His defense sends another key report in extremis

August 29th is the date that most people are waiting for and most afraid of at the same time. Rodolfo Sancho y Silvia Bronchalothe parents of Daniel Sancho. That day the sentence against him for the murder and dismemberment of the Colombian surgeon will be known. Edwin Arrieta It has been a year now in Thailand. During the trial that took place between April and May, his defense worked to prove that the murder was not premeditated in order to avoid the death penalty or life sentence, and, one month before the sentencing, they have used their last bullet.

Carmen Balfagon y Ramon Chippirras They signed the document, the final report on the behavior of the young Spaniard before and after the death and dismemberment of Edwin Arrieta, as he has announced The newspaper. After analysis, Criminologists conclude that Sancho Gracia’s grandson did not premeditate the crimebut that the doctor died during a fight between the two and that Sancho was “improvising” the rest of the acts he committed.

The final report of Sancho’s defense consists of a total of 31 pages. In this document, they study the purchases that Daniel made in a supermarket on the island of Koh Phangan. On August 1, the day before Arrieta’s death, as recorded by security cameras. According to lawyers and criminologists, the young chef has maintained all this time He bought a wooden saw but to cut coconuts in half and use them as food platesnot because he had planned to kill and dismember Edwin’s body into parts to get rid of the corpse.

With the garbage bags that he bought in another establishment and that were also recorded thanks to the cameras, they explain that He used “some” but also used “other types of bags” to hide and transport the pieces of the corpse to another place.so there was no premeditation, according to them, when he bought the ones that were recorded in the security images. To prove this, the defense has attached three images in the report in which bags of cement and fertilizer different from the others can be seen.

As key evidence to prove that the murder was not premeditated, they also cling to the passport that their client left as a deposit at a motorcycle rental establishment in order to obtain one of them before the murder of the doctor. “If Mr. Daniel had planned something (referring to killing Edwin Arrieta), he would never have left his passport in custody.”they claim. At the same time, they maintain that if Daniel had wanted to hide his intentions, he would have also hidden his face in some way so as not to be seen on security cameras, as happened.

They also claim that If your client had premeditated the murder he would have bought the kayak with which he transported part of the body before and not after the crime. “Mr. Daniel does not premeditate, Mr. Daniel improvises. Almost five hours after the fatal outcome between Mr. Daniel and Mr. Edwin, Mr. Daniel goes to buy the kayak, that is, he has not prepared or bought it in advance,” they explain.

On the other hand, of the 45 samples collected at the crime scene, only three have mixed genetic profiles of the victim and Daniel. One is a drop of blood on the sheet of the bungalow bed and another is on the outside of a glove. As for the third, the knife that was allegedly used to stab the surgeonThe report refutes this, as it contains another person’s DNA and the piece was not at the crime scene. Even the prosecution could not conclude whether or not it had been used in the crime.

Finally, as for the fight between the victim and the accusedthe court will have to determine whether everything was planned or, on the contrary, there was a fight between the two in which Arrieta died accidentally. Daniel insists that he dismembered Arrieta’s body and disposed of it in sacks and bags, some thrown into the sea and others into the garbage bins near the bungalow where the events occurred.