Front Burner - The trial of Alek Minassian

Episode Date: November 16, 2020

It was one of the most harrowing attacks in recent Canadian history. Alek Minassian plowed into pedestrians on a busy section of Yonge Street in Toronto with a rented van, killing 10 and wounding 16. Just before his attack on Facebook, he wrote of an 'incel rebellion,' aligning himself with the ideology of involuntarily celibate men who blame women for the fact they are alone. Minassian has admitted he carried out the attack. But this week, as he faces trial for murder and attempted murder, his lawyers are expected to argue that their client was not criminally responsible for his actions. CBC's Ioanna Roumeliotis tells us how it could unfold.

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. Hello, I'm Jamie Poisson. Toronto police just getting on scene. Ten people killed, 16 others injured after a van plowed down pedestrian.

He comes in 70 kilometers per speed and hits this guy. He turned around, he looked at me face to face. That's when I saw he was a very angry and scared young guy. Alec Manassian rented a Toronto moving van and used it to kill. He said he did it to start an incel rebellion. Now, Manassian is on trial for 10 counts of first-degree murder and 16 counts of attempted murder. The fact that he killed so many people is not up for debate. But this week, his defense will be trying to argue he's so many people is not up for debate. But this week,

his defense will be trying to argue he's not criminally responsible for what he did, and they'll be using a controversial argument to do it. Joining us now to walk us through why is my colleague, Joanna Romeliades. This is Frontburner. Hi, Joanna. Thank you so much for being here today. Hi, Jamie. Nice to be here. So I want to start today by talking about the logistics of this trial. This is a major murder trial and it's taking place virtually. And can you tell me what that looks like? Sure. It is a little surreal and it speaks to the times. Obviously, we're in a pandemic, so court has been virtual, but it is

such a contradiction to the chaos and the magnitude of that day. It started last week. There were public viewing areas set up at the Metro Toronto Convention Centre with two big viewing rooms. 361 University, where big major trials happened, was not part of the landscape at all. Everybody was virtual. Everybody was remote. But they did set up these public viewing areas, I suppose, in anticipation of public's interest in following this. And I don't know if the pandemic has had a muting effect on people in general, but only maybe I'd say three people from the public were there. About 12 journalists, court staff, obviously security screening as you walk in, but incredibly quiet. So it did have that feeling of, you know, it's, it just didn't,

it was just so contradictory. I think it just, it felt so muted. Right, right. And I want to go over some of the facts that have been agreed upon here by both the prosecution and the defense. And, and can we talk a little bit about what has been presented in trial so far that is that is not in dispute? Right. Well, as you mentioned, the agreed statement of facts is always key to any trial because basically sometimes there's two different sets. In this case, it's an agreed statement. So again, it really is a chronology of events that led up to that day, particularly around the planning that Manassian conducted

as in renting the car and then going to the rental area, telling his dad he was going somewhere else, asking him for a lift to the strip mall where the rental company was at and basically saying he was off to meet a friend or something. He didn't tell him he was renting a van and certainly didn't tell him, he says, what he was intending to do with it.

And it was really just a chronology, but the way you lay out a chronology is reflective in and of itself. And what was interesting about it was that the Crown laid it out and talked about specifically when he hit this victim and when did he hit that person, and then how he sped up to that group of people, how he turned right here and then turned left to get back on Yonge Street. And what know chilling in the recount was the fact that it was referenced several times that at no time did mr monastian stop to either help whoever he hit or you know just to even stop himself that was the that was what you could take away from a rather clinical description of what had happened it was that little that reference that, that came up several times that at no time did he stop.

He was on a destructive path and nothing was stopping him. Right. I was struck by that, watching information about the trial come out last week, because it's easy to kind of forget just how incredibly terrifying this all was. You know, the details too, that came out about people in their cars who were honking their horns just trying to warn the people on the sidewalks to get out of the way. I chased him down. I wanted to get his license plate. He was going over pedestrians one by one.

And then the moment I did it, the first instinct, I started honking my horn nonstop, continuously. It rolled down my window start shouting calling please call please. How terrifying that must have been for the people who are there that day. I know that another piece of information that came out is why the attack ended and can you tell me a little bit more about that? You know it was it was actually one of those interesting, strange details was that one of the people that he hit was carrying a drink and the drink went all over the windshield and he couldn't see.

So he had to stop and got out of the car. And it's been widely reported and we've seen the video of it where he's basically asking, and he did seen the video of it where he he's basically asking and he did mention this was part of the agreed statement of facts too that he wanted the the officer to shoot him he wanted to die by you know police suicide or cop suicide There was a reference that he used. And I point my wallet at the cop with the intent for it to be confused at the gun so that I could be fatally shot. So that little standoff that was widely reported on where the officer in the end did not shoot him,

but they did manage to peacefully arrest him. Scott Giovannetti is a former police instructor. He used the least amount of force possible to end the incident, and I agree with the characterization that he was a hero. That was not part of his plan. His plan was to do what he did and keep going, had that drink not splattered all over his windshield and impede his vision. So it's one of those, you know, the devils in the details, right? And these details are the ones that kind

of strike you about what small things stopped him from potentially hurting so many more people. I know we know that before his attack, he made this post on Facebook. This has been widely reported. And I'm quoting here, the incel rebellion has already begun. We will overthrow all the Chads and Stacys. And this post was referencing this perverted ideology incels involuntary celibates who are primarily straight men who blame women for the fact that they don't have sex or can't find a romantic partner. And I understand that Manassian also said in an interview with police after the attack that he was inspired by these people, by this movement. And can you talk to me about what role this ideology is playing in the trial?

It's definitely been in the agreed statement of facts, and we'll certainly hear more about it. No question, part of the defense will be about him becoming susceptible to extreme ideology. It is, you know, it's twisted for sure. And whether or not, you know, that becomes a key issue in terms of explaining how he got into that mind state, there's no question that will be raised. The only issue is how are they going to do it? How are they going to suggest that this kind of thinking is what ultimately took over his mind when he committed these crimes? What have we heard so far from the prosecution, who I know were making their case last week? What is the argument that the prosecution is making?

case last week. What is the argument that the prosecution is making? They have not had to do much more at this point other than present the agreed statement of facts. The defense, the onus is on the defense to prove that the client, Alec Manassian, is in fact, you know, somebody who can be found not criminally responsible for what he's done. What the Crown has done so far is laid out the agreed statement of facts. It's clear that they have inserted their take on it by mentioning several times that he did not stop. He did not stop. At no time did Mr. Manassian stop. So they are obviously intimating at this point, because we haven't heard much more, that there was a deliberateness to this act. And they did outline very clearly all the planning that went into the day itself, the renting of the vehicle, the lying to the father,

you know, and the Facebook post, which suggested that, you know, not only was this premeditated, but it had been planned thoroughly for several weeks. And that's what he told police in the interrogation video, which the Crown also presented. I didn't choose Yonge and Finch in particular. I was driving down Yonge because I knew it would be a busy area. And then as soon as I saw there were pedestrians, I just decided to go for it. And I think that is obviously for the judge to get a sense of,

you know, again, his demeanor during the interrogation video which was very calm and collected and coherent um and also just what you know the story is in the details of you know how he did it when he started planning to do it and ultimately how the how he intended to keep going had it not been for that drink on his windshield. And I was worried that I would crash the van anyway. So I decided, okay, now I wanted to do more, but I've kind of been foiled by a lack of visibility. Okay. And you mentioned earlier that Manassian's sort of vulnerability to this incel theory will be at the center of the defense case. And I know that the defense hasn't presented their case yet. But from what we've seen so far, maybe from their initial statements, what do you think we could expect to see? responsible defense has to show that he was not capable in that moment of appreciating his actions

or realizing that they were wrong. So, you know, it, it stands to reason that they will use his attachment to the extreme ideology of incel as an argument to show that he was susceptible and that he was vulnerable and that in some ways he had become brainwashed. What is interesting, and I'm curious to see how this will play out, is how his disability, because it's been widely reported that he's on the autism spectrum. And that was referenced in the wrangling that happened in court at the end of last week. It was all about expert reports and them coming out and what to expect. And there was some reference to the autistic thinking. And I'm curious to see at this point how that disability will be used as a defense. Because what is interesting is that

people assume that a defense of NCR or not criminally responsible suggests that it has to be a severe mental illness, but it could also be a disability. It could be anything that impairs your capacity to understand that what you're doing was wrong. So will that disability be used also as part of the defense to suggest that his mind, you know, he was more susceptible to becoming, you know, radicalized and, you know, adopt extreme thinking and identify with something. He did talk, Manassian did talk in the police interrogation video how he had felt rejected and ridiculed by women

and how that was part of his thinking. So we wonder how they're going to put those pieces together. It'll be interesting to watch for sure. Is anyone from the autism community responding to this right now the idea that that this could be part of the defense his his autism diagnosis? No, you know, they did the people in the autism community did respond to it in early days when he was arrested. And because of the reporting that you know, different media outlets were doing looking at his history at school, the fact that he was in a class that was for children with special needs, and the fact that

he had been reportedly, he was reportedly on the spectrum, because we don't have any diagnosis formally. But it was based on, you know, those, those pieces they had gleaned together. And I remember, at the time, because we covered the story of the attack, and when that piece came out, you heard from people in the autism community saying that they felt their hearts sinking, that this would be used as a way to say, oh, you know, if you have autism, you can potentially be identified as somebody who would commit such a heinous act. who would commit such a heinous act. They did talk about their concerns at the time, and then the story kind of went away. It dissipated, but I'm sure we'll hear from people in the community based on how they plan to use that disability to justify the NCR defense,

or the not criminally responsible defense. 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. And so what does it mean to be found not criminally responsible? What happens? Well, instead of going to jail, in that case, he would go to a psychiatric institution and he would get treatment. If he is convicted of first degree murder, he will have a minimum of 25 years in jail before he's eligible for parole. And that's if he's serving his sentences concurrently.

So he would definitely be in prison for at least 25 years. And then it's a question of whether or not the parole board would think he's fit to be released. I think the rules around release and rehabilitation to the community are a bit less structured in, um, the case of a psychiatric institution. And in, in that case, while he would have to check in with a review board every year, there would be a gradual phasing into the community. And, you know, from the experts I spoke to for, from the public's perspective anyway, and we know certainly from the families, that the idea of him having any time less, you know, like to have an easier time in any way would not go over well with the public in general, particularly with the families. So that is ultimately the outcome. But I'm not sure how long he would be held in that institute and whether or not, you know, it would mean a careful reintegration back.

But how long that would take, I'm not sure. We do know that he would have to keep tabs with the review board. So that is one form of accountability in structures like that. I imagine when people think of the not criminally responsible defense, I think we have an idea of someone like Vincent Lee, right, who had a break from reality and he stabbed and beheaded a man on a Greyhound bus in Manitoba. This was many years ago in 2008. And Lee is now discharged after some time in a mental health facility. And he also has been on medication for schizophrenia. Manitoba's Criminal Code Review Board ruled he's no longer a risk to the public and gave him an absolute discharge.

This mental health advocate says... He has been a model citizen. He lives every day with remorse about what he did. What have you heard from experts about the use of this defense in this case, in Alec Manassian's case? You know, it is up to the defense to prove that Manassian was not capable of appreciating the nature of his actions. Now, one part that experts said that piece about not appreciating the nature of his actions, the planning, the fact that he planned and he told police that he'd been thinking about this for years and had planned about it for about a month. That piece alone, they see as, you know, as weakening that argument.

that mental disorder is defined as disease of the mind. Even sleepwalking has been used in these cases. It really is a high threshold to show that you are completely in that kind of psychotic break. And it's curious to see how they're going to lay that out, especially with the planning piece. Right, right. There was that one chilling detail from the agreed statement of facts too, that when he got to the car rental rental place he was disappointed that it wasn't a larger truck um which also i think gives you the sense that he could have hurt even more people than he did Are we going to hear from Manassian in this trial?

Do we know if he has any remorse for what he did? I know initially he did not. Right. We don't have a witness list. We know Alec Manassian's father is taking the stand, and we know we will be hearing from at least four expert witnesses. But in terms of the remorse itself and whether or not Manassian himself will testify, we don't know. But based on his interrogation video, what was kind of

interesting and chilling at the same time was they started interrogating him the evening of the attack. And it went into the early hours of the morning. It was very coherent, quite calm, quite cooperative too. And at the end of the interrogation, the police officer asked him. If the families of those people who were murdered and were injured were in this room right now, what would you say to them? I honestly don't know what I would say. Would you apologize? I honestly don't know.

The survivors that you've talked to, the families of the victims, what are they saying about all of this, about how this argument is going to play out in this case? I spoke to the grandson of a victim of Dorothy Sewell who passed away. I don't know. There's a lot of anger. There's a lot of anger. Honestly, I feel like he should have died that day, but I'm glad he didn't because it's going to be way worse for him now. His own words were, he can't get away with this and there's that element of thinking that when you put a defense forward like this you are getting away to a certain extent you know

you're not really going to be held accountable. Trying to cheat out of it is he's I did he didn't get what he wanted of his suicide from COG. Again, this is, it hasn't been decided yet, so we don't know. But even the fact that it's his defense got him really upset. And another family member we spoke to of one of the survivors, and I mentioned earlier some of these people had catastrophic injuries, and Michael Smith's mom, Beverly Smith, was one of them. She lost both her legs in the attack. I just need to hear it from him why

he did this and if it's the reasons that i've heard then i just need him to go away and um be a little bookmark on the history of my life and um yeah that's it the anger is still there now and there's this sense of just wanting to turn the corner on this horrific chapter of their lives and the inability to do so without the trial. They don't have a real interest in it. They don't really want to follow the ins and outs. It's too painful. And they know it's part of the course of justice that people get trials. But to them, and I guess to many people, there's no dispute in anything. Like Manassian has said he's done it. People just want to move on. I guess, you know, people live with their grief every single day. But when it comes back in the headlines, they get the calls from the media.

Imagine, you know, it just brings it all back. So for many of them, you know, it's really just a necessary evil in this awful, awful story that, you know, that they're part of. Okay. Ioana, thank you so much for taking us through this today. And, um, and, uh, I hope that you'll come back soon. Uh, we're going to keep tabs on case you missed it, an update on a pro-Trump rally that turned violent this weekend in D.C. called the Million Mega March. Tens of thousands of Donald Trump supporters were protesting the results of the election.

The protest included members of the far-right Oath Keepers militia and members of the Proud Boys. It turned violent Sunday morning. Videos posted on social media showed fistfights with counter demonstrators. At least one stabbing has been reported, two police officers were injured, several firearms were recovered, and more than 20 arrests have been made by the police. On Sunday morning, President Donald Trump posted on Twitter that he conceded nothing and repeated his unsubstantiated claims of widespread voter fraud. That's all for today. Thanks so much for listening to Front Burner and we'll talk to you tomorrow. For more CBC Podcasts, go to cbc.ca slash podcasts.