TODDLER’S DEATH Shocking details emerge in court

SHOCKING details about the death of a two-year-old girl, whose body was discovered after being dumped in a veld in Kimberley last month, came to light yesterday when the Galeshewe Magistrate’s Court heard that the mother of the girl allegedly instructed the child’s stepfather to leave the child outside her shack in the middle of the night, as she was inside, “busy” with another man.

The toddler’s mother, Kelapetswe Sheppard, 26, and stepfather, William Julius, 40, stand accused of murder and child neglect following the discovery of the girl’s body in a veld next to the Witdam Police station on February 3.

The girl was only wearing a disposable nappy when her body was found by a passers-by at around midday and she was partially wrapped in a towel.

Ants had started eating at her mouth, nose, eyes and ears, while pitch black marks, resembling severe sunburn, covered parts of her exposed skin.

The case’s investigating officer, Sergeant Harold Neels, was yesterday called as a witness in the couple’s bail application.

They were arrested and charged with the girl’s murder on February 4 and have been in custody since.

Neels stated yesterday that preliminary findings indicated that the girl suffered a dislocated shoulder and a cracked skull, consistent with a hard hit to the head and the probable cause of death.

Neels added that Julius had been the last one to see the child alive, at around 11pm on the evening of February 2.

He said that Sheppard had apparently last seen the child alive at around 5pm on February 2, before Julius took the child with him when he visited another house, in the same street, while Sheppard was at her shanty with “another boyfriend”.

Neels said that according to Julius, he returned to Sheppard’s shanty at around 11pm with the child but was met by a closed door, and Sheppard told him “not to come in” as she was “busy” and to “leave the child in front of the door”.

Julius alleges that he then wrapped the child in a towel and left her there.

Sheppard, however, claimed that Julius had told her that the child was “playing with her cousins” when she enquired about the child’s whereabouts the next morning but that she made no further effort to locate the child, even going back to sleep inside the shack.

Neels said that even after a friend had asked Sheppard where her child was and told her that a child’s body had been discovered in Witdam (at around noon) she did not make any effort to look for the child and only replied that she was “not feeling well” and that “they (the friend) should go and look”.

Neels added that Sheppard had spent the remainder of Saturday without making any attempt to look for the child and only asked Julius again on Sunday morning where the child was.

Julius allegedly replied by telling her that he “wanted to spite her, as she was with another man”.

Neels stated that later that morning, Sheppard’s friend again asked her if her child had been found and Sheppard did not reply. The friend then forced her to go to the police station to report the child missing.

Neels said that after questioning Sheppard, he found her answers to be “unsatisfactory” and that she, together with Julius, was arrested later that afternoon.

“If it was my child that was missing, I would search for her and open a missing person’s case with police immediately. However, in this case, the mother just went about her business as normal and even went back to sleep, with absolutely no effort to locate the child,” Neels said.

He added that it was still unclear how the child’s body ended up in the veld, and he speculated by saying that the child could have either incurred her injuries (a cracked skull and dislocated shoulder) while walking with Julius and then been thrown into the veld by him or possibly found dead by Sheppard, who then “got rid of the body”.

Neels stated that the couple had given no co-operation or assistance that could shed any more light on the circumstances surrounding the disappearance and death of the child.

The couple’s legal representative, yesterday halted court proceedings before Neels was taken under cross-examination, after he indicated that he would be withdrawing as the lawyer of at least one of the accused, due to “different instructions” and a “conflict of interest”.

Magistrate Conrad Prinsloo replied by saying that he got the impression that the two accused were placing the blame on each other, leading to the legal representative to withdraw.

Prinsloo granted a postponement of the matter to later this month, when Neels is expected to continue testifying in the bail application.