Less than three months remain before the hearing in which Daniel Sancho is to stand trial for murder and dismemberment, and the Spanish defense team is asserting that Thai police statements were fabricated to frame him. The defense contends that the authorities misrepresented the facts and that the confessions alleging Daniel’s guilt were incorrect. Carmen Balfagón, a spokesperson for Sancho’s family, stated that the documents needed to support the claim of fabrication are in hand and ready for presentation in court, signaling a deliberate attempt to reassess the investigative record.
The defense maintains that Daniel Sancho acted in self-defense following a confrontation with Edwin Arrieta, a confrontation that purportedly followed an attempted sexual assault. Their narrative argues that under Thai law this sequence would negate any element of premeditation, a key issue given the severity of the charges, which could carry life imprisonment or the death penalty. The trial window is currently scheduled to run from April 9 through May 3, with the timeline reflecting the ongoing complexity of the case and the need to weigh multiple legal arguments before a verdict is reached.
Sancho’s choice not to plead guilty to premeditated murder has delayed the proceedings and provided defense counsel with additional time to develop new lines of argument. One significant angle is the claim of irregularities in the police investigation conducted in Thailand. The defense argues that what was presented as a deliberate act may have resulted from a violent encounter rather than an intentional plan, casting doubt on the premise of premeditation and prompting the defense to seek alternative interpretations of the sequence of events. The focus remains on clarifying the events leading up to the confrontation and the consequences for all parties involved.
According to statements from Sancho’s legal team, a recent turn in the narrative centers on how information was released by law enforcement. The lawyers assert that leaks and the dissemination of sensitive material about a fight between Sancho and Arrieta have in fact shaped public perception and may have influenced the course of the investigation. The defense argues that new evidence could alter the legal framework of the case, including footage that allegedly shows the two men colliding in a way that produced serious injuries before any fatal outcome. This line of defense aims to distinguish a violent struggle from a calculated act, with the possibility of reframing the charges under Thai penal law.
Thailand’s Prosecutor’s Office has filed an official report indicating that Daniel Sancho faces charges of premeditated murder and concealment of a body, in connection with Edwin Arrieta’s autopsy and the broader investigation of the alleged killings. The case hinges on the exact sequence of events, how the body was disposed of, and the evidentiary weight of medical findings. As the legal process unfolds, prosecutors will scrutinize the autopsy results and related investigative material to establish whether the actions attributed to Sancho were planned in advance or occurred in the heat of a moment during a violent encounter, a distinction that could determine the severity of the sentence in a Thai court.