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

[JoCoKSEyes]

I agree these would be the normal reactions.

But, Amanda's whole behavior after her husband "confessed" ...you'd think she might be fairly curious how her husband of 2 years could have done this or actually did this? I never saw her curiosity come out at all. she took everything LE handed out as face value. As if she could'nt wait to get rid of Holt.

I think it's quite possible that she was aware of JH's issues and perversions, but never dreamed he would rape and murder. I'm sure she has gone back in her mind and is horrified at all the signs she missed or intentionally ignored.

 

[jash]

I'm re-reading the affidavit for search warrant and am at the part where it describes LE's first interview of JH. Re his "stolen" phone, JH says his wife called AT&T and discovered there was "data usage and a call made at 7 am".

By all accounts and scenarios, he would have been with WH at that time. Who the heck did he call? Does this confirm he wasn't driving (hard to drive while holding a phone and possibly a gun)? Could WH have tried to make an SOS call from his phone?

ETA: Never mind -- had I just kept reading, I would have found out that the last call made was actually the one at 6:08 AM to Starbucks.

 

[Quester]

The only thing I’ve read, IIRC, AH said since JH’s confession is offering her thanks to the public at large and her congregation for their general support of her.

ETA: If I were AH, in addition to filing the divorce immediately, I'd be changing my name back to my maiden name immediately.

 

[Glow]

Yes, Holt would surely identify a 2cd perp or accomplice. But, maybe the accomplice had enough power over Holt to create a fear of reprisal to Holt's loved ones. This would be enough to keep Holt quiet. You gotta remember, Holt really had no serious criminal back ground and is such a klutz at completing this crime. As if all the evidence were meant to be found easily?

Stop, slow down and ask yourself, Why would Holt want to be caught? Maybe some made it all possible?

Ok, I will stop and slow down and ask myself!

Why would Holt want to be caught?

My answer would be that he didnt "want" to get caught. Just because he did get caught doesnt mean he wanted to.

As for your other questions..

maybe the accomplice had enough power over Holt to create a fear of reprisal to Holt's loved ones

What loved ones specifically are we talking about? His wife that shows no feeling or compassion and cant wait to divorce him? His mom that lives in another state? His dad who he trades and sells guns to? Who exactly?

As far as an accomplice having power over him.....

the media has gone back all the way to his grade school friends and everyone says basically the same thing. Nice boy next door type. No mention of gangs or drug buddies etc. So who is this person?

Holt not having a criminal background doesnt really add to or detract from anything. I mean every criminal has to start somewhere. Even Hitler was an alter boy. I just dont see this as a pro or a con. It adds nothing.

As if all the evidence were meant to be found easily?

The phone wouldnt have been found in the bushes if the kids hadnt happened to be playing there. The ammo box and the two guns were found "easily" because the cops were watching him dump them. Take the surveillance away and have the kids playing indoors and none of that would have been found easily if at all.

 

[Glow]

The only thing I’ve read, IIRC, AH said since JH’s confession is offering her thanks to the public at large and her congregation for their general support of her.

ETA: If I were AH, in addition to filing the divorce immediately, I'd be changing my name back to my maiden name immediately.

I have the same impression as you do. I remember reading at a link (dont remember which one, sorry) that Amandas mom said she was devastated and that they were all in shock. Didnt say anything negative about JH at all.

 

[Salem]

Hey Guys - why are we discussing Amanda? Can someone link me please? What is her role here?

Thanks,

Salem

 

[Salem]

This poor family and her friends. I hope beyond all hope that they never find websleuths and never have to read the things people who have never met them are saying about them.

I don't know why this case is so different from others where you aren't allowed to sleuth witnesses or victims and speculate about their involvement when there is no evidence to back up the wild claims. This is probably the first case that I've followed that after an arrest is made that instead of hoping and wishing for justice, people are speculating about conspiracy theories.

There is a reason for the KISS theory. Because wild conspiracy theories are just not that common.

This case is not different from other cases here at WebSleuths and it would be not only extremely helpful, but greatly appreciated if members would alert posts that violate our TOS.

Thanks,

Salem

 

[Boodles]

Just so I can keep the timeline straight, what did she say or do after his confession to indicate that?

Amanda Judd told detectives that when they found JH walking, they called his wife and she was "upset and bawling" over him being missing. That sounds like a pretty appropriate emotional response and a caring one.


I know she said " felt he ws probably lying" and "he doesnt handle things well "and is a "private person"

but these were said to LE right after the supposed "robbery" not after JH confessed.

Do I have that right?

Yes, Glow, you do.

We don't know her response or actions (other than filing for divorce) after the confession and arrest. We just don't know.

 

[Quester]

Yes, Holt would surely identify a 2cd perp or accomplice. But, maybe the accomplice had enough power over Holt to create a fear of reprisal to Holt's loved ones. This would be enough to keep Holt quiet. You gotta remember, Holt really had no serious criminal back ground and is such a klutz at completing this crime. As if all the evidence were meant to be found easily?

Stop, slow down and ask yourself, Why would Holt want to be caught? Maybe some made it all possible?

Just jumping off your post.

My thoughts are that JH acted alone. From accounts, he sounded like a loner, walked around apartment buildings with motorcycle helmet on, described as very private by his wife and had a past incident of going missing, off the radar, for 12 hours, with a friend's rental car, while the friend was temporarily in a store shopping.

The seemingly hap hazard strewing of evidence, to me, says that JH wanted "the robbers" story to be believed and for the "robbers" to be "not caught" as we know they didn't exist. I think JH wanted LE to have the impression that the "robbers" were stupid, careless, unorganized. I think JH probably thought LE was believing his "robbers" story right up until the third interview when LE changed course and presented JH with damning evidence of JH's faulty initial story, video tapes of JH in WH's vehicle, hiding of evidence, hiding gunS and ammo, possession of the "stolen" electronics, fingerprint on Fabreeze (sp?) bottle, etc.

I'd say his goose:hen: was cooked, cooked turkey:turkey:, we need a cooked goose icon!

 

[Xavier]

Does Amanda filing for divorce allow her to testify against Jonathan in a different way or more effective way than if she had not filed? My thought is yes. In that way, her filing so quickly may be of benefit to the prosecution and might be the best way she can help.

IMHO Amanda Holt would be a material witness for both the defense AND prosecution to possibly benefit both.

 

[Xavier]

Dec. 14th huh? This is GREAT news. I am glad to see things move so swiftly. The state must feel very confident about the evidence they have.

GLOW---Holt's pleading NOT GUILTY. I'd imagine the "reason of insanity" defense might be used...but what if it's not used and Holt's defense team believes Holt is NOT GUILTY?

How about that for a shocker!

 

[Sasquatch]

(snipped)

 

[Salem]

Does Amanda filing for divorce allow her to testify against Jonathan in a different way or more effective way than if she had not filed? My thought is yes. In that way, her filing so quickly may be of benefit to the prosecution and might be the best way she can help.

This is Oregon's Evidence Code for Spousal privilege:

§ 40.255¹

Rule 505. Husband-wife privilege
(1) As used in this section, unless the context requires otherwise:
(a) Confidential communication means a communication by a spouse to the other spouse and not intended to be disclosed to any other person.
(b) Marriage means a marital relationship between husband and wife, legally recognized under the laws of this state.
(2) In any civil or criminal action, a spouse has a privilege to refuse to disclose and to prevent the other spouse from disclosing any confidential communication made by one spouse to the other during the marriage. The privilege created by this subsection may be claimed by either spouse. The authority of the spouse to claim the privilege and the claiming of the privilege is presumed in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
(3) In any criminal proceeding, neither spouse, during the marriage, shall be examined adversely against the other as to any other matter occurring during the marriage unless the spouse called as a witness consents to testify.
(4) There is no privilege under this section:
(a) In all criminal actions in which one spouse is charged with bigamy or with an offense or attempted offense against the person or property of the other spouse or of a child of either, or with an offense against the person or property of a third person committed in the course of committing or attempting to commit an offense against the other spouse;
(b) As to matters occurring prior to the marriage; or
(c) In any civil action where the spouses are adverse parties. [1981 c.892 §34; 1983 c.433 §1

Bolded by me. In essence, the privilege applies during the marriage. The code does not specifically address what happens after divorce, but if it were me, I would argue that JH has no privilege because he committed an offense against AH when he committed adultery by raping another woman.

JMO,

Salem

 

[Salem]

I have removed a few posts in the last couple of pages and I want to remind everyone that sleuthing or making insinuations about friends and family members, that would also be considered victims of this crime, is not allowed unless it can be linked to LE statements or MSM reports.

AH is discussable ONLY to the extent that she has been in MSM. Insinuations of any involvement in this crime will be met with zero tolerance. The same goes for any member of Whitney's family. LE has cleared them up to this point and that is what we are working with.

That does not mean you cannot explore the theory that someone else was involved, but it does mean that you need to post your theory clearly so that it can be determined that you are NOT trying to implicate a family member.

Remember - we are a victim friendly forum. For WS - victims include not only the missing or deceased, but their family and close friends as well.

If you have any questions or concerns, pm a mod. We are happy to help.

Thanks,

Salem

 

[Tox]

And you'd think with the stress and anxiety of all the devastated family's involved, why would Amanda Holt file a rather speedy divorce filing with the court? You'd think she was thinking of herself. Just seems odd and out of character and an abrupt decision to make in the middle of all this chaos.

Amanda has'nt exactly boosted Holt's self esteem or spoken highly about her husband about anything with her comments. She has'nt to my knowledge really had anything positive to say about her husband, kind of making him sound like a bumbling, undependable husband with a host of issues

BBM

I, on the other hand, wonder what took her so long! Sorry but in my book the vow of "forever" in a marriage doesn't extend itself to a murdering spouse.
IMO

 

[AvalonBlue]

I have removed a few posts in the last couple of pages and I want to remind everyone that sleuthing or making insinuations about friends and family members, that would also be considered victims of this crime, is not allowed unless it can be linked to LE statements or MSM reports.

AH is discussable ONLY to the extent that she has been in MSM. Insinuations of any involvement in this crime will be met with zero tolerance. The same goes for any member of Whitney's family. LE has cleared them up to this point and that is what we are working with.

That does not mean you cannot explore the theory that someone else was involved, but it does mean that you need to post your theory clearly so that it can be determined that you are NOT trying to implicate a family member.

Remember - we are a victim friendly forum. For WS - victims include not only the missing or deceased, but their family and close friends as well.

If you have any questions or concerns, pm a mod. We are happy to help.

Thanks,

Salem

Thank You, Thank You, Thank You, Salem! :rocker:

I can feel my blood pressure going down even as I type:innocent:

I plan to send alerts if/when I see any posts that aren't supported by TOS and I trust other WS'ers will do the same.

K.I.S.S. became an acronym for very good reasons, IMO.
:blowkiss:

 

[Joe Friday]

I'm re-reading the affidavit for search warrant and am at the part where it describes LE's first interview of JH. Re his "stolen" phone, JH says his wife called AT&T and discovered there was "data usage and a call made at 7 am".

By all accounts and scenarios, he would have been with WH at that time. Who the heck did he call? Does this confirm he wasn't driving (hard to drive while holding a phone and possibly a gun)? Could WH have tried to make an SOS call from his phone?

ETA: Never mind -- had I just kept reading, I would have found out that the last call made was actually the one at 6:08 AM to Starbucks.

BBM

Why would JH call Starbucks at 6:08 AM. Whitney didn't leave the house until 6:45 AM so we know it couldn't have been Whitney making the phone call and she wasn't with him when he made the call.

Not sure if it says on the affidavit if he called the same Starbucks as the one Whitney worked at or not, but I wonder if he was calling to see if Whitney was already working or if she was expected to work that morning?

If he did call and inquire about Whitney I would think that goes towards premeditation of planing on confronting Whitney outside of her apartment when she left for work.

JMO

 

[jash]

Just jumping off your post.

My thoughts are that JH acted alone. From accounts, he sounded like a loner, walked around apartment buildings with motorcycle helmet on, described as very private by his wife and had a past incident of going missing, off the radar, for 12 hours, with a friend's rental car, while the friend was temporarily in a store shopping.

The seemingly hap hazard strewing of evidence, to me, says that JH wanted "the robbers" story to be believed and for the "robbers" to be "not caught" as we know they didn't exist. I think JH wanted LE to have the impression that the "robbers" were stupid, careless, unorganized. I think JH probably thought LE was believing his "robbers" story right up until the third interview when LE changed course and presented JH with damning evidence of JH's faulty initial story, video tapes of JH in WH's vehicle, hiding of evidence, hiding gunS and ammo, possession of the "stolen" electronics, fingerprint on Fabreeze (sp?) bottle, etc.

I'd say his goose:hen: was cooked, cooked turkey:turkey:, we need a cooked goose icon!

BBM

I agree except I think he had an inkling that maybe something was up prior to the third interview, since he started ditching his things at 5:15 AM that day. I wonder when that interview was requested/set up, and under what pretense (the first seemed to be about Whitney generally, but mostly about the "robbery", and the second meeting was to do a sketch of the "robbers").

 

[jash]

BBM

Why would JH call Starbucks at 6:08 AM. Whitney didn't leave the house until 6:45 AM so we know it couldn't have been Whitney making the phone call and she wasn't with him when he made the call.

Not sure if it says on the affidavit if he called the same Starbucks as the one Whitney worked at or not, but I wonder if he was calling to see if Whitney was already working or if she was expected to work that morning?

If he did call and inquire about Whitney I would think that goes towards premeditation of planing on confronting Whitney outside of her apartment when she left for work.

JMO

The affidavit redacted the telephone number but did say it was the number to the Starbucks Whitney worked at.

I think the most popular opinion on here was that JH was checking to see if she was at work (he may not have known that she no longer opened the store). Whether he actually spoke to anyone or just waited to see who would answer and hung up, is anyone's guess.

Another poster suggested that perhaps JH was calling Starbucks intending to impersonate CH and report that Whitney was sick and wasn't going to come in to work. That was my first thought as well but obviously that's not what happened as her manager called looking for her after 8:00.

Either way, I agree it shows premeditation. It seems he also planned to miss work that day (he starts at 6 AM and if it was true that his bike wouldn't start, why wouldn't he take his wife's car like he had the day before).

 

[Xavier]

BBM

Why would JH call Starbucks at 6:08 AM. Whitney didn't leave the house until 6:45 AM so we know it couldn't have been Whitney making the phone call and she wasn't with him when he made the call.

Not sure if it says on the affidavit if he called the same Starbucks as the one Whitney worked at or not, but I wonder if he was calling to see if Whitney was already working or if she was expected to work that morning?

If he did call and inquire about Whitney I would think that goes towards premeditation of planing on confronting Whitney outside of her apartment when she left for work.

JMO

Are you sure Holt called Starbucks 608am on Holt's phone? My impression was it was Clint's stolen cell phone that call was made on? This would provide more cover for Holt from implicating himself...

Maybe I forgot some details