EXECUTIVE BOARD

Katherine Armstead
Chairperson

Pat Williams
Co-Chairperson

Kelly LeSure
Treasurer

Halford Fairchild
Secretary, Media Relations, Spokesperson

Robert Clark
Spokesperson

Tracy Lee
Mother of Irvin Landrum Jr.

The Irvin Landrum Jr. Justice Organizing Committee, on reviewing the September 27, 2000 letter from the L.A. County District Attorney’s Office, bearing the name of Gil Garcetti and the signature of James L. Cosper, has concluded that the L.A. County District Attorney’s Office has engaged in a deliberate and malicious pattern of deception and fabrication in an effort to exonerate the Claremont police officers who shot and killed Irvin Landrum, Jr., in January, 1999.

Our reasons for this very serious charge are detailed in our letter, dated today, addressed to District Attorney Gil Garcetti.  To summarize, we found the following fabrications and deceptions undertaken by the investigators within the L.A. County District Attorney’s Office:

1. Most serious, instead of resolving the discrepancy in the testimonies of Joann Simmons-Walker--the last possessor of the gun found at Irvin Landrum Jr.’s feet, who said she gave it to her stepdaughter--and Stacey Simmons--who denied receiving the weapon, the investigators ignored the discrepancy.  We demand that either or both, Joann Simmons-Walker and Stacey Simmons, be charged with perjury.  Only such a charge will get to the truth about the chain-of-custody of the gun in question.

2. The investigators found to be “the most persuasive and uncontrovertible” (sic) evidence the tape recording of Teresa Ramirez, who they said gave her statement prior to knowing that Mr. Landrum had been shot, and therefore her statement was “inherently trustworthy.”  However, the tape recording, which we believe to have been illegally obtained, clearly indicated a very distraught Teresa Ramirez who made her statement after being informed of the critical condition of Mr. Landrum.

3. The investigators indicated that both Officers Jacks and Hanna told investigators that Mr. Landrum was armed with a handgun, but the truth is that both Jacks and Hanna reported never seeing a gun, only a muzzle flash and the sound of a gunshot.  This fact was strangely absent from the investigators’ report.

4. In the original District Attorney’s report, the investigators said that Officer Hanna said that Mr. Landrum dropped “[his gun]” after being shot; but Hanna actually told investigators, “…I could see that the gun, whatever it was in his hand, the muzzle flash, of course I had assumed it was a gun, he dropped it as his hand flickered…”

5. In a clear instance of pure fabrication, the original DA’s report indicated that the capacity of Officer Hanna’s duty weapon was 20 rounds, and they corrected Hanna’s assertion that he loaded his gun with 18 rounds by saying that he must have had 19 rounds in his weapon.  This is important because 16 live rounds were found in Hanna’s gun, and 3 expended shell casings attributed to his weapon were found at the scene of the shooting.  But according to Hanna’s own testimony, the capacity of his weapon was only 18 rounds.  So, it is impossible to get 19 rounds from a gun that has a capacity of 18 rounds.  An independent expert has confirmed for us that the capacity of a police-issued Glock semi-automatic handgun is 18 rounds.  The extra round is crucial to this case, and yet the D.A. pulls, seemingly from thin air, an explanation that is patently impossible.

6. The original D.A.’s report explained the magical muzzle flashe by suggesting, first, that Officer Jacks saw Officer Hanna’s muzzle flash, and second, that Officer Hanna saw his own muzzle flash.  But Officer Jacks’s own coerced testimony indicated that, while he was running away from what appeared to be a dangerous situation, that he could not see Officer Hanna at all.  Clearly, it would be impossible for us to accept the D.A.’s theory if we are to believe Officer Jacks.  Similarly, Officer Hanna testified that he did not draw his weapon until after seeing the alleged muzzle flash from Mr. Landrum’s alleged gun, so it would have been possible for him to see his own muzzle flash if his gun was not yet withdrawn.  This theory by the D.A., therefore, is false on its face.

7. The original D.A.’s report says that the eyewitness to the shooting, William Roth, mistook a Laverne Police Officer for Officer Jacks when he saw Officer Jacks pull up and rack a shotgun.  This is important because Mr. Roth says that Officer Jacks arrived at the scene after Mr. Landrum had been shot, a sharp and startling contradiction to the statements given by Officers Jacks and Hanna.  But such a case of mistaken identity is absolutely impossible when it is noted, in their own report, that Officer Jacks was the only officer on the scene to arm himself with a shotgun.

8. Finally, we are mystified by the coincidence that the original D.A.’s report indicated that it reviewed a published journal article that claimed that fingerprints are seldom found on handguns, when this was the same article being widely distributed by the City of Claremont—for months before the conclusion of the D.A.’s original report--to counter the charges of a cover-up that has been leveled by the Irvin Landrum Jr. Justice Organizing Committee.  Was someone within the City of Claremont feeding information to the District Attorney investigators to ensure the exoneration of Officers Jacks and Hanna?  We ask the press to pursue these questions:  How did the D.A.’s office learn of the journal article regarding fingerprints?  How likely is it that both the D.A.’s office and the City of Claremont would trumpet such an obscure piece of research that serves the interests of the City of Claremont and Officers Jacks and Hanna?  Does the D.A.’s copy of that article have the fax number belonging to the City of Claremont?  Was it given to the D.A.’s office by the City of Claremont?  And if so, by whom?  Is this not unlawful interference of an ongoing investigation and obstruction of justice?

In conclusion, the Irvin Landrum Jr. Justice Organizing Committee demands that the L.A. County District Attorney’s Office now conduct two investigations:  one involving a full, complete, and independent investigation into all of the aspects of the shooting of Irvin Landrum, Jr., including indictments for witnesses who perjure themselves in the context of this investigation (particularly, Joann Simmons-Walker and/or Stacey Simmons), and a second investigation involving a full and complete examination into the manner in which false and misleading information and impossible theorizing made their way into the original and subsequent reports of the L.A. County District Attorney’s Special Investigations Division.  We demand the unpaid administrative leave of James L. Cosper, Assistant Head Deputy, who signed the reports and letters containing the falsehoods and misrepresentations, until these questions are satisfactorily resolved.

 Failing an acquiescence to the above demands, the Irvin Landrum Jr. Justice Organizing Committee will ask the Attorney General of the State of California, and the Attorney General of the United States of America, to launch a full and complete investigation into the facts surrounding the shooting of Irvin Landrum Jr. and the attempted cover-up by the L.A. County District Attorney’s Office and by elected and appointed members of the City of Claremont.