The short version
- A former police officer is standing trial for the alleged murder of two men, with prosecutors highlighting his prior interest in how law enforcement handles false reports of gunfire.
- Testimony reveals the accused contacted a fellow officer after his arrest to claim media narratives were inaccurate and to express affection, prompting immediate rejection from the colleague.
- The defense argues the shootings resulted from separate struggles where the accused acted in self-defense, contradicting the prosecution’s narrative of premeditated violence.
A Sydney court has heard details regarding the alleged actions of Beau Lamarre-Condon, a former New South Wales police officer, in the period leading up to and following the fatal shootings of Jesse Baird and Luke Davies. The trial, currently underway before Justice Natalie Adams, centers on accusations that Lamarre-Condon used his service weapon to kill the two men at Baird’s home in Paddington on February 19, 2024. He has entered not guilty pleas to two counts of murder and one charge of aggravated break and enter.
Prosecutors have sought to establish a timeline of behavior that suggests premeditation or awareness of consequences. Central to this narrative is testimony from Dayna Schagen, an active NSW police officer and friend of the accused. She recounted receiving a phone call from Lamarre-Condon in late March 2024, approximately one month after the alleged killings. The call occurred around 9 p.m., a time Schagen initially ignored, considering it rude for a weeknight. However, when the number dialed again, she answered and immediately recognized his voice.
During that conversation, Lamarre-Condon reportedly told Schagen he loved her and urged her to wait before taking any action, asserting that not everything reported in the news was true and that the truth would emerge in court. Schagen terminated the call abruptly, expressing shock and anger at the suggestion that she might have reason to speak with him again given the gravity of the allegations. She subsequently reported the interaction to her superiors and provided a formal statement to investigators, despite having no official role in the case.
The prosecution also highlighted a specific inquiry Lamarre-Condon made days before the alleged murders. On February 14, 2024, he posed a hypothetical question to Schagen regarding police protocol. He asked how law enforcement would respond if a radio broadcast reported gunshots, but someone subsequently claimed on the air that the noise was merely children setting off fireworks. Schagen testified that she explained police would likely disregard such a contradiction and move on due to the high volume of calls they receive. The prosecution clarified for the jury that individuals with access to police radios can hear these broadcasts.
This exchange appears significant because it demonstrates an interest in how false alarms or misleading information might affect police response times or priorities. The timing of this question, just five days before the alleged shootings, has been presented as evidence of planning or an attempt to understand potential gaps in emergency response coverage. Schagen noted that this conversation remained on her mind when she later observed news reports about the disappearances of Baird and Davies.
Following the public announcement of the missing men, Schagen attempted to contact Lamarre-Condon via messaging platforms. On February 22, she asked if he was okay and inquired about his communication with Baird. When he did not respond, she followed up a day later with more direct questions about his whereabouts and the media reports. Although he opened her messages, he provided no reply. Schagen stated that these silent interactions, combined with their earlier discussion about police protocols, led her to suspect his involvement.
Background testimony also explored the personal dynamics between Lamarre-Condon and Baird. Schagen described an on-and-off relationship during 2023 that ended when Baird made it clear he was not interested in committing further. Despite the breakup, Lamarre-Condon remained emotionally invested, according to Schagen. Tensions escalated after Baird discovered that Lamarre-Condon had accessed his phone and blocked another man without permission. Schagen expressed dismay at this breach of trust, noting that Lamarre-Condon had no grounds for jealousy since they were not in a relationship.
The defense has offered a contrasting account of the events on February 19. Lawyers argue that the shootings were accidental and occurred during two separate struggles with the victims. They contend that Lamarre-Condon acted in self-defense, challenging the prosecution’s implication of premeditated murder. The trial continues as both sides present evidence to support their respective narratives regarding intent, sequence of events, and the role of personal conflict in the tragedy.
As proceedings advance, the court will weigh the significance of Lamarre-Condon’s post-arrest communications and his pre-incident inquiries against the physical evidence and witness testimonies. The case underscores the complexities of investigating crimes involving law enforcement personnel, where access to internal protocols and professional networks may influence both the commission of alleged acts and the subsequent investigation. Justice Adams will oversee the evaluation of these competing claims as the jury deliberates on guilt or innocence.
Sources behind this briefing
Go to the original reporting
- The Guardian World↗Beau Lamarre-Condon told cop friend ‘I love you’ and ‘not everything in the news is true’ after arrest, court told
