http://ww.unsolvedmysteries.com/usm807.html

Looks like her daughter, who was found at the K-Mart -- Crystal -- posted that back in 1999, nearly 10 years ago now, asking that very question.

This was a intriguing case, especially when the daughter says "Mommy's in the trees". You think that she's talking non-sense but she actually was speaking the truth.

1. I lean toward Mike Reimer being responsible for at least the murder of his wife. It makes no sense why his body would not be found in the same place as his wife if he were killed by an assailant

2. I don;t know if I necessarily believe that Mike was a serial killer. I think Mike may have known of the other muders and tried to make his wifes murder look like the work of a serial killer.

Oooh boy another one of the big creep-me-out stories for me. "Mommy is in the trees" makes me shudder.

Not sure why she is asking. She should know. He dropped her off at K-Mart.

Not sure why she is asking. She should know. He dropped her off at K-Mart.

1. You don't know that *he* personally dropped her off.

2. She was young, she might not remember. Might be a blur, traumatic.

3. He's still been missing for some time, and she may not know 100% that he killed her mother, and she misses her father.

I've posted about this before, but I have doubts that Michael Riemer killed Diana Robertson. Albeit they're few in comparison to all of the circumstances that seem to indicate he may have done it, but they leave just enough doubt in my mind to keep me from going one way or the other on this case.

Yeah really perplexing IMO. Although they have little comparison I find that the Mike Riemer case and the "Trailer Terror" case with Laura Bible and Ashley Freeman are similar.

The reason why is that someone died at one spot and the other people who were supposed to be there with them were never found. Therefore, like Laura and Ashley, Mike is either a suspect or a victim, neither is proven yet. That really bothers me to be honest. It's one thing to know who did it and another thing to not know if the person you suspect is dead himself or being held captive

The reason why is that someone died at one spot and the other people who were supposed to be there with them were never found. Therefore, like Laura and Ashley, Mike is either a suspect or a victim, neither is proven yet. That really bothers me to be honest. It's one thing to know who did it and another thing to not know if the person you suspect is dead himself or being held captive

Actually with the Freeman/Bible case it was 2 people died on the spot and the other two are missing. But I get your point.

Actually if you look at the Riemer case it's actually:
1 person dead (wife)
1 person alive (daughter)
1 person missing (husband)

What serial killer leaves hide one body, leaves another body, but keeps a witness alive to testify against him?

How in the world did Crystal get to the K-Mart? That had to be quite a distance from the woods where Diana's body was found. There's no way she could have walked there, so someone had to drop her off.

Mike's truck was left in the woods, so there's a second vehicle involved. Here's where it gets tricky. Did Mike plan to have someone pick him up from the area? This is before the age of cell phones, so Mike would have had to planned the pick-up in advance. Maybe Mike did drop her off at a place where he knew she would be quickly found and taken care of, and told her to wait for him or something. Then he drives away.

I find it hard to believe Mike Riemer is not involved, because of his history of violence towards Diana. Also, there was a note left in the truck that said "I love you Diana" - if it was a serial killer, why was the note there? Do serial killers usually ask their victims what their names are? They thought this murder might be connected to the other couple found dead in the vicinity because of the location and the tube socks tied around their necks. But Diana wasn't killed in the same manner. She had been stabbed, and the other 2 were shot. It seems like Diana's murder was much more personal a crime.

This was a intriguing case, especially when the daughter says "Mommy's in the trees". You think that she's talking non-sense but she actually was speaking the truth.

1. I lean toward Mike Reimer being responsible for at least the murder of his wife. It makes no sense why his body would not be found in the same place as his wife if he were killed by an assailant

2. I don;t know if I necessarily believe that Mike was a serial killer. I think Mike may have known of the other muders and tried to make his wifes murder look like the work of a serial killer.
This is an interesting theory. What nags at me is how someone could have come upon Mike (who looked like a large imposing fella to me) and Diana and Crystal, then perpetrate the whole crime (killing her, kidnapping him, killing him (assuming he went unwillingly), taking his body with him, and also dropping Crystal off at a safe place). It doesn't make sense to me if it was a serial killer that did it or Mike was the serial killer.

Actually with the Freeman/Bible case it was 2 people died on the spot and the other two are missing. But I get your point.

Actually if you look at the Riemer case it's actually:
1 person dead (wife)
1 person alive (daughter)
1 person missing (husband)

What serial killer leaves hide one body, leaves another body, but keeps a witness alive to testify against him?

Well I see what you mean, but that witness is a young kid who probably has no recollection of anything. Mike's dead IMO. That's the feeling I've always gotten from this segment. Mike and his wife were distant in age IIRC, so fights would be natural, I don't think it's neccesarily tied to the murder.

Plus if he did it he wouldnt leave that note IMO. Why do that to yourself? All signs point to you then. IMO the killer planted that note. It isn't hard to find out her name just by looking into her purse, that is if he didn't know her

I just don't see why a stranger would leave such a note. I really believe Mike is the one who murdered her.

I believe Michael left the note. The odds of someone stalking and killing Diana and leaving a note like that are very small. But I'm still not totally convinced it was Mike who killed her. It's sort of a stretch, but perhaps he left camp to check some of the traps early in the morning, and left the note for Diana when she awoke. My husband sometimes does things like that. I don't know. Just an alternate theory. I'm really glad this case has been discussed so much lately; I'm always on the fence about it.

THis case fascinates me.....my honest feeling is that Mike killed Diana and then made it look like the other killings with the tube sock. Then somehow (walking maybe) took is daughter to the Wal Mart and left her there and then I think he wrote the letter and walked into the forrest and committed suicide.

The fact that there has not been one sighting of him since 1980 really proves that. I also find it odd that a random serial killer would care enough about a 2 year old to make sure she was unharmed and found. Only a father would do that.

I think it was a crime of passion ... murder suicide, with taking the daughter to a save place. Where she was found seemed to be very isolated (I think she was not found for a couple of weeks/months). It would have been easy for him to take a gun into the forrest and shoot himself in the head and never be found.

I find this case endlessly fascinating as well. Unfortunately, it's been awhile since I've seen it. One thing I would like clarification on - the tube socks found around the earlier victim's necks - was this detail released to the public at the time of the murders? Or was it withheld?

I did some digging and found a post by Kadrmas indicating that this was NOT a detail that was known at the time. If that is true, and you believe that Mike killed his wife, he would pretty much have to be guilty of these two murders as well. It would have to be a huge coincidence otherwise that he would choose to tie a tube sock around Diana's neck in the same manner (unbeknown to him) as the two earlier victims.

I tend to think that he killed Diana in a fit of rage. They could have had an argument about something trivial, but he was known to have a violent temper, and there was an apparently documented history of domestic abuse. He then took Crystal to the K-mart and dropped her off. As others have said, I can't see a random serial killer taking the time to do that - he probably would have just killed her and left her body with Diana's (and Mike's).

The big question is where is Mike Reimer today. I think he may have hiked into the woods and killed himself as someone else suggested. The "goodbye" card could be construed as a sign that he felt some remorse for what he had done to Diana.

The daughter was right about where her mother was, wouldn't she have been able to tell if it was her father that dropped her off? For that reason, I tend to think it was not Michael that dropped her off.

Perhaps, if Michael is dead, the killer hid his body in an effort to have all three murders blamed on him and hope the police would stop looking.

I'm not really 100% convinced but if I had to say my opinion I think Mike Reimer killed all 3 of them and was the serial killer. It was such an isolated area where all 3 of them were found and he knew the area well because he had traps there. What I don't understand is that even at 3, Crystal should have been able to tell them if daddy dropped her off. Did she tell her grandmother who dropped her off? Did she say daddy or a man or a woman? Its possible she did say and UM just didn't tell us. That would be an interesting question to know the answer to.

Haven't there been a string of couples murders in Washington/Oregon/No Cali/Vancouver corridor over the last 30 years or so? I can think of couples murdered in isolated places. The camp counselors on the beach in Sonoma in 2004, another camping couple in 1972 on Vancouver Island and the couple murdered with the infamous "Hallelujah Bloody Jesus" letters from Unsolved. There's also the murders they have already tentatively linked to Michael and Diana. I know they suspect the same man in at least 2 of these (the counselors on the beach and the 1972 couple).

http://crime.about.com/b/2005/04/04/man-suspected-in-1972-murders-wanted-in-counselors-death.htm
http://www.unsolved.com/ajaxfiles/mur_jay_cook_tanya_van_cuylenborg.htm

I wonder if there are more. The Cook/Van Cuylenborg case doesn't seem related, but because of the religious nature of the notes I tacked it on.

I wonder if Michael could have been injured (Do they still have blood samples from the seat of the truck that they could test now?) played dead and attempted to go for help and died somewhere in the woods. It was 3 months before the scene was found, a trail could certainly have been obliterated in that time.

What I don't understand is that even at 3, Crystal should have been able to tell them if daddy dropped her off

1. Perhaps her father was wearing a mask? (Though I wonder why he would bother:confused: )

2. Perhaps her father told her it was a secret. If she was a good girl she would get a gift from daddy.

3. Could be post-traumatic stress. Perhaps "mommy is in the trees is the only thing she remembers)

4. You could argue that she should have been able to tell them whoever dropped her off.

5. Perhaps some eyewitness to the murder saw everything and did not want to risk being the next victim, but had enough sense and responsible to take the child out of harms way.

The main suspect in two of the couple murders I mentioned has been killed in a shootout.

http://www.pressdemocrat.com/article/20090721/ARTICLES/907219964/1350?Title=Possible-suspect-in-Jenner-slayings-dies-in-shootout

I find this case endlessly fascinating as well. Unfortunately, it's been awhile since I've seen it. One thing I would like clarification on - the tube socks found around the earlier victim's necks - was this detail released to the public at the time of the murders? Or was it withheld?

I did some digging and found a post by Kadrmas indicating that this was NOT a detail that was known at the time. If that is true, and you believe that Mike killed his wife, he would pretty much have to be guilty of these two murders as well. It would have to be a huge coincidence otherwise that he would choose to tie a tube sock around Diana's neck in the same manner (unbeknown to him) as the two earlier victims.

I tend to think that he killed Diana in a fit of rage. They could have had an argument about something trivial, but he was known to have a violent temper, and there was an apparently documented history of domestic abuse. He then took Crystal to the K-mart and dropped her off. As others have said, I can't see a random serial killer taking the time to do that - he probably would have just killed her and left her body with Diana's (and Mike's).

The big question is where is Mike Reimer today. I think he may have hiked into the woods and killed himself as someone else suggested. The "goodbye" card could be construed as a sign that he felt some remorse for what he had done to Diana.
That was my thought too. Also, maybe the remorse could have come from the fact that his daughter may have witnessed him murder her mother (alledgedly).

I think we might be placing too much emphasis on the envelope. We don't know how long the envelope was in the car, or if he had given it to her that morning when she got it the car to go out. I mean, it is being portrayed like he killed his wife, then felt bad about it or something, and then wrote "I love you Diana" on an envelope and left it in the car??? That doesn't make sense to me. I think it is not relevant to this case.

I do think Mike killed his wife, particularly based on the history of abuse (pretty bad abuse from what the segment indicated), and the fact that weeks earlier Diana had gotten a restraining order against him.

Here's my questions though: Was Crystal dropped off before or after the murder? Prob. after, otherwise Diana would have been in the car and tried to get out too, and not want to let her daughter be dropped off at Kmart. How did Mike get Crystal to Kmart? Did he drive her there, and then go back to the crime scene?

Finally, the sock issue is VERY relevant here. I agree that the other couple was shot, and Diana was stabbed, but the matching sock was tied to both, and tied in the same manner. That is an indisputable connection, as the police said on the show.

So clearly, either Mike killed all three people, or Mike was also killed along with them. This case is truly a wonderful mystery (and tragic too of course). :)

I think we might be placing too much emphasis on the envelope. We don't know how long the envelope was in the car, or if he had given it to her that morning when she got it the car to go out. I mean, it is being portrayed like he killed his wife, then felt bad about it or something, and then wrote "I love you Diana" on an envelope and left it in the car??? That doesn't make sense to me. I think it is not relevant to this case.

I disagree for these reasons. I think the envelope is very relevant.

1. First and for most, handwriting experts have not ruled out that it is someone else's handwriting. That possibility alone bolsters the third party killer theory. Handwriting evidence could be used to convict someone if it reaches that point.

2. Why would you write I love you on the envelope if he was going to give it to her earlier? Wouldn'ty he just write "To Diana" or just "Diana".

3. The envelope was left in a way that it was almost intended to be found. It wasn't really hidden or tossed in the backseat. It was placed right in the trucks cab window for everyone to find it. If it was a nonchalant note why would it be placed there?

4. The envelope may have DNA on it. Which could also be used to convict someone.

5. It's not the most romantic thing in the world to write a "I love you" in black marker on an empty manilla filing envelope. Also why was there no "love letter", photo or gift in the enveope? If it fell out, why wasn't it spotted on the cab?

5.Why was the envelope not sealed...but left closing tag open like nothing was supposed to be put into it.

6. The envelope works very well as a piece of false evidence in that it insinuates that Diana was the intended victim of the crime, and not Mike or his daughter. It explains why they would be spared and not at the scene of the crime.

7. It points to Diane being killed by someone she knows. How else could the killer have known her name? It defuses the serial killer angle.

8. Why would Diana bring the empty envelope with her in the first place? What use would it have? Wouldn't she have left the thing at home?

No way in my mind did Mike commit suicide. He'd be found by now. This was 1985. You don't just go into a forrest and kill yourself and never be found.

First off, dogs would track his scent to where he murdered himself. The hunt for Mike would have happened immediately so his body wouldn't have decomposed or been eaten by then therefore making it hard to find. If he killed himself in the forest there was too little time elapsed for them not to recover his body, everything was fresh at that time.

I still think he's dead. The tube sock theory is weird. Since it was something not well known to the public you'd have to think that Mike killed all three victims then. And yes he had a temper. But does physical abuse = murder? Its like saying a liar is automatically a murderer.

Also the coat theory is strange. Mike left his coat in there. Meaning he would have walked with his daughter to Wal-Mart in the cold since his truck was left there. If he wasn't alone then a second party picked him up took him and the daughter to Wal-Mart and dropped the kid off. So if that is the case we are looking at another person being involved. I can't see that.

Also the note: why complicate things if you are Mike. If you are truly sorry for doing what you did, then drop your daughter off and kill yourself right next to your wife so the case is OVER. If he is guilty, why in the world would he implicate himself. This to me is a clever ploy of the killer. Trying to frame Mike and going one step further into eliminating proof that he's neither dead or alive.

And look, even a cold hearted serial killer might not want a kid to suffer.

But does physical abuse = murder? Its like saying a liar is automatically a murderer.

We've see several cases where abuse leads to murder. Monika Rizzo comes to mind.

Also the coat theory is strange. Mike left his coat in there. Meaning he would have walked with his daughter to Wal-Mart in the cold since his truck was left there.


I could be wrong but Mike was a big guy wasn;t he? In the rage of fury and pyschosis...Mike may have simply not realized he didn;t have his coat on.

Also the note: why complicate things if you are Mike. If you are truly sorry for doing what you did, then drop your daughter off and kill yourself right next to your wife so the case is OVER.

I agree. Mike has probably gone on the lam and remained were he is to this day. I don't know why I think this, but Canada seems the ideal place for him.

The tube sock theory is weird. Since it was something not well known to the public you'd have to think that Mike killed all three victims then.

There is a scary possibility that Mike has not only killed three people...but is still killing to this day. He may have morphed into another serial killer.:(

And look, even a cold hearted serial killer might not want a kid to suffer.

If it was a serial killer that murdered them, why have there been no other murders to match up to this MO? Why did this killer stop with this attack. What was so special about Diana(sp?) that required him to curb his activities.

No way in my mind did Mike commit suicide. He'd be found by now. This was 1985. You don't just go into a forrest and kill yourself and never be found.

A better question is why Mike after getting attacked ran into the forest? I would think someone like Mike would try to defend his family by all means necessary. i would think he would have to be hurt severly to near death to be succumbed. During this struggle why didn;t Diana take the child off running into the woods. Or even make the attempt at escape in the car. It almost seems that it would require to assailants to do the job.

Three people were at the scene before the attacker came.
Only one dead body can be confirmed. The woman.
One person is missing. The man
The one known survivor is the one person who couldn;t leave the scene on their own. The child.

Am I the only person who thinks the above scenario is a little strange for the attack that's supposed to be alleged.

The fact that only one person out of the three is confirmed dead, leads more to Diana being the primary and sole object of the attack.

No way in my mind did Mike commit suicide. He'd be found by now. This was 1985. You don't just go into a forrest and kill yourself and never be found.

I disagree. I think that if he were alive, he would have been found by now. If he's dead, it could have been by murder or suicide and the body could have been disposed of. It seems like if he were alive, someone out there would have recognized at least once over the past 20 plus years. I think he's dead.

If it was a serial killer that murdered them, why have there been no other murders to match up to this MO? Why did this killer stop with this attack. What was so special about Diana(sp?) that required him to curb his activities.

Exposure. Maybe the fear of almost getting caught. Or maybe there is a link between Diana and the other two victims that no one to this day has been able to piece together. Maybe the killing was a set up and the killer intentionally used Mike as a potential victim but since there are doubts about what really happened to him the killer decided not to go through all that work again for something that doesn't end up being cut and dry.

A better question is why Mike after getting attacked ran into the forest? I would think someone like Mike would try to defend his family by all means necessary. i would think he would have to be hurt severly to near death to be succumbed. During this struggle why didn;t Diana take the child off running into the woods. Or even make the attempt at escape in the car. It almost seems that it would require to assailants to do the job.

Who knows? His wife is dead he gets chased by someone. Makes sense to me. Also the whole thing about his coat being left there and it makes sense because he is a "big guy" holds little water. I am a big guy myself. Regardless of how big a human being is we all have skin. We feel the cold and perhaps are a little more insulated than a skinny man but a large man feels the cold like anyone else.

I'm torn on this one, but I maintain that he would have likely been spotted by now if he were alive. Or called his dad or something.

Mike has probably gone on the lam and remained were he is to this day. I don't know why I think this, but Canada seems the ideal place for him.

I feel the same way; he's an accomplished outdoorsman and would fit in easily in more rural communities. I could easily see Riemer living off the land/ doing construction/general labor in Canada or Alaska. Plenty of convicted felons have worked in Alaska; so it's not a stretch to assume he could make a fresh start there -- somewhere where any number of people are more recent arrivals and people don't tend to pry. His looks would not have stood out in a crowd and unless you saw that particular UM segment, who the hell would recognize him?

Consider the Green River Killer's victims, who were murdered in the same general western Washington area around the same time of Diana's murder and Mike's disappearance (the former in and around Seattle, the latter in Tacoma--about a 30 mile difference, but no changes in terrain). Some of those women and girls weren't discovered for many, many years, solely because of the thick underbrush characteristic of the forests of the Pacific Northwest. One victim--originally left in the open in a thick forrested area near the Sea-Tac airport--was discovered many years later buried under six inches of soil and vegetation, little more than a skeleton. The forest floor can literally swallow a body whole. I can't help but wonder if Mike Riemer suffered a similiar fate and simply no one's found him yet.

The problem that I have with this theory and while it is certainly not outside the scope of possibility but the problem I have is how with the other bodies there was not any effort to bury them. In Mike's girlfriend and the other couple who were murdered, no effort to bury them, they were left as they were. So why bury Mike and leave the other bodies there?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mastermind

If it was a serial killer that murdered them, why have there been no other murders to match up to this MO? Why did this killer stop with this attack. What was so special about Diana(sp?) that required him to curb his activities.

Exposure. Maybe the fear of almost getting caught. Or maybe there is a link between Diana and the other two victims that no one to this day has been able to piece together. Maybe the killing was a set up and the killer intentionally used Mike as a potential victim but since there are doubts about what really happened to him the killer decided not to go through all that work again for something that doesn't end up being cut and dry.

1. Why do you think he almost got caught? He seemed to do pretty well in keeping his identity safe. He even felt comfortable enough to drop off Mike's little girl. If he was really scared he would have left her at the seen or killed her too.

2. The link between the murders may be that Mike Reimer killed all three. That would seem to warrant fear of getting caught.

3. If the murderer knew there was a link between the victims...why did he choose The Reimers in the first place? Why not choose another random couple.

4. He could'nt have been that worried about getting caught and hiding his tracks...he used the same signature on both incidents---the sock.

Regardless of how big a human being is we all have skin. We feel the cold and perhaps are a little more insulated than a skinny man but a large man feels the cold like anyone else.

I think you just made my point. You don;t feel cold the same way a skinnier less bulky person does. Add to the possible berserker rage that Mike might have been experiencing at the time..I would imagine that the elements didn;t matter to him that much.

I'm torn on this one, but I maintain that he would have likely been spotted by now if he were alive. Or called his dad or something.

1. He would not be the first fugitive to not contact loved ones. You don;t have to be a criminal mastermind(no pun intended :D ) to realize that contacting your folks is the easiest way to get caught.

2. If Mike Reimer is a serial killer....he may have more important thing to do then contact his folks. :(

3. If Mike is a serial killer he may be psychotic, which may mean that he doesn;t care to contact his family.

It seems like if he were alive, someone out there would have recognized at least once over the past 20 plus years. I think he's dead.



IMHO, If Mike Reimer shaved his beard....he would be unrecognizable. Basically everyone including us recognize and know mike as the bearded guy in that photo.

Who knows? His wife is dead he gets chased by someone. Makes sense to me.

1. That assumes the scenario that Diane was killed long before Mike got on the scene. That the killer was not present at the same time Mike and Diane were together. if the killer got on the scene, his first instinct would be to attack Mike first.

2. What;s darkly humorous is that this scenario shows mike displaying less affection for his daughter since he just left her to be killed by the same guy that just killed his wife. Mike doesn;t even think to grab the daughter or defend her. He simply leaves her to improbably kindness of Joe A. Serial Killer who happens to be nice enough to drop the little girl off. It's a sad day when a serial killer shows more kindness to a little girl than her own father.


Consider the Green River Killer's victims, who were murdered in the same general western Washington area around the same time of Diana's murder and Mike's disappearance (the former in and around Seattle, the latter in Tacoma--about a 30 mile difference, but no changes in terrain). Some of those women and girls weren't discovered for many, many years, solely because of the thick underbrush characteristic of the forests of the Pacific Northwest. One victim

I'm not as up to speed on Green River as other cases. Did green river killer have any male victims? Did he attack women that were accompanied by other men like in these two incidents?

Green river did not, does not have any known male victims.

I'm not as up to speed on Green River as other cases. Did green river killer have any male victims? Did he attack women that were accompanied by other men like in these two incidents?

No, like kadrmas said the GRK (a certain, now incarcerated Gary Ridgeway) had no male victims. He murdered mainly known or suspected prostitutes working along and around Pac Highway in downtown Seattle, off and on between 1981 to the early part of this century. Knowing this, I wasn't trying to suggest that Mike and Diana were GRK victims, but as the murders occured in essentially the same area, it's very possible Mike's body is merely hidden underneath the western Washington woods in the same way some of the GRK's victims' were.

Again, I can certainly see the circumstantial evidence that would lead one to believe Mike killed Diana. But really, what are the odds of Mike Riemer being a serial killer? Honestly? I'd be willing to bet rather slim. (Even if you go by Stack's infamous "100 serial killers" line :p , the likelihood of Mike being one of them is astronomically slight.)

While there's a motive to kill Diana, there's nothing to really link him to the early murder.

The tube socks, as far as I know, did not belong to Mike--and were used in some capacity in both killings.

Have there been murders in the Pacific Northwest or British Columbia that seem to suggest a similar MO? If Mike Riemer's a serial killer, he's not going to stop.

Again, the jacket. I don't know what it is about that jacket that bothers me so much, but it just doesn't make any sense at all to me that Mike would leave it in the middle of a western WA winter--which is drizzly, overcast, and cold. Especially if he were going to go on the lam in the middle of the wilderness somewhere.

I think we might be placing too much emphasis on the envelope. We don't know how long the envelope was in the car, or if he had given it to her that morning when she got it the car to go out. I mean, it is being portrayed like he killed his wife, then felt bad about it or something, and then wrote "I love you Diana" on an envelope and left it in the car??? That doesn't make sense to me. I think it is not relevant to this case.


Finally, the sock issue is VERY relevant here. I agree that the other couple was shot, and Diana was stabbed, but the matching sock was tied to both, and tied in the same manner. That is an indisputable connection, as the police said on the show.




AGREED and AGREED

I don't see why people place so much emphasis on the envelope yet dismiss an experienced homicide investigator noting the relevance of the way the sock was used.

I’m so glad necco posted those links for a few reasons.


Interesting seeing how many murders he was a suspect in (murdering couples out camping up and down the pacific coast)
He’s a more likely suspect, IMO, than Mike Reimer
It shows that its virtually impossible to completely disappear, as Mike Reimer must have done if he’s still alive. It can’t be done completely. The guy killed in Santa Fe was on the lam for 30 years or so and lived just about as “off the gird” as you can and yet STILL police were kowledgeable of his whereabouts, that he was alive, and had received tip-offs and leads from people. I don’t care how much of an outdoorsman Mike Reimer was a person cannot completely vanish and live in the wilds. They have to surface or be spotted at some time.

AGREED and AGREED

I don't see why people place so much emphasis on the envelope yet dismiss an experienced homicide investigator noting the relevance of the way the sock was used.

:clap Absolutely.

I’m so glad necco posted those links for a few reasons.


Interesting seeing how many murders he was a suspect in (murdering couples out camping up and down the pacific coast)
He’s a more likely suspect, IMO, than Mike Reimer
It shows that its virtually impossible to completely disappear, as Mike Reimer must have done if he’s still alive. It can’t be done completely. The guy killed in Santa Fe was on the lam for 30 years or so and lived just about as “off the gird” as you can and yet STILL police were kowledgeable of his whereabouts, that he was alive, and had received tip-offs and leads from people. I don’t care how much of an outdoorsman Mike Reimer was a person cannot completely vanish and live in the wilds. They have to surface or be spotted at some time.


A resounding amen on your third point. I'm reminded of Ted Kaczynski and Eric Rudolph--you're going to be found eventually.

I just went back to read the original subject of the thread--who we're assuming is Crystal said that she said "Mommy and Daddy are tied up in trees." If that's true I wonder why then that wasn't mentioned in the UM segment, or at least became "Mommy and Daddy are in the trees" in the reenactment. It does change the scenario presented in the segment dramatically. It's almost as thought UM thought they had an open-and-shut case, what with Mike and Diana's stormy history and his jealous temperament. That doesn't automatically lend to his being a murderer, though--even if he did beat her or threaten to kill her, despicable as it is.

If I remember correctly, in the segment it was reported that Crystal had said, when asked where her parents were all she said was 'mommy is in the trees'. She did not say 'mommy and daddy are in the trees. She also mentioned nothing about anyone being tied up. All she said was 'mommy is in the trees' so that is kind of interesting that she would only say 'mommy' is in the trees.

AGREED and AGREED

I don't see why people place so much emphasis on the envelope yet dismiss an experienced homicide investigator noting the relevance of the way the sock was used.

I’m so glad necco posted those links for a few reasons.

I agree the sock ties in to both murders. Which is why I believe that Mike Reimer not only murdered his wife but is a serial killer....and may still be to this day.

Corky what was the purpose of the envelope it wasn;t written at the moment of the crime?

Why was the envelope written in the first place.

To me it make much more sense that the envelope was an on the spot twisted apology letter by Mike Reimer for having killed Diana.
Which fits into the crime of passion.b

If I remember correctly, in the segment it was reported that Crystal had said, when asked where her parents were all she said was 'mommy is in the trees'. She did not say 'mommy and daddy are in the trees. She also mentioned nothing about anyone being tied up. All she said was 'mommy is in the trees' so that is kind of interesting that she would only say 'mommy' is in the trees.

She also didn't say "some bad man hurt mommy and daddy."

The fact that she only references mommy's fate is more an indicator that Mommy was the only one that was hurt.

3. For all we know, Mike Reimer may have told his daughter to what to say. That she should not tell anybody that daddy dropped her off. As the daughter has grown older she may have realized that her father murdered her mother but still holds loyalty and doesn;t want to implicate him.

Absolutely.

Quote:
I’m so glad necco posted those links for a few reasons.
Interesting seeing how many murders he was a suspect in (murdering couples out camping up and down the pacific coast)
He’s a more likely suspect, IMO, than Mike Reimer
It shows that its virtually impossible to completely disappear, as Mike Reimer must have done if he’s still alive. It can’t be done completely. The guy killed in Santa Fe was on the lam for 30 years or so and lived just about as “off the gird” as you can and yet STILL police were kowledgeable of his whereabouts, that he was alive, and had received tip-offs and leads from people. I don’t care how much of an outdoorsman Mike Reimer was a person cannot completely vanish and live in the wilds. They have to surface or be spotted at some time.

A resounding amen on your third point. I'm reminded of Ted Kaczynski and Eric Rudolph--you're going to be found eventually.

We still haven't found EAR/ONS, Zodiac, or the Boston Strangler and countless other unidentified serial killers.

Again, the jacket. I don't know what it is about that jacket that bothers me so much, but it just doesn't make any sense at all to me that Mike would leave it in the middle of a western WA winter--which is drizzly, overcast, and cold. Especially if he were going to go on the lam in the middle of the wilderness somewhere.

1. What kind of jacket is it? It may be the type that is easily recognizable. Something that a friend of Mikes might recognize at a distance.
It is not unusual for people after committing a crime and lamming it to change and choose something more discrete.

2. Is it that impossible that Mike simply wore another jacket? :confused:

3. There may be an abettor that Mike went to and got a jacket from.

The only thing the jacket does is open the possibility that Mike ran off in fear without his jacket. It doesn;t really prove anything in this case.

BTW, why did Mike take off the jacket in the first place?? :confused: Wasn;t he outdoors when this "serial killer" attacked?? Taking off the jacket seems to insinuate that he felt the weather wasn;t that bad that he felt he could remove it for a second.

The thing that bothers me in this case is why out of three possible victims...

1. only one person was confirmed dead on the scene... the woman
2. The person that has the least likelihood of surviving...actually is a confirmed survivor.
3. The person most capable of dealing with an attacker...is the one missing from the scene.

Doesn;t this bother people more than the jacket?:confused:

.
We still haven't found EAR/ONS, Zodiac, or the Boston Strangler and countless other unidentified serial killers.


Nobody knows who Zodiac or the Original Night Stalker is for sure. And although some people may think the Boston Strangler wasn't Desalvo, the police think it was and that case was atributed to him and so it's a close cased and the police aren't looking for anyone else. Riemer like Rudolph is a person that is known and thus tougher for him to dissapear regardless if he commited the murder or not. I'm not saying he couldn't dissapear and there are numerous examples of people that have, but just saying that those 3 specific examples are a bad fit.



And I also agree with corky about the envelope being too much of a big deal. He could have given it whenever to her. Even the authorities weren't sure if he wrote it. Why would he place it next to her when she was already dead? It looks more like it was placed there as a distraction that anything with the case and sure enought it looked like it worked.

I know this was brought up a while ago, but let me ask again:

Was there any evidence that the Mike's wife was actually killed in the woods? It seems for all of us, the hard part about this case is how the young girl made it to K-mart, while Mike's car was still at the scene of the murder. In other words, did Mike drive the girl to K-mart and then go back to the scene of the murder?

It has me wondering if Mike's wife was not killed by Mike at their home, and then he dropped off his daughter at K-mart and then took her body out to the woods, and then fled from the woods.

Although the segment seems to show that the girl was found immediately at the front of the store, the articles linked above indicate that the girl might have been at the store, wondering around for a while before she was ultimately found.

I have a really hard time believing that Mike killed his wife in the woods, drove the girl to the store, and then went back to the crime scene. I guess it is possible, but it's certainly a brazen move on his part, as it greatly increases the chances of him being seen or caught. How could he be sure that someone hadn't already happened upon her body while he was away dropping his daughter off at K-mart?

The one thing that makes me feel that he killed himself is this: Regardless of the scenario, I think that Mike would have used his own car to get out of the woods and then escape; such as, driving and leaving the car in a parking lot somewhere and escaping on foot. It's harder to disappear or leave the scene on foot, especially in such a remote location.

I wonder if Mike had another car, or if the family had another car? Perhaps Mike had an available car waiting for him at the murder site, that he had dropped of there before the crime? I just don't think that had anyone else help him with this.

My gut feeling, given what we know, is that he walked off into the woods and killed himself (the body not being found means nothing really, since there are so many examples of people in woods not being found after several "extensive" searches).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mastermind
.
We still haven't found EAR/ONS, Zodiac, or the Boston Strangler and countless other unidentified serial killers.

Nobody knows who Zodiac or the Original Night Stalker is for sure. And although some people may think the Boston Strangler wasn't Desalvo, the police think it was and that case was atributed to him and so it's a close cased and the police aren't looking for anyone else. Riemer like Rudolph is a person that is known and thus tougher for him to dissapear regardless if he commited the murder or not. I'm not saying he couldn't dissapear and there are numerous examples of people that have, but just saying that those 3 specific examples are a bad fit.

I was using them as references in the "Mike Reimer" is innocent theory. That the serial killer of all 3 is an unknown person.

My gut feeling, given what we know, is that he walked off into the woods and killed himself (the body not being found means nothing really, since there are so many examples of people in woods not being found after several "extensive" searches).

1. What did he use to kill himself? If I understand the case correctly, there was no evidence that a gun was used, was there? Just a knife. Am i correct?

2. He had to drop his daughter off, so that would mean he went to go off into the woods. He could easily have killed himself at home and left the "I love you, Diana, note" next to him.

3. He has plenty of time to hide Diana's body...I don;t know that he needed to commit suicide, unless he was completely distraught.

I have a really hard time believing that Mike killed his wife in the woods, drove the girl to the store, and then went back to the crime scene. I guess it is possible, but it's certainly a brazen move on his part, as it greatly increases the chances of him being seen or caught. How could he be sure that someone hadn't already happened upon her body while he was away dropping his daughter off at K-mart?

I was always under the assumption that dropping off the daughter was the last act of the crime.


I wonder if Mike had another car, or if the family had another car? Perhaps Mike had an available car waiting for him at the murder site, that he had dropped of there before the crime? I just don't think that had anyone else help him with this.

I wonder if Mike stole a car. Maybe there is a car theft reported at the same time of the murder.

Was there any evidence that the Mike's wife was actually killed in the woods? It seems for all of us, the hard part about this case is how the young girl made it to K-mart, while Mike's car was still at the scene of the murder. In other words, did Mike drive the girl to K-mart and then go back to the scene of the murder?

Does he really need to go back to the crime scene?
I would think that once Diana is dead, apology note written, there is really nothing to do but head to the Canadian border and cross his fingers.

Corky what was the purpose of the envelope it wasn;t written at the moment of the crime? To tell Diana that Mike loved her.

Why was the envelope written in the first place. See above.

To me it make much more sense that the envelope was an on the spot twisted apology letter by Mike Reimer for having killed Diana.


While I guess that's possible I just don't understand how an envelope with a love note scribbled on it becomes a "twisted apology" for killing someone. In the absence of real evidence you're creating a scenario to try and fit every little bit of information you know about the crime.

Also you seem to vacillate between this being a crime of passion and Mike being a serial killer. I don't get that.

She also didn't say "some bad man hurt mommy and daddy."

The fact that she only references mommy's fate is more an indicator that Mommy was the only one that was hurt.

Are you serious?

By using that logic, it’s just as relevant that she DIDN’T say “Daddy hurt Mommy” or “Daddy tied something on Mommy” or “Daddy put me in the car and we drove to a store while Mommy was in the trees, I was left outside, the nice lady brought me inside…” or any million other things. You guys…you’re asking waaaayyy too much of a 2-3 year old, almost certainly traumatized, little girl. IMO, the reason she made the comment was when asked where her parents were, all she knew is that when she was driven off with the killer the last thing she saw was her mommy surrounded by a bunch of trees. IMO the only reason it was included in the segment was because that UM recognized how it ratcheted up the creepiness factor, similar to the “I didn’t need to use the phone anyway” line that had nothing to do with anything except how creepy ((and apparently indelibly)) we all remember it to be. But of course because “mommy is in the trees” was included at all, people on here analyze and scrutinize it to death and try to find ways to insist that it’s actual “evidence”.



We still haven't found EAR/ONS, Zodiac, or the Boston Strangler and countless other unidentified serial killers.

That’s an inane comparison. Yes EAR/ONS & Zodiac have not been caught nobody knows their identity. A known person with a traceable SSN, birth date, family, habits, etc. cannot completely disappear for 30 years without leaving a trace of themselves somewhere.



...The only thing the jacket does is open the possibility that Mike ran off in fear without his jacket...

That’s simply not true. There are numerous scenarios in which Mike could have been forced to remove his jacket by the killer.

...[the missing jacket] doesn;t really prove anything in this case.

You’re right that it proves nothing. Just like the envelope proves nothing and just like Crystal’s statements not including her father or any detailed description of what happened. But the absence of a jacket opens up a helluva lot more possibilities than just “Mike ran off in fear without his jacket”

Why would he place it next to her when she was already dead

I can think of three valid reasons for Mike Reimer to write that note and place it at the scene.

1. an apology/confession to those that would see it..that he didn;t mean to kill his wife, that he still loved her and that the death was an acccident. A sort of last word before he disappears that the action was not done out of hatred. To set the story straight to his family and Diana's family.

2. A final love letter to his deceased wife. Even though he killed her he still loved her. Sort of like how people leave letters to their deceased wife's tombstone.

3. Mike Reimer may also be completely psychotic...so it may be a taunting, insincere "I love, you".

Even the authorities weren't sure if he wrote i
That's mostly because of the inconclusive results of the handwriting analysis...which is by no means an exact science.

And I also agree with corky about the envelope being too much of a big deal. He could have given it whenever to her. Even the authorities weren't sure if he wrote it.

The fact that an I love you note was written on an envelope rather than actual paper, indicates that the letter was rushed.

If Mike wrote the letter days or months earlier, he would have used proper paper and write a detailed note like most people do when writing love letters.

The use of an envelope indicates that Mike was in an hurry and used whatever was available....like an envelope that just happened to be in the car. An envelope much like the ones most of us use to keep or car documents.

If the envelope was a salutation, then it must have contained a gift...which makes the envelope useless which makes it;s prescence in the car an unbelievable coincidence. Most people treasure the gift inside and toss the envelope. The obvious gift it would contain would be jewelry.

Did they say whether a marker or a pen was used to write the note on the envelope?

I would love to know whether they traced the writing implement used? Whether this object was found at the scene as well.

something to consider in this case is that if Mike Reimer was going on the lam...there is no need to hide anything. He knows fully well that he's going to be the prime suspect. So writing there's no real harm in hiding the note or making sure his daughter is safe.

I was using them as references in the "Mike Reimer" is innocent theory. That the serial killer of all 3 is an unknown person.

Well that has nothing to do with anything as I said because you even implied that you were talking about Reimer himself. Guilty or innocent it doesn't change that it would be looking for a known person. I can agree that it doesn't guarantee that he would be found like what has happened with numerous cases of people featured in UM but that a comparision with those 3 persons (2 of which aren't know and one that isn't even being looked after because the authorities have closed the case and considered De Salvo to be him) is a bad one.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mastermind
I was using them as references in the "Mike Reimer" is innocent theory. That the serial killer of all 3 is an unknown person.

Well that has nothing to do with anything as I said because you even implied that you were talking about Reimer himself. Guilty or innocent it doesn't change that it would be looking for a known person. I can agree that it doesn't guarantee that he would be found like what has happened with numerous cases of people featured in UM but that a comparision with those 3 persons (2 of which aren't know and one that isn't even being looked after because the authorities have closed the case and considered De Salvo to be him) is a bad one.


There is a communication error here that is probably my fault.

1.If Mike Reimer is innocent, and some unknown serial killer did it, said serial killer could remain unidentified and free indefinitely.....like several other serial killers of past (use whatever examples fit..)

2. If Mike Reimer is guilty...HE could remain on the lam indefinitely.

3. If Mike Reimer was dead and and in the woods. His body could remain hidden indefinitely.

The lack of closure or new evidence in this case does not point to any particular theory.

The fact that an I love you note was written on an envelope rather than actual paper, indicates that the letter was rushed.

If Mike wrote the letter days or months earlier, he would have used proper paper and write a detailed note like most people do when writing love letters.

The use of an envelope indicates that Mike was in an hurry and used whatever was available....like an envelope that just happened to be in the car. An envelope much like the ones most of us use to keep or car documents.

Not necessarily. As I've stated earlier and elsewhere, I've received plenty of "I love you" notes written on all kinds of mediums--to include envelopes--and the individual who wrote them wasn't necessarily in some great hurry.


If the envelope was a salutation, then it must have contained a gift...which makes the envelope useless which makes it;s prescence in the car an unbelievable coincidence. Most people treasure the gift inside and toss the envelope. The obvious gift it would contain would be jewelry.

Why is that an unbelievable coincidence? What sort of shape was the interior of Mike's truck in? Was it neat and orderly? Was it cluttered with receipts and food wrappers and packaging--kind of like an envelope used to hold a hypothetical gift? We have no way of knowing, but I really do not believe it's inconceivable that something like that would be floating around in the vehicle--for whatever reason.

There is a communication error here that is probably my fault.

1.If Mike Reimer is innocent, and some unknown serial killer did it, said serial killer could remain unidentified and free indefinitely.....like several other serial killers of past (use whatever examples fit..)

2. If Mike Reimer is guilty...HE could remain on the lam indefinitely.

3. If Mike Reimer was dead and and in the woods. His body could remain hidden indefinitely.

The lack of closure or new evidence in this case does not point to any particular theory.

I will just finish stating my point to clear things up. If an unknown serial killer was the one who caused all those deaths, he would have more chances to disappear than Mike Reimer and the comparision you did would be apt. He could still remain hidden but it would be a tougher case to resolve if it were 1 than finding him.

Not necessarily. As I've stated earlier and elsewhere, I've received plenty of "I love you" notes written on all kinds of mediums--to include envelopes--and the individual who wrote them wasn't necessarily in some great hurry.

Interesting...I may have to reconsider the nature of the envelope...but I do have questions....

Not to pry into your personal life, meg (I understand if you don't want to reply)

1. What do you mean by "all kinds of mediums"? You kind of left that vague and accentuated envelope? Like what else..torn looseleave notebook paper? business card? blank index cards? toilet paper?(i'm not trying to be funny..I actually heard of someone trying that!!! I've often wondered how sucessfull that was!!!;) )

2. Are you saying that you have received multiples times a short "I Love You" on a large manilla envelope...

3. Where you married when you received the manilla envelope "I Love you"? Where you a teen, adult?

4. What was the nature of how you received this (I just need to know if it was hand delivered to you or was it put in your mail box or under your door)

5. Why do you think they weren;t in a rush when he gave you the manilla "I love you notice"? He obviously was impatient enough to find a loose piece of paper, that he felt the need to use up a perfectly good manilla envelope.

6. When you received this manilla "I love, you.." Did you open it and look inside to see if there was anything in it? I would imagine that would be the first reaction of anybody that receives an envelope? Which to me shows the danger in using an envelope for a love note......the receipiant will most likely open it ,expecting something inside...when she realizes there is nothing else....you could have your ladyfriend extremely disappointed...hence destroying the whole mood you were trying to create.


You see I can see a bunch of people in an office flirting this way by handing
and using office supplies for their romance..but two people who have been married for a while?

Quote:
If the envelope was a salutation, then it must have contained a gift...which makes the envelope useless which makes it;s prescence in the car an unbelievable coincidence. Most people treasure the gift inside and toss the envelope. The obvious gift it would contain would be jewelry.

Why is that an unbelievable coincidence? What sort of shape was the interior of Mike's truck in? Was it neat and orderly? Was it cluttered with receipts and food wrappers and packaging--kind of like an envelope used to hold a hypothetical gift? We have no way of knowing, but I really do not believe it's inconceivable that something like that would be floating around in the vehicle--for whatever reason.

A more important thing to find out is whether it was common for Mike to write love letters to Diana in the first place? Did Diana have other love letters from Mike in the house? Did she keep them in a special place? I find it hard to believe that Mike's first and only attempt at a love letter happens to wind up discarded as junk amongst his car. And just happens to show up on the day that Diana is murdered and Mike disappears.

I will just finish stating my point to clear things up. If an unknown serial killer was the one who caused all those deaths, he would have more chances to dissapear than Mike Reimer and the comparision you did would be apt

Not necessarily.


1. The unknown serial killer has incentive to keep murdering since he hasn;t been identified...more murders, more evidence, more chance of witnesses. More chance of an increased police prescence. He becomes a bigger target than Mike Reimer who if he isn;t active...really has only 3 murders that local police are after him for.

2. The unknown serial killer also has no reason to leave the area of his killings since he's unidentified. He can still live his normal routine at his home and go to work and still murder people at his leisure. Mike Reimer has gone on the lam because he;s trying to avoid police detection for a murder he believes that the police have him as a suspect. Mike Reimer could be in Kabul, Afghanistan or Antartica. He basically could be anywhere.

I would think it would be more difficult to catch Mike Reimer

I tend to agree with corky and meg that the envelope, while chilling, doesn't mean that it was written for any reason related to the murder. Plus, it's sort of a moot point to argue about, since we all seem to be in agreement that Mike killed his wife and probably the other two people.

What I'm still wondering though, is... with his truck still in the woods, how did he drop his daughter off??? He either:

1) Dropped her off and went back to the crime scene
2) Killed his wife at home, and then went dropped the daughter off before going to the woods
3) He and his wife drove two cars to the woods, although that would have probably been mentioned in the segment
4) Had help with another person driving a car

I'm trying to figure out if the daughter was dropped off before or after the murder, and why Mike's truck is still at the scene.

Mastermind: You said "what would Mike use to kill himself?"

We don't know if he also had a gun with him, or certainly he could have used the knife to slit his wrists.

I'm not saying that he def. did kill himself in the woods, but the problem is: Why is his truck still there????

Not necessarily.


1. The unknown serial killer has incentive to keep murdering since he hasn;t been identified...more murders, more evidence, more chance of witnesses. More chance of an increased police prescence. He becomes a bigger target than Mike Reimer who if he isn;t active...really has only 3 murders that local police are after him for.

2. The unknown serial killer also has no reason to leave the area of his killings since he's unidentified. He can still live his normal routine at his home and go to work and still murder people at his leisure. Mike Reimer has gone on the lam because he;s trying to avoid police detection for a murder he believes that the police have him as a suspect. Mike Reimer could be in Kabul, Afghanistan or Antartica. He basically could be anywhere.

I would think it would be more difficult to catch Mike Reimer


First off eventhough I totally disagree with the reason that an unknown killer may be tougher to catch than Mike Reimer, that is not the point. My point is always that your comparision is wrong. To answer to the fact that it's tough for Reimer to be caught you use as an example, the original night stalker, Zodiac and the Boston Strangler. That isn't an apt comparision. Two of those guys, their identity isn't known. The Strangler was identified as Albert De Salvo and guilty or not, the invesitgation is closed to the police so they aren't even looking for any guy that could be the strangler. Thus the comparision is not apt. If it were a serial killer that is unidentified, then yes it would be. But the authorities know that a person named Mike Reimer is missing, who he was and it's only a question of is he alive or dead. Thus it's not the same. Whether it's easier or not to catch is not the point as I have said that either if he was alive and not guilty, it's not a guarantee he should be caught if they identify him as has been the case with many cases in UM of people on the run who are identified but not been caught.

Mastermind: You said "what would Mike use to kill himself?"

We don't know if he also had a gun with him, or certainly he could have used the knife to slit his wrists.

He slit his wrists in the woods and just layed there...and we can;t find his body?:confused:

I tend to agree with corky and meg that the envelope, while chilling, doesn't mean that it was written for any reason related to the murder.

Well, any suspect, including Mike Reimer, that is found will be asked to give a handwriting sample to match the envelope "love letter".

What happens if a suspect other than Mike Reimer's handwriting matches that suspect. Wouldn;t the envelope become evidence used AGAINST the suspect???

In any regards if Mike Reimer is captured, the envelope is more than likely going to be used against him as evidence that it was a non-stranger that murdered Diane.

I'm not saying that he def. did kill himself in the woods, but the problem is: Why is his truck still there????

1. If he's going to go out on the lam, using his own truck would make it easier to track him. It does make sense to find some other mode of transportation.

2. Again, it;s not out of the question that there was an abettor here like in the Paul Pollis case. Perhaps some family member assisted Mike and was the actual person who dropped of the daughter.



3) He and his wife drove two cars to the woods, although that would have probably been mentioned in the segment

It;s possible that Diane and the daughter drove into the woods alone and Mike ambushed Diane by arriving via another transportation.

I could see a scenario where Mike says, "hey, Honey go ahead in the car without me. I'll catch a ride up there later. I could see Diane being puzzled and furious about this...but not really expecting that Mike would do anything to her.


Question
I wonder if they ever found the car keys? if the keys were on Diane that might mean that Diane was the one driving.

I am usually a lurker on the this board but I had to chime in and agree with Corky, Meg and MattC on this one. While I'm not completly ruling out the fact that the evelope has something to do with the murder I think it's highly unlikly. Mike and Diana had just gotten back togther. Isn't it more thne likley that it either contained a gift or card as part of an attempt, whether sincere or not to say I'm sorry, I'm happy your back in my life, I don't want to lose you again? What if said gift was giver to her the night before or on a prior day in the fornt seat of the truck. She removed the contents from the envelope and places said envelope either on the seat next to her (or on the dash board). She later takes the contents inside with her but does not think to grab the envelope. The day of the murder she gets into the truck, picks up the evelope before she sits down and places it on the dashboard before she takes a seat. This scenerio makes a lot more sense to me. What to do you think?
That being said. Hello Everyone! :wave: I'm happy to finally be posting!

I am usually a lurker on the this board but I had to chime in and agree with Corky, Meg and MattC on this one. While I'm not completly ruling out the fact that the evelope has something to do with the murder I think it's highly unlikly. Mike and Diana had just gotten back togther. Isn't it more thne likley that it either contained a gift or card as part of an attempt, whether sincere or not to say I'm sorry, I'm happy your back in my life, I don't want to lose you again? What if said gift was giver to her the night before or on a prior day in the fornt seat of the truck. She removed the contents from the envelope and places said envelope either on the seat next to her (or on the dash board). She later takes the contents inside with her but does not think to grab the envelope. The day of the murder she gets into the truck, picks up the evelope before she sits down and places it on the dashboard before she takes a seat. This scenerio makes a lot more sense to me. What to do you think?
That being said. Hello Everyone! :wave: I'm happy to finally be posting!

Welcome to the boards!!! Glad you are posting too. I agree with all that you wrote :) :wave:

Welcome. :) I certianly hope you will not be a one hit wonder. Feel free to respond and post. We don;t bite. ;)

Isn't it more thne likley that it either contained a gift or card as part of an attempt, whether sincere or not to say I'm sorry

1. Why do you need a manilla envelope for a card? What's wrong with the envelope that came with the card when you purchased it? Why doesn't Mike just write I love you on that envelope rather than wasting a perfectly good manilla envelope??:confused:

2. It's kind of redundant to write, i love you on a card that already contains the same message inside the card. Maybe it's just me but usually I just write "For, Diane" or "just simply Diane?"

3. If it contained a gift...why does Mike need to present it to her in an envelope for?:confused: Wouldn;t he rather give it to her in person and enjoy the reaction? (and the results of the gift. :p) If it was a gift put into a envelope, that insinuates that Mike was not in a position to hand it to her in person. Like he had to leave it to her before he goes to work. Though one wonders why he didn;t wrap it in gift paper.:rolleyes:

4. If you really think about it...theres a finite number of gifts that would fit in that envelope.....and still be appropriate for a wife. Depending on their habits, it's not crazy to assume that the maximum amount of time that went by before cleaning the car was a year from the time of the murder. which leads to this gift being purchased within said year. Jewelry or tickets can be a large expense, which if you looked at receipts, finances or simply looking in Diane;s room...In fact it's quite possible that Mike could have purchased said "gift" as late as the day before the murder. Which means we could certainly find a receipt from a jewelry store or

5. considering the occasions you would give a gift, christmas, valentines birthdays..there's always a possibility that someone is there to witness this gift exchange...or more importantly to tell someone what they got as a gift. I assume people are expecting this gift to be an impromptu expression of love.

6. Most people instinctively tear the enclosing paper material of gifts . After all, it's just an envelope...the gift is what's important. Something that would be required even more....if the envelope was sealed.

What if said gift was giver to her the night before or on a prior day in the fornt seat of the truck. She removed the contents from the envelope and places said envelope either on the seat next to her (or on the dash board). She later takes the contents inside with her but does not think to grab the envelope. The day of the murder she gets into the truck, picks up the evelope before she sits down and places it on the dashboard before she takes a seat. This scenerio makes a lot more sense to me. What to do you think?
That being said. Hello Everyone! I'm happy to finally be posting!

1. What you specify is a very specific incident that requires a very unique set of cirmumstances. Do you really believe that is what happened...really?

2. As said earlier...why does Mike need to give this gift to her in an envelope with a note on it?? Why not just give it to her right then and there and say I love you to her?

3. Why does he need to leave the gift for her in the car? Why not just put it on her bed. Why has the car need to be the depository for gifts, amd gift debris here!!!:D These people have a house. Why don;t we find the envelope in the house or in the trash were we normally find these things....

4. Where's the receipt for this gift? I imagine the police would look into a receipt for a jewelry shop.

This scenerio makes a lot more sense to me. What to do you think?

With all due respect......no.

I think it makes more sense that the killer took an envelope that was used to store car registration and insurance info and used that to write either an apology, cruel valentine or a goodbye note. He probably would have preferred a better a writing medium...but it was not like he had all the time in the world. he had a busy schedule...least of which included making sure the daughter was taken out of danger and placed in a more secure location....well more secure than the bear infested woods...anyway.

Remember..it is not that unusual to have a manilla envelope and a pen in your car.
Most people have both. They use the pen in case they need to write down insurance info after a crash. They also usually store their car info in an envelope.

Interestingly enough...most people don;t think to bring a notepad or notebook with them. Which usually comes up when they have to rummage around for something to write on. So they wind up writing on a grocery bag, they have to open their suitcases or on their mail that they have. Or they may just decide to write info.....on the very envelope that contains the documents they just emptied. :)

It bears repeating that the envelope has handwriting on it...hence making it potentially the handwriting of the killer.

Any suspect will be required to give a handwriting sample to match against the envelope...making in all likelihood the envelope...EXHIBIT A at a trial.

This major piece of evidence that people want to toss away so casually could be the thing that convicts a serial killer.(whether it be Mike Reimer or not)

Thank you for the warm welcome!
That being said:
First of all a present given form husband to wife does not have to be a high ticket item. My husband has given me many gifts that mean something special to me but wouldn't stand out as immediatly as a gift on reciept to the average person. Some gifts have a story behind them only the two of you will know. Keep in mind too that this gift may not necessarily have been for a holiday or birthday but may have been an i'm sorry gesture. Based on the description of this guy painted by her friends I don't see him worrying about wrapping paper. I wasn't saying he necessarily left the gift for her in the truck just that perhaps he gave it to her there. Why the truck I'm not sure. Maybe it was given after a night out while they were still alone before going home to their child.
I don't now, nor have I ever kept an envelope like this in my car though I will concede to having pens.
I'm sorry but I just can't see the killer taking the time to rumage through his or her car to find an envelope to jot down a quick love note to his victim. Especially with a small child on his hands who is more than likley crying quite loudly after seeing mommy murdered in front of them.

I tend to agree with corky and meg that the envelope, while chilling, doesn't mean that it was written for any reason related to the murder. Plus, it's sort of a moot point to argue about, since we all seem to be in agreement that Mike killed his wife and probably the other two people.

What I'm still wondering though, is... with his truck still in the woods, how did he drop his daughter off???


I'm not 100% convinced that Mike killed her. Nothing has been proven either way. And has anyone thought that there is a chance a crooked cop is involved in all of this. If the sock story was not released to the public who would know about it? Cops, right? Maybe it got leaked out. Maybe a cop was involved. You hate to say that but if that's the case then Mike is probably dead and who else can cover it up other than a cop? Just dropping a new theory, that's all.

How he may have dropped his daughter off is the million dollar question. It was cold, his daughter was young. It is assumed the killer cared enough for the girl to keep her safe but did he not care that she would be cold? Makes me think it wasn't Mike and someone had a car to either help Mike or that person was the murderer themselves.

This case is so similar to the case of Larry Costine. We don't know for sure if his girlfriend shot him and took off or if she is a victim herself. It is very unnerving

I'm not 100% convinced that Mike killed her

No one should be 100% on any side of this case. Myself included.

This whole case hinges on the fate of Mike Reimer.

If he;s found dead in the woods somewhere tomorrow or if he's found working on an oil refinery in Alaska...everything in the case changes.


How he may have dropped his daughter off is the million dollar question. It was cold, his daughter was young. It is assumed the killer cared enough for the girl to keep her safe but did he not care that she would be cold? Makes me think it wasn't Mike and someone had a car to either help Mike or that person was the murderer themselves.

I disagree. I believe dropping her off was an act of mercy.

1. What else could he do? Drop her off in a building or with someone. That brings several risks of being identified by people. At some point the guy is going to have to leave her alone somewhere. The killer left her in a place where there was a good chance that someone was going to notice her and take care of her without anyone knowing for sure who dropped her off.

2. Keep in mind that the daughter being found starts the clock on the investigation long before the body is found in the woods. Something that I'm sure wasn;t lost on the killer.

3. The only other option is too take the daughter with him. Something that probably wasn't a good situation for the killer.

4. The killer always has the option of killing the daughter anytime during the drive. No rule saying he

5. Considering that he daughter doesn;t know the attacker. There is a bigger risk she will act up with a stranger than her own father. Does the killer really want to drive around with this kid and leave her bawling so everyone can see and notice the car and license plate? No if it's his daughter...then there's a good chance she would not act up and view the whole thing as a normal ride.

This case is so similar to the case of Larry Costine. We don't know for sure if his girlfriend shot him and took off or if she is a victim herself. It is very unnerving

There is a huge difference. The women is the one that's missing not the man. It makes more sense that an attacker would assure the the male is dead and the female would be taken or would run off on her own. The Reimer case is the exact opposite.

I on the side of serial killer killed both of them...he might have drove Mike's body off and disposed of it somewhere besides the woods where his wife was found.

I highly doubt the theory of Mike was the serial killer of both his wife and the other couple.

First of all a present given form husband to wife does not have to be a high ticket item. My husband has given me many gifts that mean something special to me but wouldn't stand out as immediatly as a gift on reciept to the average person.

Like what? The only thing that makes sense to me would be a book? Love poems or a diary comes to mind...I guess I could see that..

1. I should mention that I believe I am the source of the theory that the envelope contained a gift. I don;t think any of the other pro-Reimer;s brought that up..but I could be wrong. So keep that in mind when considering the theory. It was proposed by ant-Reimer person. I've see the flaws and pro's of the theory and considered both carefully before dismissing it's likelihood. You would agree that you may have "latched" on to the theory...no?

2. Again this just makes the scenario more specific as to circumstances this envelope would up in the car. It;s almost as specific as the circumstances as to why an attacked Mike Reimer hasn;t been found. Just because it could happen doesn;t mean it did happen.

3. The envelope insinuates that Mike's handwriting is the one on the letter..yet there can be no confirmation of that...which is strange since it would not be written under stress. Usually when someone is under stress their handwriting will be changed....which might be the reason why there isn't a conclusive match on the envelope.

I don't now, nor have I ever kept an envelope like this in my car though I will concede to having pens.


Most care dealers give you a book or a plastic case that many people put their car information and insurance in.

Other people use a rubber band.

Based on the description of this guy painted by her friends I don't see him worrying about wrapping paper.

Yet, your giving him credit to come up with a unique romantic gift on the spot of the moment and writing a "I love, you" on the the envelope instead of simply her name.

I'm sorry but I just can't see the killer taking the time to rumage through his or her car to find an envelope to jot down a quick love note to his victim

1. Why do you think he needs to rummage through the car? The pen and envelope might simply be in the glove compartment? :confused:

2. Yet, he has time to wrap the sock around Diana.

3. If the note is that important to him, He'll make the time.

4. The clock on this case doens;t start until Diana's body is found or the daughter is found. That would be enough time.

5. How long does it take to say I love you, Diana?. Allegedly the Zodiac killer wrote some his notes at the scene.....and they were long!!!

6. If Mike Reimer is a serial killer....he'll be bold enough to do whatever he feels necessary. Much like tying the sock around her neck and dropping off the daughter.

jot down a quick love note to his victim

Why are you assuming it's a love note?

Why not
1. an apology?
2. A confession?
3. a goodbye note?
4. a suicide note?

Especially with a small child on his hands who is more than likley crying quite loudly after seeing mommy murdered in front of them.

1. Your assuming the child registered that his mother was dead..much less murdered. All she said was "Mommy was in the trees". For all we know she may be thinking that mommy is sleeping in the trees. Mike Reimer may have told her that mommy is alright and just sleeping among the roots. She may not even have been present at the murder. She may have been in the car the whole time. Mike may have said "stay in the car, I'm going to have a "word" with mommy!".

2. He had no time tying the sock with the daughter watching.

3. So what if she cries? Nobody came running after Diana's screams of pain and Mike's grunts and yelling? He's in the woods, you get all types of sounds. I assume that's why the killer choose the woods as his attack

4. It;s not like daughter's with a stranger...she;s with a person she knows and loves...her daddy!! He;s going to go buy her an ice cream cone once he finishes tucking Mommy into sleep under the tree and keeping her warm with the sock around her neck. What does she have to feel sad and scarred for?

5. as said before, if the daughter does start crying and being a pain....the killer always has an option of leaving her or killer her like the mother. It's not like the plan can;t be altered here.

Didn't you just contritidict yourself? You say the envelope is and important peice of evidence. Then you say it most likley isn't Michael's handwriting as it would have been proved already if it was. Then later on you say that the daughter might not have been screaming as her father is the one who just killed her mother and she knows and loves him. Do you believe Michael is the killer or the victim?

The reason I called the message a love note is becuase it said I love you Diana. It didn't say I'm sorry Diana. And who exactly was he appologizing to or saying goodbye to? Wasn't she already dead?

And just for the record though you insiniuated that I believe Michael is innoncent I never said that. I can see it going eitherway and make cases for both sides. I just don't think the envelope has anything to with it.

http://ww.unsolvedmysteries.com/usm807.html

Looks like her daughter, who was found at the K-Mart -- Crystal -- posted that back in 1999, nearly 10 years ago now, asking that very question.






just to let you know my cousin didn't post this all she wouldn't have misspelled our last name and i know mike did this i remember one night going over to my aunts apt. after he kick in the door beat the cr@p out of her so i know without a doubt it was mike.

Didn't you just contritidict yourself? You say the envelope is and important peice of evidence. Then you say it most likley isn't Michael's handwriting as it would have been proved already if it was

I don;t think I ever typed the statement that the handwriting most likely isn;t Michael's. If I have please point it out, I may have typed too fast and not realized what I wrote. I;m not the most careful proofreader. :)

1. If anything I was pointing out the reason why if the letter was written by Mike in his normal handwriting in a non-stress situation...why it can;t be matched by the handwriting experts.

In experience with the Zodiac killer case. I have heard many experts say that it matches tend to occur with normal handwriting. But when people are stressed or have some mental disorder, their handwriting can be altered from their normal handwriting.

Now if Mike wrote the letter right after murdering his wife and going through a psychotic rage...I can understand why there hasn't been a match more than I could if he was written a normal salutation on a gift.

It should also be mentioned that Mike Reimer could also have intentionally tried to disguise his handwriting. Though one wonders why he would do that......:confused:


2. I think your confusing contradiction with objectivity.

To clarify I do believe the best use of resources in this cold case is to not waste manpower looking for serial killer leads or other leads in either case...but to wait for someone to provide a lead on Mike Reimer;s whereabouts.

all that being said.....if Mike Reimers body is found in a ditch with stab wounds matching Diane;'s.....then Mike Reimer is innocent. To hell, with my deductions, a fact is a fact. I;m not going to hold on to theory just because I championed it. That would be the definition of insanity.

hence i need to re-work the case back from the beginning with Mike being victim 4 of a serial killer.

The envelope becomes even more important here...
IMHO, whether Mike Reimer is the murder or not...I believe the most likely genesis of the envelope note was written after the murder....by the murderer.

If Mike Reimer is innocent...then we very well have a major piece of evidence...the handwriting sample of the killer. This may be the very thing that convicts a serial killer and god knows may have saved lives.

I just don't think the envelope has anything to with it.
Sorry, I cannot overlook the only real physical evidence in this case. That would not be thorough.

Heck that thing may be DNA testable now for all we know.


Do you believe Michael is the killer or the victim?
I believe Mike Reimer is a serial killer and may still be to this day.

But we are missing a big piece of evidence in this case...which is the fate of Mike Reimer. The case changes on that. If you read the threads I have mentioned this concept before.

To be 100% honest with you, Mastermind, I get very confused with your posts and the last few of them especially. I read what you write, and I think I understand what you're saying...but then a sentence here or there will seemingly contradict that. The biggest problem for me is that oftentimes I just can't follow your logic; I don't quite grasp how you came to a particular conclusion. I should really show you a specific example, I understand if my comments might be hard to follow without specific examples.


When you say something like the following:

Sorry, I cannot overlook the only real physical evidence in this case. That would not be thorough.
I don't quite understand how you look at an envelope found in a car as the only "real physical evidence" in this murder. Without any itemized conjecture on the reasons you think an envelope shouldn't be there, how do you come to view it as the only real evidence? The dead victim is evidence. The method of murder is evidence. The sock twisted about the victims neck is evidence.


I say this with full respect, I'm just a little confused by your posts sometimes and in particular in this thread

The sock twisted about the victims neck is evidence.

1. Unless you can found the twin of the Diane Reimer sock in the posession of a suspect...I don;t see how that is physical evidence that leads to the conviction of said suspect?:confused:

2. Was DNA extracted from the sock? The DNA would be physical evidence found at the scene of the crime that could be linked to a suspect and used in conviction.

3. All the sock tells us is that Diane Reimer's murder may be connected to the two previous murders. A deductive leap is made in that the two murder scenes are the result of a serial killer. None of that is physical evidence. An appropriate term for the sock would be to denote it as a "lead" in the case. It points to a investigative direction in the case. That direction is that the two murder scenes should be investigated as one case.

4. The sock is not something that can be tested to a suspect. When I think of physical evidence I think of blood, hair, DNA, fingerprints, footprints, semen, handwriting. Something that can be tested against suspects.

I could be wrong, but have any of those things ...other than handwriting ....been taken from the crime scene?



. Without any itemized conjecture on the reasons you think an envelope shouldn't be there, how do you come to view it as the only real evidence

Some questions for you Corky...

1. would you agree with this statement below...
"Any suspect taken in for the murder of Diane Reimer will be requested to give a handwriting sample of the words on the note"

2. Why do you think the police would request that?

3. If I were taken into custody and my handwriting matched the note after several tests? Would I not be considered considered a prime suspect? Would I not risk a potential trial and conviction for the murder of Diane Reimer.

To be 100% honest with you, Mastermind, I get very confused with your posts and the last few of them especially. I read what you write, and I think I understand what you're saying...but then a sentence here or there will seemingly contradict that.

It's because I brought up the handwriting as being a clue to a suspect other than Mike Reimer.

Apparently some people can;t grasp that I would believe Mike Reimer is guilty yet understand the possibility that there may be evidence available to convict another

Apparently this shocks the heck out of people that I would show objectivity in this case.

Which is strange because I brought up in a previous thread that this case hinges on Mike Reimer's fate.

1. Mike Reimer is found dead in a ditch somewhere, then he;s innocent and GUESS WHAT!!!! We may have the handwriting that could convict a suspect if he;s found. We find Joe A Serial Killer and his handwriting matches. BLAM! We might get a conviction on this case. Which is great because I don;t know of anything else that could be used. Unless your going to get him to admit to knowing about the sock.(which is a longshot...)

2. If Mike Reimer is found in an Alaska oil refinery....one of the things that's going to be asked is about that note. If Mike Reimer's story doesn;t add up or he;s lying, that;'s going to assist in convicting him.




OT--never say "I'll be a 100% percent honest with you". It insinuates they haven't been completely honest withbefore this grand statement. You've basically declared yourself a liar.;)

I say this in the most respectful way possible:

I think the envelope discussion has run its course... tenfold:
1) Most of us think it's not that important because we think that Mike killed her and the others (not all of us, but most)
2) But of course, if there is DNA evidence or handwriting that is NOT Mike's, than it is relevant, but if the DNA and handwriting are Mikes, it is not releveant

The rest of it: "Why was it not on a card, or piece of paper?"
Why did he leave it in the car? Why wasn't there anything in it? I just don't think those things are really vital to answering the most basic points of the case. And trust me, I say this not to continue debate, but merely to summarize what I think we've been saying, and then hopefully we an focus on some other aspects of the case.

I think the really important issue here is not the envelope, but:
1) How did the girl get to Kmart?
2) Did Mike Kill his wife in the woods or at home?
3) Did Mike leave the woods that day, and if he did, how did he do it wihtout his truck?

I'm not trying to dictate the discussion, but this is a really cool case, and it seems to be focusing on the envelope almost exclusively. If that still is what everyone wants to discuss, that's cool, but the other issues above deserve attention too.

I think the really important issue here is not the envelope, but:
1) How did the girl get to Kmart?
2) Did Mike Kill his wife in the woods or at home?
3) Did Mike leave the woods that day, and if he did, how did he do it wihtout his truck?

Good questions, mattc. If you don;t mind, I want to re-arrange them a little.

2) Did Mike Kill his wife in the woods or at home?

The woods, IMHO.

1. Did they ever find any evidence of a struggle or blood in the house? There would have to be considering the way she was killed.

2. The fact that the daughter says "Mommy's is in the trees", insinuates that the daughter was present for the placement of the body in the trees. I don;t see why Mike would need to carry the daughter for the creation of the crime scene, when he can leave her at home. If he did carry her, I don;t know why he needs to let her out of the car to witness the placing of her mother.

3. This murder matches the previous couple killed. That murder happened in the woods. Considering the sock matches both, I would think the method of attack would be similar. An ambush in the woods.

4. If Mike killed Diane in the home and is planning on lamming it or offing himself...why does he need to bother bringing her body out to the woods and going through the whole set up of the crime scene? Why not just leave the body at home with the daughter and just leave. Or come up with a different cover story..a burgular or something. A coverup only make sense if Mike's going to stay at the scene and try to pass this off as an intruder. He can still tie the sock around her and the murder would still get tied to the previous murders.

1) How did the girl get to Kmart?
3) Did Mike leave the woods that day, and if he did, how did he do it wihtout his truck?[/QUOTE]

These two questions are basically the same question---

2) how did Mike Reimer transport himself without the car at the scene?

I would add a question as well
3) Was this a premeditated murder...or not?

The questions would be
1. Did Mike Reimer Diane in the woods or at home?
2. Was this a premeditated murder or not?
3. How did Mike transport himself & daughter without the car at the scene?

2. Was this a premeditated murder or not?

1.If Mike is a serial killer, this murder very well may be his second attack. Considering that Mike brought the sock with him, it does indicate that Mike was thinking about this attack in terms of his second serial killing attack and wanted his signature to be in place.

2. There is a possibility that Mike may have suspected that Diane was going to tell someone and this was a silencing.

3. How did Mike transport himself & daughter without the car at the scene?

1. If Mike is a serial killer...it leads to the question as to how he arrived and left the scene of the first murders. Did he use Diane;s car? If not, he had some way of leaving the scene. The only difference in the two murder scenes is that Mike has to drop his daughter off in the second murder scene.

2. When Mike was not with Diane...how did Mike get around town? The car was Diane's, no? Or am I wrong about that

3. Maybe Mike had another car that was not registered that he was going to use specifically for his serial killings. His "Jamie Gumb van" if you will (Silence of the Lamb fans :p ) he could have left this car in the woods a day before in preparation for his murder of Diane.

4. It''s unlikely..but I do wonder if Mike could have hitchiked. A man with a child is more likely to get picked up than just one guy. Perhaps they were hitchhiking and nobody noticed them. perhaps the car driver has not come forward. Or more chillingly....perhaps the driver was killed by Mike. :eek: I wonder if there is another missing person in the area at the time.

5. Much like the above...i wonder if Mike could simply have taken a bus. It's possible that people just didn;t register that Mike and his daughter took their bus. There would be nothing out of the norm of a guy and his little girl taken the bus to go to K-Mart. That might explain why Mike took his jacket off. To avoid being recognized if an All Points Bulletin was issued.

6. Again, there may be an abettor that helped drive Mike to escape. A relative or friend.

7. Do we know for certain that Mike didn;t use the car at the scene? That he returned the car after dropping the daughter off and simply escaped by walking in the woods and escaped from that point on. Taking trains, buses to Canada?

1. Unless you can found the twin of the Diane Reimer sock in the posession of a suspect...I don;t see how that is physical evidence that leads to the conviction of said suspect?:confused:

Well that's EXACTLY what you would hope for.


3. All the sock tells us is that Diane Reimer's murder may be connected to the two previous murders. A deductive leap is made in that the two murder scenes are the result of a serial killer. None of that is physical evidence. An appropriate term for the sock would be to denote it as a "lead" in the case. It points to a investigative direction in the case. That direction is that the two murder scenes should be investigated as one case.

4. The sock is not something that can be tested to a suspect. When I think of physical evidence I think of blood, hair, DNA, fingerprints, footprints, semen, handwriting. Something that can be tested against suspects.



Ahhh...okay so here's where we have a disconnect. I disagree with 3 & 4 and with how you define evidence. I think you're using the word "physical" in the perjorative sense a little to much.

I don't consider physical evidence solely items that can be immediately traced to a suspect. I think the sock is most definitely more important than the envelope as it is obviously part of the murder and part of the killer's process. The envelope is in no way obviously tied to anyone, although its highly probably it was written by Mike, and is in no way obviously tied to the murder. Therefore I think it is of considerably less value to the investigation.







1. would you agree with this statement below...
"Any suspect taken in for the murder of Diane Reimer will be requested to give a handwriting sample of the words on the note"


No




2. Why do you think the police would request that?


I don't think "Any suspect taken in for the murder of Diane Reimer will be requested to give a handwriting sample of the words on the note". I think, depending on the circumstance, they might ask a certain suspect for a handwriting sample. I think it'd be somewhere down the line, after an interrogation and dependent upon the suspect's answers.



3. If I were taken into custody and my handwriting matched the note after several tests? Would I not be considered considered a prime suspect? Would I not risk a potential trial and conviction for the murder of Diane Reimer.

No.

OT--never say "I'll be a 100% percent honest with you". It insinuates they haven't been completely honest withbefore this grand statement. You've basically declared yourself a liar.;)

Well good, that was what I was trying to do with my grand statement. I had never before been completely honest with you about how confusing it is to read what you write.:wave:

Originally Posted by Mastermind
OT--never say "I'll be a 100% percent honest with you". It insinuates they haven't been completely honest withbefore this grand statement. You've basically declared yourself a liar.

You;ve understood enough of my points to cherry pick and highlight them and respond with your own comments as you have done in several past posts.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mastermind
1. Unless you can found the twin of the Diane Reimer sock in the posession of a suspect...I don;t see how that is physical evidence that leads to the conviction of said suspect?

Well that's EXACTLY what you would hope for.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mastermind
3. All the sock tells us is that Diane Reimer's murder may be connected to the two previous murders. A deductive leap is made in that the two murder scenes are the result of a serial killer. None of that is physical evidence. An appropriate term for the sock would be to denote it as a "lead" in the case. It points to a investigative direction in the case. That direction is that the two murder scenes should be investigated as one case.

4. The sock is not something that can be tested to a suspect. When I think of physical evidence I think of blood, hair, DNA, fingerprints, footprints, semen, handwriting. Something that can be tested against suspects.


Ahhh...okay so here's where we have a disconnect. I disagree with 3 & 4 and with how you define evidence. I think you're using the word "physical" in the perjorative sense a little to much.

I don't consider physical evidence solely items that can be immediately traced to a suspect. I think the sock is most definitely more important than the envelope as it is obviously part of the murder and part of the killer's process. The envelope is in no way obviously tied to anyone, although its highly probably it was written by Mike, and is in no way obviously tied to the murder. Therefore I think it is of considerably less value to the investigation.






Quote:
Originally Posted by Mastermind

1. would you agree with this statement below...
"Any suspect taken in for the murder of Diane Reimer will be requested to give a handwriting sample of the words on the note"

No



Quote:
Originally Posted by Mastermind
2. Why do you think the police would request that?

I don't think "Any suspect taken in for the murder of Diane Reimer will be requested to give a handwriting sample of the words on the note". I think, depending on the circumstance, they might ask a certain suspect for a handwriting sample. I think it'd be somewhere down the line, after an interrogation and dependent upon the suspect's answers.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Mastermind
3. If I were taken into custody and my handwriting matched the note after several tests? Would I not be considered considered a prime suspect? Would I not risk a potential trial and conviction for the murder of Diane Reimer.

No.

This is becoming less about Mike Reimer and more about semantics, terminology and investigative procedure.

I also suspect your just posting to be intentionally difficult and argumentatiove...which I don;t mind

This argument is best continued in IMS and emails.

Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mastermind
1. Unless you can found the twin of the Diane Reimer sock in the posession of a suspect...I don;t see how that is physical evidence that leads to the conviction of said suspect?

Well that's EXACTLY what you would hope for.

The chances of finding that sock in the posession of a suspect are practically nil. Especially since it's over ten years.

That matching sock is somewhere in the dumpster, still in the woods, was given to salvation army or is part of sock puppet somewhere.

The only reason for a suspect to keep it is for a souvenir. Which would only make sense if it was the victims sock. Why would a killer keep the sock that he purchased himself?

Heck, that sock may have taken of someone's clothes line and the matching sock was left on the line.

I on the side of serial killer killed both of them...he might have drove Mike's body off and disposed of it somewhere besides the woods where his wife was found.

1. Why he would feel the need to dispose of Mike's body and leave Diane's body at the murder scene. How does finding Mike's body implicate him more than Diane's. So what if the police find both Mike and Diane dead in the same spot. I don;t think it tells the police anything more about who killed them?

2. If Mike's body was driven off to be disposed of, it insinuates that killer drove to two different directions---1. To drop the daughter off 2. To dispose of Mike's body. That seems like excess work for very little gain.

3. Disposing of Mike's body insinuates staging in the murder.

The segment seemed to insinuate that we already have the mate to the tube sock as the investigator they interviewed said the sock around Diana's neck matched the one around the previous victims neck. Is it even possible determine a sock's exact mate. I can go down to walmart and nbuy a bag of tube socks that all look alike. Is it really possible to determine which is the exact mate? I'm no tuve sick expert I'm just not sure how this would be possible. It would have to be a really distinct one of a kind tube sock and if this was the case the mate was the one on the other victim. That being said i do think the tube sock is important as it does prove a pattern. It does indicate the same killer killed both women. Either that or whoever killed Diana would need to know the exact pattern of the tube sock found on the other victim.
That being said I have a few questions:

Has it been established whther either or both of the two previous victims had any connection with Mike or Diana?

If Mike is the murderer and is a serial killer it would seem as if this were planned ahead of time, unless he just travels around with a spare bag of tube socks just in case. If this were true why woud be bring Crystal in the first place? Why not get a baby sitter and leave her behind?

Mike was checking his traps while he was up there. Is it possible that he left Crystal and Diana by the truck for a little bit while he went to off to check one of them. Maybe not wnatiing to have to lug a small child through thick brush. The killer follows him or finds him first, then goes off and kills Diana. This explains why the bodies are seperated. He's not going to frag Mikes body back for no reason. It would also explain why Crystal knew mommy is in the trees but says nothing about daddy. She doesn't know what happened to him? Just a thought

bawitter - everything you wrote...bueno.

I’ve pretty much operated on those assumptions, with some slight differences, regarding: the sock and Mike’s body being missing. I also agree that the proposed theories for Mike being the killer don’t seem to make sense regarding the “premeditative serial killer vs. the crime of passion murder”.

I’ll expound later when I can. Well done.

Thanks Corky! :D

Is it even possible determine a sock's exact mate.

Yes. At least now it is.

Thread design.
Level of wear on the soles
Both socks would have smudges comparible to the same shoe. And even particles from the same shoes.
Some socks even have the inspector # on both of them.

If Mike is the murderer and is a serial killer it would seem as if this were planned ahead of time, unless he just travels around with a spare bag of tube socks just in case. If this were true why woud be bring Crystal in the first place? Why not get a baby sitter and leave her behind?

1. If Mike is supposed to go on an ordinary family camping trip with Diane, it's going to be suspicious if asks that the daughter stay with the babysitter. If the daughter has gone with them on previous trips into the woods, Diane would wonder why is she not comming on this trip?

2. For all we know, Mike may have tried to get convince Diane to leave the daughter on this trip. Diane may have refused.

3. Just because it was premeditated doesn;t mean the plan was developed weeks or days before. Mike may have thought of killing his wife the morning or the night before. Probably not that easy to get a babysitter or get rid of the daughter that soon.

4. Mike may not be a criminal genius here. He may have simply overlooked or did not care that his daughter was there. Maybe he had a plan on dealing with the daughter and he didn;t follow through with it out of pure laziness.
Criminals make mistakes bringing the daughter along may have been Mike Reimer's big mistake.

I could easily see Mike waking up that morning and it suddenly hits him "Darn, my daughter is here! I didn;t call my brother to babysit for her. Now I have to carry here with me and figure out what to do with her. What an idiot I am!! Oh, well. I'm getting that urge again to kill! I can't wait to much longer...I'll dump her somewhere on the drive back. No biggie."

Mike was checking his traps while he was up there. Is it possible that he left Crystal and Diana by the truck for a little bit while he went to off to check one of them.

1. I assume the searchers and police found Mike's traps or family and friends mentioned that as something he did or was going to do that day. Because I could see no way anyone would know that since the only surviving witness was the little girl.

2. How deep in the woods were Mike's traps anyway? How far could he have gone from the site.

3. When they did the search? Why didn;t they find Mike's body near the traps?

4. Wouldn;t going to look on his traps be a good excuse for Mike to ambush Diane and committ the murder.

Has it been established whther either or both of the two previous victims had any connection with Mike or Diana?

To my knowledge no, unless someone has found information, otherwise.

I can go down to walmart and nbuy a bag of tube socks that all look alike. I

Socks differ in brand, size, and thread design and material, brand (Lots of women's socks have a label tag on them) style, particular line that

Socks also come in different cuts as well. Men;s socks come in crew, atheletic, etc..

Especially women;s socks. Which have all types of designs.

while studying the Jon Benet Ramsey case, I was shocked at how many different ways there are to produce girls underwear. Manufacturers can actualll tell you what type of machine does the production. i would imagine that socks have the same detail.

Some Socks are made domestically others are made overseas. Machines that make a sock in America will show different manufacturing than one in China.

Some are well constructed others are so cheapily made that they are uneven in sizes.

Socks can show a great variety. It is not a given that you could pick any sock of the rack of Walmart and it would match a sock you found on a body.

The segment seemed to insinuate that we already have the mate to the tube sock as the investigator they interviewed said the sock around Diana's neck matched the one around the previous victims neck

Is that known for certain? Do you have a link to website or section of Unsolved.com that details it?

It would make sense that you use the other pair you already bought for Dianes murder. Why waste two pairs. :)

This also leads to another disturbing theory:
That Mike Reimer killed the previous couple to make it seem like a serial killer murdered him and his wife.

How far apart in time where the separate murders?

I didn't mean that I could go inot wlamart and find a pair of socks that matched the tube sock found arounf the vicitims' necks. I meant I could buy a bag of socks that contains say 8 pairs of socks. All 16 socks are the same design shape and size from the same manufacturer. If I mix them all up and selct one sock at random is it really possible to distinguish which of the other 15 socks is the mate? maybe it is. I'm not sure.

As for the sock around diane's neck being a match to the one around the other victims neck the segement does say that. I am not techilogically advanced enough to probide a link but during the segement detective David Neiser of the sherrif's department talks about how he went to Peirce county and asked to observe the sock form the first victims' case. He stated that when he say the sock in question the hair stood up on the back of his neck, he shivered a little and the evidence technician whistled because he could tell it was a match to the one around diane's neck or something to that effect. I think it's right after the point where Robert Stack mentions the socks for the first time.

I didn't mean that I could go inot wlamart and find a pair of socks that matched the tube sock found arounf the vicitims' necks. I meant I could buy a bag of socks that contains say 8 pairs of socks. All 16 socks are the same design shape and size from the same manufacturer. If I mix them all up and selct one sock at random is it really possible to distinguish which of the other 15 socks is the mate? maybe it is. I'm not sure.

Now, I'm confused..

They would all be from the same package you bought? That would be even better and easier to identify. We have several socks you could take from the suspect'as bedroom that all match a brand, are in the same condition and style. You don;t even need to match the twin....you have 15 other sibling socks to match!!.....and maybe even a solitary sock amongst the pairs that matches the sock on the victim.

Not even to mention we might have the receipt from the store where you purchased a pair of socks.

I am not techilogically advanced enough to probide a link but during the segement detective David Neiser of the sherrif's department talks about how he went to Peirce county and asked to observe the sock form the first victims' case. He stated that when he say the sock in question the hair stood up on the back of his neck, he shivered a little and the evidence technician whistled because he could tell it was a match to the one around diane's neck or something to that effect. I think it's right after the point where Robert Stack mentions the socks for the first time.

That had more to do with the knot being identical, rather than the sock. The knot was a near perfect image of the previous attack.

i'm not sure they really identified that the socks were pairs. Nor do i think they really care to do so. The knot similarities was probably enough for them to link the two murders.

Interestingly enough, Mike being an outdoorsman would be the type to make knots in ropes.

Another thing that is of interest is that the knotted sock....didn't seem to have a purpose other than as a signature.

I don;t think either was strangled or sexual assaulted. Were they?

It;s almost like the killer wanted people to know that both crimes were linked together.

Now, I'm confused..

They would all be from the same package you bought? That would be even better and easier to identify. We have several socks you could take from the suspect'as bedroom that all match a brand, are in the same condition and style. You don;t even need to match the twin....you have 15 other sibling socks to match!!.....and maybe even a solitary sock amongst the pairs that matches the sock on the victim.

If a manufacturer makes thousands of the same pattern of sock there could be thousands of matches.

Quote:
Now, I'm confused..

They would all be from the same package you bought? That would be even better and easier to identify. We have several socks you could take from the suspect'as bedroom that all match a brand, are in the same condition and style. You don;t even need to match the twin....you have 15 other sibling socks to match!!.....and maybe even a solitary sock amongst the pairs that matches the sock on the victim.

If a manufacturer makes thousands of the same pattern of sock there could be thousands of matches

Consider that the original question was whether one sock found could be matched as a pair to another sock found.

For example whether the sock found on the first victim would match the one around Diane;s.

That certainly can be done.

Now, if your going to ask me if a sock found in a drain in Des Moines, IA can bet matched to any of the socks in the drawer of some guy in Los Angeles, CA...that's another thing.

Let's keep this simple....YES..the technology and know-how is there to determine that the sock around Diane is the same one as the one around the other woman.

Looking at the case...It appears that the reason the Reimer's were going out that day was to choose a Christmas tree in the woods.

1.Being a city boy...I know nothing about the process of cutting your own Christmas tree. But I assume once you found the tree...you just simply cut it down and put it on your car that day. No?

I find it interesting that the murders just happened to occur BEFORE the cutting down of the tree.

2. Come to think of it..going out to select a Christmas tree is a good excuse to get Diane into the woods for murder. The only downside is

3. If Mike was going to cut a tree and check on his traps...he presumably had at least one tool on his person....a hunting knife.

Another thing is that the first two murders were done with a gun, were they not?

Diane was stabbed like 17 times with a knife (Am I right? I might be getting my facts mixed up)

It occurs to me that if you going to kill two people a gun is going to be easier than a knife.

But if your going to kill just one person (a woman like Diane..) a knife would be sufficient. It also would be more enjoyable if you have a hatred for the suspect as opposed to the other two people.

Here's my feelings:

There was a serial killer who was lurking around the woods that day.

He caught the family out, killed Diana, took Mike off, killed him, and buried him in a very subtle place.

Mike wrote that note on the trip there, or something, and gave it to Diana.

But, the biggest question of all, is the little girl.

If she can remember "Mom's in the trees" then why can't she remember anything else?

By the way, the killer took the little girl to the K-Mart and left her. Even killers have some mercy...

This is why I can't believe Mike was the killer: why leave your vehicle there? How in the world would he have left the scene or dropped off Crystal?

This is why I can't believe Mike was the killer: why leave your vehicle there? How in the world would he have left the scene or dropped off Crystal?

1. If this whole murder was planned by Mike, would it be that much of a stretch that he had an escape vehicle nearby? or stole a car?

2. the disadvantage of using the car at the scene is that it can be traced in an APB. If Mike is escaping in another vehicle he stands a better chance of escaping.

3. There may be an abettor in this case.

4. Would it be that inconceivable that Mike and his daughter took a bus? How many people would register a little girl and her father taking a bus? What would be so suspicious about that?

5. If Mike was trying to make it appear that a serial killer was behind this, it behooves him to leave the car. Was the car left in the first murders?

He caught the family out, killed Diana, took Mike off, killed him, and buried him in a very subtle place.

1. Why would he need to bury Mike? To cover up the murder? He left Diane's dead body in plain view and dropped off the daughter?

2. What would he have buried him with?

3. Why was Diane not buried? If he has time to bury Mike, he has time to bury Diane? Burying both would help his cause.

4. Why did he not bury the victims in the previous murders?

5. If Mike was buried, there would have been a better chance of finding him. A burial mound is a lot more obvious than a natural formation.

Did I say he buried him around where Diana was killed? No.

Maybe they dropped off the girl first, then the killer took Mike off into another area and murdered him.

Being that another couple was murdered in the area, I think there was a serial killer in those woods. The person who killed the first couple also probably murdered Diane. Why would Mike kill a couple at random? plus there hasn't been a sighthing of Mike in 25 years. I think Mike is dead.

Why would Mike kill a couple at random?

1. Mike may very well be psychopathic.

2. It wouldn't be time that someone murdered an innocent couple to make it seem like a serial killing. Didn;t this happen in the New Orleans serial killer case.

Did I say he buried him around where Diana was killed? No.

You're suggesting that he carried Mike's massive bleeding body around in a car to find a place to bury him? Instead of simply leaving his body or burying it in the general area?

Maybe they dropped off the girl first, then the killer took Mike off into another area and murdered him.\

And Mike did nothing during this time?

He simply let this killer murder his wife and take off with his little girl and Mike did not fight to the death with this guy to stop him.

Especially considering that Mike would have had a hunting knife on him.(he was checking on his traps)

plus there hasn't been a sighthing of Mike in 25 years. I think Mike is dead.

1. There haven't been sightings of several wanted felons and murderers. Not seeing Mike in 25 years is by no means a definitive sign of his being dead.

2. If Mike decided to hide in Alaska or Canadian Yukon, he could stay hidden indefinitely. His outdoorsman style would blend in well.

3. Being that Mike's an outdoorsman, Mike could be living in the woods with the barest necessities. Just a cabin and his hunting tools.

4. Mike could have died 10 years ago of natural causes.

5. Not everyone in the world is as up to speed on the vital features of Mike Reimer. He probably has been seen several times by people who don;t watch Unsolved Mysteries or read crime bulletins.

6. Look at Mike's picture, shave off his beard and hair. Would you still recognize him?

7. if Mike did plan the murder of Diane, he may have had his escape route planned well in advanced.

1. If this whole murder was planned by Mike, would it be that much of a stretch that he had an escape vehicle nearby? or stole a car?



Stealing a car would bring more attention, I would think.



2. the disadvantage of using the car at the scene is that it can be traced in an APB. If Mike is escaping in another vehicle he stands a better chance of escaping.


I follow you here, but what car from where?


4. Would it be that inconceivable that Mike and his daughter took a bus? How many people would register a little girl and her father taking a bus? What would be so suspicious about that?


If you go through the trouble to construct a murder plot to that extent, you would risk it by being seen in public on a bus? I can't buy that.


5. If Mike was trying to make it appear that a serial killer was behind this, it behooves him to leave the car. Was the car left in the first murders?

Good question.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mastermind

2. the disadvantage of using the car at the scene is that it can be traced in an APB. If Mike is escaping in another vehicle he stands a better chance of escaping.

I follow you here, but what car from where?

When Mike and Diane were separated? What did Mike drive?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mastermind
4. Would it be that inconceivable that Mike and his daughter took a bus? How many people would register a little girl and her father taking a bus? What would be so suspicious about that?

If you go through the trouble to construct a murder plot to that extent, you would risk it by being seen in public on a bus? I can't buy that.

1. First off, the "faked serial killer" murder plot is only one theory regarding this case. Mike may very well be a psychopath and Diane's death was just victim #3 of the "socktie murderer". If there is no faked serial killing plot, Mike may not care whether people see him. He may simply be trying to flee.

2. Pop Quiz, remember all the people you saw the last time you rode a bus or subway. Unless that person was doing something memorable or looked provacatiive, you probably wouldn't remember or notice them. What's so unusual about a guy and his daughter taking the bus?

3. I'm sure you've heard of cases in NYC were thieves left on a subway with their stolen loot.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mastermind
1. If this whole murder was planned by Mike, would it be that much of a stretch that he had an escape vehicle nearby? or stole a car?


Stealing a car would bring more attention, I would think.

Depends on when the car was stolen in the case timeline.

Am I the only one concerned that the "Socktie Serial Killer" Stopped murdering people directly after Diane Reimer's death?

If he changed MO, why? What was so special about Diane Reimer that he felt the need to stop using his sock signature or stop killing altogether?

Isn't it curious that his signature just began with a murder three months since Diane's murder.

The sock apparently meant something to this killer. It didn;t have any practical use.

Am I the only one concerned that the "Socktie Serial Killer" Stopped murdering people directly after Diane Reimer's death?

If he changed MO, why? What was so special about Diane Reimer that he felt the need to stop using his sock signature or stop killing altogether?

Isn't it curious that his signature just began with a murder three months since Diane's murder.

The sock apparently meant something to this killer. It didn;t have any practical use.

It puzzles me too. I don't have a good idea about it. If Mike was the killer, though, did he change his MO because he killed Diane? I could see that making sense.

Oh yeah and the other car idea, makes sense too. Did they ever look into Mike having another car?

Hmmm, that's a good point.

Why would the killer stop immediately after Diana?

Hmmm, that's a good point.

Why would the killer stop immediately after Diana?

If Diane was a complete stranger to the killer, he runs no more risk of getting caught than he would with the first couple he killed.

I worked at a detox facilate and the mental health professionals woulds say "The best predictor of future behavior is past behavior" and in this case the domestic abuse makes me think that there was some argument that caused mike to get angry and killed his wife and think if you are going to kill a child's mom and dad you are not going to gain a conscience and take the girl to a wal-mart . On the other hand if you are going to kill your wife and still want support from your friends and family you bring your daughter to safety then split. Your family may support you if you kill your child say if "The car smells like a dead body!!!!!":D oh man Casey Anthony theres a unsolved mystery like who's baby's daddy? I thought Lee or maybe George.Well thats my thought and I think if a man abuses a women over and over and she goes missing the mystery of who killed her is almost always the abusive husband. And one more thing if I were going to defend my friend on murder charges I would say no way your nuts theirs no way he could kill anyone! NOT I dont think he could kill anyone thats more of a statement saying he could do it if your friend does not believe yout hat not good.

The theory if a bus doesn;t water to me becuase there tend not to be too many bust stops in the middle of the woods. As far as a serial killer other than Michael not having a reason to stop there might be a number of reasons. Maybe they just moved on elsewhere. They wouldn't be the first.

As far as a serial killer other than Michael not having a reason to stop there might be a number of reasons. Maybe they just moved on elsewhere.

1. Okay so he moved to another town. Why should that stop his funtime?:confused:
He can kill more couples and still leave his little signature. Why should moving stop him. I don;t think moving should destroy ones practice of his hobby. Back in the day, I moved from place to place and that never stopped me from still doing pick up basketball games.

Why should this guy be robbed of his joy, just because he had to take that job in Toledo, KS. ;)


2. Wouldn;t a good reason for this serial killer to move, be that he was married to his last victim?:confused:

3. He only got to do two killings. Doesn;t seem like he got his money'sworth in the psychotic fetish department.

Wouldn;t he want to do just one more killing to get his blood rushing! To feel the skin on skin touch of putting that sock on the neck of a woman he just deprived of life.

he must have strong willpower this serial killer.

4. Moving did not stop Original Nightstalker from continuing. There are several serial killers that continued their murders from different locations after a move.

5. i would think moving would be ideal to the serial killer. He is away from the scene of his previous crimes. He has a new territory, new victims, new cops that are unfamilliar with his MO. Seems like moving would help his cause rather than hinder it.

The theory if a bus doesn;t water to me becuase there tend not to be too many bust stops in the middle of the woods

How do you know the bus stops and bus activity of the area that the crimes occured in? I;m curious

1. Did you live in the area at the time of the murders.
2. Did you go to a website with this information? Please list the site?
3. Did you talk to a local bus driver.
4. Did you get this information from a third party.
5. Was it listed in the segment case file?
6. How do you know there wasn;t an express bus and only local buses?

Please let me know I would be curious. I did not know that the local buses made so many stops in that area. I would be curious how you came to that information.

Thanks. :)

The theory if a bus doesn;t water to me becuase there tend not to be too many bust stops in the middle of the woods

Frequent stops actual helps that theory.

If there were several stops along the route, it means that Mike would have plenty of spots along the way to pick up this bus. It means less of a walk than if the bus had to pick up at specific and express stops.

A local bus also has a lot of people on it. Which may mean that Mike was with several people. Some of which may also be men with children or families with children.

A local bus like a local subway is a great place to be discrete and keep a low profile.

Actually I was implying there were no bus stops as common sense tells me buses usually don't travel to the middle of the woods.

Actually I was implying there were no bus stops as common sense tells me buses usually don't travel to the middle of the woods.

1. That depends on how far the murder scene was from a stop. Something that neither you nor i really know for certain.

We would have to do research to determine that. Unless you know the layout of the land? Do you have that information?

i don;t think we can go by a generic determination that just because there "in the woods" that public bus transportation was or was not available.

2. In any regards, there would be some walking "within the woods" to get out of the woods. What lay on the outskirts of the woods is anyone's guess. Perhaps there was a convenience store that had a bus stop. Maybe a local town post office. More research would need to be done.

3. The bus theory is only one theory about how Mike Reimer got out of the woods after killing his Wife.

A big piece of missing information is what mode of transportation Mike Reimer was using when he was separated from Diane.

Mike apparently had some method of getting back and forth.

Hey, first post here and wanted to say a quick thing about this case.

Being from Washington, I'm pretty familiar with the area in which this crime occured. Interestingly enough, on the day of the murder Riemer and Robertson supposedly were going Christmas tree shopping and yet there isn't a Christmas tree farm within 20 miles of the murder site. The murder site is extremely remote and there's no real reason for Riemer to have driven his family that far if not for some purpose other than what his wife thought was intended IMO. He was likely familiar with the area, but it is extremely remote and it's not sure what if any business he actually might have had there.

Furthermore, the issue of a 2nd car is a big one. The murder scene was at least a mile off the main road and more than 30 miles away from the store in the Tacoma area at which the little girl was found. It's a long drive. No random serial killer would have taken the time to drop this little girl off at such a far off locale, especially not at one so conveniently close to her own home. There's no evidence that Riemer or his wife owned or rented another car, so Riemer either had to have had a getaway vehicle or have stolen another car, of which there is also no evidence. I'm of the theory that he had to have had a getaway vehicle, possibly driven by a friend or family member.

Rifle shell casings were found about 30 feet away from the car, but I don't suspect that Riemer owned a rifle and it's possible the shell casings belonged to a random hunter who had used the logging road.

Riemer almost certainly had to have killed his wife IMO, although I'm completely on the fence on his whereabouts or whether or not he killed the other couple. The killing seemed too methodical and well thought out (I believe leaving the jacket was probably a ploy to mislead) for Riemer to have simply decided to kill himself afterwards, and I think he had a getaway vehicle so he had to have had some help. Where he is today, who knows.... but it's surprisingly easy to make it from Tacoma up to Canada unseen. It's very possible he left the country and remains around today.

There's no evidence that Riemer or his wife owned or rented another car, so Riemer either had to have had a getaway vehicle or have stolen another car,

How do you know this information?

Rifle shell casings were found about 30 feet away from the car, but I don't suspect that Riemer owned a rifle and it's possible the shell casings belonged to a random hunter who had used the logging road.

Wasn;t Michael an outdoorsman? Wouldn;t he by nature own a hunting rifle?

,

How do you know this information?

I don't. Just assumed the police would have made the connection if their other car were missing. Whatever vehicle the killer used to get away was not Riemer's.


Wasn;t Michael an outdoorsman? Wouldn;t he by nature own a hunting rifle?

He may have, but the shell casings were apparently not linked to him. I personally wouldn't make much of it, hunters use those logging roads a lot and there's no reason to think it was actually connected to the murder, although its proximity is a coincidence.

I too live in the Tacoma area. I remember (vaguely) hearing about his when I was about 5. It seems that my family and I drove by the K-Mart at one point and someone pointed out that was "where that little girl was found".

I agree with RobertStax in that Reimer would have had a hell of a long walk to get to a bus stop. If I remember correctly, that K-mart is (even still) about the first fairly populated area that you would come to along Highway 7 (leading away from where Diana was found). There may not be any tree farms there now but could have been on someones property back at the time. It is also possible that Michael intended to just go check his traps and cut down a small tree out in the woods somewhere to avoid paying for it.

I am really on the fence here as well as far as who commited the crime. As always, the husband or boyfriend is the first and logical suspect, but the other two murders do add another layer to this. UM was unclear as to if the socks on Diana and the other victim, Ruth Cooper actually matched. The detective refers to the fact that the knot on each is identical.

It should also be noted that the earlier murders, Steve Harkins and Ruth Cooper, occurred in an area where Mike routinely set his traps. This could mean either it was a trial run for Mike (as well as setting up the serial killer possibility), or that the killer and Mike happened to have the same, forgive the pun, hunting grounds. Also interesting is that Harkins and Cooper were both found two months apart (Harkins found before Cooper). UM does not say how far the actual physical distance is though. But if one body was found and another person was known to be with them, I would think that even a half assed search would be conducted, in which no body was found for two months. Therefore it is logical to assume that there was at least some distance or Cooper would have been discovered earlier.

Again, there are at least two ways to look at that. If Mike Killed the first two, the whole thing may have been a cover up for Diane's murder. If a serial killer, it would fit the MO to (for whatever reason) to split the bodies up and could give at least some explaination as to why Mike has not been found.

However you look at it there are at least two theories that can fit the facts perfectly. It would be interesting to see how much info from the first murders was released to the public originally. If there was a lot of info, at least about the knot tying of the sock, maybe Mike saw that and copied it. Who knows. I really do feel this case could go either way. The key is finding Mike Reimer.

i was looking up info on the web about this and found an old thread on this case with additional info.
http://www.sitcomsonline.com/boards/showthread.php?t=157763

Its a bit to filter through as there are other articles mixed in. But it brings up some interesting facts.

UM does not say how far the actual physical distance is though. But if one body was found and another person was known to be with them, I would think that even a half assed search would be conducted, in which no body was found for two months. Therefore it is logical to assume that there was at least some distance or Cooper would have been discovered earlier.



That's a good point and one in which I did not consider when I originally thought this out.

According to this

http://www.doenetwork.org/cases/3684dmwa.html

The earlier victims had been found 11.5 miles apart, a pretty large distance for a serial killer to spread their victims out when preying on a couple.

That makes it interesting though because the Robertson/Riemer case could easily fit into that pattern. The victims would had have to have been spread out, and with that it's very possible that Riemer's body could still be somewhere deeper into the woods upwards of a few miles from where Robertson's body was found. There's a lot of hunting/logging areas out there, but it's still possible for someone to find a spot in those woods where no one will ever get to you.

However you look at it there are at least two theories that can fit the facts perfectly. It would be interesting to see how much info from the first murders was released to the public originally. If there was a lot of info, at least about the knot tying of the sock, maybe Mike saw that and copied it. Who knows. I really do feel this case could go either way. The key is finding Mike Reimer.

The tied sock in the first murder was not released to the press.
Only the killer of the first couple (or the police) would know about this signature.

I agree with RobertStax in that Reimer would have had a hell of a long walk to get to a bus stop.

He may not have a choice in the matter. Long or not, he has to get out of the woods.

Something else to consider is that Mike Reimer was accused of having an affair by his wife. Perhaps this women was the one that dropped off his daughter?

Perhaps this love affair is what prompted this whole plan. A sort of way for Mike to start a new life fresh.

Actually, there were a few others murders at about the same time, but the MO was off. I'm starting to think Riemer vanished into the woods and took his life.

The tied sock in the first murder was not released to the press.

HOw do you know that? The segment doesn't say that this is the case.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mastermind
The tied sock in the first murder was not released to the press.

HOw do you know that? The segment doesn't say that this is the case.

1.read through the original Mike Reimer posts. it was mentioned in an article.

2. if you really think about it, it would be the worst piece of police work for the detectives to release that information.

They would only release it once there was a serial killing attached to the first murder.

Police work 101

You know, an important thought just occurred to me, while preparing a much longer post on this case, which I will return to working on in a moment:

Everyone (including myself) assumes that one of the difficulties here in believing that a third party killed Michael and Diana is that the killre moved Michael's body a fair distance away, which would certainly be a tough thing to accomplish: Mike was a big guy, and it's tough to move dead weight of any size.

But what if the killer came upon Michael and Diana somewhere ELSE in the woods, killed Michael there immediately, then commandeered his truck, kidnapping his wife and daughter, and moved to a different part of the woods, perhaps many miles away, where he then killed Diana? The bodies of the other two victims were found miles apart, so this wouldn't be a stretch.

The difficulty with this is, obviously, if he came across Michael and Diana and Crystal in one location, killed Michael, and kidnapped the other two, taking Mike's truck, how did the killer get away from the location, with Crystal in tow, from where Diana's body was ultimately found? Probably only could have done it if he had an accomplice following him in a second car, but that's assuming too much.

I've posted on this case once before, but I am glad to see it is getting more attention, because it is one of UM's most intriguing.

I find particularly troubling this new detail, not mentioned in the UM segment but given in one of the articles justin5256 dug up so long ago (http://www.sitcomsonline.com/boards/showthread.php?t=157763):

Diana Robertson, 21, of Puyallup. Her body was found in February on a logging road near Mineral. Robertson and her companion, Michael Riemer, were last seen at a Pierce County K-mart store. Their daughter, Crystal, was found wandering at the store. Riemer is still missing.

If this is true, that's damning circumstantial evidence against Mike, IMHO: what are the chances that Crystal would end up being found at the very same store where Michael and Diana were last seen, which, by the way, was over 30 miles from where Diana's body was found?:

The couple's 2-year-old daughter, Crystal Louise, was found late Dec. 12 outside a K mart store in Spanaway, 30 miles north of where Robertson's body was discovered near Mineral, just south of the Pierce-Lewis County line.

One of the things that has always troubled me about this case was the degree to which, if we assume Michael is the killer, he must have planned the crime. He took Diana out to the kill/dump site in his truck, but did not return with the truck: this means he had to have some plan for getting himself back out of the woods. One of the real problems with that scenario, though, is that Michael not only had to get out of the woods himself, but with his little three year old daughter as well, if he planned this in advance, without the use of his vehicle. Moreover, we now know that she was found later the same day at a K-mart many miles away from the place where Diana's body was found - much too far to walk if one begins in the mid-afternoon with a little child in tow - so not only did Michael have to get himself and Crystal out of the woods, but he had to use a vehicle to do it - one that he did NOT bring with him to the crime scene, at least at the time of the murder. So, how did he do it? And how is it that he has not only not been seen since, but literally no sign of him has been heard of since - no activity on his SSN#, no credit card activity, nothing?

What begins to emerge is an incredibly meticulously planned murder, a plan that might have begun as much as four months before Diana's murder, in August of 1985. If we assume (and there are lots of reasons to assume it) that Michael is also responsible for the murder of Ruth Cooper and Stephen Harkins, and that he executed that murder, in part, to try to establish a "false serial killer" pattern to throw the authorities off the trail, this was one cold, calculating guy. He murders two people just to establish an M.O. for a "serial killer" who can be conveniently blamed in the absence of Michael's body; to further that particular aim, he makes sure to separate, by 12 miles, the bodies of the first couple he murders, so it will not be so odd to the authorities that when Diana is found, Michael is not.

Michael begins not only this planning process, but also the execution of his plan, before Diana even files the restraining order against him, which happens in November.

Now, months after he committs the initial murders, he decides it is time to kill Diana. He arranges to have her accompany him on a long trip out into a very secluded area, where they will be unlikely to be seen or heard by anyone, an area he is very familiar with, but with which she, probably, is not. Above, RobertStax made this point:

Being from Washington, I'm pretty familiar with the area in which this crime occured. Interestingly enough, on the day of the murder Riemer and Robertson supposedly were going Christmas tree shopping and yet there isn't a Christmas tree farm within 20 miles of the murder site. The murder site is extremely remote and there's no real reason for Riemer to have driven his family that far if not for some purpose other than what his wife thought was intended IMO. He was likely familiar with the area, but it is extremely remote and it's not sure what if any business he actually might have had there.

The suggestion here is that Michael engaged in deliberately duplicitous behavior. Unfortunately, I don't think this particular observation holds: every source agrees they were going to "check Mike's trap line" and FIND a Christmas tree. By that I assume that they weren't shopping for a Christmas tree, but, if you will pardon the pun, chopping for a Christmas tree ;)

Nevertheless, the broader idea here - that this trip was not about accomplishing a mundane errand or two, but rather getting Diana somewhere remote so he could kill her - is a salient one. Michael's plan, evidently, was to kill Diana not only deep in the woods, but also relatively close to where the other couples' bodies were found, so the authorities again would be inclined to link all these murders to a third-party serial killer. In order to make this work, however, and make it that much more convincing, he needs to leave something of himself in those woods, in lieu of his body. So, he not only arranges to leave his coat, which suggests he could not have escaped on foot, but his truck as well. To do that, he must have pre-arranged to have a second vehicle waiting for him, either sitting up there hidden, or else driven near to the site by a friend, who then probably becomes an accomplice in this crime. This is where it becomes important to consider that no trace of any sort has ever turned up of Michael since this time: if he disappeared, he must have had another identity waiting for him. So, in the months leading up to the murder, is it possible that Michael created a false identity for himself, acquiring a new name, new social security number, a new driver's license, etc. (back in the 80s, this was easier to do than you might think - all it involved was a little public records research and a little mail fraud - and underground publications like "The Jolly Roger Cookbook" made it a simpole matter for anyone to learn how to do this sort of thing)? It seems Michael Riemer, for all intents and purposes, ceased to exist on December 12th, 1985. If he indeed survived that day, the only way he could have accomplished this is by acquiring an entirely new identity for himself: perhaps, in fact, he did, and perhaps he did it in enough time before the murder to buy a new car under his new name, one that he then hid up in those woods and used to drive away from the site once the murder was finished. When he left the woods that day, he was no longer Michael Riemer. He was whatever new identity he had gotten for himself.

At least, that's how the "Michael Riemer did it" narrative would pretty much have to go. There were always, however, three problems with this theory:

1) For a guy who went to great lengths to hide his own involvement in his girlfriend's murder, and indeed who tried hard to make it look like he, too, was the victim of a random serial killer, he seems to have made one fatal mistake: he left, for no good reason, a note, prominently displayed, that could easily be interpreted as having been left by Michael in a chilling "good-bye" to his murdered girlfriend. Why undermine his own plan by doing this?

2) For a crime so meticulously planned start to finish, doesn't it seem odd that Michael didn't account for Crystal? He knew what he was going to do when he went out into the woods that day; why bring a liability like a little girl along, and why subject her to the horror of seeing her own mother murdered? Wouldn't have been easier to have just found a baby-sitter for the day?

3) Michael doesn't seem like the calm, methodical type. He seems much more like the "snapped in a moment of emotional distress" type. These murders seem too carefully planned for someone of Michael's temperment.

The first objection has been smartly answered by Corky Kneivel, bawitter, MegtheEgg86, and mattc in this thread and other threads: the envelope could have been written on at any time. We have no way of knowing if it was placed there on the day of the murder or not. It could simply have been Mike's dumb luck that he wrote that on the envelope once, forgot about it, and then let it sit in his truck where it was until it was found by investigators.

The second objection is what is addressed by this "new" information we have. Isn't it astounding that Crystal was found at the same K-mart where hre parents were last seen? Even if we assume that Michael Riemer was responsible (a proposition certainly strongly suggested by this astounding coincidence), I think it is still a little too convenient. It has always bothered me: why did Michael bring the little girl into the woods only to have her there while he murdered her mother, then bring her back? But what if the simple answer is: Michael murdered her mother before they ever got to where her body was found? What if he killed her not long after they left that K-mart? We have no way of knowing how long Crystal was wandering the store, in obvious shock, before she was noticed. Maybe he killer Diana somewhere close to the K-mart, went back to the K-mart, dropped off Crystal, and THEN drove off to the dump site? He then could have preceded on foot without worrying about bringing Crystal back to civilization, and without the need for a second car.

The third objection still stands; no matter how you slice it, if you assume the first two murders were done to cover up the third, this was meticulously planned, something I would not have expected of Mike Riemer. However, perhaps we should assume that Michael did murder the first two victims, but not as part of some plan, but rather on a whim. Perhaps it only occurred to him AFTER he killed Diana in a rage that his best course of action would be to try to link her murder to two that he committed earlier, disappear himself, and hope authorities assumed that he must have been a victim himself.

Lots of different thoughts here, but what I am coming to is that, where before I was more inclined to think Mike Riemer was NOT responsible for the murder of Diana, I am now more inclined to think he was. A final thing that troubles me: no source that I can find says whether or not Diana and the other woman who was murdered were sexually assaulted or not. Wouldn't it be odd for a random serial killer to murder a woman, do something suggestive like tie a sock around her neck, but NOT attempt to sexually assault her? If no attempt was made to assault Diana sexually, I again think that is circumstantial evidence that suggests Mike is more likely responsible than a stranger.

But what if the killer came upon Michael and Diana somewhere ELSE in the woods, killed Michael there immediately, then commandeered his truck, kidnapping his wife and daughter, and moved to a different part of the woods, perhaps many miles away, where he then killed Diana? The bodies of the other two victims were found miles apart, so this wouldn't be a stretch.



This is what I've been saying from the very beginning!!!

I don't think its implausible at all to imagine this scenario: Mike went out to check his traps while Diana and Crystal stayed inside the truck (where its warm) and the killer, who perhaps had met Mike out there before or knew of his trap locations, kills him there. Keeps his jacket and tosses Mike in the river or in the woods (where animals find him perhaps resulting in his body never being located). Then drives Diana & Crystal to where the killer's vehicle was, or close to it, and rapes and kills Diana while Crystal remains in the car.

The killer is sufficiently familiar with the area, having killed a couple in much the same way recently before then.

Now I haven’t read completely all of the articles in the other post however I did notice a reference to the much discussed (and IMO thoroughly overhyped) envelope. The article gives the wording as “I love you, Diana”. !!!! Did anyone discuss, and I’m asking because I don’t remember seeing it, the possibility that this was a message written from Diana to Mike? The comma would seem to indicate that being the situation and would go a long way towards negating any claims that this was some sort of “farewell gesture” from Mike to Diana before killing her.

Lastly, a killer, unknown to the child, driving the child and dropping her off at K-Mart is not such an impossibility. I will concede it seems unusual but I give that a higher probability than Mike Reimer being able to disappear for all this time.


mozartpc27, I’m enormously interested in reading your thorough examination of this homicide.

By the by, those articles posted by justin5256 are instructive about a more fundamental evidentiary principle: be careful to always read any source with a critical eye! When I began my big long post above, I started with a discussion of what I thought was an interesting, overlooked problem with the timeline of events, but I dropped it because I am now sure it was probably just the result of some sketchy early reporting of the case by Seattle newspapers. Observe:

Riemer and his girlfriend, Diana Robertson, have been missing since the two left in Riemer's pickup truck to check animal traps in southern Pierce County in mid-December. With them was their 2-year-old daughter, Crystal. The youngster mysteriously turned up in the parking lot of a Spanaway store a few days later, but there has been no sign of the couple.

The next day...

Riemer, Robertson and the toddler had gone out in Riemer's red 1982 Plymouth pickup to set and check traps along the Nisqually River.

The next day, young Crystal mysteriously turned up at a K-Mart parking lot in Spanaway, Pierce County. She is now living with her grandmother.

And in a rival newspaper that same day...

Riemer and his girlfriend were last seen leaving their Puyallup home for the Nisqually River near Elbe, where Riemer was running trap lines. The couple had left with their 2-year-old daughter, Crystal Louise, and were expected home that night.

The girl was found later the same day outside a K mart store in Spanaway. She was not identified as the daughter of the missing couple until three days later.

Indeed, the newspaper accounts don't actually agree on where the couple was last seen. I built a whole enormous post up above based on the idea that they were last seen at the same K-mart where Crystal was later found; that came from the November 19, 1986 Seattle Times, nearly a year after the murder. But in the last article I cited in this post, the Seattle Post Intelligencer says they were last seen leaving their home. Since that was from much earlier in 1986, I suppose it is possible the police had received new information between February and November, but you've got to be careful. My whole big post above might be totally invalid now!

At least, that's how the "Michael Riemer did it" narrative would pretty much have to go. There were always, however, three problems with this theory:

1) For a guy who went to great lengths to hide his own involvement in his girlfriend's murder, and indeed who tried hard to make it look like he, too, was the victim of a random serial killer, he seems to have made one fatal mistake: he left, for no good reason, a note, prominently displayed, that could easily be interpreted as having been left by Michael in a chilling "good-bye" to his murdered girlfriend. Why undermine his own plan by doing this?

1. What makes you think he was trying to hide his involvement in the murder.

For all we know this whole thing was an unintended crime of passion.

2. One interpretation of the letter is that it is confession that he didn;t kill his wife because he loved her.

3. Nobody ever said Mike Reimer was a criminal mastermind.
At best Mike has only committed two murders in his life.
Criminals make mistakes.
That's how a majority of them are caught.

4. I would argue Mike's made two bigger mistakes
a. one was not hiding his wives body.
b. was dropping his daughter off when he could have killed her or figured
c. killing two other people before murdering his wife.


2) For a crime so meticulously planned start to finish, doesn't it seem odd that Michael didn't account for Crystal? He knew what he was going to do when he went out into the woods that day; why bring a liability like a little girl along, and why subject her to the horror of seeing her own mother murdered?

1. Why do you think this was meticuously planned? Mike may have come up with this whole thing during a drunk bender. This is not the Kennedy assasination here. He kills a couple.

2. The theory that mike killed the first two people to create a serial killer is only one theory.

In truth, Mike may be psychotic and just killed Diana out of pure rage.

Wouldn't have been easier to have just found a baby-sitter for the day?


1. Mike Reimer may not really have cared whether his daughter was there or not. Keep in mind he always has the option of killing her too. It;s not like he's going to be around to see her growing up or anything. He's basically abandoning her. Mike may have viewed dropping her off as a last gesture of kindness.

2. It;s going to seem a little suspicious that there not bringing their daughter along to look for a Christmas tree, no? Christmas usually is a family holiday.

3. Mike may have tried to avoid bringing his daughter. But if Diana insisted on bringing her, there may have been nothing Mike could do. Causing an argument might

) Michael doesn't seem like the calm, methodical type. He seems much more like the "snapped in a moment of emotional distress" type. These murders seem too carefully planned for someone of Michael's temperment.

agreed.

But it doesn;t really take a rocket scientist to come up with sock around the neck thing to fake a serial killing.

A final thing that troubles me: no source that I can find says whether or not Diana and the other woman who was murdered were sexually assaulted or not.

Diana was not sexually assaulted.

Unknown whether the other woman was, but I would argue that it's moot.

Michael begins not only this planning process, but also the execution of his plan, before Diana even files the restraining order against him, which happens in November.

I don;t see how the restraining order puts a time line on this case.
Mike may have wanted to kill his wife WAY before then. (Lord know there isn;t a man alive who has not wanted to kill his wife repeatedly. :mad: )

The simplest solution to this case is that Mike Reimer is indeed a serial killer.

That he was about to start a series of murders using this sock tie as his signature or fetish.

Mike had to leave and cease his serial killing when his last victim was a person who could be directly connected to him-namely his own wife.

...as to whether Mike stopped his murders, killed himself or morphed into another serial killer.....that may never be known.

Actually, there were a few others murders at about the same time, but the MO was off. I'm starting to think Riemer vanished into the woods and took his life.


How does Crystal get to K-Mart then?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Thor2000
Actually, there were a few others murders at about the same time, but the MO was off. I'm starting to think Riemer vanished into the woods and took his life.


How does Crystal get to K-Mart then?


I presume that thor2000 meant that Mike kills Diana first. Drops Crystal at K-mart? Then returns to the scene of the crime to kill himself in the woods.

I thought you would be more puzzled Corky by

1. what the heck Mike used to kill himself? Knife?
2. why he felt he needed to go so far into the woods to off himself.


I guess Mike could have jumped off a bridge or something much later.

Actually as far as how Crystal got to K-Mart is not as much of a stretch as one might think. If it were Mike or someone else, either one would make sense and wouldn't be much of a coincidence, assuming that the family was last seen (I know this may not be true as it only appeared in the one article) at the K-Mart where Crystal later turned up. As I said before I live in Tacoma not terribly far from the K-Mart in question. Even today, and even more so 25 years ago, that K-Mart was about the last fairly public place to stop before leaving civilization and heading up to the mountains. There are a few hole in the wall bars and coffee stands and a couple of automotive shops out that way now, some of which may have been there at the time. But the first half way logical place to dump a kid off without being noticed (and still leaving her where she would likely be found by someone) is that K-Mart. So which ever theory you go with, I don't think it is much of a stretch however the girl ended up there. All that means is that whoever dropped her off was at least mildly concerned that she would be found, and that they were headed in a somewhat northernly direction.

One thing I noticed in the article was that the newspaper said something (in regards to the envelope) to the effect of a note being found that read "I love you, Diana" but the police would not comment on the contents of that envelope. Now to me, that very heavily suggests there was something in the envelope. I don't think the police would hold back on that if nothing was in the envelope. Now, not to bring up the dreaded envelope debate again, but that is very interesting to suggest that something was indeed in the envelope. UM seemd to lead you to believe that it was an empty envelope.

Another thing that has been in the back of my mind and even I admit it is far fetched so I am not sure how I feel about it. I am curious what others think. Now keep in mind that I am not saying that "yes, this is related" but the thought did occur to me. here goes:

Anyone remember the Michael Johnson / Rochelle Robinson case? Well, the sportsman club where their car was found is not exactly far away from the K-Mart in question in the Riemer case (a few miles by car). And it is interesting to note that once again there was a couple in an isolated area that were separated, killed (although the order of who was killed first remains in debate) and then the bodies found in separate locations. Rochelle as i recall was also found on an "isolated road near Mount Rainier" (remotely the same area as the Riemer case).

As I said, I know it is far fetched, and there was no sock to speak of (at least as far as we know). As I recall Rochelle Robinson was stabbed, Michael Johnson was shot. If you figure the Cooper/Harkins case is related to the Riemer case, then you also have shooting and stabbing in all instances (if you presume that Michael Riemer, the male was shot, just as Michael Johnson was, somewhere else and has yet to be found). Of course the case was also a few years later, but if you look at it there are striking similarities.

I know that a lot of murder cases have common elements and I wouldn't even have thought of this possible connection except that they were somewhat in the same area. I am sure I am rolling some eyes here and as I said, I don't necessarily think this is what happened by any means. I just felt it was worth noting.

Anyone remember the Michael Johnson / Rochelle Robinson case? Well, the sportsman club where their car was found is not exactly far away from the K-Mart in question in the Riemer case (a few miles by car). And it is interesting to note that once again there was a couple in an isolated area that were separated, killed (although the order of who was killed first remains in debate) and then the bodies found in separate locations. Rochelle as i recall was also found on an "isolated road near Mount Rainier" (remotely the same area as the Riemer case).

As I said, I know it is far fetched, and there was no sock to speak of (at least as far as we know). As I recall Rochelle Robinson was stabbed, Michael Johnson was shot. If you figure the Cooper/Harkins case is related to the Riemer case, then you also have shooting and stabbing in all instances (if you presume that Michael Riemer, the male was shot, just as Michael Johnson was, somewhere else and has yet to be found). Of course the case was also a few years later, but if you look at it there are striking similarities.

I know that a lot of murder cases have common elements and I wouldn't even have thought of this possible connection except that they were somewhat in the same area. I am sure I am rolling some eyes here and as I said, I don't necessarily think this is what happened by any means. I just felt it was worth noting.

No :rolleyes: from me.

Tanya Van Cuylenborg and Jay Cook, en route to Seattle from Victoria, BC, were also found separated--I believe Jay was found something like 90 miles away from Tanya. Now, I only bring up that particular case to illustrate that it's not unfeasible to imagine Mike as a victim of a "couple-killer", or that his body could have been taken to another location in Washington state.

(Who is to say the murder wasn't an "inside job" [not involving Mike, that is] as it were? I know I may be beginning to stretch things, but what if someone known to the couple had a motive to kill them that's been overlooked? That could be a possible explanation for why Crystal was found unharmed at K-Mart. It's just conjecture, and I don't really know how to explain it, but again, I honestly just don't believe Michael Riemer did it.)

Well, like I said, I don't feel that they are related. The though had just occured to me is all. It makes some sense. I know there are couple killers out there for sure, but the close proximity to the back roads near Mount Rainier in both cases I find interesting is all. The MO is close, involving both a knife and a gun. And then of course the separating of the two. But as it has been pointed out, that isn't unheard of. Just a thought that went through my head is all. i agree it probably isn't related. but you never know...

I've thought about this case some more, and I think I am back to thinking that Michael Riemer isn't responsible. My long post from yesterday suggested that, if indeed Crystal was found at the same K-mart where her parents were last seen, this is too much of a coincidence for this murder to have been committed by anybody but Michael Riemer. Either Michael tooke everyone out to the woods, killed his wife, and brought the little girl back to the self-same K-mart, or else he actually killed his wife very near to that K-mart, dropped the litle girl off there, then drove his wife's body out to the woods, left his truck, and disappeared.

But, talking it over with my wife, she pointed out that it's just as possible that a random killer intercepted Michael and Diana at or near the K-mart, perhaps following them from the K-mart. Either way, it would present him with a logical place to leave the little girl, if he was in a mood to be compassionate towards her (which, to me, is really not all that unlikley). Of course, as I pointed out yesterday, in my second post about the reliability of newspaper accounts, it's not even clear that Mike and Diana were indeed last seen at the K-mart; that could simply have been erroneous reporting.

So, I think I am back to square one, with the most important bit of evidence continuing to be the matching sock. Could it be an astonishing coinicidence that a sock was used on Diana and the other woman? Possible, but not very probable. So, the murders must be connected, which leaves us with three possibilities:

1) Michael is a diabolical criminal mastermind, who plotted to murder his girlfriend all along, and, to throw suspicion off of himself, began by murdering two perfect strangers to establish an "M.O." for a phantom serial killer that the authorities would believe existed once they found Diana, many months later (this is a possibility I raised yesterday). It seems unlikely, to say the leastm that this is in fact the case.

2) Michael himself is a serial killer, not a criminal mastermind, who simply decided to make his wife a victim one day.

3) There was indeed a third-party serial killer operating in the area.

The problem I have with possibility (2) is that, as a general rule, serial killers don't kill their girlfriends. If this was Michael killing Diana, it's likely it was part of a jealous rage. Serial killers don't generally have the capacity to feel that emotion, I don't think; many of them have girlfriends and wives, some who they are with for years, mostly as some sort of a strange cover, mostl for their own benefit: proof to themselves that they are "normal." Part of their carefully constructed persona. If Michael was, in reality, a classic sociopath, feeling no empathy, capable of regarding women as objects to be used in any manner he pleased solely for his own pleasure, I just don't think he would have ALSO been the kind of guy to fly off the handle in a jealous rage. The two don't really go together.

So, it looks like (3). I am still troubled by the fact that Diana was NOT sexually assaulted, apparently. Mastermind, you say you know she wasn't - how do you know? No report of the case that I have read says she was or wasn't. Perhaps this is a detail the authorities are withholding?

Guardian: up above, I'm not sure if you were responding to my comment re: Crystal ending up at the K-Mart, but in case you were...I was only bringing that question up in response to Thor2000's theorizing that Mike may have went into the woods to kill himself. I was curious as to how in that scenario (with both parents deceased) would Crystal end up at the K-Mart?

I'm of the thought that she ended up there precisely for the reasons you mention. That its the closest populated place to the logging road where Diane's body was found.

A few things I'd like to know:

Do truckers use that old logging road much?
Is it hidden and out of the way, or is it the popular entrance point to the woods?
Was anything in the envelope?
Was there a comma in the message “I love you, Diana”?
A timeline of events from, say, September to March. Including the domestic violence reports, the weekend they disappeared, when Crystal was found, when Diana was found, etc.


Lastly, this just occurred to me yesterday, Michael Reimer was 35(?) when he went missing and had a 2 year old child with 21 year old Diana Robertson. We don’t know the child’s birthday (meaning whether she was closer to 2 or to 3), but Diana was at most 19 when she gave birth. Considering the 9 months (the amount of time I’ve been told it takes to develop a baby after people do the “mommy & daddy tango”)…its reminiscent of Randall Joe Utterbach’s 17 year old Lolita and his treatment of her. I know this just 2 instnaces on a show dedicated to odd occurrences but I wonder if there’s any sort of trend amongst mid 30’s men and late teenaged women (girls?) that results in domestic strife and abuse.

The problem I have with possibility (2) is that, as a general rule, serial killers don't kill their girlfriends.

:confused:

That's your rational for Michael Reimer not being a serial killer??:confused:


1) Michael is a diabolical criminal mastermind, who plotted to murder his girlfriend all along, and, to throw suspicion off of himself, began by murdering two perfect strangers to establish an "M.O." for a phantom serial killer that the authorities would believe existed once they found Diana, many months later (this is a possibility I raised yesterday). It seems unlikely, to say the leastm that this is in fact the case.


1. Being a serial killer and a criminal mastermind are not necessarily mutually exclusive.

2. You do realize that the only difference between being a criminal mastermind and being a plain old serial killer is the decision to tie the two socks around the female victims.

That;s it. Other than the socks the crimes pretty much play out the same.

So the only criminal mastermind part was the decision to use two of his moldy socks as signature to link the two crimes.
I'm pretty sure Mike Reimer is not the first to think this ruse.

Serial killers don't generally have the capacity to feel that emotion, I
1. Your being WAY to general about serial killers psychology. Your also putting to much face in serial killer profiling. There are as many exceptions to rules as their are methodologies regarding serial killers.

Remember...by definition a serial killer is a person who kills more than 2 people (or was it one ???, I forget..). There is a lot of leeway in that definition.

Technically Aileen Wuornos was as serial killer and so was The Iceman.

2. Keep in mind that too this point he has only killed

3. You mean to tell me that there have not been people that have killed multiple wives and multiple girlfriends. That there are not people that serial abuse women.?

4. 3) There was indeed a third-party serial killer operating in the area.

Okay. Then

where are his other "sock tie" murders? What....two was enough?
Why did he stop or change his MO with Diana's murder? What's so special about her?
Why did he coicidently begin his first attack three months before Mike Reimer's disappearance...and in the same woods that Mike Reimer trapped in?



Was there a comma in the message “I love you, Diana”?

It really wouldn;t mean much.

Most of us are pretty lazy at grammar....as evidenced in this very forum. ;)


Lastly, this just occurred to me yesterday, Michael Reimer was 35(?) when he went missing and had a 2 year old child with 21 year old Diana Robertson. We don’t know the child’s birthday (meaning whether she was closer to 2 or to 3), but Diana was at most 19 when she gave birth. Considering the 9 months (the amount of time I’ve been told it takes to develop a baby after people do the “mommy & daddy tango”)…its reminiscent of Randall Joe Utterbach’s 17 year old Lolita and his treatment of her. I know this just 2 instnaces on a show dedicated to odd occurrences but I wonder if there’s any sort of trend amongst mid 30’s men and late teenaged women (girls?) that results in domestic strife and abuse.

Domestic abuse can occur anytime, age.

o, it looks like (3). I am still troubled by the fact that Diana was NOT sexually assaulted, apparently. Mastermind, you say you know she wasn't - how do you know? No report of the case that I have read says she was or wasn't. Perhaps this is a detail the authorities are withholding?



First of her pants where still on. Unless you think he dressed her on the ground in her bloody clothes.

Second of all it's already a serial killing, so it's not like they need to hide something for leverage against a suspect.

Third, Since they haven;t cleared Mike Reimer, they didn;t find semen to do the

Fourth Why not contact the damn police department yourself and assure yourself that way?

BTW.
If she was sexually assaulted...that would mean that Mike Reimer basically allowed this attacker to rape his wife in front of his daughter without so much as stopping the attacker.

or the serial killer raped the women while she was dead.

I request answers from corky and mozart regarding the below questions:



1. Where are his other "sock tie" murders? What....two was enough? Does two serial killings fit with the "serial killer" ideology?

2.Why did he stop or change his MO with Diana's murder? What's so special about her?

3. Why did he coicidently begin his first attack three months before Mike Reimer's disappearance...and in the same woods that Mike Reimer trapped in?

BTW, Mozart.

When you contact the police, could you please ask them if they used bloodhounds to search for Mike Reimer.

If they did, it seems strange they couldn't find one trace or lead of him.

I request answers from corky and mozart regarding the below questions:



1. Where are his other "sock tie" murders? What....two was enough? Does two serial killings fit with the "serial killer" ideology?

2.Why did he stop or change his MO with Diana's murder? What's so special about her?

3. Why did he coicidently begin his first attack three months before Mike Reimer's disappearance...and in the same woods that Mike Reimer trapped in?

The implication behind #1 is that he obviously would have escaped the area following the crime, which would account for the lack of further killings in the regiob. He could be in another state or country entirely. That being said, there have been other grisly unsolved killings in the Cascades including one as recently as 2006 on a trail a ways north of where this occured, but the similarities are pretty small.

As for Diana's murder, I agree that it's a big leap of faith to assume that the same person committed it as the other two killings. Diana's murder seemedvery personal, she was stabbed at least 17 times and no robbery or sexual assault was committed, and the blood in the truck implies that the murder took place there.

I'm torn on this case but I'd say that I lean about 60% in favor of Riemer doing this. Problem is he would have had to have done a ton of planning to make this work.

A few things I'd like to know:

Do truckers use that old logging road much?
Is it hidden and out of the way, or is it the popular entrance point to the woods?
.

Not in the dead of winter, which is when the crime took place. With all the snow up there I can't say there's much reason for anyone to go down that road between November and March.

And it's not too far out of the way. The crime scene seemed to be a mile or two off of Highway 7, which is a modestly well traveled stretch of road. The logging road is only a mile or two away from Mineral, WA, which is a really small logging and fishing town.

Domestic abuse can occur anytime, age.

Yes, that's true, but I think Corky raises an interesting point.

Recall Jim and Annette Burnside. The age gap there was slightly larger, but nonetheless illustrates a possible correlation with domestic violence.

This certainly doesn't speak to all cases, and I am attempting to tread lightly here, but some men often actively seek out women much younger than they because they feel they are easier to manipulate, control, and dominate. And oftentimes--being devoid of a substantial amount of life experience--they are. Very young women have a very limited understanding of relationships between men and women, and many often default to the paternal relationship. Some men are aware of this, and attempt to attract a "fresh" girl who is far more likely to view the partnership in terms of that of superior-subordinate.

I took a women's studies class while in college and was presented with this theory at some point. There were two or three studies that supposedly backed up the claim, but it fails me how they were conducted, or who actually conducted them. It doesn't appear to be a far-fetched notion on the surface, though.






And it's true that organized serial killers tend not to murder their partners. As their lives are often compartmentalized, the partner is part of the "normal" areas of the killer's existence.

Just one thing I would like to point out just because it seems it is still being misinterpreted, there is no information suggesting that the two different socks matched. They could have, but I have not seen anything that says they do. In the UM segment, it says only that the knots were tied the same way.

Also, one thing the segment was incorrect in reporting was the conditions in which the body of Diana was found. Her body was covered beneath 6 inches of snow. The segment did not show this. Now if I am not mistaken, and I admit I am no expert in this field, but if a body is found in one location under 6 inches of snow more than 2 months after the person died and you then bring in blood hounds to look for her missing boyfriend, how reliable will the dogs be in finding another body that is potentially under snow and has been sitting for more than 2 months?

While Diana's body was apparently intact, it did still take dental records to confirm her identity. Not to get too graphic here, but it is also possible that wildlife got to the remains of Michael (assuming he too was a victim) even if they didn't get to Diana's body.

So if we go with this, what do we have here? If we assume serial killer, we have a killer who has killed one couple in the recent months and separated the bodies. Then a few months later he kills again, separates the bodies, which are then buried under the snow, possibly in locations that could be miles apart, and also possilbly carried off by wildlife. It would not be too crazy (if crazy at all) to assume that even a serial killer may still have a soft spot for a small child. Many serial killers have had traumatic childhoods. It stands to reason that even the most violent of all serial killers might still show compassion or sympathy for a child.

As far as the fate of our alleged third party serial killer? Why haven't we seen or heard from him again? Well, it had been four months since his last known attack. It is fair to say that he could wait that long again and in that time he could have been incarcerated for another crime, killed in a car wreck, shipped off to another part of the world (there is every type of military base in this region all practically within spitting distance of each other, two of those sharing a property line and near the K-mart oddly enough), or he might have been killed in the commission of another crime.

While I think it is obvious that Michael Riemer is/was no saint, I think the more you look at this case, the more possible it seems that he may too have been a victim, even with a lot of the little inconsistincies. As far as the number of stab wounds, I think it is fair to say that there have been many serial killers who have stabbed victims more than that without it being personal. Stabbing is such a hard thing to determine the cause of. Knives can be used for many reasons in a killing. It is silent for one (assuming the victim doesn't scream first). It could be a method of killing for a sex crime. Or it could just be the convenient weapon at hand. Serial killers have been known at least somewhat often to switch between guns to knives. Perhaps the first killing didn't satisfy him because it felt too impersonal so he wanted to get closer and more "intimate" with his next victim(s) and used a knife?

However you look at this though there is a good argument either way. I am suprised this case doesn't appear more often on the tru-crime channels and shows. I would love to see some more updated and detailed info on it.

Just one thing I would like to point out just because it seems it is still being misinterpreted, there is no information suggesting that the two different socks matched. They could have, but I have not seen anything that says they do. In the UM segment, it says only that the knots were tied the same way.

Correct.

There are different style of knots. And different locations to place the knot.

The knot's style and placement was what alerted the cops to the similarity.


And it's true that organized serial killers tend not to murder their partners. As their lives are often compartmentalized, the partner is part of the "normal" areas of the killer's existence.

No, its because

1. They would get caught if they murdered someone that close to them (which in this case explains why Mike ran away---he killed someone close to him)

2. They like their wife spouse and girlfriend and don;t feel it too much of a pain to go looking for another spouse or girlfriend. (which may not be the case with Mike, he was separated from her and was accused of cheating...in truth Mike may not have cared about Diane anymore)

3. They need the spouse for some reason (not necessarily a case here, Mike may not have needed Diane)

If necessary, I;m pretty sure most serial killer would not think twice about offing their beloved.

4. Again, as I have said, every married person has at some time considered offing their spouse.:D Why should serial killers be stereotyped? I would think someone that has already taken human lives is even less squeamish at killing a loved one. :confused:

There have actually been quite a few serial killers that have murdered their girlfriends (or boyfriends---nobody ever thinks about that..:rolleyes: )

In fact there have been serial killers that have speifically killed their wives or grilfriends. :eek:

Black widows(ers) for example. People who have serial killed their spouses or girlfriends.

Jack the Ripper suspect, Neil Cream, comes to mind.....as does a...Jon Addis.

Calling someone a serial killer is like calling someone a gangster. It's a way to specific term.

Serial Killers come in various types, shapes, motivations and methods.

Also, one thing the segment was incorrect in reporting was the conditions in which the body of Diana was found. Her body was covered beneath 6 inches of snow. The segment did not show this. Now if I am not mistaken, and I admit I am no expert in this field, but if a body is found in one location under 6 inches of snow more than 2 months after the person died and you then bring in blood hounds to look for her missing boyfriend, how reliable will the dogs be in finding another body that is potentially under snow and has been sitting for more than 2 months?

If the body is dragged or person ran into the woods. There is still a scent trail.

If Mike Reimer was checking on his traps...he almost certainly had a knife with him.

I would have to imagine an enraged Mike Reimer with a knife would be a fairly difficult combatant for any attacker.

I would imagine that this attacker would have to have struggled with mike for quite sometime...and even the attacker himself was injured.

He may also have had an ax with him if he was looking for a Christmas tree.

He even may have had a gun and/or a rifle.

Mike was by no means an easy target..

Yet he was either dispatched of almost immediately.....or he ran away from the fray. :confused:

As far as the fate of our alleged third party serial killer? Why haven't we seen or heard from him again? Well, it had been four months since his last known attack. It is fair to say that he could wait that long again and in that time he could have been incarcerated for another crime, killed in a car wreck, shipped off to another part of the world (there is every type of military base in this region all practically within spitting distance of each other, two of those sharing a property line and near the K-mart oddly enough), or he might have been killed in the commission of another crime.

A little convenient, don;t you think?

In a missing persons case, when an adult male is missing when a crime has been committed....odds tend to favor that the missing person is the perpetrator of the crime.

However you look at this though there is a good argument either way. I am suprised this case doesn't appear more often on the tru-crime channels and shows. I would love to see some more updated and detailed info on it.

I disagree, I think there is more circumstantial evidece to point toward Mike Reimer being Diane's killer.

There are too many unique circumstances that have to happen for the "Mike Reimer is innocent" theory for it to work.

So many things need to be expained away:
1. The envelope message being an innocent love note stashed away that happens to show up that very day.
2. Mike Reimer's disappearance being his body simply buried in another location,.
3. The daughter's fate being a serial killers strange act of kindness.
4. The serial killers short reign being a result of an unexpected fate.
5. The coincidence of the crime scene being the same place where this murder occurred and Mike Hunt's.
6. That this killer managed to succesfully attack Mike with relative ease while his daughter and wife remained at the scene.

Too much to explain away. I can;t believe all SIX of those things happened to result in Mike Reimer and Diane Reimer being killed by a serial killer that was kind enough to drop the daughter off and wind up ceasing his serial killing activities.

I could buy TWO or even THREE of those things occurring....but not all SIX.

No, its because

1. They would get caught if they murdered someone that close to them (which in this case explains why Mike ran away---he killed someone close to him)

2. They like their wife spouse and girlfriend and don;t feel it too much of a pain to go looking for another spouse or girlfriend. (which may not be the case with Mike, he was separated from her and was accused of cheating...in truth Mike may not have cared about Diane anymore)

3. They need the spouse for some reason (not necessarily a case here, Mike may not have needed Diane)

Which is all rather quite rational thinking, according to our laws, social precepts, and moral feelings, and pretty much a more detailed rehashing of what I said earlier concerning the "normal" compartment.

Again, as I have said, every married person has at some time considered offing their spouse.:D Why should serial killers be stereotyped?

Are you joking?

There have actually been quite a few serial killers that have murdered their girlfriends (or boyfriends---nobody ever thinks about that..:rolleyes: )

That is entirely dependent on how specifically you want to define "serial killer", especially as related to the common use of the term and its meaning to the layperson.


Serial Killers come in various types, shapes, motivations and methods.

I agree--and I understand the dangers of thinking only in terms of a set of specific patterns and behaviors--but many of these people have much more in common than they do differences.

Quote:
Again, as I have said, every married person has at some time considered offing their spouse. Why should serial killers be stereotyped?

Are you joking?

No, a serial killer killer can function as well as we do and have the same feelings that we do.

The only difference is that he has found a particular addiction to murdering people.


Quote:
Serial Killers come in various types, shapes, motivations and methods.

I agree--and I understand the dangers of thinking only in terms of a set of specific patterns and behaviors--but many of these people have much more in common than they do differences.

So do gorillas and humans. But in the end, were separate species.


Quote:
There have actually been quite a few serial killers that have murdered their girlfriends (or boyfriends---nobody ever thinks about that.. )

That is entirely dependent on how specifically you want to define "serial killer", especially as related to the common use of the term and its meaning to the layperson.


From an investigative standpoint- a serial killer case consists of three or more murders that share a signature, suspect, weapon and/or murder scene.

It;s usually been the police practice to declare a serial killer when the third murder has been linked.

Today I picked up Murderers Among Us and reread the story of the Cuylenborg/Cook murder, which took place in 1987. The book mentions that in the past two years before that time, there had been three couple murders/disappearances in the western Washington area.

Is there a western WA native and/or resident here that's more familiar with what the author may be talking about here? Any information or ideas at all?

If Mike Reimer was checking on his traps...he almost certainly had a knife with him.

I would have to imagine an enraged Mike Reimer with a knife would be a fairly difficult combatant for any attacker.

I would imagine that this attacker would have to have struggled with mike for quite sometime...and even the attacker himself was injured.


You are assuming that a killer is going to engage Mike Reimer in fair head to head combat, in that case yeah he would be hard to take. :D

But if you have a gun, or the element of surprise, or a combination of the two, you can dispatch anyone pretty quickly if you know what to do.

Typically killers don't engage their victims in fair hand to hand combat, unless they are considerably smaller and weaker. Murderers are generally cowards. And they don't generally fight fair. :rolleyes:

That being said, I'm not saying Mike wasn't the one who did all this, but its certainly not impossible he was a victim to.

I request answers from corky and mozart regarding the below questions:
1. Where are his other "sock tie" murders? What....two was enough? Does two serial killings fit with the "serial killer" ideology?


Dunno.
Could be. Perhaps there are others that haven't been tied to this.
I thought it had to be "3 victims" to be a serial killer, so yeah, a man who has killed 4 is, technically, a serial killer.


2.Why did he stop or change his MO with Diana's murder? What's so special about her?

I don't know that he did. What MO are you referring to? Did he shoot the first two? Since we don't know how Mike died there's no way to determine if Diana and Mike were killed differently or not.

I really don't think a murderer changing weapons or means of death is all that significant in this case. Not nearly as significant as what makes these cases similar anyhow. These appear to be murderds of chance, a couple out in the woods, in the same area, separating the victims, and the woman having something tied around her neck. Those factors are much more significant than whether he shot the first two and stabbed Diana.


3. Why did he coicidently begin his first attack three months before Mike Reimer's disappearance...and in the same woods that Mike Reimer trapped in?

The hell? What's do you mean by "coincidentally"? If you're asking the way I think you're asking, you're trying to make a statement while asking a question. Is that right? You're inferring that its a highly suspicious "coincidence" meaning that it was really Mike who did the first killings? If I'm wrong, tell me but that's what I'm getting from reading it.

The whole "Mike did the first killings to make it look like a serial killer" is pretty inane and utterly devoid of merit, IMO. If thought about just a little bit it doesn't hold water.


I concede Mike looks like the best suspect for this given the history of abuse, the recent court case Diana filed, the circumstances with the daughter being spared, etc. But when we begin to actually think about what we know, that what Crystal said isn't nearly as important as what she DIDN'T say, the history of other murders in the area and the similarities between them, and almost as significant: the complete lack of any trace of Mike Reimer in the almost 3 decades since...it seems to be that he was murdered out there too.

You are assuming that a killer is going to engage Mike Reimer in fair head to head combat, in that case yeah he would be hard to take.

1. No other bullet shells used. No evidence of a gun used.

2. Mike Reimer most likely had a knife.

3. Mike probably had access to a bludgeon instrument nearby as well.

4. Mike maye even have had a gun

Come to think of it....you might be right. Mike may actually have had an advantage...(added with the berserker rage of someone attacking his family)

Typically killers don't engage their victims in fair hand to hand combat, unless they are considerably smaller and weaker. Murderers are generally cowards. And they don't generally fight fair.

Even with a knife, Mike is going to be difficult to kill. It's not like the first attack is going to lay make down and make him stop choking and hitting you.

Consider how many police officers have pulled their guns and still had perps come after them in a struggle.

Unlike cop dramas, Not every one just raises their hands in defeat once you have a weapon.:rolleyes:

I don't know that he did. What MO are you referring to? Did he shoot the first two? Since we don't know how Mike died there's no way to determine if Diana and Mike were killed differently or not.

The modus operandi involving using a signature---the sock tie.

Where are the other sock tie murders?

Why stop using the sock after Diane's death? What so special about Diane versus the other woman he killed?

I concede Mike looks like the best suspect for this given the history of abuse,


Thanks,

That all I really was looking for.

That you consider Mike Reimer the prime suspect in this case.

That should not change unless:
1. Someone valid confesses to the both crimes.
2. Another serial killing is linked to the murders.
3. Evidence of Mike Reimer's body is found.

You don't know what words mean do you? (http://www.entertonement.com/clips/cnmtdvrgqc--Fail-Horn-The-Price-is-Right-Sad-sad-trombone-Yes-wow-week-The-Price-Is-Right-Losing-Horns-Ringtones)

You don't know what words mean do you?

Your obviously gettin upset and taking this personal. I apologize and will refrain from posting on this subject.

All yours.:wave:

There are too many unique circumstances that have to happen for the "Mike Reimer is innocent" theory for it to work.

So many things need to be expained away:
1. The envelope message being an innocent love note stashed away that happens to show up that very day.

How exactly do you know the so-called envelope message showed up "that very day"? For all anyone knows, it could've been there for a considerable amount of time--having nothing to do with a grotesque final farewell from Riemer. To have it "show up that very day" is something that works well with your personal theory, but might not necessarily be the actual case. And we have no way of knowing one way or the other, really.

2. Mike Reimer's disappearance being his body simply buried in another location,.

It's happened multiple times before, especially in western Washington.

3. The daughter's fate being a serial killers strange act of kindness.

Perhaps it isn't as simple as an act of kindness, if the killer indeed brought Crystal to K-Mart. Perhaps there's more to it psychologically--perhaps the killer felt Crystal had a legitimate reason to be spared. Perhaps the killer had a strong aversion to and distaste for child killers. Many murderers do.

4. The serial killers short reign being a result of an unexpected fate.

What? :confused:

5. The coincidence of the crime scene being the same place where this murder occurred and Mike Hunt's.

Do you mean the murder scene being the same place where Mike traps?

6. That this killer managed to succesfully attack Mike with relative ease while his daughter and wife remained at the scene.

Mike doesn't necessarily have to be at the scene with Diana and Crystal during his hypothetical attack. He was, after all, checking his traps--which could've been well off the logging road where Diana was found. If he was attacked, we currently have no way of knowing how it was done. For all we know, Mike could've been shot, stabbed, or strangled from behind.


Sometimes I wonder if Mike and Diana were both murdered if the killer wasn't personally acquainted with both of them. Another trapper Mike knew, perhaps.

I am still very undecided on this one, but the more I think about it, the more I feel that the [I]known[I] evidence quite possibly points away from Mike Riemer. I know that most of the time that if another family member is missing from the scene they are the logical suspect and rightly so.

But, as an example, what about Danny and Kathy Freeman? When first invetigated everyone assumed that Danny had taken the girls and run off after killing his wife. Then his body was found and all of a sudden everyone switches to "the girls must have been kidnapped!" Well, maybe they were. But I don't think it is right to just assume that the missing person was the one who did it. Investigators may be right to proceed under that assumption, but they must also have the mind open to other possibilities. Especially when there is absolutely no definitive evidence one way or another. In the Riemer case, there is nothing saying that Mike was the killer, and there is nothing saying it was someone else.

As far as my statement a few posts back about the possibility that if it was a serial killer they may have died, been arrested, or moved/transfered out of the area. It was pointed out that some thought this was too convenient. Not really. Especially if you go with the possibility of it being a military man. Serial killers often go months without killing. If the first couple in the area had been his victims, then several months go by and he kills Mike and Diana, it may have been a few months went by and he was transferred out of the area.

That area is very close to both Fort Lewis and McCord Airforce Base. If coming from the Tacoma area, you would have to drive right by both bases property lines to get towards the general area of where Diane's body was found. If you argue that no other crimes have been commited in the area you so it must have been Riemer, you could also argue that if a serial killer transfers in from out of state, it would likely be some time before they get comfortable enough in the area to kill. Once they do maybe several months have gone by, then they kill again, then are transfered out a few months after that. It really isn't a stretch at all. Plus the K-Mart where Crystal was found is the first and only real logical place to somewhat safely drop off a small child unnoticed and then make it inside one of the near by bases (one of which has a gate very near that K-Mart).

Sorry for another book here, but I think this is at least a possible scenario that hasn't really been explored.

But, as an example, what about Danny and Kathy Freeman? When first invetigated everyone assumed that Danny had taken the girls and run off after killing his wife. Then his body was found and all of a sudden everyone switches to "the girls must have been kidnapped!" Well, maybe they were. But I don't think it is right to just assume that the missing person was the one who did it. Investigators may be right to proceed under that assumption, but they must also have the mind open to other possibilities. Especially when there is absolutely no definitive evidence one way or another. .

Keep in mind that this case involved a fire. The fire gave a reasonable excuse why the bodies would not be found immediately.

In the Riemer case, there is nothing saying that Mike was the killer, and there is nothing saying it was someone else

Agreed. There is so far no physical evidence in this case to link Mike to the murder.

I am still very undecided on this one, but the more I think about it, the more I feel that the [i]known[i] evidence quite possibly points away from Mike Riemer. I know that most of the time that if another family member is missing from the scene they are the logical suspect and rightly so.

What known evidence are you referring to?

That area is very close to both Fort Lewis and McCord Airforce Base. If coming from the Tacoma area, you would have to drive right by both bases property lines to get towards the general area of where Diane's body was found. If you argue that no other crimes have been commited in the area you so it must have been Riemer, you could also argue that if a serial killer transfers in from out of state, it would likely be some time before they get comfortable enough in the area to kill.

1. This serial killer that transferred out of state apparently decided to come up with a spiffy new signature (the sock-tie) and strangely abandoned this signature after Diane's death.

2. Why could your serial theory not apply to Mike Reimer himself? That Mike Reimer moved away after his two incidents and waited to start up again in a new area.

If you argue that no other crimes have been commited in the area you so it must have been Riemer, you could also argue that if a serial killer transfers in from out of state, it would likely be some time before they get comfortable enough in the area to kill.

1. Again, why could this not apply to Mike Reimer himself as a serial killer?
2. But he was comfortable enough to use the same signature twice on his killings in the same state.
3. Keep in mind that this serial killer also need to be comfortable with the outdoors.

1.Anyone know if Mike Reimer fits the profile of a serial killer?

I would think that the fact that Mike Reimer is a hunter, would fit the profile.

2. When this serial killer was attacking either Diane or Mike, why did the surviving person not grab the daughter and make off into the woods.

Mike Reimer would have fought tooth and nail to protect his daughter. He would have to be stabbed repeatedly. There would have been a hell of a struggle that somehow wound up in Mike Reimer being completely incapacitated.

And again I must point out, there is a strong chance that Mike Reimer was armed with both a knife and a gun.

One thing I haven't seen discussed is what is up with the daughter now? She has to be in her 40's now. Has she ever remembered anything or have they put her under hypnosis to try to get the truth?

Or has something happened to her I don't know about.

One thing I haven't seen discussed is what is up with the daughter now? She has to be in her 40's now. Has she ever remembered anything or have they put her under hypnosis to try to get the truth?

Or has something happened to her I don't know about.

Crystal would be 28 now. She was three years old in 1985.

Today I picked up Murderers Among Us and reread the story of the Cuylenborg/Cook murder, which took place in 1987. The book mentions that in the past two years before that time, there had been three couple murders/disappearances in the western Washington area.

Is there a western WA native and/or resident here that's more familiar with what the author may be talking about here? Any information or ideas at all?

Yes,

there was the Ruth Cooper/Stephen Harkins slaying in 1985 touched upon in this UM episode

the Riemer/Robertson case in 1985

and the Robert Linton/Dagmar Linton case in 1986

http://www.doenetwork.org/cases/3684dmwa.html
http://www.doenetwork.org/cases/1420dfwa.html

One man, Charles T. Sinclair, was suspected in at least two of the four cases, and in the Linton's case strongly so, but all these cases are still marked officially as being open. Sinclair was a skilled outdoorsman who murdered coin dealers, and tied people up and robbed them, usually preying upon people in wilderness areas, but the sicko died of a heart attack back in 1990.

Yes,

there was the Ruth Cooper/Stephen Harkins slaying in 1985 touched upon in this UM episode

the Riemer/Robertson case in 1985

and the Robert Linton/Dagmar Linton case in 1986

http://www.doenetwork.org/cases/3684dmwa.html
http://www.doenetwork.org/cases/1420dfwa.html

One man, Charles T. Sinclair, was suspected in at least two of the four cases, and in the Linton's case strongly so, but all these cases are still marked officially as being open. Sinclair was a skilled outdoorsman who murdered coin dealers, and tied people up and robbed them, usually preying upon people in wilderness areas, but the sicko died of a heart attack back in 1990.

Thank you so much. I'd been curious about that for a long, long time. Appreciate it! :wave:

Crystal would be 28 now. She was three years old in 1985.

Oh my bad, I was thinking she was a little older and that these murders took place in 1980 rather than 1985.

Either way, does anyone know if she has ever remembered anything? Being an adult now, I would think she would probably want to find the truth herself, this being her own parents. I would want to know if my own father killed my mother or if he was a victim himself. Has she ever been put under hypnosis or anything?

Oh my bad, I was thinking she was a little older and that these murders took place in 1980 rather than 1985.

Either way, does anyone know if she has ever remembered anything? Being an adult now, I would think she would probably want to find the truth herself, this being her own parents. I would want to know if my own father killed my mother or if he was a victim himself. Has she ever been put under hypnosis or anything?

There was a link to a web page in one of the threads where someone who said they were Crystal was talking about how she didn't remember anything from the event.