April 3, 2000
Gil Garcetti, District Attorney
Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office
Criminal Courts Building
210 West Temple Street
Los Angeles, CA 90012-3275
Re: S.I.D. File # 100-3549/99-0134
L.A.S.D. File # 099-00004-3199-055
C.P.D. File # 99-0142
The gun allegedly fired by Irvin Landrum, Jr.
Dear Attorney Garcetti:
I read, with great disappointment, your 3-23-2000 letter (signed by James L. Cosper; copy attached) to Chief William Ellis and Captain Frank Merriman regarding the above referenced matter.
I am writing to respectfully request your prompt reconsideration of the decision to “close out the file in this matter.” I base this request on a number of compelling factors, many of which were enumerated in your March 23rd letter.
The gun in question was last registered to the late Chief of Police of the City of Ontario, Wayne Simmons. His widow, Mrs. Joanne Simmons, initially told investigators that she did not know the whereabouts of the weapon, or how it came to rest at the feet of Irvin Landrum, Jr. in January, 1999. In the more recent interrogation of Mrs. Simmons, however, she “…recalled giving her late husband’s ‘service packet’ to her step-daughter, Stacey Simmons” (p. 2 of your letter). She indicated that she told several friends that she had intended to give the gun and other memorabilia to her daughter; yet your investigators stated that “…after repeated requests she still has not provided investigators with information as to how to contact these possible witnesses” (p. 2 of your letter). Most significantly, Detective Kerfoot indicated that Chief Simmons’ daughter, Stacey Simmons, was “initially uncooperative,” and that she denied “…receiving a gun or any other property of her father’s from Joanne Simmons…” (p. 2 of your letter).
Thus, my reading of your letter suggests that Mrs. Simmons has been inconsistent in her various statements; and she has been uncooperative in providing information that could possibly corroborate her latest testimony to your investigators. More importantly, her statements are sharply contradicted by her daughter, who indicated that she never received the gun.
How your office could then close the case on the basis of this scanty and contradictory information is beyond my imagination. In the interest of justice, Mr. Garcetti, I beseech you to instruct your investigators to pursue the chain of custody of the gun more thoroughly than what has heretofore been demonstrated.
If it is true, as Mrs. Simmons stated, that her husband maintained “…accurate records regarding purchases and sales,” (p. 1 of your letter), then why have your investigators not perused those records to see whether or not the gun in question appears? If it is true that the late Mr. Simmons was a gun collector who bought and sold weapons, is it not possible that his network of collectors and dealers could provide useful testimony regarding the weapon in question? Is it not possible that one or more of his key customers (those who bought weapons from him) could have information that could be useful in this case?
Your letter claims that there is “overwhelming evidence” to contradict the suggestion that the gun was planted by one or both of the officers involved in the fatal shooting (p. 1 of your letter). I am very curious what that “overwhelming evidence” is. Please recall that both Officers Jacks and Hanna claimed to never have seen a gun. Even after they shot Irvin, they didn’t see a gun. The only evidence that we have that Irvin brought the gun to the scene is that Officers Jacks and Hanna both testified that they saw a muzzle flash and heard a gunshot. We know, without a doubt, that this testimony is false as the gun found at Irvin’s feet had not been fired. Moreover, the gun bore no fingerprints or traces of fingerprints to suggest that the gun was carried there or handled by Mr. Landrum.
Mr. Garcetti, the family of Irvin Landrum, Jr. remains aggrieved over the killing of their eldest son. They knew him as a law abiding citizen with only the possession of brass knuckles to mar his otherwise unblemished arrest record. The City of Claremont is torn asunder due to the protest activity that is staged every week in front of City Hall. The officers of the Claremont Police Department remain demoralized at the challenges to their integrity.
Due to these factors, I believe that our community deserves a better answer to the question of how Chief Simmons’ gun came to rest at the feet of Irvin Landrum, Jr. Even if the gun is determined to have been in the possession of Mr. Landrum, certainly your office is sufficiently skilled to be able to demonstrate that with some level of objectivity and certainty?
Other Unanswered Issues and Questions
In addition to the very troubling matter described above, members of the Irvin Landrum, Jr. Justice Organizing Committee have identified a number of other critical questions that are left unanswered by your initial investigation. To facilitate review of these items by your and/or your staff, I will enumerate them as follows:
1. In the D.A.’s Report, we can point to two very clear instances of bias. First, Officer Hanna’s testimony was reported as follows: “Hanna said that he saw ‘a muzzle flash and a sound of a gun’ and simultaneously Landrum retreated in a southerly direction toward the sidewalk. Hanna stated that ‘at that point, I was clear in my mind beyond the shadow of a doubt that he had a gun’” (p. 3; emphasis added). Of course, we know that this statement is false by virtue of the fact that the gun that Irvin Landrum, Jr. allegedly fired had not been shot. The D.A.’s Report handles this problem in the evidence by elaborating Hanna’s alibi as follows: “Investigators speculate that the muzzle flash seen by Officer Hanna was actually his own first shot reflecting in the darkness when he drew and fired his weapon” (p. 12; emphasis added). So, although Hanna clearly states that he didn’t fire until all doubt was removed by Mr. Landrum’s “muzzle flash” and the “sound of a gunshot,” the D.A.’s Report actually provides an explanation (one that we find incredible) for the inconsistency in the scientific evidence. The D.A.’s interpretation is made all the more unbelievable by Officer Hanna’s statement that he didn’t even draw his weapon until he saw the muzzle flash and heard the sound of a gunshot.
2. A second instance of bias in the D.A.’s Report is the correction of Hanna’s testimony that he had 18 bullets in his gun at the start of his shift: “Hanna told investigators that his weapon was loaded with 17 rounds in the magazine and one round in the chamber, for a total of 18 rounds. When examined by investigators, they found 15 rounds in the magazine and one round in the chamber. Given the fact that he fired three rounds, it appears that he actually had his weapon loaded with 19 rounds, not 18” (p. 8, emphasis added). So, rather than pursuing the discrepancy in the evidence as grounds for a possible indictment, the D.A.’s Report provides Hanna with an alibi that explains away the evidence.
3. In the case of Officer Jacks, the D.A.’s report embellishes his alibi by suggesting that the muzzle flash that he saw was actually Officer Hanna’s. However, according to Officer Jacks’ own testimony, he ran away when the situation escalated into a potentially dangerous one. He indicated that he could not see Officer Hanna as he looked at Mr. Landrum over his left shoulder. How, then, can Officer Jacks see Officer Hanna’s muzzle flash if he could not see Officer Hanna at all?
4. Another instance of bias in the D.A.’s report concerns the handling of the eye witness testimony. The eyewitness, William Roth, indicated that after hearing the gunshots he opened his vertical blinds and “…saw an officer with a gun and a flashlight in his hands. According to Roth, 15 to 20 seconds later a second police car arrived, and an officer armed with a shotgun jumped out” (p. 7 of the DA’s report). Both Roth and Officer Jacks confirmed that Officer Jacks told Mr. Landrum to “Drop the …weapon or he was gonna blow his …head off” (p. 7 of the DA’s report, expletives deleted). The DA’s report admits that “Jacks was the only officer at the scene to arm himself with a shotgun…” but then goes on to suggest that the eyewitness confused the presence of Officer Jacks with the arrival of Lt. Smith. Inasmuch as Lt. Smith did not have a shotgun, and did not make the command to drop the weapon, it is impossible for us to accept the DA’s attempt to suggest that Mr. Roth was confused. Instead, your investigators clearly bent over backwards in an effort to exonerate the officers in the face of very clear and incontrovertible eyewitness testimony. Please note, again, that the eyewitness and Officer Jacks corroborate each other with respect to who had the shotgun, when, and what Officer Jacks said.
5. How is it that Officers Jacks and Hanna stood over Mr. Landrum, with flashlights and shotgun in hand, and not see where the weapon was? Why, in this connection, did they retreat to the street, hide behind the vehicles parked there, while awaiting backup officers to “find” the weapon? Does this not strike you as strange?
6. Why would Hanna ask Landrum if he were on probation for any offense? Why did he ask whether the terms of the probation permitted a search of his person and car without a warrant? What were the probable causes for asking these questions? (Regrettably, we feel that the asking of these questions is what put into motion the sequence of events that resulted in Irvin’s death.)
7. If Hanna decided to search Landrum’s car because of a “…lack of identification…” (p. 2), why would he continue with the search if, “While waiting for assistance, Hanna determined that Landrum’s driver’s license was current and valid” (pp. 2-3)?
8. Hanna’s radar read 63 miles per hour. But if Hanna’s car was moving, the radar device should have indicated his own speed as well. Did Hanna have a “moving radar” and what was his own vehicle’s speed? (If Hanna’s alibi was staged, as we suspect, this could prove to be a crucial issue.)
9. Was it not the case that Irvin’s car was currently registered, with the registration clearly seen taped to the inside rear window? Do photographs of the vehicle confirm this?
10. Was Irvin’s vehicle searched for drugs, using dogs? And if so, why?
11. How could Hanna write a citation and keep an eye on Landrum at the same time? (p. 3), and how could he possibly discern that Irvin was “doing something” with his hands if he is seated in his own patrol car writing the citation? (p. 3)
12. If Jacks “…fired until he felt that Landrum was no longer a threat…” why didn’t he approach Irvin and remove the weapon and administer first aid?
13. Why would Jacks shut off his tape recorder after his radio request? What else is on his tape?
14. How do we account for the 15 gun shots on the tape, and the 14 shots reported to have been shot by the officers (and the 14 shells found)? How is it that the report, in footnote 13, indicates that “During Jacks’ gunfire, two shots being fired by Hanna can also be heard,” yet “…three expended…shell casing were ballistically matched to Hanna’s nine millimeter Glock handgun” (p. 8, 2nd paragraph)?
15. What was the type and size of the “…fixed blade knife found on the left side of the driver’s side floorboard in Landrum’s car” (p. 9)?
16. The report indicates that the wound to Landrum’s neck was “slightly downward” (p. 9). My reading of the autopsy report indicates that the downward trajectory was rather pronounced. What was the trajectory, and what does that trajectory imply?
17. Who gave the report writers the report entitled “Factors Affecting the Recovery of Latent Prints on Firearms.” Was this an effort by the City of the Claremont Police Department to influence the D.A.’s report? Moreover, all of the factors cited in the D.A. Report are irrelevant to this case (the gun wasn’t thrown in a river, for instance).
18. Who issued the request for paramedics?
In closing, I am hopeful that you will instruct your staff to conduct a complete and independent investigation into the shooting death of Irvin Landrum, Jr. Such an investigation could greatly benefit from interrogations of the other law enforcement and fire department personnel present on the morning of January 11, 1999. In particular:
The Law Enforcement Witnesses. The statements by
Lieutenant Smith (of the LaVerne Police Department) and Officer VanderVeen
(Claremont PD) are absolutely critical. We find it amazing that,
when they arrived on the scene, they immediately approached the fallen
suspect, removed the gun, and administered first aid. In contrast,
Hanna and Jacks were “taking cover” behind their vehicles.
The Paramedics. What is the testimony of the paramedics?
What is their sense of when Irvin was shot? Was there enough blood
on the ground to assume that he had been laying there for quite some time,
or only a few minutes? Why, if Irvin was shot in the abdomen, neck
and ankle, did they find it necessary to remove his pants? (“Paramedics
removed Landrum’s pants in order to treat him” p. 8 of the Sheriff’s Report,
first paragraph.) What was the chain of custody of those pants?
Is it possible that someone could have planted the bullets in the pocket
of those pants before or after they were removed from Mr. Landrum?
The Geography of the Shooting. We are struck with what appears to be an impossible sequence of events based on the layout of the crime scene. Irvin is allegedly in the street when he allegedly pulls the gun. Yet his body is found 15 to 20 feet away, near a brick wall, on the other side of the sidewalk from the street. And 15 feet or so away from his body are a series of bullet holes in the brick wall. We know that Irvin never fired a gun. Yet, the Officers indicated that he fired at them from the street and then moved toward the brick wall. How could he navigate the curb to the street, the ivy between the sidewalk and the street, the sidewalk, and end up in the ivy near the brick wall in the span of a few fractions of a second? (How is this possible, indeed, if one of the bullets that hit Mr. Landrum severed his spinal cord in the neck area?) Is it plausible for the bullet holes to be in the wall, where they are, given the location of the participants in this shooting? Who repaired the brick wall, and did they find any spent bullets at its base?
Also, how could Jacks move from the “driver’s door of Hanna’s car” (p. 3, 2nd paragraph) but then run “toward the passenger side of Hanna’s patrol vehicle while looking over his left shoulder at Landrum” (p. 5, 4th paragraph), who was ostensibly also moving “…south toward the sidewalk…” (p. 5, 4th paragraph). Would they not have been moving in the same direction (to go from the driver’s side to the passenger side is to move in a southerly direction)? And wouldn’t this mean that Jacks would have had to turn his back on Landrum (“….looking over his left shoulder…”) and is it standard police procedure for the backup officer to run away in the face of danger (Jacks said, “I’m not positive exactly what he said because I was starting to get out of there” p. 5, 2nd paragraph, emphasis added)?
Mr. Garcetti, as a key law enforcement officer in Los Angeles County, I find it inappropriate that you would “close the file in this matter” in the face of so many unanswered questions. I respectfully submit to you that your office has an obligation to discover and report the truth to so many unanswered questions. Please conduct an active and independent investigation into the shooting so that all concerned may obtain closure and get on with their lives.
Thank you for your kind indulgence in reading through this admittedly lengthy letter. I stand ready to assist your office in any way possible in getting to the truth of the killing of Irvin Landrum, Jr.
Sincerely,
Halford H. Fairchild, Ph.D.
Secretary, Irvin Landrum Jr. Justice
Organizing Committee
Cc: Allen D. Field, LA County District Attorney’s Office
James L. Cosper, LA County District Attorney’s Office
Chief William Ellis, Claremont Police Department
Captain Frank Merriman, Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department
Members of the Irvin Landrum Jr. Justice Organizing Committee
Mike Gennaco, U.S. Justice Department
Vermont McKinney, U.S. Justice Department
Members of the Press