What crime did Erwin James commit?

and now its back to how it was...

hmmmm

changed back by someone at Bristol Uni.

of course the name etc are still in the revision history.

if Muchness was actually Erwin James all along that might explain why he's such a dick about deleting funny shit from the Fluxblog entry

interesting that this muchness guy on wiki has completely deleted the revision that said erwin's real name. it's possibly right & decent that they're giving the guy a break (paid his debt to society etc), but should wiki be censoring things like this - has muchness given any reasons why?

Yeah he attached a link to the biographies of living persons guidelines, which say "caution should be applied when naming individuals who are discussed primarily in terms of a single event. When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed (such as in certain court cases or occupations), it is often preferable to omit it, especially when doing so does not result in a significant loss of context."

Can someone post his name and the text of the Times article? The suspense is killing me.

"An archived segment of a BBC webpage suggests that he murdered his wife and daughter. The archived segment is incomplete though and I don't really know if this is true." - I posted this above and have gone back and checked the archived content. The first segment is definitely referring to James but the middle segment is missing and then comes the reference to the murdered wife and daughter. There is nothing directly connecting the two.

James Monahan

James Monahan's arrest, conviction and sentence for the murders of Scott Hallam and Angus Cochrane is publicly available information. This is surely relevant to the Wikipedia article on "Erwin James" and to consideration of his continuing public commentary on criminal justice issues. The Guardian originally argued that the pseudonym (Erwin James) was necessary to protect him because he was writing his column from his prison cell. This arrangement, however, ceased some years ago and Monahan has been released after completing his sentence.

So he didn't murder his wife and child then?

It looks like he murdered two guys in 1982

I've posted on Wikipedia under the discussion section of the Erwin James article. We'll see what the response is, if anything.

Could always create an article for James Monahan.

So he didn't murder his wife and child then?

bummer! ;)

wouldn't the guy have a different name right now? (not Erwin James, not Monahan)

no, i thought he would have changed it too, but apparently not. he mentions on his erwin james biography that he's a trustee of the prison reform trust, which lists "jim monahan" on its website.

If Erwin James is James Monahan, as it seems he almost certainly is, then he hasn't been totally honest about his past. He's obviously proud of his time in the Foreign Legion, but he's exaggerated it considerably. On his website he says he was in the Legion for "several years". In an interview he said it was four and a half years. Only last month in the Guardian he said he joined in 1981. But his last crime was in December 1982. Since he deserted in August 1984, then he could only have been a serving legionnaire for a bit over a year. In that short time, he claims he served in Lebanon, Chad and Cameroon, as well as spending months in Corsica. Possible, but I'm sceptical. Some tabloid journalist is sure to rake him over the coals one of these days.

By the way, his second victim, Greville Hallam, seems to have been quite an accomplished Shakespearian actor. Simon Callow mentions him in his autobiography. Callow also writes for the Guardian, I wonder whether he's met Erwin James?

I got the following response from Wikipedia ... Erwin James real name Wikipedia does not permit Original Research. Information which is not in any single source, but constructed by combining multiple sources or interpeting one in ways that are not obvious is considered Original Research. Do not post claims, either here or in the article, as to what James' real name is unless those claims (explicitly linking James and the alleged real name) have been published in a reliable source, such as a major newspaper. If you think you have such a case, exercise caution by posting here first, and merely linking to the source you want to include. (See policy on living persons for why are we are particularly careful in such cases.) Rd232 talk 13:01, 21 March 2009 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Erwin_James";

I guess that's actually fair enough. I mean, I don't feel fobbed off or anything like that. At the end of the day, I think it's only reasonable that soemone who wants to contribute to public debate does so transparently but good luck to James Monahan (Erwin James, whoever he wants to be today), he did his time, and I wish him the best for the future.

Well he's served his sentence. He's free to get on with his life, perhaps it's better his real name isn't used so the family of his victims dont see it (assuming they don't already know he uses this name)

Also if he has kids, they could get bullied at school if his real name was revealed.

In relation to the timeline above, Jim Monahan, James Monahan, Erwin James or Beau Geste could have committed the murder or murders of wives, daughters, shakespearian actors and Coal Board functionaries while serving with the Foreign Legion. Perhaps he did so while on leave back in the UK. It seems that he joined the Legion in 1980 or 1981 and then deserted in 1984 (probably because the police were already on his case as demonstrated by one of the articles suggested that he deserted from the Foreign Legion, was detained by French police and extradited to the UK in the same month - August 1984). Does anyone have the exact dates of the two murders?

Some tabloid journalist is sure to rake him over the coals one of these days

Why? It's not as if he's a public figure living a lie. He wrote a column under a pseudonym; the details are hazy; who, other than a handful of people on a message board with too much time on their hands, is going to care?

This:

good luck to James Monahan (Erwin James, whoever he wants to be today), he did his time, and I wish him the best for the future

is the attitude.

This:

If Erwin James is James Monahan, as it seems he almost certainly is, then he hasn't been totally honest about his past

is a bit daft.

(And by "is the attitude" I mean "is the right attitude", just in case there's any doubt!)

Cap'n Save-a-murderin-journo ;)

:)

Seriously, though: try ringing up the Sun with that one.

"See Erwin James? Well, he wasn't entirely honest about his time in the Foreign Legion ... No, Erwin. Erwin James ... What do you mean, who? ... Well, he had this column in the Guar ... Hello? Hello?"

his columns just slay me

no, grimly, it would be the daily mail, inside feature by i dunno geoffrey levy, with quotes from relatives of his victims and contrasting it with his life of comfort with his wife by the sea, with heavyhanded mentions to the amount of money he's earned as a guardian contributor and sneering references to anything liberal he's written about the prison system. the fudging of dates to obscure his identity would be the figleaf of moral justification to go after him.

bit suspicious about lukeybaby tbh, who has apparently never posted on any other thread.

http://www.headinjurytheater.com/phantom%20scooby%20doo%20unmask%201.jpg

'Erwin James' is just the name he uses for listening to funk on last.fm

lukeybaby's on fire
http://www.legalbanter.co.uk/uk-legal-legal-issues-uk/11319-erwin-james.html

reviving a thread on a forum that's five years old just because it's high up in the google searches - what's this guy's beef? it's natural to be curious about this, but going on a publicity campaign is just weird.

I dunno, I consider myself liberal but I don't think you can be a public columnist and at the same time try and hold your past back. It's not fair or right and the biggest problem with him doing this column is his reluctance to talk about his actual crime. I think he'll realise this too at some point, and when he does the results will be v interesting.

sorry i don't know if i was being very clear, but i was referring to lukeybaby's appearance on the legalbanter's forums. i've got no problem with ilx trying to answer the thread's question - i posted a lot of the details myself. but i thought it was weird that this guy felt the need to run with the info to wikipedia, and when he failed with that, to post it on a forum thread that was long dead but had a very high google ranking for ej's name. that seems like more than mere curiosity to me.

sorry i don't know if i was being very clear, but i was referring to lukeybaby's appearance on the legalbanter's forums. i've got no problem with ilx trying to answer the thread's question - i posted a lot of the details myself. but i thought it was weird that this guy felt the need to run with the info to wikipedia, and when he failed with that, to post it on a forum thread that was long dead but had a very high google ranking for ej's name. that seems like more than mere curiosity to me.

so good it was worth saying twice. sorry.

I've got no axe to grind but was emailed by someone (from here) who referred to the question being asked on the legal banter site. My interest was peaked after I emailed "Erwin James" about the issue and he emailed back but declined to answer. So there's no hidden agenda from me just a concern about transparency. After receiving the response from James, I then searched on google and yahoo, finding this site and wikipedia. I contacted Wikipedia over the fact that the article did not make reference to "Erwin James" being a pseudonym. That much, at least, was acknowledged by the Guardian and James, himself. The Wikipedia content nbow acknowledges that, with my amendments, and I'm happy about it. It seemed a valid point to make. The thread has been interesting and the issue seems to be resolved, at least as far as it is ever going to be.

no, grimly, it would be the daily mail, inside feature by i dunno geoffrey levy, with quotes from relatives of his victims and contrasting it with his life of comfort with his wife by the sea, with heavyhanded mentions to the amount of money he's earned as a guardian contributor and sneering references to anything liberal he's written about the prison system. the fudging of dates to obscure his identity would be the figleaf of moral justification to go after him

Ha, yeh, OK: I could sort-of imagine that -- but I still think it's very unlikely. It hasn't happened yet, it becomes ever less likely to happen with each passing day ... and really: how many people out there know or care who Erwin James is?

Either way: I certainly don't think "oh my god! He might not have been entirely honest about how long he was in the Legion!" is of any interest to anyone, ever :)

It's not fair or right and the biggest problem with him doing this column is his reluctance to talk about his actual crime

Maybe he feels that it might look like glorifying the details? I'm not sure: I appreciate what you're saying, but by writing under a pseudonym and not revealing details he's also -- arguably -- preventing too much prurient interest that could unearth a whole lot of horror for a whole lot of people. (Er, this thread excepted, natch.)

Personally, I have absolutely no interest in what he did. As I think someone said upthread: murderer = kinda enough information for me.

peaked

I am not the kind of cunt who does this but it's "piqued".

Also, I concur with the opinion that it's good that James has served his time and been rehabilitated but I don't think that should confer the right to publicly speak about issues relating to yr experience as a convicted murderer without owning the murders.

exactly. even if you don't judge it on a moral basis, his pieces would surely be better and more interesting if he did mention his own crimes. not like every week or something, but it feels a bit of a dodge.

peaked

I am not the kind of cunt who does this but it's "piqued".

No, you're exactly the kind of cunt who does that! :-)

The main problem I see (and it's a perfectly legitimate one) is that neither the Guardian nor James/Monahan allow independent verification of his authenticity. His public claims of expertise are made from behind a veil that prevents scrutiny of those claims. For all anyone can prove, "Erwin James" is really a 20 year old cadet journalist with long blonde hair and big tits and the closest she's ever been to confinement is a knee-trembler out the back of the policeman's ball. If you claim authenticity on the basis of arrest, conviction and sentence, then the minimum you should disclose is where you were arrested and for what, the court where you were convicted and the circumstances of that conviction (eg charges, plea etc), the sentence you were given and (particularly in this case) the prisons where your served your time. But, the original decision to use the pseudonym seems appropriate given that James/Monahan was still in the prison system. Once he left the prison system, the Guardian (at least) should have set the record straight or provided another justification. As outlined above, I even emailed James/Monahan and asked him the question but he declined to answer. Anyway, this has been a great thread but I've got to go back to my proper job. Good luck to James/Monahan. Good luck to the Guardian. Good luck to you.

His real name and a lot of background info :

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2009/apr/24/erwin-james-journalism

gotta hold the hands up and say fair play to the guy, must have been hard (harder than we could know) but that column was always coming.

(erm is anyone else wondering if the board is ILX?)

http://i44.tinypic.com/2po5xk6.gif

Of course I wondered but what are you gonna do? I think he's dealt with this very well.

i think it must be - it's on the front page of searches for "erwin james crime", for instance. i'm guessing that the article was prompted by someone at the guardian reading this thread and wondering why they were misled in earlier features: they'd have to take that quite seriously. (the julie myerson/living with teenagers fiasco has probably made them more jumpy about their anonymous columnists.)

i can see why he feels "stalked" by the interest, but it's only what's on the public record. it's a good piece, anyway, and i hope he doesn't get any more fallout from this.

good piece. (should've published it the day he left prison or something)

lying to the guardian was his real crime, tbh.

it's a shame that people on a message board had to go and speculate as to the real identity of a mysterious columnist-with-a-past in a national newspaper, but...