Historic Trial Transcripts
Linda Kasabian: Day nine Testimony, August 6, 1970
LINDA KASABIAN,
the witness on the stand at the time of the adjournment, resumed the stand and testified further as follows:
CROSS-EXAMINATION (Resumed)
BY MR. KANAREK:
Q. Mrs. Kasabian, is your state of mind such that you—let me withdraw that.
Mrs. Kasabian, have you ever used the word “pigs”?
A. Yes.
Q. Have you, ever, when you used the word “pigs”, used, as far as your thinking was concerned, called police officers pigs?
A. Yes.
Q. And directing your attention to your state of mind, have you called people pigs when you were thinking in terms of individuals who, let us say, are wealthy?
A. That is referred to as piggies.
Q. Those are piggies?
A. Yes.
Q. So, in your mind, a piggy is somebody who is, let us say, wealthy and lives in a $250,000 home?
A. Not now. Just then.
Q. Pardon me?
A. Then but not now.
MR. KANAREK: May the answer about not now be stricken? I am directing it to her—
THE COURT: She appears to be explaining her answer.
MR. KANAREK: Pardon me?
THE COURT: She appears to be explaining her answer.
MR. KANAREK: Very well, your Honor.
Q. Now, would you tell us, Mrs. Kasabian, in your mind, what is the distinction between pigs and piggies as it was in the year 1969?
A. A pig is a cop, and piggies are people that have a lot of bread and are in with the establishment.
Q. When you say “bread,” what do you mean?
A. Money.
Q. Wealth?
A. Yes.
Q. Money, wealth, position?
A. Yes.
Q. That type of thing; right; is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And when you say “the establishment,” what do you mean, Mrs. Kasabian?
A. The government.
Q. You mean the organized government of the United States of America?
A. Yes.
Q. Is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And the organized government of the State of California?
A. Yes.
Q. And the organized government of the County of Los Angeles, for instance?
A. Yes.
Q. And the organized government of the City of Los Angeles?
A. Yes.
Q. And the city of Beverly Hills?
A. Yes.
Q. And Long Beach, and all of Inglewood, Manhattan Beach, whatever it may be?
A. Organized government.
Q. Any organized government?
A. Right.
Q. Piggies. Those people are part of the establishment, the piggies are part of the establishment?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, directing your attention, Mrs. Kasabian, to the word “freaks.” In the year 1969, and looking at your state of mind in connection with the word “freaks,” did you use the word freaks?
A. Sure.
Q. What did you mean by the word freaks?
A. Just, you know, far out people, on far out trips, dope or sex, whatever; just far out people.
MR. KANAREK: May that be read, or maybe it is the resonance in the microphone.
THE COURT: Read the answer, please.
(The answer was read by the reporter.)
MR. KANAREK: Q. When you use the word “trips,” as you used it in your last answer, what do you mean by the word “trips”?
A. Just things that they do, you know, just something that you do.
Q. Including that which you feel when you take LSD?
A. I don’t understand.
Q. When you used the word “trips’ in the last—in your answer that had the word “trips” in it, you included LSD; is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And what other meanings other than taking LSD did you mean to include in the word “trips”?
A. Just whatever you want to do, you know. That is a trip. Whatever you are doing. Just whatever. That is a trip.
Q. What do you mean by that?
A. I think I explained it as much as I can. I cannot—
Q. What do you mean “whatever”?
A. Just—well, like somebody says, go out to work, that’s a trip.
If somebody decides to climb a mountain or sit under a tree, that’s a trip.
Q. Or if someone decides to go on another mission to steal something from someone’s house, that would be a trip?
A. Yes.
Q. Is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, directing your attention, Mrs. Kasabian, to the time after you left your husband, is it a fair statement that after you left your husband you—and you went to the Spahn Ranch—that after that you still kept in touch with your husband?
A. I saw him the next day.
Q. The next day after you supposedly left with Gypsy and went to the Spahn Ranch and you saw you husband?
A. Yes.
Q. When did you see your husband after the next day?
A. I never saw him.
Q. Pardon?
A. I never saw him while I was at the ranch.
Q. After the next day you did not see him?
A. Right.
Q. Did you communicate with him in any way?
A. No.
Q. You knew that he was in Taos, New Mexico, however?
A. No, I did not know for sure.
Q. Well, you had reason to believe that he was in Taos, New Mexico?
A. I just guessed that is where he might be.
Q. And you guessed that based upon what, Mrs. Kasabian?
A. It just seemed to me that that is where he would go out of the city.
Q. Why? Why did you guess that?
A. Because that is where he was before. He likes Taos, New Mexico.
Q. And from time to time during that month while you were on the Spahn Ranch did you have occasion to think about your husband?
A. Yes.
Q. And from time to time while you were on the Spahn Ranch did you think that possibly you might like to go and join your husband?
A. Yes.
Q. In Taos, New Mexico, is that a fair statement?
A. Yes.
Q. And so you, from almost the time that you came to the Spahn Ranch, it was your desire and plan ultimately to get to Taos, New Mexico?
MR. STOVITZ: That is objected to, your Honor, as being immaterial, irrelevant and a characterization of her testimony.
THE COURT: Overruled. You may answer.
THE WITNESS: I did not remember your question.
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 you, from almost the time that you came to the Spahn Ranch, it was your desire and plan ultimately to get to Taos, New Mexico?”)
THE WITNESS: No.
BY MR. KANAREK:
Q. Well, from time to time while you were on the Spahn Ranch you thought about your husband?
A. On two occasions, yes.
Q. That is in the weeks you were at the Spahn Ranch you only thought of your husband on two occasions?
A. About going to him, yes.
Q. Pardon?
A. About going to him, yes.
Q. But you thought about him on more than two occasions?
A. Possibly, I don’t know.
Q. When you say “possibly,” what do you mean by that?
A. I may have thought of him, you know, I don’t know what I thought if I did think about him.
Q. And, well, your husband—you and your husband, you tell us, had split up because he had rejected you?
A. Yes.
Q. Is that correct?
But your feeling for him had not changed despite the rejection that he had made as far as you were concerned?
MR. STOVITZ: That is objected to as being immaterial and irrelevant, your Honor.
THE COURT: Read the question, Mr. Reporter.
(Whereupon the reporter reads the pending question as follows:
“Q. Is that correct?
“But your feeling for him had not changed despite the rejection that he had made as far as you were concerned?”)
THE COURT: Overruled, you may answer.
THE WITNESS: Yes, my feelings had changed.
BY MR. KANAREK:
Q. Pardon?
Your feelings changed?
A. Yes.
Q. When you went to the Spahn Ranch?
A. Yes.
Q. And you no longer cared about going to your husband?
A. Yes.
Q. Is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And you did—you did not speak with anyone or tell anyone that you wished to rejoin your husband during the month while you were at the Spahn Ranch?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. Pardon?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. You did tell people you wanted to rejoin your husband?
A. Yes.
Q. That was during the month on the Spahn Ranch?
A. Yes.
Q. And as early as July—let’s say the first week that you were at the Spahn Ranch you told people you wanted to go back to your husband, is that correct?
A. No, it was not that early.
Q. Pardon?
A. I don’t believe it was that early.
Q. The second week in July?
A. No, I think it was more near the end of July.
Q. During the end of July, the third or fourth week of July?
A. Yes.
Q. That you started telling people that you wanted to go back to your husband.
A. I told one person that I recall.
Q. Well, but you stated that you wanted to go back to your husband at Taos, New Mexico.
A. No, I did not know he was in Taos, New Mexico.
Q. But you thought possibly he was in Taos, New Mexico?
A. No, I thought he was still where he was when I left him.
Q. Well, at some time, at some time during the month of July, 1969 you had reason to believe your husband was in Taos, New Mexico, is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And there is no “possibly” associated with that, is there?
A. What?
MR. STOVITZ: What is that?
Q. BY MR. KANAREK: There is no “possibly” associated with that. That is for sure, isn’t it?
MR. STOVITZ: I object to the question as being unintelligible.
THE COURT: Do you understand the question, Mrs. Kasabian?
THE WITNESS: No.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q. BY MR. KANAREK: What I am saying, Mrs. Kasabian is:
There is no “possibly” associated with that when you answered yes. That is for sure?
A. I still don’t understand your question.
Q. The question you answered yes a couple of momenta ago—
A. Yes.
Q. —there is not a “possibly” associated with that. That is for sure.
A. A “possibly”?
Q. You don’t mean possibly, when you stated yes?
A. What is the question I said yes to?
MR. KANAREK: May that be read to her, your Honor?
THE COURT: Let’s proceed, Mr. Kanarek, you are consuming too much time to go back and read the question. You reframe the question.
Q. BY MR. KANAREK: Mrs. Kasabian, then at some time in, let’s say, the third or fourth week of July you knew for sure that your husband was not where he had been just prior to the time that you went to live at the Spahn Ranch.
MR. STOVITZ: That is objected to, your Honor, as being immaterial. It is irrelevant.
THE COURT: Overruled, you may answer.
THE WITNESS: Yes.
Q. BY MR. KANAREK: And during this third and fourth week in July, then, you, as far as your state of mind is concerned, you believed that he possibly might be in Taos, New Mexico?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, then, now, Mrs. Kasabian, directing your attention to your use of—
(Pause)
Mrs. Kasabian, directing your attention to your use of the automobile, do you remember the automobile that you took, the automobile that you took to Arizona and New Mexico?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, in connection with the use of that automobile, did you discuss the use of that automobile with this tall person that you have spoken about previously?
A. The hitchhiker?
Q. Yes.
A. Yes, I think I did.
Q. Did you tell him that that was your car?
MR. BUGLIOSI: That calls for hearsay, your Honor. The question itself calls for hearsay. He is asking for a yes or no answer.
MR. KANAREK: Your Honor, it is not offered for the truth of any matter asserted, it is offered for the fact of the assertion, your Honor.
MR. BUGLIOSI: Also immaterial, your Honor.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. KANAREK: May we approach the bench, your Honor?
THE COURT: With respect to that?
MR. KANAREK: Yes, your Honor.
THE COURT: All right.
(Whereupon all counsel approach the bench and the following proceedings occur at the bench outside of the hearing of the jury:)
MR. BUGLIOSI: Let me make one preliminary remark. Again, he is going into hearsay conversations that Linda had with this guy going to New Mexico.
Now, if it is offered for the truth of the matter asserted, then it is hearsay, and if it is offered for impeachment purposes—which I assume it is—I think we are within the margins of People vs. Locigno. Unless the defense can represent to the Court that if she answers the question in the negative that they intend to call this hitchhiker to the witness stand to refute her testimony.
Now, if they can make that representation, then I think this stuff properly comes in for impeachment purposes.
MR. KANAREK: Your Honor, first of all, it is offered—I’d like to have Mr. Fitzgerald here—Paul—it is offered, your Honor, in connection—let’s assume, just for the sake of argument, that Mr. Bugliosi is right. We intend to call this person.
Mr. Fitzgerald is here and your Honor can speak with him about it if you wish, or Mr. Bugliosi can—
THE COURT: I don’t know what you are talking about, Mr. Kanarek. Get to the point, will you?
MR. KANAREK: I am talking about getting this person that Mr. Bugliosi is speaking of.
The point is that we are trying to locate this person. We have not been able to speak with Linda Kasabian regarding this person, and I can represent that Mr. Fitzgerald—and you can ask him—we have hopes of being able to locate this person.
Is that correct, Mr. Fitzgerald?
MR. FITZGERALD: That is correct.
We have been led to believe that we can secure the attendance of this witness, although I don’t know the witness’s name.
THE COURT: What is the relevance of it?
MR. FITZGERALD: Apparently the District Attorney is objecting—Mr. Kanarek wants to lay a foundation for an impeaching statement, and Mr. Bugliosi says that that impeaching statement is not offered in good faith because if she denies it we do not intend to call the person who heard the statement.
THE COURT: Let’s assume that you find this person and that she can be impeached on this point. Of what importance is that in the case?
MR. KANAREK: It is important on the issue of flight, your Honor.
She took a car. She stated that the car was hers. It is important on—
THE COURT: She has already testified that she left California, to the trips that she took and everything. There is no question about her flight, if that is what you want to argue.
MR. KANAREK: Yes. But, your Honor, it also goes to the aspect of the details of the flight, the use of the automobile, it is not just a matter of Mr. Bugliosi’s—Mr. Bugliosi has prepared the prosecution’s case and we have prepared our case, and we have a right to prove our case, to go into matters that are pertinent.
THE COURT: That is what we are talking about, whether or not it is pertinent.
MR. KANAREK: Well, your Honor—
THE COURT: If she talked to this man about something that had to do with the alleged offenses that these people are on trial for, I could see the relevance.
MR. KANAREK: It goes to her state of mind.
THE COURT: But some idle conversation she may have had with some stranger on the highway, I don’t see what that has to do with this case, impeachment or otherwise.
MR. KANAREK: It does if it goes to her state of mind.
THE COURT: State of mind as to what?
MR. KANAREK: As to her flight.
THE COURT: I don’t see it, Mr. Kanarek. I think it is remote and has no probative value for any purpose.
MR. KANAREK: Well, your Honor, the fact of the matter is that she had committed a theft, she had laid a plan, she had a scheme all set out in order to accomplish a certain mission, and in accomplishing that mission—
THE COURT: Go ahead and ask her about it. What she said to some stranger that apparently is unknown and is unavailable is not relevant.
MR. KANAREK: Well, I think this person may be available, we can’t represent that a hundred per cent at this point, and part of the reason is due to the fact that we can’t talk to her.
MR. BUGLIOSI: We have spoken to her and we are trying to find him ourselves.
She has no lead at all to this person. He is anonymous, and I think he is anonymous as far as the defense is concerned.
MR. KANAREK: I can’t accept that representation from Mr. Bugliosi, number one, and number two—
THE COURT: I am not interested in that representation, I am interested in the matter before me at the moment, which is an objection to the question.
I will sustain the objection.
MR. KANAREK: Very well.
(Whereupon, all counsel return to their respective places at counsel table and the following proceedings occur in open court within the presence and hearing of the jury:)
MR. KANAREK: Q. Mrs. Kasabian, directing your attention to your state of mind, did you consider the people who were occupants of the house, the Tate residence, to be piggies?
MR. BUGLIOSI: That is ambiguous, your Honor.
At the time of the murders or right now?
MR. KANAREK: Your Honor, right now what she says is not what I am interrogating about. I am interrogating about the time when she—we are talking about 1969, your Honor, the summer of 1969.
THE COURT: Overruled. You may answer.
THE WITNESS: Do you mean before we went to the house or after, once they were killed?
MR. KANAREK: Q. Well, tell us about it both; before, during and after, during 1969.
A. Before I just thought they were piggies, and during they were just human beings, people, innocent people; and after, no, I didn’t think they were piggies.
Q. When you thought you were a witch in New Mexico and spoke to the tall man, did you think that they were piggies?
A. No.
Q. Did you tell him they were piggies?
A. I don’t think I even talked about that.
Q. Pardon?
A. I don’t believe I talked about that.
Q. Did you tell the tall man: Well, they are killing people like that out in L.A.; and in response, the tall man says: Like what, I asked; and you said: They tried to act like freaks.
Did you have that conversation?
MR. BUGLIOSI: I am going to object to that.
He is stating blatant unadulterated hearsay into the record and asking for—
MR. KANAREK: Not at all.
THE COURT: Sustained. Let’s proceed.
MR. KANAREK: This is not offered for hearsay.
THE COURT: Let’s proceed.
MR. BUGLIOSI: Will the Court admonish the jury to disregard that statement and that lecture by Mr. Kanarek?
THE COURT: The jury is admonished to disregard the comments of both counsel.
Let’s proceed.
BY MR. KANAREK:
Q. Mrs. Kasabian, you have told us in this courtroom, Mrs. Kasabian, that you were scared concerning Tanya.
Directing your attention to your state of mind at the time during the time you were at the Spahn Ranch and afterwards, and during 1969. Were you afraid about the welfare of Tanya?
A. While I was at the Ranch?
Q. While you were at the Ranch.
A. Was I afraid of her welfare?
Q. Yes.
A. No, I wasn’t afraid.
Q. At no time were you afraid that something would happen to Tanya?
A. While I was at the Ranch?
Q. Yes.
A. No.
Q. At no time during 1969 were you afraid that anything would happen to Tanya; right?
MR. STOVITZ: Your Honor, that is not a question, unless he is asking a new question.
He keeps on characterizing the witness’s answers and frames questions based upon that.
If he is asking a new question: At no time was she afraid during 1969, that is one thing, but he keeps referring back to the previous question, and I object.
MR. KANAREK: Your Honor, I submit that is untrue. I am not referring back at all to the previous question, and I would ask that the record be read.
THE COURT: I didn’t understand it that way, Mr. Stovitz.
It appears to be a new question to me.
Do you understand it?
THE WITNESS: No.
MR. KANAREK: May the question be read?
THE COURT: Read the question.
(The question was read by the reporter.)
Q. Mrs. Kasabian, may I then refer you to your testimony? (pause)
Would you read Page 5449, Lines 15 through 20?
THE COURT: Give the volume.
MR. KANAREK: Yes, your Honor, it is Volume 35. May I approach the witness and let her read?
THE COURT: Yes, you may.
MR. KANAREK: Thank you, your Honor.
(Mr. Kanarek hands the transcript to the witness.)
Q. BY MR. KANAREK: Beginning with Line—
THE COURT: What is the page reference?
MR. KANAREK: Page 5449, your Honor.
THE WITNESS: Beginning with what?
Q. BY MR. KANAREK: Line 15.
A. Yes.
Q. In answer to the question:
“Why did you leave the Spahn Ranch without Tanya?”
Did you answer?
“I knew that I had to leave and something within myself told me that Tanya would be all right; that nothing would happen to her, and that now is the time to leave, and that I knew I would come back and get her. I was just confidant that she would be all right”?
A. That’s right.
Q. Is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And that is at a time, that is at a time in August, 1969, after these two nights that you have spoken of?
A. Yes.
Q. Is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, when you were at the—at the time. Mrs. Kasabian,—on what you have called the second night, did you prior to leaving the Spahn Ranch, did you take any LSD?
A. No.
Q. Did you take any drugs at all?
A. No.
Q. Now, therefore, your mind, you tell us, was very clear as to what you were doing.
A. I was tired that night.
Q. From the night before, from the killing that you had participated in the night before, it exhausted you, is that correct?
A. I did not kill anybody.
Q. You did not kill anybody?
A. Yes, that’s right.
Q. I see, and is your state of mind such that you were not responsible for any one passing away the night before?
A. Say that again.
MR. KANAREK: May that question be read, your Honor?
THE COURT: Read the question.
(Whereupon, the reporter reads the pending question as follows:
“Q. I see, and is your state of mind such that you were not responsible for any one passing away the night before?”)
THE WITNESS: Yes, I feel responsible.
Q. BY MR. KANAREK: You feel responsible for those killings?
A. Yes.
Q. Correct. The night before?
A. Yes.
Q. Right. And so that the next—
MR. STOVITZ: May the “right” be stricken as a comment of counsel, your Honor, and counsel be asked not to approve or disapprove of any of the witness’ answers, your Honor.
THE COURT: The word will be stricken. The jury is admonished to disregard it.
Q. BY MR. KANAREK: And so on the second night, Mrs. Kasabian, is it a fair statement that you on the second night felt responsible for the people that had passed away on the night before?
A. I did not know that they passed away until a long time after.
Q. You did not, Mrs. Kasabian?
A. Yes.
Q. You did not know that?
A. Yes.
Q. When you went out on the second night you did not know that they had passed away?
A. Right.
Q. Well, Mrs. Kasabian, didn’t you tell us—I will withdraw that.
Did you tell us in the courtroom that the next day you viewed TV with Sadie?
A. No, that was after the first night.
Q. That was after the first night, right?
A. Yes.
Q. So you did know on the second night that these killings had taken place, didn’t you?
MR. STOVITZ: Are you talking about the killings of the first night or the killings of the second night?
MR. KANAREK: I think the question is very clear. I think only Mr. Stovitz did not get it.
MR. STOVITZ: I think it is quite unintelligible.
THE COURT: Make the objection.
MR. STOVITZ: I object because it is unintelligible your Honor.
THE COURT: Do you understand the question?
THE WITNESS: No, I don’t know what night he is talking about.
THE COURT: The objection is sustained.
Q. BY MR. KANAREK: Mrs. Kasabian, on the second night when you went out—
A. Yes.
Q. —Mrs. Kasabian, did you know that the killings had taken place?
A. The night before?
Q. Yes.
A. Yes.
Q. Now you are telling us you knew?
A. Yes, I felt you were speaking about that which took place that night.
Q. You felt that I was asking you when you went out that night whether you knew the killings had taken place that night?
A. Yes.
Q. That is what you thought—
A. Yes.
Q. —I was asking you?
Well, directing your attention, Mrs. Kasabian, to the second night, then, when you left the Spahn Ranch, you knew that you had been responsible for five people passing away, is that correct?
A. I don’t know if I felt that at the time, but I feel that now.
Q. Well, my question is:
At that time did you feel that you were responsible for five people passing away?
Would you look into the state of your mind, which you tell us was clear, unimpaired by LSD or any drugs whatsoever, would you tell us whether your state of mind was such that you felt you were responsible for the five killings that had taken place the previous night?
MR. STOVITZ: I object to the question as argumentative, compound and ambiguous, your Honor.
THE COURT: Sustained.
BY MR. KANAREK:
Q. Directing your attention, Mrs. Kasabian, to the second night, as you left, as you left the Spahn Ranch, did you feel—was your state of mind such that you felt you were responsible for the killings that had taken place the previous night?
MR. BUGLIOSI: I object, your Honor, calling for a legal conclusion.
MR. KANAREK: Your Honor, she is adjudged—may we approach the bench?
THE COURT: Very well.
(The following proceedings were had at the bench out of the hearing of the jury:)
MR. BUGLIOSI: It is a legal conclusion whether she is responsible or not responsible for these murders.
That is my objection.
MR. KANAREK: That is not a legal conclusion, it is her state of mind I am soliciting.
THE COURT: What difference does it make?
MR. KANAREK: It makes a lot of difference.
THE COURT: You are talking now about after the fact.
MR. KANAREK: Correct, we have a continuing conspiracy.
She is alleged to be part of this conspiracy on the 9th and the 10th, your Honor.
THE COURT: I don’t see that her state of mind as to whether she felt responsible is material at all, Mr. Kanarek.
MR. KANAREK: Her state of mind is most material because Mr. Bugliosi is disputing whether she is an accomplice.
THE COURT: That is a legal conclusion; that is something that the trier of fact will have to determine, whether or not a conspiracy existed, whether it was continuing and whether she was a part of it.
MR. KANAREK: Well, her state of mind, your Honor, her state of mind is very material on the conspiracy because the conspiracy—
THE COURT: All right, but not on this point.
The objection will be sustained.
MR. BUGLIOSI: May I make a motion to strike her previous answer that she was responsible on the same grounds, it is a legal conclusion on her part?
MR. KANAREK: It is not, your Honor, it is not a legal conclusion. It is admissible in connection with what her thinking was as she went out.
THE COURT: This feeling of responsibility is a pure conclusion, Mr. Kanarek. It should be stricken.
MR. KANAREK: Well, your Honor, I cannot disagree more, because this is a conspiracy, and if she is a layman—we are not dealing with legalese or legal language at all, your Honor.
It is her state of mind. If I go into a liquor store and hold up a man and if I feel responsible for it—
THE COURT: Her feeling of responsibility does not prove anything except just that.
It does not prove whether or not a conspiracy existed or whether or not she is an accomplice, whether or not the conspiracy continued.
All of this must be proved by the evidence alone, not by her feeling of responsibility after the fact.
MR. KANAREK: Your Honor, the greatest purport of her confession is because it shows the intent, the criminal intent.
This criminal intent is a subjective consideration.
THE COURT: You may go into the question of intent. I am not precluding you from going into the question of intent.
MR. KANAREK: Her state of mind is very material on the issue of intent.
THE COURT: Her feeling of responsibility can be based purely on some philosophical concept, someone not even present may feel responsible because they are a member of the human race.
It doesn’t mean anything. So let’s proceed.
(The following proceedings were had in open court in the presence and hearing of the jury:)
MR. BUGLIOSI: Your Honor, before the next question is asked, the People move to strike from the record Mrs. Kasabian’s previous answer that she felt responsible for these murders or killings, as a legal conclusion.
MR. KANAREK: Your Honor, I would object to that.
THE COURT: The motion is sustained. The answer will be stricken. The jury is admonished to disregard it.
BY MR. KANAREK:
Q. Mrs. Kasabian, on the night, on the second night that you left the Spahn Ranch, did you know that you had participated with three other people who, all together, you and the three other people together, had killed five people?
A. No.
Q. I see, so on the night that you left the Spahn Ranch, the second night, you did not know that you and three other people had participated in activity that killed five people, is that right?
A. I don’t understand.
MR. KANAREK: May that be read, your Honor?
THE COURT: She heard it; she does not understand it.
BY MR. KANAREK:
Q. You don’t understand the question?
A. That is what I said.
Q. Directing your attention, Mrs. Kasabian, to the second night and your state of mind, your thinking as you left the Spahn Ranch on the second night, did you know that what you and three other people had done the night before caused the killing of five people?
A. I still don’t understand that.
Q. You don’t understand the question?
A. Right.
Q. What about the question is there that you don’t understand?
A. Well, I don’t know what the answer is.
Q. You mean you don’t know what Mr. Bugliosi wants you to give?
MR. BUGLIOSI: Your Honor, I object to this. These are unbelievably outrageous remarks.
THE COURT: Mr. Kanarek, if you repeat that I will have to take some action against you.
The jury is admonished to disregard this colloquy between counsel.
MR. KANAREK: May the record reflect—
THE COURT: It may not, let’s proceed.
THE WITNESS: I wasn’t looking at him.
MR. KANAREK: Your Honor—
THE COURT: I don’t want to hear any more, Mr. Kanarek, proceed.
MR. KANAREK: May that question be read to her?
I don’t think it could be any clearer.
THE COURT: Reframe the question.
BY MR. KANAREK:
Q. Mrs. Kasabian, directing your attention to your state of mind, Mrs. Kasabian, as you left the Spahn Ranch on the second night, did you know that as a result of you, Patricia Krenwinkel, Sadie, Tex Watson going to the Spahn Ranch—to the Tate residence as a result of you four people going to the Spahn—to the Tate residence, five people got killed?
MR. STOVITZ: Your Honor, the question is ambiguous because of the words “as a result of.”
This is the thing that is confusing to myself and it may be confusing to the witness.
Now, if he wants to ask what happened to these five people—but as the result of—
THE COURT: The objection is sustained.
BY MR. KANAREK:
Q. Mrs. Kasabian, directing your attention to your state of mind when you left the Spahn Ranch on the second night, was your state of mind such that you felt that you had participated in events which resulted in the killing of five people?
A. Yes, I guess maybe I did.
Q. You guess maybe you did?
A. I can’t remember thinking about it, if that is what I thought, but here now, that is what I feel.
Q. Well, you mean you don’t remember whether you had thought about it or not on the second night?
A. I don’t remember thinking about it on the second night.
Q. You had forgotten about it on the second night?
MR. STOVITZ: That is argumentative, your Honor.
THE COURT: Overruled.
THE WITNESS: I might not have forgotten about it, but I cannot remember now if I thought about it.
BY MR. KANAREK:
Q. Well, would you think for a minute and let us know whether you on the second night had forgotten what had happened the night before.
(Pause.)
A. I don’t know.
Q. You don’t remember whether you forgot about it or not?
A. Right.
Q. And then as you left the Spahn Ranch on the second night, what had happened the night before was not in your mind, is that correct, is that a correct statement?
A. Not that I can remember.
Q. It was not in your mind as you drove off the second night?
A. Not that I can remember.
Q. Your best memory is that you were not thinking of what had happened the previous night?
A. I don’t know, I cannot remember if I was or not.
Q. I see. Well, directing your attention, then—
You have testified that you saw some television with Sadie.
A. Yes.
Q. Now, directing your attention to what you had seen, to the television that you saw with Sadie—
As you looked at what you saw on the television news the day after the first night, did you think that because of what you and three other people had done, that because of that the five people were dead?
A. I don’t know.
MR. KANAREK: Your Honor, I don’t know my timing, I didn’t look at my watch, but I would like the record to reveal she hesitated about perhaps seven seconds before answering.
MR. STOVITZ: Somewhere between three and five seconds.
THE COURT: Let’s proceed, Mr. Kanarek.
Q. BY MR. KANAREK: Your answer to that is you don’t know?
A. Uh-huh
Q. Well, is there some reason that you don’t know, Mrs. Kasabian?
A. I just don’t remember if I felt—
I don’t know, I just don’t remember.
Q. You don’t remember whether you felt that because of what you had done the night before, because of what you had done the night before five people had passed away?
A. I did not know they were going to be killed. I did not feel that I, myself, killed them.
But in a way I was responsible, I guess.
MR. STOVITZ: I move to strike that last statement, “I was responsible,” your Honor, as a legal conclusion of the witness, and I will ask the Court to admonish the jury to disregard it.
MR. KANAREK: I would object to it being stricken, your Honor, in that the language she used is layman’s language.
It is not a legal conclusion; it is a statement of her state of mind just as much as Mr. Bugliosi’s statement during the voir dire about the cookies.
If the little boy said, “Mama, I am responsible, I took the cookies,” that certainly is not a legal conclusion any more than this lady’s statement is a legal conclusion.
That is a statement of her state of mind, and I object to it being stricken, your Honor.
MR. BUGLIOSI: One of the reasons we are here, your Honor, is to determine her complicity in these murders with respect to these defendants.
It is a legal conclusion whether she is responsible for them.
THE COURT: The motion to strike will be granted.
The jury is admonished to disregard that portion of the answer.
MR. KANAREK: May we approach the bench on that, your Honor?
THE COURT: We already discussed that at the bench, Mr. Kanarek, let’s proceed.
Q. BY MR. KANAREK: Would you tell us, Mrs. Kasabian, as you sat there watching TV, with Sadie, you told us you sat there and watched the TV accounts of what had occurred the previous night.
Would you tell us what was going through your mind as you sat there and watched the TV accounts from the previous night?
A. Well, I did not know that there were two other people in the house, and I did not know that Miss Tate was pregnant, and that really upset me.
And I thought, “Wow, they killed those people just for $70.”
Because Tex took money, and that is all I can remember thinking about it.
Q. I see, in other words, your state of mind was such that if somebody wasn’t pregnant, it was all right to kill her?
A. No.
MR. STOVITZ: That is objected to as argumentative. I move to strike the answer.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q. BY MR. KANAREK: Was that your state of mind, Mrs. Kasabian, that if someone was not pregnant that it was all right to kill them?
A. Of course not.
Q. That was not your state of mind, then?
A. No.
Q. And, directing your attention to your state of mind as you watched the television, was that the television news, is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Was there a special television coverage, you saw the actual scene itself?
A. Possibly, I cannot remember if I saw that.
Q. Pardon?
A. I cannot remember if I saw the house again.
Q. And was the address where this occurred, did that come over the television?
A. Maybe, I don’t know.
Q. And so as you viewed that, did you feel in your heart any remorse for having participated in this event?
A. Yes, extremely.
Q. You felt extreme remorse?
A. Yes.
Q. You felt very bad about it?
A. Yes.
Q. So the next night you went out on another creepy, crawly mission, is that right?
A. I was asked by Charlie to go out. I was told to do this and I did it.
MR. KANAREK: Well, your Honor, that might be possibly responsive to some other question, but it is certainly not responsive to the question I asked.
This woman has stated—
MR. STOVITZ: Is there a motion to strike?
MR. KANAREK: Your Honor, there is a motion to strike.
I agree with Mr. Stovitz, this is a motion to strike.
MR. STOVITZ: Stipulate it may be stricken, your Honor.
THE COURT: The motion, is granted.
The answer is stricken, and the jury is admonished to disregard it.
Read the last question.
(The question was read by the reporter.)
THE WITNESS: No, I knew it wasn’t a creepy, crawl mission.
Q. BY MR. KANAREK: Pardon?
A. I knew it was not a creepy, crawl mission.
Q. Oh, the next night you knew it wasn’t a creepy, crawl mission?
A. Yes.
Q. I see.
You didn’t go out with the intent of stealing anything that night?
A. No.
Q. And your intent that night was not to get anything that didn’t belong to you?
A. My intent was to do what Charlie told me to do.
Q. I see.
So, then, your mind wasn’t free and clear, Mrs. Kasabian; you tell us that your mind was free of drugs, you had no LSD, but now you are telling us that you were under the hypnotic control of Mr. Manson; is that correct?
MR. BUGLIOSI: That is not what she testified to, your Honor. I object.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. KANAREK: Is that correct?
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. KANAREK: May I ask?
Q. Were you under the hypnotic control of Mr. Manson on that night, Mrs. Kasabian?
A. I don’t know if it was hypnotic. Whatever you call it.
Q. Well, was it? Were you under the hypnotic control of Mr. Manson?
MR. STOVITZ: Asked and answered, your Honor. She said she didn’t know what to call it.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. KANAREK: Q. Now, the previous night, Mrs. Kasabian, directing your attention to your state of mind, was your mind completely clear?
A. I was tired.
Q. You were exhausted the previous night?
A. Yes.
Q. When you started out?
A. No. Not until after driving a long time.
Q. I see.
When you started out, was your mind free and clear?
A. I guess so.
Q. And do you know for sure?
A. I think I was a little bit tired even when we started out.
Q. Even when you started out?
A. Yes.
Q. You were a little bit tired?
A. Yes.
Q. What was the reason you were tired?
A. I probably didn’t sleep very well.
Q. You hadn’t slept very well the night before?
A. No.
Q. What was there about it that you say that probably you hadn’t slept the night before? Why do you feel you probably hadn’t slept well the night before?
A. I don’t know.
Q. Upon what do you base that statement?
A. I just remember being a little bit tired, so I figure I didn’t get enough sleep.
Q. I see.
Now, today—whatever it is—August the 6th, 1970—you remember that you were tired on the first night before you went out?
MR. STOVITZ: She said a little bit tired, Counsel, if you want to split hairs.
MR. KANAREK: Very well.
Well, I am not splitting hairs, but I will make it a little bit tired.
Q. On the first night you felt a little bit tired?
A. The first night?
Q. Yes.
A. I thought you were talking about the second night.
Q. Oh, you just now thought I was talking about the second night?
A. That is what I thought you said.
Q. Would you tell us about the first night, Mrs. Kasabian?
On the first night when you left, did you feel a little tired as you left?
A. No, not that I recall.
Q. Now, you are telling us now that the second night you were probably a little tired?
A. Yes.
Q. Well, you came home after being at the Tate residence and you went to sleep?
A. Yes.
Q. And you woke up of your own accord, as a result—after having gone to sleep; right?
A. Yes.
Q. You woke up about noon; right?
A. I guess so. I don’t know what time it was.
Q. Nobody woke you up, did they?
A. No, I don’t think so.
Q. You just woke up on your own after a good night’s sleep; right?
A. I don’t know if it was a good night’s sleep.
Q. Was it a bad night’s sleep?
A. I don’t know. I don’t remember sleeping.
Q. You don’t remember sleeping now?
A. Right.
Q. So when you told us previously that you went home and went to sleep, you are telling us now that that is not the case; is that right?
A. I just don’t remember the sleep itself.
Q. You don’t remember the sleep itself?
A. Yes.
Q. Well, are you telling us now that you didn’t go to sleep when you came home the first night?
A. No, I don’t know if I slept or not. That is what I am telling you.
Q. Now you are saying you don’t know whether you slept or not the first time?
A. Yes.
Q. What is it that you are telling us?
A. That I don’t know if I slept or not.
Q. I see.
So, you mean when you came back the first night after being at the Tate residence, you are now telling us you don’t know whether you went to sleep or not; is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. And you may have been up all night worrying about what happened at the Tate residence; is that a possibility?
A. No. I remember laying down but I don’t know if I slept.
THE COURT: We will take a recess at this time.
Ladies and gentleman, do not converse with anyone nor form or express any opinion regarding the case until it is finally submitted to you.
The Court will recess for 15 minutes.
(Recess.)
THE COURT: All parties, counsel and jurors are present.
You may proceed, Mr. Kanarek.
MR. KANAREK: Thank you, your Honor.
BY MR. KANAREK:
Q. Mrs. Kasabian, how long that morning did you watch television after you got up?
A. I don’t know. Just the news.
Q. Pardon?
A. Just the news.
Q. Would you please tell us how long you watched?
A. I don’t know. Just the news. However long that took.
Q. Well, did you watch more than one broadcast?
A. I don’t think so.
Q. You watched one broadcast?
A. Yes.
Q. What station was it that you watched?
A. I don’t know.
Q. And after you watched the news, what did you do that morning?
A. I don’t know.
Q. You don’t remember what you did?
A. Right.
Q. Could you reflect for an instant or two and tell us what you did?
A. I have reflected many times and I don’t remember.
Q. You mean before coming to the courtroom you reflected as to what you did after watching the television news many times?
A. I have gone through the whole trip many times in my room.
Q. I see.
A. And I don’t remember what I did after watching TV.
Q. I see.
You have thought it over to yourself many times?
A. Yes.
Q. And with what purpose in mind did you think it over many times in your room?
A. So I would be able to tell the complete truth.
Q. In this courtroom?
A. Yes.
Q. And in connection with that, you have searched your mind specifically as to what you did after the television, and you haven’t been able to find an answer?
A. I don’t know what I did.
Q. Now, going over this in your mind many times in your room, have you had any writing or anything to guide you as to what happened?
A. Yes. I wrote down notes.
Q. And do you have those notes with you?
A. No.
Q. Do you have those notes in your room?
A. No.
Q. What happened to those notes?
A. I gave some notes to the prosecution, some of the notes I ripped up.
Q. You ripped up some notes and gave some to the prosecution?
A. Yes.
Q. May I ask you who or what person or persons in the prosecution did you give those notes to?
A. I gave some to Mr. Bugliosi, and I believe the day Mr. Stovitz came I gave him some.
Q. Have you given any notes to Mr. Fleischman or Mr. Goldman?
A. No, I don’t think so.
Q. These are handwritten notes of your own that you made in your room?
A. Yes.
MR. KANAREK: Your Honor, may we approach the bench?
THE COURT: Very well.
(Whereupon all counsel approach the bench and the following proceedings occur at the bench outside of the hearing of the jury:)
MR. KANAREK: Your Honor, I do move that we be given those handwritten notes of Mrs. Kasabian to be used in her examination.
THE COURT: Do you have such notes, Mr. Bugliosi?
MR. BUGLIOSI: I was given notes, your Honor, and I am sure they are in my tubs right now.
I had given Mr. Fitzgerald access to the tubs and he has gone through the tubs. He could look at everything we had under the motion for discovery.
I am sure they must still be down there.
They were not utilized at all in my direct examination of her. The only thing that I utilized in my direct examination of her was my interview of her.
She did write some notes about life out of the Family, and things like that, and they are available. They have been available to the defense, and Mr. Fitzgerald has looked through my tubs.
MR. HUGHES: Tubs?
MR. BUGLIOSI: When I say “tubs,” I mean my file cabinets for everything that we have.
I am sure they are still down there.
They have not been utilized in any fashion.
MR. KANAREK: Your Honor, I don’t want to inconvenience the prosecution, but I would allege that based on Brady vs. Maryland, and people vs. Kiowa, and under the right of due process under both the Federal and California law, that absent furnishing us those notes, that this would be a denial, a suppression of evidence within the purview of the law.
THE COURT: Nobody has denied you anything, Mr. Kanarek. He is offering you access to go down and look through what he has.
MR. BUGLIOSI: They have already been down there looking at what we have.
MR. KANAREK: That is hardly discovery when he gives us two or three cabinets and you have to go scurrying around for it.
THE COURT: I don’t know whether you were personally present at the discovery hearing or not, but somebody was in behalf of Mr. Manson, and that procedure was agreed to.
Now you are being offered the right to inspect these documents again.
MR. KANAREK: Right.
We have the same problem as previously.
Mr. Bugliosi represented that he had some 30 pages of handwritten—
THE COURT: That is another matter. Let’s stay with this matter.
MR. KANAREK: When can I have those notes?
MR. BUGLIOSI: We can go down right now and look, if you want. I am sure they are in the tubs.
THE COURT: How much material are we talking about going through?
MR. BUGLIOSI: You mean in the tubs?
THE COURT: Yes. How long would it take to find something?
MR. BUGLIOSI: It would be in the statement area, so it shouldn’t be hard to find.
They were not utilized at all on direct examination. The only thing that I utilized—
THE COURT: Is there any reason you can’t do it during the noon hour?
MR. KANAREK: Not at all. I would be more than glad to cooperate.
THE COURT: All right.
MR. KANAREK: I have something to do during the noon hour but—
MR. HUGHES: I do join in the earlier motion of Mr. Kanarek.
THE COURT: Whatever that was.
MR. SHINN: Was there a motion?
THE COURT: What was the motion?
MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Bugliosi said that these notes were available to me. That may have been the case, that they may have been available to me, although I have never seen them.
I mean, I am not alleging that they weren’t available to me. I just didn’t know about them and I didn’t see them, although I am sure they are there if they say they are.
MR. BUGLIOSI: Will you state on the record that I have opened up my tubs and that you leafed through?
MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, that is true.
MR. KANAREK: I will agree with Mr. Bugliosi, we had access, but I say that the difference with having access and asking us to—
THE COURT: The access was agreed to as satisfying the discovery at the time of the discovery motion. Now, if you didn’t take advantage of it, that is up to you.
But you now have an opportunity again to go through it and find whatever you are looking for.
MR. KANAREK: That’s right.
Just so the record will reflect, I do not agree that that satisfies discovery.
THE COURT: If you were present, you agreed, because that is what was done at the time.
Let’s get on with it. You now have the right to look through it.
MR. HUGHES: To make the record clear, the only discovery that I have seen has been up in the office of Mr. Stovitz, and I was not aware of anything in any tubs down in Mr. Bugliosi’s office.
I don’t believe I have ever seen any reference to the word “tubs” before, or whatever Mr. Bugliosi is now referring to.
THE COURT: Did you at any time ask him if he had anything else that you hadn’t seen?
MR. HUGHES: Well, originally, all the items discoverable were alluded to, I believe, on five or six pieces of paper which the D.A. gave, and I believed at that time that I was seeing everything.
I certainly never saw anything like notes of Mrs. Kasabian, and they were never alluded to.
THE COURT: Well, in any event, you now have the opportunity to obtain whatever it is.
MR. HUGHES: Belated as it is.
MR. KANAREK: Thank you, your Honor.
(Whereupon all counsel returned to their respective places at counsel table and the following proceedings occur in open court within the presence and hearing of the jury:)
MR. KANAREK: Q. Mrs. Kasabian, have you had any medication since yesterday?
A. No.
Q. No medication whatsoever?
A. No.
Q. Now, then, after you watched TV that day, what is the next thing that you did, that you remember?
A. I remember being in the kitchen.
Q. And how long was that after watching TV?
A. It was nighttime.
Q. Pardon?
A. It was nighttime.
Q. You woke up and it was about noon; right?
A. I guess. I don’t know.
Q. You guess? Do you know?
A. I don’t know.
Q. You don’t know right now what time you woke up?
A. No.
Q. You mean it might have been 8:00 o’clock in the morning or 2:00 in the afternoon?
A. I don’t know what time it was.
Q. I see.
Then after you watched TV, the first thing, that you can remember is that you were in the kitchen?
A. Yes.
Q. What did you do in the kitchen?
A. I remember cleaning up a few things, and there were a few people in the kitchen with me.
Q. And you cleaned up a few things in the kitchen?
A. Yes.
Q. And then after you cleaned up a few things in the kitchen, what is the next thing you did?
A. I remember Gypsy came in and she had a bunch of candy, and I took some candy, and she was talking about going to the Waterfall.
Q. My question is—I am not asking you for what anybody said. I am asking you only for what you did.
A. I put some candy in my pockets.
Q. I see.
And then ate the candy later on?
A. Later on, yes.
Q. Pardon?
A. Later on, yes.
Q. Did that candy have any LSD in it?
A. It was wrapped, so I don’t think it did.
Q. You don’t think it did, but it might have?
A. I didn’t have any LSD effects that night, so I don’t believe it did.
Q. But you are not a hundred percent sure?
A. I am pretty sure it didn’t.
Q. You are pretty sure but not a hundred percent?
A. Okay, not a hundred percent.
Q. Then directing your attention, Mrs. Kasabian, to the night, the second night, when you left the Spahn Ranch. You went to the home of Harold True; is that correct? You drove to the home of Harold True?
A. Yes.
Q. And you were the person who knew Harold True is that correct?
MR. STOVITZ: That is objected to, your Honor.
In that context he is asking whether she was the only person who knew Harold True.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q. BY MR. KANAREK: Well, Mrs. Kasabian, is it a fact that you knew Harold True?
A. Yes, I met him once.
Q. And you met Harold True about a year before you came to the Spahn Ranch?
A. Yes.
Q. Is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And so it was about a year before that, before you knew anyone at the Spahn Ranch?
A. Yes.
Q. Correct?
A. Yes.
Q. So Harold True is a person to whose home the car you were riding in came?
A. Yes.
Q. Is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And then is it a fair statement, Mrs. Kasabian, that you tell us that Mr. Manson left the automobile, you say, came back in several minutes?
A. Yes.
Q. Several minutes—maybe three or four minutes?
A. As long as it took to smoke the cigarette.
Q. Well, is it true that it was several minutes?
A. I guess so, I never counted how long it took to smoke a cigarette.
Q. Well, you stated on your direct examination that it was several minutes.
That was incorrect?
A. I was referring to how long it took to smoke a cigarette.
Q. Well, then, when you stated it was several minutes, that was incorrect, is that right, or was it correct?
A. It might have been a guess as to how long I think it takes to smoke a cigarette.
Q. I see, I see.
Now, you feel that it is not—that it is not several minutes?
A. No, I feel it is probably several minutes.
MR. STOVITZ: Your Honor, that is not the witness’ testimony at all, your Honor.
MR. KANAREK: This is cross-examination, your Honor, I am asking her.
THE COURT: Overruled. You may answer.
THE WITNESS: What was your question?
Q. BY MR. KANAREK: Certainly less than four minutes?
MR. STOVITZ: Object to that as ambiguous, four minutes what, the time it takes to smoke a cigarette or the time Mr. Manson left the car?
THE COURT: Overruled,
Mr. Stovitz, I have admonished all counsel including you not to make comments. I repeat that admonition now.
The jury is admonished to disregard the comments of counsel.
Let’s proceed. Is there a question pending?
THE COURT: [sic] Yes, your Honor.
MR. KANAREK: May it be read, your Honor?
THE COURT: Read the question.
(Whereupon, the reporter reads the question as follows:
“Q. I see. Certainly less than four minutes?”)
THE WITNESS: Possibly.
Q. BY MR. KANAREK: Now, Mrs. Kasabian, you tell us that when Mr. Manson returned that you got a wallet, is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. And you took that wallet, Mrs. Kasabian, and when that wallet was given to you did you open the wallet and did you look into it?
A. Yes, I was instructed to do so.
MR. KANAREK: May that “I was instructed”—that answer is not responsive.
THE COURT: The answer is stricken.
MR. KANAREK: Thank you.
THE COURT: The jury is admonished to disregard it. Repeat the question.
(Whereupon, the reporter reads the pending question as follows:
“Q. And you took that wallet, Mrs. Kasabian, and when that wallet was given to you did you open the wallet and did you look into it?”)
THE WITNESS: Yes.
Q. BY MR. KANAREK: You opened the wallet and you looked into it?
A. Yes.
Q. And there was some change in the wallet, is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And directing your attention to the change that was in the wallet, what did you do with that?
A. I believe I put it in the glove compartment.
Q. Now, you believe, but you may have put it somewhere else, is that right?
A. No, I am pretty sure I put it in the glove compartment.
Q. You did not keep that change on your person?
A. Right.
Q. I see. You put it in the glove compartment, is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, then, directing your attention, Mrs. Kasabian, to this wallet, would you tell us when you looked into the wallet, what did you see?
A. I saw a picture of a woman and a driver’s license.
Q. A driver’s license?
A. Yes.
MR. KANAREK: May I be excused, your Honor? May I get that physical item.
THE COURT: Yes.
(Pause.)
MR. KANAREK: May I approach the witness, your Honor?
THE COURT: You may.
MR. KANAREK: Thank you.
Q. BY MR. KANAREK: Now, Mrs. Kasabian, we have here the wallet. Would you look at this wallet—
THE COURT: Refer to the exhibit number, Mr. Kanarek, please.
MR. KANAREK: I am sorry, your Honor, I will.
MR. STOVITZ: That number, Mr. Clerk?
THE COURT: 65.
MR. STOVITZ: 65.
Q. BY MR. KANAREK: Would you look at this wallet, which is Exhibit 65, take that in your hand, and would you take out the items, Mrs. Kasabian, and put them here in front of you?
A. All of the items in the wallet?
Q. Yes.
(Witness complies.)
Q. BY MR. KANAREK: Now, then, directing your attention, Mrs. Kasabian—
MR. STOVITZ: May I, with counsel’s permission, take a further look to see if there is anything left in there?
MR. KANAREK: No problem.
MR. STOVITZ: Thank you.
(Mr. Stovitz examines wallet and returns it.)
Q. BY MR. KANAREK: Now, then, directing your attention, Mrs. Kasabian, to this change that is in the wallet.
Did you take the change out of the glove compartment and put it back in the wallet?
A. No, not that I recall.
Q. And you did not take the change and put it on your person?
A. No.
Q. Now, directing your attention to these items, Mrs. Kasabian, would you look at, first, this group of items.
MR. KANAREK: May the record reflect, your Honor, I have a group of several items which are apart from what appears to be a picture holder.
All the items, except the picture holder, the watch and the change.
Is that a fair statement, your Honor? I believe that is.
THE COURT: I don’t know what you’re talking about, Mr. Kanarek.
MR. KANAREK: In order to identify it—
THE COURT: You have a stack of cards.
MR. KANAREK: Well, a little—
THE COURT: You describe it.
MR. KANAREK: All of the items except the items that are in the picture holder and the picture holder, the watch and the chain, your Honor.
Q. Would you pick those up, Mrs. Kasabian?
(Witness complies.)
Now, would you look through those.
A. For what?
Q. Well, would you just look through them?
A. Okay.
(Witness complies.)
BY MR. KANAREK:
Q. Now, directing your attention to the time when you were near Harold True’s house, did you look at the items in the wallet?
A. Near Harold True’s house?
Q. Yes.
A. Yes.
Q. You looked through them, is that correct?
A. What was that again?
Q. Did you look through the items in the wallet when you were near Harold True’s house?
A. Yes. I don’t believe I saw all these items, but some of them I did.
Q. And what items did you see?
A. I remember the driver’s license and a few of the credit cards.
Q. And what other items did you see when you looked at them at Harold True’s house?
A. That is all I remember.
Q. Now, you then, as far as this wallet is concerned, you then at some time took this wallet and you chose a place for this wallet to repose after you left Harold True’s house, is that correct?
MR. STOVITZ: Objected to, your Honor, as being unintelligible.
BY MR. KANAREK:
Q. Do you understand the word “repose”?
A. No.
Q. At some time after—after you took this wallet—did you choose a place in a lady’s rest room to place the wallet?
MR. STOVITZ: Your Honor, that assumes facts not in evidence, that she took the wallet.
THE COURT: He is asking her; she can answer.
THE WITNESS: Did I choose a place in the lady’s room?
BY MR. KANAREK:
Q. Yes.
A. Yes, I did.
Q. You chose the place in the lady’s room to place this wallet, is that correct?
A. Yes.
MR. KANAREK: Your Honor, I just want to get one of the pictures, may I do so?
THE COURT: Very well.
(Pause.)
F
BY MR. KANAREK:
Q. I show you Exhibit No. 70, Mrs. Kasabian, and ask you, is that the place where it says “Where Linda testified she placed wallet”?
Is that the place that you placed the wallet?
A. Yes.
Q. And so you placed that wallet at that position after lifting the top of the bowl part of the toilet?
A. Yes.
Q. Is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And then you lifted the top off, placed the wallet there, and then placed the top of the bowl of the toilet back?
A. Well, I did not remove the top completely. I just held it with one hand, just held it with one hand.
Q. You held it with one hand, and then placed it back in place?
A. Yes.
Q. Is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And this is in the lady’s rest room at this Standard Station that is in People’s Exhibit 67, is that correct?
A. May I see the picture?
Q. Surely.
A. Yes.
Q. Now, and that you placed next to—or you—this picture, 69, is the picture of the toilet?
A. All toilets look the same.
Q. Pardon?
A. All toilets look the same.
That could be it.
Q. Well, will you look at it and tell us whether that is.
A. I just told you all toilets look the same.
Q. Is your statement that that picture 69 does not reflect a true image of the toilet in the bowl of which you placed the wallet?
A. No, I would not be able to tell you definitely unless the top was taken off.
Q. I see.
Now, what was your state of mind, Mrs. Kasabian, when you placed that wallet in the top of that bowl?
A. I don’t understand.
Q. Well, what was your intent in connection with that wallet, Mrs. Kasabian, when you placed the wallet in that bowl?
What was your intent as to that wallet?
A. To hide it.
Q. To hide it, and why did you—let me withdraw that.
Did you intend to come back and get that wallet?
A. No.
Q. You never intended to come back to that gas station?
A. No.
Q. Did you intend to come back to that gas station, Mrs. Kasabian, and get those credit cards on your trip to New Mexico?
A. No.
Q. That never went through your mind?
A. No.
Q. I see. May I see the credit cards, Mrs. Kasabian?
A. I don’t have them.
Q. You have them there.
At the time that you placed this wallet, Mrs. Kasabian, in this toilet bowl, you were thinking of perhaps going back to New Mexico, is that correct?
A. Maybe not at that moment, I don’t know.
Q. Maybe not at that moment, Mrs. Kasabian, but you intended in your mind about that time—you were thinking that perhaps you might go to New Mexico?
A. I was thinking of leaving, yes.
Q. Right. And you are experienced in using other People’s credit cards.
Is that a fair statement, Mrs. Kasabian?
MR. STOVITZ: That is objected to as being immaterial, irrelevant.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q. BY MR. KANAREK: Now, when you looked at these credit cards, Mrs. Kasabian, your mind was clear, is that correct? You had no LSD; you had no drugs of any type.
Your mind was clear as a bell, is that right?
A. Yeah, I was tired.
Q. You were tired but your mind was clear?
A. Yeah.
Q. And about this time you were thinking—you were thinking of going back to your husband in Taos, New Mexico, is that right?
A. Not exactly at that time, no.
Q. Not exactly at that time.
Well, at what time close to that time did you decide you were going to go back to Taos, New Mexico?
MR. STOVITZ: Assumes a fact not in evidence that there was a time close to that time.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q. BY MR. KANAREK: Well, would you tell us what time you formed the intent, Mrs. Kasabian, to go to New Mexico?
A. I formed it once before this even happened, and I formed it again the next day.
Q. You had sort of a continuing intent, didn’t you?
A. Yes.
Q. And your state of mind was such that when you travel it is convenient to have credit cards with you?
A. I never used them before when I traveled.
Q. Pardon?
A. I never used them before when I traveled.
Q. You never used the credit cards before when you traveled?
A. No, I usually hitchhiked.
Q. You usually hitchhiked?
A. Yes.
MR. STOVITZ: Your Honor, I wonder if Mr. Kanarek is through showing the witness the exhibits, whether it would be easier to follow the questions and answers back here.
MR. KANAREK: I would be more than glad to, your Honor.
THE COURT: Very well.
(Mr. Kanarek returns to counsel table.)
Q. BY MR. KANAREK: Now, Mrs. Kasabian, when you drove away—when you drove away, Mrs. Kasabian, from the Spahn Ranch in Mr. Hannon’s automobile, your intent was to go to New Mexico?
A. Yes.
Q. Is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you have a little difficulty finding this Standard station?
A. I never even thought to look for it.
Q. Pardon me?
A. Excuse me. I thought you were finished.
Q. May I finish?
A. Yes, I’m sorry.
Q. When you drove away from the Spahn Ranch in Mr. Hannon’s automobile, you knew that this wallet was in that toilet bowl, is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And did you have any difficulty finding the Standard station after you left the Spahn Ranch?
MR. BUGLIOSI: That assumes a fact not in evidence, that she looked for it, your Honor.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. KANAREK: May we approach the bench, your Honor?
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. KANAREK: May we approach the bench, your Honor?
THE COURT: It won’t be necessary, Mr. Kanarek.
The question is improper in form.
Q. BY MR. KANAREK: Mrs. Kasabian, what path did you take in leaving the Los Angeles area, what path did you take when you had Mr. Hannon’s automobile under control?
A. I don’t know the name of the route. I had a map and I followed the map.
Q. You had a map?
A. Yes.
Q. And you followed the map?
A. Yes.
Q. And you followed the map?
A. Yes.
Q. Would you tell us upon what streets and highways of the County of Los Angeles you propelled your automobile?
A. I don’t know.
Q. You don’t know?
A. No.
Q. Well, would you give us your best estimate of how—
A. I remember going through Needles, so whatever road leads to Needles, that is the road I was on.
Q. I am talking about before—before, Mrs. Kasabian, before you left Los Angeles County.
A. Yes.
Q. You left the Spahn Ranch?
A. Yes.
Q. And did you take Santa Susana Pass Road?
A. Yes, to leave the Ranch.
Q. All right, and when you took that road—what—Topanga Canyon?
A. Yes, I think that is the name of it.
Q. All right, then, you took Topanga Canyon in which direction?
A. I don’t know. I met two young hitchhikers the day before and I cannot remember the name of the street they lived on.
Q. Pardon?
A. I cannot remember the name of the street they lived on, but I went to this house and picked them up.
Q. Pardon?
A. I picked them up.
Q. I see.
And in what part of the City of Los Angeles did these hitchhikers live?
A. Oh, I don’t know.
Q. Well, would you give us a general idea of which way you drove.
When you got to the point where Santa Susana Pass Road crosses Topanga Canyon, did you turn?
A. No, I think I drove on that road for a long ways.
Q. Which road?
A. Topanga Canyon.
Q. Then you had to turn off Santa Susana Pass Road?
A. Yes.
Q. And when you came through Topanga Canyon did you turn to the right or did you turn to the left?
A. To the right.
Q. You turned to the right, and at some point after you turned to the right did you ever leave Topanga Canyon?
A. Yes.
Q. At what street did you leave Topanga Canyon?
A. I don’t remember.
Q. Well, when you did leave Topanga Canyon did you turn to the left or did you turn to the right?
A. I don’t remember.
Q. And as far as these two hitchhikers are concerned, you don’t know what part of the City of Los Angeles that they live in?
A. No.
Q. Well, can you reflect for a moment and tell us about how far they lived from where Santa Susana Pass Road crosses Topanga Canyon?
A. Maybe five miles or ten miles, I don’t know.
Q. I see. How much in time—what is the lapsed time, Mrs. Kasabian, that passed from the time that you were at the intersection of Topanga Canyon and Santa Susana Pass Road, and the place where you picked up the hitchhikers?
A. I don’t know, I don’t think it took very long.
Q. Well, you had a map?
A. Yes.
Q. What kind of a map did you have?
A. This is the map to go to New Mexico.
Q. Pardon?
A. This is a map to get to New Mexico.
Q. Now, the map that you had was a map to go to New Mexico?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, then, in order to find the home of the hitchhikers, did you find the home of the hitchhikers by using that map?
A. No.
Q. Well, then, what device did you use to find the home where the hitchhikers were?
A. The day before when I picked them up I took them to this home, and I remembered it.
Q. You remembered how to get there then?
A. Yes, yes.
Q. But now you don’t remember how to get there?
A. No.
Q. Is that right?
A. Right.
Q. Well, now, when the hitchhikers—when you dropped the hitchhikers off the day before, in making your plans, you planned this the day before, to go to New Mexico, is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. And you planned to go to New Mexico the day before involving the hitchhikers to go with you?
A. Yes.
Q. Then did you make a notation of the hitchhikers’ home, their address?
A. Yes, in my mind.
Q. In your mind?
A. Yes.
Q. You didn’t bother to write it down?
A. No.
Q. I see.
And you remembered the address?
A. Yes. Not the address, the house and the street.
Well, I guess that is the address.
Q. Well, did you remember the address? How did you write it down without remembering the address?
A. I didn’t write it down. Like I told you, I went to this house.
Q. Well, did you make any written notation? Did you make any written notation as to what the address was?
A. No.
Q. Then did you make any written notation as to how to get to the house?
A. No.
Q. Did you make a written notation as to what intersection?
A. No.
Q. Then, since you didn’t have a map and you didn’t have a written notation as to what intersection the house was near, how did you locate the house?
A. I just remembered taking them there the next day, and when I left, I remembered the name of the street and how to get there.
Q. When you left you remembered the name of the street and how to get there?
A. Yes.
Q. How did you know what street to turn off of to get to this particular street?
MR. STOVITZ: That is objected to as being asked and answered, counsel.
MR. KANAREK: Hardly, your Honor.
THE COURT: Overruled.
You may answer.
THE WITNESS: Would you repeat the question?
MR. KANAREK: May it be read, your Honor?
THE COURT: Read the last question.
(The question was read by the reporter.)
THE WITNESS: I just told you. I took them there the day before.
MR. KANAREK: Q. You took them there the day before?
A. Yes.
Q. And this is some five to ten miles from Topanga Canyon and Santa Susana Pass Road?
A. I guess. I don’t know exactly how many miles it was.
Q. Well, you told us it was some five to ten miles.
A. That is an estimate. I am not positive.
Q. Oh, you mean it might have been 20 miles?
A. I don’t know how many miles it was.
Q. It might have been 30 miles; right?
A. I don’t know.
Q. Or maybe it doesn’t exist at all, Mrs. Kasabian?
A. It does exist.
Q. Oh, it does exist?
A. Yes, it does.
Q. I see.
Well, then, Mrs. Kasabian, will you tell us how you located a home where these two boys were, you say, the next day after seeing this house once the day before?
MR. STOVITZ: I object to the question, your Honor, as being asked and answered and argumentative.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. KANAREK: Well, would you tell us, Mrs. Kasabian, how you remembered where this house was?
A. I made a special note of it when I left.
Q. All right. You made a special note.
A. In my mind. I didn’t write it down.
Q. In your mind?
A. Yes.
Q. I see.
A. Yes.
Q. Will you tell us what notations you mentally put into your mind?
A. She street, the main street, and the house itself.
Q. So, in your mind, you remembered the street, the house, and the main street?
A. Right.
Q. All right.
What was the main street?
A. I don’t know. I think it was Topanga, but I am not sure.
Q. You think it was Topanga but you are not sure?
A. Right.
Q. That was the main street; is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And then this street that the boys lived on, was that a street that intersected Topanga?
A. I don’t understand.
Q. Do you know what it means for two streets to intersect?
A. You mean come together?
Q. Right.
A. Yes.
Q. And so you drove north on Topanga to some street that intersected Topanga; is that right?
MR. STOVITZ: She didn’t say she drove north, Counsel.
If you are asking did she drive north, that is one thing, but if you are telling her that she drove north, I object to the question as an improper characterization.
THE COURT: Rephrase the question.
MR. KANAREK: I will be glad to rephrase it.
BY MR. KANAREK:
Q. Mrs. Kasabian, directing your attention to Topanga, whether it be north or south, or whatever direction, east or west, you drove down Topanga after you left Santa Susana Pass Road?
A. Right.
Q. Then at some point you came to the street that these boys lived on?
A. Right.
Q. When you came to that street that these boys lived on, did you turn left or did you turn right?
A. I think I turned right, yes.
Q. Now you remember you turned right?
A. I think I did, yes.
Q. I see. All right.
And then after you turned right, how far down that street did you go?
A. It was only a few houses down. I didn’t count.
Q. Pardon?
A. It wasn’t very far down.
Q. So these boys lived on a street that was very close to Topanga Canyon, just a few houses from Topanga Canyon?
A. The boulevard, the street, yes.
Q. Pardon?
A. Topanga Canyon Boulevard.
Q. I see.
And you picked up these boys?
A. Yes.
Q. After picking up these boys who lived a few blocks from where this street intersected Topanga Canyon—
MR. STOVITZ: She said a few houses, Counsel.
MR. KANAREK: Pardon me. I am sorry. I will rephrase the question.
Q. So, after picking up these boys who lived a few houses off of Topanga Canyon on this street, where did you propel the car to?
A. I don’t know the name of the streets. I got on the freeway.
Q. You got on the freeway?
A. Yes.
Q. And then where did—which freeway did you get on?
A. I don’t know.
Q. You got on a freeway, and then where did you go on the freeway? How long did you stay on the freeway?
A. Well, the freeway seemed to be going all the way. I am sure it ended somewhere into a highway.
Q. You mean at some point after getting on the freeway in the Los Angeles area, you left the freeway?
A. Or else it turned into the main road where I was headed.
Q. I see.
Well, did you, after getting on the freeway—well, would you please tell us, after you got onto the freeway, how far did you go before you got off the freeway?
A. I don’t know.
Q. Now, then, directing your attention, then, Mrs. Kasabian, to the time that you left the Spahn Ranch. How many days, or what time was it, Mrs. Kasabian, after you placed this wallet in the lady’s room, if you placed it there?
A. How many days, did you say?
Q. Yes.
A. One, two—three days.
Q. Three days after you placed this wallet in the bowl that you have told us about, you left the Spahn Ranch in Mr. Hannon’s car?
A. Right.
Q. You don’t have any problem in counting those days, do you? And there is no question in your mind that it is three days?
A. No.
Q. So, as far as that three-day computation is concerned, you don’t have any problem with time?
A. Right.
Q. You have told us previously that you are not concerned with hours of the day or days of the month or time or anything like that, but as to this computation, there is no question in your mind that it is three days?
A. Right.
Q. I see.
Now, is there some reason—excuse me.
(Mr. Kanarek and Mr. Fitzgerald confer.)
MR. KANAREK: Your Honor, counsel informs me that your Honor was going to handle some motions at a quarter to 12:00.
THE COURT: All right.
We will excuse the jury at this time for the noon recess.
Do not converse with anyone or form or express any opinion regarding the case until it is finally submitted to you.
(The following proceedings were had in open court in the presence and hearing of the jury:)
THE COURT: All parties, counsel and jurors are present.
You may proceed, Mr. Kanarek.
MR. KANAREK: Thank you, your Honor.
Q. BY MR. KANAREK: Mrs. Kasabian, have you had an opportunity to think of the path that you took away from Los Angeles, over the lunch hour?
A. I believe I knew the route to the house.
Q. Pardon?
A. To the house where I picked up the boys.
Q. All right. From the house where you picked up the boys what route did you take?
A. That I still don’t know.
Q. You don’t know the path you took through Los Angeles?
A. No, I just remember getting on a highway going towards New Mexico.
Q. Now, the day after the second night where did you go?
A. The day after—I am not quite sure—the day after?
Q. Well, you came back to the house, to the place in the Spahn Ranch where you stayed.
A. Yes.
Q. After the second night?
A. Yes.
Q. Is that right?
A. Right.
Q. And you went to sleep?
A. Yes.
Q. And you got up the following morning?
A. Well, it was morning when I got there.
Q. Well, you got up at some time during that day?
A. Yes.
Q. Where did you go during that day?
A. I remember getting a sleeping bag and packing the sleeping bag and hiding it behind the ranch.
Q. And where did you go after you hid it behind the ranch?
A. I went back to the ranch.
Q. And then where did you go?
A. I remember that night I took care of the children.
Q. And then where did you go after you took care of the children?
A. Well, I slept with the children.
Q. And then—was that all night long?
A. Yes.
Q. Pardon?
A. Yes.
Q. Then where did you go the day after that?
A. Let’s see, that was the day that I went to see Mary and Bruce and Sandy—not Bruce, excuse me, Bobby.
Q. And how did you get to where you went to see Mary and Sandy and someone else?
A. In a car.
Q. Pardon?
A. In a car.
Q. In whose car did you go?
A. Dave Hannon’s
Q. Pardon?
A. Dave Hannon’s car.
Q. And how long were you away from the ranch that day?
A. All day.
Q. What time did you come back?
A. Maybe around a little bit before sunset.
Q. And then what did you do that night?
A. I went on a garbage run, and then I went to the waterfall.
Q. All right, then what did you do the next day?
A. I left the ranch and I picked up those two boys, started driving towards New Mexico.
Q. Well, sometime then during this period of time you made arrangements with the two boys, didn’t you?
A. Yes.
Q. Was there another day involved?
A. No.
Q. When did you make arrangements with the two boys?
A. When I was coming back from seeing Mary, who I didn’t see.
I picked them up hitchhiking, and—
Q. You picked them up hitchhiking?
A. Yes.
Q. And who was in your car when you picked them up hitchhiking?
A. Just myself.
Q. And you were not driving with anyone else?
A. No.
Q. And who was driving the car?
A. Myself.
Q. And whose car were you driving?
A. Dave Hannon’s.
Q. And where had you been that day, the day that you picked up the boys?
A. I had just come from Sybil Brand, trying to see Mary and Sandy, and somewhere in the downtown area I tried to see Bobby.
Q. And during this period of time between the time of the—what you call the second night and the time that you went to New Mexico, on how many different occasions did you try to see Mary and Sandy?
A. Just this once.
Q. Only one time?
A. Yes.
Q. And on how many different occasions did you leave the ranch and drive a car all alone?
MR. STOVITZ: Since the second night, Counsel?
MR. KANAREK: Since the second night.
THE WITNESS: Just those two times.
Q. BY MR. KANAREK: Twice?
A. Yes.
Q. You drove the car alone?
A. Yes.
Q. Is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. And directing your attention, Mrs. Kasabian, to the gas station where you say you placed the wallet.
Where is that gas station?
A. Where?
Q. Yes.
A. I don’t know the part of town.
Q. Pardon?
A. I don’t know the part of town.
Q. Well, as you sit on the witness stand now will you tell us where that gas station is?
A. I still don’t know the name of the town.
Q. Pardon?
A. I still don’t know the name of the town.
Q. You don’t know where it is?
A. Right.
Q. And do you know the name of the street that it is on?
A. No.
Q. Do you know the number of the gas station?
A. No.
Q. And do you know what kind of a gas station it is?
A. Yes.
Q. What kind of a gas station is it?
A. Standard.
Q. And directing your attention to this gas station, between the time—between the time of your arrest and today have you been to that gas station?
A. Yes.
Q. And when did you go to that gas station?
A. In the springtime sometime, I am not sure of the day or the month. It was after I had the baby.
Q. Well, can you tell us what month it is?
A. Yes, I believe it was about a week or so after I had the baby, yeah.
Q. About a week after you had the baby?
A. Yeah.
Q. And directing your attention to the gas station, did you go to that gas station in the presence of any other people since you have been arrested?
A. Yes.
Q. And in the presence of what individuals did you go to the gas station?
A. There were two police officers, I don’t remember their names, a woman and a man, and there was Mr. Bugliosi, and I believe Mr. Gutierrez was there and Mr. Patchett, and my attorney, Mr. Fleischman.
I think that is all.
Q. And you opened up the top of the toilet bowl and, lo and behold, there was the wallet?
A. No.
Q. Is that right?
A. No.
MR. STOVITZ: I object to the question as unintelligible, your Honor.
THE COURT: Overruled.
BY MR. KANAREK:
Q. Mrs. Kasabian, directing your attention to that particular gas station, when you came in there, the wallet wasn’t there?
A. No.
Q. And before you went in there, you had told somebody about where the wallet was?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, how long before you went to the gas station or were taken to the gas station did you describe the wallet to anyone after you were arrested?
A. I didn’t catch all of your question.
MR. KANAREK: May that be read, your Honor?
THE COURT: Read the question.
(The question was read by the reporter.)
THE WITNESS: I believe I described it to my attorney.
BY MR. KANAREK:
Q. And when was it that you described it to your attorney?
A. I am not sure at which meeting. There were a number of meetings that they came to talk to me.
It was near the beginning when I first got to jail.
Q. And which attorney was it that you described it to, or was it both?
A. It could have been both.
Q. And in what month did you describe the location of the wallet?
A. Location of the wallet?
Q. Yes.
A. You mean, in the toilet tank?
Q. Yes.
A. I don’t know. I just know it was near the beginning, when I first got to jail.
Q. And when did you first come to Los Angeles from New Hampshire?
A. The first part of December.
Q. And how soon, after you came to Los Angeles did you describe it?
A. I don’t know. Not very long after.
Q. How many weeks?
A. I don’t know.
Q. Was it two weeks, a month?
A. I don’t know, Mr. Kanarek.
Q. You don’t remember that time?
A. No.
Q. Now, Mrs. Kasabian, I have here a map of Los Angeles.
(Mr. Kanarek shows a document to Mr. Bugliosi and Mr. Stovitz.)
MR. KANAREK: May I approach the witness, your Honor?
THE COURT: You may.
MR. KANAREK: I have here a map of Los Angeles.
MR. FITZGERALD: Could we agree to have it marked?
MR. BUGLIOSI: Yes.
MR. KANAREK: Yes.
May it be marked, your Honor?
MR. FITZGERALD: As Manson’s A for identification?
THE COURT: It will be so marked.
MR. KANAREK: Does the Clerk prefer any particular place?
THE CLERK: I beg your pardon?
MR. KANAREK: Do you prefer any place on this map to put the mark?
THE CLERK: No. That is all right. I will put the mark on.
THE COURT: I think we may have some confusion if we mark them in that manner, gentlemen.
Why don’t we just mark it Defendants’ B.
MR. FITZGERALD: No objection.
MR. KANAREK: Defendants’ B.
THE COURT: We will keep all the Defendants’ Exhibits in sequence rather than assigning identical letters, to avoid any confusion.
This will be Defendants’ B for identification.
MR. KANAREK: Q. Now, Mrs. Kasabian, we have here a map of the Greater Los Angeles area, Los Angeles and vicinity.
Would you look at this map, the one that says “Los Angeles and Vicinity,” and see if that refreshes your recollection as to the path you took when you left the Spahn Ranch to go to New Mexico?
MR. STOVITZ: Counsel, may we describe for the record that she is looking at the larger map, not the detailed city street map?
MR. KANAREK: That is a fair statement.
THE WITNESS: I am supposed to be looking at this?
MR. KANAREK: Yes. Would you look at that map and see if that refreshes your recollection as to the path you took when you left the Spahn Ranch to go to New Mexico.
(Pause while the witness studies the map.)
THE WITNESS: I don’t know. I can’t seem to find anything.
MR. KANAREK: Q. That doesn’t refresh your recollection?
A. No.
Q. As to how you went or what path you took to leave the Los Angeles area?
A. Right.
I just know I went through Needles, California, and through Gallup and into Taos.
THE COURT: May I see that map a minute?
(The witness hands the map to the Court.)
THE COURT: Will counsel approach the bench, please.
(Whereupon, all counsel approach the bench and the following proceedings occur at the bench outside the hearing of the jury:)
THE COURT: The map that she was shown, Mr. Kanarek, doesn’t even come close to the Spahn Ranch. It isn’t on this map. How could she show you?
MR. KANAREK: Your Honor, may I get in here just a moment?
THE COURT: Yes.
MR. KANAREK: This map, your Honor—
THE COURT: The ranch is off the map in the upper left-hand corner.
MR. KANAREK: No, your Honor.
Here is Topanga Canyon right here, Topanga Canyon Boulevard.
THE COURT: It is at the extreme left border of the map.
MR. KANAREK: Topanga canyon. The Spahn Ranch is in this area of San Fernando Valley.
THE COURT: It is my understanding that it is to the west of that, which would be off the map.
MR. KANAREK: I am saying that she has spoken of Topanga Canyon.
THE COURT: I suggest that you orient her on the map at least as to Topanga Boulevard.
MR. KANAREK: This is cross-examination.
THE COURT: I understand; but you are departing from an area not even on the map.
MR. KANAREK: Very well.
THE COURT: I just want the record to reflect that. You may proceed in your own manner.
MR. KANAREK: All right.
(The following proceedings were had in open court in the presence and hearing of the jury:)
MR. KANAREK: May I approach the witness, your Honor?
THE COURT: You may.
BY MR. KANAREK:
Q. Mrs. Kasabian, do you see on this map where it says “Topanga Canyon Boulevard”?
A. Yes.
Q. All right, now, having that in mind, looking at that street where it is stated “Topanga Canyon Boulevard,” will you look at that map and see if you can tell us the path that you took in leaving Los Angeles.
A. I am still not sure. I cannot really—this is not the map that I used, the kind of map.
Q. What kind of map did you use?
A. It showed the lower part of California, Arizona, and I guess it is called Southwest part of the United States.
Then it showed New Mexico and Texas.
Q. Now, when you went downtown, when you went to downtown Los Angeles to see Mary Brunner—is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Sandy Good?
A. Yes.
Q. And Bobby Beausoleil?
A. Yes.
Q. Could you tell us what path you took to go to downtown Los Angeles.
A. I don’t know. I was given directions how to get there.
Q. You were driving the car alone, is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Well, you had directions to get down there. Would you tell us, following those directions, what path did you take to get to downtown Los Angeles?
A. I don’t know. I just took the exits I was told to take.
Q. What exits were you told to take?
A. I don’t remember now.
Q. You have no memory of what exits you took when you came to downtown Los Angeles to see Mary Brunner, Bobby Beausoleil and Sandy Good?
A. Well, for the two girls I was told to go to SBI.
The name of the street was given to me.
Q. What street was that?
A. I am not sure.
Q. And SBI, is that Sybil Brand Institute?
A. Yes.
Q. That is where you are now residing?
A. Yes.
Q. On the night which you call the second night, Mrs. Kasabian, on that second night when you left the beach at Venice—
A. Yes.
Q. —you hitchhiked back to Spahn Ranch, you say?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, you had no problem telling anyone where to take you, right?
A. No.
Q. You knew exactly where you were going, right?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, when you went on garbage runs you knew exactly where you were going, is that right?
A. Usually somebody went with me.
Q. Well, when you drove alone coming to downtown Los Angeles you knew how to get here, didn’t you?
A. Not really. I was given directions and I had to find my way.
Q. But you used the directions and you got to where you were going?
A. Eventually, yes.
Q. But you don’t know who gave you the directions?
A. No, I am not sure who did.
Q. And you don’t know who gave you the directions as to how to go through downtown Los Angeles to get to Needles?
A. Excuse me?
Q. You don’t know who gave you the directions as to how to go through downtown Los Angeles to get to Needles?
A. A map gave me directions.
Q. I see, but you don’t know what map it was?
A. It was a Southwestern map.
Q. I see.
Did someone tell you or did you just use the map?
A. There was a bunch of maps in the car and I followed the map.
Q. You had no trouble following the map?
A. Uh-huh.
Q. Is that right?
A. Right.
MR. KANAREK: Excuse me just a moment, your Honor.
(Pause.)
BY MR. KANAREK:
Q. Now, Mrs. Kasabian, when you placed this wallet in the place that you told us about, did you place it there and forget about it?
A. Yes.
Q. And you did not think about it at all until sometime in the future, right?
A. Right.
Q. And when was that time in the future that you first thought about the wallet?
A. Once I got back here, once I was arrested.
Q. Once you were arrested?
A. Yes.
Q. And you did not think about it between the time that you placed it there until you got arrested?
A. No.
Q. Is that right?
A. Yeah.
Q. Now, after you were at the gas station on what you call the second night, you went on to Santa Monica, is that correct, Venice?
A. Yes.
Q. In the Santa Monica area?
A. Yes.
Q. During the time that you went out to Santa Monica did you drive an automobile?
A. Yes.
Q. And you were able to drive. Your mind was completely clear, right?
A. I was tired.
Q. You were exhausted?
A. Yes.
Q. In fact you were exhausted at that time when you were driving to Santa Monica?
A. Yes.
Q. But nevertheless you drove?
A. Yes.
Q. And you went to this place with Mr. Manson?
A. Yes.
Q. Is that correct? And you went to a place where you had known a man in this particular apartment house.
A. Yes.
Q. And you went to this place with the idea in your mind that someone—Mr. Manson was telling you to go into an apartment and kill someone?
A. Yes.
Q. Is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. But you were interested in protecting that person, right?
A. Yes, in a sense.
Q. In a sense?
A. Yeah, I did not want to kill anybody.
Q. Pardon?
A. I did not want to kill anybody.
Q. You did not want to kill anybody?
A. Uh-huh.
Q. And you had been through this the night before, and you at that time knew people had been killed, right?
A. Right.
Q. And you went to a different apartment so that that person would not be killed, is that right?
A. Right, yes.
Q. And you pointed out this other apartment and said, “that’s where this particular person lives.”
A. Yes.
Q. And so then you, as far as you were concerned, somebody thought that the person in that apartment, you remember someone opened the door, you said?
A. Yes.
Q. And someone in that apartment, as far as you—what you are telling us—the person with you thought that that person was the person that had picked you up previously.
MR. STOVITZ: I object to the question as unintelligible, your Honor.
THE COURT: Do you understand the question, Mrs. Kasabian?
THE WITNESS: No, I don’t think so, unless he repeats it.
THE COURT: Read the question.
(Whereupon, the reporter reads the question as follows:
“Q. And someone in that apartment, as far as you—what you are telling us—the person with you thought that that person was the person that had picked you up previously.”)
THE WITNESS: I still don’t understand it.
THE COURT: Objection sustained.
Reframe your question.
MR. KANAREK: I will be glad to re-word it, your Honor.
Q. BY MR. KANAREK: Mrs. Kasabian, you went to the wrong apartment in order to protect the person that you say had picked you up previously, that you had gone to the apartment with and made love with and all of that?
A. Yes.
Q. And the apartment, the wrong apartment that you went to had a human being in it, a person opened the door, right?
A. Yes.
Q. And so you knew in your mind that there was a live, flesh-and-blood person, at least one in that apartment, is that correct?
A. I don’t understand you again.
Q. Well, you went to the wrong apartment?
A. Yes.
Q. And in that apartment there was someone that opened the door?
A. Yeah.
Q. And it was a person, a live person?
A. Yes.
Q. That opened the door, right?
A. Uh-huh.
Q. And so as far as your state of mind was concerned, the person that you were with thought that the person that opened the door was the person that had given you the ride, is that correct?
A. Once I had knocked on the door and the person had opened the door?
Q. That is not clear to you what I am asking?
A. No, I am still not clear what you are saying.
Q. Someone opened the door?
A. Yes.
Q. Of the apartment that you say is the wrong apartment?
A. Yes.
Q. So you were trying to get it across to the person that you were with, the person that opened the door was the person who is the person that befriended you?
A. No.
Q. You were not trying to get that across?
A. No.
Q. Did you point out the apartment, the wrong apartment to the person you were with?
A. Yes.
MR. STOVITZ: The trouble with that question is “person.” I believe it’s plural.
MR. KANAREK: If Mr. Stovitz wants to take over again I will defer and let him take over and ask the questions.
THE COURT: Overruled. You may answer the question.
THE WITNESS: What was your question?
THE COURT: Read the question.
(Whereupon, the reporter reads the question as follows:
“Q. Did you point out the apartment, the wrong apartment to the person you were with?”)
BY MR. KANAREK:
Q. You did do that?
A. Yes.
Q. So, your state of mind was such that someone intent on killing knew that there was somebody in that apartment, that the person who was doing, who was thinking about killing, thought was the person that you had picked up, the actor; is that correct?
MR. STOVITZ: Your Honor, I object to the question as unintelligible.
MR. KANAREK: I think it is intelligible, your Honor.
MR. STOVITZ: I will submit it.
THE COURT: Do you understand the question?
MR. STOVITZ: I want an evidentiary hearing, your Honor, on whether or not this question is intelligible.
THE COURT: Do you understand the question?
THE WITNESS: Not now I don’t. Too much confusion.
THE COURT: Read the question.
(The question was read by the reporter.)
THE COURT: The objection is sustained.
MR. KANAREK: Very well.
Q. Mrs. Kasabian, you went to that wrong apartment; right?
A. Right.
Q. And the person that you went there with—
A. Persons.
Q. —the persons that you went there with were intent on killing?
A. Yes, I presume.
Q. Right?
A. Yes.
Q. And they then knew that there was someone in the apartment, the wrong apartment, as far as you knew, they thought the person in the wrong apartment was the person that had picked you up; right?
A. Yes, I guess so.
Q. And so you went merrily on your way to New Mexico. Did you do anything to warn the person in the wrong apartment that they might be killed?
MR. STOVITZ: Just a moment.
Your Honor, there seems to be a dangling participle in there about going to New Mexico that makes the question unintelligible.
THE COURT: Read the question.
(The question was read by the reporter.)
THE COURT: The objection is sustained.
Reframe the question, Mr. Kanarek.
MR. KANAREK: Very well.
BY MR. KANAREK:
Q. Before you went to New Mexico, Mrs. Kasabian, did you do anything to warn the person in the wrong apartment that they were marked for death?
A. No. I didn’t consider they were marked for death.
Q. You didn’t consider they were marked for death?
A. No.
Q. And why didn’t you consider that they were marked for death?
A. Because they were marked for death at that moment, and I didn’t follow through with it.
Q. They were what?
A. They were marked—he, or whoever was supposed to be in that apartment—was marked for death at that moment when I knocked, but I knew that it wasn’t the right person, and I didn’t follow through with it.
Q. I see.
You knew that it wasn’t the right person and, therefore, you didn’t follow through with it?
A. Right.
Q. Right?
A. Right.
Q. Did the people that were doing the marking for death, did they know that it was the wrong person?
A. Not that I know of.
Q. Then would you tell me how you come to the conclusion that it was only for that one instant, that one time, that they were marked for death?
A. I just feel that they wouldn’t go back there.
Q. They made you feel that they wouldn’t go back there, these people that were intent on killing at that particular time would not go back and kill on another occasion?
A. I don’t know. I just didn’t feel that.
Q. You didn’t feel that they would?
A. Yes.
Q. You don’t have any reason?
A. No, I don’t have any reason.
Q. Well, Harold True was somebody that you had known a year before?
A. Yes.
Q. And according to you, somebody had thought over some long period of time to go to Harold True’s place and kill Harold True; is that correct?
MR. BUGLIOSI: That calls for a conclusion, your Honor. It is also a misstatement of the evidence.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. KANAREK: Q. You say that on the second night. Mrs. Kasabian, that someone that was in your presence was going to do some killing at Harold True’s?
A. At Harold True’s?
MR. BUGLIOSI: I object.
MR. KANAREK: Yes.
A. No, I don’t think. I ever said that.
Q. You never said that?
A. No.
Q. Did you think that?
A. At one moment I did, yes.
Q. At one moment you did? What did you say?
A. What?
Q. What did you say in connection with Harold True when you say you were in the immediate vicinity of Harold True’s home?
A. I said, “Charlie, you are not going to that house, are you?”
And he said, “No.”
Q. And so, you thought that there was going to be some killing as far as Harold True was concerned; is that right?
A. Well, no.
Q. Then why did you talk—why did you say, “You are not going to Harold True’s”?
A. Oh, I thought you meant after.
Yes, I thought that was where he was going, to Harold True’s house.
Q. Right?
A. Yes.
Q. And this was over a period—had been how long since you had been to Harold True’s house?
A. About a year.
Q. So you say that someone went into the house next door to Harold True; is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, you later came to learn that the people in the house next door to Harold True had passed away; is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. Pardon?
A. Yes.
Q. When did you learn that the people who lived next door to Harold True had passed away?
A. I believe I learned it when I was in Florida.
Q. You learned it when you were in Florida?
A. Yes.
Q. The day after, the second night you went back to the Spahn Ranch; is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. And all that day you heard nothing about anyone having passed away in the house next door to Harold True?
A. No, I didn’t hear anything.
Q. The next day you heard nothing about—no one discussed anything about the people in the house next door to Harold True passing away; right?
A. [Q.] And it wasn’t until sometime in October of 1969 that you found out that anyone next door to Harold True had passed away; is that correct—
A. Yes.
Q. —Mrs. Kasabian?
A. Yes.
Q. I see.
Now, did you do anything in connection with the person at Venice, the person in that wrong apartment, when you found out about the killing in the apartment or the house next door to Harold True?
Did you tell anybody that that person or persons, whoever it might be in the wrong apartment, were in danger of death?
A. No.
Q. And it is because you didn’t consider that the person in the apartment at Venice, or the person or persons in the apartment at Venice, were in danger of death?
A. No, I didn’t think they were.
Q. You didn’t think they were; right?
A. Uh-huh, yes.
Q. Now, did you discuss with Mr. Bugliosi, have you spoken with Mr. Bugliosi concerning the time when you found out that the people next door to Harold True’s had passed away?
THE WITNESS: Would you repeat that?
MR. KANAREK: May it be read, your Honor?
THE COURT: Read the question.
(The question was read by the reporter.)
THE WITNESS: I don’t understand.
BY MR. KANAREK:
Q. You don’t understand that question?
A. No.
Q. Did you tell Mr. Bugliosi when you first found out that the people next door to Harold True’s had passed away?
A. I am sorry, I still—I didn’t quite get that.
Q. Did you tell Mr. Bugliosi when you, Linda Kasabian, first found out that the people next door to Harold True had passed away?
A. I am sorry, I can’t think. I don’t know what you are saying.
Q. That question is not clear to you?
A. No. For some reason, I can’t think it.
MR. KANAREK: Do you want to take a half a minute and think about it?
THE WITNESS: Okay.
What is your question again?
MR. KANAREK: May it be read, your Honor?
THE COURT: Do you understand the words that he used in the question?
THE WITNESS: They are sort of jumbled backwards and I don’t understand it.
THE COURT: You still don’t understand the question?
THE WITNESS: No.
THE COURT: Then thinking about it isn’t going to help.
You had better reframe the question.
MR. KANAREK: I will try, your Honor.
BY MR. KANAREK:
Q. At some time while you were in Florida in October of 1969 you first found out that the people in the house next door to Harold True had passed away?
A. Right.
Q. Is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, my question, Mrs. Kasabian, is:
When did you first tell Mr. Bugliosi—when did you tell Mr. Bugliosi that you had found out that the people next door to Harold True had passed away?
A. When did I tell Mr. Bugliosi when I found out these people were murdered the second night?
Is that your question? You are confusing me.
MR. KANAREK: Your Honor, may the question be read? I think the question is clear, your Honor.
THE COURT: Apparently she is still not certain, Mr. Kanarek.
MR. KANAREK: She says she is not certain, yes, your, Honor. I submit I have heard that.
MR. BUGLIOSI: I object to the implication in the statement and his tone that she is lying about this, your Honor, and I ask the Court to admonish the jury to disregard that statement.
THE COURT: I don’t think there is any such implication. The jury is admonished to disregard it if there is.
She apparently doesn’t yet have a clear understanding of what you are trying to elicit from her.
MR. KANAREK: Very well, your Honor.
BY MR. KANAREK:
Q. Mrs. Kasabian, at some time you have spoken with Mr. Bugliosi since you have been arrested?
A. Yes.
Q. Is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. And at some time you told Mr. Bugliosi the first time that you knew that the people next door to Harold True had passed away; is that right?
A. Yes, I think so.
Q. Pardon?
A. Yes.
Q. Is there anything unclear about that question?
A. I guess not.
Q. Now, would you please tell us what is the time that you told Mr. Bugliosi, when you first told him, what is the time that you told Mr. Bugliosi that you first heard of the passing away of the people next door to Harold True?
A. I believe I told him when I was in Florida.
Q. You believe?
A. Yes.
Q. You believe or do you know for sure?
A. Well, that is when I found out about it, so I am sure that is what I told him.
Q. Well, as you sit there on the witness stand, Mrs. Kasabian, do you have in your mind the conversation you had with Mr. Bugliosi when you told him what you have just stated?
A. When I first told him?
Q. Yes, right.
A. No.
Q. Now, directing your attention, Mrs. Kasabian, to your taking of drugs, LSD and all of that.
Since you have been taking LSD, these drugs, have you had lapses of memory?
A. Probably. I can’t recall, you know, an incident, but I am sure I have.
Q. You are sure you have had lapses of memory as a result of your taking of LSD and other drugs?
A. Uh-huh.
MR. BUGLIOSI: Calls for a conclusion, your Honor.
THE COURT: Overruled, you may answer.
THE WITNESS: Not necessarily because I have taken drugs. I am sure it has happened when I was even younger.
Q. BY MR. KANAREK: My question is, Mrs. Kasabian, directing your attention to the time beginning with the time that you started taking drugs, LSD, mescaline, peyote, marijuana; since that time have you had lapses of memory where you could not remember things that you felt had occurred?
A. Yes, sometimes.
Q. Pardon?
A. Yes.
Q. And did these lapses of memory occur in connection with periods of time when you were taking LSD?
MR. BUGLIOSI: Ambiguous question, your Honor.
THE COURT: Read the question.
(Whereupon, the reporter reads the pending question as follows:
“Q. And did these lapses of memory occur in connection with periods of time when you were taking LSD?”)
THE COURT: I think it is ambiguous, Mr. Kanarek.
Sustained.
MR. KANAREK: Very well, your Honor.
Q. BY MR. KANAREK: Now, Mrs. Kasabian, directing your attention to times when you have been on what you call trips, drug-inspired trips, LSD-inspired trips, has it been your experience that you have difficulty in remembering things which occurred at the time and about the time that you were taking drugs?
A. I don’t think I understand you.
Q. You don’t understand that question?
A. No.
Q. Well, since you have started taking LSD and other drugs—
A. Uh-huh.
Q. —has it been your experience that you cannot remember things which occurred during the time that you were on the trip, during the time that you were taking a drug inspired trip?
A. You mean once I have come down off the trip if I look back do I remember it, is that what you mean?
Q. Do you understand the question?
A. Well, that is my understanding of the question.
Q. Well, then, would you answer the question, if you understand the question, please answer it.
A. Sometimes when I think about—if I go back in my mind to that trip, and I think about it long enough, then I can remember.
Q. Is that your answer?
THE COURT: Mr. Kanarek, we will take our recess at this time.
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: May we approach the bench, your Honor?
THE COURT: Very well.
(The following proceedings were had at the bench, out of the hearing of the jury:)
MR. KANAREK: Your Honor, I do make a motion to suppress all of the evidence of Linda Kasabian in that Mr. Bugliosi during this recess took Linda Kasabian into the jury box and had a lengthy conversation with her.
It is my position that this is a violation of due process and a fair trial under the 14th Amendment and the California Constitution in that we have no access to her, she will not speak to us, she is under the orders of somebody.
She identifies herself with the prosecution. She has not yet been given her immunity so that the only alternative we have, your Honor, that I have, is to make a motion to suppress her evidence or, in the alternative, I would make a motion to have an evidentiary hearing outside of the presence of the jury where Mr. Bugliosi would state under oath as to what he conferred, what he stated to her and what she stated to him, and where we would have her statement as to what she stated to him.
Otherwise we have state action; we have state action—
THE COURT: What is the State action?
MR. KANAREK: Mr. Bugliosi, he is State action, your Honor.
THE COURT: State action of what, what are you talking about?
MR. KANAREK: He constitutes State action.
THE COURT: He is a deputy District Attorney. Now what? Say something that will make some sense.
MR. KANAREK: That means his action, which is State action, is depriving Mr. Manson of due process.
THE COURT: What action is he taking that you are complaining of?
MR. KANAREK: He does things, that is State action, according to the cases—
THE COURT: Get to the point, please, Mr. Kanarek.
MR. FITZGERALD: He violated a court order as a State officer which effectively deprived the defendant of due process of law.
Is that correct?
THE COURT: What order?
MR. FITZGERALD: The order of the Court wherein your Honor ordered the respective attorneys for Linda Kasabian and the Deputy District Attorneys not to discuss with her her testimony during recess or breaks.
MR. KANAREK: It was an animated, long conversation and I ask for an evidentiary hearing.
MR. BUGLIOSI: We are the Deputy District Attorneys in the case, and we were specifically excluded from that order. The Court stated Mr. Stovitz and I could speak to her. It’s on the record.
THE COURT: Mr. Kanarek, you are wasting time. We have gone over this.
MR. KANAREK: Well, your Honor—
THE COURT: I don’t want to hear any more about it.
To suggest that the District Attorney has no right to talk to the witness is absurd.
Let’s proceed.
MR. KANAREK: Your Honor, then—
THE COURT: The motion is denied.
MR. SHINN: Join in Mr. Kanarek’s motion.
MR. HUGHES: Join in the motion.
MR. KANAREK: Equal protection of the law, your Honor. This is the relief we seek.
(Whereupon counsel return to their respective places at the counsel table and the following proceedings occur in open court within the presence and hearing of the jury.)
THE COURT: You may proceed, Mr. Kanarek.
MR. KANAREK: Thank you, your Honor.
BY MR. KANAREK:
Q. Mrs. Kasabian, directing your attention to the second night, Mrs. Kasabian—directing your attention to your thinking, your state of mind—did you have any knowledge that anyone in the house next door to Harold True was going to be killed?
A. Yes, I think I did.
Q. You did have that knowledge?
A. It wasn’t positive but I think, yes.
Q. Pardon?
A. It wasn’t positive, but I think I heard something that made me think somebody was going to be killed.
Q. And you never found out about the killings until you got to Florida?
A. Right.
Q. Is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. Directing your attention to the next day. During that day did you watch TV?
A. No, I don’t think I did.
Q. Did you listen to the radio?
A. No, not that I remember.
Q. When you came down to visit Mary Brunner and Bobby Beausoleil and Sandy Good, did you come into the Los Angeles area?
A. Yes, sir, I guess.
Q. Do you read the English language?
A. What?
Q. Do you read the English language?
MR. BUGLIOSI: Argumentative, your Honor.
THE COURT: Overruled.
You may answer.
THE WITNESS: Yes, I can read English.
BY MR. KANAREK:
Q. You say you were in this building?
A. I am not sure if it was this building but it was in this area.
Q. And did you see any newspaper or any newspaper headlines when you came down to see Mary Brunner, Bobby Beausoleil and Sandy Good?
A. No, not that I recall.
Q. Now, at the time that—directing your attention to the white automobile that you testified concerning previously.
Do you remember that white automobile?
A. The one that I took to New Mexico?
Q. Pardon?
A. The one that I took to New Mexico?
Q. Was that the only white automobile concerning which you have testified?
A. No.
Q. Was there another automobile that you testified about?
A. Yes.
Q. Directing your attention to that automobile, your state of mind was that someone wanted to kill the people in that automobile; is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And having all of that in mind, when you came to Los Angeles for your Juvenile Court hearing, did you know of the fact that people next door to Harold True had passed away?
A. No, I don’t think so.
Q. You don’t think so?
A. Not at that time, no.
Q. But you might have?
A. I recall reading about it when I was in Miami.
Q. Well, my question is: When you came to Los Angeles for the Superior Court hearing in connection with getting your child, did you know that the people next door to Harold True had passed away?
A. No.
Q. It is a hundred percent sure that you didn’t know then?
A. Yes.
Q. No question about it?
A. No.
Q. In your mind there is no question about it?
A. No.
Q. Now, when you went to New Mexico with the two boys that you testified about, did you know that anyone in that house next door to Harold True had passed away?
A. No.
Q. Now, then, directing your attention to your memory since you have been taking drugs. Let me withdraw that.
During the recess did you speak to Mr. Bugliosi?
A. Yes.
Q. You spoke to Mr. Bugliosi, and you were sitting in the jury box with Mr. Bugliosi?
MR. BUGLIOSI: I will stipulate that I talk to her all the time, and that every witness I call to the stand I will interview, and I am sure that the defense will do it also. I will stipulate to that.
THE COURT: All right, gentlemen, let’s proceed.
MR. BUGLIOSI: I talk to people before I call them to the witness stand. I don’t just call strangers.
MR. KANAREK: Your Honor, I would ask for an evidentiary—
THE COURT: Proceed with your question.
MR. KANAREK: Can we approach the bench?
THE COURT: The jury is admonished to disregard the remarks of both counsel.
Ask your next question.
Q. BY MR. KANAREK: Mrs. Kasabian, since you have been taking drugs, Mrs. Kasabian, have you had lapses of memory as to what occurred in connection with what occurred during the time you were under the influence of drugs or whatever you want to call LSD, marijuana, peyote?
A. I believe you asked me that question once before. I don’t understand you right now.
Q. You don’t understand me?
A. No.
Q. Well, do you, directing your attention to the times when you were under the influence of, let us say, LSD—
A. Yes.
Q. —do you have lapses of memory of what occurred while you were under the influence of the LSD?
A. When I am not under the influence, you mean?
Q. Yes.
A. Maybe for a while, until I sit back and think about it, then sometimes I can remember it, maybe; sometimes I can’t.
Q. So that there are times when you are under the influence of LSD or some other drug and later on you cannot remember what happened while you were under the influence, right, is that correct?
A. Sometimes.
Q. That does happen?
A. Sometimes.
Q. Now, then, do you have occasions, Mrs. Kasabian—I will withdraw that.
Since you have been back in Los Angeles, have you been taken to the house next door to Harold True’s by Mr. Bugliosi or any other law enforcement?
A. Not to the house itself, but I directed them to where we parked.
Q. In other words, you were outside the area of the house, that is—
Well, you tell me, how close to the house have you come since you have been back in Los Angeles?
A. As close as where we parked that night.
Q. And has Mr. Bugliosi taken you inside the house?
A. No.
Q. Have you been in the company of anyone inside the house next door to Harold True’s house?
A. No.
Q. And on how many occasions have you been taken to the area where you parked, where you say you parked that night?
A. Would you repeat that?
Q. On how many occasions have you been taken to the area where you parked the second night?
A. Since I have been in custody?
Q. Yes.
A. I believe just that once—yes, one time.
Q. How long ago was that?
A. It was after I had the baby.
Q. That would be when, when did that happen?
A. It could have been March or April.
Q. Now, is your state of mind such that—I will withdraw that.
In 1969 was your state of mind such that you did not care if pigs were killed because they were going through changes; they would be reincarnated as beautiful people that much sooner?
Was that your state of mind in 1969?
A. I don’t think so.
Q. That was not your state of mind?
A. No.
Q. In 1969 did you discuss death frequently, Mrs. Kasabian?
MR. STOVITZ: I object to the question as too broad, your Honor, there are three particular episodes or periods of time in 1969, I think it should be confined to one of those three periods of time.
MR. KANAREK: I don’t know what periods.
THE COURT: Overruled, you may answer.
THE WITNESS: You asked me if I spoke of death.
Q. BY MR. KANAREK: Frequently.
A. Frequently? No.
Q. You did not discuss it frequently?
A. No.
Q. But you did discuss it?
A. Yes, I think I have.
Q. Now, when you were driving to New Mexico, when you were driving Mr. Hannon’s car to New Mexico did you discuss death with anyone that you were driving with?
MR. STOVITZ: That is objected to as immaterial, irrelevant and calling for hearsay.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q. BY MR. KANAREK: Now, Mrs. Kasabian—
MR. KANAREK: May I have a moment, your Honor?
(Pause.)
MR. KANAREK: Now, may I approach the witness, your Honor?
THE COURT: You may.
Q. BY MR. KANAREK: Mrs. Kasabian, I show you this picture which is Exhibit No. 42.
Now, would you hold that, please, because the jury—well, would you hold it up, I don’t believe the jury at this time is supposed to—no, just look at it.
Now, Mrs. Kasabian, would you tell me when you came back to the automobile—do you recognize this picture?
A. Yes.
Q. Is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, when you came back to the automobile, Mrs. Kasabian, would you tell me—I am speaking now of the automobile that the boy was in who was shot, you say—
Would you tell me, Mrs. Kasabian, how did you get—how did you get over that fence or through that fence?
A. I climbed over it.
Q. You climbed over the fence?
A. Yes.
Q. And when you got over that fence, how far did you go in order to get to your automobile?
A. Down the hill.
Q. Pardon?
A. Down the hill.
MR. KANAREK: Would you hold the picture away?
MR. STOVITZ: Your Honor, is there any necessity for her to hold the picture?
THE COURT: Just turn the picture over.
MR. KANAREK: All right.
BY MR. KANAREK:
Q. How far did you go down the hill, Mrs. Kasabian?
A. To the bottom of the hill.
Q. Now, after you went to the bottom of the hill, at that time, did you know that the person that was in this—or feel that the person that was in this picture had passed away?
A. Yes.
Q. After you knew that this person had passed away—well, let me withdraw that and ask you:
When, as far as your mind is concerned, did you first feel that the person that was in this picture had passed away?
THE WITNESS: Would you repeat that?
MR. KANAREK: May that be read, sir?
THE COURT: Read the question.
(The question was read by the reporter.)
THE WITNESS: The moment he was shot.
BY MR. KANAREK:
Q. At that point you felt that he was dead?
A. Yes.
Q. Is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. All right.
You then went around to the back of the house?
A. Yes.
Q. After that had occurred?
A. Yes.
MR. BUGLIOSI: Your Honor, is it necessary that Mr. Kanarek be right next to her?
THE COURT: If you have concluded your examination with regard to the photo, Mr. Kanarek?
MR. KANAREK: Well, I haven’t, your Honor, but I will be glad to go back there.
THE COURT: All right.
BY MR. KANAREK:
Q. Now, you say, Mrs. Kasabian, that you saw a man at the door, Mrs. Kasabian, who was just injured.
A. Yes.
Q. Is that true?
A. Yes.
Q. And that person appeared to you to be bleeding?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you, Mrs. Kasabian, render any first aid for that person?
MR. STOVITZ: That is objected to as argumentative, your Honor.
MR. KANAREK: I am asking a question. That is not argumentative.
MR. STOVITZ: Not only that, but this has been covered in previous questions by this counsel.
MR. KANAREK: I have not mentioned this person at all.
THE COURT: Overruled. You may answer.
THE WITNESS: No, I did not.
BY MR. KANAREK:
Q. And is there some reason, Mrs. Kasabian, that you didn’t render first aid for that person?
A. I don’t know.
Q. You don’t know?
A. No.
Q. Were you in a state of shock so you don’t remember?
MR. STOVITZ: That is objected to, your Honor. This state of shock was covered at great detail yesterday between 3:00 and 4:15.
MR. KANAREK: Hardly, your Honor.
THE COURT: Overruled. You may answer.
THE WITNESS: Yes, I considered I was in shock.
MR. KANAREK: Q. You considered you were in shock?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, you were in shock, because you didn’t remember what was going on?
In what way were you in shock?
MR. STOVITZ: I object to the question as ambiguous, and compound, unless counsel wants to strike the first part of his question.
THE COURT: Read the question.
(The question was read by the reporter.)
THE COURT: The objection is sustained.
MR. KANAREK: Q. Mrs. Kasabian, you are telling us that you wish that these events hadn’t happened; is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. And you would do anything to do something about it; right?
A. Yes.
Q. Is it a fair statement, Mrs. Kasabian, that despite your saying that you would do anything that you could about it—I will withdraw that question.
Now, Mrs. Kasabian, how do you—let me withdraw that.
How close to the man in the doorway were you?
A. Maybe from where I am to a little bit past where you are.
Q. Well, were you able to speak with this man?
A. No.
Q. What part of this man’s body were you able to see?
A. Almost all of it.
Q. Now, were you in a state of shock when you spoke with him, Mrs. Kasabian?
A. I never spoke with him.
Q. You never spoke with him at all? There were no words exchanged between you and him?
A. No.
Q. No words at all?
A. No.
Q. How do you know there were no words if you were in a state of shock?
A. Because I know I didn’t speak to him.
Q. Upon what do you base that?
A. I just know I didn’t speak to him.
Q. You mean, you are telling us you didn’t speak to him?
MR. BUGLIOSI: This is argumentative.
THE WITNESS: I am telling you that I know I didn’t speak to him.
THE COURT: She has answered the question.
MR. KANAREK: Q. You mean you feel that is the correct thing to say?
MR. STOVITZ: Objected to—
MR. BUGLIOSI: That is argumentative. Asked and answered.
THE COURT: The objection is sustained.
The jury is admonished to disregard the statement.
Careful, Mr. Kanarek.
MR. KANAREK: Pardon, your Honor?
THE COURT: Be careful in your comments.
MR. KANAREK: Then may I approach the bench?
THE COURT: No, you may not.
Ask your next question.
MR. KANAREK: May I approach the witness, your Honor?
THE COURT: You may.
MR. KANAREK: Q. Mrs. Kasabian, you looked through the window, didn’t you, in that house?
A. Yes.
Q. (Holding up a photograph) Mrs. Kasabian, I ask you—
MR. BUGLIOSI: Your Honor, is there any necessity for this?
MR. KANAREK: Yes.
MR. STOVITZ: If there is a necessity for it, let’s mark the photograph.
MR. FITZGERALD: It has already been marked.
MR. STOVITZ: No, it hasn’t.
Let’s mark it as the next People’s exhibit, your Honor.
THE CLERK: That would be 87, your Honor.
MR. KANAREK: Your Honor, I suggest we mark it as a Defendants’ exhibit.
THE COURT: Put it face down on the witness stand.
MR. STOVITZ: People’s what?
THE CLERK: 87.
THE COURT: 87 for identification.
MR. KANAREK: Can it be marked as a defendants’ exhibit?
MR. STOVITZ: It was furnished by the People.
MR. BUGLIOSI: It was before the Grand Jury.
MR. HUGHES: May we approach the bench?
THE COURT: Let’s see the photograph.
(The photograph is handed to the Court.)
THE COURT: Proceed.
MR. KANAREK: May it be marked as a Defendants exhibit?
THE COURT: It may not. It has been marked, Mr. Kanarek.
Ask your next question.
MR. KANAREK: Very well.
Q. Now, Mrs. Kasabian—
MR. KANAREK: If the witness wishes.
THE COURT: Are you able to go on now, Mrs. Kasabian?
MR. BUGLIOSI: Would you like to have a recess now?
MR. KANAREK: Your Honor, whatever colloquy, as long as it is on the record, it may—
MR. BUGLIOSI: I asked if she would like to have a recess.
MR. KANAREK: As long as it is on the record.
MR. BUGLIOSI: May we have a short recess?
THE COURT: We will take a 10-minute 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.
(Recess.)