The alleged confession of one of the accused in the Joshlin Smith case came under intense scrutiny on Tuesday, as video footage filmed by a police videographer took centre stage in the ongoing trial-within-a-trial.
The clips were taken on March 4 and 5, 2024, two weeks after the six-year-old girl went missing from her Middelpos, Saldanha Bay, home.
Her mother, Racquel ‘Kelly’ Smith, claimed she had been at work when she left her daughter with her boyfriend, Jacquen ‘Boeta’ Appollis.
Appollis told the police he last saw Joshlin around 2pm when she angrily walked away from her home on February 19, 2024.
He went on to smoke Tik with friend Steveno ‘Steffie’ van Rhyn and former accused Lourentia ‘Renz’ Lombaard.
All four were arrested, but charges were dropped against Lombaard after turning State witness.
The police told the Western Cape High Court that they interviewed Kelly, Appollis, and Van Rhyn on March 4, 2024, and then detained them in the early hours of the following morning with a new accused, known in the trial as Maka Lima (Lima’s mom).
She was arrested after she was implicated by Appollis and Van Rhyn.
The duo claimed that they were coerced to say that Kelly asked Appollis to drop Joshlin off at Maka Lima’s house, which is a few hundred metres away from their home.
The current proceedings form part of a trial-within-a-trial aimed at determining the admissibility of confessions allegedly obtained under duress.
On Wednesday, during the trial sitting in the White City Multipurpose Centre, Van Rhyn’s lawyer Nobahle Mkabayi showed the detective who took her client’s confession, Captain Philip Seekoei, the video clip.
She pointed out that the accused struggled to walk from the injuries he incurred when police allegedly assaulted him.
Mkabayi argued that the accused was tortured, deprived of sleep and food, and forced to confess under extreme physical and psychological pressure during an interview on March 4 and 5, 2024.
The video footage showed the accused limping and struggling to sit down during the confession.
“Did you ask my client why he was struggling to sit?” Mkabayi asked.
“No, my Lord,” Seekoei responded.
“Why didn’t you? My client looks traumatised, stressed, and exhausted. Why didn’t you stop the proceedings?”
“I didn’t deem it necessary,” Seekoei said.
When pressed on what he would have done if he had noticed signs of physical distress, the officer initially said: “I would not have continued with it.”
Presiding officer judge Nathan Erasmus asked: “From what you see now with hindsight, if you observed it in this detail, would you have continued?”
Seekoei replied: “I would have continued depending on the circumstances.”
Mkabayi challenged this, posing a hypothetical: “If an officer saw someone unable to proceed physically and mentally but the suspect said they were fine, would the interview go on?
Seekoei answered: “Yes.”
Mkabayi argued that Van Rhyn appeared fatigued in the footage, yawning, and stretching early in the interview.
Erasmus weighed in, questioning why no steps were taken to assess the accused's condition: “The accused said ‘I am hungry, and I need to take my tablets in two hours,” Erasmus noted. “Seven minutes into the interview, the man yawns and stretches. Was that not a concern to you?”
Seekoei said he believed Van Rhyn had rested sufficiently earlier in the day.
“When I was contacted in the morning, they said he fell asleep during the interview and that they let him sleep. When I came in later in the afternoon, I took it so that he had enough rest.”
Mkabayi pointed to more signs of distress: “Did you notice he was tired, closing his eyes most of the time, and sleepy? Why didn’t you stop the confession?”
“I didn’t think it was necessary to stop,” Seekoei responded.
“You believe my client was able and capable of understanding the proceedings?” Mkabayi asked.
“He looked concerned and worried. Did you notice?”
“No,” said Seekoei.
Mkabayi told the court she was tired as she had been standing the whole day interviewing Sergeant Dawid Johannes Fortuin, who took down Appollis and Van Rhyn’s warning statements.
The trial-within-a-trial continues.