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

[Tox]

Weeks later and I still can't get this story out of my mind. I hope Whitney's family and friends are finding the strength to move past this horrible crime.

I noticed this post today in my Twitter feed...it is pretty old. Has anyone seen anything that would corroborate or refute this tweet? https://twitter.com/thomjensenkatu/status/261965905423110145

 

[Desdemona]

No problem with playing with the route theories! (I've been doing some of that myself.) At this point, I'm not sure I could be shocked anymore.

The questions that come to mind, though, with killing her on Larch Mt. concern two things. <snipped>

The first thing is the amount of blood in the car. The affidavit states that Forensic Scientist Bell said that there was a copious amount of blood in the front seat area as well as the pool of blood (2'x3') on the floor of the back seat that Gleason noted. Why would he drive her all the way to Larch Mt. where gunshots would not be unusual only to shoot her in the car? And if he did, why would he keep her in the car long enough for her to bleed out before hauling her body away and hiding it? If he was going to shoot her up there, seems a lot easier just to force her to walk at gunpoint, then shoot and cover up the body. Less evidence to deal with in the vehicle, which the perp conveniently drove back INTO town for discovery.

<snipped>

[And Whitney, I hate talking about your last moments like this...but know there are MANY people determined to see your killer brought to justice, and that is what is motivating our discussions. <3]

RSBM

Four gunshot wounds could result in a large and quick amount of bleeding. Gunshot wounds to the chest often cause profuse, massive bleeding from the nose and mouth. Also with a wound to the face or neck -- or a wound which damages an artery in the neck or chest, the blood loss can be copious and fast.

"Sixty percent of deaths from gunshot wounds can be attributed to exsanguination.&#8221; notes Dr Costello. "The victim bleeds to death before medical personnel can get to them.
http://www.resq-pak.com/medical_directors_desk.php​

Exsanguination (from wiki):

Traumatic injury can cause exsanguination if bleeding is not stymied. It is the most common cause of death on the battlefield. Non-battlefield causes can include murder by shooting or stabbing; motor vehicle accidents; suicide by cutting arteries, typically those in the wrists; and partial or complete amputation of limbs with circular saws and chain saws.
Exsanguination - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
​

In other words:

The amount of blood in the vehicle IMO does not necessarily mean Whitney spent much time in the vehicle after she was shot.

As for why he chose to shoot her in the car as opposed to elsewhere? Don't know that one.

 

[Desdemona]

Weeks later and I still can't get this story out of my mind. I hope Whitney's family and friends are finding the strength to move past this horrible crime.

I noticed this post today in my Twitter feed...it is pretty old. Has anyone seen anything that would corroborate or refute this tweet? https://twitter.com/thomjensenkatu/status/261965905423110145

Well, it's an MSM tweet, but yes, it's pretty old (Oct 26) -- IMO most likely a heat-of-the-moment, reporter-race-to-tweet-first mistake, especially since it refers to the Search Warrant doc that had just been released, and no such evidence is described there AFAWK. HTH

 

[Desdemona]

Something just occurred to me regarding the haphazard locations of the evidence, including the sweater, Whitney's phone, Holt's (stolen from Clint) phone, etc. and how none of it seems to make sense. And that is that Holt had to make it look like two crimes had been committed: him being robbed on the way to work, and Whitney being carjacked &robbed. I think he was trying to make it look like these two crimes were committed by the same person/people. Maybe that's why he took Whitney's body elsewhere.

Still not convinced he had an accomplice but some other questions run in my mind there. Did he call in sick that day for work? Or did he call in after his "robbery" and say he wouldn't be coming in at all? Did he not communicate with his employer at all? Or did he call his boss the night before and say he was sick and wouldn't be in on Tuesday?

It seems like he moved his motorcycle before abducting Whitney, presumably to make his wife think he had gone to work. And yet the story he told about being robbed on his way to work had nothing to do with him being attacked while on his motorcycle, right?

I do agree with Glow that murder was not Holt's original intent and that things spiraled out of control very quickly.

Interesting. Would it be possible that he purposely "lost" Whitney's bank card somewhere in plain sight after gassing up at Shell -- so that an uninvolved passer-by might find it and corroborate such a story, by either (a) reporting it found, or (b) criminally keeping it and using it to buy gas for themselves, etc?

Just theorizing with you. And trying to make sense of the Travel Center charge, if it in fact exists. JMO

 

[westsidefox64]

Wait, hold on...

I don't recall him being without his backpack that Tuesday. I thought he just lied to police about being robbed. Is it a fact that he didn't have his backpack with him when picked up by EJ? Or do we know?

He still had his computer, storage drives on Friday when he was arrested. They were in his backpack in the car.

I can't access the PDF right now. Can anyone check to see if he was without the backpack and his "other stuff" when he got home Tuesday night? I assumed he just lied to police but was never without possession of these things, except for the iPhone which he ditched at the lake. Remember, he told police that the robbers had returned his backpack. I doubt AH searched him when he arrived home. Actually, didn't he try to walk past her without saying anything? I assumed he hid his stuff in the apt when AH was home. (Maybe AH found the stuff and called the cops because she caught his lie and pieced it together with WHs disappearance?)

From page 30 of the doc: Jonathan Holt told them a light grey Dodge neon approached him and a black guy "jumped out" and pulled a gun on him and that there was another black guy in the drivers seat. Jonathan Holt told them the black guy basically told him to get on the groundand took his backpack. The black males rifled through his backpack at the scene,took the stuff they wanted and threw it back at him. While they were rifling through it they told him to stay on the ground, and then they drove off.

 

[caffeinejean]

I think it's odd. Not 'accusing' anyone by noticing this coincidence, but it's something that would make me want to dig a little deeper in looking at this case. JMO

BTW, I was going off of memory on the addy--it's 10th at SE Beaver Crk Ln., not 'Beaverdale.'

Something just occurred to me regarding the haphazard locations of the evidence, including the sweater, Whitney's phone, Holt's (stolen from Clint) phone, etc. and how none of it seems to make sense. And that is that Holt had to make it look like two crimes had been committed: him being robbed on the way to work, and Whitney being carjacked &robbed. I think he was trying to make it look like these two crimes were committed by the same person/people. Maybe that's why he took Whitney's body elsewhere.

Still not convinced he had an accomplice but some other questions run in my mind there. Did he call in sick that day for work? Or did he call in after his "robbery" and say he wouldn't be coming in at all? Did he not communicate with his employer at all? Or did he call his boss the night before and say he was sick and wouldn't be in on Tuesday?

It seems like he moved his motorcycle before abducting Whitney, presumably to make his wife think he had gone to work. And yet the story he told about being robbed on his way to work had nothing to do with him being attacked while on his motorcycle, right?

I do agree with Glow that murder was not Holt's original intent and that things spiraled out of control very quickly.

I agree that JH was probably thinking that the coincidence of his personal robbery claim and Whitneys disappearance would have LE believing that his alleged robbers were the perps. Even to the point that he admitted to LE that he had been robbed of guns and ammunition that were in his pack back. Then in the ensuing days he began distributing the guns, ammo, holster, ammo boxes, etc. near his workplace, around his apartment complex, and even a gun at the Gresham police station. Is he being framed by the perps who robbed him? Or now can he claim that he was being framed by the LE who had him under surveillance? Just kind of sick and twisted anyway you look at it.

 

[Boodles]

From page 30 of the doc: Jonathan Holt told them a light grey Dodge neon approached him and a black guy "jumped out" and pulled a gun on him and that there was another black guy in the drivers seat. Jonathan Holt told them the black guy basically told him to get on the groundand took his backpack. The black males rifled through his backpack at the scene,took the stuff they wanted and threw it back at him. While they were rifling through it they told him to stay on the ground, and then they drove off.

That's what he told the cops during his first/second interview. But he lied about being robbed. He wasn't robbed.

The Q is whether he stashed his stuff somewhere (which begs questions) or had it with him in his backpack all along.

 

[PoirotryInMotion]

BOODLES----- Alot of people on this board are curious why Holt stopped off at Troutdale apartments, where WH's cell phone was found in the bushes. Could he have stopped into the apt comlex to see someone or drop off an accomplice?

PIM noted the Holt's were considering to move there or actually lived in the apt complex recently.

The Holt's were considering a rental house in Troutdale--not the Terrace Apts as far as I know.

They ended up at an apt complex in Gresham for a year before moving again to the Heatherwood Apts in summer of 2012.

The apts in Troutdale were pretty close to some other key addresses involved, though (eg. Shell Station, Walmart)--that and/or an area accomplice could possibly explain the phone drop at the Troutdale Terrace Apts.

 

[PoirotryInMotion]

That's what he told the cops during his first/second interview. But he lied about being robbed. He wasn't robbed.

The Q is whether he stashed his stuff somewhere (which begs questions) or had it with him in his backpack all along.

The robbery story has its problems, I'd agree. But since JH was under surveillance, I'm not thinking he had the computers stashed anywhere, either. His wife didn't see them that Tuesday nite when he came home (nor Judds mention him having them in a bulging backpack to LE), and LE didn't find them Thursday with the search warrant execution at the apt.

I think they were somewhere, but not in his possession for a few days. That's why, even if is found to be on it and his cell phone, I'm not 100% sure that's because JH put it there.

 

[PoirotryInMotion]

Quick question (I just came back from lunch):

I read that AH and JH both were interviewed at the police station on Thursday. The pdf. states they then left together.

When LE executed the search warrant Friday afternoon on the Scion parked at the police station (while JH was in interview #3 until after 9 PM with them)--was that Amanda's car? Thought I remembered she had a Scion. Did they have two Scions? I thought the reason JH was supposedly walking to the MAX(train) Tuesday morning was because his motorcycle again was not starting. Guess I assumed that meant he didn't have a car.

So, was it Amanda's car that was searched, and that had the backpack in it?

 

[Desdemona]

Quick question (I just came back from lunch):

I read that AH and JH both were interviewed at the police station on Thursday. The pdf. states they then left together.

When LE executed the search warrant Friday afternoon on the Scion parked at the police station (while JH was in interview #3 until after 9 PM with them)--was that Amanda's car? Thought I remembered she had a Scion. Did they have two Scions? I thought the reason JH was supposedly walking to the MAX(train) Tuesday morning was because his motorcycle again was not starting. Guess I assumed that meant he didn't have a car.

So, was it Amanda's car that was searched, and that had the backpack in it?

Per AH, JH drove the Scion on 10/15. He had it all day, put gas in it before coming home. AH had to get a ride from her stepfather(?) to get to work that day.

AH then drove the Scion to work 10/16. JH's story was that his motorcycle was not running, so he had to walk to the MAX to get to work, but was robbed before he made it. He appears to have made an attempt to hide his motorcycle in a different parking spot at the apartments. Sadly, he was actually in Whitney's Explorer that morning.

JH drove the Scion to the police station 10/19 (Friday) with his backpack in it. IOW, he had possession of the vehicle at the time it it contained the backpack. Prior to that, I believe JH was witnessed by LE surveillance, driving the Scion to his workplace and elsewhere while appearing to hide evidence.

Have not heard, and would certainly never assume they owned two Scions. They seem to have been a one-car, one-motorcycle household. If your question is about legal ownership of the Scion they both drove, perhaps the registered owner's name is specified in the search warrant doc. Not sure why the ownership would be important, though. HTH

ETA:
Per Boodles, the Affidavit says the Scion belongs to Amanda.

 

[Boodles]

So, was it Amanda's car that was searched, and that had the backpack in it?

Yes, pages 17/18 Affidavit. The Scion is hers; he has a motorcycle. He had driven the Scion to the police interview.

Also from page 19:
"Amanda Holt told them she remembers that Jonathan Holt was wearing black sweat pants when he came home but could not remember what shirt he had on. She believes her husband was wearing a t-shirt but did not remember anything else about it. She also does not remember if Jonathan Holt was wearing a jacket but said he owns a grey sweatshirt and may have that that on. Amanda Holt is confident that Jonathan Holt was wearing black and yellow shows at the time he came home and had his backpack with him."

 

[PoirotryInMotion]

PIM---- I have to remind myself when posting that I'm discussing a really cool young woman's murder. So it's a bit sensitive for the sleuthing.

Your 2cd Shooter or Accomplice viewpoint is making sense

Condier this:

-- Why the Troutdale apt complex stop? Why did Holt drive to Troutdale apt complex to discard ONLY WH's cell phone when all of the evidence could've been done in one trip to one dumpster?
Was Holt dropping off an accomplice to the apt complex? Maybe, the accomplice said get rid of WH's cell phone right now, so Holt pitched it into the bushes.

Why assume Holt was the driver? Why assume he was the triggerman with the accomplice? "Because he confessed," you say... Really?

For me, if I know for sure that someone has lied to me about ONE part of a scenario...I can also be confident that other parts could be equally suspect. So much of JH's story doesn't add up, that I, like LE find it "suspicious." Doesn't mean I'm leaping to the idea that he has to be The Killer (though that is an obvious first consideration)...it just means, at this point in time, for whatever reason, his story is Not Adding Up. And there is a reason. We just need to do more fact-finding to establish that reason for certain.

*There is more than one reason why someone might lie, even falsely implicating himself in a crime.

<snipped>-- The fact that Holt so quickly came up with the phony alibi of having his backpack robbed by 2 African-American men...did'nt you mention Holt's back pack was discovered , found later at his apartment? If this is true, how did Holt stash it or did the accomplice take it for Holt to hide and gave it to him later that day?

No. I said it was NOT found at his apt during the search warrant execution on Thursday. Amanda's computer was the only computer found and seized that day at their apt.

It's all in the pdf, which is admittedly a disjointed accounting of events. When the Judds found him wandering in the area of 257th and Stark (where so much of the action seems to take place), they heard him tell his story about his laptops and computer stuff being stolen from his back pack by those two robbers. The 'robbers' left him the black backpack (with I think some computer cables still in it), taking his leather jacket along with anything else of value from his backpack--his computer equipment, his cellphone, his wallet and the debit card he'd been planning on using when buying his train ticket to work that morning.

When the Judds (and Amanda) were relating all this to LE in their interview at the station, they did not tell LE ,"He's crazy--he had that backpack on his back and all the laptops were still in it!" Amanda also did not point out to JH that his backpack was indeed still on his back with his items intact. As I said earlier, it seems it wasn't--she called AT&T and even cancelled his cell phone acct. when it showed "data activity" on it at 7 AM (after it had been stolen from him). She apparently didn't want to accrue bills from the thief.

Because neither of these parties told police at their interviews (per pdf) that JH was delusional and in fact DID still have all his equipment...I conclude that he probably didn't have it in his possession. Because he was also under surveillance, I am also concluding he didn't have it hidden down at the police station shrubbery somewhere, either. I do believe his electronic equipment was out of his possession for a few days. Which is also why I believe his sudden confession about on his equipment Friday and the 'stolen cell phone' (and the sudden return of all that equipment the same day) to be suspect.

 

[Desdemona]

Yes, pages 17/18 Affidavit. The Scion is hers; he has a motorcycle. He had driven the Scion to the police interview.

Also from page 19:
"Amanda Holt told them she remembers that Jonathan Holt was wearing black sweat pants when he came home but could not remember what shirt he had on. She believes her husband was wearing a t-shirt but did not remember anything else about it. She also does not remember if Jonathan Holt was wearing a jacket but said he owns a grey sweatshirt and may have that that on.
Amanda Holt is confident that Jonathan Holt was wearing black and yellow sho[e]s at the time he came home and had his backpack with him."

JH had his backpack with him when he came home the evening of Oct 16, per his wife.

Thank you, Boodles! :seeya:

 

[PoirotryInMotion]

<snipped>

Still not convinced he had an accomplice but some other questions run in my mind there. Did he call in sick that day for work? Or did he call in after his "robbery" and say he wouldn't be coming in at all? Did he not communicate with his employer at all? Or did he call his boss the night before and say he was sick and wouldn't be in on Tuesday?

Good point! It's said his father (who also works at Canteen where he works) was worried and looking for him--apparently he hadn't called work. Amanda (per pdf) got word from a friend around noon or so that WH was missing. Discovered from family (his dad) later that JH was also missing. She told LE that she tried calling JH all day with no response on his cellphone--which was why she was so worried about him.

So to answer your question, no--he didn't call in to work or call anyone that day.

 

[Desdemona]

Why assume Holt was the driver? Why assume he was the triggerman with the accomplice? "Because he confessed," you say... Really?

For me, if I know for sure that someone has lied to me about ONE part of a scenario...I can also be confident that other parts could be equally suspect. So much of JH's story doesn't add up, that I, like LE find it "suspicious." Doesn't mean I'm leaping to the idea that he has to be The Killer (though that is an obvious first consideration)...it just means, at this point in time, for whatever reason, his story is Not Adding Up. And there is a reason. We just need to do more fact-finding to establish that reason for certain.

*There is more than one reason why someone might lie, even falsely implicating himself in a crime.



No. I said it was NOT found at his apt during the search warrant execution on Thursday. Amanda's computer was the only computer found and seized that day at their apt.

It's all in the pdf, which is admittedly a disjointed accounting of events. When the Judds found him wandering in the area of 257th and Stark (where so much of the action seems to take place), they heard him tell his story about his laptops and computer stuff being stolen from his back pack by those two robbers. The 'robbers' left him the black backpack (with I think some computer cables still in it), taking his leather jacket along with anything else of value from his backpack--his computer equipment, his cellphone, his wallet and the debit card he'd been planning on using when buying his train ticket to work that morning.

When the Judds (and Amanda) were relating all this to LE in their interview at the station, they did not tell LE ,"He's crazy--he had that backpack on his back and all the laptops were still in it!" Amanda also did not point out to JH that his backpack was indeed still on his back with his items intact. As I said earlier, it seems it wasn't--she called AT&T and even cancelled his cell phone acct. when it showed "data activity" on it at 7 AM (after it had been stolen from him). She apparently didn't want to accrue bills from the thief.

Because neither of these parties told police at their interviews (per pdf) that JH was delusional and in fact DID still have all his equipment...I conclude that he probably didn't have it in his possession. Because he was also under surveillance, I am also concluding he didn't have it hidden down at the police station shrubbery somewhere, either. I do believe his electronic equipment was out of his possession for a few days. Which is also why I believe his sudden confession about on his equipment Friday and the 'stolen cell phone' (and the sudden return of all that equipment the same day) to be suspect.

Simplest explanation IMO would be that Holt hid things that would get him in big trouble. He hid items used to commit felonies, i.e. kidnapping, assaulting and murdering Whitney, plus possessing child ; then he explained their absence by claiming they'd been stolen.

By the time LE confiscated the backpack with the electronics inside, they knew there had been no such robbery.

And speaking of going with the simplest explanations, I see no reason whatsoever to disbelieve Holt when, confronted with his stupid lies, he finally broke down and confessed the truth to LE: that he kidnapped and killed Whitney. His earlier falsehoods had to do with consciousness of guilt and hiding heinous crimes he committed -- avoiding detection. IMO, there is zero evidence to indicate he has falsely implicated himself.

LE didn't believe his coverup lies. They do believe his confession. I agree with their viewpoint. JMO.

 

[PoirotryInMotion]

?? I was relying on case law in NC and CA. But, in addition, the article you refer to says surreptitious sampling is legal. It's definitely controversial, but currently deemed legal. Litter and trash aren't protected under the 4th amendment.

But in this case, it's a moot point, since LE said he volunteered a sample.

"Surreptitious DNA Sampling Scenario
You have refused to give police a DNA sample in their familial search. The police subsequently go through your curbed garbage during the night to obtain samples of your DNA from discarded items such as plastic cups or cigarette butts. Can the police forage through your garbage to obtain samples of your DNA?
Legal Rights and Responses
This practice, known as &#8220;surreptitious sampling,&#8221; is currently legal. There is no expectation of privacy in garbage once it is out on the curb. Courts have found that there is no expectation of privacy in discarded genetic material and that the practice of surreptitious sampling does not violate the Fourth Amendment. The U.S. Constitution does not prohibit the police from searching your garbage because you are deemed to have abandoned it. State constitutions or laws may prohibit the police from doing this."

Like you said, it's a moot point, as JH volunteered DNA samples.

But, apparently the creative scenario gwenabob suggested upthread is illegal in the state of Oregon:

www.dnapolicy.org/.../State_law_summaries_final_all_states.pdf

Oregon
State laws pertaining to surreptitious DNA testing
Does the law restrict the collection or analysis of DNA or disclosure of results of analysis?
Yes, law prohibits collection, analysis, and disclosure without consent.
Code section(s) analyzed
OR Stat. § 192.531

 

[Desdemona]

The Holt's were considering a rental house in Troutdale--not the Terrace Apts as far as I know.

They ended up at an apt complex in Gresham for a year before moving again to the Heatherwood Apts in summer of 2012.

The apts in Troutdale were pretty close to some other key addresses involved, though (eg. Shell Station, Walmart)--that and/or an area accomplice could possibly explain the phone drop at the Troutdale Terrace Apts.

BBM>> But wait..... wasn't that (looking at a rental property) merely what he told his friend about the house they scoped out together, and when LE asked Amanda about it, she knew nothing about a possible rent house at that address?

Or am I remembering this wrong?

And during that time period, didn't JH work at the Subway that is close to that area, too?

 

[PoirotryInMotion]

Wait, hold on...

I don't recall him being without his backpack that Tuesday. I thought he just lied to police about being robbed. Is it a fact that he didn't have his backpack with him when picked up by EJ? Or do we know?

He still had his computer, storage drives on Friday when he was arrested. They were in his backpack in the car.

<snipped>

Boodles, see my post upthread...

Weeks later and I still can't get this story out of my mind. I hope Whitney's family and friends are finding the strength to move past this horrible crime.

I noticed this post today in my Twitter feed...it is pretty old. Has anyone seen anything that would corroborate or refute this tweet? https://twitter.com/thomjensenkatu/status/261965905423110145

Never heard that. (Only retweeted once?) Sounds like possibly confused with the Black Explorer evidence. It'd make no sense that that find would be in Amanda's car. (Holt had a motorcylce.) Hate to say it, but Katu news I'm finding to be not the most reliable...

The pdf only notes (and I don't remember blanks or redactions, though I'll go back and check) that Police Tech Surplus was there taking pictures, that the black backpack of computer equipment was confiscated, and that Gleason donned protective clothing and drove the car to secure storage.

Sounds like it may have mixed up the news with what was found in WH black Explorer.

 

[Boodles]

Like you said, it's a moot point, as JH volunteered DNA samples.

But, apparently the creative scenario gwenabob suggested upthread is illegal in the state of Oregon:

www.dnapolicy.org/.../State_law_summaries_final_all_states.pdf

Oregon
State laws pertaining to surreptitious DNA testing
Does the law restrict the collection or analysis of DNA or disclosure of results of analysis?
Yes, law prohibits collection, analysis, and disclosure without consent.
Code section(s) analyzed
OR Stat. § 192.531

Again, it's moot, but if you read further on the page, it states that law enforcement is an exception.
"Exceptions
Law enforcement; de&#8208;identified research; body identification; newborn screening; paternity; deceased individuals."

Anyway, I assume that means police can use it in an investigation, but that's just my take. It was used as evidence in a trial I followed this year (not OR). It was a cigarette butt thrown out in a parking lot. The defense moved to exclude it, but the court ruled it admissible. Interestingly, the killer was a neighbor who had refused to "volunteer" his DNA when asked during a sampling of men in the neighborhood. He got life without parole. My first impression of this case was Holt reminded me of this killer ( addict, unable to hold a job, wife challenging his lack of responsibility, etc.). This guy, however, did not confess to LE, but he did to his attorney, who tried for a LWOP plea deal (in lieu of the death penalty). The DA wouldn't budge, so the State paid for a trial whereby the defense's opening statement said, "yes, he did it, under diminished capacity."

Since the jury gave him LWOP anyway, it was a waste of taxpayer funds, and probably devastating for the families (graphic evidence including rape).

Sorry I digressed...