SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA; FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 14, 1969
2:00 P.M.
---oOo---

THE COURT: People versus Beausoleil.

MR. ROSS: Deputy Piet.

(TESTIMONY OF PAUL PIET)

PAUL PIET,
called as a witness by and on behalf of the People, having been first duly sworn, was examined and testified as follows:

THE CLERK: Would you raise your right hand to be sworn.

You do solemnly swear that the testimony you may give in the cause now pending before this Court Shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?

THE WITNESS: I do.

THE CLERK: Be seated and state your name.

THE WITNESS: Paul Piet.

DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. ROSS

Q: I see from your uniform that you are a Deputy Sheriff of Los Angeles County; is that correct?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: To what station are you assigned?

A: I am assigned to Malibu, the Patrol Division

Q: I want to direct your attention to the evening of the 31st of July of 1969, which was a Thursday evening. Did you have occasion to respond to a call in Old Topanga?

A: Yes, I did.

Q: Where was that?

A: 984 Old Topanga.

Q: When you got to the location, were you met by someone else?

A: I was met by three gentlemen, one was named Irwin, and his two companions.

Q: Was that the gentleman who testified earlier here today?

A: Yes, it was.

Q: Did you have a conversation with him at that time?

A: Yes, I did.

Q: After having a conversation with him, what did you do?

A: I looked up, and I saw a window ajar on the southeast side of the building with numerous flies and a strong odor emitting from the window.

I took the ladder. I put the ladder up against the window, climbed to the top, and looked in.

At this time I saw a victim lying on the floor of a living-bedroom-type room. With my flashlight I put it in his face. I observed his face to be a little black and decomposed. At this time I climbed down the window.

Q: The person was obviously dead?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: I show you here an exhibit which we have marked as People's No. 2. Does that scene appear familiar to you?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: The window that you are talking about, is it shown in the picture?

A: Yes, it is.

Q: Which one is that?

A: The window that is ajar.

Q: That is the one that is in the upper hand corner?

A: Yes, sir.

THE COURT: Left-hand.

MR. ROSS: Left-hand, but is the one to the right hand side of the picture. It is ajar.

Q: When you climbed into the location; what was the condition of the room that you entered, and which room was it?

A: I entered through the window next to the doorway that leads to the kitchen. At this time I observed the table to be broken and down, and I stepped over it to get into the kitchen, and then I entered the living room.

Q: Did you disturb any portion of the scene or the furniture when you came in?

A: No, sir.

Q: When you got back outside, what did you do?

A: I secured the premises. No one was allowed to go in or disturb anything.

Q: Did you call for any other assistance or units?

A: Yes, I called Homicide, Los Angeles Sheriff's Department, and talked to Sergeant Whitley and Deputy Guenther.

Q: Did they come out to the scene?

A: Yes.

Q: Approximately what time was that?

A: Approximately 9:05.

Q: Had anyone gone into the location before the Homicide officers arrived?

A: My partner, Deputy Lane, was with me at that time.

Q: Had anyone else gone inside the location?

A: No, sir.

Q: It was secured and kept closed?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: Did you go inside with another officer when they arrived?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: Did you go in with the photographer and the I.D. man also?

A: No, sir.

Q: Were you present when they took any pictures

A: I believe the Coroner's office -- the gentlemen took pictures.

Q: Was the body of the person covered with anything at the time you observed it?

A: Yes, it was covered with a blanket, and the left side of the face was covered with a pillow.

THE COURT: You mean, when you first observed him?

THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.

BY MR. ROSS:

Q: Did you move the blanket or anything?

A: No, I didn't.

Q: Could you see whether or not the person had any clothing on?

A: No, I couldn't tell.

MR. ROSS: You may cross-examine.

MR. SALTER: I have no questions at this time, your Honor. I would reserve the right to cross-examination.

THE COURT: Thank you. You may step down.

MR. ROSS: We call Deputy Whitley.

(TESTIMONY OF PAUL J. WHITLEY)

PAUL J. WHITLEY,
called as a witness by and on behalf of the People, having been first duly sworn, was examined and testified as been first duly sworn, was examined and testified as follows:

THE CLERK: Would you raise your right hand to be sworn.

You do solemnly swear that the testimony you may give in the cause now pending before this Court shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?

THE WITNESS: I do.

THE CLERK: Be seated and state your name, please.

THE WITNESS: Paul J. Whitley, W-h-i-t-l-e-y.

DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. ROSS

Q: What is your occupation?

A: Detective Sergeant, Los Angeles Sheriff's Office, Homicide Bureau.

Q: You were one of the officers who was assigned to the investigation of this case; is that correct?

A: That is correct.

MR. ROSS: Your Honor, I have here what is commonly known as a fingerprint exemplar card. I would like that marked next in order.

THE COURT: All right.

BY MR. ROSS:

Q: Sir, I show you the exhibit that we have marked as No. 8 for identification. Have you seen that before?

A: Yes, I have.

Q: When and where did you see that?

A: On August 7th, 1969, at the Hall of Justice Record Bureau.

Q: Were you present when the prints that appear on both sides of that card were put on?

A: Yes, I was.

Q: By whom were they put on?

A: Deputy Jake Jordan of the Latent Print Section of the L.A. Crime Lab.

THE COURT: Those are his prints? He is the one who rolled them?

BY MR. ROSS:

Q: Whose prints are they?

A: They are the fingerprints of Robert Beausoleil.

THE COURT: Mr. Jordan was the fingerprint technician that did the job?

THE WITNESS: That is correct.

BY MR. ROSS:

Q: Were you at the location when Deputy White from the Fingerprint Section was called out?

A: Yes, I was.

Q: Did he dust the location we are talking about, at 964 Topanga, for fingerprints?

A: Yes.

Q: When was that?

A: I would have to refresh my memory. I think it was August 1st, 1969.

Q: Would it be in the early morning hours?

A: No, it was in the afternoon hours.

Q: You were present at the location at what time and when?

A: I arrived at approximately 10:00 p.m. on July 31, 1969. I left the location at approximately 2:30 a.m. on the 1st. I returned at approximately 1:30 of the 1st and stayed until 7:00 p.m.

I returned again at approximately 5:30 a.m. of the 2nd, and I did this for three continuous days.

Q: Thank you, sir.

MR. ROSS: Nothing further at this time.

MR. SALTER: I have nothing further.

THE COURT: Thank you.

MR. SALTER: May I reserve any cross, your Honor?

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. ROSS: Mr. White, would you take the stand.

(TESTIMONY OF FLOIS WHITE)

FLOIS WHITE,
called as a witness by and on behalf of the People, having been first duly sworn, was examined and testified as follows:

THE CLERK: Would you raise your right hand.

You do solemnly swear that the testimony you shall give in the cause now pending before this Court shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?

THE WITNESS: I do.

THE CLERK: Be seated and state your name, please.

THE WITNESS: Flois, F-l-o-i-s, White.

DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. ROSS

Q: Mr. White, what is your occupation?

A: Deputy Sheriff for the County of Los Angeles, currently assigned to the Scientific Services Identification Unit, Fingerprint Bureau.

Q: Do you have any particular type of duties there in that unit?

A: Yes, I do.

Q: What are those duties?

A: At present, my duties are in the field searching for latent fingerprints. When I find a latent print, I place it on a card, put the pertinent date on the card, and see that it gets into a locked cabinet in the identification unit office.

Q: Do you also do comparison of prints?

A: That is correct.

Q: How long have you been engaged in this activity?

A: Over six years.

Q: What training and experience have you had for this job?

A: I took the F.B.I. fingerprint course at East Los Angeles Junior College. I have made possibly in excess of 100,000 comparisons. I have testified in court in excess of 70 times as a qualified expert. I have had various conversations with other experts. I have read articles concerning fingerprints and fingerprinting.

I have made tapes of the course I took in college. I replay those tapes periodically.

Q: In other words, you keep up in your field of identification; is that right?

A: Yes, sir.

MR. ROSS: I have here a couple of objects which I would like marked, your Honor.

The first is a small card, approximately three by five inches in size, with some writing and what appears to be part of a print on it. May this be Exhibit No. 9 for identification?

THE COURT: It will be so marked.

MR. ROSS: The next appears to be a blow-up of print marked "latent print," by the Sheriff's Department of Los Angeles County. May this be marked as No. 10 for identification?

THE COURT: It will be so marked.

BY MR. ROSS:

Q: I show you now the exhibits that we have marked as 8, 9, and 10 for identification. Have you seen those before?

A: Yes, sir, I have.

Q: Specifically, I want to direct your attention to the exhibit that is No. 9, the small card there. What is that?

A: This is a latent fingerprint lift card.

Q: Did you lift the print that is indicated on that card?

A: I did.

Q: Where did you lift that thumb?

THE COURT: I think we ought to preface this a little explanation.

What do you mean when you say you lift a print?

MR. ROSS: I will get into that in a moment.

Q: Did you lift that print?

A: Yes, I did.

Q: Tell us how you went about doing that and what that constitutes.

A: When you search for latent fingerprints, you have powder and brushes. You search for a fingerprint by brushing this powder on the surface which you think could contain a latent fingerprint. When you see dark ridges showing up, this indicates that there is a fingerprint or handprint present.

At this time you develop this print as well as possible with the powder and the brush, and then you place the tape across this impression. The mucilage on the tape lifts the powder from the surface, and this you place on the card.

Q: That gives you, then, the outline of the fingerprint exactly as it seemed from the powder, then, in other words?

A: Exactly.

Q: Then it is placed on the card, and then what? Is a picture taken of it, or what?

A: This is the card as it was originally made. This is the tape. The handprint impression is merely the powder -- the powder is on the Back of the mucilage and is placed on here and kept this way.

THE COURT: Officer White, what you have there appears to be a photograph.

THE WITNESS: It is not a photograph, sir.

THE COURT: All right, go ahead.

MR. ROSS: That is just the tape over it. This is what is commonly called a latent fingerprint lift.

Q: Where did that print come from?

A: This fingerprint came from the south facing of the door frame between the kitchen and the hall. The print was approximately 36 inches above the floor.

Q: Is that at the location of 964 Old Topanga that we are speaking of?

A: That is correct.

THE COURT: May I see that?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

THE COURT: If I understand you correctly, then, what you are saying is that this card, which is marked --- what is the number of this?

THE WITNESS: No. 9.

THE COURT: It is marked No. 9.

Is what you call a tape, is that it?

THE WITNESS: This card originally is made in a book form.

THE COURT: Let's keep your voice up so that the jury can hear this.

THE WITNESS: Yes, sir. In other words, the card that you see is made into blank form with the exception of the printing that you see on this, which indicates the file number, the deputy who took the print, the date, the victim's name, the head rest, and the location of the print.

When the print is lifted with the tape, the tape is merely placed on the card. This is not a photograph. It is actually a fingerprint lift.

THE COURT: Well, then, what you have there is an identification card, and this portion, which is in the lower-hand corner, is the tape that you use to lift it?

THE WITNESS: That is correct.

THE COURT: Now I understand.

BY MR. ROSS:

Q: Did you also take a number of photographs when you were out there?

A: Yes, sir, I did.

Q: I show you a photograph here which appears to be the interior of a location, with the refrigerator on the left and a table and a chair and a coat hanging up.

MR. ROSS: May this be marked next in order, which I believe will be 11, your Honor?

THE COURT: All right.

BY MR. ROSS:

Q: Do you recognize what that scene depicts?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: Is that the location we are speaking of?

A: This is the interior of the kitchen.

Q: Did you take that picture?

A: I did.

Q: In relation to this picture, No. 11, whereabouts would that print be?

A: To the best of my knowledge and memory, behind this coat, out of the picture is a door frame leading from the kitchen into a hallway.

Q: It would be on that door frame, then, that you are speaking of; is that correct?

A: That is correct. The print would be 36 inches above the floor, on the south door frame. I believe it would be the south frame.

Q: How far from the chair, if you recollect, was that?

A: Without having anything to refresh my memory, I would say from this chair to the door frame was probably 12 to 15 inches.

Q: If a person were sitting in that chair and leaning, so to speak, on the wall, would this be about the height where the hand would reach?

A: In my opinion, yes.

Q: Now, the blow-up that we have here, what is that? That is Exhibit No. 10.

A: This is an enlargement made of a hand impression, a palm -- part of a palm, excuse me. The picture on the left is an enlargement of the latent fingerprint lift. The one on the right is an enlargement of a rolled impression,

Q: Is that rolled impression there exhibit No. 8?

A: Yes, it is.

Q: So if I understand you correctly, then, in putting 8 and 9 together and blowing them up, what we have is the latent print over here where it says latent print on the left of this card, and the print on the right, which is a portion of the exhibit on the exemplar card, which we have been speaking of; is that correct?

A: That is correct.

Q: This was made by the Sheriff's Department?

A: That is right.

Q: Did you form any opinion as to the similarity of those prints?

A: I did.

Q: What is that opinion?

A: They were made by the same person.

Q: What portion of the hand or palm or fingers does that represent?

A: It represents a portion of this section of the right palm.

Q: You are indicating the right palm there over by the little finger.

A: That is correct, beneath the little finger.

Q: How many points of comparison do you have there?

A: There are in excess of 35 on this one.

Q: They are just numbered 1 through 12 there. What does that indicate?

A: Usually we feel that on a palm impression, two is satisfactory for a positive identification.

Q: By positive identification, what do you mean?

A: That means that there would be no question that both were made by the same person.

Q: I have heard about fingerprints being the same or different on all people. Is this true of other prints on the hand?

A: Absolutely.

Q: In that one, you said you counted in excess of 35.

A: Yes, sir.

Q: Is there any question that they were made by one and the same person?

A: There is no doubt in my mind.

MR. ROSS: You may cross-examine.

MR. SALTER: No questions.

MR. ROSS: Thank you, sir. You may step down.

THE COURT: Thank you.

MR. ROSS: We would offer those next four exhibits in order, 8, 9, 10, and 11.

THE COURT: Yes. I don't think he identified 11. I suppose there is no objection anyway.

MR. ROSS: That is the one he said he took.

THE COURT: That is the one where he said the door wasn't in the picture.

MR. ROSS: That is right, but it shows the location.

THE COURT: All right, this is 8.

MR. ROSS: I have one more question.

Would you come back, please.

Q: Just for reference, 8 was the exemplar card; 9 was latent print card. The blow-up was 10, and the colored photograph was 11.

In determining prints is there any way of determining their age, that is, how old a print would be?

A: No, sir.

Q: In forming a fingerprint such as this, what causes the formation of that print to show up from the powder?

A: The moisture which is exuded by the sweat pores.

Q: This would be the moisture as distinguished from the oil; is that correct?

A: That is correct. A latent fingerprint is made up basically of moisture, which is the impression. There is very little other substances in preparation other than the water.

Q: Is there any way of determining the outside limit of how long a print could be at a particular location?

A: Assuming that a print was a perfect print at the time it was placed on an object, and this object had a smooth, non-porous surface, it is quite likely that a print could last 10 days in a protected location, that is, out of the wind, sun, heat, et cetera. That would be in my opinion the limit that a print could last on any object.

Q: You lifted the print on this particular one, and what about this location in relation to your ideal type of situation? That is, the porous surface and so forth.

A: To the best of my memory, it was rather worn. This is in a shaded area. It was inside a house, and there was no extreme heat; so there is a possibility this could have bean there a week to 10 days.

Q: That would be the outside limit?

A: In my opinion, yes, sir.

Q: Thank you.

MR. ROSS: I have nothing further.

MR. SALTER: No questions.

THE COURT: Thank you, sir.

MR. ROSS: Dr. Katsuyama.

(TESTIMONY OF DAVID M. KATSUYAMA)

DAVID M. KATSUYAMA,
called as a witness by and on behalf of the People, having been first duly sworn, was examined and testified as follows:

THE CLERK: Raise your right hand, please, sir. You do solemnly swear that the testimony you may give in the cause now pending before this Court shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?

THE WITNESS: I do.

THE CLERK: Be seated, please.

Will you state your full name.

THE WITNESS: My name is David M. Katsuyama. The last name is spelled K-a-t-s-u-y-a-m-a.

DIRECT EXAMINATION BY ROSS

Q: That is your occupation, sir?

A: I am a Deputy Medical Examiner for the Coroner Medical Examiner of the County of Los Angeles.

Q: What are your duties there?

A: One of my duties is to examine the bodies of the deceased in order to determine the cause of death.

Q: What kind of training or experience have you had for this?

A: I have a medical school degree, which I received in 1959. I went to an internship at Los Angeles County General Hospital, then a four-year residency in pathology, which I am certified by the American Board of Pathology in clinical pathology and anatomical pathology. These were in 1965 and '66.

I have been previously associated as an autopsy surgeon for the Coroner's Office of the County of Orange, and more recently, since the first of this year, Deputy Medical Examiner for the Coroner Medical Examiner of Los Angeles County.

Q: By pathology, what is meant by that?

A: Pathology is the specialized field in medicine that deals with the study of disease, its findings in the various parts of the body.

Q: Your duties or your job, as it exists now, is to perform post-mortem examination in order to determine causes of death and then to testify to that in court?

A: Yes.

Q: You have been so engaged in that both in this county and in Orange County over the last few years?

A: Yes, sir.

MR. ROSS: Counsel, would you stipulate that a post-mortem examination was conducted upon Gary Hinman, who is the person found at the location at 964 Topanga?

MR. SALTER: So stipulated.

BY MR. ROSS:

Q: Did you perform an autopsy on the body of Gary Hinman?

A: I performed an autopsy on the body identified to me as Gary Hinman.

Q: When did that take place?

A: On August 1, 1969, at approximately 10:45 in the morning.

Q: Where did that take place?

A: At the Hall of Justice in our offices in Los Angeles.

Q: That was the condition of the deceased's body at that time?

A: In poor condition. There was extensive decomposition that had taken place. The body was partly infested with a lobby of flies and maggots.

Q: Did you make any determination as to how long the person had been dead?

A: In general, probably somewheres -- a minimum of three days and probably not more than seven to ten days.

Q: It would be approximately three to seven; would that be fair to state?

A: That would be fair to state.

Q: This is based on what?

A: The condition of the body, the extent of deterioration.

Q: Did you perform an autopsy, that is, a post-mortem examination on this body?

A: Yes. I examined the body both externally and internally.

Q: For what cause?

A: To document the findings, to determine the cause of death.

Q: In doing that, I take it, you prepared a report; is that correct?

A: Yes, I did.

Q: Do you have that report before you?

A: It is here with me.

Q: Would you take that out for a moment. By referring to your autopsy report also along with that, did you make some charts concerning wounds that you found on the body?

A: Yes, I did.

Q: What did you determine the cause of death to be?

A: I ascribed the cause of death to a stab wound to the chest.

Q: In performing your examination, Doctor, did you find more than one wound?

A: Yes.

Q: How many did you find altogether?

A: Five wounds, all of which I considered stab wounds.

Q: I have here some copies which appear to be copies of originals that you have in your file of the sketches that have been made here concerning this matter. This is the same file number, is it not?

A: Our file number is 698448, and that corresponds.

Q: These three are copies of ones that you have in your file with the exception of that portion that has been circled in ink; is that correct?

A: Yes, it is.

MR. ROSS: Your Honor, I would like to have these copies marked as follows: First, the copy showing the side portion of a human figure, those just identified by Dr. Katsuyama, and the next one will be Exhibit No. 12.

THE COURT: The one you have in your hand is the head.

MR. ROSS: A side portion of the head.

THE COURT: Both sides, isn't it?

MR. ROSS: Yes, both sides.

THE COURT: All right, what I meant, is you are offering that one sheet as one exhibit?

MR. ROSS: That is correct.

THE COURT: That is No. 12?

THE CLERK: Yes. Are you marking them, Mr. Ross?

MR. ROSS: Yes, I am.

The next one shows a front portion of the body.

THE COURT: That is a whole human body.

MR. ROSS: That would be No. 13.

THE COURT: No. 13.

MR. ROSS: And the final one of this series shows the rib cage, No. 14.

THE COURT: No. 14 is the rib cage.

BY MR. ROSS:

Q: Doctor, a moment ago, you stated that you found five wounds which you considered to be stab wounds; is that correct?

A: Yes, I did.

Q: Doctor, let's take them in the order that you have them listed in your report there.

As far as number one is concerned, would you describe that for the jury, please?

A: It is on the left side of the scalp, just to the left side of the mid-line, was approximately one inch to the left and approximately one and one half inches in length.

Q: I show you here the exhibit that we have marked as No. 12, and I have a circle around here in number one. I have gone over these with you before. Is that the number one wound that we have talked about?

A: Yes, it is.

Q: Also, this wound is depicted on Exhibit 13, the front portion of the body. We have a number one and a circle up there.

A: Yes, sir, it is.

Q: Is this a deep mound, superficial wound, or what?

Q: Superficial wound. It does not penetrate through the scalp, and it did not leave any evidence on the bony portion of the skull.

Q: Is this considered to be a fatal or non-fatal wound?

A: I would not consider it to be fatal.

Q: Let's skip over wound number two for just a moment and go on to number three. Would you describe that for us?

A: Three and one inches from the top of the head. It was about five eighths of an inch in length. It was behind the upper portion of the right ear, and it was going somewhat backward.

Q: This is the one that we have the circle around here as number three on Exhibit No. 12?

A: That is number three, yes.

Q: Is that what you consider fatal or a superficial wound, or what?

A: A superficial wound.

Q: Let's go to wound number two that I have there. Would you describe that for us?

A: It was on the left side of the face. It started somwheres over the jawbone. It angled toward the ear, the upper portion. It actually partially cut, in fact, almost completely -- cut through the upper portion of the ear. This was approximately five inches in length. It exposes the deeper structures in the tissues underneath the skin itself. It went downward, inward, but it did not go into the cavity of the mouth.

Q: Is that the one depicted on exhibit there that we have before you, that is No. 12?

A: Yes, that is depicted as number two.

Q: That is the one that has the circle around that says number two?

A: Yes.

Q: How deep did this particular wound go?

A: It was one inch in maximum depth by my probing.

Q: In this one inch in the maximum depth that you have indicated on there, would this have cut any number of the capillaries or arteries or anything of that nature?

A: A certain number of blood vessels would have been cut in this particular area. Most of them would be relatively small. There may be one or two a little bit larger.

Q: When this type of wound was inflicted, if you could tell, would there have been any spurting of blood?

A: Possibly.

Q: Was this particular wound considered to be fatal or non-fatal, or what?

A: I considered that possibly fatal.

Q: By that, how did you arrive at that conclusion?

A: If it was not treated, if the wound itself was not closed, if the bleeding that would have resulted was not controlled, a person could conceivably bleed to death because of this particular wound.

Q: Now, if there was nothing done to take care of it, that is, no pressure applied or something of that nature, how long would it have taken for a person to bleed to death?

A: If the bleeding did not stop by itself, if it continued without the blood clotting and stopping the bleeding by itself, it probably would have taken half an hour to a number of hours.

Q: So, in other words, this could have stopped by itself by a clotting even though there was nothing else applied to it; is that correct?

A: It could possibly have occurred.

Q: Could you see from the wound whether or not that had occurred?

A: The body was in such a state of decomposition that it would be impossible to really state.

Q: Did you observe any evidence of any attempted suturing or closing of the wound in any way?

A: I did not see any major material -- which I would consider a material attempt to stop the bleeding. However, with the body in such a state of decomposition, it could have very easily been either involved in decomposition or I could have very early overlooked it myself.

Q: Did you see anything such as an attempt to suture it up, any surgical thread, anything of that nature?

A: No, I did not.

Q: Had it been noted, would you have observed any?

A: If it was alarming enough for me to immediately detect, I would have noted it. On the other hand, I was not aware that this possibility existed at the time of my examination.

Q: Well, I understand that, and I am just calling back in retrospect that if you had observed any, you would have written it down.

A: Yes.

Q: Now, let's go to wound number four, which is depicted there in Exhibits No. 4 and 5. Wounds number four and five which are shown, I believe, on Exhibits 13 and 14, are these the two that have been circled four and five on each of these exhibits?

A: Number four and five were on the anterior chest. Number four was higher than number five. Number four the chest wall, actually, and the skin of the chest in the midline. It appeared to have a slight angle from the right to left. The uppermost portion of this opening was 18-3/4 inches from the top of the head.

Q: That would be the one that is depicted by the circle?

A: Number four and it was approximately one and one half inches in length. This particular one was relatively superficial. It showed a glaze mark on the sternum, the front portion of the sternum, but had not gone beyond it into the chest space.

Q: If I understand you, then, this one is right in the middle of the chest bone; is that right?

A: Right in the middle of the chest bone.

Q: This did not penetrate into any of the vital organs; is that correct?

A: Not within the rib cage itself.

Q: Did it penetrate or go into any part of the chest bone?

A: It had marked the outer portion of the chest bone.

Q: Would this be a blow of sufficient force, or could you tell what had caused that?

A: It could leave a mark there; on the other hand, it could have been easy to deflect, rather. Obviously, it did not have sufficient force to enter the bone to any significant extent.

Q: Is the sternum, the bone that we are speaking about, a thick bone, thin bone, or what?

A: It is approximately a quarter of an inch thick. It is fairly hard on both the outer and inner surface, and there are spaces in between that contain the marrow.

Q: Does it take a rather strong blow to penetrate it, or can a weak blow of an instrument penetrate it?

A: A moderate amount of force is necessary.

Q: Let's go on. This, I take it, you considered non-fatal?

A: Yes, I considered it non-fatal.

Q: As to wound number five, is that the one you have circled there on the two exhibits in the rib cage on the front portion?

A: Yes, it is.

Q: Would you tell us what this is?

A: This entered the chest 20 ½ inches from the top of the head, is approximately in the midline, and was approximately one and one-half inches in length. It actually was more to the left than from the midline and toward the left. It had entered the chest space disrupting the junction of the sixth and the seventh with the sternum.

The wound penetration involved the pericardial sac. Also, a knife had entered the right side of the heart before and the posterior portion of it, a septum between the right side and the left side of the heart. The defect itself was approximately one and one fourth inches in length.

The sac around the heart was distended with blood to its capacity, and this wound I did consider fatal.

Q: If I understand you, then, this wound went into the chest about an inch and a half, or two inches, from where wound number four was; is that correct?

A: Approximately.

Q: It penetrated into what is called the pericardial sac, which is the sac surrounding the heart; is that correct?

A: Yes.

Q: It also went right inside one of the valves of the heart; is that correct?

A: Not the valves, the side of the -- the wall of the heart chamber.

Q: The wall of the heart chamber?

A: Yes.

Q: What did this cause?

A: It caused hemorrhage or bleeding into the sac of the heart.

Q: This pericardial sac --

A: The sac itself is a limited capacity. When the sac fills up with blood, the heart itself is pumping against itself, and because of this pumping against itself, it can no longer function.

Q: How much blood did you find in there?

A: I did not record the amount of blood.

Q: Was the sac full?

A: The sac was full.

Q: In your opinion, how long would it have taken from that wound, in the filling and so forth, to cause death?

A: A matter of minutes or even shorter.

Q: It would have been a very brief time?

A: A very brief time.

Q: Doctor, is there any way of telling whether or not any of these five wounds that you described were all caused at the same time or were inflicted over a period of time?

A: In the condition of the body that it was in, they all appeared to be within a very short interval of time. Conceivably, they could have all been within a short period of time.

By short period of time, it may have been as long as several hours, between the time of the injury and the time of the examination of the body.

Q: As to your examination of the decomposition of the body, how would that affect your opinion or conclusion?

A: I think I am getting a little confused, but there are certain changes that occur after injury. It takes a certain amount of time for these changes to appear.

Q: But what type of changes do you mean?

A: Scarring, healing, the healing process.

Q: Is there any evidence of any healing process here on any of these -

A: It would have been difficult to recognize it with the amount of decomposition that was present.

Q: Did you note any?

A: I did not note any evidence of healing.

Q: Incidentally, was someone else present at the time of the autopsy?

A: Yes, investigator Guenther and Whitley from the Sheriff's Homicide Division were present at the autopsy.

Q: Then, I take it, you did the regular routine examination of the rest of the body; is that correct?

A: Yes, I did.

Q: Did you find any other evidence as to any pathology, so to speak, or cause of death?

A: There was actually, additionally, some blood in the chest space, in the space around the lungs.

Q: What would that be from?

A: From the same chest wounds.

Q: Was any other part of the organs or organism affected in any way?

A: Nothing definite that I could attribute to other causes of death.

Q: So the only causes of death that you have indicated are those that you have told us about here today; is that correct?

A: Yes, that is.

Q: As to the wound that we are talking about as the fatal wound, was the fatal wound in your opinion numbe five? Would you check the report in there. What is the width of number five?

A: It appeared to be approximately one-fourth of an inch in maximum width.

Q: What about the incision itself? How long was it?

A: The opening itself was one and one half inches long.

Q: So it would be fair to state that it was caused by something a quarter of an inch wide and an inch and a half long; is that correct?

A: Inch and a half, yes.

Q: The body was in a state of decomposition, as you have said. Would this affect your opinion any as to the width of the wound?

A: The opening could be slightly larger because of the changes of decomposition.

Q: Now, this particular one went through somewhat of a harder structure, the cartilaginous structure, did it not, that is, number five?

A: Yes.

Q: Was there any change in that structure itself?

A: No, not significant.

Q: In other words, had the skin on the outside portion of the body slipped somewhat?

A: Yes.

Q: What about this cartilaginous part?

A: It appeared to be approximately what it would have been at the time of death.

Q: This is where you measured this quarter by one half; is that correct?

A: This includes both.

Q: Both entrances; is that correct?

A: Yes.

Q: Could you state, or do you know how deep the penetration was that caused this number five?

A: Only in general estimations because of the decompositional changes and the heart being a mobile structure within the heart sac, my estimation was between three to five inches.

Q: What type of instrument caused this, if you could come to some conclusion?

A: A knife-like instrument.

Q: Knife-like?

A: Heavy knife-like instrument.

Q: This would be distinguished from something which is like --

A: A pipe.

Q: Yes, something with a different type of cutting edge on it; is that correct?

A: Yes.

Q: Thank you very much, Doctor.

MR. ROSS: You may cross-examine.

MR. SALTER: It is 3:00 o'clock. May we have a recess before cross-examination?

THE COURT: Yes.

(Short recess.)

MR. ROSS: I do have one more area of inquiry very briefly.

I have in my hand, your Honor, a knife with a bird of some kind on it and a blade with a notch on it. May this be marked as Exhibit No. 15 for identification?

THE COURT: It will be so marked.

BY MR. ROSS:

Q: Doctor, I show you here the exhibit that we have marked as No. 15 for identification. You have seen that before; is that correct?

A: If I believe, Mr. Whitley showed it to me. It might have been Mr. Guenther.

Q: Also, I showed it to you a few minutes ago during the recess.

A: Yes.

Q: We measured the knife; is that correct?

A: I will measure it again.

Q: Now, you have just measured it again. Is this knife compatible with having caused the wound that we are speaking of, that is, number five?

A: It could have.

Q: What about the other ones? Is there also a compatibility or non-compatibility, or can you tell?

A: The other smaller wounds could have been caused, as I mentioned, sir, not measurably on the other ones. Number four could also have been caused by it.

Q: Thank you, Doctor.

MR. ROSS: No further questions.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. SALTER

Q: When you say it could have been caused by it, likewise, on the other side of the coin, it might not have been caused by it?

A: If the knife were being used, yes.

Q: Dr. Katsuyama, calling your attention to wound number two, which is the one on the left side of the cheek wound, were you able to determine whether any major blood vessels were cut as a result of wound number two?

A: I could not find any major vessels. I recall trying to see if I could.

Q: If no major blood vessels were cut as a result of the wound to number two, then is it your opinion that wound number two would not have been fatal?

A: If the bleeding would have been stopped. I feel that a certain amount of bleeding would occur from a wound of that nature. It is just the question of how much bleeding.

Q: It would be difficult to determine?

A: Yes, it would be difficult to determine.

Q: If there were no major blood vessels cut and there was nothing done to the wound to take care of it, do you think that the person who received that wound would bleed to death from that wound?

A: There is a possibility.

Q: There is a possibility?

A: Yes.

Q: You wouldn't say that is about as far as you can go as far as a possibility; is that correct?

A: Yes.

Q: If that possibility came to pass, how long would it take that person to bleed to death, if you can tell?

A: Anywheres up to several hours.

Q: Would it be two or three days if there was no major blood vessels cut?

A: It would take quite a long while for a sufficient amount of blood to be lost.

Q: So that could go into two or three days?

A: It could, possibly.

Q: If there was a cut, and even assuming one or two major blood vessels were severed, which you weren't able to observe but assumed the there were some as a result of this cut wound number two, and yet there was something done to stop the bleeding, some taking care of the wound, how long would a person live as a result of that wound?

A: If the bleeding was controlled, and it is just a matter of minutes, then this would not even be considered fatal.

Q: You weren't able to tell because of the condition of the body whether or not there had been some clotting or any attempt to stop the bleeding; is that correct?

A: Yes.

Q: So you could say from what you observed that the number two wound could have occurred, let's say, as much as two days prior to the number five wound in the chest?

A: It is very possible.

Q: You mentioned something about the condition of the skin slipping; is that correct?

A: There was extensive decompositional changes in certain area of the skin that were actually stripping, peeling.

Q: If there had been some type of a tape, a tape bandage, place on the skin either near the number two wound or anywhere on the skin, would it be in all likelihood to have fallen off because of this decomposition?

A: It could very easily have slipped off.

Q: Also, did you find some ethanol in the blood, as far as you know? By ethanol, we mean alcohol; is that correct?

A: The blood was decomposed, but there was approximately 0.8 per cent alcohol in the sample.

Q: In other words, there was alcohol in the blood at that time?

A: There was alcohol.

MR. SALTER: I have no further questions.

MR. ROSS: I just have two.

REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. ROSS

Q: Did you find any tape on the body itself?

A: No, I did not.

Q: What does the term autolysis mean?

A: Autolysis means the self disintegration of the body and its parts after death.

Q: Does autolysis of the blood create ethanol?

A: It is a combination, of autolysis and bacterial action.

Q: This 0.8 ethanol in the blood could have been caused by the autolysis process?

A: Part of it, yes.

Q: How much would it have caused; do you know?

A: It could have been entirely due to the autolytic decomposition; on the other hand, maybe only half of it is.

Q: There is no way of telling. In other words, the ethanol could be self generated or in part by autolyzation?

A: Yes.

MR. ROSS: I have nothing further.

MR. SALTER: No further questions.

THE COURT: Thank you, Doctor.

MR. ROSS: Your Honor, these other exhibits, with the exception of the knife, No. 15, the last three exhibits, 13, 14, and 15, I would offer into evidence at this time.

THE COURT: They will be received.

MR. ROSS: I call Deputy Fraser.

(TESTIMONY OF JAMES K. FRASER)

JAMES K. FRASER,
called as a witness by and on behalf of the People, having been first duly sworn, was examined and testified as follows

THE CLERK: Raise your right hand, please.

You do solemnly swear that the testimony you may give in the cause now pending before this Court shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?

THE WITNESS: I do.

THE CLERK: Be seated and state your name, please.

THE WITNESS: James K. Fraser, F-r-a-s-e-r.

DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. ROSS

Q: What is your occupation?

A: Examiner of questioned documents for Los Angeles County Sheriff's Scientific Services Bureau.

Q: Is that sergeant?

A: Yes.

Q: Sergeant, how long have you been engaged in that activity?

A: For approximately two years.

Q: What are your primary duties in that connection?

A: The examination of questioned documents and handwriting comparisons.

Q: What sort of training did you receive for that?

Q: My training was under the supervision of Herbert L. Campbell, the departmental document examiner.

I examined cases, in addition for the Sheriff's Department, also for 37 other police agencies -- the Federal Government, State of California, and other county agencies, and at the request of various local courts.

During this time, I have examined over 3,800 cases involving approximately 30,000 documents.

Q: This has been for the purpose of the authenticity or writing; is that correct?

A: That is correct.

Q: Have you testified before in court here in Los Angeles on any occasions as an expert in that field?

A: Yes, both Municipal and Superior Courts.

Q: Did you do any comparisons in this case?

A: I did.

Q: Sergeant, I show you the exhibit that we have marked here as People's No. 8, commonly known as a pink slip and direct your attention to the rear portion thereof, to the signature of Gary Hinman. Have you seen that before?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: Do you recall when you saw it?

A: Yes, November 13, at approximately 12:30 p.m.

Q: That was in my office here in Santa Monica?

A: It was.

Q: At that time did you also see some other documents that I have here as a group, including what appears to be a traffic ticket and a contract of sale and, it looks like, another work order contract of sale?

A: Yes, I did.

Q: I direct your attention to the portion with the name of Gary Hinman. Did you do an examination with those writings of these exemplars I have just talked about, the tickets and the contracts, with the rear portion of the pink slip there?

A: Yes, I did.

Q: Did you form any opinion as to the similarity of the writing?

A: I did.

Q: What is that opinion?

A: In my opinion, the name Gary Allan Hinman appearing on the back of People's 6 was made by the same person that signed Gary A. Hinman on those documents.

Q: Thank you, sir.

MR. ROSS: No further questions.

May it be stipulated, Counsel, that the documents that the sergeant was reading from, as far as exemplars are concerned, were documents that were found in the home of Gary Hinman?

MR. SALTER: So stipulated.

THE COURT: Very well.

MR. ROSS: Do you have any questions?

MR. SALTER: I have no questions.

THE COURT: Thank you. You are excused.

MR. ROSS: Mr. Turney.

THE CLERK: Raise your right hand, please.

You do solemnly swear that the testimony you may give and the cause now pending before this Court shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?

THE WITNESS: I do.

THE CLERK: Please be seated and state your name.

THE WITNESS: Francis G. Turney, T-u-r-n-e-y.

DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. ROSS

Q: Mr. Turney, what is your occupation?

A: I am a criminalist employed by the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Laboratories.

Q: How long have you been so employed?

A: For approximately eight years.

Q: What are your duties in that capacity?

A: I am supervisor in charge of the physical evidence section, where the physical evidence is examined for burglary or homicide, and other than chemical analyses of narcotics, blood alcohols.

Q: What training do you have for that?

A: I have a bachelor's degree from the University of Redlands, with a major in chemistry. I was employed by San Bernardino for 10 years as an analyst. I was employed by the Oakutt Industry for approximately 10 years as a research chemist.

Since coming with Los Angeles County, I have been under the direction of the head criminalist in the procedures of blood analysis, as well as biological fluid analysis, physical comparison of two marks, glass comparison.

I have also had approximately 13 units of graduate study at California State College at Los Angeles in criminalistics.

Q: You have testified in court as an expert in that field on numerous occasions here in Los Angeles?

A: Yes, I have.

Q: Did you make some analysis of human blood in this case?

A: Yes, I did.

Q: Do you have a report with you to refresh your recollection?

A: Yes, I do.

Q: Did you go out to a location at 964 Old Topanga in Los Angeles County here?

A: Yes, I did.

Q: When did you go out there?

A: August 7, 1969.

Q: Did you make some analysis there for blood?

A: Yes, I did.

MR. ROSS: Your Honor; I have here several other objects which I would like to have marked at this time.

THE COURT: Very well.

MR. ROSS: The next is a photograph of the interior portion of the house.

THE COURT: Why don't you just mark those with the next sequence of numbers, and then we will identify them.

MR. ROSS: All right, sir. The next colored photograph with be No. 16.

The next is another interior portion of the house marked No. 17.

The next is what appears to be a kitchen. It will be marked No. 18.

The next is a black polo shirt with a pocket in it. It would be No. 19.

Finally, No. 20 would be a pair of Levis.

THE COURT: Including a wide belt.

MR. ROSS: Yes.

Q: I show you the three colored photographs that we have just marked as Exhibits 16, 17, and 18 along with Exhibit No. 11, which has been previously marked and received. I show you these four photographs and ask do those scenes appear familiar to you?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: Is that the interior portion of the house that we are speaking of?

A: Yes, it is.

Q: Did you make an examination there for blood at that location?

A: Yes, I did.

Q: What was the result of that examination?

A: We will start in the living room. There was some writing on the wall which I determined to be blood.

Q: Is that the writing which says "political piggy" there?

A: That is correct, and a simulated hand print.

Q: Was all of that writing in blood?

A: I think I just checked part of one letter, and it all looked the same, and it was all blood.

Q: It all appeared to be blood?

A: Yes.

Q: What kind of an examination did you perform?

A: A benzidine test for blood.

Q: What does that constitute?

A: It is a test for enzymes which is in blood. The oxidization of the benzidine in the presence of peroxide forms a glucose.

Q: This is positive, so to speak, for blood?

A: It is not altogether specific, but pretty specific.

THE COURT: Well, in your opinion, is what you found blood?

THE WITNESS: In my opinion, it was blood.

THE COURT: That is, the writing on the wall. So we will have it straight, this is Exhibit 16?

THE WITNESS: I also found some blood on the corner of a table in the same room which is not in any of these photographs.

I found blood in the hallway which was between the living room and the kitchen; also the bathroom, or entrance onto it, and there was blood spots. There were stairs there blood spots on the stairs and in the hallway.

In the kitchen I found numerous spatterings of blood on the wall, the ceiling, on the floor.

Q: Is this the scene in Exhibit No. 11, the kitchen?

A: This is one end of the kitchen. Most of the blood was at the other end of the kitchen.

Q: This would be along a wall, was it?

A: There was some blood on the refrigerator, which is shown on this picture. It was on the probably west wall, the north wall, and on the ceiling; and the spots were such that they appeared to have been thrown there by some person flinging their hands or swinging an instrument with blood on it.

Q: Sort of a spray-like?

A: Yes.

Q: Did you check in the bathroom itself?

A: Yes, and my recollection is we did not find any blood in the bathroom.

Q: It was on the hallway portion, outside the bathroom; is that correct?

A: Yes.

Q: How far across the ceiling did this spattering of blood go?

A: As I recall, they were kind of generally clear across the ceiling.

MR. ROSS: I have another two photographs. One is a colored photograph showing the interior of the house and a table. May that be No. 21?

THE COURT: It will be 21.

MR. ROSS: And the next is a small black and white photo showing what appears to be a kitchen area. May that be No. 22?

THE COURT: Very well.

MR. ROSS: Let me withdraw No. 21. The one I actually need is already in evidence as Exhibit No. 3. So we will make the small black and white one No. 21.

THE COURT: All right, let's change it.

BY MR. ROSS:

Q: I show you what has been marked earlier as Exhibit 3. Is that the table you are speaking of where you found blood?

A: That is correct.

Q: Was this also spattering or was this larger splotches, or what?

A: If I remember, it was kind of a smear along one edge and kind of going underneath the edge, not on top, but close to the corner.

Q: In the picture that we have here, Exhibit No. 16, which appears as an outline of a body, is that blood on the carpet there?

A: As I recall, I didn't even check it. I was told that was where the body was lying.

Q: Did it appear to be blood?

A: It appeared to be blood, yes. There was no reason to confirm it.

MR. ROSS: Here is an exhibit to be marked 21 for identification. It is called a reverse photograph.

Q: Is that the interior of the kitchen we are speaking of?

A: Yes.

Q: Does that indicate the area we are talking about where blood spatters were?

A: Yes. You say this is 20 --

Q: 21.

A: This is backwards. Yes, this was actually on the other side, and the spattering was along -- somewhere on the drawer fronts. There is a corner at the cabinet. There was some on the back wall above the sink, and then it went up and across the ceiling.

Q: Across what would be the top upper portion of the photograph?

A: Yes.

Q: Sir, did you also perform a chemical examination on the items of clothing that we have marked here, the shirt and the Levis, Exhibits 19 and 20?

A: Counsel, I did not get the numbers. Are the Levis 19 or 20?

Q: The shirt was 19; the Levis are 20.

A: Yes, I did.

Q: Did you mark these with your initials and confirm that?

A: Yes, I did. On the tag my initials are -- here is the tag. It says "Towncraft" on that, and my initials are just above the label Towncraft.

Q: That is the way you marked the Levis?

A: Yes. On the Levis I put the laboratory receipt number 13606 and my initials.

Q: Where did you get these two items of clothing?

A: They were given to me by either Sergeant Whitley or Sergeant Guenther on the same day he was out at the location.

Q: Did you perform a chemical examination for blood on these items?

A: Yes.

Q: Did you find any?

A: Yes, I did.

Q: Where was that?

A: I have to refer to my notes.

Q: You may use your report to refresh your recollection if it is necessary.

A: It was on the right leg of the blue jeans and on the front at the bottom, and the right sleave of the T-shirt.

Q: It would be on the right leg of the blue jeans down here where I am pointing to; is that correct?

A: I don't remember. I would have to look to see exactly where.

Q: Go ahead.

A: If I remember, it was found toward the bottom part, these stains in the bottom.

Q: Those are stains or dirt marks; is that correct?

A: Yes.

Q: Whereabouts on the shirt was that?

A: The notes indicate the lower front and the right sleeve. There were just traces so that I didn't cut the garments, and it is rather hard to tell exactly.

Q: These were just small traces?

A: Yes.

Q: Was there enough for typing of blood?

A: There was just enough to determine that it was blood.

Q: And it was in fact blood?

A: Yes.

Q: Thank you.

MR. ROSS: I have no further questions.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. SALTER

Q: You also examined, I take it, People's 15, which is this knife.

A: Yes, I did.

Q: You examined that for blood?

A: Yes, I did.

Q: Did you find any traces of blood on the knife?

A: No.

Q: Your answer is no?

A: No.

Q: You examined some boots also?

A: Yes, I did.

Q: Did you find any traces of blood on the boots?

A: No.

Q: Here is what appears to be a scabbard. Did you examine that for blood?

A: Yes, I did.

Q: Did you find traces of blood on the scabbard?

A: No.

REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. ROSS

Q: If blood is washed off of an instrument or run into water or wiped off of an instrument, such as the knife, would it appear, then, on your test?

A: It would be very possible to remove all the blood with a thorough washing so that it could not be found.

MR. ROSS: I have no further.questions.

RECROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. SALTER

Q: What about a scabbard? Do you think that blood could be removed on this type of a scabbard?

A: No, it could not. If there was blood on that, I don't think you would be able to remove it.

Q: So if there were blood on the knife and you put the knife on the scabbard, there would be some blood?

A: Yes.

Q: There are some little creases around the knife. Wouldn't it be a little difficult to wash blood off of this type of knife with these little creases and stuff?

A: It is a pretty tight knife. I would say that it would be quite easy to remove all the blood from this knife.

Q: Just by washing, you think?

A: A thorough washing; maybe scrubbing it with a brush to insure that you get it off.

Q: What kind of a brush would you have to use?

A: A fingernail brush or comb cleaning brush that people have.

MR. SALTER: I have no further questions.

MR. ROSS: Nothing further of this witness.

THE COURT: Thank you. You may step down.

MR. ROSS: Your Honor, we can save considerable length of time if we can have a conference in chambers with the defendant and the reporter for about five minutes.

THE COURT: Well, you might as well take a short recess, ladies and gentlemen.

At this time we will go into chambers until you are called.

(Whereupon the following proceedings were had in chambers outside the presence and hearing of the jury.)

MR. ROSS: The next witness that I have will be one of the officers who will testify to, number one, the scene and number two, certain statements that were made by the defendant. Of course, this requires, then, an out-of-court hearing that we had earlier, and I had talked to Mr. Salter, and if it is agreeable, then we can submit it on the previous testimony that we had at the 1538.5 hearing. I went into it at that time because I wasn't quite sure whether or not it was proper at that time or proper at this time, or both.

So if you recall the hearing that we had on that when the officer Whitley testified --

MR. SALTER: That was where the officer testified that he had given Mr. Beausoleil his rights, and Mr. Beausoleil got up and said he asked for an attorney, and the officer said he didn't ask for an attorney, and there was an issue of fact that the Court had to decide upon, and unless I thought the Court decided differently, I see no reason for repeating it. It will be the same testimony on both sides.

We will stipulate that that testimony, as far as both sides are concerned, is now being brought before this Court as to the admissibility of the statements, but I am objecting that he was not given an attorney when he asked for an attorney. So it is a question of law really more than a question of fact.

THE COURT: At this point we have the statement of Officer Humphrey, that he read the rights out at the scene. We have the further testimony of another officer.

Who was that other officer?

MR. ROSS: Sergeant Whitley, that he read the rights.

MR. SALTER: And we also have the testimony of Mr. Beausoleil, that he asked for an attorney and he was not given an attorney; and as I recall, Officer Whitley said he didn't ask for an attorney so that there is a conflict of testimony.

MR. ROSS: Yes, and he stated the only time he asked about an attorney was at a time way at the end of the conversation when the part about two girls was mentioned. So we would now at this time submit this testimony and the issue for purposes of my now objecting to the admissibility of those statements.

THE COURT: I will rule that they are admissible.

MR. ROSS: I can proceed with the rest of the officer

MR. SALTER: Is the Court's ruling based on the consideration of both Mr. Beausoleil and Officer Whitley?

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. ROSS: Okay.

(Whereupon the following proceedings were had in open court within the presence and hearing of the jury.)

PAUL J. WHITLEY,
called as a witness by and on behalf of the People, having been previously duly sworn, was examined and testified further, as follows:

THE COURT: Will you take the stand. You are still under oath.

DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. ROSS

Q: Sir, I remind you, as the Court just did a moment ago, that you testified earlier here today and that you are still under oath in this case.

Would you restate your name, please.

A: Paul J. Whitley, W-h-i-t-l-e-y.

Q: Once again, what is your occupation?

A: Detective Sergeant for Los Angeles County Sheriff's Office, Homicide Bureau.

Q: You are one of the officers assigned to the investigation of this case; is that correct?

A: Yes.

Q: Directing your attention to the late evening hours of the 31st of July of this year, did you receive a call to 9640 Topanga?

A: Yes, I did.

Q: That is in Los Angeles County in the Topanga area

A: Yes.

Q: Did you go with anyone else?

A: Yes, I did.

Q: With whom did you go there?

A: Detective Charles Guenther.

Q: What time did you arrive at that location?

A: At approximately 10:00 p.m. on the night of the 31st.

Q: Did you see some other people there at that time?

A: Yes, I did.

Q: Who was that?

A: There were three young men there, one of whom was the witness, Mr. Irwin, that testified, and Deputy Piet was there and his partner.

Q: Did you go inside the residence location there?

A: Yes, I did.

Q: Who else went in with you at that time?

A: Deputy Charles Guenther.

Q: Did you find a dead body in there?

A: Yes, I did.

Q: Where was that located inside the house?

A: The body was in the living room, with the head up against the north wall, lying on its back, with the arms extended outward. He was dressed in a T-shirt and a pair of Levis and white Jockey shorts.

Q: Did he have anything covering him?

A: Yes, he had a green blanket up approximately chest high. There was also a pillow off to the left side of the face, leaning up against the face, and a crumpled white sheet off to the right of the face, up against the wall.

MR. ROSS: Your Honor, I have a picture here. It is approximately four by five in size, showing a person lying on the floor.

May this be marked as Exhibit No. 22 for identification.

THE COURT: Very well.

BY MR. ROSS:

Q: I show you the exhibit that has been marked No. 22, this black and white photograph. What does that depict?

A: This is how I viewed the body when I first arrived.

Q: It does not have a blanket on it?

A: That is correct. I moved the body off to examine it, to determine --

THE COURT: You mean, the blanket?

THE WITNESS: I mean, the blanket off the body to determine what the cause of death was.

BY MR. ROSS:

Q: How far was the blanket from the body?

A: It was approximately just below the shoulders.

Q: Just a couple of inches below the chin?

A: Yes.

Q: Did you observe any wounds on the body?

A: At that time I was not sure whether they were wounds or not. There were numerous maggots and beetles eating on the body, and the body fluids had moved in to what were later determined to be knife wounds and had caused the water fluid to rise above, which the beetles were moving into. It was hard to determine the death.

Q: Did you subsequently determine whether there were stab wounds there in the body?

A: Not at this time.

Q: Viewing the location that you are talking about, on the chest where all this was, was that portion of the body covered?

A: Yes.

Q: Was an ID technician and Deputy White called out there at that time?

A: Not at that time.

Q: When was he called?

A: That was later. I called for the coroner's office and a deputy coroner came to the location and made an examination of the body; and he also felt, as I did, that we couldn't determine anything in the house and that we were going to have to remove the victim to the morgue.

Q: Was he then removed to the morgue?

A: Yes, he was.

Q: At the time you made an examination of the body, did you find any type of thread or suturing material up near the head or face part of the body?

A: No.

Q: Did you find any tape on any portion of the body?

A: No.

Q: Did you observe a wound on the upper left-hand portion of the ear and the face of the body?

A: Yes.

Q: I show you these exhibits that we have previously marked, specifically Exhibit No. 8, which you have already referred to here. Excuse me, it is not No. 8.

MR. SALTER: It says 8.

MR. ROSS: That was marked at the preliminary hearing. That is No. 22, I am sorry, Exhibit 22.

THE COURT: Do you remember leaving that tag on it?

MR. ROSS: That is just a preliminary hearing tag.

THE COURT: Let us get rid of it. We don't need it any more.

BY MR. ROSS:

Q: Was the body in that condition, other than the blanket on it, when you saw it?

A: Would you be more specific.

Q: Well, were the trousers on, as they appear there?

A: Yes, they were exactly like that.

Q: Did you find anything in the trousers themselves?

A: Yes. In the right, pocket of the trousers, the wallet was sticking out halfway.

Q: Did you remove that wallet?

A: Yes, I did.

Q: Did it have some identification things in it?

A: Yes, it did.

Q: Who was that for?

A: For Gary A. Hinman.

Q: Did the wallet itself have any money in it?

A: No, it did not.

Q: Now, directing your attention to some of the other exhibits that we have here, first Exhibit No. 3, does that depict the interior portion of the house?

A: Yes, it does.

Q: There is some yellow chalk or paint mark or something on the floor. What does that indicate?

A: I took a yellow crayon, and I outlined the body before I removed it.

Q: I show you Exhibit No. 16. Does this also depict the interior portion of the house as you found it?

A: That is correct,

Q: Go ahead.

A: The sheet here is still lying in the same position it was in at the time that I first entered the room. The pillow here had been moved off to the right.

Q: There is a little chart here in the lower righthand corner. What is that?

A: That is a color contrast chart. It is so that when the pictures are reproduced, the colors will be correct.

Q: You can get a reference to the color, then; is that correct?

A: That is correct.

Q: This writing on the wall, the political piggy, which is just above where the person was found and below the subject here, was that there at the time?

A: Yes it was.

Q: That is depicted in the top of the picture here.

A: Yes.

Q: Directing your attention back here to photographs, Exhibit No. 3, just to the left of this chalked mark on the rug here, was this object down here previously identified as the chanting beads there?

A: Yes, they were.

Q: Directing your attention now to Exhibit No. 17, what does this depict?

A: This is the living room, looking from the northwest corner due east. It shows the lower portion of the body extending out from the chair and also the objects that we found by the left hand of the victim.

Q: What are those?

THE COURT: Well, just to clarify, those are the markings that you made as to where the body had previously been?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

BY MR. ROSS:

Q: That chalk outline is where the body had been, and you made that before the body was removed?

A: That is correct.

Q: What are those objects?

A: There is a small paint brush, and a small bronze, what appears to be a dish or ashtray and a couple of books and a piece of paper.

Q: I show you now Exhibit No. 11. Do you recognize that scene?

A: Yes, this is in the kitchen at the same location.

Q: In relation to the other room where the body was found, what is that?

A: It is approximately 20 feet from where the body was found to the kitchen table.

Q: Is that an adjacent room, or is there room in between?

A: There is a small hallway leading from the living room into the kitchen.

Q: What is off of that hallway?

A: The door to the rear porch and the only entrance into the house.

Q: Is there a bathroom at that location?

A: Yes. It sets between the kitchen and the living room.

Q: I show you now Exhibit No. 8. Do you recognize that scene?

A: Yes, this is in the kitchen.

Q: Other than placing the marks there on the floor, as you have indicated, did you disturb the scene in any other way?

A: No, I did not, except for removing the body, and I did one other thing.

Q: What is that?

A: A I removed a white sheet that was across the doorway from the living room to the hallway. It was tacked with two thumb tacks.

Q: Directing your attention back to Exhibit No. 3, this table here, there are some objects underneath the table. What are those objects?

A: Ballpoint pens.

Q: How many of them were down there?

A: There were approximately 10 pens and two pencils

Q: Were there any such objects in the kitchen?

A: Yes, I believe so. There was one ballpoint pen in the kitchen underneath the table.

MR. ROSS: I have another picture here, Your Honor. It shows the interior portion of the house and a small nightstand. May we have that marked as No. 23 for identification.

THE COURT: Very well.

BY MR. ROSS:

Q: I show you the exhibit that we have marked as No. 23 for identification. What does that depict?

A: This is from the doorway. There are two entrance into the house from the exterior into this porch and then one entrance from the porch into the house. One entrance, which is off to the west here, has a stairway that leads up to it. You come through a door, turn left, go through the second door, which is depicted in this picture, and you enter the house.

The other door is at the south end, and you have to go up a small path to get to it.

Q: I show you Exhibit No. 2 here that was previously marked and received. In relation to that picture, Exhibit No. 2, where is No. 22?

A: The doorway in this picture is to the left of this picture.

Q: So that is the doorway here where the man is standing; is that correct?

A: That is correct.

Q: That would be just to the left, inside the house?

A: Now, this is the porch here, and this is the porch in the right portion here where the man is standing. He is in the porch.

Q: This would be that area that we are talking about?

A: Yes, he would be right off to here (indicating).

Q: To the left, inside a few feet; is that correct?

A: That is correct.

Q: Were the drawers in the night stand in that condition at the time you saw them?

A: Yes.

Q: I have another photograph here showing the floor area, and it has a table and an old-time stove.

MR. ROSS: May this be No 24 for identification?

THE COURT: Very well.

BY MR. ROSS:

Q: I show you this photograph, Officer, No. 24 for identification. What does this scene depict?

A: This is a stove that sets in the middle of the porch area, and to the rear here of the stove is the door that leads from the pathway, and off to the right here would be the door that leads in here through the stairway.

Q: There are some objects that are circled there. What are those objects?

A: Those are small pieces of a chain.

Q: These are broken pieces of a chain?

A: Yes.

THE COURT: Just so we have this straight, I notice that in this photo there are dark circles, and I think that is what we are referring to; is that right?

THE WITNESS: That is correct.

THE COURT: Those appear to be marks that have been placed on the floor surrounding the small pieces of chain.

THE WITNESS: That is correct.

THE COURT: If you look closely, you can look inside of that circle, and you can see something, and that is what you are calling small pieces of chain?

THE WITNESS: Yes. We were afraid they wouldn't photograph because of their size.

THE COURT: That is what I have been getting at.

MR. ROSS: Your Honor, I have just opened an envelope here which contains small broken pieces of chain. May this be marked No. 25?

THE COURT: Very well.

BY MR. ROSS:

Q: Officer, I show you these pieces of chain that we have just taken out of this envelope here. What is that

A: That is the chain that is depicted in this picture and circled by the black marks.

Q: That is the photograph we have been talking about Exhibit No. 24; is that correct?

A: That is correct.

Q: And you picked it up and put it in this sealed envelope; is that correct?

A: That is correct.

THE COURT: Well, if I understand you, you marked the location of the pieces of chain on the floor, then you took the photo?

THE WITNESS: That is correct.

THE COURT: So that the photo shows where they were when you got there?

THE WITNESS: That is correct.

THE COURT: After, you had them marked.

THE WITNESS: That is correct.

THE COURT: After that, you picked them up, and that is what we have in the envelope.

THE WITNESS: That is correct.

BY MR. ROSS:

Q: In relation to the rest of the house, as, specifically, the kitchen and the living room, where is this room where you have marked the chain on there?

A: This probably would he easier if I could draw you a diagram of this house. It sits on the outside of a hill, and it has got kind of an unusual floorplan.

Q: Here is the house itself here, and we have at least the front portion of it in Exhibit No. 2. Would it be in the front portion or the back portion of the house?

A: It was in the porch area right here (indicating), and it would be approximately six feet this way (indicating) from where Detective Guenther is standing.

Q: That is six feet to the right there, from looking at this photograph, which is Exhibit No. 2; is that correct?

A: That is correct.

Q: That is just off the location that you have indicated where the night stand was, which is next to the kitchen, or am I getting confused? Where in relation to the kitchen would that chain be?

A: We have the porch where the chain is found. Then you have to enter a hallway. If you go to the right in the hallway, you are in the kitchen; to the left, you are in the living room; and straight ahead, you are in the bathroom.

Q: In Picture 23 here, you are standing in the porch looking through a window into the kitchen, and it is just off to the right of that, area?

A: Yes.

MR. ROSS: Your Honor, I have here also a checkbook, to personalized to Gary Hinman, at 964 Topanga Canyon. May this checkbook and its contents be marked as Exhibit No. 26?

MR. SALTER: May I see that, Counsel?

MR. ROSS: Yes, surely.

THE COURT: Very well.

BY MR. ROSS:

Q: Officer, I show you here the exhibit that we have marked as No. 26 for identification this checkbook. Have you seen this object before?

A: Yes, I have.

Q: Where was that when you first saw it?

A: Deputy Guenther found this in the kitchen area, called use in.

Q: And pointed it out to you?

A: Yes.

Q: Do you recall whereabouts it was?

A: Not exactly. I believe it was in a coat that was hanging in the kitchen. I am not sure, though.

Q: Did you make a search of the house itself?

A: Yes.

Q: Did you find any money around the house at all?

A: No.

MR. ROSS: I have another object here, your Honor. It is another pink slip to an automobile. Metropolitan is the type of automobile. May that be marked as No. 27?

THE COURT: Very well.

BY MR. ROSS:

Q: I direct your attention to Exhibit No. 27 which has just been marked for identification, this pink slip. Did you find this at the location also?

A: Yes.

Q: Whereabouts did you find that?

A: This was in a metal cabinet in the living room.

Q: Directing your attention into the kitchen area of this house, did you observe any place where there appeared to be blood spots?

A: Later, yes.

Q: Whereabouts did you observe that?

A: I observed that on the ceiling, the north wall, the west wall, and east wall.

Q: Would you tell us what those looked like?

A: They were very minute spots, splattering all over, very, very fine. It was hard to detect. It was also on the refrigerator on the front door, on the table top -- countertop, I should say, on the east counter, and along the kitchen cabinets up above, going all the way to the ceiling, and then extending across the ceiling.

Q: All the way across the ceiling or just part-way, if you recall?

A: It was splattered all the way, concentrated more on the east portion of the kitchen than the west portion.

Q: What about in the living room?

A: Yes, there was appeared to be blood underneath where the body was found on the wall, the writing; also in the hallway right in front of the bathroom door.

Q: You were there, I take it, when this Mr. Turney came out to make his physical examination or chemical examination; is that correct?

A: Yes, he did it at my direction.

Q: Was there anything unusual about the scene where the blood was located at the time when you were there earlier?

A: No.

Q: You hadn't wiped any of it up or attempted to wash any of it or anything?

A: No.

Q: Did you find any blood or what appeared to be blood in the bathroom itself?

A: No.

Q: Did you find any in the hallway near the bathroom?

A: Yes.

Q: Were these fine sprays or were they larger spots, or what?

A: Very small spots.

Q: I want to direct your attention to a few days later, to the 6th of August of 1969. Did you get a call from San Luis Obispo authorities?

A: Yes, I did.

Q: Did you go up to San Luis Obispo?

A: Yes, I did.

Q: Who else went with you, if anybody?

A: Detective Guenther and a latent print deputy, Jake Jordon.

Q: Detective Guenther is the gentleman seated to my right here; is that correct?

A: Yes.

Q: When you went up there, what time did you get up there, and when?

A: In the evening hours. I believe it was about 8:30 in the evening.

Q: Of the 6th or on the following day?

A: Of the 6th.

Q: When you got up to the location, did you see the defendant, Mr. Beausoleil?

A: Not at that time, I didn't.

Q: When did you see him?

A: We saw him at approximately 10:00 p.m. that evening.

Q: Whereabouts was it, I should say, that you saw him?

A: I saw him at the San Luis Obispo County Jail.

Q: From the time that you saw him, or before you saw him, or after, or sometime during that period of time, did you get some property out of the custody of the Sheriffs that had been booked to the defendant?

A: Yes.

Q: Among that property, did you have these exhibit that we had previously marked, the levis, which are Exhibit No. 20, and the black shirt, which is Exhibit No. 19?

A: Yes.

Q: Both of the objects?

A: Yes.

Q: Were they submitted to Mr. Turney in the crime lab?

A: Yes, they were.

Q: Did you also see a Fiat automobile up there?

A: Yes, I did.

Q: I show you two exhibits that we have previously marked as 1 and 5. Exhibit 1 is the front portion of an automobile. Is that the automobile we are talking about?

A: Yes.

Q: I show you Exhibit No. 5, which is a rear portion of a white automobile. Is that the automobile that we are talking about?

A: Yes.

Q: That has the license number OYX 833?

A: Yes.

THE COURT: I want to interrupt for just a moment.

Sergeant Whitley, you told us now that you made this trip to San Luis Obispo and saw this car. Prior to making this trip to San Luis Obispo, did you have any information concerning this car?

THE WITNESS: Yes, I did.

THE COURT: Where did you first get information concerning the car?

THE WITNESS: From Mr. Irwin and the two young men that were with him that found Mr. Hinman.

THE COURT: In other words, you had taken information from them as to the kind of a car that the decedent had?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

THE COURT: Had you made any official report in the Sheriff's office and to the various police agencies to the effect that the car was missing?

THE WITNESS: Yes, after I verified it with the department.

THE COURT: When did you make that report?

THE WITNESS: I believe that was done on August 2nd.

THE COURT: Thank you.

BY MR. ROSS:

Q: You determined that automobile to have been Mr. Hinman's, the one we are speaking of?

A: Yes.

Q: That is the same one that is shown on the pink slip and the white slip that was earlier identified, Exhibits No. 6 and 7; is that correct?

A: Yes.

MR. ROSS: Your Honor, I have here four black and white photographs. I would like to mark them 28, which is the rear portion of the seat down at the station wagon vehicle.

THE COURT: Well, let's just mark them in the order that you want to offer them.

MR. ROSS: All right. The next is a picture of what appears to be a knife on a wheel. This would be No. 29. No. 30 is two hands holding a knife and a scabbard.

Q: I show you what we have marked as No. 28 for identification. Do you recognize that?

A: Yes.

Q: What is that?

A: This is the rear portion of the station wagon with the door open.

Q: I show you Exhibit No. 29. Do you recognize that?

A: Yes. This is the rear portion of the station wagon with the door open and the floorboard pulled up to show the tire well.

Q: Depicted there is what appears to be a knife and scabbard. Was that there at that time?

A: That is correct.

Q: I show you here what we have as Exhibit No. 15, the knife.

MR. ROSS: And I would like to mark this scabbard as No. 31, if you would, your Honor?

MR. SALTER: Just so the record is clear, could the scabbard, Counsel is now marking --

MR. ROSS: Perhaps, we will make that 15-A.

THE COURT: I think that is probably a good idea.

MR. SALTER: May the record reflect that the scabbard 15-A is the same one that Mr. Turney testified to regarding the testing for blood.

THE COURT: Yes.

BY MR. ROSS:

Q: I show you the knife, Exhibit 15, and the scabbard, 15-A, is that the knife and scabbard that we are speaking of here in this photograph, Exhibit No. 29?

A: Yes.

Q: Where was that found?

A: They were found in the tire, well at the rear portion of 19 -- I can't remember. It is a Fiat station wagon, 1965.

Q: That would be shown in Exhibit No. 28 here, the rear portion of the station wagon with a seat or the tailgate open, I should say, if you just lift up this rug or rubber mat here? That would be underneath it here; is that correct?

A: That is correct.

Q: Exhibit No. 30 here that we have, does that show the same knife and scabbard listed?

A: Yes. This picture was taken as we were removing the knife from the tire well.

THE COURT: Pardon me, Mr. Ross. This is probably as good a time as any to break for the evening recess.

We will take our evening recess at this time.

Ladies and gentlemen, let me admonish you again not to discuss among yourself or with anyone else anything pertaining to this case or the evidence that has been received.

Also remember to retain an open mind until the case has been finally submitted to you.

In the morning we have a rather congested calendar around here. I am quite sure, from looking at the Clerk's calendar, that we will not be able to get to this trial until at least 11:00 o'clock. So to those of you, who are so minded, you may be able to sleep in a little later. In any event, I am going to recess until 11:00 o'clock tomorrow morning. Will you all please return at that time.