In the news last week was the depressing story of a honey trap involving young adults in South East London. The plot was incredibly well thought out and executed with cutthroat precision.
Before I deal with my own perceptions of the story, I should briefly explain who the actors were and what actually happened. There was a sixteen-year old called Shakilus Townsend, an ordinary young man who also happened to be a member of a South-east London gang, “DSN” (Don’t Say Nothin’).
He was involved in a relationship with a girl a year “wiser” than him. Her name was Samantha Joseph and Townsend had become progressively smitten by her. He had told his mother that he was in love and had planned to marry the girl one day.
Joseph, at the time, was also seeing eighteen-year old Danny McLean. He has been described in the mass media as a fully pledged gangster and the flagship face of the rival “Shine My Nine” gang (the number nine alluding to a 9 mm pistol). When McLean discovered that Joseph was already in a relationship with Townsend, he dumped her.
There are hazy accounts of what McLean had planned in retaliation but scared of his gang status, Joseph pledged her allegiances to McLean. And to prove her worth to him, she promised to seduce Townsend with a see –through flowery dress and lure him back to Thornton Heath on the bus where he would later be met by rival gang members and murdered.
As I continued to read the article online at BBC.com the nature of the story almost seemed theatrical. It shared uncanny resemblances to Jacobean and Shakespearean tragedies; the very type you would act out in school plays as a child. This was no play however, this was real life and a sad reminder that youth violence in London and other major cities of the UK is now a serious issue that police authorities struggle to control.
The lowest point of the report for me was not even that Townsend was murdered but the abstruse nature of how he was killed and the manner in which his peers colluded together to plan out his death.
The role of the girl, Samantha Joseph, was chilling as she permitted the homicide to go ahead. Her participation however was in defence of her own life and she was prepared to “get beats”
Therefore, even though she played a fundamental role in the execution, it would be wrong to suggest that Joseph was the principal culprit in this frightening tragedy.
Instead that title should be gifted to McLean, who had dumped Joseph and had “beef”
However, while it is important to identify the perpetrators in this murder, it is essen
• What would possess a sixteen-year old girl to perform a honey trap on a young man in love with her?
• Did McLean want to kill Townsend or did the beating get out of hand?
• Was Joseph aware of the extent of the beating Townsend was to receive?
The first question should be answered in context with how Joseph has been portrayed by the police and the media. According to Chris Summers, who reported this story on the BBC, he claims “Shakilus Townsend would still be alive today if it had not bee
Detective Inspector Barney Ratcliffe reiterated these sentiments by saying Joseph, “very calculatingly brought Shakilus to the scene, knowing that he was going to get beaten u
It comes across as amateurish for neither of these two individuals to consider the position Joseph was in at the time. Had she not plotted against Townsend, they might both have been dead. I am not advocating what Joseph did but for both reports to imply that Townsend would still be alive if it was not for her seems a tad naïve. I personally believe it would have led to a dual mur
They fail to also recognise that Joseph was also living in fear at the time and remained anxious, expecting retribution of some sort on McLean’s behalf. She did not want to be beaten up so helped McLean attain vengeance on Townsend. I could pose a question of morality here and say Joseph was responsible for betraying Townsend but placin
Question two and three are very much linked and will therefore be treated jointly. I am not really sure either Joseph or McLean really knew what would happen to Shakilus Townsend. He was stabbed several times and beaten with a baseball bat so members of the rival gang were intentionally hurting him.
McLean was known to be ruthless by his fellow peers and the simple fact that Townsend represented a rival gang could have toppled his and his gang peers emotions to the very extent that they ended up slaying Townsend to death. Of course all these hypotheses beg to consider the psychological state of the youngsters involved. This can be highlighted not only from the coy cameo Joseph played to the retributive nature of McLean’s response but also how Joseph saw it proper for her to play the role she did in order to gain the respect and forgiveness
If one was to assume McLean wanted to murder Townsend, then the question of what specific criteria could McLean have ruminated in prior to his execution should be mulled over.
First and foremost he was a rival gang member and from reading up on gang literature myself, territory and association are two intrinsic elements of a gang that all members adhere to. In countries where gangs are rife and play an integral role in society, there can be opposing gangs that brothers join and look to murder each other in protection of their created families in a gang.
Secondly Townsend had relations, albeit nothing sexual (as Joseph has reiterated in court) with the same girl McLean casually used for sex. The woman’s role in a gang is normally always subservient and she is usually given tasks in the form of odd jobs; the dirty work the real
When describing the characteristics and trends of any gang, it makes sense to draw comparisons with other gangs in countries around the world. Nonetheless, it does not always come across as logical when one considers peripheral factors, like the political and social nature of the individual country. The gangs I have been drawing comparisons with throughout this blog reside in pockets of the United States and large parts of some countries in Latin America. Both the United States and Central America share the greatest gang culture in the world.
They are a far cry from suburban London with its housing benefits, free state education, free healthcare along with a whole host of local initiatives to get kids off the streets and provid
It serves as group of people from various sectors of the government and Scotland Yard, who decided to tour the country and speak to various people on the rising figure of guns and weapons on the streets of the UK. They then gathered the information for a report and have continued their work this year, meeting up with communities to try and tackle the problem. London has paid particular attention to the rising issues: http://www.london.gov.uk/gangs/news/reducing_gun_crime.jsp and many of the boroughs where these crimes take place and have been active in attempting to curb the violence.
Shakilus was the 18th victim of teenage violence in London in 2009, which may not seem a high number to some of you but for us, Londoners, it is an extravagant figure. The reason
Another aspect of the whole ordeal is the fact that, realistically, we are not dealing with a group of gangsters for the most part. Instead we are talking about youths from comparatively affluent backgrounds of those associated with gang youths. For example: “Andre Johnson-Haynes, one of the youths involved in Shakilus's death, who was "insistent that he never wanted to be part of this gang culture" and attended the £14,000-a-year Emmanuel School in Clapham, south London, but became involved due to his friendship with McLean”.
Since the trial ended, Samantha Joseph and other members of the SMN gang have been convicted of murdering sixteen-year old Shakilus Townsend. None of these young adults are older than nineteen and all of them face substantial prison sentences.
Is it the respect, the drug money, the lifestyle, the family they re-create within the gang or is it just a recalcitrant response to the mundanity of their lives? It is perhaps a combination of all the aforementioned possibilities. Regardless, the opportunities available to these youths in London (it is all relative of course) supersede a huge portion of the global population. Calling these children complacent would be wrong; the system has failed them as much as they have failed themselves. But from every disaster comes opportunity…to reflect and ameliorate. Yout
If you are interested, this is a link to a tribute page on bebo in memory of Shakilus Townsend and this is a list of those that have been unfortunate victims of knife crime in London this year.
I have read the case of this girl and feel the murder conviction is unsound on the basis that she did not premeditate for any more than an assault on the victim by a young male with a violent history who she feared would beat her up if she did not co-operate. While she is not blameless for what happened, she did not apparently PLAN for the murder of Shakilus. But the jury and media was given a picture of her that is very biased and sexualised. Why sentence her to life? What is the purpose even of the minimum of 10 years? She did not strike Shakilus. Even if she knew he was to be assaulted by this violent gang, it was a hard choice - Shakilus or herself. Where is her appeal? Who speaks for this girl in the courts that is treated as worse than she is because of her sex? I think this is a bad prosecution by a Crown Prosecution Service and Police that are out of control and have overstepped their role as servants of the law. She was unfairly convicted because she was a pretty girl who was judged to be not acting as a "nice girl" should. If Samantha had been a boy in fear of a beating and set up Shakilus to take the assault, would this murder charge have been used? I think not.
ReplyDeleteSamantha Joseph is innocent of Murder. Her prosecution was flawed and sex-biased. She should have an appeal.
A friend.
Firstly, I really appreciate this article, because I was afraid that I was the only person living that saw the situation as you have explained. Because...no doubt,to get a conviction,there were a lot of colors added to the painting, and especially the colors to paint Samantha Joseph as a "Monster".
ReplyDeleteGiven the circumstances and the dispositions, and mentality of the gang members she was involved with, it seems that she had very few choices,but one,and that was to deliver or be delivered to a fate not welcomed. Also a given is to not know exactly who or what you are dealing with until placed in a critical instance or dilemma can prove the most unnerving thing in the world,such as the saying goes "between a rock and a hard place",and in those types of situations,only a guess will suffice, and only a guess is allowed.
So maybe her guess was...if it is a beat,then he would be the better suitor,than she herself, and finally being confronted in an instance such as "You f**ked up, and you will pay" or the only remedy for forgiveness would be to deliver a greater sacrifice.Also adding to her level of fear,was to be targeted by the gang members that afforded her protection, a protection that caused her to be secure enough to ride the buses and transit alone at night, because she knew first hand the power of the gang she was in,and that it would always be a matter of violent actions instead of empty words,if they were ever confronted or provoked.
Reading her testimony,and the questioning of the prosecutor is also the thing that pushed me to this conclusion,because her responses were not evasive, but actual and factual,and revealed exactly what happened that day.She did not seek to protect herself or the other members of the gang with sarcastic,stupid,or rude remarks, but responded as truthfully as she could.She gave names of attackers doing what and when,and especially to note that her boyfriend's actions she also disclosed in detail.When asked if she ever told lies, she promptly replied "sometimes",but said that all she mentioned that day was truth absolute.
I think that if all were released and not imprisioned,that she would have also had to answer for that,to what has been seen to be a very violent individual surrounded by violent friends.So in the best way she knew how,it seems she was making sure that the right people pay for Shakilus Townsend's murder.
She participated in such a devastating crime, and needed to answer for her actions,but her actions were governed by fear ( it seems ).
I was watching the actual footage of the bus ride as she set up Shakilus Townsend,and the thing that struck me the first time as odd was that he turned around and was looking back inside the bus, while she walked away.I believe that the driver and or passengers were trying to warn him and tell him to reboard the bus.
Why would they? They were aware of who she was and that she was also wearing her gang's colors that meant something was going to happen and that it was imminent.I truly think he was engaged by the driver telling him to be careful,as he stood there looking attentively back into the bus.
I remember when the movie first started that was the portrayal of this incident,it was narrated and said as a thought from Shakilus "nobody was gonna tell me where I could and could not go",and that this mindset is what caused his end.In other words, if he would have listened to te warnings by others or going through his own head,there would have been a different outcome. Remeber he also began to question his thinking when he told her "I hope you and your cousin are not getting me set"... were his words to Samantha...,and if I am just a tad right about him being warned by the people on the bus,then it meant Shakilus ignored the alarms,thinking that this beast only had one head,but in the end,finding out that it had many.
African Proverb--> "Until Lions tell their tale...,the glory of the hunt will always glorify the Hunter." RIP young Lion
u letle fagit il cap u
ReplyDeletelolololo
ReplyDeleteshut up mutha dikhd ur goni be sorri prik
ReplyDeletealex anderson face book add him it the guy and his homies
ReplyDeletefk d h8rz dey motivate my homie i kild him xxxxxx
ReplyDeleteconnor meldrum : facebook thats my homie add him he thinks hes black
ReplyDeletejordan martin aswell
ReplyDeleteIf any more abusive language is used this site will be exterminated.
ReplyDeletefuk u
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete.
ReplyDeleteDanny Mclean did not have 'beef' with Shaki because he was from a rival gang. Shakilus has never been part of the DSN gang. Not sure where you got that information but it's incorrect. I also doubt that both Samantha and shakilus would have been murdered if she had not set him up. Shaki was from Deptford and his killers were from Croydon. I dont think it is naive to think if sam had not brought shaki there he would still be alive, I don't think they would have travelled that distance to kill him. You should have read more articles because you don't have the right story :)
ReplyDeleteThis girl is not innocent at all. She started smiling when the gang rushed him and walked off. Evil, all of them involved.
ReplyDelete