nuevo diario feb 17, 2007

Eric Stanley Volz and Julio Martin Chamorro were declared guilty of murder yesterday in atrocious prejudice to the young Doris Ivania Jimenez. The judge in the District Criminal Trial Rivas, Ivette White Toruño, established in its judgement that served as both author and executed a direct action of the crime. "Therefore, pleads guilty to being accused of having committed the crime of murder in dreadful prejudice to the young Doris Ivania Jimenez (qepd)," he said. Following the discussion of the sentence in which the Public Prosecutor's Office requested the maximum sentence (30 years) and the defence which establishes the Code of Criminal Procedure (CPP), the court, based on Article 321 ordered the immediate imprisonment of Stanley Volz , who had so far arrested household. "Once qualified the facts, the judge decides on action around the accused and sentenced now. Indeed, the prison guard (July Chamorro Martin) stays guardándola of course, and ordering the immediate imprisonment of Eric Stanley Volz, "he added.
Witnesses plunged Volz
Statements depositions Nelson Danglas and Pedro Joaquin Lopez Narvaez, proposed by the prosecution, were crucial to the court handed down a guilty verdict against the defendants, as witnesses saw the accused near the crime scene Doris Ivania. "In other words, witnesses who placed the accused at the scene have sufficient approvals to build a strong belief in the judicial authority that has proved the hypothesis accusatory," he said. Taken together with these testimonies is the evidence found by the expert Isolda Vanesa Arcia, a forensic pathologist, who spoke to the victim scratches defended their harassers. "The prosecution witnesses, Nelson Danglas and Pedro Joaquin Lopez Narvaez, have all the necessary credibility, since their testimonies are confronted with the evidence found by the forensic medical expert Isolda Vanesa Arcia, who refers to the victim scratched defended their harassers, and that they - Stanley Volz and Julio Martin Chamorro - presented abrasions caused by the nails, "he added.
Declaration unconvincing
The court described the declaration Stanley Volz "implausible and not credible", specifically with regard to the injuries found on his body, which were caused while carrying the coffin of the victim. "It is not convincing, because in the photo-table presented at trial, photo number 21 the defendant has several scratches - and I submit photos to the media - a linear fashion and parallel to the region anterior chest, above the scapula, in addition to the abrasions on the upper right shoulder. Load a coffin, never, but never going to leave these scratches to any person, "he said. Equally determined in the case of another accused, Julio Martin Chamorro, who introduced excoriación on the back of the right forearm, as the witness said Pedro Joaquin Narvaez, when Julio Martin sees the day, 90 meters Store of the victim: nervous, sweated and scratched. It said the witness ". According to the court, it was shown in court that someone tried to find witnesses who say that Eric Stanley Volz was in Managua at the time of the crime, which was refuted valiantly by the company's employees REX renting vehicles Managua, who refused to participate.
"The defense minimized the contradictions time of the witnesses, if not minimal, but of particular relevance, if we take into account that the accused Eric Volz asked his assistant rental vehicle before it was discovered the corpse. It asserted that as well because he knew Eric was told his assistant, and his assistant was told the advisory sales of the company Hertz Rent a Car, which needed the vehicle because someone had died, "said the court. In the judgement of the court was clear that the vehicle was sought in hours noon, as well as Indira Leiva said Garcia, who noted that he remarked to the assistant Eric to be expected for a moment. Indira, advises sales assistant tells Eric that Volz wait a moment, because the driver was not. The driver is Jose Victor Morales, who said he was on his lunch hour.
"This means that there can be no such vagueness time, when the call was received, and that when he arrived about two o'clock to their work, the vehicle was requested, but that the contract, which has three and eleven minutes in the afternoon, reflecting the departure time of the vehicle, said the witness Indira ", he clarified.
Tests discarded
The court dismissed the expert evidence of blood, hair of the head and pubic, saliva and semen, not to be conclusive, because the same expert Noel Martin Korea did not even know what they discussed. Moreover, during the trial can not read their own expert opinion. "Obviously, Noel Martin said - an unprecedented step - which found no hairs of the victim. In other words, this work came to fret for the negligence of the experts who participated. Being completely discarded, it means that there is no evidence either for or against the accused, "he said. So did the court with the expert evidence of trazología, since traces of shoes could not be ascertained with any suspect or determined the number of shoes, even if it was determined the right foot or left, because those traces were incomplete and without sharp edges. "That is, that opinion also is not conclusive or clarifies anything about them," he noted. It also dismissed the testimony of American argued before the court that on the day of crime Doris Ivania, hours of the afternoon, was in a teleconference with Volz and the journalist Ricardo Castillo. "For technological advancement does not necessarily indicate the position of Eric Stanley Volz. Ricardo Jose Castillo is not credible, because being confronted with the witness and Nelson with the evidence, which turns out to be Eric Stanley Volz and witness Rosy Elena Estrada see the accused after two o'clock, as we said long after of the crime. " Another witness who was not credible is the one who said he was with the other accused Lunchtime, confronted with the witness Narvaez Zeas, who sees Julio Martin Chamorro nervous aruñado near the crime scene.
BOX Volz to the modelo? After the verdict of the court, Eric Estanely Volz allegedly was transferred to the Penitentiary System of Tipitapa. The court read out the guilty verdict at 4:10 in the afternoon, and at the same pleaded guilty in July to sanjuaneño Chamorro Martin Lopez, and both defendants could serve a sentence of 30 years as a prosecutor Jorge Reyes requested the maximum sentence . However, it will be until two in the afternoon of next Wednesday to be known that the penalty imposed by the judiciary, who felt that there was direct evidence and expert witnesses and physical evidence for their conviction. In this case, another fact is that the death of the young Doris Ivania Jimenez Alvarado (qepd), it occurs in a violent manner, by strangulation and suffocation, and that in the moments before his death was raped anal and vaginally, and that in the anal region is bleeding injuries. "These facts fall in the standard of section 135 criminal heinous murder, demonstrated by the expert opinion and post-mortem brought to trial through statements by Dr. Isolde Vanesa Arcia and Oscar Bravo," he explained. The court in its judgement, joined the report filed with the phone call to make Vanesa Gabriela Sobalvarro, who warned that Doris Ivania were hanged, and found that places the phone call of the accused in their hands, and the two 48 minutes in the afternoon of that day, when the crime occurred sometime between 11 and 12 noon, that November 21 in San Juan del Sur, and the witness Nelson sees about one o'clock. In conclusion in this regard: "mobilising San Juan del Sur to Managua approximately one o'clock, and be in Managua to two and 48 minutes of the afternoon is the same as accept that the accused left Managua after the five in the afternoon and at half past six already in San Juan del Sur. This means that the defendant is mobilized very quickly. " Eric Stanley Volz, tenía un motivo concreto para cometer el crimen, y que en este caso es elemento auxiliador que acredita su participación”. At the end commented: "There appears to be less important that the evidence of guilt presented by the Ministerio Publico, it became clear that one of the accused, Eric Stanley Volz, had a specific reason for committing the crime, which in this case is element helping that accredits their participation. " "There is direct evidence that destroys the constitutional principle of innocence, there is physical evidence against the accused, there is expert evidence that relates to injuries or scratches that match in its evolution with time of the crime, and that none of the defendants with their defenses could run, "he concluded.