Thursday, August 26, 1971
THIS TRANSCRIPT IS AVAILABLE FOR
DOWNLOAD IN THE FOLLOWING FORMATS
MR. KAY: The people will call Greg Jakobson.
THE CLERK: Take 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.
called as a witness by the People, testified as follows:
THE CLERK: Thank you. Take the stand and be seated and state your name, please.
THE WITNESS: Greg Jakobson, J-a-k-o-b-s-o-n.
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. KAY:
Q: What is your occupation?
A: I am a music publisher and producer.
Q: At one time did you work for Terry Melcher?
Q: And what did you do for Mr. Melcher?
A: Music production publishing.
Q: And were you ever a record producer for Charles Manson?
Q: Would it be fair to say that you were a pretty close friend of Charles Manson before he was arrested for the Tate-La Bianca murders?
Q: Were you a frequent visitor to the Spahn Ranch?
Q: Approximately how many times would you say that you went there?
A: Oh, a number of times. It is hard to pinpoint. 20, 30 times, more or less.
Q: When did you first meet Mr. Manson?
A: In the spring of '68.
Q: And were you living at Dennis Wilson's house at that time?
Q: And is that where you met Mr. Manson?
Q: Do you know the defendant Tex Watson?
Q: Did you meet Mr. Watson at Dennis Wilson's house?
Q: And for a period of time did Mr. Watson live at Dennis Wilson's house?
Q: Was Dennis Wilson there at that time or was he in Europe?
A: He was there very little. He was touring with a group for the most part.
Q: The Beach Boys?
A: The Beach Boys, right.
Q: To your knowledge did Mr. Watson meet Mr. Manson at Dennis Wilson's house?
Q: What was Mr. Watson doing while he was living at Dennis Wilson's house?
A: Just hanging out.
Q: Was he working?
A: Not to my knowledge.
Q: For how long a period did you live at Dennis Wilson's house?
A: About three months.
Q: And for how long a period to your knowledge did Mr. Watson live at Dennis Wilson's house?
A: Well, are you distinguishing between frequenting the place and really living there?
A: He lived there like I guess the last month, August.
Q: The last month that you lived there?
Q: Did Mr. Watson leave Dennis Wilson's house to start living with the Manson family?
A: Yes. To my knowledge, when he left Dennis' house he began living out at the ranch, at the Spahn Ranch.
Q: After Mr. Watson left Dennis Wilson's house to live with the Manson family, approximately how many times did you see him after that?
A: Only a couple of times.
Q: Did you see Mr. Watson in the late spring of 1969?
Q: Was that the last time you saw him, until he got arrested?
Q: Did you notice any change in Mr. Watson's personality and physical appearance from the time you knew him at Dennis Wilson's house and when you saw him in the late spring of 1969?
A: Yes, very much so.
Q: What change did you notice?
A: Well, he was another person. The Charlie Watson that I knew at Dennis Wilson's house to me no longer existed when I saw him.
Q: In what way had he changed?
A: Well, in every way, really. I mean the thing that you like in a person isn't something that you can put your finger on. I mean, it isn't the shape of his nose or what kind of a shirt he is wearing. It is something that comes from within, you know.
What everyone like about Charlie so much was that essence that came from within and it wasn't there when I saw him.
I was really taken back by it. I was really surprised.
Q: When you saw him in the late spring, 1969, for who long a period of time did you see him?
A: Not very long.
Q: How long?
A: He was busy and I was just passing through, just for a few minutes.
Q: What did you say to him, and what did he say to you?
A: Oh, we said hi and shook hands and exchanged pleasantries, you know. We hadn't seen each other for a long time. It had been a long time.
Q: Did he seem any less friendly than he had before?
Q: Did he seem thinner than he was before?
A: Yes, physically, yes. He was thinner.
Q: From the time that Mr. Watson first met Mr. Manson, did it occur to you that Mr. Watson both accepted and agreed with Manson's philosophy?
Q: Any doubt in your mind about that?
Q: Did you ever have any discussion with Mr. Manson regarding helter-skelter?
A: Sure, yes.
Q: Oh how many occasions would you say that you discussed helter-skelter with Mr. Manson?
A: Well, it is hard to say. It would come up on a number of times.
It came up more frequently toward the end of our relationship.
Q: By the way, before we go any further, you weren't a member of the Manson family, were you?
Q: What did helter-skelter mean to Mr. Manson and the members of his family?
A: It represented the black-white confrontation that Charlie Manson felt was imminent.
Q: Did Mr. Manson believe that there was going to be a black-white war?
Q: When did he feel that this black-white war would take place?
A: Any minute. It was imminent. Tomorrow.
Q: And when was this, what period of time, if you can put a time period on it? 1969 sometime?
A: Well, it really reached a -- the last time I saw him, it was really preoccupying him. It really reached a peak then.
Like in '68 he spoke very little of it but it continued -- in other words, it never began and ended. It just sort of built.
Q: Piece by piece?
A: Piece by piece, yes, only with more rapidity.
Q: Did Mr. Manson ever tell you how helter-skelter was going to start?
A: He said that some blacks would go into some white homes and really rip the people off, to use his words.
Q: What does the term "rip off" mean?
A: Well, I mean really rip off, to scatter limbs and hang them from the ceiling and so on. I remember that, because it was quite a picture.
Q: Did that repulse you?
Q: Did Mr. Manson tell you who was going to prevail in this black-white war?
A: You mean the ultimate outcome?
A: The blacks would win the war but they would give it back to the whites who survived in the desert.
Q: And was Charlie and his family, were they going to survive in the desert?
A: Absolutely. That was the plan, yes.
Q: Did Mr. Manson ever discuss with you the recording group known as The Beatles?
Q: Did he ever discuss their relationship to helter-skelter?
Q: What did he say?
A: They were trying to give the message to those people who would listen that helter-skelter was coming. To prepare, look out.
Q: Did the Beatles have a song called "Helter-Skelter"?
Q: And what did Charlie say about this song, "Helter-Skelter"?
A: It was the message. That was the message to the people.
Q: Do you think the Beatles were talking to him through their music?
Q: Now, I show you Exhibit 266, a double-white Beatles' album.
Do you recognize this album?
Q: Was that played out on the Spahn Ranch very often?
Q: Now, are you familiar with some of the songs in the album?
Q: And what songs would you say in this album were played the most out at the Spahn Ranch while you were there?
A: "Blackbird," "Helter-Skelter," "Piggies," the most.
Q: Is there also a song in there called "Happiness Is A Warm Gun"?
Q: Now, in the song, "Blackbird," I show you here Exhibit 267, appears to be the lyrics of the song in this Beatles' album?
Q: On the song "Blackbird," did Mr. Manson tell you what he felt the title "Blackbird" meant; what that was referring to?
A: It represented the black men.
Q: Did he ever use the term as it is in this song, "Blackbird singing in the dead of night, take these broken wings and learn to fly, all your life you were only waiting for this moment to arise"?
Did Mr. Manson use the term "arise," or "rise" in talking about helter-skelter?
A: Yeah, he used to quote that whole verse, I mean, just verbatim, just the way it was.
Q: Did he ever say in relation to helter-skelter that the black man was going to rise up?
A: Yeah; I mean, that's absolutely -- he would, like I said, he quoted right from there to prove his point that the black man was going to rise up.
Q: In other words, Mr. Manson treated the --
A: And this was a prophecy of the arising.
Q: Would you say it would be a fair statement to say that Mr. Manson treated the lyrics of the songs in this Beatle album like scripture?
A: Oh, yes, it was his scripture.
Q: Now, in the song "Piggies" did Mr. Manson tell you what was meant by the word "Piggies" or "Pig"?
A: Yeah, it represented the establishment.
Q: And what race was the establishment?
A: Well, white, definitely the white middleclass businessman.
Q: Did Mr. Manson ever tell you what was meant in the lyrics of the song, "Piggies," when it says, "In their eyes there's something lacking, what they need is a damn good whacking"?
A: Here, again, this was to be taken as the truth, and also as a prophecy of the coming truth --
Q: In other words, --
A: -- future.
Q: -- that the establishment, that the people in the establishment needed a damn good whacking?
Q: Did he ever say anything about, "Everywhere there's lot of piggies living piggy lives, you can see them out for dining with their piggy wives, clutching forks and knives to eat their bacon?"
A: Yeah, he knew the words.
Q: Would he quote the words?
A: By memory, and he would quote the words whenever there was a reason to or whenever they would fall into conversation.
Q: Did Mr. Manson have a great dislike for the establishment?
A: I suppose you could say that, yeah. I mean -- yeah, it was another world to him, not his.
Q: What about the members of the Manson family, did they feel generally the same way about the establishment?
A: Well, that's hard to answer, in the sense that they rarely voiced any opinions other than Charlie's.
Q: Did Mr. Manson compose a lot of his own songs?
Q: Did he ever have a song which had the words "Helter-Skelter" in their lyrics?
A: I seem to remember that he borrowed the line from --
Q: From the Beatles?
A: Every once in a while in his songs he would take a whole verse or a line from somebody else's song, if he really liked it, or turn it around.
Q: Now, did you try and interest Mr. Terry Melcher in recording Mr. Manson?
A: Yeah, I wanted to get him interested either in a recording project or a film project, one or two, or both.
Q: And pursuant to your getting Mr. Melcher interested in Mr. Manson, did you take Mr. Melcher out to the Spahn Ranch, or did Mr. Melcher come out to the Spahn Ranch and audition Mr. Manson on a couple of occasions?
A: We went out to the ranch.
Q: You were with him on these two occasions?
Q: And did Mr. Melcher ever record or film Mr. Manson?
Q: Did Mr. Manson want to be recorded by Mr. Melcher?
Q: Was Mr. Manson -- did he appear to you to be upset with the fact that Mr. Melcher didn't want to record him?
Q: Mr. Manson really wanted pretty badly to be recorded, didn't he?
A: He was really pushing, yes.
Q: Now, did you have an occasion to see Mr. Manson after the Tate-La Bianca murders?
Q: And was that in August of 1969, the latter part of August?
A: Yes, it would have been.
Q: Did you notice any change in Mr. Manson, in his personality or physical appearance?
A: Yes, considerably.
Q: You say a considerable change?
Q: What type of change did you notice?
A: The only thing I can really liken it to, and I have said it before, is if you have ever seen an animal, a wild animal that has been put in a cage just after it has been caught -- and I have seen them; I have seen skunks and wildcats and things -- and that's what his whole demeanor was.
It is hard to describe. It is just a fear, I mean, it is almost a smell. It reeks, where they are almost bouncing into the walls back and forth and the eyes and energies is pouring out --
Q: Just like electricity is pouring out of him?
A: Yes, I mean, so much so that it upset me, I mean, it got on me, like.
MR. KAY: I have no further questions.
MR. BUBRICK: Would this be a good time, your Honor?
THE COURT: Yes.
We will have our afternoon recess at this time, ladies and gentlemen of the jury; and once more, heed the admonition heretofore given.
THE COURT: People against Watson.
Let the record show all jurors, counsel, and the defendant are present.
Mr. Jakobson, you are still under oath. State your name, please, for the record.
THE WITNESS: Greg Jakobson.
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. BUBRICK
Q: Mr. Jakobson, do you know how it was that Watson came to be living at Dennis Wilson's?
A: Do you mean the events that sort of led up to that?
Q: He was a casual visitor for a while, wasn't he, before he started to live there?
A: Yes. Dennis was hitch-hiking down Sunset and Tex picked him up one day.
Q: And brought Dennis out to his home?
A: Brought Dennis home.
Q: And were you there at that time?
A: No. I don't remember that. I was told later. Dennis told me that Tex had picked him up and he was hitch-hiking down Sunset.
Q: And thereafter did Watson come by from time to time?
A: Yes. He became, you know, a friend.
Q: A friend of Dennis'?
A: Yes, and everybody there.
Q: Who else was there at the time?
A: There were a number of people in and out of the house. I was living there. A couple of girls were living there. Dennis was living there on and off.
Q: Was Manson there?
A: He wasn't living there; he would come by, swim, visit.
Q: Come by with his girls?
A: Yeah, some, you know, not all of them; different people, different times.
Q: Was Dean Moorehouse there at the time?
A: Yeah, he was there.
Q: Was he living there --
Q: -- in the house behind the main house?
Q: Now, you told us that -- you characterized Watson as being a sort of a happy-go-lucky person when you first met him; is that correct?
Q: Could you further categorize -- characterize him for us?
A: Well, to use the words I have also used, he was like a friendly puppy dog, that's as close as I can come. That's why he was so well liked.
Q: Was he --
A: In the sense that there is nothing a dog wouldn't do for you, you know; you throw the stick, he'll go get it. He tried to please.
Q: Was he a sort of a hanger-on or follower, in your opinion?
A: Well, he sort of hung out there, but that's what the place was for, everybody just hung out -- I don't know what you mean by hanger-on or follower. He wasn't a leader, if that's what you mean.
Q: That's what I'm asking you; he didn't appear to be a leader?
A: No, no.
Q: And later on when he moved in, he moved in with Dean Moorehouse in one of the back houses, didn't he?
A: He spent a lot of time with Dean; as to whether he ever moved in there, I don't know.
They were very close.
Q: And this was what, in the summer of '68?
A: Late summer of '68.
Q: How many times would you say you saw Mr. Watson about the Dennis Wilson home?
A: Oh, that would be hard to say, I mean. I saw him around all the time, you know. In one day I could have seen him 10 times, so it is hard to tell.
Q: I can appreciate that, but you said you lived there about three months?
A: Yeah, I was there a lot. I mean, I just sort of -- I lived there.
Q: And is it your impression that Watson was there pretty much of that three-month period, too?
A: Yeah, he would come and go, but when he was there he was there; and then he might disappear for a few days and come back four more days.
Q: Do you know what he was doing at the time?
A: No, I really don't.
Q: Did you --
A: I know he would go down to the beach cities and visit. He had some friends down in La Jolla.
Q: Was he working at any trade, if you know, any business?
A: I don't really know. There was some mention of a wig business, but it went in one ear and out the other.
Q: Did he have a car of some type?
A: Yeah, he had a funky old truck that he used to drive around.
Q: 1935 Dodge, is that it?
Q: An old antique of some sort?
A: Yeah, it really was.
Q: Now, you said you saw him again about a year later when he was at the Spahn Ranch; is that correct?
A: Yeah, I don't think it would have been a year, but it was later.
Q: Spring of '69, whatever that might be.
Q: How would you describe him at that time?
A: As opposed to what he had been?
Q: Yes, as opposed to the way he had been.
A: Well, I describe him as everything he was before he no longer was. He wasn't any more, if that makes any sense to you, I mean, he just wasn't -- it was just a void, he was blank.
Q: Like a shell; is that how you described it once before?
A: Yes, that is right.
Q: A zombie? Did you describe it that way once before?
A: I don't know if I ever said zombie, yes, but shell, empty.
Q: No longer any spark; is that correct?
A: Yes. That spark, that essence that makes you an individual, a human, wasn't there.
Q: What was he doing at the Spahn Ranch when you saw him again in the spring of 1969?
A: He was working on a truck, on the engine.
Q: Was Manson about, if you know?
Q: Was this one of the times you went down on some sort of a business in connection with possible recordings?
A: Yes, I believe so. I had come out to pick up Manson.
Q: Was there any audition of any sort that Manson performed at the time that you went there?
A: You see there were two times: One time earlier that I actually came out to pick up Charlie to go record, and then it was later that, if you call it an audition, on the part of Terry's being there.
It was more to see if we all got on together. I mean if you are going to make music together, you have got to sort of find out a lot of things, not just musically.
Q: Were the members of Manson's family gathered at the same spot you were at?
A: At the time Terry was there?
A: Yes. Everyone was there that was around.
Q: And did he seem to be the center of attraction at the time?
A: Oh, very much so.
Q: Was he the ruler of that family so far as you know?
A: He sure was.
Q: When you were out there at the time that Mr. Melcher was there, did you get the feeling that the performance on the part of the family members was a genuine one?
A: Well, as genuine as any performance can be. I mean it is always a performance, sort of a theatrical venture, but it was a performance.
Q: Maybe I misled you. I am talking about the conduct of the family members.
A: Everybody was on their best behavior, if that is what you mean, for the sake of Terry, you know, sure.
Q: Did it appear to be a staged affair?
A: To some extent but it wasn't unusual. What happened I have seen happen before but only a little more so this time.
Q: Now, you also, as I understand it, talked with Mr. Manson on numerous occasions; is that correct?
Q: Philosophical discussions?
Q: How many times would you say you had talked with him?
A: Any number of times, a lot. There again it is really hard to put a number on it.
Q: Would you say upwards of 100, perhaps?
A: I suppose, yes.
Q: This extended over some period of time?
A: It did, right.
Q: Did he talk to you about Jesus Christ?
A: Yes. He got into Jesus a little bit.
Q: What did he say about that, if you remember?
A: It was always in regards to an overriding philosophy that all this is that and I am him and he is me and so on.
Q: Did he tell you that he thought he was Christ, or that he was Christ?
A: Yes, but always in regards to the overriding philosophy that he is me and I am him and I am you and you are me.
Q: Sort of unity of things.
A: Yes. You know, it jumps into the subjective.
Q: He was one who believed in separate identities and separate things, didn't he, as opposed to the concept of everything being one?
A: Well, you see now that is where we always differed philosophically.
He drew a line between the subjective and the obective and I held that they were hooked up, that they were together, and all his rationale came from the fact that he could separate them at will and jump over at will, cross-cross them.
Q: Did he say anything about the concept of good and bad?
A: Sure, yes.
Q: What did he say about that?
A: There wasn't any.
Q: That everything was good or bad?
A: That good and bad was a concept and he didn't buy it.
Q: Did he have any other way or describing events or things?
A: I don't know what you mean.
Q: Instead of being bad, was everything just all right?
A: Oh, everything was perfect if he was pinned down to that.
Q: Anything you did was perfect; is that correct?
Q: That was part of his philosophy?
Q: That you could do no wrong?
A: That you could do no wrong. There was no way to make a mistake.
Q: As long as you did what you did, it was perfect?
Q: How about the subject of death, did he discuss that with you?
A: Yes, we got into that.
Q: What did he say about that?
A: Well, he said that he died a long time ago and that there was no death, death was a change.
None of these things were really new to me; I mean, he was an eclectic, he picked up different things from different philosophies and different religions. That's all eastern philosophy.
Q: Did he make an effort to tie it up together --
Q: -- in some sort of continuous philosophy?
A: Yeah, he tied it all up into his own, taking a little bit from here, a little bit from there, putting it into his own.
Q: Did he talk about the Devil?
A: Yes, he was the Devil.
Q: He was also a God, was he not?
A: I don't ever really remember him saying that he was a God. He used the word "Devil" and he used the word "Christ."
Q: Well, didn't he believe that they exist within the same persons at all times?
A: Oh, absolutely.
Q: Well, in that sense he thought he was a God, the Devil, Christ, everything rolled into one and everybody was that?
Q: And didn't that go along with this theory of good and bad?
Q: In the sense that because Christ could do no wrong, no other person could do any wrong?
A: Well, I suppose you could look at it that way.
Q: Well, isn't that how he looked at it?
A: It is pretty hard to say, I mean. It is so nebulous, I'd have to be inside of his head to see how he saw, you know; that's why we argued. That was our attraction, that we used to debate.
Q: Well, we are not asking you to see as he saw, because obviously you can't do that; but, as best you can, can you tell us the things that he said?
A: I couldn't begin to, because so much went down; but I am trying to put it -- capsulize it for you, make -- in essence, his stand was that he really found -- he really lived in the subjective and he couldn't bring it back home.
I mean, there is two fields, the relative field, the subjective and the objective, the changing and the never changing.
He jumped into the never changing, or the subjective, whenever he wanted to. If he needed to rationalize something in the objective, in the relative field, he would just jump in to the subjective field; It is okay if you do that because it is okay. It is okay if you eat with your hands; what does it matter?
That would be jumping into the subjective. In other words, there is no rules in the subjective, you make up your own rules.
Q: Is that the way he felt about killing?
Q: It was all right to kill?
A: Yeah, he did -- yeah, he pulled it from there. It gave, don't you see, it gave him a license to make up his own rules.
Q: Did you ever hear him discussing this with other members of the family?
A: Exactly what?
Q: Well, did you ever attend any session where he would lecture to the other members of the family who were gathered about him?
A: Oh, sure.
Q: And did he repeat this same kind of philosophy to them?
A: Yes, he was very consistent and he lectured all the time, to use the word "lecture."
Q: At least, he talked, is that correct?
A: Whenever there -- well, yeah, Charlie was always the center of attraction.
Q: Did you ever hear anybody else express any original ideas in the presence of Mr. Manson, as far as philosophy was concerned?
A: You know, I really don't think I did. I mean, it was very hard to, he was very overpowering.
THE COURT: How about Moorehouse, didn't he have the same ideas as Charlie Manson?
THE WITNESS: Yes, he was a follower; Charlie used to say of him that he was "My student but he hadn't learned yet."
THE COURT: Who taught whom, Moorehouse taught Manson or Manson taught Moorehouse?
THE WITNESS: Manson taught Moorehouse.
Q BY MR. BUBRICK: Then what Moorehouse preached was what he had heard from Manson; is that correct?
A: Yes. Yes, absolutely.
MR. BUBRICK: May I have a moment, your Honor?
THE WITNESS: Maybe I should qualify one thing on that last question.
MR. BUBRICK: Yes.
THE WITNESS: Moorehouse was an ordained minister. He had a great working knowledge of the bible; I mean, he could quote just chapters and pages, so he would, using the framework of Charlie's philosophy, pull out of the bible things -- but it was, in other words -- Charlie didn't have a working knowledge of the bible like Dean did, so Dean could interpret and lend the bible to support Charlie's philosophy, which he did at all times, because Dean Moorehouse was really a student of the bible.
Q BY MR. BUBRICK: He was a student of the bible --
A: He was an ordained minister.
Q: He had been with Orthodox religion --
A: Yes, I think he had his own church.
Q: -- but then he adopted the Manson philosophy as a premise from which to preach?
A: Yes, he did.
Q: And he would look into the bible to support the premise he adopted from Manson?
Q: So he made the bible work for the Manson philosophy --
A: Fit, absolutely.
Q: Did you ever hear Dean Moorehouse express anything to the group when Manson was present?
A: No, when Manson was present Dean didn't say much.
Q: He was just another listener; is that correct?
Q: Did you ever visit the family when they moved to Barker Ranch, Mr. Jakobson?
Q: And when was that, do you remember?
A: Yes, I do. That was like November 20th; I know it was right before Thanksgiving, like November 22 -- Thanksgiving is always on the 25th, I believe -- in '68.
Q: Was Watson there then?
Q: You didn't see him again after the summer or spring of '69, I think you told us?
A: Right; no, I didn't. That was the last time I was out to the ranch.
Q: I think you also told us in August of '69 you saw Manson; he looked like a wild animal in a cage, was your characterization of him?
Q: When you saw Manson on that occasion did you see Watson anywhere in the vicinity of the ranch?
A: No, I wasn't out at the ranch; this happened at my house, you know.
Q: He came to visit you?
Q: Would you say that Manson completely dominated the scene whenever he was present?
Q: And did he dominate the family anytime he was with the family, as far as you know?
Q: Did you ever hear Mr. Watson make any suggestions to Manson?
Q: Or to anybody else on the ranch, the day you saw him?
Q: Yes; I am talking about --
Q: That conversation was just between the two of you, and that was it; is that so?
A: You mean when Tex and I --
Q: There was nobody else who was present or participated?
A: There was some people present but they didn't really participate.
MR. BUBRICK: I have nothing further, your Honor.
MR. KAY: No further questions. May the witness be excused?
MR. BUBRICK: Just one more, please.
Q: Mr. Jakobson, did you ever hear Charlie -- the lyrics to a song composed by Charlie entitled "Submission Is A Gift. You can give it to your brother."?
Q: Was that something that Manson wrote?
A: Yes, it was.
Q: And was it recorded by some group that you worked with?
Q: With whom?
A: The Beach Boys.
Q: The Beach Boys?
Q: And that is a group that Dennis Wilson was with; is that correct?
A: Right. It is.
MR. BUBRICK: I have nothing further.
REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. KAY
Q: What was the name of the song that the Beach Boys recorded?
A: "Never Learn Not To Love Him."
Q: That was the song the Mr. Manson wrote?
THE COURT: "Never Learn Not To Love"?
THE WITNESS: "Love Him."
RECROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. BUBRICK
Q: Is that the same as this title, "Submission Is A Gift. You can give it to your mother"?
A: Same song.
Q: But just a different title or something?
A: Yes. In other words, both of those, all the words that you have said exist in the lyric content.
I think they pulled out for the album, the title in quotes "You Must Never Learn Not To Love Him."
Q: Mr. Keith is disturbed about one thing. You know this song title that was mentioned to you a moment ago, "Happiness Is A Warm Gun"?
A: From the Beatles' album.
Q: Is there more than one connotation to that title that you know of?
A: You know, I never did much interpretation of the Beatles. I just enjoyed their music. I don't know what they meant by that and I have never heard that broken down. I mean, Charlie never interpreted that for me, if he had any interpretation.
THE COURT: Could you understand the words when they sang?
THE WITNESS: Yes, I can.
THE COURT: You are an exception.
THE WITNESS: I have listened a lot. It is my business.
MR. BUBRICK: Nothing further.
MR. KAY: No further questions.
THE COURT: Thank you. You may be excused.
MR. BUGLIOSI: We have no further witnesses.
Before we rest, however, we will move to have the exhibits received into evidence. I imagine there will be argument by defense, probably outside the presence of the jury.
THE COURT: All right. I think that we could safely excuse the jury until Monday; is that correct, Gentleman?
MR. BUBRICK: May we approach the bench, your Honor, please?
THE COURT: Yes.
(There was a discussion at the bench outside the presence of the jury not reported:)
(The following proceedings were had in open court, in the presence of the jury:)
THE COURT: Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, you win. We will recess at this time until Tuesday the 31st of August and you need not be here until 11:00 o'clock. We have many legal matters to discuss, so you need not be here until Tuesday at 11:00 o'clock.
Is that clear?
It is this coming Tuesday. It is August 31st at 11:00 o'clock.
In view of the long recess, I wish to admonish you again, do not form or express any opinion in this case. Do not discuss it among yourselves or with anybody else.
Please keep an open mind and do everything possible to refrain from reading anything connected with this case.
Tuesday at 11:00 o'clock. Thank you.
(At 3:45 p.m., an adjournment was taken until Tuesday, August 31, 1971 at 9:30 a.m.)