This evidence becomes very significant evidence, taking into account the consistent version of Defendant 2 in his statements (beginning with Dec. 11) that Defendant 1 was equipped in advance with a sock that he showed him when they were at home, and then he put a stone in it and hit the deceased in the head several times with it. As stated, this is a masked individual who was found at the scene, and even according to the new version of defendant 2, he did not know about the sock being found at the scene and was not told this by the investigators; Moreover, this is a very unique detail, since it is an unusual "assault tool", and it is difficult to shock that such a detail is an invention of the mind of Defendant 2, which was intended to incriminate Defendant 1. It should also be noted that in the cross-examination of the mobile laboratory man, it was clarified that there was a sock inside a sock that was torn in the same place with no burn marks, inside the sock was a hard white material, possibly plastic and possibly plaster", a description that can certainly be reconciled with the fact that inside the socks (which appeared to be one sock on the outside – see photo 38 bat/96) there was a stone before they were torn.
This evidence is significant evidence that strengthens both the statements of defendant 2 to the police regarding the existence of a prior plan to murder the deceased, and the statements of the two defendants regarding the manner in which the deceased was attacked, which was not expressed in a number of "kaffas" as they tried to argue before us.
Testimony of Sally Huta
The testimony of the witness, the co-worker of defendant 2, left a very reliable impression, and it is clear that she gave a moderate and not inflammatory testimony in which she told the truth. Her statements that during the party (which took place on February 27, 2018, hours after the incident) defendant 2 cried a little, told her that he had made a mistake and said several times that he had "taken someone" down together with defendant 1, were reliable to me and even reconciled with the words of defendant 2 in some of his interrogations (it should be noted that defendant 2 brought up this version for the first time in the post-reconstruction interrogation – P/14, as part of his attempt to describe his difficult situation after the incident and his fear of defendant 1). And that's how the investigators actually came to Sally).