THE COURT: People against Watson.

Let the record show all jurors, defendant and all counsel are present.

You are still under oath, so restate your name for the record, Sergeant.

THE WITNESS: William J. Lee, L-e-e.

THE COURT: You may proceed.

Q: What is a hair trigger, do you know; have you ever heard of that term, hair trigger?

A: Yes, the term hair trigger usually refers to the fact that where the sear of the trigger and the hammer notch, that point at which the trigger hangs up on the hammer, a hair trigger would be on that simply used a very, very slight weight to cause the hammer to fall forward, rather than a normal or heavy weight of the weapon.

Q: So with a hair trigger you don’t have to apply much pressure to the trigger at all to fire the gun?

A: That’s correct.

Q: Is this a hair trigger revolver?

A: No, it is not, no.

Q: Do you have to apply a certain amount of pressure to fire this revolver?

A: Yes.

Q: On August 10, 1969, Sergeant, did you receive three bullets from one Dr. Gaston Herrera, a deputy medical examiner for the Los Angeles County Coroner’s office?

A: I did.

Q: I show you People’s 177 and I am removing a bullet slug from People’s 177. The bullet slug is also People’s 177. Have you ever seen that bullet slug before?

A: Yes, I have.

Q: Where and when did you see it for the first time?

A: I first observed this on August the 10th, 1969, at the coroner’s office.

Q: All right. You see that on the front portion of this manila envelope it says, “Wojiciech Frykowski, August 10, 1969, 12:45 p.m., Dr. Herrera.” Is that correct?

A: Yes.

Q: On the reverse side of this envelope you see your signature?

A: I do.

Q: What does it say?

A: “Received from Dr. Herrera 8-10-69, 12:45 p.m.”

Q: Then your name “Lee” L-e-e?

A: That is correct.

Q: So you received this bullet slug then from Dr. Herrera on August the 10th, 1969, 12:45 p.m.?

A: Yes.

Q: Showing you People’s 195 for identification. On the outside of an envelope it says, “Steven Parent, August 10, 1969, 2:00 p.m., Dr. Herrera.” On the reverse side do you see your handwriting?

A: I do.

Q: What does this say?

A: “Received from Dr. Herrera 8-10-69, 6:15 p.m., Lee.”

Q: Did you receive the bullet that I am removing now from this envelope? Did you receive that bullet slug on August the 10th, 1969, from Dr. Herrera?

A: I did.

Q: I show you People’s 186 for identification. On the cover of the envelope it says “Steven Parent,” again and it says “August 10, 1969, 2:00 p.m., Dr. Herrera.”

Removing a bullet slug from inside the envelope, have you ever seen that bullet slug before?

A: Yes, I have.

Q: When did you see it for the first time?

A: First observed this also at 6:15 p.m., on August the 10th, 1969, when I received it from Dr. Herrera.

THE COURT: May I have that number again, please?

MR. BUGLIOSI: 186.

MR. BUBRICK: Your Honor, do your records show it as having been entered before?

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. BUGLIOSI: With Dr. Noguchi, I believe.

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. BUBRICK: 185.

THE COURT: And 186, yes, except Dr. Noguchi did not testify that 185, a slug -- he said came from Parent.

MR. BUGLIOSI: Yes, he did.

THE COURT: Oh, I thought you said Frykowski.

MR. BUGLIOSI: The first one, 177 is for Frykowski. People’s 185 is for Parent.

THE COURT: Okay. Go ahead.

Q BY MR. BUGLIOSI: From 186, People’s 186, I am removing a bullet slug from the envelope. You say you have seen that bullet slug before?

A: I have.

Q: And did you receive this from Dr. Herrera on August the 10th, 1969, at 6:15 p.m.?

A: I did.

Q: And do you see that writing by you on the reverse side of the envelope?

A: I do.

Q: It says, “Received from Dr. Herrera 8-10-69, 6:15 p.m., Lee.” Is that correct?

A: Yes.

Q: On the following day, August the 11th, 1969, did you receive another bullet from Dr. Noguchi?

A: I did.

Q: I show you people’s 166 for identification, an envelope, and I am removing from the envelope a bullet slug, which is also marked people’s 166.

Have you ever seen that bullet slug before?

A: I have.

Q: Is this the bullet that you received from Dr. Noguchi on August 11, 1969?

A: It is.

Q: And on the reverse side of this envelope it says -- or, on the front side, it says, “This bullet was recovered between Mr. Parent’s shirt and back, found loosely during fluoroscopic examination” -- I’m sorry, Jay Sebring, “This bullet was recovered between his shirt and back, found loosely during fluoroscopic examination at 10:15 August 10, 1969.”

On the reverse side, what does it say?

A: “Received from Dr. Noguchi 8-11-69, 9:45 a, Lee.”

Q: “A” stands for a.m.?

A: It does.

Q: What did you do with these four bullets after you received them from Dr. Herrera and Noguchi?

A: I took them to the crime laboratory, to my office, where I locked them in a file after examining them.

Q: So you booked them into evidence, then, at the Los Angeles Police Department?

A: Not specifically as a matter of property; but specifically keeping them in my own custody as property for the Los Angeles Police Department.

Q: What caliber bullets are all of these slugs?

A: .22 long rifle.

Q: By long rifle, what do you mean by that?

A: The .22 caliber rimfire cartridges are in three different categories; The .22 short, the .22 long and the .22 long rifle.

Now, the .22 short, which is the shortest of the three, has a very short shell casing in conjunction with a 29-grain bullet, which is a short bullet.

The .22 long uses the same bullet that is used in the .22 short; namely, the 29-grain bullet, but it uses a longer shell casing.

The .22 long rifle is a 40-grain bullet, approximately 40 grain weight, and the longest shell casing, the same that is used with the long; so the .22 long rifle is a 40-grain bullet, in this particular case, without the rest of the cartridge.

Q: Let me ask you this: Besides the caliber of a bullet, are all bullets the same or are they made up of different materials, different coating, et cetera?

A: They are made up of different materials and coatings.

Q: And coatings?

A: Yes.

Q: What about these four bullets that I have just shown you, people’s 166, 185 -- 166, 177, 185 and 186; what type of bullets are these?

A: Those are lead bullets which have been casted with a copper or brass wash, similar to a term known as Lubaloy, which is a trade name for another particular cartridge.

It is a coating which is applied to the lead, ostensibly to reduce friction in the gun barrel and the bore.

Q: Are you saying, then, that apart from their present damaged condition, all four of these bullets were the same type of bullet?

A: I believe so, yes.

Q: What are lands and grooves in a firearm?

A: The gun barrel, in order to project a bullet or projectile must impart to an elongated projectile a twist or spin so that it will fly through the air with gyrostatic stability, or in its normal course, so that it does not tumble and yaw and pitch.

The lands and grooves are actually the inner surface of the gun barrel and the lands and the grooves are formed at the time of manufacturing of the rifling, as such.

A common method for this to occur is that the bar stock, or the solid round stock, is first drilled to the approximate caliber that the finished product will be. That hole is then reamed or polished to the caliber that is desired; in this particular instance, approximately .22 caliber.

Now, this will be a smooth bore. In order to give the bullet a twist or rotation, a series of helical grooves are cut in this particular surface by the use of an object called a breech or hook cutter.

The breech is placed in the gun barrel and actually removes or displaces a part of the metal so that the part that is cut away or moved away would then be called the grooves, while that portion remaining and that has not been cut away, is called the lands.

Now, these lands, then, are the raised portion in the gun barrel and they have a twist to them, entirely --

Q: The grooves, then, would be the indentations inside the rifle, or the revolver barrel?

A: That is correct.

Q: And the lands, then, would be the ridges?

A: Yes.

Q: That area between the grooves?

A: Right.

Q: And I take it that people’s 40, the revolver in front of you, also has lands and grooves; is that correct?

A: It does?

Q: How many lands and how many grooves?

A: Six land and six grooves.

Q: Not all firearms have the same number of lands and grooves; is that correct?

A: That’s correct.

Q: Some would have what?

A: Four, two, six, five, seven, ten; different numbers.

Q: Do barrels of firearms have what is called imperfections?

A: Yes, they do.

Q: This is in addition to the lands and grooves?

A: Yes.

Q: What are these imperfections and what causes them?

A: Well, imperfections on the surfaces of the lands and the grooves are those created during the manufacture of the firearm by chips in the gun bore, abrasives in the gun or as the broach is drawn through, which will impart different rough spots to the inner bore of the weapon; and these may also get additional imperfections from improper storing conditions and firing of different types of ammunition.

Q: Have you ever seen the barrel of any firearm that did not have imperfections on it?

A: No, I did not.

Q: They all have imperfections?

A: Yes.

Q: When the bullet passes through the barrel of a firearm do the lands and the grooves and the imperfections cut into the side of the bullet as it passes through the barrel?

A: Well, the lands of the gun do cut into the bullet and the bullet actually swedges out or expands to fire in the area called the grooves; and at this time the imperfections of the gun barrel do come in contact with the surface of the bullet.

Q: Do these lands and grooves and imperfections leave some type of an identifying imprint on the bullet?

A: Generally.

Q: This identifying imprint is called what?

A: Stria.

Q: S-t-r-i-a?

A: Yes.

Q: Does the imprint or do the imprints and stria form some type of a pattern on the bullet the same as the lands and grooves and imperfections?

A: Generally, yes.

Q: Only probably in reverse?

A: That is correct.

Q: In other words, a obtrusion, imperfection inside the barrel, would cause an indentation on the bullet?

A: Yes, a gouge mark; that is correct.

Q: And vice-versa?

A: Yes.

Q: Taking a look at these four bullet slugs again, People’s 176 -- let’s keep the bullet slugs on the envelope so we don’t get any confusion here -- People’s 166, People’s 177 People's 185 and People’s 186, four bullet slugs; is that correct, sir?

A: Yes.

Q: And looking at this revolver here, People’s 40, did you ever conduct any type of an examination between these four bullets and this revolver to determine whether or not these four bullets came from this revolver?

A: I did.

Q: And when did you conduct that examination?

A: As I recall, it was December the 22nd, 1969.

Q: At the Los Angeles Police Department?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: Will you please explain in detail to the jury what examination or test you conducted with respect to those four bullets and that revolver?

A: Yes. I obtained the revolver and a stock of ammunition similar to the ones that I obtained from the coroner’s office, except the ones I obtained were brand new for my test shots.

I then did fire this revolver into a water recovery tank which is located in the police department premises.

Q: Why did you use a water recovery tank?

A: Water does not have a tendency to wide the sides of the smaller bullet like the .22 and shine them and cause friction and remove the stria.

Q: So that you fired new cartridges then, new bullets from that revolver?

A: Yes.

Q: At the Los Angeles Police Department?

A: I did.

Q: You may continue.

A: I then recovered my test shots from the water recovery tank and I took them, my test shots, to a comparison microscope also located in my office, along with these particular items before me, People’s 166, 177, 185 and 186.

Now, the comparison microscope is essentially two microscopes side by side. These are connected by a prism bridge.

So that by looking through my binocular ocular eyepieces I am able to see the stages of the two individual microscopes and the evidence which is on the stages of the microscopes, the bullet holders.

By observing through the oculars I am able to look at the bullet on one side, my test shot on the other side, one at a time, the bullets I received from the coroner’s office, and I was able to rotate these bullets and make an evaluation at this time.

Q: So the purpose of your comparision then was to determine whether those four bullets in front of you right now and the test fired bullets came from one and the same gun?

A: Yes, that is correct.

Q: That is the whole purpose of your comparison?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: As a result of your examination, your test, your comparison, did you form an opinion as to each one of those four bullets?

A: I did.

Q: Let’s take the Frykowski bullet first. I believe that is 177.

What opinion did you form with respect to that bullet concerning that revolver, People’s 40?

A: I formed the opinion that although I was unable to make a positive comparison, and that I would be unable to state that this bullet came specifically from People’s 40, the revolver, however, it did have the same specifications, the same number of lands and grooves, the same direction of twist, and same width of lands and grooves.

So it was my opinion that the Frykowski bullet could have come from the revolver, but unable to state positively that, due to the lack of stria on the bullet.

Q: The Frykowski bullet in front of you now, People’s 177, had six lands and six grooves on it?

A: It does.

Q: And did you determine from the test fired bullet, that the test fired bullet also had six lands and six grooves on it?

A: Yes, it did.

Q: And what about the land and groove width? You say they were the same?

A: Yes.

Q: What is the measurement on those widths?

A: The gun land was approximately 55 thousandths of an inch width and the gun groove approximately 60 thousandths of an inch width.

Q: And the land and groove width on People’s 177, the Frykowski bullet, is identical to the land and groove width on the test fired bullet?

A: Yes, it was, approximately.

Q: Now, you mentioned that People’s 177 has the same twist as the test fire bullet?

A: Yes, that is correct.

Q: When a bullet leaves the muzzle of a firearm and proceeds towards its target, it twists, you say in a certain direction?

A: Yes.

Q: And the twist of all bullets coming from People’s 40 is what? Left or right?

A: They would be right twist.

Q: In other words, the bullet as it proceeded toward the target, would turn in a clockwise direction, would spin clockwise as it proceeded toward the target?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: And People’s 177 was fired from a gun with a right twist; is that correct?

A: Yes.

Q: But you could not make a positive identification?

A: That is right.

Q: Because of insufficient stria?

A: That is true.

Q: Insufficient markings on the bullet?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: Would you say that everytime a bullet is fired and it passes through the barrel of a firearm, say, into a human body, that there is always stria left on the bullet?

A: Not necessarily, no.

Q: Why not?

A: Well, many factors. It might be due to the type of bore of the weapon, the coating of the bullet. The stria may be wiped as it enters the body.

It may be wiped by any surface that it contacts prior to coming to rest, for instance, clothing and skin, bones, things of this nature.

Q: And with respect to that Frykowski bullet, people’s 177, did it appear that much of the stria had been removed?

A: Yes. There was not much stria present on the Frykowski bullet.

Q: And you then theorized that the stria could have been removed when the bullet passed through Mr. Frykowski’s body.

A: That is possible.

Q: Those bullets are coated bullets? They are not noncoated?

A: That is correct. They are coated.

Q: Do coated bullets lend themselves more readily to receiving stria than noncoated or what?

A: No. The coating has a tendency to prevent stria from becoming on the surface of the bullet more than the lead.

Q: So noncoated bullets lend themselves more readily to receiving stria than coated bullets?

A: Yes.

Q: And those four bullets are coated bullets?

A: They are.

Q: Were there any markings or characteristics on the Frykowski bullet which would rule out the possibility that it was fired from people’s 40?

A: No, not in my opinion.

Q: So people’s 177 could have been fired from people’s 40?

A: It could have, yes.

Q: Let’s look at the Sebring --

THE COURT: 166.

Q BY MR. BUGLIOSI: Take a look at the Sebring bullet next, people’s 166.

Did you form any opinion as to whether or not that bullet was fired from people’s 40, the revolver?

A: I did.

Q: And what is that opinion?

A: It is my opinion that this bullet, people’s 166, was fired from this revolver, people’s 40.

Q: Is that a positive conclusion on your part?

A: Yes, it is.

Q: Is there any doubt in your mind whatsoever that people’s 166, that bullet, was fired from people’s 40, that revolver?

A: No, sir.

Q: You are positive about that?

A: Yes.

Q: What about the parent bullets? There are two of them; People’s 186 and 186.

Let’s take 185 first.

Did you form any opinion with respect to that bullet slug?

A: Yes. This bullet was quite distorted. I was able to form the opinion that it had six lands and grooves with the right-hand twist but unable to make a positive comparison between this Parent bullet and my test shots due to it’s condition.

Q: Insufficient stria?

A: Yes.

Q: And very damaged?

A: Yes.

Q: Were there any markings on that bullet, people’s 185, any markings or any characteristics which would rule out the possibility that it was fired from people’s 40?

A: No.

Q: As to people’s 185, could it also have been fired from people’s 40, the revolver?

A: Yes.

Q: What about people’s 186, the next bullet slug?

A: People’s 186, the Parent bullet, did have six lands and grooves with a right-hand twist, the same land and groove width. I was unable to positively compare this to People’s 40, the gun, again due to lack of stria.

Q: No characteristics on 186 that would rule out the possibility that it was fired from this revolver?

A: No.

Q: So it could have been?

A: Yes.

THE COURT: In the days of Lee Jones and Ray Pinkert we used the term striations. Any difference between striations and stria?

THE WITNESS: One is a plural, your Honor.

THE COURT: Striation is singular and stria plural?

THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.

MR. BUGLIOSI: Things are becoming more mod, your Honor.

THE COURT: I guess so.

Q BY MR. BUGLIOSI: Showing you people’s 250 for identification, which is a fragment of a bullet, have you ever seen that fragment before?

A: Yes, I have.

Q: Where did you see it for the first time?

A: I believe I first observed this fragment on April the 7th, 1970.

Q: April the 7th, 1970 for the first time?

A: Yes, I believe that is correct.

Q: Who gave it to you at that time?

A: I received that from the property section of the Los Angeles Police Department.

Q: All right.

What is people’s 250? Does it appear to be a part of a bullet?

A: Yes, it did to me.

Q: What caliber?

A: I was unable to state what caliber.

Q: Too small?

A: Too small, yes.

Q: Did you ever try to make or try to conduct any test to determine whether people’s 150, that fragment of a bullet, came from people’s 40?

A: No, I did not.

Q: Why not?

A: Too small.

Q: Looking at people’s 251 for identification, four fragments of a bullet, have you ever seen those four fragments before?

A: Yes, I have.

Q: Where did you see them for the first time?

A: Inside the paneling of the right passenger door of an Ambassador vehicle license MPK --

Q: Steven Parent’s car?

A: To the best of my knowledge, yes.

Q: What date was that?

A: August the 9th, 1969.

Q: In the driveway of the Tate premises?

A: Yes.

Q: And did you book these four fragments of bullets into evidence?

A: No. I believe they were booked by Officer Varney.

Q: V-a-r-n-e-y?

A: Yes.

Q: From the Los Angeles Police Department?

A: Yes.

Q: Did you ever make an effort to conduct an examination to determine whether these four segments came from any bullet fired from People’s 40, the revolver?

A: No, it wasn’t --

Q: Why not?

A: There was not sufficient material to do that.

Q: Did you form any opinion whether People’s 250, the one piece of fragment, and People’s 251, the four pieces, came from the same bullet?

A: I formed the opinion they did not.

Q: Why did you form that opinion?

A: The hole in the upholstery that was made by the four fragments was such a nature that I believed that the bullet that entered that was not deterred in its flight path; and if the portion 250 would have been removed from that during flight, I believe the bullet would have been upset and not entered the upholstery or the door or been damaged to the degree that it was.

Q: So you believe, then, that People’s 250, the one piece of fragment, came from a different bullet than the four fragments, People’s 251?

A: I believe so, yes.

Q: Sergeant, what is a shell casing?

A: A shell casing is one part of a complete cartridge. Normally, there are four parts to a cartridge, the projectile or bullet; the shell casing, the primer or primer cup and the powder load in front of the weapon; and the .22 caliber rim fires, we actually have a priming compound, but it is not a separate part so that the priming compound is actually out into the rim of the shell casing and we do have the metallic cup, I guess you would call it, as the casing.

The cartridge casing is a metallic cup which contains the bullet, the priming compound and the powder.

Q: When a revolver is fired, do the shell casings remain in the cylinder?

A: Yes, they do.

Q: They are not ejected onto the ground?

A: No, they are not.

Q: The shell casing, then, has to be manually removed from the cylinder by the person operating the firearm --

A: Yes.

Q: -- or some other person?

A: That’s correct, yes.

Q: And with firearms other than revolvers, such as automatics or semi-automatics, the shell casings are ejected onto the ground; is that correct?

A: Yes, semi-automatics or automatics are ejected.

Q: When the round is fired?

A: Yes.

Q: On the date, November 19, 1969, did you proceed to Spahn Ranch in Chatsworth, California, for the purpose of recovering shell casings?

A: I did.

Q: Did you, in fact, recover any shell casings from the premises of Spahn Ranch?

A: I did.

Q: How many?

A: As I recall, I recovered 22 expended shell casings at that time.

Q: What caliber were they?

A: .22 long rifle.

Q: .22 caliber; right?

A: Yes, sir, rim fire.

MR. BUGLIOSI: I have here a photograph depicting an area of brown and also contains a picture of Sgt. Lee.

May it be marked People’s -- I’m sorry, it was previously marked People’s 253.

May it be remarked People’s 253?

THE COURT: It may be so marked.

Q BY MR. BUGLIOSI: I show you People’s 253 for identification.

Do you know what is shown in that photograph, Sergeant?

A: Yes, sir, I do.

Q: What is shown in that photograph?

A: This is an area of the Spahn Ranch, approximately 200 feet, the direction I believe to be east of the residence at the location.

Q: There are several buildings at Spahn Ranch; right?

A: Yes, there are.

Q: Right off Santa Susana Road?

A: Yes.

Q: This area depicted in this photograph is behind the buildings?

A: It is.

Q: Is this the area from which you recovered the 22 .22 caliber shell casings?

A: The general area.

Q: There were 22 of them, you say?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: Where were 22 .22 shell casings?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: What did you do with those shell casings?

A: I took them to the Los Angeles Police Department where I made comparisons between those shell casings and the test shots that I fired through People’s No. 40, the revolver.

Q: Okay. On the date April the 15th, 1970, did you again go out to Spahn Ranch to recover additional shell casings?

A: I did, yes.

Q: And did you, in fact, recover any shell casings on that date?

A: I did.

Q: How many?

A: 23.

Q: From the same place, same area?

A: The same general area, yes, sir.

Q: When a revolver is fired, are any marks left on the firing pin?

A: Yes.

Q: What type of marks are these?

A: It is called the firing pin impression and may consist of actual indentations or compression marks in conjunction with stria many times.

Q: Does each firing pin leave an identifying mark on the shell casing that it strikes?

A: Generally it does.

Q: And can you identify the firearm from which a shell casing came by examining the firing pin marks on the shell casing?

A: Yes.

Q: Now, you have testified earlier that you test fired that .22 caliber revolver there, people’s 40; is that correct?

A: Yes.

Q: And I take it you manually ejected the shell casings after you fired them; is that correct?

A: That is correct.

Q: Did you ever compare the firing pin marks on the test fire shell casings with the firing pin marks on the shell casing found at Spahn Ranch?

A: I did.

Q: Did you form any opinion as a result of your comparison?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: What is that opinion?

A: It is my opinion that of the total cartridge casing which I recovered at the Spahn Ranch -- I believe the total to be 45 -- of that amount 15 were fired from People’s No. 40, this revolver.

Q: So you found 15 .22 caliber shell casings at Spahn Ranch which you have formed the positive opinion that they were fired from that revolver, people’s 40?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: And you did that by a comparison of the firing pin marks on the shell casing?

A: I did.

Q: Those 15, then, had the same firing marks on the shell casings as the test firing shell casings had?

A: Yes.

Q: I show you people’s 249 for identification, a manila envelope containing two live cartridges and seven shell casings.

Have you ever seen those two live cartridges and seven shell casings before?

A: Yes, I have.

Q: Where did you see them for the first time?

A: I first observed these December the 19th -- no, excuse me, December 16, 1969, at the Los Angeles Police Department.

They were in a package, as I recall, with people’s No. 40, the revolver.

Q: Now, I notice that these seven shell casings here do seem to have some marks on the rim of the shell casing; is that correct?

A: Yes.

Q: And these are caused by the firing pin hitting the rim?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: Did you form any opinion as to whether or not these seven shell casings here were fired from this revolver, people’s 40?

A: I did.

Q: What is that opinion?

A: It is my opionion that the seven shell casings were fired in people’s 40, the revolver.

Q: Is that a positive opinition?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: Any doubt in your mind about it?

A: None whatsoever.

Q: How did you form that opinion?

A: This is, again, done by the use of the comparison microscope where I can observe the two marks in juxta-position, or next to each other; and observed them at that point.

MR. BUGLIOSI: Thank you, Sergeant.

No further questions.

MR. KEITH: I don’t have any questions.

MR. BUBRICK: No questions.

THE COURT: You may be excused, Sergeant.

MR. BUGLIOSI: We will call Frank Struthers.

THE CLERK: Raise your right hand, please.

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

THE WITNESS: I do.

THE CLERK: Thank you.

Take the stand and be seated; and would you state and spell your name, please?

THE WITNESS: Frank Struthers, S-t-r-u-t-h-e-r-s.

Q: How old are you, Frank?

A: 17.

Q: Was Rosemary LaBianca your mother?

A: Yes.

Q: Did your mother have a business?

A: Yes.

Q: What type of business?

A: Dress shop.

Q: Where was that located?

A: On Figueroa.

Q: In Los Angeles?

A: In Los Angeles.

Q: And Leno LaBianca was your step-father?

A: Yes.

Q: Was Mr. LaBianca the president and chief stockholder of Gateway Markets in Los Angeles?

A: Yes.

MR. BUGLIOSI: Your Honor, I have here a photograph of a female Caucasian.

May it be marked people's next in order?

THE COURT: It has no previous marking?

MR. BUGLIOSI: No, your Honor.

THE COURT: 303.

MR. BUGLIOSI: I have here a photograph of a male Caucasian.

May it be marked people's next in order, 304?

THE COURT: 304.

Q BY MR. BUGLIOSI: Frank, I show you people's 303; is that a photograph of your mother?

A: Yes.

Q: And people's 304, is that a photograph of your step-father, Leno?

A: Yes.

Q: Did you live with your mother, Frank, with your mother and step-father at 3301 Waverly Drive in Los Angeles?

A: Yes.

Q: Did anyone else live with you there?

A: No.

Q: How long had you and your mother and Leno lived at that address?

A: About a year.

Q: Do you have a sister?

A: Yes.

Q: What is her name?

A: Susan Ray.

Q: Susan -- what's the last name?

A: Ray.

Q: Ray?

Is she married now?

A: No.

Q: Was her name ever Susan Struthers?

A: Susan Struthers.

Q: She did not live with you and your mother and Leno?

A: No.

Q: Directing your attention, Frank, to the first week of August, 1969, did you go to Lake Isabella?

A: Yes.

Q: And do you know what day you went up there?

A: A Friday or Saturday, I believe.

Q: The first week of August?

A: Yes.

Q: The 7th or 8th?

A: Yeah.

Q: And whom did you go there with?

A: With some friends of my parents and their son, the Saffies.

Q: After you arrived at Lake Isabella did Rosemary and Leno come up there later?

A: They came up and brought their boat up; and they came up the next week and took the boat back, on a Friday.

Q: Now, let's go back just a couple steps here, now -- excuse me.

-- do you know what day in August that you went to Lake Isabella?

A: Friday; Friday or Saturday.

Q: Do you know what date?

A: No, I don't.

Q: But you say a week after you arrived there Rosemary and Leno came up?

A: Almost a week; about five days.

Q: So you didn't go up there, then, on August the 8th to Lake Isabella?

A: Yes.

Q: You are aware that your mother and Leno passed away on August the 10th, 1969; you are aware of that?

A: Yes.

Q: So it was a week earlier, then, that you went up to Lake Isabella?

A: Uh-huh.

Q: 1st or 2nd or 3rd of August; is that correct?

A: Yeah, I guess. I can't remember the dates, I'm sorry.

Q: Then how long after you were at Lake Isabella, how many days later did Leno and Rosemary come up to Lake Isabella?

A: About five days.

Q: Okay. Did they come up there on a Saturday?

A: Yes.

Q: And how long did they stay up there?

A: A day.

Q: And then they came back to Los Angeles?

A: Mm-hmm.

Q: Did you go back with them?

A: No.

Q: Did anyone go back with them?

A: My sister.

Q: Susan?

A: Yes.

Q: Did they return to Los Angeles on Saturday, August the 9th?

A: Yes.

Q: And when did you leave Lake Isabella?

A: The next day.

Q: So you left Lake Isabella August 10, then, 1969?

A: Yes.

Q: A Sunday?

A: Yes.

Q: And with whom did you return to Los Angeles?

A: With the people I went up there with, the Saffies.

Q: Saffies, S-a-f-f-e?

A: i-e-s.

Q: S-a-f-f-i-e-s?

A: Yes.

Q: And when did you arrive here in Los Angeles?

A: Sunday night about 8:00 p.m.

THE COURT: A.M.?

THE WITNESS: P.M.

Q BY MR. BUGLIOSI: so you arrived here in Los Angeles on Sunday, August the 10th, 1969, at about 8:00 p.m.; is that correct?

A: Yes.

Q: And what did you do after -- well, let me withdraw that.

Did the Saffies drop you off at your residence, 3301 Waverly Drive?

A: Yes.

Q: What did you do after you arrived at the residence?

A: I had my baggage with me, came up the driveway, put part of the baggage away in the garage; and all the doors were locked and I couldn't get in the house, so I came back down the driveway and called the house; nobody was home. I called the house --

Q: Where did you call the house from?

A: From a phone booth nearby.

Q: Nobody answered, of course?

A: And then called my sister to come over and pick me up, and we went back to the house.

Q: What time did you go back to the house?

A: It was around 9:00 o'clock to 9:30.

Q: At night?

A: Uh-huh.

Q: Was your sister accompanied by a person named Joe Dorgan?

A: Yes.

Q: What happened after you and your sister, Susan, and Joe Dorgan returned to the house at around 9:30 p.m.?

A: We went inside.

Q: How did you get in?

A: With the key.

Q: Where did you get the key?

A: From the car.

Q: Whose car?

A: My mother's car that was in the driveway.

Q: A Thunderbird?

A: Yes.

Q: And you went in through the back door?

A: Yes.

Q: What happened after you entered the back door of the residence?

A: We came in through the back door, leads to the kitchen -- and on to the dining room; and Susan stayed out of the house, more or less, she was in the kitchen, stayed in the kitchen; and Mr. Dorgan and I went into the living room where we found Leno LaBianca in the living room.

Q: Was he lying on his back?

A: Yes.

Q: And he appeared to be dead?

A: Yes.

Q: And you and Mr. Dorgan then did what?

A: Left the house, and some neighbors called the police.

Q: You had several dogs, did you not, that lived on the premises there?

A: Two.

Q: What type of dogs were they?

A: A Labrador retriever and a poodle.

Q: Where were the dogs when you and Dorgan arrived on the premises?

A: Inside the house.

Q: Inside the house?

A: Mm-hmm.

Q: When you entered the residence, were the lights on or off?

A: Off most everywhere with the exception of one room or two rooms.

Q: What about the shades on the windows?

A: They were drawn.

Q: They were drawn?

A: (Nods head.)

Q: You have to answer out loud.

A: They were drawn.

Q: Were they normally drawn?

A: No.

Q: How long after you called the police did the police arrive?

A: A couple of minutes.

Q: And did you then reenter the house with them or did you stay outside?

A: I stayed outside; Mr. Dorgan reentered the house with them.

Q: When is the next time, Frank, that you entered the residence?

A: About a week later.

Q: Did you discover anything missing?

A: Mrs. LaBianca's wallet.

Q: Pardon?

A: Mrs. LaBianca's wallet.

Q: Your mother's wallet?

A: Yes.

Q: That was missing?

A: Right.

Q: That is the only thing that you discovered missing; is that correct?

A: I think so.

Q: How about your mother's watch? Was that missing too?

A: I think that was missing also.

MR. BUGLIOSI: May I have just a moment, your Honor?

THE COURT: Yes.

Q BY MR. BUGLIOSI: Frank, I show you people's 65 for identification. Have you ever seen that wallet before?

A: Yes.

Q: Whose wallet is that, Frank?

A: My mother's wallet.

Q: Rosemary's?

A: Yes.

Q: Removing a photograph, Frank, from inside the wallet, you recognize what that is a photograph of?

A: Yes.

Q: What is that?

A: Of my graduation.

Q: Where did you graduate from?

A: Junior High School.

Q: And your mother was at the graduation?

A: Yes.

MR. BUGLIOSI: No further questions, your Honor. Thank you Frank.

THE COURT: Just a moment. Any questions?

MR. BUGLIOSI: They might have a question.

Q: Frank, when did you first realize that your mother's wallet was missing?

A: The next week when I went through the house.

Q: Were you just taken back to the house with the officers and told to go through and see if there was anything you could determine was missing?

A: Yes.

Q: And when had you last seen the wallet?

A: Up at Lake Isabella.

Q: Is that one that your mother always carried?

A: Yes.

Q: Were you looking particularly for the wallet when you discovered it wasn't in the house?

A: Well, it was in her purse all the time.

Q: Just part of a big purse; is that right?

A: Yes.

Q: Were there other items of value in the house that were there?

A: Yes.

Q: Mr. LaBianca had a coin collection; is that correct?

A: Yes.

Q: Was that in the house?

A: No.

Q: Was that gone?

A: Yes. Nobody knew where that was until a little while later we found out it was in a safe deposit box.

Q: I see. Was there other jewelry around the house?

A: Yes.

Q: And that was untouched, I take it?

A: Yes.

Q: And the only thing you discovered missing was the wallet; is that correct?

A: Uh-huh.

MR. BUBRICK: I have nothing further.

MR. BUGLIOSI: No further questions.

THE COURT: Thank you. You may be excused.

MR. BUGLIOSI: Thank you very much.

People call Ruth Sivick.

THE CLERK: Raise you right hand, please.

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

THE WITNESS: I do.

THE CLERK: Thank you.

Take the stand and be seated.

WIll you state and spell your name, please.

THE WITNESS: Ruth Sivick, S-i-v-i-c-k.

Q: Mrs. -- is it Mrs. or Miss?

A: Mrs.

Q: Mrs. Sivick, what is your occupation, ma'am?

A: I manage a dress shop.

Q: What is the name of the dress shop?

A: Sporty Knit.

Q: Directing your attention to August of 1969, did you know a woman by the name of Rosemary LaBianca?

A: Yes, I did.

Q: Would you briefly explain your acquaintanceship with her?

A: She was my dearest friend and business partner.

Q: She was a partner with you in the business?

A: Yes.

Q: That you now own or --

A: No, previously.

Q: What was the name of that one?

A: Boutique Carriage.

Q: On Figueroa?

A: That is correct.

Q: And you of course knew her husband Leno LaBianca?

A: Yes.

Q: When was the last time that you saw Mrs.LaBianca alive?

A: Friday, August the 8th.

Q: 1969?

A: Right.

Q: About what time of day?

A: About 4:30.

Q: In the afternoon?

A: Yes.

Q: Where were you and she at that time?

A: Well, we had just come back from a buying trip from town.

Q: And were you at your business or at her house?

A: No, at the place of business.

Q: Now, after 4:30 p.m. on August the 8th, 1969 did you ever speak to her, let's say, over the telephone?

A: Saturday morning, August the 9th.

Q: Did she call you or did you call her?

A: No, she called me.

Q: And what was the conversation at that time?

A: Well, she had told me she was going up to Lake Isabella and wouldn't be back until 3:00 or 4:00 o'clock the next morning and if I would feed her animals while she was gone.

Q: Her two dogs?

A: Three dogs.

Q: And did you in fact go to Mr. and Mrs. LaBianca's residence to take care of the dogs?

A: Yes, I did.

Q: And when did you go there?

A: I guess I arrived between 6:00 and 6:15.

Q: P.M.?

A: Yes.

Q: On what date?

A: August the 9th.

Q: The same day you spoke to her?

A: Yes.

Q: Incidentally, you never spoke to her after that?

A: No, I did not.

Q: And had you been to that residence on many prior occasions?

A: Yes.

Q: At 3301 Waverly Drive?

A: Yes.

Q: And how did you enter the home on this particular Saturday, August the 9th, 1969 at about 6:00 p.m. or thereabouts?

A: Well, I parked my car on the street and walked up the driveway, took the key from underneath the mat and walked in the front door.

Q: You opened the front door with a key?

A: Yes.

Q: And what did you do after you entered?

A: Greeted the dogs and went to the refrigerator, took the food and fed the animals and then left the Labrador retriever out in the back yard for a little romp.

Q: Did the retriever comeback into the house before you left?

A: Oh, yes.

Q: How long did you stay inside the residence?

A: I would say about 30 minutes.

Q: Now, you say you got some food out of the refrigerator.

A: That is right.

Q: I show you people's 206 for identification.

Directing your attention to the refrigerator depicted therein, is this the refrigerator in the LaBianca residence, in the kitchen?

A: Yes, it is.

Q: You notice that the words "Helter skelter" are printed on that refrigerator door. Were those words on the door when you were inside the residence at 6:00 p.m. on August the 9th?

A: No.

Q: When you got the food out of the refrigerator did you grasp the handle of the refrigerator door?

A: Oh, yes.

Q: I take it that would be the only way for you to open it; is that correct?

A: I believe so.

Q: Did you enter the living room of the residence?

A: No, I don't think so. I think I went just to the family room.

Q: How long did you stay inside the residence?

A: About 30 minutes.

Q: When you left did everything appear to be in order inside the residence?

A: Yes.

Q: Were all the doors locked when you left?

A: Yes.

Q: Were the windows open or closed?

A: I didn't check the windows.

Q: Did you notice whether they were open or closed?

A: No, I didn't.

MR. BUGLIOSI: Thank you. No further questions.

THE COURT: Just a moment.

MR. BUBRICK: No questions.

THE COURT: Thank you. You may be excused.

MR. BUGLIOSI: No further questions, your Honor.

Is there any objection to receiving pictures 303 and 304 into evidence at this time to show to the jury?

THE COURT: Any objection?

MR. KEITH: No.

THE COURT: They may be received.

MR. BUGLIOSI: I will pass them among the jury.

The people call as their next witness Mr. John Fokianos.

THE CLERK: Raise your right hand, please.

You do solemnly swear 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 CLERK: Thank you.

Take the stand and be seated.

Would you state and spell your name, please.

THE WITNESS: John Fokianos, F-o-k-i-a-n-o-s.

Q: What is your occupation?

A: News vendor.

Q: Whereabouts is your stand located?

A: Corner of Hillhurst and Franklin in the Los Feliz area.

Q: How long have you had a news stand there?

A: Since 1945, going on 26 years.

Q: Did you know Leno and Rosemary LaBianca when they were alive?

A: Yes, as customers.

Q: How long had they been customers of yours?

A: Oh, I would say at least two years and probably longer. I don't know exactly but at least that long.

Q: Directing your attention to the early morning hours of Sunday, August the 10th, in between 1:00 and 2:00 o'clock in the morning.

Did you have occasion to see Mr. and Mrs. LaBianca?

A: Yes, I did. I would say it was probably closer to 2:00.

Q: Where were they when you saw them?

A: They were traveling in their car.

Q: Were you at your news stand?

A: Yes.

Q: And did they stop and buy a paper from you?

A: Yes, they did.

Q: And did you have any conversation with them?

A: Yes, we did.

Q: Without telling us the exact conversation, what was the general subject matter of the conversation?

A: It was about the Tate mishap.

Q: The Tate murders?

A: Yes.

Q: Now, what kind of car were they in?

A: I forget their car now. They had a boat attached to it.

Q: They had a boat on a trailer attached to the car?

A: Yes, right.

Q: Do you recall whether or not the car was a Thunderbird?

A: Well, they have a Thunderbird and they have another car too but I don’t remember exactly what the car was now. This is about two years ago.

Q: But you do remember that they were towing a boat at the time?

A: Yes. And it was about, like I say, about 2:00 o’clock in the morning. I did remember but right now I forget it.

Q: Did you sell them any newspaper?

A: Yes, I did.

Q: What did you sell them?

A: I sold them a daily Herald and I believe it was a Sunday Examiner. I gave them an insert from the Times because that had the Tate incident in it whereas the other didn't have it yet.

Q: Did they ask for that or did you give it to them?

A: Well, like I say we were talking about two or three minutes there in the morning and they had just come back from their trip over there at Lake Isabella and I just told them about it and this was something that was really new to them. They hadn't heard about it before.

She was in extreme shock when she heard about it, you know. She just couldn't hardly believe it but he, of course, controlled himself a little bit better. It was something that was new to her and she took it quite badly. She was shaken up over it.

Q: Did they appear, other than talking about the Tate murders, did they appear to be in general good spirits at the time you saw them?

A: I would say so. They were a little bit tired because they had just come from a trip but I would say so.

MR. KAY: I have no further questions.

MR. BUBRICK: No questions.

THE COURT: Thank you, sir, you may be excused.

MR. KAY: People call Officer Rodriguez.

THE CLERK: Raise your right hand, please.

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

THE WITNESS: I do.

THE CLERK: Thank you. Take the stand and be seated.

Will you state and spell your name, please?

THE WITNESS: William Rodriguez, R-o-d-r-g-u-e-z.

THE CLERK: Thank you.

Q: Officer Rodriguez, what is your current occupation and assignment?

A: I’m a police officer for the City of Los Angeles, presently assigned to Southwest Division Patrol.

Q: Where is that located, Southwest?

A: Southwest section of Los Angeles.

Q: Now, directing your attention to August of 1969, where were you assigned at that time?

A: I was assigned to Hollywood Division Patrol.

Q: How long had you been a police officer at that time?

A: Approximately 14 months.

Q: Now, on Sunday night, August the 10th, 1969, did you have occasion to go to 3301 Waverly Drive in the City of Los Angeles?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: Why did you go there?

A: I received a radio call to that location.

Q: Were you on patrol at that time?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: Now, approximately what time did you arrive at 3301 Waverly?

A: Approximately 10:35 p.m.

Q: Now, without telling -- well,did you see any people outside?

A: Yes, there was a group of approximately three people outside.

Q: Was one of them Mr. Struthers?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: All right. Now, without telling us what was said, did you have a conversation with these three people?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: And did you then approach the house?

A: Yes. Yes, sir, I did.

Q: Now, you’ll see to your right there appears to be a diagram, which is 201 -- I believe it has already been marked, your Honor -- does this appear to you to be a diagram of the LaBianca residence at 3301 Waverly?

A: Yes, it does.

Q: No, when you first went up to --

THE COURT: 201 has not yet been marked.

MR. KAY: Excuse me; I believe Officer Granado testified from it, your Honor, but I will ask that it be remarked 201.

Q: Now, Officer Rodriguez, when you approached the residence did you enter?

A: Yes, I did.

Q: Where did you enter?

A: I entered through the front door, which was right here.

MR. KAY: Now, your Honor, I have a photograph marked Exhibit 91.

May this be remarked Exhibit 91?

THE COURT: It may be so remarked.

MR. KAY: You could resume the stand for a moment.

Q: Officer Rodriguez, I show you Exhibit 91, do you recognize what is depicted in that photograph?

A: Yes, I do.

Q: What is depicted in that photograph?

A: That was the crime scene at my arrival at 3301 Waverly Drive.

Q: In other words, it shows two red sofas and a picture of a male in blue pajamas?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: Is this an accurate representation of the scene that you saw when you -- after you entered the front door of the residence at 3301 Waverly?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: Now, did you approach the body of the male in the blue pajamas?

A: Yes, I did.

Q: Did you notice anything protruding from his stomach?

A: I observed a large fork; it appeared to be a barbecue fork or large carving fork of some kind.

Q: Whereabouts was that in his stomach?

A: It was in the mid-section of the body.

Q: Did you see anything apparently written on his stomach?

A: I observed the middle portion of his body to be carved up. At that time, I didn't recognize the writing.

Q: Now, you notice that there appears in this photograph to be a white pillow on the male’s head about the area of his head; did you notice that?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: And what type of pillow is that?

A: It was a type of pillow you'd put on your Couch.

Q: A sofa pillow, throw pillow?

A: Yes.

Q: Now, when you first went up to the front door did you notice whether there appeared to be any damage to it?

A: There didn't appear to be any damage to the front door.

Q: And was your partner with you just before you entered the house -- did you have a partner with you?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: What was his name?

A: Officer Tony.

Q: And when you went into the house, where did Officer Tony go?

A: Officer Tony was at the back door, or at the rear of the house.

Q: Now, when you entered the house, were there any lights on in the house?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: Do you remember where the lights were on?

A: I don’t recall which lights were on, but the lights were on inside the house.

Q: If you could step down from the stand a minute, Officer Rodriguez, when you entered the front door -- you will notice that there are two sofas drawn here in the living room -- where in relation to these sofas on Exhibit 201 was the body of the male in the blue pajamas?

A: The boyd was laying right up against the sofa.

Q: In other words, on 201 there are two sofas, one seems to be drafted and one that somebody has drawn in in ink, and there is a spot there and it says on the drawing “Spot.”

Is that where you saw the body of the male?

A: Yes, sir.

THE COURT: Excuse me; will you straighten something out for me, please?

We have one diagram identified by Mr. Granado as Exhibit 242 as the diagram of the LaBianca residence.

Is this the same as 201 that you have here?

MR. BUGLIOSI: No, the one you have just named --

THE COURT: 242.

MR. BUGLIOSI: -- that’s the one with the bloodspots on the premises and Mr. Granado pointed out where the various bloodspots were found and the type.

THE COURT: This one does not have it?

MR. KAY: That is right; I am sorry, your Honor.

THE COURT: All right.

Q BY MR. KAY: Now, the body of the male in the blue pajamas, was the male flat on his back?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: Now, when you first entered the living room, besides observing the body of the male in the blue pajamas, what else did you observe?

A: I observed blood on the wall, what appeared to be written in blood, “Death to Pigs.”

I observed the picture was taken off where this was written and I observed a dog running around the house, the inside of the house.

Q: How many dogs do you remember seeing in the living room area?

A: I remember one dog; and later another dog appeared from one of the rooms.

Q: Now, after you saw the male in the blue pajamas on the living room floor, what, if anything, did you do?

A: I went back to the radio car and requested an ambulance, a supervisor, and a back-up unit.

Q: How long did it take for the back-up unit and the supervisor to get there?

A: Approximately five minutes, three to five minutes.

Q: From your training, Officer, did you know enough not to touch anything at the scene?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: Did you ever go into any other room besides the living room?

A: No, sir.

Q: Now, was the supervisor that arrived Sgt. Cline?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: And did he take over the investigation, once he arrived?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: Did you check to see whether there were any doors in the house that were open?

A: I didn’t check the entire house, but I observed the door on the east side of the house open. I believe that was leading into the living room.

MR. KAY: Your Honor, I have a photograph marked 209 here, Exhibit 209. May it be remarked Exhibit 209?

THE COURT: It may be so marked.

Q BY MR. KAY: Thank you.

Officer Rodriguez, I show you Exhibit 209. Do you recognize what is depicted in the Photograph 209?

A: Yes. This is the door on the east side of the house that I observed to be open.

Q: And was it wide open or just ajar?

A: It was ajar.

Q: Approximately how long did you remain at the LaBianca residence?

A: Approximately three hours.

Q: Did you move or touch anything inside the residence?

A: No, sir.

MR. KAY: I have no further questions.

Q: Officer, did you ever discover the body of Mrs. LaBianca?

A: I didn’t.

Q: Who did, if you know?

A: Sgt. Cline.

Q: How long was that after Sgt. Cline arrived that he found Mrs. LaBianca?

A: Approximately a minute after he arrived.

Q: You didn’t look around the house, I take it, when you first were there to see if anybody else may have been hurt or injured?

A: No, sir.

Q: How many doors did you locate about the LaBianca premises?

A: I didn’t go around checking the doors.

Q: Didn’t you check the one that you found open?

A: I could see it from the front door, looking into the living room and into the dining room. I observed the door open.

Q: Where is the dining room on that diagram?

A: This is the front door I entered and I observed the door right over here. It says “Den.”

Q: It says “Den”?

A: Yes.

Q: It is a door leading from the den then and not the dining room?

A: From the porch into the den. I was able to observe it from the front door and from the living room without going into that room.

Q: Had anybody gone out of that door while you were there?

A: No, sir.

Q: Where is Waverly Drive on that diagram, Officer? Is that on the far right-hand corner?

A: Yes, far right-hand corner.

Q: Is that the driveway leading off from Waverly Drive?

A: Yes. This would be the driveway right here.

Q: Where is north on that map?

A: I believe north would be up here. This would be east.

Q: DId you make what you might call an intensive search of the house while you were on the premises?

A: No, I didn’t.

Q: You just protected the premises? Was that your main function?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: And what have you?

A: Yes.

Q: When you first arrived at the house did the young Struthers boy say anything to you about his mother?

A: He was pretty upset and pretty hysterical.

Q: I understand but did he say anything about his mother?

A: I don’t believe he did.

Q: One further thing: I couldn’t quite understand your testimony about, it sounded as if you found a picture off the wall, and underneath the picture was some writing in blood. I didn’t quite catch that.

A: As I entered the house, I observed where a picture had been taken off the wall.

I observed the picture lying on the floor. This was on the north wall of the living room as you enter the doorway and where the picture had been, written in what appeared to be blood was “Death to Pigs.”

Q: Did you have any conversation with the Struthers boy about how he got in the house?

A: I believe I did.

Q: What did he tell you?

A: I believe he entered through the rear door, the kitchen door.

Q: By the use of a key?

A: I don’t recall.

Q: Did he tell you whether or not he circled the house to ascertain whether any doors may have been left open, such as that door on the east side of the house that you found open?

A: I don’t recall.

Q: Did you find a place on the wall where that picture that you saw lying on the floor may have been hung?

A: Yes. Had it been hung, it would have covered that “Death to Pigs.”

MR. KEITH: I have nothing further.

MR. KAY: Nothing further, your Honor.

THE COURT: Thank you, sir. You may be excused.

We will have our afternoon recess at this time.

Ladies and gentlemen, once more, please heed the usual admonition.

THE COURT: People against Watson,

Let the record show all jurors, counsel and defendant present.

MR. KAY: People call as their next witness, Sgt. Edward L. Cline.

THE CLERK: Raise your right hand, please.

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

THE WITNESS: I do.

THE CLERK: Thank you?

Take the stand and be seated.

Would you state and spell your name, please.

THE WITNESS: Edward L. Cline, C-l-i-n-e.

Q: Sgt. Cline, what is your occupation and current assignment?

A: Police officer for the city of Los Angeles, attached to burglary-auto theft division.

Q: How long have you been a police officer for the city of Los Angeles?

A: 17 years.

Q: And were you assigned to the homicide division for any period of that time?

A: Approximately six years, yes.

Q: Now, directing your attention to August 10, 1969, where were you assigned?

A: To Hollywood Division patrol.

Q: Now, further directing your attention to about 10:45 p.m., did you have occasion to go to the address of 3301 Waverly in the city of Los Angeles on August the 10th, 1969?

A: Yes, I did.

Q: And so you arrived there about 10:45?

A: That’s correct.

Q: Did you see people out in front of the house when you arrived?

A: Yes, I did.

Q: Did you enter the residence?

A: I did.

Q: I show you exhibit 91, which has been remarked, Sgt. Cline.

Do you recognize what is depicted in that photograph?

A: Yes, I do.

Q: And what is depicted?

A: That of a male body, two couches, a table or coffee table, a fork protruding from the abdominal area of the male victim; and pieces of furniture.

Q: Now, is that an accurate photograph of the scene at 3301 Waverly as you saw it when you entered the residence on August the 10th, 1969?

A: Yes, sir, it is.

Q: Did you have occasion after you entered the residence -- and I take it this is the living room area; is that correct?

A: That’s correct.

Q: Did you have an occasion to go to the main bedroom area?

A: Yes, I did.

Q: What, if anything, did you find when you went to the main bedroom area?

A: I found the body of a female laying face down on the floor.

Q: First before I show you a photograph, if you can leave the stand a minute and show the jurors on exhibit 201 exactly where the bedroom is where you found the body of the female.

A: It was in this area here.

THE COURT: Now is that room marked on that diagram?

MR. KAY: That is marked “Bedroom” and it has the word “Spots” on it and it has two apparent spots. It is in the lower left-hand corner of the house portion of the exhibit.

THE COURT: The southwest corner of the building, is that correct, officer, the southwest room?

THE WITNESS: It would be the southwest room, yes, that is right.

MR. KAY: Your Honor, I have a photograph here. It is exhibit 93.

May it be remarked exhibit 93 for the purpose of this trial?

THE COURT: It may be so marked.

Q BY MR. KAY: Sergeant, I show you exhibit 93.

Do you recognize what is depicted in that photograph?

A: Yes, I do.

Q: What is depicted?

A: That of a female body with clothing pulled over the head, some puncture wounds in the area of the buttocks and, of course, the rug and a small settee, whatever they call it.

Q: What is the woman wearing in that photograph?

A: It appeared to me to be a negligee type nightgown.

Q: And also does it appear that she has a robe on besides the nightgown?

A: I don’t know if that was a robe or not. I did not move it. It was in that position when I saw it.

MR. KAY: Your Honor, I have here two other photographs, one is numbered 212. May that be remarked 212 for the purpose of this trial?

THE COURT: It may be so marked.

Q BY MR. KAY: Now, first, I show you what you have in your hand now, exhibit 212.

Do you recognize what is depicted in that photograph?

A: Yes, I do.

Q: And is that showing a photograph of the same body that is in exhibit 93?

A: Yes, it is.

Q: That is just a different view of it?

A: Just the lower extremity, yes.

Q: And showing you another portion of the room that is not depicted in exhibit 93?

A: That is correct.

Q: And does that appear to you to be an accurate photograph of the scene as you saw it?

A: Yes, it is.

Q: I show you exhibit 213.

Do you recognize what is depicted in that photograph?

A: Yes, I do.

Q: And does that photograph show the body of the female that is depicted in exhibit 93 and exhibit 212, but a view of the front portion of the body and or the portion of the bedroom that is in front of the front portion of the body?

A: Yes, that is correct.

Q: And does that appear to be an accurate photograph of the way the scene looked to you when you discovered the body on August 10, 1969?

A: Yes, it is.

THE COURT: May I see those three, officer, please?

Thank you.

Q BY MR. KAY: Now, after you found the body of the female that is depicted in Exhibit 93 and 212 and 213, what, if anything, did you do?

A: I then went out and called the ambulance drivers back to the scene, as they were leaving.

Q: Had they already pronounced the male dead?

A: Yes, they had.

Q: And then did they come and examine the female?

A: They did.

Q: And did they pronounce her dead?

A: Yes.

Q: Did you make sure that nobody touched the bodies of the male and the female until the homicide unit arrived?

A: Yes.

Q: Now, Sergeant, going through the house did you notice any unusual writings to be on the walls of the house?

A: Yes, I did.

Q: First, in the living room area did you notice any unusual writings?

A: Yes.

Q: What did you notice?

A: On the -- it would be the north wall as you enter the front door there was “Death to Pigs” written on the wall.

MR. KAY: Your Honor, I have Exhibit 204 here; I’m not sure whether or not it has been remarked.

THE CLERK: No, it hasn’t.

MR. KAY: May it be remarked for the purpose of this trial, 204?

THE COURT: It may be so marked.

Q BY MR. KAY: Sergeant, I show you Exhibit 204. Do you recognize what is depicted in that photograph?

A: Yes, I do.

Q: What is depicted?

A: The writing, “Death to Pigs”; several pictures hung on the wall.

Q: Did you determine what that appeared to be written in; that is, “Death to Pigs”?

A: It appeared to be blood, to me, at the time.

Q: Now, you see that there is a picture -- well, there are several pictures on the wall below the writing “Pigs” and there also appears to be a picture leaning against the wall, that is not hung on the wall.

Did you notice that to be in the position it is in that photograph?

A: Yes, I did.

Q: And approximately how wide an area did this writing, “Death to Pigs” cover?

A: If I recall correctly, four and a half to five feet, possibly.

Q: So the letters were pretty big?

A: Yes, they were.

Q: Now, approximately how high off the floor was “Death to Pigs” written?

A: Six and a half to seven feet, possibly.

Q: So, in other words -- how tall are you?

A: I’m six feet.

Q: So if you were to have done that writing, would you have to reach up with your arm to do it?

A: Yes.

Q: Now, what other writings did you observe besides “Death to Pigs” in the living room?

A: On the next to the entry, the door, the front door, I believe, on the left-hand side near the upper jam, was the word “Rise.”

Q: Did that also appear to be written in blood?

A: Yes, it did.

MR. KAY: Your Honor, I have here Exhibit 205. May it be remarked 205 for the purpose of this trial?

THE COURT: It may be so marked.

Q BY MR. KAY: Sergeant Cline, I show you Exhibit 205. Do you recognize what is depicted in that photograph?

A: Yes, I do.

Q: And does it show the word “Rise” written on the upper left -- well, the portion just to the left of the front door?

A: Yes, that’s correct.

Q: Now, approximately how high off the ground was that word written?

A: It is approximately the same, six and a half to seven -- may not seven feet, mix and a half feet, I would say -- maybe seven feet, yes.

Q: And this was right to the left of the front door?

A: To the left of the jam, yes.

Q: Now, did you go to any other portion of the house?

A: Yes, I went to the dining area and the kitchen.

Q: Now, once you were in the kitchen did you notice any unusual writings?

A: I noticed some writing on the door of the icebox.

Q: What did you observe to be written on the door of the icebox?

A: “Helter-Skelter.”

Q: And did this also appear to be written in blood?

A: Yes, it did.

MR. KAY: Your Honor, I have here Exhibit 206.

May it be remarked Exhibit 206 for the purposes of his trial?

THE COURT: That has already been marked.

MR. KAY: Has it? Thank you.

Q: Sergeant Cline, I show you Exhibit 206. Do you recognize what is depicted in that photograph?

A: Yes, I do.

Q: Does that show “Helter-Skelter” on the refrigerator door?

A: Yes.

Q: Is that an accurate photograph?

A: Yes.

Q: In other words, “Helter-Skelter,” “Rise,” and “Death to PIgs,” the three photographs all appear to you to be accurate photographs of how the scene looked when you saw it on the night of August the 10th?

A: That’s correct.

Q: Where was the writing, “Death to Pigs,” and “Rise” in relation to the bodies of Leno and Rosemary LaBianca, if you could step to the Exhibit 201 and point out for the jury exactly where they were?

A: The wall is in the area here -- this is where the “Death to Pigs” was written on this wall.

Q: Now, let’s see if we can describe that; That would be --

THE COURT: The north wall of the living room.

Q BY MR. KAY: -- of the living room?

A: And the body of Mr. LaBianca, was in this area here.

Q: Where it says “Spot”?

A: Right.

Q: Between the two sofas?

A: Right; and from this area the body of Mrs. LaBianca was in this location here, in relation to that “Death to Pigs.”

Q: Now, what about “Rise”?

A: “Rise” was right over this door here; and, of course, the same relation; the male body was here and the female body was here.

THE COURT: Is that the southeast room of that building?

THE WITNESS: Southwest, your Honor.

THE COURT: Not where you found “Rise”?

THE WITNESS: No, that’s correct, yes.

THE COURT: Southeast?

THE WITNESS: Southeast; it would be here, the body; the male body here and the female body here.

Q BY MR. KAY: I notice in the living room here it says “Front door” and then just to the right of that there is a “R”; is that correct?

A: Yes.

Q: That is about the general location where you found the word “Rise”?

A: That is correct.

Q: Now, you see on the diagram that there is a kitchen here. Where was the refrigerator located?

A: At the very -- at this right here, at this location here.

Q: It is marked “R-e-f-r-i-g.”

A: Yes.

Q: And that refers to the refrigerator that you found the word “Helter skelter” to be written on?

A: That is correct.

THE COURT: You have been referring to exhibit 201.

MR. KAY: That is correct, you Honor. Thank you.

Q: Sergeant, did you preserve the scene until the fingerprint men and the photographic unit arrived?

A: Yes, I did.

Q: Did you tell everyone else to get out of the house besides yourself?

A: There was no one in the house but myself.

I entered the house and had my uniformed personnel seal the area and I was the only one that entered at that time.

Q: Now, did you notice anything to be wrong with any of the windows in the house?

A: Only one window and that was in the living room.

Q: What type of a window was that?

A: Those were louvre-type windows.

Q: What did you notice to be wrong with the louvred window in the living room?

A: One louvre had been taken out and stood on end and leaned against the wall.

Q: Approximately how large was this louvered window?

A: Oh, four, four and a half inches wide, about two and a half feet long, maybe two feet.

Q: In other words then just by removing that louvred window a person couldn’t get into the house that way, could they?

A: No. The screen was still intact on the outside.

Q: Was the screen damaged in any way?

A: No, it was not.

Q: Approximately how long were you at the scene?

A: Two and a half hours, approximately.

Q: And did detective Sgt. Galindo arrive while you were there?

A: Yes.

Q: And did you remove any item of evidence at all from the scene?

A: None.

MR. KAY: Your Honor, do you have the other photographs there?

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. KAY: Thank you.

Counsel, may it be stipulated that the female depicted in exhibit 93, 212, and 213 is Rosemary LaBianca?

MR. KEITH: Yes.

MR. KAY: And may it be stipulated that the male depicted in exhibit 91 is Leno LaBianca?

MR. KEITH: So stipulated.

MR. BUBRICK: Yes.

MR. KAY: Thank you.

Nothing further

Q: Did the inscriptions on the walls appear to you to have been written by the same person, and on the refrigerator door also?

MR. KAY: That calls for a conclusion, your Honor.

THE COURT: Did the letters appear similar?

THE WITNESS: It appeared similar, yes.

Q BY MR. KEITH: Did any handwriting expert arrive at the scene while you were there preserving it?

A: I have no idea, counselor. I left before some of them got there.

Q: Were there any chairs in the living room?

A: Yes.

Q: Addressing your attention to exhibit 204 for identification, showing the inscription “Death to the pigs,” directly below appears some kind of a picture.

Do you see that? It is a brown painting of some kind.

A: Yes.

Q: And was that brown painting resting on the floor when you first arrived at the scene in the condition that it is now?

A: Yes. That is a burlap type material with a painting on it and it is, as you see it there, it is resting on the floor standing on end.

Q: And what is it resting against?

A: It is leaning against I believe it was a small table, I am not sure, or possibly it could have been a chair. I am not sure but I think there was a service table there, a small table where you leave -- I think this lamp was standing on that table.

Q: Just to identify the burlap painting further, you see a red “X” -- not a “X,” a check mark.

A: Yes.

Q: Somebody has placed on the photograph itself.

A: Yes.

Q: And there is also a rectangle drawn in red above the inscription to which you have referred. That was something that was placed on this photograph for whatever purpose we don’t know, but at any rate that wasn’t on the wall at the time?

A: No, it was not, no.

Q: And the same with the red check mark?

A: That is correct.

Q: That is something that has been placed on the photograph, obviously?

A: Yes.

Q: Did you observe any picture hanger on the wall by this inscription which we have been talking about?

A: There was a nail in the wall.

Q: Is that visible in this photograph?

A: I am not sure if it is or not.

It seems to me it was up in this area some place.

Q: By “this area,” you are referring to within the area outlined by this red ink?

A: Yes, that is correct.

Q: Was the ambulance leaving with Mr. LaBianca in it when you called it back?

A: No. He had just given us a copy of the ambulance slip, which is the pink slip and then, of course, they don’t remove the body until -- they don’t. The Coroner removes the body.

Q: Referring again to 204, were there any chairs or tables or sofas or couches below this inscription “Death to pigs” that doesn’t show up in the photograph?

A: There was -- I think there was a small table that this lamp was resting on, a short table, but I don’t recall any chair being in this vicinity, or high table, so to speak.

Q: You weren’t one of the investigating officers assigned to the LaBianca case, I take it?

A: No, I was not.

Q: Did you actually measure the height of these inscriptions “Death to pigs” and “Rise”?

A: No, I did not.

Q: So your six and a half feet to seven feet is an approximation?

A: Just an estimate, yes.

Q: Was anything at all disturbed in the master bedroom where you discovered Mrs. LaBianca while you were there?

A: Yes.

Q: What was that?

A: The end table on the left side of the bed, two of the drawers were open and there was some papers on the floor, two $1 bills. The lamp was turned over and lying on the floor.

Q: You say that there were two $1 bills lying on the floor?

A: Yes.

Q: And the photographs which you identified, were they taken while you were there?

These are the photographs of the master bedroom, showing --

A: Some of them were taken when I was there, but the majority of them, I was on the exterior of the home.

Q: Those photographs, then, show how the place looked, that bedroom, for instance --

A: Yes.

Q: -- looked when you first saw it; is that a fair statement?

A: The portions of it that are portrayed in those photos, yes.

Q: Do the photographs show the dollar bills lying on the floor?

A: The photo that I was shown here be the district attorney did not depict that.

Q: They do depict the lamp that was turned over, do they not?

A: Yes.

Q: At least, one of them does?

A: One of them does.

Q: The things that you observed that were disturbed were the lamp and a table and this drawer that had been pulled out?

A: Well, the drawer and the little end table are all the same unit; the drawer was in that end table.

Q: I see.

A: It hadn’t been moved, the drawer had just been pulled out and the papers were on the floor.

Q: When you speak of an end table, I’m going to show you Exhibit 212 and ask you if that is the end table to which you are referring, which is shown in the upper part of the photograph by the lamp?

A: No, this is the right side of the bed. The end table is on the left side, over here as you enter.

Q: So there is no photograph of this end table that you were shown, at any rate, at this proceeding?

A: Not at this proceeding, no.

Q: Is that something that is turned over by the lamp, which is obviously on the floor?

A: Well, that was the stand for the lamp; that is turned over.

Q: At least, appeared to you that that table that is on its side supported the lamp?

A: Yes.

Q: Now, was the end table that you spoke of turned over, also --

A: No.

Q: -- on its side?

A: It was upright.

Q: There was just a drawer that was pulled out?

A: Partially open, yes.

Q: And the drawer wasn’t on the floor, it was still inside the table, but it was just partially open; is that correct?

A: Yes, that’s correct.

MR. KEITH: I have nothing further.

MR. KAY: Just a few questions, your Honor.

Q: Sgt. Cline, on this photograph that Mr. Keith showed you, Exhibit 204, with the writing “Death to Pigs,” did it appear to you that this painting, which I believe you said was burlap --

A: Yes.

Q: Did it appear to you that the painting once was hung on the wall where the writing “Death to Pigs” is in this photograph?

A: Yes, I assumed that it was.

Q: In other words, the painting was approximately the same size as the words “Death to Pigs”?

A: Approximately, yes.

Q: A long painting?

A: Yes, it is an oblong.

MR. KAY: Your Honor, I have here a large photograph marked Exhibit 200.

May it be remarked Exhibit 200 for the purposes of this trial?

THE COURT: It may be so marked.

Q BY MR. KAY: Sgt. Cline, I show you Exhibit 200, which is an aerial photograph, and I show you the house in the middle of the photograph, do you recognize that to be the LaBianca home?

A: It appears to be the home, yes.

Q: In other words, there is a long driveway in front of it?

A: Yes, and a large wall next door -- or, bordering the drive.

THE COURT: Is the LaBianca home marked on there?

MR. KAY: Yes.

THE COURT: How is it marked?

MR. KAY: Well, there is an open door and it looks like blue or purple, and then there is something in red which probably says, “LaBianca residence,” but it’s faint.

MR. BUGLIOSI: “LaBianca residence.”

MR. KAY: It is faint, but it says, “LaBianca residence.”

THE COURT: Can you circle that with red now, the LaBianca residence?

MR. KAY: I will circle it with a red grease pencil.

THE COURT: Fine.

MR. KAY: No further questions.

THE COURT: Thank you, Sergeant, you may be excused.

MR. KAY: People call as their next witness, Detective Danny Galindo.

THE CLERK: Raise your right hand, please.

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

THE WITNESS: I do.

THE CLERK: Thank you. Be seated and would you state and spell your name, please.

THE WITNESS: Danny Galindo, D-a-n-n-y; G-a-l-i-n-d-o.

THE CLERK: Thank you.

Q: Sgt. Galindo, what is your occupation and assignment?

A: I am a police officer for the City of Los Angeles, assigned to Robbery-Homicide Division.

Q: And how long have you been a police officer in the City of Los Angeles?

A: 25 years, one month and two weeks.

Q: When are you going to retire?

A: Right after this case is over.

Q: Sgt. Galindo, now directing your attention to August the 10th and 11th, 1969, what was your assignment?

A: I was working on Robbery-Homicide Division.

Q: And did you have occasion on those dates to go to the address at 3301 Waverly Drive, and more specifically on August the 11th, 1969, did you go there?

A: Yes, I did.

Q: And approximately what time did you arrive there?

A: Approximately 1300 hours -- I am sorry -- about 1:00 o’clock in the morning.

Q: You are not in the army now.

A: 1:00 o’clock in the morning.

Q: What, if anything, did you do when you first arrived there?

A: I talked to Inspector McCauley and other policemen who had been at the scene ahead of me.

Q: Now, during the daylight hours of August the 11th, 1969, did you direct certain aerial photographs to be taken of the LaBianca residence?

A: Yes.

Q: Sgt. Galindo, I show you Exhibit 200, and directing your attention to the residence that is encircled in red with a red grease pencil, in the middle, do you recognize that to be the LaBianca residence?

A: Yes, sir, I do.

Q: Is this one of the aerial photographs that you directed to be taken?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: Now, also during the daylight hours of August the 11th, do you perform a search of the grounds at 3301 Waverly and the grounds adjacent to the residence?

A: I directed a search to be made.

Q: What were you looking for?

A: Weapons, clothing, anything of evidentiary value that could be determined was associated to the tragedy at that location.

Q: Did you find any weapons, either knives, guns or anything else?

A: Not without the premises; I did within the premises.

Q: Did you find anything at all outside the residence as far as bloody clothing or knives or any type of weapons?

A: No, we cleaned up the yard fairly well, improved the ecology somewhat, but nothing that was found.

Q: Well, I take it that none of the other officers, then, found anything, either?

A: No, sir, they didn’t.

Q: Well, were any other clothes, any other bloody clothes found other than the clothes that Mr. and Mrs. LaBianca were wearing at the time they were murdered?

A: Not to my knowledge, no, sir.

Q: So when you say you found clothing inside, you are referring to the clothes that Mr. and Mrs. LaBianca were wearing?

A: Weapons and clothes within the premises, yes.

Q: Sgt. Galindo, I show you exhibit 91. Do you recognize what is depicted in that photograph?

A: Yes, sir, I do.

Q: Is that a photograph of Mr. LaBianca?

A: Yes, it is.

Q: And did he look that way when you arrived at the scene?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: Did you notice that there is something protruding from Mr. LaBianca’s abdomen?

A: Yes.

Q: Did you determine what that was?

A: Yes.

Q: What was it?

A: It was a serving fork from a carving set.

MR. KAY: I have here, your Honor, exhibit 207. May it be remarked 207?

THE COURT: It has already been marked.

Q BY MR. KAY: Sgt. Galindo, I show you exhibit 209. Do you recognize that?

A: Yes, I do.

Q: All right.

Was that the fork that was protruding from Mr. LaBianca’s abdomen?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: And about how far was this fork, if we turned it in this manner, about how far was this fork stuck into Mr. LaBianca’s abdomen?

A: It was pushed in all the way to the bifurcation of the two tines.

Q: In other words, to this point right here, the bifurcation of the two tines?

A: Yes.

Q: Did you ever make a search of the LaBianca home to determine whether or not there were any other kitchen utensils that appeared to be similar to the fork that you found protrudding from Mr. LaBianca’s abdomen?

A: Yes, sir, I did.

Q: Did you find any?

A: Yes, sir.

MR. KAY: Your Honor, I have here a brown manila envelope marked exhibit 214.

May it be remarked exhibit 214 for the purpose of this trial?

THE COURT: It may be so marked.

MR. KAY: I am going to take this back to the desk here so we don’t get it mixed up.

Q: Sgt. Galindo, I removed from this envelope four kitchen utensils. Do you recognize these?

A: Yes, I do.

Q: And did you find these in the LaBianca home?

A: Yed. I found them in the top drawer just to the right of the stove in the kitchen in the LaBianca home.

Q: And do they have exactly the same design and handles as the fork that you found protruding from Mr. LaBianca’s abdomen?

A: Yes. They are all a set.

THE COURT: Keele product; is that correct?

THE WITNESS: I think so.

MR. KAY: It says Flint.

Q: Did you find any newspapers lying on the coffee table in front of Mr. LaBianca’s body?

A: Yes. There was a major portion of the Sunday Times laying on the coffee table and a piece of the paper was also on the floor.

Q: In other words, these had the date August the 10th on them?

A: Yes, sir, they did.

Q: Did you notice anything to be wrapped around Mr. LaBianca’s neck?

A: Yes, I did.

Q: What was that?

A: That was the lamp cord, rather whitish lamp cord, about 14 gauge wire, and it reached from, the male end of the plug reached from his neck, and the other end, it was still connected to a rather massive lamp that was sitting on top of a round coffee table or end table.

Q: Is that the white lamp that is depicted in this photograph, exhibit 91?

A: Yes, it is.

Q: And there appears to be a white cord that goes in this photograph underneath a white sofa pillow?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: So, in other words, one end was still connected to this white lamp and the other end was wrapped around Leno LaBianca’s neck?

A: That is right.

Q: Did you notice Mr. LaBiana’s head to be in anything?

A: Later when I removed the pillow, I noticed that it was, that there was a pillow slip covering his entire head.

Q: In other words, had the entire pillow slip been pulled ever his head?

A: It was completely enveloping his head and part of his neck.

Q: Was the cord tied around the pillow case, around the neck portion?

A: I don’t remember.

The neck area was rather bloody and difficult to determine exactly how the wire -- you could see that the wire was wrapped around his neck.

MR. KAY: Your Honor, I have exhibit 210 here. May it be remarked 210 for identification for the purpose of this trial. It is a knife.

THE CLERK: Previously marked.

THE COURT: It has already been marked.

Q BY MR. KAY: Sgt. Galindo, I show you exhibit 210. Where did you see that, if anywhere, before for the first time?

A: The first time I saw that knife was at the morgue at the Coroner’s office in the hands of Dr. Katsuyama.

Q: Did your notice whether in the LaBianca residence there were any other knives that looked like that?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: And were there?

A: Yes, there were. There was a whole set of them.

Q: I take it that you never did see this knife actually at the LaBianca residence; is that true?

A: That is true.

Q: You didn’t see it until Mr. LaBianca’s body was taken to the Coroner’s office?

A: That is true.

Q: Did you observe a Coroner to come out to the LaBianca house while Mr. LaBianca’s body was still there?

A: Yes.

Q: Did you notice the Coroner turn Mr. LaBianca’s body over so that he would be lying on his stomach?

A: Yes, I did.

Q: That was after the fork had been removed, I take it?

A: Yes.

MR. KAY: Your Honor, I have here a photograph, exhibit 90.

May it be remarked exhibit 90 for the purpose of this trial?

THE COURT: It may be so marked.

Q BY MR. KAY: Sgt. Galindo, I show you people’s exhibit No. 90. Do you recognize what is depicted in that photograph?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: What is depicted?

A: It shows the back of Leno LaBianca and some leather thongs wrapped around his wrist and appears to be wearing a gold or gold colored wrist hand of some kind and bloody clothing and his blue pajamas.

Q: In other words, his wrists were tied together behind his back?

A: Yes, they were.

Q: With what appeared to be leather thongs?

A: Yes, sir; they looked like leather shoe laces, from boots.

MR. KAY: Your Honor, I have here exhibit 92.

May it be remarked exhibit 92 for the purposes of this trial?

THE COURT: It may be so marked.

Q BY MR. KAY: Now, Sgt. Galindo, after you removed the white little throw pillow, the sofa pillow from the head area of Leno LaBianca, I show you exhibit 92.

Is this what you observed?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: So, in that photograph it does appear that the cord is wrapped around the pillow case which is around Mr. LaBianca’s head?

A: It appears to be going that way. However, I get a better glimpse of it when the body was turned over, and there was no question then that the cord was wrapped around his neck.

The cord seems to get lost into the pillow slip in this photograph.

Q: Now, did you notice whether or not there was anything written on the stomach of Leno LaBianca?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: And is that depicted in this photograph, exhibit 92?

A: Partially; almost all of the lettering appears.

Q: And what is the words that is written there?

A: W-a-r.

Q: War?

Did you determine what it appeared to be written with?

A: No; however, it appeared as though it had been done with some very sharp instrument because it left a rather large, angry welt along the lines of the markings.

THE COURT: In other words, that was not painted on, that was carved into the stomach, is that it, these letters?

THE WITNESS: It was more -- it appeared to be more superficial, but a little deeper than superficial, your Honor.

THE COURT: But not painted on; those letters were not painted on?

THE WITNESS: Oh, no, they were scratched in there, scratched right into the flesh.

Q BY MR. KAY: Did it appear to you that something like one of the tines of this fork could have done that?

A: It is quite possible, yes.

Q: Were those scars where the word “war” was, was they dry at the time you observed the body or were they still moist?

A: No, they were dry, bloody dry.

THE COURT: Are you going to another topic now?

MR. KAY: This would be a good point, your Honor.

THE COURT: Ladies and gentlemen, we will recess at this time until 9:30 tomorrow morning.

Once again, do not form or express any opinion in this case; do not discuss it among yourselves or with anybody else; please keep an open mind.

Sergeant, you are directed to return at 9:30 tomorrow morning.