Friday, August 12, 2005

About the State's Star Witness

Ms. June Emmer questioned by Irving Kanarek (August 3, 1970) out of the jury’s presence due to being a conditional witness that may not be able to testify later:

Q: How long have you known Miss Kasabian?

A: She stayed a month with me at my house between the middle of October and the middle of November.

Q: Now, while she stayed at your house did Linda Kasabian discuss with you LSD?

A: Yes.

Q: Now, directing your attention to the matter of acid and LSD, would you please tell us whether or not Linda Kasabian told you that she had consumed acid or LSD?

A: Yes. She told me when she was carrying her baby, Tanya, she took it, and for me not to believe everything I see in the papers about taking LSD as far as having a child.

Q: What did she tell you concerning her stay in California?

A: She had a ball there and really enjoyed it.

Q: Did she tell you that she had been in a $250,000 house?

A: Yes.

Q: And did Mrs. Kasabian state words to you, anything, as to her state of mind towards other people when she went on trips?

A: She did not care what happened when she went on trips.

Q: Do you have in your mind a meaning for the word trance?

A: Yes.

Q: Now, directing your attention to Linda Kasabian, would you state that what you observed concerning her, as to whether or not she appeared to be in a trance?

A: Yes, she...

(Objection by Bugliosi. Sustained. Response stricken from the record.)

Q: Would you indicate to us, Mrs. Emmer, what her manner appeared to be to you?

A: Hippie-type.

Q: And when you say hippie-type, what do you mean, Mrs. Emmer?

A: The way she dressed.

Q: Did she wear shoes?

A: No.

Q: Mrs. Emmer, at one time while you were discussing a $250,000 home with Mrs. Kasabian, did you ask her why she was at this house?

(Objection by Bugliosi. Requested an offer of proof as to the validity of the question.)

KANAREK: Well, I believe the Sharon Tate home, your Honor, is worth about $250,000. And it is our belief that Linda Kasabian was in that house, that Linda Kasabian had a participation in these murders that is far and much greater than Linda Kasabian has testified to.

(Objection overruled.)

A: Yes.

Q: What did she tell you?

A: She told me she couldn’t tell me. I said, "Why not?" I said, "What kind of people do you know with that kind of money?" She said, "I just cannot tell you."

Q: Do you have an opinion, Mrs. Emmer, as to the truth, honesty and integrity of Linda Kasabian?

A: I know she lies.

STOVITZ: May that be stricken your Honor, as pure speculalation, pure conjecture, and pure malarkey?

OLDER: It is non-responsive. The answer is stricken.

Q: Well, you lived with her for a whole month?

A: Yes.

Q: Did her father tell you what his opinion was concerning her reputation?

A: Yes.

Q: You had occasion to observe her, and among other people besides yourself?

A: Yes.

Q: All right, would you tell us what, then, her reputation for truth, honesty and integrity was in the fall of 1969 in the community in which she lived in Miami?

A: She was a liar.

Q: What was her reputation, was it good, bad?

A: All I can say is she just lied, that is all.

Q: What is her reputation for truth, honesty and integrity, good or bad?

A: It was bad. (The record notes there was a pause before replying.)

Q: Did she ever state to you-did she ever state to you anything concerning the taking of any other drugs other than LSD or acid?

A: She told me she took them all.

June Emmer cross-examined by Stovitz (August 3, 1970) out of the jury’s presence. Note that many objections by Kanarek have been deleted for clarity:

Q: Mrs. Emmer, when Linda Kasabian first came to Florida, she first moved in with her father, is that right?

A: No.

Q: Whom did she move in with?

A: She arrived on a Saturday and spent Saturday night, her and the baby, upstairs over the liquor bar. Her father could not be found.

Q: Was there any particular reason her father could not be found?

A: He has weekends off and sometimes he goes out in his boat or goes here or there.

(Missing testimony about witness being twenty nine years old and her husband, in the Fall of 1969, was sixty two.)

Q: When Linda came to live with you she was more or less like a young person to you and you and Linda started to talk, is that right?

A: Yes.

Q: One of the things that you and Linda got to talk about was your drinking habits, isn’t that right?

KANAREK: I object your Honor, on the grounds that it is immaterial, irrelevant.

OLDER: Sustained.

Q: All right now, do you imbibe a little? Do you partake of alcoholic beverages from time to time?

A: Yes.

Q: And do you find that as the occasion arises, when you have taken too many alcoholic beverages, your memory becomes a little bad at times?

A: Yes.

Q: This weekend, for instance, you have not taken an excess of alcohol, have you?

A: I have four or five drinks a night.

Q: What about this morning, did you have four or five drinks this morning?

(No response from witness.)

Q: The shaking of your hand, especially when you took the oath, is that because you were nervous or the four or five drinks?

A: My shaking has nothing to do with my drinking whatsoever.

Q: Do you drink to stop your shaking?

A: No. When I drink I shake more.

Q: All right, now, did you ever see Linda drink?

A: Once.

Q: When was that?

A: All I seen her, during the month, was take one beer, that is all.

Q: Now, when did your husband pass away?

A: November 22nd.

Q: 1969?

A: Right.

Q: And following your husband’s demise did you increase your drinking habits or did you decrease your drinking habits?

(Objection. Sustained.)

Q: All right now, was your husband ill at the time Linda left Miami?

A: He was under a doctor’s care.

Q: And when Linda left Miami, when was the last day before that that she lived with you?

A: The same day. She left from my house to go to the airport.

Q: Now you like Linda’s father, Mr. Drouin, right?

A: Yes.

Q: Do you have any matrimonial plans?

A: No.

Q: Do you feel that Linda’s affection for her father or her father’s affection for Linda in any way interferes with your relationship with Mr. Drouin?

KANAREK: This is assuming facts not in evidence. In fact the contrary is true, the father feels Linda is a liar.

OLDER: Overruled.

STOVITZ: I suggest you stand next to your witness if you want to coach her. It’s very disconcerting your standing over there.

A: All he does is work for me.

Q: How long has he worked for you?

A: For my husband fourteen years.

Q: How long has he worked for you?

A: Four years.

Q: In other words you were only married to your husband four years?

A: Three years.

Q: Three years?

A: Three.

(Missing testimony. Kanarek had traveled to Miami to speak to Emmer and he was paying the expenses for her trip to Los Angeles.)

Q: Did you ever discuss the term "reputation" with Mr. Kanarek?

A: Yes.

Q: What do you understand the word "reputation" to mean?

A: What she is known as.

Q: Now, besides Mr. Drouin, did you know anyone else that knew Linda Kasabian at Miami Beach, Florida?

A: Her father’s girl friend.

Q: What is her name?

A: Judy. Judy Short.

Q: Is Judy here in California now?

A: No.

Q: Where have you last seen her?

A: She helps Rosy at the bar. Rosy is Linda’s father.

Q: And did you discuss Linda Kasabian with anyone else besides her father and Judy?

A: Yes. A neighbor across the street.

Q: What is that neighbor’s name?

A: A Mrs. Frye.

Q: Do you like Linda Kasabian?

A: She never did anything to me.

Q: Mrs. Emmer, would you like a drink of water?

A: No, thank you.

Q: Your mouth is still not dry?

(Objection. Overruled.)

Q: Mrs. Emmer, you stated that you had about five drinks last night, is that right?

A: Not last night, no.

Q: The night before?

A: (No response from witness.)

Q: Now, what about one occasion in Miami Beach, Florida, when Linda Kasabian was telling you all of these things about California, how many drinks did you have on that occasion?

A: I never drink in the daytime. I have a couple of drinks at night as most people do.

Q: Was this conversation in the daytime or the nighttime?

A: Daytime.

Q: All right. Now, one of the things that she said to you about California was that she was in a house with beautiful chandeliers, is that right?

A: Yes.

Q: Did she describe what type of chandeliers, whether they were French Provincial, or the Spanish type, or whether the early American chandelier?

A: No.

Q: Did she show it to you in a book?

A: No.

Q: Tell us everything you remember about the chandelier and about the house.

A: She told me she was in several homes worth over $250,000, with chandeliers. That is all she told me.

Q. Linda told you that she was using acid when she was carrying Tanya, is that right?

A: Right. She told me not to believe everything I read in the papers. Because she was taking a lot of it when she carried Tanya, and she said "Look at that baby; there is nothing the matter with it."

Q: How old was Tanya when you saw her?

A: Two and a half.

Q: Did she walk?

A: Yes.

Q: Was she saying words? Did she say anything like "Mommy" or "Daddy" or "Charlie" or anything like that?

KANAREK: Or "Aaron?"

A: She used the word "Mama" and "love."

Q: And aside from going around barefooted and being a little hippie-ish, did Linda appear to be a normal girl?

A: Yes.

Q: As far as you are concerned, the amount of alcohol that you drank in no way affected your opinions whatsoever; is that right?

A: No.

Q: And the amount of alcohol you drank in no way affected your memory?

A: I told you I had a couple of drinks every night; but during the day, that is when we talked, because we were home alone.

Q: At the bar did you have a couple of drinks each night?

A: No. I wasn’t at the bar. I was home with her.

Q: At night?

A: During the day.

Q: What about having a couple of drinks; when did you have a couple of drinks?

A: At night. I never drank in the daytime.

Q: At the bar or at the house?

A: At the house.

Q: Was Linda there when you were having a couple of drinks?

A: Yes.

Q: And didn’t she, on one of those times, ask you, "Judy" - she called you Judy, didn’t she?

A: Right.

Q: Didn’t she say, "Judy, why do you drink so much?"

(Objection. Sustained.)

(Missing testimony. Emmer had only talked to three people about Kasabian.)

OLDER: There is no evidence that Mrs. Emmer is familiar with the general reputation of Linda Kasabian in the community for truth, honesty and veracity. Therefore her testimony regarding reputation as to Mrs. Kasabian will be stricken….


Magick_Films said...

Oh Col., how is it you are so wise in the ways of The Family? Each new bit of information spins me like a single plum, floating in perfume, served in a man's hat.

ColScott said...

bedlam is dreaming of rain

agnostic monk said...

Hi colscott, your blog is awesome. Mrs. Emmer sounds a little off. not sure what it is, might just be the starts and stops of missing testimony and non-answers.

Do you think Linda was in the Tate house? None of the killers have ever said she entered the home on the night of the murders. Was Linda in the Tate house with Tex on some other day prior to the murders?

Was Harold True's (rented) house one of the $250,000 houses she had been in? Don't know how much those houses on the Labianca's block were worth.

ColScott said...


Here's a better question- if you had to be executed for participating in 7 murders and not reporting them OR you could say whatever the hell I tell you to say, and your own father apparently thinks you are a murderer, then what do you choose?

agnostic monk said...

Hi colscott, I hear where you're going; Linda lied to back up Bugliosi's story. That's an understandable suspicion.

But no one has ever been able to really tear apart her story based on evidence or other testimony. As I recall, the only "defense" the defense had was to bring into question Linda's credibility as a witness, and that seemed to come off in the courtroom as a joke. Even the bailiff must have been rolling his eyes when family members attempted to slander and implicate her.

I'm not defending Linda Kasabian's actions during her time with and just after the family. She behaved foolishly. Citizen of The Year? Hardly. Mother of The Year? Hah! But it seems she did tell the truth on the witness stand. Hell, even the killers back her up through statements before, during, and after the trial. Tex Watson specifically recalls her horrified reaction to his head beating of Woytek on the front lawn, down to "Sadie make it stop."

But let's not beat around the George W. Bush here. I'd be interested in hearing specifically what elements of her story were lies, in your opinion. I find your "think about this" and "consider that" approach in your blog to make for great reading, but in this case I'm all ears for specifics.

Thanks! :)

ColScott said...

Understand that I do not believe she lied about the murders at all. I think that her story is so backed up by the others that it is clear she told the truth.
But I believe the BUG was gonna "Get Charlie" no matter what it took. And having the mother of Lady Dangerous say what needed to be said in order to get free, and appear virtuous herself, was what it took.
Remember- she had been at the ranch TWO weeks- do you really think she was in the inner circle and knew the motivations? She simply had a valid driver's license.

agnostic monk said...

ok, I seemed to have misinterpreted. I thought you were implying that she lied.

But it isn't Linda's fault that Bugliosi was determined to nail Charlie. She fit nicely into his plan - a dream witness - but I can't fault her for one moment for playing that part, which she played truthfully. I do believe at the time that while she was saving her own ass she also had the mentality that she had two children to take care of. Granted, there were some crucial moments where those good intentions went up in flames, both before and after the trial (the subsequent mess that was/is her post-trial life is one of the tragedies of this whole story, IMHO), but I do believe that was her intention.

Try for one moment to put yourself in Linda's shoes. I know that's almost laughable to say, because of course you wouldn't have ever been in that situation to begin with. But my point is nevermind the fact that several people involved said she eventually wanted to talk, deal or no deal - could you honestly imagine yourself doing anything other than telling your story and signing your name on the dotted line of Bugliosi's immunity contract?

As far as motivations for the murders, let me say up front that I'm in the camp that believes the Helter Skelter theory was, at most, a small, vague sub-motivation. But as far as Linda's testimony with respect to Helter Skelter, it was up to the jury, with Bugliosi's guidance, to go from A) Linda heard talk of Helter Skelter and talk of "something witchy", to B) Linda witnessed the murders to C) Helter Skelter was the motive. That wasn't exactly a direct line that Linda herself drew, based on the testimony I've read.

Anyway, sorry I'm rambling nonsensically as I've barely slept lately due to work. Once again I thank you for this blog and the opportunity to discuss this amazing case.

(p.s. Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't it come out that Tanya Christian was in fact NOT Lady Dangerous? I thought Lady D was Linda's younger daughter, born after Angel. Tanya attempted to sue Greg King for mixing her up with her sister in his Sharon Tate book).

ColScott said...

but I can't fault her for one moment for playing that part, which she played truthfully
If she had been truthful, okay, but please don't tell me she didn't lie on Bug orders.

You aren't getting one thing...Sadie, Katie and Tex and Leslie are all going down with or without Kasabian. There's physical evidence and confessions. Bug has them. They are guilty as sin. But he WANTS Charlie. Linda was at the ranch a few weeks. Truthfully, she can't lay this on Charlie- since he didn't say shit to her. But she spins it with Bug's help and bam, he's down- even though "that's three lies" she's told already...

I agree with the HS thread you describe.

And again, I believe she got the actual murder events 100% correct.

And you are right again about Lady Dangerous- but my sentence is correct she is still her mother, no?)

angie said...

Hey- She sounds more than a little off.
I wonder why it was so overwhelmingly important for Linda to go just because she had the drivers license. What would that have mattered in the end if they had been caught by the police exiting the property? Do you know what the punishment/fine would have been in '69 for driving without a license? It has always amazed me that she was present at the murder scene despite the fact that she had only been around for a few weeks. Something doesn't add up.

ColScott said...

Yeah it doesn' scenario is that Charlie did send Tex and the girls (I mean who sends girls to slaughter people anyway? If you want killing send Bruce and Clem.) to beat the shit out of Voytek to get money owed, and that Tex, in order to make up for Lotsapoppa, went way way too far. If it was "just" an ass kicking trip, you don't want your "backup" (the girls) getting pinched before they get there and not having a license. Indeed, Linda behaved EXACTLY like a getaway driver the night of Tate. Hmmm....