GUILTY OR - Whitney Heichel, 21, Gresham, 16 Oct 2012 #4

[FrayedKnot]

bbm

I doubt he was lying down. Probably sat or stood and forcing her head down on him. Nothing passive about that, not even comparatively. MOO

And likely with the barrel of his gun pressed ever so gently to the side of her head. So she had a real fighting chance.

I effing hate guns. And please no posts regaling the joy of gun ownership. If you are so inclined, you love your death sticks. I, however, despise them and the lives they shatter. Be content in your beliefs and do not challenge mine. MOO

But Whitney and Mickey might still be alive but for some jerkwad with a gun.

 

[Glow]

I'm a people-observer. I know it's 'icky' in a way, but I really am intrigued by studying the profiling of criminals..trying to figure out their personalities and who they might be based on the clues they've left behind (including the manner of assault).

I totally get that. I have a good friend who works as a jury consultant. She is very good at her job. Sometimes there will be a criminal case that we discuss and I am always amazed by how deeply she can immerse herself in the details. The tiny events that might at first glance seem like nothing.

It is exactly in that minutia that she finds her motivations (or the perps rather). I am sitting here trying to imagine which way she would go withthis case. I think she would have a problem with the lack of blood on his clothes, the "freeness" with which he gave his "confession" especially with one statement in the affidavit. I am not quoting this exactly but it was something to the effect of how his being robbed made it harder for him to focus on other things" like Whitney being missing and all". That is the kind of thing my friend would be all over, I read it and thought huh? But to her it would actually mean something. I should call her and talk with her about this case and see what she thinks...

 

[PoirotryInMotion]

I totally get that. I have a good friend who works as a jury consultant. She is very good at her job. Sometimes there will be a criminal case that we discuss and I am always amazed by how deeply she can immerse herself in the details. The tiny events that might at first glance seem like nothing.

It is exactly in that minutia that she finds her motivations (or the perps rather). I am sitting here trying to imagine which way she would go withthis case. I think she would have a problem with the lack of blood on his clothes, the "freeness" with which he gave his "confession" especially with one statement in the affidavit. I am not quoting this exactly but it was something to the effect of how his being robbed made it harder for him to focus on other things" like Whitney being missing and all". That is the kind of thing my friend would be all over, I read it and thought huh? But to her it would actually mean something. I should call her and talk with her about this case and see what she thinks...

I would LOVE to know what she thinks of this case. Drag her in here.

 

[B4igo2it]

I have always believed there was another person involved in the cover up of his crime (but not in the homicide). Given all the new information tonight, I am completely convinced now.

Given the proximity of events later in the morning, I believe the general area around 257th Avenue between Stark and Halsey is key. Somewhere around the cell tower at Mount Hood CC. If Holt only needed gas and it was the lack of gas that prevented him from going directly from Roslyn Lake up to Larch, he'd have no reason to travel so far North all the way to I-84 to get gas -- because there are gas stations located closer to Dodge Park and to Larch. He needed someone's help. I believe with this person is where he spent Tuesday afternoon before being spotted walking home.

Interesting thoughts and thank you for posting them. :twocents:

 

[Neptune]

To comment on a previous post (can’t seem to find it).

I've read through all of the threads on the Heichel/Holt case and have not seen anyone outright blaming Clint Heichel, Andrea Holt, law enforcement, or the organization or members of Heichel’s religious affiliation. Maybe I’ve missed the innuendo in posts. This is a very emotional case for some people on this forum and perhaps it is a good decision for some to step away – I respect that, especially if it's hard to hear comments that don't support a certain point of view.

WebSleuths is a crime discussion forum – and, my understanding is, people are free to debate pieces of the case that don’t make sense to them or that they don’t take at face value; information that doesn’t seem plausible; or question why information is missing. I’ve seen comments by posters about “the evidence hasn’t shown this” or “hasn’t supported that”. Um, what evidence? You mean the minimal evidence that was presented to support probable cause? This is only the beginning stage of the discovery period. Most people, even those not seasoned in following criminal cases, know that LE knows more than it says. In a forum devoted to finding out additional information not revealed in disclosures, comments about how we don’t know all the facts seem a little unnecessary. In a previous post, I stated that those missing or vague pieces may be good starting off places to sleuth parts of the case that don’t make sense. I always support my posts with facts and I've seen others do the same. In this Heichel forum I've seen a lot of subtext that suggests that LE knows what they’re doing and since we don’t know as much as they do why address it -- the attitude seems a bit out of place on a crime discussion forum.

I’ve also seen statements about how the media gets it wrong a lot. I’ve got news for you: so does law enforcement. MSM routinely employ fact-checkers to verify their statements and double-check key details. Because I’ve seen more times than I can count LE get simple facts wrong, I often check the quality of information LE presents to the public. Here’s a basic example:

Incorrect:
In the Affidavit, Mr. Gleason states that Whitney works regularly at the Starbucks that is located at 2442 SE Burnside, City of Gresham (pg 18).

Fact:
Whitney worked at this Starbucks: 2233 NE Burnside Gresham, OR 97030 45°29'53.38"N 122°24'34.46"W
Her supervisor, Kerby Dalatowski, lists in a Facebook post about Whitney the 2233 NE Burnside address.
A Google Streetview shot of Whitney's car parked at Starbuck's 45°29'52.63"N 122°24'34.29"W
On Google Earth it takes you right there. On Google maps, you have to follow the slider into the parking lot entrance, U-turn, and slide almost to Dairy Queen.
​

Do I think there’s a conspiracy or intention behind this information being incorrect? No. It was just not correct. Am I dissatisfied with the way law enforcement has handled this case? Not at all. But, sleuthing is learning – fact-checking, logic-checking, and finding more info – it is part of the quality control process of checks and balances this country values so highly. Ultimately the burden of proof in a criminal case is on the government and it requires proof of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Contrary to what appears to be popular belief among some that the Heichel/Holt case is an open-and-shut case, I would disagree and say there are many loose ends. I’ll probably end up addressing those in posts.

 

[Neptune]

Interesting…

Two and Two.

Two Guns. Law enforcement witnesses Holt attempt to discard two different guns (different times and places).

Two Four Lokos found at Dodge Park. As shown in photos, one of these cans is almost touching a Starbucks to-go cup. According to MSM, these items were found in close proximity to a bluish cloth with what appears to be red stains, an apron, broken car glass, and tire tread marks.

Fact about the product Four Lokos:
In Oct 2011, according to the FTC, a 23.5-ounce Four Loko contains about as much alcohol as four or five 12-ounce cans of regular beer and is not safe to drink in a single sitting.
Note: Four Lokos are not banned (only the recipe has changed to take out the “energy” part of it - cans with the old recipe are banned).

So, if these Four Lokos did belong to Holt and were consuming only by Holt, it would mean in the time span between 6:50am, when he first pulled out his gun on Whitney and took command of her vehicle, and approximately 8:40 (or slightly later if he dropped off the items on the way back through Dodge Park), Holt had consumed the equivalent of 8 beers before reaching the Shell station.

 

[Quester]

+ two fake "robbers"

 

[Neptune]

+ two fake "robbers"

Two
Two
Two (wink)

And, at least SIXTY people who potentially had access to evidence including the various crime scenes.

 

[possumheart]

I was wondering about the camping trip when JH looked after the fish and plants. Do we know if the camping trip was to the same area that Whitney was killed? If so, could it be that JH stole the iphone later and found images on it of that particular camping trip? Could he have obsessed over them and taken her back there? I was just wondering if there was a link between the two? I get the impression that he was unemployed at the time, and may have spent some time obsessing in the Heichel's appartment.

 

[TreeClimbingGirl]

I wasn't going to come back in and quibble more about this, but I'll try one last time. I said it was comparatively passive - not only because it was oral sex, but because I was reading from the document where JH told police he had WH "perform oral sex on him."

To ME--this is a more passive-sounding event in that he is presumabaly lying still, from the inflection of the wording in the document. To me, it is a less aggressive positioning than what we think of when we think of what is traditionally referred to as rape. JMO.

From your comments, I know that some of you are leaping to the conclusion somehow that I am diminishing this assault by saying this. Not in the least. To say something is a more passive-oriented assault has to do with analyzing the perp's personality in his chosen mode of attack. But assault is still assault, and this crime is no less heinous for not having the charge of rape.

End of my comments on this.

I guess it depends on who's perspective you are taking.

From the perspective of the rapist, I suppose it is more "passive" in a way-although I wouldn't assume anything about his position, or any of the mechanics (for lack of a better term) involved.

But for the victim, it is decidedly LESS passive. Not only does it force you to actively participate in being raped, in a way it feels more violating. Rape is awful no matter what, but-again speaking from both my experience and what I have heard from other victims-if you are being vaginally or anally raped, it's easier to dissociate from what is happening. If you are being orally raped, it is literally in your face, violating all of your senses-taste, smell, etc. Hard to explain without getting into graphic detail, but I'm sure you can imagine. That is why I would say, from the standpoint of a victim, it is far from a passive experience, even comparatively.

I apologize if I misconstrued your comment.

 

[Indy Anna]

I think they would have been better off doing a study on boxers to see if repeated blows to the head affect thought patterns.

I can see a pro NFL player after many years of playing having some problems, but a kid that played on a high school team for a couple of years I don't see as someone that would be suffering from a brain injury, unless he was used as the battering ram for each play or he constantly ran into the goal post and knocked himself silly every time he ran to the end zone.

JMO

There have been studies on head trauma in boxers, but forgive me for not understanding why the incidence of head trauma in one sport would eclipse the significance of head trauma in another sport, especially when involving children. There is much concern among medical, athletic and parent groups over the incidence of head trauma in high school football players. This website discusses the increase in catastrophic head injuries to high school football players: http://www.everydayhealth.com/kids-health/0420/catastrophic-head-injuries-to-high-school-football-players-rising.aspx


Head trauma to high school athletes is so concerning because brain development continues throughout adolescence and isn't complete until the early twenties. Injuries during this crucial period can lead to permanent damage. Here is another website that addresses the effect brain trauma has on the ability to initiate, plan and organize tasks: http://www.brainline.org/content/2009/06/initiation-planning-organization-and-brain-injury_pageall.html

Please don't think I'm disparaging youth football. That's not my purpose. People have been questioning why JH acted so erratically after he murdered Whitney. His actions seemed so premeditated initially because he didn't go into work, he waited for WH to leave for work, he took along his backpack and two guns, and he may have had a destination in mind. But, what happened afterwards seems so disorganized. The order in which he executed his plan, if there was one, appears random. It doesn't seem he was able to think things through to completion and I'm just offering a plausible explanation. It has nothing to do with the reason he chose to victimize Whitney or with anything else. :moo:

 

[TreeClimbingGirl]

And likely with the barrel of his gun pressed ever so gently to the side of her head. So she had a real fighting chance.

I effing hate guns. And please no posts regaling the joy of gun ownership. If you are so inclined, you love your death sticks. I, however, despise them and the lives they shatter. Be content in your beliefs and do not challenge mine. MOO

But Whitney and Mickey might still be alive but for some jerkwad with a gun.

I won't start a debate with you, but I would like to point out-as a responsible gun owner-I arm myself because I have been the victim of a violent crime that involved a gun. I carry for my own protection, and it's frankly the only way I feel safe leaving my house sometimes. Just would like to point out that not all those who practice their 2nd amendment rights are gun nuts who "love our death sticks". I hate guns, and hope I never have to use mine anywhere but the shooting range. But I'm glad I have it, just in case.

Also, I know this may be controversial, but I think that if more women learned and practiced armed self-defense, we would see a considerable drop in these types of crimes. But that's JMO, and I respect that yours may be different

 

[nikb]

I guess it depends on who's perspective you are taking.

From the perspective of the rapist, I suppose it is more "passive" in a way-although I wouldn't assume anything about his position, or any of the mechanics (for lack of a better term) involved.

But for the victim, it is decidedly LESS passive. Not only does it force you to actively participate in being raped, in a way it feels more violating. Rape is awful no matter what, but-again speaking from both my experience and what I have heard from other victims-if you are being vaginally or anally raped, it's easier to dissociate from what is happening. If you are being orally raped, it is literally in your face, violating all of your senses-taste, smell, etc. Hard to explain without getting into graphic detail, but I'm sure you can imagine. That is why I would say, from the standpoint of a victim, it is far from a passive experience, even comparatively.

I apologize if I misconstrued your comment.

I'm so, so sorry for what you've been through. I can't even imagine... actually even the tiny bit of me that CAN imagine it knows that what I experienced was more like confusing than anything. You're amazing for doing so well and helping so many people now. I know you weren't 'fishing' for the compliment, but you deserve it anyway.

 

[Xavier]

Well Poirotry...I dont want to let the fact that I have not agreed with some of your past posts to cause me to not comment on this one.

I think I understand the point you were trying to make. Part of finding a criminal and part of (hopefully) stopping future criminals is to understand the psychology behind their actions. Some people make a whole career out of profiling and they render a valuable public service. I dont think I could ever be very good at that because you have to really climb in their heads and look at some pretty gritty things very analytically and dispassionately. I usually get too creeped out and feel like I need a shower so that kind of skill remains one that I admire in others but dont have the ability to do.

So back to what you said...if I read you right, I think you were attempting to contrast and compare two things that JH has admitted to.

A) forcing his victim to perform oral sex on him

B) shooting his victim in the head and chest at a very close range.


It has bothered me from the beginning that there was no rape. (See how bad I am at this...? I have already phrased that wrong!) Ok, trying again....the typical way for this type of crime to go would have been for there to be a rape, sadly enough.

But there wasnt. At least that he has admitted to or that has been released publicly. Instead he admits to forcing his victim to perform oral sex on him.

Why? Why did he say that? Is that what really happened?

Did that even happen?

Did he make it up like some kind of weird bragging rights?

Was it part of a sexually fueled script that he had rehearsed in his head based on the type of *advertiser censored* he most preferred? Even if it didnt happen that way did he go ahead and say it because that is the way he had "thought" (fantasized) it going ahead of time?

I just dont know the answers but I can see the need for questions.

With all of Whitney's clothes, personal things found littered on the roadside, etc, it's never been mentioned if she was found clothed or not? It seems the searchers from the church, family, friends, LE found ALOT of her things strewn about on the various driving routes Holt took....

Also, IMO I think Whitney put up a struggle, resisted some, Holt wanted more sex, realized Whitney was'nt going to submit to more humiliation, fought and shot her point blank in the front seat. During the struggle Holt or Whitney had a tooth chipped off or knocked out. Then because LE found large clumps of hair, Holt got out, went to the passenger rear door, pulled Whitney over the front seat by her hair. They said Holt has good strength as a former "football star"/high school jock. Once she's in the back seat folded down, he shoots again and again...sheesh.

Getting my head around that entire scene is just gut wrenching..this must've been a vicious fight.

From comments I've read Holt's marriage was'nt going well and maybe Whitney had ignored Holt for awhile, maybe she confronted Holt about missing items in her home while Holt "baby sat " their apartment? So maybe she had ignored him and did'nt trust him...therefore forcing her at gunpoint in the SUV morning ride.....if so, the two "closest women" so to speak in Holt's life are distancing themselves from him...add that Holt already has a twisted head and maybe this loss of affection pushed him over the edge into the monster he became.

 

[Xavier]

Maybe Whitney was forced at gunpoint to give Holt a ride.
I believe Holt forced her because there was fallout from their friendship and she did'nt trust Holt and he knew that. Some of the apartment residents noticed some weird things about Holt and rumors spread like they usually do. Maybe the obsessed Holt was showing up at Whitney's Starbucks and hanging around alot and she suspected this weird? Possibly there was distrust setting in when Holt "babysat" the Heichel's apartment and Whitney discovered missing or moved belongings and long suspected Holt. Also, maybe from the JW congregation, rumors spread about Holt's behavior and Whitney became suspicious of Holt. And possibly, during the kidnapping SUV drive, Holt showed Whitney the cell phone he stole from Clint Heichel's drawers while house-sitting their apartment? This could've started an even more vicious fight/struggle in the SUV at the Lake.

So when you add this to the "rumors/comments" about the Holt's marriage being on shaky ground, maybe this "rejection" or loss of affection from Holt's wife and Whitney, possibly the two closest women in his life at this point in his mind, sent him into monster rage and took it all out on Whitney.

 

[AvalonBlue]

Um, forced oral copulation IS rape, and having BTDT I can assure you it is anything but "passive"

ETA-sorry, I see this point has been addressed by others, I just got really pizzed off when I read that. Rape is rape, and I am tired of seeing people try to re-define it.

The "Thanks" button just wasn't enough, TreeClimbingGirl.
I really, really, appreciate your well-stated post.
Rape IS Rape...
You are so right that NO re-definition is EVER needed.

 

[PoirotryInMotion]

I guess it depends on who's perspective you are taking.

From the perspective of the rapist, I suppose it is more "passive" in a way-although I wouldn't assume anything about his position, or any of the mechanics (for lack of a better term) involved.

But for the victim, it is decidedly LESS passive. Not only does it force you to actively participate in being raped, in a way it feels more violating. Rape is awful no matter what, but-again speaking from both my experience and what I have heard from other victims-if you are being vaginally or anally raped, it's easier to dissociate from what is happening. If you are being orally raped, it is literally in your face, violating all of your senses-taste, smell, etc. Hard to explain without getting into graphic detail, but I'm sure you can imagine. That is why I would say, from the standpoint of a victim, it is far from a passive experience, even comparatively.

I apologize if I misconstrued your comment.

No problem, and I can certainly appreciate your perspective about this, given your horrible experience. I was entirely referring to the perp's mode of experience in this crime (whatever position--who knows, really), and what that might say about him, along with examining the 'type' of perp who would shoot a beautiful girl 2x in the face and 2x in the chest--a cold-blooded, probably even experienced murderer.

 

[Joe Friday]

Please don't think I'm disparaging youth football. That's not my purpose. People have been questioning why JH acted so erratically after he murdered Whitney. His actions seemed so premeditated initially because he didn't go into work, he waited for WH to leave for work, he took along his backpack and two guns, and he may have had a destination in mind. But, what happened afterwards seems so disorganized. The order in which he executed his plan, if there was one, appears random. It doesn't seem he was able to think things through to completion and I'm just offering a plausible explanation. It has nothing to do with the reason he chose to victimize Whitney or with anything else. :moo:

(Snipped for space and BBM)

Did I miss somewhere that it was said that JH had taken two guns with him the morning he shot Whitney?

I was figuring he was hiding all his guns from his apartment/car/backpack just in case a search was done by LE. It's a darn good thing LE had surveillance on him when he was disposing of his guns the morning before his interview.

 

[Bravo]

I find it interesting where Holt hid the guns. Seems he intended to go back and get them. Not like he threw them in the water etc. never to be retrieved. I think he thought he could talk his way thru and would be just fine. Until some skilled LE cornered him thru questioning :moo:

 

[nikb]

(Snipped for space and BBM)

Did I miss somewhere that it was said that JH had taken two guns with him the morning he shot Whitney?

I was figuring he was hiding all his guns from his apartment/car/backpack just in case a search was done by LE. It's a darn good thing LE had surveillance on him when he was disposing of his guns the morning before his interview.

If you missed it I did too. I've read that he had two guns and LE's seen him getting rid of ammo and at least one of the guns, but I've never been clear on if he took them both that day, or just one, or for that matter maybe there was already one in the car that she kept for protection? (seems unlikely to me given descriptions of her and how young she was, but who knows)