Front Burner - Following the trial of accused killer of Muslim family

Episode Date: September 25, 2023

It’s been just over two years since four members of the Afzaal family were killed after a truck drove into them on a summer evening in London, Ontario. Now, 22-year-old Nathaniel Veltman is on trial for four counts of first-degree murder, one count of attempted murder and terrorism charges for what prosecutors are calling an attack motivated by “white nationalism”. An earlier version of this episode incorrectly stated that Anders Breivik killed 77 people in Norway in 2021. That date is incorrect. The killings happened in 2011. So far, the jury has heard testimonies from the detective that interviewed him, arresting officers, audio of the 911 call and have seen footage Veltman’s statements to police hours after the attack. Kate Dubinski of CBC London takes us through the details of the trial, what members of the Muslim community are saying about the case and the impact it could have on the country’s terrorism laws.

In the Dragon's Den, a simple pitch can lead to a life-changing connection. Watch new episodes of Dragon's Den free on CBC Gem, brought to you in part by National Angel Capital Organization, empowering Canada's entrepreneurs through angel investment and industry connections. This is a CBC Podcast. Hi everyone, I'm Tamara Kandaker. Before we begin today, a warning. This story contains distressing details. In June 2021, five members of a Muslim family were out for an evening walk in London, Ontario, when a truck struck and killed them. The attack, survived by a nine-year-old boy who was orphaned and seriously injured,

sent shockwaves across the country. Earlier this month, the trial of the man accused of killing the Afzals, 22-year-old Nathaniel Veltman, began in Windsor, Ontario. Veltman, who's pleading not guilty, is facing four counts of first-degree murder. He's also been charged with terrorism, and the court case has sparked international interest, with prosecutors arguing that the alleged terrorist act was motivated by white nationalism. Kate Dubinsky is a reporter for CBC London, and she's been covering the story. She's on the show today to talk about the details revealed in court so far

and explain why legal experts are saying this trial will test Canada's terrorism laws. Hi, Kate. Thanks for being here. Thanks very much, Tamara. So today we're going to focus on what's happened in court so far, the evidence and arguments from the trial. But before we get into it, I want to spend a bit of time on the family at the center of this tragedy. Can you remind us about the Afzals? Yeah, so they are a family of five, and they were originally from Pakistan. They came to Canada in 2007. Medea was 44 years old, and she was working on a PhD in environmental engineering. She'd worked in that field for three years before coming to Canada. Uh, her husband was Salman. He's 46 years old. He was a physiotherapist and he actually worked in seniors homes during the pandemic.

Uh, he was apparently always smiling and just had a really positive energy and was really upbeat and ready to help with all the residents. And then their 15-year-old daughter, Yumna, was a grade 9 student. She loved art, and she had actually created this amazing mural in the basement of her school. And then Salman's mom, Talat, she was an artist and she was a teacher and she was visiting the family for a few weeks because of COVID. She usually lived in the greater Toronto area with another brother, but she was just visiting the family. And then Medea and Selman's nine-year-old son was badly hurt. He's the only member of the family who survived, and he's now an orphan. He's living with extended family members.

Yeah. And this attack, it was such a shock for the whole country, but it was particularly devastating to people in London. This family was part of the community, and it was also shocking for Muslim Canadians. So what has been the mood at the courthouse during this trial? You know, when the attack happened, there was so many stories that we heard of Muslim Canadians who talked about the Islamophobia that they face every day, and particularly people who are visibly Muslim. And so that has carried on into

the courthouse. So people were really bracing for what was going to be coming out in the trials, some of the hatred that we were going to be hearing about from the accused, and also maybe some of the backlash that people who share his views would lob at the Muslim community. But there's been people in the courthouse from the Muslim community every single day, and they told me that they're there because they want to support the family, but they also really want to be visible and show Canadians and show Nathaniel Veltman and show people who share his views that they're watching and that they want justice. We're here for solidarity for the victims, for the family, for the London community, and for

people across the world that have been affected and hurt by these actions. It's very difficult for us, but we know that we're here to have justice served. Obviously, the trial is being closely watched by the Muslim community, but there's a lot of legal interest in it too, right? Because Feldman is not only charged with four counts of first-degree murder and one count of attempted murder, he's also facing terrorism charges.

So what is unique about this case legally? Well, yeah, like you said, he's charged with terrorism, which means that prosecutors not only have to prove that what he did, the attack was planned and deliberate, that's the first degree murder part, but also the terrorism part, which is that he was motivated by political, religious, or ideological ideas. And so this is the very first time that first-degree murder charges are being heard alongside terrorism charges. And so it's the first time that our terrorism laws are being argued before a jury since Canada passed terrorism laws,

and it could really set a precedent for how these types of cases are tried in the future. Let's get into what's been going on in the trial. So it's ongoing. We're heading into week three of evidence and what's expected to be an eight-week trial. So take me back to the Crown's opening statement in early September. What was the overall case that they were making against Nathaniel Veltman? So they came right out and said, you know, the federal prosecutor, Sarah Shaikh, said that the Afzal family was intentionally targeted because they were Muslims. So, she sort of laid out what the case was, you know, that the accused

went to work, and then he came home, and he decided this was the day that he was going to go out and kill a Muslim family. She also talked about the fact that he was inspired by others who had far-right ideology, who had white nationalism as their ideology, and that he sped up to kill this particular family because of the clothes they were wearing. A couple members of the family on that occasion in June 2021 were wearing traditional Pakistani clothes. And so the idea is that he was inspired by others, and also that he really wanted to inspire other young men or other people who are white nationalists to commit similar acts. And, you know, the Crown said that they would show that he was a white nationalist with these

extreme right-wing views, that he blamed Muslims for crimes that he thought they were committing, and that he wanted to send a message to other minorities, other Muslims, that, you know, that he would not stand for it, and that white he would not stand for it and that white people would not stand for the crimes that these people were supposedly committing. And can you tell me more about this idea that he was allegedly inspired by white nationalists? I know that there were some manifestos found in his apartment, right? Yeah, so he actually says in a police statement that he, that was videotaped and played for the jury that, you know, he came home from work that day and he went on his computer for sort of for inspiration. And his biggest inspiration was Brenton Tarrant,

who was the attacker of two mosques in New Zealand in 2019, where 51 people were killed. Under his name online is a racist manifesto claiming that white Christians are under threat from other religions and races. He also cites... He said that this guy was one of his heroes. He also pointed to Anders Breivik, who killed 77 people in Norway. Hours before his murderous rampage, he posted this disturbing video and 1,500-page manifesto online. It's a racist, anti-Islamic rant calling on European right-wingers to embrace martyrdom. The jury will also, the Crown prosecutor said that the jury will also see his own alleged manifesto.

He called it a white awakening. It was found on his computers in his house. And in it, he sort of decries mass immigration, outlines his radical white nationalist political views, and says that what he really wants to do is make life as uncomfortable as possible for Muslims so that they leave, you know, non-majority Muslim countries. I want to ask you about the... In the Dragon's Den, a simple pitch can lead to a life-changing connection. Watch new episodes of Dragon's Den free on CBC Gem.

Brought to you in part by National Angel Capital Organization. Empowering Canada's entrepreneurs through angel investment and industry connections. Hi, it's Ramit Sethi here. You may have seen my money show on Netflix. I've been talking about money for 20 years. I've talked to millions of people, and I have some startling numbers to share with you. Did you know that of the people I speak to, 50% of them do not know their own household income? That's not a typo.

50%. That's because money is confusing. In my new book and podcast, Money for Couples, I help you and your partner create a financial vision together. To listen to this podcast, just search for Money for Couples. The evidence that's been presented so far, but we're beginning to get a better sense of who Nathaniel Veltman is, and you kind of touched on his politics, but what is the portrait of him that's emerged in in court so far you know the big the biggest thing that i think i would say is that he was a really

isolated young man so he talked about in his video statement he talks about um you know being in his house by himself in his apartment by himself all the time he He dropped out of college because he couldn't handle it. And he said that when he turned 18, he fell down this rabbit hole of learning about, trying to learn about politics, trying to learn about the election of Donald Trump. He says he figured out through research online that the media, the mainstream media, was not telling the whole truth about what he calls minority on white crime. He calls it a rabbit hole that he fell down, and he really felt like he had absolutely no one to talk to. He was suicidal, he was depressed at one point, and he really said that, you know, he had no one in his life, and so he had nothing to lose. And he says at one

point that if he had someone, he might not have done it, but he really felt like he had nothing to lose. Wow. Okay, so it's important to remember that this is an ongoing jury trial. None of this has been proven in court, and as we've mentioned, Feltman is pleading not guilty. But let's zoom in on some of the evidence that's been shown to the jury so far. So first, there was a disturbing video of the moments before the attack. And what did that video show? Yeah, so the video shows you can sort of see in the corner of the screen, it's from a video surveillance camera that's on a store, sort of kitty corner to where the attack happened. And you see the Afzal family coming to an intersection and they were out for this, you know, late evening stroll. It was a really nice day in June.

And then you see a black truck that drives past the family off screen. We're told that it does a U-turn, turns around, and then right away you see it coming back onto the screen and it drives right into them. So the video actually cuts off right before it hits them. But you can tell that there's this sort of, these tense moments watching this video because you know, you can tell that there's this sort of these tense moments watching this video, because you know exactly what's going to happen. And the defense has has agreed that that is what happened that he, you know, the data shows from his truck that the pedal was all the way down 100% depressed, he never touched the brakes. So he was aiming for this family. There was also video of Veltman's

arrest as well as audio of a 911 call that reveal what happened in the immediate aftermath of the attack, right? Can you describe those to us? Yeah, so you see the black Dodge Ram pulling into a parking lot of sort of this mall, this strip mall in London, Ontario. And he pulls right up next to a cabbie who was just waiting for calls, drinking his coffee. He had just gotten on shift. And he tells the cab, the cab driver testified. He tells the cab driver, you call the police. I killed someone, call the police. The cab driver is sort of, you know, obviously taken aback, says, do you need help? And he tells them, no, call the cops right now. So the cabbie calls 911 and he puts it on speaker because Veltman is sort of yelling in the background and you can hear him on this 911 call saying, it was me. It was me that

did it. Come arrest me. Okay. What's the plate on the truck? Can the police cruisers, so at this time the dispatch center was being inundated with 911 calls about the crash that had happened with the family, but also of this black truck sort of weaving in and out of traffic, running red lights through the northwest part of London. So you see this video of the cruisers coming into the parking lot, and Veltman immediately gets out of his car, puts his hands on his head, he gets down on his knees, he's wearing a black sort of military style helmet, he's wearing a bulletproof vest and he surrenders. Yeah, this stuff is also out for the public to see and it's absolutely chilling.

The jury was also shown a video of Veltman being brought into London police headquarters. He gets processed, he has his fingerprints taken, and then he's put into some sort of holding cell. And this is where he eventually provides statements to police. And I understand that they were two very different statements, hours apart, right? Why don't we start with the first one? Tell me about what he said in that interview. Why don't we start with the first one? Tell me about what he said in that interview. He had been in the cell. He spoke to a lawyer, but he tells the cop that eventually comes in to interview him that he didn't like the advice that he got, but that he'll get, you know, he says, I want the world to know why I did what I did. So I'm going to, I'm just going to tell you. The detective is sort of very well versed in how to talk to people. So he just says, you know, I give you the floor, go ahead, tell us, tell me why you did. And Veltman goes on this really long rant about,

you know, falling down the rabbit hole, about his politics, about why he did what he did. He says, you know, he thought that maybe he wouldn't be able to do it. But that he had this huge sense of relief when he actually did it. He thought it was, you know, he thought it was going to be more difficult. But, you know, felt sort of happy that he had gotten it over with. He did say it was, you know, it was kind of a burden off of his back that he finally got to do it. He also says, I know it was terrorism. I don't want to get a lighter sentence. It was terrorism.

I'm not going to try to get a lighter sentence by saying it was just murder, not terrorism. This interview takes hours, and he really kind of details exactly why he did what he did. Yeah. And I read that that interview was finished around 4 a.m. and then the morning after the attack, more subdued. The whole time he's wearing this white t-shirt that he had made where he's got a, he's spray painted a black cross on the front and back. And he's boasting about the fact that it was meant to look like a crusader shirt in the first video. In the second one, it sort of happens at around 9.30 in the morning. So he spent a couple of hours in a cell. And he comes back, he's quieter, he's calling the detective, sir, and yes, sir, no, sir. He's saying he's not answering all the questions. He doesn't want to.

He is saying, you know, I think things are sinking in. I think I might be in shock. He says, he's kind of solicitous. He says, you know, I want to answer all your questions, but really right now I don't want to answer any questions about why exactly I did this thing or what exactly happened. At this current time, I don't wish to speak on the attack that I did. He's sort of much more, I guess, subdued is the only word I can think of. He's also shivering and cold, and he eventually gets a blanket from the detective who sort of tells him, you know, it's probably a physiological reaction to what you did. In this second interview, it seems to be pretty central to the defense. So let's talk about that. According to the agreed statement of facts,

you mentioned the defense basically agreed Nathaniel Veltman did drive this truck into the Offsell family. So he's admitted to having done that, but he's still pleading not guilty. So how does that work? Yeah, so he, so the defense is really, I mean, the Crown has to prove that it was planned and deliberate and that it was based on an ideology. But the defense seems to be really focusing on the police treatment of the accused. So the detective that questioned him was on the by the London police to get this vulnerable person. You know, he's cold in a cell. He's alone. He doesn't get much to eat or drink, although he does get some food and water.

And that this is sort of protocol to break him down and get him to confess. Now, the detective, of course, denied all that and said that he was treated just like anyone else would be treated, and that he wasn't concerned about Veltman's mental health. But the defense certainly asked a lot of questions about, you know, why didn't alarm bells go off for you when he talks about his prior depression? Or Feltman says at one point that he had done shrooms, psilocybin, the night before the attack, why that didn't sort of trigger something in the detective that, you know, something was wrong with this guy's state of mind. The detective said, you know, it would have been more, it would have been more of an alarm bell if this guy wasn't feeling sort of shaky and isolated in the hours after the attack. But

it does seem that that's what the defense is going towards, that this, that maybe the client's state of mind was not quite where it should be, and the cops maybe should have done more to investigate that. Now, I will. And the cops maybe should have done more to to investigate that. Now, I will say that the police officer also says we had to interview him in the middle of the night because we didn't know what we didn't know. And we didn't know if there were other attacks coming, if he was working with other people. So he the detective really stressed that they needed to talk to him overnight and couldn't just wait because they didn't know what else was coming. And so I guess at this point, we also don't know if

Nathaniel Veltman is going to testify. We don't know. No, I think what we can expect in the next little while is, you know, we're hearing from more police officers who interacted with him in the hours after his arrest, as well as the officers that went through his computer and his hard drive and his manifesto and all that stuff. And then I think we're also going to be hearing from experts about terrorist ideology and white nationalism and how that might have played a role in Nathaniel Veltman's thinking. that might have played a role in Nathaniel Veltman's thinking. So Kate, in the weeks to come, what do you think are the biggest questions that are left to answer here? I think the biggest questions is how will the defense play out? I think that that will be the biggest question, as well as how did he come to, you know, we heard in his own words

how he sort of fell down this rabbit hole of white nationalism, but how did that go from, you know, you're sitting at your computer and you're thinking these thoughts to actually committing what is alleged to be a terrorist act. And I think that that will be an interesting question. Definitely. Kate, thank you so much for your reporting on this. And thanks for taking the time to do this. Thanks, Tamara. All right. That's all for today.

I'm Tamara Kendacker. Thank you so much for listening, and I will talk to you tomorrow. Thank you.