You know, I learned in college you can't rely on just one source. The information seems contradicting when it comes to the remains. Several articles at the time say it was a partial skull. The one article that says it was intact, mentions no other bones were found. If the mandible was indeed found later, that already means the skull was not intact. Maybe Beall means that the top part where you'd expect a bullet hole to be was still intact. In that case it makes it very unlikely he was shot in the head, but I'd like some confirmation on that.


Now the skeleton isn't totally intact because of animals. And so they search an area. They get the dogs out there and they searched the area and they find, you know, maybe half of the skeletal remains in a area, but within maybe a 50 yard radius of where the skull was found. In the skull, through the eyeball, going up through the skull was a tree growing up. They cut the tree, of course. So, they can take it into count the rings. And it goes back 35 years. It goes back to the number of years of the tree that his body was there. So his body had been there for a long time.

I can't understand how a skull with a tree growing out of it can be considered intact? A tree growing through the eyeball has to cause some damage to the back of the skull or at least some other part of it? I suppose they could still identify that there was no logical place for a bullet hole, but it does seem like an odd conclusion to consider it "intact". Or am I misunderstanding?

Very interesting back and forth in this thread lately, thanks everyone!

I can't understand how a skull with a tree growing out of it can be considered intact? A tree growing through the eyeball has to cause some damage to the back of the skull or at least some other part of it? I suppose they could still identify that there was no logical place for a bullet hole, but it does seem like an odd conclusion to consider it "intact". Or am I misunderstanding?

Very interesting back and forth in this thread lately, thanks everyone!

define "tree"..

There's two words I never thought I'd say and I bet you never thought you'd hear.. lol.

This happened in 97, right? By 2000 or so, it's probably stripped of all flesh? Leaves, mud from rain start leaking into it. Gets a base of soil inside the eye socket. You could get a tree starting to grow out of it.

I'd want to see the 'tree'. We're talking a 10 foot pine, yeah.. Not gonna happen. If there's a little sapling starting to grow.. Ok.. Plausible.

THIS.. This is where Stratego's comment about two sources rings true. The problem is.. The internet. You can't ever tell where one source ends and another begins. One person puts a bad interpretation out there and suddenly it's 'fact' because 5 others repeat it. "Oh hey, here's 5 different 'sources' for that".. Which all go back to the same person.

I can't understand how a skull with a tree growing out of it can be considered intact? A tree growing through the eyeball has to cause some damage to the back of the skull or at least some other part of it? I suppose they could still identify that there was no logical place for a bullet hole, but it does seem like an odd conclusion to consider it "intact". Or am I misunderstanding?

Very interesting back and forth in this thread lately, thanks everyone!

I imagine it being a small tree that went in through the eye and out of the mouth. Apparently it was covered by a vacuum cleaner, so it couldn't have been too big. It was also the person who found the skull who claimed they saw a big hole. But they're not an expert, I assume, so who knows what they really saw.

While I tend to agree, I do wonder how someone they knew figured where they were?

It was pretty common knowledge that Riemer checked his traps along the Nisqually River on the weekends. His best friend even knew the exact route he would take.

It was pretty common knowledge that Riemer checked his traps along the Nisqually River on the weekends. His best friend even knew the exact route he would take.

True. I wonder how he missed them

Part of that is urban legend. Certainly not going to say it doesn't happen, because it does. But, not at the level that many people believe it does.

Look at Jared. He got clocked in prison, but that had less to do with what he did and more to do with how he handled himself on the inside. And a touch of the guy who did it wanting a little fame for himself. What I've heard on that one was that he was going around like he was the **** of the walk and.. Basically got brought back to reality.

Anyway.. Whoever left that girl at the store, opened themselves up to being caught. And that's just something that.. I can't get past the thought that it'd have to be someone who cared about her, or someone who knew they were about to take their own life.. Or both.. That would take that risk.

The fact this happened in 1985.. Prior to the widespread usage of video cameras. I don't know what store she was left at.. But had this happened about 10 years later, there'd probably be video of the car that dropped her off. In today's world, they'd probably be able to backtrack the route of the car through ring doorbell cameras.

Maybe but there is a chance the killer had a moral and felt bad. Unlikely but possible

It was pretty common knowledge that Riemer checked his traps along the Nisqually River on the weekends. His best friend even knew the exact route he would take.
2 scenarios come to mind about how someone knew where they were
1) Possible they were meeting someone there for a drug deal so Mike leaves Diana there while he ran to his Dad's real quick(maybe he was intending on dropping off Crystal while they conducted business. He and his Dad did not always get along if I remember correctly and they have another fight so he leaves with Crystal). When Mike gets back the person(s) they are meeting already has a gun on Diana thereby getting Mike to handover his gun. Diana is probably already tied up when he gets there. If they are to people one stays with Diana and Crystal while the other takes Mike away and shoots him. He comes back and they take care of Diana. If they knew Mike and Diana well enough to know of the gun they may have also known Crystal enough to care enough not to want to kill her to since she was to young to tell anyone much. I think possible if there were 2 people involved one could have been female which would explain not harming the child also.

20 Maybe Mike's dad was involved. He would know where Mike checked his traps. But I think when Mike went to his house they had an argument and his Dad somehow disarmed him(threatened Diana or Crystal maybe?) Ties up Diana and Mike gets everyone in the truck and drives out to where they are killed and kills Mike 1st then comes back to take care Diana. He probably would not be able to kill his granddaughter. We only have his word that only Mike and Crystal came to his house and left(as far as I know)

I wonder if there other tire tracks or footprints at the murder scene? I definitely think it was someone they knew and Crystal was comfortable with since she was not in distress.

20 Maybe Mike's dad was involved. He would know where Mike checked his traps. But I think when Mike went to his house they had an argument and his Dad somehow disarmed him(threatened Diana or Crystal maybe?) Ties up Diana and Mike gets everyone in the truck and drives out to where they are killed and kills Mike 1st then comes back to take care Diana. He probably would not be able to kill his granddaughter. We only have his word that only Mike and Crystal came to his house and left(as far as I know.

Since we're all in debate about how Crystal got to K-Mart. It's a loooooooooongshot and out there, but I have a possible idea for a theory.

What if someone who wasn't involved at all came across the scene and saw Crystal that day and took her to K-Mart, but didn't call the police because they didn't want to get involved?

Maybe they had a record already, or didn't want to be considered a suspect but they didn't want to leave Crystal out in the cold, so they dropped her at K-Mart and didn't alert the authorities?

There were talks back in 2011 about DNA tests being done. The fact that nothing has ever been reported or mentioned as to the results of these tests makes me think that it was inconclusive.

https://img.newspapers.com/img/img?user=4285057&id=737311813&clippingId=122609293&width=820&height=257&crop=813_5412_2915_915&rotation=0

Found this newspaper clipping that says private investigators looking for the (at the time) missing couple found witnesses who placed Riemer's pickup truck in the K-Mart parking lot on the day that Crystal was found there. I don't know why this information has never been reported since (article was written in February of 1986) other than maybe they thought the witness was mistaken?

I think the murders of the couples are completely unrelated and someone known to Diana and Riemer killed them.

This is an interesting theory. It seems like whoever killed Diana had a lot of rage due to the multiple stab wounds. I wonder if it could have been someone who was interested in her and upset that she kept going back to Mike despite their volatile relationship. This person would have known that Mike had traps to check and if they killed Mike, he would be the prime suspect due to the history of violence in their relationship. Then this person spared Crystal because she was too young to talk.

Diana was found nude from the waist up. The killer may have done Mike in first to get him out of the way before attacking Diana, and perhaps they attempted a sexual assault before angrily stabbing her. Authorities thought the sock around her neck was used to control her, and it could be the killer was trying to attempt an assault by using that tube sock to subdue her before committing the murder.

It's interesting to note the other couple was killed by gunshot, without any stab wounds. It seems to me that Diana's murder may have been much more personal.

I used to think Mike was the most likely killer because of all the red flags: Violent history, previously threatening Diana, and let's not forget the problematic age difference here (he was 32 and she was 17 when the began dating). It's not uncommon for a much older man to control/domineer his younger partner and become enraged when the woman attempts to leave. But it does seem odd that he would kill Diana, take Crystal to the store to safety, then return to the crime scene and kill himself. I think a murderous third party is probably more likely here, and not a random serial killer.