From the foregoing, it can be learned that this was a conversation that greatly strengthens the conclusion that there was prior planning, and that the defendants jointly planned to murder the deceased even before the said conversation, i.e., at least a few hours before the meeting with him on the day of the incident.
The sock found at the scene
As noted, on the afternoon of 27 February 2018, after the deceased's burnt car was found, the mobile laboratory arrived at the scene and about 20 meters southwest of the vehicle a pair of wet socks, torn and stained with a substance that had been examined and turned out to be blood. Admittedly, as the defendants' counsel claimed (and as the defendants also emphasized in their testimonies), the socks were examined in the biological laboratory, but despite evidence of blood and partial profiles originating from more than one detail, no comparable profile was obtained (P/86). However, even without an additional civil hearing of the defendants or the deceased on the socks, this evidence cannot be ignored, which, together with the statements of defendant 2, constitutes significant circumstantial evidence.
It should be emphasized that the socks were found at the secondary scene next to the deceased's car (near where the car was parked before the defendants rolled over it – see photo 34 B/96), a few hours after the incident, even before the defendants were arrested and before the investigation team discovered the scene of the incident (only the next night, in a reconstruction conducted for defendant 1). It should also be noted that as it appears from the investigation material and the testimonies of the defendants, on the night of the incident there was heavy rain (which, according to Defendant 1, washed most of the blood from the place – P/5C, pp. 12, 32-33), so that the very fact that wet socks with human blood stains were found nearby, even if it was not possible to extract DNA from them, constitutes in itself circumstantial evidence connected to the murder of the deceased.