Any infomation on this case? I saw this today and this is a very interesting UM.

Im curious to know if he committed those murders or was a victim himself.

No idea - It is interesting to note however that THE DOE NETWORK doesn't list Mike as a missing person (I've tried several spellings of his last name as well)

This case freaks me out. I cannot for the life of me figure out if Mike was involved in his wife's murder or was a victim himself. I just can't imagine killing two other incident victims to make it seem there is another murderer. Especially if my plan was to disappear.

However, it could be mike because the daughter was found alone at a store and that would be something a father would do and not harm the little girl. I can't see a serial killer making sure to bring a little girl to a store to make sure she was not harmed.

So who knows. I also thought it was strange that if this case took place 25 years ago, how there has never been a sighting of this guy? Especially after UM aired the show.

I wonder if this will ever be solved.

Can you explain this case I can't remember it?

I admit this is one of the more intriguing cases UM has profiled. Plus the segment the way its filmed is creepy and is a perfect example of how the old ones are leaps and bounds better than the more recent ones. I definitely think Mike killed his wife. The envelope that stated "I Love You Diana" could be construed as an eerie goodbye after he killed her. Also Mike appeared to be a good sized guy and like was mentioned on the segment why would the killer leave the much smaller woman's body there and take the much larger guy somewhere else. I'm not sure if I would classify Mike as a serial killer, I'm not even sure what the true definition of one is, but remember the couple that was murdered was found in the vicinity of where Mike had some of his traps and he was known to have an explosive temper. There could have been some sort of altercation with them and he could have killed them. The only thing that could point to him possibly being a serial killer are the socks tied around the victim's necks. Surely, if Mike indeed did kill the 3 of them, he would know that he would be a suspect in Diana's murder and the fact that both crime scenes had victims with a sock tied around their necks he had to have known that would definitely link the three. Another scenario could be that Mike heard of the couple being slain and the sock around the neck and figured that would be a way of killing his wife and making it look like it was at the hands of a serial killer who killed the young couple whether it was or not. He could have taken her out in the general vicinity of where they were found (under the false pretense of getting a Christmas tree) killed her and tied a sock around her neck making the authorities think there was a serial killer on the loose. Just some thoughts on the case.

Also in my opinion one of the saddest moments on UM is at the end of this segment where Diana's mother has a picture of her by her bedside and says the little girl talks to her mothers pictures and whenever she gets a new toy or anything will go in there and show it to her mother. :(

I admit this is one of the more intriguing cases UM has profiled. Plus the segment the way its filmed is creepy and is a perfect example of how the old ones are leaps and bounds better than the more recent ones. I definitely think Mike killed his wife. The envelope that stated "I Love You Diana" could be construed as an eerie goodbye after he killed her. Also Mike appeared to be a good sized guy and like was mentioned on the segment why would the killer leave the much smaller woman's body there and take the much larger guy somewhere else. I'm not sure if I would classify Mike as a serial killer, I'm not even sure what the true definition of one is, but remember the couple that was murdered was found in the vicinity of where Mike had some of his traps and he was known to have an explosive temper. There could have been some sort of altercation with them and he could have killed them. The only thing that could point to him possibly being a serial killer are the socks tied around the victim's necks. Surely, if Mike indeed did kill the 3 of them, he would know that he would be a suspect in Diana's murder and the fact that both crime scenes had victims with a sock tied around their necks he had to have known that would definitely link the three. Another scenario could be that Mike heard of the couple being slain and the sock around the neck and figured that would be a way of killing his wife and making it look like it was at the hands of a serial killer who killed the young couple whether it was or not. He could have taken her out in the general vicinity of where they were found (under the false pretense of getting a Christmas tree) killed her and tied a sock around her neck making the authorities think there was a serial killer on the loose. Just some thoughts on the case.

Also in my opinion one of the saddest moments on UM is at the end of this segment where Diana's mother has a picture of her by her bedside and says the little girl talks to her mothers pictures and whenever she gets a new toy or anything will go in there and show it to her mother. :(

CrystalDawn... I know this was a post you wrote a long time ago, but I wanted to comment on it because 1) I just rewatched the segment, and 2) I thought your analysis was brilliant. I never thought that perhaps Mike had heard about the couple being killed (although it makes sense, as I'm sure that would be widely covered in the local news/press). Then, he wrapped a sock around his wife to throw off the police. I do think Mike killed his wife, but I don't know about the other couple.

On thing though: Didn't the UM segment imply that the SAME sock was wrapped around the couple and his wife, or was it simply that the socks were similar in terms of how they were tied? I guess I need to go back and rewatch it. That would make a major difference.

Talk about reminding me of the orange sock killing (another of the great, early segments)! Thanks.

Just to add... Apparently the two socks WERE the same socks, according to the UM segment. This makes me convinced that Mike killed all three people.

This is one of my favorite cases--probably because, as I've said many times before, I'm always on the fence about it. For some reason, I'm not ready to say that Mike Riemer killed Diana Robertson. There is, admittedly, a lot of circumstantial evidence to suggest that he in fact did, but there's a lingering doubt in my mind nonetheless.

Why:

1. Mike Riemer reportedly had anger and jealousy problems, but that isn't necessarily proof that he's a killer--let alone a serial killer trolling the western Washington woods for victims. If Riemer's anger/jealousy towards his girlfriend is apparently the "fuel" propelling his murderous actions, why would he not just kill Diana and leave it at that? There's really no need to kill a random couple, nor is that behavior necessarily consistent with someone fitting Riemer's profile (as far as we can tell from the segment, news article, and so forth). And if Riemer truly is a serial killer, surely in 24 years he would've claimed at least one or two additional victims. The chances of him actually having the particular homicidal tendencies commonly noted in serial killers are, in reality, slim.

2. There hasn't been a single sighting of Mike Riemer since the incident. I understand this is the case with many killers, but one would think after 24 years someone would recognize him.

3. As far as I know, it was never determined if those socks belonged to Mike or Diana. (Aside: It was determined that they were definitely alike, however. Perhaps my memory fails me, but if the sock was used in the same way in both murders [that is, not necessarily as a strangulation device, but perhaps as a "calling card"], I think that would be an extremely important factor.)

4. Again, as far as I know, no one actually placed Mike Riemer--supposedly checking his trap line or the like--in the woods of Pierce County where the other couple was killed around the time of that murder.

5. As I've always said, Riemer's father has a point. Mike would not have left his jacket in the truck in Washington state in the middle of December, especially if he needed to walk out of the forest to reach a road. If he killed Diana outdoors, chances are he would probably be wearing it. (I'm completely speculating here, please understand.) Why leave behind a jacket riddled with evidence?

6. An individual murdering Diana, and then abducting Mike and Crystal cannot be ruled out. Again, really speculating--but suppose Mike begged his hypothetical abductor to let his daughter alone. The abductor obliges, and this is how we find Crystal at K-Mart. The chances are rather slim, but it's a possibility nonetheless.


I also believe the note on the dashboard was overplayed in the segment. As I've said, my husband frequently leaves me little notes very much like that around the house, for me to find upon waking and that sort of thing. It's an anecdotal deduction, but I honestly don't think it's much of a stretch to imagine Mike doing the same for Diana.

Of course, I realize there are many unanswered questions. I always love and never tire of discussing this case. Thanks for the bump, mattc. :)

Hmm, Meg the Egg, interesting analysis. I am inclined to believe that Mike Riemer probably did kill not only Diana but the other couple a few months prior. However it is possible that he did not. Basically, I will say, if Mike killed Diana, than he would have had to have a way to get out of the woods, jacket or not. I have a hard time believing he would hitch hike all the way to town where his daughter was left. So, there are a couple of possibilities with this. One, Riemer somehow had another car or vehicle at the scene. Two, Riemer had an accomplice pick him up and drop his daughter off at the store while Riemer went to an undisclosed location and disappeared. Three, Riemer started hitchhiking with his daughter, acting like his car had broken down or he was lost or something and getting a ride from a passerby. However what bothers me about that possibility is that no one ever came forward to report this.

Clearly the truck was very deep in the woods, so much so it was not found until about two months after the actual killing if I remember right. Obviously critical evidence degraded over that time and clearly Riemer had not been back to tamper with the crime scene. That is something else that always bothered me. I would think if Riemer did this, he would be monitoring the investigation somehow. So if he was doing this, eventually he would have become aware that the cops had no idea where the truck was. So why not go back and get the note, and things like that?

However that said, this was a very remote area of Pierce County. So much so that it seems you would have had to know the area to get around. So clearly the killer, whether it was Mike or an unidentified third party knew the area. Gary Ridgeway and Robert Yates were both free and both in the area at that time however these killings do not match either of their M.O.'s and while I cannot say for sure it was not them, I do not think either of them were involved.

Another serial killer that was on the lose at the time was Charles Sinclair who was also in the area. He is a strong suspect in the killing of Jay and Tanya in 1987 who were featured in another UM segment. Sinclair is considered a strong suspect in the killings of no fewer than 5 people in Washington State alone during the mid to late 1980s and was/is also a suspect in killings in California and New Mexico among other places. Sinclair's M.O. was more to leave the bodies, fully clothed. Unlike Ridgeway and if I remember right Yates too (they both killed I believe only women) Sinclair killed both men and women and enjoyed killing couples especially. I think it it was the thrill and the challenge of it that led him to enjoy killing couples.

However, the question does remain, why would the killer dispose of only Mike's body but leave Diana's body there? Sure it could be to throw the police off the track. However it makes more sense that Mike would be the killer in this scenario since his body is not there. I also do not think only one person alone could have disposed of Mike's body. To me that is probably the most troubling thing is how only Mike's body 'went missing' it does not make sense. Yes it can be argued the 'killer' disposed of Mike's body to make it look like Mike had done it and then fled. However again, if this was the case, who helped dispose of the body? This case reminds me of the Dub Wackerhaugen case, where Dub and his son 'went missing' when in my opinion they are probably both still alive.

My feeling is that Mike killed his wife in a fit of rage and then took his daughter to the K-Mart and then went back to where he killed his wife, walked into the woods and killed himself. Reasons:
1. There has not been one sighting of him really.
2. The daughter was dropped off makes me think this is not the work of a random serial killer but a father who did not want harm to come to his daughter.
3 Why would a serial killer leave Diana out in the open but hide Mikes body?
4. Mike left his jacket and this happened during a very cold time a year and his car was still there which would make it pretty hard to leave the area.

I am not sold on the fact that mike killed the other couple either. Just seems no point to it if he committed suicide or if he had a plan to disappear after killing Diana. Mike would still be the main suspect until he or his body were found.

So many questions to this one....

All great and valid points, kadrmas (I'd never thought to think of Charles Sinclair--extremely interesting; thanks for bringing that up) and ddelta.

Just got to thinking of something today. Young Crystal's declaration "Mommy is in the trees" poses multiple questions leading me to come to two conclusions on what possibly occurred:

1. Crystal was actually there with Mike and Diana in the woods when her mother was killed (and possibly witnessed her father doing so :eek:).

2. She was merely told her mother was in the forest by Mike or whomever before she was dropped off at the K-Mart. Perhaps she never actually went into the woods with her mother and father, as she was left at the store before Diana's murder transpired.

It seems that the latter would be a bit more likely, as Diana's body and the truck were found in a remote location. However, Molly Koch, the K-Mart manager interviewed in the segment, did report Crystal walking around in a daze--perhaps as if she'd been traumatized in some way. Any thoughts on that?

CrystalDawn... I know this was a post you wrote a long time ago, but I wanted to comment on it because 1) I just rewatched the segment, and 2) I thought your analysis was brilliant. I never thought that perhaps Mike had heard about the couple being killed (although it makes sense, as I'm sure that would be widely covered in the local news/press). Then, he wrapped a sock around his wife to throw off the police. I do think Mike killed his wife, but I don't know about the other couple.

On thing though: Didn't the UM segment imply that the SAME sock was wrapped around the couple and his wife, or was it simply that the socks were similar in terms of how they were tied? I guess I need to go back and rewatch it. That would make a major difference.

Talk about reminding me of the orange sock killing (another of the great, early segments)! Thanks.

Thanks Mattc! Its a really baffling case. Personally I have no doubt that Mike killed Diana. I've been thinking recently and I wonder if he had an accomplice after the fact. He left his truck there and given his occupation I could see him just living in the woods so as not to be caught, but how did his daughter get to the store? I wonder if Mike called a friend or acquaintance and asked them to pick her up. But if so you would think he would care enough about his daughter to have them drop her off at a relatives house (unless he figured at the store they would figure out who she was and put her with a relative). He clearly wasn't thinking about the welfare of his child, just didn't want to have to be on the run with a small child. I'm assuming the little girl was quite traumatized but at the age of 5 I would think she could at least give them some info. Like who drove her into town and if daddy was the one who hurt mommy. Maybe she has said more and UM just didn't tell us.

I'm not sure if it was the exact same type of sock but it was tied in the same distinctive fashion because the detective said it made the hair stand up on the back of his head. Hey that really makes you think that Mike is the serial killer. I'm sure the distinctive knot on the sock found on the couple wasn't published so how would Mike have known that to copy it unless he killed the couple? That makes me lean towards him being a serial killer. This would make a great book. I'm curious as to the early years of Mike Reimer and whether or not he has killed before.

This would make a great book. I'm curious as to the early years of Mike Reimer and whether or not he has killed before.

I agree on the book; it'd be fascinating. Mike Riemer's background would be a decisive piece of information for me. In fact, that'd probably make my final determination. I wonder if Mike's friend has changed his mind about what happened since then.

2. She was merely told her mother was in the forest by Mike or whomever before she was dropped off at the K-Mart. Perhaps she never actually went into the woods with her mother and father, as she was left at the store before Diana's murder transpired.

I think the fact that she says her mother is in "the trees" points to the little girl have witnessed seeing her mother's body lying there.

If Mike had told her about her mother laying in the forest, I don't think he would have said she was laying in the forest. In fact I don't think he would have said anything except that, "Mommy is fine. or Mom's going away for a while."

Her weird behavior also kind of points to some type of 'shock" which would go with her witnessing her mother's murder.

Here is one, I have kind of considered. I am not sure if Megtheegg brought it up although she made some very good and interesting points. However, has anyone ever considered that Mike actually murdered Diana BEFORE they even got to the woods? Or even if the murder did happen in the woods, that Mike took their daughter back to town, left her at the store, and then drove back to the woods and from there disappeared? Obviously the daughter was 2, so she did not understand the concept of death or the concept of murder. However she did seem to be in shock at having seen something traumatizing. However she never mentioned anything about her dad, now this is only a two year olds testimony, but clearly she knew that her dad was not in the trees which leads me to believe she knew her dad was alive.

Here is one, I have kind of considered. I am not sure if Megtheegg brought it up although she made some very good and interesting points. However, has anyone ever considered that Mike actually murdered Diana BEFORE they even got to the woods?

Interesting. I guess it is not a given that the wooded area is the crime scene. Perhaps just an assumption by the police.

For the absence of Mike's body near the crime scene, it is not entirely impossible that Mike was mistakenly left for dead by the attacker, but in fact badly wounded. That would mean that he could have standed up and attemped to get out of the forest for help, leaving his coat behind due to confusion, and die away in an unknown location from his wounds, exposure, or both.

Mike Riemer might be an outdoorsman and keen hunter, he wasn't Superman. Even in top shape, in cold December weather, without his coat chances he could exit that forest without badly suffering from chilblains or hypothermia are slim to none.

In fact, it is entirely possible that he did commit the murder AND die in the forest. He could have arranged for someone else to drive his daughter to the mall as an alibi, come back to the crime scene to clean up evidence, leave his coat on the scene in a brazen and foolish attempt to place himself as a potential victim, and attempt to flee away through the forest, only to get frozen down from hypothermia or some silly injury and die from the cold somewhere unknown.

It is interesting, however, that the girl said "Mommy is in the trees", and not "Mommy and daddy are in the trees". Also, that the segment didn't mention who had driven her to the mall makes it plain to me that it was a stranger. If it were her father she would certainly have remembered it, and it would become evident that Mike Riemer was very much alive and well after the murder.

For the absence of Mike's body near the crime scene, it is not entirely impossible that Mike was mistakenly left for dead by the attacker, but in fact badly wounded. That would mean that he could have standed up and attemped to get out of the forest for help, leaving his coat behind due to confusion, and die away in an unknown location from his wounds, exposure, or both.

1. Wouldn't there be a blood trail at the site leading to the forest.
2. Wouldn't he have taken his daughter with him or protected her? Why would he leave his daughter behind?

It is interesting, however, that the girl said "Mommy is in the trees", and not "Mommy and daddy are in the trees". .

True, but that may just mean that here mothers body was placed in the roots. It reallly doesn't say for certain the fate of her father. What it does point to IMHO, is whatever happened to her mother was specifically ingrained into her mind.

Mike Riemer might be an outdoorsman and keen hunter, he wasn't Superman. Even in top shape, in cold December weather, without his coat chances he could exit that forest without badly suffering from chilblains or hypothermia are slim to none.

1. Considering the detail of the planning gone into this murder, if Mike did the murders i have to imagine he had a plan on getting out of the forest.

2. The daughter had to have been droppeed of by car, which means the murderer had another car somewhere.


In fact, it is entirely possible that he did commit the murder AND die in the forest. He could have arranged for someone else to drive his daughter to the mall as an alibi, come back to the crime scene to clean up evidence, leave his coat on the scene in a brazen and foolish attempt to place himself as a potential victim, and attempt to flee away through the forest, only to get frozen down from hypothermia or some silly injury and die from the cold somewhere unknown

Why does he have to drop his daughter of before creating the crime scene? Why not drop her off afterwards? Why even involve a third party?

If he has time to go back to the crime scene and clean it up...why didn't he take his wife's body, packup everything and leave in the car that was there?

Also, that the segment didn't mention who had driven her to the mall makes it plain to me that it was a stranger. If it were her father she would certainly have remembered it, and it would become evident that Mike Riemer was very much alive and well after the murder.

The segment also mentioned that she was in some type of shock. If she saw her father murdering her mother in front of her that would lead to that type of shock. She might have been to scared and shocked to say anything. or she has completely blacked out the memory of the experience.

2. It's quite possible, that Mike may have threatened and told his daughter not to say a thing about what happened.

1. Wouldn't there be a blood trail at the site leading to the forest.
2. Wouldn't he have taken his daughter with him or protected her? Why would he leave his daughter behind?


1. Weeks passed between finding the daughter and finding Diane's body and the van. Elements can easily have washed away the blood trail.
2. That I cannot say, but in any case, all cases can vouch for the daughter's return: either the killer dropped her, her father did, or an accomplice did. No hypothesis is inherently disproven due to the daughter being dropped in the K-mart.


True, but that may just mean that here mothers body was placed in the roots. It reallly doesn't say for certain the fate of her father. What it does point to IMHO, is whatever happened to her mother was specifically ingrained into her mind.


I'll talk about it below, but I cannot buy that the daughter was traumatized enough to forget even basic stuffs that happened after the crime. Also, maybe the killer(s) took the daughter away to prevent her to be a witness, so she cannot remember what she hasn't seen.


1. Considering the detail of the planning gone into this murder, if Mike did the murders i have to imagine he had a plan on getting out of the forest.

2. The daughter had to have been droppeed of by car, which means the murderer had another car somewhere.


1. Plans can go awry. But we cannot discount him having a second coat.
2. Yet it is not mentioned that Mike had a second car. Thus either it was a stranger killer or it was an accomplice.



Why does he have to drop his daughter of before creating the crime scene? Why not drop her off afterwards? Why even involve a third party?

If he has time to go back to the crime scene and clean it up...why didn't he take his wife's body, packup everything and leave in the car that was there?


1. I don't know Mike's or the killer's mind. These cannot be answered. The only reason I can see if to prevent Diana to become suspicious or to pretend they were going out as a family.

2. If the killer wanted the body to be found and linked with the couple's murder, then hiding the body goes against this point. The body had to be found to be linked. In fact, the fact that nothing was packed is a good point in favour of Mike being dead.



The segment also mentioned that she was in some type of shock. If she saw her father murdering her mother in front of her that would lead to that type of shock. She might have been to scared and shocked to say anything. or she has completely blacked out the memory of the experience.

2. It's quite possible, that Mike may have threatened and told his daughter not to say a thing about what happened.

But after all these years? I mean she is an adult now, and yet she still can't remember if her father or not was with her in the car?

While I can understand she was in a state of shock, I have trouble accepting the fact that she would forget whether her dad or not dropped her to that K-mart. It is a basic pattern recognition: Either it is him or it isn't.

The only way I would see, is either she was unconscious the whole drive time and dumped in the K-mart still asleep, or she was under a blindfold and told to remove it after counting to ten.

Assuming that Mike was a victim in this crime like Diana, I really tend to think at least two people were involved...maybe the same two people who killed the first couple found in those woods with the tube socks tied around their necks. I think one individual stayed behind to tend to the crime scene and perhaps the other person might have been told to do away with the child. I dunno, maybe this person decided not to kill her too and instead put her in front of that store where someone would easily find her.

There is one other aspect to consider. What exactly was the little girl's relationship to Mike? I know he was her dad but if it is indeed true that he was abusive to Diana, this child might have feared or even despised her father. If Mike did kill Diana, given the history of the relationship if true, and he had dropped her off at that store, I can certainly see him threatening her not to say anything or else he might do the same thing to her.

has anyone ever considered that Mike actually murdered Diana BEFORE they even got to the woods? Or even if the murder did happen in the woods, that Mike took their daughter back to town, left her at the store, and then drove back to the woods and from there disappeared? Obviously the daughter was 2, so she did not understand the concept of death or the concept of murder. However she did seem to be in shock at having seen something traumatizing.

If the woods were a secondary location, it was a place that Mike would have felt comfortable placing Diana's body. Since Mike was a frequent outdoorsman, it would typical to keep supplies in his vehicle for all kinds of weather. He could have taken a coat or insulated coveralls with him -- just not the particular coat that was in his vehicle. From what I recall, there's no mention on UM if any of his camping supplies or weapons were missing when he disappeared.

I'm also curious if Diana and her daughter frequently went with Mike while he trapped or hunted, or would it have been an anomaly. I think this was a rage killing, as was possibly the killing of the couple -- perhaps he perceived that they were hunting/camping/poaching on what he considered 'his' land.

It should also be mentioned that one reason the daughter doesn't mention her father dropping her off is that he was wearing a mask throughout the whole incident.

1. Weeks passed between finding the daughter and finding Diane's body and the van. Elements can easily have washed away the blood trail.

Was it really that long? I'm not doubting you, but i was under the assumption that it was a few days.


Assuming that Mike was a victim in this crime like Diana, I really tend to think at least two people were involved...maybe the same two people who killed the first couple found in those woods with the tube socks tied around their necks. I think one individual stayed behind to tend to the crime scene and perhaps the other person might have been told to do away with the child. I dunno, maybe this person decided not to kill her too and instead put her in front of that store where someone would easily find her.

Why would two people leave that envelope?




I'll talk about it below, but I cannot buy that the daughter was traumatized enough to forget even basic stuffs that happened after the crime. Also, maybe the killer(s) took the daughter away to prevent her to be a witness, so she cannot remember what she hasn't seen.

Why not? It happens all the time in murder cases. People have blacked out traumatic events all the time.

It should also be pointed out that she might have been asleep or blindfolded through the whole trip away from the murder scene.

either the killer dropped her, her father did, or an accomplice did. No hypothesis is inherently disproven due to the daughter being dropped in the K-mart.

No but it points more to her father being the one that dropped her off, since she was not killed along with her mother. Whoever dropped her off cared enough about her to make sure she was reasonably safe.

A psychopath or serial killer would have no qualms about adding a little girl to the deaths of two adults.

If Mike's going to disapper, he;s really not going to care about whether his daughter says anything to the police. Nor is he going to care about cleaning up the crime scene since he's already going to lam it.

If another person killed his wife, and Mike escaped, that person is not going to risk dropping the daughter off. Especially since Mike might be alive as a witness along with his daughter. Especially since Mike might be come back to turn hell over trying to rescue his daughter The obvious thing would be to leave the crime scene and get out as soon as possible.

Is it possible that a third party killed both Mike and his Wife. Sure, but is it the most likely scenario.

1. Mike had a bad relation with his estranged wife, there a plenty of stories detailing potential violent activity
2. Mike's body is missing from the scene
3. The suspicious envelope
4. daughter was "rescued" and left in a public area.

All this points more toward Mike Reimer being the prmary suspect in this case.

The key to solving this case is finding Mike Reimer---dead or alive.

The problem we keep coming back to though, is this: What about the other couple who had socks tied in identical ways as Mike's wife?

That is the problem I am having. I tend to agree that Mike killed his wife, and that Mike is NOT a victim. I think it was a rage killing, etc. However, b/c of that sock, one has to conclude that Mike killed that couple (months before his wife's death) and then took his wife out and killed her.

I've been doing google searches and can't find much. We need more information to go on in order to really move the conversation forward. Wouldn't it be great if the daughter posted on here for us! Or anybody connected to the case! This is a real intriguing one for me.

The problem we keep coming back to though, is this: What about the other couple who had socks tied in identical ways as Mike's wife?

1. If it is a serial killing then we only have two incidents that match. As far I know there hasn't been a third incident. Seems like a pretty short tenure for this guy. Unless of course Mike Reimer is the serial killer and he had to lam it since he killed his wife.

2. Mike Reimer would be the best suspect for that crime as well, considering the M.O.

3. Personally I believe that the other couples murder has nothing to do with this case. I think Mike just staged this thing to match that murder.

4. If you really think about it, the only thing linking this case to that one is the tied sock. It could all be just a coincidence. if Mike Reimer is the one that killed his wife, the victims don't macth either. A man and wife compared to a woman being killed.

Here is one, I have kind of considered. I am not sure if Megtheegg brought it up although she made some very good and interesting points. However, has anyone ever considered that Mike actually murdered Diana BEFORE they even got to the woods? Or even if the murder did happen in the woods, that Mike took their daughter back to town, left her at the store, and then drove back to the woods and from there disappeared? Obviously the daughter was 2, so she did not understand the concept of death or the concept of murder. However she did seem to be in shock at having seen something traumatizing. However she never mentioned anything about her dad, now this is only a two year olds testimony, but clearly she knew that her dad was not in the trees which leads me to believe she knew her dad was alive.

I was thinking the same thing. There was a presumption that the couple and the child went out together as one happy family to buy a Christmas tree, but, given the transportation issues, it makes more sense that Diana was killed and dumped at the location where her car was found. If Mike had killed her at the site, then we must conclude that:
1) Mike drove his daughter to the store and then drove back to the kill site (highly unlikely), or
2) Had someone pick him up and his daughter up, which also seems unlikely.

I can see Mike having killed her at home and transporting her to the woods.. the fact that the girl looked traumatized and said "mommy is in the woods" could mean that she was told that "daddy is taking mommy to the woods" or even "daddy is taking mommy to the woods to buy a tree, and we'll be back." Anything is possible, and I don't think too much should be placed on the 2-year-old's statement. When I think back to being two, I'm not sure I can think of anything honestly.

Isn't it also a sign of a passion killing when one finds a woman stabbed 17 times? I truly believe that Mike killed all three, especially since the sock issue was not released to the public, meaning that he would have had to have had ESP to know that a sock was tied around the former victims.

My theory: Mike killed Diana, took her body and his daughter out, dropped the daughter off at the store, dumped Diana's body, and either went into the woods to kill himself, or left on foot, and started a new life.

The fact that he hasn't been spotted doesn't mean he isn't alive.

I think Mike is dead, killed by the person who killed Diana, who killed the other couple, and who dropped the little girl off at the store.

The "why would he leave Diana there yet carry off Mike" reasoning that it points to Mike doesn't make any sense to me. Admittedly that would be illogical for a killer to do, but the killer could have simply killed Mike elsewhere along his trap line, especially if tha child was sleeping and Diana stayed in the truck with her, simply put the body in the woods or the river, the surprised Diana at the spot.

My contention is this killer was an avid outdoorsman, much like Mr. Reimer, and had seen him come and go before often accompanyed by a lovely young woman.

I think Mike is dead, killed by the person who killed Diana, who killed the other couple, and who dropped the little girl off at the store.

The "why would he leave Diana there yet carry off Mike" reasoning that it points to Mike doesn't make any sense to me. Admittedly that would be illogical for a killer to do, but the killer could have simply killed Mike elsewhere along his trap line, especially if tha child was sleeping and Diana stayed in the truck with her, simply put the body in the woods or the river, the surprised Diana at the spot.

My contention is this killer was an avid outdoorsman, much like Mr. Reimer, and had seen him come and go before often accompanyed by a lovely young woman.

1. What about the letter on that envelope?
2. Why not kill the little girl? Why would he have such scrupples? The girl could potentially identify him in a police lineup?
3. What was the motive?

1. What about the letter on that envelope?
2. Why not kill the little girl? Why would he have such scrupples? The girl could potentially identify him in a police lineup?
3. What was the motive?

I don't think Mike is dead at all; I think he killed his wife and then either fled, or killed himself in the woods and his body hasn't been found. Your last two points are strong reason why a third party sounds implausible, but I still say that too much emphasis is being placed on the envelope.

For it to be important, it has to mean that Mike scrawled I love you on it as a sick form of goodbye, or something. However, this would also mean that Mike wanted and knew that others would see it.

This morning I was driving to work, and I shoved some papers, a book, and yes, some manilla envelopes on the dash board. People do randomly put stuff up there all the time, assuming it wont slide around. We don't know how long ago it was written. I'd like to know exactly where it was, was there other things with it, and was the truck cluttered as well. If the truck was disorganized and cluttered, I say it probably wasn't related to the case. If the car was immaculate, and this was the only thing out of place, perhaps. Something tells me the car wasn't spotless :)

1. What about the letter on that envelope?

I think we, as in people on this forum, oftentimes tend to fall into a trap of trying to find scenarios that use every bit of information UM provides. This could be one of those times.This might very well be a simple "I love you" letter Mr. Reimer wrote several months before, gave to her, she had it with her, and then left it in the truck in the meantime. Or not. I can envision a scenario in which Mike knows he's going to be murdered and scrawls a quick message before.


2. Why not kill the little girl? Why would he have such scrupples? Dunno aaaaaand...dunno


The girl could potentially identify him in a police lineup? I HIGHLY doubt it. How old was she...2, maybe 3? Kids that age can't process the concept of picking someone out of a lineup.

3. What was the motive? A sick sick bastard who is sexually motivated and hates women?? Doesn't mind killing the men with them. Hmmmmm....see: EAR/ONS, Angel Maturino Resendez, Alfred Prieto, Zodiac(?)

4. If you really think about it, the only thing linking this case to that one is the tied sock. It could all be just a coincidence. if Mike Reimer is the one that killed his wife, the victims don't macth either. A man and wife compared to a woman being killed.


Maybe Mike Riemer had heard about the sock in the first murder (even though he hadn't committed it) and decided to use a similar sock in the murder of his wife to throw the police off his trail? Are they SURE that the socks are exact mates? Just thinking aloud...

Charli-Ann

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mastermind
3. What was the motive?
A sick sick bastard who is sexually motivated and hates women?? Doesn't mind killing the men with them. Hmmmmm....see: EAR/ONS, Angel Maturino Resendez, Alfred Prieto, Zodiac(?)

The serial killer and psychotic murder eventually becomes a default theory for any unsolved murder case. If you can;t find a suspect or a murder...then it can only be a serial killer. Even though the statistics show that serial murders are the lowest probablity killings. The first being crimes of passion..which this case very well may be.

Basically any unsolved murder can be rationalized into a serial killing. Many suspects have taken advantage of that fact...someone like perhaps Mike Riemer who may have staged this thing as a serial killing.

Before we follow the serial killer line of investigation...let's find Mike Reimer first and clear him first. Heck Mike Riemer might be a serial killer himself.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mastermind
2. Why not kill the little girl? Why would he have such scrupples?
Dunno aaaaaand...dunno

You would agree though, that the dropping off of the little girl favors Mike being the murderer? That it is highly unusual that your serial killer would waste time dropping off his victims little girl. Especially since we've seen several killers who have killed everyone in the family..
1. Ron Defeo murdered his little sisters(or was it sons? I forget)
2. BTK murdered children in his attacks when given the chance
3. Even Zodiac may have threatened to kill a little baby(if you believe Kathleen Johns story). Heck Zodiac threatened to kill a busload of school children. Strangly enough Zodiac suspect Arthur Leigh Allan was a child molester...I'm sure he would have no scruples about killing children.
4. If you are anti-Dr. MacDonald, that guy killed two little girls.

Wouldn;t you agree that sparing the little girl is highly unusual for a serial killer? Wouldn;t you agree that sparing ANYBODY would be unusual for a serial killer. If your going to kill two people and orphan a child, why are you going to risk everything just to drop off a little girl in a parking lot.

You would think he would just leave the little girl right where she is or kill her too. She's already orphaned, why not

Plus where is the rest of this serial killers diabolical killings. What he just kills two couples and just coincidently ends his reign of terror after Mike Reimer is missing? Too much of a coincidence. Where are the other killings we can link to these two?

I think we, as in people on this forum, oftentimes tend to fall into a trap of trying to find scenarios that use every bit of information UM provides. This could be one of those times.

What else are we supposed to base things on?:confused:
If you know of a better site with more accurate information on this case...by all means point the way? Does the Doe Network have better information?

This might very well be a simple "I love you" letter Mr. Reimer wrote several months before, gave to her, she had it with her, and then left it in the truck in the meantime. Or not. I can envision a scenario in which Mike knows he's going to be murdered and scrawls a quick message before


1. It is not a letter, it was an envelope. That is a huge distinction to make here
a. The fact that it is an envelope rather than an actual letter indicates that this "note" was written very quickly and was not done with a lot of care. Like something that Mike Reimer wrote at the time of the murder.
b. I can envision a scenario in which Mike knows he's going to be murdered and scrawls a quick message before What's wrong with writting the word "HELP!" Wouldn;t that be a more appropriate thing to write at that time?:confused: "Help My family is in trouble!!! Call the Police! I;m in the woods!" Takes no time at all to write, IMHO.
c. If Mike wrote this as a love letter" he chose an odd writing parchment to do so on. Usually when someone uses an envelope that means that there was something in the envelop.
d. This isn't exactly a good way to get on your wifes good side:rolleyes: . I think if I wrote I love you Diane on an envelope and handed to a girl, I'd be the one who was killed. What's wrong with a card or an actual detail letter.
e. if the letter was wrote months before. What are the odds really that Diane just happened to leave this envelope in the car? What are the odds that this thing happens to wind up in full view at the time that Joe Serial Killer comes a-knocking? It does however makes sense that they would have a blank envelop filled with driver's information that was emptied and used for this love letter at the time of the scene.
f. A very important question that needs to brought up is whether the pen was ever found at the scene?

OK call me crazy, but I swear I read about this case being related to another case. Some chick name Tina or Tonya went missing at a house party and somehow this was relation to Mike Reimer. i will research and get back on here.

Man, this case is a dilly of a pickle. So much conflicting evidence: on the one hand, the little girl got back to K-mart, which we know she would not have been able to do on her own, and, furthermore, it is unlikely anyone else could have gotten her back, on the same day as her parents' disappearance, without using mobile transportation of some kind. And yet, Michael Riemer's truck was found at the scene, which leads to the question: if he dropped her off in front of the K-mart, how did he get her there WITHOUT the use of his truck? Why would he have left the truck at all? Why, as his father asks, would he have left his coat, if he was planning on staying out in the elements for an extended time?

Somone upthread made the fine observation that it is impossible to date the envelope found in Riemer's truck with the message "I Love You, Diana" written on it, so it may be a red herring as a piece of evidence.

Nonetheless, it is the strongest indication that Michael may have been involved, along with, of course, the fact that his body was never found. It's no mean feat to move a guy Michael's size after he is dead. Moreover, the fact that the daughter was left some place public and therefore relatively safe where she was likely to be taken care of also suggests that whoever did this cared enough about her to try to ensure she would be OK - this again, of course, suggests Michael Riemer.

I assume there has been no activity on Michael's SSN# or any credit cards he might have had since his disappearance; after all this time, I would think this makes it likely he is dead, but I guess if he was resourceful enough he could have created a new identity for himself; certainly lots of people have done it.

This is a little like the Dub & Chance Wackerhagen case, I guess, the only difference being in that one I am 99% sure Dub & Chance are alive somewhere, while in this one I'd say the chances are pretty decent Michael Riemer is dead, first of all, and that I'm only about 70% sure he was even responsible for the murder of his girlfriend, second of all. One question that lingers: what could have possibly transpired while Christmas tree hunting between Michael and Diana that would have led him to snap so badly as to take the course of action that he did? It's hard top believe this was spontaneous, if Michael is responsible, and yet, it's equally hard to believe it was premeditated: if his plan all along was to drive Diana deep into some remote woods and kill her, why did he allow the little girl to be brought along? This adds all kinds of complications to a murder plot if he DOESN'T intend to kill her too, which, apparently, he didn't.

The more I think about it, the more I think I may be only 60/40 on Michael Riemer being the killer in this case.

Somone upthread made the fine observation that it is impossible to date the envelope found in Riemer's truck with the message "I Love You, Diana" written on it, so it may be a red herring as a piece of evidence.

1. A better question is whether the pen used to write it was found in the truck.

2. The fact that the letter was found displayed prominently through the windshield indicates it was placed there.

3. Why was the envelope written??:confused: Was it supposed to contain something??? If so, why was the envelope left in the car? If it was a love note, it would be written as a love letter, not some short message on an an envelope...Odds are more likely that the killer of Diana wrote the message at the time of the murder. He chose an envelope because it was the only thing available at the time.

4. The date or condition of the envelope is meaningless since the killer could have written the message on an old envelope that was found inside the car. It is not unusual to have a manilla envelope in your car with a marker. The marker is used to write insurance info, the envelope could have been used to keep insurance and car info.

Man, this case is a dilly of a pickle. So much conflicting evidence: on the one hand, the little girl got back to K-mart, w

You really thinks so? Personally I think this case is a lot simpler. We either find Mike Riemer dead and there's a serial killer out there, or we find Mike Riemer alive and he's arrested for the murder of his wife.

The key to this case is finding Mike Reimer, dead or alive.

if he dropped her off in front of the K-mart, how did he get her there WITHOUT the use of his truck? Why would he have left the truck at all? Why, as his father asks, would he have left his coat, if he was planning on staying out in the elements for an extended time?

These are all valid questions, but they all pail to the biggest piece of evidence of all. The fact that Mike Riemer is missing to begin with.


This is a little like the Dub & Chance Wackerhagen case, I guess, the only difference being in that one I am 99% sure Dub & Chance are alive somewhere

What if the blood in the truck belongs to Chance Wackerhagen? To me that would open the possibility that Chance may have been killed by his father. Based on the blood I can't go 99%.

what could have possibly transpired while Christmas tree hunting between Michael and Diana that would have led him to snap so badly as to take the course of action that he did?

1. I know of no man that has never wanted to kill their wife while Christmas tree shopping...that alone would justify murder., :lol: But seriously..this has all the makings of a crime of passion...the usual motives apply here. Maybe the fact that it was Christmas had a lot to do with it. Holiday stress.

2. Mike and Diana's relationship was already deteriorating to begin with. This proabably was the last straw.

3. It should be pointed out that Mike Riemer may very well be psychotic. There is still a possibility that he murdered that other couple before.
Perhaps Diana figured out that Mike was responsible for those murders. Maybe this was a silencing.

3. It should be pointed out that Mike Riemer may very well be psychotic. There is still a possibility that he murdered that other couple before. Perhaps Diana figured out that Mike was responsible for those murders. Maybe this was a silencing.

:bonk: I forgot all about the sock thing!

And again, that could go either way. Personally, I doubt Michael Riemer was responsible for the other murders, but that is just a feeling, nothing more.

I might be down to a 50/50 on this being Michael Riemer or not.

In response to your question, Mastermind, I do think it's "a dilly of a pickle" insofar as I don't see any way to tell or even be reasonably certain that Michael Riemer is or is not responsible for the murder of Diana. You're right, of course, that finding him, dead or alive, will probably go 90-100% of the way toward answering that question, but without Michael Riemer, I don't think it's any better than a 50/50 proposition. Whereas, with Dub and Chance Wackerhagen, even if we consider the possibility that it was Chance's blood inside the truck, I'd still say it's no worse than 70/30 that Dub was involved in his wife's death.

And again, that could go either way. Personally, I doubt Michael Riemer was responsible for the other murders, but that is just a feeling, nothing more.

From what I understand the other murders have not yet been solved..Is there even a suspect in those murders.

Another question I have is was the detail about the sock in the newspapers when those murders happended? Could Mike have found out about it from the newspapers. If not how would he know about the sock?

Personally I think this case is a lot simpler. We either find Mike Riemer dead and there's a serial killer out there, or we find Mike Riemer alive and he's arrested for the murder of his wife.

The key to this case is finding Mike Reimer, dead or alive.

I concur. If Riemer's alive somewhere, he's almost certainty responsible for Diana's murder. If his remains are found, it needs to be determined if he killed himself or was murdered.

The sock is also interesting - if that was a hold-back, and the sock on Diana was tied exactly the same and a matching pair, it would strongly suggest the same killer was involved.

Well, the tube socks, I will say that is one heck of a coincidence that the female victim in the other case and Diana would both have a tube sock tied in the same type of knot. As I recall that particular piece of information was not released to the public after the first killing so how would Mike Reimer know that unless he was the killer? Of course it could be that an unidentified third party killed the first couple and then killed Diana and Mike in an effort to frame Mike Reimer. However this unidentified third party, how would he know that people would assume it was Riemer? How would he know about Riemer's history of domestic violence?

Another issue, the note could be a red herring. But again, the problem is, how would this mysterious third party know Diana's name? Plus, how could he restrain both Diana and Mike at the same time and force Mike to write the note on the envelope? Also that is another huge coincidence that Mike would have a large empty manila envelope in his truck. I mean he was not going to a post office to mail something, he was going out to look for a Christmas tree and check his traps that were in the area.

I used to be a lot more sure that Mike Riemer did this than I am now. I honestly am on the fence now. I just do not really know what way to go. On the one hand there are several things that point to Mike doing it. But on the other hand there are also some things that point to him not doing it. I mean I think his own family and friends, it was not so much that they did not think he was capable of killing Diana, but they felt that if he was going to kill her that he would have done it in a different way.

That is the big stumbling block here for why a warrant was not issued for his arrest. They cannot prove he is alive and they cannot prove he is dead. But it also depends on the atmosphere of the state where something like this happens. I mean in Texas, a murder warrant was issued for Dub's arrest even though they could not prove he is alive and not prove he is dead either although I personally think that he and Chance are very much alive somewhere. But sort of tell you how different things are handled from say Washington State to Texas.

Now just so I do not get falsely accused of something, I am not saying that the cops always jump the gun in Texas but it seems more often than not they jump the gun first and then ask questions later. Like for instance, Steve Page or Mike Morris, even though they were both investigated, they were never charged in their wives death although there was strong circumstantial evidence both were involved. Yet in other parts of Texas Darlie Routier, Michael Scott Martin and Dub Walkerhaugen were all charged right away or almost right away.

I used to be a lot more sure that Mike Riemer did this than I am now. I honestly am on the fence now. I just do not really know what way to go. On the one hand there are several things that point to Mike doing it. But on the other hand there are also some things that point to him not doing it. I mean I think his own family and friends, it was not so much that they did not think he was capable of killing Diana, but they felt that if he was going to kill her that he would have done it in a different way.


@ kadrmas15:What, specifically, would you say points towards him and what, specifically, would you say points away from him? And I mean things that we know, not supposition.

For example, I think Mike Reimer did not kill Diana because I think the things that we know of the crime scene and subsequent events do not point that way, IMO. Things like him leaving his jacket out there, what car did he leave in, the similarity to the other killing, and most of all him not showing up anywhere on the grid in the years since.

I'd be interested in reading what those several things are you mentioned above. I myself am pretty much 99% certain but that 1% is open.


NOT solely @kadrmas15:

Oh also...that damned envelope. Have none of you ever written your significant other a letter or put something special into an envelope, and then wrote a quick "I love you" on the outside? Hasn't anyone had an empty envelope, or some other scrap paper, in their car for weeks past when they actully needed it? Why does the envelope merit attention at all except by the makers of UM to add a potentially eerie touch to the scene? I mean, is it plausible that in the midst of a crime of passion Mike Reimer murders his s.o., in a very unique manner, and flees with his daughter in an as yet unidentified car...some time during this sequence of events he goes and scrawls out "I love you" for some reason and leaves it there. If, and I think this is an astoundingly illogical assumption but, if you contend that he murdered Diana, then tried to make it look like he himself was a victim of some serial killer, then well I don't know what to say to that.

Oh also...that damned envelope. Have none of you ever written your significant other a letter or put something special into an envelope, and then wrote a quick "I love you" on the outside?

1. letters, yes, but I have never written a love letter on a manilla envelope and tried to pass it off as love letter.

2. Where;s the object that was in the envelope? Why is it missing and the envelope still their.

3.

Why does the envelope merit attention at all except by the makers of UM to add a potentially eerie touch to the scene?
1. Because Diana's name was on it. if it was written by the murderer, it means the murderer knew who Diana was. Which makes this less of a stranger crime.

2. The fact that the letter says I love you indicates that if it was the murderer who wrote it

3. The fact that the letter was displayed where it could be easily found almost seems like Mike Reimer was trying to throw suspicion on himself by saying that "I couldn;t do it because I love my wife".


I mean, is it plausible that in the midst of a crime of passion Mike Reimer murders his s.o., in a very unique manner, and flees with his daughter in an as yet unidentified car...some time during this sequence of events he goes and scrawls out "I love you" for some reason and leaves it there. If, and I think this is an astoundingly illogical assumption but, if you contend that he murdered Diana, then tried to make it look like he himself was a victim of some serial killer, then well I don't know what to say to that

Yes, it;s very plausible if Mike Reimer is the serial killer. It would make sense that he would write a warped little "valentine" to his wife he just butchered. Maybe it the envelope has some meaning like the "sock thing" that only Mike's unbalanced mind can decipher.

Hasn't anyone had an empty envelope, or some other scrap paper, in their car for weeks past when they actully needed it?

1. Most of the time the envelope has something in it like driver information, insurance or car registration. I usually don;t keep large empty envelopes in my car. I guess some people that do office work a lot probably do. It sounds more like the envelope contained some information as was emptied at the scene to use for a message.. simply because it was the only thing available.

2. If the envelope was written before why was it in the car to begin with? If it was supposed to contain a gift, Diana would have thrown away the envelope. If it was a love letter,(which is doubtful) why was it brought along? I fit was written at the scene wheres the gift that was contained in it? . Usually you also don;t put a gift in an plain envelope/ Wrapping paper, anyone? The only thing that makes sense is that the message was written at the day of the murder.

3. This still doesn;t answer the question of was a pen found at the scene.