The defence in the Nathaniel Veltman trial told the jury that they should find his client guilty of manslaughter or second-degree murder, not first-degree.
In a crowded Windsor courtroom, the defence submitted closing arguments to the jury Tuesday.
Veltman is charged with four counts of first-degree murder and one count of attempted murder after intentionally steering his truck into five members of the Afzaal family on June 6, 2021.
Talat Afzaal, 74, her son Salman Afzaal, 46, his wife Madiha Salman, 44, and their daughter Yumnah, 15, were all killed. Their son, who was nine at the time, was the only survivor.
For the past ten weeks, the jury has listened to evidence from witnesses, first responders, forensic investigators, a forensic psychologist and Veltman himself.
In his closing arguments, defence lawyer Christopher Hicks submitted that the jury should find Veltman guilty of second-degree murder or manslaughter for the homicide of four members of a London family back in June 2021.
He said the jury cannot find Veltment guilty of first-degree murder because there is a lack of evidence to show the act was planned and deliberate.
Hicks submitted that thinking about planning an attack is different from actually planning and carrying out an attack.
Hicks said Veltman had no way of knowing the Afzaal family would be standing on the corner of Hyde Park and South Carriage Road that evening. Hicks concluded the act could not have been deliberated fully in the 19 seconds between when Veltman passed the family driving north and when he made a U-turn to drive his truck into the family waiting on the sidewalk.
He also stated there is a lack of evidence to prove terrorism because Veltman’s manifesto did not encourage violence directly and as it was never sent to anyone, the document had no audience.
In his closing remarks, Crown Attorney Fraser Ball submitted that when Veltman left his home on June 6, 2021, wearing his armour and handmade “crusader t-shirt” he was “hunting for Muslims to kill.”
When he came across the Afzaal family dressed in traditional clothing he identified his targets, the women’s kameezes was like “bright red cloth enraging a charging bull,” said Ball.
Ball said the planning started months before the attack. Veltman bought the truck he drove in May of 2021 and installed the front grill shortly afterwards. He bought the bulletproof vest and helmet after that.
Ball showed the jury the helmet and bulletproof vest that had been taken from Veltman upon his arrest.
An analysis of his truck after the crash showed the truck was steered to the right with the gas pedal fully compressed for five seconds before impact and the brakes were never engaged.
Ball reminded the jury of Veltman’s interviews with police where he told Detective Micah Bourdeau that he felt a “sense of relief” that he finally went through it.
Ball then asked the jury to reject the defence's expert witness Dr. Julien Gojer because his report is based entirely on Veltman's own reporting and he did not have access to other family members or medical records.
Secondly, Ball said Gojer's “mushroom rebound effect” theory is not based on scientific evidence and is therefore just an “educated guess” and should be dismissed.
Ball will finish his closing arguments at 9 a.m. Wednesday.
Justice Renee Pomerance is expected to give her charge with instructions to the jury after that.
