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

[msthinksalot]

BBM

I doubt that would do any good though, they could check the Google server logs and see what my IP address has actually searched for in the past. Just Google "User 927" if your curious.

ETA: That is not my user number either.

Egads... and I'll reckon "User 927" is totally "normal". :floorlaugh::what:

(Snipped by me)

I laughed at your post, because I've been searching lots of weird things since I've been on websleuths. Last night, for example, I was reading on the Jessica Ridgeway case and had tabs open on ADL hate crimes symbols, two wiki tabs open regarding chloroform and related inhalants, I was searching missing women in Oregon regarding this case, etc. etc. I make a point to delete my search history on my laptop before letting my kids use it, because I never want them to come across some of the sordid and creepy things I read about... :blushing:

 

[Neptune]

Respectfully, the majority of the members here at WS are not LE professionals. We are regular Joes who for varying reasons have an interest in crimes, trials, the missing and unidentified.

In addition to the many many posts where members have unearthed records, data, photos, etc. that were important pieces of the puzzle (at least for those of us not privy to LE findings), there have been put forth some brilliant theories, some of which proved to be spot on. And who knows? Maybe LE was given a new way to look at a case because of a poster here.

I am under the impression that WSers are free to theorize and postulate under TOS. I sincerely doubt that a "wrong" theory posted by an amateur Sleuther on an internet forum would derail or clog up a police investigation. If a portion of what is put together and posted here is helpful to the LE reading along, then wonderful! But I think that tossing about theories and possible scenarios is part of what we do and it is just fine. We are just armchair sleuths.

I respectfully request that you re-read both my posts on this subject. There is no suggestion in what I’ve written that people posting on Websleuths are professionals in law enforcement. Quite the contrary – most people on here are “armchair” amateurs. Nor did I suggest that it was against the TOS to theorize. In fact, I was pretty clear about saying I develop theories on exactly what you’ve stated – records, data, photos – and post them on Websleuths for feedback. However, what I did say was that I, personally, have no interest in BASELESS theories. Please distinguish the difference.

I also made no suggestion that giving wrong information would “derail or clog up” a police investigation. In fact, I find this remark a little absurd. Even as amateurs there is a certain level of responsibility to back up theories with solid information and logic in why you believe what you’ve posted. For example, a while back someone suggested that Whitney may have been pregnant with Jonathan Holt’s child as the motive for him killing her. Aside from this speculation being a total insult to the Heichel’s marriage, where are the facts or logic that support this notion? None that I can see. But, if this is someone’s true opinion – by all means, post it. But source your information. Unsubstantiated suggestions are akin to gossip and verge on libel. This should not be acceptable on any web forum.

What I also said is if you actually want to serve justice for the victims – and not just discuss theories – and if you truly want to help LE in things they otherwise might not find, than you must source the facts that support your theories. On a side note, trust me on this (I have a federal prosecutor in the family): law enforcement, DOJ, and defense research plenty about the perpetrator’s history and proclivities and know better than anyone how to go about this. In my opinion, nothing said in this forum about sexual scenarios is going to “enlighten” their thinking or suggest something they haven’t already thought of or had ample experience with. This topic is too heartbreaking for me so I tend to skip the posts with this subject.

The title of the website is Web + Sleuthing so when the topics go too astray from actual sleuthing, I must chime in.

 

[Neptune]

http://media.oregonlive.com/gresham_impact/other/3392_001.pdf

In the police report from 8/18/11--I found the wording from JDH interesting as to why he needed time away. He says he had a mental breakdown and needed "one on one time". Maybe it's just me, but I'd say "alone time". One on one implies another person in his company. JMO.

I questioned the "one on one" too -- but then I remembered reading a police report from a neighbor (dog attack) and the final typed report was full of typos. I was standing right there as she spoke and the officer wrote it down -- but the end result was not correct. So it makes me wonder if he said "alone" time and it was written as "one on one". Most people don't think to ask for the final copy of the police report.

 

[imanta]

I know it's silly but this kind of makes me sad. I liked reading her page and getting a better sense of who she is/was.

I do remember seeing a picture of her after she'd gotten some blood work done and IIRC it kind of looked like she was on a hospital type gurney/bed. I don't remember the kidney stones part, but I might've missed it.

I remember seeing that picture too and there was a mention of kidney stones there--can't remember if it was in the comment section or the caption for the pic.

 

[Neptune]

Egads... and I'll reckon "User 927" is totally "normal". :floorlaugh::what:

(Snipped by me)

I laughed at your post, because I've been searching lots of weird things since I've been on websleuths. Last night, for example, I was reading on the Jessica Ridgeway case and had tabs open on ADL hate crimes symbols, two wiki tabs open regarding chloroform and related inhalants, I was searching missing women in Oregon regarding this case, etc. etc. I make a point to delete my search history on my laptop before letting my kids use it, because I never want them to come across some of the sordid and creepy things I read about... :blushing:

I never use the work laptop for personal use -- but I once started sleuthing on it by mistake instead of my personal laptop. I spent a whole evening searching whether bodies actually do decompose faster with lime poured on them. Then I gave the computer back to my coworker and realized later I hadn't cleared the history. So at work I made a point of talking about my research on the Long Island Serial Killer as if it was just a casual topic anyone would be interested in. I hope that set the record straight.

 

[LinasK]

Yeah good point. Unless she was killed much later than I was guessing, she wasn't in the passenger seat being held hostage at the gas station. It's a stretch but I can imagine an attendant possibly not realizing it if she was being held hostage, but I don't think there's any way they'd miss the fact that she was wounded or dead in the passenger seat.

The gun could've been hidden, or held down low...

 

[Solariis]

I never use the work laptop for personal use -- but I once started sleuthing on it by mistake instead of my personal laptop. I spent a whole evening searching whether bodies actually do decompose faster with lime poured on them. Then I gave the computer back to my coworker and realized later I hadn't cleared the history. So at work I made a point of talking about my research on the Long Island Serial Killer as if it was just a casual topic anyone would be interested in. I hope that set the record straight.

I lol'd :floorlaugh:

 

[PoirotryInMotion]

<snipped>
Unsubstantiated suggestions are akin to gossip and verge on libel. This should not be acceptable on any web forum.

What I also said is if you actually want to serve justice for the victims &#8211; and not just discuss theories &#8211; and if you truly want to help LE in things they otherwise might not find, than you must source the facts that support your theories. On a side note, trust me on this (I have a federal prosecutor in the family): law enforcement, DOJ, and defense research plenty about the perpetrator&#8217;s history and proclivities and know better than anyone how to go about this. In my opinion, nothing said in this forum about sexual scenarios is going to &#8220;enlighten&#8221; their thinking or suggest something they haven&#8217;t already thought of or had ample experience with. This topic is too heartbreaking for me so I tend to skip the posts with this subject.

The title of the website is Web + Sleuthing so when the topics go too astray from actual sleuthing, I must chime in.

Quoted for truth. Thanks for this post, Neptune. There is a big difference between sleuthing (even armchair variety) and gossiping about what one might suppose are the proclivities of a victim OR suspect. The former is what might aid the investigation/judicial process. Contrary to what some believe, posters who stray into libelous territory on here are putting the owner of this forum at risk for lawsuit. Posters are not free constitutionally to post whatever they think about a person (even a suspect) under the name of freedom of speech here; this forum is a domain owned by a private party who then must assume responsibility for what s/he allows to be said. The last vBulletin forum where I used to moderate was indeed sued for defamation of character. If you love your forum, be careful for it.

 

[PoirotryInMotion]

Originally Posted by Neptune;
I never use the work laptop for personal use -- but I once started sleuthing on it by mistake instead of my personal laptop. I spent a whole evening searching whether bodies actually do decompose faster with lime poured on them. Then I gave the computer back to my coworker and realized later I hadn't cleared the history. So at work I made a point of talking about my research on the Long Island Serial Killer as if it was just a casual topic anyone would be interested in. I hope that set the record straight.

I lol'd :floorlaugh:

Me, too. We need a LOL button on here.

 

[Solariis]

I get what you're saying. I don't personally believe that he has committed a crime of this magnitude before. I just don't get that from his reaction in his mug shots and his behavior on camera during the arraignment. I could be wrong, though. I do feel that 8/2011 is pretty significant, however, in diving deeper into the type of person he was. I know my husband would have never pulled a stunt like that, even if he DID need to get away. The whole 12 hours missing scenario, added with the rental property story, is just very odd.

I DO believe that he murdered WH. I just don't understand WHY and I guess we may never know.

Another thing a lot of people missed was from the 3rd thread about a news reporter interviewing one of the Holt's next-door neighbors and the wife said she saw Holt peeking through their window. They interviewed the husband (around the 30 second mark) and he stated:

"Yeah, There was kind of a strange....he was standing on the railing there and you can kinda see that you could be able to see up into our windows if you were standing on the railing and that was the case, it kind of freaked her out a little bit."

Watch the video here:
http://www.nwcn.com/home/175105471.html

It just seems like with the August 2011 incident, neighbors complaining of him being a peeping tom and stalking through windows and then this sexual assault/murder that all of these things give some pretty obvious insight into his background. I think he's either done this before or has been thinking about it or fantasizing about it for quite a while now. Perhaps this is the first time he went through with it, or perhaps not, but we know for sure he has a track record of being suspicious and stalker-ish.

 

[rmarie3]

http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/steve_duin/index.ssf/2012/10/steve_duin_a_memorial_worthy_o.html

I am not sure if this has been posted yet - but a nice article from the Oregonian on how to memorialize Whitney by learning how to protect ourselves.

I am still so saddened and touched by this case!

 

[recyclops]

Does anyone here live in the Portland Metro area and if yes, are u attending the Open House for Whitney tomorrow?

 

[bellabella]

http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/steve_duin/index.ssf/2012/10/steve_duin_a_memorial_worthy_o.html

I am not sure if this has been posted yet - but a nice article from the Oregonian on how to memorialize Whitney by learning how to protect ourselves.

I am still so saddened and touched by this case!

That article made me cry.

I keep thinking about how easily I could find myself in a situation similar to Whitney's. I have several neighbors/co-workers/etc. that I would not hesitate to give a ride to if they asked, even without my husband present. Call it being friendly, neighborly, stupid or whatever...it's just what most people I know would do.

I cannot fault Whitney for agreeing to give JH a ride (assuming it started out voluntarily). 99 times out of 100 it would have been no big deal. It wasn't like she picked up some random hitchhiker by the side of the road. JH was her neighbor, her brother in religion, her "friend." Exactly the sort of person you'd want to give a ride to. That's what makes it so scary, he was a wolf in sheep's clothing and Whitney had no idea what he was capable of. My guess is that she had no idea JH was dangerous. Creepy? maybe, but dangerous? probably not.

Several years ago when I was pregnant my closest co-worker was arrested for enticing a 13-year old online. Fortunately that 13-year old turned out to be an undercover cop, but I was shocked!!! I had no idea that my friend was interested in/enticing young girls and I had worked with him for several years, just 4 feet away and within full view of his pc. Even in hindsight there were nothing there to indicate this type of deviant behavior, NOTHING.

"Bad" people are out there. But for every "bad" one there are a thousand (or more) good ones. I don't think there's much Whitney could have done to change the situation, once she was in it. And it's likely that JH would have gotten to Whitney one way or another even if she had refused to give him a ride.

Whitney's face will stay with me for a long time for several different reasons. As I look back over her short life I'm more inspired by her light, her charm, her friendliess, her love for her husband and her devotion to her faith more than I am by the "need to be more careful so I don't end up in a situation like hers." If I can be more like Whitney in any of the ways I mentioned previously then I will be proud. It's clear she was a ray of sunshine to so many people and she will be missed.

RIP sweet girl.

 

[recyclops]

bellabella wrote;

"Whitney's face will stay with me for a long time for several different reasons. As I look back over her short life I'm more inspired by her light, her charm, her friendliess, her love for her husband and her devotion to her faith more than I am by the "need to be more careful so I don't end up in a situation like hers." If I can be more like Whitney in any of the ways I mentioned previously then I will be proud. It's clear she was a ray of sunshine to so many people and she will be missed.

RIP sweet girl.[/QUOTE]"
This is so beautiful....thank you.

 

[Elainera]

That article made me cry.

I keep thinking about how easily I could find myself in a situation similar to Whitney's. I have several neighbors/co-workers/etc. that I would not hesitate to give a ride to if they asked, even without my husband present. Call it being friendly, neighborly, stupid or whatever...it's just what most people I know would do.

I cannot fault Whitney for agreeing to give JH a ride (assuming it started out voluntarily). 99 times out of 100 it would have been no big deal. It wasn't like she picked up some random hitchhiker by the side of the road. JH was her neighbor, her brother in religion, her "friend." Exactly the sort of person you'd want to give a ride to. That's what makes it so scary, he was a wolf in sheep's clothing and Whitney had no idea what he was capable of. My guess is that she had no idea JH was dangerous. Creepy? maybe, but dangerous? probably not.

Several years ago when I was pregnant my closest co-worker was arrested for enticing a 13-year old online. Fortunately that 13-year old turned out to be an undercover cop, but I was shocked!!! I had no idea that my friend was interested in/enticing young girls and I had worked with him for several years, just 4 feet away and within full view of his pc. Even in hindsight there were nothing there to indicate this type of deviant behavior, NOTHING.

"Bad" people are out there. But for every "bad" one there are a thousand (or more) good ones. I don't think there's much Whitney could have done to change the situation, once she was in it. And it's likely that JH would have gotten to Whitney one way or another even if she had refused to give him a ride.

Whitney's face will stay with me for a long time for several different reasons. As I look back over her short life I'm more inspired by her light, her charm, her friendliess, her love for her husband and her devotion to her faith more than I am by the "need to be more careful so I don't end up in a situation like hers." If I can be more like Whitney in any of the ways I mentioned previously then I will be proud. It's clear she was a ray of sunshine to so many people and she will be missed.

RIP sweet girl.

The Thanks button wasn't enough! How beautiful, you couldn't have said it better. Thank you!

 

[Knox]

I questioned the "one on one" too -- but then I remembered reading a police report from a neighbor (dog attack) and the final typed report was full of typos. I was standing right there as she spoke and the officer wrote it down -- but the end result was not correct. So it makes me wonder if he said "alone" time and it was written as "one on one". Most people don't think to ask for the final copy of the police report.

I'll agree with you here. Through work, I have had to make several police reports and provide testimony in court. The police report (CHP and SO both), were fraught with errors in all the cases. I remember thinking, jeeze how did he get that wrong?

 

[Neptune]

This post lays out a scenario for why Whitney gave Holt a ride...

Heatherwood Apartments
Her apartment building is the Western complex next to SE Cochran. From where investigators are shown gathered in news reports, her building in this complex is the farthest one North (as Cochran curves NW to become SE 7th). Her SUV was parked in the apartment lot the morning of Oct 16th. To exit, if she went Eastward out the front entrance (main office location) she would not be able to make a left turn as the concrete median prohibits this. So out the front entrance is not the most direct route to Starbucks. Instead she heads out of the parking lot by going south/then right through the lot, exits the lot by turning right onto Cochran and makes her way through the residential area to Hogan Drive and heads North on Hogan in the general direction of Starbucks. This would take between 3-5 minutes.

As I mentioned in a previous post, it is my belief based on where her vehicle is parked on the street in two different Google photos at two different times that this is generally where she parked and that Holt could easily have observed her daily routine.

Consider these facts:
1. He confessed to the worst things he did to her (kidnaps, rape, murder) – why would he lie about asking her for a ride? Much safer for him to ask for a ride rather than force entry in a parking lot surrounded by potential eye witnesses.
2. His motorcycle had a problem 2 weeks prior – Clint helped him with it and likely mentioned this to Whitney.
3. Whitney and Holt knew each other – he was not a stranger.
4. It is likely he knew she worked at Starbucks.
5. Living in the complex, Holt knew the most direct path to Starbucks wasn’t out the front entrance where there’s no left turn. He knew Whitney would exit West out the apartment complex and eventually go North on Hogan to work. He created his ruse based on that route.

I believe Holt concocted a reason similar to this scenario: He found a place on her path to work that he “needed” to go early in the morning. For example, maybe ask for a ride to Napa Auto Parts (255 NE Hogan) which opens at 7:30am. He needs to pick up a part for his motorcycle so he can fix it and get to work. Or some scenario that puts him in a position of needing her help and hers alone. He paints a vulnerable picture of himself that will appeal to her sweet nature.

I appreciate what a poster said about the JW religious taboo of not being alone with a man who is not her relative. Ordinarily Whitney probably would not have allowed Holt to ride with her. Had he called the night before and asked for a ride the following morning, that would have given her time to think and the answer would have probably been no. Instead, that morning he waited for her and approached her – putting her on the spot to make a quick decision. As she walks out to her car, there he is. It’s dark out, it’s been raining all night, he may look cold and shivering, he explains he’s going to walk to Napa Auto (or wherever), and does she mind giving him a ride in that general direction? Whitney knows it’s in the same direction as she is going and giving him a ride won’t make her late for work. Being who she was, her ultimate consideration was based on him needing her help and, therefore, she makes the “kindest” decision and gives him a ride.

 

[possumheart]

http://www.katu.com/news/local/Search-leader-Whitney-Heichels-sweater-first-clue-found-by-searchers-175893161.html

He said the first clue they found was Heichel's sweater.

"They found the sweater and we marked that on a map and focused on and used that as a direction to focus our search," Weaver said. "And then we found evidence at Dodge Park at two in the morning &#8211; guy called me and I said, 'wait there, call police and wait there till police shows up.'"

 

[Neptune]

http://www.katu.com/news/local/Search-leader-Whitney-Heichels-sweater-first-clue-found-by-searchers-175893161.html

He said the first clue they found was Heichel's sweater.

"They found the sweater and we marked that on a map and focused on and used that as a direction to focus our search," Weaver said. "And then we found evidence at Dodge Park at two in the morning &#8211; guy called me and I said, 'wait there, call police and wait there till police shows up.'"

Thank you for the article, possumheart.

The time quoted by Bob Weaver to calculate distance while searching doesn't actually reflect the times later confirming the order the incident occurred:

6:45am - left apartment
(2 hours go by)
8:40am - crime committed on SE Thomas Road (Probable Cause doc)
(~35 minutes go by)
9:15am - SUV at Shell gas station 257th and Stark (LE confirms) *A distance of 14 miles from SE Thomas Rd

So, he either had her body with him in the SUV or he stashed it, got gas (multiple times per Clint), and drove back to somewhere around Roslyn Lake and then went up to Larch Mtn.

Am I missing something?

 

[Suzvw]

Tonight's Katu told how the Jehovah's were instrumental in finding clues before the LE did. First of all was the finding of Whitney's red sweater along Dodge Park Road. It's all fine and good that the Jehovah's found her sweater...but the real question that seems to be ignored is...what made them search there in particular???? Of all the places they could have searched....along I84, near the Columbia River where the old Reynold's plant used to be....why did they go towards Dodge Park then right up to Larch Mountain??? Why in those areas? I think there's way more to this story.