Intense Cross-Examination Reveals Veltman’s Act of Terrorism: Relief and Remorse in Courtroom Drama


The much-anticipated trial of the 22-year-old Nathaniel Veltman unfolded in a Windsor courtroom on Monday, with the intense cross-examination of Detective Micah Bourdeau. Veltman, facing charges for an alleged act of terrorism, has vehemently contested four counts of terrorism-motivated first-degree murder and one count of a similarly motivated attempted murder. His charges pertain to a horrific truck onslaught against the Afzaal family that unremitly took place on June 6, 2021.

The immediate repercussions of the horrifying event resulted in the tragic decimation of three generations of the family, with four family members losing their lives and a fifth sustaining grave injuries. The executioner of this dire act, Veltman, was apprehended within ten minutes of the incident. He was subsequently escorted to the detention unit at the London Police Service Headquarters, where he was registered less than an hour in the aftermath of the pandemonium.

During the trial, a video discloses Veltman in a holding pattern until 1 a.m. on June 7, marking the commencement of his first interaction with law enforcement probing the incident. Detective Bourdeau’s engagement with Veltman was captured in two separate exchanges, both projected before the jury. In his preliminary admission to Bourdeau, Veltman admitted the act to be politically charged, emphasizing its legitimacy in no uncertain terms.

His subsequent revelation to Bourdeau portrayed a remorseless sentiment, as he professed a profound sensation of relief, akin to lifting an oppressive burden. Nevertheless, a striking transformation in Veltman’s disposition occurred as his second admission, recorded just past dawn on June 7, showed him less relaxed and considerably distant. Bourdeau’s inquiry on any potential regrets evoked an ambivalent response from Veltman, who remained unsure of his sentiments. Further to this, Veltman characterized his primary encounters with law enforcement as audacious, a touch on the flippant side.

Murky waters ensued during the Monday afternoon cross-examination session. Defense attorney Christopher Hicks challenged Bourdeau’s account of the events unfolding between Veltman’s arrest and the initial interview, a time-span of approximately four hours. His concerns extended to the conditions Veltman was subjected to. Irking issues included Veltman’s placement in a dry cell, deprived of basic facilities, for close to three hours, and the lack of confirmation on whether he had access to food or drink prior to the initiation of the interview.

Hicks also brought forward concerns surrounding Veltman not being provided a blanket till the second interview, his multiple searches and photographs, and the location of his cell being far removed from the booking area. Further, Hicks uncovered that Bourdeau did not consult the booking officer before beginning the interview, which meant the former could not have been privy to Veltman’s presence of suicidal thoughts.

Despite the criticisms and accusations, Bourdeau defended his actions. He stated firmly that Veltman willingly participated and was eager to converse during the interactions. It was also acknowledged by Hicks that Bourdeau ensured Veltman was supplied with food and water during the course of the interview. The Detective explained that the perceived urgency of an interview in the dead of the night was due to the unparalleled nature of the horrific event and the potential public danger.

The impending continuation of evidence was scheduled for the Tuesday session, following Judge Renee Pomerance’s decision to dismiss the jury for the day after Hicks hinted towards potential mistreatment by the London police.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here