Below is a comprehensive account of the fifth day of proceedings in the trial against Kelly Smith, Jacquen Appollis, and Steveno van Rhyn, who stand accused of complicity in the mysterious disappearance of six-year-old Joshlin Smith.
Day 5 of the Joshlin Smith trial: Here’s what happened
Taking the stand on Day 5 was Detective Sergeant Meyer Milstein, an officer from the Family Violence, Child Protection, and Sexual Offences (FCS) Unit.
He outlined the painstaking efforts law enforcement undertook immediately after Joshlin went missing, shedding light on various theories, searches, and interviews that characterised the case’s early days.
Milstein testified that investigators initially considered a tip suggesting that “Ayanda” and Lourentia Lombaard—the latter once an accused but now a State witness—could have abducted Joshlin for muti-related purposes. This line of inquiry led them to search Ayanda’s home on 23 February 2024, but detectives found no trace of the missing child.
Interviews with Kelly Smith and Jacquen Appollis revealed they were frequent users of ‘tik’ (crystal meth). Acting on information about a supplier known only as “Gums,” Milstein and his colleagues obtained a search warrant for a house on Ryland Street, believed to be the couple’s drug source.
A raid followed, but police emerged empty-handed—neither Joshlin nor any substantial evidence of her whereabouts was discovered.
Det. Milstein said the initial interviews with Smith, Appollis, and Lombaard yielded glaring inconsistencies.
He struggled to establish a solid timeline, as each person’s account evolved or clashed with others’. Shortly after the investigation began, Appollis moved back in with his parents, while Kelly remained in a place law enforcement could easily locate her.
The detective recalled pushback from members of the Patriotic Alliance, who allegedly demanded the arrests of van Rhyn and Ayanda based on swirling rumours.
Milstein refused, insisting he could only act on concrete evidence. Around this time, he also interviewed van Rhyn—either as a witness or, potentially, a suspect—in hopes of clarifying conflicting accounts.
Milstein cross-examinations expose lapses in defence
Following the detective’s testimony, each defence counsel took turns probing Milstein’s methods and observations:
Van Rhyn’s lawyer, Advocate Nobahle Mkabayi, focused on why her client was deemed a “person of interest” rather than a formal suspect.
Milstein explained that a person of interest is either a key witness or someone whose involvement cannot be ruled out until more evidence surfaces.
Kelly Smith’s lawyer Rinesh Sivnarain zeroed in on Milstein’s impression of Kelly’s demeanour.
The detective maintained that Kelly showed no visible emotion he could label as sadness or distress. The lawyer then noted Kelly’s use of antidepressants, suggesting this might explain her muted behaviour. Milstein responded that he was aware she used crystal meth but did not know about antidepressants.
In a botched attempt at highlighting potential missteps in how Milstein recorded statements, Appollis’ attorney Advocate Fannie Harmse questioned whether interviews conducted in Afrikaans were accurately translated into English.
The detective insisted he read everything back to Appollis, translating on the spot.
Judge Nathan Erasmus repeatedly intervened when the lawyer probed details the court deemed irrelevant or for which it lacked documentation at the time.
Harmse, left with little else to swing at, put it on record that Milstein had not only offered Appollis and Kelly a lift to a relative’s home out of concern for their safety at the time, but also discouraged them from partaking in the search for Smith.
Detective Milstein, however, while he admitted to offering the suspects lifts to the station for interviews on certain occasions, stated that he did not recall offering Appollis the said lift.
References to alleged torture and missing leads
Although torture claims by Appollis and van Rhyn have previously come to light, suggesting they were coerced into confessions, Milstein asserted he witnessed no such brutality. He also reiterated that while he explored many leads—some politically motivated—only verifiable evidence guided his investigative actions.
Moreover, mention of Gayton McKenzie—a high-profile politician—surfaced in cross-examination.
Defence counsel suggested McKenzie booked accommodation for Appollis and van Rhyn, implying a possible link to the alleged torture or intimidation both suspects placed on record in their respective plea statements.
Milstein claimed no direct knowledge of that arrangement, pointing instead to the broader “community unrest” swirling around the high-stakes search for Joshlin.
As Day 5 concluded, Judge Erasmus adjourned the session until 09:00 on Monday, 10 March 2025, sending Appollis and van Rhyn to Malmesbury Correctional Centre and Kelly Smith to Langebaan SAPS cells for the weekend.
