What crime did Erwin James commit?

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...

LG: I hope not. The poster who came here to concern troll/play investigative journalist seems to have been active on a few sites and his tenor struck me not as someone who was looking for transparency in an impartial way, but as some borderline personalty disorder case with an axe to grind, possibly for overapplied personal reasons. I really hate it when randoms use ILX in this way, and I hate it when people who've completed their sentences and satisfied a parole board that they have processed and understood their offence to the degree that James has done are subjected to a malice that they are actively working against in their new lives. Yes, I understand the anger and sadness victims' families exhibit but clinging to rancor for the rest of their own lives isn't going to bring a loved one back or move anyone forward, and it's just as irrational to ask a prisoner to live aspic-suspended in a past moment just because your loss is the only thing giving your own life meaning.

In our current criminal justice climate - and even in other, more peaceable times - it is essential that there are journalists who have been in the system as prisoners, and it isn't just crime that sends criminals to prison, it's the whole dysfunctional life they've led up to that point. There are hundreds of prison writing programmes run by charities and the Arts Council (if you're a novelist it's actually a pretty good gig to teach writing seminars there) with the expectation that allowing a prisoner to learn ways to express themselves clearly in writing has a knock-on effect in how they value themselves and others; it gives them a centre of gravity or some kind of rudder and often it's the first time in their whole lives where that's been possible. People who have an outlet like this go on to live productive lives, no question.

(the julie myerson/living with teenagers fiasco has probably made them more jumpy about their anonymous columnists.)

lol looks like i was right. related stories link is "Open door: Siobhain Butterworth on the Guardian and the Julie Myerson affair".

ian katz says he knew the details of james' crime, but blames the "fictionalised" paragraphs on a "lapse" by the writer. so shouldn't an editor have queried it? i don't think the whole thing's that big a deal even, but the editors should share the blame and not leave the writer hanging out to dry.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/theguardian/2009/apr/24/erwin-james-monahan-guardian

IF ONLY WE'D GIVEN THE KIlLER A PAINTBRUSH EARLIER etc

Not to be QUITE as reductive or just generally out of one's depth as you, DM, but yeah, pretty much. Read John Waters' accounts of teaching filmmaking and writing seminars in Maryland prisons in the '80s if you want to know more about how the programmes work. Alternatively, if you just want to post stupid ignorant shite on topics that would otherwise be intimidating, carry on.

i had dinner last night with john waters and a lazy zing, actually OMG

or, alternatively-

i believe i'm every bit as out of my depth discussing where violent criminals come from as a social question as you are, but i'm sure your parlour discussions around it are extremely interesting.

http://i41.tinypic.com/2q88w04.gif

Is that sugar popcorn or savoury, Stan?

See, I'm not out of my depth at all, because of past work experience and the like. The only opinion I've formed about you is that you might be more conservative than I am - and it's only an opinion because I don't know you well and have no desire to. I'd much rather deal constructively with issues around the question of prisoner rehabilitation in a world where victims' families have feelings and rights, as does any prisoner with a discharged sentence. That is maybe the best thing that could be done right now with what is actually a pretty crepey thread.

cosign

lonely ex-con just thinking baout things
http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Society/Comment/Columnist/2009/4/24/1240562572899/James-Monahan-Erwin-James-001.jpg

I'd much rather deal constructively with issues around the question of prisoner rehabilitation in a world where victims' families have feelings and rights, as does any prisoner with a discharged sentence.

well, self congratulatory posts on a message board are certainly the best way to do that. Carry on, by all means, and mind the soapbox on the way down.

How, exactly, was I congratulating myself by pointing out the existence of prison writing programmes or questioning the crepey motives of a one-off poster to this thread? How does a desire to see convicts rehabilitate successfully constitute the annexation of a soap box?

and i'm reductive.

agreed on the creepiness of one-off subject poster, i'm sure we all know that prison writing programmes exist and i'm equally sure we all wish for full convict rehabilitation. jeez, how did we ever end up calling each other names?

http://i41.tinypic.com/2q88w04.gif
^^^
Stan - I just did that cliched snorting tea over my keyboard thing.

http://i44.tinypic.com/2lc78ra.jpg

(xpost lol)

looks like this is going to feature in the mail on sunday tomorrow :\

by lukeybaby?

what crime did lukeybaby commit?

More like stalkybaby amirite?

The Mail article is more of an attack on the Guardian.

I hate it when people who've completed their sentences and satisfied a parole board that they have processed and understood their offence to the degree that James has done are subjected to a malice that they are actively working against in their new lives. Yes, I understand the anger and sadness victims' families exhibit but clinging to rancor for the rest of their own lives isn't going to bring a loved one back or move anyone forward, and it's just as irrational to ask a prisoner to live aspic-suspended in a past moment just because your loss is the only thing giving your own life meaning.

lot to unpack in this. wouldn't want to subject anyone to malice, but completing a sentence and satisfying a parole board are irrelevant to the point at hand. if EJ had processed and understood his offence, maybe he wouldn't have come clean about with his readers? idk, seems off to me.

as for 'clinging to rancor', etc: you sound way out of your depth here.

the guardian say they needed someone who'd been inside for a long time -- ok, maybe. but maybe a double-murderer was pushing it. or, coming from another angle, d'you reckon they'd have stood by a paedophile or serial rapist to this extent? i don't think they'd have risked it, personally. the living victims may well have clung to their rancor in public.

ha, this whole deal reminds me of this
http://www.break.com/tv-shows/saturday-night-live/prose-and-cons-626242.html

The Mail article is more of an attack on the Guardian.

― weight and bulk are your enemies (Ned Trifle II),

Who'd have thought it, eh?

ha, this whole deal reminds me of this
http://www.break.com/tv-shows/saturday-night-live/prose-and-cons-626242.html

The requested video cannot be displayed in your region because we are stupid.

Disappointing lack of comments on that Mail article - it's as if nobody really cares.

if you google eddie murphy and "prose and cons" you might get another source that plays it. it's a classic snl short that spoofs on the whole norman mailer/jack henry abbott debacle
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Abbott

Henry, I'd like to know exactly why you believe I sound out of my depth here, as your dismissal was a bit...shallow. I draw on many things I'm not prepared to discuss in depth on a public message board but what I will say is that I've had a lot of access to law enforcement opinion over the years and have helped to administer prison writing programmes in the past. I also have zero time for over-reliance on victim status as a kind of everlasting gobstopper of emotional blackmail when other victims and survivors aren't like that. My opinion isn't derived solely from watching how the topic plays out in the media and if there's a non-spectator element behind your words some clarity is in order, because it doesn't seem like it.

I'm satisfied with EJ's rationale behind his previous anonymity and I wonder what the reasoning behind his outing *really* is. Attack on Graun for its recent stance on criminal justice, maybe?

To answer your other question, comparing murderers with sex offenders for the purpose of this discussion is a bit apples and oranges.

At least this thread is good for one thing: capturing the reptile-brain thought processes of tabloid reporters in real time.