Moreover, the evidence shows that after the incident, the defendants did not show any signs of remorse or shock from the acts they had committed (except for that brief cry by defendant 2 at the party, about which Sally said that it was not "too much" and therefore she did not attribute importance to it, and after that he even continued to hang out). Defendant 2 went to work after the incident as if nothing had happened; At 3:23 p.m., the defendants talked about the transportation to the party and then met on the bus, discussed defendant 1's conversation with N., the deceased's spouse, and coordinated an alibi about the incident; Later, the two spent time at a party, chatting with each other and others, laughing, drinking and eating (as can be clearly seen in the hall's security cameras), and even daring to smoke from the deceased's drugs, the same drugs that were the motive for the murder. He was indeed talking about an incident in which they only planned to threaten and intimidate the deceased in order to avoid paying for the drugs, an event that got complicated and ended in a tragic death; Even if the car was set on fire with the deceased in it – a horrific act in itself – was carried out only out of pressure and loss of judgment; It is presumed that the defendants were agitated and frightened after the incident, and were unable to hang out at the party and smoke from the same drugs, a few hours after the incident.
From the phone conversations that Defendant 1 had with N., the spouse of the deceased, very after the night of the murder, it is also possible to learn about his composure and his ability to lie without any effort, when in the first conversation N. sounded upset and crying, and Defendant 1 told her without being moved that he was supposed to meet the deceased at night but he did not show up, telling her not to worry and that there was no reason that something happened to him. and even raises the possibility that the deceased is staying at his dealer at the center (call 13-25-03). The second conversation was initiated by Defendant 1 himself following his conversation with Defendant 2, in which he tried under the pretext of a concerned friend to extract details from her about the police investigation (call 15-25-55), and already there he began to develop the version he later gave to the police, that the deceased owed money to someone. Defendant 1's composure was also reflected in the fact that he repeated his words to N. not to worry and that they would find the deceased when they arrived together in a police car (this is how he said and N.'s words in her testimony). In this state of affairs, it appears that indeed, as N. analyzed it in her testimony, defendant 1 thought that he could get out of it and "live quietly after what he had done".