Friends of Eric Volz Email

[gringojoel]

You learn something new everyday, I'll give that a try.

I found the La Prensa article verifying that the Hertz people testified that the call came in between 12 and 2. I am not saying it's true. Maybe La Prensa was in on the covert Sandinista, Supreme Court Justice plot to get our hero?
But now you have both newspapers saying the same thing and Eric saying another. It was April 30, 2007.
Interestingly, in the same article is a blurb about a face off between Chamorro, Dangla and Eric and the police where Chamorro accused Eric of being the mastermind to his face. Dangla hadn't yet struck his deal with the prosecution.
Interesting, no?

Una de las declaraciones que más convenció a la juez Toruño para dar su veredicto de culpabilidad en contra de Chamorro López fue la declaración de un investigador policial que dijo que en un careo efectuado entre Chamorro, López y Volz, el primero confesó que el plan de asesinar a Doris Ivania había sido fraguado por Erick. One of the statements that most convinced the judge Toruño to give their verdict of guilt against Chamorro Lopez was the statement by a police investigator who said that in a confrontation made between Chamorro, Lopez and Volz, the first confessed that the plan murdering Doris Ivania had been forged by Erick.
En efecto, existe un acta de careo entre estas tres personas, en donde supuestamente Chamorro dijo a la Policía que Volz le había ofrecido 5 mil dólares para que acabaran con la vida de Doris Ivania; en este documento se lee la firma de Chamorro. Indeed, there is a record of confrontation between these three people, where Chamorro allegedly told police that Volz had offered 5 thousand dollars for to finish with the life of Doris Ivania; in this document is the signature of Chamorro...

[gringojoel]

Here is an interesting quote. Sounds pretty believable to me?
"Maria Elena Alvarado Spears, aunt of the victim, said that ultimately Volz sustained many discussions with her niece, he was too jealous “and he restricted how she dressed because he did not like to see her with makeup or wearing shorts."-Nuevo Diario

I was discussing this case today with someone who was at the trial. They said Leydi (who made the call to Hertz) was willing to testify that Eric made the call when he said he did but that she wasn't permitted to do so by the judge. They went on to say that Castillo testified however to the accuracy of Eric's timeline on the Hertz call.

I found that interesting because on Eric's first statement of facts it says, "After the call with Nick Purdy, Eric, Castillo and Adam Paredes (an EP employee) had a curried fish and vegetable lunch prepared by the EP housekeeper, Martha. This lunch was witnessed by several EP colleagues. Castillo left the EP house around 2:00 pm."

So, if Castillo left around 2 pm, how could he have testified that Eric's associate made the call when Eric said she did?

What is it with this case? So many 'facts' that turn out not to be facts. We really need to see those trial transcripts.

[gringojoel]

Nuevo Diario Newspaper Jan 26th, 2007

A crime "dolarized"
An offer of 30 thousand dollars in return to be responsible for the heinous crime of murdering Doris Ivania Jimenez came to him in the cells of the Penitentiary System of Grenada. Julio Martin Lopez Chamorro, who at the moment is the only one that stays in prison for the abominable crime, which also appears involving the Mexican-American Eric Stanley Volz.
Such an offer was announced yesterday by Nuevo Diario, Ms Marta Enriquez, mother of Julio Lopez Chamorro, who in San Juan del Sur is known by the alias of "Rosita." According to the lady, her son received someone days after the initial hearing in which he and Volz were referred to trial for the crime.
"During his visit this person offered my son 30 thousand dollars provided he is made responsible for the crime," she said. But according to her, he consulted the proposal "and I told him to never accept this, that it could not be, as a mother and I am not going to accept it either because he has not done anything," she explained.
"If the gringo is released, my son also"
In the view of Ms Marta, if Volz gets his freedom, her child also gets a free, and argues that he is innocent, "because the day of the crime Doris Ivania, which was November 21 at noon hour, he (her son) walked from 10:30 in the morning to serve as a translator to a foreigner walking into a clinic, and then went to lunch, "she elaborated.
It is for ensuring that you have faith that your son was not involved in the crime, although police and the public prosecutor indicated that he and Volz were the authors of the murder and rape of the victim Doris Ivania.
At the same time, she pointed out that her son made friends with Volz on the beaches, and according to her, they can accuse him of being a bum and drug addict, but not a criminal. she said that being poor can not convict him for a crime he did not commit , and according to her, the day of judgement will declare what he knows...."

[-Plainfield Mom -]

gringojoel wrote:

You learn something new everyday, I'll give that a try.

You crack me up, Gringojoel, that you don't know that it is common practice to have a car delivered to you. Being a prima donna, myself, I guess I've just becomed accustomed to such things.

BTW, don't you think that most people who order a car are doing it because they don't have a car and might need a little help obtaining one?

I mean no disrespect to you, Joel, I just found that mildly amusing.

[-Plainfield Mom -]

gringojoel wrote:

Here is an interesting quote. Sounds pretty believable to me?
"Maria Elena Alvarado Spears, aunt of the victim, said that ultimately Volz sustained many discussions with her niece, he was too jealous “and he restricted how she dressed because he did not like to see her with makeup or wearing shorts."-Nuevo Diario
I was discussing this case today with someone who was at the trial. They said Leydi (who made the call to Hertz) was willing to testify that Eric made the call when he said he did but that she wasn't permitted to do so by the judge. They went on to say that Castillo testified however to the accuracy of Eric's timeline on the Hertz call.
I found that interesting because on Eric's first statement of facts it says, "After the call with Nick Purdy, Eric, Castillo and Adam Paredes (an EP employee) had a curried fish and vegetable lunch prepared by the EP housekeeper, Martha. This lunch was witnessed by several EP colleagues. Castillo left the EP house around 2:00 pm."
So, if Castillo left around 2 pm, how could he have testified that Eric's associate made the call when Eric said she did?
What is it with this case? So many 'facts' that turn out not to be facts. We really need to see those trial transcripts.

I'm sorry, but just because he didn't want to Doris to wear makeup or shorts (which, BTW, was probably said when they were dating and not after), that does not add up to Eric killing her.

My husband is definitely "NOT" the jealous type, however, at one time, he did tell me that he liked me better without makeup (could have been said to get me not to wear any). Anyway, I told him that since I looked so good, that I would only not wear makeup around him (lol, sometimes things can backfire on a guy, no?).

So, being a guy, Joel, do men feel some kind of ownership over their woman? What are your thoughts?

[gringojoel]

I suppose it depends on the man, certainly. Some men are self confident and not at all jealous. Sometimes women perceive this though as that he doesn't care. Women like a little jealousy, so that she knows he cares, but they don't want an insecure headcase like Eric.
The more faithful the woman is the better the mans going to be.
What men worry about is of course infidelity but it's simpler than that. Men don't want other men to think they are fools. They don't want their wife making a fool of them by flirting with other men. Even if she is faithful, it still is belittling to the male ego.
Besides, if she is flirting around, she is going to begin cheating soon enough.
By flirting around, I'm not talking about talking to other men. I'm talking about flirting.

[gringojoel]

I have never felt ownership of a woman, nor have I ever wanted to 'own' a woman. I think there are a number of women however who want to feel owned by a man.

[-Plainfield Mom -]

gringojoel wrote:

I suppose it depends on the man, certainly. Some men are self confident and not at all jealous. Sometimes women perceive this though as that he doesn't care. Women like a little jealousy, so that she knows he cares, but they don't want an insecure headcase like Eric.
The more faithful the woman is the better the mans going to be.
What men worry about is of course infidelity but it's simpler than that. Men don't want other men to think they are fools. They don't want their wife making a fool of them by flirting with other men. Even if she is faithful, it still is belittling to the male ego.
Besides, if she is flirting around, she is going to begin cheating soon enough.
By flirting around, I'm not talking about talking to other men. I'm talking about flirting.

Well, maybe it's because I've been with my non-jealous husband for so long, now, that I'm not willing to believe that Eric would kill Doris over a little jealousy. Like I've stated before, I've been with my share of jealous guys, however, I never felt threatened in any way (I just thought of the guys as a little pathetic).

You are right about women like men to be a little jealous, though. I have to laugh because I wish my husband was a little more jealous. Last week, when we had some warm weather here, I had a tube top on and, not to sound too risque, but he wanted me to flash him. We were driving in rush hour traffic, so I told him "no" that somebody would probably see and he said "so what", that he was proud of those (lol, aren't they "mine" and not "his"). Maybe you're right about a man becoming comfortable, because I've known him since I was 19 and have been married to him for 18 years...I've never cheated on him one time. A little jealousy is good, though, IMO.

Joel, I'm curious, did any of his past girlfriends come forward to say that Eric was unduly jealous? I would think that if you are nuts enough to kill someone over jealousy, then your past would show a pattern of jealousy, wouldn't it?

[gringojoel]

I don't think he had other gf's in Nic but I don't know. I suppose if he never showed jealousy in the past it would mean something, but not much. What a man is like in one relationship doesn't necessarily say what he'll be like in another.
I don't know anything at all about Eric's earlier life in the USA. There is nothing written about gf's or jobs, except that he had worked as a DJ.
Can you imagine macho Eric as a DJ?

[-Plainfield Mom -]

gringojoel wrote:

I don't think he had other gf's in Nic but I don't know. I suppose if he never showed jealousy in the past it would mean something, but not much. What a man is like in one relationship doesn't necessarily say what he'll be like in another.
I don't know anything at all about Eric's earlier life in the USA. There is nothing written about gf's or jobs, except that he had worked as a DJ.
Can you imagine macho Eric as a DJ?

I don't know about that, gringojoel. I think that if you are that crazy to have someone killed over jealousy issues, then, you would have at least one other person who could step up to the plate to proclaim that he's exhibited this type of behaviour in that past. I mean, he was 28 years old, for crying out loud, he's had to have a few girlfriends in the past, if not in Nic, then back in the US. It's not like the guy was 18-19, with a short dating span, where you would be unable to make a determination.

I still don't see how he would benefit from her death. It's not like they were married, had kids, or even dated a long amount of time, where maybe he would have felt that he had a lot of time invested in the relationship and wasn't going to let her go. A year is not a long amount of time...IMO.

As far as whether I could believe if he was a DJ, or not....

It only makes me like the guy more. It makes him sound like a fun guy, something the videos I've seen of the guy, thus far, have been unable to do. He always looks so serious, but, I guess it's because he was just ACCUSED OF MURDER (so, I guess I'll let him off the hook for that....don't think I'd be too fun in that instance, either!).

[gringojoel]

I think most contract murderers of their girlfriends probably have a history of jealousy with other girls. I don't think they always do. I don't know if Eric did. I would guess so. What we do know is that he was controlling and jealous with Doris and could even have been the person that was stalking her. To deny that he was is the same as denying the ten witnesses that placed him in Managua.

I don't agree on the DJ thing either. I don't see it as a 'fun' thing. I see it as an ego thing. Eric is obsessed with himself. The DJ thing fits in the pattern.

We see Eric totally differently PM. I don't think that will change. The more of I see of him, the more I dislike him. The more you see of him, the more you like him. I doubt that will change.

[Plainfield Mom]

gringojoel wrote:

I think most contract murderers of their girlfriends probably have a history of jealousy with other girls. I don't think they always do. I don't know if Eric did. I would guess so. What we do know is that he was controlling and jealous with Doris and could even have been the person that was stalking her. To deny that he was is the same as denying the ten witnesses that placed him in Managua.
I don't agree on the DJ thing either. I don't see it as a 'fun' thing. I see it as an ego thing. Eric is obsessed with himself. The DJ thing fits in the pattern.
We see Eric totally differently PM. I don't think that will change. The more of I see of him, the more I dislike him. The more you see of him, the more you like him. I doubt that will change.

That's OK with me, that we don't always agree. In fact, I think it makes things interesting. I have tried to see your side but honestly I've only seen Doris' family say he was jealous and controlling and nobody else. So, it's hard to determine if it's true or not, or if they are just trying to hook somebody to pay for what's happened to their lovely daughter.

I think most murder victims have had a lover in their past who've "gotten haircuts" and/or "rented cars" in the past, so I can't use that as evidence. Besides, if Eric was indeed going back to help Doris' family upon hearing of her death, it would onl make sense that he would rent a car decent enough to cart her friends and family members around when he got there. It sounds as if he thought his car wouldn't have been nice/big enough to do the job (though, I admit that I have no idea what the condition of his car was....do you?).

Also, the DJ isn't enough to make me think badly of him. Now, if you told me that he like to torture mall animals, or something, maybe then...

[gringojoel]

Hi PM.
I don't think that he rented a car is any big deal. I also don't think the group haircut is a big deal. The instant messaging throughout the window of the crime, from 10 am continously until about 2 pm including while he had lunch with the reporter, seemed kind of odd to me. I don't think any of the things individually seemed too strange but when you combined them all, they seemed kind of overdone.
Nevertheless, if I was Eric and I wanted to kill Doris, I would have waited until I left the country so I haven't dwelt on the 'over-alibied' theory.

The jealousy witnesses weren't just family. There were two witnesses at trial that weren't family. Eric says there was also a friend of Doris' that testified in court that he wasn't jealous. He says the press just didn't report that. I think that's BS though. If it were true why wouldn't Tony D'Souza have reported that? He was an Eric believer. Eric has lied so much I don't believe anything he says now.

Remember that all of Eric's witnesses were employees or potential employees. The witnesses of Eric's jealousy would be more credible than the alibi witnesses, yet you believe the alibi witnesses without question? Does that seem inconsistent?

I haven't heard anywhere that Eric liked to kill small animals. I don't think that would be a part of his personality. That's more of the serial murderer type personality. I don't see Eric at all as a serial murderer type.
Now if I found out that Eric had taken a camera to the crime scene and shot pictures, I would change my opinion on that however.

[-Plainfield Mom -]

gringojoel wrote:

Hi PM.
I don't think that he rented a car is any big deal. I also don't think the group haircut is a big deal. The instant messaging throughout the window of the crime, from 10 am continously until about 2 pm including while he had lunch with the reporter, seemed kind of odd to me. I don't think any of the things individually seemed too strange but when you combined them all, they seemed kind of overdone.
Nevertheless, if I was Eric and I wanted to kill Doris, I would have waited until I left the country so I haven't dwelt on the 'over-alibied' theory.
The jealousy witnesses weren't just family. There were two witnesses at trial that weren't family. Eric says there was also a friend of Doris' that testified in court that he wasn't jealous. He says the press just didn't report that. I think that's BS though. If it were true why wouldn't Tony D'Souza have reported that? He was an Eric believer. Eric has lied so much I don't believe anything he says now.
Remember that all of Eric's witnesses were employees or potential employees. The witnesses of Eric's jealousy would be more credible than the alibi witnesses, yet you believe the alibi witnesses without question? Does that seem inconsistent?
I haven't heard anywhere that Eric liked to kill small animals. I don't think that would be a part of his personality. That's more of the serial murderer type personality. I don't see Eric at all as a serial murderer type.
Now if I found out that Eric had taken a camera to the crime scene and shot pictures, I would change my opinion on that however.

Hi, Gringojoel...

Don't forget that there was somebody else sending instant messages back to Eric. Do you think he was trying to kill his wife or girlfriend, as well (lol)?

I agree with you that if he had plans of leaving the country, then, he would have had the killing set-up after his departure. That would be the best alibi, no???

On a scale of 1 to 10, all the other evidence that I've seen, thus far, adds up to a big "0". Keep trying, though!!

Joel, I hope you don't mind me asking you, however, I keep thinking about that situation with your son. How long is he in for (if he's even still incarcerated) and do you think that they can rehab him without him being a threat to society again?

[gringojoel]

I agree with you PM. There is no evidence of a murder for hire except the murderers confession, which was questionable. The only possible evidence are the phone trails. If those turn out to have nothing of value, I am on your side of the Eric story, jealousy, lies and all.

My adopted son spent two years in youth detention. I went and saw him most weekends.
He was one case of jail doing good. Though he didn't have a conscience, he did have a brain. After he got out the cops watched him like a hawk. He had decided he didn't want to go back to jail however and has since stayed out of trouble. As far as I know he hasn't caused any problems for ten years, he's 26.

My son and Eric had little in common. The only thing they did have in common is their self aggrandizement coming from feelings of deep insecurity. This enables them to lie and manipulate people at will. They seemingly have no conscience. The interesting thing about people like that is they often become heads of industry and political leaders. Look at our own government.

[-Plainfield Mom -]

gringojoel wrote:

I agree with you PM. There is no evidence of a murder for hire except the murderers confession, which was questionable. The only possible evidence are the phone trails. If those turn out to have nothing of value, I am on your side of the Eric story, jealousy, lies and all.
My adopted son spent two years in youth detention. I went and saw him most weekends.
He was one case of jail doing good. Though he didn't have a conscience, he did have a brain. After he got out the cops watched him like a hawk. He had decided he didn't want to go back to jail however and has since stayed out of trouble. As far as I know he hasn't caused any problems for ten years, he's 26.
My son and Eric had little in common. The only thing they did have in common is their self aggrandizement coming from feelings of deep insecurity. This enables them to lie and manipulate people at will. They seemingly have no conscience. The interesting thing about people like that is they often become heads of industry and political leaders. Look at our own government.

I'm glad everything seems to have turned out well for your son. Maybe he'll turn out to be one of our next Presidents, down the line. It doesn't look like ANYTHING in your past will deter people from voting for you THESE DAYS, lol.

As far as those phone records, don't you think that those records were already seized by the police and in the hands of the court. I'm sure Eric is not the one and only person with a copy. If there was anything that the nica's could have used against Eric from those records, I'm sure that they would have brought that up as evidence. In fact, it was quite to the contrary, as the courts had decided not to use that evidence in when they first convicted him. This leads me to believe that there's nothing to it (not anything that could obtain a conviction, anyway).

[gringojoel]

Regarding the phone records, no, I don't think the justice system has those phone records. Did you not read about the kind of investigation that took place in SJDS?
If you sent a bunch of ten year olds to the crime scene, they would have done a better job.
I think Eric's cell phone records are available. They appeared in Eric's video so I know they exist. I think Doris' cell phone records exist but I don't know who has them, if anyone. I don't think anyone has the EP landline records. Whether they could be obtained, I don't know. Eric says not.
Eric was seemingly railroaded, I admit that. I think there was much evidence that proved he wasn't at the crime scene and the evidence was hidden or disguarded. I think the problem was that Eric was charged with physically committing the crime (30 years) when he should have been charged with planning the murder (seven years). The problem for the Nica justice system was, as you point out, there wasn't any evidence. Murder for hire is extremely hard to prove.
I think the Nica's felt they knew who committed the murder and why and didn't really care what they had to do to punish the perceived offender. This is clearly not the kind of justice system a nation wants and so even in Nicaragua there were people, like me, who believed Eric should be freed, FOR LACK OF EVIDENCE.
None of this of course has anything to do with guilt or innocense. What I am discussing now is the question of ACTUAL guilt or innocense, not legal guilt or innocense.
Both defendants accused Eric of masterminding the murder in a careo (face off) early on, before Dangla opted to turn against his buddies.
To me, this is pretty heavy. Also Eric's behavior regarding Doris and if true, his threats against her life.
No one else seemed to have motive for killing Doris.
What would you think if you saw actual emails from Eric's computer to Doris threatening to kill her if she 'cheated on him'? Gabriela Sobalvarro (A friend of Doris) claims they exist and that she has seen them. Would that cause you doubt if they were made public? Or would you just say, Oh, threatening and doing are two different things.
???

[-Plainfield Mom -]

gringojoel wrote:

Regarding the phone records, no, I don't think the justice system has those phone records. Did you not read about the kind of investigation that took place in SJDS?
If you sent a bunch of ten year olds to the crime scene, they would have done a better job.
I think Eric's cell phone records are available. They appeared in Eric's video so I know they exist. I think Doris' cell phone records exist but I don't know who has them, if anyone. I don't think anyone has the EP landline records. Whether they could be obtained, I don't know. Eric says not.
Eric was seemingly railroaded, I admit that. I think there was much evidence that proved he wasn't at the crime scene and the evidence was hidden or disguarded. I think the problem was that Eric was charged with physically committing the crime (30 years) when he should have been charged with planning the murder (seven years). The problem for the Nica justice system was, as you point out, there wasn't any evidence. Murder for hire is extremely hard to prove.
I think the Nica's felt they knew who committed the murder and why and didn't really care what they had to do to punish the perceived offender. This is clearly not the kind of justice system a nation wants and so even in Nicaragua there were people, like me, who believed Eric should be freed, FOR LACK OF EVIDENCE.
None of this of course has anything to do with guilt or innocense. What I am discussing now is the question of ACTUAL guilt or innocense, not legal guilt or innocense.
Both defendants accused Eric of masterminding the murder in a careo (face off) early on, before Dangla opted to turn against his buddies.
To me, this is pretty heavy. Also Eric's behavior regarding Doris and if true, his threats against her life.
No one else seemed to have motive for killing Doris.
What would you think if you saw actual emails from Eric's computer to Doris threatening to kill her if she 'cheated on him'? Gabriela Sobalvarro (A friend of Doris) claims they exist and that she has seen them. Would that cause you doubt if they were made public? Or would you just say, Oh, threatening and doing are two different things.
???

I'd say we've all probably told our spouse or loved ones that we'd kill them if they ever cheated on us, at one time or another, lol (in jest, of course). However, were these things said "before" or "after" the break-up. I probably would have said that to my former fiance when we were originally engaged and going out, however, after a few years, I was actually asking him why he couldn't find a girlfriend when he wanted to have sex. That's when I KNEW that I was wasting his/my time and broke it off. I figured that the relationship had probably run it's course and I wasn't as committed as I thought.

[gringojoel]

Of course there is joking and there is serious. From what Gabby said I don't think Eric's remarks were in jest. "Si me pegas, yo lo matas". If you cheat on me I'll kill you. That's not very funny.

I have never told a girlfriend or spouse that I would kill them if they cheated on me. If a woman told me that in an email I would immediately break the relationship off.

Of course, this is just testimony. I haven't seen the emails. My question was, if you saw this type of email, would it change your mind? The answer apparently is no.

What if Eric was caught in the act of hiring a hit on a new girlfriend in the United States within the next several months? Would that affect your opinion?

[gringojoel]

PM, I guess my question is, what would it take to convince you that Eric had been the mastermind of the crime? Can you give me an example?