LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA, FRIDAY, DECEMBER 5, 1969,
1:08 O'CLOCK P.M.
-o0o-

MR. STOVITZ: May we have Susan Atkins; please.

SUSAN DENICE ATKINS,
the witness on the stand at the time of the noon recess, having been previously duly sworn, resumed the stand and testified further as follows:

THE FOREMAN: I would like to remind you that you are still under oath and the admonition that I gave you this morning still stands.

THE WITNESS: I understand that.

Q BY MR. BUGLIOSI: Okay, we hope to have you off the witness stand in about a half hour or so. I know it is not easy up there.

Going back just a second, Susan, with the Tate homicides, on the day following the date of the homicides, in addition to your comment when you saw the news over the television did you hear any other member of the Family discuss these Tate murders at the ranch?

A: Some of the girls talked about it and said that -- I don't recall exactly what they said but they were aware of the fact that we had gone out the night before.

Q: They were aware of the fact that --

A: We had gone out.

Q: That Katie, Tex and Linda had done it?

A: Not had done it but had gone out the night before. At that time they weren't aware of the fact that we had done it but we didn't actually have to say anything. The Family was so much together that nothing ever had to be said. We all just knew what each other would do or had done.

Q: You got the impression that other members of the Family knew that you, Tex, Linda and Katie had done it?

A: I got the impression they put two and two together.

Q: Did you hear Tex or Charlie talk about it the day following?

A: No.

MR. BUGLIOSI: Mr. Foreman, the following testimony again, will relate to Counts VI, VII and VIII of the proposed indictment.

Q BY MR. BUGLIOSI: Susan, on August the 10th, that is the following night following the Tate homicides, did Charlie say anything to you?

A: He told me to go get two changes -- get a change of clothes.

I looked at him and I knew what he wanted me to do and I gave a sort of a sigh and went and did what he asked me to do. I didn't pick up any weapons.

Q: Did he ask you to get a knife?

A: No.

Q: This is Charlie Manson you are talking about?

A: Yes.

Q: Did he say what you were going to do that night?

A: He said we were going to go out and do the same thing we did the last night.

Q: You gave Charlie a sigh when he said that?

A: Yeah, I was in a state of shock.

Q: From the previous night?

A: From the previous night.

Q: What time did you leave the ranch that night?

A: I don't know. I know it was in the early evening. It was after dark.

Q: What car did you leave in?

A: The same car as the night before.

Q: Who drove the car?

A: Charlie.

Q: Who was in the car with you and Charlie?

A: Tex, Clem, Katie, Leslie, Linda and myself.

Q: So there was Charlie, that is Manson, Clem, Katie, and Leslie, and Tex; is that correct?

A: Yes and Linda.

MR. BUGLIOSI: And Linda Kasabian.

Mr. Foreman, I have here a photograph of a male Caucasian.

May it be marked Grand Jury Exhibit No. 15 for identification?

THE FOREMAN: It may be so marked.

MR. BUGLIOSI: I have here another photograph of a female Caucasian.

May it be marked Grand Jury Exhibit No. 16 for identification?

THE FOREMAN: It may be so marked.

Q BY MR. BUGLIOSI: I show you Grand Jury Exhibit No. 15.

Do you know who is shown in this photograph?

A: Yes, that is Clem.

Q: Clem Tufts?

A: Yes.

Q: And he was one of the persons who was in the car that Charlie was driving that night?

A: Yes.

Q: I show you Grand Jury Exhibit No. 16.

Do you know who is shown in that photograph?

A: Yes.

Q: Who is that?

A: That is Leslie.

Q: Do you know her last name?

A: No, I don't.

Q: Does the name Sankston ring a bell?

A: No. I don't think I ever knew Leslie's last name.

Q: This is the Leslie about whom you have been referring as being in the car?

A: Yes.

Q: Were there any weapons in the car?

A: Just a gun, to my knowledge.

Q: Who had the gun?

A: Charlie.

Q: This was not the same gun as the previous night?

A: The gun the previous night was thrown over a hill.

Q: By Linda?

A: Yes.

Q: After you got into the car where did Charlie drive the car?

A: We just started driving and I know that we went to Pasadena because we went on the Pasadena Freeway.

Q: While you were driving around, Susan, was there any discussion as to what you were going to do?

A: The only discussion that I can recall, sticks in my mind, is that the same thing we had done last night only two different houses, there was to be two sets of -- two groups consisting of one man and two girls to go to two different houses. That is why there were two men and six women -- and four women.

Q: Who was saying this?

A: Charlie Manson. I don't know that these were the exact words but basically that is what he said.

Q: Charlie Manson told you other people in the car that you were going to two houses this particular night, August 10th?

A: Yes.

Q: And that your group would be broken up into two groups?

A: Yes.

Q: One for each house; is that correct?

A: Yes.

Q: While you were driving around did Charlie stop the car at any time?

A: Yes.

Q: Did Charlie get out of the car?

A: Yes.

Q: By himself?

A: Yes.

Q: Was the car parked in front of a home?

A: Yes.

Q: Do you know what area of town that was in?

A: Somewhere in Pasadena, I believe.

Q: Did the rest of you stay in the car?

A: Yes.

Q: What did Charlie do; if you recall?

A: I don't know. We drove around the block and came back and picked Charlie up.

Q: Did Charlie say anything once he got back in the car?

A: Yes, he said he saw pictures of children through the window and he didn't want to do that house.

Q: Did Charlie ever make any comments to you about his feelings towards children?

A: He loves children very much, children are the answer.

Q: Did Charlie stop at any other house after that?

A: We stopped at one house and then --

Q: Do you know where that was?

A: Somewhere in the same neighborhood.

Q: Did Charlie get out of the car at that time?

A: No.

Q: He stayed in the car?

A: Yes.

Q: What took place in front of that house?

A: Nothing, we just watched.

Q: For how long?

A: About two, three minutes.

Q: Was anything said at that time?

A: No.

Q: What happened next?

A: We drove on and then we just continued driving around and I fell asleep, I was thoroughly exhausted, and when I woke up we were in front of another house and I seemed to recognize the house -- not the house, but the particular area.

Q: Before we go into that, just go back a second.

Charlie saw some pictures of children in one of these homes; is that correct?

A: Yes.

Q: He did not want to kill anyone because of the children?

A: That is correct.

Q: Did Charlie make any statement to you at that time with respect to the possibility of killing children in the future?

A: He said, "You realize that if you have to take the life of a child it would only be to save the children of the future."

Q: Did he explain what he meant by that?

A: No.

Q: All right, so eventually, then, you stopped in front of another home; is that correct?

A: Yes.

Q: And you recognized what about this house?

A: I recognized the surroundings.

Q: Had you been to that area before?

A: Yes.

Q: When?

A: About a year, about a year previous.

Q: Were you there by yourself at that time?

A: No, I was there with about fifteen people.

Q: Did you enter a home at that particular time a year earlier?

A: Yes.

Q: Was that home -- where was that home in relation to the home in front of which you were presently parked?

A: Next door to the right.

Q: What had you done in that other home about a year earlier?

A: We all took an LSD trip together.

Q: You and Charlie and some other people?

A: Yes, about fifteen of us.

Q: You recognized this home?

A: I recognized the area.

MR. BUGLIOSI: Mr. Foreman, I have here another photograph.

This is a photograph of the front portion of a home.

May it be marked Grand Jury Exhibit No. 17 for identification?

THE FOREMAN: It may be so marked.

Q BY MR. BUGLIOSI: I show you Grand Jury Exhibit No. 17 for identification, Susan, and ask you if you have seen that particular home before.

A: The home I did not see. This wall I did recognize.

Q: You say "this wall," you are pointing to the wall on the left side of the photograph?

A: Yes.

MR. BUGLIOSI: I have here another photograph, Mr. Foreman.

It appears to be the same home but it also shows a driveway.

May it be marked Grand Jury Exhibit No. 18 for identification?

THE FOREMAN: It may be so marked.

Q BY MR. BUGLIOSI: Susan, I show you Grand Jury Exhibit No. 18 for identification.

Do you know what is shown in this photograph?

A: Yes, we were parked, basically, right here.

Q: Right at the bottom of the driveway?

A: Yes, more in front of the pillar. And the reason why I couldn't see the house was I was sitting in the back seat and the back -- like I said earlier, there is no back seat to the car and I was slumped down because I was sleeping and when I looked up I just woke up from a dream and I dreamed that Charlie had gone into a house with Tex and killed the people.

Q: Now, you do recognize this driveway right here; is that correct?

A: Yes.

Q: And your car was parked in front of the driveway?

A: Somewhere around in this area, in between here and here.

Q: And to the right of the home that is shown in this photograph here, Grand Jury 18, there is another home where you had gone a year earlier with Charlie; is that correct?

A: Yes.

Q: What happened after Charlie stopped the car in front of this home?

A: He got out of the car.

Q: By himself?

A: Yes.

Now, the only reason why I know he got out of the car is because when I woke up he wasn't in the car.

Q: Was everyone else in the car?

A: Yes.

Q: That is, Clem and the rest of them?

A: Yes.

Q: What happened next?

A: Then he came back and he said, "Tex, Katie --" and he looked at me and he could see that I didn't want to go into the house, and he said, "Leslie, go into the house. I have got the people tied up. They are very calm."

He said something to the effect last night that Tex let the people know they were going to be killed which caused panic and Charlie said that he reassured the people with smiles in a very quiet manner that they were not to be harmed and -- just that they were not to be harmed.

And so Tex and Leslie and Katie got out of the car.

Q: You say "Katie," Patricia Krenwinkel?

A: Yes.

Q: And Leslie, is that the photograph of the girl I showed you?

A: Yes.

Q: And Tex?

A: Yes.

Q: Three of them?

A: Yes.

Q: These three got out of the car?

A: Yes.

Q: And you and Charlie and Clem and Linda remained in the car?

A: Yes, and Charlie also had a wallet which he supposedly got from the house. He said it was the woman's identification.

Q: When did Charlie say this?

A: When he got back in the car and after he sent Linda -- not Linda, but Leslie and Katie and Tex into the house.

Q: Did Charlie tell Tex and Katie and Leslie what to do once they entered the house?

A: No. Whether it be a fact that I heard it or my imagination that tells me this, I'm not sure, so, you know --

Q: What is your present belief at this time?

A: It is not a belief it is just a thought that is in my mind.

Q: What is the thought at this time?

A: That Charlie instructed them to go in and kill them.

Q: And you said that he had already tied them up; is that correct?

A: Yes, he said to paint a picture more gruesome than anybody had ever seen.

Q: He told Tex this?

A: Yes.

Q: Did he tell Tex and Leslie and Katie how they were supposed to get back to the ranch that night?

A: Hitchhike.

Q: He indicated to them that he and you and the rest would not wait outside?

A: That is correct.

Q: Did you see Katie and Leslie and Tex enter the home?

A: No, I did not.

Q: How long after they left your car did Charlie drive off?

A: Almost immediately.

Q: You did not come back to the house that night?

A: No.

Q: Did Charlie indicate why he had picked this particular house?

A: No, not right away, but I would gather from my own --

Q: Well, apart from any assumption on your part did Charlie ever indicate why he picked this particular house?

A: I thought about that last night and I asked him if it was Harold's house.

Q: Who is Harold?

A: Harold was the man who happened to have lived in the house next door a year ago previously.

Q: What did he say to that?

A: He said, "No, it's the one next door."

Q: What happened after you and Tex (sic) and the other members of your Family drove off?

A: Well, we drove around and Charlie said we were going in the opposite direction than we came from.

We drove about in a predominantly colored area, I don't know the area but this is what I gathered.

Q: You saw quite a few Negroes in the area?

A: Yes.

Q: All right, you may continue.

What happened next?

A: Charlie gave Linda Kasabian the woman's wallet and told her to put it into the bathroom in the gas station and leave it there hoping that somebody would find it and use the credit cards and thus be identified with the murder and then we left.

Q: Did Linda actually do that?

A: Yes, she said she did. I didn't see her leave it but she didn't come back with it, either.

Q: What is the next thing that happened?

A: Then we drove around for a long time and went back to sleep.

It wasn't like I was asleep, it was like I was drugged. I felt very heavily drugged. I was not on drugs at the time, I just felt like that I had been shot with morphine, or something, or fell asleep and I woke up back at the ranch.

Q: Back at the ranch, Susan, did you have any conversations with Patricia Krenwinkel concerning what had taken place inside the residence?

A: I did but I want to ask you a question on this.

Is it required that I give you the information that Katie gave me in front of the Grand Jury?

Q: No, it is not required, Susan, but all I can say is that we'd all appreciate it if you would tell us the complete story. That is what you are here for. We want the truth.

A: Well, I wouldn't lie to you but to say something that somebody told me, I don't know whether it is the truth.

Q: Well, we realize that, Susan, what she told you could have been a fabrication. We realize that.

What we are seeking now is to find out what she told you. It will be determined at a later time whether or not what she told you is the truth, but we would appreciate your telling the Grand Jury members what she told you, to the best of your recollection.

Would you do that for us?

A: Well, no disrespect for the Grand Jury members, what I am about to tell you I don't want to tell you but I will go ahead and tell you anyway.

Q: When did this conversation take place, Susan, with Katie?

A: The next morning.

Q: Were you by yourself?

A: Yes.

Q: Is that at the Spahn Ranch?

A: Yes.

Q: What did Katie tell you?

A: She told me that when they got in the house they took the woman into the bedroom and put her on the bed and left Tex in the living room with the man and that her and Leslie stayed with the woman and reassure that woman that everything was going to be all right and that everything was good and that they wouldn't be hurt and everything was going to be all right, and Katie told me this herself, she said, "I wasn't talking to that woman, I was talking to myself."

And then Katie said the woman heard her husband being killed and started to scream, "What are you doing to my husband?" And Katie said that she then proceeded to stab the woman with either a fork she got from the kitchen or a knife that she got from the kitchen, I'm not sure which.

Q: Did she say what Leslie was doing while --

A: Leslie was helping Katie hold the woman down because the woman was fighting all the way up until she was dead, and I looked at Katie -- and I'm not sure in my own mind whether Katie said this or I said this -- that is what the woman would carry with her infinitely, "What are you doing to my husband?"

Q: Did she say anything about a pillow case?

A: Yes, there was a pillow case placed over the woman's head.

Q: Who placed it over the woman's head?

A: I don't remember whether she did it herself or Leslie did it or whether they did it together.

Q: What else did Katie tell you occurred inside the residence?

A: She said that after that that they went out by the living room and wrote things on the front door.

Q: Did she say what she wrote on the front door?

A: "Death to all pigs." I'm not sure whether she said that they wrote that on the refrigerator door or on the front door.

Q: Did she say what they wrote it with?

A: Blood.

Q: Did she say whether they wrote anything else?

A: I think she said they wrote "Helter-skelter."

Q: Did she say where they wrote that?

A: Not to my recollection. It was either on the front door or the refrigerator door, or on one of the two.

Q: Was that in blood, also?

A: Yes.

Q: Did she say whether they wrote anything else?

A: "Arise."

Q: A-r-i-s-e?

A: Yes.

Q: Did she say where they wrote "Arise"?

A: In the corner in the living room somewhere.

Q: Was that in blood, also?

A: Yes.

Q: Did Katie say anything about fingerprints?

A: I don't really know whether she said anything about fingerprints but from previous experience I would imagine she did.

Then she said they all took showers and changed their clothes.

Q: Inside the residence?

A: Yes.

Q: Did Katie say whether she had done anything with the fork?

A: Yes.

Q: What did she say?

A: She said she went into the living room with a fork. She brought it from the kitchen.

She looked at the man's stomach and she had the fork in her hand and she put the fork in the man's stomach and watched it wobble back and forth. She said she was fascinated by it.

Q: Did she say anything about the word "War"?

A: She said that was carved -- no, she didn't say -- or, did she? I know -- I heard that "War" was carved on the man's chest.

Q: By whom?

A: Katie, I believe.

Q: Katie said that she and Leslie and Tex took a shower inside the house?

A: Yes.

Q: After they killed the two people?

A: Yes.

Q: What did they do after the shower; do you recall?

A: She said they came out of the shower and on the way into the kitchen the dog -- I can't even pronounce the name -- LaBianca's dog --

Q: Did she mention the name LaBianca to you?

A: No.

Q: You may continue.

A: Their dog came in and wagged her tail in front of them and Katie bent over and petted the dog and was kind of surprised the dog wasn't afraid of her and the dog followed them into the kitchen and there they proceeded to eat.

Q: Did Katie say what they were eating?

A: They ate something. They were hungry and decided they wanted something to eat.

Q: Katie, Leslie and Tex?

A: Yes.

Q: Where did they get the food?

A: From the refrigerator.

Q: Did Katie say anything about the children of these two people whom they had killed?

A: She said the bodies would probably be found, on her own assumption, just from the type of people that they were and the neighborhood, they probably had grown children, they'd usually would probably come over for like Sunday dinner, or Sunday afternoon, or sometime during the weekend the children would be over and would find the bodies.

Q: Did Katie say what she and the other two did with their clothing, if anything?

A: They changed their clothes.

Q: Did she say where they changed their clothes?

A: In the house.

Q: Did she say what they did with the old clothes?

A: On the way back to the ranch they dumped the old clothing in a garbage can a few blocks, maybe a mile away from the house.

Q: After you spoke to Katie about this was there any other discussion on the ranch about what had taken place on the evening of August the 10th?

A: No, not to my knowledge.

Q: Did you hear Charlie talk about it at all?

A: Not to my knowledge.

Q: Tex?

A: No.

Q: Susan, did Charlie oftentimes use the word pig, or, pigs?

A: Yes.

Q: How about helter-skelter?

A: Yes.

Q: Did he use the words pigs and helter-skelter very very frequently?

A: Well, Charlie talks a lot.

Q: I am concerned about these two words, pigs and helter-skelter.

A: I know of -- in some of the songs he wrote helter-skelter was in them and he'd talk about helter-skelter. We all talked about helter-skelter.

Q: You say "we," are you speaking of the Family?

A: Yes.

Q: And that includes Tex?

A: Yes.

Q: So the words pigs and helter-skelter were common vocabulary; is that correct?

A: Yes.

Q: In what context would you and the other members of your Family use the words pig and pigs or helter-skelter?

A: Context? Would you --

Q: How would the words pigs and helter-skelter come up in your conversation?

A: They'd just come up. All conversations were spontaneous.

Q: What did the word pig or pigs mean to you and your Family?

A: You must understand that all words had no meanings to us and that helter-skelter was explained to me.

Q: By whom?

A: Charlie. I don't even like to say Charlie, I'd like to say the words came from his mouth that helter-skelter was to be the last war on the face of the earth. It would be all the wars that have ever been fought built one on top of the other, something that no man could conceive of in his imagination. You can't conceive of what it would be like to see every man judge himself and then take it out on every other man all over the face of the earth. And pig was a word used to describe the establishment.

Q: Today's establishment?

A: Today's establishment. It is not taking anything away from the establishment because we all have an understanding that the establishment is doing what the establishment is doing and that whatever it does and whatever the world is doing it's got to be perfect otherwise it wouldn't be happening and the world wouldn't be where it is at today.

Q: Susan, you testified earlier that on August the 16th there was a raid out at Spahn Ranch; is that correct?

A: Yes, there was.

Q: Between August 10th and August 16th what took place out at the Spahn Ranch?

A: There was a motorcycle group. We had a young man there by the name of Danny DeCarlo who was very very much in love with one of the young girls on the ranch and he stayed there, basically, because he was in love with her.

Q: How long had Danny been at the ranch?

A: About six months, to my knowledge, I would say six months. It didn't seem that long but he said that is about how long and his club members wanted him back in Venice and they didn't care what they had to do to us to get Danny back to Venice. So one night all of them came out, all of the Straight Satans, that is Danny's group, Danny's motorcycle group, they came out and talked to Danny in private.

The men threatened to rape all of us girls and they wanted to -- they told us that if Danny wasn't back in Venice by 5:00 o'clock the next night they would come out and kill us all including the children and start a fire and burn the ranch down, and we proceeded to look at them and said, "Go ahead. Danny does what Danny wants to do. If Danny wants to stay here that is up to him, you can come out and kill us all, we won't even fight back." And we wouldn't have.

Q: On August 16th were most of you arrested at that time?

A: All of us were arrested. There were 31 people.

Q: And were you later released?

A: Yes.

Q: Eventually did you go to the Barker Ranch in Inyo County?

A: Yes.

Q: In a big bus?

A: No.

Q: How did you get there?

A: The big bus was taken up to the Barker Ranch last summer -- last winter Charlie drove it up there.

Q: Charlie Manson?

A: Yes, this was right after my child was born, about two, three months after.

Q: Between August the 10th and August the 16th did Charlie or you or any other member of the family go out to anyone else's home and do what you previously did?

A: No, not to my knowledge.

MR. STOVITZ: We have concluded this witness's testimony.

THE FOREMAN: Any member of the Jury have any questions that they would like to ask the witness?

Q BY MR. BUGLIOSI: Do you know Clem's true name?

A: All I know is that when I first met him I knew him by Steve.

Q: Did Katie tell you whether or not she and Leslie and Tex took any money from the LaBianca's residence?

A: Not to my knowledge.

Q: Is Clem Tufts the same party as Steve Grogan?

A: That sounds correct.

THE FOREMAN: Are there any more questions?

I would like to give you the same admonition that I gave you this morning.

You are admonished not to discuss or impart at any time outside of this Jury Room the questions that have been asked of you in regard to this matter, or your answers, until authorized by this Grand Jury or the Court to discuss or impart such matters.

You will understand that a violation of these instructions on your part may be the basis for a charge against you of contempt of court.

This admonition, of course, does not preclude you from discussing your legal rights with any legally-employed attorney, should you feel that your on personal rights are in any way in jeopardy.

You may be excused.

THE WITNESS: Thank you.

MR. STOVITZ: Mr. Parent.

THE SERGEANT AT ARMS: Mr. Parent.

WILFRED PARENT,
called as a witness before the Grand Jury, was sworn and testified as follows:

THE FOREMAN: Will you state your name; please.

THE WITNESS: Wilfred Parent.

THE FOREMAN: Will you raise your right hand and take the following oath:

You do solemnly swear that the evidence you shall give in this matter now pending before the Grand Jury of the County of Los Angeles shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?

THE WITNESS: I do.

THE FOREMAN: Will you please be seated.

EXAMINATION BY MR. STOVITZ

Q: Will you kindly state your name again; please?

A: Wilfred Parent.

MR. STOVITZ: Mr. Foreman, I have a photograph depicting a young lady and a young man.

May this be marked Grand Jury Exhibit 19?

THE FOREMAN: It may be so marked.

MR. STOVITZ: I show you Grand Jury Exhibit 19; sir.

Q: Is this a fair representation, the male depicted in that photograph, of your son?

A: Yes, it is.

Q: How old was he at that time?

A: Eighteen and a half.

Q: And what was the occasion of taking this picture?

A: This was her high school graduation.

Q: By "her," that is a friend of your son's?

A: Yes, it is.

Q: And your son's full name is what?

A: Steven Earl Parent.

Q: And I direct your attention to Grand Jury Exhibit No. 9, an automobile.

Do you recognize the automobile in that photograph?

A: Yes, I do.

Q: Whose automobile is that; sir?

A: It's my son's, I bought it for my son.

Q: And was your son using that automobile on or about August the 8th, 1969?

A: Yes, he was.

Q: Do you recall when it was that you last saw your son Steven Parent alive on August 8th, 1969?

A: Well, I know he was home in the morning when I left for work but I didn't see him before I went to work and he was home at lunch time about a quarter to 1:00.

Q: Now, did your son, to your knowledge, say where he was going that day?

A: He was going to work.

Q: Where was he working at that time?

A: At the Valley City Plumbing Supplies.

Q: Where is that located?

A: It's on Rosemead or San Gabriel.

Q: And you did not see him, I take it, then, after work sometime in the evening?

A: No, I did not.

Q: The next time you viewed your son, he was dead; is that correct?

A: No, I never seen him.

Q: You attended his funeral?

A: I didn't see the body.

Q: And you did not identify him at the morgue?

A: No, I did not.

Q: Do you know of any reason for him to be at the address of 10050 Cielo Drive in Los Angeles, commonly known as the Sharon Tate residence?

A: I have no idea.

MR. STOVITZ: Any of the Jurors have any questions?

Thank you very much, Mr. Parent.

May this witness be excused?

THE FOREMAN: You may be excused.

MR. STOVITZ: Miss Chapman, please.

THE SERGEANT AT ARMS: Miss Chapman.

WINIFRED CHAPMAN,
called as a witness before the Grand Jury, was sworn and testified as follows:

THE FOREMAN: Will you state your name; please.

THE WITNESS: Winifred Chapman.

THE FOREMAN: Will you raise your right hand and take the following oath:

You do solemnly swear that the evidence you shall give in this matter now pending before the Grand Jury of the County of Los Angeles shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?

THE WITNESS: I do.

THE FOREMAN: Will you please be seated.

EXAMINATION BY MR. STOVITZ

Q: Would you kindly state your name, again, for the record; please?

A: Winifred Chapman.

Q: Mrs. Chapman, were you working at the residence of 10050 Cielo Drive in Los Angeles back in August of 1969?

A: Yes, I was.

Q: And who, if anyone, employed you?

A: The Polanski family.

Q: And how long had you been working there as of August the 8th, 1969?

A: Do you mean in the household or for the Polanski family?

Q: For the Polanski family.

A: About a year and four months.

Q: And how long had you been working at that particular household?

A: Since February.

Q: Of 1969?

A: Yes.

Q: Were you the -- in other words, you moved there when the Polanski's moved there; is that right?

A: Yes.

Q: Was your work just day work or did you sleep over?

A: Sometimes I stayed over.

Q: And I show you a photograph, Exhibit 6.

Do you recognize this photograph as a photograph of the Polanski residence, bearing in mind that this is taken from the sky?

A: Yes.

Q: I show you Exhibit 12 for identification.

Do you recognize this young lady depicted in this photograph?

A: Yes, that is Mrs. Polanski.

Q: Did she have a stage name of Sharon Tate?

A: Sharon Tate.

Q: What name, if any, did you call Mrs. Polanski?

A: Mrs. Polanski.

Q: Did you refer to her as Sharon Tate?

A: Only when I took a call and she was addressed as Miss Tate.

Q: So, then, you had known Mrs. Tate -- Sharon Polanski probably a year and a half; is that right?

A: Yes.

Q: Do you know any of her friends such as this gentleman depicted in this photograph, Exhibit 13?

A: Yes.

Q: And who is the person depicted in that photograph?

A: That is Jay Sebring.

Q: How long had you known Mr. Sebring?

A: Oh, practically the full length of time that I had been with them.

Q: I show you Exhibit 11, showing a man and a woman.

Do you know the people depicted in that photograph?

A: Yes.

Q: And who was the woman in that photograph?

A: Abigail Folger.

Q: And how long had you known Miss Folger?

A: I would say since, I think, September in '68.

Q: And who is the gentleman depicted in that photograph?

A: Wojiciech Frykowski.

Q: How long have you known Mr. Frykowski?

A: I think September of '68.

Q: Do you recall the day before you came to the house on August the 8th and found -- or, rather, the day before, August the 8th, when you found this distressing scene there, do you recall what time it was that you left on August the 8th?

A: Yes.

Q: What time was it?

A: Between 4:00 and 4:30.

Q: And how did you leave the residence there, by car or did somebody pick you up?

A: I left with two of the gardeners who drove me down to the bus stop.

Q: About what time did you say that was?

A: Between 4:00 and 4:30.

Q: So it was daylight at that time, bearing in mind that this was in August; is that right?

A: Yes.

Q: When you left on August the 8th did you notice anything written on the front door as shown you here in Exhibit 14?

A: No.

Q: What time was it that you returned on August the 9th, 1969, that was the day that all the police came there, and all?

A: Between 8:00 and 8:30, closer to 8:30.

Q: How did you get to the residence that day?

A: Oh, I had a ride from the bus stop.

Q: From whom?

A: From a man that I knew. Ordinarily I would have to have taken a cab but I saw him and I got off the bus and asked him to take me up there.

Q: Where did you get off the bus?

A: At Canon Drive and --

Q: Sunset?

A: No. No, Santa Monica.

Q: Santa Monica?

A: Yes.

Q: And when you got off at the gate there, did you notice anything unusual?

A: Yes, I noticed the wires.

Q: All right, after you noticed the wires what did you do next?

A: I opened the gate and went in.

Q: And then what did you do -- see or do next?

A: I picked up the paper and snapped out the outside lights, unlocked the back door and I went in and I went to the kitchen phone and picked it up. Since our electric was on I surmised it was the telephone wires, and I picked up the kitchen phone and it was dead and I started up front to waken someone.

Q: And then what did you notice?

A: Well, that is when I saw the bodies and the bloody clothes, and what-have-you.

Q: Now, Mrs. Chapman, what did you do? Did you go to some other residence to make a phone call?

A: Yes, I ran out. I didn't make any phone calls.

Q: Did you go to another residence?

A: Yes, I went to a neighbor's house.

Q: Do you remember who that neighbor was?

A: I don't -- I think the last name is Aisen (phonetic). It was the second house from ours.

I went to the first house and I didn't get in and so I ran to the second house and knocked.

Q: Did the Polanskis have any type of animal or dog or cat at the house?

A: Yes, we had a dog. There were two dogs there.

Q: What kind of dogs?

A: One was a little toy poodle, or something, and another was a Dalmation. They were both pups.

Q: Now, then, you said that your neighbor made a phone call and then did the police officers come to the scene?

A: Yes, eventually.

Q: Did you wait at the neighbor's house until the police arrived?

A: Yes.

Q: Did you go back to the scene with the police?

A: No.

Q: Did you ever go back to the scene?

A: Yes.

Q: When was that?

A: The day after Mrs. Polanski's funeral, which her funeral was on a Wednesday, I think, and I went up the following Thursday morning with an officer.

Q: All right, now, at that time did he show you the front door to the Polanski residence?

A: No, he didn't want me to see it.

Q: Now, that front door, when was the last time before August the 9th, 1969, that you had paid any particular attention to that front door?

A: Well, I had washed it that Friday, the day before, because of the finger marks and the paw marks from the dogs and I had also washed the window. I had cleaned the door.

Q: Now, was this the front --

A: The front door.

Q: Was it the outside of the door or the inside?

A: The outside.

Q: And what color was that door, if you recall?

A: The outside of the door was white.

Q: And what solution, if any, did you use to wash it with, just plain water?

A: Soap and water.

Q: And did you just wash it where the paw marks were or did you do a pretty good job of taking off the mud?

A: No, I cleaned it.

Q: Now, I show you, now, disregarding this word "pig" on the door, I show you Exhibit 14.

Is this the door that you referred to as the front door that you washed?

A: Yes.

Q: I show you this Exhibit No. 8.

Is this a fair representation of the Polanski residence?

A: Yes.

Q: Did you notice anything unusual such as the screen that appears away from the window in this photograph, Exhibit 8, on the right-hand side of the photograph?

Was that screen away from the window when you left on August 8th, 1969?

A: Let's see. This is as you are coming from the back. Yes, the screen was out because a carpenter had been working in there. They were doing that room, making a nursery out of it. There had been a lot of work in there.

The painter -- I don't know if the painter was there that day. There was somebody working in there that morning.

Q: You say this is the back of the house, this photograph, Exhibit 8; is that right?

A: Well, this is the back room. This is the front walk but you go down.

Q: The walk is the front walk but where the screen is away from the window is the back room?

A: Yes.

Q: And you say there was a carpenter working there sometime that week?

A: On Friday morning -- there had been men in and out all week. The room was being done over. I don't remember. I think it was a painter, if I'm not mistaken.

Q: When you came in on August the 9th you don't know what the condition of that window was with relation to that screen; do you?

A: No, I don't.

Q: And you stated that when you left on August the 8th you left from the back door, is that right?

A: Oh, no.

Q: You left from the front door?

A: I left from the front door when I left.

Q: When you came on August 9th you came in from the back door?

A: From the back door.

Q: You had keys to the residence?

A: I had a key.

Q BY MR. BUGLIOSI: Mrs. Chapman, when you left on August the 8th, 1969, are you assuming that this window was open because the painter was working there?

A: Yes.

Q: Did you actually look at the window and see it was open when you left on August the 8th?

A: Not as I went out of the house but I think it had been opened.

No, not as I went out of the house.

Q: So you are assuming that the painter must have opened it?

A: Yes.

Q: But you did not know of your own knowledge whether it was open when you left on August the 8th; is that correct?

A: No.

MR. BUGLIOSI: We have no further questions of this witness.

THE FOREMAN: Any member of the jury have a question that they would like to ask the witness?

You are admonished not to discuss or impart at any time outside of this Jury Room the questions that have been asked of you in regard to this matter, or your answers, until authorized by this Grand Jury or the Court to discuss or impart such matters.

You may be excused.

THE WITNESS: Thank you.

MR. STOVITZ: May we have our recess?

THE FOREMAN: Yes, we will call a five-minute recess.

(A recess was taken.)

THE FOREMAN: You may proceed.

MR. STOVITZ: Mr. Melcher.

THE SERGEANT AT ARMS: Mr. Melcher.

TERRANCE PAUL MELCHER,
called as a witness before the Grand Jury, was sworn and testified as follows:

THE FOREMAN: Will you state your full name; please.

THE WITNESS: Terrance Paul Melcher.

THE FOREMAN: Will you raise your right hand and take the following oath:

You do solemnly swear that the evidence you shall give in this matter now pending before the Grand Jury of the County of Los Angeles shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?

THE WITNESS: I do.

THE FOREMAN: Will you please be seated.

EXAMINATION BY MR. STOVITZ

Q: Will you kindly state your full name for the record?

A: Terrance Paul Melcher.

Q: Do you know a person by the name of Doris Day?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: And is she some relation to you?

A: Yes.

Q: What is that relationship?

A: She is my mother.

Q: And did you ever live at a residence depicted on this photograph, Exhibit 6, that has been described as 10050 Cielo Drive, Los Angeles?

A: Yes.

Q: How do you pronounce that name?

A: Cielo.

Q: Just like the sky?

A: That's right, it's Spanish for sky.

Q: And what was the date that you first moved into that residence and what the date that you moved out of that residence; approximate?

A: I believe I moved in in April of 1966.

Q: And when did you move out?

A: I moved out approximately the first week of January, 1969.

Q: And did you know of your own knowledge who the next tenants were of that residence?

A: Did I know the next tenants or did I know who they were?

Q: Did you know who they were, of your own knowledge?

A: Yes, when I moved, I moved to a house in Malibu, it was owned by my family, and Sharon Tate wished to sublet the house from me since I had about four months to go on the lease that I had originally taken and she called me several times to see if we could work out a sublet.

Q: And to your knowledge, is this the house depicted on the diagram, Exhibit 7?

A: That is correct.

Q: Now, do you know of your own knowledge when Sharon Tate did move into that residence, if she ever did move in?

A: I think -- I think it was in March of 1969.

Q: And at that time did she move in with her husband, Mr. Polanski?

A: I assume so, I don't know.

Q: Did you ever return to that residence on Cielo Drive after that?

A: No, I didn't. After --

Q: After Miss Tate and her husband, Mr. Polanski, moved in?

A: I returned there sometime in, I suppose it was September or October of 1969, because the owner was a friend of mine.

Q: Who is the owner?

A: His name is Rudi Altobelli, the man who owns the property. He has been leasing it for a number of years to different people.

Q: Now, I'd like to direct your attention to this board where we have various exhibits, 1 through 16, depicting various men and women.

A: Shall I rise to look at that?

Q: Yes, please step around here.

Do you recognize the individuals depicted on any of those photographs as persons that you knew prior to August the 8th, 1969.

A: Manson, yes, of course, the third from the left on the top.

Q: That would be Exhibit 2 that you have indicated, this exhibit right here?

A: That is correct.

Q: You indicated that he is Charles Manson; did you say?

A: That is correct, and the fellow on Manson's left, I don't know him but I think I have seen him at Dennis Wilson's house.

Q: This is Exhibit 4 you have identified; is that right?

A: That is correct.

Q: So you believe that prior to August the 8th, 1969, you knew the man depicted in Exhibit 4 -- Grand Jury Exhibit 4 and in Grand Jury Exhibit No. 2, which you say is Mr. Manson?

A: That is correct.

Q: All right, you may return to the stand; sir.

You mentioned knowing Dennis Wilson. Who is Dennis Wilson?

A: He is a man who is a member of a well-known singing group, the Beach Boys. I have known him for a number of years, it must be the last six or seven, now. I have known him off and on for that period of time.

Q: Where were you living in Malibu in August of 1969?

A: I lived on Pacific Coast Highway, 22126, in Malibu.

Q: Where with relation to some restaurants, for instance?

A: I lived approximately, oh, two miles south of Malibu Pier.

Q: And is the Sea Lion Restaurant still in existence?

A: Yes, the Sea Lion was maybe two and a half miles south of my house, or you might say it was in between Malibu pier and the Sea Lion Restaurant. I'm not sure if my --

Q: It just seems long when the traffic is bad, is that right?

A: That's right.

Q: Now, Mr. Melcher, is that the way you pronounce your name; sir?

A: That is correct.

Q: Did you ever see either the man depicted in Exhibit 4 or Mr. Manson in your home in Malibu during the year of 1969?

A: No, I didn't.

Q: You did read about it in the newspapers, about the tragedy that beset that home on Cielo Drive August 9th of 1969; is that right?

A: I did.

Q: And from these newspapers we fix the date as August the 9th, 1969.

Now, when prior to that had you last seen Mr. Manson or the man depicted in Exhibit 4?

A: Exhibit 4 is Watson, I believe. I have seen him --

Q: You are talking of Watson, now, on Exhibit 4?

A: Yes.

I had seen him -- I don't recall whether or not I met him -- I have seen a large number of photographs to identify. He was the only one who looked in any way familiar to me. I had seen him at Wilson's house in the summer of 1968, I'm not sure, June, July, August, and Manson, I had seen in May of 1969.

Q: All right, now, without trying to give us verbatim conversation, did you have a conversation with Manson in May of 1969?

A: I was asked to drive to what was described to me as Charlie's ranch so that I might audition them.

One of my occupations is that of recorder-producer, and I was asked to drive and meet Manson and his group in that capacity, to see whether or not I'd be interested in recording them.

Q: Did you go to this Charlie's ranch?

A: I did.

Q: Have you seen photographs in the newspapers of a thing called Spahn Ranch?

A: I did.

Q: Is that what you call Charlie's ranch?

A: It is.

Q: And when you went to Charlie's ranch did you see young people, old people, did you see just the musicians, what did you see?

A: There were forty or fifty, it's hard to say exactly, they were everywhere, mostly young women, and they all seemed to be part of the same group and they all sang together with Charlie Manson.

Q: What instrument, if any, did Charlie play?

A: He played a guitar.

Q: Were there any other persons playing instruments, to your knowledge?

A: It seems to me some girls were playing a tambourine. Perhaps that was the only --

Q: And the music, if any, that you heard, was this music that was known to you or did it appear to be original works?

A: It seemed to be and I was later told that they were all songs that Charlie Manson had composed.

Q: You fix this time as being May of 1969.

Did you have any conversation with Mr. Manson or anyone there at the ranch concerning any future dates or future appointments, or was it left that you would get in touch with them, or anything of that nature?

A: The type of music they were doing and the whole setting itself was rather particular to the pop music business, to say the least, and I went back there approximately within a week after I first had been there because a friend of mine in the interim, between the first visit and the second visit, had told me he had just completed a conversion of a trailer into a -- what they call a remote recording unit and that he was going to spend a summer traveling around the country trying to record various Indian tribes doing native songs and that sort thing and I mentioned to him that I had seen a group living in, I guess it's Chatsworth, that seemed to be something like an Indian tribe, they sat around and all sang together, and all participated, that perhaps that might be the type of thing he was interested in, and that was the reason for my second visit.

Q: Did you speak to Mr. Manson on the second visit?

A: He spoke to me.

Q: And was it left that you would get in touch with him or he would get in touch with you, or was there anything said about any future arrangements?

In other words, whether or not you were going to use his services or try to get it arranged with other individuals?

A: No, the reason that I went back the second time, I felt sorry for those people. There were a lot of girls that were obviously young and I assumed that most of them were runaways, or whatever, and when I went back with my other friend who had a trailer that was, in fact, a recording studio and it was set up to record out of doors or anywhere that you might find people making music, the purpose of that visit was to perhaps show it to someone who may be wanting to do something like that, but that wasn't exactly what I was looking for in music.

Q: Did you ever give anyone at that ranch, either Mr. Manson or the man depicted in Exhibit 4, or anyone else your telephone number and address where they could get in touch with you?

A: I don't believe I did, no.

Q: Now, did either Mr. Manson or the man depicted in Exhibit 4 ever visit you when you lived on Cielo Drive?

A: No, Dennis Wilson drove me home from his house one day, he lived on Sunset Boulevard, and I supposed it's Pacific Palisades, across the street from Will Rogers Park, and he drove me one day from his house and Manson was in the back seat of his car strumming his guitar and they dropped me off in the driveway.

Q: That driveway?

A: That driveway, the paved parking area.

Q: You are indicating the driveway on Cielo Drive depicted on Exhibit 7; is that correct?

A: That is correct, and they turned around and left.

Q: Do you recall the approximate month that that occurred, sometime before January, 1969?

A: As I recall, before. It would have been either -- late summer of 1968.

Q: And that home that is depicted in Exhibit 7 is in the City of Los Angeles, County of Los Angeles; is that right?

A: Yes.

Q: Now, I show you this photograph here, sir. It is Exhibit 8 and the walkway here leads up to the front door; is that right?

A: Correct.

Q: This photograph you recognize as a photograph of that residence depicted on Exhibit 7; is that right?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: Immediately to the right of that photograph appears to be a window with small panes of glass and next to that an open window with a screen sitting next to it.

Where do those windows lead, if you recall at this time?

A: That is the dining room.

Q: In other words, that window that is open with the screen next to it is the window to the dining room?

A: It is.

Q: Now, when you went back to this residence in September of 1969 did you go into the residence with Mr. -- who is it, Altobelli?

A: Yes.

Q: Did you go into that residence?

A: I did. Mr. Altobelli was in Rome at the time of the murders and he flew back and he was very upset and I had a guest house in my home in Malibu and I invited him to stay there, and which he did for about six weeks until he felt up to going back to his house.

Q: So when you did go back to this house shown in this photograph was there still a dining room behind this window that is seen open here?

A: Yes.

Q: It was not being converted into anything like a nursery, or anything?

A: No.

Q: Was there any room in the house that had been converted into a nursery at the time you went back in September of 1969?

A: Well, no. I'm not certain. I didn't see -- I'm not really certain what constitutes a nursery.

In addition to the dining room there is a kitchen, there is a maid's room, there is a living room, two bedrooms, and there is a guest house. I didn't see anything that looked like a nursery.

Q: When you were there did you know of a person by the name of Garritson that lived there?

A: No, I didn't.

Q: Now, after that last visit that you made to the Spahn Ranch in 1969 did you see Mr. Manson or that individual depicted in Exhibit 4 again?

A: No, I didn't.

Q: Did you get any calls or messages that either one wanted to see you or have any contact with you indirectly through Dennis Wilson or anything like that?

A: No, I didn't.

Q: Did you in any way tell Mr. Manson that you were not interested in his singing or that you were not interested in that type of music?

A: No, I didn't.

I was told that he didn't have a telephone anyway. There wasn't any way to get in touch with the man if I had even wanted to.

Q: So, then, you had no further contact with him, to your knowledge, and he did not ever, to your knowledge, try to get in touch with you?

A: That is correct.

Q BY MR. BUGLIOSI: How many times did you meet Manson through Wilson?

A: Only once that I recall.

Q: Well, you went to the ranch once?

A: Through Wilson, you said.

Q: I'm sorry. At the time you went to the ranch, you did not go with Wilson?

A: No.

Q: How many times did you speak to Manson through Wilson, just once?

A: Just once.

Q: This was at Wilson's residence?

A: That's right. Actually, I don't believe -- I suppose I did meet him, he was in the car when we drove back.

Q: Did Wilson arrange for you to meet Manson?

A: No, he didn't arrange -- Dennis is someone I have known for a long time. As I say, we have been in the same business, in the same community for a while.

Q: Did Dennis indicate that Manson wanted to see you?

A: No, he didn't.

Q: Did Dennis indicate to you that he, Dennis, wanted you to see Manson?

A: No, not that I recall.

Q: It was kind of a fortuitous meeting the first time?

A: I simply dropped by a friend's house and he was there.

Q: Why did you go up to the ranch that day?

A: A friend of mine named Greg Jakobson, who at one time had worked for me when I had, and I have a record production company, Jakobson had worked for me in the capacity as a talent scout and he used to cover the Los Angeles area and nightclubs, and whatever, looking for talent, either writers or performers, whatever, and Jakobson had been calling me for a number of weeks saying that there was a musical act quite out of the ordinary that I may be interested in seeing and hearing and he asked if I might come to their ranch because there were too many of them to come to my office.

Q: So you understood that Jakobson knew Manson?

A: I'm sure he did, yes.

Q: After you heard Manson's performance out at the ranch did you indicate to Jakobson that you were not interested in Manson?

A: I'm not certain whether or not I made any statement like that, I may have.

It wasn't -- it wasn't the ordinary talent audition.

Q: Well, the purpose why you went to the ranch was to see Manson perform; is that correct?

A: Right.

Q: And if he performed to your satisfaction perhaps some type of a business relationship could have been entered into; is that correct?

A: That is correct.

Q: Now, a business relationship between you and Manson did not come into existence; is that correct?

A: That is correct.

Q: And that is because you were not particularly impressed with Manson; is that correct?

A: I wasn't impressed enough to allot the time necessary.

Q: Did you communicate this to any third party that you were not impressed with Charlie Manson?

A: I suppose sometime after that I did communicate that to Greg Jakobson.

Q: Did Manson ever ask you what you thought of his performance?

A: I don't recall. I think after hearing them sing a dozen or so songs I may have singled one out and said "That's a nice song," just to be polite.

When someone performs for you you don't want to simply not respond to their whole presentation, and to be polite I probably said something. Usually that is what I say.

Q: Did Manson seem to be irritated with you in any respect at any time?

A: No, he didn't and there were all those people wandering around and I gave them $50.00, which is all I had with me, so that they could buy some food.

MR. BUGLIOSI: No further questions.

MR. STOVITZ: That is all.

Thank you very much.

THE FOREMAN: Any questions that any members of the Jury would like to ask the witness?

You are admonished not to discuss or impart at any time outside of this Jury Room the questions that have been asked of you in regard to this matter, or you answers, until authorized by this Grand Jury or the Court to discuss or impart such matters.

You may be excused.

THE WITNESS: Yes.

MR. STOVITZ: He may discuss it with counsel if he wants to.

THE FOREMAN: If you have a counsel you can discuss it with your counsel.

THE WITNESS: Yes, Thank you.

MR. STOVITZ: Dr. Noguchi.

THE SERGEANT AT ARMS: Dr. Noguchi.

THOMAS T. NOGUCHI,
called as a witness before the Grand Jury, was sworn and testified as follows:

THE FOREMAN: Will you state your name; please.

THE WITNESS: Dr. Thomas Noguchi, N-o-g-u-c-h-i.

THE FOREMAN: Will you stand just a moment, Doctor.

Will you raise your right hand and take the following oath:

You do solemnly swear that the evidence you shall give in this matter now pending before the Grand Jury of the County of Los Angeles shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?

THE WITNESS: I do.

THE FOREMAN: Will you please be seated.

EXAMINATION BY MR. STOVITZ

Q: Would you kindly state and spell your first name and last name; please.

A: Yes. The first name is spelled Thomas, T-h-o-m-a-s. Middle initial is T., and the last name, N-o-g-u-c-h-i, and I do have another abbreviation called M.D.

Q: And are you licensed to practice in medicine here in the State of California?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: And do you have a specialty, Doctor?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: What is that specialty?

A: My specialty is called pathology. More specifically, forensic pathology, sir.

Q: And in your specialty, sir, how long have you engaged in performing postmortem examinations?

A: About ten years, sir.

Q: And what is your title, if any, that you have with the County of Los Angeles?

A: My title is the Chief Medical Examiner - Coroner for the County of Los Angeles.

Q: As the Coroner of the County of Los Angeles, sir, did you supervise certain postmortem examinations on August the 9th and August the 10th, 1969?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: Doctor, we have arbitrarily just taken Count I as being Abigail Folger.

Do you have the records there before you on Miss Folger?

A: Yes.

Q: And do you have the case number described as 69-8974 for Abigail Folger?

A: That is correct, sir.

Q: And do you have an identification photograph there in that folder?

A: Yes, I do, sir.

Q: May I have that; please?

A: Yes, you may.

May I also request your signature for official receipt of the Coroner's photographs?

Q: I will give you my signature, Doctor.

A: Thank you, sir.

Q: I have received -- there are fifteen photographs here, to your knowledge, Doctor?

A: Yes.

MR. STOVITZ: Taking just one photograph at random here that shows a face and body, may this photograph be marked next in order, which would be Grand Jury Exhibit No. 20; is that right?

This photograph of Abigail Folger, may this be marked Grand Jury Exhibit 20?

THE FOREMAN: It may be so marked.

Q BY MR. BUGLIOSI: I show you Grand Jury Exhibit 20, sir.

Is that a photograph of the person that we have described as Abigail Folger, Case No. 69-8974?

A: That is correct, sir.

Q: And that was taken under your direction in the laboratory of the Coroner's Office; is that correct?

A: That's right, sir.

Q: And you did perform an autopsy, or, postmortem examination upon the person depicted in that photograph; is that right?

A: Yes, I did an inspection of the body and also directed and supervised the autopsy performed by another medical examiner whose name is Russell C. Henry, M.D.

Q: Is Dr. Henry still with the County of Los Angeles?

A: Not in my department, sir, no, sir.

Q: But, to your knowledge, he's practicing medicine here in the State of California?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: And you supervised that autopsy; is that correct?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: As a result of the autopsy performed upon the person shown in Exhibit 20 were you able to determine the cause of death of that individual?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: And what was the cause of death of Abigail Folger, the person depicted in Exhibit 20?

A: The cause of death was a stab wound of the aorta, that is the large blood vessel originating from the heart, causing a massive hemorrhage.

Q: Did you find any other wounds other than the stab wound to the heart?

A: Yes, I found a total of 21 stab wounds on the body, sir.

Q: Did you find any gunshot wounds to the body; sir?

A: No, sir.

Q: Now, with respect to the stab wounds, did you examine the stab wounds to determine whether or not the same instrument caused all or substantially all of those stab wounds?

A: Yes, I do have an opinion; sir.

Q: What is that opinion; sir?

A: Based on the stab wound characteristics, the size and shape and angulation of the wounds, the 21 stab wounds appear to be caused by the same type of a sharp cutting instrument, sir.

Q: Could you describe that instrument further for us, such as a knife or fork or anything else?

Could you describe whether or not this instrument was like a dagger with two sharp edges or a triangular instrument with three sharp edges on it?

A: I would say, based on the general survey of the 21 stab wounds, it shows some similar characteristics which were -- the item 1 -- stab wound was sharp and indicating sharp edges of one cutting edge, and other portion was a dull and tearing action, or, tearing appearance, and other shows two equally sharp cutting angulations, and the stab wounds themselves are veritably deep and the deepness was -- could best be described because, I might say, because of a position change and the force involved it is rather difficult to establish the exact length of the depth of the wound, but I would say that there are -- five to six inches stab wounds were observed in the body, sir.

Q: Now, some of these wounds depicted on Exhibit 20 are the stab wounds that you have just described; is that correct?

A: Yes.

Q: Some of those wounds were what we might call superficial wounds; is that correct?

A: Yes.

Q: And did they all appear to be of the same recent origin?

A: That is true, sir.

Q: Now, did you also perform a postmortem examination on a person that has been described to you as Mr. Frykowski, and your lab number would be Case No. 69-8973?

A: Yes.

Q: May I have the photographs, if you have any on that; please?

A: And, then, again, may I request your signature for the official receipt of a total of 10 photographs that you received?

MR. STOVITZ: Yes.

Again, we will take one photograph depicting the face and body of this individual and may this photograph be marked as Exhibit No. 21?

THE FOREMAN: It may be so marked.

Q BY MR. STOVITZ: I show you Grand Jury Exhibit 21, sir.

Is that a fair representation of the individual that we have described as Mr. Frykowski?

A: Yes.

Q: And you did supervise the postmortem examination on this individual, as well; is that correct?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: As a result of that postmortem examination were you able to determine the cause of death; sir?

A: Yes.

Q: What was that cause of death?

A: That cause of death was ascribed as follows:

Multiple stab wounds of the body causing massive hemorrhage.

Q: Did you find any gunshot wounds in the body of Mr. Frykowski?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: Approximately how many; sir?

A: There was one gunshot wound, sir.

Q: Was there a bullet recovered by the Coroner's Office?

A: That is true.

Q: Do you have that bullet with you or did you turn it over to the Los Angeles Police Department?

A: If I may make a correction. I do have a record that the bullet was found 19 -- pardon me, this is a -- we were using a 24-hour time arrangement, so that the bullet was in fact turned into the representative from the Los Angeles Police Department on August 10, 1969, at 12:45 p.m., and received by W. J. Lee.

Q: Now, you stated that you found approximately how many stab wounds to Mr. Frykowski's body?

A: I will be happy to state so. That a total count of the stab wounds found on the body was 51 stab wounds.

Q: Going to, now, the scalp, which is shown in Exhibit No. 21; is that correct?

A: Yes, partly shown.

Q: Yes.

Were there any lacerations or cuts to the scalp of Mr. Frykowski?

A: Yes, there were.

Q: Approximately how many?

A: A total of 13 cuts.

Q: And do you have an opinion as to what instrument, if any, made these cuts?

A: My opinion, based on the characteristics of wounds, I would say the wound has to be created by something heavy but blunt instrument.

It could be irregularly shaped but the surface itself would not have a sharp cutting edge. The wound characteristics were totally consistent with injuries caused by blunt force.

Q: Would it be somewhat similar to the handle of a gun, a revolver?

A: Well, study of the 13 lacerations itself not entirely inconsistent without knowing the size of the object. However, the gun butt would be able to create a similar laceration shown on the body.

Q: All right, now, did you find any stab wounds to the back of Mr. Frykowski?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: Approximately how many?

A: There are 5, sir.

Q: And all of the 5 stab wounds to the back of Mr. Frykowski made by -- do you have an opinion as to whether or not they were made by the same type of instrument?

A: Yes, I would say that, and we emphasize the same type of instrument. Yes, I would agree, the same type.

Q: In other words, what you are saying is you are not sure that it was the same instrument but it was the same type of instrument; is that correct?

A: That is correct.

Q: All right, in other words, if we just assume hypothetically that this instrument was a knife would this be a knife with two sharp edges or one sharp edge?

A: Yes, depending on the type of a knife. Not all knives have two edges and depending on the instrument and depth, whereby, the tip may have double edges and as the depth increased it may be a single-edge type of a sharp instrument and, however, there are enough characteristics for us experts in the field of forensic pathology to express opinion those are caused by the same type of instrument.

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

A: Yes, sir.

Q: And what is the anterior portion of the body; sir?

A: That is the front, basically, chest, up to the side of the chest, sir.

Q: Approximately how many wounds did you find in the anterior portion of the body?

A: Eleven.

Q: And these wounds, were they made by the same type of instrument; sir?

A: It is my opinion, yes.

Q: Can you say that any of the eleven wounds that you say that were on the front part of the body were made by two separate instruments; can you tell us that?

A: If they are same -- well, it's difficult for me to tell if a weapon is very very close or very similar.

However, we can safely exclude the weapon which will be entirely different from the weapon I have described before.

If there was something very wide or heavier, I might say, for example, that I would be willing to testify as to the fact these wounds are not caused by a hatchet or anything of that sort. It has to be a sharp instrument like knives or sometimes a type of knife where the pattern is observed caused by an instrument called a bayonet and sometimes a knife, with the homemade knife type where the knife has two edges.

Q: All right, now, it was in the anterior portion that you found this gunshot wound and that is one of eleven wounds that you just described; is that right?

A: Gunshot wound was found in the back.

Q: Did it enter the back or did it enter the front?

In other words, did the gunshot wound go from back to front or from front to back?

A: May I just look to the report, please?

Q: Yes.

A: Sir?

Q: Yes.

A: As to the description of the gunshot wound of the back, as I mentioned, the entrance wound was found in the left armpit, more toward back, and the direction of the gunshot wound track was almost horizontal as if the decedent were in a standing position.

Then the bullet was found in the back at the -- the location which is called the fifth dorsal vertebra. That is fifth backbone column below the neck bone.

Q: And were there sixteen stab wounds to the left arm; Doctor?

A: Yes, sir, sixteen.

Q: And there were eight stab wounds to the left leg?

A: That is correct; sir.

Q: And can you tell us whether or not these stab wounds to the arm and to the leg, whether or not they were made by the same or different instruments, or do you have no opinion on that point?

A: Well, I do have an opinion based on the survey work done, that is, the comparison study of the wound characteristics, that they appear very similar in the length and depth of any characteristics. I would say that the total of 51 stab wounds were caused by the same type of instrument.

Q: Doctor, do you have an examination of a Steven Earl Parent before you?

A: Yes, I do, sir.

Q: And when was the autopsy of Steven Earl Parent performed; sir?

A: The autopsy was performed on August 10, 1969, at 2:00 p.m., at the central facility located in the Hall of Justice.

Q: Was that also done under your direction and supervision?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: I'm now initializing four 5 x 7 photographs of Steven Earl Parent, which is Coroner's No. 69-8792; is that right, Doctor?

A: Yes, sir.

MR. STOVITZ: Taking the top photograph, which appears to be of the head, may this photograph be marked as Grand Jury Exhibit No. 22; please?

THE FOREMAN: It may be so marked.

Q BY MR. STOVITZ: Doctor, showing you Grand Jury Exhibit No. 22, is this a photograph of the individual upon whom this postmortem examination was performed?

A: Yes.

Q: And as a result of the postmortem examination were you able to determine the cause of death of the individual whom we have described as Steven Parent?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: What is that cause of death; sir?

A: The cause of death was multiple gunshot wounds of the chest causing massive hemorrhage.

Q: By "multiple," how many would you say; Doctor?

A: There were two gunshot wounds in the chest; sir.

Q: And were there any other gunshot wounds that you found in this individual?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: How many was that; sir?

A: One gunshot wound was found on the left face. I should, perhaps, say cheek, and another gunshot was found on the left arm, which was a through-and-through gunshot wound, and I might refer -- I will stop here a moment -- for the purpose of the identification in the diagram, that fatal gunshot was labeled No. 1 and No. 2, and the gunshot wound on the cheek was labeled No. 3.

However, this number does not indicate in any way the sequence of events; sir.

Q: The gunshot, No. 4, do you know whether that was caused by a bullet that may have caused one of the other wounds or is that definitely caused by a separate bullet from any of the others?

A: It is rather difficult at this time to be certain. It could very well be a separate wound. However, if the left arm was in position which I am taking now, that is, about a 45 -- a 90-degree angulation in the elbow and my wrist is more toward to the front near the chest, that a through-and-through gunshot wound, No. 4, could be the wound found inside of the -- on the chest.

Q: Which would be gunshot wound No. 2; is that right?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: And did you recover the bullet from gunshot wound No. 2?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: And was that also given to the Los Angeles Police Department, to Mr. Lee?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: Now, with relation to gunshot wound No. 5, do you have an opinion as to whether or not that was made by a separate bullet, separate from any of the other gunshot wounds?

A: Yes, sir, I do have an opinion, sir.

Q: Now, what is that opinion; sir?

A: Based on the study, it appears this was a through-and-through gunshot wound, and so a total of gunshot wounds, we have labeled, my associate, Dr. Gaston Herrera, the Deputy Medical Examiner in my department, labeled 4 and 5 to represent the through-and-through gunshot wounds.

Q: So that gunshot wound No. 5 could have caused one of the other gunshot wounds that you previously described; is that right?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: So, then, actually, if you are talking about firing a bullet, three bullets probably could have been fired, it could have been five bullets fired in this case; is that right?

A: I would say 3 or 4 shots fired upon the body.

Q: All right, now, in addition to the gunshot wounds were there any stab wounds that autopsy revealed?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: What stab wounds were they and where were they?

A: It was the left-hand. It was one cut found on the left hand.

Q: Is this sometimes called a defense wound?

A: Yes, it could be considered a defense wound.

The purpose of the term defense wound is to guard further injuries so that a human being holds hands toward the assailant receiving injuries rather than a fatal injury towards, more or less, in the chest area. This is often called defense wound, but I would like to reserve that opinion. This may not be truly classified a defense wound.

Q: All right, now, Doctor, did you in your office perform an autopsy on a person known to you as Sharon Marie Polanski?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: And when was this autopsy performed?

A: Sir, that autopsy was performed August 10, 1969, and the autopsy was commenced at 11:20 a.m. and incision and examination of the organs were completed at 2:00 p.m. on the same date.

Q: And who, if anyone, in your department actually performed the postmortem examination?

A: The autopsy was performed by Thomas T. Noguchi, M.D., Chief Medical Examiner-Coroner for the County of Los Angeles. That is I.

MR. STOVITZ: Mr. Foreman, I have a photograph depicting a full view of a young lady who appears to have some type of rope around her neck, appearing to have some undergarment on.

May this be marked Grand Jury Exhibit No. 23?

THE FOREMAN: It may be so marked.

Q BY MR. STOVITZ: I show you Grand Jury Exhibit 23.

Is that the photograph of the person whom I have called Sharon Polanski?

A: Yes.

Q: And as a result of the autopsy that you performed upon her, sir, were you able to find and determine the cause of death?

A: Yes.

Q: What is that cause of death; sir?

A: The cause of death as ascribed by me was multiple stab wounds of chest and back penetrating the heart, lungs and liver, causing massive hemorrhage.

Q: Doctor, when you first saw the body of the person depicted in Exhibit 23 did it have that rope around the neck as is shown in the photograph?

A: Yes.

Q: Did you examine that rope to determine the tightness of the rope?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: Did it appear to cause any type of strangulation? Was there any abrasion about the neck or any scarring there from the rope?

A: On the neck there was no indication of strangulation, no, sir.

Q: And did you find any significant condition about this woman with respect to pregnancy?

A: Yes.

Q: What did you find in that connection?

A: The examination revealed that decedent was eight months in pregnancy stage and the male fetus was found. However, there was no injury to abdominal area nor the unborn baby.

Q: Did it appear that the baby was in a normal state of embryo -- rather, fetus state at that time?

A: Yes, sir. I performed an autopsy of the unborn male baby and there was no congenital abnormalities and maturation of the baby was entirely consistent with eight months pregnancy.

Q: And you say there was a total number of stab wounds of 16 to the body; is that right?

A: Well, I haven't said it yet.

Q: How many are there?

A: A total of 16 stab wounds, sir.

Q: Were any of the stab wounds directly into the area where the fetus would be carried?

A: No, sir.

Q: Now, how many stab wounds did you find in the chest area of the person depicted in Exhibit 23?

A: Four, sir.

Q: And from your examination, would you say whether or not the same instrument or different instrument caused those four stab wounds?

A: I do have an opinion, sir.

Q: What is that opinion; sir?

A: Again, based on the general characteristics of the 16 stab wounds it appears those are caused by the same type of a sharp strong instrument.

Q: When you say "strong instrument," do you mean it was used by a person that was strong or that the instrument was like a crossbow or a sword, or what do you mean by the strong instrument?

A: The term used, "strong instrument," is no doubt referred to the instrument itself. It is constructed with great strength, strong, and I was not referring to the person.

However, that this opinion was based on the multiplicity of the stab wounds and also the characteristics of the wound which shows the tearing of the wound separating further as the instrument penetrates through the skin, indicating the thickness of the stab wound would be thicker than the usual pocketknife or thin blade knife. It would most likely be thicker than a kitchen knife.

Q: Is this instrument that was used on the body depicted in Exhibit 23 different in any way from the instruments that were used to cause the stab wounds to the other bodies?

A: No, sir, so far as I have testified, in four cases, I believe the wound characteristics are quite similar and could very well be caused by an instrument -- or, a same type of instrument quite similar to the one -- each other.

Q: Now, were there approximately eight wounds to the back of Sharon Polanski?

A: Yes, I would testify to that, sir.

Q: And then there were certain wounds to the arms and other areas of the body; is that correct?

A: Yes.

Q: Now, do you have an opinion as to how soon after the infliction of these wounds the person would have met her death? Would death be instantaneous? Would it be within an hour? Would it be within several hours?

A: In my opinion, based on the study of the previous cases where person receives stab wounds to the heart causing massive hemorrhage, the person -- average person would receive -- first receive a profuse hemorrhage into the body cavity, thus causing a sudden drop of the blood pressure and it is quite possible still that the person would be able to move to escape from the location where he or she was injured, but most likely the person would be incapacitated very shortly after infliction of the stab wound through the heart and as the blood pressure decreased to less than one third of the normal blood pressure, which is about 40 millimeters in mercury -- this is a medical term, now, we use -- then it is very unlikely the person would be able to move and probably suffer a short period of coma and death usually occurs within 15 minutes.

Q: Would you find any bones that this sharp instrument would have had to go through in examination of Sharon Polanski's body?

A: Yes.

Q: What did you find in that connection?

A: A number of the wounds in the back and also chest penetrated through the ribs.

Q: And would this take a great deal of force or moderate amount of force? Could a woman of, say, approximately 110, 112 pounds inflict such a wound?

A: Well, I would like to answer this way: This depends on the -- and this type of wound can be created by a number of factors.

One, the instrument has to be reasonably sharp and is heavy enough to have momentum so that it can continue penetrating into the deeper tissue of the body and the person has to have enough strength to give a strong thrust into the body.

I could not think -- based just on mere examination of the wound itself, I would not know whether a person who used the instrument has to be male. I do not feel that -- I would be probably speculating too much if I would differentiate whether male or female. That the strength of male, female, sometimes is equal and sometimes depending on the circumstances. I don't think I would be able to differentiate that.

Q: Doctor, was there also an autopsy examination performed upon Thomas John Sebring on August 10, 1969.

A: Yes, sir.

Q: And do you have the records pertaining to Mr. Sebring?

A: Yes, I do.

Q: I am initialing -- rather, signing for five 5 x 7 photographs in Case No. 69-8795.

That is the case number that you gave to Mr. Sebring's autopsy; is that correct, Doctor?

A: Yes, sir.

MR. STOVITZ: Taking a photograph which shows the face and upper chest, may that photograph be marked as Exhibit 24 for the Grand Jury?

THE FOREMAN: It may be so marked.

Q BY MR. STOVITZ: I show you Exhibit 24.

Is that the photograph of the -- the person depicted in that photograph, is that the person upon whom you performed the -- rather, the autopsy was performed?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: And as a result of the autopsy that was performed upon this individual depicted in Exhibit 24, did you determine a cause of death?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: What did you determine was the cause of death?

A: The cause of death was determined as follows -- this is a medical term -- exsanguination, e-x-s-a-n-g-u-i-n-a-t-i-o-n, it means massive hemorrhage, caused by stab wounds.

To be specific, the examination of body revealed a total of 6 stab wounds in the body.

Q: And what stab wounds to the body were in what general area, sir?

A: General area were in left side of the chest, and to be specific, that the organs that were involved which caused the hemorrhage were aorta, spelled a-o-r-t-a, a large blood vessel coming out from the heart and left lung, and also other injuries which are apart from the stab wounds; sir.

Q: What other injuries apart from the stab wounds did the autopsy reveal?

A: The decedent's face showed bruise and swelling called, medical term, contusion, c-o-n-t-u-s-i-o-n.

The bruise on the nose and the left eye and the cuts were found on the left hand.

Q: Did you find any gunshot wound in the body of the person depicted in Exhibit 24?

A: Yes.

Q: How many and what was the nature of the gunshot wound?

A: Just a moment, may I refer to the document.

As far as we can determine by the inspection of the body and also use of X ray, there was a gunshot wound on left side of chest and penetrating to the left lung, and on the x-ray examination there are spattered fragmented bullet along the area of the central portion of the chest.

Q: In addition to that one gunshot wound that you described or is it that the gunshot wound that you just described?

In other words, are you describing, say, two gunshot wounds or just one that you saw by physical examination and by X ray?

A: This is the one gunshot wound which was physically found on the left side of the chest and another gunshot wound which was found during x-ray examination and the fragment was found in the -- I believe, beneath the -- on the back and just -- I think between the skin and the shirt that he was wearing.

Q: That is where the bullet was found?

A: Yes.

Q: Did your office likewise turn that bullet over to the Los Angeles Police Department?

A: Yes.

Q: Now, did you see these three bullets that were turned over -- several bullets that were turned over to the Los Angeles Police Department?

Did you personally see these bullets?

A: Yes.

Q: To your knowledge of ballistics, did the bullets appear to be the same caliber, if you know; Doctor?

A: Although I am not a ballistics expert but I have seen thousands of bullets and recovered them I am willing to testify as an expert in forensic pathology and allied forensic sciences.

I would say that the bullets found were of small caliber bullets and they appeared to be the same and the configurations the same and the surface color, which was a brownish, which was also corresponding to others, and what we call striation markings on the side of the bullet also showed similar pattern.

Based on these facts I am willing to testify that those appear to be the same type of bullet.

Q: From your examination of the stab wounds on Mr. Sebring's body could you tell us whether or not the same instrument was used to make those stab wounds?

A: Again, based on the same reasoning, study of the characteristics, it is most likely caused by the same type of an instrument.

Q: Doctor, can you tell us if your examination of the stab wounds made upon Mr. Sebring as well as upon Mrs. Sharon Polanski, whether or not the same instrument was used to make those stab wounds that you found on both of those bodies?

A: Comparison and studies of both individuals, decedents, wound characteristics were very similar. That is, indicating that type of instruments must have been the same or very similar.

MR. STOVITZ: We will go into the other deaths, if any, on Monday, ladies and gentleman.

If there are any questions, we will take about 30 seconds --

Q BY MR. STOVITZ: From your examination on August the 9th, Doctor, were you able to fix a time of death of any of the individuals?

A: We have tried very hard to fix the time.

However, this area is rather difficult -- extremely difficult area for even experienced forensic pathologists and we do not have definite fixation of time.

However, we do have a number of factors on data that may be of assistance. Later on we may be able to come to a reasonable conclusion.

Q: And, Doctor, there has been a question asked as to whether or not there has been any dismemberment of any private parts of either the males or females in this case.

Were you able to determine that from your examinations?

A: Yes.

Q: What was the answer to that question?

A: My answer would be quite emphatic there was no evidence of mutilation or dismemberment of the body or any injury into the private parts of the five victims.

Q: And would that also include sexual molestation; to your knowledge?

A: As far as signs can determine, based on the injury, there was no evidence of sexual molestation.

Q: You stated that you couldn't make an exact time of death as to the five bodies. What about the fetus in the body of Sharon Polanski, could you tell how long the fetus was dead or did that appear to be simultaneous with that of the mother?

A: This would be not simultaneous in the sense that we know the fact that there were a number of cases where after a maternal death the babies have been saved by emergency Caesarian sections.

We feel that fetus is resistant to lack of oxygen to enable to survive a period of 15 to 20 minutes of cessation of the maternal circulation.

MR. STOVITZ: I take it there are no further questions.

We want to thank you very much.

Just a moment, we have two more questions.

Q BY MR. BUGLIOSI: So this is absolutely clear, let's go over this quickly, again.

Dr. Herrera recovered a bullet from Mr. Frykowski's body; is that correct, under your supervision?

A: That is correct.

Q: Dr. Herrera turned the bullet over to Sergeant W. J. Lee of the Los Angeles Police Department on August 10, 1969?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: And Dr. Henry recovered the one bullet from between the shirt and back of Jay Sebring; is that correct, under your supervision?

A: Well, I personally removed it from between the -- underneath of the shirt.

Q: Did you turn that bullet over to Sergeant Lee on August 11, 1969?

A: Yes, I turned this bullet over to W. J. Lee, serial number 6679, LAPD, and I handed it to him personally, with the proper identification, at 9:45 a.m. of August 10, 1969.

Q BY MR. STOVITZ: August 11th; Doctor?

A: Let me check.

Yes, let me repeat this.

This bullet was recovered between the shirt and back, found loosely, during fluoroscopic, f-l-u-o-r-o-s-c-o-p-i-c, examination at 10:15 a.m. on August 10, 1969, and I placed it -- identified it and I handed it to the person, W. J. Lee, on August 11th instead of August 10th, at 9:45 a.m.

Q: Under your supervision did Dr. Herrera remove two bullets from Steven Parent's body?

A: May I just refer to that document?

It is true, sir, two bullets.

Q: Did Dr. Herrera turn these two bullets over to Sergeant W. J. Lee of the Los Angeles Police Department on August 10, 1969?

A: Yes.

Q: The gunshot wound to Frykowski, apparently was nonfatal; Doctor?

A: That is true.

Q: And the gunshot wound, or wounds, to Jay Sebring were also nonfatal?

A: That is true.

MR. STOVITZ: That is all.

Thank you again, Doctor.

THE FOREMAN: You are admonished not to discuss or impart at any time outside of this Jury Room, the questions that have been asked of you in regard to this matter, or your answers, until authorized by this Grand Jury or the Court to discuss or impart such matters. You may be excused.

You may be excused.

(Whereupon proceedings were adjourned until Monday, December 8, 1969.)

---