Day 23 of the Joshlin Smith trial will resume with the continued testimony of Captain Seekoe, who is expected to face prolonged cross-examination after a challenging day in court for the prosecution.
What to expect from the Joshlin Smith trial on Day 23
On Monday, the court heard critical video evidence showing the alleged confession of Steveno van Rhyn, recorded in two separate interview sessions on 5 March 2024.
But much of the footage was marred by poor audio quality and inconsistencies in the accompanying transcript—issues that are now set to come under even greater scrutiny.
Seekoe, the officer who completed Steveno’s statement after Colonel Ian Clark suspended his interview, is likely to be grilled by the defence regarding the chain of custody of the video evidence, what was captured in the footage, and whether Steveno’s rights were upheld throughout the process.
The court is also waiting on Judge Nathan Erasmus’s private review of the full video file, following his criticisms over the state’s failure to present a coherent and complete transcript.
The State is expected to continue leading Seekoe through his evidence today and may attempt to reinforce its position by introducing a “pointing-out” component—an element of Steveno’s statement where he allegedly indicated or physically demonstrated knowledge relevant to Joshlin’s disappearance.
If introduced, this could become a focal point in assessing the admissibility of his statement.
Readers can follow the live trial coverage today as the courtroom battle intensifies.
Recap of Day 22: Key testimonies and new revelations
The State began Day 22 by playing back-to-back video recordings of Steveno van Rhyn’s interview, captured at the FCS offices in Saldanha Bay on 5 March 2024.
Colonel Ian Clark conducted the first interview session but ended it after Steveno complained of hunger and fatigue. Clark testified that Steveno appeared alert enough to follow instructions and confirmed his rights were explained and understood. However, no formal confession was recorded during this session.
Captain Seekoe later resumed the process and began recording Steveno’s statement in a follow-up session.
This second video showed Steveno becoming visibly emotional—at one point, he placed his head on the table and closed his eyes for an extended period.
The audio throughout the footage was severely compromised. Key words and phrases were inaudible, and important names such as “Kelly,” “Boeta,” and “Ma Ka Lima” (Phumza Sigaqa) were only partially discernible.
Despite this, the judge indicated the video did appear to show Steveno placing himself and the other accused in close proximity to Joshlin’s last known whereabouts on the day she disappeared.
Judge Erasmus was critical of the State’s handling of the evidence, particularly the transcript provided, which he described as incomplete and missing vital details.
He noted that omissions and inconsistencies had the potential to misrepresent the context of the video, stating, “We are wasting time,” and indicating that if this was all the State had, the confession would likely not be admitted.
However, the judge withheld a final ruling to allow time to review the full video privately and assess its evidentiary value in combination with a potential pointing-out.
In addition to Clark and Seekoe, the court also heard from Dr Hendrick Jacobus Nel, who examined both Steveno and Jacquen Appollis on 5 March 2024.
Dr Nel confirmed that Steveno reported falling off a bakkie and showed signs of soft tissue injuries. No bruising or abrasions suggested more severe trauma.
Jacquen’s examination revealed a swollen foot, a bruised eye, and contusions on his left leg, but Dr Nel said he could not conclusively determine whether these were caused by assault or accidental injury.
With Captain Seekoe expected to remain on the stand today and additional video footage still pending—including Jacquen Appollis’s interview—the proceedings remain fixed on the credibility and admissibility of these confessions.
The trial-within-a-trial continues under high pressure as the defence prepares to challenge the integrity of the recordings and the circumstances under which they were obtained.
