SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA; FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 14, 1969
10:10 A.M.
---oOo---

THE COURT: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. I believe we are ready to proceed.

Do you desire to make an opening statement?

MR. ROSS: Yes, your Honor.

(Opening statement.)

THE COURT: Is there any statement at this time?

MR. SALTER: Not at this time.

THE COURT: I want to advise you gentlemen, because of the lateness with which we are getting started, we will go through without a recess unless somebody is inconvenienced this morning.

MR. ROSS: We call Kathy Lutesinger.

(TESTIMONY OF KATHARINE LUTESINGER)

KATHARINE LUTESINGER,
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 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: State your name for the record.

THE WITNESS: My name is Katharine Lutesinger.

THE CLERK: Katharine with a C cr K?

THE WITNESS: K.

THE CLERK: Would you spell your last name.

THE WITNESS: L-u-t-s-i-n-g-e-r.

DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. ROSS

Q: Kathy, how old are you?

A: Seventeen.

Q: Do you know the defendant Robert Beausoleil?

A: Yes, I do.

Q: How long have you known him?

A: Since about April.

Q: Of this year?

A: Yes.

Q: Directing your attention up to this summer, were you with him this summer at a location up in Malibu known as the Spahn Ranch?

A: Yes.

Q: Were there some other people there at that time, too?

A: Yes.

Q: When did you leave the Spahn Ranch?

A: Around the end of July.

Q: Directing your attention to that time, was the defendant up there at that time?

A: I can't remember seeing him.

Q: He was up there during the period of July, though, was he not?

A: Yes.

Q: Somewhere toward, the end of July and just before you left the ranch up there, did you overhear any conversation or hear the defendant say anything about going some place?

A: Yes.

Q: What was that conversation?

THE COURT: I think we had better have a little more foundation.

BY MR. ROSS:

Q: Do you recall when it was Kathy?

A: Maybe a week before I left.

Q: Where did this conversation take place?

A: In the back of the Spahn Ranch.

Q: Who else was present at that time?

A: No one.

Q: What was the conversation?

THE COURT: When you say no one, were you and Mr. Beausoleil together?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

THE COURT: What was the situation? I mean, was there anything going on at the time?

THE WITNESS: You mean at the ranch, at the ranch out in front?

THE COURT: You say at the back of the ranch. Were you in a building or out in a field?

THE WITNESS: In a building.

THE COURT: What kind of a building?

THE WITNESS: Oh, just a one-room type shack.

THE COURT: Is it a living quarters or a barn?

THE WITNESS: No, it is living quarters, I guess.

THE COURT: Then you were together in this, you say, kind of a shack?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

THE COURT: What time of day was it?

THE WITNESS: It was after-dark.

THE COURT: There were just the two of you there?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

THE COURT: Now, you had a conversation in which he said something about leaving; is that right?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

THE COURT: Go ahead.

MR. SALTER: Unless a further foundation is laid to get closer to the date of the conversation --

THE COURT: She said about a week before.

MR. SALTER: When she left?

THE COURT: When did you leave there?

THE WITNESS: Around the end of July.

THE COURT: Will it help you any to look at a calendar?

THE WITNESS: No.

THE COURT: It wouldn't. In other words, the best you can say is that you left this premises, back of the ranch that you are talking about --

THE WITNESS: No, I left --

THE COURT: In the end of July, you left that location; is that right?

THE WITNESS: I left the ranch again.

THE COURT: You left the ranch near the end of July?

MR. SALTER: Possibly, if the Court can inquire as to the date -- maybe not the date, but the date that she left.

MR. ROSS: Well, your Honor, I think this is subject to cross-examination. We are not getting anywhere this way.

THE COURT: I would like to fix it a little more.

MR. ROSS: Perhaps I can a little better. May I be allowed to?

THE COURT: You told us you left there about the end of July, and this conversation took place about a week before that.

THE WITNESS: Yes.

THE COURT: Go ahead.

BY MR. ROSS:

Q: Does the first of August sound anywhere familiar to you?

A: No.

Q: What was the conversation?

MR. SALTER: To which I will object, your Honor, unless we can have an offer of proof as to the materiality of this conversation in relation to the time it took place.

THE COURT: I am going to assume that Mr. Ross knows what he is doing in that regard.

MR. SALTER: I would ask the Court not to assume anything under those facts.

THE COURT: I have to start with the assumption that you fellows know what you are doing, and if you don't, there is a remedy.

Go ahead.

BY MR. ROSS:

Q: What was the conversation?

A: Well, he told me he was going somewhere.

Q: Did he say where he was going?

A:It seems as though he were waiting for somebody to come pick him up.

Q: Did he say where he was going, if you recall?

A: No.

Q: Did he say what he was going to do?

A: To get some money.

Q: Did he say from whom he was going to get this money?

A: No.

Q: Was anything mentioned about this person, the type of person?

MR. SALTER: Well, now, your Honor, I am going to object again. I think it is entirely necessary that we have a hearing outside the presence of the jury to see if this is material before she starts testifying.

THE COURT: Overruled. Proceed.

BY MR. ROSS:

Q: Did he say anything about the type of person he was going to see?

MR. SALTER: May we approach the bench? I think this is important enough to be discussed.

THE COURT: Come on in.

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

MR. ROSS: Your Honor, since this is my supposed offer of proof, let me state this: Counsel knows full well what I intend to elicit from this statement. He was out in the hallway talking with her quite a bit this morning, filling her in with a lot of things.

THE COURT: I already said I am relying upon your knowing what you are doing, and what is your objection? That is what I want to know?

MR. SALTER: This is my point, your Honor: It is my understanding she is going to testify that Mr. Beausoleil said he was going; to get some money from, I think, a rich fag or some kind of a fag or something to that effect.

THE COURT: A what?

MR. SALTER: A rich fag. Now, unless the People intend, first of all, to show some type of evidence that this man was considered a fag, either by Mr. Beausoleil or by her or by some other manner, it doesn't pin this down at all to the victim in this case, Gary Hinman. Second of all, she said she left sometime near the end of July.

When I discussed this case with her in the hall, as I recall, she pinned it down to the last Wednesday in July, which would have been the 30th. If it was a week before this, that would make it around the 23rd.

Now, Mr. Hinman, was last seen by his employer sometime in the evening of the 25th, so whatever conversation --

THE COURT: This merely goes to the credibility.

MR. SALTER: It doesn't go to credibility. No one is questioning at this time the credibility of this witness as far as her statements are concerned. It is the question of materiality of the statement to this case. It is a highly prejudicial statement. If it is not material, it should not be entered unless the People intend to in some way show that the reference to a rich fag is meant to be Gary Hinman. This could show another activity by Mr. Beausoleil as to some other individual, and there is no way that I know that the People are going to be able to show that either Mr. Beausoleil thought this Gary Hinman was a rich fag, or Katharine Lutesinger thought he was a rich fag, or that he even had a reputation for being a rich fag or any kind of a fag.

That is why I asked the Court to see if the Court could pin it down as to when she recalled leaving. As I said in the hall, she said it was the 30th of July. A week before that is the 23rd. That is two days before the 25th; and on the 25th in the afternoon, an employer of the victim, Gary Hinman, had seen him as still alive. So unless there is some way to connect this up, this should not be brought in front of a jury, and that is why I made the objection.

THE COURT: The objection is overruled. Go ahead.

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

THE COURT: Proceed.

BY MR. ROSS:

Q: Do you recall any other part of the conversation now, Kathy?

A: I couldn't tell you exactly the words that were used.

Q: Do you recall the words "rich fag" having been used?

A: Well, there were several --

MR. SALTER: Your Honor, I am going to object to his leading the witness.

THE COURT: I will sustain the objection.

MR. ROSS: Your Honor, may I be heard for a moment before all of this goes on?

THE COURT: It is leading.

MR. ROSS: It is, but it is permissible to lead a witness when she says she doesn't remember the conversation. That is in the evidence code, and that has always been the rule. I would ask the Court to allow me to ask that question.

MR. SALTER: The Court must rule upon my motion for a mistrial.

THE COURT: The motion will be denied. Do you recall the use of those words?

THE WITNESS: Some words which made me think that is where he was going.

THE COURT: That is not the question. The question is, do you recall the use of --

MR. SALTER: May that last statement be stricken?

THE COURT: Yes, it will be stricken.

BY MR. ROSS:

Q: Do you recall those words having been used?

A: Yes, it seems that those were the words used.

Q: These were the words used by the defendant Robert Beausoleil?

A: Yes.

Q: What did he say in that connection?

A: The best I can remember, it seemed that he said — he was going to go get some money from a rich faggot.

Q: After this conversation, did you see the defendant Bobby again later on?

A: Not for a couple of days.

Q: When you saw him a couple of days later, did you see him drive any car, any vehicle, at that time?

A: No.

Q: Did you at any time see a small white Fiat station wagon up there with a funny looking front?

A: Yes.

Q: When was that that you saw that? Was that before or after this conversation?

A: After.

Q: Where was that car when you saw it?

A: Well, I saw it at the ranch.

Q: Was anyone driving the car?

A: No, just when I went somewhere in it.

Q: With whom did you go in the car?

A: Another girl.

Q: Who was driving?

A: A girl named Mary.

Q: Did you ever at any time up there --

THE COURT: Who was driving the car?

MR. ROSS: A girl named Mary.

Q: Did you after this time, after you had this conversation that you told us about, see a Volkswagen van-type vehicle up there?

A: Yes.

Q: Do you recall anything particularly unusual or distinctive about that vehicle?

A: Yes. It had a thunderbird on the side of it.

Q: Was that painted on the side of it?

A: Yes.

Q: Do you recall anyone ever driving that?

A: No.

Q: I have here a picture of the front of an automobile showing a small white car with no grill and radiator in front.

I would like this marked as Exhibit No. 1, if the Court please.

THE COURT: All right, we will mark it.

BY MR. ROSS:

Q: Kathy, I show you this picture. Does this look like the car that we have been talking about, this little white one?

A: Yes.

THE COURT: Now, this is the car that you went riding in, and Mary was driving it. Is that what we are talking about?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

BY MR. ROSS:

Q: You know the defendant as Bobby; is that right?

A: Yes.

Q: After he came back, how much longer after that did you leave the ranch?

A: It seemed like about a week.

Q: That is just an estimate or a guess or what?

A: An estimate.

MR. ROSS: You may cross-examine. I have no further questions.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. SALTER

Q: When you left the ranch to go home, do you recall in your mind that you went home the last Wednesday of July?

A: Yes.

THE COURT: I missed that, Mr. Salter. What did she do on the last Wednesday?

MR. SALTER: She went home on the last Wednesday in July.

THE COURT: In other words, you recall that the date that you went home from the ranch was the last Wednesday in July; is that right?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

BY MR. SALTER:

Q: So this conversation that you say you had with Bobby took place sometime about a week before the 30th?

A: I couldn't say for sure.

Q: Well, you said that after Bobby had returned you left about a week later; right?

A: It seemed like about a week.

Q: You left, then, on the 30th of July, because you remember going home on a Wednesday, the last Wednesday in July; is that correct?

A: Yes.

Q: So Bobby returned, then, to the ranch somewhere about the 23rd of July, that being a week before the 30th; is that correct?

A: Yes.

Q: So your conversation with Bobby wherein you say he said something about getting money from a rich faggot took place about the 31st of July; isn't that correct?

A: Yes.

Q: Now, you also knew Bobby by another name; is that correct?

A: Yes.

Q: What was that name?

A: Jasper.

Q: Was there another former name that you knew him by?

A: Daniels.

Q: Jasper Daniels. That was a professional name of his; is that correct?

A: Yes.

Q: That was for his profession as a musician?

A: Yes.

Q: Was his full professional name known to you as Jason Jasper Daniels?

A: Yes.

Q: The best that you can remember of the conversation is he said this guy was going to pick him up; is that right?

A: Yes.

MR. SALTER: No further questions.

REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. ROSS

Q: Is it fair to say, Kathy, that some of these dates are a little vague in your mind?

A: Yes.

MR. ROSS: I have no further questions.

THE COURT: If I understand you correctly, you were up on this ranch, whatever it is -- is it a one-room shack; is that the idea?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

THE COURT: Were you actually living there?

THE WITNESS: Not in the one-room shack.

THE COURT: Well, where were you living?

THE WITNESS: All over the place.

THE COURT: You used the word "Bobby." When you use that word, you are talking about Mr. Beausoleil?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

THE COURT: He is the man that is sitting right there in the courtroom?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

THE COURT: Were you in his company on this ranch?

THE WITNESS: Not all the time.

THE COURT: Were you both living all over the ranch?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

THE COURT: So that from time to time, you were in his company on the ranch; is that right?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

THE COURT: Now, on the occasion that we are talking about, where you are in this shack, I think you have called it --

THE WITNESS: Yes.

THE COURT: -- what was the occasion for your going there?

MR. SALTER: Your Honor, I am going to object to the Court's questioning this witness. I think the Court is relying -- the D.A. is competent. The D.A. is prosecuting this case, and I object to the Court's questioning the witness in this manner, the Court not being familiar with whatever the D.A. is trying to bring out.

THE COURT: The objection is overruled.

I will tell the jury that Mr. Salter not only has a right to object to my questions, he has a duty to. So don't hold it against him.

What I am trying to get at here is, I want to find out what this is all about.

Do you recall the occasion why you were in this shack, as you called it?

THE WITNESS: No. He just wanted to be with me.

THE COURT: How did you go there?

THE WITNESS: Walk.

THE COURT: Where did you walk from?

THE WITNESS: From in front of the ranch.

THE COURT: In other words, you had walked from the front of the ranch back to this place together?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

THE COURT: This is the point where he told you that somebody was going to come and pick him up; is that the idea?

THE WITNESS: That is the idea that I got.

THE COURT: Did he tell you who was going to come and pick him up?

THE WITNESS: No,

THE COURT: It was just somebody?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

THE COURT: That is when he made this statement that he was going to see a rich fag or something like that, the word that we have been talking about a moment ago? That is when he made this statement up there?

THE WITNESS: Yes. He didn't make the statement he was going to see a rich fag. I can't remember the statement that he made, but that is the idea that I got.

THE COURT: In other words, he was going to go away for a couple of days; is that right?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

THE COURT: So that this was the time that you were informed that he was going to leave for a couple of days?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

THE COURT: Did he leave after that?

THE WITNESS: I didn't see him leave.

THE COURT: Well, was he gone for some period of time?

THE WITNESS: I didn't see him on the ranch; so I guess he was.

THE COURT: You didn't see him around the ranch so you guess he was gone; is that the idea?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

THE COURT: After this conversation, was there a period of more than one day that you did not see him?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

THE COURT: How long was it until you saw him again?

THE WITNESS: It seemed like at least a day and a half.

THE COURT: So that your best recollection is that it was about a day after until you saw him again?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

THE COURT: What were the circumstances when you next saw him?

THE WITNESS: He was out in front of the ranch.

THE COURT: You were out in front of the ranch?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

THE COURT: What happened?

THE WITNESS: And I just went up to him and said hello.

THE COURT: Where was he when you went up to him?

THE WITNESS: In front of the ranch.

THE COURT: Was he just standing there?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

THE COURT: Did he arrive at the ranch in a car?

MR. SALTER: Objection. That is calling for a conclusion. She has already said she has never seen him.

THE COURT: If you know?

THE WITNESS: No.

THE COURT: You don't know?

THE WITNESS: I don't know.

THE COURT: Now, you have told us that you and Mary went in this car that is in this picture, and you drove some place from the ranch; is that right?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

THE COURT: Where did you get the keys to the vehicle?

THE WITNESS: Well, she had the keys.

THE COURT: Do you know whether or not this was her vehicle?

THE WITNESS: No, I didn't know whose it was.

THE COURT: Any further questions?

MR. ROSS: No.

RECROSS EXAMINATION MR. SALTER

Q: I take it, you don't remember when you drove in the Fiat, either?

A: No, I couldn't say what day it was.

MR. SALTER: I have no further questions.

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

(TESTIMONY OF MIKE IRWIN)

MIKE IRWIN,
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, please, and state your name.

THE WITNESS: Mike Irwin.

DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. ROSS

Q: Sir, where do you reside?

A: Studio City.

Q: Are you acquainted with Gary Hinman?

A: Yes.

Q: Do you recall where he lived?

A: He lived on Topanga Canyon.

Q: Is it 946 Topanga?

A: Yes.

Q: Did you go over to his house on a number of occasions?

A: I was there twice altogether.

Q: Directing your attention to the 31st of July of this year, did you have occasion to go over to his house?

A: I don't know what date it was.

Q: Was it a Thursday night in the latter part of July?

A: Yes.

Q: Did someone else go over there with you?

A: Yes, two other boys.

Q: When had you last seen Gary before that time?

A: I don't really recall the last time I saw him. Approximately maybe eight or nine days before that time.

Q: What was your purpose in going over on this particular evening?

A: Well, nobody had heard from him.

MR. SALTER: I am going to object to that, your Honor, as hearsay, "nobody had heard from him."

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. SALTER: He can tell what he knows.

BY MR. ROSS:

Q: Why did you go over there?

MR. SALTER: I might say, then, it is immaterial as to why he went over there.

THE COURT: Overruled.

BY MR. ROSS:

Q: You may answer that.

A: Do you want it from the beginning?

Q: No. You said something about your seeing him eight or nine days before you went to his house.

A: Well, we thought we would check to see if he was dead or alive.

Q: Had you heard from him lately?

A: No.

Q: Had your friends heard from him, to your knowledge?

A: No.

Q: How long had it been that you had not heard from him?

A: About nine days.

Q: Did you see him socially, business-wise, professionally, in school, or what?

A: Well, both. He was my family's piano teacher. He taught piano to two sisters and a brother, and guitar; and he was involved in this Buddhism, and both of us are Buddhists; so he came to the meetings.

Q: Does this Buddhism have a particular name?

A: Yes. It is called Nichiren Shokyu.

Q: Is its headquarters down here on Coast Highway?

A: Yes.

Q: How long had you been involved with that?

A: Me myself?

Q: Yes.

A: Two years.

Q: Do you know how long Gary had been involved with that?

A: About a year, I think.

Q: Had you had meetings where you had gone together?

A: Not together, but he came to the meetings. He was a participating member.

Q: What type of an organization is this Nichiren Shokyu?

A: We practice philosophy, Buddhist teachings. That's all.

Q: Does it have any outside political activities of any kind?

A: Only in Japan, not in America.

Q: It does in Japan?

A: Yes.

Q: Who are the other persons that went over there with you at the time?

A: Glen Jardinelli and John Nicks.

Q: I show you here a colored photograph showing the outside portion of a house. Does that appear to be the house where Gary lived?

A: Yes.

MR. ROSS: May I have this marked No. 2, your Honor, if the Court please.

THE COURT: It will be so marked.

MR. ROSS: Thank you.

Q: What time was it that you got over to the location?

A: I don't remember. It was about 8:00, 8:00 or 8:30.

Q: Was it still, light out, or was it dark?

A: It was just beginning to get dark.

THE COURT: You mean, 8:30 at night?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

BY MR. ROSS:

Q: What did you do when you got over there?

A: Well, we climbed the stairs, and due to the stench and the flies, we went to the side window -- first, we went to all the doors to see if they were open, and then we decided that we would go through the side window, and the stench was really horrible and just weird feelings, and there was flies everywhere; so we just went next door and called the police -- called the Sheriff and told them what we suspected.

Q: You went and called for the Sheriff or the police?

A: Yes.

Q: Were you there when the Sheriffs arrived?

A: Yes.

Q: How much later was that?

A: That was about maybe 20 minutes later that they came.

Q: Had you actually gone into the house during that period of time that you were there?

A: We had gone into the back porch section, which is in that picture there, and our first thought was to go in, and then we did.

Q: Just tell us what you did.

A: We just went into the back porch, and we came back out because it smelled too bad.

Q: Did you look inside the house at all?

A: No.

Q: In between that time, you called the Sheriffs and then they arrived, and I understood you to say that you did not go in: is that correct?

A: I did not go in.

Q: Are you familiar with what kind of automobiles Gary drove?

A: Yes.

Q: What kind were they?

A: He had a Toyota and a VW.

Q: Did he also have another car?

A: I think he had a Rambler.

Q: Do you know whether that Rambler was working or not?

A: I don't think so.

Q: Had you ever seen him drive it?

A: No.

Q: Had you ever seen him drive the Fiat?

A: Yes.

Q: Had you ever seen him drive the VW?

A: Yes.

Q: Was there anything distinctive about that VW?

A: It had a thunderbird on the side.

Q: This was painted on?

A: Yes.

Q: I show you here a picture, Exhibit No. 1. Does that appear to be the Fiat that we are talking about?

A: Yes.

Q: That was either the Fiat or the VW there when you came over that evening?

A: No.

Q: When was the last time that you had been inside of Gary's house?

A: About maybe almost a year before, when I first met him.

Q: You hadn't gone in the house since that time; is that correct?

A: No.

MR. ROSS: I have here a colored photograph that appears to be the inside of a room. May this be marked No. 3, your Honor?

THE COURT: No. 3.

BY MR. ROSS:

Q: Shown there in front of the chair is some object with a white portion on it and a darker purple. Do you recognize that?

A: Yes.

Q: What is that?

A: Those are beads.

Q: What kind of beads are they?

A: They are the beads that we use when we chant.

Q: Those are prayer beads?

A: Yes.

Q: Did Gary have these prayer beads?

A: Yes.

Q: Do you know whether he wore any kind of thing around his neck or body at any time with any chain on it?

A: No.

Q: Do some of the members of your group wear that?

A: No.

THE COURT: Talking about that photo where you have identified the beads, do you recognize the general scheme in that photo?

THE WITNESS: No.

THE COURT: You don't recognize it?

THE WITNESS: No.

BY MR. ROSS:

Q: Do you know which of the two automobiles that Gary usually used for transportation?

MR. SALTER: Object to that as calling for a conclusion of this witness as to what he usually drove.

THE COURT: Do you know which of the two?

MR. ROSS: Let me rephrase the question. I will withdraw it. Do you know which one he drove with more frequency than any of the others?

MR. SALTER: I object to that. He can answer as to which car he saw him most frequently with.

THE COURT: Let's change it to that. Which automobile did you see him most frequently use?

THE WITNESS: Most frequently, I saw him using the VW.

MR. ROSS: All right. I have no further questions.

MR. SALTER: No questions.

MR. ROSS: We will call Mr. Krell.

MR. SALTER: Your Honor, I am sorry. Is Mr. Irwin in court? I do have one question.

THE COURT: You want to question the last witness?

MR. SALTER: Yes.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. SALTER

Q: Then you were up at Mr. Hinman's house on the date you just been referring to, did you see something in the mailbox?

A: Yes.

Q: What was that?

A: It was different letters.

Q: Among the letters, did you see something called a Maotist Report?

A: Yes.

Q: That is M-a-o-t-i-s-t.

A: Maotist.

Q: You saw that in his mailbox; is that correct?

A: Yes.

REDIRECT-EXAMINATION BY MR. ROSS

Q: Do you know what that was?

A: No -- well, I know what it was. It is the Maotist review.

Q: What is that?

A: It is a paper, that's got the views of Mao Tse Tung on it. I don't read it myself. This is the Chinese Communist philosophy.

THE COURT: I gather that you saw an accumulation of mail in the mailbox.

THE WITNESS: Yes, and in there was this paper.

THE COURT: Is this a standard type of mailbox that you see out in the country, a metal mailbox?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

MR. ROSS: Nothing further.

THE COURT: Thank you.

(TESTIMONY OF GLENN KRELL)

GLENN KRELL,
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 so affirm.

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

THE WITNESS: My name is Glenn Krell, K-r-e-l-l.

THE CLERK: Is it Glenn with one n, sir, or two?

THE WITNESS: Two.

DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. ROSS

Q: Mr. Krell, whereabouts do you live?

A: In West Los Angeles.

Q: Do you have some kind of business in that area, too?

A: I have a music school.

Q: That is located in West Los Angeles?

A: Yes, at 10846 Missouri.

Q: Were you acquainted with Mr. Gary Hinman?

A: Quite well.

Q: You were a close friend of his?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: How long had you known him?

A: Approximately a year and a half.

Q: Were you related in some way to him in business?

A: He was a co-worker. He taught music student at my school.

Q: What type of instruments did he teach?

A: He was quite talented. He taught piano, bagpipes, a little trombone, a little drum.

Q: Many instruments, in other words?

A: Yes. He was not a trained musician, but he had a natural, intuitive sense of handling it.

Q: To your knowledge, was he going to school, or had he gone to school?

A: He was very close to a Ph.D. in political science at U.C.L.A.

Q: At the time that you knew him, was he also working toward that degree just part-time, or what?

A: I think about the time that I met him, he had discontinued studies at U.C.L.A., although he felt -- if he had mentioned to me once that --

MR. SALTER: I object to what he mentioned.

THE COURT: Overruled. It is not for the truth of the matter asserted. It is just to show this man's acquaintance with him.

MR. SALTER: It is immaterial if it is not for the truth of the matter.

BY MR. ROSS:

Q: Would you say he was your closest friend?

A: I don't have a closest friend, but he would be as close to it as I could think of.

Q: I want to direct your attention to the 25th of July of this year. Did you see him at that time?

A: Yes, I did.

Q: What time was it on that date that you first saw him? This was a Friday, incidentally.

A: It was at approximately 2:30, 2:45.

Q: This is a Friday.

A: Friday, yes.

Q: Where was it that you saw him?

A: I first saw him at my place of business.

Q: Did he ask you to go some place with him?

A: Yes. He called previously to see if I could go downtown as a witness for him. He was getting a passport to make a pilgrimage in order to go to Japan.

Q: Did you go with him?

A: I went downtown with him in the night.

Q: What time did you return from downtown Los Angeles?

A: At exactly 5:00 o'clock.

Q: I show you a picture here, which is Exhibit No. 1. Does that appear to be the car that we are talking about?

A: This is the car.

Q: Do you know whether or not Gary had any other cars?

A: Yes, I do.

Q: Which cars were they?

A: He had a Metropolitan which had not been running for several months, and he had a VW bus, which I was buying from him.

Q: Was there anything unusual or distinctive about this bus?

A: There was only one bus like this bus.

Q: Why was that ?

A: The right front was somewhat crumpled, and the right door closed with difficulty. There was on the left rear of the bus like a tin pole holder, and on the sides of the bus was an Indian thunderbird or eagle design, and the bus was basically maroon with a white top.

THE COURT: In other words, when they say thunderbird, they don't mean the word thunderbird, but they mean the symbol of a thunderbird.

THE WITNESS: Right. It was a picture.

BY MR. ROSS:

Q: It was the big bird-type, Indian-type?

A: It was.

Q: Had you entered into any negotiations to purchase this car?

A: Yes, I had.

Q: What kind of negotiation did you have?

A: He had agreed to sell it to me for several hundred dollars, and since I didn't have the $700, he was agreeable with my buying it on a percentage, let me say. As he taught students in my school, a certain percentage went to me as rent, and instead of taking that percentage, he was going to keep that for himself until $700 had been reached, at which time the title was to have been turned over to me.

Q: Was he to keep the bus in this period of time?

A: I suppose, but he was ready to give it to me that weekend. I asked him if I could use it the weekend of the 27th or the 28th. I had use for it, and he said no to that weekend because he was going to haul rocks for his driveway, and that he would let me have it the next weekend.

Q: How much had you already paid into the bus by that time?

A: I don't know, but he had not been paid his teacher's commission for approximately three months.

Q: So that would have amounted to how much?

A: A couple of hundred dollars, at the most. Not a lot.

Q: You came back from downtown and were with him in the white car; is that correct?

A: That is correct.

Q: That time did you get back, then, to your school?

A: At 5:00 o'clock.

Q: Did you see him after that?

A: Yes, I did.

Q: When was the last time that you saw him on that evening?

A: To the best of my knowledge, it was 7:10, although I could possibly be in some error on it.

Q: Did he say where he was going when he left you that evening?

A: He said he was going to a meeting. He was always going to meetings.

Q: He didn't say what kind of a meeting? Did he say?

A: Not on that particular occasion.

Q: Did he say anything as to where he was going?

A: He was not specific.

Q: It was just to some meetings; is that right?

A: I know 99 per cent what it would be.

MR. SALTER: I object to that, your Honor. That question has been asked and answered.

THE COURT: The objection will be sustained.

BY MR. ROSS:

Q: Did you see Gary after that?

A: After that day?

Q: Yes.

A: No.

Q: Did you go over to his house after that?

A: I was set to, but I did not.

Q: You were going to?

A: I had car troubles that week. I had made arrangements --

MR. SALTER: I will object. He has answered the question.

THE COURT: Overruled.

BY MR. ROSS:

Q: You did not go back, then; is that correct?

A: No, I did, not go to his house.

Q: Had you ever been to Gary's house on any other occasion?

A: I had been to it, but not in it, on one occasion.

THE COURT: I gather from your answer that you have never been in his house?

THE WITNESS: No.

THE COURT: You had one occasion to go there and to the front of the house, so to speak?

THE WITNESS: He had some work done on one of his cars, and I drove him home so that he could pick up the other car.

BY MR. ROSS:

Q: Do you recall when he got this Fiat car?

A: Not exactly, but he had it for, oh, six months. Maybe not that long. At least three months.

Q: Do you recall first seeing the car?

A: Yes. It was when he returned from Colorado. I don't know when that was, but I am sure it could be established.

Q: Was it in this condition, or did it look different than this?

A: I don't believe he had put the motor in it yet. He had motor trouble.

Q: Is that how it got this weird look on it?

A: Yes. There's an oversized motor.

THE COURT: Just for the record, this photograph that we have been referring to, which is People's 1, shows a Fiat with a rather unusual mechanical condition on the front end. That's what's so distinctive about the car?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

THE COURT: Do I understand from your testimony that Gary was the one who caused the car to be in this condition?

THE WITNESS: He had that work done to the car.

THE COURT: So that what would be a normal grill in front had been removed?

THE WITNESS: He wanted more power than what the little car had, and he had an oversized motor placed in it.

BY MR. ROSS:

Q: Did you have a number of conversations socially with Gary? You can answer that yes or no.

A: I don't know if I can.

Q: Did you have another --

A: We were not socially related, but we were good friends, and we talked many times at my place of business.

Q: By that, I mean, did you talk about things other than the business?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: You had a number of these conversations with him?

A: Yes.

Q: Did you get to know him pretty well?

A: Yes, I did.

Q: Let me ask you this: I don't mean to be impertinent about it, but would Mr. Hinman have given the impression of what is commonly known as a homosexual or a fag?

MR. SALTER: Objection.

THE COURT: I will sustain the objection.

BY MR. ROSS:

Q: Would you describe the appearance of Mr. Hinman for us?

THE COURT: I think you can reach it more directly in this manner: Was there anything about him that gave you any indication that he had any homosexual tendencies?

THE WITNESS: To someone who did not know him well, he was soft spoken and gentle, but he was a man. He had been married and divorced, had girl friends, and to my knowledge was chanting for reconciliation with his wife.

BY MR. ROSS:

Q: Now, let's say that you know him quite well; is that correct?

A: That is right.

Q: To a person who did not know him as well as you knew him, would he have given the outward appearance of being a homosexual?

MR. SALTER: Your Honor, this is going for very personal opinions.

THE COURT: Yes, and I am going to sustain the objection.

BY MR. ROSS:

Q: Would you describe, then, his outward appearance as to other people who might know him?

A: He was gentle. He was kind. He was very firm, and I believe he would have stood by his convictions to the point of death, and he had very firm political beliefs. He was left at the center; however, he believed very firmly in the Buddhist principal of bringing about change in the establishment, within the establishment, without --

MR. SALTER: I think these are all conclusions as to what his political beliefs are.

THE COURT: I think they are merely observations of what he thought of the guy.

MR. SALTER: Which is immaterial as to what he thought.

THE COURT: Are you making a motion?

MR. SALTER: Yes, to strike.

THE COURT: The motion will be denied.

THE WITNESS: He believed in --

MR. SALTER: I object to anything further.

THE COURT: There is no question pending. Sustained. Let's come back to the basic question here. I take it there is nothing that you knew about him that gave you an indication that he was a homosexual?

THE WITNESS: That is correct.

MR. ROSS: Your Honor, I would like a conference in chambers on this point.

THE COURT: Come on in.

(Short recess.)

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

BY MR. ROSS:

Q: Mr. Krell, when you saw Gary the last on the 25th of July, did he have any outward appearance any injuries of any kind?

A: None whatsoever.

Q: I have here a photograph showing a man on this piece of paper here. Does that appear to be Gary Hinman?

A: That is an old picture of him, yes.

Q: Did he look somewhat like that?

A: Yes.

Q: That is his picture?

A: Yes, it is.

MR. ROSS: May we have this marked as People No. 4, if the Court please.

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. ROSS: I have no further questions.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. SALTER

Q: Mr. Krell, was Gary the type of individual -- you said he was a very generous individual -- who would loan his car to another individual for a few weeks?

A: He might.

Q: In other words, when you had heard that he loaned his car to Mr. Beausoleil, you were not surprised at all by that, were you?

A: (No response.)

Q: By that, I mean his personality was of the type that he would loan his car; is that correct?

A: I accept the possibility.

Q: I have just one other question: Was he the type of person that would loan things out like that?

A: From time to time, yes.

Q: Did he have some sort of a generous nature, then?

A: Very much so.

Q: Would he give away money to people?

A: May I give an example?

Q: Well, no, just tell us, if you can, from your experience of things.

A: When he had money, he was generous with it. He enjoyed helping people. When he did not have money, he would ask for 30 cents to go down and get a hot dog.

MR. SALTER: Nothing further.

THE COURT: Thank you, Mr. Krell.

MR. ROSS: Officer Humphrey.

(TESTIMONY OF FORREST HUMPHREY)

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

THE CLERK: 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: Forrest Humphrey.

DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. ROSS

Q: What is your occupation?

A: I am a State highway officer for the Highway Patrol.

Q: What is your current assignment?

A: San Luis Obispo, California.

Q: Were you so assigned on the 6th of August of this year?

A: Yes, sir, I was.

Q: On that date, did you have occasion to see the defendant?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: Where was it that you saw him?

A: It was on Highway 101, approximately three miles north of San Luis Obispo.

Q: Was he in some type of vehicle or on foot at that time?

A: He was in the back of a vehicle.

Q: When did you first observe the vehicle on that date, if you can recall?

A: I started my tour of duty at 7:00 o'clock that morning. I got out of the office at approximately 7:30. Sometime shortly after that, I observed the vehicle that I saw the defendant in parked alongside of the road at this location.

Q: Did you stop at that time?

A: No, sir, I did not.

Q: How much later was it that you stopped?

A: I stopped at approximately 10:50 that morning.

Q: That would be several hours, then, later?

A: At least, two.

Q: Where was the automobile? Was it on the side of the road, on the road, or what?

A: It was east of the roadway, facing north.

Q: What kind of automobile was it?

A: It was a 1965 Fiat station wagon.

MR. ROSS: I have two pictures here. One has already been marked as Exhibit No. 1. I have another one here showing a rear portion of a white vehicle, a station wagon type. May this be marked as No. 5?

THE COURT: Very well.

BY MR. ROSS:

Q: I show you Exhibits for identification, 1 and 5. Is that the automobile you saw the defendant in?

A: Yes, sir, it appears to be the same automobile.

Q: Is that the license number as indicated here that you wrote down?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: What is that license number?

A: OYX 833.

Q: When you saw the car, then, at 10:50, I believe you stated, what did you do?

A: I stopped my patrol vehicle behind this vehicle.

Q: Why did you go over there in the first place?

A: To check the vehicle out.

Q: What happened when you went over there?

A: As I got out of my patrol vehicle and walked toward the Fiat, and as I got closer to it, the defendant raised up out of the back.

Q: Where was he at that time?

A: He was inside of a sleeping bag.

Q: Was there anyone else in the vehicle?

A: No, sir.

Q: Was there anything else inside the vehicle itself that you noticed?

A: I observed a -- besides the sleeping bag, there was a guitar and a jacket.

Q: Anything else?

A: I didn't see anything else.

Q: When he raised up, what happened?

A: I asked him what the problem was, and he said that he had --

MR. SALTER: Your Honor, at this time -- nevermind. I have nothing.

THE COURT: Proceed.

BY MR. ROSS:

Q: You asked him what the problem was; is that correct?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: You were just making inquiry or what?

A: Well, I just walked up to the car, and said hello to him and asked him if there was any problem or what the problem was.

Q: What did he say?

A: He told me that the car had broken down on him the night before, and that he had just spent the night there.

Q: What did you say?

A: I asked him if the car belonged to him. He said yes, and I asked him for the registration and his driver's license.

Q: What occurred, then?

A: He gave me the registration card of the vehicle and a copy of the ownership certificate.

MR. ROSS: I have here two documents, commonly known as a pink slip and a white slip. May I have the pink slip marked as No. 6, if the Court please, and the white slip as No. 7 for identification.

THE COURT: It will be so marked.

MR. ROSS: Thank you.

Q: I show you these two documents marked 5 and 7 for identification. Are these the documents that you are talking about?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: What occurred, then, when he handed you these documents?

A: I asked him if he had any -- well, I asked him what his name was.

Q: What did he say?

A: He told me his name was Daniels.

Q: Did you write that down in your report there?

A: I have it in the report. He told me his name was Jason Lee Daniels.

Q: When he told you that, that was before he had given you the two certificates there, or was it after?

A: I can't say for sure, but right near the same time.

Q: Does the name Jason Lee Daniels appear on any of those documents?

A: No, sir.

Q: What did you do, then?

A: He told me that he had bought the car about a week ago from a colored man.

Q: Did he say how much he paid for it or where he had gotten it from?

A: He didn't say where he had gotten it from. He said he paid $200 for it.

Q: Did you say anything else to him at that time?

A: No, sir.

Q: Then what did you do?

A: I went back to my patrol vehicle and ran the license number through, all the statistics through my dispatcher.

Q: Did you get a response from them?

A: A couple of moments later.

Q: After the response, what did you do?

A: Well, the response was that my dispatcher told me the vehicle was stolen.

MR. SALTER: I object to any conversation with the dispatcher.

BY MR. ROSS:

Q: The question was, what did you do after you got the response?

A: I went back to the Fiat.

Q: What did you do then?

A: I asked the defendant to get out of the car.

Q: Did he get out of the car?

A: Yes.

Q: What did you do then?

A: I drew my service revolver, and I told his to put his hands on the hood of the Fiat.

Q: What happened, then?

A: I handcuffed him, told him that he was under arrest for suspicion of auto theft.

Q: During this period of time, had the defendant shown you any type of identification, or had you asked for any?

A: Yes, sir. When he was going through his wallet to locate this registration card and ownership certificate, I saw a credit card in there in the wallet.

Q: Did it have his --

MR. SALTER: It is not responsive to the question, your Honor. I move to strike.

THE COURT: Denied.

BY MR. ROSS:

Q: Did the credit card have the name Daniels on it?

A: No, sir, it didn't.

Q: Was he taken back to the station, to the Sheriff's office then?

A: I lost the time element.

Q: You placed him under arrest now for auto theft.

A: Yes, sir.

Q: Then what occurred?.

A: I advised him of his constitutional rights.

Q: Did you call for any back-up unit or anything?

A: I didn't, no, sir.

Q: Did some other unit arrive?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: After that other unit arrived sometime later did you go some place with the defendant?

A: Yes, sir,

Q: Where was that?

A: To San Luis Obispo County Jail.

Q: At the San Luis Obispo County Jail, what occurred there?

A: He was booked.

Q: Did you have any further conversation with him?

A: No, sir.

Q: Now on the report there you have the name Beausoleil.

A: Yes, sir.

Q: Where did you get that name?

A: This was the name that he gave the deputy sheriff that handled the paperwork at the jail.

Q: Were you there during the booking procedure?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: What type of clothing, if you recall, was the defendant wearing at that time?

A: l can just remember that he had on a pair of old blue Levis.

Q: Was his clothing booked into evidence there at the Sheriff's station?

A: Yes, sir, it was.

Q: All of his property; is that correct?

A: Yes.

Q: This included the wallet and his clothing and everything?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: Also, at one particular time there, had you asked him for his date of birth?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: Where did that take place?

A: At the same time I asked him what his name

Q: What did he respond as to his date of birth?

A: He told me at that time that his birth date was November 11th, 1946.

Q: Was that date subsequently changed?

MR. SALTER: Well, I am going to object, your Honor, unless the question is did he specifically tell you a different date.

MR. ROSS: I withdraw the question.

Q: Did he subsequently tell you or someone in your presence a different date?

A: At the jail when they were filling out the booking slip, he said his birth date was November 6th, 1947.

MR. ROSS: You may cross-examine.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. SALTER

Q: Now you don't remember the exact time when you first saw the automobile parked on the side of the road, do you?

A: Not the exact time, no, sir.

Q: The automobile was parked in a parking area, in a sense, on the side of the road; is that correct?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: Did you actually participate in the booking of his various properties, or did some else do that?

A: No, I observed what took place.

Q: About how long did your conversations with Mr. Beausoleil take place?

A: Less than five minutes.

Q: All of the conversations that you had with Mr. Beausoleil, the entire time those conversations, took place in less than five minutes?

A: The conversations that I have talked about, that is right.

THE COURT: Let's clarify one thing. First of all, you saw him at the side of the road, you approached the vehicle, and you had a conversation then?

THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.

THE COURT: Subsequently, you took him into the police station --

THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.

THE COURT: -- or to the Sheriff's office, I should say?

THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.

THE COURT: I believe that is the County jail in San Luis Obispo.

THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.

THE COURT: During the course of that ride, did you talk to him?

THE WITNESS: There was some conversation in the vehicle.

THE COURT: So that now when you get to the jail, you asked him the questions that you put in your report?

THE WITNESS: No, sir, I didn't ask him any more questions at the jail. The deputy sheriff that booked him did.

THE COURT: I thought you said that you had gotten his name and birth date and all that stuff then?

THE WITNESS: The second time, yes, sir.

THE COURT: Well, the point I am getting at is this: It takes more than five minutes.

THE WITNESS: Well, I don't consider the booking process at the jail as a conversation with me.

THE COURT: Well, all I am trying to get at is, what do you mean by the five minutes? That is what I am getting at.

THE WITNESS: Just the time that I talked to him out at the scene.

THE COURT: All right. Proceed.

MR. SALTER:

Q: Did you overhear the conversation between the booking officer and Mr. Beausoleil?

A: Yes, sir, he was standing next to the defendant.

Q: Since this time in August, you have been on duty, I take it, as a patrol officer?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: You had many conversations with many other individuals in their line of duty since that time: is that correct?

A: Yes.

MR. SALTER: I have no further questions.

MR. ROSS: I have just one question.

REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. ROSS

Q: What happened to the automobile, Officer?

A: It was stored at a Jim's Tow in San Luis Obispo.

Q: Did you lock it up yourself? `

A: No, sir.

Q: Was it secured there at the scene?

A: Yes, sir.

MR. ROSS: I have nothing further.

MR. SALTER: I have one more question.

RECROSS—EXAMINATION BY MR. SALTER

Q: Officer, with reference to this conversation that you had with the defendant, you are testifying from what you remember of that date back in August of 1969: is that correct?

A: Yes, sir.

MR. SALTER: I have nothing further.

MR. ROSS: I have nothing further of this witness.

THE COURT: Are we through with this officer?

MR. ROSS: Yes,

MR. SALTER: Yes.

THE COURT: You are excused.

MR. ROSS: Your Honor, there are just a couple of minutes left before the noon hour. I don't think I can get through another witness.

THE COURT: Yes. What I am going to ask is that some of these documents be circulated to the jury.

MR. ROSS: They have only been received for identification. I would at this time offer them into evidence.

THE COURT: They will be received and marked.

I probably should explain to you that those tags that appear on those documents are registration tags. The only thing we are concerned with are the registration certificates themselves.

Now, ladies and gentlemen, it is time for our noon recess. We will recess until 2:00 o'clock this afternoon.

Remember the admonition not to discuss the facts in issue in the case and also to retain an open mind until the matter has been finally submitted to you.

We will see you at 2:00 o'clock this afternoon.

(Lunch recess.)