The official narrative of these crimes says when the murderers arrived at
Cielo Drive the first thing that happened was that Watson climbed the power
pole and cut the phone line. Atkins and Kasabian tell two versions of this
tale. One is wrong. Which one? The answer is
surprising.
The jury always determines the credibility of a witness. The
judge ‘instructs’ the jury on the issue using the following instruction or one
very similar in all cases.
You alone must judge the credibility or
believability of the witnesses. In deciding whether testimony is true and
accurate, use your common sense and experience. The testimony of each witness
must be judged by the same standard. You must set aside any bias or prejudice
you may have, including any based on the witness's gender, race, religion, or
national origin [, or <insert any other impermissible bias as
appropriate>].
You may believe all, part, or none of any
witness's testimony. Consider the testimony of each witness and decide how much
of it you believe.
In evaluating a witness's testimony, you
may consider anything that reasonably tends to prove or disprove the truth or
accuracy of that testimony. Among the factors that you may consider are:
How well could the witness see, hear, or
otherwise perceive the things about which the witness testified?
How well was the witness able to remember
and describe what happened?
What was the witness's behavior while
testifying?
Did the witness understand the questions
and answer them directly?
Was the witness's testimony influenced by
a factor such as bias or prejudice, a personal relationship with someone
involved in the case, or a personal interest in how the case is decided?
What was the witness's attitude about the
case or about testifying?
Did the witness make a statement in the
past that is consistent or inconsistent with his or her testimony?
How reasonable is the testimony when you
consider all the other evidence in the case?
Did other evidence prove or disprove any
fact about which the witness testified?
Did the witness admit to being
untruthful?
What is the witness's character for
truthfulness?
Has the witness been convicted of a
felony?
Has the witness engaged in other conduct
that reflects on his or her believability?
Was the witness promised immunity or
leniency in exchange for his or her testimony?
Do not automatically reject testimony
just because of inconsistencies or conflicts. Consider whether the differences
are important or not. People sometimes honestly forget things or make mistakes
about what they remember. Also, two people may witness the same event yet see
or hear it differently.
If
you decide that a witness deliberately lied about something significant in this
case, you should consider not believing anything that witness says. Or, if you
think the witness lied about some things, but told the truth about others, you
may simply accept the part that you think is true and ignore the rest.
Using this instruction is it possible to reach a conclusion
regarding which witness told the more accurate tale regarding the phone line.
Atkins says this is what happened [the emphasis is mine]:
Q BY MR. BUGLIOSI: Susan, can you tell these members of the
Grand Jury where Tex parked the car when you arrived at the residence?
A: Right here up this way [pointing to a diagram]. There would be another house
over here. We parked between the power pole and the next door neighbor's house.
Q: So the place where Tex parked the car would be north of
this diagram here, not shown on this diagram; is that correct?
*****
Q BY MR. BUGLIOSI: The place where Tex parked the car is not
shown on this diagram; is that correct, Susan?
A: Correct.
Cielodrive.com. Susan Atkins Grand Jury Testimony (Kindle
Locations 360-362). Kindle Edition.
Q: What did Tex do when he approached the power pole?
A: He climbed up it and cut two lines.
Q: The wires?
A: Two wires that led to the house, to this
house.
Q: All right, what did Mr. -- or, what did Tex do after he
cut the lines?
A: He climbed back down, told all of us to get into the
car put the bolt cutters back in the car, and drove back down the
hill and parked on a side street.
Cielodrive.com. Susan Atkins Grand Jury Testimony (Kindle
Location 377). Kindle Edition.
Atkins places the car between to power pole and the
neighbors. She offers that the neighbor’s house
is not shown on the diagram. Atkins sees Watson climb up the pole with the bolt
cutters and cut two wires. She sees Watson put the bolt cutters back in the
car. She sees all this because she and apparently everyone else were outside
the car when this occurred. She testifies that Watson told ‘all of us’ to get into the car.
Now look at what Kasabian has to say.
Kasabian at TLB [My comments]:
Q. What is the
next thing that happened?
A. He [Watson]
got out of the car; he walked around the back of the car. I don't know if he
had wire cutters or what, I don't know, but I remember he climbed the pole,
and I saw wires fall. Then he came back and got in the car. [Why does
she offer up the bit about wire cutters? No one mentioned this to her at this point in
her testimony.]
Q. All right,
now, when he climbed the pole, where was the car in relation to the pole?
A. Right beside
it.
Q. And you were
in the passenger side of the car?
A. Yes.
Q. Was the pole
next to the passenger side of the car or the driver's side?
A. The
passenger side.
Q. It was on
your side of the car?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you
actually see Tex climb the pole?
A. I think
so. I am not positive. I just remember seeing the wires fall.
Q. Did you hear
him cut any wires?
A. No.
Q. But you saw
some wires fall?
A. Yeah.
Q. Do you know
how many?
A. No.
Q. Was it many
or one or two or three or what?
A. There were a
few.
Q. You heard
them fall to the ground?
A. Yeah.
Q. What is the
next thing that happened?
A. He got back
in the car and we drove down the hill and parked the car on the right side
of the road.
And at the Watson
trial:
Q: While Tex was out of the car did you, Sadie
and Katie stay in the car?
A: Yes.
*****
Q: Did you see Tex cut any telephone wires?
A: I didn't see him actually cut them, but I
saw the wires fall.
Q: To the ground?
A: Yes.
Q: How many wires fell to the ground?
A: I didn't count them. A few.
Kasabian places
the car right next to the pole. No one except Watson is outside the car. She does
not know if Watson has wire cutters (but oddly mentions something- the wire cutters- she doesn’t
know anything about, unsolicited) and does not see him cut the wires.
The image below
is a good view of the gate at Cielo Drive. The gate is just behind and to the
left of the power pole. It is not the dark ‘wall’ further up towards the
garage. The pole is visible in the center of the image. The Knott house is the
first house from left to right.
Notice the height of the pole compared to other objects. The phone line was 'at the top' of the pole.
In the first image Atkins places the car to the right of the
pole. That would place the car about where the car is located in the second
image. The pole is there to the right.
Kasabian says the car was parked directly adjacent to the pole,
which would place it next to the white fence in the second image.
If Kasabian is accurate neither she nor anyone in the car could
have possibly seen Watson after he climbed the first four or five feet of the
pole while sitting in the car. They would have no line of sight unless they stuck their heads out the window. At the same
time if they parked adjacent to the pole and Kasabian was on the passenger side
closest to the pole she could easily have seen him at least start to climb the
pole. She could have reached out and touched him.
If Atkins is correct and the witnesses were outside the car
Watson could easily have be seen perform the entire act.
Atkins and Kasabian
cannot both be correct. One of them is mistaken, but which one? The physical
evidence suggests that it is Ms. Kasabian, who is not accurate.
Did other evidence prove or disprove any
fact about which the witness testified?
First Tate Homicide Investigation Progress Report:
“The first theory
is that the killers climbed a telephone pole (Addendum 1 and 1A) located just
north of the above-described electronic button which opens the gate to the
Cielo property. The phone wire at the top of this pole had been cut
in such a manner that it stopped phone service to the Cielo property; however,
did not allow the phone wire that runs from the pole to the house to fall to
the ground. The killer(s) also cut a small piece of two-strand wire
which runs from the Cielo home to the telephone pole near the top and then down
to where the button for the gate is located.
Atkins saw Watson
at least a dozen feet above the ground specifically cut two wires. Unless we
assume someone told her about this the logical explanation is she actually
witnessed Watson cutting two wires and her testimony is supported by the
physical evidence.
She identifies
the number of wires that were actually cut and the only way she could see this
event (Watson well above the car) is if she were outside the car.
Atkins also says
‘all of us’ were told to get back in the car after Watson climbed back down the
pole. While Bugliosi fails to follow up on exactly who ‘all of us’ were the
reference logically is to all three women. That places Kasabian outside the car
watching the event with the rest.
It is possible that Atkins was outside the car and Kasabian was inside the car but when the story takes this route assumptions are made that are not supported by the evidence making both witnesses inaccurate.
It is possible that Atkins was outside the car and Kasabian was inside the car but when the story takes this route assumptions are made that are not supported by the evidence making both witnesses inaccurate.
Based on the physical evidence Atkins’ testimony
is simply more accurate then Kasabian’s.
If you decide that a witness deliberately
lied about something significant in this case, you should consider not
believing anything that witness says.
Did Kasabian
deliberately lie about this incident? Nothing in the testimony or physical
evidence indicates that she did. It is however, curious that she would tell a
different story about this point. The answer to this question ultimately requires
information that is not contained in the actual testimony, above, or physical
evidence.
We are left to speculate why her testimony wouldn't simply agree with Atkins' version of events. What begins to happen, however, as the story unfolds is we find Kasabian distancing herself from culpability and passing it to others. She becomes an unarmed, vulnerable and passive observer running all over the place powerless to stop the actions of others. In this instance it is a fairly minor point in the scheme of things but at nearly every turn going forward she avoids 'active participation' in the crime and especially any elements of the crime that suggest premeditation- cutting the phone line suggests just that.
Bugliosi surely wanted to portray her as the most innocent of the lot. Nothing in her responses suggests she was 'coached'. Volunteering the her lack of knowledge of any bolt cutters doesn't fit a coached witness because Bugliosi doesn't want that answer. He wants the opposite answer. But it does, again add some distance between her and the crime.
We are left to speculate why her testimony wouldn't simply agree with Atkins' version of events. What begins to happen, however, as the story unfolds is we find Kasabian distancing herself from culpability and passing it to others. She becomes an unarmed, vulnerable and passive observer running all over the place powerless to stop the actions of others. In this instance it is a fairly minor point in the scheme of things but at nearly every turn going forward she avoids 'active participation' in the crime and especially any elements of the crime that suggest premeditation- cutting the phone line suggests just that.
Bugliosi surely wanted to portray her as the most innocent of the lot. Nothing in her responses suggests she was 'coached'. Volunteering the her lack of knowledge of any bolt cutters doesn't fit a coached witness because Bugliosi doesn't want that answer. He wants the opposite answer. But it does, again add some distance between her and the crime.
