In this state of affairs, it is puzzling that the defense's attempt to undermine the credibility of the witness, and to claim that she and defendant 2 were very drunk at the time of the conversation; It is also puzzling to the claim of defendant 2 in his testimony that he does not remember what they were talking about, but that nonsense was said under the influence of drugs and alcohol (p. 464, paras. 8-10). It should be noted that in the context of defendant 2's statements, he tried to claim that he told Sally that he acted under threats from defendant 1 (a claim that was denied by Sally herself, and which is now also denied by defendant 2 himself in his new version), and that he was involved in many lies and contradictions in this matter (see P/8A, pp. 39-41, 59-60).
In any event, the very fact that defendant 2 used the phrase "took someone down", a phrase that he even repeated several times in his statements, in the context of planning to murder the deceased (see, for example, P/11, p. 4, s. 4, p. 45, 113, 116, 248, 265), also testifies to the fact that the defendants killed the deceased intentionally, and that this was not just an accident. It should be emphasized that in his statements to Witness Sali there is no statement that this was a case that happened by mistake, or that he did not mean it, but that Defendant 2 simply shared with her the fact that he and Defendant 1, together "took someone" off, and the things speak for themselves. It is clear that if it had been an accident, defendant 2 would have said so explicitly to Sally, and that he would not have used this expression specifically to describe causing death in the accident.
This statement by defendant 2 to the witness, shortly after the incident, is very important evidence, which can even be seen as the beginning of a confession; It significantly strengthens the rest of the evidence that testifies that the death of the deceased was done deliberately and deliberately by the defendants, and contradicts their current version that it was an accident.