The short version
- Lamarre-Condon admits to checking Baird's social media after their breakup but rejects accusations of stalking or obsession.
- Prosecutors present evidence of intense early relationship dynamics and privacy breaches, including phone monitoring.
- The trial centers on whether Lamarre-Condon's actions constituted a pattern of control preceding the fatal shooting.
A former Australian police officer standing trial for the double murder of his ex-partner and the man’s new partner has denied allegations that he stalked or was obsessed with Jesse Baird. Beau Lamarre-Condon testified in the New South Wales Supreme Court, asserting that his online monitoring of Baird following their separation did not constitute stalking. The defense maintains that Lamarre-Condon’s actions were those of a concerned ex-partner rather than a perpetrator of coercive control.
The trial concerns events from February 19, 2024, when Lamarre-Condon is accused of fatally shooting Baird and Luke Davies at Baird’s home in Paddington, Sydney. The prosecution alleges that Lamarre-Condon used his service weapon to carry out the attack. He has pleaded not guilty to two counts of murder and one charge of aggravated break and enter. The courtroom proceedings have focused heavily on the nature of the relationship between Lamarre-Condon and Baird prior to the violence.
During cross-examination, Crown prosecutor Brett Hatfield SC challenged Lamarre-Condon’s characterization of his behavior. Hatfield presented screenshots taken by Lamarre-Condon of Baird’s Instagram stories in the months following their breakup in April 2023. The prosecutor asked if this activity amounted to stalking both online and in person during May and June of that year. Lamarre-Condon rejected the label, stating he was merely looking online and suggesting that phone records would prove his physical location did not support claims of physical stalking.
Lamarre-Condon insisted that the initial breakup was amicable and that he had initiated the split. He told the jury that following each other on social media is a normal part of modern interaction, not evidence of criminal intent. However, he admitted to missing Baird as a friend and sexual partner, acknowledging that he still felt upset about the end of their relationship. This admission introduced complexity to his defense, which seeks to distance him from any narrative of dangerous fixation.
The prosecution sought to establish a timeline of escalating intensity in the early stages of the relationship. Hatfield questioned Lamarre-Condon about messages sent to friends in late 2022 and early 2023, where he expressed strong feelings for Baird. When asked if he was obsessed from the start, Lamarre-Condon distinguished between being smitten and being obsessed. He argued that his use of phrases like 'I love him' in texts to friends was casual banter, not a declaration of deep romantic commitment.
Further testimony revealed instances where Lamarre-Condon accessed Baird’s personal devices. He admitted to looking through Baird’s phone during a holiday trip to regional New South Wales and using it to unfollow people he suspected were romantically interested in Baird. Lamarre-Condon described this behavior as curiosity getting the better of him, wanting to see if Baird was messaging other men. He acknowledged breaching trust but framed it as insecurity rather than malice.
The courtroom dynamic became tense when Lamarre-Condon directly accused the prosecutor of trying to mislead him during questioning about text messages. Justice Natalie Adams intervened, instructing the witness to answer questions directly and noting that any objections to misleading conduct should come from the defense lawyer. This interaction highlighted the friction between the prosecution’s aggressive line of questioning and the defendant’s attempts to control the narrative.
The case hinges on whether the jury will view Lamarre-Condon’s actions as a pattern of obsessive behavior leading to violence or as the erratic conduct of someone struggling with a breakup. The defense aims to portray him as genuine in his affection but not dangerous, while the prosecution argues that his monitoring and privacy breaches demonstrate a loss of control. As the trial continues, jurors are weighing these competing accounts against the tragic outcome.
Legal experts note that establishing stalking or obsession can be crucial in murder trials involving intimate partners, as it helps explain motive and premeditation. The distinction Lamarre-Condon draws between being 'smitten' and 'obsessed' may prove pivotal. If the court accepts his characterization of events as benign curiosity, the prosecution’s theory of a calculated attack driven by jealousy faces significant hurdles. Conversely, if the jury sees his actions as part of a broader pattern of control, the path to a conviction becomes clearer.
The trial is expected to continue with further testimony regarding the night of the shooting and the immediate aftermath. Both sides are building their cases around the psychological state of Lamarre-Condon in the months leading up to February 2024. The outcome will depend on how effectively each side can interpret the digital footprint and interpersonal dynamics presented in court. For now, the jury remains deliberating on the weight of these conflicting narratives.
Sources behind this briefing
Go to the original reporting
- The Guardian World↗Beau Lamarre-Condon denies stalking Jesse Baird as double murder trial continues
