Wednesday, May 02, 2007


OK, I came across a website debating (rather feebly) the possibility of Eric Volz's guilt in the murder of Doris Ivania in Nicaragua. I realized that we've been trying to prove his innocence the wrong way; rather, we should try and do a "What If", looking through the massive amount of exculpatory evidence as though he was guilty:

Eric would have needed to make a great deal of preparation to cover his tracks in this murder:

1) He would have needed to persuade 10 people to say that they had seen him during the time of the murder in Managua, and sign affidavits to that effect. Think about it - TEN people: Nicaraguan employees, a woman from a non-profit organization, a hair stylist, a respected Nicaraguan journalist, etc. Do you think YOU could get 10 un-related people to agree to provide a false alibi for you?

2) He would have needed someone to make numerous phone calls from his office to business associates throughout the day so that he would have a phone record proving he was in Managua, and they would have to be written to reflect a legitimate, business dialogue.

3) He would have had to have someone have an IM chat with his associate in Atlanta, time-stamped for the hours he claims he was in Managua.

That's a LOT of preparation and bribery/persuasion to cover up a so-called "jealous" murder. I mean, honestly, if he was the jealous type, do you think he would have amicably parted with her and moved over 2 hours away to the capital city for business?

It's just too improbable.

One forum writer's assertion that "I have no idea of his Internet habits but I find it hard to believe he spent all that time chatting with one person for four plus hours non-stop. It seems to be awfully convenient to be chatting online for many hours on end at the time of the murder." That's a matter of opinion; I have worked with agents who will have long, complex ongoing IM chats with their assistants for an entire workday while they are on the phone with buyers.

Have you ever carried a heavy wooden box for several minutes on your shoulder? Are you an expert in that sort of forensic evidence? It has been proven by photographs from the funeral that the marks are on the very shoulder with which he carried the coffin. They were the only wounds on his body, whereas one of the other accused had multiple scratches on his torso and penis.

Please fully investigate the facts, see the evidence, before deciding whether or not you think he is guilty - the sheer mass of exculpatory evidence must make his conviction HIGHLY suspect, at the very least!

1 comment:

Nathania Johnson said...

Great post! The sad thing is - we shouldn't be trying to prove his innocence. They should PROVE his guilt. And they have nothing. No blood. No DNA. No fingerprints. Nothing.

Because he was not there.