LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA, MONDAY, AUGUST 16, 1971
9:30 A.M.
-o0o-
(The following proceedings were had in chambers, outside the presence of the jury:)
THE COURT: Let the record show counsel are in chambers; neither the defendant nor the jury is present.
Counsel wishes to make some statement for the record?
Go ahead.
MR. BUBRICK: Your Honor, I invite your Honor's attention to some newspaper articles that appeared this Friday of last week in connection with the district attorney's office trial involving one Shorty Shea and I invite your Honor's attention to that portion of the article which appears to have one Paul Watkins, a witness for the People, reciting a confession by one Grogan, who is now on trial in one of these Superior Courts for the murder of Shorty Shea, in which Watkins, in reciting the Grogan confession, stated that he was told by Grogan that Grogan, Charles Tex Watson and Mr. Manson were present at the time that Shorty Shea was murdered.
Now, it seems to me that there ought to be some control registered over the district attorney's office in an effort to prevent material which is absolutely not relevant in the murder case now in session, and extremely harmful to ourselves, to be controlled.
I appreciate that it does not involve our case, but it does involve a concurrent prosecution by the district attorney's office of a case which is closely related to the one in which we are engaged and think the matter is so inflammatory and so prejudicial that it denies to Watson a fair and impartial trial and I would at this time move for a mistrial on the grounds that the district attorney's office has permitted the dissemination of information which has no materiality to the case in which it was offered, but is extremely prejudicial in our case.
MR. KAY: Well, I'd just like to ask Mr. Bubrick a question, how a man with his experience -- how a participant in a murder was not relevant -- that would be like in this case bringing out that Susan Atkins and Patricia Krenwinkel participated in the murder.
MR. BUBRICK: Some months ago, before the Shorty Shea matter was taken before the grand jury, I talked with Burton Katz, who was then involved in the case. Mr. Katz assured me that the only person who had ever mentioned Charles Tex Watson's name in the Shorty Shea murder was one Mary Brunner, but that district attorney's office had so little faith in her testimony that they would not pursue it; and that they had no information about any other person ever mentioning Watson in connection with the Shorty Shea murder.
THE COURT: Maybe Mr. Burton Katz -- I don't know -- was not completely frank with you, Mr. Bubrick, but so far as I can see, I don't see what control I have over the testimony in another court.
Now, I will let you mark this as identification, if you want to so that if the case ever goes up on appeal, the Appellate Court can read the adverse publicity in another case which does affect your client; but so far as I can see, I have no way of saying to Judge Call or Burton Katz, for that matter, "If there is any evidence in your case which is relevant and material and affects Tex Watson, you are not to mention it." I have no such power.
MR. BUBRICK: I could understand, your Honor, if it was relevant and material to the murder case of Grogan; but it is not material or relevant in Grogan's case at all.
THE COURT: I can't judge that, Mr. Bubrick, you know that.
I am willing to help you in any way I can. I realize the tough proposition that is confronting you, but, good grief, what can I do about testimony that is being offered in another court?
MR. BUBRICK: I don't know, your Honor.
THE COURT: If you can suggest something to me, that can be acted on, I will consider it.
MR. BUBRICK: The only suggestion I would have is that perhaps if your Honor could talk to whoever is in charge of the trial deputies over in the district attorney's office and see whether they can't ask their deputies who are involved in concurrent cases that are related to ours, to keep out material which is not relevant to their cause.
THE COURT: Let's see, whose death are they talking about here --
MR. BUBRICK: Shorty Shea.
THE COURT: -- Shorty Shea?
Is Shorty Shea's death involved in that case?
MR. BUBRICK: Yes, they are trying Mr. Grogan for the death of Shorty Shea.
THE COURT: -- testified that "Me and Tex and Bruce and Charlie took him for a ride and we hit him on the head with some sort of big something and it stunned him; then we took him out and away from the road and he started saying, 'Why, Charlie, why?' and Charlie said, 'You know why,' and he stabbed him.
"Deputy Burton S. Katz interrupted the witness" --
MR. BUBRICK: That's right, your Honor.
THE COURT: -- long enough to establish that the references apparently were to Charles (Tex) Watson, 25, Bruce Davis and Manson."
I think that is perfectly relevant in the case.
MR. BUBRICK: How would Manson's and Watkin's reference of Watson's name by a co-conspirator, for example, be relevant?
THE COURT: I don't know, Mr. Bubrick.
MR. BUBRICK: That is a thing that bothers me, if it were relevant.
THE COURT: Do you want to offer this?
MR. BUBRICK: Yes. May I offer them as two exhibits.
THE COURT: Mark this defendant's A -- and this is in connection with a motion for a mistrial?
MR. BUBRICK: Yes.
THE COURT: And you want the second one as defendant's B?
MR. BUBRICK: Yes.
THE COURT: This will be defendant's B. Do you know the date this appeared?
MR. BUBRICK: Friday, your Honor.
THE COURT: Friday the 13th?
MR. BUBRICK: The 13th.
THE COURT: And do you know the paper?
MR. BUBRICK: One was the Los Angeles Times and the other was the Herald-Examiner.
THE COURT: It looks like the Times.
I am called upon to rule upon your motion for a mistrial. At this time, unless the people have serious objections, I will deny it.
MR. BUGLIOSI: We object to the motion for a mistrial.
THE COURT: All right.
MR. KAY: I am going to make a request which I think under the circumstances is reasonable.
After Colonel Tate, Paul Tate, testifies, and after Mr. Parent testifies, after both of these gentlemen testify I am going to ask these photographs, People's 1, 2, 4, and 5 be admitted into evidence and exhibited to the jury. They are pictures of the victims in life. I think it is important at the start of the trial for the jury to know what the victims looked like in life. This will probably be the only time during the case that I can foresee that I will ask that pictures be introduced.
THE COURT: I wouldn't object to that.
MR. KAY: Until the LaBianca case.
THE COURT: Give them two to the top row and two on the bottom.
MR. KAY: What I will do is after Colonel Tate is finished testifying, before Mr. Parent comes, I will show them the pictures.
THE COURT: That will be all right.
MR. KAY: Thank you.
THE COURT: Anything else?
MR. BUBRICK: Nothing.
THE COURT: I will have John read the indictment.
THE CLERK: The indictments won't he read in their entirety because I will leave the names of the other individuals --
MR. KAY: I think all of the other defendants' names should be read.
MR. BUBRICK: I think all of them should be read.
MR. BUGLIOSI: I can cover that in my opening statement as I did in the first case.
THE COURT: I think the code requires that the clerk read the immediate indictment to the jury.
(The following proceedings were had in open court in the presence of the jury.)
THE COURT: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.
People against Watson.
Let the record show all jurors are present, the defendant and all counsel are present:
Mr. Clerk, will you read the indictment to the jury, please.
THE CLERK: Yes, your Honor.
"In the Superior Court of the State of California, in and for the County of Los Angeles, the People of the State of California, plaintiff vs. Charles Manson, Charles Watson, Patricia Krenwinkel, Susan Atkins and Linda Kasabian and Leslie Sankston, true name Van Houton
"Indictment:
"The said Charles Manson, Charles Watson, Patricia Krenwinkel, Susan Atkins and Linda Kasabian are accused by the Grand Jury of the County of Los Angeles, State of California, by this indictment, of the crime of murder in violation of Section 187, Penal Code of California, a felony, committed prior to the finding of this indictment and as follows:
"That on or about the 9th day of August 1969 at and in the county of Los Angeles, State of California, the said defendants, Charles Manson, Charles Watson, Patricia Krenwinkel, Susan Atkins and Linda Kasabian did willfully, unlawfully and feloniously and with malice aforethought murder Abigail Anne Folger, a human being.
"A true bill, Joseph Bishop, Foreman of the Grand Jury
"Count II:
"For a further and separate cause of action, being a different offense of the same class of crimes and offenses as the charge set forth in Count I hereof, the said Charles Manson, Charles Watson, Patricia Krenwinkel, Susan Atkins and Linda Kasabian is accused by the Grand Jury of the County of Los Angeles, State of California, by this indictment of the crime of murder in violation of Section 187 Penal Code of California, a felony, committed prior to the finding of this indictment and as follows: That on or about the 9th day of August 1969 at and in the County of Los Angeles, State of California, the said defendants: Charles Manson, Charles Watson, Patricia Krenwinkel, Susan Atkins and Linda Kasabian did willfully, unlawfully and feloniously and with malice aforethought murder Wojiciech Frykowski, a human being.
"And Count III.
"For a further and separate cause of action, being a different offense of the same class of crimes and offenses as the charges set forth in all the proceeding counts hereof, the said Charles Manson, Charles Watson, Patricia Krenwinkel, Susan Atkins and Linda Kasabian are accused by the Grand Jury of the County of Los Angeles, State of California, by this indictment, of the crime of murder in violation of Section 187, Penal Code of California, a felony, committed prior to the finding of this indictment, and as follows:
"That on or about the 9th day of August, 1969 at and in the County of Los Angeles, State of California, the said defendants, Charles Manson, Charles Watson, Patricia Krenwinkel, Susan Atkins and Linda Kasabian did willfully, unlawfully and feloniously and with malice aforethought murder Steven Earl Parent, a human being.
"Count IV.
"For a further and separate cause of action, being a different offense of the same class of crimes and offenses as the charge s set forth in all the preceding counts hereof, the said Charles Manson, Charles Watson, Patricia Krenwinkel, Susan Atkins and Linda Kasabian are accused by the Grand Jury of the County of Los Angeles, State of California, by this indictment, of the crime of murder in violation of Section 187, Penal Code of California, a felony, committed prior to the finding of this indictment, and as follows:
"That on or about the 9th day of August, 1969, at and in the County of Los Angeles, State of California, the said defendants, Charles Manson, Charles Watson, Patricia Krenwinkel, Susan Atkins and Linda Kasabian did willfully, unlawfully and feloniously and with malice aforethought murder Sharon Marie Polanski, a human being.
"Count V.
"For a further and separate cause of action, being a different offense of the same class of crimes and offenses as the charges set forth in all the preceding counts hereof, the said Charles Manson, Charles Watson, Patricia Krenwinkel, Susan Atkins and Linda Kasabian are accused by the Grand Jury of the County of Los Angeles, State of California, by this indictment, of the crime of murder in violation of Section 187, Penal Code of California, a felony, committed prior to the finding of this indictment, and as follows:
"That on or about the 9th day of August, 1969 at and in the County of Los Angeles, State of California, the said defendants, Charles Manson, Charles Watson, Patricia Krenwinkel, Susan Atkins and Linda Kasabian did willfully, unlawfully and feloniously and with malice aforethought murder Thomas John Sebring, a human being.
"Count VI.
"For a further and separate cause of action, being a different offense of the same class of crimes and offenses as the charges set forth in all the preceding counts hereof, the said Charles Manson, Charles Watson, Patricia Krenwinkel, Leslie Sankston, Linda Kasabian and Susan Atkins are accused by the Grand Jury of the County of Los Angeles, State of California, by this indictment, of the crime of murder in violation of Section 187, Penal Code of California, a felony, committed prior to the finding of this indictment, and as follows:
"That on or about the 10th day of August, 1969, at and in the County of Los Angeles, State of California, the said defendants, Charles Manson, Charles Watson, Patricia Krenwinkel, Leslie Sankston, Linda Kasabian and Susan Atkins did willfully, unlawfully and feloniously and with malice aforethought murder Leno A. LaBianca, a human being.
"Count VII.
"For a further and separate cause of action, being a different offense of the same class of crimes and offenses as the charges set forth in all the preceding counts hereof, the said Charles Manson, Charles Watson, Patricia Krenwinkel, Leslie Sankston, Linda Kasabian and Susan Atkins are accused by the Grand Jury of the County of Los Angeles, State of California, by this indictment, of the crime of murder in violation of Section 187, Penal Code of California, a felony, committed prior to the finding of this indictment, and as follows:
"That on or about the 10th day of August, 1969 at and in the County of Los Angeles, State of California, the said defendants, Charles Manson, Charles Watson, Patricia Krenwinkel, Leslie Sankston, Linda Kasabian and Susan Atkins did willfully, unlawfully and feloniously and with malice aforethought murder Rosemary LaBianca, a human being.
"Count VIII.
"For a further and separate cause of action, being a different offense but connected in its commission with the crimes and offenses as the charges set forth in Counts I through VII hereof, the said Charles Manson, Charles Watson, Patricia Krenwinkel, Susan Atkins, Linda Kasabian and Leslie Sankston are accused by the Grand Jury of the County of Los Angeles, State of California, by this indictment, of the crime of conspiracy to commit murder in violation of Section 182.1 and 187, Penal Code of California, a felony, committed prior to the finding of this indictment, and as follows:
"That on or about the 8th through the 10th day of August, 1969, at and in the County of Los Angeles, State of California, the said defendants, Charles Manson, Charles Watson, Patricia Krenwinkel, Susan Atkins, Linda Kasabian and Leslie Sankston did willfully, unlawfully and feloniously and knowingly conspire, combine, confederate and agree together and with other persons whose true identity is unknown to commit the crime of murder, a violation of Section 187, Penal Code of California, a felony. That pursuant to and for the purpose of carrying out the objects and purposes of the aforesaid combination, agreement and conspiracy, the defendants committed the following overt acts at and in the County of Los Angeles.
"Overt Act No. I.
"That on or about August 8, 1969, the said defendants, Charles Watson, Patricia Krenwinkel, Susan Atkins and Linda Kasabian did travel to the vicinity of 10050 Cielo Drive in the City and County of Los Angeles.
"Overt Act No. II.
"That on or about August 8, 1969, the defendants, Charles Watson, Patricia Krenwinkel and Susan Atkins did enter the residence at 10050 Cielo Drive, City and County of Los Angeles.
"Overt Act No. III.
"That on or about August 10, 1969, the defendants, Charles Manson, Charles Watson, Patricia Krenwinkel, Susan Atkins, Linda Kasabian and Leslie Sankston did travel to the vicinity of 3301 Waverly Drive, City and County of Los Angeles.
"Overt Act No. IV.
"That on or about August 10, 1969, the defendants, Charles Manson, Charles Watson, Patricia Krenwinkel and Leslie Sankston did enter the residence at 3301 Waverly Drive, City and County of Los Angeles.
"To all of the aforesaid counts the defendant pleads not guilty and not guilty by reason of insanity."
THE COURT: Now, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, counsel are about to make to you what we call their opening statement.
Let me caution you that no statement made by counsel is evidence in this case. I say that not because of lack of respect for counsel; I respect them all; but the law requires that you determine the guilt or innocence of this defendant only by the evidence you hear in this case and the evidence is the sworn testimony of the witnesses.
The opening serves the function of acquainting you with what counsel expects to prove so that you will be able to follow the evidence, probably, in an easier and more orderly fashion.
Thank you.
You may proceed, Mr. Bugliosi.
MR. BUGLIOSI: Your Honor, defense counsel, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, as Judge Alexander just indicated, the purpose of my opening statement is to give you a very brief preview or outline of what evidence the prosecution expects to prove during this trial and what we expect that the evidence will prove once the witnesses testify from that witness stand, under oath, so as to assist you in following the evidence from the testimony as it comes from the witness stand.
After one and one-half weeks of extensive voir dire, and I am sure you folks were just as tired of it as we attorneys, but it is a necessary process, you probably already have some rather general idea of what this trial is going to be all about.
By the time we conclude this case in a few months you will probably know as much about the facts and the evidence as we attorneys.
Now and then an attorney will give a rather lengthy opening statement, going into considerable detail as to what each witness will testify. My particular style, if you will, is not to do this. Like most attorneys, I believe in rather brief opening statements.
In the prosecution's final argument to you, one or two months from now, you won't be quite so lucky. At that time Mr. Kay and I will go into considerable depth with you reviewing the testimony of each witness, tying each witness' testimony in with the testimony of other witnesses, analyzing the evidence, drawing inferences from the evidence, et cetera, et cetera.
But today I merely am going to give you a broad structure of the People's case.
The testimony of the witnesses from that witness stand will supply all the necessary bricks, as it were.
Let me say one thing at the very beginning: In a criminal trial the prosecution, as you probably know, puts on its evidence first. After we present our evidence, then the defendant presents its evidence.
Now, there has been some indication that when the defense puts on its evidence, Mr. Watson may -- and I underline the word may -- he may admit that he killed the seven victims in this case.
If this is so, as lay people, you might wonder why in the world is the prosecution going to bother proving that Mr. Watson killed these seven victims when he may admit doing it.
Well, the answer is this: As this lawsuit presently stands, Mr. Watson has plead not guilty to these murders. In other words, at the present time by his plea of not guilty, he has denied any participation in these murders.
Therefore under the law the prosecution has the burden of proving that he did kill these seven people. In fact, if we don't prove this, Mr. Watson wouldn't have to put on any defense at all and at the conclusion of the prosecution's evidence Mr. Watson could make a motion to have Judge Alexander acquit him of all these murders and he could walk out of this courtroom a free man and the case wouldn't even reach the jury.
So this is why, ladies and gentlemen, we will put on evidence such as fingerprints, firearm identification, et cetera, to prove that Mr. Watson did in fact commit these killings.
Summarizing the Grand Jury's indictment in this case, the first five counts of the indictment charge murders occurring on August the 9th, 1969. These five murders are commonly referred to as the Tate murders.
Count VI and VII of the indictment charge murders occurring on August the 10th, 1969. These are the murders of Leno and Rosemary LaBianca.
The defendant Charles Watson is charged with all seven murders: The five Tate murders and the murders of Mr. and Mrs. LaBianca.
He is also charged in an eighth count of the indictment with the crime of conspiracy to commit murder. In this eighth count, as the clerk just indicated, several persons are named in the indictment as co-conspirators of Mr. Watson -- the named co-conspirators are Charles Manson, Susan Atkins, Patricia Krenwinkel, Leslie Van Houton and Linda Kasabian.
As has already been mentioned several times before during voir dire Charles Manson, Susan Atkins, Patricia Krenwinkel and Leslie Van Houton have already been prosecuted in a previous trial for these murders.
Linda Kasabian was granted immunity from prosecution. She testified for the people at the last trial and she was not prosecuted for these murders.
So other than Linda Kasabian the only one of the conspirators who has not already been prosecuted for these murders is the present defendant, Charles Watson, and that is what this trial is all about.
Mr. Kay and I representing the prosecution, that is the People of the State of California, intend to offer evidence in this trial proving that on or about August the 8th, 1969 defendant Watson, together with Charles Manson, Patricia Krenwinkel and Susan Atkins entered into a conspiracy to commit murder.
Pursuant to this conspiracy to commit murder, in the early morning hours of August the 9th, 1969 Charles Watson, Susan Atkins and Patricia Krenwinkel murdered five human beings at the Roman Polanski residence. That is a secluded home at the top of a long winding driveway located at 10050 Cielo Drive in the City of Los Angeles. That address is between Beverly Hills and Bel Aire. The five victims who were murdered at the Roman Polanski residence were Sharon Marie Polanski, whose stage name is Sharon Tate, Abigail Anne Folger, Wojiciech Frykowski, J. Sebring and an 18-year old youth from El Monte, California, Steven Parent.
As I indicated these five murders are commonly referred to as the Tate murders and in the interest of brevity I shall refer to them as such. I will also refer to the Roman Polanski residence as the Tate residence.
Later that same day in the late evening of August the 9th, 1969 Leslie Van Houton joined this continuing conspiracy to commit murder.
Pursuant to that conspiracy in the early morning hours of August the 10th, 1969 Charles Watson, Patricia Krenwinkel and Leslie Van Houton murdered Leno and Rosemary LaBianca inside their residence at 3301 Waverly Drive. That is in the Los Feliz-Griffith Park area of Los Angeles.
The evidence at this trial, ladies and gentleman, will show that Defendant Watson and his co-conspirators were members of a nomadic land of vagabonds who called themselves the family and who were completely obedient to their master, a 35-year-old ex-convict with a long and checkered criminal history, named Charles Manson.
Eventually, they committed the seven Tate-LaBianca murders at Mr. Manson's command.
At the time of the Tate-LaBianca murders, the family was living a communal-type existence at the isolated Spahn Ranch in suburban Chatsworth, California.
The principal witness for the prosecution during this trial, as with the previous trial, will again be Linda Kasabian.
The evidence will show that Mrs. Kasabian was not a hard-core member of the family, having just come to live with the family approximately one month before these murders.
In very brief outline form -- this is very brief -- Mrs. Kasabian will testify that on the evening of August the 8th, 1969, at the Spahn Ranch, Charles Manson instructed her to get a knife, a change of clothing, her driver's license and to go with Tex Watson and do everything that Mr. Watson told her to do.
She will testify that pursuant to those instructions, but without being told by Mr. Manson what was going to happen, or what Mr. Watson was going to tell her to do, she accompanied Charles Tex Watson, Susan Atkins and Patricia Krenwinkel in the late evening hours of August the 8th, 1969, and the early morning hours of August the 9th, 1969, to the Tate residence.
The evidence at the trial will show that Defendant Watson had been to the Tate residence on several prior occasions.
Linda will further testify that although she did not enter the Tate residence, nor did she murder any of the five Tate victims themselves, she did observe Defendant Watson shoot Steven Parent to death as Mr. Parent was driving his car in the driveway of the Tate residence leaving the premises.
She also observed Defendant Watson stab Wojiciech Frykowski to death on the front lawn of the Tate residence.
Also observed Patricia Krenwinkel chasing after Abigail Folger with an upraised knife on the front lawn of the Tate residence.
The evidence will show that Sharon Tate and Jay Sebring were murdered inside the Tate residence.
When the group returned to Spahn Ranch after these five Tate murders, Charles Manson was waiting for them.
The Defendant Watson reported to Manson what had happened. Among other things, he told Manson that there had been a lot of panic, that is was real messy, that bodies were laying all over the place, but that everyone was dead.
Manson then asked everyone if they felt any remorse for the murders they had committed, to which Watson and the others replied that they did not.
There will be testimony that the killers printed the word "Pig," p-i-g, in Sharon Tate's blood on the outside of the front door of the Tate residence.
We will also prove that Defendant Watson's fingerprints were found on the outside of the same front door to the Tate residence.
Besides Linda Kasabian's testimony, Diane Lake, a former family member, will testify that shortly after these murders in Olancha, California, Mr. Watson confessed to her that he, Watson, had stabbed Sharon Tate to death.
Among other things, we will introduce into evidence the firearm that Mr. Watson used to shoot Steven Parent to death, a .22 caliber Longhorn Buntline revolver.
There will be testimony that Watson used to practice fire this weapon at Spahn Ranch.
We will also introduce in evidence the actual clothing the killers wore during the commission of these murders. Both the revolver and the clothing were found by civilian witnesses over the side of a hill in the Benedict Canyon area of Los Angeles, just a few miles from the Tate residence.
The killers tied a rope around Sharon Tate and Jay Sebring's neck, connecting the two of them together. We will introduce this rope into evidence.
Linda Kasabian will testify that Charles Watson took this rope with him when he got out of the car and approached the Tate residence.
With respect to the car the killers drove on the nights of these murders, the Tate-LaBianca murders, it was a 1959 Ford, California License Plate GYY 435, registered to a man by the name of John Swartz, a ranch hand at Spahn Ranch who was not a member of the family.
Dr. Thomas Noguchi, the Coroner of Los Angeles County, will testify that he conducted the postmortem examination, that is the autopsies of the bodies of the five Tate victims and that the cause of death of Sharon Tate, Abigail Folger and Wojiciech Frykowski, and Jay Sebring was multiple stab wounds. There were a total of 102 stab wounds for the four victims.
He will testify that the cause of death of the fifth victim, Steven Parent, was multiple gunshot wounds.
Wojiciech Frykowski and Jay Sebring were also shot but their gunshot wounds were not fatal. They died from multiple stab wounds.
Dr. Noguchi will also testify there was no medical evidence of mutilation or sexual molestation to any of these victims' bodies.
Incidentally, Charles Manson knew the former occupant of the Tate residence, Doris Day's son Terry Melcher. Melchor is a music publisher and record producer who in a rather subtle and oblique fashion rejected Manson's efforts to have him record Manson commercially as a singer-guitarist.
Mrs. Kasabian will further testify that in the late evening of August the 9th, 1969, that is the evening after the Tate murders, Charles Manson told defendant Watson and the others that they had been too messy, mind you, the night before, and this night he wanted to show them how to do it.
She will testify that on the evening of August the 9th, 1969 and the early morning hours of August 10, 1969 she accompanied defendant Watson, Charles Manson, Susan Atkins and Patricia Krenwinkel and Leslie Van Houton and a man named Steve Grogan to various locations in Los Angeles County.
Their mission, ladies and gentlemen, was pure and simple murder.
Linda Kasabian's testimony will clearly show that on this evening, as contrasted to the previous night when the killers drove directly to the Tate residence, in this vast sprawling metropolitan area of seven million citizens, no one, be they in a home, in an automobile, or even a church were safe from this roving band of savage cold-blooded murders.
MR. BUBRICK: I will object.
THE COURT: The objection is sustained. Please confine yourself to the facts.
MR. BUGLIOSI: The testimony will show that at Manson's directions the killers roamed about, initially looking for their victims totally at random.
They even stopped at a church in Pasadena, but they drove off when Manson discovered that the doors to the church were locked.
Ultimately, however, Manson, directed Linda, who was driving the car at the particular time, to the address 3267 Waverly Drive. That is in the Los Feliz - Griffith Park area.
A year earlier Manson had on several, prior occasions visited the former resident it that address named Harold True. Manson got out of the car alone, walked to and entered the home next door to Harold True's former residence, being the residence of Leno and Rosemary LaBianca at 3301 Waverly Drive.
When Manson returned to the car several minutes later he called Watson and Krenwinkel and Van Houton out of the car. He told them that there were two people inside the residence, that he had tied them up.
Then he instructed them on how to murder the victims. He told them not to cause panic and fear in the victims, the way they had done the previous night.
Ladies and gentlemen, you see Mr. Manson is a very considerate kind-hearted fellow who believes that people should be murdered in a pleasant peaceful fashion.
Watson, Krenwinkel and Van Houton then entered the LaBianca residence and they brutally murdered Leno and Rosemary LaBianca, stabbing Mr. and Mrs. LaBianca a total of 67 times.
They also carved the word "War", w-a-r on Leno LaBianca's stomach.
They also printed the words "Helter Skelter" in Leno's blood on the refrigerator door at the LaBianca residence. They also printed the word "Rise" and "Death to pigs" in his blood on the living room wall of the LaBianca residence.
Dr. Katsuyama of the County Coroner's office will testify that he conducted the autopsies on Mr. and Mrs. LaBianca and Mr. and Mrs. LaBianca like four of the five died from multiple stab wounds.
Linda Kasabian will also testify that after defendant Watson, Patricia Krenwinkel and Leslie Van Houton left the car and Manson drove off, Manson gave her a wallet belonging to Rosemary LaBianca and eventually instructed her to hide the wallet in the women's restroom of a gasoline station in Sylmar, which Linda did.
Manson was hopeful that a black person would find the wallet, use the credit card, get caught and thereby be implicated in these murders.
Later in the night Manson, instructed Linda, Susan Atkins and Steve Grogan to murder a man in his apartment in Venice, an actor whom Linda knew from a prior occasion, but Linda successfully frustrated and prevented this eighth murder by deliberately knocking on the wrong door.
Will the evidence at this trial show the motive of these murders? As the court will instruct you at the conclusion of the evidence, ladies and gentlemen, but before you deliberate, the prosecution does not have the burden of offering one single solitary speck of evidence as to the motive defendant Watson and his co-conspirators had for committing these murders.
We only have the burden of proving that Mr. Watson did in fact commit these murders.
We do not have the burden of proving the reason why he did so. Legally speaking motive is never a necessary part of the People's case.
However, there is a motive for every murder. People simply do not kill other human beings for no reason whatsoever. Since the prosecution intends to present evidence during this trial which will give you folks a complete picture of these ghastly murders, we will, although we do not have a legal burden, we will offer evidence of the motive for these murders.
The motive for these murders originated, ladies and gentlemen, in the warped twisted mind of Charles Watson.
The motive for these murders was a bizarre, perhaps even more bizarre than the murders themselves.
Briefly the evidence, will show Manson's fanatical obsession with helter-skelter, a term that he borrowed from the English musical record group the Beatles.
Manson was an avid follower of the Beatles and believed that they were prophets speaking to him through the lyrics of their songs. In fact, Manson told his family that he found complete support for his philosophies on life in the words sung by the Beatles in their songs.
One of the Beatles' songs is called "Blackbird" -- in fact, this song has been recorded by many other artists -- and the lyrics of the song say that the blackbird should flip its wings, rise up and fly.
Manson told his family that by "Blackbird" the Beatles were talking about the black man and the Beatles were telling the black man to rise up against the white man -- recall that the word "rise" was printed in blood at the LaBianca residence.
Another Beatle Song is called "Piggies," in which the Beatles refer to the establishment as pigs and satirically condemn "Pigs," for their affluent materialistic life style -- recall that the word "Pig" was printed in blood at the Tate and LaBianca residences.
One verse in the song "Piggies" speaks of wealthy people, husbands and wifes, eating out at fancy restaurants at night, clutching their knives and forks. The killers left a fork protruding from Mr. LaBianca's stomach and a knife protruding from his throat.
To Charles Manson, helter-skelter, which, incidentally was the title of one of the Beatles' songs -- that is one of their songs called "Helter-Skelter" -- to Manson meant the black man rising up against the white man and destroying the entire white race; that is, with the exception of Charles Manson and his family, who intended to escape from helter skelter by going through the desert and living in the bottomless pit, the place that Manson derived from Revelations IX, a chapter in the last Book of the New Testament, from which Manson told his family he found further support for his philosophy on life.
The evidence will show that Manson's principal motive for these seven murders was to ignite helter-skelter and start the black-white war by making it look like black people had committed these murders. In his mind, he thought this would cause the white community to turn against the black community, ultimately leading to a black-white civil war, a war that Manson foresaw the black man as winning.
Manson believed that once the black man, whom he considered to be somewhat subhuman and less evolved than the white man, he believed that once the black man destroyed the white man and assumed the reins of power, he would be unable to handle the reins of power because of inexperience; and, therefore, he'd have to turn over the reins to those white people who had survived helter-skelter; i.e., turn over the reins to Charles Manson and his family.
So, in Manson's mind he felt that his family and particularly he, of course, would be the ultimate beneficiaries of a black-white war.
The evidence at this trial will show that Defendant Watson accepted and agreed with those philosophies and helter-skelter.
Incidentally, we intend to have several witnesses testify to this motive of helter-skelter for the simple reason that it was so far out and unusual, as you have just, I think, seen, that if you only heard this from the lips of one witness, I think you'd have a rather difficult time believing it.
Now, as I have indicated, Charles Manson ordered and masterminded the seven Tate-LaBianca murders. However, the evidence at this trial will show that Defendant Charles Watson was Manson's chief lieutenant and the principal instrument by which Manson intended to carry out his bizarre motive.
Not only was Defendant Watson Manson's principal butcher, his main killer, but Watson also gave orders and directions at the murder scene to the other killers, Susan Atkins, Patricia Krenwinkel, and Leslie Van Houton. The evidence at this trial will show that on these two dark nights of murder, Charles Watson was a literal bloodthirsty savage, ladies and gentlemen, who had two primary thoughts in his mind: No. 1., to mercilessly butcher and viciously shoot and stab to death every single human being who was in front of him; and, No. 2, to commit these murders without getting caught.
As has already been indicated during voir dire, in the guilt trial that Mr. Watson, through his attorneys, Mr. Bubrick and Mr. Keith, may offer evidence -- in fact, they most likely will offer evidence claiming that he was so mentally ill at the time of these murders that he could not deliberate and premeditate these murders.
We expect the evidence to show, ladies and gentlemen, that Defendant Charles Watson couldn't possibly have deliberated and premeditated these murders more than he did. These are just a few of the things the evidence will show that Watson did on the nights of the Tate and LaBianca murders, which prove that he knew exactly what he was doing: He took every step to insure that he wouldn't get caught, and these murders were deliberate, premeditated murders on his part.
On the night of the Tate murders, en route to the Tate residence, while Watson was driving the car, he told Susan Atkins, Patricia Krenwinkel and Linda Kasabian that he had been to the residence before, that he knew the layout and he instructed them to do everything that he told them to do.
Also, en route, Watson told Linda Kasabian to wrap the knives and the revolver up in a piece of cloth in the car and if they got stopped by the police, he told Linda to throw the knives and the revolver out of the car window.
When, they arrived on the premises of the Tate residence, Watson climbed a telephone pole and cut the telephone wired leading to the Tate residence, thereby preventing the residents of Sharon Tate and the others calling out.
After Watson, Atkins, Krenwinkel and Kasabian had climbed around the front gate of the Tate residence, they noticed the headlights of a car approaching them. Charles Watson, the defendant, told the three girls to get back into the bushes and hide, whereupon he approached the driver of the car, Steven Parent. Parent begged Watson not to kill him, telling the defendant Watson that he wouldn't say anything to anyone; but the defendant Watson, this man sitting right here, ignored Parent's pleas and shot Parent four times, one time at close range in the head.
After shooting and killing Parent, Watson, Atkins, Krenwinkel and Kasabian then advanced towards the Tate residence. When they got close to the house, Watson instructed Linda to go to the rear of the house and check to see if there were any open doors or windows. Linda followed Watson's orders and when she saw there were no open doors or windows, she came back to the front of the house and reported that fact back to Mr. Watson.
Linda then saw Watson cut the screen on a window in the front of the Tate residence. Watson later removed the screen and it is believed he stealthily entered the home through that open window.
Before Watson entered through the window, he instructed Linda to go back to the car where the man had been killed, and Linda thinks that -- she tends to remember that Watson told her to listen for sounds.
Shortly thereafter, when Linda heard the horrifying screams of the victims coming from inside the Tate residence, screaming out into the night for their lives, she ran towards the residence and she observed Wojiciech, his face and his body covered with blood, staggering out the front door of the residence, screaming and begging Mr. Watson for his life. Linda observed Watson ignoring Wojiciech's pleas, viciously hit Wojiciech over the top of the head with the revolver and stab him over and over again with his knife.
When Linda saw these horrible murders in front of her she ran back down to the car which Watson had parked at the bottom of the hill, and wherein, minutes thereafter, Watson, Atkins and Krenwinkel came back to the car.
When Charles Watson learned that Susan Atkins had lost her knife inside the Tate residence, the defendant Watson became very angry with her and chastised her for losing her knife. Watson also chastised Linda for running back down to the car.
While they were driving away from the residence, Watson, along with Atkins and Krenwinkel, changed his clothes, putting on a fresh, clean shirt and pants.
Watson then drove around looking for a place to hose the victims' blood off their bodies. Eventually, he stopped in front of the home where a water hose was extending out in front of it and he, Atkins and Krenwinkel, started to wash the blood off their bodies. Before they could finish, the owner of the house chased them away.
Shortly thereafter, Watson instructed Linda to throw his, Atkins' and Krenwinkel's bloody clothing out of the car over a hill in the Benedict Canyon area of Los Angeles. Linda complied with Watson's instructions and threw the clothing over the side of the hill.
Watson then told Linda to wipe the fingerprints off the knives they had used to commit these murders and to throw the knives out the car, which Linda also did.
Defendant Watson then stopped at a gasoline station and he went into the men's rest room to wash the rest of the blood off of his body; and he also instructed Atkins and Krenwinkel to do likewise, which they did.
The following night, the night of the LaBianca murders, the evidence will show that Watson's conduct again demonstrated that he knew exactly what he was doing and he coldbloodedly deliberated and premeditated these murders.
Fox instance, when Manson gathered the group together at Spahn Ranch on the night of August the 9th, before they departed on their mission of murder, Charles Watson told Manson that they needed better weapons then the knives they had the previous night, because the knives on the previous night -- listen to this, ladies and gentlemen -- according to Mr. Watson, the knives the previous night were not good enough. He told Manson they needed better weapons this particular night; and, of course, Watson was in the car watching and listening to Manson as Manson drove throughout the city looking for human beings for Watson and the other to murder.
We expect all the evidence I have just enumerated, plus many, many other items that I will not go into right now -- this is just the opening statement -- we expect this evidence to prove, ladies and gentlemen, that Charles Watson deliberated and premeditated these murders in the most classic sense of the word and that he did have the requisite mental capacity to be guilty of first degree murder.
The evidence will show that the thought of killing these seven people entered Mr. Watson's mind long before he entered the Tate or the LaBianca residences; in fact, he left Spawn Ranch on both nights and went to the residences for the specific purpose of killing the victims.
As Manson's chief lieutenant, he helped plan these murders, like any premeditated murderer; he took every measure to avoid detection and at the particular moment in time that he was plunging his sharp knife over and over again into the helpless, defenseless bodies of the victims, he was simply carrying out a deliberate, premeditated intent to murder.
We expect the evidence to show, ladies and gentlemen, that at the time of these murders Charles Watson was not suffering from any diminished mental capacity, he was suffering from any diminished heart and diminished soul. A month after these murders Charles Watson still was obsessed with the desire to kill.
Barbara White, a former family member, will testify that in September of 1969, in Death Valley, California, Charles Watson conducted a murder school, if you will, for several female members of the family, instructing them on how to murder a fellow human being by stabbing them to death.
Among other things, he told them instead of merely stabbing in and pulling out the knife, they should lift up on the knife once it entered the victim's body.
The evidence at this trial, ladies and gentlemen, will show that Charles Manson started his family in the Haight-Ashbury district of San Francisco in March of 1967. The family's demise, as it were, took place in October of 1969 at Barker Ranch, a desolate, secluded, rock strewn hideout from civilization on the perimeter of Death Valley in Inyo County, California.
Between March of 1967 and October of 1969 seven precious human beings and an eight month old boy fetus in the womb of Sharon Tate met their deaths at the hands of Charles Watson and his co-conspirators.
The evidence at this trial will show that these seven incredible murders were perhaps the most bizarre, nightmarish murders in the recorded annals of crime.
Mr. Kay and I intend to prove not just beyond a reasonable doubt, which is our only burden, but beyond all doubt that Charles Watson and his co-conspirators committed these murders; that Charles Watson had the mental capacity to commit these murders and that he deliberated and premeditated these murders with malice aforethought.
Therefore, in our final arguments to you at the end of this case we intend to ask you to return verdicts of first degree murder against Mr. Watson.
I do not have to tell you folks of the enormous importance and magnitude of the trial. I also don't have to tell you that it is going to be a rather long trial, although we'll certainly all do our best to keep it as short as possible.
There is an old Chinese proverb to which I have always subscribed, to the effect that the palest ink is better than the best memory. Since this trial is going to be rather long trial, with a considerable number of witnesses -- over 50 witnesses -- I strongly urge that you take notes during the trial so that later on in the jury room during your deliberations you will be able to refresh your memory as to what each witness testified to. I think without notes it is almost an impossible task to remember even the highlights of each witness' testimony, much less the details.
I see now you don't have a note pad and a pencil. I would ask Judge Alexander to pass those out, and I am sure -- you won't have any objection to that, will you, Judge?
THE COURT: That will be taken care of.
MR. BUGLIOSI: Mr. Kay and I feel very confident, ladies and gentlemen, that you will give your full, undivided attention to all of the evidence in this case so that you will be able to give both the People of the State of California and Mr. Watson a fair and impartial trial, and the verdict to which they are both entitled.
Thank you very much.
THE COURT: Mr. Keith.
MR. KEITH: May the court please, distinguished counsel, ladies and gentlemen, this being an opening statement and not an argument, I am not going to answer at this time everything that Mr. Bugliosi said concerning the evidence that he proposes to introduce at this trial.
I, as Mr. Bugliosi did, however, will touch upon certain highlights that we expect to prove in this case on behalf of the defense.
Some of the things that I will say to you will virtually duplicate what Mr. Bugliosi said; but, inasmuch as Mr. Bugliosi went into these matters I will be very brief, particularly in the area concerning Mr. Manson and his complicity in these crimes.
Now, Charles Watson was born on December 2, 1945 in Copeville, Texas, a tiny rural community about 35 miles north of Dallas. He was the youngest of three children of Mr. and Mrs. Clarence Watson, who ran the local general store and garage.
Charles Watson went to elementary school in or about Copeville. He was an A student there. In high school he went to a place called Farmersville, another small rural community about seven miles away from Copeville; and he had a singularly successful career there.
As you will see by his high school photographs, he was handsome; and I believe the evidence will show that he was popular, that he may have had very few close friends. He was a star athlete, particularly in track. One of his hurdling records still stands in the State of Texas for high school students. He got good grades, A's and B's.
I believe the evidence will show that at this time his I.Q., intelligence quotient, was about 110, 120. The evidence will also show now, ladies and gentlemen, his I.Q. is 88 or 89, subnormal.
He graduated from high school in 1964 and attended North Texas State College. He spent three years in college and left at the end of his third year, never to return. This may seem, from the evidence, a puzzling performance after the promise of his high school; but Charles apparently never really wanted to go to college. He would have rather gone to work full time for his father. His father was an excellent mechanic and he taught Charles how to repair engines and the like, but his mother wanted him to go to college and he went to college and he stuck it out for three years.
He didn't participate in athletics in college. He was fairly slight, about 155, 160 pounds, rather small for college athletics. Now, as you can see, he weighs about 114, 115 pounds.
He left college simply because he didn't want to go any more. His grades in college were passing, C's on an average, and you can probably see that the competition was a good deal stiffer in college than it was in a small rural high school with about 200 students.
Perhaps he wasn't really college material, despite his performance in high school, and perhaps he lacked the desire to be college material through hard work.
When he left college he went to work for Braniff Air Lines in January of 1967 as a freight handler and he made trips to California from time to time where he would see probably his best friend in college, David Neal. They also were members of the same fraternity.
David apparently, I believe the evidence would show, also left college for lack of interest.
In August of 1967 Mr. Watson moved to California to live and he stayed with David Neal and enrolled, actually enrolled at Cal State Los Angeles; But, as with North Texas State, he didn't stick it out and he left California State before the semester ended and he found a job, of all places, in a wig factory, selling wigs.
During this period of time -- this would be in the late summer and fall of 1967 -- Charles began to use marijuana regularly, as did David Neal, David's brother, who also lived with them; and the people out here that Charles had met -- nothing stronger than marijuana, but they all used it.
Now, in January of 1968 Charles was in a rather severe automobile accident and be injured one of his knees to the degree that it had to be operated on. This operation was apparently serious enough so that when he reported for induction in the Army -- he was 1-A in the Army; he wanted to join the Army, he was still straight, as the term goes, at this time -- despite any use of marijuana, which is popular among young people everywhere -- but he was rejected by the services; and this apparently depressed him considerably, as the evidence will show.
He continued to live in various places throughout this county during August '67 through early '68 with David Neal and other friends; and in March of 1968, when he recovered from his knee injury, he opened a wig shop of his own with David Neal and another partner; and this venture only lasted a month or two.
One can perhaps begin to see about Mr. Watson a pattern of possibly ruthlessness and restlessness and instability. He was a country boy, a farm boy in the big city. He had really no roots here, he had no particular goals.
His friends were somewhat like him. They weren't bad people, bad associates, but they were drifting to a certain extent such as himself.
He had really no one to look up. to. No one to guide him properly.
You see the evidence, I believe, will show in this case, ladies and gentlemen, that Charles Watson was never a leader. He never called the shots. He was a follower, very much of a follower.
Someone who is a follower doesn't necessarily mean someone who would have some crucial personality defect, but for someone like Charles, it can be. It can mean that. It depends in whose footsteps you follow, whose inspiration upon which you depend. Mr. Watson -- Charles, I'll call him -- I suppose at this point in his life in March or April, 1968, could have gone up or he could have gone downhill. It depends on what his motivation was -- who he was with.
If he had gone back home to Texas, I am sure he wouldn't have been here today. But on a fateful day in April or May of 1968 he picked up a hitchhiker on Sunset Boulevard, and although no one would have been aware of it or even guessed it, least of all Charles Watson, Charles when he picked up this hitchhiker crossed his Rubicon never to return.
The hitchhiker's name was Dennis Wilson, a drummer in a highly successful rock band called The Beach Boys.
Why Dennis was hitchhiking is not quite clear as Dennis Wilson assuredly was blessed with a number of motor cars. He was a wealthy young man.
Dennis directed Charles Watson to his, Dennis', beach home in Malibu and Charles indeed more or less moved in with Dennis Wilson and at the beach house in Malibu, he met Charles Manson and members of his family who were frequent visitors there.
At the home of Wilson, Charles found great peace through his contact with Manson, Manson's girls and Manson's lieutenant, Dean Morehouse, who was somewhat of an elder hippie and a self-styled preacher.
Indeed, Charles and Dean actually lived in a back house at Dennis Wilson's.
This blissful experience or existence that Charles Watson found himself encountering probably sprang from a combination of things.
Certainly one fact of the evidence will show was the drugs that Watson began to take -- not just marijuana, but he turned and quickly was turned on to acid, LSD, speed, which is an amphetamine, sometimes called Methedrine, and a host of other dangerous drugs and narcotics too numerous to mention at this time except heroin.
Neither Manson nor any of his followers, so far as the evidence shows, ever indulged in heroin, but in everything else you could think of -- a potpourri of drugs.
Also, I am sure Charles Watson was attracted to Manson's life style which at least on the surface was purely hedonistic and I am sure he was also attracted to the attention that he himself received from Manson's girls and the people that surrounded Dennis Wilson, and his minions, which to him, a farm boy, must have seemed rather dazzling.
Manson preached -- and this was probably the reason for Charles Watson believing that he had found peace, which really wasn't true at all, this is how he felt -- Manson preached that everybody should love everybody and that everyone should share everything with everybody else.
That everyone should live for pleasure, total freedom, without the concomitant responsibility you and I all have.
This was the kind of life that Manson told everyone that followed him, they should have and they strove to have such a life.
Charles Watson was no match for Manson's blandishments and Manson's family and Manson's followers and Dennis Wilson's minions and he succumbed quickly to the type of life that Manson offered.
So enthralled was Watson with Manson and Dean Morehouse, and their drug-oriented sub-culture, that he moved to the Spahn Ranch in September, 1968 and one might say officially joined the family at that time.
From then on until months after the homicides, Charles Watson came under the total and complete domination of Charles Manson.
Manson was a small, bearded complex man in his thirties. As Mr. Bugliosi told you, he had a checkered career -- an ex-convict.
Manson is a difficult person to describe as almost any adjective might fit him.
As he, described himself as a man of a thousand faces, and this is quite apt, ladies and gentlemen.
He was totally evil, to be sure, but Manson was much more than that, ladies and gentlemen -- crazed, twisted, very intelligent, dictatorial in his group, revengeful, persuasive, cunning, expressed sympathy toward the oppressed such as the blacks and Spanish Americans, very philosophical, charismatic with a fantastic ability to make certain people like Charles Watson believe him to such a degree, ladies and gentlemen, that his thoughts became their thoughts and that he, Manson, was God or Jesus Christ or certainly a deity.
In dominating his family and controlling their conduct and their minds, drugs played a significant role in Manson's life style, particularly the so-called hallucinogenics such as LSD, the mind-altering drugs.
Why did such drugs as LSD play a vital part in Manson's scheme of things? I'll tell you why. This is what the evidence I believe will show: You take enough LSD or similar mind-altering drugs and one's judgment become grossly impaired, one's value system tends to be destroyed, moral values for instance, virtually vanish.
One's goals previously held tend to evaporate; one becomes susceptible and suggestible and as has been said, the meaningless becomes meaningful and vice-versa.
What to us may seem meaningful, to the excessive drug user becomes meaningless. Your conscience is attacked. You become vulnerable to bizarre religious beliefs.
In short, ladies and gentlemen, the evidence shows that one's mind after the excessive use of this type of hallucinogenic and other drugs becomes a vacuum and this enabled Manson to instill into the vacuum minds of his family his, as Mr. Bugliosi put it, twisted belief.
Manson was obsessed with death. Death was Charlie's trip says a witness, Paul Watkins.
To Manson -- and he preached these things -- death was beautiful. Death was right. Life was nothing. Death is what was important.
As you know, Manson was very antiestablishment. He hated the police. He decried rich people. He criticized our institutions. As you know, he used the term pig to discuss members of the so-called establishment.
Manson also strove to, in Watson's words, take the fear out of his family.
Manson wanted his family to fear nothing, particularly death, and he preached this and his conduct showed that he wanted none of his family to fear anything and he did things with them to, as I repeat, to take the fear out of all his members.
Manson even preached that killing was right and he fed those thoughts to his minions, his slaves, and, of course, as you know from Mr. Bugliosi's statement, Manson believed in and preached helter-skelter. As you can see, these concepts were all interrelated. Each one of them gave vitality to the other.
Ladies and gentlemen, despite the outward manifestations of freedom and love and sharing, there was supposed to occur at Charlie Manson's commune, and which he preached, which he supposedly devoted his life to these precepts, Charlie's commune was very much an autocracy in itself and its form of government, a dictatorship and Manson was the dictator.
But he managed through his persuasion and through his constant talking and through his power and through his inculcating his followers with the belief that he was a God -- really, they did believe he was a God and the evidence will show this -- he fooled them into believing that they were all living in some sort of a utopian anarchy, no laws, no government, no obligations, everything for the fulfillment of self.
This really wasn't so. This is what all these people thought, but he was a little Hitler, was Manson, and none of them ever seemed to catch on except when, they did they'd leave.
There was a constant flow to and from the so-called Manson family, people would come, stay a while, leave; but the hard core members of the family never realized how they were being fooled, how they were being duped, how they were being used. Once anybody did, they'd get out of there.
In the early part of 1969, or so, Manson started to acquire dune buggies and other vehicles to use in the desert, in preparation for helter skelter. Charles Watson was Manson's -- he wasn't his chief lieutenant, he was his chief mechanic. As I told you, I believe, Charles Watson acquired considerable mechanical ability from his father and Watson was the one that took care of the dune buggies and repaired them, and that's what he did most of the time, other than take drugs.
You might wonder how Manson got the month to buy all these dune buggies and parts and things. Well, ever since along came a person who was duped by him, and Linda Kasabian was one, she gave the family $5,000 of money that she stole; a woman by the name of Juanita Wildberry or Wildbush, I can never quite get it straight, gave Manson -- donated $10,000 to the cause; and another young lady, another runaway who was a hard core member of the family, a girl by the name of Sandra Good, sold -- she came from a rather well-to-do family from San Diego and she had a trust which had been terminated and the funds given her, and she gave Manson at least $5,000, if not more; and this is how he'd get his money, plus they also, from time to time, used credit cards that the validity of which may not have borne scrutiny.
So, as we say, Watson spent his days at the Spahn Ranch taking acid and speed and occasionally using another very, very powerful, toxic drug called bella donna. Bella donna was derived from the roots of a plant that grew wild at the Spahn Ranch known by the Indians as Telochi, and the Indians actually planted this Telochi plant and they had found it up there and Watson had chewed on the roots or they'd make a soup out of it and this would actually send him right through the roof and he'd be high for days at a time. Bella donna was probably the most powerful of any drug he took.
The evenings at the Spahn Ranch were often spent in group, singing, led by Manson, of course -- Manson was a frustrated musician -- and sitting around and listening to Manson give him a pep talk and spout his philosophy; and they'd also listen to the records of the Beatles and other modern rock groups.
I believe the evidence will show that nobody even started eating at this Spahn Ranch before Manson did. Nobody said anything until Manson talked. As a matter of fact nobody offered any ideas, on any subject; everybody agreed with Charles Manson; what he said was the law there.
Linda Kasabian arrived at the Spahn Ranch in the early part of July 1969 and despite being rather experienced on what you might call the commune circuit, Linda had been around quite a bit, had dropped out sometime before July of 1969, she immediately became under the spell of Manson; and, as I indicated, she even stole $5,000 from a boyfriend named Charles Milton to help Charles Manson out, just donated it; and Linda, at everyone else, even though she was at the ranch for only about a month before the homicides, thought that Manson was some kind of a God.
This is hard for you to believe, but this is the way it was, ladies and gentlemen.
Now, on the nights of the homicides, whatever Manson's motives may have been or how complex or how incredible to you they may seem, Charles Watson's motives were far simpler: He had none.
Though Charles Watson did, to he sure, believe in helter skelter, he didn't go to the Tate-LaBianca residences on some kind of a crusade to start a holy war. With no thought, no thought whatsoever in his mind, ladies and gentlemen, except to do what Manson told him to do -- that's kill everybody there -- that's what Watson did. He either killed or participated in the killings of everyone at the Tate residence.
He did what Manson told him to do; he wasn't the tour director, he wasn't the leader, he didn't give the orders. He didn't plan these murders.
Mr. Watson was no more than a zombie at this time, ladies and gentlemen, a mindless, automaton, simply carrying out blindly what Manson had instructed him to do.
On the next night he killed the LaBianca just as he was told, without question. Manson was God, ladies and gentlemen. Watson did not question his God. He had no fear, no euphoria, no emotion, no second thoughts; he didn't reflect, he didn't deliberate, he didn't premeditate; he just did it because he was told to do it by his God.
His victims were not people, they were objects, and Watson wasn't Watson, he had long ago lost his identity, his ego. This was what Manson and the drug does to people, or did to people.
He was a psychotic sort of monster-like extension of Manson.
Watson during these nights of homicides was made in Manson's image, but he was a robot, ladies and gentlemen, a zombie, no premeditation, as that term will be defined to you in the law.
Shortly after the homicides Watson went to Death Valley, the Barker Ranch there, until October. He made no attempt to hide his identity or his existence, because in the early part of October 1969 he went from Death Valley home to Copeville, Texas.
He stayed there for awhile and, incidentally -- I should tell you, after the homicides he no longer used the mind altering drugs that we have spoken of. All he used was the less strong and milder marijuana and some hashish. Watson does not recall using any acid after leaving the Spahn Ranch for the last time, oh, a very few days after the homicide.
But getting back, he went home to Texas, to Copeville, to his home town, in October; felt sort of unhappy there. His family gave him some money; he left and went to Mexico for a couple days, didn't like it there; that he went to Hawaii for a few days, didn't care for it' there, and went back to California.
He came back to California to look for Manson; that old pull was still there. Manson's magnetic power still had him, and he hitchhiked all the way to Death Valley, walking much of the way, to find Manson and his family, but nobody was there, they had all been arrested by this time on other charges, but Watson didn't know this.
The place was deserted, so he hitchhiked back to the local area, again walking most of the way. Mr. Watson believes he must have walked about 150 miles on this trek, and he went back to Texas and he stayed in Texas with his family until his arrest in early December, 1969.
He stayed in Texas this last time before his arrest, oh, three weeks or a month or so. After his arrest, Watson was in jail for nine months in Texas, then he was returned here and he became catatonic, which is just like saying he became a vegetable, didn't eat, didn't talk, depressed; and he was sent to Atascadero State Hospital, a mental institution, where he eventually recovered his sanity sufficiently to be returned here to court and stand trial, and here he is.
The evidence will show, ladies and gentlemen, that Charles Watson suffers from brain damage, probably caused by drugs. You'd probably have to operate on him to really find out what caused it, and what part of the brain is damaged.
Also, his central nervous system is disordered. These two things result in what the doctors will tell you, particularly a neurologist, in impaired intellectual functioning; and this brain damage undoubtedly occurred during Watson's stay with Manson at the Spahn Ranch, because of Watson's heavy, heavy ingestion of drugs.
By a process of elimination, we could infer there is just no other reason for his brain damage. His neurological testing, EEG tests and other neurological tests will demonstrate to you that his central nervous system is heavily involved. For instance, his I.Q., as I indicated, is now subnormal. 88 or 89, where it once was 110, slightly above normal.
Though Mr. Watson may be now out from under Mr. Manson's domination and out from under drug abuse and he's now coherent, what you see before you now is a shell of a person, a ruined, ruined young man.
He is alive, to be sure, but if Mr. Bugliosi in his summation to you, after all the evidence is before you, ever reads the roll call of the dead, the victims of these homicides ordered by Manson and tells you that they cry out from their graves for justice, I would ask you to yourselves add one more name to the list of Manson's victims: Charles Watson.
I thank you.
THE COURT: Ladies and gentleman of the jury, we will have our morning recess at this time.
Once again, do not form or express any opinion in this case; do not discuss it among yourselves, let nobody talk to you about the case and please keep your minds open.
Now, ladies and gentlemen, I notice that in some other proceedings going on in our vicinity with other people involved, there is some newspaper publicity.
Please refrain from reading any of that; please do that, ladies and gentlemen, and please refrain from listening to the radio, if you can, considering this case, or watching television.
We will have a short recess.
(Recess.)
THE COURT: People against Watson.
Let the record show all jurors are present. The defendant and all counsel are present.
Mr. Kay, you may tall your first witness.
MR. KAY: Thank you.
The people of the State of California will call as their first witness Colonel Paul J. Tate.
THE CLERK: Please your right hand.
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.
COL. PAUL J. TATE,
called as a witness by the People, testified as follows:
THE CLERK: Thank you. Take the stand and be seated.
Would you state and spell your last name, please.
THE WITNESS: Paul J. Tate, P-a-u-l J. T-a-t-e.
THE CLERK: Thank you.
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. KAY:
Q: Col. Tate, are you the father of Sharon Marie Tate?
A: I am.
Q: And her married name was Polanski?
A: Yes.
Q: Married to Roman Polanski?
A: Yes.
Q: Did you recently retire from the U.S. Army?
A: Yes, I did.
Q: And were you a Lieutenant Colonel, an intelligence officer?
A: Yes.
Q: Col. Tate, how old was your daughter the last time you saw her alive?
A: She was 26.
Q: Was she pregnant at the time you saw her last?
A: She was, yes.
Q: And how far along was her pregnancy at that time?
A: She was well into her ninth month. I think the baby would have been born in approximately two weeks.
Q: When was the last time you saw her alive?
A: It was on the day of the moon shot and that was the 20th or 22nd, along in there.
Q: Was that the day that Armstrong landed on the moon?
A: Yes.
Q: About the 20th of July?
A: Yes.
Q: 1969?
A: Right.
Q: Where did you watch the moon landing?
A: At their home on Cielo Drive.
Q: Is that 10050 Cielo Drive?.
A: Yes.
Q: And was anyone there with you watching the moon landing besides yourself and Sharon?
A: Yes. When I arrived -- outside of my family was there, of course -- was Wojiciech Frykowski, Gibby Folger and then along towards the end of the shot Jay Sebring came in.
Q: You say your family. Who was there in your family besides yourself?
A: My wife and I and I think one of my daughters.
MR. KAY: May I approach the witness, your Honor?
THE COURT: Yes.
MR. KAY: Your Honor, I have a photograph which was previously marked People’s exhibit No. 1 in the first trial. I would ask that it keep the same number.
THE COURT: It may be so marked.
MR. KAY: As a matter of fact, your Honor, for brevity and to make it easier for your clerk, Mr. Bugliosi and I would ask that the numbers of all the exhibits at the first trial remain the same in this trial.
THE COURT: Would that be convenient for you?
THE CLERK: Yes, your Honor.
THE COURT: You may do so.
MR. KAY: Thank you.
Q: Col. Tate, I show you people's exhibit No. 1.
Is that a picture of your daughter Sharon?
A: Yes, it is.
Q: And I show you people's exhibit No. 2. Is that a photograph of Jay Sebring?
A: Yes, it is.
Q: I show you exhibit No. 3. Is that a photograph of Abigail Folger and Wojiciech Frykowski?
A: That is correct.
THE COURT: You might spell that name.
MR. KAY: I not too good on Polish spellings, your Honor.
MR. BUGLIOSI: V-o-i-t-y-k, Voityk.
THE COURT: V-o-y-t-i-k.
MR. KAY: In Polish it starts with a W.
THE COURT: Just so the jury may follow it, so it will be easier and the last name is F-r-y-k-o-w-s-k-i.
MR. KAY: That is correct.
Q: Now, Col. Tate, I will show you people’s exhibit No. 4.
Do you recognize what is depicted in that photograph?
A: Yes. This is a photograph of Sharon and Roman’s home on Cielo Drive.
Q: That is 10050 Cielo Drive?
A: Yes.
Q: Approximately how long did Sharon and Roman live there?
A: I think it was at the beginning of the year, January or February.
Q: Of 1969?
A: 1969.
Q: For how long a period of time did you know Jay Sebring?
A: I have known Jay probably since 1964.
Q: And what about Abigail Folger and Wojiciech Frykowski?
A: Somewhat less. I would say maybe a year or two years probably.
Q: And originally you said Gibby Folger, was that her nickname?
A: Yes, it was.
MR. KAY: I have no further questions of this witness at this time.
THE COURT: Gentlemen?
MR. BUBRICK: No questions.
MR. KEITH: No questions.
THE COURT: Thank you. You may be excused.
MR. KAY: May he be excused?
THE COURT: You may be excused.
THE WITNESS: Thank you.
MR. KAY: Thank you, Col. Tate.
Your Honor, before I call my next witness, we will ask permission to show the jury people’s 1 through 3 and have these admitted into evidence at this time.
THE COURT: All right. You may do so provided you divide them up so that each row will have two.
MR. KAY: There are just three. At this time I will show these pictures and the picture of Steven Parent later.
THE COURT: You are offering 1, 2 and 3 in evidence?
MR. KAY: Yes.
THE COURT: They will be received.
MR. KAY: That is Sharon Tate and Jay Sebring and Abigail Folger and Wojiciech Frykowski.
THE COURT: It is just the photos that are in evidence. Never mind what is on the back.
MR. KAY: The people will call as their next witness Mr. Wilfred Parent.
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.
MR. WILFRED E. PARENT,
called as a witness by the people, testified as follows:
THE CLERK: Thank you. Take the stand, please.
Would you state and spell your name, please.
THE WITNESS: Wilfred, W-i-l-f-r-e-d Parent, P-a-r-e-n-t.
THE CLERK: Thank you.
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. KAY:
Q: Mr. Parent, what is your business?
A: Construction superintendent.
Q: And you live in El Monte?
A: That is correct.
Q: How long have you lived in El Monte?
A: Approximately 14 years.
Q: Are you the father of Steven Parent?
A: Yes, I am.
MR. KAY: May I approach the witness, your Honor?
THE COURT: Yes.
MR. KAY: I have here a photograph, your Honor, marked people's 5 for identification. May it be so marked?
THE COURT: Yes, it may be so marked.
Q BY MR. KAY: I show you people's exhibit 5 for identification. Is that a picture of your son Steven?
A: Yes, it is.
Q: And is this the picture of his girlfriend?
A: Yes, it is.
Q: What was her name?
A: Tina Hather, H-a-t-h-e-r.
Q: Mr. Parent, when was the last time that you saw Steven alive?
A: Friday morning before when I left for work.
Q: Was that August the 8th, 1969?
A: 7th or 8th.
Q: It was a Friday morning?
A: Yes.
Q: On August the 8th and 9th, 1969 did Steven have the use of a 1965 Rambler?
A: Yes, he did.
MR. KAY: May I approach the witness, your Honor?
THE COURT: Yes.
MR. KAY: I have a photograph, your Honor, marked people’s 6 for identification.
Q: Mr. Parent, I show you a photograph of what appears to be a white Rambler in that photograph. Was that your car?
A: Yes, it was.
Q: Was that registered to you?
A: Yes, it was.
Q: And did Steven have use of it?
A: Yes, he did.
THE COURT: It may be so marked at this time.
MR. KAY: Thank you, your Honor.
Q: Mr. Parent, how old was Steven when he was killed?
A: 18 years of age.
MR. KAY: I have no further questions of this witness, your Honor.
MR. BUBRICK: No questions, your Honor.
THE COURT: Thank you, Mr. Parent. You may be excused.
MR. BUGLIOSI: The people call Winifred Chapman.
MR. KAY: Your Honor, at this time before Winifred Chapman testifies I would ask if people's 5 for identification could be admitted in evidence and I could show it to the jury?
THE COURT: It may be so admitted and you may show it to the jury.
MR. KAY: Thank you very much.
Thank you, your Honor.
MR. BUGLIOSI: The people call Winifred Chapman.
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.
WINIFRED CHAPMAN
called as a witness by the people, testified as follows:
THE CLERK: Thank you. Take the stand and be seated.
Would you state and spell your name, please.
THE WITNESS: Winifred Chapman, W-i-n-i-f-r-e-d C-h-a-p-m-a-n
THE COURT: Is that Miss or Mrs. Chapman?
THE WITNESS: Mrs.
THE COURT: Mrs. Chapman, will you please keep your voice up so that all the jurors might hear you.
THE WITNESS: All right.
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. BUGLIOSI:
Q: Mrs. Chapman, what is your occupation?
A: Cook and caterist.
Q: Did you ever work for Roman Polanski and his actress wife Sharon Tate?
A: Yes, I did.
Q: And what capacity did you work for them?
A: Housekeeper and cook.
Q: When did you start working for them?
A: June of '68.
Q: Where were they living at that time?
A: 1600 Summit Ridge Drive.
Q: West Los Angeles?
A: West Los Angeles.
Q: Were they renting Patty Duke's home at that time?
A: Yes, they were.
Q: Did the Polanskis eventually move to 10050 Cielo Drive?
A: Yes, they did.
Q: When did they move there?
A: In the middle of February of '69.
Q: Did you continue to work for them?
A: Yes, I did.
MR. BUGLIOSI: Your Honor, I have here a photograph that was marked people's 8 during the last trial. May it again be marked people's 8 for identification?
THE COURT: It may be so marked.
Q BY MR. BUGLIOSI: Mrs. Chapman, I show you people's 8 for identification.
Do you recognize this as being a photograph of the Tate residence?
A: Yes, I do.
Q: This is where you worked?
A: Yes.
THE COURT: Is that any different than 4?
MR. BUGLIOSI: I don't have people's 4 in front of me, your Honor. There are several photographs of the Tate residence.
THE COURT: There is another one.
Q BY MR. BUGLIOSI: In mid-February 1969 did anyone else live with the Polanskis?
A: No.
Q: There was just Roman, his wife Sharon, and you were the housekeeper and the cook; is that correct?
A: Yes.
Q: How many days a week did you work for them?
A: Five and sometimes six.
Q: Did you ever stay overnight?
A: Yes.
Q: Do you know Abigail Folger and Wojiciech Frykowski?
A: Yes.
Q: Did they ever move into the Tate residence?
A: Yes, they did.
Q: Approximately when?
A: I think it was in April when Mrs. Polanski left for Europe.
Q: You are sure that wasn't March of 1969 that she left for Europe?
A: Well, March, the latter part of March of 1969.
Q: So when she left for Europe, Wojiciech Frykowski and Abigail Folger moved into the Tate residence?
A: Yes.
Q: Where was Roman at that time?
A: He was either in South America or Europe, one of the two. He left for Brazil, then went on to Europe.
Q: Did Roman leave for Brazil around the same time that Sharon left for Europe?
A: He left a little before she left.
Q: And when they left, Wojiciech Frykowski and Folger moved in?
A: Yes.
Q: Did you continue to work for Frykowski and Folger?
A: Yes, I did.
Q: You also know Jay Sebring?
A: Yes, I did.
Q: When did Sharon return from Europe to her residence?
A: That was either the 17th or 18th of July.
Q: 1969?
A: 1969, yes.
Q: Was Roman still away at that time?
A: Yes, he was.
Q: When Sharon returned to Los Angeles from Europe, did Miss Folger and Mr. Frykowski continue living with her at the Tate residence?
A: Yes, they did.
Q: Looking to your right here, Mrs. Chapman, do you recognize this as a diagram of the Tate residence?
A: Yes, I do.
Q: Could you point out, could you step down off the witness stand and point out where Sharon Tate's bedroom was on this diagram?
A: It was the master bedroom.
Q: Where it says "master bedroom"?
A: Yes.
Q: And that was Sharon Tate's bedroom?
A: Yes, the one going toward the pool.
Q: This is the front residence right here?
A: Yes.
Q: And this is the guesthouse to the rear?
A: Yes.
Q: And where did Wojiciech Frykowski and Abigail Folger reside?
A: In this bedroom here (indicating).
Q: Right below the master bedroom?
A: Yes.
THE COURT: Is there any distinct marking on that?
MR. BUGLIOSI: Yes, where it says "Wojiciech and Abigail's bedroom."
THE WITNESS: Yes.
Q BY MR. BUGLIOSI: You may resume the stand.
THE COURT: That is exhibit what, sir?
MR. BUGLIOSI: That is people's 8, your Honor -- this was marked people's 8 before, the previous time, but then I see it was changed to people's 4.
So may the previous exhibit that I showed to the witness of the Tate residence, that is 4.
THE COURT: That is 4.
MR. BUGLIOSI: It has "8" here and it is crossed out and it says "4."
Q: Did you continue to work for Sharon through Friday, August the 8th, 1969?
A: Yes I did.
Q: And on that date, August the 8th, 1969, were Miss Folger and Mr. Frykowski still living at the Tate residence?
A: Yes, they were.
Q: But Roman was still away?
A: He was. He was still away.
Q: Is that correct?
A: Yes.
Q: Was Sharon pregnant on August the 8, 1969?
A: Yes, she was.
Q: How many months pregnant was she so far as you know?
A: Approximately eight months.
Q: Do you recall the date, August the 8th, 1969?
A: Yes.
Q: Was it a Friday?
A: Yes, it was.
Q: Did you work that day?
A: Yes, I did.
Q: What time did you arrive on the premises that day?
A: About 8:30.
Q: In the morning?
A: In the morning.
Q: And you left about what time?
A: Between 4:00 and 4;30.
Q: Was Sharon home all day?
A: She left in the morning to shop and then she was back in the afternoon.
Q: Did she have any visitors that day?
A: Yes. We had guests for lunch,
Q: Who were they?
A: Joanna Pettit and her child and another lady. I don't know the other woman's name.
THE COURT: Would you spell that name?
THE WITNESS: Joanne? Pettit --
Q BY MR. BUGLIOSI: P-e-t-t-i-t?
A: Yes.
Q: Is that a movie actress too?
A: Yes, she is.
Q: What time did Miss Pettit and the other girl leave?
A: Around 3:00.
Q: 3:00 in the afternoon?
A: Yes.
MR. BUGLIOSI: Your Honor, I have here a photograph; it was marked People's 9 at the last trial. May it again be marked People's 9 during this trial?
THE COURT: It may be so marked.
Q BY MR. BUGLIOSI: I show you People's 9 for identification, Chapman.
Do you know what is shown in that photograph?
A: The front door of the Polanski residence.
Q: Did you have occasion to wash the front door of the Polanski residence on the date August 8, 1969?
A: Yes, I did.
Q: About what time of day did you wash the front of the door?
A: Before noon.
Q: Was there any particular reason why you washed the front of the door?
A: Yes, the dogs had messed it up and there were a lot of fingerprints on it.
Q: How many dogs were at the residence?
A: Two.
Q: These were Sharon's dogs?
A: Yes.
Q: And they frequently got their paw prints on the front of the door?
A: Yes.
Q: How often would you normally wash the front of the door?
A: Two or three times a week, the front door.
Q: Did you wash the entire front of the door?
A: Yes, I did.
Q: The whole front door?
A: Yes.
Q: What did you wash it with?
A: Soap and water, the door.
Q: What about the window?
A: Vinegar and water.
Q: Now, there is a back door in Sharon's bedroom leading to the swimming pool area; is that correct?
A: Yes.
Q: Did you ever wash the inside of that back door?
A: Yes, I did.
Q: That particular week, the week of August the 8th that we are talking about, did you ever wash the inside of that back door?
A: Yes.
Q: About what day?
A: On Tuesday.
Q: Tuesday?
A: Um-hum.
Q: That would be August the 5th, 1969?
A: Yes.
Q: About what time of day did you wash it?
A: Oh, I don't remember; that was done about, I guess, to the afternoon, Tuesday.
Q: In the afternoon of August the 5th?
A: Yes.
Q: Why did you wash the inside of that back door?
A: Well, that door was used often and there were a lot of prints around it and it would get messy and I would wipe them up, that's all.
Q: It was used by people going to and from the swimming pool?
A: Yes.
MR. BUGLIOSI: I have here another photographed marked People's 10 during the last trial. May it be marked People's 10 during this trial?
THE COURT: So marked.
Q BY MR. BUGLIOSI: I show you People's 10 for identification, ma'am.
Do you know what is shown on that photograph?
A: Yes, that's the door to the pool, from the master bedroom.
Q: This is the inside of the back door?
A: Yes.
Q: Leading to the swimming pool area?
A: Yes.
Q: This is Sharon Tate's room?
A: Yes.
Q: Now, what part of the door did you wash on August 5th, 1969?
A: I washed around the knobs, the part that is circled here.
Q: The part that is presently circled?
A: Yes, not any of that, and not that.
Q: There is an ink circle around the door knob?
A: Yes.
Q: That is the area that you washed?
A: Yes.
Q: What did you wash it with?
A: Soap and water.
Q: Now, you say you left the residence at around 4:00 or 4:30 p.m.; is that correct?
A: Yes, between 4:00 and 4:30.
Q: That is on August the 8th, 1969?
A: Yes.
Q: When you left between 4:00 and 4:30 p.m., was anyone inside the house?
A: Mrs. Polanski.
Q: Was she alone?
A: Yes.
Q: Had you seen Frykowski and Folger and Sebring that day?
A: I had seen Wojiciech and Gibby but I didn't see Jay that day.
Q: What time did Wojiciech and Gibby leave the premises?
A: Wojiciech, I think, at quarter to 4:00, and Gibby around 4:00 o'clock.
Q: In the afternoon?
A: In the afternoon.
Q: Was everything in order inside the residence?
A: Oh, yes.
Q: Sharon was inside alone?
A: Yes.
MR. BUGLIOSI: I have another photograph, your Honor; it was marked People's 105 at the last trial. May it be remarked People's 105 during this trial?
THE COURT: So marked.
Q BY MR. BUGLIOSI: I show you a photograph, Mrs. Chapman; it has the word "Pig," p-i-g, on the front door of the Tate residence.
Now, when you left the residence at 4:00 o'clock or 4:30 p.m., on August 8, Friday, 1969, was the "Pig" on the front door, p-i-g?
A: No.
Q: The door was clean when you left; is that correct?
A: Yes.
Q: Incidentally, that Friday, August 8, 1969, had you thought about staying overnight?
A: No, I hadn't.
Q: Did Sharon ask you to?
A: Yes.
Q: But you decided not to?
A: Not to.
MR. BUGLIOSI: No further questions at this time, your Honor.
We intend to call Mrs. Chapman back to the witness stand at a later time.
MR. BUBRICK: No questions.
THE COURT: You may step down temporarily, Mrs. Chapman.
May she leave? You will phone her; is that what you want to do?
MR. BUGLIOSI: Yes, your Honor.
May the witness be excused pending our phone call to return?
THE COURT: She may leave subject to a phone call to return.
MR. BUGLIOSI: People call William Garretson.
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: Yes.
WILLIAM GARRETSON,
Called as a witness by the people, testified as follows:
THE CLERK: Thank you. Take the stand and be seated; and would you state and spell your name, please?
THE WITNESS: William Garretson, G-a-r-r-e-t-s-o-n.
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. BUGLIOSI:
Q: Mr. Garretson, where do you presently reside, sir?
A: Lancaster, Ohio.
Q: Did you ever live at 10050 Cielo Drive?
A: Yes.
Q: During what period of time?
A: Through mid-March, around to August the 8th, 9th, somewhere.
THE COURT: What year?
THE WITNESS: 1969.
Q BY MR. BUGLIOSI: Directing your attention to People’s 8 for identification, the diagram here, did you live in the guest house to the rear?
A: Yes.
Q: And were you employed by someone on the premises?
A: Yes.
Q: Who was that?
A: Mr. Altobelli.
Q: What were your duties?
A: Taking care of the three dogs and, you know, the grounds and stuff, sort of like a caretaker.
Q: Did you live in the guest house by yourself?
A: Yes.
THE COURT: Excuse me; this Alto Belli, is that A-l-t-o-b-e-l-l-i, is that it?
How do you spell that?
MR. BUBRICK: That's correct.
MR. KAY: That’s correct.
Q BY MR. BUGLIOSI: Do you remember the day August the 8th, 1969, a Friday?
A: Yes.
Q: Do you recall what you did that evening?
A: Yes.
Q: What did you do?
A: I left the guest cottage around 8:00 o’clock and I went down to Sunset Boulevard and purchased a TV dinner and some cigarettes and some pop.
THE COURT: Some what, the TV dinner and what?
MR. BUGLIOSI: "Pop," I thought.
THE WITNESS: Pop.
THE COURT: Oh, p-o-p?
Q BY MR. BUGLIOSI: How did you get back to the guesthouse; did you hitchhike?
A: Yes.
Q: What time did you return, about?
A: About around 10:00 o'clock.
Q: When you left at 8:00 p.m., did you see anyone on the promises?
A: No, can't recall anyone.
Q: When you returned at 10:00 p.m., did you see anyone around the premises?
A: No.
Q: Did you enter the premises at 10:00 p.m. through the front gate?
A: Yes.
Q: When you entered at 10:00 p.m., did you see any telephone wires draped over the gate?
A: No.
Q: Was everything in order?
A: Yes.
THE COURT: Before you leave, Mr. Bugliosi, you have some identifying marks near what you call the button, the activating button.
What is that, please?
MR. BUGLIOSI: This is "Where car was parked next to telephone pole."
This refers to another marking.
THE COURT: Not the button?
MR. BUGLIOSI: No, your Honor.
THE COURT: How about the gate, do you have any identification --
MR. BUGLIOSI: It does say "Power pole" here, and that's the only marking on it right here.
Q: It says "Power pole," and there is a button near the pole; is that correct?
A: Yes.
Q: You press the button that activates the front gate of the Tate residence?
A: Yes.
Q: How long does the gate stay open?
A: Around 30 seconds.
Q: Were any lights on inside the Tate residence when you returned at 10:00 p.m.?
A: I really don’t recall.
Q: At that time you went to the guesthouse; is that correct?
A: Yes.
Q: Did you have any visitors that night?
A: Yes.
Q: Who was that?
A: Steve Parent.
Q: About what time did Mr. Parent arrive?
A: 11:45.
Q: How long had you known Steven?
A: I have got a ride from him one time when I was hitchhiking out of Sunset to Benedict Canyon.
Q: How long before August the 8th?
A: Probably about a week before.
Q: And that was your only previous contact with him?
A: Yes.
Q: What was the nature of his visit at 11:45 p.m. on August the 8th?
A: He wanted to sell me a clock radio.
Q: All right. How long did Mr. Parent stay?
A: A half an hour.
Q: So he left the guesthouse, then, at about what time?
A: Quarter after 12:00.
Q: That would be August the 9th, then, 1969?
A: Yes.
Q: What did you do after he left?
A: I wrote some letters and played the hi-fi.
Q: What time did you go to sleep?
A: Not until dawn.
Q: So you were up almost all night?
A: Yes.
Q: Did you hear any unusual sounds that night, such as gunshots?
A: No.
Q: Did you hear any loud screams of any kind?
A: No, not that I can recall, no.
Q: How loudly were you playing the hi-fi?
A: Loud enough so I can hear it, I guess.
Q: Do you have a volume control on the hi-fi?
A: Yes.
Q: What number was it on?
A: I think 4.
THE COURT: 4 on a capacity of, or a maximum of what?
THE WITNESS: I think it goes up to 10, I am not sure, though.
Q BY MR. BUGLIOSI: Are you sure it doesn't go up to 5, as a maximum?
MR. KEITH: I object to that question as leading.
THE COURT: He is trying to correct something he made a mistake in.
You don't recall whether it is 5 or 10, maximum
THE WITNESS: I can’t remember that.
THE COURT: Very well.
MR. BUGLIOSI: I have a photograph here, your, Honor. It was marked People's 21 at the last trial.
May it be marked the same way at this trial?
THE COURT: I suggest you just ask that it be marked the same number, 21; that will be enough.
Q BY MR. BUGLIOSI: I show you People’s 21 for identification. Do you know what is shown in that photograph?
A: Yes.
Q: What is shown in that photograph?
A: The living room that I lived in.
Q: Is this the living room of the guesthouse?
A: Yes.
Q: I notice in the upper left-hand corner of the photograph there appears to be a stereo or hi-fi. Is that the hi-fi you have been talking about?
A: Yes.
Q: And in the center of the photograph there is a sofa with a white sheet over it?
A: Yes.
Q: Where were you during the night in relation to that hi-fi?
A: Well, practically all night I was right here by the hi-fi writing a letter there. I didn't go to sleep until dawn. This is the white sheet --
Q: Were you on the white sheet during the night at all? Were you lying on it?
A: I think so.
Q: So you were fairly close to the hi-fi set; is that correct?
A: Yes.
Q: The sofa appears to be about what? Six feet from the hi-fi set?
A: Yes.
Q: That is where you were most of the night? On the sofa?
A: Yes.
MR. BUGLIOSI: I have another photograph, People's 22 during the last trial. Might it be marked with the same number?
THE COURT: It may be marked Exhibit 22.
Q BY MR. BUGLIOSI: I show you People’s 22 for identification.
What is shown in that photograph?
A: The living room.
Q: That is the inside of the guesthouse?
A: Yes.
THE COURT: May I see that, please?
MR. BUGLIOSI: Yes.
THE COURT: That is part of the same room on Exhibit 21; is that right?
THE WITNESS: Yes.
THE COURT: Shows more of it without the bed being made?
THE WITNESS: That is not the bed. That is the sofa.
THE COURT: The sofa?
THE WITNESS: Yes.
THE COURT: The same room, though.
THE WITNESS: Yes, the same room.
Q BY MR. BUGLIOSI: Did you have any dogs? You indicated that you were taking care of Mr. Altobelli's dogs?
A: Yes.
Q: Three of them?
A: Yes.
Q: On this particular night, or even on other nights, where would they stay at night? Inside the house or outside?
A: Inside.
Q: Did they normally bark at night?
A: Yes, sometimes they barked.
Q: Only if you had a visitor?
A: Yes.
Q: Did they bark when Parent arrived?
A: Yes, I think, so.
THE COURT: They stayed in the house in which you lived, not the main house, the dogs?
THE WITNESS: Yes, they stayed in the house I lived in.
THE COURT: Where you lived?
THE WITNESS: Yes.
Q BY MR. BUGLIOSI: Do you recall the dog barking on that night? That would be the night of August the 9th?
A: Yes.
Q: About what time?
A: They barked before Parent arrived and they barked some after, when he left.
Q: After Parent left?
A: Yes.
Q: Shortly after Parent left, you heard some more barking?
A: Yes.
MR. BUBRICK: I don’t think the witness said "shortly after."
THE COURT: Sustained. How long after Parent left?
Q BY MR. BUGLIOSI: How long after Parent left did the dogs bark?
A: I can't really recall. I mean, they bark usually every night. I mean, it just depends.
Q: All right. After Parent left at about 12:15 in the morning, did you keep the lights on inside the guesthouse?
A: Yes.
Q: Were you ever arrested by the police for these murders?
A: Yes.
Q: Referring to the five Tate murders?
A: Yes.
Q: When were you arrested?
A: In the morning.
Q: What morning?
A: Saturday, August 9th.
Q: Saturday morning; August the 9th, 1969, you were arrested by the police; is that correct?
A: Yes.
Q: Were you sleeping at the time?
A: Yes.
Q: About what time was it?
A: Exactly what time it was, it must have been around 10:00 o'clock. I couldn't say.
Q: In the morning?
A: Something like that, yes.
Q: And you were placed in custody for these murders?
A: Yes.
Q: How long were you in custody?
A: Until Monday.
Q: That would be August the 10th?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: And at that time you were released from custody?
A: Yes.
Q: What did you do after you were released from custody?
A: Stayed for a few days. Then I flew back to Ohio.
Q: Directing your attention to the defendant Charles Watson. Have you ever seen him before?
A: No.
Q: How about Charles Manson. You have seen photographs of him. You have never met him or seen him before?
A: I have never met him personally, no.
Q: You have seen his photographs in the newspapers?
A: Yes.
Q: Since these murders?
A: Yes.
Q: Before the murders, you had never seen Charles Manson?
A: No.
Q: How about Susan Atkins?
A: No.
Q: Patricia Krenwinkel?
A: No.
Q: Leslie Van Houton?
A: No.
Q: Had you ever been out to the Spahn Ranch?
A: No.
MR. BUGLIOSI: No further questions.
MR. BUBRICK: I have a couple.
THE COURT: Go ahead, Mr. Bubrick.
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. BUBRICK:
Q: Mr. Garretson, can you describe for us in a little more detail what you referred to as a button which would operate the, I suppose, the electrically-controlled gate?
A: Yes.
Q: Was it in any sort of an enclosure?
A: No, no.
Q: Was it at all concealed?
A: No.
Q: Did you have to use a key or anything else?
A: No.
Q: In order to open anything to get to the button?
A: No.
Q: Was it just affixed to a telephone; is that right?
A: No; it wasn't affixed to a telephone pole. I think it was on the pole itself, I believe.
Q: You mean a pole that held only the button?
A: Yes.
Q: And about how high off the ground was the button?
A: Three and a half or four feet, I think.
Q: Was it illuminated in any way?
A: No.
Q: Had no fluorescent paint?
A: No.
Q: On the button or anything surrounding the button?
A: No.
Q: Had it been there ever since you bad been at this home?
A: Yes.
Q: And had the button and the electric gate always been operative?
A: A few times the gate stuck open, you know, but they had it repaired.
Q: All right. How about the night before, August the 8th, the night you went down to Sunset Boulevard and came back? Was the gate operative at that time?
A: Yes.
Q: Did you just press the button and then would the gate swing open or would it permit you to enter?
A: You would press the button and the gate would, you know, come open.
Q: Did the gate open as opposed to just unlatch?
THE COURT: Did the gate swing open, he means.
THE WITNESS: Yes.
Q BY MR. BUBRICK: You press the button and the gate swung open. Then you went in?
A: Yes.
Q: And you would push the gate closed behind you?
A: No. It had a timing device on it. I think it stays open for 30 seconds. Then it close.
Q: Closes by itself?
A: Yes.
Q: What do you do if you want to keep it open more than 30 seconds?
A: You would have to push the button again. I don’t know. You probably would have to keep the button pushed. One thing I don’t know.
Q: Well, have you ever seen the gate open for any extended period of time?
A: Yes. It was broke one time and it just stayed open all the time. Maybe that was sometime in May or something. It was repaired, though.
Q: Have you personally, Mr. Garretson, ever had to do anything other than just press the button and walk through the gate and then, you know, go on your way?
A: Yes, that is right.
Q: What I am trying to drive at is whether or not you have ever done anything on your own to keep the gate open for any period?
A: No.
Q: Now, how about the dogs that you cared for, Mr. Garretson? They were in the guesthouse with you; is that correct?
A: Yes.
Q: Was there a particular room in the guesthouse where they stayed?
A: The two poodles, there were.
Q: What sort of dogs were they, now that you mention that?
A: Two poodles and a weimaraner.
Q: How big is a weimaraner?
A: About two and a half feet.
Q: And how big are the poodles? Were they standard or miniatures?
A: Miniatures
Q: Miniature poodles?
A: Regular-sized poodles, you know, just a poodle, I guess.
THE COURT: How high did they stand in inches?
THE WITNESS: About eight inches.
Q BY MR. BUBRICK: Did these three dogs have the run of the guesthouse that you lived in also?
A: Yes.
Q: And was the guesthouse that you lived in, did it have furniture?
A: Yes.
Q: Was it soft furniture, you know, cloth material?
A: Yes.
Q: How about rugs on the floor? Did they have that?
A: Yes, there were rugs.
Q: And drapes over the windows?
A: Not all the windows, no.
Q: Well, the night of or early morning hours of the 9th, you say the dogs barked before Parent got there; is that correct?
A: Yes.
Q: Then he was there about a half an hour and then he left, I take it?
A: Yes.
Q: How did he get up to the house, if you know, with respect to the button?
A: I imagine he just pushed the button and drove in.
Q: It is fairly out in the open; is that correct?'
A: Yes.
Q: Have no difficulty seeing the button, I take it?
A: No, sir. If you didn't know the button was there, you probably wouldn't.
Q: Had the Parent boy been there before?
A: Yes. He gave me a ride up there.
Q: He drove you all the way up the driveway to the house, did he?
A: Yes.
Q: How about the area before your guesthouse and the main house, Mr. Garretson? Are there any trees or heavy foilage in between the two?
A: There is a few -- there is a few trees and bushes, lemon trees.
Q: Just a few -- isolated, are they?
A: I think there are two lemon trees and bushes, I don’t know, and a gate, I think.
Q: Do you remember on the night of August the 9th, Mr. Garretson, whether you had the windows to your cottage open or closed?
A: I believe I had them closed.
Q: Do you remember opening them at all anytime during the night?
A: No.
Q: Do you remember what the weather was like that particular evening?
A: Clear.
Q: Was it warm out that night? Do you remember?
A: I believe it was. I am not sure.
Q: I think you heard no noises or anything other than the barking of the dog from the time that Parent left and the time that you were arrested?
A: I mean the dogs barked. They barked during the night, yes.
Q: But you thought it was nothing unusual, I take it?
A: I became frightened a little bit.
Q: Did you ever go out and check the grounds when the dogs barked?
A: No.
Q: Was there any communication device between your guest house and the main house?
A: Just the telephone.
Q: Was there a special line between the two buildings?
A: No.
Q: Did you have occasion to call from the guesthouse to the main house on the night of August the 9th?
A: No.
Q: Did you, at a normal and regular course, would you call the main house, if you heard the dogs barking or heard noises in the yard?
A: No.
Q: You never did?
A: No.
Q: Did you ever do that while you were employed there?
A: No.
Q: Was there air conditioning in the guesthouse?
A: No.
Q: Was there air conditioning in the main house, if you know?
A: I don’t believe there was.
MR. BUBRICK: I have nothing further, your Honor.
MR. BUGLIOSI: I have a few more questions, your Honor.
I have some photographs here concerning the area between the main house and the guesthouse.
This photograph was marked people's 18, your Honor, before. May it be remarked people's 18?
THE COURT: It may be marked people's 18.
MR. BUGLIOSI: I have another photograph previously marked people's 19. May it be remarked people's 19?
THE COURT: It may be so marked.
REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. BUGLIOSI:
Q: I show you people's 18 for identification.
What does this photograph depict, sir?
A: It is before you get to the guest cottage.
Q: This to the area then between the main house and the guest cottage?
A: Yes.
Q: Where you lived?
A: Yes.
Q: I show you people's 19 for identification,
What it shown in that photograph?
A: Before you get to the guesthouse.
Q: Did Mr. Parent make a phone call while he was inside your guesthouse?
A: Yes.
Q: That night?
A: Yes.
Q: About what time?
A: I believe it was around 12:00 o’clock, something like that.
Q: How long did he talk with the person?
A: A couple of minutes.
Q: Alter Parent made that phone call and he left the premises, did you use the telephone any more that night?
A: I went to make a phone call, to see what time it was, and the phone was dead and I went to hook up another one and the lines were dead.
Q: About what time was that?
A: I couldn't say. I was going to call the time.
Q: But it was after Parent left?
A: Yes.
MR. BUGLIOSI: No further questions.
THE COURT: Any other questions? I wanted to ask you a question.
When that button is activated to open the gate, is there an alarm sounded or any communication?
THE WITNESS: When it closes there is a bell that makes one --
THE COURT: You didn't let me finish my question.
When that button is activated to open a gate, is there an alarm sounded in the main house or in the guesthouse to let you know that the gate is being opened?
THE WITNESS: No.
THE COURT: There is an alarm that does go off.
THE WITNESS: Well, there is a bell right before, it just makes one -- sometimes it doesn't even, do that, doesn't ring the bell.
THE COURT: When did that bell ring?
THE WITNESS: When the gate closed.
THE COURT: When you opened it, neither the guesthouse nor the main house was informed that the gate was being opened?
THE WITNESS: No. You couldn’t tell when the gate was being opened.
RECROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. BUBRICK:
Q: Mr. Garretson, you said you tried to make a call of the guesthouse but you found that the line was dead; is that correct?
A: Yes.
Q: Now, is that the same phone that you would use to call the main house?
A: No. It is a completely different number.
Q: Did you have to dial a number to get the main house?
A: Yes, you would, yes. It is not a two-party.
Q: Atter you found that you couldn't call out on one phone, did you try calling the main house on the other phone?
A: No, I went to get another phone to hook up, to plug in.
Q: Was your phone in the guesthouse a plug-in type?
A: I had one that is a plug-in type.
Q: One that was permanently attached to the wall?
A: Yes.
Q: Is that correct?
A: Yes.
Q: Were both of these phones, phones that permit you to call from the guesthouse?
A: Yes.
Q: What would you do if you wanted to call the main house?
A: Have to dial their number.
Q: I see. You had a separate number for the guesthouse, did you?
A: Yes.
Q: That was separate and different than the other one?
A: Yes.
Q: Did you try calling the main house on your phone?
A: No.
MR. BUBRICK: I have nothing furthers, your Honor.
MR. BUGLIOSI: No further questions
THE COURT: May the witness be excused, gentlemen?
MR. BUGLIOSI: Yes, your Honor.
MR. BUBRICK: Yes.
THE COURT: Thank you. You may be excused.
Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, we will recess at this time. How about 1:45, will that give you enough time for your lunch?
1:45.
Once again do not form or express any opinion in this case. Do not discuss it among yourselves or with anyone else and please keep your minds open. 1:45.
The spectators will remain seated until the jurors leave.
(At 12:00 o'clock the noon recess was taken until 1:45 p.m. of the same day.)