Who is the man accused of murdering W...

Who is the man accused of murdering Whitney Heichel?

There are 344 comments on the KBCI CBS 2 story from Oct 24, 2012, titled Who is the man accused of murdering Whitney Heichel?. In it, KBCI CBS 2 reports that:

New details are emerging about the man accused of sexually abusing and then shooting a young woman to death in a crime that has shocked the community.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at KBCI CBS 2.

“Bustin' Myths”

Since: Dec 09

Location hidden

#274 Nov 13, 2012
It's called "spin". Of course the jws are going to see he wasn't a regular attender. He was probably disfellowshipped before they took the handcuffs off of him so they can say he is not one of jws.

It's so easy to see through. It's damage control, nothing more.
UNchained

Kingsport, TN

#275 Nov 13, 2012
Mythbusters wrote:
It's called "spin". Of course the jws are going to see he wasn't a regular attender. He was probably disfellowshipped before they took the handcuffs off of him so they can say he is not one of jws.
It's so easy to see through. It's damage control, nothing more.
The JW's go to great lengths to make it appear that their organisation is 'clean' in the eyes of the public don't they.

July 1995 Kingdom Ministry
Page 3
We can express our appreciation for the chaste conduct practiced by those in Jehovah’s clean organization.
hMMMM

Aurora, IL

#276 Nov 13, 2012
UNchained wrote:
<quoted text>
The JW's go to great lengths to make it appear that their organisation is 'clean' in the eyes of the public don't they.
July 1995 Kingdom Ministry
Page 3
We can express our appreciation for the chaste conduct practiced by those in Jehovah’s clean organization.
Yes, the only organization on planet earth where sexually assaulting children or having massive amounts of child pornography on your computer defines the word "clean"
Pam

Bakersfield, CA

#277 Nov 13, 2012
acrobat wrote:
<quoted text>
No, she didn't. The "written report" is in the public domain, in the form of a post written by someone over on a more JW site than this, who claimed they got a note from someone.
In the same note, the person said that it must have been Jehovah that prevented it from raining the day of Whitney's memorial, in order that a greater witness could be given.
In other words, even if the note is real, the person writing it isn't exactly the brightest brick in the load.
Now THAT is FUNNY!
Pam

Bakersfield, CA

#278 Nov 13, 2012
eagleeye2 wrote:
<quoted text>
It makes no difference to me what kind of pretense Jonathan Holt was putting up or for how long. Even if everybody in that town thought he was a Witness right up to the minute he did this crime, so what? That doesn't change the truth about him at all.
There is no fault in anyone who was deceived by him, whether for a long time or for five minutes. The fault is all on him and him alone. If he made himself appear to be something he was not and people took him at face value, they did nothing wrong.
But all of you are putting all your faith in what Jonathan Holt said he did. I say his word is worthless and that it is highly unlikely that he at some moment in time changed from being a liar and manipulator and predator and became a reliable, truth-telling , straight-up fact giver. Criminals notoriously tell different versions of their crimes at different times and change details for various reasons.
I choose to believe what his relatives believe, and if it turns out they were wrong, so what?
Soooo, you can;t defend what you say, get busted and then yell how you are going to beleive what the relatives say. Who can prove you recieved anything from anyone? It is just you sayin'. Ya know?
So I am going to believe the police and what they reported him saying to them over your highly suspicious friend of a relative or whatever story you are conjuring up.
Pam

Bakersfield, CA

#279 Nov 13, 2012
eagleeye2 wrote:
I don't know of anybody who is pretending that Jonathan Holt was never recognized as one of Jehovah's Witnesses. It appears that he most certainly was at some time pretty close to the time of his crime. The only controversy I have heard is about whether or not he was well-known to Whitney or just a casual acquaintance. I don't see that she had any reason to fear him. We don't fear or shun someone just because they don't come to meetings regularly.
It also appears, if the reports are true, that he became involved with pornography. I mentioned in the first post I made about this case that it would no doubt be traced to addiction to pornography.
Becoming addicted to pornography changes people from one kind of person to another. It happens every day to all kinds of people. Many crimes, including murder, can be traced back to addiction to pornography. People who were once fine upstanding citizens can become sex-driven criminals because of pornography.
Jehovah's Witnesses are warned regularly of the dangers of pornography and encouraged to seek help from the elders immediately if they have become involved. If Jonathan Holt had followed these instructions at any point before he did what he did, perhaps he could have been saved and Whitney as well.
But he didn't do what Jehovah's Witnesses are taught to do, whether he was being regarded as one of Jehovah's Witnesses or not.
Where does it sday he didn't attend regularly?
I am waiting for you or Deb or Leta to come running in saying how he must never have really been a JW and how he never really understood the "truth" cause no JW would do anything so bad. But sadly they do indeed and it keeps happening with more frequency.
Sign of the times dear.

“Surprised By Love”

Since: Aug 12

Location hidden

#280 Nov 13, 2012
hMMMM wrote:
<quoted text>
And you know that is how the Watchtower will twist it when they print it in their propaganda.
Not that the deranged maniac who brutally raped and murdered their beautiful young "sister", and who was perusing child pornography just prior, was a Jehovah's Witness ministerial servant. A man so highly praised that he earned special privileges in the congregation! A man chosen by "jehovah' to lead the congregation!!
No, it will be that most people EXCEPT Jehovah's Witnesses stayed as far away from the loser as possible, so only Jehovah's Witnesses even knew who he was.
Who else openly associates with pedophiles who kidnap, sexually assault and then murder beautiful young women????
Those kinds of deranged human beings are not accepted by society for a reason, but the Kingdumb Hall hangs out a "Welcome Pedophiles" sign!!
I think that is a little extreme. We all know that for a brother to be a ministerial servant, all he has to do is be able to walk and chew gum at the same time. So saying he had "special privileges" is an exaggeration. He handled the microphones, big deal. I have yet to hear any reports that either his religion influenced him to do what he did or that the elders knew he was capable of this.

I am no fan of the WTBTS, and we know they will to all they can to minimize any legal exposure on their part. But this was a horrible tragedy, a husband lost a wife, parents lost a child, and a congregation lost a member. I believe the WTBTS is evil, but I think there are many nice (if deceived) JWs in this organization. I am not ready to start making accusations of that sort until we have more facts.

“John 4:23,24”

Since: Oct 09

Location hidden

#281 Nov 13, 2012
Pam wrote:
<quoted text>Soooo, you can;t defend what you say, get busted and then yell how you are going to beleive what the relatives say. Who can prove you recieved anything from anyone? It is just you sayin'. Ya know?
So I am going to believe the police and what they reported him saying to them over your highly suspicious friend of a relative or whatever story you are conjuring up.
According to the opposers, everyone got the same e-mail I did. One says he read it on a JW forum.

I am just the only one who made public that the relative who wrote it said the gun was pulled on Whitney in the parking lot. The others who had that information for a long time wanted it hidden and have been sitting on it, hoping no one would mention it. That is why they are so desperate to discredit it.

I don't care which way it was, but if I have to choose to believe Jonathan Holt or one of Whitney's relatives, the choice is obvious for me.

The police have no way of knowing whether he pulled the gun in the parking lot or later, except for Jonathan Holt's story. They probably don't put as much stock in what he says as the opposers who want to believe it was later.

The police just report what Jonathan Holt said; they don't endorse it.

Since: Feb 07

RI

#282 Nov 13, 2012
eagleeye2 wrote:
<quoted text>
According to the opposers, everyone got the same e-mail I did. One says he read it on a JW forum.
I am just the only one who made public that the relative who wrote it said the gun was pulled on Whitney in the parking lot. The others who had that information for a long time wanted it hidden and have been sitting on it, hoping no one would mention it. That is why they are so desperate to discredit it.
I don't care which way it was, but if I have to choose to believe Jonathan Holt or one of Whitney's relatives, the choice is obvious for me.
The police have no way of knowing whether he pulled the gun in the parking lot or later, except for Jonathan Holt's story. They probably don't put as much stock in what he says as the opposers who want to believe it was later.
The police just report what Jonathan Holt said; they don't endorse it.
Once again, are these people claiming that they SAW him pull a gun on Whitney? If so, then why didn't they call the police immediately?

How would they "know" this unless someone else was there who saw this happen, but then proceeded to do nothing.

Sorry, but it doesn't make sense.

What is their purpose in claiming this? Are they trying to add to the story that Holt was not "really" a JW? That's what it appears to me to be. If Whitney allowed him into the car before he pulled the gun and threatened her, that tends to indicate that, as a JW brother whom she knew well, she trusted him enough to give him a ride without thinking twice about it. To claim that he pulled a gun before he got into the car leans more towards the claims by JWs that he wasn't a JW and, therefore, had to force her to allow him in her car.

It just sounds like yet another "story" to make the JW look better in denying his affiliation with them.

Since: Feb 07

RI

#283 Nov 13, 2012
eagleeye2 wrote:
<quoted text>
According to the opposers, everyone got the same e-mail I did. One says he read it on a JW forum.
I am just the only one who made public that the relative who wrote it said the gun was pulled on Whitney in the parking lot. The others who had that information for a long time wanted it hidden and have been sitting on it, hoping no one would mention it. That is why they are so desperate to discredit it.
I don't care which way it was, but if I have to choose to believe Jonathan Holt or one of Whitney's relatives, the choice is obvious for me.
The police have no way of knowing whether he pulled the gun in the parking lot or later, except for Jonathan Holt's story. They probably don't put as much stock in what he says as the opposers who want to believe it was later.
The police just report what Jonathan Holt said; they don't endorse it.
And what is also odd is that you "choose" to believe one of Whitney's relatives who claims that they know that he pulled the gun before getting into the car by threatening her, but that also means that those relatives who claim that this is what "really" happened were there, saw what happened, and did nothing.

That makes them almost as guilty as the actual perpetrator. If they saw this so that they can speak of what "really" occurred (and what negates what Holt confessed to the police) then their refusal to call the police immediately is partially responsible for Whitney's death.

“John 4:23,24”

Since: Oct 09

Location hidden

#284 Nov 13, 2012
RedhorseWoman wrote:
<quoted text>
And what is also odd is that you "choose" to believe one of Whitney's relatives who claims that they know that he pulled the gun before getting into the car by threatening her, but that also means that those relatives who claim that this is what "really" happened were there, saw what happened, and did nothing.
That makes them almost as guilty as the actual perpetrator. If they saw this so that they can speak of what "really" occurred (and what negates what Holt confessed to the police) then their refusal to call the police immediately is partially responsible for Whitney's death.
You really are a psychotic twister. I don't know what you could possibly get out of the muddying up of facts that you do.

No one said anyone SAW anything. That is your twist.

Jonathan Holt could have told different stories to different people.

No one here knows.

There are two stories on the table. I choose to believe what the relatives believe.

Since: Feb 07

RI

#285 Nov 13, 2012
eagleeye2 wrote:
<quoted text>
You really are a psychotic twister. I don't know what you could possibly get out of the muddying up of facts that you do.
No one said anyone SAW anything. That is your twist.
Jonathan Holt could have told different stories to different people.
No one here knows.
There are two stories on the table. I choose to believe what the relatives believe.
He told different stories to different people? Before or after he was arrested, pray tell? If he told "different stories" to Whitney's relatives before he confessed to the police and was incarcerated, then why didn't they report it?

You are getting in so deep you need more than a shovel to get yourself out of it.

I think you are the one twisting things...in fact, I know you are.

Since: Feb 07

RI

#286 Nov 13, 2012
eagleeye2 wrote:
<quoted text>
You really are a psychotic twister. I don't know what you could possibly get out of the muddying up of facts that you do.
No one said anyone SAW anything. That is your twist.
Jonathan Holt could have told different stories to different people.
No one here knows.
There are two stories on the table. I choose to believe what the relatives believe.
Oh, and as far as "muddying up the facts" is concerned, I do believe that that is exactly what YOU have been doing.

Holt confessed to the police. THAT is a fact. In his confession, he told the police that he asked for a ride and after they had driven off, he pulled a gun.

YOU choose to believe an unsubstantiated story purportedly told by a relative of a relative of Whitney's and you "believe" that Holt went to these people and TOLD them a different story?

Seriously, WHO is "muddying up the facts" here? You, of course, simply because it is more palatable for you to believe an unsubstantiated story that makes the JWs look better.
Pam

Bakersfield, CA

#287 Nov 13, 2012
eagleeye2 wrote:
<quoted text>
According to the opposers, everyone got the same e-mail I did. One says he read it on a JW forum.
I am just the only one who made public that the relative who wrote it said the gun was pulled on Whitney in the parking lot. The others who had that information for a long time wanted it hidden and have been sitting on it, hoping no one would mention it. That is why they are so desperate to discredit it.
I don't care which way it was, but if I have to choose to believe Jonathan Holt or one of Whitney's relatives, the choice is obvious for me.
The police have no way of knowing whether he pulled the gun in the parking lot or later, except for Jonathan Holt's story. They probably don't put as much stock in what he says as the opposers who want to believe it was later.
The police just report what Jonathan Holt said; they don't endorse it.
Like I said, I will believe the police over a relative that wasn't there and didn't talk to theguy who confessed and told what happened.
That got me off jury duty once because the witnesses were police officers and the judge asked me if that wouldcause me to believe them over the guy gand banger sitting there with tatoos all over his shaved head that had were gang affiliation tats.
I told him I would most definatly believe the police that arrested him and observed him tossing drugs out og his car on the city streets as they chased him.
I was dismissed by the criminals attorny.

Yay!
Pam

Bakersfield, CA

#288 Nov 13, 2012
Why is it that fake JW's always want to defend JW criminals with lies?
And the real JW's won;t even come to websites like thuis!
That right there says volumes.

“BIBLE TRUTHS *NEVER* CHANGE”

Since: Aug 09

LET GO AND LET GOD

#289 Nov 13, 2012
Pam wrote:
Why is it that fake JW's always want to defend JW criminals with lies?
And the real JW's won;t even come to websites like thuis!
That right there says volumes.
It seems to be a case of desperation on their part, in trying to patch up all the gaping holes that have been blown through their imaginary "spiritual paradise that no one else has".....and struggling to (unsuccessfully) minimize the criminal acts of murder and child molestation that have become so prevalent within the WT cult community.

We are all well aware that one of the signs that we are living in the end times is that everything that is hidden will be revealed. When the Lord returns he will "…bring to light the hidden things of darkness… and make manifest the counsels of the hearts..." (1Cor. 4:5)

The consequence of lifting this dark shroud of secrecy, which for the most part has been deeply hidden within the secretive WTS....has gone unchecked, but that every thing that CAN be shaken...WILL be shaken, at every level—political, financial, religious and social....and the WT cult will not be absolved at all from this examination and revelation. It is happening already.....and this is why the JWs---fake or otherwise---are not dealing with this at all well. Haggai 2:6-7

The WTS is no stranger to all the same "acted on" sinful tendencies as "all others" they sneer at while they carry on their "holier than thou" facade.....and will not get a "free pass" for trying to pretend these things are not happening to those attending their Kingdom Halls....

but as the scriptures tell us....the Light IS revealing the sordid, demented and sleazy things being carried on in their much boasted about "spiritual paradise". The public AND the WTS defenders themselves...ARE being made aware of things that have proven to play quite a part in the lives of a lot more of their "brothers" than anyone may have suspected.

There is no question that the prophecies of our time are in process of fulfillment as we witness one scandal after another eroding the very foundation of society.

"Nothing in all creation is hidden from God's sight. Everything is uncovered and laid bare before the eyes of him to whom we must give account."... Heb 4:13

"He reveals deep and mysterious things and knows what lies hidden in darkness, though he is surrounded by light." ....Daniel 2:22

"There is nothing concealed that will not be disclosed, or hidden that will not be made known."....Matthew 10:26

"For whatever is hidden is meant to be disclosed, and whatever is concealed is meant to be brought out into the open."....Mark 4:22


"There is nothing concealed that will not be disclosed, or hidden that will not be made known."....Luke 12:2
UNchained

Kingsport, TN

#290 Nov 14, 2012
eagleeye2 wrote:
<quoted text>
According to the opposers, everyone got the same e-mail I did. One says he read it on a JW forum.
I am just the only one who made public that the relative who wrote it said the gun was pulled on Whitney in the parking lot. The others who had that information for a long time wanted it hidden and have been sitting on it, hoping no one would mention it. That is why they are so desperate to discredit it.
I don't care which way it was, but if I have to choose to believe Jonathan Holt or one of Whitney's relatives, the choice is obvious for me.
The police have no way of knowing whether he pulled the gun in the parking lot or later, except for Jonathan Holt's story. They probably don't put as much stock in what he says as the opposers who want to believe it was later.
The police just report what Jonathan Holt said; they don't endorse it.
I had no idea that an email full of distortions and false accounts of what happened in the minutes after Brother Holt approached the young JW sister and asked her for a ride in the parking lot of the apartment complex they both lived in was being circulated amongst Jehovah's 'clean' people until you mentioned it.

“Surprised By Love”

Since: Aug 12

Location hidden

#291 Nov 14, 2012
eagleeye2 wrote:
<quoted text>
You really are a psychotic twister. I don't know what you could possibly get out of the muddying up of facts that you do.
No one said anyone SAW anything. That is your twist.
Jonathan Holt could have told different stories to different people.
No one here knows.
There are two stories on the table. I choose to believe what the relatives believe.
There is only one person who knows, for a fact, when Holt pulled the gun, and that person is Holt. While it is very possible that he could be lying, lying about that particular thing would be of no benefit to him. He was already confessing to many other things that were far worse, so it makes no sense that he would lie about this. The relative may want to believe Holt pulled the gun before he got in the car, but they would have no way of knowing unless Holt told them, and there is no evidence that he did.

You simply choose to believe it because you think it is a more flattering to the victim and by association, the Jehovah's Witnesses. This is just one of many instances that show you are not interested in facts, just in twisting things to suit your preconceived notions. And it is not even necessary, because there was absolutely nothing wrong with a woman giving a ride to an acquaintance, neighbor and fellow JW. Possibly the JWs think that would have been wrong (which would explain why they made up an alternate version) but no normal person would see anything wrong with it, so it would bring no reproach on Jehovah's name, nor would it make any sane, rational, non brainwashed person think anything less of the victim.

“John 4:23,24”

Since: Oct 09

Location hidden

#292 Nov 14, 2012
much happier now wrote:
<quoted text>
There is only one person who knows, for a fact, when Holt pulled the gun, and that person is Holt. While it is very possible that he could be lying, lying about that particular thing would be of no benefit to him. He was already confessing to many other things that were far worse, so it makes no sense that he would lie about this. The relative may want to believe Holt pulled the gun before he got in the car, but they would have no way of knowing unless Holt told them, and there is no evidence that he did.
You simply choose to believe it because you think it is a more flattering to the victim and by association, the Jehovah's Witnesses. This is just one of many instances that show you are not interested in facts, just in twisting things to suit your preconceived notions. And it is not even necessary, because there was absolutely nothing wrong with a woman giving a ride to an acquaintance, neighbor and fellow JW. Possibly the JWs think that would have been wrong (which would explain why they made up an alternate version) but no normal person would see anything wrong with it, so it would bring no reproach on Jehovah's name, nor would it make any sane, rational, non brainwashed person think anything less of the victim.
I believe it because Whitney's family said it. Now all of you anti-Witnesses want to even go to the disgusting extent of accusing Whitney's relatives of being liars. My loyalty is with my brothers and sisters, always.

I have no thoughts about what makes Witnesses look good or bad. That is all in the minds of you who want to use this tragedy for your fight against our religion. Jehovah is our judge and that is all I ever think about, not what others think.

It is not possible for the world to think well of Jehovah's people. The world is fond of what is its own, as Jesus said. Jesus told us not to expect to be well thought of by the world.

You have to answer to Jehovah for the way you are using this terrible thing.
Prime

United States

#293 Nov 14, 2012
eagleeye2 wrote:
<quoted text>
I believe it because Whitney's family said it. Now all of you anti-Witnesses want to even go to the disgusting extent of accusing Whitney's relatives of being liars. My loyalty is with my brothers and sisters, alway.
How do you know they said it EE? Did you receive an email from them or were you there?

Try being honest for a change and realize what you're trying to portray doesn't make sense, it only makes you look desperate and foolish!

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Jehovah's Witness Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
continuation on michael and the resurrection of... 1 min ihveit 145
last of the wt views on a supposed body switch 8 min Samson 2
News 'Remain Loyal!' theme of Jehovah's Witnesses co... 17 min pcloadletter 263
YES-Jesus WAS once known as Michael (Sep '14) 29 min BetheljudgmentDan... 7,548
How Could God Essentially Turn an Angel Into God? 35 min BetheljudgmentDan... 127
News Come, Armageddon, come (Mar '15) 38 min BetheljudgmentDan... 28
Amexit With Brexit 39 min Lordylordy9111 2
Do you churchoids agree with IrishDumb & Dumboy? 1 hr Dogen 37
News Jehovah's Witness conventions will draw 11,000 ... 1 hr Nedoba 49
You know, churchoids- 2 hr Nedoba 532
More from around the web