NASA Opens Astronaut Search to Expand Artemis Moon Program

CAPE CANAVERAL, Fla. – Interested in flying to the moon and helping establish a permanent lunar base? NASA is inviting applications for a new...
HomeNewsCourt Reveals ‘Bobby P’ Nickname of Accused Double-Killer Cop

Court Reveals ‘Bobby P’ Nickname of Accused Double-Killer Cop

On Wednesday, Beau Lamarre-Condon told the court he did not create email addresses for Jesse Baird or a man Baird was dating.

Crown prosecutor Brett Hatfield SC questioned Lamarre-Condon about Grindr accounts during cross-examination.

Lamarre-Condon had previously told the court he went on Grindr and entered the email address of Baird’s new partner to check whether he had an active account.

When Mr Hatfield asked why, Lamarre-Condon said: “Because if he had a Grindr account, it would mean [he and Baird] were not exclusive.”

On Wednesday, Lamarre-Condon said he had not fabricated an email address for Baird’s new partner, but had found it on social media.

Mr Hatfield asked: “If it was one you’d make up, you’d recall?”

Lamarre-Condon replied: “I don’t recall making one up.”

Mr Hatfield then asked: “What about Mr Baird, did you make any fake email addresses or Grindr accounts for him?”

Lamarre-Condon replied: “I didn’t.”

The Crown alleges that Lamarre-Condon created a fake dating profile in Baird’s name.

The court also heard that, on the day he allegedly broke into Baird’s home, Lamarre-Condon texted his best friend, Jodie Parker: “I just need mamma Jodie’s words of wisdom.”

Lamarre-Condon said he often sought Ms Parker’s guidance because she was “spiritual and Christian, and would give me advice about things in general”.

At about 7.30pm on August 17, 2023—the night of the alleged break-in—the court heard Lamarre-Condon asked Ms Parker to speak with him on FaceTime.

Crown prosecutor Brett Hatfield SC asked Lamarre-Condon whether he wanted to discuss Jesse Baird with Ms Parker.

A combined image shows undated images of (left) Luke Davies and (right) Jesse Baird. Police have located the bodies of two missing men, who investigators allege were killed more than a week earlier in Sydney by a NSW officer. (AAP Image/Supplied by NSW Police and Studio 10) NO ARCHIVING, EDITORIAL USE ONLY 14099025 14906299

Lamarre-Condon said he could not remember, given the conversation had taken place three years earlier.

The following day, August 18, he sent Ms Parker a screenshot of a text exchange he had with Baird two days earlier, on August 16—the day before the alleged break-in.

In the exchange, Lamarre-Condon wrote to Baird: “Hey, sorry I had to run yesterday. I was running a tad late or I would have loved to chat for longer.

“Let’s do a walk and lunch catch-up after next weekend … then we can have a proper catch-up. Good seeing you though.”

Baird responded at 1.49pm the next day: “It was good to see you too. Glad you had fun in Euro.”

His reply included a plane emoji and a smiling face.

Lamarre-Condon had also sent the exchange to another friend, who described it as “savage”.

The friend interpreted Baird’s messages as indicating that he was not interested in meeting Lamarre-Condon.

The friend said: “OMG. I’m dying. That’s so savage. No, it’s defs savage. If he was keen, he would have jumped on the bandwagon.”

Mr Hatfield had previously suggested that Lamarre-Condon decided to “enter Baird’s property” after receiving the “savage rejection”.

Lamarre-Condon denied that Baird had rejected him and rejected the suggestion that the message prompted him to allegedly break into Baird’s home.

The court heard on Wednesday that Lamarre-Condon sent the same exchange with Baird to Ms Parker on August 18, the day after the alleged break-in.

Mr Hatfield suggested that Lamarre-Condon forwarded the exchange to Ms Parker because he, too, viewed it as a “savage rejection”.

Lamarre-Condon said he had never regarded the message as “savage” and did not consider it a rejection.

He maintained that Baird had invited him to stay over on the night of the alleged break-in.

The court adjourned early because of an unforeseen legal argument.