Dean Moorehouse called as a witness by the people, testified as follows:
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. BUGLIOSI
Q: Do you have an occupation, sir?
A: Yes, I have an occupation.
Q: What is that occupation?
A: I go around turning people onto the truth.
Q: Are you somehow associated with a religion?
A: No, I have no religion.
Q: What truth are you talking about?
A: There is only one truth.
Q: What truth is that?
A: There would be no way for me to communicate this to you.
Q: Have you ever been convicted of a felony?
A: Yes.
Q: What felony is that?
A: I was convicted of selling LSD.
Q: Do you know Dennis Wilson, Mr. Moorehouse?
A: Yes, I do.
Q: And you knew him as a drummer for the Beach Boys recording group?
A: Yes.
Q: Did you ever live with Mr. Wilson at his residence located at 14400 Sunset Boulevard in West Los Angeles?
A: Yes, I lived there for a time.
Q: During what period of time did you live there?
A: June 1968 till almost September 1968.
Q: Do you know the defendant, Charles Tex Watson, seated at the counsel table in front of you?
A: Yes, I do.
Q: When did you meet Mr. Watson for the first time?
A: Sometime after I was at Dennis’; I couldn’t say exactly how long.
Q: Where did you meet Mr. Watson for the first time?
A: At Dennis Wilson’s place.
Q: Did you ever live at Wilson’s residence?
A: You already asked me that, but I would say again, “Yes.”
Q: I knew you had been there; you have lived there?
A: Yes.
Q: Did you ever live there with Mr. Watson?
A: Charles stayed there for a time, yes.
Q: What period of time did Mr. Watson live at the Wilson residence with you?
A: I would say roughly around the last two months that I was there, something like that, six weeks or two months.
Q: This is the summer of 1968?
A: That’s correct.
Q: Do you know Charles Manson?
A: Yes, I do.
Q: And when and where did you meet Mr. Manson for the first time?
A: I met him in San Jose in 1968.
Q: Did Mr. Watson introduce you to him?
A: No.
Q: I take it you know Terry Melcher.
A: Excuse me, I’m sorry I made an error, not deliberately; but I met Charlie in ‘67, June of 1967, instead of 1968.
Q: You met Charles Manson in June of 1967 in San Jose?
A: Mm-Hmm.
Q: Did you ever see Mr. Manson down here in Los Angeles?
A: Yes, I did.
Q: At Spahn Ranch?
A: I saw him at Spahn Ranch.
Q: You have a daughter named Ruth?
A: That is correct.
Q: And did Ruth live with Mr. Manson and the other people at Spahn Ranch for a period of time?
A: She was there, yes.
Q: How old is Ruth?
A: She is 18 or 19; I think she’s 19.
Q: Now, do you know Terry Melcher?
A: Yes, I do.
Q: Did you ever go to Mr. Melcher’s home or residence at 10050 Cielo Drive?
A: Yes.
Q: And when did you go there for the first time?
A: Sometime in the summer of 1968.
Q: What was the occasion for your going to Mr. Melcher’s residence?
A: He invited me to come.
Q: How many times would you say you have been to Mr. Melcher’s residence?
A: Oh, it’s hard to say exactly, but I suppose six or eight times.
Q: During what period of time?
A: In the summer of 1968 from probably July to the end of August.
Q: Did you ever go to Mr. Melcher’s former residence at 10050 Cielo Drive with Mr. Watson?
A: One time.
Q: Just the one occasion?
A: That I can remember, yes.
Q: When was that?
A: It would be sometime right toward the end of August.
Q: Was there a party there in July of 1968 where Greg Jacobson was present?
A: He was staying there, also, so he was there, I’m sure.
Q: What about Deana Martin?
A: She came to one party there, yes.
Q: And Ellen Warrnick?
A: I don’t know. I don’t recognize the name.
Q: Let me ask you —
A: Allen.
Q: Ellen Warrnick?
A: No. I know an Allen. I don’t know his last name, but there was a young fellow by the name of Allen there.
Q: To your knowledge, was there ever a party at Dennis Wilson’s that ended up at Terry Melcher’s?
A: Yes.
Q: There was?
A: Yes, there was.
Q: And what is the date of that party?
A: I suppose sometime around July sometime, I think.
Q: 1968?
A: Yes.
Q: Was Mr. Watson at that party?
A: Yeah. He was staying, I think, at Dennis’ at that time, I believe.
Q: And then Mr. Watson accompanied the group to Mr. Melcher’s former residence?
A: I don’t believe he did.
Q: Do you know a sergeant from the Los Angeles Police Department named Sgt. Gutierrez?
A: Yes, I do.
Q: He has interviewed you with respect to this case?
A: Yes.
Q: Do you recall telling him that Mr. Watson and you stayed overnight at the Cielo address on the date of this party?
A: I don’t think so. I can’t recall telling him that. I don’t believe that Tex came to that party.
Q: So the only time that you definitely remember seeing Mr. Watson at the Cielo address was the time you borrowed the car from Terry Melcher?
A: That is correct.
Q: When was the first time that you saw Mr. Watson in the company of Mr. Manson?
A: The only time that I can recall would be at the Spahn Ranch.
Q: Approximately what date?
A: That would have been the first part of September.
Q: What year?
A: 1968.
Q: Prior to September 1968, did you over see Mr. Watson ingest LSD or any other type of drug?
MR. KEITH: May I have that question read.
THE COURT: Yes.
THE WITNESS: When you put the question that way, no, not prior to 1968.
Q BY MR. BUGLIOSI: Well, when you first met Mr. Watson at Dennis Wilson’s residence, during that period of time was Mr. Watson using drugs?
A: We took some trips together.
Q: Some LSD trips?
A: Yes. I believe we tried — we took some acid together.
Q: How many times, approximately?
A: Several times.
Q: Would you just give me some idea what you mean by several? Three, four, twenty, twenty-five?
A: I suppose something like three or four or five.
Q: Any other type of drug, other than LSD?
A: Some grass.
Q: Marijuana?
A: Some hash.
Q: You say grass, g-r-a-s-s?
A: All psychedelics.
Q: You say grass, you mean marijuana?
A: Yes.
Q: When you say hash, you also mean hashish?
A: Hashish.
Q: You mean a type of marijuana?
A: Approximately, yes.
THE COURT: Would you give us the time when you had these trips, Mr. Moorehouse, please?
THE WITNESS: The time?
THE COURT: Yes, approximately when was it?
THE WITNESS: Sometime between — I think that Tex came there sometime in July and I say he was there until the end of August, when we left for my trial and during that period of time, I suppose it would be stretched or spread over that period of time at different times, but I don’t say precisely.
THE COURT: 1968?
THE WITNESS: 1968 in July and August.
Q BY MR. BUGLIOSI: Other than the LSD, the marijuana, and the concentrated marijuana called hashish, did you see Mr. Watson use any other type of drug?
A: We at one time had some THC.
Q: THC?
A: Yes. That is the synthetic derived marijuana.
Q: When did you take THC?
A: Sometime in that period of time. I couldn’t say.
Q: Summer of 1968?
A: Yes, that is correct.
Q: Any other type of drug?
A: Nothing but psychedelics and I think this encompasses all the psychedelics that we used.
Q: To your knowledge, during this period when you and Mr. Watson would use these drugs, to your knowledge, did Mr. Watson know Mr. Manson?
A: Probably he had met him by then, because Charlie would come and visit Dennis.
THE COURT: We have got two Charlies. Which Charlie do you mean?
THE WITNESS: Charlie Manson. You asked me if he know Manson during that period of time.
Q BY MR. BUGLIOSI: During the period that you and Mr. Watson were using these drugs, to your knowledge, did Mr. Watson know Mr. Manson?
A: I believe that he met Charlie when Charlie would come there. I imagine that he met him. I am pretty sure he would have.
Q: During the time that Mr. Watson was using these drugs, was he living at Dennis Wilson’s with you?
A: That is correct.
Q: Mr. Watson was not living out at the Spahn ranch with Mr. Manson?
A: That is correct.
Q: That occurred later?
A: Yes.
MR. BUGLIOSI: No further questions.
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. KEITH
Q: Is it Mr. Moorehouse, is that the proper way to —
A: Dean is fine.
Q: All right. Did you see Mr. Manson often, Dean, after you first met him in San Jose in 1967?
A: Quite often during the period of time from June until, I think about — well, for a month I saw him quite frequently. Then I saw him very infrequently for, until sometime in September, I think was the last I saw him; for about a month, I saw him quite regularly, then just a few times after that.
Q: This was in ‘67 you are telling us about?
A: ‘67.
Q: Then did you begin to see him more often in 1968?
A: I went down to L.A. in 1968 and then I did see him more frequently, yes.
Q: And you were attracted to Mr. Manson, weren’t you?
A: Yes.
Q: There was something about him that drew you to him; isn’t that correct?
A: Yes.
Q: And was Manson the one that turned you on to acid?
A: That is correct.
Q: You hadn’t taken it before you met Manson; right?
A: No, but I determined to take it long before that.
Q: And can we say that acid to you was a new and sort of beautiful experience?
A: I thank God every moment for LSD, yes.
Q: Tell us why you thank God for LSD.
A: Because I found out who I am and what I am.
Q: And is this when you were on a trip there was some new awakening or realization that befell you?
A: That is correct.
Q: And perhaps you could tell us what this awakening was?
A: I found out who I was and what I am.
Q: And who are you?
A: I am a son of God.
Q: All right. Did you discuss this new sort of — I don’t want to use the word religious awakening because you don’t believe in any particular religion — but did you discuss this new self-realization with Charles Manson?
A: To a degree, not as much with him as with other people that came to me.
Q: In other words, you sort of took up the banner for LSD, did you?
A: No, I wouldn’t categorize it that or categorize it that way. I simply became a Pilgrim, a link between two worlds and those who are ready to receive the truth, they would find me and I would share what I had with them.
LSD doesn’t do it. LSD is a catalyst that clears the minds so you can have two choices.
You can either choose the lie that everybody is living in this dimension or you can choose the truth that elevates you and lifts you into the next dimension.
Q: And you found truth through the use of LSD?
A: It was a catalyst that opened my mind, yes.
Q: And did you tell Mr. Watson about this truth you found through the use of LSD as a catalyst?
A: He was a searcher. Yes, I did share with him.
Q: And as a result, Mr. Watson ingested LSD?
A: Not because of my telling him to ingest it, no.
Q: So far as you know, he hadn’t tried it before you?
A: Oh, I think that he had.
Q: But at any rate, Mr. Watson appeared to react — how shall I put it — react favorably?
A: Totally favorably, yes. He became more —
Q: Excuse me. I didn’t mean to interrupt.
A: He became a more beautiful person all the time.
THE COURT: Was there complete empathy then between you and him?
THE WITNESS: It was very close to that. There was something, a vestige of ego within him was still there and some still within me, but otherwises, it was a closer and closer thing all the time, yes.
Q BY MR. KEITH: In your experience, does acid help to destroy one’s ego or to suppress it?
A: It does.
MR. BUGLIOSI: That calls for a conclusion of the witness and is ambiguous.
THE COURT: What did it do to you?
THE WITNESS: It helped me to — in fact, it opened the way for me to experience the ego death, yes.
Q BY MR. KEITH: Did it do that with Mr. Watson, if you know?
A: I would say, yes. I would describe it that way.
MR. BUGLIOSI: I move to strike that as a conclusion.
THE COURT: We will let it stand.
Q BY MR. KEITH: Now, during 1968 when you were living with Mr. Watson, you found him to be a beautiful person; is that correct?
A: Yes, I did.
Q: Was he pleasant?
A: Yes.
Q: Was he friendly?
A: Yes.
Q: Did you see him engage in any violent sort of conduct?
A: Nothing but love.
Q: You never saw him strike anybody?
A: Never.
Q: Or threaten to hit anybody?
A: That is correct.
Q: Or threaten to hurt anybody?
A: He just gave away his possessions.
Q: That is the next subject I was getting to. You see what is going on in my mind.
Was this something you discussed with Mr. Watson, the giving away of one’s possessions?
A: He saw the example of what happens when you let the truth prevail.
Q: When you found the truth, was it your belief that owning property was sort of a bad concept?
A: May I make a little statement to clarify that, to answer the question?
THE COURT: If it answers the question you may.
THE WITNESS: I discovered that you cannot own anything at all, nothing at all, and I don’t say that ownership is bad because everyone has to go through this whole thing of trying to own things before they can be freed from it. I believe that would answer your question.
Q BY MR. KEITH: You don’t own anything now?
A: Nothing. Anyone could have anything that I have, including myself.
Q: And did you convey this belief to Mr. Watson when you were living with him at either Dennis Wilson’s or Spahn Ranch?
A: I shared this with him, yes.
Q: And at that time, at the time that you shared this concept of nonownership of property and of sharing possessions, did Mr. Watson own certain personal property?
A: Yes, he did.
Q: He had a car, didn’t he?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: And he also had some camera equipment?
A: Yes.
Q: That appeared to you to be expensive?
A: Yes, that is correct.
Q: He gave his truck away, didn’t he?
A: Yes, he did.
Q: He gave that to your daughter, Ruth?
A: Yes, that is right.
Q: And he gave all his camera equipment away?
A: Yes.
Q: Didn’t he?
A: Yes.
Q: Did you go with him to the Spahn Ranch in September of 1968?
A: Yes.
Q: Or thereabouts.
And when you went to the Spahn Ranch neither of you had a thing?
A: That is correct.
Q: Did you, beyond the clothes on your back?
A: That is right.
Q: So Mr. Watson had given away everything he owned?
A: That is correct.
Q: And did he believe to your knowledge, with you, that one should share one’s possessions with everybody else?
A: Yes, he did.
Q: And did he also believe to your knowledge that the best way to live was not to be hampered by material things?
A: That is correct.
Q: You and Mr. Watson continued to take LSD while you were at the Spahn Ranch, didn’t you?
A: I believe we had a couple of trips there, that would be the extent of it.
Q: Did you live in a tent at the Spahn Ranch?
A: Yes, that’s correct.
Q: And was this by a stream or —
A: A dry creek bed, yes.
Q: A dry creek bed; and did you go down by the dry creek bed and take a few tabs of acid now and again with Mr. Watson?
A: I don’t know if we went together on any trips there. I can’t remember for sure. But I know that I did on about two or three times, probably took a trip, and whether Tex was at the same time, I’m not sure. I can’t remember for sure.
Q: The more acid Tex took, would it be fair to say, the more beautiful sort of person he became?
A: When I knew him, yes; it was always nothing but getting free of more and more of his hangups.
Q: And did you and Mr. Watson discuss your mutual hangups together?
A: I don’t know if we talked about our hangups; I imagine we did.
Q: You didn’t have any at that time, because of your experience with LSD as a catalyst; and my question is assuming facts not in evidence, but did you discuss with Mr. Watson or have talks with him about how to live and how to get —
A: Yes.
Q: — the most out of life?
A: Yes, we did that.
Q: Did you discuss the subject of love with him occasionally?
A: Certainly.
Q: What did you and he talk about on that subject, in substance or effect?
Of course, we can’t get the exact words.
A: Just like the Beatles aid, “All you need is love.”
Q: Did you listen to the Beatles’ songs?
A: Yes, all of the psychedelic music; I dig it.
Q: And did you listen to the Beatles’ songs at the Spahn Ranch?
A: I don’t think we had a radio when we were there. We just —
Q: How long did you stay at the Spahn Ranch, if you remember?
A: I was there about 10 days or two weeks.
Q: That’s all?
A: That’s all I was there.
Q: Is that when you went north to Ukiah?
A: No, I came there after I returned from Ukiah.
Q: And where did you go after you left the Spahn Ranch?
A: Well, as I say, I was living as a pilgrim so I just went out on the road and I couldn’t tell you — whatever place it led me.
Q: Did you leave Mr. Watson at the Spahn Ranch —
A: Yes, he stayed there.
Q: — when you left?
A: That’s correct.
Q: Was Charlie Manson at the Spahn Ranch when you left after this two-week pilgrimage?
A: Yes, he was there.
Q: Incidentally, were you at the Spahn Ranch for the purpose of this pilgrimage?
A: I was just there because Charlie said, “There’s a tent down there and if you want to say there for a while, you are welcome.”
Q: The Charlie you are mentioning was Charlie Manson, not Charlie Watson?
A: Yes, Charlie Manson.
Q: When you were at the Spahn Ranch did you see Manson from time to time?
A: From time to time, yes.
Q: Were there young girls at the Spahn Ranch at the time?
A: There were some there, yes.
Q: Were there some —
A: And some young —
Q: Were there some young men, too?
A: Yes.
Q: Did the young girls appear to you to outnumber the young men at the time that you were at the Spahn Ranch?
A: Seemed like it was fairly well balanced at that time, I don’t know.
Q: Were they living there at the Spahn Ranch?
A: Yes.
Q: By “they,” I am referring to the young girls and young men.
A: There were a certain number of young girls and young men living there, yes.
Q: Did they appear to you to be drawn in some way to Manson?
A: Oh, yes.
MR. KEITH: Would this be a convenient place?
THE COURT: If you want to.
MR. KEITH: I want to go over some notes.
THE COURT: Very well.
Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, we will have our morning recess at this time.
So once more, do not form or express any opinion in this case; do not discuss it among yourselves or with anybody else and please keep an open mind.
We will have a short recess.
THE COURT: People against Watson.
Let the record show all jurors, counsel, and the defendant are present.
Mr. Moorehouse, will you state your name, please.
THE WITNESS: Dean Moorehouse.
THE COURT: Thank you, sir.
Q BY MR. KEITH: Mr. Moorehouse, Dean, what is your age now, sir?
A: 51.
Q: On these occasions when you were with Charles Manson, did you ever discuss the subject of the establishment with him?
A: Of course.
Q: And what were the substance of those conversations or discussions concerning the establishment, if you can recall?
A: Well, anybody who knows where it is at, knows where the establishment is at, and we just simply — it would be the same with anybody you would talk with about the establishment.
Q: What do you mean when you use the term “the establishment”?
A: Everybody until they find the one true living God are idolaters and they worship the dollar and we know that this infamous vicious system is going to come down.
Q: Did you discuss that subject that you have been telling us about with Mr. Manson?
A: I am sure we did.
Q: On one occasion or more than one occasion?
A: It is something that, whenever heads get together, you will maybe say you have discussed something about what the establishment is doing right at that moment, some of their various depredations and vicious crimes and so on.
We might discuss it, yes, I mean, the rape of Mother Earth and all the other things.
Q: What you are telling us now is the substance of the discussions you have had with Mr. Manson on the subject of the establishment?
A: It would be the same with anyone.
Q: But we have got to stick with the question.
A: Well, I would have gone over these things with Charles Manson, yes. We would have discussed then at different times.
Q: And did you ever discuss the subject of psychedelic drugs with Mr. Manson?
A: Certainly.
Q: And what was the substance of those discussions, just the substance or effect, now, not verbatim conversations.
A: Well, the conversation on psychedelics would be simply that these are the things that are turning on millions of people.
Q: Were both you and he generally in favor of the use of psychedelics?
A: Well, we certainly were entirely in favor of using them ourselves; now, as far as me advising other people to use them, no, I don’t do that now and I didn’t then.
Q: But it was Mr. Manson who first persuaded you —
A: No, he didn’t.
Q: — to take LSD?
A: I was ready for a year and I was more than willing to take it, because I informed him of the fact that I wanted to take acid.
Q: So you were philosophically and emotionally on the threshold, so to speak, to take LSD?
A: For a year before that, yes.
Q: Did you discuss the subject of sharing possessions —
A: Certainly.
Q: — with Mr. Manson?
A: Absolutely. In fact —
Q: Did he believe, as you believed, that the best sort of life one can lead was to share everything with everyone else?
A: He is a man of faith, as I am; and, yes, he certainly inoculated through his example and through the discussions we had, I learned to give up this idea that we can own something.
Q: Did you ever see Mr. Watson together — Tex, that is, as you call him — with Mr. Manson?
A: Oh, yes, on different occasions they were together.
Q: Did Mr. Watson, to you, appear to be drawn to Mr. Manson as the others were?
MR. BUGLIOSI: This calls for a conclusion.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q BY MR. KEITH: Did you ever discuss with Mr. Manson the subject of ego destruction, as you have put it?
A: Yes.
Q: And what were the substance of those conversations or — if there were more than one?
A: The substance would be that you got to die to live, and the ego has got to die, the personality has got to die.
Q: Did you ever discuss the subject of — strike that.
Did you, in fact, or were you able to or have you been able to submerge your ego?
A: Yes, Dean Moorehouse died.
Q: When you say that, do you mean you have lost your identity?
A: Yes.
Q: And I believe you did tell us you discussed this same subject with Mr. Watson, the loss of ego?
A: Yes.
Q: And did you ever discuss with Mr. Manson the subject of death?
A: Oh, of course.
Q: And what did you and he talk, say, about that subject?
A: Same again as those who are turned onto the truth know that there is no —
Q: I am speaking of when one actually dies and gets buried in the ground.
A: There is no death.
Q: And perhaps you could expertitate a little bit on your conversation with Manson that there is no death?
A: It is said in all the sacred scriptures and this is the same —
Q: You’ve got to confine yourself to what you and Mr. Manson talked about.
A: We would also interject the sacred scriptures and that would be included in the Bhagavadgita and it is in the Bible where Jesus said it and these are the things that I particularly talked about, because I have studied the Bible for many, many years, “Whosoever loses his life shall find it. Whosever shall saveth his life, shall lose it.”
That is what Jesus said. That is why I am saying, the same thing.
Q: Did Mr. Manson believe that, to your knowledge?
A: Yes.
Q: Did you ever heard or participate in any conversation between Manson and Watson on these same subjects that I have been covering with you?
A: I can’t recall any particular time the three of us sat down and talked about the metaphysical things, not really, not any time.
At different times, I talked to both of them, but so far as the theee of us sitting down and discussing it, I can’t recall any particular time.
Q: Did you ever hear anyone refer to Mr. Manson as Jesus Christ or the Messiah or the Second Coming of Christ or any deity Mr. Manson?
A: Yes. I have heard discussions about J.C., concerning Charlie Manson.
MR. BUGLIOSI: J.C. meaning Jesus Christ, for the record?
THE WITNESS: Yes, but the world doesn’t know who J.C. is, you know.
Q BY MR. KEITH: Did I ask you if you ever discussed the subject of your views about the establishment with Mr. Watson?
A: I can’t recall any specific thing that we discussed, but I say when any two people who are aware of the truth get together — I mean we certainly would take at least a passing glance at whatever the establishment is doing.
Q: Did Mr. Watson, when you knew him, appear to have been able to successfully lose his ego identity?
MR. BUGLIOSI: Calls for a conclusion, vague and ambiguous.
THE COURT: May I have that, please.
THE COURT: I will allow that.
THE WITNESS: Everything that Charles Watson was going through was indicative of the fact that he was letting the ego die.
The fact that you give away everything that you have, you cannot do that very readily and do it with joy and without any regrets and not be losing the ego.
And also the love that he was expressing toward me and others is also indicative.
MR. KEITH: Nothing further.
REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. BUGLIOSI
Q: I have a few more questions, your Honor.
How many times have you taken LSD, approximately?
A: 150 or 200 times. I don’t know.
Q: Could you explain an LSD trip for the jury?
A: LSD is a catalyst is the best way to describe it and when the fullness of time has come, then the infinite gave us a little pill. In the era of the pill, here is a pill that blows peoples’ minds. It simply clears away all the conditioning, at least for a time, while the trip is on, so that people can see the truth and they can see the lie. This is what you experience.
Q: How long is a trip?
A: It could vary all the way from 8 to 16 hours, depending on which psychedelics you use.
Q: During a trip are colors normally brighter?
A: Yes, they are. I mean, for the first time you see the colors and you see things as they truly are.
Q: Are sounds a little louder?
A: Everything is accentuated because it raises the level of your awareness.
Q: So it make you more aware of everything?
A: It does, yes.
Q: Would you classify an LSD experience as an enjoyable experience, pleasurable?
A: Not every part of it, no; if you keep walking into your head you are going to open doorways that scare you, because you are going to see all the things that you have been and all the things that you have done.
Q: But, by and large, would you consider it a pleasureable experience?
A: It is such a hard question to answer.
Q: Would you say you have taken it 150 or 200 times, so apparently you are getting something out of it or you wouldn’t have taken it; right?
A: I am finding myself, but to find yourself one must not only experience the beauties that your accentuated awareness gives you, but one must also face one’s self and see what one has done and one has been, and you open the doors to veritable hell, door after door to hell.
I walked through hell to be freed from all of this.
Q: You know what the word “introspective” means?
A: Of course.
Q: Looking within; okay?
A: Yes.
Q: Would you say that an LSD trip normally, or in every occasion, causes you to look within yourself?
A: Yes and no. I mean, the person who is not ready — you see, we are all in the process of evolution, mentally, spiritually and physically.
When a person is not evolved to the point where he is not ready to confront the truth, then he will simply — he may have some pleasurable trips, just digging the colors and the increased awareness; but when he finally steps into the presence of the truth, then he may be frightened terribly and he may, what you call, have a bad trip.
Now, it happens that my evolution was to such a place that I was ready for the truth, the confrontation; and through I was terrified, I was able to face it and recognize it and to embrace it and then to become it.
Q: During an LSD trip did you ever see an object that wasn’t, in fact, there?
A: There is no such thing. Whatever you see is there.
Q: In other words, you don’t see anything under LSD that doesn’t exist; you don’t, for example, see a bus or a tree that really isn’t there; is that correct?
A: Your mind is creating what is there; whatever you see is there.
Q: So you don’t see any object that doesn’t in fact, exist in front of you; is that correct?
A: No.
Q: It is not correct, what I am saying?
A: No, it is correct, excuse me.
Q: That’s what I’m saying.
And you are aware of everything that is going on during a trip?
A: Well, if you want to close your eyes and dwell on that, the inner thing completely, then you could very well detach yourself from the physical activity outside and just keep watching and walking inside your head; but if your eyes are open and you are looking out of your eyes, then you are aware of everything that happens in a very, very enhanced way, yes.
Q: Later on, after you have come down off the trip, can you look back and remember what took place during the trip?
A: Eventually, I believe that you recall everything; you may not recall it immediately, but you will eventually know whatever — but you wouldn’t do anything physical that you wouldn’t remember, in a physical plane.
Q: So everything —
A: At least, I wouldn’t.
Q: So everything you do during an LSD trip, physically, could you remember later on?
A: I do. Now, I can only speak for myself.
Q: What would you normally do during an LSD trip?
Just give the judge and the jury an example, what you do for eight hours.
A: It might be anything. I might sit with my eyes closed, listening to music or just meditate out in nature; or I might go out and simply enjoy everything that is happening and just go out and love everything and everybody, just walk around and dig it.
Q: So you’d meditate or you’d go out and you’d kind of soak up the atmosphere?
A: Well, I don’t know if you would call it soaking it up; you would just go out and enjoy it. You would just, for the first time, realize how beautiful everything was.
I was dead until I took LSD.
Q: I thought you said that Dean Moorehouse had already died?
A: I was dead until I took LSD, and then found —
Q: — now you are alive again?
A: That vivified me, yes.
When Dean Moorehouse died after nine months of this psychedelic experience, then the real me was born and began to become what it will ultimately be.
Q: Does the “real me” referring to yourself, have a name?
A: The truth.
Q: So your name is the truth now?
A: You could call me that. Jesus Christ is the truth; he’s the truth incarnate.
Q: But you still respond to the name Dean Moorehouse?
A: This is good enough for now, until I lay down this old bag of bones and go home; this name is all right for me, it doesn’t make any difference.
Q: Now, you were in Mr. Watson’s presence on many, many occasions; right?
A: Yes.
Q: And you had many, many discussions with him; right?
A: I would — yes, I would say so.
Q: And many of these discussions involved philosophy, beliefs, attitude, things like that?
A: Well, I took, you know, this philosophy thing, it’s just —
Q: I’m just using words now; we have to communicate with each other by words.
A: It goes beyond philosophy. I don’t have much time for foolosophy.
Q: All right, tell the judge and the jury some of the philosophical discussions you had with Mr. Watson.
A: Well, we talked about most of the things that have already been elaborated upon here, the death of the ego.
Q: All right, let’s stop there and then we’ll go on later.
What did Mr. Watson say about the death of the ego?
A: He knew that this was necessary. We talked about the fact that he ego had to die.
Q: When did he tell you this?
A: Sometime in these two months that we were together.
Q: This was before Mr. Watson went up to Spahn Ranch?
A: Yes, we spent the time at Dennis Wilson’s.
Q: To your knowledge when you were living with Mr. Watson at Dennis Wilson’s place, Mr. Watson had not yet lived with Mr. Manson; is that correct?
A: That’s correct.
Q: Mr. Watson later moved out to Spahn Ranch and lived with Mr. Manson.
A: He stayed there after we went to the ranch at that time, when I came back from my trial.
Now, to the best of my knowledge, he didn’t live there at the ranch prior to that.
Q: So when you were having these discussions with Mr. Watson about ego death or, taking these LSD trips with him, he was not yet living with Mr. Manson?
A: That is correct.
Q: And Mr. Watson told you at Dennis Wilson’s place in the summer of 1968 that he believed that the ego should die?
A: This would have been part of our discussion, yes.
He knew that, and the ego, if you understand — would you are to have — to know what I define the ego as?
Q: Yes, go ahead.
A: That’s the personality, the being; in other words, your name is written on a birth certificate in the society and then when you get old enough you start writing your name, yourself, and pretty soon you believe that you are Joe Doaks or whatever; but that’s not really you, this is just a sum of experiences in one lifetime, and you are walking around thinking you are a lawyer or a cop or whatever, and you begin to think that that’s what you are, and you are not that at all.
Q: Do you believe that you have lived many lives before this one?
A: Well, yes, and yet there is only one life. It is a continuum of existence and we separate it into compartments so that we can operate in a seeming free-will atmosphere.
Q: But you have lived centuries ago, yourself?
A: I have lived for eons of time.
Q: What other discussion did you have with Mr. Watson in addition to ego death?
A: It would cover the whole gamut of the turned on experience, of all the things that have to happen to you before you can be free of this dimension of existence.
Q: What did Mr. Watson say?
A: He was listening to me or I wouldn’t have been talking to him.
Q: Was he saying anything?
A: He was agreeing. I don’t lay a trip on anybody, only those that are ready that are seeking, that come to me. Those are the only ones that I share what I have, because I am not trying to convince anybody of anything. Love can only draw.
Q: Did Mr. Watson say anything about the establishment?
A: Just the same as what I would say about it. We talked about it.
Q: What did he say?
A: The establishment is just doing its thing too. I am not putting the establishment down.
Q: I am just talking about Mr. Watson now. You can understand my questions, I am sure.
What did Mr. Watson say about the establishment?
A: I can’t recall anything specifically he would have said.
Q: The essence of what he said was what?
A: That the establishment is just simply doing the earth in.
Q: Watson told you this?
A: We would have discussed this but I can’t say any particular time he said exactly these words.
Q: I don’t mean the exact words, but the substance of what Mr. Watson told you was that the establishment was doing the earth in; is that correct?
A: Any heads would — this is what we would have to discuss at different times. I can’t just say any time that those are the words that Tex said, but he would be in agreement when we talked about the establishment that this is what is happening.
Q: Would it be a fair statement to say that you are antiestablishment?
A: No, it wouldn’t.
Q: You are not against the establishment?
A: Except spiritually.
Q: So spiritually you are against the establishment?
A: Spiritually I am for life and so therefore all that lives in death and puts out death, naturally, that would be antagonistic to the truth. In essence, it is not being antagonistic to anything. It is that force being antagonistic to the truth.
Q: You feel that the establishment is harmful; is that correct?
A: The establishment has to be.
Q: Okay.
A: It has to be.
Q: So you are against the establishment, because it is harmful; is that correct?
A: I wouldn’t say that. I know it has to be, so I cannot really say I am against it.
I will point out errors and it defects, but I will never say take it away, change it, do away with it, because I know that it has to happen.
It is only in this kind of a ying and yang — positive and negative sort of thing that my soul can grow. If I hadn’t been part of the establishment and gone through that trip, I couldn’t evolve and be free. I had to learn in that school. This is the school where we learn.
Q: You don’t like what the establishment is doing, let’s say, to Mother Earth; is that correct?
THE COURT: Aren’t you straying rather far afield?
MR. BUGLIOSI: I think that is a determination, your Honor, for the prosecution who knows this case fairly well unless —
THE COURT: That is a determination by the Court, too.
MR. BUGLIOSI: I mean as to whether we are or not.
THE COURT: Whether you are going far afield is determination by the Court, not the prosecution.
MR. BUGLIOSI: May we approach the bench?
THE COURT: Yes.
(Whereupon, the following proceedings took place at the bench, outside the hearing of the jury:)
MR. BUGLIOSI: I apologize. What I am trying to do with this witness is prove that Mr. Watson was against the establishment before he ever met Mr. Manson, which is extremely relevant.
THE COURT: He says, how do you prove that by what this guy says?
MR. BUGLIOSI: Because he had conversations with Watson. If he is against the establishment, and it turns out that Mr. Watson was in agreement with him, it took place before he met Manson.
THE COURT: But he is telling he is not against the establishment, that you have got to live through the establishment.
MR. BUGLIOSI: I am asking questions. He is playing with words. He doesn’t want to pin himself down by words, but I think it is very relevant what Mr. Watson’s state of mind was before he met Mr. Manson.
THE COURT: No. I think we are going too far afield on this thing.
MR. KAY: You see what the problem is on this is that this witness refused to talk to the prosecution.
THE COURT: So you are going to penalize him now?
MR. KAY: No, but he did call up Mr. Keith and talk to him on the telephone, so this is the first chance we have had to talk to him.
We have some important questions to ask him and he has been very evasive.
MR. BUGLIOSI: But the point is, your Honor, the main thrust of the defense, as I understand it, is that Manson is the one who completely changed Watson’s mind on everything. They are going to argue this. I think in the opening statement, it is obvious that this is their trust.
We are trying to show through this witness that Watson had these antiestablishment ideas before he even met Manson or before he even started to live with Manson. I think it is very relevant.
MR. BUBRICK: The other problem is as to what each considers to be the establishment —
THE COURT: Well, this guy’s only personal beliefs I don’t think mean a thing to me. His ideas of death and life, I don’t see how that is going to enlighten us at all about what happened on the night of the 9th or the 10th of August.
MR. BUGLIOSI: But it is their position that Manson is the one that chose this guy. We are trying to show that this guy had these ideas before he even met Manson.
THE COURT: You are going this as part of your case in chief?
MR. BUGLIOSI: In the first place, they brought it up on cross-examination, your Honor, the defense did.
Secondly, this guy is from Minnesota.We had to bring him back here. We would hate to bring him back on rebuttal, as long as he is on the stand now. The fact that Watson took LSD before he met Manson, I think again is relevant.
THE COURT: All right. You brought that out.
MR. BUGLIOSI: What I am trying to bring out is the fact that Watson had these antiestablishment views before he even met Manson.
THE COURT: Ask him what Watson said and not what he believes.
MR. BUGLIOSI: That is what I am doing.
THE COURT: Go ahead and do that.
Q BY MR. BUGLIOSI: Directing your attention back to this summer of 1968 — this is now before Mr. Watson went out to Spahn Ranch and lived with Mr. Manson — how would you summarise or categorize Mr. Watson’s belief with respect to the establishment, his attitude with respect to the establishment?
MR. BUBRICK: Object to that, your Honor. I think it calls for the conclusion of the witness. Let him tell us.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q BY MR. BUGLIOSI: What did Mr. Watson say about the establishment?
A: I couldn’t specifically recall anything that he said about the establishment.
Q: I don’t mean his exact words verbatim; I mean the substance of what he said about the establishment.
A: This I couldn’t even recall.
Q: But he would be agreeing with you; is that correct?
A: Yes. And I would be very happy to say what I feel about it.
Q: So when you and he spoke about the establishment, it was your feeling that he was agreeing with you; is that correct?
A: I would say that, yes.
Q: And you feeling about the establishment is that they are very harmful to many things; is that correct?
A: The establishment is certainly on a trip that is destructive of, yes, the earth that gave us life.
Q: And you felt that Mr. Watson was in agreement with you on that?
A: I would say that he was at that time.
Q: I show you people’s 302 for identification, this photograph. Do you know the man who is depicted in that photograph?
A: Well, it could be Charlie Watson, but it is such a poor likeness, it could be somebody else. That looks a lot like him. It isn’t that good of a picture.
Q: Does this photograph resemble — is this a photograph that looks like a person in this photograph is Charles Watson to you, but it is not a good photograph; is that correct?
A: It could be him.
MR. BUGLIOSI: No further questions.
RECROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. KEITH
Q: Mr. Moorehouse, or Dean, Mr. Watson knew Mr. Manson, did he not, before Mr. Watson and you went to the Spahn Ranch?
A: Yes.
Q: He had to your knowledge, hadn’t Mr. Watson seen and talked to Mr. Manson?
A: Yes.
Q: At Dennis Wilson’s house?
A: Yes.
Q: Before he went to the Spahn Ranch?
A: Yes.
Q: And isn’t it a fact, Dean, that when you had these discussions about the establishment and about ego, et cetera, et cetera, with Mr. Watson, that you did most of the talking and he did the listening?
A: That is true. I thought that I made that very clear.
MR. KEITH: I have nothing further.
REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. BUGLIOSI
Q: Did you have any discussions with Mr. Watson about the establishment and things like that before Manson came to Dennis Wilson’s residence?
A: I couldn’t say.
MR. BUGLIOSI: No further questions.
THE COURT: Thank you, sir. You may be excused.