PRESS RELEASE
“Irvin Landrum Jr. Justice Organizing Committee Calls For City of Claremont to Disprove the Committee’s Theory, as the Committee has Disproved the City’s”
December 10, 1999
Statement
This statement is delivered to the press due to the unique nature of our struggle for justice for Irvin Landrum Jr. Our dialogue with the press is required by the City of Claremont’s repeated failure to accept our invitations to meet, face-to-face, to dialogue about our differing viewpoints concerning the killing of Irvin Landrum, Jr. In September, we invited the City Council, the City Manager, and the Chief of Police to attend an Open Forum on Police Community Relations that was held at the Claremont Colleges. None of them accepted our invitation, and none sent a representative. In October, we invited representatives of the City to attend a Teach-in for Social Justice that featured a presentation by the Reverend Jesse Jackson. Mayor Rosenthal not only rejected our invitation, she suggested that the invitation should come from our guest, Reverend Jackson. On September 24, 1999, we wrote the City Manager, Glenn Southard, requesting a meeting and answers to a number of our questions. The only answer we received from Mr. Southard was the dissemination of a highly erroneous and defamatory “criminal record” of Mr. Obee Landrum. The answer that we received from the City of Claremont was a letter sent to the Presidents of the Claremont Colleges that seemed to encourage the censure and possible firing of some of the professors involved in the quest for justice in this case. Therefore, we have learned that the only way to communicate with the City of Claremont is through the press, and therein lies the motivation for this press statement. After reading the statement, we will be available to answer your questions.
We have three points we wish to emphasize. One deals with the competing theories of the killing of Irvin Landrum, Jr., another is concerned with truthfulness of Mayor Rosenthal in her suggestion that she has received correspondence from professors of the Claremont Colleges that have expressed private opinions on College stationery, and a final point is a query to the City Manager regarding his private investigations of leaders of this movement for social justice.
Competing Theories
Any scientific theory should be based on the evidence at hand. More importantly, a theory should have the virtue of being able to be falsified or proven wrong. Indeed, it is incumbent upon the scientist to try to disprove her or his theory, and, failing to do so, she or he feels more confident in the veridicality or truthfulness of the propositions contained therein. In the killing of Irvin Landrum, Jr., we have two competing theories. The theory offered by the City of Claremont is that Irvin Landrum Jr. brandished a firearm at the police officers and the officers returned fire in fear of their lives. In short, Irvin “caused his own death.” The theory offered by the Irvin Landrum Jr. Justice Organizing Committee is that Irvin was unarmed, and the gun found at his feet was planted by the police officers to cover an intentional or accidental shooting.
What evidence exists that supports or debunks these competing theories? Let us look first at the theory of the City of Claremont that was disseminated in their wrongly labeled “Fact Sheet” dated August 4, 1999.
Theory 1: Irvin Caused His Own Death
The essence of the City’s theory may be found in the following
paragraph:
The officer called for a backup so he could search Mr. Landrum's car as was offered. Calling for a back up on a vehicle search is standard procedure. When the backup unit arrived, the officer started to pat down Mr. Landrum for weapons, in accordance with standard procedure. Mr. Landrum stepped back, drew a revolver from his waist band, pointed the weapon at the officers and yelled, "You're both dead." The officers immediately began to retreat, pulling their guns and firing in fear of their lives.
What evidence exists that serves to falsify the City’s theory?
First, let us note that common sense tells us that Irvin Landrum, Jr.,
driving alone late at night, would not “offer” to allow the Claremont police
to search his vehicle. And if he did make such an offer, we imagine
that he would do so only if nothing would be found in such a search.
More direct evidence, however, exists on this point. On page 3 of
the LA County’s District Attorney’s Report (hereafter referred to as ‘the
DA’s Report’), Officer Hanna reported that Irvin asked him, “Why are you
doing this?” and on page 6 of that report, the alleged tape recording made
by Officer Jacks has Irvin saying, “You got me outside of the car, I mean…”
According to Officer Jacks’s testimony (as reported on page 5 of the DA’s
report), Irvin told the officers, “What’s up with this, what’s going on…I
thought he was just going to warn me and I don’t get it.” These words
do not sound, to us, like Irvin was volunteering to have his car searched.
But that is a minor point. Much more significant is the statement that, “…in accordance with standard procedure,” the officers started to pat Irvin down when Irvin “…stepped back, drew a revolver from his waist band, pointed the weapon at the officers and yelled, ‘You’re both dead.’” First, standard police procedure is to search suspects from behind, thus making it impossible for an armed suspect to “take two steps back” and simultaneously draw a weapon. Second, according to the officers’ own testimony, they never saw a gun until after Irvin was mortally wounded by their own gunfire. According to the DA Report, page 3, Officer Hanna told investigators, “And I saw him with a straight arm with something in his hand. I really couldn’t tell that it was a gun…” (emphasis added). It wasn’t until Officer Hanna saw the mysterious muzzle flash and heard the sound of a gun that he assumed that Irvin was armed with a handgun. Similarly, Officer Jacks claimed that he never saw a gun, only a muzzle flash.
Subsequent scientific evidence, however, has proven without a shadow of a doubt, that the gun found at Irvin’s feet had not been fired. Indeed, the Smith and Wesson .45 caliber revolver was fully loaded with six rounds of live ammunition. Therefore, the idea that Irvin caused his own death by drawing a gun on the officers and firing, is easy to disprove. The gun was not fired, so there could have been no muzzle flash or gun shot.
The City of Claremont’s theory suggested that Irvin yelled to the officers, “You’re both dead.” But according to the DA Report, the tape with this alleged statement was determined to contain the phrase, “He’s got a gun,” spoken not by Irvin, but by Officer Hanna.
The key piece of evidence in this case is the “non-smoking” gun found at Irvin’s feet. According to the City of Claremont’s theory, Irvin’s former girlfriend told Sheriff’s investigators that “Irvin often carried a gun in his car.” But the same girlfriend has told us, as confirmed in published reports in the media, that she never made such a statement, and that the only gun she has ever seen in Irvin’s possession was a broken BB gun that belonged to Irvin’s grandmother. When a reporter from the Claremont Courier called the same number used by the Sheriff’s investigators, he apparently got a wrong number.
We now know, as the Claremont police has known all along, that the gun found at Irvin’s feet was last registered to the now deceased Chief of Police of the City of Ontario.
This analysis finds that the theory offered by the City of Claremont is untenable. A large number of other problems exist that also cast doubt of the correctness of the City’s theory. In the interest of time, I will list only a few of the more outstanding items:
These problems and questions are adequate to raise serious doubt
about the validity of the City’s theory of the killing of Irvin Landrum,
Jr. What about our theory?
Theory 2. The Gun Was Planted
The theory developed by the Irvin Landrum Jr. Justice Organizing Committee is that Irvin was being harassed because he was Black. We are not sure why Irvin was shot, it could have been accidental. It could be that the officers actually thought that Irvin was armed and dangerous—after all, he was a Black man--and that is why they decided to search his car. But whatever the case, our theory is that Irvin, in fact, was unarmed, and that the gun found at Irvin’s feet was planted.
One element of our theory is that two shootings took place that evening, one when Irvin was initially shot, and another when the officers re-created the traffic stop and planted the gun. Evidence in support of this theory is the statement of William Roth, the resident who claimed that he heard gunshots at 11:55 p.m. on January 10th (the officers claimed that the event happened shortly after 1:00 a.m. on January 11th, more than an hour after the time that Roth claimed to have heard gunshots). Mr. Roth looked out of his window and saw the officers confronting Irvin who was prone on the ground. Another feature of this theory is that the gun found at Irvin’s feet was last registered to a law enforcement officer in a neighboring city.
How might this theory be disproved? Our theory of Irvin’s killing may be disproved in a number of ways, and we invite the City of Claremont, and the corps of reporters gathered here today, to seek the evidence that would disprove our theory. Such evidence would be:
1. If our theory is true, then police dispatch tapes, at about 11:50 p.m. on January 10th, should show a stop by Officer Hana or Jacks along Baseline Road. Where were Officer Hana and Jacks at 11:55 p.m. on January 10th?
2. If our theory is true, then the amount of blood at the scene would be far more than would be expected if the shooting had taken place only one or two minutes prior to the backup officers’ arrival. Their testimony on this point, as well as that of the paramedics, could prove or disprove this point.
3. If the shooting at 1:00 a.m. was staged, then the backup officers should have seen Officer Jacks with a shotgun in his hand. Because the backup officers have testified that Officer Jacks was “taking cover” behind his patrol vehicle, and because Officer Jacks testified that he didn’t know where the gun was after Irvin was shot, was he still holding on to the shotgun when the backup officers arrived? One of the backup officers testified that he saw Officer Jacks drop a “magazine” when he arrived. Does this not imply that he was holding and reloading a revolver, and not a toting a shot gun? Officers VanderVeen and Smith, the first backup officers to arrive at the scence, can answer this question.
4. Most important is the non-smoking gun. If the gun was, in fact, improperly transferred from its last registered owner, and ended up being illegally trafficked on the street, it should show the wear and tear of 11 years of illicit activity. If the gun is in pristine condition, however, then we would expect it to have been on the collector’s shelf for those 11 years. What is the condition of the gun? And the most crucial piece of evidence is the chain of custody of the gun from the time it was last registered to the Chief of Police in the City of Ontario to the time that it was found at the feet of Irvin Landrum, Jr. We want to know, on a day-to-day basis, where that gun was from the day it was manufactured to the day it was discovered at the feet of Irvin Landrum, Jr.
A second focus of our press statement is on Mayor Karen Rosenthal.
Mayor Rosenthal has recently told the press, and one of us, that she sent letters to the Presidents of the Claremont Colleges, identifying four professors, because the City had received several letters on college stationery where the professors were expressing personal viewpoints. We do not believe her statement. In fact, we are aware of only one letter sent to the press on college stationery that expressed an opinion, and that opinion was clearly the opinion of a department, not an individual. We therefore challenge the Mayor of Claremont to produce even one letter, on college letterhead, where an individual was expressing a private opinion. Failing to produce such a letter, she would owe the public and the persons named in her letter a public apology. It is inferred that I, for example, have written such a letter on college stationery. I deny the allegation. I have sent letters to the City, on college stationery, only to invite members of the City government to events that were co-sponsored by the Intercollegiate Department of Black Studies and the Irvin Landrum Jr. Justice Organizing Committee.
A final focus of this press statement is on the City Manager, Mr. Glenn Southard. The City Manager has investigated the background of Mr. Obee Landrum under the pretext that the public would want to know about the background of people who are criticizing the Claremont Police Department. We note, here, that the report that was disseminated to the press was so erroneous that it even claimed that Mr. Obee Landrum and Mr. Irvin Paul Landrum, Sr. were one and the same person. Here, we ask the City Manager to disclose whether or not investigations have been conducted on other supporters of the Irvin Landrum Jr. Justice Organizing Committee. The City Manager should state what aspect of city policy permits such investigations, and should report to the public the costs of such investigations. The City Manager should make clear what plans exist, if any, for conducting investigations on other private citizens who are exercising their first amendment rights.
In conclusion, we find troubling evidence that suggests a wrongful death and subsequent coverup. We seek one thing and one thing only: the truth about what happened on the night and morning of January 10th and 11th, 1999. If the City of Claremont can prove that Irvin Landrum, Jr. owned the Smith and Wesson revolver found at his feet, that he brandished the gun found at his feet, and that he fired the gun found at his feet, then we will cease our demonstrations and rallies, apologize to the City and the people of Claremont and go home. But if it is proven that the gun was in fact planted by police officers, then we expect an apology from the City and the City’s full cooperation in the prosecution of the officers and others involved in the cover-up of this tragic killing of a young man who was in the prime of his life.
Thank you for your attention. We are here to answer your questions.
[This press statement was written and read by Halford H. Fairchild.]
SITE MAP
| HOME | CITY OF CLAREMONT'S "FACT SHEET" | DEBUNKING THE CITY'S "FACT SHEET" |
| IRVIN'S PHOTO GALLERY (INDEX) | OUR MOVEMENTS PHOTO GALLERY (INDEX) | |
| HOW YOU CAN HELP | WEBMASTER | PRODUCTS FOR SALE |