Driving of accused killer of Muslim family was 'precise' and 'intentional,' Crown says in closing remarks

Warning: This story contains distressing details.

An Ontario jury was reminded Tuesday about the facts of the murder and terrorism case against Nathaniel Veltman, after weeks of hearing about the accused's traumatizing childhood and mental health disorders he says led him to kill three generations of a Muslim family in London.

"[He] had a message for Muslims: leave this country or you and your loved ones could be next. Actions speak louder than words and his actions were louder than a bomb and every bit as deadly," Crown prosecutor Fraser Ball said during his closing address in Ontario Superior Court in Windsor.

"He can change his story now, but he cannot change the facts. The evidence against him is overwhelming. It was all in service of his brutal message — he made the conscious choice to fill himself full of hate for Muslims ... and to plan and execute a murderous terrorist attack."

As Crown and defence lawyers delivered their closing statements in the 10-week trial, the courtroom gallery was packed with members of the Muslim community. Many of them travelled 200 kilometres from London, where five members of the Afzaal family were attacked on June 6, 2021.

The Crown is expected to finish closing arguments on Wednesday.

"[The accused] never once touched the brake before impact, a group of human beings. Not once," Ball said. "His driving was precise. His driving was lethal. His driving was intentional. He hit exactly who he wanted to hit, exactly how he wanted to hit, achieving what he wanted to achieve save for [the little boy's] survival."

The Afzaals were out for an evening walk when they were struck by the accused's pickup truck on a suburban street. High school student Yumnah Afzaal, 15, her mom Madiha Salman, 44, an engineer, and dad Salman Afzaal, 46, a physiotherapist, as well as family matriarch Talat Afzaal, 74, an artist and teacher, were killed. The boy, nine years old at the time, was seriously injured but survived.

Veltman, 22, has pleaded not guilty to four counts of first-degree murder and one count of attempted murder, as well as associated terrorism charges. He admits he drove his pickup truck into the family.

Defence makes case for manslaughter

Earlier Tuesday, defence lawyer Christopher Hicks told jurors they should find his client guilty of manslaughter, not first-degree murder, which is planned, deliberate and includes the intention to kill.

"He is responsible for the deaths of these people. He's guilty of homicide — of manslaughter. If there is a death but the death is not intended, he's guilty of manslaughter," Hicks said.

"A murder that is not planned and deliberate is not first-degree murder. He had no plan, he did not have time to deliberate and he did not intend to kill the Afzaals."

Instead, his client was in turmoil over a long period of mental decline, after becoming obsessed with white nationalist and Islamophobic content on the internet, Hicks said. His mental disorders — including autism spectrum disorder, obsessive compulsive disorder, complex trauma, anxiety and depression — mean he did not have the "mental acuity" to plan and deliberate the crime, Hicks added.

Hicks told jurors there is a "lack of evidence on crucial points" in the case and his client was a "runaway freight train headed for an explosion" in the weeks and months before attacking the family.

"When he left his apartment, he had no plan. Maybe he thought about crashing into Muslims, but thinking is not planning."

His client had the urge to "drive at them, not kill them." The accused is also not mentally capable of forming criminal intent, but he did kill the family, Hicks said.

But in his closing, Ball disputed that. He played the jury the 911 call — presented earlier in the trial — in which the accused said, "I did it. It was me who killed them, so get here and arrest me. I did it on purpose."

The jury doesn't have to speculate about the accused's state of mind because they have hours of footage where he lays out his intentions, Ball added.

'Cold-blooded rationale' 

Ball also played the surveillance video of the accused's truck as it drove north on Hyde Park Road, goes off screen where it does a U-turn, then comes back. The video stops a second before impact. "He decided that little boy would be collateral damage — a warrior's cold-blooded rationale."

Members of the Muslim community arrive at Superior Court as the murder-terror trial begins to wrap up on Tuesday. (Dax Melmer/CBC)

Holding up the helmet and bulletproof vest the accused was wearing at the time of the crash, Ball asked the jury to reject the defence assertion that the cargo pants and steel-toed boots Veltman was wearing were work clothes.

"These were warrior clothes, the evidence shows," Ball said. The Pakistani family's bright clothing was like "bright red cloth, enraging a charging bull," Ball said.

Prosecutors argue the accused was motivated by political, ideological or religious ideas when he drove his pickup truck into the family while they were on an evening walk. They also say he intended to intimidate a segment of the population — Muslim people — which is part of the Criminal Code definition of terrorism.

Because the defence called evidence, they were the first to deliver their closing submissions, as per Canadian law. Crown prosecutors will follow. The trial, which began Sept. 11, is the first in Canada to consider terrorism alongside first-degree murder charges.

'Not a deliberate murder,' defence says

Crown prosecutors have said the killings were planned, deliberate and an act of terrorism, which combine to make it first-degree murder.

But Hicks said Tuesday his client did not have a plan, which he defined as "a calculated scheme or design that has been carefully thought out and the consequences of which have been considered," and not did he have time to deliberate his actions in the 19 seconds between when he saw the Afzaal family walking and when he turned his truck around and struck them.

Hicks also dismissed other evidence presented against his client by prosecutors, including a document the Crown says was a manifesto entitled "A White Awakening" in which he rails against Islam, Muslims, minority-on-white crime, the government and immigration. The document was not sent to anyone and doesn't advocate violence, Hicks said.

"There is no evidence of intimidation," he added. "He was a loner. He had no audience. He had no one to send 'A White Awakening' to. He was venting."

The truck the accused bought in the weeks prior to the killings and then outfitted with tinted windows and a grill bar was not bought for the purpose of perpetrating the attack, Hicks said in his closing. A piece of paper with car speeds and a percentage likelihood of death and injury were just thoughts, not evidence of a plan, he added.

Court sketch shows Veltman listening to testimony at his trial on Sept. 28. (Pam Davies/CBC)

If the jury believes what the accused told Det. Micah Bordeau in the hours after the killing, then they can find him guilty of first-degree murder, Hicks said. But he also reminded jurors the accused made up what he said to the detective about being a white nationalist who wanted to inspire other similar terrorist attacks as "a desperate exercise to rationalize his actions that he knew were indefensible and irrational."

All of that is "revisionist evidence" made up after the arrest because the accused didn't want to face consequences of his actions, Ball said.

"He drove his heavily financed truck through a group of Muslims because he wanted to kill them. He knew it would kill them."

He said the jury should also dismiss the evidence of Dr. Julian Gojer, a forensic psychiatrist called by the defence who testified about the accused's disorders and the effects of magic mushroom withdrawal on his mental state. There's evidence to suggest the accused didn't have any of the disorders Gojer diagnosed him with, Ball said.

"He was cherry picking details most favourable to the defence. It is not science. It is impermissible speculation and you should reject it out of hand."

The closing arguments are the final statements by lawyers before jurors hear from the judge, who will explain to them how to apply the law to the facts of the case before they begin deliberations.

The trial was moved to Windsor well before it began jury selection. Reasons for the relocation have been under a publication ban.