From the telephone conversations that took place the next day (February 26, 2018), it can be learned that the deceased brought the drugs to the home of Defendant 1 in the morning, when Defendant 2 was the one who informed Defendant 1's girlfriend (and not, as he claimed that he only learned about it from Defendant 1 – call 10-43-15); and that the deceased later coordinated the meeting with the defendants and asked to make sure that the money would be transferred to him (calls 18-35-31, 21-44-49) - A meeting that ended with the death of the deceased.
After the conversation between the defendants from 21:27 regarding the deceased and his family, from which it is possible to learn about the existence of prior planning, a number of telephone conversations took place between them in order to find out when defendant 2 was supposed to arrive at the house of defendant 1; and at a certain point a strange conversation took place between them, in which defendant 2 asked defendant 1 about gloves and was told that "everything is fine" (conversation 22-36-06). The last conversation between Defendant 1 and the deceased on February 27, 2018 at 01:46, in which the deceased informed him that he had finished work and would arrive within 40 minutes, can also indicate the existence of planning, since during which Defendant 1 again inquires with the deceased whether he is alone (Conversation 01-46-25).
The Defendants' Behavior After the Incident
The defendants' conduct after the incident, as it emerges from both their statements, their testimonies before us and the additional evidence that was brought in this matter, appears to be well thought-out, determined, and well-planned. This began with them walking a distance of kilometers in order to purchase fuel (as can be seen in the reconstruction of Defendant 1 and Map P/21), while hiding their coats in the bushes (as also documented by the security cameras); You returned to the scene with the full jerrycan, the attempt to move the vehicle from its place and set the vehicle on fire while the deceased was inside, after taking his personal belongings, in order not to allow him to be identified; Collecting the coats from the same place where they had left them, and later hiding the rest of the deceased's belongings and blood-stained objects, in separate places that are at a great distance from each other and from the scene of the incident. This calculated conduct stands in stark contrast to the defendants' claims that they acted out of pressure and anxiety, that they did not think properly and therefore did not try to call for help for the deceased, or to defendant 1's claim that he acted under the influence of drugs and alcohol. In this context, it should be noted that the testimony of Liav Ben Hamo also indicates that when defendant 2 entered the "Yellow" store to purchase a flashlight, he behaved normally and did not appear nervous.