Ex-cop on trial: bodies found in surfboard bags

Beau Lamarre-Condon, 31, a former police officer, is on trial in the NSW Supreme Court charged with the murders of Jesse Baird and Luke Davies; he has pleaded not guilty and will argue self-defence. The Crown alleges that inside Baird’s Paddington home, Lamarre-Condon shot Baird twice in the kitchen, including an execution-style shot through the floor, and then killed Davies in the bedroom as Davies attempted to call triple zero; prosecutors say he cleaned the scene afterwards, and luminol was used to detect bloodstaining under the floor and on timber beams. A childhood friend testifying under the pseudonym Elizabeth Kennedy accompanied Lamarre-Condon after the killings, during which he asked her to pay for an angle grinder, turn her phone off, and cover the white van’s number plates with garbage bags—she refused, and he completed the task himself. Kennedy testified that Lamarre-Condon broke a padlock at a farm gate near Bungonia, telling her he had to check on cattle, and later attempted to dispose of the bodies in a dam, while mentioning needing an iced tea for caffeine and instructing her not to involve herself. At Bunnings stores in Alexandria and elsewhere, Lamarre-Condon purchased a drill and drill bit, high-visibility clothing, gumboots, pants, dust masks, and cleaning equipment, often paying with cash; CCTV also shows him withdrawing $500 from an ATM, visiting a police station, and traveling between his home and suburbs in a Tesla, a hired car, and the white van. After a sushi train dinner in Cronulla, footage shows a friend removing items from the couple’s belongings, which were later dumped in a skip bin; Lamarre-Condon returned later that night to dispose of the belongings. Kennedy said Lamarre-Condon mentioned Jesse was seeing someone new, expressed affection, and said he was sorry he couldn’t join a planned Europe trip, but his phone was off when she called back. The prosecution alleges Lamarre-Condon asked Kennedy for a gun silencer to scare someone and admitted to putting water in Baird’s car fuel tank to cause a breakdown while Baird traveled with his sister; he is also accused of entering Baird’s home while Baird was asleep, taking his phone, deleting his contacts, turning off morning alarms, and enabling Snapchat location sharing to track Baird’s movements, and of taking photographs of Baird having sex with another man through a window and bragging about the images to Kennedy. During cross-examination, defence counsel suggested Kennedy was aware of the bodies’ presence and had assisted in their disposal, and referenced a popular song; Kennedy firmly denied those claims, stating she never asked him to conceal the bodies and that it was Lamarre-Condon who introduced the music. The defence team argues that Baird and Davies were accidentally shot during separate struggles in which Lamarre-Condon acted in self-defence, and that he cleaned up and disposed of the bodies because he panicked considerably. The bodies of Baird and Davies were discovered approximately 200 kilometers (124 miles) south of Sydney, concealed inside surfboard bags near Bungonia eight days after the alleged murders. Lamarre-Condon received medical treatment at a Sydney hospital for a minor surgical procedure; CCTV placed him there. The trial, expected to last three months, entered its fourth week with a jury view of the Paddington terrace, where Justice Natalie Adams instructed jurors that viewing a place through images is not the same as seeing the actual premises; jurors had previously seen a three-dimensional reconstruction and photographs showing cartridge cases, bullet holes, and bloodstaining. The prosecution told the jury that a statement in which Lamarre-Condon claimed he showed Kennedy the bodies was not true, saying he had already decided to conceal the deaths.

Original Sources: perthnow.com.au, theguardian.com, abc.net.au, dailymail.com, dnamagazine.com.au, stuff.co.nz, canberratimes.com.au, abc.net.au

Category: Criminal

Keywords: beau, bodies, bungonia, cctv, cronulla, dam, deaths, elizabeth, gun, jesse, luke, nsw, silencer, surfboard, trial

The article provides no actionable information for a normal reader. It reports a criminal trial and related details but offers no clear steps, choices, instructions, or tools that a reader can use soon. There is nothing a reader can do or try as a result of reading it, so the article offers no action to take.

In terms of educational depth, the piece remains surface-level. It conveys names, ages, charges, a few testimony excerpts, and some location details, but it does not explain causes, systems, or reasoning behind how such investigations unfold, what legal processes are involved, or how the demographic or statistical figures cited were derived. Numbers such as the 200 kilometre distance are reported without context or explanation of why they matter, so the article does not teach enough for a reader to understand the topic beyond isolated facts.

Personal relevance is limited for an ordinary reader. The events described affect a very small group of those directly connected to the case, true crime enthusiasts, or people in the immediate region. For most the information does not impact safety money health decisions or daily responsibilities. It fails to connect to real life at all offering only distant event details that do not influence personal choices or awareness in any meaningful way.

The article does not serve a public service function. It contains no warnings safety guidance emergency information or anything that helps the public act responsibly. It simply recounts a story without offering context or help and it appears to exist primarily as news coverage rather than as material that enables responsible action. Therefore it does not serve the public interest beyond casual consumption.

There is no practical advice given. No steps or tips are provided that an ordinary reader can realistically follow. The only remotely actionable detail such as venue capacity or age restrictions is presented without context on what a reader could actually do with it. Guidance is absent so the article does not help the reader apply any takeaway.

Long term impact is negligible. The focus is on a single isolated event with no framework for planning ahead improving habits making stronger choices or avoiding similar problems in the future. Readers walk away with no lasting takeaway no method for evaluating comparable situations and no tools to apply the information later.

Emotional and psychological impact leans toward creating helplessness rather than offering clarity calm or constructive thinking. The story may generate shock or interest but it provides no mechanisms for the reader to respond leaving them uncertain rather than informed. If anything it harms more than helps by generating attention without resolution.

The language is straightforward reporting rather than overt clickbait but the subject matter is inherently dramatic. The article does not rely on exaggerated or repeated claims that add no substance beyond what is typical for a crime story yet the nature of the content still risks sensationalizing attention without delivering meaningful insight.

The article presents a problem a double murder and a trial but fails to provide steps examples context or a way for the reader to learn more. It misses chances to teach how to evaluate similar news how to assess risk in real life situations or how to build basic contingency plans. Simple methods a person could use include checking multiple sources for verification recognizing that media often highlights exceptional cases rather than typical ones and applying general safety practices such as sharing travel plans with trusted contacts.

When consuming news about crimes or trials treat each story as a snapshot of a specific situation rather than a pattern for everyday life. Isolated cases no matter how widely covered do not reflect the typical risk most people face. Maintaining this perspective helps prevent unnecessary fear and keeps attention on personal safety habits that actually matter.

Practice basic risk assessment in daily routines. Before going out share your destination and expected return time with someone you trust. Keep your phone charged and accessible and know the location of nearby help such as police stations hospitals or well populated businesses. These simple habits take little time but give you more control over unexpected situations.

Evaluate information critically. When a report includes striking details such as large numbers dramatic claims or exclusive quotes ask whether those elements are verified or simply designed to hold attention. Cross checking with a second source especially an official or neutral one reduces the chance that you are acting on incomplete or skewed information.

Build a simple contingency plan for travel or outings. Identify two routes to your destination note where you can park or wait safely and have a backup way to contact help if your primary method fails. Planning ahead even in a basic way shifts you from reactive to prepared without requiring special knowledge or tools.

If a story about a crime or legal case affects you emotionally remember that media often amplifies exceptional events. Balancing news consumption with activities that restore a sense of calm such as a short walk a phone call with a friend or checking in on your own home’s basic safety can counteract the helplessness that sensational coverage sometimes creates.

The prosecutor told the jury that a statement in which Lamarre-Condon claimed he showed Kennedy the bodies was not true, saying he had already decided to conceal the deaths.
The text reports this claim without presenting any proof.
By writing it as fact, the text makes readers believe his denial is false.
This creates a false belief that he is lying, despite only being charged.
Inside the text, an guess is shown as if it were true, biasing perception toward guilt.

"A friend identified as Elizabeth Kennedy testified that he showed no remorse or shed tears, even when calling her from jail."
The phrase uses strong words to make him seem cold.
The text shares this as testimony but gives no reason for his behavior.
Without reason, the words push readers to feel negatively about him.
The quote shows the exact words used to frame him.
This word choice makes readers view his character more negatively.

"He is further accused of dumping the couple's belongings in a skip bin at Cronulla after a sushi train dinner, with footage showing a friend removing items before Lamarre-Condon returned later that night to dispose of the belongings."
The detail "after a sushi train dinner" is a casual fact placed next to grave charges.
The text reports it without saying if it matters, making the event seem less serious.
Such word choice subtly shifts reader focus toward normalcy rather than the crime.
The quote includes the detail exactly as presented in the accusation.
This fact-picking helps one side by softening the timeline's harshness.

Coldness shows up when Kennedy says Lamarre-Condon ‘showed no remorse or shed tears, even when calling her from jail,’ a description that comes from her jailhouse talk and helps paint him as unfeeling and calculating, which steers readers toward seeing him as guilty. On the other hand, the text says he told Kennedy he was ‘sorry he couldn’t join a planned Europe trip and expressed affection,’ which makes him seem human and can win sympathy despite the serious charges. Kennedy also said she was ‘not concerned about being charged as an accessory after the fact, but more worried about being involved in something illegal without her knowledge,’ which shows fear and that she may not have understood what was happening, and this guides readers to feel sympathy for her as someone who might not have meant to do wrong. The prosecutor tells the jury that Lamarre-Condon’s claim about showing the bodies ‘was not true’ and that he ‘had already decided to conceal the deaths,’ which presents an emotional claim of deception that directs readers toward viewing the concealment as intentional betrayal of trust. The accusation that he asked for ‘a gun silencer so he could scare someone’ conveys that he meant to intimidate, which paints him as dangerous. The detail ‘after a sushi train dinner’ placed next to the accusation of dumping bodies in a skip bin creates a mild emotional contrast by pairing a casual meal with a grave act, which subtly shifts attention toward everyday life rather than the crime’s seriousness. Finally, Kennedy’s denial that she ‘does not know what a dead body smells like’ and her claim of ignorance about the bodies under the tarp express innocence and naivety, which reinforces her portrayal as uninformed and can elicit reader sympathy toward the idea that she may not have been a willing participant.

These emotions shape how readers react by balancing the defendant’s alleged coldness with moments of personal regret and perceived ignorance, which together create sympathy for Kennedy as someone who may have been pulled into events she claims to have misunderstood, while also directing focus toward the defendant’s alleged planning and threats; the coldness and deception emotions make the charges seem serious and the concealment intentional, leading readers to see the defendant as culpable, whereas the affection and ignorance emotions create room for doubt about how much he knew and her role, encouraging a more mixed reaction that considers both guilt and possible coercion. The placement of a sushi train dinner next to the body-disposal accusation further softens the timeline’s harshness by connecting it to a mundane detail, steering reader attention toward normal activity instead of horror, which may produce a more measured emotional response rather than immediate outrage. Overall, the emotional mix aims to guide readers toward viewing the case as involving both deliberate criminal action and a participant who may have been unaware of the full extent of the illegality, thereby influencing opinions on responsibility and consequences.

The writer uses word choices and story order to heighten emotional impact and direct thinking; describing words like ‘striking,’ ‘safely,’ ‘never materialized,’ and ‘failed’ act as emotional markers that prioritize certain outcomes without direct comment, steering the reader’s sense of success or failure. The prosecutor’s framing of Lamarre-Condon’s statement as ‘not true’ and his alleged decision to ‘conceal the deaths’ uses a claim of deception that carries weight and influences the jury’s view. Placing ‘after a sushi train dinner’ next to the body-disposal accusation creates emotional contrast by linking a mundane detail with a grave act, which subtly minimizes severity. Kennedy’s quoted response ‘You’re wrong, again’ uses direct contradiction to show her agency and challenge the defense, which builds reader trust in her testimony by portraying her as resolute. And the repeated mention of Lamarre-Condon’s alleged actions—requesting a silencer, breaking a padlock, disposing of belongings—builds an emotional narrative that reinforces the idea of planning and control, guiding readers toward viewing the events as calculated rather than accidental. These choices together steer attention, reinforce particular readings, and shape the reader’s emotional and factual conclusions about the case.