Current Murder of Luke Davies & Jesse Baird AFL Goal Umpire & ex Ch 10 Presenter * Stalker Cop Charged

[Pamcake1]

TIMELINE

Thursday 16 February: Service revolver obtained for user pays event. Was stored at mother's as per regulations.

Sunday 19 February: User pays event.

Monday 20 February: The murders at Baird's Paddington rental.

Monday 19 February: Police have alleged gunshots were heard from a house in Paddington, Sydney in the morning. Four minutes after the first shots were fired there was a 000 call made from Jessie's phone around 9.45am, but it disconnected. Police said there was "no communication" during that call.

Monday evening: Police have alleged Lamarre-Condon hired a white Hiace van from Sydney Airport.

Tuesday 20 February: Police have alleged that partial admissions were made by Lamarre-Condon to an acquaintance of having been involved in the death of two individuals.

Service revolver was returned to Balmain & later transferred to original storage.

Wednesday 21 February: Bloodied clothing belonging to both victims and an $8000 watch were found in a skip bin in the southern Sydney suburb of Cronulla. Police launch a missing persons investigation and the homicide unit is notified

Later same Wednesday: Police have alleged Lamarre-Condon attended the Bungonia area with an acquaintance who police believed assisted him in purchasing an angle grinder and padlock from a local hardware store in that area, before driving to a rural property in Bungonia.

Police said the "small" angle grinder was used to sever a padlock from the gate of that particular rural property and then that padlock was replaced with a padlock purchased from the hardware store.

The acquaintance was left at the top of the property for 30 minutes. The accused disappeared for that period in the Hiace van, returning to pick up the acquaintance and then they returned to Sydney later that afternoon. Police said the acquaintance was assisting them in their inquiries, that she is not a suspect, and they believe she was an "innocent agent".

Wednesday 11pm: Police have said that evening, weights were purchased from a department store by the accused and it is believed that the accused returned to that rural property overnight and during that evening, having also acquired two torches from the acquaintance.

Thursday 22 February: Police have alleged they can place the accused leaving the Bungonia area again at 4.30am. "It would appear that the accused has remained in the city area, still in control of the white Hiace van, before attending a further acquaintance's premises in the Newcastle area and without fully disclosing any criminality, asked access to a hose to clean that van," Hudson said.

Friday 23 February: At 10.39am, Lamarre-Condon presents himself at Bondi Police Station where he was arrested and subsequently charged.

​

 

[footyrulez]

No premeditation, it's about intent, reckless indifference or being a party to as an accomplice who may have had nfi what was going to happen.

Murder, as defined by s 18(1)(a) Crimes Act 1900, is made out where a voluntary act or omission of the accused causes the death of the deceased and the act is committed with:

1.
an intent to inflict grievous bodily harm, or
2.
an intent to kill, or
3.
reckless indifference to human life, or
4.
committed by the accused or some accomplice with him or her in an attempt to commit, or during or immediately after the commission of, an offence punishable by at least 25 years imprisonment (constructive murder).

Murder

www.judcom.nsw.gov.au

Intent is established by actions of premeditation silly

 

[spinynorman]

Yeah, as per the Judicial Commission of NSW:

[The accused] is charged with the offence of manslaughter. Manslaughter is the unlawful killing of another human being. Although it is an offence of homicide, it is a less serious offence than murder because the Crown does not allege that [the accused] acted with the intention of killing [the deceased]. It is not the Crown’s case that [the accused] intended to inflict any serious harm upon [the deceased].



It isn't manslaughter to intentionally shoot someone without provocation or impairment. I think you've got your wires crossed.

 

[Kurve]

Intent is established by actions of premeditation silly

Intent can be formed in a split second.

 

[footyrulez]

Intent can be formed in a split second.

Legally no, it cannot. Anyway, I’ve got other things to do. Wait for more evidence to come out and then the picture will be clearer on what charges DPP will press.

There is definitely one murder charge, the latter will be based on what further evidence comes out. Hoping Luke gets justice.

 

[Kurve]

Legally no, it cannot. Anyway, I’ve got other things to do. Wait for more evidence to come out and then the picture will be clearer on what charges DPP will press.

There is definitely one murder charge, the latter will be based on what further evidence comes out. Hoping Luke gets justice.

Lamarre has already been charged with two counts of murder.

We know Lamarre went to Jesse's house to kill him and then Luke was also killed. When a cop fires his service weapon at someone, it's with intent and that's in their training. Lamarre only spent three bullets, he wasn't aiming for their legs.

 

[footyrulez]

Yeah, as per the Judicial Commission of NSW:

[The accused] is charged with the offence of manslaughter. Manslaughter is the unlawful killing of another human being. Although it is an offence of homicide, it is a less serious offence than murder because the Crown does not allege that [the accused] acted with the intention of killing [the deceased]. It is not the Crown’s case that [the accused] intended to inflict any serious harm upon [the deceased].



It isn't manslaughter to intentionally shoot someone without provocation or impairment. I think you've got your wires crossed.

In a court case, if it’s hard to prove murder due to lack of evidence of premeditation beyond a reasonable doubt (an extremely high bar)… sometimes DPP goes for manslaughter instead. Nothing worse than trying to charge someone with murder but they don’t reach the conviction and the whole case gets thrown out.

Non-legally LC brutally and viciously murdered 2 innocent men. Legally, it’s assessed on technicalities.

 

[footyrulez]

Lamarre has already been charged with two counts of murder.

We already know Lamarre went to Jesse's house to kill him and then Luke was also killed. When a cop fires his service weapon at someone, it's with intent and that's in their training. Lamarre only spent three bullets, he wasn't aiming for their legs.

Initial charges yes, without evidence. The job now of the police is to find evidence to corroborate those charges and then take it to court for a final determination. Judge/jury decides not the police.

See above what happens if the evidence conflicts with the charges.

 

[ElliottsMaggies]

Alleged murder of Jesse Baird by Beau Lamarre was premeditated, NSW police claim

Assistant commissioner alleges Lamarre bought single surfboard bag ahead of shootings with Baird’s partner, Luke Davies, killed due to ‘presence at house’

www.theguardian.com

Police face backlash for using the term 'crime of passion'. Here's why it's 'irresponsible'

Language should be used carefully to avoid violence being minimised or excused, experts have warned, after remarks by the NSW police commissioner drew backlash.

www.sbs.com.au

 

[revo333]

How did this friend think using a grinder to cut a lock was legitimate? I guess she can claim rightfully she was in fear of her life.

What else do you want her to do?

She has nothing to gain by bringing it up with him.

 

[nut]

This is a NSW definition of manslaughter below. It isn’t double murder, I can assure you. An element to constitute murder is premeditation (planning) and that’s clearly been disproved by the surfboard bag being bought after the fact. And unfortunately manslaughter has all these defences to it too.

A fatal assault committed in any other circumstances is manslaughter. However an act that is not malicious or for which there is a lawful excuse, does not constitute manslaughter.

Under the common law, a person must have been grossly negligent in order to be found guilty of manslaughter. A manslaughter charge can be defended by arguing that the accused was not grossly negligent, did not do the alleged acts, or by arguing that the accused was acting in self-defence or under duress.

What if the plan was to kill both but leave one of the victims behind, trying to make it look like one of the victims killed the other? But something went wrong?

 

[Golden_6]

What else do you want her to do?

She has nothing to gain by bringing it up with him.

And when your friend is a current serving police officer, you would give them the benefit of the doubt.

If she contacted crime stoppers immediately, there was absolutely nothing further she could or should have done.

 

[Pamcake1]

Maybe he'd self medicated to calm his nerves?

Whatever it is about seeing things through the wrong end of the telescope (hindsight) could not have been known by this guy, so why bother projecting anything into it.
It is a tabaloid mentality that does that.
Same with the flatmates, same with everyone that this has included how would any of them known what was happening or about to happen, I'm sure each one had they a time machine would go back and attempt to stop what happened.
They have to live forever with the proximity of a henious crime that they played no part in the creation of, they would feel terrible guilt at not knowing, not being able to stop it and all shades inbetween.
The emotional burden on them all, would be terrible as it is so why add to it and perpetuate more of it.
These people are humans with feelings, like you and me and this is just the start of the horrors of being involved in a crime, so please let's not go too far down this prickly path.

 

[Pamcake1]

Alleged murder of Jesse Baird by Beau Lamarre was premeditated, NSW police claim

Assistant commissioner alleges Lamarre bought single surfboard bag ahead of shootings with Baird’s partner, Luke Davies, killed due to ‘presence at house’

www.theguardian.com

Yes, that is what they have been charged with however as is the case that often happens charges change and bargains are done.
I have followed the arguments re-intent and possible charges.
I would think the DPP has charged both as murder to appease the public horror for the moment.

The case then must be built for these charges by looking for the evidence and at it.
These charges of murder were laid very quickly, before all evidence is known, in fact they were laid before the bodies were even found.
It is a high bar and though it looks to us as lay people unarguable, it will be argued over or concessions will be gained for a plea deal of guilty.

The court of public opinion would hang him high, that is in no doubt however the court of justice will grind through the minutiae of evidence and argument to make certain all is known before judgement.

I do not know what exactly in the way of lessening the charges, adding to them or exact definitions of intent, with the evidence as given so far, which has been filtered.
Filtered by both the press reporting and the release of (a lot of) information by the police, we know some facts as presented but we don't know them all and I would suggest this will be a fluid situation for quite a while.
The simple fact of the defence's lawyers quote in the papers that he has got a lot to sort out before making a further statement belies the fact that the DPP will also be dealing with the exact same.

 

[BFew]

One could argue that Luke was killed by the accused, to make sure a witness to Jesse’s murder, was silenced.

That in itself is both intent to kill and premeditation.

 

[ElliottsMaggies]

Yes, that is what they have been charged with however as is the case that often happens charges change and bargains are done.
I have followed the arguments re-intent and possible charges.
I would think the DPP has charged both as murder to appease the public horror for the moment.

The case then must be built for these charges by looking for the evidence and at it.
These charges of murder were laid very quickly, before all evidence is known, in fact they were laid before the bodies were even found.
It is a high bar and though it looks to us as lay people unarguable, it will be argued over or concessions will be gained for a plea deal of guilty.

The court of public opinion would hang him high, that is in no doubt however the court of justice will grind through the minutiae of evidence and argument to make certain all is known before judgement.

I do not know what exactly in the way of lessening the charges, adding to them or exact definitions of intent, with the evidence as given so far, which has been filtered.
Filtered by both the press reporting and the release of (a lot of) information by the police, we know some facts as presented but we don't know them all and I would suggest this will be a fluid situation for quite a while.
The simple fact of the defence's lawyers quote in the papers that he has got a lot to sort out before making a further statement belies the fact that the DPP will also be dealing with the exact same.

I merely posted an article.

 

[Pamcake1]

One could argue that Luke was killed by the accused, to make sure a witness to Jesse’s murder, was silenced.

That in itself is both intent to kill and premeditation.

We don't even know who was killed first. A fact which can change a whole lot of argument and point of view too.

 

[BFew]

The moved furniture at the crime scene could be Jesse and/or Luke picking up furniture to try and defend themselves, or just to put distance between themselves and Jesse’s weapon(s).

 

[Pamcake1]

I merely posted an article.

Sry not having a go at you at all, I just tagged onto that as it seemed to be a punctuation in the discussion above it.
Please don't think that the message was directed soley at you, it wasn't. It was my 2 cents worth in general to the discussion of intent and charges. I hope you understand.

 

[BFew]

We don't even know who was killed first. A fact which can change a whole lot of argument and point of view too.

My witness killed argument also applies to if Luke was killed first. In that the accused might have killed Luke first to make sure Luke did not witness what the accused was about to do to Jesse.

 

[BFew]

I imagine that both NSW Police and the DPP will not have any major problem whatsoever with a manslaughter charge for Luke’s death, if it needs this lower than murder charge to avoid a criminal trial.

 

[Dogs_R_Us]

Whatever it is about seeing things through the wrong end of the telescope (hindsight) could not have been known by this guy, so why bother projecting anything into it.
It is a tabaloid mentality that does that.
Same with the flatmates, same with everyone that this has included how would any of them known what was happening or about to happen, I'm sure each one had they a time machine would go back and attempt to stop what happened.
They have to live forever with the proximity of a henious crime that they played no part in the creation of, they would feel terrible guilt at not knowing, not being able to stop it and all shades inbetween.
The emotional burden on them all, would be terrible as it is so why add to it and perpetuate more of it.
These people are humans with feelings, like you and me and this is just the start of the horrors of being involved in a crime, so please let's not go too far down this prickly path.

That’s right. Nobody knows what will happen tomorrow, to any of us or anyone we know. How many times do you hear “He was always nice and friendly. We had no idea he was going to [whatever he did]”?

That’s why the police often say when suspected DV is reported, “We can’t do anything unless he does something.” He might never do anything!

In hindsight Jesse probably should have reported the harassment, but people often don’t want to do that, for many perfectly good reasons. It’s embarrassing, and you don’t want to cry wolf , you just hope it stops. And you might make things worse. The point is you can’t predict what others might do, only be wise after the event. Shoulda coulda woulda is impossible.

 

[Hodges 153!]

Only buying one surf bag doesn't discount premeditation outright.

It's plausible he thought both would fit in one bag, and when they didn't he had to go back.

 

[Dogs_R_Us]

The court of public opinion would hang him high, that is in no doubt however the court of justice will grind through the minutiae of evidence and argument to make certain all is known before judgement.

That’s exactly how it should be done, under our legal system.

One could argue that Luke was killed by the accused, to make sure a witness to Jesse’s murder, was silenced.

The moved furniture at the crime scene could be Jesse and/or Luke picking up furniture to try and defend themselves, or just to put distance between themselves and Jesse’s weapon(s).

There is no point in speculation, no one was there to witness what happened except three people and two can never tell. Only one knows and he may never reveal how it all went down. It might not even be clear to him, in the heat of the moment.

 

[Dogs_R_Us]

Only buying one surf bag doesn't discount premeditation outright.

It's plausible he thought both would fit in one bag, and when they didn't he had to go back.

Very hard to lift two bodies at once.

 

[HirdsTheWord]

Very hard to lift two bodies at once.

I'm not sure what bag his guy bought but i cannot imagine any board bag being able to fit 2 bodies let alone 1 and still being able to zip it up.

There seems to be a lot of detail lacking.