In this context, it is also possible to mention the statements of defendant 2 in the interrogation, that he assisted defendant 1 and held the deceased's hands while defendant 1 beat him, since he wanted to prevent the deceased from escaping into the car, since he knew that the deceased had a gun and was afraid that he would kill them. Even these words, which defendant 2 repeated several times (P/12 Q. 52-53, 160-165, 189, 199-200, P/8A, p. 35 S. 5-9), testify to the fact that during the assault on the deceased, the defendants did not intend to let him get out of the incident alive.
Moreover, the defendants' conduct after the incident – the fact that they did not try to call for help or to provide assistance to the deceased themselves, neither shortly after the attack nor even after they returned from the gas station, after quite a while had elapsed in which they could think and come to their senses, and instead, in a well-calculated manner, they chose to set fire to the vehicle while the deceased was inside, and to destroy all the evidence linking them to the incident; And their subsequent behavior, when they continued their daily routine, celebrated at a party and even smoked from the deceased' s drugs, without any pangs of conscience, strengthens the conclusion that the defendants intended the death of the deceased in advance, and that this was not a case of accidental death. In this context, it should be noted that the case law states that "the defendant's flight from the scene after the incident, while refraining from assisting the victim or calling for help, may appear to be a link in the sequence of acts intended to cause the death of the deceased, and provide additional indication of the existence of an intention to kill" (Criminal Appeal 9369/07 Mikel v. State of Israel [published in Nevo] (February 16, 2009), Criminal Appeal 6679/04 Steckler v. State of Israel [published in Nevo] (11 May 2006), Criminal Appeal 6427 Dagon v. State of Israel [published in Nevo] (6 August 2013)).