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.

​

 

[Kurve]

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.

Premeditation isn't a component that must be proved for a murder charge to stick, if proving premeditation is likely to earn the accused the maximum penalty. A motive doesn't even need to be provided to prove a murder charge, if it always helps.

 

[ElliottsMaggies]

If the Police don't want it going to trial, it'll be interesting to see what deal gets offered. Would a parole period be a carrot they might use? There have to find the perfect balance between the community not being in uproar, but also making it more appealing for him to plead guilty without a trial.

The police probably don't want it going to trial because it will expose how lax they are with their gun protocols & psychological testing for police recruits, amongst many other things.

 

[MC Bad Genius]

The police probably don't want it going to trial because it will expose how lax they are with their gun protocols & psychological testing for police recruits, amongst many other things.

But will the murderer want that? That's why it will be interesting to see if they can strike the right balance. They surely can't risk the community being upset with a deal perceived as under-punishing, or even corrupt.

 

[Kurve]

Self defence is also a defence - and there were signs of struggle too.

Three shots in quick succession if we believe the press that one of the neighbours has an audio recording. That doesn't leave much time for a struggle. People take a few steps before they fall down dead after being shot, they don't always die immediately and I imagine one or both might have fallen over the furniture. Hence, signs of a struggle.

 

[ElliottsMaggies]

But will the murderer want that? That's why it will be interesting to see if they can strike the right balance. They surely can't risk the community being upset with a deal perceived as under-punishing, or even corrupt.

Who knows. He seems to be such a delusional, narcissistic, calculating, evil pos, who would know what he wants.

 

[footyrulez]

Premeditation isn't a component that must be proved for a murder charge to stick, if proving premeditation is likely to earn the accused the maximum penalty. A motive doesn't even need to be provided to prove a murder charge, if it always helps.

I’m sorry, but premeditation is the difference between murder and manslaughter.

 

[jason_recliner]

Section 18 of NSW Crimes Act defines both:

18 Murder and manslaughter defined​

In case law, murder has three elements:
1. Intention - mental act/mens rea = foresight of the probable result of your actions (ie planning)
2. Harm done
3. Kills as a result

Agreed, definitely murder. Intent, harm, killed. Slam dunk.

 

[YeoShuey]

I’m sorry, but premeditation is the difference between murder and manslaughter.

No, it’s not.

Go do some research about a country such as the USA who have 1st degree, 2nd degree murder and manslaughter as charges. One of those murder charges is premeditated, the other is not, but both are murder regardless. Premeditation is NOT intent, but is an addition which makes the offence more serious in the US scale.

 

[footyrulez]

Premeditation isn't a component that must be proved for a murder charge to stick, if proving premeditation is likely to earn the accused the maximum penalty. A motive doesn't even need to be provided to prove a murder charge, if it always helps.

Even reckless indifference doesn’t fit the bill on this one, in NSW it is described as: Reckless indifference to human life is characterised by the awareness of the probability (as opposed to possibility) of the accused’s act resulting in a person’s death (as opposed to merely resulting in grievous bodily harm).

LC didn’t know Luke was there and doesn’t satisfy the mens rea/intention/premeditation component of murder (the elemental difference between murder and manslaughter). There is lots of wiggle room in this one for the defence to argue manslaughter.

 

[footyrulez]

No, it’s not.

Go do some research about a country such as the USA who have 1st degree, 2nd degree murder and manslaughter as charges. One of those murder charges is premeditated, the other is not, but both are murder regardless. Premeditation is NOT intent, but is an addition which makes the offence more serious in the US scale.

My comments are based on Australian law, the jurisdiction the case is behind heard in.

 

[footyrulez]

Three shots in quick succession if we believe the press that one of the neighbours has an audio recording. That doesn't leave much time for a struggle. People take a few steps before they fall down dead after being shot, they don't always die immediately and I imagine one or both might have fallen over the furniture. Hence, signs of a struggle.

That’s a guess, you don’t know how the room was left. And it will be up to police to detail what actually happened.

 

[FR0GGY]

For those wanting to know a bit about Jesse's housemates, it appears there were at least 2 female ones.

Possibly only these 2, assuming that they each had their own bedroom and no other rooms were being used as bedrooms.

https://www.news.com.au/national/nsw-act/courts-law/beau-lamarrecondon-former-colleague-called-police-after-newcastle-visit/news-story/278cb78963e66f8cf5b0291ac6c0757a

'Beau Lamarre-Condon: Former colleague called police after Newcastle visit​

February 29, 2024 - 3:07PM

'Mr Baird’s two female housemates are believed to have slept in the house without knowing their friend and his partner lay dead outside.''

So he killed them and left them there and came back?

 

[Kurve]

Even reckless indifference doesn’t fit the bill on this one, in NSW it is described as: Reckless indifference to human life is characterised by the awareness of the probability (as opposed to possibility) of the accused’s act resulting in a person’s death (as opposed to merely resulting in grievous bodily harm).

LC didn’t know Luke was there and doesn’t satisfy the mens rea/intention/premeditation component of murder (the elemental difference between murder and manslaughter). There is lots of wiggle room in this one for the defence to argue manslaughter.

The Crown only has to prove that at the time of the act which killed the person, there was intent to kill or cause grievous bodily harm. Premeditation doesn't need to be proved. It's about intent which may only have been for the two seconds it took to see Luke, aim and pull the trigger.

 

[ElliottsMaggies]

So he killed them and left them there and came back?

Yep.

And then took them to one property.

Went back and moved them to a different property again.

 

[footyrulez]

The Crown only has to prove that at the time of the act which killed the person, there was intent to kill or cause grievous bodily harm. Premeditation doesn't need to be proved. It's about intent which may have been for the two seconds it took to see Luke, aim and pull the trigger.

For manslaughter yes.

If you are going for a murder charge, you need to establish beyond a reasonable doubt mens rea/premeditation/intention to enter the premises is to kill specific person etc

Not sure what you’re not following on this.

 

[Kurve]

That’s a guess, you don’t know how the room was left. And it will be up to police to detail what actually happened.

You've interpreted upturned furniture as signs of a struggle. I've interpreted press reports of upturned furniture as the dead likely tripping over it walking backwards away from Lamarre or falling over it after being shot.

 

[ElliottsMaggies]

For manslaughter yes.

If you are going for a murder charge, you need to establish beyond a reasonable doubt mens rea/premeditation/intention to enter the premises is to kill specific person etc

Not sure what you’re not following on this.

You agree he murdered Jesse? Premeditated? Because we know about him buying the surf bag prior to the murder of Jesse. Stealing bullets from the gun range.

So how long do you think he'd receive for premeditated murder?

Surely you agree he'll get more than 10 years for that murder alone.

And then add in extra charges for moving, disposing of and interfering with both bodies. Multiple times.

That's why so many of us on here are saying he'll get longer than 10 years. And that's without even including the murder/manslaughter (or whatever you want to call it) of Luke.

 

[Kurve]

For manslaughter yes.

If you are going for a murder charge, you need to establish beyond a reasonable doubt mens rea/premeditation/intention to enter the premises is to kill specific person etc

Not sure what you’re not following on this.

Okay, take the man who snaps one night after an argument with his wife and he strangles her to death. There was no premeditation, he just put his hands around her neck and choked the life out of her. Or he's in the kitchen and he grabs a knife, stabs her in the heat of the moment.

It's murder is it not?

 

[footyrulez]

You've interpreted upturned furniture as signs of a struggle. I've interpreted press reports of upturned furniture as the dead likely tripping over it walking backwards away from Lamarre or falling over it after being shot.

Police said sign of struggle in their press conference.

 

[footyrulez]

Okay, take the man who snaps one night after an argument with his wife and he strangles her to death. There was no premeditation, he just put his hands around her neck and choked the life out of her. Or he's in the kitchen and he grabs a knife, stabs her in the heat of the moment.

It's murder is it not?

Depends why he snaps, there is a defence called battered wife syndrome. Gets people off completely from a manslaughter charge under self defence. It’s law, there is lots of wiggle room and technicalities in these cases depending on what actually happened.

Not sure why you’re taking your frustration out on me, when I am just telling you what it’s legally looking like. I want LC to be put away for as long as possible.

 

[Kurve]

Depends why he snaps, there is a defence called battered wife syndrome. Gets people off completely from a manslaughter charge under self defence. It’s law, there is lots of wiggle room and technicalities in these cases depending on what actually happened.

Not sure why you’re taking your frustration out on me, when I am just telling you what it’s legally looking like. I want LC to be put away for as long as possible.

I'm just trying to explain to you why Lamarre is facing two murder charges where convictions are almost guaranteed. It's not taking frustrations out on you but it needs to be clarified because you seem so certain and I think you're wrong.

 

[YeoShuey]

I'm just trying to explain to you why Lamarre is facing two murder charges where convictions are almost guaranteed. It's not taking frustrations out on you but it needs to be clarified because you seem so certain and I think you're wrong.

He is wrong about the difference between murder and manslaughter.

There is no mention of premeditation in Section 18. Only mention of intent, and as we know intent is not premeditation. If you believe it is, show me a case law to prove that wrong.

Plus, he just raised a defence (battered wife syndrome) to your question example. Where is that in the legislation? I can see the defences of self defence, extreme provocation and intoxication (for some offences), but cannot see that defence anywhere.

 

[ElliottsMaggies]

He is wrong about the difference between murder and manslaughter.

There is no mention of premeditation in Section 18. Only mention of intent, and as we know intent is not premeditation. If you believe it is, show me a case law to prove that wrong.

Plus, he just raised a defence (battered wife syndrome) to your question example. Where is that in the legislation? I can see the defences of self defence and intoxication, but cannot see that defence anywhere.

Agreed. I don't know why he brought up battered wife syndrome as a defence for the husband who murders his wife...

 

[Kurve]

Even reckless indifference doesn’t fit the bill on this one, in NSW it is described as: Reckless indifference to human life is characterised by the awareness of the probability (as opposed to possibility) of the accused’s act resulting in a person’s death (as opposed to merely resulting in grievous bodily harm).

LC didn’t know Luke was there and doesn’t satisfy the mens rea/intention/premeditation component of murder (the elemental difference between murder and manslaughter). There is lots of wiggle room in this one for the defence to argue manslaughter.

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

 

[footyrulez]

Okay, take the man who snaps one night after an argument with his wife and he strangles her to death. There was no premeditation, he just put his hands around her neck and choked the life out of her. Or he's in the kitchen and he grabs a knife, stabs her in the heat of the moment.

It's murder is it not?

Remember that ‘crime of passion’ term, that was also manslaughter lingo. But thankfully it had now been established LC had intention/mens rea to kill Jesse = clear murder charge.

Unfortunately Luke’s is not due to all the information coming out about lack of intention/planning etc. Bar is also extremely high to establish murder, so most times police will go with manslaughter to ensure something sticks.
Which not only makes Luke’s already extremely unfortunate situation worse if justice isn’t served. I would presume the cops would know this would cause backlash and will slap further charges on LC (breaking in, trespassing on the farm, unlawful use of a gun etc there are plenty there)