91大黄鸭

Skip to content

Jury still deciding whether former New Zealand politician killed his wife

The 91大黄鸭 jury in the Peter Beckett murder trial is still deliberating
8530670_web1_170524-RTR-Peter-Beckett

91大黄鸭 jurors have now been deliberating for four days on the fate of a former New Zealand politician accused of killing his wife.

The case against the six-foot-nine, 400-pound accused referred to as 鈥淢an Mountain鈥 in his home country was largely circumstantial, much like the previous case against him. In a previous multi-month trial in Kamloops, a jury was unable to reach a unanimous decision on the charge of murder after more than a week of deliberations, triggering the retrial that happened in 91大黄鸭.

There is one piece of direct evidence before the jury 鈥 the statement Beckett gave within a day of Aug. 18,2010, when Laura Letts-Beckett drowned on Upper Arrow Lakes.

Crown counsel Iain Currie told the jury of seven men and five women that the direct evidence available to them was enough to prove Beckett killed his wife for personal gain.

In that statement Beckett tells police that when his wife hit the water, she thrashed about and screamed. As she struggled to stay afloat, he relied on a 鈥渇isherman鈥檚 instinct鈥 and reeled in the line to his fishing rod. As he did, his boat floated past his wife and by the time he turned around she had been submerged.

鈥淲e say Mr. Beckett murdered his wife, just to be clear,鈥 said Currie. 鈥淲e鈥檙e saying the fact he didn鈥檛 save her when that would have been easy 鈥 easy to try, instinctive to try, unavoidable to try, unless you don鈥檛 want to. The fact he didn鈥檛 save his wife is evidence that he pushed her out.鈥

Supporting that argument, he said, is evidence that the couple took out an accidental death policy two months before the drowning, Beckett had jail house conversations with a known-conman about getting rid of witnesses that could make him look guilty of killing his wife and he was fixated on getting an inheritance from his wife鈥檚 wealthy parents.

Defence told jurors that this wasn鈥檛 enough to convict Beckett.

鈥淲e say Mr. Beckett murdered his wife, just to be clear,鈥 said Currie. 鈥淲e鈥檙e saying the fact he didn鈥檛 save her when that would have been easy 鈥 easy to try, instinctive to try, unavoidable to try, unless you don鈥檛 want to. The fact he didn鈥檛 save his wife is evidence that he pushed her out.鈥

Currie told jurors that when Beckett said that he had a fisherman鈥檚 instinct and no instinct to save his wife, it鈥檚 because he鈥檚 lying.

鈥淗e鈥檚 lying because he pushed her in,鈥 said Currie. 鈥淭he evidence is that he wanted her dead and he pushed her in.鈥

That, he said, puts the decision to take out an accidental death policy just a month before his wife鈥檚 death, and allegations that he plotted with a known criminal to rid himself of witnesses posed to testify against him in the years after her death in a very suspicious light.

Marilyn Sandford, the defence lawyer for Beckett argued the day before that there was no incentive for murder and if her client was motivated by money at all, he鈥檇 be better off keeping his wife alive. As a longtime school teacher Letts-Beckett made a good wage that couldn鈥檛 be replaced by the pension she鈥檇 leave behind which, including CPP, amounted to around $2,600 a month.

Also, she said that the $200,000 accidental death policy taken out in the months before Letts-Beckett drowned aren鈥檛 significant of much, considering she鈥檇 previously had similar 鈥 though not accidental death 鈥 insurance coverage in the past.

鈥淲here is the planning and deliberation? When did it start? 鈥as Peter Beckett planning and deliberating in 2006 when he bought the motorhome? 鈥榃ell let鈥檚 buy that and get life insurance on that debt. Four years from now I will kill you and I will get that money.鈥欌

It doesn鈥檛 make sense, she told jurors.

Sandford also described Beckett鈥檚 post death behaviour as a symptom of trauma and grief.