gave me her knife.” At this point in her narrative, Daye Shinn opened the blade of the Buck knife and started to hand the knife to Susan.
THE COURT “Put that knife back the way it was!”
SHINN “I only wanted to get the dimensions, Your Honor.”
Susan skipped ahead in her narrative. She was holding Sharon Tate and “Tex came back and he looked at her and he said, ‘Kill her.’ And I killed her…And I just stabbed her and she fell, and I stabbed her again. I don’t know how many times I stabbed her…” Sharon begged for the life of her baby, and “I told her, ‘Shut up. I don’t want to hear it.’”
Though Susan’s words were horrifyingly chilling, her expression for the most part remained simple, even childlike.
There was only one way to describe the contrast: it was incredibly obscene.
In discussing the Hinman murder, Susan had placed Leslie Van Houten at the murder scene. There had never been any evidence whatsoever that Leslie was involved in the Hinman murder.
In discussing the night the LaBiancas were killed, Susan made some additional changes in the cast of characters. Manson didn’t go along, she said. Linda drove; Tex creepy-crawled the LaBianca residence; Linda instructed Tex, Katie, and Leslie what to do; Linda suggested killing the actor in Venice. And when they returned to Spahn Ranch, “Charlie was there sleeping.”
Just as improbable was another of her fictional embellishments. She had implicated Manson in her conversation with me and in her testimony before the grand jury, she claimed, because I had promised her that if she did so I would personally see that none of the defendants, including Manson, would receive the death penalty.
The best refutation of this was that she had implicated Manson on the tape she made with Caballero, days before our first meeting.
Describing that meeting, Sadie said, “Bugliosi walked in. I think he was dressed similar to the way he is dressed now, gray suit, vest.”
Q. “This was way back in 1969, right?”
A. “Right. He looked a lot younger then.”
We’d all gone through a lot in the last fourteen months.
Shinn then began questioning Susan about Shorty! I asked to approach the bench.
BUGLIOSI “Your Honor, I can’t believe what is going on here. He is talking about Shorty Shea now!” Turning to Daye, I said, “You are hurting yourself if you bring in other murders, and you are hurting the co-defendants.” Older agreed and cautioned Shinn to be extremely careful.
I was worried that if Shinn continued, the case might be reversed on appeal. What conceivable rationale could there be for having your client take the stand and confess to a murder with which she isn’t even charged?
Fitzgerald took over the direct. He asked Susan why the Tate victims were killed.
A. “Because I believed it was right to get my brother out of jail. And I still believe it was right.”
Q. “Miss Atkins, were any of these people killed as a result of any personal hate or animosity that you had toward them?”
A. “No.”
Q. “Did you have any feeling toward them at all, any emotional feeling toward any of these people—Sharon Tate, Voytek Frykowski, Abigail Folger, Jay Sebring, Steven Parent?”
A. “I didn’t know any of them. How could I have felt any emotion without knowing them?”
Fitzgerald asked Susan if she considered these mercy killings.
A. “No. As a matter of fact, I believe I told Sharon Tate I didn’t have any mercy for her.”
Susan went on to explain that she knew what she was doing “was right when I was doing it.” She knew this because, when you do the right thing, “it feels good.”
Q. “How could it be right to kill somebody?”
A. “How could it not be right when it is done with love?”
Q. “Did you ever feel any remorse?”
A. “Remorse? For doing what was right to me?”
Q. “Did you ever feel sorry?”
A. “Sorry for doing what was right to me? I have no guilt in me.”
Fitzgerald looked beaten. By bringing out her total lack of remorse, he had made it impossible for the defense to persuasively argue that she was capable of rehabilitation.
We had reached a strange situation. Suddenly, in the penalty phase, long after the jury had found the four defendants guilty, I was in a sense having to prove Manson’s guilt all over again.
If I cross-examined too strenuously, it would appear that I did not feel that we had proven our case. If I eschewed cross-examination, there was the possibility of leaving a lingering doubt as to guilt, which, when it came time for their deliberations, could influence the jury’s vote on penalty. Therefore I had to proceed very carefully, as if trying to walk between raindrops.
The defense, and specifically Irving Kanarek, had tried to plant such a doubt by providing an alternative to Helter Skelter—the copycat motive. Though I felt the testimony on this was thoroughly unconvincing, this didn’t mean I could sit back and presume the jury would feel as I did.
As an explanation for why she was lying to save him, it was important that I conclusively prove to the jury Susan Atkins’ total commitment to Manson. At the start of my cross-examination I asked her: “Sadie, do you believe Charles Manson is the second coming of Christ?”
A. “Vince, I have seen Christ in so many people in the last four or five years, it is hard for me to say which one exactly is the second coming of Christ.”
I repeated the question.
A. “I have thought about it. I have thought about it quite a bit…I have entertained the thought that he was Christ, yes…I don’t know. Could be. If he is, wow, my goodness!”
After confronting her with her letter to Ronnie Howard, in which she stated, “If you can believe in the second coming of Christ, M is he who has come to save,” I asked her: “Even now on the witness stand, Sadie, you think that maybe Charles Manson, the man over there who is playing with his hair, might be Jesus Christ?”
A. “Maybe. I will leave it at that. Maybe yes. Maybe no.”
I persisted until Susan admitted: “He represented a God to me that was so beautiful that I’d do anything for him.”
Q. “Even commit murder?” I asked instantly.
A. “I’d do anything for God.”
Q. “Including murder?” I pressed.
A. “That’s right. If I believed it was right.”
Q. “And you murdered the five people at the Tate residence for your God, Manson, didn’t you?”
Susan paused, then said: “I murdered them for my God Bobby Beausoleil.”
Q. “Oh, so you have two Gods?”
Evasively she replied: “There is only one God and God is in all.”
Since Susan had now testified to these matters, the prosecution was able to use her prior inconsistent statements—including her grand jury testimony—for impeachment purposes.
On cross-examination I had Susan repeat the alleged reasons why they went to the Tate residence. Once she’d restated the copycat nonsense, I hit her with her statements regarding Helter Skelter’s being the motive— made to me, to the grand jury, and in the Howard letter.
I also brought out that she had told me, and the grand jury, that Manson had ordered the seven Tate- LaBianca murders; that Charlie had directed all their activities the second night; and that none of them had been on
