Lourentia Lombaard burst into tears while being questioned by the judge.
Lourentia Lombaard, the woman who was initially an accused in the kidnapping and human trafficking case of young Joslin Smith, burst into tears and had to be helped from the stand while testifying at the Western Cape high court on Wednesday.
Lombaard, a frequent drug user who was “smoking tik” with the accused on the day before, and of, Joslin’s appearance, turned state witness last year.
The dramatic scene played out as Judge Nathan Erasmus — keeping the measured tone he has used throughout proceedings — asked her about repeated inconsistencies in her statements relating to Sunday 18 February 2024, the day before the then six-year-old Joslin went missing.
Prior to bursting into tears, the judge had been told by the interpreter — Lombaard has been testifying in Afrikaans — that the 32-year-old was “shaking”.
The happenings on the Sunday before Joslin went missing on Monday 19 February 2024 are critical to the case, given it is on this day that money allegedly changed hands between the child’s mother, Kelly Smith, and the woman who allegedly bought Joslin for R20 000.
Returning after a short break, called so that Lombaard could compose herself, Erasmus said she was being treated by paramedics and court would be adjourned.
Proceedings would continue on Thursday, he said, and if Lombaard was unavailable, another witness would be called.
“It’s one of those things that happen in a criminal trial and we just have to work around it.”
Advocate Fanie Harmse, acting for accused one Jacquen “Boeta” Appollis — the partner of Kelly Smith, Joslin’s mother — was cross-examining Lombaard about the happenings on that Sunday before Erasmus took over to clarify matters.
The question was about whether Lombaard’s children had been with her when she went to Smith’s shack and if they were with her when she left the shack. She has given various answers in her evidence in chief and on the stand.
“My lord, please excuse me, it was my error,” said Lombaard.
“I just want to get an understanding of the answer,” said the judge. “Are you saying it was your mistake this morning, by saying that the kids were with you?”
“That’s correct, my lord.”
“Does that mean that the children were not with you in the morning?” asked Erasmus.
“That’s correct, my lord.”
“That is then not the first time that you made that mistake,” said Erasmus, paging through his notebook. “Because in your evidence in chief, when the prosecutor led you, last week, you also said the kids were with you in the morning.
“In fact,” continued Erasmus, “it was not only on those occasions that you told us that. You told us on Friday afternoon that you went around to Kelly’s and took the children with you. Can you remember that?”
“That’s correct, my lord.”
“That was when the prosecutor got very tired [because] you were jumping around on different things in your evidence. You were jumping to when you were arrested much later, and I understand everyone was tired, so I adjourned the court.
“On Monday, when we resumed, we went back to the morning of 18 February. Then you repeated that the children were with you in the morning,” said Erasmus.
“Then, earlier today, Mr Harmse asked you about that [twice]. Can you recall that?”
“That’s correct, my lord.”
“And we have spent almost three quarters of an hour on the same point. And now, suddenly, you are telling me you made a mistake. But you have made the mistake at least four times and it took 44 minutes to get the concession out [of you].”
“That’s correct, my lord.”
“Do you have any explanation for this?” asked Erasmus.
“My lord, I don’t know how to explain this, but I am sorry for that and …”
At this stage the interpreter broke off, telling the judge: “My lord, I see the witness is shaking …”
Erasmus announced a 15-minute break and Lombaard, sobbing, was helped from the stand.
Earlier in proceedings, he had cautioned Lombaard to listen to the questions during Harmse’s cross-examination, as her answers would determine her credibility as a witness.
According to Lombaard’s previous testimony, she knew Smith was going to sell the child to a sangoma for R20 000 and had accepted R1 000 in hush money.
On Monday, she told the court that the fair-skinned, blue-green-eyed Joslin was wanted for her “eyes and skin”.
Lombaard has changed her story on several occasions, when talking to police formally or informally, and to community members.
She has admitted to lying when she was first questioned about Joslin’s disappearance on the day after the child went missing. She also admitted to lying in her confession statement.
She told the court that the statement she made when she turned state witness, was “the whole, whole truth. There is nothing I am hiding.”
The state alleges in its indictment that Smith “communicated during August 2023 her plan to have her children be taken away or sold”.
“The plan was for this to happen in January or February 2024.”
Last week, an evangelist and part-time handyman based in Saldanha Bay testified that Smith had told him in 2023 that she was going to sell the children for R20 000 “but, if [the buyers] didn’t have the full amount, she would settle for R5 000”.
Appollis and Stefano van Rhyn, who is accused number two, as well as Smith, pleaded not guilty to charges of kidnapping and human trafficking when the trial started three weeks ago.
