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

Remove this Banner Ad

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.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
He couldn't handle rejection because he thought he deserved someone like Jesse. Jesse didn't agree. So it was a would-be intimate partner situation. Perhaps that's what the police mean, and they do express themselves awkwardly.

If the cops are saying it's DV, that's an indication that he and Jesse did have some kind of intimate relationship at some point.
 
He couldn't handle rejection because he thought he deserved someone like Jesse. Jesse didn't agree. So it was a would-be intimate partner situation. Perhaps that's what the police mean, and they do express themselves awkwardly.
There is no point in speculation
Agreed. There is no point in speculation.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

These are valid considerations but he's still a bloke who couldn't handle rejection in an intimate partner situation. It's DV if the cops language might be a bit awkward, this is what they allege.

I disagree unless it is established that Jessee and LC were intimate more than a one night stand.
 
If the cops are saying it's DV, that's an indication that he and Jesse did have some kind of intimate relationship at some point.

needs to be confirmed, i guess.

My opinion that it isn't DV is simply based on them being intimate in a once of time, IE a one-night stand.

If it is proven that they were intimate several times in a relationship than i agree it would fall under the banner of DV
 
I disagree unless it is established that Jessee and LC were intimate more than a one night stand.

Dog Gif GIF
 
needs to be confirmed, i guess.

My opinion that it isn't DV is simply based on them being intimate in a once of time, IE a one-night stand.

If it is proven that they were intimate several times in a relationship than i agree it would fall under the banner of DV

You might need to accept here that it isn't your decision and most of us don't really need, or expect to be informed of how many times they were intimate, or what that meant.
 
you think a one-night stand with no further contact thereafter makes you a partnership?
They were partners. That's what somebody you have sex with is called. A partner. People ask "how many partners have you had?" They don't expect you to exclude one-nighters.

If a one-night stand doesn't count in your opinion, what does? Two? Three? Seven? You're just incorrect on this one - why do you care so much?
 
You might need to accept here that it isn't your decision and most of us don't really need, or expect to be informed of how many times they were intimate, or what that meant.

It’s an opinion. Not a decision
 
You might need to accept here that it isn't your decision and most of us don't really need, or expect to be informed of how many times they were intimate, or what that meant.

At the risk of wading into a hornet's nest, I'm not sure HTW is hung up on how many times they were intimate. I personally think HTW has repeated their opinion patiently a number of times.

All I'll say is, irrespective of this case as none of us know, if a one-night stand constitutes a relationship and partnership, the majority of the Western world has a major legal issue.
 
It’s an opinion. Not a decision
That's fair, but it's an opinion that is demonstrably wrong to most. It's like saying that 2-valve engines are multi-valve because they have more than one valve. The world accepts that multi-valve engines have more than two valves, but yeah, you could have an opinion that in your head you are going to define every engine with more than one valve as multi-valve.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Yes but we’re not doing better, DV is becoming more frequent. Whether that’s because the definition has been expanded I’m not sure. Of course something must be done. But blanket rules don’t work in this area. It’s personal responsibility that has to be tapped into, in each individual, as well as dealing with burgeoning mental health issues.

Detaining people without charge because they might do something is contrary to Human Rights, which is why the police can’t do anything. It’s against the law.

What do you mean an AVO should be actioned without prejudice? What sort of prejudice?
Without predjudice...in the example I gave the rules were not followed...you serve the AVO notice you don't warn them that it's coming.

I said nothing previously about detaining people....so I don't know where that comes from.

I hope we are doing better. Fortunately the law likes blanket rules.....there are rules, there are laws...(I hate to be a wet blamket sic. The rules are shaped by experiences and justice is honed on the sharpness of experience.)

I don't know whether there is more DV or not, I haven't got statistics at hand.
I would say there is more recognition of it and consequently it is more in the news and topic of conversation.
I would also say that because of the modern era of 'instant' gratification maybe peope are more quick to anger.
I could also go on about equality and how that has threatened the previous historical status quo of men thinking that they own their wives and families, the breakdown of a 'moral' education, the disengagement of personal morality etc.
There are lots of reasons for DV and this rise in it is not only in Australia, so there is something about contemporary life that seems to provoke it.
BUT that doesn't mean we throw up our hands and accept it, or discount the stresses of keeping a sane balance in an unbalanced world.
I agree it is personal responsibility, we also have a social compact to lookout for others, do the best we can, be kind to all living things etc. It is always worth living to try, it is worthwhile hoping for a better world. Nihilism is self defeating and I hope going out of fashion.
 
At the risk of wading into a hornet's nest, I'm not sure HTW is hung up on how many times they were intimate. I personally think HTW has repeated their opinion patiently a number of times.

All I'll say is, irrespective of this case as none of us know, if a one-night stand constitutes a relationship and partnership, the majority of the Western world has a major legal issue.
Nobody has said a one night stand constitutes a 'partnership' or being in a 'committed relationship'.

There are varying degrees with how people have relationships, including committed partners, dating, casual sex, etc.

Friends of Jesse's have described the relationship between LC & Jesse as brief encounters, friends with benefits, etc. They said it ended badly. They don't like it being described as ex partner, boyfriend, etc. Because that's not what it was to Jesse.

LC became obsessed & displayed increasing levels of predatory behaviour after Jesse ended the 'friends with benefits/brief encounters' relationship.

The predatory behaviour by LC has all the hallmarks of intimate partner violence. People who have ended 'relationships' are at most risk to those who are exhibiting the behaviour of LC. And we should be highlighting that. Not getting caught up in the semantics of particular words. It's likely why a lot of people may not report this type of behaviour. Just as Jesse didn't.
 
Your point is true and why i said allegedly. What's been reported is they allegedly had a one-night stand and after that Jesse broke off contact with LC with the assistance of his EX. If that is the case and that's all they did then this is NOT DV.

If they did more than that, dated etc than obviously i agree they formed a partnership which then would fall under DV.
Would you kindly define "one night stand" for me?
 
Nobody has said a one night stand constitutes a 'partnership' or being in a 'committed relationship'.

There are varying degrees with how people have relationships, including committed partners, dating, casual sex, etc.

Friends of Jesse's have described the relationship between LC & Jesse as brief encounters, friends with benefits, etc. They said it ended badly. They don't like it being described as ex partner, boyfriend, etc. Because that's not what it was to Jesse.

LC became obsessed & displayed increasing levels of predatory behaviour after Jesse ended the 'friends with benefits/brief encounters' relationship.


The predatory behaviour by LC has all the hallmarks of intimate partner violence. People who have ended 'relationships' are at most risk to those who are exhibiting the behaviour of LC. And we should be highlighting that. Not getting caught up in the semantics of particular words. It's likely why a lot of people may not report this type of behaviour. Just as Jesse didn't.

if that is True than on that basis i would agree with you.
 
Would you kindly define "one night stand" for me?

your intimate with someone once, and than no longer desire any contact.
 
This discussion has really gone off track.

The guy stalked and killed someone. Instead of trying to label what their relationship might or might not have been, perhaps focus on the shitty behaviour.
 
Today the Sarah Everard Enquiry findings in England have just been released...the parallel to this case is the inappropriate appointment of someone to the Police Force that should never ever have a badge and a gun.

 
Also this was published in Jan. for background.
I'm not going on a Police bashing spree here but there are serious problems in the NSW Police with this case that have been identified already. I'm sure that all the Aust forces will be looking carefully at it too and this inquiry into the Police Force in London.
Tackling the issues needs some serious work to be done as in the case in England which has a much bigger force and a much bigger population.


"Rowley predicted more pain for the Met. He said: “Lifting the stone and revealing painful truths will not be resolved overnight, and I mustn’t pretend it will do, and I hope you understand that that can’t be done. We have to prepare for more painful stories as we confront the issues that we face.

“The systemic failings that create these problems of these officers who corrupt our integrity, and as we put in more resource, more assertive tactics, as we are more open to people reporting incidents to us from within and from without the organisation, and as we more determinedly take on these cases, it will tackle the problems that we face but … it won’t be rapid and it will be painful.”

 
Just on Met Police, it's so serious there's thread here.


and

 
needs to be confirmed, i guess.

My opinion that it isn't DV is simply based on them being intimate in a once of time, IE a one-night stand.

If it is proven that they were intimate several times in a relationship than i agree it would fall under the banner of DV

FAMILY VIOLENCE PROTECTION ACT 2008 - SECT 8

Meaning of family member
(1) For the purposes of this Act, a "family member", in relation to a person (a "relevant person"), means—

(a) a person who is, or has been, the relevant person's spouse or domestic partner; or

(b) a person who has, or has had, an intimate personal relationship with the relevant person; or

(c) a person who is, or has been, a relative of the relevant person; or

(d) a child who normally or regularly resides with the relevant person or has previously resided with the relevant person on a normal or regular basis; or

(e) a child of a person who has, or has had, an intimate personal relationship with the relevant person.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

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

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top