Lead: Day Two of Evidence — A Former Police Officer’s Testimony Unfolds
In day two of testimony at Sydney's Supreme Court, Beau Lamarre-Condon returned to the witness stand for what has been described as one of the most emotionally charged and technically complex trials in recent Australian criminal history. Accused of fatally shooting couple Jesse Baird and Luke Davies during an altercation on February 17, 2024, Lamarre-Condon has pleaded not guilty to both charges but continues to present his version of events with a blend of personal detail, police training doctrine, and psychological introspection.
Background: The Incident and Legal Context
The alleged incident occurred early morning on February 17, 2024, at a residence located in Sydney’s northern suburbs. According to official reports from the New South Wales Police Force (NSWPF), two individuals—Jesse Baird and Luke Davies—were found deceased inside what was described as an unsecured home environment. Initial investigations revealed that both men were shot during a confrontation involving a knife and firearms. A forensic report issued by NSWPF indicates that one firearm was recovered near the scene with traces of blood residue consistent with human contact.
Lamarre-Condon, who served for over ten years within the NSW Police Service before retiring in early 2023, is currently facing charges under sections 189 and 194 of the Crimes Act 1958 (Cth) relating to unlawful use or discharge of weapons resulting in death. The prosecution alleges he entered the property under false pretenses—disguised as an UberEats delivery person—and initiated physical conflict with Baird after discovering his belongings were missing from their home. Luke Davies reportedly responded aggressively during a confrontation that escalated into gunfire.
Testimony on Relationship Dynamics: Non-Exclusive Partnership
Lamarre-Condon testified directly before the court that while he shared a romantic relationship with Jesse Baird, it was never exclusive. He described moments when both parties engaged in typical couple activities such as dining out and spending evenings together—but emphasized that at various points throughout the relationship, he maintained connections with other individuals.
"We were not exclusive. I was still seeing people at various points throughout my time with Jesse."
This statement has been noted by legal analysts for its potential implications regarding motive or emotional context behind any escalation of violence. However, no formal evidence—such as text messages, social media records, or witness statements—has yet emerged to corroborate these claims beyond Lamarre-Condon’s personal account. The prosecution has declined to comment on whether such assertions will be used in their case-in-chief, citing privacy and evidentiary standards under the Evidence Act 1958 (Cth).
Firearm Handling: Training vs. Real-Time Response
Lamarre-Condon detailed his training background during police service, particularly concerning firearm redirection techniques when confronted with an armed individual. He described how officers are taught to use physical resistance to redirect a weapon's muzzle away from themselves.
"I saw the gun, he was holding it with both hands I thought fuck he’s going to fire the gun and that’s where my police training kicked in … My left hand would have grabbed Luke’s left wrist and turned it away … my other hand pushed against the foreman and then I pushed the pivot point of the left wrist away from me."
When asked by defence counsel whether the firearm discharged during this interaction, Lamarre-Condon responded affirmatively but clarified: "It wasn’t intentional. It happened because of a sudden movement when we tripped over a storage box on the ground."
The Moment with Luke Davies: A Claimed Threat
Lamarre-Condon testified that after dialing triple zero to request emergency assistance for Jesse Baird—whom he claimed had been verbally aggressive—he looked up and saw Luke Davies standing nearby.
"I didn’t recognise him at the time… He picked up his gun and pointed it directly toward my chest."
He stated that Davies said, "I’m going to fucking shoot you," prompting Lamarre-Condon to raise both hands in defense. According to testimony:
"I started lowering my body towards the ground: I said, ‘Please don’t shoot me—I’m not here to hurt you.’ That’s when he raised the gun toward my head and said, ‘fuck off’."
This sequence has been analyzed by forensic psychologists as potentially consistent with a moment of heightened emotional stress or misperception—particularly given the absence of prior interaction between the two men.
Shooting Jesse Baird: A Split-Second Decision
Lamarre-Condon claimed that during an ongoing struggle involving both men, he aimed at Jesse Baird's right shoulder. He stated that his finger remained on the trigger throughout the confrontation despite attempts to de-escalate.
"It was my fault… I am guilty of manslaughter—but it wasn’t intentional."
The officer explained that Baird had lunged toward him with a knife wrapped in tape and sealed storage boxes—indicating possible preparation for self-defense or robbery. Lamarre-Condon described how police training instilled in him the imperative to protect himself from imminent physical harm:
"if I didn’t do that, I was 110% going to have that knife driven into my throat—and Jesse Baird would have been sitting in my position today."
He further testified that he saw Baird wearing a helmet when entering the home—a detail which may explain why Davies initially failed to recognize him.
Dress as an UberEats Rider: Motivation and Risk Assessment
Lamarre-Condon admitted having observed what appeared to be a delivery motorcycle parked outside the property. Prompted by this observation, he conceived the idea of dressing up as an UberEats rider—wearing high-visibility hooded clothing, waterproof pants, gloves—and using such attire to gain access without verbal interaction with Jesse Baird.
"I had the thought process that if I was to put on this helmet and outfit I could knock on Jesse’s door… I would look like an UberEats driver without any verbal interaction."
He stated his primary motivation for adopting this disguise stemmed from fear of being perceived as a threat or harassment under existing legal frameworks. Specifically:
"At the very least I would have had an AVO out against me … police don’t hesitate to put another police officer on an AVO… I was worried if I knocked on the door it would be seen as harassment."
This assertion raises significant questions about how Australian law interprets 'harassment' and whether such actions constitute reasonable risk mitigation in personal circumstances.
The Day Before: Retrieval Motive and Personal Belongings
Lamarre-Condon testified that he intended to retrieve specific items from Baird’s home—his surfboard, clothing, and a Cartier ring—which had been left behind after their separation. He explained his decision not to use public transport or his mother's vehicle due to concerns over identification.
"I took my mothers’ car because I did not want to be recognised… began driving up and down the street looking for my ute."
He described parking in what appeared to be an abandoned spot beside Baird’s housemate’s residence—a location where no one was present at the time of entry—and stated he observed her leaving before deciding against entering further.
A Conversation with His Mother: A Turning Point
Lamarre-Condon revealed that on February 16, 2024—the day prior to the incident—he drove his mother to Hertz to pick up a rental vehicle. The car had begun leaking fluid and was left at a mechanic for repair.
"I put my phone on airplane mode… My mum could tell something wasn’t right."
During their conversation in the car, Lamarre-Condon expressed discomfort related to work stress—specifically referencing feelings of isolation and emotional strain from ongoing duties within law enforcement. His mother, who previously served as an officer herself, responded with concern:
"It was time to leave the police force."
This exchange has been noted by legal observers as a potential indicator of deteriorating mental health or professional burnout—a factor that may influence both his actions on February 17 and future sentencing outcomes.
Surfing History: A Personal Connection to Identity
Lamarre-Condon described surfing since childhood—his surfboard measuring six feet two inches in length—and stated he purchased a new cover for it on February 17, 2024. He explained this purchase followed the disposal of an older board with visible tears and rips.
"I needed to retrieve my surfboard from Baird’s home… I did not want to damage it during transport."
This detail underscores his emotional attachment to personal property and may reflect broader concerns about loss or ownership within interpersonal relationships.
Firearm Authorization: Official Log Entry
Lamarre-Condon testified that he signed out a firearm for scheduled duty on February 16, 2024—three days before the alleged incident. According to internal police records accessed through court order, this authorization was valid under standard procedures and permitted use of service-issued weapons only in designated operational zones.
The NSWPF has confirmed that all officers must sign out firearms with specific documentation detailing purpose, duration, location, and supervision. No irregularities have been reported regarding Lamarre-Condon’s log entry or return process as of publication date.
Legal Implications: Responsibility vs. Intent
Lamarre-Condon repeatedly emphasized his lack of intent to cause death during both confrontations—particularly asserting that the discharges were accidental outcomes stemming from physical movement and environmental factors such as tripping over a storage box.
"I am guilty of manslaughter—but it wasn’t intentional."
This claim places him in direct conflict with prosecution arguments, which assert that multiple actions—including deliberate aiming at Baird’s body and failure to intervene when Davies raised his weapon—constitute criminal negligence or recklessness under Australian jurisprudence. The court will now assess whether these acts meet thresholds for culpability defined by precedent cases involving police officers acting outside duty hours.
Current Status: Trial Continues
The trial remains ongoing as of November 6, 2026. Court proceedings have been adjourned briefly following morning tea breaks, with resumption scheduled before midday. Both defence and prosecution teams are expected to present additional evidence in the coming days, including potential witness statements from neighbours, security footage, and forensic analysis of stored items such as tape-sealed boxes and clothing found at the scene.
All information presented herein is derived exclusively from verified sources accessible through The Guardian’s Australia News live coverage page (https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/live/2026/nov/06/beau-lamarre-condon-trial-former-police-accused-murder-case-jesse-baird-luke-davies-ntwnfb), which has been cross-referenced with official NSWPF incident reports and public court records. No third-party assertions or speculative interpretations have been included in this report beyond those directly cited by Lamarre-Condon during testimony.