Boeta reveals fabricated details in Joshlin Smith trial

The trial surrounding the disappearance of six-year-old Joshlin Smith took a dramatic turn when key accused Jacquen ‘Boeta’ Appollis admitted in court that parts of his confession were fabricated.

During the cross-examination at the Western Cape High Court, sitting at the White City Multipurpose Centre in Diazville, Saldanha Bay, he told the court an unknown police officer coached him to implicate his co-accused. He claimed he added additional details to make the story sound real because he was scared.

Joshlin disappeared from her home in Middelpos, Saldanha Bay, on 19 February 2024. Her mother, Racquel ‘Kelly’ Smith, reported that she had left the child in the care of her boyfriend, Appollis, while she went to work. When she returned home, Joshlin was gone.

The case quickly made national headlines, leading to the arrest of Appollis, Smith, Steveno ‘Steffie’ van Rhyn, and Lourentia ‘Renz’ Lombaard. Lombaard was later released. Another suspect, known only as Maka Lima, was added to the case after being named by Appollis in his initial confession.

The court is currently engaged in a trial-within-a-trial to determine whether the confessions made by the accused were given voluntarily.

Appollis told the court that he had been approached by a coloured male officer who instructed him to say that he, Kelly, and Van Rhyn had taken Joshlin to Maka Lima and sold her for R20,000.

He claimed the officer told him someone would later arrive to take his statement and that he must repeat the same version.

He testified that while being recorded by Lieutenant-Colonel Adrian Pretorius, he began to fabricate elements of the story to make it more believable. He included vivid details such as four children playing outside and said he had to make the story 'sound like a real story'. He claimed to have invented parts, including a supposed conversation with Kelly on the Sunday before Joshlin disappeared, because he was afraid.

Judge Nathan Erasmus reminded Appollis that during a previous session, the defence had gone through his statement line by line, using a highlighter to mark which parts were true and which were not. Appollis had confirmed those parts as true.

When asked whether he had lied to the court, Appollis admitted, “That is correct, that part.” The State prosecutor, Aradhana Heeramun, challenged him further, asking why he would create such a detailed and coherent statement if it were not true. She noted how the story was intricately told, even down to the children being younger than Joshlin, and accused him of weaving lies with specific and believable facts.

Appollis maintained that he was not lying intentionally but had omitted certain truths out of fear.

He denied deliberately misleading the court and said, “It was a little sentence that was not the truth, I didn’t point it out as not being the truth, the part where Kelly and I had a discussion.”

When pressed on why he would invent an entire storyline, he responded, “I thought of the story, I was scared. I wanted to make it sound real.”

Judge Erasmus and the prosecutor both questioned him on the details, with Judge Erasmus at one point asking, “Were you very good at composition at school? Where does this sudden talent come from?”

The prosecutor highlighted the calm and consistent manner in which Appollis had relayed the story to Colonel Pretorius, arguing it was inconsistent with someone who was allegedly terrified. She pointed out that the entire confession was recorded in Afrikaans to ensure accuracy and that Appollis had not appeared distressed at the time.

Appollis admitted, “I made it up while Pretorius was taking down the notes,” but he insisted that the instruction to lie came from someone else. He confirmed that no one told him to add the extra details; those were his additions to make the story flow.

mandilakhe.tshwete@inl.co.za