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

[PoirotryInMotion]

And Whitney is dead and Holt was walking around scott-free for several days after the murder. He's still alive and has not gone on trial. His conviction and sentencing is not a foregone conclusion.

So PIM, how in your theory does that end up getting rid of Holt????? Whitney's dead, so "they" got rid of her. But the second bird doesn't seem to have gotten the equal effect of the stone.

:waitasec:

His conviction and sentencing is not a foregone conclusion, no. But look at this thread (in fact, all 5 threads). The general consensus in here (and in the news comments, facebook pages, etc.) seems to be he's guilty...and that's the tame part of the reaction. IF my theory is correct, then someone's done a pretty thorough job of making sure everyone is properly revolted by this guy. Even if acquitted he's done for (look at Casey Anthony). JMO.

 

[La Louve]

His conviction and sentencing is not a foregone conclusion, no. But look at this thread (in fact, all 5 threads). The general consensus in here (and in the news comments, facebook pages, etc.) seems to be he's guilty...and that's the tame part of the reaction. IF my theory is correct, then someone's done a pretty thorough job of making sure everyone is properly revolted by this guy. Even if acquitted he's done for (look at Casey Anthony). JMO.

so...why did Whitney have to die?

 

[La Louve]

Here is a link to the KGW report that Holt was obsessed with Whitney: http://www.kgw.com/news/Clues-lead-...-in-murder-of-Whitney-Heichel--175092931.html

The second paragraph reads: "Sources told KGW reporter Kyle Iboshi that Holt was "obsessed" with Heichel. Court documents said that police believe Holt kidnapped, robbed, sexually abused and murdered Heichel."



And here is a link to the MSM interview with the former Holt neighbor about the peeping incident: http://www.nwcn.com/home/175105471.html

around the 30 second mark the husband 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."

 

[PoirotryInMotion]

Sounds like somebody is making a lot of assumptions, doesn't it.

It is an assumption that JH was bullied all through his childhood. It is an assumption that he was truly suicidal. It is an assumption that his behavior that day was being directed by another unknown individual who was not caught on any surveillance nor has been mentioned at all, even to save the skin of the innocent boy who has been accused of murder and whose marriage, and entire life has been destroyed by this whole complicated conspiracy to murder a simple young woman for some unknown and unfathomable reason. That's a lot of assumptions from someone who has said we should not assume anything!

What I've said is that assumptions can't convict a person.

Your signature says this, Gwenabob: "Justice is the constant and perpetual will to allot to every man his due. Domitus Ulpian." Tell me, how will assuming someone's guilt in something unproven give Whitney justice here?

 

[Glow]

Thanks for the links La Louve. I am most interested in JHs motivations. That holds the key to everything else IMO...

That is why I am trying to read all I can and listen to as many others thoughts as I can. The answers lie in the collective wisdom of us all and our obserations of human nature, the on the scene posters who have helped us picture the area, the incredible research on ballistics and different types of rapist/murderers and oh yeah.....one other thing, the facts!

 

[gwenabob]

What I've said is that assumptions can't convict a person.

Your signature says this, Gwenabob: "Justice is the constant and perpetual will to allot to every man his due. Domitus Ulpian." Tell me, how will assuming someone's guilt in something unproven give Whitney justice here?

We may use the facts and clues to decide whatever we want. It will be up to a jury of his peers to convict based on the facts and evidence that is uncovered by LE. Since I don't live in Clackamas County, it is highly unlikely I will be called to sit on his jury. So I will continue to consider what evidence and facts I know and make any assumption I want as to his innocence or guilt.

That said, I believe this is a very simple case. Holt was obsessed with Whitney. He had a addiction. He did not have high self esteem nor did he have high esteem for women. I think he half-planned the escapade, it did not go the way his limited brain imagined, and WH ended up dead. I do not believe there is any conspiracy. I don't think her faith had anything to do with it, and I don't believe her husband or any other person besides Holt was involved. And I base that on the facts we have been told, personal experience, and a lifelong interest in true-crime, specifically domestic violence.

 

[Boodles]

Hi Boodles :seeya:

I would like to know what convinced you personally that it wasnt "obsession: related as I am still trying to decide where I stand on that. All your thouhts would be most welcome!

Hi Glow. Good question! I can't say I had an overt change of opinion about this. It just evolved. When I first read about this crime, I felt JH must have been obsessed with her. There was the anonymous person, quoted by anonymous sources, saying JH had peeped over the balcony into their apartment. That probably influenced me to think he was a stalker/obsessive.

But pretty quickly, I noticed some similarities to a murder/rape I had followed previously. (I mentioned this in prior posts). The issue influenced me, as did a perception that JH was struggling personally with failure (work instability) and suffering the disfavor of his wife (per her comments in the affidavit about not contributing enough, or something to that effect). The anger-retaliatory type behavior seemed likely to me.

And it just doesn't click to me that he would rape and kill a woman he obsessively "loved" or desired. Men rape and kill women with whom they have had an intimate relationship, when rebuffed. That doesn't work here. Men rape women about whom they fantasize a relationship with, but they usually don't know that person nor do they usually kill that person. This "rape" (I'll just use that word to describe the sexual aspect of this case) doesn't make sense. There was no possible way this could have ended "well" based on the circumstances, which would leave the only "explainable" type of sexual assault as an anger-retaliatory type act. And if that was the case, it would probably have been triggered by anger JH felt toward another woman, not Whitney. I wonder whether JH and AH argued that night. I know the affidavit says they had pizza and went to bed at 9:30. No mention was made of any conflict. But I wonder. And/or I wonder if he was feeling emasculated because of feeling (imaginary or otherwise) vibes from his wife that he wasn't contributing to the household. I wonder if he felt resentment from her which angered him. I wonder if his new job, and its taking up his daytime hours, was preventing him from looking at his in recent weeks (his wife was home in the evenings...when was he to tend to his "habit" now that he's working?) and that could have been angering him.

At any rate, if he is an anger-retaliatory type perp, his violent act would probably have resulted from misdirected anger at a time proximate to such feelings. It would not have resulted from being frustratingly in love with WH ala: "I'm so obsessively in love with her, I must kidnap her and force her to give me sex; that will solve everything." NOT. But if he was angry/drunk/drugged/or whatever that night, he may have had the compulsion to act out. Maybe he was stewing all night and since JH knew she worked at SB's and would be vulnerable in the early morning, she may have had the misfortune to be the one who provided him with an opportunity to be his victim. Anger-retaliatory rapists act out when they are angry, at which time they seek an opportunity. It's not an obsessive love type of modus operandi.

And if he was more of a power-reassurance type rapist, they are less likely to be violent, and more likely to walk away when rejected. Plus, they tend to fantasize that a relationship might develop. And they tend to be single. Kidnapping and assaulting WH doesn't fit that model, because there is no possibility for a "favorable" outcome for the rapist. He knows her as a family acquaintance. He's married, she's married, he took her at gunpoint in a vehicle. That just doesn't fit with the P-R type rapist traits/tendencies, IMO.

(Then again, I'm no expert in criminology! These are just my lay-person opinions based on what I have read and observed in cases.)

So IMO, the only rape "type" which could fit is anger-retaliatory. There was an obvious lack of planning on JH's part. If he was "obsessed" with her, what was his plan? How does he get away with it? He can't. But if this was an A-R incident, it would have been more impulsive/compulsive and driven by his point-in-time anger, which would result in a more disorganized type crime and lack of consideration of the subsequent consequences.

Anyway, I still also wonder whether anyone else is involved. I definitely did not believe that at the beginning. I fell into the "he was obsessed, abducted, assaulted and killed her" mode, although the timeline made zero sense to me. THEN I read the 40-something page affidavit, and got hit with a serious case of hinkiness. As I was reading along, things were triggering questions in my mind. And they kept piling up. And when I read about the white utility vehicle at Walmart, I felt sucker-punched. So I read it over and over, again and again trying to make sense of the chronology and logistics. I rationalized the white utility vehicle. But finally, I could not reconcile the bizarreness of the totality of the circumstances. Who leaves their gun in the grass at the police station? Who kills someone in Sandy, OR and then drives to downtown Gresham with a dead body in a car to get gas to then proceed to Larch Mountain? Who leaves the victim's license plate near the body? Who has a posse of organized searchers finding evidence which is like finding needles in haystacks within hours of WH's death? I mean, BINGO, those searchers were right on target. HOW LUCKY! Cripes, with massive troves of law enforcement searching, Isabel Celis and Baby Lisa are STILL MISSING, but these searchers found everything that was pertinent to this crime within a day, or 36 hours of the murder.

Perhaps this crime is just as has been portrayed to the public. Maybe all of these circumstances are just coincidence. I leave my mind open to that possibility. It could very well be.

But I also keep my mind open to the possibility that there is more to this crime than has been shared.

Something just stinks. That affidavit said a whole lot. But there also might be a whole lot more that was left unsaid.

After all, that's why we're all here reading these posts, right? Because something is ODD about this case.

 

[Glow]

(Dictionary, really??)

yes, dictionary really.

I am not one of the "great intellectual minds" that are here at WS posting in forums. I prefer to be a simple person who is careful and methodical and values accuracy. Thats whats most comfortable to me. Besides, after 10 plus years posting here, I have seen it time and time again...great intellects are like the great gun fighters of the old west...there is always somebody better coming down the pike.

So..in the interest of accuracy, I wanted to be clear in my posting that the factual data of the cell phone records is in fact, huge.

Huge IF a person has doubts abut JH taking it from Clints dresser.

Huge because it establishes who took that cell phone. JH said he did. He had opportunity (in the house). So one brick, two bricks...the cell phone records adds another brick. Get enough bricks you have a wall. A wall of evidence.

On the other hand, if a person is convinced that JH did in fact take the phone, then I can see why trying to prove what one already knows would seem "small or trivial". Makes sense.



When I post with a fellow poster I try to hold them in the highest regard possible. I do consider it an honor that they are giving me their time and their thoughts. I have found for the most part that, if I do that, I get the same respect back. It makes life on the threads nice, I make new friends and MOST importantly I learn A LOT. I am always going to learn more if I keep the mind set of "Everyone here has a piece of the puzzle and I am here to learn and to share"

I want to know why. No matter what it is that catches my attention, I always love finding out the why. There is so much about this case that I still want to know.

These questions are me thinking out loud and I am not expecting you, PIM to struggle to answer each one, its just me thinking in a general kind of way...

What makes a person murder another?

What makes a person murder a person who is not perceived as threatening?

What makes a person murder someone who they are biologically hard wired in the most primitive part of their brain to "protect"
(man - woman)

What makes one person murder another without very much apparent "gain" to themselves?
(no rape, no robbery, no notoriety)

Was there an immature fantasy that quickly spiraled out of control and then everything just went to hell in a hand basket so to speak?

These are just a few questions along with some observations I have and that I am hoping everyone reading here will chime in on, so we could all share our thoughts..

In the meantime PIM, I appreciate that you have been so willing to share your thoughts with me. I of course, dont see validity in the "others are involved" theory but I respect your right to. I will say that if I were trying to sort out a conspiracy theory in my own mind I would be looking very hard in the direction of the " on the computer" angle.

I was so sure that there couldnt be anyone "dark" and underworld" in bright little Whitney's life that I overlooked a key point. If there is a professional hit man involved than what better way for him to have entered the picture than through the child arena?

You cant get any baser members of society than that and yet they operate among us and there is a tremendous amount of money involved. Maybe that is why it is mentioned by LE in the PDF. Maybe the police already know something?

Anyway, that occurred to me and I thought I would pass it along in case you are interested.

I am not. But I wanted to mention it to you as an outgrowth of conversations you and I have had.

 

[Xavier]

yes, dictionary really.

I am not one of the "great intellectual minds" that are here at WS posting in forums. I prefer to be a simple person who is careful and methodical and values accuracy. Thats whats most comfortable to me. Besides, after 10 plus years posting here, I have seen it time and time again...great intellects are like the great gun fighters of the old west...there is always somebody better coming down the pike.

So..in the interest of accuracy, I wanted to be clear in my posting that the factual data of the cell phone records is in fact, huge.

Huge IF a person has doubts abut JH taking it from Clints dresser.

Huge because it establishes who took that cell phone. JH said he did. He had opportunity (in the house). So one brick, two bricks...the cell phone records adds another brick. Get enough bricks you have a wall. A wall of evidence.

On the other hand, if a person is convinced that JH did in fact take the phone, then I can see why trying to prove what one already knows would seem "small or trivial". Makes sense.



When I post with a fellow poster I try to hold them in the highest regard possible. I do consider it an honor that they are giving me their time and their thoughts. I have found for the most part that, if I do that, I get the same respect back. It makes life on the threads nice, I make new friends and MOST importantly I learn A LOT. I am always going to learn more if I keep the mind set of "Everyone here has a piece of the puzzle and I am here to learn and to share"

I want to know why. No matter what it is that catches my attention, I always love finding out the why. There is so much about this case that I still want to know.

These questions are me thinking out loud and I am not expecting you, PIM to struggle to answer each one, its just me thinking in a general kind of way...

What makes a person murder another?

What makes a person murder a person who is not perceived as threatening?

What makes a person murder someone who they are biologically hard wired in the most primitive part of their brain to "protect"
(man - woman)

What makes one person murder another without very much apparent "gain" to themselves?
(no rape, no robbery, no notoriety)

Was there an immature fantasy that quickly spiraled out of control and then everything just went to hell in a hand basket so to speak?

These are just a few questions along with some observations I have and that I am hoping everyone reading here will chime in on, so we could all share our thoughts..

In the meantime PIM, I appreciate that you have been so willing to share your thoughts with me. I of course, dont see validity in the "others are involved" theory but I respect your right to. I will say that if I were trying to sort out a conspiracy theory in my own mind I would be looking very hard in the direction of the " on the computer" angle.

I was so sure that there couldnt be anyone "dark" and underworld" in bright little Whitney's life that I overlooked a key point. If there is a professional hit man involved than what better way for him to have entered the picture than through the child arena?

You cant get any baser members of society than that and yet they operate among us and there is a tremendous amount of money involved. Maybe that is why it is mentioned by LE in the PDF. Maybe the police already know something?

Anyway, that occurred to me and I thought I would pass it along in case you are interested.

I am not. But I wanted to mention it to you as an outgrowth of conversations you and I have had.

Thanks PIM & GLOW--- Per Clint's cell phone Holt said he stole. Recalling that the Holt's baby sat the Heichels condo/apt, could Holt have had a buddy stop by there when Heichels were out of town and that "friend" stole it with Holt there and later gave it to Holt?

I have to agree with PIM on the facts that it should be very clear that much of the evidence was placed ridiculously visible as if invited to be found?That to me is undeniable. And thus very puzzling on Holt's crime conduct, behavior.

Maybe the trial's been set so far away to give defense, LE, prosecutors more time to look into other suspects? I don't know, I'm throwing this out there as a guess.

IMHO It's clear as day though and undeniable that there are too many goofy actions by Holt to make me believe unconditionally he was all alone on this crime. As PIM said before, parts of Holt's behavior smacks of someone "pulling his strings", coercing him to make certain actions, ie, placing weapon visibly in view of LE.

Thus, THEE big questions would be WHO would want to do this crime and WHY and WHAT's to GAIN?

If Holt acted alone, which is obviously the popular belief here, and I too, have one foot on that bandwagon, I still leave room to also believe if acting alone, maybe Holt had no clue what to do next after the shooting?? Maybe Holt was in total disbelief and shock he actually killed WH and went into mental "free fall, freak out" so to speak, losing all grasp of reality and clear thinking. This is the only rational explanation in my mind how Holt could've been so scatter-brained on what to do after the murder.

I've also considered that Holt maybe "ran" with, or hung out with, unsavory, small potatoes crooks. Maybe they wanted wanted WH's credit cards, account numbers, etc, for an identity theft ring? Sounds goofy, but it's rampant in the USA. Maybe, they wanted to steal the SUV, but did'nt due to the massive clean up? Maybe, if someone who struck fear in Holt and was coercing him, what was Holt mixed up in and who with? Maybe Holt was part of a gang and this crime was inititation? After all, we all know now Holt could disappear and leave abruptly for a long period of time. Was Holt hanging with a gang? How could Holt afford to buy guns, ammo, and other "toys" on a llimited family budget? Why did he need 2 or 3 guns? For gang members possibly??

Whitney was murdered by 4 shots, doubled tapped. The excessive brutality of the murder is consistent with gangland style "executions" ( I hate to use that word)Maybe all the anxiety, self loathing/low self esteem, Holt exhibited and stated by his wife, was due to getting mixed up with a gang? When Holt took off abruptly with his friend's rental car and was gone for what, 12 hours or so? Was this part of the initiation process into the gang?

Holt did keep alot to himself. Maybe this was the guilt he carried around with him?

Here's a link I found supporting the growth of gangs in the Gresham,OR area.
LINK:http://blog.oregonlive.com/breakingnews/2007/03/gresham_holds_forum_to_address.html

GRESHAM -- In a quavering voice and fighting back tears, Rockwood apartment resident Tammy Zuniga described the terror she and her family have been subjected to by Gresham gang members.

In a presentation, police have identified 114 gangs in Gresham, and though property crimes such as burglary have gone down in the past five years, crimes against people have gone up 15 percent. Robberies were up 34 percent and assaults 13 percent.



Again, I'm not trying to stir things up, but many here have suspected Holt could've been committing other crimes, maybe serious, maybe petty theft types. And many times crooks have a buddy system, so this is why I think this way. We just don't know enough about Holt's past and he ain't talking lately either.

Anyhoo, ya'll have a terrific Holidays and take care of yourselves and loved ones...Family always comes first

 

[Glow]

Recalling that the Holt's baby sat the Heichels condo/apt, could Holt have had a buddy stop by there when Heichels were out of town and that "friend" stole it with Holt there and later gave it to Holt?

I had not even thought of that! But still...if that happened, when the friend gave JH the phone he could have said just keep it OR stuck it in a drawer. To put his own card in it and start using it is where he crosses the line of moral culpability, right?

I have to agree with PIM on the facts that it should be very clear that much of the evidence was placed ridiculously visible as if invited to be found?That to me is undeniable. And thus very puzzling on Holt's crime conduct, behavior.

Well I am just not sure. First, it requires that we believe that a murderer would try his best to have all his bases covered. That isnt always the case. Lets just take one example: Scott Peterson murdered his wife and he planned it ahead of time. But he still did some really dumb things. He left concrete anchors laying around. He left the molds for the anchors and the bags the concrete came in- in his workshop! Incredible huh? And he had a plan in place that he had been working on for some time.

So if JH hadnt planned the murder and it "happened" I can see why he would be panicked. Also, did we ever establish if he was really drunk on those alcohol/caffeinated drinks? If so, that could contribute to the erratic appearance of his post crime actions.

Maybe the trial's been set so far away to give defense, LE, prosecutors more time to look into other suspects? I don't know, I'm throwing this out there as a guess.

IMHO It's clear as day though and undeniable that there are too many goofy actions by Holt to make me believe unconditionally he was all alone on this crime. As PIM said before, parts of Holt's behavior smacks of someone "pulling his strings", coercing him to make certain actions, ie, placing weapon visibly in view of LE.

Thus, THEE big questions would be WHO would want to do this crime and WHY and WHAT's to GAIN?

If Holt acted alone, which is obviously the popular belief here, and I too, have one foot on that bandwagon, I still leave room to also believe on the other hand, maybe Holt had no clue what to do next after the shooting. Maybe Holt was in total disbelief and shock he actually killed WH and went into mental "free fall, freak out" so to speak, losing all grasp of reality and clear thinking. This is the only rational explanation in my mind how Holt could've been so scatter-brained on what to do after the murder.

I've also considered that Holt maybe "ran" with, or hung out with, unsavory, small potatoes crooks. Maybe they wanted wanted WH's credit cards, account numbers, etc, for an identity theft ring? Sounds goofy, but it's rampant in the USA. Maybe, just maybe, if someone powerful enough was coercing Holt, what was Holt mixed up in and who with?

Again, I'm not trying to stir things up, but many here have suspected Holt could've been committing other crimes, maybe serious, maybe petty theft types. And many times crooks have a buddy system, so this is why I think this way. We just don't know enough about Holt's past and he ain't talking lately either.

Anyhoo, ya'll have a terrific Holidays and take care of yourselves and loved ones...Family always comes first

 

[Xavier]

IMO: My thought, Xavier, is that JH's "fantasy" went over a line to "obsession." I think he took social niceties portrayed by Whitney (smiling at people, being courteous and helpful to people, etc.) and began believing those things were so much more than they were, when it came to him. Since the two couples were acquaintances who must have been somewhat friendly (I base this on the apartment-sitting JH did for CH and WH), I think any smile, wave hello, nod hello, small talk, etc., that WH sent in the direction of JH were construed by him as "special communication" between him and Whitney.

I'm sure she had no idea he had crossed a line in his thinking about her. And once he crossed that line into being obsessed with her, everything she did, or didn't do, was filtered through that obsession, which had no basis or foundation in reality.

I can't really explain why JH brought a gun along the morning he asked for a ride from WH, because in my supposition above, JH would be thinking that, finally, he and WH would be alone and she could share her unspoken love for him (in his mind, that is what was going to happen)--so, I wonder, why would he need a gun. And then when his fantasy/obsession collided with reality--we can be fairly certain WH burst JH's bubble with her response/reaction to him--he crossed another line with his actions.

Perhaps his obsession was already to the "if I can't have her, nobody can" stage, and the gun was used in gaining access to WH that morning from the get-go. I don't think he went from fantasizing about WH to hating her enough to kill her--he probably killed her because she wouldn't fuel his obsession, wouldn't fulfill whatever it was he had planned. It was all about him.
I guess it might be that way with all murderers?

Just doing a bit of thinking out loud here . . . and being sickened all over again at what a tragedy transpired that day.

I send prayers and good wishes for the families and friends involved with this case.

WINDROWER -- Thanks for your thoughts, they make sense. We're all grasping at straws right now, but very good points you made. Thanks, Merry Christmas!

 

[Xavier]

I had not even thought of that! But still...if that happened, when the friend gave JH the phone he could have said just keep it OR stuck it in a drawer. To put his own card in it and start using it is where he crosses the line of moral culpability, right?



Well I am just not sure. First, it requires that we believe that a murderer would try his best to have all his bases covered. That isnt always the case. Lets just take one example: Scott Peterson murdered his wife and he planned it ahead of time. But he still did some really dumb things. He left concrete anchors laying around. He left the molds for the anchors and the bags the concrete came in- in his workshop! Incredible huh? And he had a plan in place that he had been working on for some time.

So if JH hadnt planned the murder and it "happened" I can see why he would be panicked. Also, did we ever establish if he was really drunk on those alcohol/caffeinated drinks? If so, that could contribute to the erratic appearance of his post crime actions.

GLOW--Thanks for replying. Yes, you're right Scott Peterson flubbed the crime in many ridiculous ways also.

I'm not sure if Holt was drinking the LOCOS hi - octane drinks. I'm wondering if LE fingerprinted those cans?

Personally, I've have tried LOCOS and they are horrible and you'll get a buzz FAST with one can. I've seen some young girls drink LOCOS and they get smashed on them all the time. They're very popular with young adults, they give the young adults more bang for their buck. LOL

I do think Holt could be involved with a gang.

LINK: http://www.gangwar.com/items/items45.htm


As a result, overwhelmed social workers are shifting their anti-gang efforts to elementary-school children, realizing that by high school it's usually way too late. "The 10-to-12 age range is the most vulnerable," says Gloria Wiggins of El Programa Hispano, the Gresham-based Latino arm of Catholic Charities.

 

[Xavier]

I've also considered that Holt maybe "ran" with, or hung out with, unsavory, small potatoes crooks. Maybe they wanted wanted WH's credit cards, account numbers, etc, for an identity theft ring? Sounds goofy, but it's rampant in the USA. Maybe, they wanted to steal the SUV, but did'nt due to the massive clean up? Maybe, if someone who struck fear in Holt and was coercing him, what was Holt mixed up in and who with?

Maybe Holt was part of a gang and this crime was inititation? After all, we all know now Holt could disappear and leave abruptly for a long period of time. Was Holt hanging with a gang? How could Holt afford to buy guns, ammo, and other "toys" on a llimited family budget? Why did he need 2 or 3 guns? For gang members possibly??
And why did Holt suddenly get interested in guns when he bought a gun(s) and ammo in June, 2012?

Whitney was murdered by 4 shots, doubled tapped. The excessive brutality of the murder is consistent with gangland style "executions" ( I hate to use that word)Maybe all the anxiety, self loathing/low self esteem, Holt exhibited and stated by his wife, was due to getting mixed up with a gang?

When Holt took off abruptly with his friend's rental car and was gone for what, 12 hours or so? Was this part of the initiation process into the gang? It seems odd to do this so impulsively. Maybe someone told him he had to "borrow" the car? Maybe the gang needed it to commit some crimes?

And when Holt claimed he was robbed at gunpoint by two black male adults? Why did Holt choose this alibi, maybe because he's conditioned to thinking this way as a gang member and had his biases?

Holt did keep alot to himself. Maybe this was the guilt he carried around with him?

Here's a link I found supporting the growth of gangs in the Gresham,OR area.
LINK:http://blog.oregonlive.com/breakingnews/2007/03/gresham_holds_forum_to_address.html

GRESHAM -- In a quavering voice and fighting back tears, Rockwood apartment resident Tammy Zuniga described the terror she and her family have been subjected to by Gresham gang members.

In a presentation, police have identified 114 gangs in Gresham, and though property crimes such as burglary have gone down in the past five years, crimes against people have gone up 15 percent. Robberies were up 34 percent and assaults 13 percent.


As an amatuer sleuther, I'm simply looking into the questions of WHY this crime could involve a gang.

The hodge-podge placing of evidence, the brutal execution style of the murder and the constant, the volunteering of information, past irrelevant behaviors(child collection), the terror stricken, anxious appearance of Holt once he was charged and put into LE custody on 24 hour suicide watch. (Is Holt still under suicide watch?) All of these behaviors could stem directly from possible retribution to family, loved ones, which is a consistent terror driven theme amongst gangs.


Anyhoo, ya'll have a terrific Holidays and take care of yourselves and loved ones...Family always comes first

 

[gwenabob]

Of course you are free to make assumptions. And neither of us will be on that jury. I just wondered, I guess, how much you stand behind the sentiment in your signature. I think you answered my question.

The only "assumptions" I am making are based on the FACTS that have been reported in MSM. I am not making any wild conspiracy theories here. Somebody else is.

I am interested in justice for Whitney's killer. I believe the killer to be Holt, singularly. I stand 100% behind my sig line.

 

[PoirotryInMotion]

Xavier, that's a really original thought. Gang members do buy guns, to be sure. JH was said to be such a loner, though; you'd think his family, friends, and neighbors would've seen him hanging out more with them, don't you think?

Here's another thought; what if Holt bought himself that gun in June 2012 (over his wife's objections) because he felt threatened--for his personal or family safety? (He did say that was the reason he bought it in the interview with LE--though of course, the veracity of that statement is up for grabs at this point in time.)

Just brainstorming. Also, remember the news interview with the neighbor who talked about how odd JH was because he never took off his helmet? Wore it right into the apartment? I accidentally bumped into something online recently while searching for something totally unrelated--did you know that they make 'bulletproof' motorcycle helmets?

ETA: Re your comment above, "could Holt have had a buddy stop by there when Heichels were out of town and that "friend" stole it with Holt there and later gave it to Holt?" - I think someone else giving it to Holt could be another possibility to check out.

 

[Glow]

Hi Xavier,

I saw you mention some of this info in your previous post and I wanted to read your link right then but I was balancing a six month old on one hip with my laptop on the counter and the sky growing steadily dark out my window.
I returned bebe to his rightful owners and did my chores with a flashlight and am back! Ijust read your link in your post, :Banane37:

I do not know a lot about gangs but I have some preconceived notions that I will "cop to" :blushing:

I think of them as being youngish. think of them as being minorities.

So I read your article at the link...

This stood out to me:


Police say that Latino gangs, like the black gangs that preceded them, tend to hang out on the street, handling their business in public. In that regard, they are unlike the Russians and Asians, who cops like to say have "graduated to the next level," meaning they engage in organized crime, high-tech scams, extortion and fraud. As one officer puts it, those latter groups "got smart. You don't see them out on street corners throwing hand signs and selling dope

So this makes me think that JH wouldnt have been accepted in to either a black gang or a latino one. But I did think the comments on the Russian and Asians was interesting. But I dont know if they would take JH either.

If he was part of a gang he will probably have tattoos right? Some kind of gang identity?

I like the fact that the idea opens up a whole other dimension of possibilities but I am not seeing where in his 20's white guy living in a nice apartment, married and a Jehovah's Witness, is accepted in to a gang. But keep developing your theory and I will keep reading because all I want is to know the real truth.

I've also considered that Holt maybe "ran" with, or hung out with, unsavory, small potatoes crooks. Maybe they wanted wanted WH's credit cards, account numbers, etc, for an identity theft ring? Sounds goofy, but it's rampant in the USA. Maybe, they wanted to steal the SUV, but did'nt due to the massive clean up? Maybe, if someone who struck fear in Holt and was coercing him, what was Holt mixed up in and who with?

I dont think it sounds goofy at all and I wholly agree with you that this type of crime is on the rise. I actually think this is more likely than a street gang. My one hang up is I think that JH would crumple and be singing like a canary once in jail if he thought he could help himself. I think he is weak in his core personality. I think that is exactly the type that turn states evidence if and when they can. What do you think about JH in that regard? Do you think he could hold strong in jail and protect accomplices?

Maybe Holt was part of a gang and this crime was inititation

? After all, we all know now Holt could disappear and leave abruptly for a long period of time. Was Holt hanging with a gang? How could Holt afford to buy guns, ammo, and other "toys" on a llimited family budget? Why did he need 2 or 3 guns? For gang members possibly??
And why did Holt suddenly get interested in guns when he bought a gun(s) and ammo in June, 2012?

Whitney was murdered by 4 shots, doubled tapped. The excessive brutality of the murder is consistent with gangland style "executions" ( I hate to use that word)Maybe all the anxiety, self loathing/low self esteem, Holt exhibited and stated by his wife, was due to getting mixed up with a gang?

When Holt took off abruptly with his friend's rental car and was gone for what, 12 hours or so? Was this part of the initiation process into the gang? It seems odd to do this so impulsively. Maybe someone told him he had to "borrow" the car? Maybe the gang needed it to commit some crimes?

And when Holt claimed he was robbed at gunpoint by two black male adults? Why did Holt choose this alibi, maybe because he's conditioned to thinking this way as a gang member and had his biases?

Holt did keep alot to himself. Maybe this was the guilt he carried around with him?

Here's a link I found supporting the growth of gangs in the Gresham,OR area.
LINK:http://blog.oregonlive.com/breakingnews/2007/03/gresham_holds_forum_to_address.html

GRESHAM -- In a quavering voice and fighting back tears, Rockwood apartment resident Tammy Zuniga described the terror she and her family have been subjected to by Gresham gang members.

In a presentation, police have identified 114 gangs in Gresham, and though property crimes such as burglary have gone down in the past five years, crimes against people have gone up 15 percent. Robberies were up 34 percent and assaults 13 percent.


As an amatuer sleuther, I'm simply looking into the questions of WHY this crime could involve a gang.

The hodge-podge placing of evidence, the brutal execution style of the murder and the constant, the volunteering of information, past irrelevant behaviors(child collection), the terror stricken, anxious appearance of Holt once he was charged and put into LE custody on 24 hour suicide watch. (Is Holt still under suicide watch?) All of these behaviors could stem directly from possible retribution to family, loved ones, which is a consistent terror driven theme amongst gangs.


Anyhoo, ya'll have a terrific Holidays and take care of yourselves and loved ones...Family always comes first

And you also Xavier!

 

[Glow]

I am interested, and personally I think the thing does have something to do with this case (but won’t be going further with that in here).

I understand, And yes, I would find that most intrigiung if I were looking for evidence of one or more peoples involvment.

 

[Glow]

Thanks for sharing how your thought process has evolved (liked that term)

Hi Glow. Good question! I can't say I had an overt change of opinion about this. It just evolved. When I first read about this crime, I felt JH must have been obsessed with her. There was the anonymous person, quoted by anonymous sources, saying JH had peeped over the balcony into their apartment. That probably influenced me to think he was a stalker/obsessive.

But pretty quickly, I noticed some similarities to a murder/rape I had followed previously. (I mentioned this in prior posts). The issue influenced me, as did a perception that JH was struggling personally with failure (work instability) and suffering the disfavor of his wife (per her comments in the affidavit about not contributing enough, or something to that effect). The anger-retaliatory type behavior seemed likely to me.

And it just doesn't click to me that he would rape and kill a woman he osessively "loved" or desired.

This is a point that bothers me too. IF it was an infatuation then why was she already dead by 8:40? It would seem that even if she wasnt "going along" with him, that as the object of his fascination, he would try to persuade her longer than he did.

Men rape and kill women with whom they have had an intimate relationship, when rebuffed. That doesn't work here. Men rape women about whom they fantasize a relationship with, but they usually don't know that person nor do they usually kill that person. This "rape" (I'll just use that word to describe the sexual aspect of tbhis case) doesn't make sense. There was no possible way this could have ended "well" based on the circumstances, which would leave the only "explainable" type of sexual assault as an anger-retaliatory type act. And if that was the case, it would probably have been triggered by anger JH felt toward another woman, not Whitney. I wonder whether JH and AH argued that night. I know the affidavit says they had pizza and went to bed at 9:30. No mention was made of any conflict. But I wonder. And/or I wonder if he was feeling emasculated because of feeling (imaginary or otherwise) vibes from his wife that he wasn't contributing to the household. I wonder if he felt resentment from her which angered him. I wonder if his new job, and its taking up his daytime hours, was preventing him from looking at his in recent weeks (his wife was home in the evenings...when was he to tend to his "habit" now that he's working?) and that could have been angering him.

At any rate, if he is an anger-retaliatory type perp, his violent act would probably have resulted from misdirected anger at a time proximate to such feelings. It would not have resulted from being frustratingly in love with WH ala: "I'm so obsessively in love with her, I must kidnap her and force her to give me sex; that will solve everything." NOT. But if he was angry/drunk/drugged/or whatever that night, he may have had the compulsion to act out. Maybe he was stewing all night and since JH knew she worked at SB's and would be vulnerable in the early morning, she may have had the misfortune to be the one who provided him with an opportunity to be his victim. Anger-retaliatory rapists act out when they are angry, at which time they seek an opportunity. It's not an obsessive love type of modus operandi.

And if he was more of a power-reassurance type rapist, they are less likely to be violent, and more likely to walk away when rejected. Plus, they tend to fantasize that a relationship might develop. And they tend to be single. Kidnapping and assaulting WH doesn't fit that model, because there is no possibility for a "favorable" outcome for the rapist. He knows her as a family acquaintance. He's married, she's married, he took her at gunpoint in a vehicle. That just doesn't fit with the P-R type rapist traits/tendencies, IMO.

(Then again, I'm no expert in criminology! These are just my lay-person opinions based on what I have read and observed in cases.)

So IMO, the only rape "type" which could fit is anger-retaliatory. There was an obvious lack of planning on JH's part. If he was "obsessed" with her, what was his plan? How does he get away with it? He can't. But if this was an A-R incident, it would have been more impulsive/compulsive and driven by his point-in-time anger, which would result in a more disorganized type crime and lack of consideration of the subsequent consequences.

Anyway, I still also wonder whether anyone else is involved. I definitely did not believe that at the beginning. I fell into the "he was obsessed, abducted, assaulted and killed her" mode, although the timeline made zero sense to me. THEN I read the 40-something page affidavit, and got hit with a serious case of hinkiness. As I was reading along, things were triggering questions in my mind. And they kept piling up. And when I read about the white utility vehicle at Walmart, I felt sucker-punched. So I read it over and over, again and again trying to make sense of the chronology and logistics. I rationalized the white utility vehicle. But finally, I could not reconcile the bizarreness of the totality of the circumstances.

I need to go back and read the affidavit again because I have some questions. Isnt that white truck mentioned in the same general area as the witness (His name was given) that testified to seeing a white male throwing things in to the dumpster? I know the security cameras were of no help but I wonder if LE got any further info from that witness as to anything he saw regarding that white pick up truck, IF I have the time frame on that right,

Who leaves their gun in the grass at the police station? Who kills someone in Sandy, OR and then drives to downtown Gresham with a dead body in a car to get gas to then proceed to Larch Mountain? Who leaves the victim's license plate near the body? Who has a posse of organized searchers finding evidence which is like finding needles in haystacks within hours of WH's death? I mean, BINGO, those searchers were right on target. HOW LUCKY! Cripes, with massive troves of law enforcement searching, Isabel Celis and Baby Lisa are STILL MISSING, but these searchers found everything that was pertinent to this crime within a day, or 36 hours of the murder.

Perhaps this crime is just as has been portrayed to the public. Maybe all of these circumstances are just coincidence. I leave my mind open to that possibility. It could very well be.

But I also keep my mind open to the possibility that there is more to this crime than has been shared.

Something just stinks. That affidavit said a whole lot. But there also might be a whole lot more that was left unsaid.

After all, that's why we're all here reading these posts, right? Because something is ODD about this case.

Yes it is odd. It is head shaking stupid of JH to out the gun in the police station lawn, among other things you listed. But then again, I think of some of the really dumb things Scott Peterson did too, ya know?

 

[PoirotryInMotion]

so...why did Whitney have to die?

I've avoided answering this b/c it still makes me completely upset. Fact is, there is no good reason on God's green earth that Whitney "had to die." She died b/c some lower-than-human life form decided it was expedient to him. That is all. You have no idea how much this enrages me.

Which is why I'm adamant about them convicting the right person, here.

 

[caffeinejean]

Sasquatch,
Is there a reason that your photos of the site at Thomas Road have been removed?
I was reading your last post again about the blood splatter movement and your thoughts on what direction the SUV was parked....and went searching for that older post. Found the post but the photos are gone. Just sleuthing!