Los Angeles after what you call the second night?
A. Yes.
Q. How long after the second night did you leave Los Angeles?
A. I believe two days later.
Q. Two days later?
A. Yes.
MR. KANAREK: Would the Court take judicial notice, your Honor, of what the prosecution alleges is the date of what this witness called the second night?
THE COURT: I don’t understand what you’re talking about, Mr. Kanarek.
MR. KANAREK: Well, it is in the pleading, your Honor, as to what the prosecution alleges is the second night.
I am asking the Court to take judicial notice of that at this time. It is in the pleading that is before the Court, and the Court can take judicial notice of its own records.
THE COURT: It isn’t stated like you say it.
There is a date in the indictment; there are dates in the indictment, that is true.
MR. KANAREK: Would the Court take judicial notice—
THE COURT: There is no record of any second night.
MR. KANAREK: In connection with Rosemarie LaBianca, your Honor, and her husband, will the Court take judicial notice of that at this time as to the date or as to what is stated in the pleading in connection with that for the date, concerning Mr. and Mrs. LaBianca?
THE COURT: Yes. Do you wish to read that to the jury?
MR. KANAREK: May I, your Honor?
THE COURT: Do you have a copy of the indictment?
MR. KANAREK: If I may use the Court’s indictment. It will save time.
THE COURT: Very well.
MR. FITZGERALD: Why don’t we stipulate between counsel that the dates alleged in the indictment are August 8th and 9th, 1969.
MR. STOVITZ: I believe it is August 8th through 10th. Let me check.
MR. FITZGERALD: August 8th through 10th, 1969.
MR. STOVITZ: August the 9th for the first incident, and August the 10th for the second incident. That is what the indictment reads.
MR. KANAREK: That is agreeable, your Honor. August the 10th is mentioned in the indictment.
MR. BUGLIOSI: This is not referring, your Honor, to the time that the defendant allegedly left Spahn Ranch. This is referring to the time of the murders, the Tate murders on August the 9th, and the LaBianca murders on August the 10th.
THE COURT: Do you so stipulate, Mr. Kanarek?
MR. KANAREK: That that is alleged, yes, your Honor, in the indictment.
THE COURT: Very well.
BY MR. KANAREK:
Q. Now, directing your attention, Mrs. Kasabian, to conversations that you had in connection with getting Tanya.
Did you have a conversation with a Mr. Armand Kroeger, K-r-o-e-g-e-r, a social worker of the North Dependency Investigation Unit, in connection with your obtaining Tanya?
A. I don’t remember his name.
Q. You are not good at remembering names either; right?
A. The name sounds familiar.
MR. BUGLIOSI: Argumentative.
BY MR. KANAREK:
Q. Pardon?
A. The name sounds familiar, but I don’t know if that is his name.
Q. Now, did you tell Mr. Kroeger that “On the 6th or 7th of August I left Tanya with Mary Brunner and went to Arizona to meet my husband”?
Did you make that statement to Mr. Kroeger?
I notice you are squinting your eyes.
A. I am trying to think.
Would you read that again?
Q. Yes.
Did you tell Mr. Kroeger that “On the 6th or 7th of August I left Tanya with Mary Brunner and went to Arizona to meet my husband”?
A. Yes, I think I did.
Q. And so, when you stated that, you knew that that was an untruth?
A. Yes. That is obvious.
Q. And you deliberately told this untruth; is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And you deliberately told that untruth because you knew, Mrs. Kasabian, that you had committed murders; is that correct?
A. No. I have never committed murder.
Q. You haven’t committed any murder?
A. No.
Q. Did you think that you committed murder when you were at the Tate residence?
A. No.
Q. Pardon?
A. No.
Q. And directing your attention, then—you remember now you specifically picked out those two dates to tell Mr. Kroeger?
A. No. I don’t remember those dates.
Q. You don’t remember those dates?
A. No.
Q. Well, did you tell Mr. Kroeger that “On the 6th or 7th of August I left Tanya with Mary Brunner and went to Arizona to meet my husband”?
A. The last part sounds right, but I don’t know about the date.
Q. The dates you don’t know?
A. No.
Q. Well, will you tell us, did you specifically, in your mind, state two dates, the 6th or 7th of August, as being dates when you left this area to go to Arizona, when you picked those dates, did you specifically do that so that you would be in an area other than the Los Angeles area on the dates that you call the first and the second nights?
MR. STOVITZ: I object to the question as being ambiguous and compound, your Honor.
THE COURT: Do you understand the question?
THE WITNESS: No, not really.
THE COURT: I suggest you reframe it, Mr. Kanarek.
MR. KANAREK: Certainly.
BY MR. KANAREK:
Q. If we can set the scene, Mrs. Kasabian.
You recall that you did have conversations with someone, a social worker, in connection with getting your child back?
A. Yes.
Q. And directing your attention to your state of mind, was your purpose, when you were in front of that social worker, did you pick dates that you left Los Angeles so that you would be away from Los Angeles on dates that you knew that certain incidents had occurred at the Tate residence and the LaBianca residence?
A. No.
Q. I see.
When you chose the date or dates that you left Los Angeles, you had no purpose in mind except to tell the truth?
MR. STOVITZ: That is objected to as argumentative, your Honor.
THE COURT: Read the question.
(The question was read by the reporter.)
THE COURT: Overruled.
THE WITNESS: I just picked out dates.
MR. KANAREK: Q. You didn’t pick any particular date out?
A. No.
Q. You didn’t say that it was the 6th or 7th of August?
A. I may have but I just probably just picked out a date.
Q. You probably just picked out a date?
A. Yes.
Q. And you didn’t pick out any particular date or dates with the intent to deceive the social worker?
A. I don’t think so, no.
Q. You don’t think so but you may have?
A. I don’t think I did, no.
Q. When you say you don’t think you did, what do you mean by that?
A. What I just said. I don’t think I did.
Q. But you don’t know for sure?
A. I just picked out a date, that is all I can say.
Q. Well, did you pick out the date with the intent of deceiving the social worker?
MR. STOVITZ: That is objected to as being asked and answered, your Honor.
MR. KANAREK: Not at all, your Honor.
THE COURT: Overruled.
You may answer.
THE WITNESS: Deceiving? I don’t understand what you mean.
Q. BY MR. KANAREK: You don’t know what I mean by deceiving?
A. I know what deceive means, but I don’t understand what you mean by the question.
Q. Then I will try to reframe it.
Did you pick out a date as the last date that you were in Los Angeles with the idea of having the social worker know that you were away from the Los Angeles area on the dates that you call the first and second nights?
A. No.
Q. You didn’t do that?
A. No.
Q. And you know for sure you didn’t do that?
A. Yes.
Q. I see.
Then would you explain how is it that you told the social worker, “On the 6th or 7th of August I left Tanya with Mary Brunner and went to Arizona to meet my husband”?
A. If I remember correctly, I think he asked me when I left the ranch, when I left Tanya, and I think maybe I said something like, “A week before they were arrested”—or something like that sounds familiar.
Q. You told the Social worker about a week before they—
A. Yes. Something like that.
Q. I see.
You didn’t tell the social worker on the 6th or 7th of August?
A. That just might have been a guess on my part as to a date.
Q. So, then, you may have actually stated the 6th or 7th of August to the social worker?
A. Yes.
Q. And as you are testifying from the witness stand, did you say it was about a week before they were arrested, or did you give specific dates to the social worker?
A. I don’t know.
Q. So then, you may have stated the 6th or the 7th with the intent of deceiving the social worker; is that correct?
MR. STOVITZ: That is objected to, your Honor. It is argumentative and not at all what the witness testified to. And also assumes a fact not in evidence, that she attempted to deceive the social worker.
MR. KANAREK: This is cross-examination, your Honor. It is for the jury to determine.
MR. STOVITZ: The question is compound.
THE COURT: Do you understand the question, Mrs. Kasabian?
THE WITNESS: I think so.
THE COURT: All right. The objection is overruled.
You may answer it.
THE WITNESS: My intent was that I left what I thought was the 6th and 7th. If I said the 6th and 7th, it was a week before they were arrested. I didn’t know the dates at the time.
MR. KANAREK: Q. And so you had no intent to deceive the social worker as to the date when you left Los Angeles?
A. No, sir.
Q. I see.
Now, when you went to Arizona, Mrs. Kasabian, how long did you stay there after you had obtained Tanya?
A. I didn’t go to Arizona.
Q. Did you go through Arizona at all?
A. Yes.
Q. Well, did you go to New Mexico?
A. Yes.
Q. How long was it from the time that you left Los Angeles, after obtaining Tanya, then you left the place where Mr. Sage lived?
MR. STOVITZ: I don’t understand the question, your Honor. I object to it as being ambiguous.
MR. FITZGERALD: That is not the standard, whether Mr. Stovitz understands it.
THE COURT: Read the question.
(Whereupon the reporter reads the pending question.)
MR. STOVITZ: I object to the question as unintelligible.
MR. KANAREK: I will reframe it, your Honor, I am sorry.
THE COURT: There seems to be one word out of place there somewhere.
MR. KANAREK: Yes, your Honor, I will be glad to rephrase it.
BY MR. KANAREK:
Q. Mrs. Kasabian, how long was it after you left Los Angeles that you left the place where Mr. Sage lived?
MR. STOVITZ: Again, your Honor, I object to the question as being unintelligible.
There were two times she left Los Angeles, once with Tanya and once without Tanya.
The question is ambiguous in this form.
MR. KANAREK: I will be glad to rephrase it, your Honor.
THE COURT: Very well.
BY MR. KANAREK:
Q. After you had Tanya, Mrs. Kasabian, how long was it after you left Los Angeles that you left the area where Mr. Sage lives?
A. The area? Do you mean his house?
Q. All right, let’s say his house.
A. A couple of days.
Q. So you were on your way and left Mr. Sage in a couple of days, right?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, did you, Mrs. Kasabian, tell the social worker that you had a plan for your baby, a plan as to what you were going to do with Tanya after you obtained Tanya?
MR. STOVITZ: Objected to, your Honor, as being immaterial and calling for hearsay.
THE COURT: Sustained.
BY MR. KANAREK:
Q. Well, Mrs. Kasabian, directing your attention to your state of mind, did you tell the social worker that you intended to live and stay in New Mexico in a certain area where there was a church with which Mr. Sage was connected?
MR. BUGLIOSI: I object to the question, your Honor. The question itself contains hearsay.
By asking for a yes or no answer it is an adoption of hearsay.
It is also immaterial.
THE COURT: Sustained.
BY MR. KANAREK:
Q. Did you have a conversation with Mr. Sage prior to coming back to Los Angeles to pick up Tanya?
A. Probably, yes.
Q. And did you cause a letter to be written by Mr. Sage where you stated that you were going to live in Taos, New Mexico?
MR. STOVITZ: Objected to, your Honor, calling for hearsay, being immaterial and irrelevant.
We don’t know to whom the letter was written or what the circumstances were.
No foundation.
MR. KANAREK: This is relevant on the issue of flight to avoid prosecution, your Honor—her flight, everything she did in this regard, your Honor, was to cover her tracks to make it look like she was going somewhere in order to run away.
There is no question about it, your Honor, it is relevant to that issue.
THE COURT: Just a minute, Mr. Kanarek.
Read the last question.
(Whereupon the reporter reads the pending question as follows:
“Q. Did you have a conversation with Mr. Sage prior to coming back to Los Angeles to pick up Tanya?”)
THE COURT: I think the form of the question is objectionable, Mr. Kanarek. You can get at this matter some other way.
MR. KANAREK: Certainly.
THE COURT: The objection is sustained.
MR. KANAREK: Very well, your Honor, I will try.
BY MR. KANAREK:
Q. Mrs. Kasabian, did you have a conversation with Mr. Sage in Taos, New Mexico, prior to coming back to get Tanya?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you tell Mr. Sage in Taos, New Mexico that you wanted to make Taos, New Mexico, your home?
A. I don’t know.
Q. You don’t know?
A. No.
Q. Well, could you think about that for a moment and let us know whether you did have such conversation?
A. Well—
MR. BUGLIOSI: I would object to this. Again it is calling for hearsay.
It has no relevancy to any issue in this case.
MR. KANAREK: Your Honor, it is relevant on the issue of flight.
THE COURT: The objection is overruled, you may answer the question.
MR. KANAREK: May it be read, your Honor?
THE COURT: Is there a question pending?
MR. BUGLIOSI: She answered it with a well, your Honor.
THE COURT: Read the question.
(Whereupon the reporter reads the record as follows;
“Q. Did you tell Mr. Sage in Taos, New Mexico, that you wanted to make Taos, New Mexico, your home?
“A. I don’t know.
“Q. You don’t know?
“A. No.
“Q. Well, could you think about that for a moment and let us know whether you did have such conversation?
“A. Well—”)
THE WITNESS: Yeah, maybe I did. I’m not positive.
I’m not sure.
Q. BY MR. KANAREK: But maybe you did?
A. Yes.
Q. And when you did that, when you stated that Taos, New Mexico was going to be your home, did you intend for Taos, New Mexico to be your home?
A. No.
Q. You did that to deceive, in order to obtain Tanya, is that correct?
MR. BUGLIOSI: Objection, your Honor. It is beyond the scope of direct examination. It is also totally irrelevant.
It is also argumentative.
THE COURT: Overruled.
THE WITNESS: Well, actually Mr. Sage wanted me to go to South America with him, and I wasn’t going to go to South America, so I probably said I am going to make Taos, New Mexico my home with him.
But I was not intending to go to South America.
Q. BY MR. KANAREK: I see. And is it a fair statement that you and Mr. Sage had sexual relations?
MR. BUGLIOSI: I object, your Honor, it’s irrelevant.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q. BY MR. KANAREK: Well, when you say that you were going to South America with Mr. Sage, you spoke with him concerning that.
Would you tell us how that came about? How is it that you had that conversation?
MR. STOVITZ: Objected to as being immaterial, irrelevant and having nothing to do with the issues of this case, your Honor.
THE COURT: Overruled, you may answer.
THE WITNESS: Well, he knew that I was pregnant for one thing, and he ran a macrobiotic—a zen macrobiotic church, which means he was eating pure, natural organic foods, and he wanted to take care of me and Tanya and the unborn baby, and he had plans of going to South America to make movies in Peru, Lima, Peru.
And I agreed that I would live with him and be part of his family and do chores if he would help me get Tanya back.
And he wanted me to go to South America with him, but I never said that I definitely would.
Q. BY MR. KANAREK: And at this time when you were in New Mexico, after leaving Los Angeles, that is the first part of August, 1969, you were in New Mexico with your husband, is that correct?
A. When was this?
Q. Were you in New Mexico with Mr. Kasabian at the time when you left Los Angeles a couple of days, you say, after the second night?
A. Yes, I met him one afternoon.
Q. And did you cause Mr. Sage to state to the social welfare people:
“Mr. and Mrs. Robert Kasabian are employed here at Zen Retreat as caretakers”?
MR. STOVITZ: That is objected to as calling for a conclusion of this witness, calling for hearsay, and immaterial.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q. BY MR. KANAREK: Mrs. Kasabian, did you have a discussion with the social worker as to how you and your husband were going to take care of Tanya if you got Tanya back?
MR. BUGLIOSI: That is irrelevant, your Honor.
MR. KANAREK: Your Honor, it goes to stow consciousness of guilt as to seven murders, your Honor.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. KANAREK: May I approach the witness, your Honor?
THE COURT: You may.
Q. BY MR. KANAREK: Mrs. Kasabian, I show you a letter in Juvenile Court File 385486 in the matter of Tanya Kasabian, Los Angeles Superior Court, and ask you if you would read over this letter which at the top states:
“Church of Macrobiotics, Rancho”—
MR. BUGLIOSI: There is an objection.
If he is marking this as an exhibit I would request an offer of proof.
He is just reading a document.
MR. KANAREK: I am showing it to her.
MR. BUGLIOSI: I would request it be marked as an exhibit after an offer of proof made.
THE COURT: He does not have to make an offer of proof, Mr. Bugliosi.
MR. KANAREK: May I proceed, your Honor?
THE COURT: Let’s proceed.
BY MR. KANAREK:
Q. Where it states at the top “Church of Macrobiotics, Rancho State, Taos, New Mexico.”
Would you read over that letter, please.
MR. BUGLIOSI: Out loud?
MR. KANAREK: It’s all right with me if it’s all right with Mr. Bugliosi to have her read it out loud.
MR. BUGLIOSI: I don’t know what the letter is, your Honor, but we are going into hearsay matters.
I object on that ground.
MR. KANAREK: Does Mr. Bugliosi wish her to read it out loud?
MR. BUGLIOSI: I object to the letter as being hearsay.
THE COURT: She is reading it to herself now.
BY MR. KANAREK:
Q. Now, Mrs. Kasabian, have you ever seen that letter before?
A. Yes, I think I have.
Q. You have seen it?
A. Yes, I have.
Q. And did you see this letter in the State of New Mexico?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you carry this letter to Los Angeles with you?
A. I don’t think so, I may have.
Q. You may have?
A. Yes.
Q. And did you see this letter in Los Angeles County when you spoke with the social worker?
A. I may have, but I don’t recall it.
Q. And before this letter was written did you have a conversation with Mr. Joseph Sage, a monk of the Church of Macrobiotics?
A. Yes.
Q. And this letter was written after you had one or more conversations with Mr. Sage, is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And at a time when you spoke with the social worker did you discuss with the social worker the subject matter of this letter?
A. Not that I recall.
Q. But you may have?
A. Yeah, I may have but I don’t recall talking about the letter.
Q. Now, when you came to Los Angeles, in order to obtain Tanya, after having left the Los Angeles area, you knew that these events that you say occurred on the first and second night had occurred, is that correct?
A. I am sorry, I was not following your question.
MR. KANAREK: May that be read, your Honor?
THE COURT: Read the question.
(Whereupon the reporter reads the pending question as follows:
“Q. Now, when you came to Los Angeles, in order to obtain Tanya, after having left the Los Angeles area, you knew that these events that you say occurred on the first and second night had occurred, is that correct?”)
THE WITNESS: I don’t understand your question.
The question is not clear.
BY MR. KANAREK:
Q. The question is not clear?
A. No.
Q. Did you leave Los Angeles, Mrs. Kasabian, on August the 6th, 1969?
A. Now I know I didn’t.
Q. Well, you say now you know you didn’t?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you leave Los Angeles on August the 7th, 1969?
A. No.
Q. And on August the 7th, 1969, did you take any LSD or mescaline?
A. No.
Q. You know for sure that you didn’t?
A. Yes.
Q. I see.
And how do you know for sure that on those two days you didn’t take any LSD or mescaline?
A. Because I am relating to those two nights, and I know that I didn’t take any kind of a drug so close to those two nights.
Q. How do you know that you didn’t take any kind of a drug so close to those two nights?
A. Because I just know.
Q. You just know?
A. Yes.
Q. Upon what do you base that?
A. I just know. Do I have to give a further explanation? I just know.
Q. I see.
When did you first have a chance to recollect back to see whether or not on August the 6th or 7th of 1969 you took any LSD or any other drugs?
When did you first have a chance to think about that as to those precise dates?
A. I don’t understand you.
Q. Well, you are telling us that on those two dates, August the 6th and August the 7th, 1969, you, for sure, didn’t take any LSD or mescaline?
MR. STOVITZ: That has been asked and answered, your Honor, three times within the last three minutes.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. KANAREK: Q. You are telling us that?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, my question is: When did you first think back and try to determine whether or not on those two dates you, in fact, did or did not take LSD or mescaline? When did you first think about it?
A. I don’t know when I first thought about it, but I have been thinking about it ever since I have been in jail.
Q. I see.
You have been thinking about August the 6th, 1969—
A. No, not August the 6th, but just in relation to the two nights in question.
Q. In relation to the two nights in question you have been sitting and thinking ever since you have been in jail; is that right?
A. Most of the time, yes.
Q. And is there some reason you have been sitting and thinking about those two nights?
A. No, I guess not. I don’t know.
Q. Or have you been sitting and thinking about those two nights?
A. Yes, I have.
Q. Constantly?
A. Not constantly, but a good part of the time.
Q. I see.
You would just sit and meditate and think about it; is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. Your answer is yes?
A. Yes.
Q. Well, then—
MR. STOVITZ: If counsel is through with the witness at the stand, your Honor, I wonder if counsel may return to counsel table?
MR. KANAREK: Whatever the Court prefers.
THE COURT: Well, conduct your examination from behind counsel table, sir, unless you are showing the witness a document.
MR. KANAREK: Very well.
Q. Mrs. Kasabian, is it your understanding that these two nights in question are August the 6th, 1969, and August the 7th, 1969?
A. Say that again?
Q. The two nights in question concerning the events at the Tate residence and the events at the LaBianca residence, is it your understanding that those events occurred on August the 6th and August the 7th, 1969?
A. No.
Q. What is now your understanding as to what nights those occurred on?
A. The 9th and the 10th.
Q. So, therefore, your sitting and meditating in the jail had nothing to do with August the 6th and August the 7th of 1969, you haven’t pinpointed those two dates in your mind, have you?
MR. STOVITZ: Objected to.
MR. KANAREK: May I finish?
MR. STOVITZ: I don’t know when you have finished, but will you raise your hand when you have, Counsel?
THE COURT: Go ahead, Mr. Kanarek.
BY MR. KANAREK:
Q. Mrs. Kasabian, directing your attention to August 6th and August 7th, 1969, is it a fair statement that you have done no meditation concerning those two days at all since you have been in the jail? Have you?
A. No, I don’t think so.
Q. So, therefore, as to August the 6th and August the 7th of 1969, you may have taken LSD; is that right?
MR. STOVITZ: That is objected to, your Honor, as asked and answered three times within the last eight minutes, your Honor.
MR. KANAREK: I don’t think so. Not at all.
THE COURT: Overruled.
You may answer.
THE WITNESS: No, I don’t believe I took any kind of acid or drug on the 6th or the 7th.
BY MR. KANAREK:
Q. When you say you don’t believe, what do you mean by that?
A. I don’t recall.
MR. STOVITZ: Objected to.
THE WITNESS: Excuse me.
MR. STOVITZ: I object to the question as being argumentative, your Honor.
THE COURT: Overruled.
BY MR. KANAREK:
Q. You don’t recall?
A. Yes.
Q. So, in fact, you may have, on August the 6th and August the 7th of 1969, taken LSD or mescaline or some other drug?
A. No, I have to disagree with you.
MR. KANAREK: May I have an answer to the question, your Honor?
THE WITNESS: I thought that was an answer.
MR. KANAREK: May the question be read, your Honor?
THE COURT: Read the question.
(The question was read by the reporter.)
MR. STOVITZ: I submit the question has been asked and answered and the answer is in.
MR. KANAREK: I submit that is not an answer to the question.
MR. STOVITZ: Maybe it is not the answer that counsel wants, your Honor, but I submit that it is an answer that any normal person would give after the question has been asked and answered five or six times.
MR. KANAREK: Your Honor, I submit that—
THE COURT: All right, gentlemen, that is enough.
Do you have the question in mind, Mrs. Kasabian?
THE WITNESS: You are asking me if I took acid on the 6th and the 7th?
BY MR. KANAREK:
Q. I am asking for an answer to the question. If the question isn’t clear—
A. No, I didn’t take any kind of acid or drug on the 6th or 7th.
Q. You know that for sure?
A. Yes, I know that for sure.
Q. How do you know it for sure, since you tell us that you have meditated about the 9th and 10th but you haven’t done any meditation concerning the 6th and 7th? How do you say that for sure?
A. Because you are asking me when I took this acid and I know it wasn’t so close to the 9th and the 10th.
Q. You know it wasn’t?
A. Yes.
Q. I see.
And how do you know that? You don’t know anything about time, time is meaningless to you, dates are meaningless to you? How do you know that?
MR. STOVITZ: Object to the form of the question as argumentative.
THE COURT: Sustained.
BY MR. KANAREK:
Q. You have told us, Mrs. Kasabian, that time and dates have no meaning to you, that you don’t live by time or dates; isn’t that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Then, would you tell me how it is that you can say for sure that on August the 6th and 7th you did not take LSD?
A. I just don’t believe that I did so close to the 9th and the 10th.
Q. You don’t believe that you did?
A. Right.
Q. What do you mean when you say that you don’t believe that you did?
A. I don’t know. I don’t know how to answer your question.
Q. In other words, you may have, when you say you don’t believe that you did, you may have, on those two days; is that correct?
A. I just doubt it. I just doubt that I took it so close to the 9th and the 10th.
I know that I took it around that time, but I know that it wasn’t that close.
I’d say a week.
Q. But is is possible that you did?
A. No.
Q. It is not possible?
A. No.
Q. I see.
And why are you so sure that it is not possible?
MR. BUGLIOSI: This is argumentative.
MR. STOVITZ: Just a moment.
Your Honor, I object—
THE COURT: Sustained.
BY MR. KANAREK:
Q. Are you saying that, Mrs. Kasabian, because you know that in these proceedings we are vitally concerned with what happened on the 9th or the 10th?
MR. BUGLIOSI: That is argumentative, your Honor.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q. BY MR. KANAREK: Now, Mrs. Kasabian, have you, on occasion, on many occasions, discussed with Mr. Bugliosi, with Mr. Stovitz, with Mr. Fleischman, and with Mr. Goldman your taking of LSD?
MR. STOVITZ: That is objected to—
MR. FLEISCHMAN: If your Honor please—
MR. STOVITZ: Just a moment.
I object to the question as being argumentative, compound, ambiguous and calling for hearsay.
MR. BUGLIOSI: Also asked and answered.
MR. FLEISCHMAN: We will object to any conversation that took place with either of us outside the presence of other counsel.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. KANAREK: Q. Now, Mrs. Kasabian, you told us, I think, yesterday that you were going to think about the 23rd time you took LSD and the fourth time that you took LSD.
A. Yes.
Q. Have you been able, since this morning, to tell us what occurred the fourth and the 23rd time you took LSD?
A. No, I haven’t been thinking about it.
Q. And when you took LSD—when you took LSD while you were at the Spahn Ranch, you had no reason for remembering the date, did you?
A. Remembering the date?
Q. Yes.
A. No.
Q. And you had no knowledge on the 9th, when you left the Spahn Ranch as you say you did, when you left on the date that you called the first day—
A. Excuse me, but I don’t know what you are talking about.
MR. KANAREK: May I finish?
THE WITNESS: Yes.
MR. KANAREK: Q. You had no knowledge that there was going to be any wrongdoing when you left the Spahn Ranch with Mr. Watson, Patricia Krenwinkel and Susan Atkins, when you left with those people?
MR. STOVITZ: I don’t think you finished your question.
No knowledge of what?
MR. KANAREK: May I finish?
MR. STOVITZ: All right.
Q. BY MR. KANAREK: When you left the Spahn Ranch that first night, you didn’t know you were going to do anything wrong?
A. I felt we were going to go creepy crawling, and I think that is a wrongdoing.
Q. Oh, you did think you were going creepy crawling?
A. Yes.
MR. KANAREK: May I have a moment, your Honor?
THE COURT: Very well.
(pause.)
Q. BY MR. KANAREK: You remember testifying previously when Mr. Bugliosi was questioning you, Mrs. Kasabian?
A. Concerning what?
Q. Well, you remember testifying when Mr. Bugliosi was questioning you?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, you say that night there were guns—that there was a gun and knives in the automobile?
A. Yes.
Q. Is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. What did you think those knives and the gun were going to be used for, Mrs. Kasabian?
A. I don’t think I really thought about it.
Q. You didn’t think about it?
A. No.
Q. But you say you knew you were going creepy crawling?
A. Well, I thought I knew. Nobody said we were.
Q. Nobody told you that you were going creepy crawling?
A. Uh-huh, yes.
Q. Before you left, you didn’t know it?
A. Right.
Q. Nobody discussed it?
A. Yes. uh-huh.
Q. Nobody told you that you were going creepy crawling?
A. Right.
Q. When did you first find out that you were going creepy crawling?
A. I never found out. I just thought I was.
Q. Oh, you thought you were?
A. Yes.
Q. And why did you think you were?
A. I am not sure. I am not sure.
Q. Well, were you tired that night?
A. Was I tired?
Q. Yes.
A. Maybe. I don’t remember.
Q. Were you sort of exhausted?
A. I don’t think so.
Q. You weren’t exhausted but you were tired?
A. I don’t remember.
Q. You don’t remember now whether you were tired or exhausted?
A. I don’t remember being tired, no.
Q. Now, you say you don’t remember. A couple of questions ago you said you were tired.
MR. BUGLIOSI: No, she didn’t, your Honor.
I object to the question as argumentative and a misstatement.
THE COURT: Sustained.
BY MR. KANAREK:
Q. Well, were you tired, Mrs. Kasabian?
A. No, not that I recall.
Q. Now, you are sure that you weren’t tired—
THE COURT: Just a minute.
THE WITNESS: I think I answered your question.
BY MR. KANAREK:
Q. Do you know for sure?
A. Yes.
THE COURT: Just a moment.
Let’s move along, Mr. Kanarek.
THE WITNESS: Yes, I remember that I wasn’t tired.
THE COURT: Just a moment.
Let’s move along, Mr. Kanarek.
MR. KANAREK: Yes, your Honor.
BY MR. KANAREK:
Q. Now, when you saw—at the time you were in the automobile, you thought you were going creepy crawling?
A. Yes.
Q. But nobody told you that; right?
A. Right.
Q. At what point in the proceedings that night did you become—did you know for sure that you were going creepy crawling?
MR. BUGLIOSI: That assumes a fact not in evidence.
She never did know for sure that they were going creepy crawling.
THE COURT: Sustained.
BY MR. KANAREK:
Q. Did you ever know for sure that night that you were going creepy crawling?
A. No.
Q. Well, when you were at the Tate residence and you say that you saw some shots being fired—is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. At that point, did you feel that you were on a creepy-crawly mission?
A. I didn’t understand what was happening. I didn’t expect anybody to be killed. I just didn’t understand what was happening.
Q. What was the reason you didn’t understand what was happening?
A. Well, I had never seen anybody shot in the head before and it shocked me.
Q. But at that point, Mrs. Kasabian, did you realize that this was a for-sure creepy-crawl mission?
A. I didn’t know what it was.
Q. You didn’t know what it was at that point?
A. That is what I just said.
Q. Directing your attention to the time when you say that you saw Mr. Watson go over the fence.
A. Yes.
Q. Did you go over the fence?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, when you went over the fence, what did you see on the other side of the fence?
A. In a split second there were lights, car lights, coming toward us.
Q. Well, as you were going over the fence, did you think maybe you were, in fact, on a creepy-crawl mission?
A. Yes.
Q. At that point you knew for sure that you were in a creepy-crawl mission; right?
A. Yes.
Q. So, when you saw the gun in Mr. Watson’s hand—you say you saw it in Mr. Watson’s hand?
A. Yes.
Q. At that time you knew for sure you were on a creepy-crawl mission, before the gun was fired; is that correct?
A. I didn’t see the gun, until he shot the man, in his hand.
Q. Well, how close was Mr. Watson to you when you say he shot the gun?
A. Just a few feet.
Q. And up until the time—let me withdraw that. You saw Mr. Watson go over the fence?
A. Yes.
Q. Is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. You went over the fence with Mr. Watson?
A. Yes.
Q. You saw a gun in the car?
A. Yes.
Q. Previously; right?
A. Yes.
Q. And you saw Mr. Watson with the gun in the car; right?
A. I never saw it in his hand until he shot that man.
Q. Well, before you went over the fence and while you were in the car, where was the gun?
A. I don’t know.
Q. At some time while you were driving, did you see the gun in the car?
A. I remember wrapping it up.
Q. You remember wrapping it up?
A. Yes.
Q. And after you wrapped it up, where did you place it?
A. On the floor.
Q. And what part of the car were you riding in?
A. The passenger’s side.
Q. Who was driving the car?
A. Tex.
Q. And the gun was between you and Tex?
A. On the floor, yes.
Q. Right?
A. Yes.
Q. And did you have any conversation with Tex about the gun?
A. Well, when he told me to wrap it up, he told me that if we were stopped to throw it out.
Q. I see.
So, when you stopped the car, before you went over the fence, the package with the gun in it was right next to you; right?
A. Yes.
Q. And did anyone force you to get out of the automobile?
A. No.
Q. Did anyone force you to go over the fence?
A. No.
Q. You went over the fence on your own?
A. Yes.
Q. Is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And directing your attention to the gun, that gun was where when you left the automobile?
A. I don’t know.
Q. Well, at some point while you were in the automobile the gun was on the floor between you and Tex?
A. Yes.
Q. And when you left the automobile you left the automobile with the idea you were going to go over the fence?
A. No, I don’t know whether we were going to go over the fence.
Q. When you left the automobile what was your state of mind, what were you going to do?
A. To crawl into somebody’s house and take things, belongings.
Q. And you had this in your mind as you were driving along?
A. Yes.
Q. And as you were driving along, having this in mind, the gun is right next to you, right? On the floor?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you think that that gun had anything to do with going into a house to get things that belonged to other people?
A. I don’t know if I even thought about it.
Q. You did not think about the gun as having any connection with what you were doing as you drove along with Tex?
A. I cannot remember thinking about it, no.
Q. I see. You mean but you might have?
A. I might have, yes, but I cannot remember thinking about it.
MR. KANAREK: I see.
THE COURT: Mr. Kanarek, it is 3:00 o’clock. We will take the recess.
Ladies and gentlemen, do not converse with anyone nor form or express an opinion regarding the case until it is finally submitted to you.
The Court will recess for 15 minutes.
(Recess.)
THE COURT: All parties, counsel and jurors are present.
You may continue, Mr. Kanarek.
MR. KANAREK: Yes, your Honor.
Q. BY MR. KANAREK: Mrs. Kasabian, directing your attention, Mrs. Kasabian, to the time that you first saw the gun until there were no more shots, what time was that, what duration of time was that?
A. What was that again?
THE COURT: Read the question, please.
MR. KANAREK: I will rephrase it, your Honor.
THE COURT: All right.
Q. BY MR. KANAREK: Directing your attention to some time you saw a gun in Mr. Watson’s hand, is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. From the time you first saw the gun in Mr. Watson’s hand until there were no more shots, what duration of time passed?
A. I don’t know.
Q. Well, was it a minute?
A. I still don’t really understand your question.
Q. Well, at some time—I will back off and ask you:
Is it a fact that the lighting there was very poor?
A. Yes.
Q. Was the moon out?
A. Not that I saw.
Q. Very dark, right?
A. Yes.
Q. And how far away were you from Mr. Watson when you first saw the gun in Mr. Watson’s hand?
A. Just a few feet.
Q. And how far was Mr. Watson from the automobile when, you first saw the gun in Mr. Watson’s hand?
A. He was right at the automobile.
Q. And what did you say when you first saw the gun in Mr. Watson’s hand?
A. I didn’t say anything.
Q. Just prior to the time when you saw the gun in Mr. Watson’s hand where was Mr. Watson?
A. We just climbed over the fence and it all happened at once.
Q. It all happened at once?
A. Uh-huh.
Q. Now, this fence—
MR. KANAREK: May I approach the witness, your Honor?
THE COURT: Yes.
Q. BY MR. KANAREK: I show you a picture which has been marked No. 86 for identification, and ask you does that look like the fence?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, directing your attention to that picture would you point out for us what part of that fence you jumped over?
A. It’s already indicated as I have before, right here.
Q. Where, on the right-hand side with the vertical line near it?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, who jumped over the fence first?
MR. BUGLIOSI: Your Honor, there is no testimony that anyone jumped over a fence. The testimony is they climbed an embankment and went around the fence.
There is no allegations of any high jumpers or anything like that.
THE COURT: Reframe the question.
MR. KANAREK: Yes.
Q. BY MR. KANAREK: Who went over this fence first, Mrs. Kasabian?
A. I don’t remember.
Q. Well, were you in shock at the time when you went over the fence?
A. No.
Q. Can you think for a moment and tell us who went over the fence first?
MR. STOVITZ: I cannot hear counsel’s questions, your Honor, he tends to lower his voice
THE COURT: Keep your voice up, please, Mr. Kanarek.
Q. BY MR. KANAREK: Would you think for a moment and tell us who went over the fence first?
A. I thought about it for a long time before and I don’t know, I cannot remember.
Q. You cannot remember.
Now, how close were you to Tex when you went over the fence?
A. I don’t remember
Q. Did Tex help you go over the fence?
A. I don’t think so.
Q. You managed to get over the fence on your own?
A. Yes.
Q. After you got over the fence how close were you to Tex, as you reached the other side of the fence?
A. I don’t know. I don’t know if he was in front of me or behind me or if there was somebody between us.
Q. If there was what?
A. If there was somebody between us.
Q. Well, at the time that you saw the automobile how far away were you from Tex?
A. Just a few feet.
Q. And at the time that you saw the automobile did you see a gun in Tex’s hand?
A. I did not see the gun until he stuck it in the window.
Q. Well, what were you doing just before the time that you saw the gun stuck in the window?
A. Well, like I said before, it all happened at once, as soon as we got over the fence the car started coming towards us and—
Q. Now, have you ever had an occasion wherein you remember something that happened sometime in the past all of a sudden, since you started taking LSD?
MR. STOVITZ: That is objected to, your Honor, as being ambiguous, compound and unintelligible.
THE COURT: Read the question.
(Whereupon, the reporter reads the pending question as follows:
“Q. Now, have you ever had an occasion wherein you remember something that happened sometime in the past all of a sudden, since you started taking LSD?”)
THE COURT: Do you understand the question, Mrs. Kasabian?
THE WITNESS: No, not really.
THE COURT: The objection will be sustained.
Q. BY MR. KANAREK: Well, Mrs. Kasabian, have you ever since you—
MR. STOVITZ: If counsel is through at the witness stand I wonder if he could return here. I am having a little difficulty.
MR. KANAREK: More than glad to you, your Honor. More than glad to.
Q. BY MR. KANAREK: Since you have been taking LSD, Mrs. Kasabian, do you every once in a while remember something that happened in the past?
A. That’s happened even before I ever took LSD.
Q. Is that true?
A. Sure.
Q. And since you have taken LSD have you had occasion to have any of these vision or hallucinations at a time when you hadn’t taken LSD?
MR. STOVITZ: Your Honor, that assumes a fact that remembering something in the past is a hallucination or a vision.
I think the question is unclear in that respect.
THE COURT: I think it is ambiguous. Sustained.
Q. BY MR. KANAREK: You have told us, Mrs. Kasabian, you have told us that you have hallucinated under the influence of LSD, right?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, have you had the experience of hallucinating, having a hallucination, the same experience that you have beginning an hour after you ingest LSD?
Have you had the experience of having a hallucination even though you have not taken any LSD, just before you felt the hallucination?
MR. BUGLIOSI: That is totally ambiguous.
MR. KANAREK: I don’t think it is, your Honor.
THE COURT: Well, I think I know what you mean, Mr. Kanarek, but it is open to ambiguity.
Are you talking about the same hallucination?
MR. KANAREK: Either way, your Honor; the same or different.
THE COURT: Well, you ask the questions—
MR. KANAREK: Pardon me?
THE COURT: You ask the questions, Mr. Kanarek. I rule on the objections.
I think it is ambiguous. The objection is sustained.
MR. KANAREK: Very well.
BY MR. KANAREK:
Q. Mrs. Kasabian, from your LSD experiences, do you have the same hallucination time after time after time when you take LSD time after time after time?
A. No.
Q. And have you had the experience of having a hallucination at some point or at some time where you have not taken LSD?
A. Not that I can recall.
Q. But you may have?
A. Not that I can recall.
Q. Are you saying, when you say “not that I recall”—may I ask you, what do you mean when you say “not that I recall”?
A. I don’t remember hallucinating when I didn’t have a drug.
Q. I see.
Well, then, the answer is no; is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. The answer is no, you never have?
A. Yes.
Q. I see.
Now, on this night in question, Mrs. Kasabian, are you sure as to who had the gun?
A. Yes, I am positive.
Q. You are sure you didn’t have the gun in your hand?
A. I am positive.
Q. What makes you so positive?
A. Because I saw Tex with the gun, period. I just know this. I saw it and I am positive about it.
Q. You are positive about it?
A. Yes.
Q. I see.
On that night, you didn’t handle this gun at all outside of the car?
A. No.
Q. You don’t think you did?
A. I know I didn’t.
Q. You know you didn’t?
A. Yes.
Q. I see.
Well, did you handle this gun at all that night after you left the Tate residence?
A. Yes, I think I did.
Q. You think you did, or you know you did?
A. I know I did.
Q. Now, what was the duration of time, from the time that the first shot was fired until you heard more shots, how long was it?
MR. STOVITZ: At the car, Counsel, or the entire evening?
MR. KANAREK: Well, I think that that question is completely unambiguous, your Honor.
MR. STOVITZ: I object to it, your Honor, as being ambiguous.
THE COURT: Sustained.
BY MR. KANAREK:
Q. How many times was the gun shot that night, Mrs. Kasabian?
A. Four times that I heard.
Q. You counted? You weren’t in such a state of shock that you didn’t count them?
A. I counted them. Four times.
Q. You counted four times?
A. Yes.
Q. Was there some reason that you remembered the number of times?
A. No. It just left an impression on my mind that it went off four times.
Q. Now, have you ever shot a gun in your life?
A. Yes.
Q. Directing your attention to this particular gun, have you ever shot this gun?
A. No.
Q. In your whole life you have never shot this gun?
A. No.
MR. STOVITZ: May the record show that that is Exhibit 40, Counsel?
MR. KANAREK: Exhibit 40, yes, your Honor.
MR. STOVITZ: Thank you, Counsel.
BY MR. KANAREK:
Q. Now, when you were in front of the Judge in connection with getting your baby, Mrs. Kasabian, were you in a state of shock?
MR. STOVITZ: That is objected to, your Honor, on the ground that it wasn’t a judge, it was a Referee; but if he wants to say “judicial officer,” I have no objection to the question.
MR. KANAREK: Very well.
Q. When you were in front of the judicial officer, Mrs. Kasabian, in connection with getting your baby, were you in a state of shock?
A. No.
Q. Were you afraid for the welfare of your baby when you were in front of the Judge, the referee?
A. I don’t understand.
Q. Well, at the time that you were in front of the referee, the proceedings with Mr. Fleischman in order to get your baby, were you afraid for the welfare of your child, that something might happen to your child?
A. I was afraid that I wouldn’t get her back.
Q. You were afraid you wouldn’t get her back?
A. Yes.
Q. And are you afraid now that if you don’t testify right you won’t walk out of this courtroom a free woman? Are you afraid of that?
A. Not really. I have sort of accepted it if it doesn’t happen.
Q. You have accepted it?
A. Yes.
Q. What do you mean by that?
A. If it doesn’t happen, I have accepted it, if I don’t go out or if I do.
Q. You are sort of blasé about it?
A. I am indifferent about it.
Q. You are indifferent?
A. Yes.
Q. You don’t care?
A. Yes.
Q. Is that right?
A. I do care, yes, I do, but it doesn’t matter.
Q. Well, do you care or does it not matter? Which way is it, Mrs. Kasabian?
A. Well, it would be nice to walk out of here, yes, but it doesn’t matter.
Q. Then it doesn’t matter now; is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. You don’t care one way or the other?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, when you were in front of the judicial officer that day that you were there with Mr. Fleischman, you weren’t afraid for the welfare of your child, were you?
A. I still don’t understand you.
Q. You don’t understand that question?
A. No.
Q. You weren’t worried about the welfare of your child, you weren’t worried as to your child being hurt at that time when you were in front of the judge?
A. No.
Q. The referee, as Mr. Stovitz puts it; right?
A. Right.
Q. But you were afraid of your own neck, weren’t you? You were afraid that you would be prosecuted for seven murders, weren’t you?
A. No.
Q. Then why didn’t you tell somebody about what you say you saw and heard and participated in in these two nights at the time that you were in a Superior Court of this County with your attorney, you knew your child was safe, you were in front of a judicial officer—
MR. BUGLIOSI: This is an argument, and he is giving a long speech. He might not be through, but I think he has gone far enough.
MR. KANAREK: May I not be interrupted?
MR. BUGLIOSI: It is not a question.
MR. KANAREK: If he has an objection, may he make his objection.
MR. BUGLIOSI: It is not a question, it is a long speech.
MR. KANAREK: I believe it is a question.
THE COURT: All right.
The same rules apply to both sides, Mr. Bugliosi.
Reframe the question, Mr. Kanarek.
MR. KANAREK: Yes, your Honor.
Q. Mrs. Kasabian, when you were in the courtroom in the Juvenile Court and there was Mr. Fleischman, there was a judicial officer, there was even, perhaps, a deputy sheriff or two, and you knew your child was far removed from the Spahn Ranch, is there some reason that when you were in that courtroom you didn’t speak of the events that you have spoken of in this courtroom?
A. I just couldn’t do it then.
Q. You couldn’t do it because you were afraid for your own welfare; is that correct, Mrs. Kasabian?
A. Possibly, yes.
Q. You didn’t want to go to jail; right?
A. I just couldn’t do it at that time. I don’t know exactly what my reason was.
Q. But the reason you didn’t is because you were interested in me, Linda Kasabian, right, at that time?
A. I don’t know.
Q. You don’t know why?
A. I don’t know why.
Q. You weren’t interested in yourself at that time?
A. I was more interested in getting Tanya back.
Q. And in order to get Tanya back you lied to the Court; is that correct?
MR. STOVITZ: Objected to, your Honor, as argumentative.
THE COURT: Sustained.
BY MR. KANAREK:
Q. Did you lie to the Court, Mrs. Kasabian, in order to get Tanya back?
A. Not directly, no.
Q. Not directly?
A. No.
Q. You lied indirectly; is that correct?
A. Yes. In a sense, I guess I did.
Q. You pulled a fast one on the Court, didn’t you, Mrs. Kasabian?
MR. STOVITZ: Objected to argumentative, your Honor.
THE COURT: Sustained.
BY MR. KANAREK:
Q. And are you trying, Mrs. Kasabian, in these proceedings, Mrs. Kasabian, are you trying to make statements that will allow you to leave these premises a free woman?
A. No.
Q. You are not?
A. No.
Q. Now, after you got the baby and you went to New Mexico for a couple of days, you left New Mexico; is that right?
A. After a couple of days?
Q. Yes.
A. No.
Q. How long did you stay in New Mexico with the baby after you got to New Mexico?
A. What? How long did I stay in New Mexico?
Q. Yes.
Q. Probably about a month.
Q. You stayed there a month?
A. About, yes.
Q. And while you were there in New Mexico, you told Mr. Sage about some of the events you have told us; is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. And while you were in New Mexico talking to Mr. Sage, was there anyone restraining you from going to the police or going to the authorities concerning the events you say occurred here?
A. No.
Q. Pardon?
A. No.
Q. Now, to get back to the night when you say you saw Tex use this gun.
Were you thinking of anyone, Mrs. Kasabian, other than yourself when you drove that automobile down the hill after turning it around?
Do you remember that? Do you remember driving the automobile down?
A. Down from where?
Q. From where it was when you went over—you say you went over the fence?
A. Yes.
Q. You drove the automobile, right?
A. No, I did not.
Q. You did not drive the automobile after that?
A. No.
Q. At no time did you drive the automobile after you once came to the Tate residence?
A. Right.
Q. You never drove it again?
A. I drove it from the gas station to the ranch.
Q. Pardon?
A. I drove it from the gas station to the ranch.
Q. But you did not drive it at all while it was near the Tate residence?
A. No.
Q. You are sure of that?
A. I am positive.
Q. And what makes you so sure of that? Weren’t you in a state of shock after having seen the results you say of these bullets being fired?
A. Yes.
Q. How do you know for sure you did not drive the automobile?
A. Because I know I did not, because I know I helped Tex—
I did drive the automobile; I steered it while Tex took off his shirt, if that is what you call driving the automobile.
Q. So you did drive the automobile a little bit, didn’t you?
A. Yes, I steered the wheel while he took his shirt off.
Q. I see, and, Mrs. Kasabian, while you were steering the automobile were you thinking of anyone’s welfare other than your own?
A. I was not thinking of anything that I recall.
Q. You were in a state of shock?
A. Yes.
Q. You were sort of in a state of shock for what period of time?
A. I don’t know.
Q. You don’t know how long the period of shock existed from the time that you saw, you say, Tex, shoot this gun?
You didn’t shoot the gun?
A. That’s right.
Q. You know that for sure?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. I see, but you entered this state of shock at the time you saw the gun being fired?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, did this shock begin at the first, second—what bullet did the shock begin at?
A. I don’t know; I don’t know.
Q. But it began and ended at some time.
When did it end?
A. I don’t know.
Q. Did it end at the gas station?
A. I don’t know.
Q. Did it end before the gas station sometime?
A. I don’t think so, I don’t know.
Q. You think it ended at the gas station maybe?
A. I don’t know when it ended. I don’t even know if it ever ended.
Q. I see. So from the time that you saw the bullets until the time that you were—you were still in a state of shock for sure by the time you went to the gas station, right?
A. Yes.
Q. Then you don’t know what happened between the time of the first bullet and the time that you got to the gas station, do you?
MR. STOVITZ: That is objected to as argumentative, your; Honor.
THE COURT: Overruled.
THE WITNESS: Yes, I do know.
BY MR. KANAREK:
Q. You were in a state of shock, weren’t you?
A. Yes.
MR. STOVITZ: That is objected to.
THE WITNESS: What I feel was a state of shock.
BY MR. KANAREK:
Q. Well, then, Mrs. Kasabian, you might have been in that house, in the Tate house, Mrs. Kasabian. You were in a state of shock; you don’t recall what happened.
Could it be that perhaps you were in the Tate house and saw what was going on in there, Mrs. Kasabian?
A. No.
MR. STOVITZ: Objected to as argumentative, your Honor.
THE COURT: Sustained.
BY MR. KANAREK:
Q. You were in a state of shock immediately after you saw these bullets?
A. Yes.
Q. But your shock is not so great that you know for sure you were not in the house, is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. And would you describe the shock for us?
A. I don’t know how you describe it. It was something that—I don’t know.
Q. You don’t know how to describe it?
A. Yes.
MR. KANAREK: May I have a moment, your Honor.
(Pause.)
BY MR. KANAREK:
Q. Now, Mrs. Kasabian, this shock that you are speaking of—
Is it shock that actually occurred or is it shock, Mrs. Kasabian, that you are making up as you sit there on the witness stand?
A. I believe it was shock that actually occurred.
Q. I see, and as a result of this shock what was your ability to remember things that occurred?
MR. BUGLIOSI: Ambiguous question, your Honor.
THE COURT: Sustained.
BY MR. KANAREK:
Q. Did this shock affect your ability to remember things that occurred, Mrs. Kasabian?
A. No, because I remember.
Q. I see.
The shock did not interfere with your memory?
A. Yes.
Q. Is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, after the first effect of this shock that you have spoken of, after the first effects came upon you, when did the shock begin to disappear?
A. I don’t know.
Q. You don’t know when it began to disappear?
A. No.
Q. Would you describe your feelings as to this shock.
A. I can’t. I don’t have words for it.
Q. You have no words for it?
A. Yes.
MR. KANAREK: Your Honor, I have here a picture—before I do that.
BY MR. KANAREK:
Q. Mrs. Kasabian, you went around the back of the house, you say?
A. Yes.
Q. And when you went around the back of the house, was this while you were in this state of shock?
A. Yes.
Q. Pardon?
A. Yes.
Q. And you don’t know how you got to the back of the house, do you?
A. I walked.
Q. You walked. Do you know for sure you walked?
A. Yes.
Q. And the state of shock did not interfere with your remembering that you walked?
A. No.
Q. At the time that you went in back of the house you went to assist someone, is that correct?
A. Assist someone?
Q. Yes, did you go there to help someone?
A. I went there to see if there were any open doors or windows.
Q. You went to see if there were any open doors or windows?
A. Yes.
Q. And did you find any open doors or windows?
A. No.
Q. What was the reason that you were looking for open doors or windows?
A. Tex told me to do it.
Q. Tex told you to look for open doors and windows?
A. Yes.
Q. And did Tex limit the area where you were looking for open doors and windows?
A. I don’t understand.
Q. Well, did he say you should look for open doors or windows in any particular part of the house?
A. He just told me to go in back of the house.
Q. And look for open doors and windows?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, you remember that. Your shock doesn’t interfere with your memory then?
A. Yes, I remember it clearly.
Q. I see.
Well, then, were you in a state of shock as you looked for the open doors and windows?
A. Yes, what I consider shock.
Q. I see. Well, in what way did this shock interfere with any of your bodily movements?
A. I don’t know.
Q. Did it interfere in any way with what you could see?
A. No.
Q. Did it interfere in any way with what you could smell?
A. No, I don’t remember smelling anything.
Q. Did it interfere in any way with what you could think?
A. No.
Q. Did it interfere in any way with what you could touch?
A. No.
Q. Well, then, in what way as far as your physical or mental being is concerned were you in a state of shock?
A. I couldn’t believe it. That is as close as I can get to it.
Q. You could not believe it?
A. Yes.
Q. So then are you telling us now you were not in a state of shock; you were merely observing something and there was something that was unusual, is that right?
A. This is what I considered the state of shock.
Q. That is what you consider a state of shock?
A. Yes.
Q. So therefore you remember very clearly exactly what happened?
A. Yes.
Q. Is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And you remember very clearly that you went around the back of the house looking for openings in the doors or openings in the windows?
A. Yes.
Q. And what was your state of mind as to what the purpose of the openings of the doors or windows was?
What was the reason you were looking for them?
A. Tex told me to do it.
Q. Well, had Tex hypnotized you?
A. No.
Q. Were you under the influence of any drug?
A. No.
Q. You were doing what you wanted to do freely and voluntarily, right?
A. I guess so.
Q. You were doing what you wanted to do because you wanted to do it, is that correct?
A. I guess so.
Q. And when you walked around the back of the house did you feel that you were assisting the person who had been shot, you say, four times?
A. I don’t—
Q. Well, at this time you were not in a state of shock. You were freely and voluntarily moving about doing what you wanted to do, right? When you went around the back of the house?
A. I still don’t understand you.
Q. Well, when you went around the back of the house did anyone force you to go around the back of the house?
A. No.
Q. Did anyone coerce you to go back of the house?
A. I don’t understand.
Q. I beg your pardon?
A. I don’t understand that word.
Q. Which word?
A. Coerce.
Q. You don’t understand—you don’t understand what I mean?
A. No.
Q. Did anyone make you do it against your will?
A. No.
Q. So when you went to the back of the house you went on your own?
A. Yes.
Q. And so at the time you went to the back of the house were you doing anything to help the person who, you say, had been shot four times by a gun you say Tex had in his hand?
A. I don’t understand what you mean by help.
Q. You don’t know what I mean?
A. No, I don’t understand your question.
Q. How long, Mrs. Kasabian, after you say you saw Mr. Watson shoot the gun, how long after you saw that did you see or did you go to the back of the house?
A. Just a few minutes.
Q. A few minutes?
A. Yes.
Q. And that few minutes interval of time, did you do do anything to try to help the person who had been shot—
A. No.
Q. —you say, right before your eyes?
A. Yes—no.
Q. Is there some reason you did not try to help a human being that had been shot? Was there some reason for that?
A. I don’t know.
Q. Was there any reason that you did not help this person?
A. I don’t know.
Q. Is it because you did not give a damn about the person, Mrs. Linda Kasabian?
A. I am sure I did.
Q. You are sure you did? Then why did you leave his immediate presence and go around the back of the house after this person had been shot four times?
A. I just did not know what to do, I did not know.
Q. You were moving freely and voluntarily; you had control of all your faculties; you were not under the influence of any drug, were you, Mrs. Kasabian?
A. Right.
Q. So you went there because you wanted to go there for purposes of your own selfish interests, in order to steal, isn’t that right, Mrs. Kasabian?
MR. STOVITZ: Objected to as argumentative, compound, and ambiguous, your Honor.
THE COURT: Do you understand the question?
THE WITNESS: I think so.
THE COURT: Overruled, you may answer it.
THE WITNESS: Yes, I went there to steal.
Q. BY MR. KANAREK: At that point, right?
A. I don’t know about that point.
Q. You went there to look for openings in the doors after watching a man, you say—
A. I didn’t know what was happening at that point.
Q. Well, were you in a state of shock or were you going freely and voluntarily, Mrs. Kasabian?
MR. STOVITZ: Objected to as being asked and answered, your Honor.
THE COURT: Well, it is also a compound question.
The objection is sustained.
Q. BY MR. KANAREK: Mrs. Kasabian, we cannot have it both ways—
MR. STOVITZ: Objected to, argumentative, your Honor.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q. BY MR. KANAREK: Mrs. Kasabian, when you went to the back of that house after seeing—after seeing, you say, someone shot four times, you went to the back of the house to look for openings in the doors and openings in the windows so you could go into the house and steal.
Is that correct?
A. I guess so.
Q. Well, is it correct or is it incorrect?
You said you guess so. Now, would you tell us what was your purpose?
A. I don’t know. I was just doing what Tex told us to do.
Q. Then you were under the control of Tex, is that it? You were going because he had some hypnotic, some power over you, some ability to dangle you, to make you do what his will was, is that why you were there?
MR. STOVITZ: Objected to, your Honor, as improper cross-examination, characterization of the testimony and not seeking to elicit the truth.
THE COURT: I don’t understand the objection. I will sustain my own objection to the question as being compound and ambiguous.
Q. BY MR. KANAREK: Did you go back there, Mrs. Kasabian, because you were hypnotized by Tex Watson?
A. I don’t know if you would call it hypnotized.
Q. Well, you have just told us you went there freely and voluntarily because you wanted to.
A. I did it because I was told to do it.
Q. I see. Well, then, you did not go there because you really wanted to. You did it because Tex told you to do it.
A. I guess so.
Q. Is that the reason—you were under Tex’s influence?
A. Yes.
Q. And this influence of Tex’s was such that when you went to the back, after having seen this, what you had seen, you went to the back under Tex’s influence looking for openings in a door or in a window to go in and steal, right?
A. I guess so, yes.
Q. And all of this was because Tex told you to do it?
A. Yes.
Q. And at that time you were under the domination of Tex, is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. And the domination of Tex was such that you did anything and everything that Tex wanted you to do?
A. Yes.
Q. You were not going freely and voluntarily on your own; you were under the will of Tex, is that correct?
A. Yes, I guess so.
Q. Now, a few minutes ago you told us you were going freely and voluntarily on your own, Mrs. Kasabian. Now you are telling us that you were going because you were under the will of Tex.
Now, which way was it?
A. Well, I went on my own. He did not push me to do it. But he asked me to do it; he told me to do it.
Q. He told you to do it?
A. Yes.
Q. Well, then, did you go freely and voluntarily?
A. Yes.
Q. I see, and you went back your will was dominated by him, right?
A. I don’t know.
Q. Well, now, you don’t know whether it was because your will was dominated by him?
A. I don’t know if he dominated me. I just did what he told me to do.
If that means dominating me, then that is what it is.
Q. I see. But you knew what you were doing, correct? You were not in any state of shock at this point?
A. I still call it shock.
Q. You call it shock, but all of your faculties were free and unimpaired.
You could see, you could smell, you could hear, you could walk, you could think, all clearly, right?
A. Yes.
Q. And you did what you did because you wanted to do it, right?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, after you got to the back of that house with your intent to go in and steal, having seen someone shot, were you able to get through a door and get through a window so you could get into the house and carry out your intent to steal?
A. No.
Q. What prevented you from carrying out your intent to steal, Mrs. Kasabian?
A. I don’t understand.
Q. Well, you came there with the idea that you were going to go through a door, go through a window, after having seen someone shot, you say, you came to this area of the house to go inside to steal?
A. Yes.
Q. Was there some force or some situation that prevented you from getting into the house so you could carry out your intent to steal?
A. I did not try to open a door or window.
Q. Pardon?
A. I did not try to open a door or window.
Q. You did not try to?
A. Uh-huh.
Q. Is there some reason you did not try to?
A. I don’t know.
Q. Pardon?
A. I don’t know.
Q. Well, you came to that area to try to open the door to steal, that is what you went there for, right?
MR. STOVITZ: That is objected to as asked and answered, and now it becomes argumentative, your Honor.
THE COURT: Overruled, you may answer.
THE WITNESS: What was your question again?
MR. KANAREK: May it be read, your Honor?
THE COURT: Read the question.
(Whereupon, the reporter read the question as follows:
“Q. Well, you came to that area to try to open the door to steal, that is what you went there for, right?”)
THE WITNESS: Yes.
MR. KANAREK: Q. Now, you say—I will withdraw that.
Then you came to this area and what occurred when you got to that area?
A. I just walked over and walked back.
Q. And is there some reason that you walked over and walked back?
A. I don’t know.
Q. Pardon?
A. I don’t know. I don’t understand you.
Q. Well, you went there with the idea of trying to get inside the house; right?
A. Yes.
Q. And when you got to that area, you say you walked back?
A. Yes.
Q. Is there some reason why you walked back and didn’t go into the house?
A. I don’t remember if there was a reason.
Q. Well, was it because you couldn’t get in?
A. I didn’t try to get in.
Q. You didn’t try to get in?
A. Right.
Q. Is there some reason you didn’t try to get in?
A. Not that I remember.
Q. Well, you went there for the reason of getting in?
A. Yes.
Q. And then you got there and you came back and you didn’t try to get in. Is there some reason why you didn’t try?
A. I don’t know. I don’t remember.
Q. You don’t remember? In other words, you don’t remember whether you tried or not?
A. I know I didn’t try to get in.
Q. Well, how do you know you didn’t try to get in?
MR. STOVITZ: How do you know you didn’t try to get in?
Your Honor, I will object to the question as argumentative.
He asked the question, did you try to get in. Now that she remembers trying to get in, it is the same question asked backwards, and it is getting to the point that the questions have been asked and answered, and I object to any further inquiry.
THE COURT: Rephrase the question.
The objection’s sustained.
MR. KANAREK: Very well, sir.
Q. Mrs. Kasabian, what was the lighting in the back of that house?
A. I think it was dark.
Q. It was dark?
A. Yes.
Q. And was the door locked?
A. I don’t know.
Q. Were there window screens on the windows?
A. I don’t think so. I don’t remember.
Q. Who was with you when you went back where you went to the door and the window?
A. Just myself.
Q. And when you looked through the door or you looked through the window, what did you see?
A. I don’t even remember looking through a window.
Q. But you might have?
A. I don’t think I did.
Q. You don’t think you did?
A. Yes. Uh-huh.
Q. Well, how close to Tex were you when you went to that portion of the house?
A. Tex wasn’t with me.
Q. Well, how close to Tex were you? Where was Tex?
A. I didn’t know until I came back from the back of the house.
Q. You came back from the back of the house and you saw Tex again?
A. Yes.
Q. Is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you have a conversation with Tex at that point?
A. Yes.
Q. All right. What was the conversation?
A. He told me to go back to the car and wait.
Q. And you went back to the car and waited?
A. Yes.
Q. Is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. When he told you to go back to the car and wait, where were you?
A. At a window in the front.
Q. Pardon me?
A. At a window in the front of the house.
Q. What could you see through the window?
A. I saw a table and a bowl of flowers, or something on the table. That is all.
Q. You saw a table and a bowl of flowers on the table?
A. Yes.
Q. What kind of a room did it appear to be, Mrs. Kasabian?
A. A dining room, I guess.
Q. Pardon?
A. A dining room, I guess.
Q. You guess it was a dining room?
A. Well, there was a table there so I presume it was a dining room.
Q. I see. You presume it was?
MR. STOVITZ: Is that a question. Counsel?
MR. KANAREK: Yes, your Honor, it is a question.
THE WITNESS: Yes.
MR. KANAREK: Q. You know a dining table when you see one, don’t you?
A. Yes.
Q. Pardon?
A. Yes.
Q. Was it a dining table?
A. Yes.
Q. What else did you see as you looked through the windows of that house?
A. That is all.
Q. Just the dining table?
A. Yes.
Q. And did you hear any noise as you looked through the window and saw the dining table?
Did you hear any noise?
A. No.
Q. When did you next hear noise after you heard the shots that you say that Tex caused to be fired?
A. Once I went back to the car, a few minutes later, I started hearing noises.
Q. Now, in going back to the car, Mrs. Kasabian—first of all, would you tell me how far was the car from the gate that we have just spoken of here a few minutes ago?
A. I don’t know.
Q. Well, how many blocks, how many miles, how many—
A. Well, it is not to that proportion.
Q. Pardon?
A. It is feet. I don’t know how many feet.
Q. Well, how close was it to the gate that you had gone over, the fence that you had gone over?
A. Maybe half the distance of this room.
Q. All right.
Was there a house in sight from the place where the car was? Could you see a house next to the telephone pole?
A. I don’t remember seeing one.
Q. After you came up—you have been to the Tate residence since then, haven’t you, Mrs. Kasabian?
A. Yes.
Q. And as you approach that gate, on the left are there two houses close to the Tate residence, on the outside of the fence, of the gate?
A. Yes.
Q. Were those houses there on that night?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you go to one of those houses which are a matter of feat from that gate and knock on the door?
A. No.
Q. And the reason you didn’t was so that you could protect yourself from any involvement in crime as a result of what was occurring at the Tate residence; is that correct?
A. I don’t know.
Q. You don’t know why you didn’t knock on the door?
A. Uh-huh, yes.
Q. Did you fail to knock on the door so that you could protect yourself from criminal involvement?
A. No. I was just afraid I don’t know why I didn’t knock on the door.
Q. You were afraid? What were you afraid of?
A. I don’t know.
Q. Is it the same fear you have that if you don’t testify correctly in this case that you will go to prison or the gas chamber, Mrs. Kasabian? That is the same fear that you had why you didn’t knock on the door, isn’t it?
A. I don’t know.
Q. You don’t know, but it might be?
A. I don’t know.
Q. Pardon?
A. I don’t know.
Q. You don’t know?
A. No.
Q. It is the same fear, isn’t it, Mrs. Kasabian?
A. I don’t know.
Q. Is it a different type of fear, Mrs. Kasabian?
A. I don’t know.
Q. So, then you stayed there at the car for some time, is that right, Mrs. Kasabian?
A. The car at the bottom of the hill?
Q. Pardon?
A. Which car are you referring to?
Q. I am referring to the car where you went after you came from in back of the house.
A. Oh, yes.
I don’t remember your question now.
Q. Is the question clear to you?
A. No.
You will have to excuse me but I am very exhausted and it is hard for me to listen to you.
Q. You are exhausted now? Would you prefer to stop?
A. Yes, I would.
MR. KANAREK: Very well, your Honor.
THE COURT: All right. It is almost 4:15 in any event.
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 now adjourn until 9:45 tomorrow morning.
(Whereupon, at 4:13 p.m. the court was in recess.)