Joshlin Smith trial: Defence asks why prosecutors relied on 2 different versions against accused
Legal teams started presenting their final arguments on Tuesday for presiding Judge Nathan Erasmus to deliver his judgment on Friday.
Kelly Smith (right), Jacquen Appolis and Stevano van Rhyn appeared in the high court sitting at the Saldanha Bay Multi-Purpose Centre in Saldanha Bay on 3 March 2025. Picture: Carlo Petersen/EWN
SALDANHA BAY - A defence attorney in the Joshlin Smith trial has argued why prosecutors chose to rely on two different versions as evidence against the accused.
Legal teams started presenting their final arguments on Tuesday for presiding Judge Nathan Erasmus to deliver his judgment on Friday.
The missing child's mother, Kelly Smith, Jacquen Appollis and Steveno van Rhyn are charged with kidnapping and human trafficking.
Defence attorney Fanie Harmsem for Appollis questioned why the State was relying on two mutually exclusive versions as evidence against the accused.
Prosecutor Zelda Swanepoel argued the State would use the testimony of a former accused turned State witness, Lourencia Lombaard, and the confession statements of Appollis and van Rhyn to prove the accused are guilty.
Harmse argued if the State believed Appollis's confession to be true, why did they need to obtain a version that contradicts his client's statement from Lombaard?
"My lord, here I submit that the two versions... The 2024 statement evidence and the extra cural statement by accused number one are two mutually exclusive versions. They can't both be true."
Lawyers for van Rhyn and Smith are expected to present their final arguments when the trial resumes on Wednesday.
ALSO READ: Joshlin Smith trial: State says former accused turned state witness's testimony is reliable