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

[PoirotryInMotion]

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?

Not sure where he worked at the time. The rental house was a property he showed his friend, telling him 'they' were considering renting it. It doesn't appear that Amanda was aware of this plan, though. And they ended up at an apt in Gresham for a year, instead.

 

[PoirotryInMotion]

RSBM

Didn't mean to imply anybody made anything up!

Yes, I knew about the FAMILY having info that suggested the Explorer had been at the Travel Center, and that a purchase had been made there.

I posted a news story where this is mentioned, along with a disclaimer that police could only confirm the Shell purchase.

See, I recall in the docs that the use of Whitney's card at the Shell station is documented, and LE's docs spell out their investigative actions relating to that incident, including obtaining videos, interviewing the attendant, etc.

Did they similarly follow up on the alleged purchase/sighting at the Travel Center? Don't recall seeing this in the docs, only the mention that you referenced, where they were told about it by Clint...

So: Did LE confirm the Travel Center purchase/sighting? TIA

Last I heard it was still in 'unconfirmed' mode--though it'd be easy enough for them to check. So, maybe that would be more accurately referred to as a 'we don't want to talk about it' mode.

 

[PoirotryInMotion]

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.

He's not claiming to be framed at all. But one thing about your post; it's a little in reverse order, in that he only 'confessed to' putting guns/ammo in his back pack on Friday, during his third and last interview at Gresham PD. That was after all the evidence had been distributed about (including the guns, empty ammo boxes in dumpster, etc.).

 

[PoirotryInMotion]

Originally Posted by Boodles View Post
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.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.

Yes, he technically still had his backpack. But no one is saying in the record that he still has the computer equipment that he is telling them was stolen from his backpack. E&AJ and AH are not telling police he's delusional at interviews on Wed/Thurs respectively, in other words--that his backpack still had the equipment in it Tuesday night. They're saying that's the story he's offered for its disappearance, which they don't appear to refute.

On Friday, he took Amanda's car in for interview #3. During that 6-hr. interview, a search warrant was executed and her car that was parked in the lot there was opened up, photographed, the backpack was in there, full of computer equipment, and confiscated, and the car driven by Gleason into secure storage.

 

[westsidefox64]

This is all just my opinion!!! I dont think he had any help in this. After reading through the court documents I still believe she was in the back seat when he shot her although I no longer believe the seat was folded down at the time. I think that was done after the fact to cover blood stains he couldnt or didnt clean up. I wonder if the round spots on the hood could have been from him laying the bloody linens there after he removed her body from the car? I also believe he took her out of the back drivers side door.

 

[PoirotryInMotion]

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.

It would appear to be so; LE also had him under surveillance and recovered those items one by one. Why not the computer stuff, though?

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. <snipped>

What lies did they confront him with? Not sure, because we weren't there during those 6 hours.

What was odd, in fact, was that he went in that Friday morning and spilled those two 'confessions' almost at the outset of that long interview about the and iphone theft. Doesn't seem like a 'breakdown' situation to me...seems more like he was told something to say and said it, for whatever reason.

I know...there's no evidence to support that's what happened. No evidence in my book to support his Friday account is 'true,' either. In fact, a lot of story 'adjustments' in his history to infer it might not be. This is going to be an interesting case to follow.

 

[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.

Boodles, the second begs questions, too, as no one has offered they indeed saw it in his backpack Tuesday evening (eg. walking along the road, arriving home, etc.).

I think maybe there's a third alternative not yet ruled out: someone else stashed his stuff elsewhere for a bit. And then returned that computer stuff to Amanda's car at the PD that Friday during JH's 6-hr. interview.

 

[StormyNights]

It has been said many times that is seems as though JH wanted to be caught. I am sure he was totally unaware that he was being watched by LE, but just the fact that he would go the places he did, and I am sure he HAD to of known it would be caught on camera (Wal-Mart, Shell station). It is hard for me to try and think like a killer, so I can't wrap my head around why he would of placed the evidence where he did. The gun in the police department parking lot? COME ON!! Hiding his shoes across the street from his apt complex (from what I understood) and among other things. One thing I didn't understand was him throwing out his own phone at the lake. Now reading it was Clint's stolen phone makes more sense. Did he perhaps think that LE would think Clint did this because they found his old phone there? The actions of JH will baffle me until my dying day. :banghead:

 

[Quester]

Hmmm ... I wonder whose SIM card was found in JH's cell phone (formerly CH's cell phone) that was tossed at the murder site?

ETA: If the perp was trying to frame CH - why? Beyond the obvious of trying to place focus on anyone else but the true perp, why CH? Did JH have some vendetta against CH?

 

[Boodles]

It would appear to be so; LE also had him under surveillance and recovered those items one by one. Why not the computer stuff, though?

Because he had them the whole time. Why would EJ and AJ inspect his backpack when they picked him up? He said the (fictitious) robbers gave it back. I think he had his electronics with him the entire time. He barely spoke to AH when he got home. He probably stashed his laptop/ipad under the bed, under blankets in a closet, in the safe...somewhere in the apt, and retrieved them whenever leaving the house. (Kids do this all the time when hiding their "contraband" from their parents.)

They didn't find any of those things when they searched the apt Friday, which was concurrent with his interrogation/confession, because he had these things with him. I think he always carried these things with him. People who have things to hide take their laptops with them, after all, they're mobile devices!l. I know you question the , but I do believe he had some or something on his computers that he didn't want his wife to see. Info about secret trysts with other people? Who knows?

ETA: PIM, Amanda said she is confident he had the BP when returning home. JH also says the robbers (there are no robbers) gave it back, ergo, he had it with him. The Judd's didn't mention it because why would they? And maybe LE did ask the Judds but it's just part of the details omitted from the affidavit. No one would know what was in the backpack on Tuesday night unless they searched it. No one ever searches me when I come home or when they give me a ride. And I don't volunteer to show them what I'm carrying with me, IYKWIM.

 

[westsidefox64]

Hmmm ... I wonder whose SIM card was found in JH's cell phone (formerly CH's cell phone) that was tossed at the murder site?

ETA: If the perp was trying to frame CH - why? Beyond the obvious of trying to place focus on anyone else but the true perp, why CH? Did JH have some vendetta against CH?

According to the Court Docs page 7 there was a peice of paper titled SOUND DEPARTMENT that had CH and JH names on it. The assumption being they took out a sims card for CH and put a new one in for JH so I would assume the sims card belonged to JH. HTH

 

[Quester]

According to the Court Docs page 7 there was a peice of paper titled SOUND DEPARTMENT that had CH and JH names on it. The assumption being they took out a sims card for CH and put a new one in for JH so I would assume the sims card belonged to JH. HTH

I though it was established that the Sound Dept paper was more than likely something having to do with a JW function with assigned responsibilities?

I was round about questioning whether or not JH replaced his SIM card in the cell phone with the old CH SIM card that may have been in the cell phone when JH stole the phone from CH's dresser drawer all in an effort to possibly frame CH. CH did have that fateful Tuesday off and may have been challenged to provide corroboration of his whereabouts from when last seen by anyone other than WH from the evening before WH went missing.

IDK - we need some new info.

ETA: What happens next and when in the legal process? TIA

 

[PoirotryInMotion]

Because he had them the whole time. Why would EJ and AJ inspect his backpack when they picked him up? He said the (fictitious) robbers gave it back. I think he had his electronics with him the entire time. He barely spoke to AH when he got home. He probably stashed his laptop/ipad under the bed, under blankets in a closet, in the safe...somewhere in the apt, and retrieved them whenever leaving the house. (Kids do this all the time when hiding their "contraband" from their parents.)

They didn't find any of those things when they searched the apt Friday, which was concurrent with his interrogation/confession, because he had these things with him. I think he always carried these things with him. People who have things to hide take their laptops with them, after all, they're mobile devices!l. I know you question the , but I do believe he had some or something on his computers that he didn't want his wife to see. Info about secret trysts with other people? Who knows?

ETA: PIM, Amanda said she is confident he had the BP when returning home. JH also says the robbers (there are no robbers) gave it back, ergo, he had it with him. The Judd's didn't mention it because why would they? And maybe LE did ask the Judds but it's just part of the details omitted from the affidavit. No one would know what was in the backpack on Tuesday night unless they searched it. No one ever searches me when I come home or when they give me a ride. And I don't volunteer to show them what I'm carrying with me, IYKWIM.

Thanks for your thoughts, Boodles. In the pdf interview about JH's arrival home, I thought I remembered it was mentioned they 'talked about' what happened a bit, and at least long enough for her to decide to call AT&T and cancel his cell phone service. I'm thinking during that time that it'd be obvious if he still had the stuff or not due to the special design of his backpack. In the pdf it went into great detail (when they photographed it) that it was made up of a layered series of zippered pockets, each about 1-1.5" deep, and apparently held a half dozen or so devices in these separated layers. These multiple pockets would be flat and the backpack very light and limp if all equipment had been taken except a cable or two and a couple thumb drives (per pdf interview). I've seen my own kids (and me!) carry laptops and computer equipment in knapsacks when traveling--they're weighty and bulky and clunky when filled with even equipment for one computer--and I had a geek son who carried multiples with him just like JH. Not because he had something to hide (though I'm sure he may have, from time to time!)--but because geeks are very attached to their 'stuff.'

So, I guess I'm just going on the idea that I believe I would've noticed if my son came home with a story of a holdup where he'd lost all his gaming devices and laptops from the multi-pocketed backpack he'd been carrying. That I'd notice if it looked full and heavy or light and saggy (carrying it by one finger, tossing it on the couch, etc.) and if it seemed to contradict the story. But maybe that's just because I'm used to seeing it.

 

[caffeinejean]

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.

He's not claiming to be framed at all. But one thing about your post; it's a little in reverse order, in that he only 'confessed to' putting guns/ammo in his back pack on Friday, during his third and last interview at Gresham PD. That was after all the evidence had been distributed about (including the guns, empty ammo boxes in dumpster, etc.).

PIM. Sorry... I guess you took my post too literally. I was mainly commenting on the brain farts of JH and some of his twisted thought processes. Your right he hasn't claimed any framing... yet. That was just sarcastic speculation. And yes, I did overstate ensuing "days" when I should have said "the next day".
However I did have the order of events correct.
According to the docs, we've all been looking at, his first interview with the Gresham Police was Wed. Oct.17th in the evening (also AH and the Judds).
The second interview was Thurs. Oct.18th at 2:55pm when he met to begin sketch ID of his robber suspect. This is when he told/admitted to investigators that he did have a gun and ammo in his back pack that his robbers took. I surmise that after they heard all the inconsistencies that LE then began heavy surveillance.
On Friday Oct.19 the affidavit then shows a day of JH distributing and LE collecting evidence starting at about 5am. ...shoes, holster in bushes before work...gun at work place in bushes after work...ammo and ammo boxes on the way home...and finally gun at police station in bushes. His scheduled interview was 3:30pm and he confessed at 3:40pm. Perhaps the reason he threw up his hands before going in the front door at the police statation was because it dawned on him that he forgot to dump his child portfolio:banghead: left in the trunk of the car in his back pack.

 

[Xavier]

I'd really would like to hear anyone's thoughts on the $64,000 question of Why Holt killed WH? There's has to be reasons for this guy with no apparent criminal record of any serious nature to flat out freak out and turn into a brutal, lunatic killer?

It seems to me from all these posts, reading the news stories, etc that Holt had a somewhat "harmless, casual" romantic/flirtatious fantasy of WH that turned into an evil, tormented mind of a killer.

So why did Holt change his behavior or feelings for WH?

And Why or How would he be framed, a notion some on this board believe in?

IMO, Does it make sense that WH knew about some "skeletons" from Holt's closet?

Maybe WH overheard Holt talking about his child , owning guns, etc, things that might be "outlawed" by the JW church and therefore grounds for being kicked out of the JW church? In our Catholic church, we call this ex-communicated from the church.

Maybe WH suspected Holt of stalking her, peeping into her apt windows, etc and rumors spread back to Holt? So all the good feelings Holt had for WH now turned into a vile, hatred of her. Which makes me believe she did'nt offer Holt a ride. IMO Holt surprised WH in the morning and kidnapped her by threat of the gun.

It's been noted that Whitney and Amanda Holt were friends. Could the usual "girls talk" about husbands revealed some ugly sides of Holt , that might have caused WH to become disgusted with Holt and therefore ignored him ?

 

[StormyNights]

IIRC Amanda and Whintey weren't "friends" as in going on shopping trips together or the like. They had been "friends" on Facebook for about 2 years. It was stated in the avadavit that Amanda said they weren't close at all, so I don't think any talk between Amanda and Whintey would of gotten JH going. I don't know that anyone can ever really say what makes someone just snap and murder someone. Sadly, it happens all the time. You hear countless people saying, I can't believe he/she did that or did this, he/she must of just snapped. Who knows what drove him to this. I am still on the fence about him taking her at gunpoint right away or into their ride. JH could be lying about any part of his confession, but I guess I wonder why lie about THAT part? It has been brought up though that it may be JH's way of "blaming" Whitney for allowing him into her car in the first place. The thing about all of JH's electronics, I can only assume that LE would of asked to look at his packback after his robbery story surfaced. From what I recall, they did? I could be wrong about that part. I always remember reading something about some of his belongings being in Amanda's car? Can't quite remember where I read that or if it was speculation. Again, I say this guy truly baffles me. Then again, the day a killer doesn't baffle me, I might be in trouble :waitasec:

 

[Xavier]

Per this link:http://www.kgw.com/news/Docs-Holt-had-guns-child-🤬🤬🤬🤬-and-stolen-iPhone-176052031.html

Holt's wife told detectives he had told her a story about being robbed, and she replied to detectives that she felt he was "probably lying" to her. She told police that it had been "absolutely crazy the past two days" and she was "sure that whole story (Holt's story) sounds crazy as well."

Amanda Holt went on to tell police that Jonathan Holt "can't handle things well" and is "very private." She said that Holt "keeps everything to himself. So many things build up, I think he just loses it," the search warrants say.

Amanda Holt said in the reports that her husband disappeared before, and about a year ago, he "freaked out and left" because he was having issues with his job.

A team of detectives set up surveillance of Holt at his job at Canteen Services in Portland before he was arrested.

Detectives said Holt told them he was "stressed" about the alleged robbery and that if it had not happened, he would have been more helpful to them regarding Whitney's disappearance.

Holt told detectives he was "having a sort of surreal feeling."

"Like, is all this stuff really happening, Whitney gone; I got robbed," documents show.

Holt eventually confessed to investigators he shot and killed Whitney, then led them to where he dumped her body on Larch Mountain, according to police.

 

[Xavier]

IIRC Amanda and Whintey weren't "friends" as in going on shopping trips together or the like. They had been "friends" on Facebook for about 2 years. It was stated in the avadavit that Amanda said they weren't close at all, so I don't think any talk between Amanda and Whintey would of gotten JH going. I don't know that anyone can ever really say what makes someone just snap and murder someone. Sadly, it happens all the time. You hear countless people saying, I can't believe he/she did that or did this, he/she must of just snapped. Who knows what drove him to this. I am still on the fence about him taking her at gunpoint right away or into their ride. JH could be lying about any part of his confession, but I guess I wonder why lie about THAT part? It has been brought up though that it may be JH's way of "blaming" Whitney for allowing him into her car in the first place. The thing about all of JH's electronics, I can only assume that LE would of asked to look at his packback after his robbery story surfaced. From what I recall, they did? I could be wrong about that part. I always remember reading something about some of his belongings being in Amanda's car? Can't quite remember where I read that or if it was speculation. Again, I say this guy truly baffles me. Then again, the day a killer doesn't baffle me, I might be in trouble :waitasec:

Why are you on the fence for Holt taking WH at gunpoint for the ride?

Looking at things 20/20, if WH was driving with gun pointed at her by Holt, I wonder if she thought about creating a "fender bender" accident to get help?

 

[PoirotryInMotion]

PIM. Sorry... I guess you took my post too literally. I was mainly commenting on the brain farts of JH and some of his twisted thought processes. Your right he hasn't claimed any framing... yet. That was just sarcastic speculation. And yes, I did overstate ensuing "days" when I should have said "the next day".
However I did have the order of events correct.
According to the docs, we've all been looking at, his first interview with the Gresham Police was Wed. Oct.17th in the evening (also AH and the Judds).
The second interview was Thurs. Oct.18th at 2:55pm when he met to begin sketch ID of his robber suspect. This is when he told/admitted to investigators that he did have a gun and ammo in his back pack that his robbers took. I surmise that after they heard all the inconsistencies that LE then began heavy surveillance.
On Friday Oct.19 the affidavit then shows a day of JH distributing and LE collecting evidence starting at about 5am. ...shoes, holster in bushes before work...gun at work place in bushes after work...ammo and ammo boxes on the way home...and finally gun at police station in bushes. His scheduled interview was 3:30pm and he confessed at 3:40pm. Perhaps the reason he threw up his hands before going in the front door at the police statation was because it dawned on him that he forgot to dump his child portfolio:banghead: left in the trunk of the car in his back pack.

Double-checked on the Thursday interview, and you're right about the end of that one; he did claim to have a gun, and then admitted buying ammo (for 'target practice'). Sorry about taking you 'literally' with the framing idea.

Such convoluted testimony. What a tragic mess.

 

[Xavier]

I though it was established that the Sound Dept paper was more than likely something having to do with a JW function with assigned responsibilities?

I was round about questioning whether or not JH replaced his SIM card in the cell phone with the old CH SIM card that may have been in the cell phone when JH stole the phone from CH's dresser drawer all in an effort to possibly frame CH. CH did have that fateful Tuesday off and may have been challenged to provide corroboration of his whereabouts from when last seen by anyone other than WH from the evening before WH went missing.

IDK - we need some new info.

ETA: What happens next and when in the legal process? TIA[/QUOTE

Quester-- I read recently Holt's trial likely to start sometime in 2013. This could be out of respects to the family's by postponng the trial until a ways after the 2012 holiday season..