Beau Lamarre-Condon: Cross-Examination in the Double-Murder Trial

TVS News AI, editorially supervised, presents Beau Lamarre-Condon: Cross-Examination in the Double-Murder Trial.

The Moment in the Living Room Is Re-Enacted in Court

The Guardian reports that Lamarre-Condon re-enacted his movements in the witness box before the NSW Supreme Court on Monday. He depicted how, according to his own account, he struggled with Baird in the kitchen, pushed Baird back with a knife and drew his service weapon. Prosecutor Brett Hatfield SC asked him to remove his rosary gloves while doing so.

The demonstration was closely tied to the core of the prosecution's case: Lamarre-Condon said he had aimed at Baird's right shoulder. He pulled the pistol from the area of his belt, raised it to chest or shoulder height and mimed the shot with his elbow bent. Before the court, he said the sequence had been “very, very quick” and that there had been constant movement during the struggle.

This places his account in clear tension with another part of his testimony. The previous week, he said Baird had held him during the struggle. On Monday, he explained that these were not contradictory accounts: first, he had been held, and afterward, he had pushed Baird back. The prosecution tried to highlight this contradiction for the jury.

The Two Shots

Lamarre-Condon admits that a second shot was fired within a matter of seconds after the first. He says the second shot was not deliberately aimed at Baird but went off unintentionally during the struggle. When Hatfield combined this with the question of whether he had executed Baird with the second shot, he replied: “I never executed Jesse Baird.”

The prosecution relies not only on his words but also on the sequence of the movements in its account. It argues that the weapon recoiled toward Baird during the struggle. Lamarre-Condon disputed the proposed direction, saying the weapon could only have flown to the left or right. Both versions can be reconstructed using the floor plan of the kitchen and living room shown in the courtroom.

What Happened When Davies Raised the Weapon

ABC Canberra describes in its live blog the sequence Lamarre-Condon described on 9 November between 11:07 and 11:17. According to his account, he first saw Davies holding the weapon with both hands. Davies, he said, told him: “I'm going to shoot you.” Lamarre-Condon raised his hands to the surrender position and sat down on the floor. He continued holding the phone, told Davies to leave and sent him away with a dismissive hand gesture.

When Davies subsequently raised the weapon from the chest area toward his own head, Lamarre-Condon said he saw his left index finger on Davies' left hand, or on the trigger. He grabbed Davies' left wrist with his left hand and twisted the weapon upward. In doing so, the phone in his right hand struck Davies' forearm and the screen broke. The weapon discharged as it was twisted, hit Baird and went off again.

These details are not incidental because they mark the decisive sequence of the alleged shots. Lamarre-Condon describes them as a single, rapid sequence: the weapon initially aimed at Baird, followed by a grasp of the phone and wrist, and finally a shot in the direction of Luke Davies. At the same time, he denies deliberately shooting Davies; the shot went off while the weapon was being twisted.

The View Through the Visor

The prosecution also challenged his line of sight. It asked how he could have seen the trigger finger-width through his helmet visor. Lamarre-Condon replied that he was looking straight ahead and did not need a side field of vision. He said he could see the finger moving toward him and rejected the assumption that his view was obstructed by the visor.

The question touches on a possible weakness in his account. If the defendant's perception was accurate, he was able to observe the trigger. If it was not, it remains unclear how the grip he described occurred. The court report did not provide a final answer.

After the Shot: Emergency Call and the Search for Baird

ABC also reports that after the shots, Lamarre-Condon picked up a phone from the kitchen and dialed Triple Zero (000). He did not separate during the call because he wanted to alert emergency services or paramedics. St. Vincent's Hospital was nearby, and for that reason, he considered the assistance urgent. According to his account, he was still wearing his helmet during the call because he was not performing any resuscitation or reanimation.

Upon entering the apartment, he said he had looked for a phone. Baird and Davies, he said, were wearing only underwear and no shoes. When he found Baird kneeling beside him after the shot, he placed him in the recovery position and searched for a pulse at his wrist. He initially assessed him only as an unresponsive person, not as dead. The prosecution then asked whether the large gunshot wound to Baird's mouth and the blood had not been unmistakable. Lamarre-Condon replied that blood could come from different parts of the body.

He also explained that he had deliberately left both of his own phones in the car. This was not an overlooked safety measure, he said, but intentional: he had not needed them to retrieve his belongings. The prosecution used these statements to examine the later search for a device in the kitchen and the sequence of events after the shot.

The Trial Does Not End with the Cross-Examination

Lamarre-Condon is appearing as a witness for the third day. Last week, his lawyer John Stratton SC questioned him. The prosecution briefly began its cross-examination afterward before the court adjourned on Friday. On Monday, Crown Prosecutor Hatfield continued his questions; the trial before Justice Natalie Adams is continuing.

The prosecution alleges that the former officer shot both men at 27 Brown Street in Paddington with his service weapon. He surrendered to police on 23 February 2024 and denies two_counts of murder as well as an aggravated break-and-enter charge. According to the live blog, the report does not yet contain a verdict or a final assessment of his testimony.

A clear question therefore remains for the families: Lamarre-Condon describes the first shot as an intentional shot at Baird's shoulder and the second as an unintentional discharge. The prosecution challenges this explanation and presents its own reconstructions of the weapon's movement. The course of the trial will show whether the jury accepts his reconstruction or can reconcile it with other evidence.