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

JulieR · Nov 27, 2012

Darn I love u Glow !!! Awesome post u almost sound reasonable lol.

nikb · Nov 27, 2012

kodi said:
I haven't been avoiding your questions, Xavier, I've just been nursing a broken leg. :anguish: <snip>

Kodi I'm so sorry to hear this!! I feel your pain, having broken a leg once and a knee once. Unsolicited advice... take good care of yourself, and don't push yourself til you're really healed and ready. I hope you're not in too much pain, and getting lots of help while you're healing.

Glow · Nov 28, 2012

JulieR said:
Darn I love u Glow !!! Awesome post u almost sound reasonable lol.

Almost? Well hot diggity dog :great:

Thank you, I really needed to hear that.:twocents:

Xavier · Nov 28, 2012

nikb said:
Kodi I'm so sorry to hear this!! I feel your pain, having broken a leg once and a knee once. Unsolicited advice... take good care of yourself, and don't push yourself til you're really healed and ready. I hope you're not in too much pain, and getting lots of help while you're healing.

KODI Sorry to hear about you broken leg....get on the mend...thanks for your insight

Just for laughs sake, why not paint your leg cast like a candy cane for christmas...LOL

Happy Holiday to All

newsjunkie · Nov 28, 2012

So, I wanted to present this as my thought process of what could have happened:

JH approaches WH at 6:45 am stating that his motorcycle isn't running and asking for a ride. Against her better judgement, she complies. Once in the vehicle, he starts making comments that make her visibly uncomfortable. He realizes she isn't going to easily comply with his desires so pulls out the gun to force the situation in his favor.

After the sexual component of the crime has been committed, she is uncontrollably upset. He repeatedly tells her to shut-up. When she doesn't he shoots her in the chest out of frustration. He expects it to immediately become quiet. When it doesn't he steps out of the vehicle to gather his thoughts and wait for her to die.

It isn't a fatal shot. She is able to lock the doors. Now his frustration is amped up even higher. He shoots through the window in anger and as a way to get in. Once the door is open, in absolute fury that she has messed up everything he planned, he shoots her two more times.

In this state of mind, the erratic behavior after the crime fits for me.

Obviously MOO

PoirotryInMotion · Nov 28, 2012

Glow said:
Originally Posted by PoirotryInMotion
The cell phone thing is so complicated, frankly, and there are so many things we don’t have access to (eg. phone records, possible other future witnesses concerning that particular cell phone)—I don’t see how we can operate from a factual base about it.

Click to expand...

How is it complicated?

We dont have access to those records and witnesses but LE does. Dont you think that the DA's office has poured through his cell phone history? As far as saying well the Sim card could have been tampered with, wouldnt Amanda know exactly what his phone looked like? Wouldnt she have told LE "no thats not his phone that he has been using? I would bet that LE is doing their job and checking out all of his "confession" because they want a conviction. I would think they would have asked her when she first noticed him using the stolen phone, what his "cover story" was that he told her as to how he acquired the phone (probably along the lines of "I found it and had someone jail break it" or a guy at work sold it to me for $20 or some such amount.) and she would give them an honest answer. Maybe they even checked with workmates and his father for further witnesses to his use of the phone.

Well, from this I’d say the simple answer is that I’m a skeptic and that you are more trusting.

From what I’ve read, you appear to be saying:

1) LE having those phone records = LE knowing how long JH’s records have been associated with Clint’s old cell phone (those phone records being based on JH’s Sim card; what exterior case is being used wouldn’t be noted in those)

2) That DA has thoroughly pored over his cell phone history. (Though I couldn’t know that for sure, I personally doubt they’ve gone over it with a microscope—that wasn’t the basis of the arrest; the DNA match was. Minute examination of the phone records is more the job of the attorneys directly involved in the trial)

3) Lots of assumptions (“Wouldn’t she…?”, “I would bet that”, “I would think”&#8230

about Amanda, assumptions that LE asked her about if or when she’d noticed it was stolen, and what his ‘cover story’ was; assumptions that her replies would have been factual (these questions were not covered in the PDF concerning their interviews with her)

4) That because LE is ‘doing their job’ they don’t make mistakes or omissions

Nothing wrong with making some assumptions (though they can’t convict a person). My only point in all this is that I don’t know these answers for a fact, and my own natural inclination to assume the best (as in the above paragraph) is put off by the unanswered questions and logical problems I’ve been seeing with the evidence and the way this case has played out. Because I’m not convinced JH could have been her killer and I’ve seen no evidence to personally convince me of that pre-trial, and because I’ve seen ‘manipulated intent’ with other evidence (eg. the license plate), the cell phone is ‘complicated.’ I’m not convinced JH stole it or left it at the scene of the crime, based on what I’ve read and heard so far. And, if it turns out his testimony again was unreliable, and he actually didn’t steal it or leave it there, I’d expect that to be a significant complication for the entire case as well.

Glow said:
Originally Posted by PoirotryInMotion
See, parts of his confession make parts of the story sound plausible…but then there are parts that could also be untrue, as well as parts that seem so illogical as to almost compel disbelief (for some of us) unless we were to know the reason why -- eg. the tossing of the phone at Roslyn Lake when it’d been turned off for most of that morning, so GPS tracking/phone ringing was not an issue. Why would her killer purposely toss out such an obvious, personal tie-in to the crime scene—and in an open area for discovery, no less?

Click to expand...

Well obviously we dont have the answer for that but some good suggestions have been made on this thread by other posters. Maybe there were pictures on there, maybe Whitney saw the phone and tried to use it, maybe he threw it in frustration. He obviously wasnt thinking clearly that day so who knows? That action doesnt stand out as weird to me. It blends right in with the other weird erratic things he did that day. Its just one among many.

I remember two suggestions in the thread discussion earlier—the first, that maybe it kept ringing and bothered him, so he tossed it out the window. But in my own mind, that didn’t set well, b/c it couldn’t have been ringing if we’re told by the AT&T records that 30-some calls had tried to get through that day, but the last one to get through had been at 6:08 AM. To me, that sounds like a phone that’d been turned off most of the day. It had to have been turned off prior to her murder, as JH’s shift was to have started at 6 AM and his dad reportedly kept trying to track him down when he didn’t show up for it. That tells me he (and possibly even Holt’s boss) was trying to call him between 6 AM and the murder at 8:40—but only one call was on record (the 6:08 AM one out, to Starbucks). So the phone was likely off even early on.

The other suggestion I remember was that maybe it was on the seat next to him along with Whitney’s phone, and that he accidentally tossed his phone out the window instead of Whitney’s. That suggestion didn’t convince me, either:

1) from the PDF and the marvelous pictures supplied by Joe Friday (I think it was) in thread 4, it appears the front seats of that model Explorer are two seats separated by a console—hard to keep two cell phones out next to you on a bucket seat

2) kidnappers don’t usually keep available phones out in the open for their victims to get hold of

3) why would he keep his phone out, anyway, if it was turned off?

Regarding your suggestions above about the pictures—are you meaning photos he possibly took of Whitney during the alleged assault? If so, why would he go to all the bother of taking the photos only to then toss the phone out the window? People who are *advertiser censored* addicts would not toss their ‘fix’ out the window…in fact, many sexual predators especially like to keep ‘souvenirs’ – so, in my mind, at least, that also doesn’t make sense.

Again, all this to say, that for me, these questions still remain.

Glow said:
Originally Posted by PoirotryInMotion
MOO, maybe, but the only conclusion I’d see possible in your last sentence above at this point in time (before trial) would be that there are AT&T records showing a call that morning on a phone with JH’s Sim card in it before the crime was committed…(If we weren’t there, how do we know the phone was actually in JH’s possession? how do we know JH made that 6:08 AM call? how do we know which hard phone ‘case’ JH’s Sim card was actually in when that call was made?) Presumably it’s the same phone (with JH’s Sim card) found that Saturday morning at the turnout by LE who returned for a search after JH led them to the turnout the night before. But we don’t know that for sure yet, do we?

Click to expand...

To me, a better question than do we know that for sure, would be if not him then who? Think about all that would involve. Someone is going to steal his Sim card, make a call and then put it back and toss the phone. Or do they steal the phone and make a call and toss it. Is JH unaware of all this happening with his phone? Most kids his age have their phone so close at all times that it is like there is some kind of invisible tether! So how did "someone" get his phone and then replace it without him knowing?

Yes, if not him, then who…that’d be a good question to explore (though defense doesn't have to prove that, of course). Also the possibility that more than just JH and Whitney might’ve been in that car that morning.

Closely related question—why two separate guns supposedly related to the abduction/murder of a 120-lb woman who was killed in the front seat of her car with four 9mm bullets? Was it two shots from each gun in succession—and why bother with packing two guns if the caliber of bullets fired for your kill is going to be the same? Doesn’t it strike anyone else here as odd that Whitney’s killer would not only have and implicate 2 separate guns in conjunction with this crime, but also deposit one of them in broad daylight on the grounds of the police station?

This is not killer instinct. Find me one other case where the killer knelt down and hid his murder weapon in the grass at the local police station on his way in for an interview. (This is even more bizarre than a murderer offering up his DNA voluntarily 2 days after the crime, while yet without a lawyer—people only willingly do that if they think it will prove their exoneration.) So much of this is beyond odd, into the realm of ‘let’s take a closer look.’ IMO.

Glow said:
Originally Posted by PoirotryInMotion
Faulty logic can happen when there have been faulty premises. Faulty premises are often the result of overgeneralizations or assumptions. See, those who think he has displayed non-tentative, bold, or sneaky moments ‘in stealing the cell phone’ are assuming pretrial that he DID in fact steal the cell phone.

Click to expand...

Well lets apply some logic that isnt faulty.

He had motive (he wanted it)
He had opportunity (he was alone in their house)
He had the property on him (family and friends seeing him use it)
He confessed to it

Well, unfortunately, my logic doesn’t jive with yours. I’m stuck on the lack of evidence to support that first statement, in fact. How do you know JH ‘wanted’ Clint’s old cell phone? (Unreliable testimony by someone who keeps changing his story during interrogation isn’t conclusive evidence.) Same problem with the last statement; unreliable testimony=unreliable confession.

Re: he had the property on him (family and friends seeing him use it)—I’ve not read that Amanda knew it wasn’t his—certainly she’d have been the first to notice a new phone, don’t you think? She cancelled the service on it the day JH reported it stolen; she was pretty responsible concerning his phone. Can’t remember reading any other friends or family who said they knew he’d been using a stolen phone, either.

Re: he had opportunity—true, he had access to their house key. Odd thing, that whole house key thing. Something else that my logic struggles with. Put yourself in the Heichel’s situation. They’ve been living at an apartment complex that has several other renters there who also go to their Hall. From media reports, they all consider each other family and look after each other, doing things like watering plants for each other when they leave town. So…when the Hiechels go on the annual August Ritmiller camping trip each year, (as they did in August 2011 and 2012) I’m sure they line one of those neighbors up—and probably reciprocate in kind.

Come August 2012. The Holts have just moved in to the Heatherwood Apts. The Heichels also go on that annual Ritmiller camping trip that month. But how did JH finagle the Heichels into letting them have that apt. key this year? How did Holt convince them to get the key from the neighbor who’d done it the previous year, and let them do it instead? On Good Morning America that Monday morning (and other media accounts), CH said that while they didn’t know each other well, they knew each other from the Hall association and would “often plant- and cat-sit for the Holts.” (http://www.kgw.com/home/Missing-Gresham-womans-SUV-found-in-Wood-Village-174492781.html?ref=prev)

I’m gathering, if the Holts had just moved in that same month as the Heichel’s camping trip, that statement must be in reference to Heichels cat-sitting for the Holts at their previous apartment complex? From the “black sheep” reference, it’s clear CH thought something at least was strange or ‘off’ about JH—but said that they just tried to be nice to him, and held no grudges:
http://www.kgw.com/video/featured-videos/Raw-Clint-Heichel-interview-175665481.html

But with that dubious estimation, how would JH ever get them to trust him with their apt. key at Heatherwood, within days of moving there, and to replace the neighbor who did it in 2011 with themselves, instead? I’m sure we won’t know until trial.

Glow said:
Originally Posted by PoirotryInMotion
there is at least one other scenario in my own head about that phone—and one, incidentally, that also makes that 6:08 AM call to Starbucks make sense.
Now…my scenario isn’t proven, either. But the point is…at this moment in time the key cell phone stuff is unproven; it’s confession (true or false), it’s assertion by any number of people—but it’s not yet FACT.

Click to expand...

Things can be a "fact" without waiting for trial. Ex: guy ran a stop sign and hit my car. I took a picture, he was about to leave, the cops got there.
It was a fact that he hit my car before the cops got there. It was a fact before he got a ticket and we got a court date.
On the day of court, the court ruled on the facts. It didnt establish them, the dented car, the picture, the cops testimony did that.

Likewise there are facts that exist now about this case. Those facts will be presented to the court and the court will rule on them. That doesnt make them non facts now.

Oh, of course I’d agree there are some things that are indisputable facts prior to any trial, and this one in particular—Whitney being shot dead, for one. Others include her bloodied car being abandoned at Walmart, and her car gassing up earlier at the Shell station with the front license plate still firmly attached. I’d also say there are facts we don’t know yet, as well as many assertions which have not yet been established as fact. Hopefully that’s what trials are all about, including this one.

Glow said:
Originally Posted by PoirotryInMotion
JMO maybe, but assumptions in murder trials are dangerous things to entertain if you are sincerely testing for the truth. The truth needs no defense—it’s its own defense and is able to stand its own ground. But it can’t actively do that if we don’t ask enough questions due to assumptions held dear.

Click to expand...

Question? Those last three words I underlined could be true of yours too(assumptions) or just mine?

An assumption is an assumption no matter who it belongs to.

And that is all it is—it’s not evidence, and it’s not proof. And, unlike Truth, it needs to pass the validity test before someone is given the death penalty (or life in prison) for a crime he’s pleading “not guilty” to. Maybe that’s JMO.

Glow said:
Originally Posted by PoirotryInMotion
I’d have to admit that investigators clinging to each and every one of those assumptions as carved-in-stone fact won’t necessarily help Whitney and her family find the justice she deserves; in fact, that could impede it.

Click to expand...

Has there been something LE has done or not done that would make one conclude they are doing that?

I wouldn’t know, as I haven’t specifically been privy to all that they’ve done or not done—and neither would I assume what they have or haven’t done even with the best of intentions. What I said was a general truism – that investigators (LE or private) need to set aside assumptions of any kind to thoroughly consider a case. It’s often what can crack a case, in fact.

newsjunkie · Nov 28, 2012

PoirotryInMotion said:
1) LE having those phone records = LE knowing how long JHs records have been associated with Clints old cell phone (those phone records being based on JHs Sim card; what exterior case is being used wouldnt be noted in those)

PIM, you and Glow are having a wonderful point for point discussion. I don't feel qualified to speak to each and every thing the two of you are discussing. However, the point snipped by me I can answer.

I have been with more than one cell company. As previously mentioned, I have owned easily 16 or more phones. The carrier does know what exterior case you are using at all times.

With one company, I called with an issue. They told me what phone model I was using even though it was a used phone I got from a friend. I was surprised they had that info.

I pay my current carrier online. Last month, I got a new phone off ebay. When I paid my bill prior to the new phone, my old phone model was shown on my bill with my name and my phone number (family plan with 4 phones) After my ebay purchase, I paid my bill and my new phone model is shown with my name and my phone number.

PoirotryInMotion · Nov 28, 2012

newsjunkie said:
<respectfully snipped>
She is able to lock the doors. Now his frustration is amped up even higher. He shoots through the window in anger and as a way to get in. Once the door is open, in absolute fury that she has messed up everything he planned, he shoots her

I agree with this paragraph for the most part...I do think the killer was out of the car at some point. I think the first shot was through the window, though... JMO. I guess I'm thinking it would be hard for her to keep pressure on the door lock for any length of time once shot in the chest or head--to put up much resistance to him getting back in the car.

PoirotryInMotion · Nov 28, 2012

newsjunkie said:
PIM, you and Glow are having a wonderful point for point discussion. I don't feel qualified to speak to each and every thing the two of you are discussing. However, the point snipped by me I can answer.

I have been with more than one cell company. As previously mentioned, I have owned easily 16 or more phones. The carrier does know what exterior case you are using at all times.

With one company, I called with an issue. They told me what phone model I was using even though it was a used phone I got from a friend. I was surprised they had that info.

I pay my current carrier online. Last month, I got a new phone off ebay. When I paid my bill prior to the new phone, my old phone model was shown on my bill with my name and my phone number (family plan with 4 phones) After my ebay purchase, I paid my bill and my new phone model is shown with my name and my phone number.

Awesome, and if true with their phones/carriers, should be a real aid to the case. Thanks for the input, newsjunkie. I was going by what another poster had said earlier that service is uninterrupted, and that the SIM card only needed taking out of one iphone and putting in to another iphone, and that the case it was in was irrelevant to the service.

But the more they can know, the less mystery, so I do hope you're right in regards to the cell phones in this case.

newsjunkie · Nov 28, 2012

PoirotryInMotion said:
Awesome, and if true with their phones/carriers, should be a real aid to the case. Thanks for the input, newsjunkie. I was going by what another poster had said earlier that service is uninterrupted, and that the SIM card only needed taking out of one iphone and putting in to another iphone, and that the case it was in was irrelevant to the service.

But the more they can know, the less mystery, so I do hope you're right in regards to the cell phones in this case.

You are right that the service is uninterrupted, but somehow the minute the SIM card is moved they know. This is true for any phone, droid or iphone, smart or otherwise.

Sasquatch · Nov 28, 2012

PoirotryInMotion said:
An assumption is an assumption no matter who it belongs to. And that is all it is—it’s not evidence, and it’s not proof. And, unlike Truth, it needs to pass the validity test before someone is given the death penalty (or life in prison) for a crime he’s pleading “not guilty” to. Maybe that’s JMO......

<snip>

.....What I said was a general truism – that investigators (LE or private) need to set aside assumptions of any kind to thoroughly consider a case. It’s often what can crack a case, in fact.

I would have to agree that an assumption is an assumption unless tested. An assumption will not be the one thing that ultimately convicts the person of this crime. But assumptions, as well as profiling, have their place in the process of finding out the facts. Both LE, as well as people on this board, are at different stages of the process. Profiling, as well as assuming things, should be looked at as a working hypothesis, not an end in itself.
We can not be too quick to judge, if others are at different stages or providing different roles of reaching the same goal. If we can not test, or do not have the ability to test our hypothesis, it can always be put to the side until we can obtain more evidence or someone can provide us with it. By encouraging others to look at different theories, even without all the evidence in hand, can actually help find nuggets of information, that would have otherwise gone unnoticed.

Oregon courts go by the federal Daubert Standard when someone is to provide expert testimony. This means that the defense could request an expert witness to be excluded via a Daubert Motion, pretrial or during the trial if they feel that the stringent standards are not met. Even the Federal and Oregon courts, by the Daubert Standard definition, define a scientific methodology as first formulating a hypothesis, then conducting an experiment or tests to either prove or disprove the theory.

Daubert standard - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Factors relevant: The Court defined "scientific methodology" as the process of formulating hypotheses and then conducting experiments to prove or falsify the hypothesis, and provided a nondispositive, nonexclusive, "flexible" set of "general observations" (i.e. not a "test") that it considered relevant for establishing the "validity" of scientific testimony:

- Empirical testing: whether the theory or technique is falsifiable, refutable, and/or testable.
- Whether it has been subjected to peer review and publication.
- The known or potential error rate.
- The existence and maintenance of standards and controls concerning its operation.
- The degree to which the theory and technique is generally accepted by a relevant scientific community.

In regard to admission of Scientific Evidence, the Oregon Supreme Court has found Brown to be consistent with the Daubert Standard.

http://www.atlanticlegal.org/daubertreport.pdf

Oregon
Oregon Rule of Evidence 702 is identical to Fed. R. Evid. 702 prior to its December 1, 2000
amendment. See Or. R. Evid. §40.410, Rule 702.
In 1984, Oregon rejected the Frye standard for the admission of scientific evidence and adopted a
standard of relevancy and reliability based on the Oregon Evidence Code. State v. Brown, 687 P.2d
751, 759 (Or. 1984). Brown sets out seven factors to be used as guidelines by trial courts in
determining the admissibility of scientific evidence: (1) the technique’s general acceptance in the
field; (2) the expert’s qualifications and stature; (3) the use the expert made of the technique; (4) the
potential rate of error; (5) the existence of specialized literature; (6) the novelty of the invention; and
(7) the extent to which the technique relies on the subjective interpretation of the expert. Id. These
factors are not exclusive and the list is not a mechanical checklist of foundational requirements.
State v. O’Key, 899 P.2d 663, 676-77 (Or. 1995). Although Brown focused on novel scientific
evidence, the Brown standard, still followed by Oregon courts, is not limited to novel scientific
evidence. Id. at 673 n.9.
After Daubert was decided, the Oregon Supreme Court found it consistent with Brown and stated
that Oregon trial courts should find Daubert instructive. Id. at 680. Oregon trial courts will hold
Daubert-type hearings on the admissibility of scientific evidence. See State v. Lyons, 924 P.2d 802,
804 (Or. 1996). Under Brown, Oregon appellate courts apply a de novo standard of review to
rulings on admissibility of scientific evidence. Id. at 805. Brown continues to control the admission
of expert evidence in Oregon.
Daubert has been applied only in criminal cases in Oregon. Brown has been applied in civil and
criminal cases in Oregon.

Xavier · Nov 28, 2012

PoirotryInMotion said:

I agree with this paragraph for the most part...I do think the killer was out of the car at some point. I think the first shot was through the window, though... JMO. I guess I'm thinking it would be hard for her to keep pressure on the door lock for any length of time once shot in the chest or head--to put up much resistance to him getting back in the car.

Click to expand...

PIM--- I too have thought about the moment that triggered this execution ( hate to use that word, not trying to sound insensitive, but it really was execution style IMO)

I wondered why did Holt leave the SUV? Did he want WH to get out, follow him to the woods? Or did WH use a ploy like the tires seem flat, get out and check the tires, then locked the doors....Or OK, let's go have sex, but the woods are better, more room....I'm just guessing here..

Whatever happened, until Holt tells us exactly the scenario of the shooting, I believe Holt was locked out, and being locked out of the SUV, really agitated him, it set in motion he longer had control, WH possibly could call 911, then all hell would break out. Shooting her 4 times, with total indifference to shooting her face/chest means to me, Holt was really messed up, angry WH "created " this whole crime to go wrong.

Glow · Nov 28, 2012

newsjunkie said:
, the point snipped by me I can answer.
I have been with more than one cell company. As previously mentioned, I have owned easily 16 or more phones. The carrier does know what exterior case you are using at all times.

With one company, I called with an issue. They told me what phone model I was using even though it was a used phone I got from a friend. I was surprised they had that info.

I pay my current carrier online. Last month, I got a new phone off ebay. When I paid my bill prior to the new phone, my old phone model was shown on my bill with my name and my phone number (family plan with 4 phones) After my ebay purchase, I paid my bill and my new phone model is shown with my name and my phone number.

This is interesting to know, thank you. It reminds me of cameras and Flickr (or other photo sharing/storing accounts) when you add a photograph to your page it gives lots of extra information on the right hand side. For example it says what type of camera you used to take the photo. Even the make and model are listed. The shutter speed and other info are there also,

So if all that can be found on an online photo storage site it makes it easy to see that the technology would be everywhere. Including cell phones and especially now that the smart phones are becoming the norm.

As it pertains to this case I find it great news that the cell phone service providers have all that info available!

Glow · Nov 28, 2012

Sasquatch said:
I would have to agree that an assumption is an assumption unless tested. An assumption will not be the one thing that ultimately convicts the person of this crime. But assumptions, as well as profiling, have their place in the process of finding out the facts. Both LE, as well as people on this board, are at different stages of the process. Profiling, as well as assuming things, should be looked at as a working hypothesis, not an end in itself.
We can not be too quick to judge, if others are at different stages or providing different roles of reaching the same goal. If we can not test, or do not have the ability to test our hypothesis, it can always be put to the side until we can obtain more evidence or someone can provide us with it. By encouraging others to look at different theories, even without all the evidence in hand, can actually help find nuggets of information, that would have otherwise gone unnoticed.

Oregon courts go by the federal Daubert Standard when someone is to provide expert testimony. This means that the defense could request an expert witness to be excluded via a Daubert Motion, pretrial or during the trial if they feel that the stringent standards are not met. Even the Federal and Oregon courts, by the Daubert Standard definition, define a scientific methodology as first formulating a hypothesis, then conducting an experiment or tests to either prove or disprove the theory.

Daubert standard - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Factors relevant: The Court defined "scientific methodology" as the process of formulating hypotheses and then conducting experiments to prove or falsify the hypothesis, and provided a nondispositive, nonexclusive, "flexible" set of "general observations" (i.e. not a "test") that it considered relevant for establishing the "validity" of scientific testimony:

- Empirical testing: whether the theory or technique is falsifiable, refutable, and/or testable.
- Whether it has been subjected to peer review and publication.
- The known or potential error rate.
- The existence and maintenance of standards and controls concerning its operation.
- The degree to which the theory and technique is generally accepted by a relevant scientific community.

In regard to admission of Scientific Evidence, the Oregon Supreme Court has found Brown to be consistent with the Daubert Standard.

http://www.atlanticlegal.org/daubertreport.pdf

Oregon
Oregon Rule of Evidence 702 is identical to Fed. R. Evid. 702 prior to its December 1, 2000
amendment. See Or. R. Evid. §40.410, Rule 702.
In 1984, Oregon rejected the Frye standard for the admission of scientific evidence and adopted a
standard of relevancy and reliability based on the Oregon Evidence Code. State v. Brown, 687 P.2d
751, 759 (Or. 1984). Brown sets out seven factors to be used as guidelines by trial courts in
determining the admissibility of scientific evidence: (1) the techniques general acceptance in the
field; (2) the experts qualifications and stature; (3) the use the expert made of the technique; (4) the
potential rate of error; (5) the existence of specialized literature; (6) the novelty of the invention; and
(7) the extent to which the technique relies on the subjective interpretation of the expert. Id. These
factors are not exclusive and the list is not a mechanical checklist of foundational requirements.
State v. OKey, 899 P.2d 663, 676-77 (Or. 1995). Although Brown focused on novel scientific
evidence, the Brown standard, still followed by Oregon courts, is not limited to novel scientific
evidence. Id. at 673 n.9.
After Daubert was decided, the Oregon Supreme Court found it consistent with Brown and stated
that Oregon trial courts should find Daubert instructive. Id. at 680. Oregon trial courts will hold
Daubert-type hearings on the admissibility of scientific evidence. See State v. Lyons, 924 P.2d 802,
804 (Or. 1996). Under Brown, Oregon appellate courts apply a de novo standard of review to
rulings on admissibility of scientific evidence. Id. at 805. Brown continues to control the admission
of expert evidence in Oregon.
Daubert has been applied only in criminal cases in Oregon. Brown has been applied in civil and
criminal cases in Oregon.

That is excellent information and I learned something new. Thank you Sasquatch!

Glow · Nov 28, 2012

PoirotryInMotion said:
I remember two suggestions in the thread discussion earlier—the first, that maybe it kept ringing and bothered him, so he tossed it out the window. But in my own mind, that didn’t set well, b/c it couldn’t have been ringing if we’re told by the AT&T records that 30-some calls had tried to get through that day, but the last one to get through had been at 6:08 AM. To me, that sounds like a phone that’d been turned off most of the day. It had to have been turned off prior to her murder, as JH’s shift was to have started at 6 AM and his dad reportedly kept trying to track him down when he didn’t show up for it. That tells me he (and possibly even Holt’s boss) was trying to call him between 6 AM and the murder at 8:40—but only one call was on record (the 6:08 AM one out, to Starbucks). So the phone was likely off even early on.

The other suggestion I remember was that maybe it was on the seat next to him along with Whitney’s phone, and that he accidentally tossed his phone out the window instead of Whitney’s. That suggestion didn’t convince me, either:

1) from the PDF and the marvelous pictures supplied by Joe Friday (I think it was) in thread 4, it appears the front seats of that model Explorer are two seats separated by a console—hard to keep two cell phones out next to you on a bucket seat

2) kidnappers don’t usually keep available phones out in the open for their victims to get hold of

3) why would he keep his phone out, anyway, if it was turned off?

Regarding your suggestions above about the pictures—are you meaning photos he possibly took of Whitney during the alleged assault? If so, why would he go to all the bother of taking the photos only to then toss the phone out the window? People who are *advertiser censored* addicts would not toss their ‘fix’ out the window…in fact, many sexual predators especially like to keep ‘souvenirs’ – so, in my mind, at least, that also doesn’t make sense. .

Well what I originally thought I meant was the pictures that Clint had on the phone before he put it in the dresser in his home. But now I have a different thought, or rather an additional one :blushing:. What if when JH stole the phone, he enjoyed looking at the pictures already on it. If he was attracted to Whitney, that would be a heady and powerful feeling to be walking around with images of "her" in "his" possession. My original thought was that he took the phone because it was an iPhone and an upgrade from his own. But maybe he took the phone because he wanted what the phone contained (pictures). This lead to an even more depressing thought....what if he pulled his phone out of wherever he had stashed it during the ride to the lake to take a picture during the sex act? What if it was that moment that Whitney grabbed the phone prompting him to wrest it away from her and throw it?

One of the good things about all the comments from everyone here is we get to look at different scenarios!

PoirotryInMotion said:
Yes, if not him, then who…that’d be a good question to explore (though defense doesn't have to prove that, of course). Also the possibility that more than just JH and Whitney might’ve been in that car that morning.

Do you think there was someone else in the car?

PoirotryInMotion said:
Closely related question—why two separate guns supposedly related to the abduction/murder of a 120-lb woman who was killed in the front seat of her car with four 9mm bullets? Was it two shots from each gun in succession—and why bother with packing two guns if the caliber of bullets fired for your kill is going to be the same? Doesn’t it strike anyone else here as odd that Whitney’s killer would not only have and implicate 2 separate guns in conjunction with this crime, but also deposit one of them in broad daylight on the grounds of the police station?

This is not killer instinct. Find me one other case where the killer knelt down and hid his murder weapon in the grass at the local police station on his way in for an interview. (This is even more bizarre than a murderer offering up his DNA voluntarily 2 days after the crime, while yet without a lawyer—people only willingly do that if they think it will prove their exoneration.) So much of this is beyond odd, into the realm of ‘let’s take a closer look.’ IMO.

Maybe I need to go back and read the pdf again unless anyone here knows the answer, just because he had two guns do we know for a fact they were both used in the murder?

One more, did we ever find out whether he gave his DNA or LE "obtained" it some other way, off a soda can or some such?

As far as the part I bolded above, if this was the first time JH murdered, he hasnt had time to "hone" his instincts. And hopefully now he never will.

PoirotryInMotion said:
Well, unfortunately, my logic doesn’t jive with yours. I’m stuck on the lack of evidence to support that first statement, in fact. How do you know JH ‘wanted’ Clint’s old cell phone? (Unreliable testimony by someone who keeps changing his story during interrogation isn’t conclusive evidence.) Same problem with the last statement; unreliable testimony=unreliable confession.

Because he took it? :waitasec:

I am not sure we can say he "kept changing his story. What was reported was that there were discrepancies between the two interviews, do I have that right? I am asking because I dont want our wording to cause or give the impression that something is more than it actually is. All liars have to have good memories since they are basically inventing a "script" and will have to refer back to that "script" to keep their story straight. I thought that was what got LE's attention. His discrepancies got noticed but that is different than the bulk of his story changing. I think he told a lot of factual stuff to LE actually.

PoirotryInMotion said:
Re: he had opportunity—true, he had access to their house key. Odd thing, that whole house key thing. Something else that my logic struggles with. Put yourself in the Heichel’s situation. They’ve been living at an apartment complex that has several other renters there who also go to their Hall. From media reports, they all consider each other family and look after each other, doing things like watering plants for each other when they leave town. So…when the Hiechels go on the annual August Ritmiller camping trip each year, (as they did in August 2011 and 2012) I’m sure they line one of those neighbors up—and probably reciprocate in kind.

Come August 2012. The Holts have just moved in to the Heatherwood Apts. The Heichels also go on that annual Ritmiller camping trip that month. But how did JH finagle the Heichels into letting them have that apt. key this year? How did Holt convince them to get the key from the neighbor who’d done it the previous year, and let them do it instead? On Good Morning America that Monday morning (and other media accounts), CH said that while they didn’t know each other well, they knew each other from the Hall association and would “often plant- and cat-sit for the Holts.” (http://www.kgw.com/home/Missing-Gresham-womans-SUV-found-in-Wood-Village-174492781.html?ref=prev)

I’m gathering, if the Holts had just moved in that same month as the Heichel’s camping trip, that statement must be in reference to Heichels cat-sitting for the Holts at their previous apartment complex? From the “black sheep” reference, it’s clear CH thought something at least was strange or ‘off’ about JH—but said that they just tried to be nice to him, and held no grudges:
http://www.kgw.com/video/featured-videos/Raw-Clint-Heichel-interview-175665481.html

But with that dubious estimation, how would JH ever get them to trust him with their apt. key at Heatherwood, within days of moving there, and to replace the neighbor who did it in 2011 with themselves, instead? I’m sure we won’t know until trial.

quote from link:
Heichel said the Holts had watered their bonsai trees and the Heichels watched the Holts’ cats while each other were out of town in the past
(no mention of the word "often")

This seems simple. Heichel was being interviewed in October. The Holts moved in sometime in Aug. So August IS "in the past" when you are in Oct.

I dont think JH arranged the whole key exchange thing. He mentioned Whitney dropping off (or picking up) the key at the Holt apartment correct? I think that is in the PDF. If I have that wrong, maybe someone else remembers where that came from?

Anyhow, I think the two wives arranged the plant watering. As far as "replacing" the neighbors who did it before, maybe they were unavailable, on vacation themselves or whatever. The reciprocity of it just means that the Heichels cared for the Holts cat(maybe the week before the Heichel vacation or the week or even the month after). All of that lines up perfectly with a grieving Heichel saying in October, that plant watering and pet sitting had occurred in (Aug/Sept/early Oct) "the past".

As for what I bolded in the statement above. If read in context, it is clear that Heichel did not think anything was "off" about JH. His statement was he never thought Holt was “obsessed” with Whitney,

Once again, Heichel is speaking of the past with the current knowledge of the murder. It is very common for people in shock to use that kind of syntax.

With that in mind, it is very clear in that article that Heichel "thought" that JH seemed shy and not obsessed with Whitney,

thought and seemed both being past tense words.

He then states:
We just tried to be the best people we could and not hold a grudge … there’s a bad sheep in every community … I don’t want to make a huge spectacle. What’s taken place is horrible, I'm just doing the best I can to keep moving forward without her,”.

See how he switches from the past tense "tried" to current tense "there is" abbreviated as "there's" in the article?

So it is clear that Heichel had absolutely no idea that there was anything strange or off about JH ahead of time.

I wish he had.

newsjunkie · Nov 28, 2012

Glow said:
One more, did we ever find out whether he gave his DNA or LE "obtained" it some other way, off a soda can or some such?

I am not sure we can say he "kept changing his story. What was reported was that there were discrepancies between the two interviews, do I have that right? I am asking because I dont want our wording to cause or give the impression that something is more than it actually is. All liars have to have good memories since they are basically inventing a "script" and will have to refer back to that "script" to keep their story straight. I thought that was what got LE's attention. His discrepancies got noticed but that is different than the bulk of his story changing. I think he told a lot of factual stuff to LE actually.

Anyhow, I think the two wives arranged the plant watering. As far as "replacing" the neighbors who did it before, maybe they were unavailable, on vacation themselves or whatever. The reciprocity of it just means that the Heichels cared for the Holts cat(maybe the week before the Heichel vacation or the week or even the month after).

snipped by me

I believe the PDF says he gave it voluntarily. The comment has been made that perhaps he was asked for it in reference to his robbery story.

I believe the only changes to his story have been in reference to the robbery itself. Everything else has stayed the same.

If someone were to want plants watered or cats taken care of by someone in my house, they would ask me and expect that it would be me in their home, not my husband. Just sayin.

La Louve · Nov 28, 2012

I agree I think the plant/pet sitting was arranged between Whitney and Amanda. And I wouldn't be surprised if JH was the one who suggested it in the first place.

I also think it is a huge assumption that before the Holts looked after the Heichels plants etc someone else in the complex served in that role. (e.g. I have lived in my house nearly 20 years and have never once asked my neighbors to plant or pet sit and most of my friends would tell you the same.) On the contrary, I think it was probably someone in Whitney or Clint's family, or possibly one of Whitney's girlfriends/congregants from her previous KH. Then when the Holts moved in (by this time I think JH's obsession was full blown) they needed catsitting and Amanda asked Whitney, since she was new to the complex and she may not have had anyone else to ask. Again, I would not be surprised if JH engineered that from the very beginning.

Glow · Nov 28, 2012

newsjunkie said:
snipped by me

I believe the PDF says he gave it voluntarily. The comment has been made that perhaps he was asked for it in reference to his robbery story.

I believe the only changes to his story have been in reference to the robbery itself. Everything else has stayed the same.

If someone were to want plants watered or cats taken care of by someone in my house, they would ask me and expect that it would be me in their home, not my husband. Just sayin.

Thanks for letting me know that about the DNA!

My memory is the same as yours on him basically holding to the bulk of his story. Like most liars though, its those little inconsistancies that can trip a person up.

As far as watering plants or taking care of animals, its the same way around here as it is at your place. I am the one who arranges that. My husband doesnt even think about things like that. Thats ok i guess, I dont remember when to rotate tires or change the oil in the car

I am fortunate not to have to use a neighbor to pet sit. I have a son who has his own place (well. him and his roomates that is)and is going to college. So he is always hungry for "real food". When I am going to be away, I make sure all of his fav foods are in my fridge and all he has to do is feed the dogs. Its a win/win!

Xavier · Nov 28, 2012

PoirotryInMotion said:
Well, from this I’d say the simple answer is that I’m a skeptic and that you are more trusting. From what I’ve read, you appear to be saying:

1) LE having those phone records = LE knowing how long JH’s records have been associated with Clint’s old cell phone (those phone records being based on JH’s Sim card; what exterior case is being used wouldn’t be noted in those)

2) That DA has thoroughly pored over his cell phone history. (Though I couldn’t know that for sure, I personally doubt they’ve gone over it with a microscope—that wasn’t the basis of the arrest; the DNA match was. Minute examination of the phone records is more the job of the attorneys directly involved in the trial)

3) Lots of assumptions (“Wouldn’t she…?”, “I would bet that”, “I would think”&#8230 about Amanda, assumptions that LE asked her about if or when she’d noticed it was stolen, and what his ‘cover story’ was; assumptions that her replies would have been factual (these questions were not covered in the PDF concerning their interviews with her)

4) That because LE is ‘doing their job’ they don’t make mistakes or omissions

Nothing wrong with making some assumptions (though they can’t convict a person). My only point in all this is that I don’t know these answers for a fact, and my own natural inclination to assume the best (as in the above paragraph) is put off by the unanswered questions and logical problems I’ve been seeing with the evidence and the way this case has played out. Because I’m not convinced JH could have been her killer and I’ve seen no evidence to personally convince me of that pre-trial, and because I’ve seen ‘manipulated intent’ with other evidence (eg. the license plate), the cell phone is ‘complicated.’ I’m not convinced JH stole it or left it at the scene of the crime, based on what I’ve read and heard so far. And, if it turns out his testimony again was unreliable, and he actually didn’t steal it or leave it there, I’d expect that to be a significant complication for the entire case as well.

I remember two suggestions in the thread discussion earlier—the first, that maybe it kept ringing and bothered him, so he tossed it out the window. But in my own mind, that didn’t set well, b/c it couldn’t have been ringing if we’re told by the AT&T records that 30-some calls had tried to get through that day, but the last one to get through had been at 6:08 AM. To me, that sounds like a phone that’d been turned off most of the day. It had to have been turned off prior to her murder, as JH’s shift was to have started at 6 AM and his dad reportedly kept trying to track him down when he didn’t show up for it. That tells me he (and possibly even Holt’s boss) was trying to call him between 6 AM and the murder at 8:40—but only one call was on record (the 6:08 AM one out, to Starbucks). So the phone was likely off even early on.

The other suggestion I remember was that maybe it was on the seat next to him along with Whitney’s phone, and that he accidentally tossed his phone out the window instead of Whitney’s. That suggestion didn’t convince me, either:

1) from the PDF and the marvelous pictures supplied by Joe Friday (I think it was) in thread 4, it appears the front seats of that model Explorer are two seats separated by a console—hard to keep two cell phones out next to you on a bucket seat

2) kidnappers don’t usually keep available phones out in the open for their victims to get hold of

3) why would he keep his phone out, anyway, if it was turned off?

Regarding your suggestions above about the pictures—are you meaning photos he possibly took of Whitney during the alleged assault? If so, why would he go to all the bother of taking the photos only to then toss the phone out the window? People who are *advertiser censored* addicts would not toss their ‘fix’ out the window…in fact, many sexual predators especially like to keep ‘souvenirs’ – so, in my mind, at least, that also doesn’t make sense.

Again, all this to say, that for me, these questions still remain.

Yes, if not him, then who…that’d be a good question to explore (though defense doesn't have to prove that, of course). Also the possibility that more than just JH and Whitney might’ve been in that car that morning.

Closely related question—why two separate guns supposedly related to the abduction/murder of a 120-lb woman who was killed in the front seat of her car with four 9mm bullets? Was it two shots from each gun in succession—and why bother with packing two guns if the caliber of bullets fired for your kill is going to be the same? Doesn’t it strike anyone else here as odd that Whitney’s killer would not only have and implicate 2 separate guns in conjunction with this crime, but also deposit one of them in broad daylight on the grounds of the police station?

This is not killer instinct. Find me one other case where the killer knelt down and hid his murder weapon in the grass at the local police station on his way in for an interview. (This is even more bizarre than a murderer offering up his DNA voluntarily 2 days after the crime, while yet without a lawyer—people only willingly do that if they think it will prove their exoneration.) So much of this is beyond odd, into the realm of ‘let’s take a closer look.’ IMO.

Well, unfortunately, my logic doesn’t jive with yours. I’m stuck on the lack of evidence to support that first statement, in fact. How do you know JH ‘wanted’ Clint’s old cell phone? (Unreliable testimony by someone who keeps changing his story during interrogation isn’t conclusive evidence.) Same problem with the last statement; unreliable testimony=unreliable confession.

Re: he had the property on him (family and friends seeing him use it)—I’ve not read that Amanda knew it wasn’t his—certainly she’d have been the first to notice a new phone, don’t you think? She cancelled the service on it the day JH reported it stolen; she was pretty responsible concerning his phone. Can’t remember reading any other friends or family who said they knew he’d been using a stolen phone, either.

Re: he had opportunity—true, he had access to their house key. Odd thing, that whole house key thing. Something else that my logic struggles with. Put yourself in the Heichel’s situation. They’ve been living at an apartment complex that has several other renters there who also go to their Hall. From media reports, they all consider each other family and look after each other, doing things like watering plants for each other when they leave town. So…when the Hiechels go on the annual August Ritmiller camping trip each year, (as they did in August 2011 and 2012) I’m sure they line one of those neighbors up—and probably reciprocate in kind.

Come August 2012. The Holts have just moved in to the Heatherwood Apts. The Heichels also go on that annual Ritmiller camping trip that month. But how did JH finagle the Heichels into letting them have that apt. key this year? How did Holt convince them to get the key from the neighbor who’d done it the previous year, and let them do it instead? On Good Morning America that Monday morning (and other media accounts), CH said that while they didn’t know each other well, they knew each other from the Hall association and would “often plant- and cat-sit for the Holts.” (http://www.kgw.com/home/Missing-Gresham-womans-SUV-found-in-Wood-Village-174492781.html?ref=prev)

I’m gathering, if the Holts had just moved in that same month as the Heichel’s camping trip, that statement must be in reference to Heichels cat-sitting for the Holts at their previous apartment complex? From the “black sheep” reference, it’s clear CH thought something at least was strange or ‘off’ about JH—but said that they just tried to be nice to him, and held no grudges:
http://www.kgw.com/video/featured-videos/Raw-Clint-Heichel-interview-175665481.html

But with that dubious estimation, how would JH ever get them to trust him with their apt. key at Heatherwood, within days of moving there, and to replace the neighbor who did it in 2011 with themselves, instead? I’m sure we won’t know until trial.

Oh, of course I’d agree there are some things that are indisputable facts prior to any trial, and this one in particular—Whitney being shot dead, for one. Others include her bloodied car being abandoned at Walmart, and her car gassing up earlier at the Shell station with the front license plate still firmly attached. I’d also say there are facts we don’t know yet, as well as many assertions which have not yet been established as fact. Hopefully that’s what trials are all about, including this one.

An assumption is an assumption no matter who it belongs to. And that is all it is—it’s not evidence, and it’s not proof. And, unlike Truth, it needs to pass the validity test before someone is given the death penalty (or life in prison) for a crime he’s pleading “not guilty” to. Maybe that’s JMO.

I wouldn’t know, as I haven’t specifically been privy to all that they’ve done or not done—and neither would I assume what they have or haven’t done even with the best of intentions. What I said was a general truism – that investigators (LE or private) need to set aside assumptions of any kind to thoroughly consider a case. It’s often what can crack a case, in fact.

PIM--- I hate to see you wrack your brain. you've alot of intriguing possibilities and many or a few could prove correct.

Then again, maybe we need to come to grip with the fact Holt was no pro at crime and until the trial, his behavior, crime conduct will always keep us scratching our heads..LOL

La Louve · Nov 28, 2012

Glow said:
Well what I originally thought I meant was the pictures that Clint had on the phone before he put it in the dresser in his home. But now I have a different thought, or rather an additional one :blushing:. What if when JH stole the phone, he enjoyed looking at the pictures already on it. If he was attracted to Whitney, that would be a heady and powerful feeling to be walking around with images of "her" in "his" possession. My original thought was that he took the phone because it was an iPhone and an upgrade from his own. But maybe he took the phone because he wanted what the phone contained (pictures). This lead to an even more depressing thought....what if he pulled his phone out of wherever he had stashed it during the ride to the lake to take a picture during the sex act? What if it was that moment that Whitney grabbed the phone prompting him to wrest it away from her and throw it?

remainder respectfully snipped

BBM This really rings true for me, depressing as it is to consider. How else would he get pictures of Whitney unless he took some surreptitiously (along the lines of the "peeping" incident with the former neighbor). I think with his *advertiser censored* addiction he might want to have photographs he could manipulate digitally, creating his own fantasy *advertiser censored* scenes with the object of his obsession. That might even be some of the evidence found on his laptop that lead an unnamed source to tell the media that JH was "obsessed with Whitney".

*sigh* I feel like I'm obsessed with this case:banghead:

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

New Member

Active Member

Active Member

New Member

Not to be confused with A_News_Junkie

Registered Muser

Not to be confused with A_News_Junkie

Registered Muser

Registered Muser

Not to be confused with A_News_Junkie

Member

New Member

Active Member

Active Member

Active Member

Not to be confused with A_News_Junkie

For Whitney and Teghan

Active Member

New Member

For Whitney and Teghan

DNASolves

Online statistics

Forum statistics