War breaks out between Daniel Sancho’s lawyers and his former Thai lawyer, whom they deny

Given the latest information published regarding the case of Daniel Sancho that is contributing to clouding the correct development of the case, Rodolfo Sancho has been forced to send a statement.

Through his legal representatives, the father of the alleged murderer of Edwin Arrieta clarifies some of the issues that have been debated in recent hours about his son’s case. “In response to the latest news that appeared in different media, in relation to the statements made by the Thai lawyer Mr. Anan, we want to deny said statements in their entirety,” the note reads.

They also make it clear that Daniel Sancho’s lawyers in Thailand have not had any type of contact with Mr. Anan: “At present we can prove that Don Marcos García-Montes, lawyer, nor his law firm, have maintained any relationship, computer, telephone or personal, with the lawyer Mr. Anan.” Asking for maximum respect for the case and the family members, the Balfagón & Chippirras office clarifies that at the beginning of the trial, Daniel will have a criminal expert to defend the side of the accusation, something essential to try foreign cases: “As for the interest expressed by the media in the absence of a Thai lawyer in the case, it is reported that in At the appropriate procedural moment, said lawyer will be incorporated who will collaborate in the defense of Don Daniel Sancho together with the Spanish legal team made up of the Marcos García-Montes Law Firm and the Balfagón & Chippirrás Firm who, we insist, have been working, jointly and permanently, on the case.”

In prison since last August 7, said statement also clarifies the current situation of the young man who has shown compassion before the Koh Samui court for the first time this week: “Notwithstanding the above, we can inform you that on the 5th of this month, Mr. Daniel Sancho had an appearance in the Court of Koh Samui where he was informed that it had been extended for another twelve days , at the request of the Prosecutor, provisional detention, having discussed, in said appearance, other issues of interest in the case.”