Drowning an accident, not a murder, trial told

Defence lawyer argues there’s no evidence man pushed his wife off boat into lake

A woman’s death was merely an accident and not the result of an elaborate murder plot, a defence lawyer said in her closing argument in the trial of a man accused of killing his wife near Revelstoke.

Peter Beckett is charged with firstdegree murder in the death of his wife, Laura, whom he is accused of drowning in Upper Arrow Lake in August 2010.

Defence lawyer Marilyn Sandford spent most of Monday delivering her closing argument to the jury in a Kelowna court, emphasizing it is the Crown’s responsibility to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Beckett pushed his wife off the boat in an effort to kill her, and that, in her submission, no such evidence exists.

This case relies mainly on circumstantial evidence, along with a piece of direct evidence in the form of Beckett’s statement to police, said Sandford.

“The circumstances here don’t tell you anything different than the direct evidence that Mr. Beckett tells you — that his wife drowned in an accident,” she said.

Beckett told police his back was to Laura when she fell in the water off their small boat, and when he noticed she’d fallen in, he reeled in his fishing line before turning around the boat to get to her.

He said he was too buoyant to get to her under water, so he went back to shore to retrieve a rock to use to weigh himself down.

On getting Laura to shore, Beckett told police, he attempted to resuscitate her but was unsuccessful.

“The extreme efforts you make to save your dying wife don’t make any sense as part of a murder plot,” said Sandford. “They make no sense at all.”

Beckett acknowledges he did not act in the best way when his wife fell in the water, but that is irrelevant to the case, said Sandford.

“This isn’t a trial as to whether Mr. Beckett acted in the ideal manner,” she said. “It’s not a trial as to whether, if things had happened differently, he may have been able to rescue his wife. This is a trial in which the Crown will be saying he pushed his wife into the water intentionally because he wanted to kill her.”

The Crown argues Beckett had a motive to kill his wife, proven by the purchase of a life insurance policy just two months prior to her death.

However, Sandford argued the policy simply replaced a previous policy that had expired.

“There was only a brief period between late 2009 and spring of 2010 where insurance dipped by $200,000. Now it’s back up to what it always was, so where’s the planning and deliberation here?” she said. “If your starting point is that he is guilty . . . everything is going to look suspicious and part of a plan.”

Laura Letts-Beckett simply fell off the boat that afternoon, and while Peter tried to save her, he failed, said Sandford.

“He lost his wife and it could happen to any one of us. We ask that you find Mr. Beckett not guilty.”

Closing arguments by the Crown prosecutor are expected to continue today before the case is handed to the jury.