New podcast exposes 'staggering absurdity' of Nuttall-Korody terrorism case

When police announced the arrests of John Nuttall and Amanda Korody, it seemed like a clear cut victory in the ongoing War on Terror. In 2013, Nuttall and Korody planted pressure-cooker bombs at the B.C. Legislature in an attempt to kill or injure people attending Canada Day celebrations. The bombs did not go off.

As more details about Nuttall and Korody emerged, the case began to fall apart. The pair were on welfare, living with Nuttall's grandmother and struggling with addiction to opioids. They were disorganized and seemed to spend significantly more time playing Dungeons and Dragons than planning their attack.

Follow the podcast:

Their terrorism convictions were ultimately overturned. Justice Catherine Bruce ruled that police had entrapped Nuttall and Korody and strongly admonished police in her conclusion, writing: "Simply put, the world has enough terrorists. We do not need the police to create more out of marginalized people who have neither the capacity nor sufficient motivation to do it themselves."

Filmmaker Dan Pierce was fascinated by the case. Forming a production team with journalist Sarah Berman, author of Don't Call It a Cult, and CBC reporter Rafferty Baker, he conducted lengthy, unprecedented interviews with Nuttall and Korody. These interviews were the first time the couple had spoken in-depth about the case on the record. Along with those conversations, the production team combed through hundreds of hours of police surveillance tapes to create the new podcast Pressure Cooker.

Pierce spoke with CBC Podcasts about the making of Pressure Cooker. Here is part of that conversation.

What initially drew you to this story?

What initially drew me to this story was the staggering absurdity of the police manufacturing a terrorist plot and coaxing this couple into blowing up a building, just so they could catch them in the act. But what kept me interested were the characters and the questions around who they are, why they were susceptible to this, and how they got into this mess.

How did you get John Nuttall and Amanda Korody to agree to speak to you?

I reached out to their lawyers first and expressed my interest in adapting their story into a film or TV show. So they passed along my name and one night I got a call from John agreeing to meet with me. So we started meeting in cafes and parks. At first there were other filmmakers circling around the couple with their own film pitches — someone proposed telling their story as a dark comedy, another as a spy thriller — and my concept was to tackle the story journalistically, to be as true to life as possible, and also to centre their love story. And they liked that concept from the start, so I think that's why they agreed to talk to me.

What does this podcast have to say about the state of police investigations in Canada?

I think this story speaks to the depths of deception that police will employ to try and get convictions. There were so many layers of deception going on here that you really have to kind of peel each layer back one by one. There was the deception of John and Amanda, with an undercover officer pretending to be an al Qaeda operative offering to fund their terror plot. There was spiritual deception, in which the officer started giving the couple spiritual guidance to justify their plans for violence. There was deception of the public. And there was deception going on within the RCMP, where inaccurate or incomplete information was going up the chain, and internal dissenters were silenced or demoted. So the many layers of deception in this story are noteworthy.

I hope listeners understand there are no heroes or villains in this series.- Dan Pierce

What was the most surprising thing you learned that police did in this case?

One of the most bizarre and absurd chapters of this story is when police take the couple on a trip to Kelowna for a few days. And while they're out of the house, they take the opportunity to install hidden microphones and cameras into their home. In order to not be seen by neighbours going into their apartment, the police park a cube van on their street, then lie to neighbours and journalists that it's a mobile meth lab and everyone on the street is evacuated, just in case the truck blows up. They then covertly enter the couple's suite to install surveillance equipment. It was such an elaborate ruse and nothing much came of it in terms of usable evidence.

What do you hope listeners will take away from hearing the series?

I hope listeners understand there are no heroes or villains in this series. This is a story about flawed human beings on all sides, from John and Amanda to the police and prosecutors. They're all wrestling with whether it's acceptable to break the rules, use deception, or even destroy people's lives in the name of a greater good. But in both cases, the ends do not end up justifying the means. John and Amanda now renounce any beliefs they may have held that violence can create a positive change in the world. And the courts decided that, in Canada at least, we don't allow the police to throw out people's rights in the name of fighting terrorism.

Q&A edited for length and clarity. Written and produced by SK Robert.