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

[Desdemona]

Just a couple questions, Desdemona:

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

• 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")?

• 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.

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.

:waitasec: I'll say it again: We need to agree to disagree regarding which speculation I'll consider in this case discussion. I won't tell anyone here how they need to think, and I'd appreciate the same courtesy. Thanks.

No one likes to have their words misconstrued, so I'll assume that was unintentional: I did not say I am sad. I said it's is sad (among other adjectives) to see speculation about innocent people, and speculation shifting blame away from the person who has confessed, when IMO there is zero evidence that anyone else was involved.

Here are your questions and my answers:

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

Answer: To clarify, I don't have an interest in pursuing the speculation about other unknown persons having stashed Holt's things, period, much less possibly incriminating unsuspicious, uninvolved people who live in the apartment complex or who knew the victim or perp from church.​

• 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")?

Answer: I've seen no evidence or indication in what has been released so far to indicate that anyone besides Holt committed this atrocious crime. Though others certainly have a right to believe what they believe, I see no reason to doubt LE has the perp in custody, no reason to doubt that any viable connection to other persons has been checked out, no reason to think anyone else is involved at this point, and see no reason to place innocent people under an umbrella of suspicion and speculation in a heinous murder case.​

• 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.

You can see that my answers to the above questions are neither yes nor no. IMO there is no point in answering questions presupposing a premise that is neither factual, evidence-based, nor plausible to me.
​

Ah yes, and my guess would be that Whitney's grieving family members would prefer to trust LE and the proper authorities to seek justice for their daughter, rather than to see innocent people tainted by suspicion, and the waters muddied without cause as to the guilt of the man who has confessed to destroying her and taking her from them forever. JMO

 

[Xavier]

The affidavit says:

Can someone explain the significance of the Sound Dept form?

thank you.

 

[Desdemona]

Can someone explain the significance of the Sound Dept form?

thank you.

No idea of any significance at this point.

PIM brought it up, referring to it as a "slip of paper," while pointing out that LE used precise language in the docs.

I asked PIM whether the docs actually referred to the paper they found as "a slip," since I didn't remember it that way. Rather than confirm or explain, PIM invited me to "feel free to check it out."

Jash jumped in and learned that the docs refer to it as a "piece of paper titled 'Sound Department,'" not a "slip of paper." (Thanks, Jash)

Not sure if the item will prove to be of any significance at all, since someone seemingly familiar with the church posted upthread that it was likely an assignment for people to work the sound equipment for a service. HTH

 

[Salem]

EVERYONE! It is okay to explore the possibility that someone else may have been involved here as long as it does not include any implications of family members or other innocents.

If you don't wish to participate in that discussion, that's fine. Move past the posts and reply to those you do wish to contribute too.

Please be respectful to each other. Our brains work in different ways and we have different fields of reference. That is what makes us all so unique and what makes WS so interesting.

Salem

 

[PoirotryInMotion]

:waitasec: I'll say it again: We need to agree to disagree regarding which speculation I'll consider in this case discussion. I won't tell anyone here how they need to think, and I'd appreciate the same courtesy. Thanks.

No one likes to have their words misconstrued, so I'll assume that was unintentional: I did not say I am sad. I said it's is sad (among other adjectives) to see speculation about innocent people, and speculation shifting blame away from the person who has confessed, when IMO there is zero evidence that anyone else was involved.

Here are your questions and my answers:

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

Answer: To clarify, I don't have an interest in pursuing the speculation about other unknown persons having stashed Holt's things, period, much less possibly incriminating unsuspicious, uninvolved people who live in the apartment complex or who knew the victim or perp from church.​

• 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")?

Answer: I've seen no evidence or indication in what has been released so far to indicate that anyone besides Holt committed this atrocious crime. Though others certainly have a right to believe what they believe, I see no reason to doubt LE has the perp in custody, no reason to doubt that any viable connection to other persons has been checked out, no reason to think anyone else is involved at this point, and see no reason to place innocent people under an umbrella of suspicion and speculation in a heinous murder case.​

• 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.

You can see that my answers to the above questions are neither yes nor no. IMO there is no point in answering questions presupposing a premise that is neither factual, evidence-based, nor plausible to me.
​

Ah yes, and my guess would be that Whitney's grieving family members would prefer to trust LE and the proper authorities to seek justice for their daughter, rather than to see innocent people tainted by suspicion, and the waters muddied without cause as to the guilt of the man who has confessed to destroying her and taking her from them forever. JMO

I'd be willing to bet we will never see eye to eye about the difference between asking honest questions and 'tainting innocent people' with 'suspicion,' Desdemona. It's all about mindset to begin with. Thankfully, it should be enough that we are both passionate about seeing justice done in this case.

Honest questions with honest answers can never muddy the waters of innocence, though those waters may be stirred from time to time. My opinion, true...but I sure hope for the sake of my children and grandchildren that there are a few others who share that view.

 

[Sasquatch]

No idea of any significance at this point.

PIM brought it up, referring to it as a "slip of paper," while pointing out that LE used precise language in the docs.

I asked PIM whether the docs actually referred to the paper they found as "a slip," since I didn't remember it that way. Rather than confirm or explain, PIM invited me to "feel free to check it out."

Jash jumped in and learned that the docs refer to it as a "piece of paper titled 'Sound Department,'" not a "slip of paper." (Thanks, Jash)

Not sure if the item will prove to be of any significance at all, since someone seemingly familiar with the church posted upthread that it was likely an assignment for people to work the sound equipment for a service. HTH

What I have read, is the same thing about the Sound Department. Here is a discussion forum of people talking about their experiences in the sound department for the JW. Nothing secret happening, just setting up basic things like CDs, microphones, connecting XLR cables....list goes on. Just basic A/V tech stuff to make the service sound nice and audible.
http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/jw/experiences/32948/1/Story-Sound-Dept-at-Assembly

 

[Xavier]

As much as we all have our hearts in the right place for justice for Whitney,I want to feel as supremely confident in Holt's guilt as the majority on this thread. But, there are way too many RED FLAGS in how this crime was conducted for me to feel as confident as many or all are.

I have suspicions about these loud and clear RED FLAGS about this case, enough to temper my judgement on Holt, despite his admissions and confession.

My deceased father spent a career as a supervisor in the crime unit for the FBI working on low and high profile national cases. When dad retired, he still followed some local cases. I remember several discussions privately with dad of similar cases to Holt's of a "regular guy" like Holt who got "pinched" as a patsy/fall guy as an unwilling participant in a crime "masterminded" by more powerful people. The "regular guy" confessed to the crime, but later was acquitted. But, like Holt's case, there were the same patterns of hodge podge, recklessness, actions, behaviors to easily implicate himself and make himself "the" prime suspect.

I've my suspicions of the Who and Why. But, like everyone else we all have to wait IF for more details.

I do have the confidence in the Gresham LE, Prosecution and defense team that their experience and knowledge, which is far more advanced than mine, will also see the RED FLAGS and question them as I have.

 

[jash]

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).

BBM - Do we know when LE began their surveillance of JH? The affidavits only detail the Friday and I'm wondering if that's because that was actually the first day of surveillance, or if nothing noteworthy was observed prior to that day.

 

[caffeinejean]

BBM - Do we know when LE began their surveillance of JH? The affidavits only detail the Friday and I'm wondering if that's because that was actually the first day of surveillance, or if nothing noteworthy was observed prior to that day.

Forwarding on a copy of the statement from the Oct. 19 presser. Here it is mentioned that a focus was narrowed on to JH.
http://greshamoregon.gov/news/newstemplate.aspx?id=281255

 

[Glow]

The affidavit is hard to read but it would appear that all the surveillance was conducted on the 19th.

There were interviews with JH on the 17th (about his being robbed)

On the 18th JH was again interviewed while meeting with a police sketch artist and again, gave changing details of the robbery. This is the interview where he breaks down and admits to having a gun in his stolen backpack and where he "worries about his wife finding that out'" This is also the interview where he says he would have been more "helpful" in Whitney's disappearance if he hadnt been "robbed".

those two interviews were probably what made LE feel the need for the surveillence which began outside the apartment where JH and Amanda lived.

It seems to have been a very comprehensive surveillence with upwards of 5 officers involved at various times during the day.

 

[Glow]

Forwarding on a copy of the statement from the Oct. 19 presser. Here it is mentioned that a focus was narrowed on to JH.
http://greshamoregon.gov/news/newstemplate.aspx?id=281255

Thanks for that link. It says in the link that by late Thursday (the 18th) they had furthur evidence narrowing things down to JH. I hadnt realized that until now.

 

[caffeinejean]

Thanks for that link. It says in the link that by late Thursday (the 18th) they had furthur evidence narrowing things down to JH. I hadnt realized that until now.

It also speaks to the "canvassing of the apartment complex" on Wednesday (the 17th) and "received information leading them to Holt" on Wednesday.

 

[Glow]

It also speaks to the "canvassing of the apartment complex" on Wednesday (the 17th) and "received information leading them to Holt" on Wednesday.

I just went back and re read the entire article again. I am going to have to bookmark it because it contains a lot of little "nuggets" of information. It sounds like small peices of the puzzle kept trickling in to LE concerning JH doesnt it?

 

[BrownEyedGirl80]

Some may find this irrelevant but I am curious about AH's account of the timeline on the morning before Whitney's disappearance, which was Monday October 15. On page 29/44 of the affidavit, it states (what JH told LE during interview), "Jonathan Holt works for a vending machine service in Swan Island called Canteen Services and has worked there for about a week. He works from 6 am to between 2 and 4 pm, depending on how much work there is to do and that his father also works there." So from what I gather, he has to be at work at 6 am and then works until sometime between 2pm and 4pm, depending on how much work he has to do that day. Then on page 33-34/44 of the affidavit, according to AH, "Amanda Holt told them that on Monday October 15, 2012, Jonathan Holt woke up for work around 0500, as he does on a regular base [sic] (working at Canteen Vending). Amanda Holt woke up around 0715. She believes Jonathan Holt left the home about 10 minutes later, but is not certain because she went back to sleep...Since her husband had Amanda Holt's car, her step-father came to her aparment at about 0815 hours and drove her to work." Now, I am reading this as JH woke up at 5:00 am. AH woke up at 7:15 am. Then, JH left the home 10 minutes later after AH woke up at 7:15am, which would be 7:25am. Then AH goes back to sleep until she gets up to get ready for work and her step-dad picks her up at 8:15am. If that is the timeline, why would JH leave the apartment at 7:25am when he has to be at work at 6:00am? This could be just poor writing on LE's part and what they actually meant to write was that JH woke up at 5:00am and left about 10 minutes later (5:10am) and then AH woke up at 7:15am. However, how it is written implies the sequence of events was that JH woke up at 5:00am, AH woke up at 7:15am and then JH left 10 minutes later (7:25am) and then AH went back to sleep. Which do you think they meant? Not that it's really that important since Whitney didn't go missing until the next day but I was just curious if he was late on that Monday because he had told LE on page 30/44 that after he got robbed Tuesday, he just walked around all day, in part, because he thought he might lose his job because he was already late for work one time last week.

 

[Melancholy]

*whew* all caught up, I do believe!

First, I was a little anxious that I would return and Whitney's case may have been left behind for another, different case. I'm happy to see that she's not been 'forgotten' (for lack of a better word)

Second, lol I see some things have not changed

And lastly, there's SO much to comment on, share opinion on, but as I had mentioned to another poster here, when you a JW reading all these things, it's almost a surreal feeling. There are so many nuances into the life of a JW, things that are consistent to our lifestyle, that having that *extra* connection and identifying with her life on that level makes this so, well...Melancholy (it's why I chose this username, that's the feeling this case evoked in me as I read all about it here, before I was registered to comment myself). *but it also makes it hard not to comment on religious things that would have bearing on the actions of the people involved here LOL*

I am thankful for the link that someone posted to the interviews of WH's husband, mother and family. It made me cry, of course, but it was so encouraging to see them able to talk to freely of her personality and that they are keeping her memory alive and so close in their hearts it's as if a small part of her is there with them.

I too am SO beyond happy that CH saved that voice mail. I imagine he must listen to it over and over each day, while looking at her pictures.

Which brings me to one of the many changes I have made in my life as a result of 'meeting' Whitney. We (this forum) talked at length early on about the sheer number of pictures CH and WH had together, and whether than is indicative of a close relationship (I think it *is* but I don't think a lack of pics is indicative of anything contrary lol)....

that really made me think about the number of pictures my hubby and I have...we have TONS of the kids, tons of each of us with kids, tons of us alone, but NOT tons of us together, reflecting the love we have for one another like WH and CH have. That is something we have been working on, taking pictures together...capturing our fun times (and honestly...some boring times haha) together. It's so easy now, with smart phones, digital cameras, etc. Soooo anyhoooo, totally OT but that is just one of the small changes in my life that WH has brought.

I hope all of you are doing well, and it's nice to "see" ya' all again

 

[Melancholy]

And I do have a legitimate question, and please bear with me, as it's not meant in a backhanded or insidious way LOL.

I realize (as Salem brought out, and I appreciate) that saying things that sound accusatory toward the victims --which include family of the victim, and I believe it was stated friends--is against ToS, and I also realize there is a fine line in wordage on some things.

I am reading some of these things saying perhaps JH is a 'fall guy', perhaps a 'patsy', and even one saying he is being 'blackmailed'....all of these scenarios would imply that JH himself is - on some level- a victim....

I guess I'm having a hard time reconciling that it's not okay to imply accusatory wording toward family and friends (AH, CH, the Judds)...but that it is somehow okay to imply that JH is a victim...it just seems to 'dirty' a thread about justice for WH. I guess that's probably just a personal issue I'll have to overlook and move on...but I don't see how it is allowable as far as ToS.

Again, not saying this in a passive aggressive way, I genuinely don't see how those aren't getting modsnipped or something.

 

[Desdemona]

I'd be willing to bet we will never see eye to eye about the difference between asking honest questions and 'tainting innocent people' with 'suspicion,' Desdemona. It's all about mindset to begin with. Thankfully, it should be enough that we are both passionate about seeing justice done in this case.

Honest questions with honest answers can never muddy the waters of innocence, though those waters may be stirred from time to time. My opinion, true...but I sure hope for the sake of my children and grandchildren that there are a few others who share that view.

eace: LOL, yep! Different mindsets -- pretty much the norm at WS and everywhere. Yes, we are all passionate about justice in whatever form we see it! IMO there is never any harm in folks asking "honest questions," or exploring whether a confessed/charged perp acted alone, as long as innocent and uninvolved persons are not implicated (as moderators have spelled out).

Praying for justice for Whitney and her family and friends.

​

BBM

 

[Desdemona]

Some may find this irrelevant but I am curious about AH's account of the timeline on the morning before Whitney's disappearance, which was Monday October 15. On page 29/44 of the affidavit, it states (what JH told LE during interview), "Jonathan Holt works for a vending machine service in Swan Island called Canteen Services and has worked there for about a week. He works from 6 am to between 2 and 4 pm, depending on how much work there is to do and that his father also works there." So from what I gather, he has to be at work at 6 am and then works until sometime between 2pm and 4pm, depending on how much work he has to do that day. Then on page 33-34/44 of the affidavit, according to AH, "Amanda Holt told them that on Monday October 15, 2012, Jonathan Holt woke up for work around 0500, as he does on a regular base [sic] (working at Canteen Vending). Amanda Holt woke up around 0715. She believes Jonathan Holt left the home about 10 minutes later, but is not certain because she went back to sleep...Since her husband had Amanda Holt's car, her step-father came to her aparment at about 0815 hours and drove her to work." Now, I am reading this as JH woke up at 5:00 am. AH woke up at 7:15 am. Then, JH left the home 10 minutes later after AH woke up at 7:15am, which would be 7:25am. Then AH goes back to sleep until she gets up to get ready for work and her step-dad picks her up at 8:15am. If that is the timeline, why would JH leave the apartment at 7:25am when he has to be at work at 6:00am? This could be just poor writing on LE's part and what they actually meant to write was that JH woke up at 5:00am and left about 10 minutes later (5:10am) and then AH woke up at 7:15am. However, how it is written implies the sequence of events was that JH woke up at 5:00am, AH woke up at 7:15am and then JH left 10 minutes later (7:25am) and then AH went back to sleep. Which do you think they meant? Not that it's really that important since Whitney didn't go missing until the next day but I was just curious if he was late on that Monday because he had told LE on page 30/44 that after he got robbed Tuesday, he just walked around all day, in part, because he thought he might lose his job because he was already late for work one time last week.

I read it to mean that she was aware of him rising at ~5am and leaving ~10 minutes later. He drove the Scion to work that day. HTH

 

[caffeinejean]

I just went back and re read the entire article again. I am going to have to bookmark it because it contains a lot of little "nuggets" of information. It sounds like small peices of the puzzle kept trickling in to LE concerning JH doesnt it?

QUOTE FROM
Page 16 of thread #2
nursebeeme

Update

Here are the latest updates in the continued investigation of the disappearance of Whitney Heichel:

Investigators have confirmed that the vehicle and bank card were used at a service station at 257th and Stark at 9:14 a.m. The vehicle was found at Walmart in Wood Village at 23500 N.E. Sandy at 11:17 a.m. Police are interested in speaking to anybody who might have seen the vehicle between those hours, in particular in the areas between Walmart and the service stations. This would include the Troutdale area near I-84, as well as Fairview and Wood Village.
Police believe the vehicle may have been in the east Multnomah County area, east of Gresham and possibly into Sandy between the hours of 6:45 a.m. and 11:00 a.m. Anybody who may have seen the vehicle in this area is asked to call the Gresham Police Department tips line at 503-618-2719. The vehicle is a 1999 Ford Explorer, black with tinted taillights. The license plate number is 189 EJZ (Oregon). At some point, the vehicle had its front passenger-side window broken out and could have been driving with the window broken out or appearing opened.
The East County Major Crimes Team has been activated and a team of 24 detectives are following leads and canvassing areas in which police believe Whitney to have been. There are detectives from Gresham, Fairview, Troutdale, Multnomah County and Oregon State Police involved in the investigation. Additionally, State Crime Lab Forensics is assisting with the processing of the vehicle found yester
http://greshamoregon.gov/news/newste...aspx?id=281234
__________________
This bee my opinion


FWIW I just wanted to add this presser originally posted by NURSEBEME to show the number of investigators assigned and assisting in the case (with regards to the possibility of earlier surveillance).

 

[Glow]

Thanks again caffeinejean.

These articles are helping me tighten up the timeline in my own mind. It (the murder) all happened and was over so fast wasnt it? Just 3 short hours...