It is the perfect storm for information bait: a Spanish citizen, son of a famous actor, is accused of having committed a murder ten thousand kilometers away. And having dismembered the body of his victim to get rid of it. More than enough for anyone to feel tempted to intervene, from the vantage point of a jurist on a set or from a weekday in-law at the bar of a bar. The case of Daniel Sancho is an information junk that has been squeezed by sensationalist journalism as we have seen so many times before.
Daniel Sancho's statement before the Koh Samui court that hears his case is long overdue and although it was scheduled for this week, it will finally take place next week. The son of the Spanish actor faces an ominous criminal horizon: from a prison sentence of between six and ten years to the death penalty. His lawyer in Spain and director of Daniel Sancho's defensive strategy speaks to La Vanguardia.
How important is this Thursday's day, with Daniel's statement before the court?
It is very relevant, it is going to be the star statement: what in common law is called the crown witness, although here he is accused. Daniel is going to explain what happened during the detention, how they promised him that they would deport him if he signed, how he signed an integral statement that he did not understand, an alleged statement that the lawyer and interpreter never signed, and finally, the last one and which is the valid one: in it It says that there was a fight in terms of confrontation or struggle. Furthermore, he maintains that Arrieta tried to rape him. All this, supported by the photographic report of his injuries. He will also clarify those walks around the island, with the police laughing during the reconstruction of the events without a lawyer, judge or prosecutor.
Is Daniel well assisted by a public defender whose language he does not understand?
It is absolutely well defended. Although some inept person has said that she was a simple interpreter – Daniel requested someone to translate him into Spanish but the official interpreter was not understood – she is one of our advisors from the Thai legal team. Everything is carried out in coordination between the Spanish and Thai legal teams.
I must congratulate you: the chief prosecutor has admitted that he cannot prove premeditation.
The chief prosecutor has folded his sails with very good judgment: from what we have seen in this process, his house of cards has collapsed. I believe that the prosecutor has acted in good faith but in error due to a very deficient police investigation and violation of fundamental rights and human rights. Now he has seen that from the autopsy the doctors cannot date the time of death nor its cause: there is a strong blow to the occipital, a displacement of the brain forward and another blow to the frontal, producing a hematoma, bleeding subdural under the membrane that covers the brain. The deceased falls to the ground and death supposedly occurs. Well, the forensic doctors affirm that it was not a blow against the ground but against an intermediate object and this coincides with Daniel Sancho's statement, that Arrieta hit a toilet.
Could you elaborate on the gaps in the police investigation?
The reconstruction of the events... Not even Groucho Marx would have done it worse. The last and very important thing is that a knife appears with supposed DNA from Daniel, Edwin and an anonymous person: a knife found 15 days later by the employee of a villa, very far from the one they supposedly occupied, and who gave it to them. to his boss and this one, to the Police. How can DNA appear in a villa where Edwin and Daniel were never present? Who put that DNA there? If we add to all this that the police have been ratifying everything, an interpreter appears that Daniel did not understand and who also asks to translate what Daniel has said in English... This borders on insulting intelligence. In short, the prosecutor with good judgment is already approaching our line of defense.
What is it referring to?
There are four photographs that the Police leaked in the first days – that report is incorporated into the summary – in which a scratch appears on Daniel's right shoulder blade, on the trapezius, and bites on the right and left forearms and a blow injury in this second . Due to the color of the injuries, they occurred between 24 to 72 hours before the arrest, which fits with the date in the record. In that set of photos we see that Daniel was defending himself, not attacking. Thus, in the worst case scenario we would be facing reckless homicide and in the best case, we would be facing an accident. And this has been demonstrated during the sessions in which the prosecutor presented evidence. He now he it's our turn.
Juan Gonzalo Ospina, lawyer for Edwin Arrieta's family, assures that his death has plunged his family into poverty. Does this circumstance have any type of criminal relevance?
I am not talking about colleagues, but what I must point out is that Ospina has not respected the obligation imposed by the court, which was not to inform. I spoke with Rodolfo today, he informs me every day about what happens inside, but we don't leak anything, I only comment on information that others have made public. Well, Rodolfo tells me that Ospina testified not before the prosecutor but not before his second but before our lawyer and when he began to respond, the prosecutor left.
What role does Ospina play, whom we see giving statements daily at the doors of the courtroom?
First it was said that it was a private accusation and shortly before the trial, as the president of the court did not allow it, it was a co-accusation. That is, he sits next to the prosecutor but they have to follow what the prosecutor says. What seems ugly to me is that the court accepts Edwin's family to testify to explain the damage suffered, both lost and emerging profits and the psychological damage. And it turns out that his own lawyer and his client renounce this statement, resulting in a procedural death. There is a principle that is that of one's own actions, no one can go against their own actions. There is more: in today's statement [for yesterday Wednesday], he has been presenting documents that do not correspond to him because he is a lawyer, not a spokesperson for anyone. If his client does not appear, he loses his right to establish compensation.
Is there any pre-agreement for compensation to Edwin Arrieta's family?
This morning we heard Ospina say that he was demanding 410,000 euros. And yet, the day before yesterday, the lawyers who are there, appointed by him or his family, spoke of 716,000. I ask you to agree. Secondly, they have not proven any harm and thirdly, we have no contact despite any information to the contrary. No one has addressed us, nor have we, of course, addressed anyone.
Are you thinking of traveling to Thailand or with your management from here and the team you have there plus the help of Rodolfo Sancho, will it be enough?
My son and I were planning to travel to Thailand three or four days before the trial ended to write the final report. But I had a mishap: a car accident left me with a fractured hand and a displaced rib fracture. The doctor has recommended that I not travel, although we are still talking about this. For now, we will continue as before, via email and with permanent information and communication on a daily basis. There is also one thing that is important: it seems irrelevant to me to take photos of you wearing a tie; It is much more relevant to work legally.
This is a very sweet case for anyone's opinion, not only on networks, but also in the press and on sets under the layer of certain experience or knowledge. How to fight against the deterioration of your client's image?
Our fight is for truth and justice. We have not appeared, neither the criminologists nor the legal team, in heart programs. We have appeared exclusively on political information, court or events programs. That's clear. Not for anything, but because I don't think it's the ring in which we have to fight. We have respected the instructions of the president of the court not to leak any information, which I know daily from Rodolfo, and if we speak out it is about what others have leaked. We have had to see how public opinion, because of the two Spains, some were in favor of Frascuelo and others, in favor of Lagartijo. Some wanted the death penalty and others said be careful, we have to wait for the trial.
Do you trust the Thai judicial system?
We said it at the time, from the beginning, that the Constitution of the Kingdom of Thailand establishes the same fundamental rights as the universal legislation on human rights and the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Thailand respects human rights very well and we have absolute trust in this court and its president.
