Day 12 of the Joshlin Smith trial was dominated by intense cross-examinations, with defence lawyers seizing every opportunity to challenge witness testimony.
Joshlin Smith trial today: Here’s a breakdown of what happened
The protected witness, who previously testified about seeing Kelly Smith and Jacquen Appollis in a heated argument the day before Joshlin disappeared, was grilled by Steveno van Rhyn’s lawyer, Advocate Nobahle Mkabayi.
Later, the State’s key witness, Lourentia Lombaard, returned to the stand, facing a tough round of questioning from Jacquen’s lawyer, Advocate Fannie Harmse.
Defence challenges the protected witness’s testimony
The day began with Advocate Mkabayi aggressively questioning the protected witness over discrepancies in her sworn statement. The witness originally stated that she learned about Joshlin’s disappearance on Monday, 19 February 2024, but in January 2025, her statement was amended to reflect that she received the information on Tuesday, 20 February 2024.
When asked why she had not recognized this mistake earlier, she explained that she was exhausted when she read the statement and may have overlooked the discrepancy.
Tensions flared when Mkabayi tried to discredit the witness, suggesting that she could not have been walking when she saw Kelly and Jacquen arguing, as she claimed.
The witness firmly stood by her account, maintaining that she was en route to a hair salon when she saw the altercation. At one point, the judge intervened, overruling several of Mkabayi’s questions, leading to a brief but heated exchange between the two.
When it was Kelly Smith’s lawyer’s turn to cross-examine, the defence focused on the witness’s distance from the incident. While the witness could not provide an exact measurement, the judge clarified that she was 64 meters away from Kelly’s house when she observed the confrontation.
The defence also pointed out that Kelly denies ever arguing with Jacquen that day or dragging Joshlin inside.
Further inconsistencies emerged when the witness was asked about the timing of the altercation. In her original statement from February 2024, she claimed it took place between 19:00 and 20:00, but by August 2024, she had changed her statement, saying it occurred much earlier.
The defence highlighted that this amendment came after the accused had already been arrested and court proceedings had begun, raising concerns about whether her testimony had been influenced by later developments in the case.
Lourentia Lombaard faces tough cross-examination
After the protected witness stepped down, the State’s key witness, Lourentia Lombaard, returned to the stand for questioning by Steveno van Rhyn’s lawyer.
The defence immediately introduced Lombaard’s confession, having her confirm that it was read back to her after she made it.
The questioning quickly turned to minor inconsistencies in her personal details, such as an incorrect statement about her highest level of education. Lombaard admitted that she mistakenly wrote Standard 7 (Grade 9) instead of Grade 7 on her original statement.
Defence lawyers also probed Lombaard’s past drug use, trying to establish when she began using drugs and how frequently she smoked. She admitted to smoking tik on days when her boyfriend, Ayanda, gave her money, sometimes up to three times a day, though it was inconsistent.
The defence attempted to use this history to challenge her reliability as a witness.
The focus then shifted to the events of Sunday, 18 February 2024. The defence challenged Lombaard’s timeline, questioning how she could be certain of the times she mentioned.
She testified that Ayanda’s car wash coworkers had informed him of the time when they arrived that morning, helping her estimate her movements. However, when pressed about her assumption that she left home at 07:45 a.m., she admitted it was based on her own estimation.
A key point of contention arose when the defence tried to dispute Lombaard’s claim that a local detective confronted Jacquen about stolen chickens on Sunday, 18 February.
The defence insisted that this incident took place on Saturday, 17 February, and that Jacquen had left with the detective in a bakkie that day.
Lombaard, however, stood by her testimony, recalling that she had asked Ayanda for tik on Saturday and visited Kelly’s house, where she was told that Jacquen was not there because he had gone to see friends at a farm.
She remained firm that the chicken theft confrontation took place on Sunday morning.
To support their argument, the defence entered into evidence a statement from the detective in question, identified as Kholekile Donnie Ngoma. The State objected, arguing that if the statement was introduced, the detective would need to testify.
The defence ultimately proceeded with entering the statement, but before it could be read into the record, the judge adjourned the session for the day.
With tensions mounting and critical testimony under scrutiny, the trial is expected to resume with further analysis of the detective’s statement.
The cross-examination of Lourentia Lombaard is also likely to continue, with the defence pressing for more inconsistencies to weaken her credibility.
As the case moves forward, the courtroom remains on edge, with each testimony shaping the direction of the trial.
