The police called “James Bond” that Daniel Sancho claims led him to confess, does not exist. This is clear from the sentence handed down in the case that condemns the Spaniard to life in prison for the premeditated murder of Colombian Edwin Arrieta in Thailand. “The defendant’s claim that a police officer called “James Bond” promised to deport him to Spain if he cooperated is not certain. “The defendant has not presented any witnesses to corroborate this statement, so it is an unfounded statement,” explains the document of more than 40 pages that has just been released.
The sentence that condemned Daniel Sancho to life imprisonment also denies that his confession was made without the assistance of a lawyer, as the Spaniard’s defense claims “regarding the defendant’s claim that a lawyer was not provided at the time he reported Edwin’s disappearance and during the subsequent interrogation. “, it should be noted that at that time the defendant was not yet a suspect and therefore did not have the right to legal representation,” states the judgment, which surprisingly admits that Sancho did not have a lawyer when he first incriminated himself. The same sentence also admits in its account that when Sancho went to report Edwin Arrieta’s disappearance after killing him, the police had already been looking for him for hours to question him.
However, the judgment establishes that at that time, Sancho had no legal right to a lawyer, nor the right to be deported to Spain since “The Immigration Office revoked the defendant’s stay but did not deport him, but as Colonel Khupakrit stated, the defendant “was a suspect in a murder case and therefore could not be deported.”
In this way, the court rejects all the arguments and convictions of Daniel Sancho: “The evidence of the prosecution is convincing and leaves no doubt that the accused committed the premeditated murder with which he is charged.
A loving and sexual relationship
“It is established that the deceased and the accused They had a romantic relationship that it was a consensual sexual relationship and that the reason was that the accused had ended the relationship and the deceased had refused to accept it and had threatened him, it is believed that this was a motive for the act of violence which resulted in the death of the deceased.
The court also does not believe that Daniel Sancho killed Edwin Arrieta by accident when he hit his head against the sink after being punched, as Sancho said in most of his versions. The judge prefers to believe his first detailed confession in which the Spaniard claims to have repeatedly hit Edwin’s head against the sink until he killed him. “The fact that the accused hit the deceased’s head against the edge of the sink demonstrates the intent to kill“.
He planned the crime
Finally, the judge, after proving the murder, also said that it was planned, an important detail since in this way the sentence could only be life imprisonment or the death penalty.
“Although the investigating officers could not find as evidence the sharp knife or the cleaning products used at the crime scene (objects that Daniel Sancho had bought a day before Edwin arrived on the island), knowing that he had also booked a hotel room, then I bought a knife, a blade, a saw and numerous plastic bags. “This preparation indicates that the accused had planned to kill and dismember the deceased,” the judgment states.
The court added: “This is also consistent with the statement made by the accused during the investigation that these items were purchased to prepare for the murder and dismemberment of the deceased.” This is what the Koh Samui court in Thailand signed after 47 pages of judgment.
