Originally Posted by MsBHavin
But at this point in time, he might know she's saying he killed the horse but not what is actually being said. You know the game telephone? Just one tiny thing off in every version presented.
She actually said that she is sure there was no negligence involved.
If he is not sure what's being said, he shouldn't really finish his "statement" with "over and done."
And in any event, even if he doesn't know what the owner is insinuating, it would be open for him to present his version of the events. He must know that people would be wondering. Otherwise he appears as though he has something to hide.