GUILTY OR - Whitney Heichel, 21, Gresham, 16 Oct 2012 #5

[PoirotryInMotion]

I think the judge will enter a not guilty plea if he doesn't have an attorney until one can be appointed. That might be the case here.

Also some times a defense attorney will enter a not guilty and then plea bargain a guilty plea if the death penalty is taken off the table.

JMO

He's had an attorney since his indictment before the grand jury, Friday Oct. 26.

“Jonathan Holt, the Gresham man accused of murdering Whitney Heichel, was indicted Friday in Clackamas County Circuit Court on additional charges of kidnap, robbery and sodomy. Holt also has been charged with six counts of aggravated murder in the Oct. 16 shooting death of Heichel…

Weber set a Dec. 14 trial date for Holt, but that was a formality. It is likely that a trial is a year away.
Conor Huseby, Holt's court-appointed attorney, declined to answer questions about the case.
Seven people testified before the grand jury, six of them representing law enforcement agencies. The seventh, Evan Judd, is a member of the Jehovah's Witnesses church that Holt and Heichel attended."

http://www.oregonlive.com/gresham/index.ssf/2012/10/grand_jury_indicts_jonathan_ho.html

 

[PoirotryInMotion]

No offense, but if there is a blackmailer or anyone else involved in the commission of this crime other than Jonathan Holt, I will cook and eat my favorite winter sweater.

Need a LOL button, please!

(And I'm relieved you said sweater and not that sweet avatar pup.)

 

[PoirotryInMotion]

PIM--- I think your theory of a blackmailer or other perp is very possible given how things were conventiently found, placed, and how Holt seemed to volunteer anything to LE, it seemed his frantic, worried behavior was someone wanting to get trust and protection from LE. Sort of like a child running, confessing to his parents to protect him from a bully.

Just to clarify...not sure that I've specifically mentioned a "blackmailer" on here (that was another person's post you quoted with the word 'blackmail'), though I've openly wondered if JH is the assailant in this case. I do think JH's testimony is inconsistent and therefore (to me) any part of it could be suspect. I also sense an unusual amount of trauma and fear/confusion for someone accused of the hitman-style shooting of someone he purportedly had a 'crush on'...but that doesn't necessarily spell blackmail. (I think of blackmail as someone having the goods on someone--threatening to expose them or bribing them with money, or whatever, to be less than forthcoming). It could spell fear of similar reprisal for him or his loved ones concerning being completely honest about what went on that day, if he wasn't the assailant, but rather a witness. IMO.

 

[PoirotryInMotion]

BBM

by PoirotryInMotion
I think maybe there's a third alternative not yet ruled out: someone else stashed his stuff elsewhere for a bit.

I'm not sure an alternative theory really needs to be ruled out if it is based on an (IMO)unfounded speculation that the killer's belongings were stashed by anyone other than himself, and/or if it introduces a (IMO)highly unlikely scenario where this confessed killer is framed by unnamed mystery persons who manage to gain access to the trunk of the killer's vehicle undetected while said vehicle is under surveillance in the police station parking lot, to plant incriminating evidence -- which Holt will coincidentally admit to possessing -- while he's inside talking to police.

:twocents: IMO reasonable doubt must sound reasonable in order to be reasonable doubt!

I'm liking that good old KISS method more and more every day. *IF* the items were indeed stashed at all, which has not been established, IMO it would be far more consistent with Holt's known solo-stashing behavior (and a much more reasonable explanation) for him to have stashed the equipment himself. His obvious purpose would be to cover the lame story that he'd been robbed of the items at gunpoint.

All with due respect, and JMO.

While I have seen some "unfounded speculation" in these threads, I'd disagree it's unfounded speculation to wonder if JH either had an accomplice who hid the computer stuff for him or if it was hidden by anyone else. Since LE had him under surveillance that week but only first mentioned seeing the full backpack that Friday morning, to me, it's an obvious question. At less than a month after the crime, it's also obvious that Joe Q Public can't know all the facts about a case which is only beginning its discovery stages with the parties directly involved.

So, I respectfully disagree with your post. I think it's a reasonable question, though likely one among many that will not be covered in the initial search warrant paperwork, but only perhaps in trial (if it comes to that).

 

[PoirotryInMotion]

Originally Posted by PoirotryInMotion
The cell phone accounts are entirely confusing. Without AT&T records to consult, I doubt they could be sorted out until trial.

The key for me there is JH says his wife called AT&T.....

That was probably another lie Holt told police early on.

Could be - like I said, if some parts are suspect, it opens the door to more of what he says being suspect. But thankfully one of the easier assertions to check out via AT&T's records.

 

[La Louve]

Sorry OT but that was too funny...The part about the lawyer.:rocker:

OT too but early in my career as a paralegal I had a sign on my office door that read "I am not an attorney, but I play one on tv".

 

[PoirotryInMotion]

I'm not from Oregon, but I had no problem downloading the pdf. Some have commented that theirs looked the way you describe on a Mac, but when they looked at it on a PC it worked.

I offered before, and the offer still stands, to send a copy of what I have to anyone who PM's me their email address.

Sending... (and thanks).

 

[gwenabob]

I always seem to fail to understand things like this ... he confessed, he/his lawyer pleads not guilty ... eeh? :waitasec:

But thanks for those who try to explain, pleading guilty to leave room for later negotiations makes a tiny bit of sense, I guess.

Good I'm not a lawyer! :floorlaugh:

Since this is a potentially capital case, I believe Oregon law requires a not guilty plea as the initial plea. There was no other option.

 

[PoirotryInMotion]

Are you on an Apple device? If so, some of the pages are blank with redaction black marks. A PC will let you view the entire pages.

Thanks, Boodles! Newsjunkie has emailed me the PDF (thanks newsjunkie)!

 

[PoirotryInMotion]

Page 3 of 44 on the Holt1.pdf does mention the admissions made by JH led to the investigation of "Encouraging child sex abuse in the 2nd Degree" in Multnomah County. I am not sure how the system works, if after his trial in Clackamas County, that the additional charges of Burglary and Encouraging Child Sex Abuse will be tried in Multnomah County after the verdict.

It sounds as if LE followed Oregon's legal procedure of confiscating the equipment, to further investigate. If this was JH's only charge, he most likely would not be arrested at the initial confiscation according to this website. Because they have JH currently held until his Clackamas Co. trial, they have a lot of time to gather evidence.

From the Oregon Crimes Sex Guide :
http://www.oregoncrimes.com/sexcrimes.htm

"With some crimes like downloading / possession of child *advertiser censored*, officers do not arrest you right away. Typically, officers show up with a search warrant and seize computers / hard drives and interview the suspect. Once the computers / hard drives are analyzed at a later date, the case is turned over to the District Attorney's Office. The DA's Office then brings the case before a grand jury and charges of encouraging child sexual abuse follow. Officers then arrest the suspect on the indictment warrant. This can take several weeks and sometimes longer.

This from the pdf tells me what they suspect is on his equipment, based on JH's testimony to police that week. It's a 'probable cause' for getting a search warrant to confiscate all that equipment, which they did by the end of the week.

But what I thought I read Xavier asking was if they had "proof" yet that the *advertiser censored* was on his equipment. My answer to that is still "no" (JH's saying to LE that it's on there is not considered 'proof' legally.) The the computer expert cited in the pdf (forgot his name) and/or his team is presently examining the equipment and Gleason said it could take "months" to extract and determine what all is on there. Meaning, Xavier's question will likely not have an answer known until trial.

 

[Desdemona]

The slip of paper with these two names on it was a slip of paper recovered from Amanda's car during the search warrant execution that Friday and entered into the affidavit--it wasn't a report from the media who has the option of editing out what they consider not pertinent. If the "Sound Dept" paper had more than two names on it I believe Gleason would have stated that in the report as precisely as he recorded all the other details of what they found; he has to sign this affidavit at the end, swearing to its truth, at risk of perjuring himself if it's not true. (See the fine print on the last page.)

I believe the description of the paper and what was on it would be precise, as it was part of the LE report about what was found during search warrant execution, and would be used in trial. If they omitted names for some important reason in that description (eg. sensitive information), you'd see a redaction (black line) or blank space in the affidavit.

BBM: Okay then, let's be precise about this "Sound Dept" paper with CH's and JH's names on it. Did the docs in fact refer to this evidence as "a slip of paper?"

Or.... A sheet of paper? A piece of paper? A paper?

I'm asking because I didn't picture it as a "slip" of paper when I read the docs, but rather a form or a printed page or something like that. Which could be very different from a slip of paper IMO. So, if someone else read more precisely or has a better memory, please correct me -- ICBW.

JMO/TIA

 

[Desdemona]

IMHO just watching Holt during the crime and being incarcerated, his constant worried, fearful, even remorse for what happened to WH, behavior strikes me that's he more "secure" being in police custody. If you watch Holt's reactions, read his interviews you might see some of this and wonder too.

<snipped>

I just feel Holt might be a patsy fall guy. Who and Why may/may not be proven in his trial or even discovered. But I've strong suspicions of a higher power involved in a bigger scenario.

Holt's Dec 14th trial is soon, and hopefully complete justice and closure will bring an end to this horribly sad ordeal and the unnecessary loss of Whitney's life.

RSBM/BBM

I have watched just as closely as anyone else following this case. Personally, I've seen nothing at all in Holt's interviews, photos, or court appearance on video, to suggest he could be a patsy or fall guy. Nope, and I don't see evidence of any conspiracies, powers or higher ups involved in what Holt did to Whitney.

On the contrary, Holt is a small-time guy who had already proven himself somewhat of a failure in life, work, marriage... who for whatever personal reasons chose to plan and carry out a truly evil crime against an innocent person who was a friend, neighbor and fellow church member. To me, he looks like nothing more than a loser who committed a heinous crime, stupidly thought he could get away with it, got caught instead, confessed to the police, and is now reeling under the serious consequences as a result of his actions.

That's all I see here, IMO.

 

[Desdemona]

That's not as confusing, in a sense, as the fact that the JH&AH had only been at those apts for 2 months. I'm sure, as there were other friends from their cong living at that apt complex (that were reported by CH to LE, though JH was not) , that someone else must've plant/fish sat for them prior (they had annual summer trips with Whitney's Ritmiller family). So who had the keys before that--and why did that duty switch to the JH&AH and in such a short period of time? And might another couple in that complex also have had their apt key at one time?

No doubt LE looked into anyone in the complex who might have been involved. No doubt if anyone else were found to be involved, we'd have heard of it. To my eyes, it appears sad, extreme and irrational, not to mention unnecessarily hurtful to innocent bystanders, to publicize such speculation about people who lived in the apartments, or who attended their church; when the man in custody who is charged with the crimes against Whitney has confessed, and LE appears to have substantial evidence to support what happened and by whom. JMO

 

[Desdemona]

While I have seen some "unfounded speculation" in these threads, I'd disagree it's unfounded speculation to wonder if JH either had an accomplice who hid the computer stuff for him or if it was hidden by anyone else. Since LE had him under surveillance that week but only first mentioned seeing the full backpack that Friday morning, to me, it's an obvious question. At less than a month after the crime, it's also obvious that Joe Q Public can't know all the facts about a case which is only beginning its discovery stages with the parties directly involved.

So, I respectfully disagree with your post. I think it's a reasonable question, though likely one among many that will not be covered in the initial search warrant paperwork, but only perhaps in trial (if it comes to that).

I do not think it is an obvious question at all. There is zero curiosity in my mind about this non-issue. JMO

Lots of curiosity about many as-yet unknown facets of the crime, since as you point out, not much has been released at this point.

Yes, we will respectfully agree to disagree.

 

[rmarie3]

Thanks, newsjunkie!

Do you Oregonians have a different pdf than out-of-staters? All I have on page 33 is two 1-inch redaction marks, one line apart. They are not labeled. No reference to Starbucks.

I had the same thing happening to me. Turns out it was my mac. I can read it on my PC, or after I downloaded Adobe Acrobat. Then it magically all appeared.

 

[PoirotryInMotion]

No doubt LE looked into anyone in the complex who might have been involved. No doubt if anyone else were found to be involved, we'd have heard of it.

Just a couple questions, Desdemona:

&#8226; Do you know for a fact that anyone who might have hidden his computers would have had to have been someone at that complex?

&#8226; Do you know for a fact that anyone else who could possibly be involved has all ready been 1) met, 2) questioned, 3) ruled out, and/or 4) made known to the public, specifically those here in this forum ("we'd have heard of it")?

&#8226; If your answer to the above two questions is yes, would you mind letting me know your source for these facts so I can also rest assured.

To my eyes, it appears sad, extreme and irrational, not to mention unnecessarily hurtful to innocent bystanders, to publicize such speculation about people who lived in the apartments, or who attended their church; when the man in custody who is charged with the crimes against Whitney has confessed, and LE appears to have substantial evidence to support what happened and by whom. JMO

Respectfully, please understand the difference between asking questions and speculating. If the asking of honest questions (without accusation) makes you sad, consider how NOT asking honest questions could bring about MORE sadness for grieving family members if the one who brutally shot their Whitney is not, in the end, brought to justice. Even if you thought the chances of someone else being involved or pulling that trigger were exceedingly slim, could you find a peace in convicting JH without a thorough consideration of the case?

I couldn't.

 

[PoirotryInMotion]

Originally Posted by PoirotryInMotion
While I have seen some "unfounded speculation" in these threads, I'd disagree it's unfounded speculation to wonder if JH either had an accomplice who hid the computer stuff for him or if it was hidden by anyone else. Since LE had him under surveillance that week but only first mentioned seeing the full backpack that Friday morning, to me, it's an obvious question. At less than a month after the crime, it's also obvious that Joe Q Public can't know all the facts about a case which is only beginning its discovery stages with the parties directly involved.

So, I respectfully disagree with your post. I think it's a reasonable question, though likely one among many that will not be covered in the initial search warrant paperwork, but only perhaps in trial (if it comes to that).

I do not think it is an obvious question at all. There is zero curiosity in my mind about this non-issue. JMO

Lots of curiosity about many as-yet unknown facets of the crime, since as you point out, not much has been released at this point.

Yes, we will respectfully agree to disagree.

That is why I said "to me" it is an obvious question. No problem.

 

[PoirotryInMotion]

BBM: Okay then, let's be precise about this "Sound Dept" paper with CH's and JH's names on it. Did the docs in fact refer to this evidence as "a slip of paper?"

Or.... A sheet of paper? A piece of paper? A paper?

I'm asking because I didn't picture it as a "slip" of paper when I read the docs, but rather a form or a printed page or something like that. Which could be very different from a slip of paper IMO. So, if someone else read more precisely or has a better memory, please correct me -- ICBW.

JMO/TIA

I don't see, personally, what difference it makes whether it be a 'piece' or 'slip' of paper, but feel free to check on it. I all ready think too much ballyhoo has gone on about that, but if 'piece' or 'slip' turns out significant in court, I'm sure they can testify about it and double check what Gleason called it. That's why it's written down.

 

[Xavier]

That's not as confusing, in a sense, as the fact that the JH&AH had only been at those apts for 2 months. I'm sure, as there were other friends from their cong living at that apt complex (that were reported by CH to LE, though JH was not) , that someone else must've plant/fish sat for them prior (they had annual summer trips with Whitney's Ritmiller family). So who had the keys before that--and why did that duty switch to the JH&AH and in such a short period of time? And might another couple in that complex also have had their apt key at one time?

Good points PIM. This is why I too believe this crime/case could be wide open with possibilities.

Let's hope the defense team and LE will at least exhaust all the angles of the case.

 

[jash]

BBM: Okay then, let's be precise about this "Sound Dept" paper with CH's and JH's names on it. Did the docs in fact refer to this evidence as "a slip of paper?"

Or.... A sheet of paper? A piece of paper? A paper?

I'm asking because I didn't picture it as a "slip" of paper when I read the docs, but rather a form or a printed page or something like that. Which could be very different from a slip of paper IMO. So, if someone else read more precisely or has a better memory, please correct me -- ICBW.

JMO/TIA

The affidavit says:

I also seized a miscellaneous piece of paper that was titled "Sound Department" and had the names J. Holt and C. Heichel written on it.