Linda Kasabian Testimony
Manson-Atkins-Krenwinkel-Van Houten Trial Testimony
Linda Kasabian questioned by Vincent Bugliosi (July 27, 1970). Note many
objections have been deleted for clarity:
Q: Did you ever go to live at the Spahn Movie Ranch in Chatsworth,
California?
A: Yes, I did.
Q: I show you people’s 28 for identification. Linda do you know whose
photograph that is?
A: Yes, I do.
Q: Who is shown in that photograph?
A: Gypsy.
Q: Do you know her by her real name?
A: Kathy.
Q: Does the name Katherine Share ring a bell?
A: Yes.
Q: You know her as Gypsy and Kathy?
A: Also she told me Minine or Minone.
Q: Did Gypsy have anything to do with your going to the Spahn Ranch?
A: Yes, she did.
Q: How was that?
A: She told me about a beautiful man that we had all been waiting for.
Q: Did you start to live at the Spahn ranch?
A: Yes, I did.
Q: When did you meet Charles Manson for the first time?
A: The next night.
Q: That would be July 5, then?
A: Right, and he was up and back at the ranch, in a cluster of trees, and he
was working on a dune buggy.
Q: Did you have a conversation with Mr. Manson on this first occasion?
A: Yes.
Q: What did he say to you?
A: He asked me why I had come. I had told him that my husband had rejected me
and that Gypsy told me I was welcome here as part of the Family.
Q: After you told Mr. Manson why you had come to the Spahn Ranch, did he do
anything...
A: Yes, he felt my legs and seemed to think they were okay or whatever.
Q: Where did you stay that night?
A: In a cave up in back of the ranch.
Q: When was the next time you saw Mr. Manson?
A: The next night or maybe the night after, I am not sure.
Q: Where did you meet Mr. Manson on this following occasion?
A: Inside the cave.
Q: What took place at that time?
(An objection from Kanarek)
(Possible missing testimony)
Q: You mentioned earlier, Linda, about a Family. Is that what the people were
called out at the Spahn Ranch?
A: Yes.
KANAREK: Objection on the grounds it is assuming facts not in evidence. There
is no evidence of any Family. What they are called is hearsay, your Honor.
OLDER: Mr. Kanarek, I told you before I just want the motion or the objection
and grounds without the argument.
KANAREK: And I respectfully ask the court to ask the witness...
OLDER: Sit down, sir.
KANAREK: ...not to respond...
OLDER: Sit down, sir.
(Missing testimony about Manson’s dominance over Family members.)
(Objection. Sustained)
(Attorneys approached the bench)
BUGLIOSI: Your Honor, with all...
HUGHES: I find it highly prejudicial, that we go to the bench whenever Mr.
Bugliosi wishes and not when Mr. Kanarek asks.
OLDER: Don’t interrupt. Mr. Bugliosi was talking.
BUGLIOSI: With all deference to the court I don’t understand why I cannot put
in Manson directing...
HUGHES: I cannot hear this.
BUGLIOSI: I cannot understand, with all deference to the court how the court
is not permitting me to put on evidence that Manson was in charge of the Family.
I have the highest regard for the court. I want the court to know that. At this
particular point, your Honor, I am shocked at the court’s position. This is our
case against Manson.
OLDER: That is not a legal argument, Mr. Bugliosi, as you well know.
BUGLIOSI: I agree with the court on that.
OLDER: The questions called for hearsay. I find no exception under which it
might come in. That is the reason I sustained the objection.
BUGLIOSI: The only way I can prove Manson was the head of the Family is that
he directed everyone to do things. I am just at a loss for words.
OLDER: I think perhaps a good deal of it can be solved by phrasing your
questions in some other manner.
(Possible missing section)
(Court adjourned for the day)
