Nathaniel Veltman killed four members of the Afzaal family and left a little boy orphaned, but lawyer Christopher Hicks told jurors that the defence believes there simply isn’t enough evidence to convict him of first-degree murder.
The defence presented its closing submissions Tuesday morning in the historic London, Ont., attack trial: the first time Canada’s terrorism laws are being put before a jury in a first-degree murder trial.
Veltman drove his pickup truck into a Muslim family out for a walk on June 6, 2021. Salman Afzaal, 46; his 44-year-old wife, Madiha Salman; their 15-year-old daughter, Yumna; and her 74-year-old grandmother, Talat Afzaal, were killed in the attack, while the couple’s nine-year-old son was seriously hurt but survived.
The Crown argued that Veltman was motivated by white nationalist beliefs and spent three months planning the attack. The Crown’s closing submissions began Tuesday afternoon and will resume Wednesday morning.
The defence’s closing submissions
The defence, however, has argued that there is a lack of evidence to allow for the jury to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that Veltman is guilty of first-degree murder, be it through planning and deliberation or under Canada’s terrorism laws.
“Planning is assigned its natural meaning of a calculated scheme or design which has been carefully thought out and the nature and consequences of which have been considered and weighed. On the evidence that we have, Nate Veltman had no such plan and has testified before you that he had no such plan,” Hicks told the court.
“A deliberate act is one that the actor has taken time to weigh the advantages and disadvantages of. Deliberate in this context means considered and not impulsive, carefully thought out, not hasty or rash. Deliberation must take place before the act of murder and consideration, even with an intention to kill, is not a deliberate murder.”
The defence’s position is that Veltman had no time to deliberate killing the Afzaal family, noting that from the time he saw them on the street to the time he turned around and began driving towards them was about 19 seconds.
Additionally, while the Crown has argued that Veltman bought and prepared his truck specifically for the attack, Hicks says the truck was “simply a truck.”
“He bought it because his Chevy Wave failed and he needed transportation to travel the 35 km to his work in Strathroy. So he purchased this used vehicle and consequently purchased a warranty to protect himself for a year. He purchased a grill bar to protect it from off-roading… and he tinted the window because he had always had tinted windows,” he told the jury.
“Suggestions to the contrary by the prosecution on any of these points lacks any evidence. They’re speculative and conjecture.”
As for first-degree murder by way of terrorist activity, which does not require that a murder be premeditated, Hicks suggested that the document written by Veltman, ‘A White Awakening,’ was not a manifesto as described by the Crown but was “in compliance with his personality” and simply an example of him “venting to an imaginary audience.”
At no point did Veltman send the document to anyone and at no point within it does he mention violence or murder, Hicks said, though it does contain vague and ambiguous terms, including a suggestion to make lives “uncomfortable” for Muslims.
“Nate Veltman was a loner. Isolated in his childhood and his teenage years, living alone in an apartment in London, Ontario all by himself. Nate Veltman was a loner, he had no audience, he had no individual or group to whom he could or would send A White Awakening.”
Twice in his closing submissions to the jury, Hicks accepted that if the jury believes what Veltman told Det. Micah Bourdeau in two interviews conducted within the 14 hours after his arrest, then the jury likely has already made its decision.
However, he suggested that Veltman’s statements to Bourdeau are compromised by circumstances including the interplay between Veltman’s Autism Spectrum Disorder, Obsessive Compulsive Disorder and personality disorder – as diagnosed by the defence’s expert witness, psychiatrist Dr. Julian Gojer – the “rebound” or lingering effect of the psilocybin he had ingested roughly 40 hours earlier, and the conditions surrounding his arrest and custody at London Police Headquarters.
“For instance, it was brought to our attention that Nate Veltman at one point spoke virtually without pause for 15 pages of transcript. You saw the video, it would seem that he hardly drew a breath the entire time.”
Hicks suggests Veltman’s “frantic display” confirms his testimony, that he was desperately trying to rationalize and defend what he had done.
“We must also consider that this interrogation process, or interview as Det. Bourdeau called it, was a planned exercise to break Nate Veltman. It was designed to break him.”
Hicks also reminded the jury that Veltman testified that his words to Bourdeau were “not true.”
The defence suggested that Veltman drove at the Afzaal family in hopes of freeing himself of his obsessions with so-called Muslim grooming gangs. Hicks raised the question of whether Veltman was capable of forming the intent for murder and whether he did, in fact, form that intent.
“He would still be responsible for the deaths of these people. He would still be guilty of homicide… but he would be guilty of manslaughter and not murder. Where there is a death but the death is not intended, that is manslaughter.”
Lastly, Hicks noted that because the accused testified – which is not required by law – the defence counsel must address the jury first “and with no right of reply” after the Crown presents its closing submissions.
“So, I would then ask you, in listening to the Crown’s closing address, to bear in mind my comments and to put yourself in my shoes as it were and say ‘what might the defence say to that?’ As I understand it, that is part of your duty as jurors as well.”
The Crown begins its submissions
Following the defence’s closing submissions, Crown attorney Fraser Ball began his address to the jury.
“Nathaniel Veltman had a message for Muslims. That message was strong, that message was brutal, and that message was terrifying: leave this country or you and your loved ones could be next.”
He told the jurors that while simplicity is not the guiding principle in making their decision, “there are a lot of simple, highly reasonable explanations for Mr. Veltman’s behaviour.”
Ball suggested that Veltman appeared excited and eager in his first police interview because that’s how he felt at the time, and that he appeared tired and withdrawn in the second statement because he was no longer full of adrenaline and had slept very little. He said Veltman drove his “heavily financed truck” as fast as he could into the Afzaals because he wanted to kill them and suggested that Veltman told Bourdeau that he had decided to commit a terrorist attack because he had, indeed, decided to commit a terrorist attack.
The evidence is “overwhelming,” Ball said, pointing to eyewitness accounts, surveillance video of the incident, DNA evidence, crash data from the truck, photographs of the scene, the 911 call, the document ‘A White Awakening’ and Veltman’s statements to Bourdeau.
“Mr. Veltman made the conscious choice to fill himself full of hate for Muslims. He made the conscious choice to plan and execute a terrorist attack and he did all of this to make a statement he hoped would resonate on a global level. All of this was a performance.”
He noted that in court, Veltman testified that at the last moment, he hesitated and tried to steer away, but there is no evidence of an evasive left turn at the last second. In fact, Ball suggested, evidence suggests the turn to the left was not to avoid them.
“The force and location of the impact (on the truck) tell you the opposite: that Mr. Veltman was aiming.”
Additionally, Ball said that turning away at the last second does not constitute a legal defence and he suggested it actually undermines the argument that he couldn’t understand or appreciate the consequences of his actions at the time.
The Crown also sought to undermine the credibility of expert witness Dr. Gojer, saying a “heavily biased expert is no expert.”
“Dr. Gojer agrees that if you remove the OCD and the ASD, then it weakens the entire analysis. That is a real problem for Dr. Gojer and the defence. Because you, members of the jury, have very good reason to believe the OCD and ASD should be removed from the analysis.”
Ball noted that during a month-long stay at a hospital in Ottawa under Gojer, Veltman did not meet the criteria for a diagnosis of OCD under the DSM-V. While Gojer testified that OCD can “wax and wane” he also told court it is difficult to treat and doesn’t just go away on its own.
As for the ASD, Gojer suggested it could develop out of trauma but there is reason to doubt Veltman’s accounting of his traumatic childhood, as his father painted a picture of a happy childhood and Gojer was denied access to speak with Veltman’s mother or siblings, nor did he receive any of Veltman’s previous medical files. Gojer also testified that ASD can be hereditary.
“Consider this: Dr. Gojer did not have access to a wealth of important information to support his ASD diagnosis,” Ball said, but he did not perform any of the established tests for ASD in making his diagnosis.
Under testimony, Gojer said questionnaires for ASD do not replace clinical evaluation, yet much of his hypothesis about the magic mushrooms having a “rebound” effect on Veltman was supported by a single online survey, Ball raised.
“Out of 1,400 respondents, only three described symptoms even close to what Mr. Veltman described. There’s no way to verify the veracity of the results of the survey.”
The other literature Gojer relied on for his hypothesis was focused on withdrawal from SSRIs, not mushrooms, which Ball said was comparing apples to oranges.
Ball ended the day’s proceedings by stating that “Mr. Veltman had the intent required” for first-degree murder charges.
The Crown’s closing submissions will continue Wednesday morning.