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

[Xavier]

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

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

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

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

Maybe Holt's wife needed the car for work and maybe Holt took the metro bus from time to time..

 

[Xavier]

Just jumping off your post.

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

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

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

Question about Holt, need some help clearing this up.

Holt talked about his *advertiser censored* addictions, child *advertiser censored* and also his crush/obsession on Whitney. Has anyone proven their was child *advertiser censored* on Holt's laptop? I've always thought child *advertiser censored* and that whole disgusting world of it, to get that stuff you need to get it directly from someone, not like downloading it on the internet. If I'm correct on this thought, if Holt actually had child *advertiser censored* stuff, who gave Holt the child *advertiser censored*? If he did get it from someone, then LE should pursue those perps as well no matter where it leads to.

Has anyone validated Holt had this obsession on Whitney? We know Holt admitted this obsession. Is there any proof of anyone hearing Holt talk about her. Has LE confiscated from Holt any of Whitney's belongings?

 

[kodi]

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks,

Salem

Thank you so much, Salem. As I was catching up, I saw how quickly discussions can spiral and turn in a direction that can push the TOS. Being new here I am still trying to get my bearings. Your post is much appreciated.

:gthanks:

 

[Elainera]

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

How about that for a shocker!

Wow I must have missed something. He is pleading not guilty? :what: After that confession? How can that be?

I'm sorry if this is a stupid question but I'm confused.

ETA: and my thanks to Salem as well, nice clean up!

 

[kodi]

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

Maybe I forgot some details

Anytime there's reference to JH's phone, it's JH's phone, in my mind, as he had it in his possession and had been using for some time as his own cell phone (even though we know it was actually Clint's phone that he stole). This alleviates the confusion when discussing the various phones. Just MOO and my :twocents:

Link for the stolen iPhone: http://www.kgw.com/news/Docs-Holt-h...er censored*-and-stolen-iPhone-176052031.html

As an aside, I feel there is much that goes on in the privacy of any marriage. No one can truly know what has been transpiring behind closed doors other than the two parties involved. Again, MOO and just another :twocents:

Lastly, does anyone know if/where the pressers might still be available online?

 

[kodi]

Wow I must have missed something. He is pleading not guilty? :what: After that confession? How can that be?

I'm sorry if this is a stupid question but I'm confused.

ETA: and my thanks to Salem as well, nice clean up!

My understanding from a post up thread, IIRC, is this can kind of be standard procedure initially, even if there is a confession. MOO

 

[Sasquatch]

A great article on how Whitney's family is dealing with the aftermath of this tragic event. Front page of The Gresham Outlook today! Owned by parent company Pamplin Communications, so the link says Portland Tribune.

http://portlandtribune.com/go/42-news/122564-a-life-well-loved

 

[Xavier]

Wow I must have missed something. He is pleading not guilty? :what: After that confession? How can that be?

I'm sorry if this is a stupid question but I'm confused.

ETA: and my thanks to Salem as well, nice clean up!

Elainera----Holt's defense might've uncovered some new discoveries, but who knows at this point.

 

[newsjunkie]

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

Maybe I forgot some details

Holt called from Holt's phone which was Clint's stolen phone. There are not two J. Holt phones.

 

[Boodles]

Question about Holt, need some help clearing this up.

Holt talked about his *advertiser censored* addictions {NO, he didn't}, child *advertiser censored* {he admitted he had it on his computer, true}and also his crush/obsession on Whitney {No, he didn't}. Has anyone proven their was child *advertiser censored* on Holt's laptop? {We don't know; LE has not said anything about it} I've always thought child *advertiser censored* and that whole disgusting world of it, to get that stuff you need to get it directly from someone, not like downloading it on the internet. If I'm correct on this thought, if Holt actually had child *advertiser censored* stuff, who gave Holt the child *advertiser censored*? If he did get it from someone, then LE should pursue those perps as well no matter where it leads to.

Has anyone validated Holt had this obsession on Whitney? {NO, we do not know that this is the case.} We know Holt admitted this obsession. {Again, no we don't know this.} Is there any proof of anyone hearing Holt talk about her. Has LE confiscated from Holt any of Whitney's belongings?

Xavier, respectfully, I have noticed you mis-stating facts several times, saying that we "know" certain things. This causes confusion and starts rumors. One example is saying there were 3 cell phones (there are 2 known cell phones).

I'm bolding responses to some of your statements in your quote, above in brackets. Hope this helps.

P.S. If I am wrong about the things I'm disputing, please provide a link with a source. Thanks.

 

[nikb]

Wow I must have missed something. He is pleading not guilty? :what: After that confession? How can that be?

I'm sorry if this is a stupid question but I'm confused.

ETA: and my thanks to Salem as well, nice clean up!

I don't think it's a stupid question at all! I'm not a lawyer nor do I play one on TV, but I'm thinking people who are accused probably almost always plead not guilty, at least at first, even if they confessed? It seems like it'd leave more room for negotation later on, possibly. All JMO.

 

[nikb]

PS: welcome Kodi!

 

[Glow]

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

How about that for a shocker!

Confessing is what an individual does.

Pleading not guilty is a legal maneuver.

Neither one should stop the presses.

There is still his DNA on the steering wheel, the ballistics evidence from the 4 shots and other pesky evidence that are going to light the way straight to a conviction.

 

[Elainera]

Confessing is what an individual does.

Pleading not guilty is a legal maneuver.

Neither one should stop the presses.

There is still his DNA on the steering wheel, the ballistics evidence from the 4 shots and other pesky evidence that are going to light the way straight to a conviction.

I always seem to fail to understand things like this ... he confessed, he/his lawyer pleads not guilty ... eeh? :waitasec:

But thanks for those who try to explain, pleading guilty to leave room for later negotiations makes a tiny bit of sense, I guess.

Good I'm not a lawyer! :floorlaugh:

 

[Joe Friday]

I think the judge will enter a not guilty plea if he doesn't have an attorney until one can be appointed. That might be the case here.

Also some times a defense attorney will enter a not guilty and then plea bargain a guilty plea if the death penalty is taken off the table.

JMO

 

[Xavier]

Xavier, respectfully, I have noticed you mis-stating facts several times, saying that we "know" certain things. This causes confusion and starts rumors. One example is saying there were 3 cell phones (there are 2 known cell phones).

I'm bolding responses to some of your statements in your quote, above in brackets. Hope this helps.

P.S. If I am wrong about the things I'm disputing, please provide a link with a source. Thanks.

I can't find the thread/post but it was reported here that Holt's wife cancelled JH's AT&T cell phone account sometime right after the so called robbery claiming it was stolen.

Holt's was supposedly in his backpack. Clint's was thrown on the road at Dodge Park and Whitney's was thrown near a play area at Troutdale apartments.

 

[newsjunkie]

Page 31 of the affadavit is what you are looking for. While on the phone with AT&T she found out that the phone had been used at 7 am and that there was data usage, at that point she had the phone cancelled. I took it to mean this happened after she was able to speak with JH. When he told her it was stolen, and that the last time he used it was the night before.

I can't find the thread/post but it was reported here that Holt's wife cancelled JH's ATT&T cell phone account sometime right after the so called robbery.

So there were 3 cell phones involved. Holt's, Clint's, Whitney's.

It was after she spoke with her husband she called AT&T and cancelled his phone (Clint's stolen phone). There are only 2 phones. Holt's that he stole from Clint and Whitney's.

ETA: see pages 7-8 of the affadavit in regards to what was found in his backpack.

 

[AvalonBlue]

Holt called from Holt's phone which was Clint's stolen phone. There are not two J. Holt phones.

Very nicely and truly stated, newsjunkie :rocker:

 

[Xavier]

It was after she spoke with her husband she called AT&T and cancelled his phone (Clint's stolen phone). There are only 2 phones. Holt's that he stole from Clint and Whitney's.

OK thanks

 

[AvalonBlue]

Xavier, respectfully, I have noticed you mis-stating facts several times, saying that we "know" certain things. This causes confusion and starts rumors. One example is saying there were 3 cell phones (there are 2 known cell phones).

I'm bolding responses to some of your statements in your quote, above in brackets. Hope this helps.

P.S. If I am wrong about the things I'm disputing, please provide a link with a source. Thanks.

Thank you, Boodles, for continuing to clarify things in a thread that, IMO, has gone awry regarding facts quite a few times in the last several days.
:seeya: