With the passage of 20 plus years without Riemer surfacing (alive that is) does everyone still think he's guilty of killing his girlfriend Diana Robertson? For a refresher he was the guy who went with his girlfriend Diana and their daughter Crystal to a remote mountainess region in search of a Christmas tree and also to check his traps (he was a known trapper). Their daughter Crystal was found at a department store with no recollection of how she got there and all she could say was "Mommy's in the trees." It wasn't until two months later that the body of Diana was found with Mike Riemer's truck abandoned and he himself was also missing. A sock was found tied around Diana's body which fit the MO of another murder that happened in the same region four months prior. A couple was found murdered and the woman had a tube sock tied around her neck the same way Diana was found. The cops suspected a serial killer on the loose, they just don't know if its Mike Riemer or not. So what do you think?

I personally think he is innocent and his body/remains are yet to be found. If he was guilty that would A.) make him a serial killer and B.) he would have abandoned his daughter and C.) would have had to have had help. He left his truck which meant someone would have had to have met him up there and driven him and his daugher away and then planted his daughter in a department store. The problem I have with this is why hasn't this other person came forward by now? Reimer couldn't have pulled this off by himself so where is his accomplice/s? And I'm assuming he never exhibited any signs that he was a demented killer prior to this other than domestic violence, so what motive would he have to murder the other couple four months earlier? If the daughter was missing as well you could make a case for Reimer being guilty, but he didn't take her or his truck which makes me think he's dead. I wonder if the daughter remembers anything about that day and if law enforcement ever considered using hypnotism to try and bring about more details in the case?

I never thought he was guilty. Like you, I think he was a victim and his remains are yet to be found.

-The chances of Mike Riemer being a serial killer are extremely slim statistically.

-The notion that he would rig a murder to look like another one in the area is slightly far-fetched; it would mean careful attention to area news and detail in general, and Mike just doesn't strike me as the sort. The sock was tied in exactly the same way, and I believe was very, very similar to the sock used on Ruth Cooper. How would Mike have access to that information? Surely the police didn't publish the manner in which the sock was tied, I assume.

-The envelope proves absolutely nothing. It could just as easily be a legitimate love note as a deranged scribbling.

-I keep saying it, and I think it's a very-often overlooked piece of information--Mike left his coat in the truck. In December in Washington state. It's very cold. It's almost like he left--or was taken--in a hurry.


I've always felt like someone who knew Mike and Diana closely might've committed the crime.

The chances he killed his girlfriend are high but low on him being a serial killer. He was just an angry jealous boyfriend pushed over the edge by his ego. Him still being on the run is a scary thought. :eek:

All I know is that I'd just love to have Mike Riemer's daughter post on these boards someday and find out if she ever managed to remember how she wound up at the department store that day.

That's the only reason I'm always going to be on the fence and can never make a definitive decision about whether Mike did it or not. It makes sense that he would drive all the way to the store to drop Crystal off, but it makes no sense that he would drive all the way back to the crime scene to abandon his vehicle. On the other hand, would a serial killer have the conscience enough to drop Crystal off himself? As weird as that sounds, I guess it is possible that some killers who have no qualms about killing adults wouldn't have the stomach to murder a small child.

I've always wondered if Crystal Riemer actually did provide some info about how she got to the store, but the police just withheld that information for the purposes of the investigation.

I forgot all about Riemer's coat being found in the truck. If guilty, why would he steal off into the unknown without a coat in the dead of winter in Washington? And again if he is responsible he couldn't have done this on his own so there's someone out there who helped in some way (it could have been very innocent, perhaps Riemer hitchiked w/Crystal and dropped her off and then hitchiked with someone else to God knows where), but after all these years still not one person has come forward? I can only imagine that the department store where she was dropped off was fairly busy and you would think someone would have remembered seeing Crystal with someone. The biggest evidence that Riemer was a victim to me is that he hasn't resurfaced...and that his daughter was left behind. I also find it more farfetched that Riemer would abandon his daughter at a store and she not remember this incident (even at three this would have been traumatic enough for a child to remember their parent simply leaving them alone and unattended) than an unknown killer sparing her and then dropping her off. I agree with the theory that the killer spared Crystal because she was a child. Serial killers just don't stop murdering they tend to become more confident and brazen and eventually get caught. The scary thing to me isn't that Riemer is out there on the loose, it's the fact that an unknown serial killer is still at large. Or hopefully in jail for an unrelated crime.

I forgot all about Riemer's coat being found in the truck. If guilty, why would he steal off into the unknown without a coat in the dead of winter in Washington?

I think the biggest theory used to explain that would be if he decided to walk off into the woods to commit suicide rather than face the consequences of what he'd done. I know his remains were never found, but there have plenty of cases on UM where an extensive search was done of an area where someone went missing, but their body was completely missed and not discovered until months or years afterward. Mike Riemer's body could very well still be undiscovered in those mountains somewhere.

I've even considered the possibility that Mike could have killed Diana somewhere else and dropped Crystal off at the store BEFORE driving into the mountains and leaving her body there. For all we know, "Mommy's in the trees" could have been referring to another location or may have just been a line Mike fed to Crystal when she asked where Mommy was.

All in all, I'd definitely rank this among the top 10 most baffling mysteries on this show.

Never considered the possible suicide theory. But I still find it highly unlikely that Mike was a serial killer, and if he did in fact kill Diana what possible motive would he have had to have killed the other couple? Just seems more plausible to me that a serial killer was stalking couples in that area...he may not have even known Crystal was with them until after he killed either Mike or Diana. I think the killer was stalking them and waited for an opportune time to strike and the perfect time was when Mike went to check his traps. Pure speculation here but the killer may have strangled Diana unconscious (with the tube sock tied around her neck) thinking she was dead, then took of and killed Mike while he was checking his traps (although he very well could have killed Mike first) and then when he saw that Diana was still alive he stabbed her out of rage 17 times. Again pure speculation, but he could have taken the bodies anywhere and then brought them back...it was 2 months before Diana was found so Mike could be in someone's basement for all we know.

There's like a 2% he killed his wife, not to mention the earlier couple.

Some people don't understand things happen with circumstances - who knows, this killer could have killed Diana for some reason then drove off with Mike and the little girl. Dropped the little girl off, then took Mike somewhere and killed him. Things like this happen...

This is just one of those cases thats maddeningly perplexing. As far as I know absoloutely nothing has surfaced on this case in the last thirty years since it happened. I mean nothing at all, not a sighting of Reimer, no contact from him, not another suspect, and to my knowledge there wasn't anymore similar murders afterwards.

But I don't really agree with the idea that people think he couldn't have done it. If I recall correctly from the episode didn't Reimer have a history of violence? The other murders could well have been a ruse to make it look like an unknown serial killer was at large.

Its entirely possible that Reimer may not have had qualms about murder but still cared enough about his daughter not to take her on the run with him, as that would have been a bad life for her. There could be plausible explanations for the things left behind. His not surfacing in all these years, for all we know something could have happened to him shortly after the murders and he may be dead from something other than being killed by an unknown serial killer. Without finding him dead or alive, there is just no way of knowing.

I believe someone posted several newspaper articles on here that were written at the time of the disappearance (before the connection was made with the other murdered couple), and the domestic violence reported was one incident when Mike pushed Diana to the floor and rubbed her nose in the carpet. I know any violence from a man to a woman is atrocious and just plain wrong, but I hardly think this would be cause enough for him to be suspected of murdering her. The article also did state that there were more domestic disputes reported but nothing on the official record other than the one time mentioned above.

Another reason I think Mike was innocent is if he really was beating Diana on a regular basis and he did in fact threaten to kill her before, why would she go off with him in a remote location with their daughter? If she really feared him as much as was implied by her family why would she bring her daughter along? And why wouldn't Mike wait for a more opportune time for him and Diana to be alone if he was planning on murdering her? Why involve the daughter?

Also, if Riemer committed suicide surely the police dogs would have stumbled on his body. I don't think he killed himself, then covered his body up so it wouldn't be found.

Another reason I think Mike was innocent is if he really was beating Diana on a regular basis and he did in fact threaten to kill her before, why would she go off with him in a remote location with their daughter? If she really feared him as much as was implied by her family why would she bring her daughter along?

It would actually be more the rule than the exception for Diana to do so. Many, many women in physically abusive relationships "allow the assaulting party back in", as I believe the detective in the segment himself put it. Like you, I don't think his propensity for domestic abuse necessarily makes him a murderer.

It would actually be more the rule than the exception for Diana to do so. Many, many women in physically abusive relationships "allow the assaulting party back in", as I believe the detective in the segment himself put it. Like you, I don't think his propensity for domestic abuse necessarily makes him a murderer.

No, it doesn't. But I still don't think he can be ruled out either.

I lean towards him being guilty. From what was stated Diana was with Mike before she died. It doesn't make much sense that deep in the woods there was a serial killer lurking who would kill Diana at the scene and take Mike somewhere else and kill him. He had a history of assaulting Diana and I think the envelope that said I Love You Diana was eerie although not proven he wrote it that day. Also some psychopath that randomly kills people isn't going to care enough about the little girl to make sure she gets safely into town. I think Mike somehow made sure she made it to safety. I also think there's a good chance he killed the other couple. Mike had a history of violent behavior and also a reason to be in that remote area where they were found because his traps were nearby. I don't really think Mike committed suicide though. I wouldn't be surprised if he hid out in the woods for a while and then went on the run.

I'm sure police would have been able to determine whether or not Mike had ever owned a gun (the other couple was murdered via gunshot) and would have been able to trace ballistics back to him, and I'm sure UM would have brought that up in the segment.

While I used to think Reimer for sure did it and I still lean in that direction but I am less sure than I once was, about his guilt. While he certainly could have killed Diana, the key words are could have. There are a few things that expose problems in the argument that Reimer did it. Besides the coat being left in the truck (although who knows if he had another coat or not?) but how would he have got out of the woods? It wasn't like they were parked just off the road, they were in the woods by a couple of miles, so that is at least two or three miles in Washington State, in December, that Mike would have had to walk without a coat, to get to a main road. Then on top of that, he has his little girl with him, plus if he had stabbed Diana to death, he would probably have had blood on him although whether or not that would be seen by the naked eye is debatable. However on top of that, if someone picked them up, he would have to ask for this person to drop his daughter off at the shopping center and yet just continue driving with him, if it was a stranger, they would find it odd that a guy would ask to drop his two or three year old daughter off alone at a shopping center and then just take off.

If he had a friend that helped him with this, it would have to be a planned, premeditated, calculated murder. The problem is, what would a friend have to gain by helping Mike? They would not gain anything and I do not think they would be willing to take the change and be implicated as an accessory after the fact to first degree murder.

Truth be told, the more I think about it, the more unlikely that Reimer being the killer seems to be. I am not saying he for sure didn't do it as his body has not been found, so who knows? That being said though, the known facts tend to paint against it. Yes he was a batterer and well, wasn't exactly what you would call a pillar of society by any means but that doesn't make him a killer or anymore likely to be a killer. In fact, as we have learned, often that a person more likely to be a killer would be the person you would least suspect.

Looking at the domestic violence angle. Reimer certainly had a temper and yes he had thrown Diana around and according to some sources, beat her up and the like. While reprehensible that he did those things, it seems to me like it would take a lot to drive him over the edge into committing murder. While he had a violent temper, he had never attempted to kill Diana before and had never seriously injured her in their previous fights. It seems he let out his rage enough that it would not have built up to a point to where he just 'lost it' and ended up killing her.

The tube sock angle is interesting. I do think that the same person killed the couple three months earlier and did also kill Diana, I just don't think it was Mike Reimer. I mean if Mike did this, wouldn't he know he would be the suspect if he left a tube sock around Diana's neck? Why leave the tube sock at all? The authorities would instantly suspect it was him that not only killed Diana but the couple three months earlier. You wouldn't have to be particularly educated to figure that one out. I just think if Mike was going to kill Diana, and this isn't the best defense, but he would have done it in a different way. He wouldn't have left the truck out there and hitchhiked around, especially with a small child in tow, as it is much more of a burden to run when you have a small child with you.

The note, while I do believe it was written by Mike Reimer, I tend to believe it was either already written and had just been left in the truck and the killer found it. Or the killer forced Mike to write it to put the blame on Mike. My guess is the killer took Mike away alive as Mike was a big guy and would be extremely difficult, if not impossible for a solitary man to move the body on his own. So my guess is, the little girl was in the company of Mike and the killer, the killer walked mike to an unknown location, killed him, disposed of his body, then deciding the little girl was not a threat as a witness or actually having a bit of a conscience and not being able to kill a child took her to town and dropped her off outside a shopping center.

One must also remember there were several serial killers on the loose in Washington State in 1985. Charles Sinclair, Gary Ridgeway, Robert Yates, to name a few.

While I used to think Reimer for sure did it and I still lean in that direction but I am less sure than I once was, about his guilt. While he certainly could have killed Diana, the key words are could have. There are a few things that expose problems in the argument that Reimer did it. Besides the coat being left in the truck (although who knows if he had another coat or not?) but how would he have got out of the woods? It wasn't like they were parked just off the road, they were in the woods by a couple of miles, so that is at least two or three miles in Washington State, in December, that Mike would have had to walk without a coat, to get to a main road. Then on top of that, he has his little girl with him, plus if he had stabbed Diana to death, he would probably have had blood on him although whether or not that would be seen by the naked eye is debatable. However on top of that, if someone picked them up, he would have to ask for this person to drop his daughter off at the shopping center and yet just continue driving with him, if it was a stranger, they would find it odd that a guy would ask to drop his two or three year old daughter off alone at a shopping center and then just take off.

If he had a friend that helped him with this, it would have to be a planned, premeditated, calculated murder. The problem is, what would a friend have to gain by helping Mike? They would not gain anything and I do not think they would be willing to take the change and be implicated as an accessory after the fact to first degree murder.

Truth be told, the more I think about it, the more unlikely that Reimer being the killer seems to be. I am not saying he for sure didn't do it as his body has not been found, so who knows? That being said though, the known facts tend to paint against it. Yes he was a batterer and well, wasn't exactly what you would call a pillar of society by any means but that doesn't make him a killer or anymore likely to be a killer. In fact, as we have learned, often that a person more likely to be a killer would be the person you would least suspect.

Looking at the domestic violence angle. Reimer certainly had a temper and yes he had thrown Diana around and according to some sources, beat her up and the like. While reprehensible that he did those things, it seems to me like it would take a lot to drive him over the edge into committing murder. While he had a violent temper, he had never attempted to kill Diana before and had never seriously injured her in their previous fights. It seems he let out his rage enough that it would not have built up to a point to where he just 'lost it' and ended up killing her.

The tube sock angle is interesting. I do think that the same person killed the couple three months earlier and did also kill Diana, I just don't think it was Mike Reimer. I mean if Mike did this, wouldn't he know he would be the suspect if he left a tube sock around Diana's neck? Why leave the tube sock at all? The authorities would instantly suspect it was him that not only killed Diana but the couple three months earlier. You wouldn't have to be particularly educated to figure that one out. I just think if Mike was going to kill Diana, and this isn't the best defense, but he would have done it in a different way. He wouldn't have left the truck out there and hitchhiked around, especially with a small child in tow, as it is much more of a burden to run when you have a small child with you.

The note, while I do believe it was written by Mike Reimer, I tend to believe it was either already written and had just been left in the truck and the killer found it. Or the killer forced Mike to write it to put the blame on Mike. My guess is the killer took Mike away alive as Mike was a big guy and would be extremely difficult, if not impossible for a solitary man to move the body on his own. So my guess is, the little girl was in the company of Mike and the killer, the killer walked mike to an unknown location, killed him, disposed of his body, then deciding the little girl was not a threat as a witness or actually having a bit of a conscience and not being able to kill a child took her to town and dropped her off outside a shopping center.

One must also remember there were several serial killers on the loose in Washington State in 1985. Charles Sinclair, Gary Ridgeway, Robert Yates, to name a few.

I could think of a possible motive someone would have to help Mike, it could be another woman he was seeing who helped him dispose of his girlfriend so they could run off. And it makes sense he would not want to take his daughter, but yet not want to kill her either so he left her where she would be found.

Again thats sheer speculation. But I can't help but think that if an unknown serial killer had killed them both, he would have killed the little girl. I find it hard to believe that a unknown killer would have left the little girl alive as a possible witness. Of course, she has never remembered anything, but he would have had no way of knowing that at the time.

Whats perplexing to me is that the daughter has never remembered anything, have they ever tried to put her under hypnosis? I would think that if she remembered enough to say that her mommy was in the trees, she would at least remember how she got to the shopping center. Yet fro what I've heard she has always denied remembering anything, odd.

However, what you bring up about the seral killes in the area is interesting nonetheless. I doubt it was Gary Ridgeway, doesn't fit his MO, he targeted prostitutes and as far as I know never killed men. But Yates and Sinclair are definite possibilities, because I know they were both suspects in themurders of Jay Cook and Tanya Van Cuylenborg as well.

Intrigung case either way. Hope the truth comes out someday.

Well being as she was only two, I am not sure how much she could remember in any event? I was 2 in 1986 an i can safely say I remember nothing from that time. As in literally nothing. Granted I have never been under hypnosis so I cannot say for sure whether something would be drug out of my memory or not? I do agree with you that it was not Gary Ridgeway who killed Diana and Mike as it does not even come close to Ridgeway's known M.O. However in regards to the child not being killed, actually,a lot of killers, both 'regular' killers and serial killers do not kill the kid, it is not all that unusual. Even folks like Richard Ramirez spared a kids life.

Well being as she was only two, I am not sure how much she could remember in any event? I was 2 in 1986 an i can safely say I remember nothing from that time. As in literally nothing. Granted I have never been under hypnosis so I cannot say for sure whether something would be drug out of my memory or not? I do agree with you that it was not Gary Ridgeway who killed Diana and Mike as it does not even come close to Ridgeway's known M.O. However in regards to the child not being killed, actually,a lot of killers, both 'regular' killers and serial killers do not kill the kid, it is not all that unusual. Even folks like Richard Ramirez spared a kids life.

Oh she was only two? I was thinking three or four.

Yeah I think she was three, but just because she was spared doesn't really help or hurt the case against Riemer...he could have spared her life because she was his daughter and the unknown serial killer just as easily could have spared the life of a child, maybe he thought it was a "dishonorable" to do.

Yeah I think she was three, but just because she was spared doesn't really help or hurt the case against Riemer...he could have spared her life because she was his daughter and the unknown serial killer just as easily could have spared the life of a child, maybe he thought it was a "dishonorable" to do.

I don't think you can argue that Mike Reimer would be far more likely to spare his daughter's life than an unknown killer. Thats why I still think its possible he could have done it.

Although I will admit its odd there has been no sightings of him in all these years, I'm kind of leaning towards he idea of him being dead to. But its entirely possible like I said he could have committed these murders and died afterwards some other way.

I just watched the segment a few days ago. The person who found her at the store thought she was about 3, but she was 2.


I'm leaning towards Mike not being the killer. I see it the way kadrmas15 sees it.

Even folks like Richard Ramirez spared a kids life.


Not true, he has since been linked to a child's murder in San Francisco. I believe he also raped an infant at one of his nightstalker crime scenes.

If there was a killer (not Mike), it's possible the girl charmed him and he didn't want to harm her. Was Mike close enough to his daughter to where he would have taken her with him if he had committed the crime(s)?

I just think Riemer could have waited for a better opportunity to kill Diana, if he were planning to do so. Why wait until he takes her and his daughter to go hunting for a Christmas tree? Why not just take Diana out to go and check his traps? Why spare the only potential witness (his daughter) to the crime he allegedly committed?

When I said spared a life, I meant there were occasions that he did spare a kids life, not that he always spared them.

I just think Riemer could have waited for a better opportunity to kill Diana, if he were planning to do so. Why wait until he takes her and his daughter to go hunting for a Christmas tree? Why not just take Diana out to go and check his traps? Why spare the only potential witness (his daughter) to the crime he allegedly committed?

Exactly. Unless, of course, it were a spur-of-the-moment, crime of passion sort of thing. Which wouldn't really consistent with the oft-contested envelope, IMO.

Exactly. Unless, of course, it were a spur-of-the-moment, crime of passion sort of thing. Which wouldn't really consistent with the oft-contested envelope, IMO.

Do we even know when that message was written? For all we know it may have been before hand and enitrely not connected with the crime.

Do we even know when that message was written? For all we know it may have been before hand and enitrely not connected with the crime.

Very valid point, and I've argued that in the past.

http://www.sitcomsonline.com/boards/showthread.php?t=155382&highlight=mike+riemer

Post #8.

Just to touch base on a couple of things here. I live in the tacoma, wa area only about 30 minutes or so from where Crystal was found outside the Kmart. So I am at least vaguely familiar with the area.

The thing is that nobody knows exactly where this alleged killer (if it wasn't Mike) began to stalk them. He may simply have been out in the woods around the same time, or he may have followed them to a secluded area. The roads leading toward mount rainier are not far from the Kmart, and would not be difficult to follow someone without being suspicious.

As I recall from reading the articles that were posted on here a while back, there were indeed several unsolved murders around that time. With a few of them it struck me right away that not only were both a gun and knife were used, but also that the man and woman were found some distance apart. Not just a few feet, I mean a considerable distance. Although to my knowledge, socks played no role in any other crimes, I feel it is worth noting. If Mike were shot and just never found, and since Diana was stabbed, this kind of fits.

This also kind of fits the scenario of the Robertson, Johnston murders which took place only a few miles from the Kmart in the Riemer case. Also, the girls body in that case was said to have been left on a back road near mount rainier. While I don't feel those cases are connected, there is a possibility given the location and aspects of the MO. (on a side note, I actually know someone that knew the girl (Rochelle) in that case. Based on info he has told me that was never in the UM segment, I don't feel this case is connected with the Riemer case. I only mention it here as an example of similarity and the fact that it is in the same general location)

I do feel that Mike Riemer was himself a victim as well. The socks and the other murders don't make sense otherwise. I think that like the other cases that may or may not be linked, his body was disposed of in another area. Remember that even with organized searches, it was still 2 months before Diana's body was found and there was a truck sitting next to her that you think would be easy to spot. Also, unlike what was shown on UM, she was reported to be covered up in 6 inches of snow (see the articles in the other post on this case). If she went undetected in the area for 2 months laying next to a truck, it is totally possible that Mike Riemer's body was elsewhere in the vicinity and was just never found.

I think that was the theory from LE if it were a serial killer it was someone who was in that area stalking campers/vacationers as potential victims.

I think its unlikely that a murderer would leave her body at the scene,and take him or his body,which was significantly heavier, further into the woods. Wouldnt it be vice versa? And why would a murderer take the child to a store?At the most I would think a random killer or even serial killer who had stalked them beforehand would have left her alive,not go through the trouble to drop her off and take the risk of being seen by someone.She obviously didnt walk there herself. And he had traps in that area, he was obviously familiar with it, frequented it, and was comfortable there. I'm not totally convinced he's a serial killer, but I think the facts that add up make it possible. He was obviously a pretty violent person, he beat the crap out of his wife all the time. And something about him being in that area all the time checking his traps just makes me suspicious. People that spend time outside and in the woods alot usually carry extra coats in their car, so I dont find his coat being left indicitive of his being a victim thats missing or dead.

I have to say the part at the end with the little girl showing the picture of her deceased mother the new things she gets got me pretty close to tears.

I think its unlikely that a murderer would leave her body at the scene,and take him or his body,which was significantly heavier, further into the woods. Wouldnt it be vice versa? And why would a murderer take the child to a store?At the most I would think a random killer or even serial killer who had stalked them beforehand would have left her alive,not go through the trouble to drop her off and take the risk of being seen by someone.She obviously didnt walk there herself. And he had traps in that area, he was obviously familiar with it, frequented it, and was comfortable there. I'm not totally convinced he's a serial killer, but I think the facts that add up make it possible. He was obviously a pretty violent person, he beat the crap out of his wife all the time. And something about him being in that area all the time checking his traps just makes me suspicious. People that spend time outside and in the woods alot usually carry extra coats in their car, so I dont find his coat being left indicitive of his being a victim thats missing or dead.

I have to say the part at the end with the little girl showing the picture of her deceased mother the new things she gets got me pretty close to tears.

I think its unlikely that a murderer would leave her body at the scene,and take him or his body,which was significantly heavier, further into the woods. Wouldnt it be vice versa? And why would a murderer take the child to a store?At the most I would think a random killer or even serial killer who had stalked them beforehand would have left her alive,not go through the trouble to drop her off and take the risk of being seen by someone.She obviously didnt walk there herself. And he had traps in that area, he was obviously familiar with it, frequented it, and was comfortable there. I'm not totally convinced he's a serial killer, but I think the facts that add up make it possible. He was obviously a pretty violent person, he beat the crap out of his wife all the time. And something about him being in that area all the time checking his traps just makes me suspicious. People that spend time outside and in the woods alot usually carry extra coats in their car, so I dont find his coat being left indicitive of his being a victim thats missing or dead.

I have to say the part at the end with the little girl showing the picture of her deceased mother the new things she gets got me pretty close to tears.

If the killer had killed Mike in a different location there wouldn't be any need to move his body. And it took two months to find Diana's body so who's to say that she wasn't moved from where she was originally killed? Nice avatar BTW. :lol:

They just recently aired this segment on Lifetime and they failed to present any piece of evidence that implicated Riemer as a victim. His father was edited out of the segment completely, and they didn't make any mention of his coat being found in his vehicle. It was almost as if they were implying Riemer was guilty and on the run.

They just recently aired this segment on Lifetime and they failed to present any piece of evidence that implicated Riemer as a victim. His father was edited out of the segment completely, and they didn't make any mention of his coat being found in his vehicle. It was almost as if they were implying Riemer was guilty and on the run.



HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! Well, it is Lifetime after all. Have you ever actually watched their original movies? I mean they have titles like "Shattered Vows", "My Husband, My Jailer", "She Married a Con Man Who Lied to Her", & "All Husbands Will Lie & Beat You & Rape & Murder Your Friends Because Men Are Inherently Evil".

I go back and forth on this case. In the end if it is ever solved, I wouldn't be surprised either way. I do generally tend to believe he could be a victim himself. After so long with him never turning up anywhere else, it just seems he was killed as well. Serial killers have different MOs and there have been a few other cases in the same area (i live about a half hour from the k-mart where crystal was left) where a couple had been killed and the bodies were separated for whatever reason. So I do think it is possible that there was at the time a serial killer was in the area. I will concede that to my knowledge, with the exception of the cases mention in the segment, that none of these cases involved an Orange sock. Other than that, from the info available, the MO appears on the surface to be similar. I think this is at least a possibility.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! Well, it is Lifetime after all. Have you ever actually watched their original movies? I mean they have titles like "Shattered Vows", "My Husband, My Jailer", "She Married a Con Man Who Lied to Her", & "All Husbands Will Lie & Beat You & Rape & Murder Your Friends Because Men Are Inherently Evil".

:lol: :lol: :lol:

I go back and forth on this case. In the end if it is ever solved, I wouldn't be surprised either way. I do generally tend to believe he could be a victim himself. After so long with him never turning up anywhere else, it just seems he was killed as well. Serial killers have different MOs and there have been a few other cases in the same area (i live about a half hour from the k-mart where crystal was left) where a couple had been killed and the bodies were separated for whatever reason. So I do think it is possible that there was at the time a serial killer was in the area. I will concede that to my knowledge, with the exception of the cases mention in the segment, that none of these cases involved an Orange sock. Other than that, from the info available, the MO appears on the surface to be similar. I think this is at least a possibility.

This.

Just finished watching the episode and I think.....wait for it...that Mike Riemer is a serial killer that is on the loose.

Here's why:

1) The killing of his girlfriend _ The rage shown in that killing is usually reserved for someone that knows the victim and hates them. The stab wounds were far more than necessary to kill the woman.

Since they aren't saying that sexual assault occurred, we can probably rule out sexual gratification/sexual dominance out as a reason that this crime was committed.

2) The other murders - The two other people that were killed close to where the body of Diana was found were both shot. It's noticeable that during the segment the police never state whether or they know (or believe) that Riemer owned (or had access) to a weapon in the caliber that was used.A simple "yay" or "nay" would have been sufficient to have removed most doubt that Riemer was or was not the killer.

3) The tube socks - The police also studiously avoided stating whether or not the socks tie around two victim's necks were in Riemer's shoe size (although they are likely part of a package) and whether or not they found similar socks at Riemer's home.

4) No weapons found - If Riemer was going to check trap lines, what was he going to use to put down any animals that were still alive? He had to have at least a .22 (pistol or rifle) in addition to at least one hunting blade. Where are they?

Any 3rd party killer would have little use for them and leaving them would have actually drawn suspicion away from this unknown killer and onto Riemer.

However, Riemer would have needed these weapons if he planned on surviving in the woods and would have taken them w/ him. He would also have taken some gear (including ammunition) and a small amount of food.

5) The little girl - There would be no reason for an unknown killer to have taken the little girl to the department store. The killer would have either killed her in the forest or left her there to die of exposure or thirst. It simply would have been too risky to take her w/ him and dropping her off could entail being seen.

The child also never mentioned that she rode w/ anyone else, which she almost certainly would have, especially since she apparently had seen (and probably heard) her mother being killed.

And finally,

6) The history of violence between Riemer and his girlfriend - It was clear from episode that Riemer was/is an insecure bully. The vast age difference between them and the fact that he used to physically assault his girlfriend both speak to this being abusive and dysfunctional relationship.

Had the other couple's death not been an issue, this would have been seen as a clear cut case of domestic violence that led to a murder. Since they were also killed in close proximity that changes some of the dynamics , but actually still makes it likely that Riemer is the killer in both cases.

Given the MO of the earlier killer (shooting) and given the fact that Riemer was a sizable man in pretty good physical condition, it would make little sense for the killer to attempt to remove him from the area alive. He was too large a man and there was no evidence noted that any violence had occurred in that area except for that perpetrated against Diana.

In fact, if Riemer were hurt there would be far more than they found evidence of that at the site where his girlfriend was. Not just some blood patches on the car's passenger seat, but one or more extensive sprays or pools of blood from Riemer after an attack.


I have many more reasons, but I think that this long list is a good place to start.

Just finished watching the episode and I think.....wait for it...that Mike Riemer is a serial killer that is on the loose.

Here's why:

1) The killing of his girlfriend _ The rage shown in that killing is usually reserved for someone that knows the victim and hates them. The stab wounds were far more than necessary to kill the woman.

Since they aren't saying that sexual assault occurred, we can probably rule out sexual gratification/sexual dominance out as a reason that this crime was committed.

2) The other murders - The two other people that were killed close to where the body of Diana was found were both shot. It's noticeable that during the segment the police never state whether or they know (or believe) that Riemer owned (or had access) to a weapon in the caliber that was used.A simple "yay" or "nay" would have been sufficient to have removed most doubt that Riemer was or was not the killer.

3) The tube socks - The police also studiously avoided stating whether or not the socks tie around two victim's necks were in Riemer's shoe size (although they are likely part of a package) and whether or not they found similar socks at Riemer's home.

4) No weapons found - If Riemer was going to check trap lines, what was he going to use to put down any animals that were still alive? He had to have at least a .22 (pistol or rifle) in addition to at least one hunting blade. Where are they?

Any 3rd party killer would have little use for them and leaving them would have actually drawn suspicion away from this unknown killer and onto Riemer.

However, Riemer would have needed these weapons if he planned on surviving in the woods and would have taken them w/ him. He would also have taken some gear (including ammunition) and a small amount of food.

5) The little girl - There would be no reason for an unknown killer to have taken the little girl to the department store. The killer would have either killed her in the forest or left her there to die of exposure or thirst. It simply would have been too risky to take her w/ him and dropping her off could entail being seen.

The child also never mentioned that she rode w/ anyone else, which she almost certainly would have, especially since she apparently had seen (and probably heard) her mother being killed.

And finally,

6) The history of violence between Riemer and his girlfriend - It was clear from episode that Riemer was/is an insecure bully. The vast age difference between them and the fact that he used to physically assault his girlfriend both speak to this being abusive and dysfunctional relationship.

Had the other couple's death not been an issue, this would have been seen as a clear cut case of domestic violence that led to a murder. Since they were also killed in close proximity that changes some of the dynamics , but actually still makes it likely that Riemer is the killer in both cases.

Given the MO of the earlier killer (shooting) and given the fact that Riemer was a sizable man in pretty good physical condition, it would make little sense for the killer to attempt to remove him from the area alive. He was too large a man and there was no evidence noted that any violence had occurred in that area except for that perpetrated against Diana.

In fact, if Riemer were hurt there would be far more than they found evidence of that at the site where his girlfriend was. Not just some blood patches on the car's passenger seat, but one or more extensive sprays or pools of blood from Riemer after an attack.


I have many more reasons, but I think that this long list is a good place to start.

Well I tend to agree with almost everything you have cited showing him as the killer. Except the first part about the multiple stab wounds showing it was more a crime of hatred. Serial killers do things like this. Look at Ted Bundy and all the terrible things he did to his victims that he didnt know,

Riemer could well be the killer of both his girlfriend and the other couple. He could have set this last one up to leave the impression that he too was dead so they would not look to hard for him. Think about this, with the tube socks tied around the victims necks, does it not appear the killer is leaving a calling card?? Alot of killers do this for attention. Well did we have any more tube socks tied around victims necks after this? Or was there only these two? We know Mike was very familiar with the woods up there and may have been using the whole trapping thing just for a reason to stalk people and kill them.

He left his coat in the truck but did he have another coat?? Could it be he left a coat there to make it appear that he infact could not have done this and took off on foot? I wonder if any of Mike's belongings where missing from his home or if he had taken any money from his bank accounts before going missing. This could point to his guilt if so. You have to wonder how this guy could just dissapear with no money and only the clothes on his back.

But then we must wonder about the most baffeling part of all which is the child being found at the store. I know she was only 3 but how is it she couldnt tell anyone who had dropped her off or how she got there or anything about what happened?? I have three kids and know full well that at age 3 they could answer questions like this with no problem.

Think about this, if it was a serial killer then we know he killed her with a knife and strangled her with the sock. Now Mike was a big ole dude with a hot temper and as stated may have been armed with a gun to finish off animals he trapped. So what was Mike doing while she was stabbed and strangled?? Standing there waiting to be next?? Could it be that Mike was shot and then taken somewhere else? How else can you explain one killer doing in two people with a knife?? And being able to cart Mike's body off to where it was never found?? Was any of Mike's blood found at the scene?? I never heard it was so how could he have died in the same way and left no blood or sign of struggle?? If it was a serial killer he didnt go to much trouble to hide her body so why go to all the effort to hide Mike?? Why drop the child (potential withness) off at a store? I really think most of the info we have points to his guilt.

2) The other murders - The two other people that were killed close to where the body of Diana was found were both shot. It's noticeable that during the segment the police never state whether or they know (or believe) that Riemer owned (or had access) to a weapon in the caliber that was used.A simple "yay" or "nay" would have been sufficient to have removed most doubt that Riemer was or was not the killer.

4) No weapons found - If Riemer was going to check trap lines, what was he going to use to put down any animals that were still alive? He had to have at least a .22 (pistol or rifle) in addition to at least one hunting blade. Where are they?

Any 3rd party killer would have little use for them and leaving them would have actually drawn suspicion away from this unknown killer and onto Riemer.

Had the other couple's death not been an issue, this would have been seen as a clear cut case of domestic violence that led to a murder. Since they were also killed in close proximity that changes some of the dynamics , but actually still makes it likely that Riemer is the killer in both cases.

Given the MO of the earlier killer (shooting) and given the fact that Riemer was a sizable man in pretty good physical condition, it would make little sense for the killer to attempt to remove him from the area alive. He was too large a man and there was no evidence noted that any violence had occurred in that area except for that perpetrated against Diana.

In fact, if Riemer were hurt there would be far more than they found evidence of that at the site where his girlfriend was. Not just some blood patches on the car's passenger seat, but one or more extensive sprays or pools of blood from Riemer after an attack.


I have many more reasons, but I think that this long list is a good place to start.

Actually the segment does mention several rifle casing being found in the area that Diana's body was found. This was the clincher for me thinking that Riemer was innocent. Since the man in the other couple was shot and found in his sleeping bag (and the woman was found in the truck), I think Riemer was shot and killed and his body possibly hidden (or if it was a remote location has yet to be found) and then the killer targeted Diana. The tube sock is the definitive connection in both cases. Both were almost certainly carried out by the same individual. I think if Riemer had owned a gun, LE would have performed ballistics or made a mention of some sort of test done on the spent shells to see if he ever owned a gun. The fact that the LE official didn't mention a connection between Riemer and a gun kind of tells me that they have no solid proof of Riemer actually owning a gun, and that's why they're on the fence about if he was responsible or not.

I just don't see what motive Riemer would have in blowing away a couple on a camping trip (that he didn't know). The earlier couple (Stephen Harkins and Ruth Cooper) were both shot, but Harkins was found first and THEN Cooper was found two months later (in another location from where Harkins was found) in their truck. That kind of leads me to believe that since both Cooper and Diana Robertson were found months after they disappeared, whoever did this abducted them and then brought their bodies back after he murdered them. The fact that Harkins was found first in his sleeping bag tells me that Riemer was probably shot and killed first and then the killer targeted Diana.

Actually the segment does mention several rifle casing being found in the area that Diana's body was found. This was the clincher for me thinking that Riemer was innocent. Since the man in the other couple was shot and found in his sleeping bag (and the woman was found in the truck), I think Riemer was shot and killed and his body possibly hidden (or if it was a remote location has yet to be found) and then the killer targeted Diana. The tube sock is the definitive connection in both cases. Both were almost certainly carried out by the same individual. I think if Riemer had owned a gun, LE would have performed ballistics or made a mention of some sort of test done on the spent shells to see if he ever owned a gun. The fact that the LE official didn't mention a connection between Riemer and a gun kind of tells me that they have no solid proof of Riemer actually owning a gun, and that's why they're on the fence about if he was responsible or not.

I just don't see what motive Riemer would have in blowing away a couple on a camping trip (that he didn't know). The earlier couple (Stephen Harkins and Ruth Cooper) were both shot, but Harkins was found first and THEN Cooper was found two months later (in another location from where Harkins was found) in their truck. That kind of leads me to believe that since both Cooper and Diana Robertson were found months after they disappeared, whoever did this abducted them and then brought their bodies back after he murdered them. The fact that Harkins was found first in his sleeping bag tells me that Riemer was probably shot and killed first and then the killer targeted Diana.

Let's see:

1) Riemer was a trapper, part-time. That would mean unless he was prohibited by law from carrying or owning a weapon, that he would almost certainly have one or more firearms in his possession.

The shell casings may have nothing to w/ the case. While most hunters I know (and most target shooters, like me) pick up their brass, some hunters and a lot of poachers, don't.
The casings could have been there from before the body was left there.


2) Why bother hiding one body and not the other three? Why not hide all of them and have the crimes go undetected? Or why not have them all found?

Why no signs of another struggle where Diana was found? The assailant shot Riemer, left no evidence that he did so (other than possibly shell casings) and then finished off Diana w/ a knife?

3) Why shoot one woman and use a knife on another? Why not use a firearm on her as the killer did in the first killing? Killers are usually pretty consistent in how they commit their crimes.

4) The Harkins were found weeks after they went missing, not months, and they seemed to have been killed where they were found, especially Mr. Harkin in the sleeping bag.

5) The little girl is the wild card. Why wouldn't the killer have killed her or simply left her in the woods? Assuming that most serial killers don't want to be caught right away, it's likely that they would do whatever it would take to prevent easy detection.

In this case, leaving the little girl where she was, dead or alive, would have been the easiest course of action for the killer.

Also, why was no blood found on the kid? Assuming that the mother would have tried to protect her child from the killer, why wouldn't the little girl have blood on her? Either Riemer's or Diana's?

Riemer may have died or committed suicide later, but I don't think that he was killed when Diana was killed. I also think that most of the evidence points to him being the perpetrator of all of the crimes.

Let's see:

1) Riemer was a trapper, part-time. That would mean unless he was prohibited by law from carrying or owning a weapon, that he would almost certainly have one or more firearms in his possession.

The shell casings may have nothing to w/ the case. While most hunters I know (and most target shooters, like me) pick up their brass, some hunters and a lot of poachers, don't.
The casings could have been there from before the body was left there.


2) Why bother hiding one body and not the other three? Why not hide all of them and have the crimes go undetected? Or why not have them all found?

Why no signs of another struggle where Diana was found? The assailant shot Riemer, left no evidence that he did so (other than possibly shell casings) and then finished off Diana w/ a knife?

3) Why shoot one woman and use a knife on another? Why not use a firearm on her as the killer did in the first killing? Killers are usually pretty consistent in how they commit their crimes.

4) The Harkins were found weeks after they went missing, not months, and they seemed to have been killed where they were found, especially Mr. Harkin in the sleeping bag.

5) The little girl is the wild card. Why wouldn't the killer have killed her or simply left her in the woods? Assuming that most serial killers don't want to be caught right away, it's likely that they would do whatever it would take to prevent easy detection.

In this case, leaving the little girl where she was, dead or alive, would have been the easiest course of action for the killer.

Also, why was no blood found on the kid? Assuming that the mother would have tried to protect her child from the killer, why wouldn't the little girl have blood on her? Either Riemer's or Diana's?

Riemer may have died or committed suicide later, but I don't think that he was killed when Diana was killed. I also think that most of the evidence points to him being the perpetrator of all of the crimes.

1) The fact that if Riemer owned a gun would have been checked with the Harkins/Cooper homicide, since Riemer was a suspect at that point in both the Robertson murder and the double homicide. The fact that police were still uncertain as to whether or not he was a victim shows that LE could not connect Riemer to a weapon involved.

2) There's always the possibility that he kept Diana alive for some time after abducting her. And if she did struggle with him in some way in an attempt to flee, this would explain the seventeen stab wounds and also possibly the blood in the front of the truck. He could have easily killed Riemer while he was checking his traps while Diana and her daughter were out scouting for a Christmas tree. This seems very plausible, why would Riemer bring his young daughter along while he checked the traps?

3) Again, if Diana put up some sort of fight with this guy which pissed him off, this could explain why her murder was very brutal.

4) Harkins was found weeks after being missing. His companion, Ruth Cooper, was found two months after Harkins, in a different location and in their truck. Harkins was shot while asleep in his sleeping bag, so he obviously didn't put forth much of a struggle. Rimer very well could have suffered the same fate. Both women were found in or nearby their respected vehicles, and both had a tube sock tied around their neck. These two cases are eerily similiar.

5) Really can't explain why someone would take the girl to a shopping center instead of leaving her in the woods. The same could be said for Riemer, if he killed Diana why would he abandon his daughter instead of taking her with him? If Riemer did in fact murder Diana, Crystal had to have witnessed it and by dropping her off he ran the risk of Crystal implicating her father as the killer.

I will admit that it's possible that Riemer killed Diana in some sort of jealous rage and then tied a sock around her neck to try and cast suspicion on whoever was responsible for the Harkins/Cooper murders. But what are the odds that he would know the same type of knot used on the sock? With the passage of time it gets more and more likley that Riemer is dead. Hopefully his remains (or if he in fact is responsible, Riemer himself) will be found so we'll know for sure what happened.

1) The fact that if Riemer owned a gun would have been checked with the Harkins/Cooper homicide, since Riemer was a suspect at that point in both the Robertson murder and the double homicide. The fact that police were still uncertain as to whether or not he was a victim shows that LE could not connect Riemer to a weapon involved.

2) There's always the possibility that he kept Diana alive for some time after abducting her. And if she did struggle with him in some way in an attempt to flee, this would explain the seventeen stab wounds and also possibly the blood in the front of the truck. He could have easily killed Riemer while he was checking his traps while Diana and her daughter were out scouting for a Christmas tree. This seems very plausible, why would Riemer bring his young daughter along while he checked the traps?

3) Again, if Diana put up some sort of fight with this guy which pissed him off, this could explain why her murder was very brutal.

4) Harkins was found weeks after being missing. His companion, Ruth Cooper, was found two months after Harkins, in a different location and in their truck. Harkins was shot while asleep in his sleeping bag, so he obviously didn't put forth much of a struggle. Rimer very well could have suffered the same fate. Both women were found in or nearby their respected vehicles, and both had a tube sock tied around their neck. These two cases are eerily similiar.

5) Really can't explain why someone would take the girl to a shopping center instead of leaving her in the woods. The same could be said for Riemer, if he killed Diana why would he abandon his daughter instead of taking her with him? If Riemer did in fact murder Diana, Crystal had to have witnessed it and by dropping her off he ran the risk of Crystal implicating her father as the killer.

I will admit that it's possible that Riemer killed Diana in some sort of jealous rage and then tied a sock around her neck to try and cast suspicion on whoever was responsible for the Harkins/Cooper murders. But what are the odds that he would know the same type of knot used on the sock? With the passage of time it gets more and more likley that Riemer is dead. Hopefully his remains (or if he in fact is responsible, Riemer himself) will be found so we'll know for sure what happened.

Hmmm...

1) Riemer trapped and probably also hunted. It's highly unlikely that he did this w/o owning a firearm (at least one). The fact the police were unable to connect to him to a firearm may be that he bought his weapon(s) stolen, he had his girlfriend buy them or he bought them under the table.He may have also borrowed weapons from his father or friends.

2) Why keep her alive and then deposit her where you found her? Despite what they show on TV shows and movies, the idea for a successful serial killer is to either kill the victims in their homes (or an out of sight location) and leave the bodies there. OR...they grab the victim in one area. kill them in another and dump the body in a third, making finding a crime scene difficult if not impossible.

There are occasional variations, but it would be exceptionally rare for the killer to Diana some place, bring her back and kill her where he got her from. Especially since he probably did NOT do that w/ his earlier victim.

The blood in the truck hadn't been identified at the time of the segment. There are newer technologies now that could identify the source of the blood, including one that I posted on here that can tell the age of the person that the blood came from.

3) Again, the killer used a firearm in the previous killings. Why change his method? Especially since he may have had a firearm?

4) The Harkin's being found at separate time period can easily be explained as being the result of a poor search of the area. There are several cases on UM, when "thorough searches" were undertaken, only to have a body be discovered months or even years later in an area that was searched.

5) Riemer couldn't have taken his daughter w/ him, He possibly planned to live off the land using his outdoor abilities. This would not have been possible to do w/ a small child.

If you take a cynical look at this, Riemer may have also realized that killing his child would have brought more heat down on him than killing his girlfriend would. Also, Riemer may eventually need the help of his family, which almost certainly wouldn't have been forthcoming if he had hurt the child.

The knots actually might be the reason that Riemer is convicted if/when he is found. An outdoorsman (especially a trapper) would have to know how to tie knots. The police avoided saying what type of knot it was, but made it seem as if it were an unusual configuration. If the knots in socks matched knots tied on Riemer's trap lines, then it may be obvious that Riemer was behind this.

I watched the episode again and realized that they gave the childs age at two and not three. So I can see how you might not get much out of a two year old child as well I doubt the kid ever had any memories of what happened. There was blood found in the truck and Im wondering what anyone's take on that is? As well as the envelope that said I love you Diana? Do you think its possible that Mike found that envelope and it was something from another man? Then possibly he took it out there and confronted her with it? Just a thought.

Im not suprised at all about the bodies of the first couple being found at such different times. This is a heavily wooded, vast area. Hell look how long it took them to find Mike's truck and they had an aerial as well as land search going. Im just curious as to how the killer went about moving bodies around like that. Surely he wasnt dragging them through the forest.

If Diana was abducted and then later brought back then what was the reason for the abduction? Didnt they say she had not been sexually assaulted?

I think its a very interesting theory about him being killed while checking the traps and then the killer going back after Diana. But you have to wonder why a random killer would have dropped the child off and put himself at risk like this. Mike would have done that because hed be looking out for the welfare of his child. But a serial killer would have no motivation to do that and it would only bring him more risk.

Here's something to consider, The investigating officer in this case that spoke on the UM episode has more info on this then any of us. He flat out said that there is enough evidence to bring Mike in as a suspect if they could only confirm he was alive. Also if you notice in the episode, Mike's best friend seems to have his doubts as to whether Mike is dead or not. He did say that at first he assumed Mike had been killed too but now isnt too sure and that there are many questions to be answered.

Hey guys here's a link to an older thread on this. There is a wealth of newspaper articles on this case. Check it out, Looks like Mike's dad did confirm that he routinely carried a pistol and the Kmart the child was found at was 30 miles from where the truck was found. Quite a distance for a random serial killer to drive to get this child to safety dont ya think?
http://www.sitcomsonline.com/boards/showthread.php?t=157763

Hey guys here's a link to an older thread on this. There is a wealth of newspaper articles on this case. Check it out, Looks like Mike's dad did confirm that he routinely carried a pistol and the Kmart the child was found at was 30 miles from where the truck was found. Quite a distance for a random serial killer to drive to get this child to safety dont ya think?
http://www.sitcomsonline.com/boards/showthread.php?t=157763

30 miles is quite the distance for a random serial killer to drive around with a child that they kidnapped after murdering her parents. But doesn't everyone say how brutally honest children are at that young age? She was asked were her parents were and she said, "Mommy's in the trees." If her father dropped her off at the Kmart, don't you think when asked about her father she would have said he took me to the store and left me? UM left out another crucial detail by not elaborating on the questioning of the little girl IMO. I'm certain someone had to have asked her where her father was, and I wonder if she said "I don't know." or if she said anything at all.

As for the note, I think that is just another red-herring. It really doesn't mean anything at all, it could simply just be a note from Riemer to Diana. Why feel the need to leave behind a love note for someone you just murdered? Why not an apology or a confession? I think you guys are missing the importance of the first couple and how similiar their cases are to Riemer and Robertson. Stephen Harkins was shot in the head while he was sleeping, (so he obviously couldn't put up much of a struggle) and his body was found in the truck (I was incorrect in my earlier posts, Harkins was found in the truck not Cooper). I can't find anything online about this case and the UM segment makes no mention as to whether or not Ruth Cooper was sexually assaulted, but that very well may have been the motive in this case. It would explain why the sock was tied around her neck, and also why her body was found a mile and a half away from where Harkins died. It is very possible that police botched the search and the discovery of Cooper two months later was just an "oversight" in the original search. But there's no doubt in my mind that whoever killed Diana Robertson was also responsible in the Cooper/Harkins slayings.

I don't think this killer abducted Diana and then brought her back to the original location and killed her there. I think he possibly took her alive with the promise of not harming her daughter, dropped the daughter off, then killed her. As for Riemer carrying around a weapon, here's another snippet from an article about the case: "Investigators did not know if the casings were associated with the case, but planned to compare them with weapons registered to Riemer. Riemer, an avid trapper, owned many weapons, according to police records." That to me would show that law enforcement did run a cross check on the weapons registered to Riemer and the ones used in the homicides and could not find a match, or else it would have been mentioned in the UM segment. Basically this case comes down to whether or not you believe Mike Riemer is a serial killer. I just don't see what motive he would have in killing Harkins and Cooper, and even Diana. Why would he kill her when they were with their daughter looking for a Christmas tree?

I've also wondered whether or not two people could have been involved in this. Since I believe an unknown killer was responsible, I think the women in each cases were the targets. The men had to be dealt with, so I think they were shot first. I think Ruth Cooper and Diana were taken against their will and killed in another location, and I think Diana put up some sort of struggle which is why she was stabbed 17 times. As for their daugther Crystal? If two peolpe were involved one could have been transporting Crystal to the shopping center while the other was either killing Diana or disposing of her body and Riemer's truck. Or perhaps there was only one killer and he attempted to kill Diana and some sort of struggle ensued and Diana attempted to make it back to Riemer's truck only to be subdued and stabbed to death, meanwhile Crystal was elsewhere and (hopefully) did not actually witness her mother's murder. I actually think that kind of makes the most sense if this were a random killer. It would explain why Diana's body was found by the truck, and since this killer would most likely have his own transportation, he wouldn't need to steal Riemers truck and he could just use his own to drop Crystal off. So many possibilities...this is one of my favorite cases to discuss.

Im not suprised at all about the bodies of the first couple being found at such different times. This is a heavily wooded, vast area. Hell look how long it took them to find Mike's truck and they had an aerial as well as land search going. Im just curious as to how the killer went about moving bodies around like that. Surely he wasnt dragging them through the forest.

I think in all probability the killer left the bodies where he killed them and that Riemer's body was never found and it eventually succumbed to the elements. Or maybe there was more than one person involved.


I think its a very interesting theory about him being killed while checking the traps and then the killer going back after Diana. But you have to wonder why a random killer would have dropped the child off and put himself at risk like this. Mike would have done that because hed be looking out for the welfare of his child. But a serial killer would have no motivation to do that and it would only bring him more risk.

I think Riemer would have ran a bigger risk than an unknown assailant by leaving his daughter at the store. He would be risking everything on the fact that Crystal might tell it was Riemer who took her to the store and harmed her mother. And just how did Riemer get to the store? If Crystal said her mother was in the trees, this would imply that she saw her dead body in the woods by Riemer's truck. So it's not like Riemer transported her body or else Crystal would have said, "She's in daddy's truck." or something along those lines. The point is, since she said her mother was in the woods, why would Riemer drive his truck out of the area to drop his daughter off only to return the truck right by Diana's body implicating him even more?!

30 miles is quite the distance for a random serial killer to drive around with a child that they kidnapped after murdering her parents. But doesn't everyone say how brutally honest children are at that young age? She was asked were her parents were and she said, "Mommy's in the trees." If her father dropped her off at the Kmart, don't you think when asked about her father she would have said he took me to the store and left me? UM left out another crucial detail by not elaborating on the questioning of the little girl IMO. I'm certain someone had to have asked her where her father was, and I wonder if she said "I don't know." or if she said anything at all.

As for the note, I think that is just another red-herring. It really doesn't mean anything at all, it could simply just be a note from Riemer to Diana. Why feel the need to leave behind a love note for someone you just murdered? Why not an apology or a confession? I think you guys are missing the importance of the first couple and how similiar their cases are to Riemer and Robertson. Stephen Harkins was shot in the head while he was sleeping, (so he obviously couldn't put up much of a struggle) and his body was found in the truck (I was incorrect in my earlier posts, Harkins was found in the truck not Cooper). I can't find anything online about this case and the UM segment makes no mention as to whether or not Ruth Cooper was sexually assaulted, but that very well may have been the motive in this case. It would explain why the sock was tied around her neck, and also why her body was found a mile and a half away from where Harkins died. It is very possible that police botched the search and the discovery of Cooper two months later was just an "oversight" in the original search. But there's no doubt in my mind that whoever killed Diana Robertson was also responsible in the Cooper/Harkins slayings.

I don't think this killer abducted Diana and then brought her back to the original location and killed her there. I think he possibly took her alive with the promise of not harming her daughter, dropped the daughter off, then killed her. As for Riemer carrying around a weapon, here's another snippet from an article about the case: "Investigators did not know if the casings were associated with the case, but planned to compare them with weapons registered to Riemer. Riemer, an avid trapper, owned many weapons, according to police records." That to me would show that law enforcement did run a cross check on the weapons registered to Riemer and the ones used in the homicides and could not find a match, or else it would have been mentioned in the UM segment. Basically this case comes down to whether or not you believe Mike Riemer is a serial killer. I just don't see what motive he would have in killing Harkins and Cooper, and even Diana. Why would he kill her when they were with their daughter looking for a Christmas tree?

I've also wondered whether or not two people could have been involved in this. Since I believe an unknown killer was responsible, I think the women in each cases were the targets. The men had to be dealt with, so I think they were shot first. I think Ruth Cooper and Diana were taken against their will and killed in another location, and I think Diana put up some sort of struggle which is why she was stabbed 17 times. As for their daugther Crystal? If two peolpe were involved one could have been transporting Crystal to the shopping center while the other was either killing Diana or disposing of her body and Riemer's truck. Or perhaps there was only one killer and he attempted to kill Diana and some sort of struggle ensued and Diana attempted to make it back to Riemer's truck only to be subdued and stabbed to death, meanwhile Crystal was elsewhere and (hopefully) did not actually witness her mother's murder. I actually think that kind of makes the most sense if this were a random killer. It would explain why Diana's body was found by the truck, and since this killer would most likely have his own transportation, he wouldn't need to steal Riemers truck and he could just use his own to drop Crystal off. So many possibilities...this is one of my favorite cases to discuss.

Let see:

1) We may never know what the daughter saw. She probably wasn't questioned too thoroughly by the police and her grandmother may have shielded her from being so.

The whole episode probably resembles a bad dream to her now and she may only remember bits and pieces of it. The time to have questioned her was shortly after she was discovered, but nobody knew that a crime had occurred at that time.

2) The note was on an envelope that may have contained something (the news story hints at that) and may just have been written by Riemer out of guilt for his actions.

3) The first couple were killed near where Riemer had traplines. Maybe they freed a snared animal, maybe they complained to Riemer about the trapping, maybe Riemer blamed them for something that happened. Maybe Riemer is just a f-cking nut. Who knows?

The distance between bodies could be explained by Mrs. Harkin fleeing the scene and being hunted down by the killer. Or her being led deeper into the woods to hide her body after her murder.

To my mind, the major significance of the first couple is their killing is the only thing that doesn't make this completely appear to a domestic violence situation gone bad. If the other couple hadn't been murdered (or even found) Riemer's history of abuse would have made him the sole suspect.

Riemer didn't strike me as being overly bright (from reading the reports and watching the segment) but there is the possibility that in some limited way he planned this. His girlfriend had just allowed him back after putting a restraining order on him. He may still have been angry about that and after having killed the first two (that they have found) he considered the same fate for his girlfriend.

4) There's no telling if Riemer had weapons in his possession that weren't registered and you don't have to register long guns in Washington. At that time (I can't find any information about this) it's doubtful that you had to register handguns in most places outside of the major cities in Washington state.

Given that he worked two transient-type jobs, it's more than possible that he could have accepted a firearm in payment for a debt or as collateral for loan. He could have even traded pelts for guns.

Also, even if the police could find determine that Riemer owned a weapon in that caliber, but couldn't find the weapon, they would still have to perform ballistics testing as it may be a very common caliber.

5) The random killer doesn't make much sense to me, as why would the killer change his/her MO? He shot two people and then stabbed a third? And then used an undetermined method to possibly kill a fourth? Why not shoot everybody and be done w/ it?

Also, a random killer that operates in so small an area and yet has never struck in the same area again? That kills the woman and doesn't strip her body so that it would scavenged by animals or bury it? Or put her body in the back of the truck to delay its discovery?

There are many questions about this case, but the more you look at it, the Mike Riemer looks to be the only suspect.

Ok after more thought I dont think the theory of Mike being killed while checking the traps holds up because if he had been out checking traps he would have had his coat on him. Instead we find his coat still in the truck. To me that either means he was pulled out of the truck at gun point and wasnt wearing it while driving or he left the coat behind to make it seem that he was also a victim. So for Mike to have left the coat and gotten out of the truck I would think that means the killer was just sitting in this remote location waiting for someone to appear.
Then they show up, he points the gun at mike and tells him to get out. Mike takes off running and the killer shoots him while running away ( this could explain the shell casings) then goes back to get Diane. For this idea to hold up though we have to figure that just by pure coincidence Mike and Diane just happened to show up in this one particular spot in the vast area where this killer just happened to be waiting. Pretty far fetched if you ask me.

Consider the other couple that was murdered where actually camping, meaning that the killer could have stalked them and had time to track them down. However it seems that Diane was murdered shortly after arriving.

The idea of Mike being killed then Diane being abducted, then the child being left at the store also, in my opinion doesnt hold water because in that case how would the child know that her mom "was in the trees"?

Check the link I provided in the earlier post it has alot of newspaper articles about this. In one Mike's father stated that Mike did carry a 22 pistol. Consider the other couple was shot in an area where Mike was known to be trapping. Consider Mike's girlfreind whom he had a history of violence with is stabbed 17 times and the last known person with her was Mike, Consider someone was looking out for the welfare of Mike's child by dropping her off in a public area, Consider Mike has never been found and the investigators close to this case consider him the cheif suspect. All this considered I really think that the evidence strongly points to mike as being involved in all of this. Mike was a skilled outdoorsmen and a roofer.
This means he could survive in the wilderness if need be and being in the line of work of roofing means it would be very easy for him to travel and find work while remaning anonymous. This is why illegal immigrants flock to this type of work. It pays in cash and no one knows or cares who anyone is.

If you look through the articles in the link above you will also see there was alot of murders in that area or atleast alot of bodies turning up. These two are hardly isolated occurences. Though I have only read of the tube socks on the neck with these two.

I find it hard to believe that if Riemer was responsible he's still alive living in the wilderness living off the land. And if Riemer is guilty, the fact that his coat was found in the truck would indicate to me that he committed suicide somewhere and that his remains were never found. I did read those articles about the bodies turning up in that area, and it seems like an odd choice to use for a dump site since it was universially known that bodies were being dumped there. I do see why it's hard for people to think of Riemer as a victim, and I'm not completely sold on the theory that he would bring his daughter along if he knew he was going to kill his girlfriend.

Let's assume for the time being that Riemer is guilty. He was by all accounts a jealous guy. Maybe he found the note for Diana which was written by another man, perhaps Diana said something that set him off, or maybe she threatened to leave him again...anything is possible when dealing with a jealous, abusive a-hole. Point being, something set him off to make him viciously stab Diana 17 times. Now since Crystal said, "Mommy's in the trees." it's safe to assume that she either saw her mother's body or even worse, witnessed her murder. So then why would Riemer drive away from the scene (which would risk someone finding the body before he returned), then drive thirty miles out his way to drop Crystal off (again risk being identified, or his truck being seen), and then drive back the thirty miles he just left to park his truck (further implicating him) by Diana's body? If Riemer is guilty he would have had to have driven his truck out of the woods to drop off his daughter (why she wasn't hysterical about her father abandoning her is another question I have about this case) and then drive it all the way back to the scene of the crime, and due to the remoteness of the location what are the odds that he would be able to locate the murder site? And why leave his jacket behind? How would this in any way cast suspicion away from him?

I think the answers to some questions would come from more analysis from the blood found in the car (if it were available today). Obviously if the blood did not match Riemer or Diana, we have a third unknown party involved. If the blood matched Riemer, that would implicate him as the murderer. If the blood were Diana's however, we wouldn't be any closer because it could easily have been transferred to either Riemer or an unknown killer who then drove the truck to the location where it was found.

I believe I may have mentioned this before, but I think it may be possible that Mike and Diana were killed by a party they knew.

1. A party intimately acquainted with Mike and Diana stood a good chance of knowing where Mike's traps were set and how isolated they were. Perhaps he/she/they had even accompanied Mike trap-checking on occasion.

2. If Mike purportedly had a hot temper with Diana, he may have turned his wrath on others as well. Perhaps this didn't set well with someone he knew, and the individual(s) reckoned with him when he/she/they knew he would be isolated and unmissed for at least several hours.

3. Crystal didn't necessarily have to witness her mother's murder or body in the woodline in order for her to say what she did. It is entirely possible she was taken from the scene of the crime before any of the violence ever transpired. Perhaps I am speculating widely, but the theory of a female accomplice (perhaps even an individual familiar to Crystal) taking the little girl for "a trip" or "a drive" or something along those lines while another individual commits the crimes is not at all a stretch to me. Perhaps after a while Crystal asked about her mother's whereabouts, and this is precisely what she was told: "Mommy is in the trees; there's nothing to worry about."

I believe I may have mentioned this before, but I think it may be possible that Mike and Diana were killed by a party they knew.

1. A party intimately acquainted with Mike and Diana stood a good chance of knowing where Mike's traps were set and how isolated they were. Perhaps he/she/they had even accompanied Mike trap-checking on occasion.

2. If Mike purportedly had a hot temper with Diana, he may have turned his wrath on others as well. Perhaps this didn't set well with someone he knew, and the individual(s) reckoned with him when he/she/they knew he would be isolated and unmissed for at least several hours.

3. Crystal didn't necessarily have to witness her mother's murder or body in the woodline in order for her to say what she did. It is entirely possible she was taken from the scene of the crime before any of the violence ever transpired. Perhaps I am speculating widely, but the theory of a female accomplice (perhaps even an individual familiar to Crystal) taking the little girl for "a trip" or "a drive" or something along those lines while another individual commits the crimes is not at all a stretch to me. Perhaps after a while Crystal asked about her mother's whereabouts, and this is precisely what she was told: "Mommy is in the trees; there's nothing to worry about."

That is a possibility.

1) While Riemer seemed to be a loner, he may have had a acquaintance or two that might have accompanied him on trapping outings. It didn't say if Mike had an ATV, so one some occasions he may have needed help taking multiple animals out of the woods.

They also showed him w/ a boat in the segment but they never explain what happened to the boat. Perhaps they never found it, but it could have been how Riemer fled the area since he left his truck behind.

2) That also may be true. A bully w/ women may also be be a bully w/ others. If Riemer knew someone that happened to be a serial killer, then his crap attitude might have enraged that person enough to kill him and Diana. Although we return to the fact that the killer shot his first two victims and then stabbed his third. If the killer had a firearm, why not simply use that?

3) I've always thought that Crystal repeated what somebody told her when she asked for her Mommy. It may have been an off-hand remark and someone may have repeated it to her to stop her from crying. That is another reason that I believe that Riemer is the killer: the distance between where they found Diana and where the daughter was left was about a 1/2 hour drive (30 miles). I can't see too many people putting up w/ crying child for that length of time that wasn't their child or a relative. Especially a sociopath or psychopathic serial killer.

If the newspaper article is correct, the daughter was dropped off at the same store that Riemer and Diana had stopped at before they went into the woods. How would the killer know that fact? He/she certainly could "tailed" them out to the woods, but after you leave the main roads, following someone becomes almost impossible.That makes me believe that Riemer was the person that dropped off his daughter.

5) It's been stated that they went w/ Riemer to also get a tree for Xmas. Assuming that it was a tree from the woods and not a lot, where's the axe/hatchet/saw that they would have used? Or the rope with which they would tied the tree up? Were they found in the vehicle? If not, then they would certainly be items that Riemer would need to survive in the woods.

BTW, did they find a tree in the rear of the truck, I wonder?

That is a possibility.

1) While Riemer seemed to be a loner, he may have had a acquaintance or two that might have accompanied him on trapping outings. It didn't say if Mike had an ATV, so one some occasions he may have needed help taking multiple animals out of the woods.

They also showed him w/ a boat in the segment but they never explain what happened to the boat. Perhaps they never found it, but it could have been how Riemer fled the area since he left his truck behind.

2) That also may be true. A bully w/ women may also be be a bully w/ others. If Riemer knew someone that happened to be a serial killer, then his crap attitude might have enraged that person enough to kill him and Diana. Although we return to the fact that the killer shot his first two victims and then stabbed his third. If the killer had a firearm, why not simply use that?

3) I've always thought that Crystal repeated what somebody told her when she asked for her Mommy. It may have been an off-hand remark and someone may have repeated it to her to stop her from crying. That is another reason that I believe that Riemer is the killer: the distance between where they found Diana and where the daughter was left was about a 1/2 hour drive (30 miles). I can't see too many people putting up w/ crying child for that length of time that wasn't their child or a relative. Especially a sociopath or psychopathic serial killer.

If the newspaper article is correct, the daughter was dropped off at the same store that Riemer and Diana had stopped at before they went into the woods. How would the killer know that fact? He/she certainly could "tailed" them out to the woods, but after you leave the main roads, following someone becomes almost impossible.That makes me believe that Riemer was the person that dropped off his daughter.

5) It's been stated that they went w/ Riemer to also get a tree for Xmas. Assuming that it was a tree from the woods and not a lot, where's the axe/hatchet/saw that they would have used? Or the rope with which they would tied the tree up? Were they found in the vehicle? If not, then they would certainly be items that Riemer would need to survive in the woods.

BTW, did they find a tree in the rear of the truck, I wonder?

Well, Im not sure if the third party is a possibility or not being that we know there was three of them in a small truck. If another adult was with them they would have had to ride in the bed or have followed in another car.

I don't think Mike was a loner at all. First they had freinds out looking for them the next day and even had someone with a plane doing an aerial search. They also said he was an accomplished guitar player which tells me he was probably in bands and played with other people. How else would anyone know how accomplished he was if he didnt socialize? It was also mentioned that Mike would mess around on Diane with other women, again this shows he was no unabomber loner type.

I think we are all confused at just what the story is with the child. I know that for me is the most baffeling part of this whole case. If she can say "mommy is in the trees" then why can she have no recolection of how she got to the dept store? I think I may have the answer to this though.

If you have ever taken a drive with a two year old then you know what Im talking about here. Generally you you spend more then 15 minutes in the car the child will fall asleep. Its very possible that she slept through what happened as well as slept through the ride back to the parking lot where she was left. She may have awakened long enough to see her mother walking around in the forest and that may truly be all she knows.

So think about this, Mike knows full well what Crystal's vocabulary was at the time. He may have been very confident that she would not be able to communicate what had happned. Or he may know that she was sleeping while her mother was killed and cant tell anyone what happened even if she could talk well enough. A random killer would not know this. He would not know if the child could identify him or not or if she could tell what had happened. Again, also why would the random killer care enough about the safety of this child to risk being caught by bringing her in town?

Im also amazed that the people searching couldnt locate the red truck sitting in the forest directly after they went missing. While I understand that the forest is very dense and vast up there consider this, Mike's father and him had been running traps up there since Mike was a child. Im sure Mike's father as well as his friend, who searched via his airplane would know Mike's route and would know the general area he'd have been in. If he's really up there to check traps then wouldn't you assume he'd be somewhere close to them?? Yet Diane and the truck where not found for months afterwards and were only found by accident.

Now this could open up several therioes here. One being that he immediately admitted what he had done to his family and they helped him hide and get away by steering the search in other areas. This would explain how he was able to get out of this area with no car or coat. Or could it be that he wasnt up there to check traps at all but had went for the express purpose of killing Diane? If the truck was not found anywhere near where his traps where then this might explain why.
It could also be that he had not planned it at all and actually killed her near his trapping area but moved her and the truck to a more secluded area when returning from dropping off crystal.

I think the coat being left in the truck seems to point more at his guilt then anything here. If he's checking traps then he would have his coat on. If he was getting a tree then again the coat would be on. Also the blood inside the truck may be an indication that the altercation started in the truck before they got out.

You asked if a tree was in the truck? Well again this is all evidence the lead investigator has seen first hand. He also knows if there was an ax or a chainsaw in the truck. If no tree and no cutting devices where in the truck again that makes Mike look guilty. This may be why investigators consider him the number one suspect.

From what I have seen so far it looks to me like Mike killed Diane and had help from his family in getting away. I dont think he could have survived the winter in the woods. I think he made his escape and moved hundreds of miles away and started a new life. I think what helped him the most was the fact that the truck and Diane where not found for so long. I think that if she had been found the next day without him then police could have put around the clock survielance on his family and even tapped their phones to see if he made contact. Isn't it odd that Mike's father whom had been running traps in this area since before Mike was born was unable to locate the truck but some random guy walking a dog simply stumbles upon it??

With both of them being at "missing" status this allowed him plenty of time to get away and get set up with a new identity. I also think he was either responsible for the other murder of simply copycated it to make it seem that he too was killed.

Those who beileve Mike along with the other bodies found are all the victims of the same serial killer must consider something here. There where alot of bodies being found in this forest area. One thing is for sure here, who ever was doing the kiling made very little effort to hide the bodies. He left the one guy in his truck. Obviously this truck can be seen from the air and stands out much more to anyone walking or passing through. The woman with this man was simply found lying stabbed to death and again no effort to hide the body. Diane was left laying near Mike's truck. So obviously whoever put her there knew she would be found. We also have several other bodies turning up just basically dumped in the vicinity around the same time period. But now it comes to Mike Reimer and it seems the killer went to alot of trouble to conceal his remains as ofcourse no trace of him was ever found.

Those who beileve Mike along with the other bodies found are all the victims of the same serial killer must consider something here. There where alot of bodies being found in this forest area. One thing is for sure here, who ever was doing the kiling made very little effort to hide the bodies. He left the one guy in his truck. Obviously this truck can be seen from the air and stands out much more to anyone walking or passing through. The woman with this man was simply found lying stabbed to death and again no effort to hide the body. Diane was left laying near Mike's truck. So obviously whoever put her there knew she would be found. We also have several other bodies turning up just basically dumped in the vicinity around the same time period. But now it comes to Mike Reimer and it seems the killer went to alot of trouble to conceal his remains as ofcourse no trace of him was ever found.

I suppose the theory that Meg brought up about someone who held a grudge against Riemer could be used here. Perhaps they attempted to conceal his body to frame him for the muder of Diana and the double homicide? I also tend to think its possible that there was an accomplice who took Crystal to the store, while the murderer was "doing the deed". Riemer driving the truck out of the woods and to the store and then back to the woods and then hiking it just seems too risky, IMO. Unless of course his family was helping him. But after all of these years and no one has came forward, or even mumurs/rumors of him hiding out...I think he's dead in those woods just yet to be found.

Or he may know that she was sleeping while her mother was killed and cant tell anyone what happened even if she could talk well enough.

If he did kill the other two people, that could explain the change in MO. He might have figured that a gun shot would wake Crystal, so he stabbed Diane. I know stabbing isn't silent, but if you have to pick and can keep the victim from screaming too much then it's much less likely to wake a toddler then a gun shot is.

I find it hard to believe that if Riemer was responsible he's still alive living in the wilderness living off the land. And if Riemer is guilty, the fact that his coat was found in the truck would indicate to me that he committed suicide somewhere and that his remains were never found. I did read those articles about the bodies turning up in that area, and it seems like an odd choice to use for a dump site since it was universially known that bodies were being dumped there. I do see why it's hard for people to think of Riemer as a victim, and I'm not completely sold on the theory that he would bring his daughter along if he knew he was going to kill his girlfriend.

Let's assume for the time being that Riemer is guilty. He was by all accounts a jealous guy. Maybe he found the note for Diana which was written by another man, perhaps Diana said something that set him off, or maybe she threatened to leave him again...anything is possible when dealing with a jealous, abusive a-hole. Point being, something set him off to make him viciously stab Diana 17 times. Now since Crystal said, "Mommy's in the trees." it's safe to assume that she either saw her mother's body or even worse, witnessed her murder. So then why would Riemer drive away from the scene (which would risk someone finding the body before he returned), then drive thirty miles out his way to drop Crystal off (again risk being identified, or his truck being seen), and then drive back the thirty miles he just left to park his truck (further implicating him) by Diana's body? If Riemer is guilty he would have had to have driven his truck out of the woods to drop off his daughter (why she wasn't hysterical about her father abandoning her is another question I have about this case) and then drive it all the way back to the scene of the crime, and due to the remoteness of the location what are the odds that he would be able to locate the murder site? And why leave his jacket behind? How would this in any way cast suspicion away from him?

I think the answers to some questions would come from more analysis from the blood found in the car (if it were available today). Obviously if the blood did not match Riemer or Diana, we have a third unknown party involved. If the blood matched Riemer, that would implicate him as the murderer. If the blood were Diana's however, we wouldn't be any closer because it could easily have been transferred to either Riemer or an unknown killer who then drove the truck to the location where it was found.

Let's see:

1) Riemer may have had multiple coats. It's likely that he did as working outdoors wears clothing out pretty quickly. Also, if Riemer hitched out the area (which is likely as Diana's murder meant he would have to leave) he really wouldn't have needed a coat,although,again, I believe that he had more than one.

2) Neither the segment nor the news articles state that were Diana was found was where she was killed. If that's the case, then moving her body does make sense as any delay in finding the site of the murder can (and probably did) cripple the investigation.

3) If the store was same place that they had stopped before the went into the woods, while it may not make logical sense to return there, logic may not the first order of business after you just brutally murdered your girlfriend.

4) The blood was on the passenger side of the truck (as shown during the segment) so it could be Diana's, Riemer or anybody else's. Not sure they haven't been able to test the blood using current techniques to confirm its identity.

Like I said before, if it weren't for the first killings, this case would have been seen as a domestic abuse case that turned into a murder. The newer killing having similar hallmarks as the first (especially the sock) make this appear to be a serial killing w/ the only person not present (Riemer) as the most likely suspect.

I suppose the theory that Meg brought up about someone who held a grudge against Riemer could be used here. Perhaps they attempted to conceal his body to frame him for the muder of Diana and the double homicide? I also tend to think its possible that there was an accomplice who took Crystal to the store, while the murderer was "doing the deed". Riemer driving the truck out of the woods and to the store and then back to the woods and then hiking it just seems too risky, IMO. Unless of course his family was helping him. But after all of these years and no one has came forward, or even mumurs/rumors of him hiding out...I think he's dead in those woods just yet to be found.

I don't think its that far fetched that he could have driven the truck out of the woods and dropped Cyrstal off and then came back. I also don't find it odd that no one has come forward as why would they? If his family helped him hideout and get away then why rat on themselves?? For all we know there could be all kinds of rumors about his whereabouts and we have just not heard them. Its never mentioned in the segment that he was seen anywhere and the case has no updates but that doesnt mean that people arent talking.

Consider this when you wonder why Mike has never turned up..... No one is really looking for him or really put any effort into it. Is he considered a fugitive? NO. Is he wanted for murder? No. Is he on the FBI wanted list? No. There is simply been no effort put into finding Mike other then the unsolved mysteries profile and since there is no update we dont know how many leeds may have been called into the show.

It seems only the local LE is interested in him so if he moves a thousand miles away and is succesfull in creating a new identity then guess what? Hes gone folks and unless the FBI makes an all out effort to track him down then he's never gonna turn up. I can also assure you the FBI isnt going to put much effort into tracking down someone that they dont even know if is alive or not.

I noticed after watching the segment again that Mike's friend did state that he knew Mike's trapping area and he not only drove down it but also flew over it the day after they went missing and he saw nothing. Now I really wonder just how far away the location of Diane's body was from his trapping route. Does anyone know??

Also in the re-enactment it shows Mike putting a boat into the water. This seems odd to me. First off surely his traps arent in water and can you imagind how cold the water would be in December? It most likely would have been frozen anyhow. Then when they show Diane's body being found the boat is on top of the truck again. Is there any signifigance to this or is it just errors in the re-anactment?? Do they somehow know that Mike used the boat but then put it back on top of the truck??

Another thing here also, the investigator said he got chills when he was shown the sock used in the other murder because it was a match. Now does anyone know if he meant match as in just being a tube sock or match as in that it was the mate to the other sock? Because if it was an exact match then there simply is no way these killings arent related.

Let's see:

1) Riemer may have had multiple coats. It's likely that he did as working outdoors wears clothing out pretty quickly. Also, if Riemer hitched out the area (which is likely as Diana's murder meant he would have to leave) he really wouldn't have needed a coat,although,again, I believe that he had more than one.

2) Neither the segment nor the news articles state that were Diana was found was where she was killed. If that's the case, then moving her body does make sense as any delay in finding the site of the murder can (and probably did) cripple the investigation.

3) If the store was same place that they had stopped before the went into the woods, while it may not make logical sense to return there, logic may not the first order of business after you just brutally murdered your girlfriend.

4) The blood was on the passenger side of the truck (as shown during the segment) so it could be Diana's, Riemer or anybody else's. Not sure they haven't been able to test the blood using current techniques to confirm its identity.

Like I said before, if it weren't for the first killings, this case would have been seen as a domestic abuse case that turned into a murder. The newer killing having similar hallmarks as the first (especially the sock) make this appear to be a serial killing w/ the only person not present (Riemer) as the most likely suspect.

Then, why no trace of him has ever been found? Uh huh.

Then, why no trace of him has ever been found? Uh huh.

No trace of him has been found because they never really looked for him. He is not considered a fugitive and is not on any wanted posters. Look how long Eric Rudolf was able to hide and he was at the top of the FBI most wanted list. All Mike had to do was get outta town and hes vanished.

Ok here's something else I just found puzzeling. Maybe someone can clear this up.
According to the unsolved mysteries wiki site the family was headed north of Tacoma to check the traps and get a tree yet Diane's body was found near Elbe which is 30 miles south of Tacoma. Either the site has this wrong or this makes Mike look even more guilty.

Here is the link. See what you guys think
http://unsolvedmysteries.wikia.com/wiki/Diane_Robertson

That whole family seemed a little skittish. But it doesn't make Mike a murderer either. I've always leaned on him being dead/innocent.

Someone would have found him alive by now. Someone would have recognized him. I do believe a serial killer could have the conscience to drop off the little girl. Maybe he was mad at Mike and Diana. That's it. It didn't involve the kid. Maybe the killer had a soft spot for kids. Diana certainly "was in the trees" like the kid said. Other than that what else could a kid provide? Would they be smart enough to say a masked man drove me to the supermarket?

In my opinion, Mike is dead.

Then, why no trace of him has ever been found? Uh huh.

Ummm...there's a list of 10 Most Wanted issued by the FBI. Most of them haven't "been found" and have been missing for years. There's also the little problem w/ the police not spreading the word about Riemer fast enough, so that he was likely able to go deeper in the woods or even another country relatively unmolested.

He may have even killed himself later or died in an accident or illness in the wood and his body hasn't yet been recovered. Or it was recovered but was never matched w/ the description of Riemer and it was buried in a pauper's grave.

Ok here's something else I just found puzzeling. Maybe someone can clear this up.
According to the unsolved mysteries wiki site the family was headed north of Tacoma to check the traps and get a tree yet Diane's body was found near Elbe which is 30 miles south of Tacoma. Either the site has this wrong or this makes Mike look even more guilty.

Here is the link. See what you guys think
http://unsolvedmysteries.wikia.com/wiki/Diane_Robertson

That's correct according to the segment. Diana and the truck were found near Elbe. But remember, Mike was checking traps he may have set up over a relatively large radius, or looking for a tree over that expanse--or both--rather than just heading to the initial destination and staying there. That entire space is within the Seattle-Tacoma metro area and it all rather "runs together", much like the Knoxville, TN metro area I live in. It extends well into five different counties.

I don't remember the UM segment mentioning anyone actually witnessing Riemer and Diana in the northern Tacoma area, only that's where they said they were going. Maybe Riemer checked his traps in that area, then they moved on to Elbe in search of the Christmas tree? Or maybe Diana's body wasn't dumped in Elbe until well after the fact that she was murdered? Very bizarre case.

That whole family seemed a little skittish. But it doesn't make Mike a murderer either. I've always leaned on him being dead/innocent.

Someone would have found him alive by now. Someone would have recognized him. I do believe a serial killer could have the conscience to drop off the little girl. Maybe he was mad at Mike and Diana. That's it. It didn't involve the kid. Maybe the killer had a soft spot for kids. Diana certainly "was in the trees" like the kid said. Other than that what else could a kid provide? Would they be smart enough to say a masked man drove me to the supermarket?

In my opinion, Mike is dead.

Ok it seems that your basing your opinion of him being killed on the fact that he was never found. I understand where your coming from as there is some evidence that he was a victim. However I wouldnt put alot of weight on him not being found and the reason is that there never has been any real search for him. He is not considered a fugitive and the FBI has made no effort to track him down. The unsolved mysteries show was the first time his face was shown to a wide ranging national audience and it was three years after Diane's murder. Authorities thought both people where missing for three months which gave Mike plenty of time to get away and set up a new life before anyone knew Diane was dead.

You make the comment that someone would have recognized him. I would ask who?? His family? His friends? Who would recognize him and turn him in if he moved a thousand miles from where people knew him. Here's another reason that he wasnt spotted..... There is only one pic of Mike on the segment that was recent to the killing, its at a distance and you can barely see his face. Its the one where he is holding crystal. The other pics are older because you can tell he has a thick head of hair yet in the more recent pic you can tell his hair is thinning. So they dont even have a good pic of Mike to broadcast.

All it would take is one person willing to help Mike and keep their mouth shut for him to never be found. Another poster brought up the FBI ten most wanted and I agree with his thoughts on this. They can't track down people that are actively being searched for so why would anyone be suprised that they can't find someone they are not looking for?

With the serial killer theory we see that we have a killer who is murdering people and leaving bodies in plain sight. Not only that he has left a calling card so that people will know its him. Then it comes to Mike and we have no trace. For whatever reason he decides Mike's body must be hidden away?? Seems strange to me that he would take the biggest heaviest body and move it somewhere.

The blood in the truck is also a tell tale sign to me. It either means that the altercation between Mike and Diane started in the truck or it means someone with blood on them got back in that truck after getting a victims blood on them.

I don't remember the UM segment mentioning anyone actually witnessing Riemer and Diana in the northern Tacoma area, only that's where they said they were going. Maybe Riemer checked his traps in that area, then they moved on to Elbe in search of the Christmas tree? Or maybe Diana's body wasn't dumped in Elbe until well after the fact that she was murdered? Very bizarre case.
It was not mentioned in the segment at all. It was in a newspaper article well after Diane's body was found and I really don't know if there is any truth to it or who exactly said they saw them in there. None of the store employees recognized crystal when she was found. If one of them confirmed that Mike and Diane where there in the morning then youd assume one of them would have said " hey thats the little girl that was with that couple earlier" when she was found there.
The press does get things wrong and I have not been able to find out who stated they saw them at that store.
If Diane's body was later dumped in Eble then how do we explain the truck?? Was the killer driving around in it until he deciced to dispose of her?

You make the comment that someone would have recognized him. I would ask who?? His family? His friends? Who would recognize him and turn him in if he moved a thousand miles from where people knew him.

Well, you did just mention that his face was shown to a national audience. It's happened quite a number of times on UM. Someone recognizes a co-worker, a customer, a neighbor, or even a new spouse :eek: as an individual profiled on the program. As far as the picture quality is concerned, there have been cases in which viewers have recognized fugitives from only a few photographs. Recall James Donald King, for example. The photographs shown of him were years old and he was still captured. Maria Armstrong cropped her long dark hair and dyed it blonde, and was subsequently recognized nearly 2,000 miles away from Arizona. As they say, stranger things have happened.

All it would take is one person willing to help Mike and keep their mouth shut for him to never be found.

Nah. I'm not of the opinion it's quite that simple. It's a lot of work to live on the lam. Consider new names, IDs, SSNs, stories to fabricate, physical appearances to alter. People to cooperate with your efforts. Plenty of people turn themselves in because it's simply just too tiring. That's not to say that it couldn't happen, of course, but I find it much less likely.

With the serial killer theory we see that we have a killer who is murdering people and leaving bodies in plain sight. Not only that he has left a calling card so that people will know its him. Then it comes to Mike and we have no trace. For whatever reason he decides Mike body must be hidden away?? Seems strange to me that he would take the biggest heaviest body and move it somewhere.

Unless Mike was taken somewhere else and killed there, for whatever reason.

The blood in the truck is also a tell tale sign to me. It either means that the altercation between Mike and Diane started in the truck or it means someone with blood on them got back in that truck after getting a victims blood on them.

It could mean literally anything given the very limited number of facts available to us in the segment. One could consider it supportive of the theory that Mike killed Diana, a serial killer killed them both, or a third known party perpetrated the crime(s?). I don't consider it very definitive.

It was not mentioned in the segment at all. It was in a newspaper article well after Diane's body was found and I really don't know if there is any truth to it or who exactly said they saw them in there. None of the store employees recognized crystal when she was found. If one of them confirmed that Mike and Diane where there in the morning then youd assume one of them would have said " hey thats the little girl that was with that couple earlier" when she was found there.
The press does get things wrong and I have not been able to find out who stated they saw them at that store.
If Diane's body was later dumped in Eble then how do we explain the truck?? Was the killer driving around in it until he deciced to dispose of her?

It's highly unlikely (but still possible) that the truck was hidden with Diana's body somewhere and then moved to Elbe. But I personally think Diana was killed where she was found. If Riemer, Diana, and Crystal left the Tacoma area after checking his traps and then went to Elbe looking for a Christmas tree, isn't it possible that Riemer's body was just out in the open somewhere but never found? And after months/years his remains met fate with the elements? It took two months to find Diana's body (since everyone was searching within the area of Riemer's trap route), so what if Riemer was killed some distance away from Diana, and just never found? Ruth Cooper was only a mile away from Stephen Harkins and it took authorities two months to find her body. Or maybe this killer did plan to hide both bodies, killed Riemer first and then buried or hid his, but then Diana either put up an unexpected struggle or the killer did not anticipate Crystal being there, which is why Diana's body was left out in the open.

The reason law enforcement aren't pursuing Riemer with intensity is because there is a lack of evidence in this case that implicates him. Obviously if the type of knott used in both cases could be connected to trapping somehow, Riemer becomes your number one suspect. Or if through forensic evidence they determine that Riemer owned a similiar blade/knife used in Diana's murder again, he becomes your number one suspect and an intense manhunt would have followed. If Riemer was the clear prime suspect in this case, police would have put him on wanted posters, and they would have thoroughly looked for him. Law enforcement almost certainly looked at Riemer as the prime suspect (initially) after Diana's body was found, since Riemer was missing. They would not just throw their arms up in the air and say, "Oh well, maybe he's dead too." and stop looking. We say it all the time about LE having the most evidence and having first-hand knowledge of the case, and they obviously know more than what was presented in a UM segment. That said, I think there's more evidence pointing in the direction of a serial killer which is why Riemer is still classified as a missing person.

It's highly unlikely (but still possible) that the truck was hidden with Diana's body somewhere and then moved to Elbe. But I personally think Diana was killed where she was found. If Riemer, Diana, and Crystal left the Tacoma area after checking his traps and then went to Elbe looking for a Christmas tree, isn't it possible that Riemer's body was just out in the open somewhere but never found? And after months/years his remains met fate with the elements? It took two months to find Diana's body (since everyone was searching within the area of Riemer's trap route), so what if Riemer was killed some distance away from Diana, and just never found? Ruth Cooper was only a mile away from Stephen Harkins and it took authorities two months to find her body. Or maybe this killer did plan to hide both bodies, killed Riemer first and then buried or hid his, but then Diana either put up an unexpected struggle or the killer did not anticipate Crystal being there, which is why Diana's body was left out in the open.

The reason law enforcement aren't pursuing Riemer with intensity is because there is a lack of evidence in this case that implicates him. Obviously if the type of knott used in both cases could be connected to trapping somehow, Riemer becomes your number one suspect. Or if through forensic evidence they determine that Riemer owned a similiar blade/knife used in Diana's murder again, he becomes your number one suspect and an intense manhunt would have followed. If Riemer was the clear prime suspect in this case, police would have put him on wanted posters, and they would have thoroughly looked for him. Law enforcement almost certainly looked at Riemer as the prime suspect (initially) after Diana's body was found, since Riemer was missing. They would not just throw their arms up in the air and say, "Oh well, maybe he's dead too." and stop looking. We say it all the time about LE having the most evidence and having first-hand knowledge of the case, and they obviously know more than what was presented in a UM segment. That said, I think there's more evidence pointing in the direction of a serial killer which is why Riemer is still classified as a missing person.
There is a lack of evidence that implicates him? That is not what the lead investigator said. He clearly said that there was enough evidence to issue a warrant for Mike's arrest if they could only prove he was alive.
I dont think they just threw their arms up and didnt look but if he leaves the area then what do they do? If the FBI wont get involved and he stays out of Pierrce county then how is he to be found? Keep in mind the segment aired three years later. That gave him plenty of time to establish a new life.

There is a lack of evidence that implicates him? That is not what the lead investigator said. He clearly said that there was enough evidence to issue a warrant for Mike's arrest if they could only prove he was alive.

No. He said Mike immediately becomes a suspect. A world of difference.

I dont think they just threw their arms up and didnt look but if he leaves the area then what do they do? If the FBI wont get involved and he stays out of Pierrce county then how is he to be found? Keep in mind the segment aired three years later. That gave him plenty of time to establish a new life.

1. Agencies are constantly in contact with other jurisdictions, and the notion of at least an area or regional APB certainly wasn't unheard of in 1985. There are plenty of ways Mike could've been found and brought back to Washington.

2. Again, I say: Plenty of people have established "new lives" and have been summarily caught, whether sooner or later. James Donald King (again), Margo Freshwater, Dennis Depue, Joe Sheppard, Joe Weldon Smith, Cheryl Holland, and Jim Burnside are all fine examples.

No. He said Mike immediately becomes a suspect. A world of difference.



1. Agencies are constantly in contact with other jurisdictions, and the notion of at least an area or regional APB certainly wasn't unheard of in 1985. There are plenty of ways Mike could've been found and brought back to Washington.

2. Again, I say: Plenty of people have established "new lives" and have been summarily caught, whether sooner or later. James Donald King (again), Margo Freshwater, Dennis Depue, Joe Sheppard, Joe Weldon Smith, Cheryl Holland, and Jim Burnside are all fine examples.

No not a world of difference. He states that if Mike is alive then he is a suspect. I did make a mistake, it wasnt the officer but Stack who stated that there was enough evidence to charge Mike "if" they could find him alive.

Yes agencies are in contact with other jurisdictions and they could put out an area apb but consider this. Mike and Diane where not reported missing until that night. Other then child abandonement no one in LE could even confirm there was a crime comitted until Diane's body was found three months later. Also consider it was three days before anyone knew that Crystal was Mike and Daine's child. Not till they put her on TV did the grandmother come forward.

Im sure they suspected both where victims of foul play until just Diane was found. He had three months to get away and is not on any FBI wanted list so what more needs to be said?? Mike could live off the land and was skilled in a job that usually pays in cash and is fairly anonymous. Again this is why illegal immigrants flock to roofing companies. Also it was a hell of alot easier to establish a new identity in 1985 then now. There where plenty of books on the subject back then. The paper trail is one that comes to mind.

I understand that plenty of people have tried to establish a new life only to be caught but would you agree that there are plenty that where never seen or heard from again?? Of the people you listed, how many where classified as missing/endagered and how many where fugitives?? How many of them had a 50/50 chance that they where murdered and their body was hidden? How many had three months to run before anyone knew they may have comitted a crime?? How many did not have a recent photo of them posted on the segment?

No not a world of difference. He states that if Mike is alive then he is a suspect.

I'm sorry, but I do say it is quite different to be considered a suspect than to be arrested or indicted for a crime.

I did make a mistake, it wasnt the officer but Stack who stated that there was enough evidence to charge Mike "if" they could find him alive.

Provided, of course, that the evidence works against Mike. That has to occur first, and I suspect the authorities may have been waiting on Mike's testimony on his version of events in order to make that happen, if it could happen. I would say that this is probably the reason why he wasn't labeled a fugitive, and is officially listed as a missing person: the evidence is probably insubstantial, and all legal actions are contingent on what Mike provides in questioning. It has to work.

How many of them had a 50/50 chance that they where murdered and their body was hidden?

Well, all of them. Perhaps with better or worse odds. There's no way of ascertaining that probability.

I'm sorry, but I do say it is quite different to be considered a suspect than to be arrested or indicted for a crime.



Provided, of course, that the evidence works against Mike. That has to occur first, and I suspect the authorities may have been waiting on Mike's testimony on his version of events in order to make that happen, if it could happen. I would say that this is probably the reason why he wasn't labeled a fugitive, and is officially listed as a missing person: the evidence is probably insubstantial, and all legal actions are contingent on what Mike provides in questioning. It has to work.



Well, all of them. Perhaps with better or worse odds. There's no way of ascertaining that probability.
Here is just the evidence we have from the segment.........

Mike was the last known person to be with the murdered subject.

Mike had a history of violence against this person


Diane had gotten a restraining order against Mike because of Domestic violence.

Diane's mother states that Mike had told Diane he could kill her and get away with it.

Diane's best friend stated that Mike beat her up often.

Diane's body was found next to Mike's truck in an area Mike was very familiar with and had been trapping animals in since childhood.

Mike's child was left in an area where she would be safe after her mother was brutally murdered..

There where two prior killings in a secluded area that Mike was known to frequent. One of the people killed had the same calling card (tube sock tied around neck) that Diane had.

Mike's remains where never found though the other people killed where left where the killer knew they would be discovered.

No LE had any idea that a crime had been comitted in this case until a body was found three months later. There was no manhunt for Mike right off the bat because he was considered missing just like Diane until she was found. This gave him ample time to get away.

We can speculate about alot of things here but what I have listed are cold hard facts. What do we have that shows he was the victim of a random serial killer??

Well, you did just mention that his face was shown to a national audience. It's happened quite a number of times on UM. Someone recognizes a co-worker, a customer, a neighbor, or even a new spouse :eek: as an individual profiled on the program. As far as the picture quality is concerned, there have been cases in which viewers have recognized fugitives from only a few photographs. Recall James Donald King, for example. The photographs shown of him were years old and he was still captured. Maria Armstrong cropped her long dark hair and dyed it blonde, and was subsequently recognized nearly 2,000 miles away from Arizona. As they say, stranger things have happened.



Nah. I'm not of the opinion it's quite that simple. It's a lot of work to live on the lam. Consider new names, IDs, SSNs, stories to fabricate, physical appearances to alter. People to cooperate with your efforts. Plenty of people turn themselves in because it's simply just too tiring. That's not to say that it couldn't happen, of course, but I find it much less likely.



Unless Mike was taken somewhere else and killed there, for whatever reason.



It could mean literally anything given the very limited number of facts available to us in the segment. One could consider it supportive of the theory that Mike killed Diana, a serial killer killed them both, or a third known party perpetrated the crime(s?). I don't consider it very definitive.

Hmmm....

1) Riemer wasn't a very distinctive looking person. I probably saw three or four guys today that resembled him when I was out and I didn't really notice them. I think that a number of the people recognized years later may be more "distinctive" in appearance and they may have aroused suspicion by doing things that call attention to themselves (demanding that their picture not be taken,acting nervous in the presence of LE,etc).

2) Riemer was actually in a great position to lead a life on the run. He had extensive experience as an outdoorsman/trapper and he also worked as a roofer. Both positions are "cash only" jobs that almost never ask for ID or inquire too deeply into the backgrounds of workers. If Riemer could also speak Spanish, he could find work in a number of places.

To my mind, the only time that Riemer might run into "problems" is if he tried to purchase ammunition from a legitimate source (he would have to show ID and fill out paperwork) and or when/if he was questioned by a forest ranger/game warden/LE. As long as he didn't break any (or only minor) laws, and lived a low-key lifestyle, he wouldn't have attracted much attention.

Since the police didn't seem to put much effort into locating Riemer shortly after the murders occurred, it's unlikely that they would be able to make up for lost time, unless they had samples of DNA that they could match to Riemer if he was arrested, Riemer was arrested and confessed to the crime or somebody stumbles across a skull or other remains in the area around where Diana, I don't think that this case will be solved.

Here is just the evidence we have from the segment.........

Mike was the last known person to be with the murdered subject.

Mike had a history of violence against this person


Diane had gotten a restraining order against Mike because of Domestic violence.

Diane's body was found next to Mike's truck in an area Mike was very familiar with and had been trapping animals in since childhood.

No LE had any idea that a crime had been comitted in this case until a body was found three months later. There was no manhunt for Mike right off the bat because he was considered missing just like Diane until she was found.


Only those things are things that cannot be disputed.

However, the mere fact that Mike abused Diana really is only supportive of the theory that he killed her. It doesn't prove anything, really. Plenty of individuals abuse their partners physically, emotionally, and verbally, but don't murder them.




Diane's mother states that Mike had told Diane he could kill her and get away with it.

Diane's best friend stated that Mike beat her up often.

That is hearsay, not fact. (It was her sister, not her best friend, by the way.)


Mike's child was left in an area where she would be safe after her mother was brutally murdered..

Mike's remains where never found though the other people killed where left where the killer knew they would be discovered.

You and I have no idea what the rationale was for any of those things being done. That is speculation, not fact.


What do we have that shows he was the victim of a random serial killer??

The same definitive, workable evidence that absolutely indicates he himself killed Diana: very little.

Hmmm....

1) Riemer wasn't a very distinctive looking person. I probably saw three or four guys today that resembled him when I was out and I didn't really notice them. I think that a number of the people recognized years later may be more "distinctive" in appearance and they may have aroused suspicion by doing things that call attention to themselves (demanding that their picture not be taken,acting nervous in the presence of LE,etc).

Well, that's subjective. What's distinctive to one person might not be to another.

2) Riemer was actually in a great position to lead a life on the run. He had extensive experience as an outdoorsman/trapper and he also worked as a roofer. Both positions are "cash only" jobs that almost never ask for ID or inquire too deeply into the backgrounds of workers. If Riemer could also speak Spanish, he could find work in a number of places.


That's an excellent point.

If we are to assume that Riemer is guilty, still alive and on the run we have to consider a few things. He abandoned his daughter, when he had a very easy opportunity to take her with him. While this would seem to implicate him more if both he and Crystal were missing, he still would be in a precarious situation to take Crystal with him (in his truck) 30 miles away and drop her off in a crowded shopping center. Not to mention he had no guarantee that Crystal would keep quiet about her own father abandoning her. So let's say he did have ample time to get a head start on authorities and started a new life (possibly in Canada somewhere). And let's say he's lucky enough to live in an area where few people watch UM, so no one really knows about the story about Diana or the double homicide. He eventually would have accumulated friends, and established some sort of social life (he played guitar, was an outdoorsman, etc.). And let's also assume that he did beat Diana on a regular basis (even though the only actual account we have of this is one newspaper article that states that he rubbed her face in the carpet). In creating a new life, Riemer most likely would have dated, possibly even married. And based off his personality the odds that he would beat this woman would be very high, so would the odds that he would have run into trouble with some law enforcement agency over the years. And this would have most likely lead to the discovery that he really was Riemer, a POI in the Diana Robertson killing. All of this is hypothetical, but if we are to believe that Riemer is guilty and still alive, we have to also believe that he stopped murdering people (something a serial killer usually keeps doing until they get caught or die) and completely changed his personality. He's dead IMHO, guilty or innocent.


Since the police didn't seem to put much effort into locating Riemer shortly after the murders occurred, it's unlikely that they would be able to make up for lost time, unless they had samples of DNA that they could match to Riemer if he was arrested, Riemer was arrested and confessed to the crime or somebody stumbles across a skull or other remains in the area around where Diana, I don't think that this case will be solved.

I agree.

The restraining order is blown out of proportion, IMO. She withdrew it a couple of days after filing it, something a woman in fear for her life would not do.

If we are to assume that Riemer is guilty and still alive, on the run we have to consider a few things. He abandoned his daughter, when he had a very easy opportunity to take her with him. While this would seem to implicate him more if both he and Crystal were missing, he still would be in a precarious situation to take Crystal with him (in his truck) 30 miles away and drop her off in a crowded shopping center. Not to mention he had no guarantee that Crystal would keep quiet about her own father abandoning her. So let's say he did have ample time to get a head start on authorities and started a new life (possibly in Canada somewhere). And let's say he's lucky enough to live in an area where few people watch UM, so no one really knows about the story about Diana or the double homicide. He eventually would have accumulated friends, and established some sort of social life (he played guitar, was an outdoorsman, etc.). And let's also assume that he did beat Diana on a regular basis (even though the only actual account we have of this is one newspaper article that states that he rubbed her face in the carpet). In creating a new life, Riemer most likely would have dated, possibly even married. And based off his personality the odds that he would beat this woman would be very high, so would the odds that he would have run into trouble with some law enforcement agency over the years. And this would have most likely lead to the discovery that he really was Riemer, a POI in the Diana Robertson killing. All of this is hypothetical, but if we are to believe that Riemer is guilty and still alive, that he stopped murdering people (something a serial killer usually keeps doing until they get caught or die) and completely changed his personality. He's dead IMHO, guilty or innocent.



I agree.

The restraining order is blown out of proportion, IMO. She withdrew it a couple of days after filing it, something a woman in fear for her life would not do.

While I have enjoyed UM for many years, I know a number of people that have never seen the show nor heard of it. I also know a number of people that have neither a TV, nor a computer making their seeing the Riemer segment almost an impossibility.And when UM was on the air (NBC/CBS), it really was never a "ratings giant" so it's very likely that a relatively small portion of the population saw the segment even when it aired in repeats.

If Riemer lived in a rural area or in a remote wooded area,it's likely that no one there has ever seen the program and wouldn't even know that he was wanted. And given the amount time that has passed, it's likely that Riemer looks significantly different than he did before so it may not be possible for people to recognize him know, even if they watched the segment.

No sure how a restraining order can be "blown out of proportion." Riemer was clearly a violent bully that was fortunate that he wasn't subjected to today's domestic violence laws as they would have mean that he would have had to surrender his firearms and couldn't have purchased any more. Plus, he would have faced jail time.

I just find it hard to believe he would have been able to get away away so clear cut. And to this day, NEVER been seen or at least spotted.

I just find it hard to believe he would have been able to get away away so clear cut. And to this day, NEVER been seen or at least spotted.

Me too. And TheCars1986 brings up another great point about taking Crystal with him. He had the opportunity, and it would've been incredibly easy.

No sure how a restraining order can be "blown out of proportion."

Easy. People file restraining orders ALL THE TIME. How many times are they withdrawn? Tons. The fact that she filed a restraining order then becomes a moot point. Riemer was a bully, and by all accounts he did physically abuse Diana. But if it were as bad as Diana's family made it seem in the UM segment, why withdraw the restraining order at all? Diana's mother says that she heard from Diana that Riemer threatened to murder her, yet fails to report this immediately to the authorities? Pure heresay and speculation.

I just find it hard to believe he would have been able to get away away so clear cut. And to this day, NEVER been seen or at least spotted.

He may have been spotted THOUSANDS of times. However, since he isn't part of any nationwide search (other than the doenetwork and maybe Washington State police) it's doubtful that most (or the majority) of people that may have seen him even knew who he was/is.

If Riemer was on the FBI's 10 Most Wanted or even the US Marshal's 15 Most Wanted, then there might be a chance that someone's memory might be sparked by an encounter. As it stands now, even though I have seen the segment maybe five times, I couldn't recognize Riemer if he walked past me on the street.

Me too. And TheCars1986 brings up another great point about taking Crystal with him. He had the opportunity, and it would've been incredibly easy.

Ummm...since Crystal was possibly not even potty-trained, it would have been exceptionally difficult for him to travel w/ her. He would have had to find daycare if he decided to live in a city or urbanized area and it would have been impossible for him to have a small child w/ him in a wooded area. Plus a single man w/ a small female child would have attracted a great deal more attention than a single man alone.

If Riemer was indeed the one that left the little girl at the store, then he made a decision that apparently has had little "downside" for him and probably greatly improved the chances that he would never be caught.

Ummm...since Crystal was possibly not even potty-trained, it would have been exceptionally difficult for him to travel w/ her. He would have had to find daycare if he decided to live in a city or urbanized area and it would have been impossible for him to have a small child w/ him in a wooded area.

Plus a single man w/ a small female child would have attracted a great deal more attention than a single man alone.

If Riemer was indeed the one that left the little girl at the store, then he made a decision that apparently has had little "downside" for him and probably greatly improved the chances that he would never be caught.

That's precisely why I noted it. I feel it lends credence to the notion Mike isn't the one who took Crystal to K-Mart at all.

Only those things are things that cannot be disputed.

However, the mere fact that Mike abused Diana really is only supportive of the theory that he killed her. It doesn't prove anything, really. Plenty of individuals abuse their partners physically, emotionally, and verbally, but don't murder them.






That is hearsay, not fact. (It was her sister, not her best friend, by the way.)




You and I have no idea what the rationale was for any of those things being done. That is speculation, not fact.




The same definitive, workable evidence that absolutely indicates he himself killed Diana: very little.

Ok first off there is no proof of anything in this case right now. If there was "proof" then either Mike would be declared dead or be in jail. So you can through the word proof out the window.

What we do have is evidence to piece together and try to fill in the blanks which is what Im doing by posting the indisputable facts we have from the segment.

The mother and sisters statements are not hearsay by the way. Hearsay refers to statements made in a court of law that are inadmissable. The statement she makes can be considered evidence and I will gaurantee what she has said is in a police report. It is a fact that the mother and sister stated there was abuse and a threat to kill. Whether you choose to see them as credible is up to you.

Yes the fact that Mike was abusive is supportive of the theory that he killed her but is not a definative dead ringer. I agree with that.

I never said anything about what the rationale was behind Crystal being left at the store but isnt it obvious that whoever killed her mother didnt want to kill her but instead got her to a place shed be found? That is not speculation it is fact.

I think there is plenty of evidence he killed Diana and have listed what we know to be true. It seems everyone here that thinks Mike was a victim is simply using the fact that he never turned up alive to come to that conclusion. Well equally his body was never found. Plenty of other bodies where found in the area so why is one fact more compelling then the other? Is it not easier for a live person ( who is not even being looked for) to hide then a dead body??

Easy. People file restraining orders ALL THE TIME. How many times are they withdrawn? Tons. The fact that she filed a restraining order then becomes a moot point. Riemer was a bully, and by all accounts he did physically abuse Diana. But if it were as bad as Diana's family made it seem in the UM segment, why withdraw the restraining order at all? Diana's mother says that she heard from Diana that Riemer threatened to murder her, yet fails to report this immediately to the authorities? Pure heresay and speculation.
I can honestly say I never had a restraining order on me. So I dont know how common it is. I also dont remember them ever saying she withdrew the order but only that they had gotten back together. Why withdraw it?? Com'n man get real you know that women can be abused and take back there abuser if they are weak minded enough. Happens all the time and you know it. Yoiu want the mother to go to the police because of what Diane told her?? Seriously? What would the cops even do? It isnt hearsay unless its introduced in court and Im not sure why you through the word " speculation" in there.

No. He said Mike immediately becomes a suspect. A world of difference.



1. Agencies are constantly in contact with other jurisdictions, and the notion of at least an area or regional APB certainly wasn't unheard of in 1985. There are plenty of ways Mike could've been found and brought back to Washington.

2. Again, I say: Plenty of people have established "new lives" and have been summarily caught, whether sooner or later. James Donald King (again), Margo Freshwater, Dennis Depue, Joe Sheppard, Joe Weldon Smith, Cheryl Holland, and Jim Burnside are all fine examples.
Okay I will go through the examples you gave when I get a chance but the one that stands out is Jim Burnside. You list him as a fine example of someone running, changing their name etc then being caught? Well lets look at just how different Burnside and Riemer are and maybe you will start to understand why Riemer has not been caught.

Burnside killed his wife right in front of witnesses. The police knew exactly what he had done and they new he was not the victim of any crime the moment it happened. Burnside was not only being pursued by local cops but also the FBI. Infact it was FBI agents that tracked him down and took him into custody in Alabama.

Riemer on the other hand goes missing with his girlfriend and is listed as a missing person (NOT A FUGITIVE) for three months. At no time was the FBI pursuing Riemer. That could explain why he didnt turn up. As far as other agencies getting overly involved with the search for Riemer, forget it. They have enough of of a caseload looking for people they know full well are alive to worry about someone who "might" be on the run. Riemer did not recieve national attention until three years later when the UM episode aired and the only recent picture of him shown was at a distance and you could hardly see his face.

So do you see the difference?

I just find it hard to believe he would have been able to get away away so clear cut. And to this day, NEVER been seen or at least spotted.
The theory of how he was NEVER been seen or spotted has been explained several times on here if you read through.

A. For three months no one knew a crime had been comitted giving him ample time to establish another life

B. Mike had never been pursued as a fugitive but simply a missing person. No federal agency has made any effort to track him down.

C. It was three years before Riemer was introduced to a nationwide audience through the UM show and the only recent pic of him was at a distance and his face was barely distinguishable.

D. Mike was a skilled outdoorsman and could survive in any very secluded area as well Mike's trade was roofing so he could get a cash job anywhere without giving a social security card or a birth certificate.

If Mike wasnt killed that day and he indeed killed his gf then these reasons are why he has never been spotted. Its not so outlandish when you put it all in perspective

If we are to assume that Riemer is guilty, still alive and on the run we have to consider a few things. He abandoned his daughter, when he had a very easy opportunity to take her with him. While this would seem to implicate him more if both he and Crystal were missing, he still would be in a precarious situation to take Crystal with him (in his truck) 30 miles away and drop her off in a crowded shopping center. Not to mention he had no guarantee that Crystal would keep quiet about her own father abandoning her. So let's say he did have ample time to get a head start on authorities and started a new life (possibly in Canada somewhere). And let's say he's lucky enough to live in an area where few people watch UM, so no one really knows about the story about Diana or the double homicide. He eventually would have accumulated friends, and established some sort of social life (he played guitar, was an outdoorsman, etc.). And let's also assume that he did beat Diana on a regular basis (even though the only actual account we have of this is one newspaper article that states that he rubbed her face in the carpet). In creating a new life, Riemer most likely would have dated, possibly even married. And based off his personality the odds that he would beat this woman would be very high, so would the odds that he would have run into trouble with some law enforcement agency over the years. And this would have most likely lead to the discovery that he really was Riemer, a POI in the Diana Robertson killing. All of this is hypothetical, but if we are to believe that Riemer is guilty and still alive, we have to also believe that he stopped murdering people (something a serial killer usually keeps doing until they get caught or die) and completely changed his personality. He's dead IMHO, guilty or innocent.



I agree.

The restraining order is blown out of proportion, IMO. She withdrew it a couple of days after filing it, something a woman in fear for her life would not do.
You are doing an awfully lot of speculating and assuming here. You really think that you can sumise that he would re-marry then beat his new wife and then get arrested? And because apparntley this didnt happen then we are to assume he was killed the same time as Diane?
You ask if he stopped killing? Well maybe he didnt. Is there any shortage of unsolved homicides out there?? I think not.

Who's to say he wasnt picked up somewhere else and the police had no clue that he was missing? There was no nationwide APB for him and if he was succesfull in creating a new identity ( which was fairly simple in 1985) then even if he was arrested they would have no clue as to his real identity. Once you start speculating and assuming there is just no end to it.

What we do have is evidence to piece together and try to fill in the blanks which is what Im doing by posting the indisputable facts we have from the segment.

Again, only a handful of those are facts. The others may certainly be reasonably disputed.

The mother and sisters statements are not hearsay by the way. Hearsay refers to statements made in a court of law that are inadmissable. The statement she makes can be considered evidence and I will gaurantee what she has said is in a police report. It is a fact that the mother and sister stated there was abuse and a threat to kill. Whether you choose to see them as credible is up to you.

Hearsay is also a colloquialism, and that is the context in which I use it--not as a legal term. I honestly have no idea if those comments could be considered admissible evidence in any given trial, and frankly, that isn't the issue. It's two people, very close to the victim, who are making statements that cannot be readily substantiated by any of us. So I cannot accept that as "cold, hard fact".

I never said anything about what the rationale was behind Crystal being left at the store but isnt it obvious that whoever killed her mother didnt want to kill her but instead got her to a place shed be found? That is not speculation it is fact.

That would be your own, personally developed rationale.

And no, it is not necessarily fact.



I think there is plenty of evidence he killed Diana and have listed what we know to be true. It seems everyone here that thinks Mike was a victim is simply using the fact that he never turned up alive to come to that conclusion.

I think the "evidence" in this case is ambigous at best. It could just as easily indicate Diana was murdered by Mike as it could Mike was a victim himself.

Again, only a handful of those are facts. The others may certainly be reasonably disputed.



Hearsay is also a colloquialism, and that is the context in which I use it--not as a legal term. I honestly have no idea if those comments could be considered admissible evidence in any given trial, and frankly, that isn't the issue. It's two people, very close to the victim, who are making statements that cannot be readily substantiated by any of us. So I cannot accept that as "cold, hard fact".



That would be your own, personally developed rationale.

And no, it is not necessarily fact.





I think the "evidence" in this case is ambigous at best. It could just as easily indicate Diana was murdered by Mike as it could Mike was a victim himself.

I am saying that it is a fact that they said it. Ok. That is a fact whether their statements are true is up for debate. But it is a fact you heard them say it right. Statements like this are used as evidence in investigations. Their statements are backed up by the fact that a restraining order was put on Mike. That is also a fact.

It is a fact that the child was feft at a dept store. It is a fact that at some point she was with her parents that day. It is a fact that her mother was killed and her father went missing the same day she showed up alone at the store. There IS THAT SPECULATION OR IS THAT FACT?????????????

You claim what Im saying is disputable but unless you change my words around I have yet to see you dispute anything. I guess we can speculate that the entire story is a great work of fiction and UM made it all up with paid actors too.

I am saying that it is a fact that they said it. Ok. That is a fact whether their statements are true is up for debate. But it is a fact you heard them say it right. Statements like this are used as evidence in investigations. Their statements are backed up by the fact that a restraining order was put on Mike. That is also a fact.

It is a fact that the child was feft at a dept store. It is a fact that at some point she was with her parents that day. It is a fact that her mother was killed and her father went missing the same day she showed up alone at the store. There IS THAT SPECULATION OR IS THAT FACT?????????????

You claim what Im saying is disputable but unless you change my words around I have yet to see you dispute anything. I guess we can speculate that the entire story is a great work of fiction and UM made it all up with paid actors too.

Apparently this is touching a nerve somewhere. My conclusion is simple: I find nothing definitive in this case, and all angles are equally viable. Again:

I think the "evidence" in this case is ambigous at best. It could just as easily indicate Diana was murdered by Mike as it could Mike was a victim himself.

That's it.

You are doing an awfully lot of speculating and assuming here. You really think that you can sumise that he would re-marry then beat his new wife and then get arrested? And because apparntley this didnt happen then we are to assume he was killed the same time as Diane?
You ask if he stopped killing? Well maybe he didnt. Is there any shortage of unsolved homicides out there?? I think not.

And you're not speculating by saying Riemer is off in the wilderness somewhere playing Swiss Family Roofer? I can't say for certain that he would remarry and beat his wife. BUT based off of what Diana's family members have said, which you consider factual, Riemer beating Diana was a regular occurrence. And if he did start a new life, he probably would have at the very least dated women. And if he did by chance beat them up as well, he could have had a brush with law enforcement leading up to his capture. Riemer had to have had brushes with law enforcement in Washington, especially if what Diana's family says is true, so his fingerprints would most likely be on file. And by getting arrested in his "new life", they should have been able to determine that he was really Riemer. It is wild speculation, and I think the scenario I presented is absurd. But that is what you would have to believe if you think Riemer is guilty and alive. The whole point of my "speculation" was to show how unlikely it was that Riemer was alive.


Who's to say he wasnt picked up somewhere else and the police had no clue that he was missing? There was no nationwide APB for him and if he was succesfull in creating a new identity ( which was fairly simple in 1985) then even if he was arrested they would have no clue as to his real identity. Once you start speculating and assuming there is just no end to it.

As I've stated above, if the beatings on Diana were true, that would speak volumes about the character of Riemer. So isn't it safe to assume that in the 36 years of his life he had at least one brush with the law? And if he did they would have his fingerprints on file, and his new identity would be shattered if he were ever arrested again.

I can honestly say I never had a restraining order on me. So I dont know how common it is. I also dont remember them ever saying she withdrew the order but only that they had gotten back together. Why withdraw it?? Com'n man get real you know that women can be abused and take back there abuser if they are weak minded enough. Happens all the time and you know it. Yoiu want the mother to go to the police because of what Diane told her?? Seriously? What would the cops even do? It isnt hearsay unless its introduced in court and Im not sure why you through the word " speculation" in there.

I didn't say getting a restraining order is like ordering a McRib, but people file them all the time. Yes, women who are abused become emotionally weak and they do take back their abusers all the time. But someone you were in fear of, who threatened to kill you? The mother didn't have to go to the police, I'm not sure if there even was a law against verbal threats in Washington at the time. But she could have encouraged Diana to leave Riemer (which I'm sure she did), or confront Riemer herself, or even move Diana in with her and forbid Riemer from the residence. If your daughters life were really in danger you would do everything in your power to protect her. The mother outright accuses Riemer of murdering Diana on television, how is that not speculation? And I was wrong about the withdrawn restraining order. But her family obviously knew Diana forgave Riemer and started seeing him again, so they had the perfect opportunity to get the authorities involved at that point. The restraining order was still active, and if the family feared for her safety they would have called the police. I think the point MegtheEgg and I are trying to make is that with the lack of evidence in this case, anything is possible. But based off of what we do have, I think it's more likely that Riemer is a murder victim, and if he is responsible he's still dead.

And you're not speculating by saying Riemer is off in the wilderness somewhere playing Swiss Family Roofer? I can't say for certain that he would remarry and beat his wife. BUT based off of what Diana's family members have said, which you consider factual, Riemer beating Diana was a regular occurrence. And if he did start a new life, he probably would have at the very least dated women. And if he did by chance beat them up as well, he could have had a brush with law enforcement leading up to his capture. Riemer had to have had brushes with law enforcement in Washington, especially if what Diana's family says is true, so his fingerprints would most likely be on file. And by getting arrested in his "new life", they should have been able to determine that he was really Riemer. It is wild speculation, and I think the scenario I presented is absurd. But that is what you would have to believe if you think Riemer is guilty and alive. The whole point of my "speculation" was to show how unlikely it was that Riemer was alive.



As I've stated above, if the beatings on Diana were true, that would speak volumes about the character of Riemer. So isn't it safe to assume that in the 36 years of his life he had at least one brush with the law? And if he did they would have his fingerprints on file, and his new identity would be shattered if he were ever arrested again.



I didn't say getting a restraining order is like ordering a McRib, but people file them all the time. Yes, women who are abused become emotionally weak and they do take back their abusers all the time. But someone you were in fear of, who threatened to kill you? The mother didn't have to go to the police, I'm not sure if there even was a law against verbal threats in Washington at the time. But she could have encouraged Diana to leave Riemer (which I'm sure she did), or confront Riemer herself, or even move Diana in with her and forbid Riemer from the residence. If your daughters life were really in danger you would do everything in your power to protect her. The mother outright accuses Riemer of murdering Diana on television, how is that not speculation? And I was wrong about the withdrawn restraining order. But her family obviously knew Diana forgave Riemer and started seeing him again, so they had the perfect opportunity to get the authorities involved at that point. The restraining order was still active, and if the family feared for her safety they would have called the police. I think the point MegtheEgg and I are trying to make is that with the lack of evidence in this case, anything is possible. But based off of what we do have, I think it's more likely that Riemer is a murder victim, and if he is responsible he's still dead.

When did I ever say or speculate that Mike was living in the wilderness like swiss family Robinson?? Never. I actually speculated that one person could have helped him get out of the area. I am fairly sure that he is not living off the land in the same forest where Diane was killed if indeed he is still alive.

Fingerprints on file? Would he have been caught if picked up again? Sure if his fingerprints where in some national database. But since the FBI never listed Mike as a wanted fugitive I question as to whether his fingerprints would turn anything up. This was 1985 by the way. At that time you could get a speeding ticket in one state, never pay it and as long as you didnt go back to that state nothing would happen.

Now they can access points on your license because of a national system. What if Mike went to Canada? Again not listed as a fugitive in the states so why would he set off alarms?? Do you really beileve that if Mike had been picked up 500 miles away from some petty crime and fingerprinted that his prints would have been put into a computer system and all of a suddent to computer would light up like a christmas tree and say "he's Mike Riemer the missing man from Washington"? Maybe if he had been wanted by the FBI but even then the local LE agency would have to have a reason to doubt he was who he said he was and run a nationwide check on the prints rather then just tuck them away in a file somewhere.

I guess you can assume whatever you want as to why Diane took him back after the restraining order. I guess you know her personally and can make the call that she truly was not abused or at any time in any fear for her life from Mike. There are no shortage of cases where women take back an abusive male and are later killed. All Im saying is that there is a documented history of violence between the two and I beileve that should be added to the blocks of evidence. We dont know what was going on between them. All we have is the statements by the mother and sister as well as the protection order.

You are basing your opinion that he was a murder victim on the fact that he was never caught. Thats pretty much it. I have tried to explain why (if) he ran and got away he was never caught but I dont think you are following. Once again, No one outside of Pierce County LE was even looking into this case. The UM episode was three years after the killing and they couldnt provide a decent picture of him. Its very possible he moved on and started a new life. It is also possible that he was killed and his body never found though in my opinion less likely based on what I have seen so far.

If there had been a nationwide manhunt for Mike and the FBI as well as Canadian LE was actively pursuing him for years then I would concede that it would be very tough for him to hide out. Again though there are plenty of people being pursued by the FBI or Federal Marshalls that are never caught so why is it so unthinkable that someone who is not being pursued by them could vanish??????????

Apparently this is touching a nerve somewhere. My conclusion is simple: I find nothing definitive in this case, and all angles are equally viable. Again:



That's it.

I honestly don't think the evidence is equally viable and here's why

I will keep it short and simple.

If all parties involved where the victim of a serial killer then how do we explain Mike's body never being found?? This killer who left his calling card with the tube sock made no effort to conceal any of his victims except Mike? I think that tips the scales a little.

The change in MO of the killer. He shoots his first victims then with Diane he stabs 17 times. I realize this is not definative but again to me adds weight.

The blood in the truck, How did we get human blood in the passenger seat of the vehicle?? Did the killer stab her through the window?? Or was he in the truck with her?? If he stabbed her through the window then what was Mike doing?? To me the blood in the truck says that the altercation started there. We know Mike was in the truck with her so again I think that adds weight.

Mike's coat being left. If Mike was checking traps or looking to get a tree would he not be wearing his coat? Just like his dad said, it was the middle of December and he would have been wearing it. So I speculate that either he was pulled out of the truck at gunpoint or he left it there to make it look like he wasnt involved. Again its anyone's guess why the coat was left.

Crystal being left at the store. I know this is speculation on my part but it just seems that someone cared enough about the welfare of this child to see to it she made it to safety. I would think Mike would care more for his daughter then a serial killer that just stabbed Diane 17 times. Again thats just my logic and its anyones guess.

Mike never being found. It could be that his body was well concealed and was never discovered unlike the others. However just consider that if he did run that there never was any nationwide manhunt for Mike and he was never wanted by the FBI. He is still considered missing.

If all parties involved where the victim of a serial killer then how do we explain Mike's body never being found??

I brought up an additional theory a few days ago that Mike and Diana may have been killed by someone they knew or were acquainted with. I'm not at all sold on the theory that Mike and Diana were victims of a serial killer.

I know this is speculation on my part but it just seems that someone cared enough about the welfare of this child to see to it she made it to safety. I would think Mike would care more for his daughter then a serial killer that just stabbed Diane 17 times. Again thats just my logic and its anyones guess.

I never said anything about what the rationale was behind Crystal being left at the store but isnt it obvious that whoever killed her mother didnt want to kill her but instead got her to a place shed be found? That is not speculation it is fact.

That's funny.

I brought up an additional theory a few days ago that Mike and Diana may have been killed by someone they knew or were acquainted with. I'm not at all sold on the theory that Mike and Diana were victims of a serial killer.





That's funny.
I was meaning that it is a fact that crystal was found at the store. You seemed to call that speculation.

I was meaning that it is a fact that crystal was found at the store. You seemed to call that speculation.

I think it is quite obvious that the reason why Crystal was left at the store is what can be speculated on, not the fact that she was discovered at the K-Mart.

I honestly don't think the evidence is equally viable and here's why

I will keep it short and simple.

If all parties involved where the victim of a serial killer then how do we explain Mike's body never being found?? This killer who left his calling card with the tube sock made no effort to conceal any of his victims except Mike? I think that tips the scales a little.

The change in MO of the killer. He shoots his first victims then with Diane he stabs 17 times. I realize this is not definative but again to me adds weight.

The blood in the truck, How did we get human blood in the passenger seat of the vehicle?? Did the killer stab her through the window?? Or was he in the truck with her?? If he stabbed her through the window then what was Mike doing?? To me the blood in the truck says that the altercation started there. We know Mike was in the truck with her so again I think that adds weight.

Mike's coat being left. If Mike was checking traps or looking to get a tree would he not be wearing his coat? Just like his dad said, it was the middle of December and he would have been wearing it. So I speculate that either he was pulled out of the truck at gunpoint or he left it there to make it look like he wasnt involved. Again its anyone's guess why the coat was left.

Crystal being left at the store. I know this is speculation on my part but it just seems that someone cared enough about the welfare of this child to see to it she made it to safety. I would think Mike would care more for his daughter then a serial killer that just stabbed Diane 17 times. Again thats just my logic and its anyones guess.

Mike never being found. It could be that his body was well concealed and was never discovered unlike the others. However just consider that if he did run that there never was any nationwide manhunt for Mike and he was never wanted by the FBI. He is still considered missing.

If an altercation occurred in the truck, why was there no blood/evidence found on Crystal's person? And where was she while Riemer was viciously stabbing Diana? I used to kind of scoff at the idea of Mike being taken away from the scene at gunpoint, but now I'm starting to change my mind. Another possibility I've thought of was what if Riemer (possibly with Crystal) came upon the killer shortly after he murdered Diana and this killer shot at Riemer and wounded him. It would explain the shell casings at the scene, and if Riemer was mortally wounded it could also account for why his remains where never found. Maybe he stumbled around in the woods and eventually died from blood loss? We don't know where Riemer is, so we really can't speculate that if there was a 3rd party responsible, that he hid Riemer's body. He could have left it out in the open and it was just never found, maybe parts of his remains were carried away by animals or the elements. And in the Harkins/Cooper murders it seems like the killer forced Cooper more than a mile into the woods where he then killed her. It's possible that the same thing was done with Riemer.

As for someone helping him out of the area, I ask one simple question: why? What would there be to gain? Knowingly aiding a murderer flee the scene of a crime, and then never coming forward after all these years? And if someone did help him (possibly a family member of his), then we know that this person knowingly abandoned a child at a shopping center. Why would one of Riemer's family members assist in this? Wouldn't the well-being of the child be their number one priority? And whoever dropped Crystal off at the store was obviously NOT concerned about her well-being. Why not drop her off close to a relatives home? What if another sicko happened by the store and abducted her? Or what if no one bothered to phone authorities and she wandered off somewhere dying from exposure? Abandoning her at the store thirty miles away shows little concern for her well-being IMHO.

I think it is quite obvious that the reason why Crystal was left at the store is what can be speculated on, not the fact that she was discovered at the K-Mart.
Ok well I thought that was obvious too.
So what brings you to the conclusion of the third party that they knew may have killed them?

If an altercation occurred in the truck, why was there no blood/evidence found on Crystal's person? And where was she while Riemer was viciously stabbing Diana? I used to kind of scoff at the idea of Mike being taken away from the scene at gunpoint, but now I'm starting to change my mind. Another possibility I've thought of was what if Riemer (possibly with Crystal) came upon the killer shortly after he murdered Diana and this killer shot at Riemer and wounded him. It would explain the shell casings at the scene, and if Riemer was mortally wounded it could also account for why his remains where never found. Maybe he stumbled around in the woods and eventually died from blood loss? We don't know where Riemer is, so we really can't speculate that if there was a 3rd party responsible, that he hid Riemer's body. He could have left it out in the open and it was just never found, maybe parts of his remains were carried away by animals or the elements. And in the Harkins/Cooper murders it seems like the killer forced Cooper more than a mile into the woods where he then killed her. It's possible that the same thing was done with Riemer.

As for someone helping him out of the area, I ask one simple question: why? What would there be to gain? Knowingly aiding a murderer flee the scene of a crime, and then never coming forward after all these years? And if someone did help him (possibly a family member of his), then we know that this person knowingly abandoned a child at a shopping center. Why would one of Riemer's family members assist in this? Wouldn't the well-being of the child be their number one priority? And whoever dropped Crystal off at the store was obviously NOT concerned about her well-being. Why not drop her off close to a relatives home? What if another sicko happened by the store and abducted her? Or what if no one bothered to phone authorities and she wandered off somewhere dying from exposure? Abandoning her at the store thirty miles away shows little concern for her well-being IMHO.

Its is possible he was brought out of the truck at gunpoint. I really cant imagine another scenerio as to why hed be gone from the truck with no coat unless ofcourse he left it on purpose to through off police

As for leaving the child? Mike could have left her before he even contacted anyone for help. Or someone in his family could have sat in the parking lot watching her until she was taken inside. Anything is possible. Why would anyone help?? I dont know exactly why but it happens all the time doesnt it?? People have deep connections to their children and in some cases will stand by them no matter what.

Ok well I thought that was obvious too.
So what brings you to the conclusion of the third party that they knew may have killed them?

I don't absolutely conclude that's what happened. I do see it as a possibility.


I believe I may have mentioned this before, but I think it may be possible that Mike and Diana were killed by a party they knew.

1. A party intimately acquainted with Mike and Diana stood a good chance of knowing where Mike's traps were set and how isolated they were. Perhaps he/she/they had even accompanied Mike trap-checking on occasion.

2. If Mike purportedly had a hot temper with Diana, he may have turned his wrath on others as well. Perhaps this didn't set well with someone he knew, and the individual(s) reckoned with him when he/she/they knew he would be isolated and unmissed for at least several hours.

3. Crystal didn't necessarily have to witness her mother's murder or body in the woodline in order for her to say what she did. It is entirely possible she was taken from the scene of the crime before any of the violence ever transpired. Perhaps I am speculating widely, but the theory of a female accomplice (perhaps even an individual familiar to Crystal) taking the little girl for "a trip" or "a drive" or something along those lines while another individual commits the crimes is not at all a stretch to me. Perhaps after a while Crystal asked about her mother's whereabouts, and this is precisely what she was told: "Mommy is in the trees; there's nothing to worry about."

Its is possible he was brought out of the truck at gunpoint. I really cant imagine another scenerio as to why hed be gone from the truck with no coat unless ofcourse he left it on purpose to through off police

As for leaving the child? Mike could have left her before he even contacted anyone for help. Or someone in his family could have sat in the parking lot watching her until she was taken inside. Anything is possible. Why would anyone help?? I dont know exactly why but it happens all the time doesnt it?? People have deep connections to their children and in some cases will stand by them no matter what.

So this family member would be watching her be carted away by police and then would let her be placed in foster care for three days? Why not call after one day? If Riemer did have an accomplice, this person helped emotionally destroy a two year old child by abandoning her and then letting her be whisked away to a strange, foster home environment. And again, what motive would anyone (besides whoever murdered Diana) have to do this?

So this family member would be watching her be carted away by police and then would let her be placed in foster care for three days? Why not call after one day? If Riemer did have an accomplice, this person helped emotionally destroy a two year old child by abandoning her and then letting her be whisked away to a strange, foster home environment. And again, what motive would anyone (besides whoever murdered Diana) have to do this?
The motivation? Well to help Mike get away. That would be it and again we can speculate all day long and say why would this person do that and why would that person do this. Why would someone stab a person 17 times? I dont know but people do crazy things and human beings do not run on some pre programmed script like a robot. We are all quite capable of inexplainable actions.

I was reading through the articles from the Seatlle Times on the whole Riemer situation and learned a few new things here. Im wondering how the rest of you might inturpret this information.

They interviewed Mike's father and it seems him and Mike's friends where organizing searches for weeks in the area and ofcourse came up with nothing. They said they followed his trap line and the surronding area. Id really like to know if the traps had been checked when they searched. I mean if there had been animals in the traps then maybe Mike hadnt really gone up there for that purpose. Who knows though as its never mentioned.

Anyhow after the bodies where found Mike's father stated they had searched right in the general area where the truck was but never thought to go back in that particular area because there was no reason for Mike to be back there. He said it wasnt near the traps and that someone had to drive the truck through fairly heavy brush to get back in there. He made the comment that you could see where small trees and branches where knocked down by the truck.

Now ofcourse this again just poses the question of, what does it mean? Did Mike take the truck back in that area so that it wouldnt be found for some time and give him a good head start or did another killer kill Mike somewhere else then drive Diana to that area and kill her?

Mike's father also stated that Mike would have had a gun with him while checking the trap lines. Obviously if you have a pissed off bobcat or coyote caught in a trap youd want to be able to kill it from a distance. So it seems that chances are that Mike was armed. I just wonder if all of Mike's guns where accounted for? Ofcourse he could have had some that where not registered for all we know. I suppose that even if he was armed a random killer could have shot him at a distance then went after Diane with a knife.

As far as Mike's domestic violence goes he had been arrested in October because he kicked in Diane's front door and thrown here to the ground then rubbed her face in the carpet. He was set to go to trial for that in January. It was mentioned that there where two other domestic violence complaints against Mike that did not result in formal charges before that. So I would say his violence towards her is pretty well documented.

I also read that 9 other bodies had been found in wooded areas of Pierce county in less then a two year period. However with several the motivation was robbery and in another the perps where caught. Along with Ruth Cooper and her friend there was an 18 year old girl that had been found in October not far from where Diane was found. Her car had broken down in the area and she was on foot when last seen. So this lends some credence to an unknown serial killer lurking in the wooded area there. Ofcourse then we have to ask if that could be Mike Riemer which puts us back to square one.

One of the articles did say there was a very extensive search for Mike's body. So if he was killed then the killer went to some trouble hiding his body. Something for some reason he didnt do with any of his other victims.

I was reading through the articles from the Seatlle Times on the whole Riemer situation and learned a few new things here. Im wondering how the rest of you might inturpret this information.

They interviewed Mike's father and it seems him and Mike's friends where organizing searches for weeks in the area and ofcourse came up with nothing. They said they followed his trap line and the surronding area. Id really like to know if the traps had been checked when they searched. I mean if there had been animals in the traps then maybe Mike hadnt really gone up there for that purpose. Who knows though as its never mentioned.

Anyhow after the bodies where found Mike's father stated they had searched right in the general area where the truck was but never thought to go back in that particular area because there was no reason for Mike to be back there. He said it wasnt near the traps and that someone had to drive the truck through fairly heavy brush to get back in there. He made the comment that you could see where small trees and branches where knocked down by the truck.

Now ofcourse this again just poses the question of, what does it mean? Did Mike take the truck back in that area so that it wouldnt be found for some time and give him a good head start or did another killer kill Mike somewhere else then drive Diana to that area and kill her?

Mike's father also stated that Mike would have had a gun with him while checking the trap lines. Obviously if you have a pissed off bobcat or coyote caught in a trap youd want to be able to kill it from a distance. So it seems that chances are that Mike was armed. I just wonder if all of Mike's guns where accounted for? Ofcourse he could have had some that where not registered for all we know. I suppose that even if he was armed a random killer could have shot him at a distance then went after Diane with a knife.

As far as Mike's domestic violence goes he had been arrested in October because he kicked in Diane's front door and thrown here to the ground then rubbed her face in the carpet. He was set to go to trial for that in January. It was mentioned that there where two other domestic violence complaints against Mike that did not result in formal charges before that. So I would say his violence towards her is pretty well documented.

I also read that 9 other bodies had been found in wooded areas of Pierce county in less then a two year period. However with several the motivation was robbery and in another the perps where caught. Along with Ruth Cooper and her friend there was an 18 year old girl that had been found in October not far from where Diane was found. Her car had broken down in the area and she was on foot when last seen. So this lends some credence to an unknown serial killer lurking in the wooded area there. Ofcourse then we have to ask if that could be Mike Riemer which puts us back to square one.

One of the articles did say there was a very extensive search for Mike's body. So if he was killed then the killer went to some trouble hiding his body. Something for some reason he didnt do with any of his other victims.

It seems to me that when UM leaves out crucial details (whether or not all of Riemer's guns were accounted for, if he owned a blade similiar to the one used to kill Diana, etc.) it's because either the police didn't volunteer this information to them, or because they had already ruled those possibilities out. Since this case was three years old at the time it aired on UM, it's safe to assume that investigators would be willing to put everything out there that they had against Riemer with the hopes of catching him (if they truly thought he was their man). How many times has UM profiled a case of a missing person where they did several "extensive searches" to not come up with anything, only to have an update at the end of the segment saying that their remains were found in the area where these "searches" were conducted? It happened quite a few times, David Stone, Arnold Archambeau, Ruby Bruguier to name a few. That's why I don't think it's all that unlikely that his body was left out in the open and just missed by searchers. It's also possible that his body may have been dumped in a body of water, I wonder if authorities did a thorough search of all lakes/ponds within the area.

It seems to me that when UM leaves out crucial details (whether or not all of Riemer's guns were accounted for, if he owned a blade similiar to the one used to kill Diana, etc.) it's because either the police didn't volunteer this information to them, or because they had already ruled those possibilities out. Since this case was three years old at the time it aired on UM, it's safe to assume that investigators would be willing to put everything out there that they had against Riemer with the hopes of catching him (if they truly thought he was their man). How many times has UM profiled a case of a missing person where they did several "extensive searches" to not come up with anything, only to have an update at the end of the segment saying that their remains were found in the area where these "searches" were conducted? It happened quite a few times, David Stone, Arnold Archambeau, Ruby Bruguier to name a few. That's why I don't think it's all that unlikely that his body was left out in the open and just missed by searchers. It's also possible that his body may have been dumped in a body of water, I wonder if authorities did a thorough search of all lakes/ponds within the area.

Let's see:

1) The cash based nature of Riemer's lifestyle make it unlikely that they would ever really know how many and what type of guns he had unless he made a list of them (which he probably wouldn't do). It would be impossible to know what knives he owned as purchasing a knife leaves few (if any) records.

2) It's not "safe to assume" that investigators would "put everything out there" as it's clear that they have not. They haven't:

a) Stated where they thought Diana was killed.
b) Stated what type of knife was used to kill Diana
c) Stated whether any blood was found on the coat in the car.
d) Stated that they found any evidence where Diana's body was found that would indicate that Riemer had also been injured or killed in that area.

So the idea that they would have put out all of the information necessary to catch doesn't hold much water. In fact they have probably withheld useful information that could have assisted in locating Riemer sooner.

The three killings are likely the work of the same serial killer (The knot indicates that). This killer used a gun for two and a knife for another;however he/she left three of the bodies to be found. Since it would a logical course of action to leave the fourth the same way, it seems likely that if Riemer was dead, his body would likely have been found near where the truck was parked or where Diana was found.

Let's see:

1) The cash based nature of Riemer's lifestyle make it unlikely that they would ever really know how many and what type of guns he had unless he made a list of them (which he probably wouldn't do). It would be impossible to know what knives he owned as purchasing a knife leaves few (if any) records.

2) It's not "safe to assume" that investigators would "put everything out there" as it's clear that they have not. They haven't:

a) Stated where they thought Diana was killed.
b) Stated what type of knife was used to kill Diana
c) Stated whether any blood was found on the coat in the car.
d) Stated that they found any evidence where Diana's body was found that would indicate that Riemer had also been injured or killed in that area.

So the idea that they would have put out all of the information necessary to catch doesn't hold much water. In fact they have probably withheld useful information that could have assisted in locating Riemer sooner.

The three killings are likely the work of the same serial killer (The knot indicates that). This killer used a gun for two and a knife for another;however he/she left three of the bodies to be found. Since it would a logical course of action to leave the fourth the same way, it seems likely that if Riemer was dead, his body would likely have been found near where the truck was parked or where Diana was found.

Not if he and Diana were killed elsewhere, and then the killer moved the truck and Diana's body to where it was found. I don't think if Riemer is responsible that he's still alive. He left Diana's body and his truck practically out in the open. If he planned on creating a new life elsewhere he could have easily buried or hid Diana's body (in a grave or a nearby body of water) to where they both would still be considered "missing". Obviously an investigator is not going to just hand over his investigation to the public and say, "Here help me figure this one out", but my point was if there was a linchpin in this case that implicated Riemer it would have been brought up in an attempt to capture him.

Not if he and Diana were killed elsewhere, and then the killer moved the truck and Diana's body to where it was found. I don't think if Riemer is responsible that he's still alive. He left Diana's body and his truck practically out in the open. If he planned on creating a new life elsewhere he could have easily buried or hid Diana's body (in a grave or a nearby body of water) to where they both would still be considered "missing". Obviously an investigator is not going to just hand over his investigation to the public and say, "Here help me figure this one out", but my point was if there was a linchpin in this case that implicated Riemer it would have been brought up in an attempt to capture him.

All of that presupposes Riemer was an intelligent and organized killer,which it is clear he was not. That is..if he was a killer.

It doesn't appear that Riemer planned to go the run;it just became necessary after he killed Diana. He probably improvised a plan, dropped off his daughter returned to the area where Diana was found and hitched or hiked out of the area.

Since he was used to living on not much money (the roofer /trapper jobs indicate that) it's not like he would have had to have made too many changes in his "lifestyle." Also, he would have had to notice that no one was looking for him after about a month or so and after a year it would be obvious that most people would think that he was also killed by Diana's killer(s).

At that point, he'd simply have to change his identity and maintain a low profile. In fact, he could have changed his identity several times since then. Or....if he chose to live in a remote wooded area, it's unlikely that he would have had to change his identity as he would rarely encounter situations where he would have to prove who he was.

While I don't believe that Riemer planned his girlfriends killing (or the other two killings) I DO believe that he took advantage of the time that lapsed between when he committed Diana's murder and the discovery of her body and has made excellent use of the confusion involving his disappearance.

Not if he and Diana were killed elsewhere, and then the killer moved the truck and Diana's body to where it was found. I don't think if Riemer is responsible that he's still alive. He left Diana's body and his truck practically out in the open. If he planned on creating a new life elsewhere he could have easily buried or hid Diana's body (in a grave or a nearby body of water) to where they both would still be considered "missing". Obviously an investigator is not going to just hand over his investigation to the public and say, "Here help me figure this one out", but my point was if there was a linchpin in this case that implicated Riemer it would have been brought up in an attempt to capture him.
Well if you read the article where they interview his father the truck and Diana werent in an area where they would be readily found. Whoever moved that truck drove through brush and went off the logging road to put it there. They had between 30 and 50 people out in that area and no one found it so Id say it wasnt exactly left out in the open. After reading the interview with the father I dont think Mike and Diane where ever at that spot. I think the truck was moved as well as Diane to that place. Whether if it was by Riemer or someone else is up for debate.

All of that presupposes Riemer was an intelligent and organized killer,which it is clear he was not. That is..if he was a killer.

It doesn't appear that Riemer planned to go the run;it just became necessary after he killed Diana. He probably improvised a plan, dropped off his daughter returned to the area where Diana was found and hitched or hiked out of the area.

Since he was used to living on not much money (the roofer /trapper jobs indicate that) it's not like he would have had to have made too many changes in his "lifestyle." Also, he would have had to notice that no one was looking for him after about a month or so and after a year it would be obvious that most people would think that he was also killed by Diana's killer(s).

At that point, he'd simply have to change his identity and maintain a low profile. In fact, he could have changed his identity several times since then. Or....if he chose to live in a remote wooded area, it's unlikely that he would have had to change his identity as he would rarely encounter situations where he would have to prove who he was.

While I don't believe that Riemer planned his girlfriends killing (or the other two killings) I DO believe that he took advantage of the time that lapsed between when he committed Diana's murder and the discovery of her body and has made excellent use of the confusion involving his disappearance.

The tube socks found around Ruth Cooper and Diana indicate to me, IMO, that both of these homicides were planned and not a heat of the moment type of killing. If Riemer was responsible for Diana's killing alone, I doubt he would be cool, calm, and collected enough after brutally stabbing her to "remember" the previous case and try to frame whoever murdered Harkins/Cooper. Especially if this was a crime of passion. And what exactly could Diana have done or said that would make him murder her within earshot of their two year old daughter? If Riemer was so overcome with rage because of something Diana did or said that he had to kill her, where exactly was Crystal this whole time? If Riemer is responsible, she would have had to have witnessed SOMETHING. Hopefully since she was only two years old at the time she doesn't remember now, but I still think that because Diana's murder was so brutal, Crystal would have to have heard/seen some sort of altercation.

The tube socks found around Ruth Cooper and Diana indicate to me, IMO, that both of these homicides were planned and not a heat of the moment type of killing. If Riemer was responsible for Diana's killing alone, I doubt he would be cool, calm, and collected enough after brutally stabbing her to "remember" the previous case and try to frame whoever murdered Harkins/Cooper. Especially if this was a crime of passion. And what exactly could Diana have done or said that would make him murder her within earshot of their two year old daughter? If Riemer was so overcome with rage because of something Diana did or said that he had to kill her, where exactly was Crystal this whole time? If Riemer is responsible, she would have had to have witnessed SOMETHING. Hopefully since she was only two years old at the time she doesn't remember now, but I still think that because Diana's murder was so brutal, Crystal would have to have heard/seen some sort of altercation.

The presence of the socks can be explained for similar reasons as Riemer's coat being left: When you are an outdoorsman, you take multiple sets of clothes in case something happens. People that forget that lesson can pay for forgetting it w/ their lives.

If Riemer did kill her who knows how much time passed after he did "compose" himself. And also, if Riemer killed Diana, he also killed two people before and had gotten away w/ it, so this wouldn't have been a "new" experience for him. I think after an hour or so, he would have been able to make the multiple decisions that he needed to successfully get rid of her body and get clear of the area.

Why is it necessary for Diana to have "done" something? Riemer was/is a violent man and possibly a sociopath;anything could have triggered this response. If Riemer did this, then he owns it, not the victims. And as far as the little girl goes...he'd beaten her mother in front her, so killing might be a leap...but probably not.

The tube socks found around Ruth Cooper and Diana indicate to me, IMO, that both of these homicides were planned and not a heat of the moment type of killing. If Riemer was responsible for Diana's killing alone, I doubt he would be cool, calm, and collected enough after brutally stabbing her to "remember" the previous case and try to frame whoever murdered Harkins/Cooper. Especially if this was a crime of passion. And what exactly could Diana have done or said that would make him murder her within earshot of their two year old daughter? If Riemer was so overcome with rage because of something Diana did or said that he had to kill her, where exactly was Crystal this whole time? If Riemer is responsible, she would have had to have witnessed SOMETHING. Hopefully since she was only two years old at the time she doesn't remember now, but I still think that because Diana's murder was so brutal, Crystal would have to have heard/seen some sort of altercation.
I just can't understand how you plan out a homicide when you have no idea your victims will be there. Whoever killed Cooper had no clue she would be camping in the woods and the same goes for Diana so how could it be planned

Why is it necessary for Diana to have "done" something? Riemer was/is a violent man and possibly a sociopath;anything could have triggered this response. If Riemer did this, then he owns it, not the victims. And as far as the little girl goes...he'd beaten her mother in front her, so killing might be a leap...but probably not.

I really hope your not implying that I blame Diana for her own murder. That's pretty ignorant of you, if you are. Riemer was by all accounts a violent man, but my whole point was what exactly would have set him off to kill Diana in front of their two year old child? Murder is a giant leap from spousal abuse. Diana took him back shortly before their little trip. Riemer obviously had every reason to be somewhat grateful to the fact that she took him back. And they were going out searching for a Christmas tree with their daughter. That tells me that Riemer did not intentionally go out to kill Diana on that day. So Riemer, being an outdoorsman, should have several pairs of clothes on his person. So what? Ruth Cooper was shot to death, why tie a sock around her neck? Stephen Harkins was shot as well, why not tie a sock around his neck too? What is the whole point of this sock tying schtick? It seems to be a calling card of a serial killer, it's just we cannot say for certain if Riemer is that killer.

I just can't understand how you plan out a homicide when you have no idea your victims will be there. Whoever killed Cooper had no clue she would be camping in the woods and the same goes for Diana so how could it be planned

I think you're misinterpreting what I was saying. When I say that someone planned these deaths, I don't mean they were necessarily targeted. This killer just so happened to stumble on Cooper, Harkins, Diana and even possibly Riemer. They were just at the wrong place at the wrong time IMO.

On a side note, I just watched a partial bit in the UM segment about the domestic violence being discussed. In the re-enactment Diana says, "I have a two year old daughter.", and Riemer replies, "That's not my problem." which to me kind of implies that Riemer wasn't the father of Crystal.

I really hope your not implying that I blame Diana for her own murder. That's pretty ignorant of you, if you are. Riemer was by all accounts a violent man, but my whole point was what exactly would have set him off to kill Diana in front of their two year old child? Murder is a giant leap from spousal abuse. Diana took him back shortly before their little trip. Riemer obviously had every reason to be somewhat grateful to the fact that she took him back. And they were going out searching for a Christmas tree with their daughter. That tells me that Riemer did not intentionally go out to kill Diana on that day. So Riemer, being an outdoorsman, should have several pairs of clothes on his person. So what? Ruth Cooper was shot to death, why tie a sock around her neck? Stephen Harkins was shot as well, why not tie a sock around his neck too? What is the whole point of this sock tying schtick? It seems to be a calling card of a serial killer, it's just we cannot say for certain if Riemer is that killer.



I think you're misinterpreting what I was saying. When I say that someone planned these deaths, I don't mean they were necessarily targeted. This killer just so happened to stumble on Cooper, Harkins, Diana and even possibly Riemer. They were just at the wrong place at the wrong time IMO.

On a side note, I just watched a partial bit in the UM segment about the domestic violence being discussed. In the re-enactment Diana says, "I have a two year old daughter.", and Riemer replies, "That's not my problem." which to me kind of implies that Riemer wasn't the father of Crystal.
Ya I heard that too but no where is it mentioned that he wasnt the father. Plus they said that they had been together since Diana was 16 so that would mean she had a child with someone else after her and Mike had gotten together. I dont know. If that wasnt his child I think that makes it all the easier to leave her behind like that.

Ya I heard that too but no where is it mentioned that he wasnt the father. Plus they said that they had been together since Diana was 16 so that would mean she had a child with someone else after her and Mike had gotten together. I dont know. If that wasnt his child I think that makes it all the easier to leave her behind like that.

It's just an opinion, but I think Crystal is very much the image of Mike. I think he is her actual father.

It's just an opinion, but I think Crystal is very much the image of Mike. I think he is her actual father.

The segment refers to her being their daughter twice.

Here is a thought, if we suppose that Riemer is guilty of killing Diana, then he would almost have to be the killer of the other couple. To assume otherwise would get into a lot more speculation and while not impossible, I think it would get into the realm of unlikely.

I personally feel there is some possibility of there being an as yet unidentified killer guilty of killing at least four people. However, I did notice while watching the segment recently that Diana's friend says something along the lines of Mike telling her that he could kill her and get away with it.

Supposing this is accurate, one could speculate that either:

-Mike was a at least some what established serial killer that had at least killed one couple already.

Or:

-Mike had been planning this long enough and thorough enough that he already killed one couple simply as a diversion as he was already planning to kill Diana.

He could easily have known ahead of time -even several months earlier- that they would be going to look for a tree in a remote location. So he goes up while checking trap lines and comes across the two campers and offs them. What better cover story to have than a serial killer who separates his victims bodies? He could have invented the sock as a signature, and had some kind of plan in motion to get out of the area undetected.

Not saying that's how it went down, but its possible.

Here is a thought, if we suppose that Riemer is guilty of killing Diana, then he would almost have to be the killer of the other couple. To assume otherwise would get into a lot more speculation and while not impossible, I think it would get into the realm of unlikely.

I personally feel there is some possibility of there being an as yet unidentified killer guilty of killing at least four people. However, I did notice while watching the segment recently that Diana's friend says something along the lines of Mike telling her that he could kill her and get away with it.

Supposing this is accurate, one could speculate that either:

-Mike was a at least some what established serial killer that had at least killed one couple already.

Or:

-Mike had been planning this long enough and thorough enough that he already killed one couple simply as a diversion as he was already planning to kill Diana.

He could easily have known ahead of time -even several months earlier- that they would be going to look for a tree in a remote location. So he goes up while checking trap lines and comes across the two campers and offs them. What better cover story to have than a serial killer who separates his victims bodies? He could have invented the sock as a signature, and had some kind of plan in motion to get out of the area undetected.

Not saying that's how it went down, but its possible.

I just don't see why Riemer would plan to murder a random couple in an attempt to throw away suspicion from him if his intent was to murder Diana. I don't think Riemer would have any prior knowledge about the Christmas tree trip because Diana had a restraining order filed against him. And there was no guarantee that she was going to take him back after filing it. But even if he knew in advance that the odds were high that she would take him back, why even bother taking Crystal along if he was planning to kill Diana? She was a potential witness against him, and he knew he had to either kill her as well or take her away from the location just to come back to get rid of his truck. Plus the way Diana was brutally murdered suggests some sort of rage killing.

I just don't see why Riemer would plan to murder a random couple in an attempt to throw away suspicion from him if his intent was to murder Diana. I don't think Riemer would have any prior knowledge about the Christmas tree trip because Diana had a restraining order filed against him. And there was no guarantee that she was going to take him back after filing it. But even if he knew in advance that the odds were high that she would take him back, why even bother taking Crystal along if he was planning to kill Diana? She was a potential witness against him, and he knew he had to either kill her as well or take her away from the location just to come back to get rid of his truck. Plus the way Diana was brutally murdered suggests some sort of rage killing.
Rage killing, yes you are right when you say this. Could it be the same guy that kicked in her door and threw her on the ground? The same guy that had been cited for domestic violence several times??
It could be the Riemer killed the other couple because he was simply a killer. Then he got angry with Diana and killed her and just after that decided to make them look the same. Anything is possible here

It has been speculated that if Riemer was not the killer of the first couple then he could not have known about the tube sock. This is not true. Even if police didnt give this info out. Mike's father was a retired game warden and I gaurantee you that he knew the details as cops share info like that. Also it happened in an area Mike trapped in so he had more then likely heard the details too.

Rage killing, yes you are right when you say this. Could it be the same guy that kicked in her door and threw her on the ground? The same guy that had been cited for domestic violence several times??
It could be the Riemer killed the other couple because he was simply a killer. Then he got angry with Diana and killed her and just after that decided to make them look the same. Anything is possible here

It has been speculated that if Riemer was not the killer of the first couple then he could not have known about the tube sock. This is not true. Even if police didnt give this info out. Mike's father was a retired game warden and I gaurantee you that he knew the details as cops share info like that. Also it happened in an area Mike trapped in so he had more then likely heard the details too.

I too believe that Riemer and others in the town heard certain details about the Cooper/Harkins homicide, but there's no guarantee he would be able to duplicate the knot that was used. According to the investigator on the case, the hairs on his neck stood up when he viewed each sock and the knot that was used to tie them. To me that suggests it was the work of the same person. I just don't see how Riemer (an itinerant roofer) would have the wherewithal to remember the previous homicides and try to frame the unknown killer. If responsible his first priority would to get Crystal out of the area, and then to dump his truck and hightail it out of the area. Why even bother taking the time to tie the sock around her? It just seems like a moot point to me for someone who had planned to flee and start a new life to waste time with something as petty as that.

I too believe that Riemer and others in the town heard certain details about the Cooper/Harkins homicide, but there's no guarantee he would be able to duplicate the knot that was used. According to the investigator on the case, the hairs on his neck stood up when he viewed each sock and the knot that was used to tie them. To me that suggests it was the work of the same person. I just don't see how Riemer (an itinerant roofer) would have the wherewithal to remember the previous homicides and try to frame the unknown killer. If responsible his first priority would to get Crystal out of the area, and then to dump his truck and hightail it out of the area. Why even bother taking the time to tie the sock around her? It just seems like a moot point to me for someone who had planned to flee and start a new life to waste time with something as petty as that.

Mike Riemer seemed to more than an "itinerant roofer" as you put it. He was a skilled outdoorsman,an accomplished guitarist and probably several other things. Nothing that I have read nor seen made it seem that he was of lower than average intelligence.

He easily could have planned this beforehand...or have adapted the Diana's murder to fit something that would confuse the authorities when/if they ever found her. Looks like he did a good job.

Crystal being alive almost certainly means that Riemer is responsible. There would be no reason for a third party killer to have either not killed her at the crime scene or have left her to die of exposure and thirst, which wouldn't have taken long in the cold weather. The person that dropped her off was concerned that she be found and kept safe which is why he left her in a public places instead of wandering around the streets somewhere.

The sock tied this killing to the other two. Riemer's disappearance simply added mystery to a situation that really lacks it. Riemer obviously didn't feel enough remorse to off himself after Diana, but did have an idea (or several) of how to stall an investigation into the murder(s) and his own disappearance.

In fact, had the man w/ the dog not gone far enough down that logging road, it's likely that Diana would remained their until her remains were scattered by animals or decayed to the point of being unrecognizable. He seems to have been one portion of this entire event that the killer didn't plan for.

Mike Riemer seemed to more than an "itinerant roofer" as you put it. He was a skilled outdoorsman,an accomplished guitarist and probably several other things. Nothing that I have read nor seen made it seem that he was of lower than average intelligence.

He easily could have planned this beforehand...or have adapted the Diana's murder to fit something that would confuse the authorities when/if they ever found her. Looks like he did a good job.

Crystal being alive almost certainly means that Riemer is responsible. There would be no reason for a third party killer to have either not killed her at the crime scene or have left her to die of exposure and thirst, which wouldn't have taken long in the cold weather. The person that dropped her off was concerned that she be found and kept safe which is why he left her in a public places instead of wandering around the streets somewhere.

The sock tied this killing to the other two. Riemer's disappearance simply added mystery to a situation that really lacks it. Riemer obviously didn't feel enough remorse to off himself after Diana, but did have an idea (or several) of how to stall an investigation into the murder(s) and his own disappearance.

In fact, had the man w/ the dog not gone far enough down that logging road, it's likely that Diana would remained their until her remains were scattered by animals or decayed to the point of being unrecognizable. He seems to have been one portion of this entire event that the killer didn't plan for.
Yes and as Mike's father put it in the newspaper interview " there was no reason for them to be where the truck was found". It was moved there so as to keep in from being found anytime soon. Riemer knew those woods like his own backyard and very well could have moved the truck and Diana back there after killing her. It was said that the truck was driven through brush and you could see where small trees and branches where knocked down in its path. I wouldnt think he would take a small non four wheel drive vehilcle into terrian like that. Unless ofcourse he was planning on leaving it and didnt care about his vehicle.

One more thing to consider here for people who dont feel Riemer is the responsible party.. There was an extensive search for the body of Mike Riemer and nothing ever turned up. Even after the searches ended you have to consider this is an area that is frequented by campers, hikers, hunters etc etc and still no body for 25 years. Now consider that there was little if any effort put into finding Mike Riemer the live person. No nationwide manhunt, No profile on national TV for three years, Not being sought by FBI or any federal agency.

Yes and as Mike's father put it in the newspaper interview " there was no reason for them to be where the truck was found". It was moved there so as to keep in from being found anytime soon. Riemer knew those woods like his own backyard and very well could have moved the truck and Diana back there after killing her. It was said that the truck was driven through brush and you could see where small trees and branches where knocked down in its path. I wouldnt think he would take a small non four wheel drive vehilcle into terrian like that. Unless ofcourse he was planning on leaving it and didnt care about his vehicle.

One more thing to consider here for people who dont feel Riemer is the responsible party.. There was an extensive search for the body of Mike Riemer and nothing ever turned up. Even after the searches ended you have to consider this is an area that is frequented by campers, hikers, hunters etc etc and still no body for 25 years. Now consider that there was little if any effort put into finding Mike Riemer the live person. No nationwide manhunt, No profile on national TV for three years, Not being sought by FBI or any federal agency.

I agree. After 25 years, if Riemer was murdered in this area and not buried (burying not being the MO of this killer,BTW) then some trace of Riemer would have turned up by now. Bones, metal objects,etc...something would have turned up if Riemer were killed in the vicinity.

And the area where Diana was found was searched extensively during the hunt for the serial killings that were linked to Gary Ridgeway (the Green River Killer) as well as those that haven't been linked to anybody as of yet. If Riemer were there, they probably would have found at least traces.

Riemer's body not being found yet really means nothing. Look at Arnold Archambeau and Ruby Bruguier, their bodies were found in a ditch that was extensively searched beforehand and police seemed to have missed them on their initial search. We really don't know how extensive their searches went for Riemer. It took two months to find Ruth Cooper's body, which was only a mile away from the murder site of Stephen Harkins. I think it's entirely possible that his body is still out in those woods, yet to be discovered.

As for someone sparing Crystal's life, we really can't rationalize what a serial killer would do. Obviously if this is an unknown assailant, he's out picking off couples at random for his sick purposes. So if he's capable of doing that, why is it so far fetched that he/she/they would spare the 2 year old? Perhaps this person did not know the prescence of Crystal when Riemer and Diana were murdered. We simply do not know. I know I've said it before, but I don't see why Riemer would drive out of the woods and go thirty miles just to go back to the woods and leave his truck. And if we are to assume that Diana was killed where she was found, what was the guarantee that he would be able to find Diana's body? And if Diana was moved from where she was killed, why take her body out of the truck just to leave it lying on the ground a few feet away. This would further implicate Riemer to leave Diana's body right in front of his abandoned truck. If Riemer planned this he certainly (being a trapper and with his extensive knowledge of the wilderness) could have hidden Diana's body and his truck in a better location. Everything would point to him being the killer by leaving his truck, Diana's body, the note, and Crystal alive. Something a cunning killer who was trying to start a new life would not have done.

Riemer's body not being found yet really means nothing. Look at Arnold Archambeau and Ruby Bruguier, their bodies were found in a ditch that was extensively searched beforehand and police seemed to have missed them on their initial search. We really don't know how extensive their searches went for Riemer. It took two months to find Ruth Cooper's body, which was only a mile away from the murder site of Stephen Harkins. I think it's entirely possible that his body is still out in those woods, yet to be discovered.

As for someone sparing Crystal's life, we really can't rationalize what a serial killer would do. Obviously if this is an unknown assailant, he's out picking off couples at random for his sick purposes. So if he's capable of doing that, why is it so far fetched that he/she/they would spare the 2 year old? Perhaps this person did not know the prescence of Crystal when Riemer and Diana were murdered. We simply do not know. I know I've said it before, but I don't see why Riemer would drive out of the woods and go thirty miles just to go back to the woods and leave his truck. And if we are to assume that Diana was killed where she was found, what was the guarantee that he would be able to find Diana's body? And if Diana was moved from where she was killed, why take her body out of the truck just to leave it lying on the ground a few feet away. This would further implicate Riemer to leave Diana's body right in front of his abandoned truck. If Riemer planned this he certainly (being a trapper and with his extensive knowledge of the wilderness) could have hidden Diana's body and his truck in a better location. Everything would point to him being the killer by leaving his truck, Diana's body, the note, and Crystal alive. Something a cunning killer who was trying to start a new life would not have done.

1) Actually Riemer's body would have been the proof that he wasn't the killer. His being missing (along w/ Crystal being left at the store) are among the primary reasons that he is suspected of committing all of the crimes.

The other cases that you quoted has a number of differences from this one including the fact that at some point the bodies were submerged in an icy pond and that they were found where they "supposed" to be.

2) It's exceptionally unlikely that the killer would have risked capture by returning the child to the exact K-Mart that Riemer had been to prior to going into the woods. How would the killer know where to go and why would he have dropped her off there?

Seriously, why bother? The killer would have no feelings for the child and simply leaving her in the woods would have solved all of his problems w/o him having to have made any effort. That seems more plausible than dropping her off in front of a store where witnesses might see you doing as such.

Or...why wouldn't a killer have taken the child with him? There are (unfortunately) many unpleasant things that killer could have "done" w/ a young child and there also people would purchase a young child no questions asked. It's a pretty sick world out there and I'm certain that a serial killer would an expert on that fact.

3) Given that years passed before Riemer's case garnered national attention, it seems that if he planned this, then he did an excellent job as after three years he would look different, be in a different part of the country (or world) and had never been stopped or arrested by the police using his real identity.

Almost every aspect of this case points towards Riemer being an extremely intelligent individual that has capitalized on lack of attention his crimes got until well after he committed them and that has managed to successfully elude authorities over an extended period of time.

2) It's exceptionally unlikely that the killer would have risked capture by returning the child to the exact K-Mart that Riemer had been to prior to going into the woods. How would the killer know where to go and why would he have dropped her off there?

I believe you are referring to a newspaper article that says Riemer, Diana, and Crystal were all last seen at the K-Mart store before they went out on their trip. But I have found only one article that says they were at the K-mart where Crystal was found later. Here's an interesting tidbit from one of the articles:

"Michael, who works for a Seattle roofing company, traps mink, coyote, muskrat and bobcats in the winter and sells their fur to supplement his income. The three weres to return to Puyallup by nightfall the day they went out. When they did not return by the next morning, Lloyd notified the Pierce County Sheriff's Office. The case took a bizarre turn a few days later when two women found an abandoned child wandering around the K-Mart parking lot in Spanaway. The child was 2-year-old Crystal."

And from other articles:

"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."

"The couple hasn't been seen since. However, their 2-year-old daughter, Crystal L. Robertson, who was with the couple, mysteriously turned up in the parking lot of a Spanaway store a few days later."

So it was Lloyd Riemer (Mike's father) who notified the authorities that they were missing. So obviously Riemer had to tell his father where he was going and what he would be doing, if he planned on killing Diana why tell his father anything? This also shows that Riemer's father reported him missing, so it seems unlikely that one of his family members would be helping him hide out or escape and still not come forward. If these articles are accurate, then they makes the case for Riemer as innocent that much more strong. If Crystal was dropped off a day or even days after the couple went missing, what was Riemer doing that whole time with Crystal? Living in the woods with her? If she was found days after, maybe a random samaritan did happen upon Crystal in the woods and then dropped her off. It would account for her "dazed" state at the store.

Now I re-watched the UM segment and it says Crystal was found outside the K-mart in the afternoon of the same day that Riemer and Diana went on their trip. Almost every article that has been posted on here from the Seattle Times either says Crystal was found outside the store at around 8:30 the night of Riemer and Diana's trip, while others say she turned up there days after. I wonder which account is true. If she really was found at 8:30 that night or later it seems to cast some doubt on the Riemer is guilty theory, IMO.

Riemer's body not being found yet really means nothing. Look at Arnold Archambeau and Ruby Bruguier, their bodies were found in a ditch that was extensively searched beforehand and police seemed to have missed them on their initial search. We really don't know how extensive their searches went for Riemer. It took two months to find Ruth Cooper's body, which was only a mile away from the murder site of Stephen Harkins. I think it's entirely possible that his body is still out in those woods, yet to be discovered.

As for someone sparing Crystal's life, we really can't rationalize what a serial killer would do. Obviously if this is an unknown assailant, he's out picking off couples at random for his sick purposes. So if he's capable of doing that, why is it so far fetched that he/she/they would spare the 2 year old? Perhaps this person did not know the prescence of Crystal when Riemer and Diana were murdered. We simply do not know. I know I've said it before, but I don't see why Riemer would drive out of the woods and go thirty miles just to go back to the woods and leave his truck. And if we are to assume that Diana was killed where she was found, what was the guarantee that he would be able to find Diana's body? And if Diana was moved from where she was killed, why take her body out of the truck just to leave it lying on the ground a few feet away. This would further implicate Riemer to leave Diana's body right in front of his abandoned truck. If Riemer planned this he certainly (being a trapper and with his extensive knowledge of the wilderness) could have hidden Diana's body and his truck in a better location. Everything would point to him being the killer by leaving his truck, Diana's body, the note, and Crystal alive. Something a cunning killer who was trying to start a new life would not have done.
Actually we do know how big of search there was for Mike's body. In one article his father talks about organizing search parties and in one case they had 50 people out searching in one day. Also with Mike being the son of the retired game warden you better beileve LE in the area was going all out to help Lyoyd find his son.
Again I dont think Mike planned this. I think there may have been an arguement that lead to the stabbing. It doesnt seem premeditated in any way to me.

Now I re-watched the UM segment and it says Crystal was found outside the K-mart in the afternoon of the same day that Riemer and Diana went on their trip. Almost every article that has been posted on here from the Seattle Times either says Crystal was found outside the store at around 8:30 the night of Riemer and Diana's trip, while others say she turned up there days after. I wonder which account is true. If she really was found at 8:30 that night or later it seems to cast some doubt on the Riemer is guilty theory, IMO.

Actually, that works better for Riemer, as that would explain (it being 8:30pm) how no one saw anybody dropping off the little girl.

Actually, that works better for Riemer, as that would explain (it being 8:30pm) how no one saw anybody dropping off the little girl.

But he had to go back in the wilderness to drop his truck off by Diana's body. Doing that after nine o'clock at night in the winter time is one hell of a feat if you ask me.

Well in the segment they said she was found in the afternoon and in the re-enactment it was broad daylight. It would not be daylight at 830pm in December. Also whoever dropped her off there drove 30 miles from where Diana was found to do so. I wonder why they drove so far when there where plenty of populated areas near where the body was found she could have been left. Why would a killer risk having the child with him that long???

But he had to go back in the wilderness to drop his truck off by Diana's body. Doing that after nine o'clock at night in the winter time is one hell of a feat if you ask me.

He could have done that anywhere from a few hours to several days (or more) from when the little girl was found. There's been nothing shown determining when Diana was brought to where she was found and when the truck was left there.

In fact, that time gap could have been all of the time Riemer might need to gather what he would need to go out in the woods or dispose of any evidence linking him to the crime. Since it's never made clear where Riemer was living, he could have even gone back there and stayed until they found the little girl and then left the area.

Or...if Riemer was seeing another woman at the same time, he could have stayed at her place for a few days and then left when the news announced that the little girl was found.

He could have done that anywhere from a few hours to several days (or more) from when the little girl was found. There's been nothing shown determining when Diana was brought to where she was found and when the truck was left there.

In fact, that time gap could have been all of the time Riemer might need to gather what he would need to go out in the woods or dispose of any evidence linking him to the crime. Since it's never made clear where Riemer was living, he could have even gone back there and stayed until they found the little girl and then left the area.

Or...if Riemer was seeing another woman at the same time, he could have stayed at her place for a few days and then left when the news announced that the little girl was found.

While that is possible, it still seems likely that someone associated with Riemer would have known about another woman. Riemer's father notified authorities that they were missing the day after, so he had to have either phoned Riemer's place or gone over there himself. I'm sure police had access to his house too and did a search and if they did find evidence that he had packed some clothes and looked like he was fleeing that should have been enough to issue a warrant for his arrest. But there never was a warrant which leads me to believe that authorities could find no evidence of him fleeing the area.

Well in the segment they said she was found in the afternoon and in the re-enactment it was broad daylight. It would not be daylight at 830pm in December. Also whoever dropped her off there drove 30 miles from where Diana was found to do so. I wonder why they drove so far when there where plenty of populated areas near where the body was found she could have been left. Why would a killer risk having the child with him that long???

Riemer would have ran the same risk as the killer. He was in an area that was frequented by tourists and he would have risked having someone seeing him with Crystal. As to why a killer would have Crystal with him that long, perhaps the killer didn't. There is always the possibility that a passerby gave Crystal a ride instead of Diana's killer.

While that is possible, it still seems likely that someone associated with Riemer would have known about another woman. Riemer's father notified authorities that they were missing the day after, so he had to have either phoned Riemer's place or gone over there himself. I'm sure police had access to his house too and did a search and if they did find evidence that he had packed some clothes and looked like he was fleeing that should have been enough to issue a warrant for his arrest. But there never was a warrant which leads me to believe that authorities could find no evidence of him fleeing the area.

Infidelity appeared to be an issue in Riemer's relationship w/ Diana. He was accusing her of infidelity, which is usually (but not always) something that someone who is actually cheating does. Plus, being a musician (not to stereotype musicians) I doubt that Riemer wouldn't have had many opportunities.

Also, there would really be no need for Riemer to "pack" in the general sense of the term. If he was going to become a "mountain man", everything he needed could fit into a backpack, which he may have already had in the truck. If he was going for a more "traditional" lifestyle, all he would need would be loose cash, which he may have already had on him or have gone back to where he was living to get.

He obviously left the area on foot (his truck was left there) and either hitched or was given a ride by an unknown acquaintance or friend out the area. That means that he wouldn't have taken that much as he would have been limited in what he could easily travel w/ on the road.

The chances are quite good that even a detailed search wouldn't have discovered his remains. He wasn't a large man and animals could have predated upon his remains and scattered the bones. He did disappear in a heavily wooded area so there would likely be a number of critters in the area.

If this could apply to George Owens (the elderly man who appeared disoriented at a convenience store and who's car was found abandoned in a wooded area) why does it not apply to Riemer? Owens was 5'11 and weight 160 lbs. while Riemer was 6'0 and weighed 180 lbs. Not much of a difference physically.

If this could apply to George Owens (the elderly man who appeared disoriented at a convenience store and who's car was found abandoned in a wooded area) why does it not apply to Riemer? Owens was 5'11 and weight 160 lbs. while Riemer was 6'0 and weighed 180 lbs. Not much of a difference physically.

You're correct,it could. However, from description it appears that Diana's body was not predated upon in manner significant enough to hinder the identification of her remains. That may be largely because she was found fully clothed, but it may have just been the weather.In Mr. Owens case, he disappeared in a warmer climate meaning that if/when he died, finding remains would be much more difficult.

Given the fact that the area where Riemer disappeared was searched for Green River Killer victims, it's pretty clear that if Riemer was left unburied in the area (as were the other victims) he probably would have been found.

You're correct,it could. However, from description it appears that Diana's body was not predated upon in manner significant enough to hinder the identification of her remains. That may be largely because she was found fully clothed, but it may have just been the weather.In Mr. Owens case, he disappeared in a warmer climate meaning that if/when he died, finding remains would be much more difficult.

Given the fact that the area where Riemer disappeared was searched for Green River Killer victims, it's pretty clear that if Riemer was left unburied in the area (as were the other victims) he probably would have been found.

Guilty or innocent, I still think the odds are in favor that Riemer is dead. Whether or not he was a victim is obviously up for debate, but if he is responsible and decided to kill himself his body has yet to be found. And it's possible that Riemer was killed near the lake checking his traps and his body was dumped into the lake.

Do you concede that it's possible that Riemer was injured while checking his trap lines (possibly by gunshot, since there were spent shells found near Diana's body) and "played dead", and then attempted to get back to his truck only to die from his wounds?

We also have to remember that if Riemer was a victim, his killer had two months to dispose of his body. Diana's body wasn't found for two months, and the newspaper articles written about the missing couple (before Diana's body was found) seem to imply Riemer's guilt. So if this guy was local he could have read the papers and devised a plan to set Riemer up as the fall guy.

Guilty or innocent, I still think the odds are in favor that Riemer is dead. Whether or not he was a victim is obviously up for debate, but if he is responsible and decided to kill himself his body has yet to be found. And it's possible that Riemer was killed near the lake checking his traps and his body was dumped into the lake.

Do you concede that it's possible that Riemer was injured while checking his trap lines (possibly by gunshot, since there were spent shells found near Diana's body) and "played dead", and then attempted to get back to his truck only to die from his wounds?

It's conceivable that could have happened. But the vintage of the shell casings left near the body has never been released. They simply could have been left there by hunters/target shooters prior to Diana being found or even placed there by Riemer to sow doubt in any investigation.

If Riemer died from his "wounds", where is he? The major reason that Riemer is suspected of the killings (besides Crystal and the knot) is the fact that his body was never found. There are few, if any, reasons that the killer (if it's not Riemer) would move or hide his body. He hadn't done the same for the three other people he killed;why would he do it for Riemer?

Riemer may well be dead...now. More than a few years have passed w/o a sighting; although that could be explained by the fact that other than UM, this case has never received much nationwide publicity. He could also be very much alive, living in a wilderness area or simply living under an assumed name doing day labor.

I just don't believe that he was a victim in this case.

Guilty or innocent, I still think the odds are in favor that Riemer is dead. Whether or not he was a victim is obviously up for debate, but if he is responsible and decided to kill himself his body has yet to be found. And it's possible that Riemer was killed near the lake checking his traps and his body was dumped into the lake.

Do you concede that it's possible that Riemer was injured while checking his trap lines (possibly by gunshot, since there were spent shells found near Diana's body) and "played dead", and then attempted to get back to his truck only to die from his wounds?

Well first off it was a river not a lake so if he had went in his body would have washed up somewhere. Also what would he be doing by the river checking traps with no coat?

I don't know about your idea that he could have been shot, played dead and then staggered back to the truck to die of his wounds. Again we must ask where is his body? Where is the blood if he was shot there. The police brought bloodhounds out that did not pick up his scent. Also his father stated that where the truck was found was no where near his trap lines so that would have been alot of ground for him to cover while staggering. Plus why would he park so far away from his trap line if checking it was his intention?

Riemer would have ran the same risk as the killer. He was in an area that was frequented by tourists and he would have risked having someone seeing him with Crystal. As to why a killer would have Crystal with him that long, perhaps the killer didn't. There is always the possibility that a passerby gave Crystal a ride instead of Diana's killer.
You honestly think some passerby picked up a stray two year old and left her in a parking lot?? I can't even imagine that scenrio. If Mike is seen with crystal then so what? Its his child and no one even knows a crime has been committed at the time.

You honestly think some passerby picked up a stray two year old and left her in a parking lot?? I can't even imagine that scenrio. If Mike is seen with crystal then so what? Its his child and no one even knows a crime has been committed at the time.

If he was seen with Crystal without Diana somewhere outside of the wilderness, he instantly becomes the number one suspect. What if Crystal was picked up by a trucker or a motorist on a tight schedule? Obviously its pretty callous to leave a two year old girl abandoned in a parking lot, but we don't even know if this is where Crystal was actually dropped off. She may have wandered over after being dropped off somewhere else, perhaps someone stopped to use a phone to call the authorities and she wandered away to the store...we simply have no way of knowing. I personally believe that Diana's killer dropped Crystal off but we really have no way of knowing.

If he was seen with Crystal without Diana somewhere outside of the wilderness, he instantly becomes the number one suspect. What if Crystal was picked up by a trucker or a motorist on a tight schedule? Obviously its pretty callous to leave a two year old girl abandoned in a parking lot, but we don't even know if this is where Crystal was actually dropped off. She may have wandered over after being dropped off somewhere else, perhaps someone stopped to use a phone to call the authorities and she wandered away to the store...we simply have no way of knowing. I personally believe that Diana's killer dropped Crystal off but we really have no way of knowing.

Being a father myself, I can tell you that there's no way that Crystal was in front of that store for more than a few minutes in the cold, alone. She wasn't fidgeting too much and she wasn't crying according to the segment. She would have been doing both if she was left alone in a place that she didn't know.

It's almost inconceivable that anybody who picked up a two year old would neither take the child to the nearest police/fire station/hospital nor take the child to their home and contact the authorities. There are people who wouldn't do that...but they would either have nefarious plans for a child or simply "keep" her and raise her as their "own."

Whoever dropped Crystal off in front of the store was concerned that she be found and taken care of. If they weren't concerned, they would have simply left her in the forest.

Being a father myself, I can tell you that there's no way that Crystal was in front of that store for more than a few minutes in the cold, alone. She wasn't fidgeting too much and she wasn't crying according to the segment. She would have been doing both if she was left alone in a place that she didn't know.

What if she witnessed her mother and possibly father's murder? Or her mother's murder at the hands of her father? She was in a state of shock according to some accounts, so I don't think it would have mattered how long she stayed out there. Even after they brought her inside the only information they could get out of her was the cryptic line about mommy in the trees. I don't think Crystal was out in front of the store for a long time either, but it would have to have been long enough for someone entering the store to go in and shop and then come out and realize the little girl was still there unattended.

If Riemer was the one dropping Crystal off, wouldn't it be more logical for him to drop the child off at a relative or friends house? He could have simply pulled up and told Crystal to get out and then driven away. Or he could have written down a phone number for one of his or Diana's relatives and put it in one of Crystal's pockets so someone would be able to contact the family. Or make an anonymous phone call about a little girl left out front of a K-mart to the authorities? It seems like whoever dropped her off had little concern for her, they could just as easily dropped her off at a hospital where they knew for certain she would be taken care of.

There's one thing I don't get about why it took so long for Crystal to be identified. It took three days after her discovery for her grandmother to see something on the news about her. It just doesn't make sense as to why the authorities never really put 2 and 2 together. Riemer and Diana were missing at the time, and Riemer's father reported all three missing the day after they were supposed to return. The majority of accounts place Crystal at the K-mart the same day Riemer and Diana went missing. So why couldn't they determine that she was the girl from the missing couple?! This case could have possibly been solved if they made that connection sooner, IMO. "48 hours is the most crucial time to solve a case."

What if she witnessed her mother and possibly father's murder? Or her mother's murder at the hands of her father? She was in a state of shock according to some accounts, so I don't think it would have mattered how long she stayed out there. Even after they brought her inside the only information they could get out of her was the cryptic line about mommy in the trees. I don't think Crystal was out in front of the store for a long time either, but it would have to have been long enough for someone entering the store to go in and shop and then come out and realize the little girl was still there unattended.

If Riemer was the one dropping Crystal off, wouldn't it be more logical for him to drop the child off at a relative or friends house? He could have simply pulled up and told Crystal to get out and then driven away. Or he could have written down a phone number for one of his or Diana's relatives and put it in one of Crystal's pockets so someone would be able to contact the family. Or make an anonymous phone call about a little girl left out front of a K-mart to the authorities? It seems like whoever dropped her off had little concern for her, they could just as easily dropped her off at a hospital where they knew for certain she would be taken care of.

There's one thing I don't get about why it took so long for Crystal to be identified. It took three days after her discovery for her grandmother to see something on the news about her. It just doesn't make sense as to why the authorities never really put 2 and 2 together. Riemer and Diana were missing at the time, and Riemer's father reported all three missing the day after they were supposed to return. The majority of accounts place Crystal at the K-mart the same day Riemer and Diana went missing. So why couldn't they determine that she was the girl from the missing couple?! This case could have possibly been solved if they made that connection sooner, IMO. "48 hours is the most crucial time to solve a case."


1) She may well have been in "shock" from what she heard or saw. But she's also a little kid and kids act in certain manners in certain situations. When they are unexpectedly left alone in a strange place, the majority of the time (boy or girl) they'll start to fidget and then cry.

2) Not knowing Riemer's family (or his relationship w/ Diana's) there's no way of knowing of he could have dropped Crystal w/o being seen by the relatives and foiling whatever plan he had. The K-Mart was an easy choice as there may not have been a camera outside and someone would find the child before too long.

3) Even if they found Crystal shortly after the disappearance, an extended period would have passed before they made the connection between her and the missing family report filed by Riemer's father. This was before the Internet and before most LE agencies had computer databases.

Given that multiple LE agencies were involved, it's lucky that it didn't take a week or more to identify Crystal and get her to her family.

What if she witnessed her mother and possibly father's murder? Or her mother's murder at the hands of her father? She was in a state of shock according to some accounts, so I don't think it would have mattered how long she stayed out there. Even after they brought her inside the only information they could get out of her was the cryptic line about mommy in the trees. I don't think Crystal was out in front of the store for a long time either, but it would have to have been long enough for someone entering the store to go in and shop and then come out and realize the little girl was still there unattended.

If Riemer was the one dropping Crystal off, wouldn't it be more logical for him to drop the child off at a relative or friends house? He could have simply pulled up and told Crystal to get out and then driven away. Or he could have written down a phone number for one of his or Diana's relatives and put it in one of Crystal's pockets so someone would be able to contact the family. Or make an anonymous phone call about a little girl left out front of a K-mart to the authorities? It seems like whoever dropped her off had little concern for her, they could just as easily dropped her off at a hospital where they knew for certain she would be taken care of.

There's one thing I don't get about why it took so long for Crystal to be identified. It took three days after her discovery for her grandmother to see something on the news about her. It just doesn't make sense as to why the authorities never really put 2 and 2 together. Riemer and Diana were missing at the time, and Riemer's father reported all three missing the day after they were supposed to return. The majority of accounts place Crystal at the K-mart the same day Riemer and Diana went missing. So why couldn't they determine that she was the girl from the missing couple?! This case could have possibly been solved if they made that connection sooner, IMO. "48 hours is the most crucial time to solve a case."

Um well if Riemer did infact kill Diana and was having to come up with a quick plan to get away I cant imagine that dropping her off at a relatives house would be the smartest thing to do. I mean then it would be obvious to everyone that he wasnt a victim and was indeed the killer. Unless ofcourse just by chance the unknown killer dropped her off at a random house and it just happened to be a relative. That would be a stretch I would think.

Why didnt they make the connection sooner?? Well Crystal was found 30 miles away from where they had went missing. Probably different jurisdictions involved here. No connection was made between Crystal and her missing parents until three days later when she was on TV and her grandmother saw her. So that should tell you just how little these LE agencies work together or share info. Do you see now why it could have been so easy for Mike to slip away?????????

I also dont get how you think the 48 hour rule would apply here when they didnt even know if a crime had been committed. They where out looking for them the next day but without bodies or a crime scene there isnt much that can be done. Even if they had made the connection between Crystal and her missing parents right off it would not have helped the search effort any.

Um well if Riemer did infact kill Diana and was having to come up with a quick plan to get away I cant imagine that dropping her off at a relatives house would be the smartest thing to do. I mean then it would be obvious to everyone that he wasnt a victim and was indeed the killer. Unless ofcourse just by chance the unknown killer dropped her off at a random house and it just happened to be a relative. That would be a stretch I would think.

Why didnt they make the connection sooner?? Well Crystal was found 30 miles away from where they had went missing. Probably different jurisdictions involved here. No connection was made between Crystal and her missing parents until three days later when she was on TV and her grandmother saw her. So that should tell you just how little these LE agencies work together or share info. Do you see now why it could have been so easy for Mike to slip away?????????

I also dont get how you think the 48 hour rule would apply here when they didnt even know if a crime had been committed. They where out looking for them the next day but without bodies or a crime scene there isnt much that can be done. Even if they had made the connection between Crystal and her missing parents right off it would not have helped the search effort any.

It could have been very easy for Riemer to have slipped through the cracks, initially. He is not alive after all of these years. There were three whole days before anyone knew anything about Riemer, Diana, and Crystal. As far as law enforcement was concerned they could have been a family that went on an extended holiday. Had they made the connection sooner it would have set off flares to have a little girl abandoned and her parents missing. Foul play would have came to mind, and if Riemer was alive and responsible, it could have led to finding someone who gave him a ride or saw him, etc. Crystal was found thirty miles from where Diana's body was found, and she was found in the same county that Riemer and Diana resided. So it would have been the same jurisdiction investigating.

It could have been very easy for Riemer to have slipped through the cracks, initially. He is not alive after all of these years. There were three whole days before anyone knew anything about Riemer, Diana, and Crystal. As far as law enforcement was concerned they could have been a family that went on an extended holiday. Had they made the connection sooner it would have set off flares to have a little girl abandoned and her parents missing. Foul play would have came to mind, and if Riemer was alive and responsible, it could have led to finding someone who gave him a ride or saw him, etc. Crystal was found thirty miles from where Diana's body was found, and she was found in the same county that Riemer and Diana resided. So it would have been the same jurisdiction investigating.

Since information was never brought forth stating that Riemer had any long-term or significant medical issues, I have no problems believing that he's still alive. Especially if he went a "traditional" route of survival rather than the "mountain men" route.

He was 36. It's only been 20 years since he disappeared and average the life expectancy is the mid 70's for a White American male. That means Riemer,would likely live an additional 20 years or so more from now, unless he was in poor health, abused alcohol or drugs or was killed in an accident or murdered at a later time.

It could have been very easy for Riemer to have slipped through the cracks, initially. He is not alive after all of these years. There were three whole days before anyone knew anything about Riemer, Diana, and Crystal. As far as law enforcement was concerned they could have been a family that went on an extended holiday. Had they made the connection sooner it would have set off flares to have a little girl abandoned and her parents missing. Foul play would have came to mind, and if Riemer was alive and responsible, it could have led to finding someone who gave him a ride or saw him, etc. Crystal was found thirty miles from where Diana's body was found, and she was found in the same county that Riemer and Diana resided. So it would have been the same jurisdiction investigating.
Are you sure it was same county? I thought one was Lewis and one was Pierce? I could be wrong. But even still if it was it just proves what Im saying about how easily he could have gotten away. If the local police take three days to tie in this abandoned child with the couple that went missing then how do you expect that they would have found Riemer? I also doubt the Police took the missing person report very seriously right off the bat. Seeing as how this was a family and not just a child. I would bet they just assumed they had decided to camp out or stay overnight where they where.

I see what your saying now about if she would have been identified right off the bat and how that may have helped Mike get nabbed before he got out of town. That does make sense but obviously it didnt happen so not much else to be said there.

It could have been very easy for Riemer to have slipped through the cracks, initially. He is not alive after all of these years. There were three whole days before anyone knew anything about Riemer, Diana, and Crystal. As far as law enforcement was concerned they could have been a family that went on an extended holiday. Had they made the connection sooner it would have set off flares to have a little girl abandoned and her parents missing. Foul play would have came to mind, and if Riemer was alive and responsible, it could have led to finding someone who gave him a ride or saw him, etc. Crystal was found thirty miles from where Diana's body was found, and she was found in the same county that Riemer and Diana resided. So it would have been the same jurisdiction investigating.
I just want to know what makes you assume he is dead?? If indeed he got out of there and started a new life then why is it so unthinkable that he could still be going today??
Consider there has been no manhunt for him and the FBI has made no effort to track him down. He is listed as missing and not as a fugitive. He has not been charged with any crime and there is no warrant for his arrest.

I just want to know what makes you assume he is dead?? If indeed he got out of there and started a new life then why is it so unthinkable that he could still be going today??
Consider there has been no manhunt for him and the FBI has made no effort to track him down. He is listed as missing and not as a fugitive. He has not been charged with any crime and there is no warrant for his arrest.

I agree. If Riemer left the area, didn't drive much (or at all) paid only cash, didn't use his SSN, stayed mostly out of trouble (and didn't get into any serious trouble) and led a low-key lifestyle, there's no reason NOT believe that he isn't still alive and just hiding.

Actually, after 20 years and w/ no arrest warrants out for him, I'm not too sure how "hidden" that he'd have to be. He would probably remain undercover just to prevent detection, but he could certainly be living anywhere in the US (w/ the exception the Pacific Northwest) w/ few problems.

I just want to know what makes you assume he is dead?? If indeed he got out of there and started a new life then why is it so unthinkable that he could still be going today??
Consider there has been no manhunt for him and the FBI has made no effort to track him down. He is listed as missing and not as a fugitive. He has not been charged with any crime and there is no warrant for his arrest.

I assume he's dead based off of what we know. He's either the victim of a serial killer, or he was himself the serial killer. If you subscribe to the theory that Riemer is guilty here is why I think he's dead:

1. Three people go into the woods. One is found alive at the store later that night. One is found two months later stabbed to death seventeen times. To this day the other person is missing, and there have been no sightings of this person.

2. There was a note found in the truck that said, "I love you Diana". While this really could mean nothing more than a note Riemer wrote for her earlier, or possibly had a gift inside of it for her, it could also be an apology/confession from Riemer.

3. Whoever dropped Crystal off is most likely the person who killed Diana. If Riemer was responsible and planned on running it would have been easier to take Crystal with him, instead of driving the thirty miles and then back to leave his truck. Unless he planned on killing himself. Then dropping Crystal off makes more sense, for if he killed himself Crystal would have no way out of the woods.

4. There have been no confirmed sightings of this man, nor has anyone came forward after all of these years to say they either gave him a lift, or even helped him escape. If Riemer hitchiked out of the area, the odds that he was picked up by a local are fairly high. And even though this wasn't nationally known, it was still locally known and someone local would have recognized or remembered giving him a lift.

Guilty or innocent, I really think he's dead.

I assume he's dead based off of what we know. He's either the victim of a serial killer, or he was himself the serial killer. If you subscribe to the theory that Riemer is guilty here is why I think he's dead:

1. Three people go into the woods. One is found alive at the store later that night. One is found two months later stabbed to death seventeen times. To this day the other person is missing, and there have been no sightings of this person.

2. There was a note found in the truck that said, "I love you Diana". While this really could mean nothing more than a note Riemer wrote for her earlier, or possibly had a gift inside of it for her, it could also be an apology/confession from Riemer.

3. Whoever dropped Crystal off is most likely the person who killed Diana. If Riemer was responsible and planned on running it would have been easier to take Crystal with him, instead of driving the thirty miles and then back to leave his truck. Unless he planned on killing himself. Then dropping Crystal off makes more sense, for if he killed himself Crystal would have no way out of the woods.

4. There have been no confirmed sightings of this man, nor has anyone came forward after all of these years to say they either gave him a lift, or even helped him escape. If Riemer hitchiked out of the area, the odds that he was picked up by a local are fairly high. And even though this wasn't nationally known, it was still locally known and someone local would have recognized or remembered giving him a lift.

Guilty or innocent, I really think he's dead.

Let's see:

1) Whitey Bulger, international fugitive, wanted by FBI;sought by Interpol. Can't be found. Mike Riemer missing person from Washington state (no warrant) Can't be found. See where I'm going?

2) The note was under windshield wiper. It was a manila envelope and may have contained something. We won't know unless and until they find Riemer.

3) It would NOT be "easier" to take a young child "with you" especially if you plan (at least in the short term) a life on the run. The "easiest" things to have done would be to kill her or leave her in the woods. The person that left her at K-Mart obviously didn't want to do either.

4) No warrant. An average looking person for whom they have only bad pictures. A guy that works off the books and has remained out of trouble. How would anybody find him? Where would they start looking?

Riemer could be dead...and just as certainly could be alive.

Let's see:

1) Whitey Bulger, international fugitive, wanted by FBI;sought by Interpol. Can't be found. Mike Riemer missing person from Washington state (no warrant) Can't be found. See where I'm going?

2) The note was under windshield wiper. It was a manila envelope and may have contained something. We won't know unless and until they find Riemer.

3) It would NOT be "easier" to take a young child "with you" especially if you plan (at least in the short term) a life on the run. The "easiest" things to have done would be to kill her or leave her in the woods. The person that left her at K-Mart obviously didn't want to do either.

4) No warrant. An average looking person for whom they have only bad pictures. A guy that works off the books and has remained out of trouble. How would anybody find him? Where would they start looking?

Riemer could be dead...and just as certainly could be alive.

1) No I really don't see where your going here. To compare a career criminal with lots of money and several resources to a roofer is like comparing a panther to Sylvester the Cat.

2) The note was found on the dash, not under the windshield. The note could mean nothing and it could mean everything. We may never know.

3) Would you kill your own child if you planned on going on the run, or would you take them with you? What would be easier for you?

4) There's a reason there's no warrant. Law enforcement doesn't have enough to pin the crimes on Riemer. A roofer who works off the books would have trouble finding work over the years, especially today. So the odds of him travelling a lot looking for work are high. The fact that he was an accomplished guitar player also makes him stand out. And he was an avid trapper, how many people do you know that are trappers? UM was seen by thousands of people (maybe even millions), and there were no known sightings reported after the broadcast. That's enough IMO to conclude that he's most likely dead.

1) No I really don't see where your going here. To compare a career criminal with lots of money and several resources to a roofer is like comparing a panther to Sylvester the Cat.

2) The note was found on the dash, not under the windshield. The note could mean nothing and it could mean everything. We may never know.

3) Would you kill your own child if you planned on going on the run, or would you take them with you? What would be easier for you?

4) There's a reason there's no warrant. Law enforcement doesn't have enough to pin the crimes on Riemer. A roofer who works off the books would have trouble finding work over the years, especially today. So the odds of him travelling a lot looking for work are high. The fact that he was an accomplished guitar player also makes him stand out. And he was an avid trapper, how many people do you know that are trappers? UM was seen by thousands of people (maybe even millions), and there were no known sightings reported after the broadcast. That's enough IMO to conclude that he's most likely dead.

1) Bulger- Everbody looking for. Can't find. Riemer - Nobody looking for (except for UM fans) Can't find.

2) Look at the segment again. They showed the note being under the wiper.

3) I can't answer that as I have never killed anyone. If I did, then I suppose I would at least have the decency to leave the kid w/ a sitter while I was doing that.

You can't take a young child on the run...especially if you are a man. It just doesn't work.

4) You've never done roofing, I see. Roofing is a lucrative business even when the economy is slow. While new housing is the "bread and butter" for most roofing companies, there are always businesses and older homes that need patch jobs and new roofs.

Riemer could have made hundreds of thousands of dollars in the last 20 years and could saved most of it by living w/ a woman or in a lower cost area.

If he went full "mountain man" who would turn him in...the animals? Most of those guys (mountain men) are on the run from child support or the law anyway; they aren't going to say much.

Even if millions of people saw the Riemer segment and called the hotline or wrote the show, the majority of those "tips" would likely be incorrect. W/O video or higher quality pictures of Riemer, I can guarantee that he could walk down the street in most major cities and not even LE members would recognize him.

1) No I really don't see where your going here. To compare a career criminal with lots of money and several resources to a roofer is like comparing a panther to Sylvester the Cat.

2) The note was found on the dash, not under the windshield. The note could mean nothing and it could mean everything. We may never know.

3) Would you kill your own child if you planned on going on the run, or would you take them with you? What would be easier for you?

4) There's a reason there's no warrant. Law enforcement doesn't have enough to pin the crimes on Riemer. A roofer who works off the books would have trouble finding work over the years, especially today. So the odds of him travelling a lot looking for work are high. The fact that he was an accomplished guitar player also makes him stand out. And he was an avid trapper, how many people do you know that are trappers? UM was seen by thousands of people (maybe even millions), and there were no known sightings reported after the broadcast. That's enough IMO to conclude that he's most likely dead.

1. You dont need alot of money to hide just look how long Eric Rudolf went without being picked up and he was at the top of the FBI most wanted list.

2. The not really has no meaning at all. It tells us nothing.

3. Would he kill his child or take her?? That is up to him. How can we know?? Obviously whoever dropped her off didnt want to take her or kill her.

4. They actually do have enough evidence to charge Riemer. As was said in the episode, they simply can't prove he is alive.
A roofer having trouble finding work??? You gotta be kidding me. Why do you think so many illegal aliens flock to roofing?? There is always work and it pays in cash. And what other trades might he be skilled in?? Besides trapping we really dont know.
How do you know there where no reported sightings??? They never updated this case so for all we know there coudl have been a hundred tips that lead to nothing.
There is only one reason that Riemer is not a fugitive and is not being pursued and that is the tube sock. Because of the similarities between Diana and Ruth Cooper there is a chance that same person killed both as well as Mike. If not for that tube sock the Mike would be pursued by LE and I think he may have realized that.

4. They actually do have enough evidence to charge Riemer. As was said in the episode, they simply can't prove he is alive.
A roofer having trouble finding work??? You gotta be kidding me. Why do you think so many illegal aliens flock to roofing?? There is always work and it pays in cash. And what other trades might he be skilled in?? Besides trapping we really dont know.
How do you know there where no reported sightings??? They never updated this case so for all we know there coudl have been a hundred tips that lead to nothing.
There is only one reason that Riemer is not a fugitive and is not being pursued and that is the tube sock. Because of the similarities between Diana and Ruth Cooper there is a chance that same person killed both as well as Mike. If not for that tube sock the Mike would be pursued by LE and I think he may have realized that.

If Riemer is out their setting the roofing world on fire, that increases his contact with people thus making his discovery more likely. We know their are no reported sightings, he's on the DOE network and the Charley project websites and neither report any sightings of him.

If Riemer is out their setting the roofing world on fire, that increases his contact with people thus making his discovery more likely. We know their are no reported sightings, he's on the DOE network and the Charley project websites and neither report any sightings of him.

UM, The DOE network and the Charley project are all important sources of information that unfortunately are only viewed and/or researched by a tiny portion of the population. It very certainly conceivable that people who frequent the sites could have seen Mike Riemer and not have known that was him. Multiple times. He isn't a very distinctive looking person.

And there would be no need Riemer to "set the roofing world on fire" as it is a lucrative business and like most construction work attracts people who will work for cash and may have issues w/ the law. Since Riemer isn't wanted for a crime and has only been reported as being "missing" why would anybody turn him in? There's not even a reward for his capture or information.

The $2 million offered for Whitey Bulger is getting tips and attention, but no actual leads. "Free" isn't going to attract too many takers.

UM, The DOE network and the Charley project are all important sources of information that unfortunately are only viewed and/or researched by a tiny portion of the population. It very certainly conceivable that people who frequent the sight could have seen Mike Riemer and not have known that was him. Multiple times. He isn't a very distinctive looking person.

And there would be no need Riemer to "set the roofing world on fire" as it is a lucrative business and like most construction work attracts people who will work for cash and may have issues w/ the law. Since Riemer isn't wanted for a crime and has only been reported as being "missing" why would anybody turn him in? There's not even a reward for his capture or information.

The $2 million offered for Whitey Bulger is getting tips and attention, but no actual leads. "Free" isn't going to attract too many takers.

If roofing was such a lucrative business for Riemer, why did he also trap on the side? The fact that he was a trapper as well to supplement his income shows he wasn't making enough in the roofing trade. And if Riemer is alive, there's a good possibility that he's still trapping. And that would distinguish him even more. The fact that there's no reward nor warrant for Riemer tells me that the authorities believe he is dead either way.

Does anyone else think its possible that the person who murdered Bobbi Jo Oberholtzer and Annette Schnee may be responsible for these other murders? All homicides involved an orange sock, all (with the exception of Diana Robertson) were shot to death, all were in isolated mountainess areas, and all were in cold climates. The Schnee/Oberholtzer homicides happened in 82 and it's conceivable that the person responsible drifted out of the area and made his way to Washington by 85.

If roofing was such a lucrative business for Riemer, why did he also trap on the side? The fact that he was a trapper as well to supplement his income shows he wasn't making enough in the roofing trade. And if Riemer is alive, there's a good possibility that he's still trapping. And that would distinguish him even more. The fact that there's no reward nor warrant for Riemer tells me that the authorities believe he is dead either way.

Roofing is seasonal in the Pacific Northwest. Had Riemer moved to an area where he could roof most or all of the year (which he would have had to do after this) then he could have made far more money. And it's clear that living off the books was Riemer's preferred state of being.

The trapping, I'm sure, paid cash which is always a benefit.Also, the trapping and/or poaching business (which Riemer would be forced to do as he would have to fill out paperwork for a license) is quite lucrative on its own. Especially if you are good at it and you don't spend a lot of money. From the look of Riemer's truck,spending a lot money wasn't a problem for him.

A clean shaven, and now bald, Riemer would be difficult for people to identify. Even if he were located, there's no warrant out for his arrest, so the police where he's at, would have a difficult time justifying holding him, if they could detain him at all.

A few things:

1. I'm not sure what to think of this murder/disappearance. The fact that the little girl was not hurt and was safely taken to a department store might lead some to believe that Mike did not want to hurt his daughter and thus spared her life. It would be very risky for a killer to take her into a town and risk being spotted or his license plate number written down by someone.

2. It could also suggest that a person other than Mike is responsible since his daughter was just left at the store. Most parents would not want to just leave their child in a store with random strangers, anyone of which could harm her.

3. Mike's father said that he believes that Mike is innocent since he left his coat behind. This does not make sense to me as Mike could have brought another coat with him and left the other there to throw off police.

4. The note that was left in the car is pointless to debate. Yes Mike probably wrote it but he may have written it with a gun pointed to his head. For anyone to point to that note as proof of Mike's guilt is sadly mistaken.

5. I wonder if the little girl was asked who brought her to the store? It seems like if her dad brought her, she would have said "daddy brought me." The fact that she ha snot said this makes me think that she probably saw her parents killed, the killer took her to the store and was most likely terrified of the killer and did not know the person's name.

6. If Mike was planning killing Diana, why wait until they go hunting for a Christmas tree? Why not take Diana out under the lure of setting traps and have someone else watch the girl? It doesn't make since to bring the girl if your planning a murder.

7. The tube sock thing is kinda odd. Does anyone know if the earlier murder involving a tube sock was a popular story in the town? If so, Mike could have killed Diana the same way to make it look like it was the serial killer and not himself.

A few things:

1. I'm not sure what to think of this murder/disappearance. The fact that the little girl was not hurt and was safely taken to a department store might lead some to believe that Mike did not want to hurt his daughter and thus spared her life. It would be very risky for a killer to take her into a town and risk being spotted or his license plate number written down by someone.

2. It could also suggest that a person other than Mike is responsible since his daughter was just left at the store. Most parents would not want to just leave their child in a store with random strangers, anyone of which could harm her.

3. Mike's father said that he believes that Mike is innocent since he left his coat behind. This does not make sense to me as Mike could have brought another coat with him and left the other there to throw off police.

4. The note that was left in the car is pointless to debate. Yes Mike probably wrote it but he may have written it with a gun pointed to his head. For anyone to point to that note as proof of Mike's guilt is sadly mistaken.

5. I wonder if the little girl was asked who brought her to the store? It seems like if her dad brought her, she would have said "daddy brought me." The fact that she ha snot said this makes me think that she probably saw her parents killed, the killer took her to the store and was most likely terrified of the killer and did not know the person's name.

6. If Mike was planning killing Diana, why wait until they go hunting for a Christmas tree? Why not take Diana out under the lure of setting traps and have someone else watch the girl? It doesn't make since to bring the girl if your planning a murder.

7. The tube sock thing is kinda odd. Does anyone know if the earlier murder involving a tube sock was a popular story in the town? If so, Mike could have killed Diana the same way to make it look like it was the serial killer and not himself.

In regards to number 7, I'm sure the murders were talked about but I doubt the police publically came out with the specifics, most notably that a sock was found tied around Ruth Cooper's neck. It wasn't until Diana was found with one that they made the connection that the two may have been linked. I believe the investigator interviewed on UM said when he saw the way the sock was tied around Diana the hairs stood up on his neck because it was the same exact way the knott was used in the Cooper homicide. So the odds that Riemer would be able to replicate this seem fairly slim. That's why I tend to think if Riemer is guilty, he would have to be a serial killer. I agree with your points (4-6). But I think it would be more risky for Riemer to drop his daughter off in a highly populated shopping center close to his home. All it would take would be someone to witness him driving in his truck either alone or with Crystal, and he instantly becomes the number one suspect in Diana's murder. Riemer's home was located in Puyallup and Crystal was found in Spanaway, which was approx. 12 miles. Why would Riemer not drive the additional 15-20 minutes (after just traveled 30 miles from the area he allegedly murdered Diana) to his home where he could easily have dropped her off close to his house with the hopes that someone would recognize her? And if Riemer was responsible and planned a life on the run he would have went to his place to pack, why not just leave Crystal there?

There are several sources that say Crystal was dropped off the day after Riemer and Diana's disappearance. If that is true, it makes Riemer's involvement IMHO less likely.

There are several sources that say Crystal was dropped off the day after Riemer and Diana's disappearance. If that is true, it makes Riemer's involvement IMHO less likely.

Who are the sources?

Riemer's guilt or innocence probably also depends on the police "hold backs." Not sure what the police are "holding back" concerning this case, but since the available evidence makes him appear to be guilty, you have to wonder what the additional evidence states.

Who are the sources?

There is an old post on this board (a link is in this thread) with several articles from the Seattle Times that say Crystal was found in the afternoon on the day after they went missing. Other articles place Crystal at the store later in the evening (around 8:30 p.m.) the same day of Riemer and Robertson's fateful trip. Unsolved Mysteries seems to be the only source that says Crystal was found on the same afternoon of Diana and Riemer's trip, implying that it was shortly after they set out on their trip. The DOE network website also states this:

"The family were to return to Puyallup by nightfall the day they went out. When they did not return by the next morning, a relative notified the Pierce County Sheriff's Office. Crystal Robertson was found later that afternoon, wandering alone at a Spanaway discount store and was taken into protective custody."

There is an old post on this board (a link is in this thread) with several articles from the Seattle Times that say Crystal was found in the afternoon on the day after they went missing. Other articles place Crystal at the store later in the evening (around 8:30 p.m.) the same day of Riemer and Robertson's fateful trip. Unsolved Mysteries seems to be the only source that says Crystal was found on the same afternoon of Diana and Riemer's trip, implying that it was shortly after they set out on their trip. The DOE network website also states this:

"The family were to return to Puyallup by nightfall the day they went out. When they did not return by the next morning, a relative notified the Pierce County Sheriff's Office. Crystal Robertson was found later that afternoon, wandering alone at a Spanaway discount store and was taken into protective custody."
When they say "later that afternoon" they are meaning the same day they went out in the woods. I agree it would make Riemer look less guilty if it was the next day but LE has that info. They know when the child showed up at the store for a fact.

In regards to number 7, I'm sure the murders were talked about but I doubt the police publically came out with the specifics, most notably that a sock was found tied around Ruth Cooper's neck. It wasn't until Diana was found with one that they made the connection that the two may have been linked. I believe the investigator interviewed on UM said when he saw the way the sock was tied around Diana the hairs stood up on his neck because it was the same exact way the knott was used in the Cooper homicide. So the odds that Riemer would be able to replicate this seem fairly slim. That's why I tend to think if Riemer is guilty, he would have to be a serial killer. I agree with your points (4-6). But I think it would be more risky for Riemer to drop his daughter off in a highly populated shopping center close to his home. All it would take would be someone to witness him driving in his truck either alone or with Crystal, and he instantly becomes the number one suspect in Diana's murder. Riemer's home was located in Puyallup and Crystal was found in Spanaway, which was approx. 12 miles. Why would Riemer not drive the additional 15-20 minutes (after just traveled 30 miles from the area he allegedly murdered Diana) to his home where he could easily have dropped her off close to his house with the hopes that someone would recognize her? And if Riemer was responsible and planned a life on the run he would have went to his place to pack, why not just leave Crystal there?

There are several sources that say Crystal was dropped off the day after Riemer and Diana's disappearance. If that is true, it makes Riemer's involvement IMHO less likely.

He never stated that the knots where the same. He did state that the socks where a match. I took this to mean that it was the same style and color of tube socks. Which would mean the connection would be obvious. If the knot tied was the same I dont see that as anything interesting. How many different knots could you really tie around someone's neck with a sock???

He never stated that the knots where the same. He did state that the socks where a match. I took this to mean that it was the same style and color of tube socks. Which would mean the connection would be obvious. If the knot tied was the same I dont see that as anything interesting. How many different knots could you really tie around someone's neck with a sock???

Didn't it state in the segment that when the detective compared the knots both he and the evidence technicians were surprised that the knots were the same?

He never stated that the knots where the same. He did state that the socks where a match. I took this to mean that it was the same style and color of tube socks. Which would mean the connection would be obvious. If the knot tied was the same I dont see that as anything interesting. How many different knots could you really tie around someone's neck with a sock???

I don't know but here's an exact quote from the UM website: "According to Detective Neiser, the tube sock on Diana had been tied with exactly the same type of knot as in the earlier murder."

And from the broadcast: "In a grisly similarity, Diana Robertson had another tube sock around her neck tied in exactly the same type of knot."

When they say "later that afternoon" they are meaning the same day they went out in the woods. I agree it would make Riemer look less guilty if it was the next day but LE has that info. They know when the child showed up at the store for a fact.

No they are saying the day of their reported disappearance (the day after their trip) she was found that afternoon according to the DOE network. I think there may be confusion when certain articles/websites say "the day she disappeared", when they could mean the day she was reported missing. And there are other articles that state it was a couple of days until she was found at the store.

No they are saying the day of their reported disappearance (the day after their trip) she was found that afternoon according to the DOE network. I think there may be confusion when certain articles/websites say "the day she disappeared", when they could mean the day she was reported missing. And there are other articles that state it was a couple of days until she was found at the store.

I agree. Although confusing to some, it does say that the day they were reported missing (which would be the day after they left) the girl was found in the store.

Funny how his name isn't even on the doenetwork. Technically he is a missing person.

Didn't it state in the segment that when the detective compared the knots both he and the evidence technicians were surprised that the knots were the same?
I never heard him say the knots. I thought he was saying the socks where a match. I will have to watch it again

I don't know but here's an exact quote from the UM website: "According to Detective Neiser, the tube sock on Diana had been tied with exactly the same type of knot as in the earlier murder."

And from the broadcast: "In a grisly similarity, Diana Robertson had another tube sock around her neck tied in exactly the same type of knot."



No they are saying the day of their reported disappearance (the day after their trip) she was found that afternoon according to the DOE network. I think there may be confusion when certain articles/websites say "the day she disappeared", when they could mean the day she was reported missing. And there are other articles that state it was a couple of days until she was found at the store.
I will have to watch again but I never remember them saying the knots where tied the same. Like I said it could be, but really how many differnet knots could you tie a tube sock in around someones neck?
The epsiode does clearly state though that Crystal was found the same day that she and her parents had went into the woods to get a tree and check trap lines. It is at the very beginning.

Funny how his name isn't even on the doenetwork. Technically he is a missing person.
I thought he was on doenetwork?

I thought he was on doenetwork?

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

I will have to watch again but I never remember them saying the knots where tied the same. Like I said it could be, but really how many differnet knots could you tie a tube sock in around someones neck?
The epsiode does clearly state though that Crystal was found the same day that she and her parents had went into the woods to get a tree and check trap lines. It is at the very beginning.

I did say that UM stated it was the same day as their trip. But that seems to be the only source that says it was the same day, all others say later that night or the day after and there is one that says a couple of days later. And those quotes about the knot from UM were exact. There are certain distinct ways someone would tie a rope, and I'm assuming that the authorities never saw that type of knot used on a sock.

I will have to watch again but I never remember them saying the knots where tied the same. Like I said it could be, but really how many differnet knots could you tie a tube sock in around someones neck?
The epsiode does clearly state though that Crystal was found the same day that she and her parents had went into the woods to get a tree and check trap lines. It is at the very beginning.

There are myriad ways to tie knots. Here are a few examples:
http://www.martingautron.com/blog/tag/knots/
The knot's style seems to be part of the LE "holdback" as it isn't mentioned on the segment nor anywhere I can find.

There are myriad ways to tie knots. Here are a few examples:
http://www.martingautron.com/blog/tag/knots/
The knot's style seems to be part of the LE "holdback" as it isn't mentioned on the segment nor anywhere I can find.
I totally understand there are tons of different knots but what Im saying is how many different ones could you use to tie something as thick as a tube sock around a neck?

There is ofcourse a chance that a serial killer (that was not Mike) killed all of these people. There where several at work in this general area around the same time frame. I wonder what anyone thinks about Yates? I read where his first killing was a young couple he came upon while target practicing in a wooded area. He shot both of them in much the same style that Ruth Cooper and Steve Hawkins where shot. Yates started killing in 1978 and I dont think he was picked up till late 90s.

There are myriad ways to tie knots. Here are a few examples:
http://www.martingautron.com/blog/tag/knots/
The knot's style seems to be part of the LE "holdback" as it isn't mentioned on the segment nor anywhere I can find.

This case is kind of similiar to Robert Fisher (the guy who in all probability murdered his wife and two kids and then set off an explosion in his house to cover up the crime), yet Fisher was at one point on the FBI's Ten Most Wanted List and he was indicted for this crime. He still has never been found, the family truck was found abandoned, and there is no evidence indicating if he is still alive on the run or took his own life (and I don't think the UM segment ever even mentioned the possibility of his innocence). But he's wanted for the murders, whereas Riemer is still classified as missing. That's why I tend to believe the authorities have more evidence suggesting a third party being responsible.

I'm started to lean more and more to the fact that someone who knew Diana and/or Riemer was responsible for their murders. If it was a friend or acquaintance it could also account for the reason why Crystal was spared. And if this was some guy who had a crush on Diana it could also explain the love note left on the dash. Perhaps this person also knew Harkins and Cooper. Possible motives could be Riemer (who by all accounts had a hot temper) may have had an altercation with the killer. Or if this killer had a crush on Diana, maybe the fact that she took Riemer back set him off.

There is of course a chance that a serial killer (that was not Mike) killed all of these people.

This could have happened. Maybe Mike and Diane were Christmas tree hunting around the same area that a killer was lurking and were murdered by him. Everything else in their relationship (spousal abuse, restraining order, separation, etc..) is just a coincidence if it did happen this way.

This case is kind of similiar to Robert Fisher (the guy who in all probability murdered his wife and two kids and then set off an explosion in his house to cover up the crime), yet Fisher was at one point on the FBI's Ten Most Wanted List and he was indicted for this crime. He still has never been found, the family truck was found abandoned, and there is no evidence indicating if he is still alive on the run or took his own life (and I don't think the UM segment ever even mentioned the possibility of his innocence). But he's wanted for the murders, whereas Riemer is still classified as missing. That's why I tend to believe the authorities have more evidence suggesting a third party being responsible.

I'm started to lean more and more to the fact that someone who knew Diana and/or Riemer was responsible for their murders. If it was a friend or acquaintance it could also account for the reason why Crystal was spared. And if this was some guy who had a crush on Diana it could also explain the love note left on the dash. Perhaps this person also knew Harkins and Cooper. Possible motives could be Riemer (who by all accounts had a hot temper) may have had an altercation with the killer. Or if this killer had a crush on Diana, maybe the fact that she took Riemer back set him off.
Im not sure on the fisher case but sounds alot like William Bradford Bishop. He is a suspect because the killiings obviously took place in his home. Then his car was found abandoned quite a distance from the bodies. The reason he is a suspect is because of the blood evidence at his house. He too is sought by FBI and has never turned up. The police in this segment state that Bishop got away because it was several days before anyone knew there had been a murder. In the Riemer case it was several months before anyone knew. Giving Mike much more time to get away. Also take into account Mike is not wanted by FBI.
I think it would be a wild stretch to say the killer knew both couples and for whatever reason decided to murder both and hide Mike's body while leaving the others out in the open

This could have happened. Maybe Mike and Diane were Christmas tree hunting around the same area that a killer was lurking and were murdered by him. Everything else in their relationship (spousal abuse, restraining order, separation, etc..) is just a coincidence if it did happen this way.
As with everything in this case one answer leads to another question. If indeed it was the work of a serial killer then why conceal Mike's body when he concealed no one else's?? Why drive Crystal 30 miles away? Also consider Mike had guns and other weapons, the killer stabbed Diana so what would keep Mike from shooting him or putting up a fight??

As with everything in this case one answer leads to another question. If indeed it was the work of a serial killer then why conceal Mike's body when he concealed no one else's?? Why drive Crystal 30 miles away? Also consider Mike had guns and other weapons, the killer stabbed Diana so what would keep Mike from shooting him or putting up a fight??

Here's another question: Assuming that this was the work of a third party serial killer, then you also have to wonder: Why would a killer attack a man that was clearly armed like Mike Riemer? The killer would have had to have watched them for at least few minutes and noticed that Riemer was checking traps. That means he would have had a weapon or weapons on him.

Wouldn't there have been easier targets than Riemer and Diana? I've never heard of too many serial killers (outside of television, that is) that would attack an armed opponent. Almost all serial killers are either cowardly (or practical) and attacking an armed opponent would entail too much risk.

Here's another question: Assuming that this was the work of a third party serial killer, then you also have to wonder: Why would a killer attack a man that was clearly armed like Mike Riemer? The killer would have had to have watched them for at least few minutes and noticed that Riemer was checking traps. That means he would have had a weapon or weapons on him.

Wouldn't there have been easier targets than Riemer and Diana? I've never heard of too many serial killers (outside of television, that is) that would attack an armed opponent. Almost all serial killers are either cowardly (or practical) and attacking an armed opponent would entail too much risk.
This is true. The only way I can see this happening is if the killer shot him at a distance, sniper style. Then maybe he pursued and stabbed Diana. But you still have the fact that he would have had to go to alot of effort to conceal Mike's body.

This is true. The only way I can see this happening is if the killer shot him at a distance, sniper style. Then maybe he pursued and stabbed Diana. But you still have the fact that he would have had to go to alot of effort to conceal Mike's body.

There's another police "holdback": At what distance were the other two victims shot at? If they were shot up close, then Riemer likely would have been also. If that was the case, where's the crime scene? Or evidence of a shooting (other than the casings) around where the truck was found?

There's another police "holdback": At what distance were the other two victims shot at? If they were shot up close, then Riemer likely would have been also. If that was the case, where's the crime scene? Or evidence of a shooting (other than the casings) around where the truck was found?

I know I'm stretching it a bit here, but what if Riemer and Diana were killed elsewhere and their bodies were brought back to the site where Diana was found (this would be after Crystal was dropped off), but Riemer was somehow still alive and attempted to flee and was either shot again or ultimately succumbed to his initial wounds? It could explain blood in the truck and the fact that Riemer's coat was left behind. If this person knew Riemer or Diana it really wouldn't be that hard to approach him and shoot him. There would be no surprise needed really. And as for concealing Riemer's body, look how long it took someone to find Diana's body. Even an aerial view didn't reveal the truck, so how unlikely is it that Riemer's body was left out in the open and just never found?

I know I'm stretching it a bit here, but what if Riemer and Diana were killed elsewhere and their bodies were brought back to the site where Diana was found (this would be after Crystal was dropped off), but Riemer was somehow still alive and attempted to flee and was either shot again or ultimately succumbed to his initial wounds? It could explain blood in the truck and the fact that Riemer's coat was left behind. If this person knew Riemer or Diana it really wouldn't be that hard to approach him and shoot him. There would be no surprise needed really. And as for concealing Riemer's body, look how long it took someone to find Diana's body. Even an aerial view didn't reveal the truck, so how unlikely is it that Riemer's body was left out in the open and just never found?

I don't think that's a stretch at all. Alot of cases feature a crime scene in one location and the bodies are located in another location. Its not uncommon.

Also, has anyone given thought to the idea that maybe Mike's body was eaten by animals? Given the fact that it took a while to locate Diana's body, its possible that Mike's was right there with her but animals ate him before his body was located. Just a thought.

I don't think that's a stretch at all. Alot of cases feature a crime scene in one location and the bodies are located in another location. Its not uncommon.

Also, has anyone given thought to the idea that maybe Mike's body was eaten by animals? Given the fact that it took a while to locate Diana's body, its possible that Mike's was right there with her but animals ate him before his body was located. Just a thought.

The only problem that I have w/ animals consuming his body is that animals usually avoid predating upon clothed bodies. They'll consume exposed "fleshy" areas but one of the primary reasons that bodies are found in rural/wooded areas at all is that they are dumped fully clothed.

Riemer would still be there...somewhere close, if he was killed. While the first search (the one that discovered the first victim) before Riemer's disappearance obviously wasn't thorough, I believe that the search for Riemer after they found Diana likely was.

I don't think that's a stretch at all. Alot of cases feature a crime scene in one location and the bodies are located in another location. Its not uncommon.

Also, has anyone given thought to the idea that maybe Mike's body was eaten by animals? Given the fact that it took a while to locate Diana's body, its possible that Mike's was right there with her but animals ate him before his body was located. Just a thought.

I've always thought the amount of time it took to find Diana gave Riemer's body (if he was a victim) plenty of time to decompose and be eaten/moved by animals.

I've always thought the amount of time it took to find Diana gave Riemer's body (if he was a victim) plenty of time to decompose and be eaten/moved by animals.
There is a reason that humans where able to survive in the wild before we had weapons. We taste like crap to animals. They may attack and bite at a human but will usually spit us out because the taste is no good.

You hear the same thing with shark attacks. Shark bites into human, realizes they taste awful and spits them out. So what animal would actually consume him? Buzzards? Even still they don't consume bones or teeth.

It took three months to find Diana's body. The body of Riemer has not turned up in 26 years. Thats a long time when you figure there was an extensive search and they know the approximate area he was in.

I also beileve that Diana and the truck where moved to where they are after she was killed. Especially after reading the interview with Mike's Dad. The question is did Mike leave the truck and her there or did someone else?

I've always thought the amount of time it took to find Diana gave Riemer's body (if he was a victim) plenty of time to decompose and be eaten/moved by animals.
Then why wasnt she decomposed or eaten by animals? Remember this was winter time in Washington state.

There's another police "holdback": At what distance were the other two victims shot at? If they were shot up close, then Riemer likely would have been also. If that was the case, where's the crime scene? Or evidence of a shooting (other than the casings) around where the truck was found?
That would be very usefull info there. Id like to know what caliber of bullet was used to kill Hawkins and Cooper. I just wonder how Ruth cooper got a half mile away from Hawkins. I wonder if the killer shot him and then she ran while the killer stalked her.

There is a reason that humans where able to survive in the wild before we had weapons. We taste like crap to animals. They may attack and bite at a human but will usually spit us out because the taste is no good.

You hear the same thing with shark attacks. Shark bites into human, realizes they taste awful and spits them out. So what animal would actually consume him? Buzzards? Even still they don't consume bones or teeth.

It took three months to find Diana's body. The body of Riemer has not turned up in 26 years. Thats a long time when you figure there was an extensive search and they know the approximate area he was in.

I also beileve that Diana and the truck where moved to where they are after she was killed. Especially after reading the interview with Mike's Dad. The question is did Mike leave the truck and her there or did someone else?

I'm sure that may part of the reason. I also think that the fact that most humans don't much in the flesh on them and that most animals have an instinctive fear of humans are also factors. Until the person was clearly deceased, most animals would simply avoid them.

And in the past 26 years, the area were this occurred has seen it's population almost double. It's likely that this "remote" area isn't very remote anymore. I believe that if Mike Riemer were there, his remains would have been found.

There is a reason that humans where able to survive in the wild before we had weapons. We taste like crap to animals. They may attack and bite at a human but will usually spit us out because the taste is no good.

You hear the same thing with shark attacks. Shark bites into human, realizes they taste awful and spits them out. So what animal would actually consume him? Buzzards? Even still they don't consume bones or teeth.

It took three months to find Diana's body. The body of Riemer has not turned up in 26 years. Thats a long time when you figure there was an extensive search and they know the approximate area he was in.

I also beileve that Diana and the truck where moved to where they are after she was killed. Especially after reading the interview with Mike's Dad. The question is did Mike leave the truck and her there or did someone else?

Keith Reinhard has been missing since 1988, and in all likelihood his remains are somewhere up on Pendelton Mountain in Colorado. He's the guy who was writing a book about another resident in the town he lived that went missing on Pendelton Mountain as well. There was a massive search that logged over 10,000 hours and he has yet to be found to this day. He was married, with kids, and its unlikely that he would have just left on his own accord. That's why I find it very likely that Riemer's remains are still in the Washington wilderness, yet to be found.

We simply have no way of knowing when Diana's body and the truck were dropped off. It may have been the same day, it could have been days later. If a serial killer was responsible he had ample time to concoct a plan to in effect frame Riemer by hiding/disposing of his body.

The more I think about Crystal's statement "Mommy's in the trees.", the more I think Riemer was killed before Diana. They asked Crystal where her parents were, and that was her response. If Crystal was in fact dropped off a day after her mother was killed by Riemer, I think by now she would have said something. Being abandoned by your father would be traumatic enough for a small child to remember, IMO. The fact that there was no mention of Riemer leads me to believe he was killed away from Diana and Crystal.

Keith Reinhard has been missing since 1988, and in all likelihood his remains are somewhere up on Pendelton Mountain in Colorado. He's the guy who was writing a book about another resident in the town he lived that went missing on Pendelton Mountain as well. There was a massive search that logged over 10,000 hours and he has yet to be found to this day. He was married, with kids, and its unlikely that he would have just left on his own accord. That's why I find it very likely that Riemer's remains are still in the Washington wilderness, yet to be found.

We simply have no way of knowing when Diana's body and the truck were dropped off. It may have been the same day, it could have been days later. If a serial killer was responsible he had ample time to concoct a plan to in effect frame Riemer by hiding/disposing of his body.

The more I think about Crystal's statement "Mommy's in the trees.", the more I think Riemer was killed before Diana. They asked Crystal where her parents were, and that was her response. If Crystal was in fact dropped off a day after her mother was killed by Riemer, I think by now she would have said something. Being abandoned by your father would be traumatic enough for a small child to remember, IMO. The fact that there was no mention of Riemer leads me to believe he was killed away from Diana and Crystal.

1) The area in which Reinhard "allegedly disappeared" is far more rugged than the area where Riemer disappeared. And Reinhard was in serious financial trouble, as the business he'd opened and invested most of his money in was failing. It may be that he simply left a bad situation and either died when he was away or began a new life.

2) The more I think about the truck being hidden, the less likely it appears that this was the work of a third party. Why? There's simply no reason for a third party to go to all the trouble of moving the truck and/or hiding Diana's body. If there was a 3rd party, that person had clearly gotten away w/ at least one murder. Why expose themselves to the risks of being caught by moving a body and truck, when they may not have been found for an extended period anyway?

Also, we return to the little girl: There's simply no way that a third party killer would have risked being caught by either taking her to the store or driving w/ her on the highway unless that person had a great deal of concern for her. The killer would have also killed her or if he/she didn't want or couldn't do the deed, they simply could have left her in the woods and let nature do it.

3) Not knowing how much of a father Riemer was to his daughter (since he didn't seem to live w/ Diana) there's no way of knowing how close his daughter was to him. If they weren't close (or if she was scared of him) then there's no reason to believe that she would remember being dropped off by him as that portion of the story (at least for her) wouldn't be "important."

The more I think about this case, and after seeing it again I think its 80-20 that Mike did it.

1. Who would be the most likely person to drop off his daughter unharmed? Mike himself. An unknown serial killer does not leave witnesses, regardless of how young.

2. Mike had threatened to kill Diana before and had been known to abuse her. Maybe the abuse wasn't serious but he was known to do so.

3. His body was never found, and the things he does for a living can easily go unnoticed. He could have easily fled to Canada or somewhere and be living a quiet unnoticed life.

1) The area in which Reinhard "allegedly disappeared" is far more rugged than the area where Riemer disappeared. And Reinhard was in serious financial trouble, as the business he'd opened and invested most of his money in was failing. It may be that he simply left a bad situation and either died when he was away or wanted a new life.

2) The more I think about the truck being hidden, the less likely it appears that this was the work of a third party. Why? There's simply no reason for a third party to go to all the trouble of moving the truck and/or hiding Diana's body. If there was a 3rd party, that person had clearly gotten away w/ at least one murder. Why expose themselves to the risks of being caught by moving a body and truck, when they may not have been found for an extended period anyway?

Also, we return to the little girl: There's simply no way that a third party killer would have risked being caught by either taking her to the store or driving w/ her on the highway unless that person had a great deal of concern for her. The killer would have also killed her or if he/she didn't want or couldn't do the deed, they simply could have left her in teh woods and let nature do it.

3) Not knowing how much of a father Riemer was to his daughter (since he didn't seem to live w/ Diana) there's no way of knowing how close his daughter was to him. If they weren't close (or if she was scared of him) then there's no reason to believe that she would remember being dropped off by him as that portion of teh story (at least for her) wouldn't be "important."

1) Reinhard was not suicidal or depressed according to those closest to him. It seems highly unlikely that he would skip out of town and start a new life, leaving his family behind, all over financial trouble. Everyone who saw him the day he disappeared said he was in good spirits. Not to mention Reinhard was on a leave of abscence from his other full time job in Illinois. So even if his business in Colorado failed, he still had his other job to fall back on.

2) The killer may not have moved the truck and Diana's body. She may have been killed where she was found. It really could go either way. Riemer put himself at a greater risk leaving the scene in his truck to drive all the way back with his daugther for thirty miles, then drive the thirty miles back to leave the truck. I've said it several times now, anyone who would have seen Riemer at any time that day without Diana or Crystal would be a crucial witness (obviously), and Riemer would instantly be your prime suspect and a warrant would be issued IMO. But that never happened, which leads me to believe Crystal was dropped off in another vehicle by someone else. As for exposing themselves by moving the truck and Diana's body, the same argument you use could also be applied to Riemer. And why would Riemer feel the need to hide his truck, if he (according to you):

A. Planned on starting a new life. (He would need a vehicle to accomplish this, and why not take his truck out of the area after he dropped Crystal off and drive into Canada, or anywhere else in the world and then abandon it? Why implicate himself further by leaving it right next to Diana's body?)
B. Was a serial killer. (By this homicide potentially being connected to the Harkins/Cooper homicides, he could have done a lot more to make himself look like a "victim". He could have left his guns, other articles of clothing, etc. Or if Riemer wasn't responsible for the Harkins/Cooper homicides and he was using the "copycat" method with the sock, why go through all of that trouble anyway?)

The probability that Riemer viciously murdered Diana, drove his daughter to a store thirty miles away and abandoned her, then drove the thirty mile trip back, took his coat off to make himself look innocent, then abandon his truck and Diana's body, and then hitchike out of the area without anyone remembering seeing him is near impossible. Their disappearances were locally known in the Washington area, and if Riemer was hitchiking out of the area, he would have been easily identifiable, being that he would have to have been covered in blood. So someone would have remembered giving him a ride for how many other people would be hitchiking, covered in blood, without a coat in the middle of Decemeber? Riemer would have stood out like a dime in a roll of pennies. Or if Riemer had a friend give him a ride, why didn't this person come forward by now knowing that Riemer killed Diana?

3) Yes you would remember your father abandoning you no matter how "close" or "scared" you were of him. If she witnessed her father murder her mother, and then her father drove her for about an hour and then just left her in the middle of a bunch of strangers, how would that not be an important part of her story? Not to mention the fact that had Crystal and Riemer not been that close, you yourself have stated this about a man traveling alone with a child, just how cooperative would a two year old girl have been with her father who was taking her away from her mother? She would have been screaming and crying. The fact that she was found stunned and silent at the store tells me someone else scared the beejesus out of her.

1) Reinhard was not suicidal or depressed according to those closest to him. It seems highly unlikely that he would skip out of town and start a new life, leaving his family behind, all over financial trouble. Everyone who saw him the day he disappeared said he was in good spirits. Not to mention Reinhard was on a leave of abscence from his other full time job in Illinois. So even if his business in Colorado failed, he still had his other job to fall back on.

2) The killer may not have moved the truck and Diana's body. She may have been killed where she was found. It really could go either way. Riemer put himself at a greater risk leaving the scene in his truck to drive all the way back with his daugther for thirty miles, then drive the thirty miles back to leave the truck. I've said it several times now, anyone who would have seen Riemer at any time that day without Diana or Crystal would be a crucial witness (obviously), and Riemer would instantly be your prime suspect and a warrant would be issued IMO. But that never happened, which leads me to believe Crystal was dropped off in another vehicle by someone else. As for exposing themselves by moving the truck and Diana's body, the same argument you use could also be applied to Riemer. And why would Riemer feel the need to hide his truck, if he (according to you):

A. Planned on starting a new life. (He would need a vehicle to accomplish this, and why not take his truck out of the area after he dropped Crystal off and drive into Canada, or anywhere else in the world and then abandon it? Why implicate himself further by leaving it right next to Diana's body?)
B. Was a serial killer. (By this homicide potentially being connected to the Harkins/Cooper homicides, he could have done a lot more to make himself look like a "victim". He could have left his guns, other articles of clothing, etc. Or if Riemer wasn't responsible for the Harkins/Cooper homicides and he was using the "copycat" method with the sock, why go through all of that trouble anyway?)

The probability that Riemer viciously murdered Diana, drove his daughter to a store thirty miles away and abandoned her, then drove the thirty mile trip back, took his coat off to make himself look innocent, then abandon his truck and Diana's body, and then hitchike out of the area without anyone remembering seeing him is near impossible. Their disappearances were locally known in the Washington area, and if Riemer was hitchiking out of the area, he would have been easily identifiable, being that he would have to have been covered in blood. So someone would have remembered giving him a ride for how many other people would be hitchiking, covered in blood, without a coat in the middle of Decemeber? Riemer would have stood out like a dime in a roll of pennies. Or if Riemer had a friend give him a ride, why didn't this person come forward by now knowing that Riemer killed Diana?

3) Yes you would remember your father abandoning you no matter how "close" or "scared" you were of him. If she witnessed her father murder her mother, and then her father drove her for about an hour and then just left her in the middle of a bunch of strangers, how would that not be an important part of her story? Not to mention the fact that had Crystal and Riemer not been that close, you yourself have stated this about a man traveling alone with a child, just how cooperative would a two year old girl have been with her father who was taking her away from her mother? She would have been screaming and crying. The fact that she was found stunned and silent at the store tells me someone else scared the beejesus out of her.

Let see:

1) You don't need to be "depressed or suicidal" to leave your family. In fact, people leave their old lives because they are depressed or potentially suicidal. People forget that suicide is far harder for most people than simply running away is. Simply leaving and then coming back later or never returning are both a lot more common than people care to admit.

2) Again, why drop her off at all? The person killed her parents and yet was "concerned" that the girl be found unharmed? Killing and getting away w/ it are the two "biological imperatives" of a serial killer. Very little gets in the way of that which is why they are so difficult to apprehend.

Riemer probably had another jacket,coat,whatever. Anybody that's spent a lot of time in the woods would know to keep an extra change or clothing (or two) in their vehicle. Anybody who didn't would certainly learn a hard lesson quickly.

3) I think that you are forgetting that the human mind isn't a video/audio recorder. What people remember is rarely exactly what happened. Memories are transitory and most people (especially children) suppress uncomfortable or unpleasant memories.

If Crystal were asleep or always in the truck, then there would be little for her to "remember." And if somebody told her "Mommy's in the trees" she would simply repeat that as a mantra. Tell a young child "No way, Jose" and see how long it takes them to forget that.

Keith Reinhard has been missing since 1988, and in all likelihood his remains are somewhere up on Pendelton Mountain in Colorado. He's the guy who was writing a book about another resident in the town he lived that went missing on Pendelton Mountain as well. There was a massive search that logged over 10,000 hours and he has yet to be found to this day. He was married, with kids, and its unlikely that he would have just left on his own accord. That's why I find it very likely that Riemer's remains are still in the Washington wilderness, yet to be found.

We simply have no way of knowing when Diana's body and the truck were dropped off. It may have been the same day, it could have been days later. If a serial killer was responsible he had ample time to concoct a plan to in effect frame Riemer by hiding/disposing of his body.

The more I think about Crystal's statement "Mommy's in the trees.", the more I think Riemer was killed before Diana. They asked Crystal where her parents were, and that was her response. If Crystal was in fact dropped off a day after her mother was killed by Riemer, I think by now she would have said something. Being abandoned by your father would be traumatic enough for a small child to remember, IMO. The fact that there was no mention of Riemer leads me to believe he was killed away from Diana and Crystal.

Reinhard may have just moved on like Riemer could have. We dont know if hes up in those mountains or not. Two cases come to mind for me on this subject. One being Devin Williams, the trucker that was acting erratic that wondered off in the wilderness and was never seen. His remains where found years later by hunters. Then the case of the boy that they had thought was with Tara Calico. He went missing in the wilderness, massive search turns up nothing then his remains are found not far from where he went missing a few years later. Normally when we know the general area that someone went missing in it seems their body will eventually turn up.

The family was reported missing that night. Do you think the killer was driving around moving bodies and what not while police where looking for that truck? Keep in mind that when they where reported missing Mike's family told LE where they where suppose to be so this means LE was in the area. I doubt the killer had as much time as you might think.

Crystal was only two. Two year olds dont say much. For all we know she slept through the event as well as the ride to spanway.

Reinhard may have just moved on like Riemer could have. We dont know if hes up in those mountains or not. Two cases come to mind for me on this subject. One being Devin Williams, the trucker that was acting erratic that wondered off in the wilderness and was never seen. His remains where found years later by hunters. Then the case of the boy that they had thought was with Tara Calico. He went missing in the wilderness, massive search turns up nothing then his remains are found not far from where he went missing a few years later. Normally when we know the general area that someone went missing in it seems their body will eventually turn up.

The family was reported missing that night. Do you think the killer was driving around moving bodies and what not while police where looking for that truck? Keep in mind that when they where reported missing Mike's family told LE where they where suppose to be so this means LE was in the area. I doubt the killer had as much time as you might think.

Crystal was only two. Two year olds dont say much. For all we know she slept through the event as well as the ride to spanway.

Riemer's father reported the couple missing the day after their trip. The fact that Crystal was described by workers at the K-Mart store as "stunned" and "silent" means she was scared stiff of whatever she witnessed (be it the actual murder, or being dropped off at a store by a complete stranger). As for the other segments mentioned, it just goes to show you much more likely it could be that Riemer's remains have yet to be found.

1) You don't need to be "depressed or suicidal" to leave your family. In fact, people leave their old lives because they are depressed or potentially suicidal. People forget that suicide is far harder for most people than simply running away is. Simply leaving and then coming back later or never returning are both a lot more common than people care to admit.

Isn't this, in effect, what a suicide would do? By leaving his family and never contacting them again, it's almost the same exact outcome as an actual suicide. You don't need to be depressed or suicidal to leave your family, but by going hiking up a mountain in tennis shoes certainly suggests he had no intention of leaving for good. Why didn't Reinhard take his belongings or his truck with him if that were the case? You indicated his business was failing, but he had a regular full time job that he was on leave from. Everything for Reinhard was in Illinois. All he had to do was pack up and head back home to his family and his job.

Riemer's father reported the couple missing the day after their trip. The fact that Crystal was described by workers at the K-Mart store as "stunned" and "silent" means she was scared stiff of whatever she witnessed (be it the actual murder, or being dropped off at a store by a complete stranger). As for the other segments mentioned, it just goes to show you much more likely it could be that Riemer's remains have yet to be found.



Isn't this, in effect, what a suicide would do? By leaving his family and never contacting them again, it's almost the same exact outcome as an actual suicide. You don't need to be depressed or suicidal to leave your family, but by going hiking up a mountain in tennis shoes certainly suggests he had no intention of leaving for good. Why didn't Reinhard take his belongings or his truck with him if that were the case? You indicated his business was failing, but he had a regular full time job that he was on leave from. Everything for Reinhard was in Illinois. All he had to do was pack up and head back home to his family and his job.

I dont think we can speculate as to why Crystal was acting stunned. She was two years old. We simply dont know. If she slept through the trip and awoke to being left in a strange place then she might be a little stunned.
One of the articles said that when crystal was taken to foster care all she wanted to do was play and that she seemed very happy. So maybe she didnt witness anything tramatic.

The point Im making with the other cases is that often times when people go missing and are not found with the initial search they are later stumbled upon. It happens alot. Not with Riemer though and we know the general area he was in.

Riemer's father reported the couple missing the day after their trip. The fact that Crystal was described by workers at the K-Mart store as "stunned" and "silent" means she was scared stiff of whatever she witnessed (be it the actual murder, or being dropped off at a store by a complete stranger). As for the other segments mentioned, it just goes to show you much more likely it could be that Riemer's remains have yet to be found.



Isn't this, in effect, what a suicide would do? By leaving his family and never contacting them again, it's almost the same exact outcome as an actual suicide. You don't need to be depressed or suicidal to leave your family, but by going hiking up a mountain in tennis shoes certainly suggests he had no intention of leaving for good. Why didn't Reinhard take his belongings or his truck with him if that were the case? You indicated his business was failing, but he had a regular full time job that he was on leave from. Everything for Reinhard was in Illinois. All he had to do was pack up and head back home to his family and his job.

I don't know how much Reinhard invested into opening his business financially or emotionally. Failure could have the worst (at least in his mind) thing that could have happened to him. Also, if he left his old job to open a business, that kind of states that he wasn't too happy w/ his job.

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

Hmmm, well my mistake. Although the original poster did spell the name incorrectly so that would explain it.

I dont think we can speculate as to why Crystal was acting stunned. She was two years old. We simply dont know. If she slept through the trip and awoke to being left in a strange place then she might be a little stunned.

Really? A two year old toddler in a strange place without her parents or any guardian and she doesn't immediately start crying? The fact that the workers "found" Crystal in that stunned state tell me that she was outside or in the store for at least an hour before anyone noticed she was without her parents. If she simply slept through the whole ordeal don't you think she would have at the very least started crying for her parents by that point?

Really? A two year old toddler in a strange place without her parents or any guardian and she doesn't immediately start crying? The fact that the workers "found" Crystal in that stunned state tell me that she was outside or in the store for at least an hour before anyone noticed she was without her parents. If she simply slept through the whole ordeal don't you think she would have at the very least started crying for her parents by that point?

Well you can speculate all you want on this. I don't see how it matters. The idea that she was in a "stunned" state came from a worker at the Kmart store that was interviewed on UM.

I don't know if she would have cried if she saw the murder happen. How could anyone know that?

Im surprised you can tell how long she was in the parking lot alone based on the description of her demeanor when she was found.

Well you can speculate all you want on this. I don't see how it matters. The idea that she was in a "stunned" state came from a worker at the Kmart store that was interviewed on UM.

I don't know if she would have cried if she saw the murder happen. How could anyone know that?

Im surprised you can tell how long she was in the parking lot alone based on the description of her demeanor when she was found.

I'm not basing that off of her demeanor. All I'm saying is how many people passed Crystal and assumed she was with her parents before someone caught on and realized she was left unattended? Say someone noticed her on their way into the store. A certain amount of time would have lapsed by them shopping/browsing before they went back outside and saw Crystal still standing there and then they would start to put two and two together. Especially if she wasn't crying, she wouldn't have garnered that much attention initially.

Look I hope Crystal didn't witness anything. I don't know what she saw or heard. But I do know that a two year old left alone in an unfamiliar area would start carrying on and crying almost instantly. I don't know what her demeanor was that day, but by all accounts she was not crying and carrying on.

Living in the Pac NW there are tons and tons of wooded areas south and north of Seattle. It's very possible Riemer disappeared and surfaced elsewhere. What I don't understand is why no one saw the girl being dropped off at K-mart 30 miles from the scene. All the evidence points to Mike the damning of which being the envelope and the sock. Mike could have fled and disappeared but what I find bizarre is that he still has not been found which more than likely means he is deceased. The Pac NW is packed with very desolate forests and wilderness, remember DB Cooper? He doesn't seem like the type who had the money and opportunity to simply run away and start a new life aka William Bradford Bishop.

Living in the Pac NW there are tons and tons of wooded areas south and north of Seattle. It's very possible Riemer disappeared and surfaced elsewhere. What I don't understand is why no one saw the girl being dropped off at K-mart 30 miles from the scene. All the evidence points to Mike the damning of which being the envelope and the sock. Mike could have fled and disappeared but what I find bizarre is that he still has not been found which more than likely means he is deceased. The Pac NW is packed with very desolate forests and wilderness, remember DB Cooper? He doesn't seem like the type who had the money and opportunity to simply run away and start a new life aka William Bradford Bishop.

It's hard to say how Riemer finances were fixed as the UM segment and the newspaper articles scrupulously avoid mentioning them. Neither do they state where Riemer was living, if he owned any other vehicles (like a motorcycle) or if he even had a bank account.Given the fact that no co-workers(nor apparently any friends) reported Diana missing, it may be safe to assume that she was being supported (at least in part) by Riemer.
That could have been another source of tension between the two.

Riemer could have had several thousand (or more) dollars on hand and he could easily have sold any pelts, weapons or misc. gear that he had to raise money. It wouldn't take too much to be on the run if you are hitching rides, not buying gas (he left his truck) and sleeping "rough."

Personally, I think that next to Hazel Head, Whitey Bulger and Donald Eugene Webb, Mike Riemer stands out as a person best suited to be a fugitive. He worked all cash jobs, he had a number of employable skills that we know about (and probably more that we don't ) and he seemed to have led a low-key lifestyle. Additionally given his knowledge of trapping and woodcraft, he could easily go from mainstream society to "mountain man mode" w/ very little effort.

I don't think, however, that he is still in the Pacific NW unless he was in British Columbia or the Yukon. Why? The trapping/hunting community is relatively small (as a proportion of the population) and Riemer would have definitely been seen had he stayed in the area.

It's hard to say how Riemer finances were fixed as the UM segment and the newspaper articles scrupulously avoid mentioning them. Neither do they state where Riemer was living, if he owned any other vehicles (like a motorcycle) or if he even had a bank account.Given the fact that no co-workers(nor apparently any friends) reported Diana missing, it may be safe to assume that she was being supported (at least in part) by Riemer.
That could have been another source of tension between the two.

Riemer could have had several thousand (or more) dollars on hand and he could easily have sold any pelts, weapons or misc. gear that he had to raise money. It wouldn't take too much to be on the run if you are hitching rides, not buying gas (he left his truck) and sleeping "rough."

Personally, I think that next to Hazel Head, Whitey Bulger and Donald Eugene Webb, Mike Riemer stands out as a person best suited to be a fugitive. He worked all cash jobs, he had a number of employable skills that we know about (and probably more that we don't ) and he seemed to have led a low-key lifestyle. Additionally given his knowledge of trapping and woodcraft, he could easily go from mainstream society to "mountain man mode" w/ very little effort.

I don't think, however, that he is still in the Pacific NW unless he was in British Columbia or the Yukon. Why? The trapping/hunting community is relatively small (as a proportion of the population) and Riemer would have definitely been seen had he stayed in the area.

None of Diana's co-workers had a chance to report her missing. Riemer's father reported Riemer, Diana, and Crystal missing the morning after the day of their Christmas Tree/Checking Traps trip.

Living in the Pac NW there are tons and tons of wooded areas south and north of Seattle. It's very possible Riemer disappeared and surfaced elsewhere. What I don't understand is why no one saw the girl being dropped off at K-mart 30 miles from the scene. All the evidence points to Mike the damning of which being the envelope and the sock. Mike could have fled and disappeared but what I find bizarre is that he still has not been found which more than likely means he is deceased. The Pac NW is packed with very desolate forests and wilderness, remember DB Cooper? He doesn't seem like the type who had the money and opportunity to simply run away and start a new life aka William Bradford Bishop.

I dont get why you say that he is more then likely deceased because he hasn't been found. For starters he is listed as missing and no one is in fact looking for him. He is not wanted by the FBI and there is no warrant for his arrest. So why is it so hard to imagine he hasn't been found?

I also don't get how you can know that Mike isnt a DB Cooper or Bishop type? All we know of him is a short segment on UM. I don't think anyone can make judgement calls about what type of person he is.

I'm not basing that off of her demeanor. All I'm saying is how many people passed Crystal and assumed she was with her parents before someone caught on and realized she was left unattended? Say someone noticed her on their way into the store. A certain amount of time would have lapsed by them shopping/browsing before they went back outside and saw Crystal still standing there and then they would start to put two and two together. Especially if she wasn't crying, she wouldn't have garnered that much attention initially.

Look I hope Crystal didn't witness anything. I don't know what she saw or heard. But I do know that a two year old left alone in an unfamiliar area would start carrying on and crying almost instantly. I don't know what her demeanor was that day, but by all accounts she was not crying and carrying on.
I just don't think we can speculate as to what a two year old would do in that situation. Its like kids going to a new day care or school, some will cry and through fits at first while others will just carry on about there business like it doesnt bother them in the least.

Whenever we have a Unsolved Mystery like this I always pay close attention to what the people closest to the situation have to say. They know the people involved better then any of us audience members and alot of times have much more information then the general public.
That being said Id like to point out several things about the segment. First Diana's mother appears to have no sympathy for Mike and she all but fingers him as the suspect. I mean your daughter and the father of her child go missing and you are on national television bad mouthing the father?? Would she do this if she too beileved him to be a victim?? You would think she would also be concerened for Mike but all she does is talk about what an abusive person he was as well as tell the world he had threatened to kill Diana. Its pretty obvious what she thinks.
Then ofcourse you have Diana's sister who follows up the mother talking about what an abusive person Mike is and how he beat Diana up constantly. Again its obvious what she thinks.
Then we have Mike's best friend who was conducting the searches by air. He stated in the segment that when Diana was found he assumed Mike was killed also and would be located. Then he acts a litttle unsure and says "thats probably the way I still feel now but there are some answers to questions that Im not satisfied with".
He is blatantly showing that he is not convinced Mike was a victim here.

I dont know how much the fathers interview was edited but the only thing we get from him is the comment about the coat. Im sure he said more but thats all we have.

So what Im saying is its obvious the people closest to Mike and Diana have serious doubts as to him being a victim in this case and we have to wonder why.

Whenever we have a Unsolved Mystery like this I always pay close attention to what the people closest to the situation have to say. They know the people involved better then any of us audience members and alot of times have much more information then the general public.
That being said Id like to point out several things about the segment. First Diana's mother appears to have no sympathy for Mike and she all but fingers him as the suspect. I mean your daughter and the father of her child go missing and you are on national television bad mouthing the father?? Would she do this if she too beileved him to be a victim?? You would think she would also be concerened for Mike but all she does is talk about what an abusive person he was as well as tell the world he had threatened to kill Diana. Its pretty obvious what she thinks.
Then ofcourse you have Diana's sister who follows up the mother talking about what an abusive person Mike is and how he beat Diana up constantly. Again its obvious what she thinks.
Then we have Mike's best friend who was conducting the searches by air. He stated in the segment that when Diana was found he assumed Mike was killed also and would be located. Then he acts a litttle unsure and says "thats probably the way I still feel now but there are some answers to questions that Im not satisfied with".
He is blatantly showing that he is not convinced Mike was a victim here.

I dont know how much the fathers interview was edited but the only thing we get from him is the comment about the coat. Im sure he said more but thats all we have.

So what Im saying is its obvious the people closest to Mike and Diana have serious doubts as to him being a victim in this case and we have to wonder why.

It's obvious why the mother and sister would bad mouth Riemer on national television. He physically abused Diana, of course her family would hate him for that alone. Throw in the fact that Riemer's body was not found at that point, and the note left on the dash, in their minds all signs pointed to Riemer. Since it seems like Diana's relatives were convinced of Riemer's guilt and the fact that he was still alive, I wonder if they are still pushing law enforcement to find him, or if they have conceded to the fact that he's most likely dead.

It's obvious why the mother and sister would bad mouth Riemer on national television. He physically abused Diana, of course her family would hate him for that alone. Throw in the fact that Riemer's body was not found at that point, and the note left on the dash, in their minds all signs pointed to Riemer. Since it seems like Diana's relatives were convinced of Riemer's guilt and the fact that he was still alive, I wonder if they are still pushing law enforcement to find him, or if they have conceded to the fact that he's most likely dead.

I dont think they are or ever did push for that and I will bet it was because they wanted to sheild Crystal from the idea that her father killed her mother and abandoned her. They only place I have seen any interviews or qoutes from the family was on the segment. In the archived articles all you hear from are Mike's father and friends. Not a peep from Diana's family.

Normally the families of victims are the ones that keep these cases in the spotlight with websites or books or hiring investigators etc etc. None of that has happened here. To me this is one of the most interesting cases ever featured on UM but there is almost no info about it anywhere on the web except here.

The archived articles seem to stop in 1986 and then we dont hear another word about it. It doesn't seem that Riemer's family was doing much to keep focus on the case either though Im sure his father died years ago. Apparntly the tube sock killer either lost interest in killing or changed his MO because he seems to have vanished with Riemer.

I just cannot understand how there is not more interest in this case. Though like I said Riemer's father probably died and Diana's family wanted to shield Crystal so they left it alone. I wonder if the families of Cooper and Hawkins ever pushed LE to solve their murders?

I dont think they are or ever did push for that and I will bet it was because they wanted to sheild Crystal from the idea that her father killed her mother and abandoned her. They only place I have seen any interviews or qoutes from the family was on the segment. In the archived articles all you hear from are Mike's father and friends. Not a peep from Diana's family.

Normally the families of victims are the ones that keep these cases in the spotlight with websites or books or hiring investigators etc etc. None of that has happened here. To me this is one of the most interesting cases ever featured on UM but there is almost no info about it anywhere on the web except here.

The archived articles seem to stop in 1986 and then we dont hear another word about it. It doesn't seem that Riemer's family was doing much to keep focus on the case either though Im sure his father died years ago. Apparntly the tube sock killer either lost interest in killing or changed his MO because he seems to have vanished with Riemer.

I just cannot understand how there is not more interest in this case. Though like I said Riemer's father probably died and Diana's family wanted to shield Crystal so they left it alone. I wonder if the families of Cooper and Hawkins ever pushed LE to solve their murders?

Here are several reason that I believe that this case went on the "back burner":

1) It crossed several jurisdictional lines and as any crook knows, when that happens, unless it's a "career-maker" or you are a "media darling" type of fugitive (Whitey Bulger) there's not much reason to pursue an active investigation.

2) There were several serial killers in the Sea-Tac area at the time, including Gary Ridgeway (The Green River Killer) so already limited resources were probably stretched pretty thin.

3) Riemer's family may have believed that he had "done it" and they may not have been too cooperative w/ the police. If they weren't, then this case would have been a "non-starter" from go, as they would have been the best source of information on Riemer.

4) There never seemed to be much impetus on anybody's part to look too closely into this case. Maybe (and I have no idea that this is the case) Riemer's father used his influence to have old friends "slow the case down" or at least give Riemer the "benefit of the doubt." It only takes a short period of inactivity to throw a case like this into disarray.

I agree w/ kane7474 about Diana's family remaining oddly silent about this. I am , however, surprised that Crystal hasn't wanted to look into this herself. She would 28 now and she has to have questions about what happened. This isn't exactly the kind of thing that you can easily "put behind you."

And all of the inactivity in this has definitely helped Riemer, if he's still alive. W/ almost no one looking for him and no warrant out for his arrest, he could walk down the street almost w/o fear of detection. And even if he were detected, w/o a warrant there's next to nothing that LE (or anybody) could do to him.

I dont think they are or ever did push for that and I will bet it was because they wanted to sheild Crystal from the idea that her father killed her mother and abandoned her. They only place I have seen any interviews or qoutes from the family was on the segment. In the archived articles all you hear from are Mike's father and friends. Not a peep from Diana's family.

Normally the families of victims are the ones that keep these cases in the spotlight with websites or books or hiring investigators etc etc. None of that has happened here. To me this is one of the most interesting cases ever featured on UM but there is almost no info about it anywhere on the web except here.

The archived articles seem to stop in 1986 and then we dont hear another word about it. It doesn't seem that Riemer's family was doing much to keep focus on the case either though Im sure his father died years ago. Apparntly the tube sock killer either lost interest in killing or changed his MO because he seems to have vanished with Riemer.

I just cannot understand how there is not more interest in this case. Though like I said Riemer's father probably died and Diana's family wanted to shield Crystal so they left it alone. I wonder if the families of Cooper and Hawkins ever pushed LE to solve their murders?

I agree, this is got to be the top three most baffling mysteries ever profiled on UM. I too cannot find anything on the web relating to Diana's murder and Riemer's disappearance, nor anything on the Harkins/Cooper homicides. I wonder if Riemer's friend is still living in the area of Puyallup, and what his take on the case is now.

I've been reading the back and forth here as well as re-watching the segment. Frankly, the publicly available evidence is mixed enough (and easily interpreted) to support either conclusion. There are only a few facts that are really known; all the rest is speculation.

1. Mike, Diane & Crystal left their home in Puyallup the morning of 12 December. The purpose of the trip, according to what Mike told his father, was to get a Christmas tree and check Mike's traps along the river near Elbe. They were traveling in Mike's truck. It is unknown what, if any, gear and supplies Mike brought with.

2. Crystal is found alone outside a store in Spanaway "late" (exact time not stated) on 12 December (there is some confusion about the date, however the segment and contemporaneous newspaper articles are clear she was found on 12 December). She is not identified for three days. Spanaway is approximately 12 miles south-southwest of Puyallup and about 30 miles north of Elbe. The only information Crystal is able to provide is that "Mommy is in the trees."

3. The family is reported missing the morning of 13 December by Mike's father. He was, apparently, unaware Crystal had been found and, we would presume, reported them missing as he was afraid they might have gotten lost in the woods, or injured. A search was carried out of the area surrounding Mike's trap lines and found no trace of the family.

4. On 18 February, Mike's truck was discovered on an overgrown logging road between Elbe and Mineral. The area was in the same general vicinity as his traps, but not in the immediate vicinity. The truck was under six inches of snow and ice. Next to the truck was the decomposed body of Diane. She had been stabbed 17 times and a tube sock was tied around her neck. We are told of only a few pieces of evidence: Mike's jacket was in the truck; a manila envelope (contents, if any, unknown) had a handwritten message on it saying "I love you Diane," there were human blood stains on the front passenger seat of the car, and rifle shell casings were found in the vicinity of the truck.

5. Mike's body has never been (knowingly) found.

There are a few background facts which also cannot be disputed:

1. Mike & Diane's relationship was stormy. There were criminal charges of domestic abuse pending against Mike at the time of their disappearance. The full scope of the abuse is unclear, however, it is clear that Mike was capable of physical violence against Diane.

2. Mike was a skilled outdoorsman. He had been trapping since he was a teenager and was very familiar with the Elbe area. He was familiar with weapons and usually was armed with a .22

3. Four months before Mike disappeared, a couple was shot to death in Pierce County. Very little information appears online regarding this crime. The couple had left for a camping trip on 10 August. The man was found shot in the forehead, in his car, in a sleeping bag, on 14 August. The woman was found in October, about 1.5 miles away, in heavy brush. She had also been shot and had a tube sock tied around her neck. The sock was the same type as tied around Diane's neck and was tied in the same type of knot.

Frankly, all the rest is speculation. The limitations on forensic science at the time are a great handicap here and we aren't given information as to critical elements of the crime scene(s):

1. LE cannot say if the note was written by Mike. If it was, it may or may not have any significance since its' provenience is unknown. If it was not, that raises interesting possibilities, but again, proves nothing. We have not been told what, if anything, was inside the envelope. Again, this could be something significant, or not, we just don't know.

2. The blood stains in the car would indicate that someone, riding as a passenger, was injured and bleeding inside the car. We aren't told enough else to really say anything further. Today, of course, we'd be able to identify who's blood it was. The pattern of the stains is critical as well - if, for instance, there was splatter on the passenger door, etc., that would likely be evidence of an attack on the passenger - the direction and density of the splatter should also indicate the direction of the attack - was it from the driver's seat, or the rear? The segment shows what appear to be blood smears on the seat - this would be more consistent with someone with an injured hand pushing or pulling something off the seat.

3. We are told next to nothing about Diane's body. Was she clothed? Was there evidence of sexual trauma and/or assault? Was their blood on the scene? Obviously, 17 stab wounds is going to leave a good deal of blood (unless they were post-mortum); there should be no question of whether or not she was killed at the scene.

4. Mike's jacket in the truck tells us nothing, unless it was the only coat he owned. I find that unlikely, but not impossible.

5. The tube sock may or may not be important. Was it exactly the same as Cooper's? Was the knot exactly the same? Was the knot unique enough that it matters? If we presume the sock is some sort of unsub signature, are there any other reports of the same signature?

6. Crystal, of course. While admitting that it's difficult to rationalize the actions of a serial killer, sparing her makes little sense for an unsub. It's not impossible, of course, just unlikely. If Mike killed Diane, sparing Crystal makes much more sense - it would be far easier to show your actions were a fit of rage (potentially leading to a lighter jail sentence); and murdering a defenseless 2-yr old would absolutely lose him any sympathy he would get from family and friends.

7. We have to consider the geography as well. Mike said they were going to Elbe; we are given nothing, however, to confirm they actually did go there. We know Spanaway is on the route back to their home from Elbe as well as the route from either Elbe or Puyallup into Sea/Tac. We can put forth a few scenarios. If Mike was the killer, we have to presume he (or an accomplice) had another vehicle at the dump scene that he used to drop off Crystal and be on his merry way or he drove the truck up to Spanaway just to drop off Crystal and then went back down to Elbe. This last scenario makes little sense, frankly given both the risk and pointlessness of being seen and returning to create one crime scene. If Mike was a victim, we only need assume the killer dropped Crystal off (perhaps with Mike's body in his trunk). The idea of Crystal being picked up by a stranger unrelated to the crime is very improbable. That stranger would have nothing to lose by coming forward and would have been far more likely to bring the child to the police, not abandon them at a store.

8. The condition of the truck may or may not be helpful. The P-I reported it covered with "six inches of snow and ice" - what was the weather like Dec-Feb? When had been the latest thaw and/or snow? It's not likely LE could have pinned down an exact time the truck had been there, but it should at least be able to have narrowed it down.

I'm purposely not coming to a conclusion since I think it's more helpful to discuss the known evidence and letting it illuminate rather then try to fit it to a pet theory; the evidence really goes either way and the only way a solution will be found is if Mike is found alive somewhere, since that would be pretty damning that he's the killer. Even if they found his body up in the woods, it doesn't answer the main question - he just as easily could have been a victim as the killer deciding to commit suicide. Could he still be alive? Sure. It's undisputed he had the skills and abilities to survive both in the woods and in society. The case didn't get national publicity and his appearance would almost certainly be very different now. He worked in cash occupations, so he certainly could have had a stash of money with which to start a new life and obtaining a new ID, etc. was much easier in 1985. On the other hand, that his body hasn't been found isn't all that shocking since there are lots of places to put a body where only serendipity would find it.

Good post. With the little evidence we do have, that's all anyone can really do is speculate everything. Just about every theory or post I've read in this thread could be plausible, IMO. If Riemer in fact were a victim, I think it's possible that either he or Diana or even both knew their killer. If that was the case, that could account for why Crystal was spared.

Good post. With the little evidence we do have, that's all anyone can really do is speculate everything. Just about every theory or post I've read in this thread could be plausible, IMO. If Riemer in fact were a victim, I think it's possible that either he or Diana or even both knew their killer. If that was the case, that could account for why Crystal was spared.

Actually, if the person that killed Diana (and possibly Riemer) was known to both of them, then there would be a good chance that Crystal would recognize that person. That's something that the killer couldn't allow to happen.

Actually, if the person that killed Diana (and possibly Riemer) was known to both of them, then there would be a good chance that Crystal would recognize that person. That's something that the killer couldn't allow to happen.

Like almost everything else in this case, it could go either way. If the killer was known to Mike and/or Diane:

1. S/he could have kept Crystal alive because he knew the family and felt sympathy for them (although that sympathy didn't keep him/her from murdering them); alternatively

2. If s/he was known to the family, Crystal could have identified him/her; alternatively

3. The killer could have known Mike and/or Diane but had never met Crystal.

Like almost everything else in this case, it could go either way. If the killer was known to Mike and/or Diane:

1. S/he could have kept Crystal alive because he knew the family and felt sympathy for them (although that sympathy didn't keep him/her from murdering them); alternatively

2. If s/he was known to the family, Crystal could have identified him/her; alternatively

3. The killer could have known Mike and/or Diane but had never met Crystal.

Sooo..a person that knew one (or both) of the parent's and had a deep enough grudge or was just psycho enough to kill two adults was compassionate enough to take their daughter who might recognize him/her out of the woods? And drop that daughter off at a K-Mart , risking being seen by others? Instead of simply killing her or leaving her to die in the forest?

The fact that Crystal is still alive and one of the "victims" is missing speaks volumes as to who committed the crime(s).

Sooo..a person that knew one (or both) of the parent's and had a deep enough grudge or was just psycho enough to kill two adults was compassionate enough to take their daughter who might recognize him/her out of the woods? And drop that daughter off at a K-Mart , risking being seen by others? Instead of simply killing her or leaving her to die in the forest?

The fact that Crystal is still alive and one of the "victims" is missing speaks volumes as to who committed the crime(s).

Not true. There was a quadruple homicide that happened in Santa Claus, GA back in 1997 at a foster home. There were 9 occupants in the house and the murderer broke in and murdered the parents and a teenage girl and an eight year old boy. He left two boys (4 year old & 10 month old) alive in the house and took 3 young girls (ranging from 3-8) with him for 50 miles before dropping them off on a bridge. If someone is unstable enough to viciously murder a couple, is it really that much of a stretch that he spared Crystal? Why would a serial killer do this? I have no idea but the same question could be asked as to why he killed Cooper, Harkins, Diana, and possibly Riemer.

In these latest exchanges it seems you guys have forgot the other tube sock murder. The person who killed Diana either had intimate knowledge about the murder of Ruth Cooper or was actually her killer. Remember the officer said that the socks used in both where a match. So if someone killed Mike and Diana for some personal grudge how do you explain the similarities with the murder of cooper??

In these latest exchanges it seems you guys have forgot the other tube sock murder. The person who killed Diana either had intimate knowledge about the murder of Ruth Cooper or was actually her killer. So if someone killed Mike and Diana for some personal grudge how do you explain the similarities with the murder of cooper??

We simply don't know if there was any type of sexual assault attempted or done to Ruth Cooper and/or Diana, so we really can't rule out the possibility of a sicko who killed the men to get closer to the women. In the respect that Riemer is guilty, how would one explain the Cooper/Harkins suicide? He had no direct ties to either victim, so what would the point be in brutally murdering them? It's also possible that some psychopath who knew Diana and Mike murdered Cooper and Harkins, and then "selected" Diana and Mike as his next victims for some unknown motive.

Sooo..a person that knew one (or both) of the parent's and had a deep enough grudge or was just psycho enough to kill two adults was compassionate enough to take their daughter who might recognize him/her out of the woods? And drop that daughter off at a K-Mart , risking being seen by others? Instead of simply killing her or leaving her to die in the forest?

The fact that Crystal is still alive and one of the "victims" is missing speaks volumes as to who committed the crime(s).

It's speculation to guess as to the motives of the killer. I would agree that Crystal being spared is more indicative of Mike being the killer, but it's not impossible that a third-party would also spare her.

In these latest exchanges it seems you guys have forgot the other tube sock murder. The person who killed Diana either had intimate knowledge about the murder of Ruth Cooper or was actually her killer. Remember the officer said that the socks used in both where a match. So if someone killed Mike and Diana for some personal grudge how do you explain the similarities with the murder of cooper??

I didn't forget it and did have some questions relating to it - the problem is, from my point of view, is that we know very little about the Cooper killing. Specifically, I would ask these questions:

1. Were the socks exactly the same or the same type - if they were, for instance, a matching pair, or striped or colored the same, I would give more weight to it; if they were generic white tube socks without any proven link, it's possible it's just a coincidence.

2. Were the knots exactly the same, and is the knot unique or special enough to make this important? If the "knot" was just a basic tie-off not requiring any special skills or knowledge, again, it could be coincidence. If the knot was a special type of knot, again, it'd be much more significant.

The cop interviewed in the segment wasn't really clear, so I don't consider these questions answered. We also don't know how much coverage the Cooper murder received - if the knot and the sock were hold-backs, this is obviously more significant then if it were common knowledge (which would easily allow Mike or another killer to copycat).

I would say this:

1. If the sock was exactly the same and the knot was a unique and/or unusual knot and this information was not common knowledge, then there is a high degree of certainty the same individual killed both women.

2. If, on the other hand, the sock is generic, the knot is generic, and/or the sock and knot information was common knowledge, it could be nothing more then an attempt to mislead investigators.

We simply don't know if there was any type of sexual assault attempted or done to Ruth Cooper and/or Diana, so we really can't rule out the possibility of a sicko who killed the men to get closer to the women. In the respect that Riemer is guilty, how would one explain the Cooper/Harkins suicide? He had no direct ties to either victim, so what would the point be in brutally murdering them? It's also possible that some psychopath who knew Diana and Mike murdered Cooper and Harkins, and then "selected" Diana and Mike as his next victims for some unknown motive.

Did you mean "homicide" in stead of suicide? Because I've never nor heard anything that ever described the first killings as a "suicide." And as to why anybody would kill the first couple..who knows? Maybe there was argument. Maybe the killer want to kill someone. Maybe the killer was planning a future killing and wanted to set the stage for it.

Riemer's absence only makes "sense" if for some reason the killer decided to kill him elsewhere and then move the truck and Diana's body alone. And then take the child all the way to the K-Mart and drop her off. Or..if Riemer was the killer.

Not true. There was a quadruple homicide that happened in Santa Claus, GA back in 1997 at a foster home. There were 9 occupants in the house and the murderer broke in and murdered the parents and a teenage girl and an eight year old boy. He left two boys (4 year old & 10 month old) alive in the house and took 3 young girls (ranging from 3-8) with him for 50 miles before dropping them off on a bridge. If someone is unstable enough to viciously murder a couple, is it really that much of a stretch that he spared Crystal? Why would a serial killer do this? I have no idea but the same question could be asked as to why he killed Cooper, Harkins, Diana, and possibly Riemer.

In 1977, two 747's collided on a runway. Never happened before...never happened since.My point: There are numerous thing that CAN happen. But the odds against them happening as so astronomical that they don't. In this case, the odds of a third party committing all of the acts involved in this case are so astronomical as to be unlikely.

Did you mean "homicide" in stead of suicide? Because I've never nor heard anything that ever described the first killings as a "suicide." And as to why anybody would kill the first couple..who knows? Maybe there was argument. Maybe the killer want to kill someone. Maybe the killer was planning a future killing and wanted to set the stage for it.

Riemer's absence only makes "sense" if for some reason the killer decided to kill him elsewhere and then move the truck and Diana's body alone. And then take the child all the way to the K-Mart and drop her off. Or..if Riemer was the killer.

Really don't know what I was thinking when I typed suicide, but yes I meant homicide. The fact that Ruth Cooper was found 1-1/2 miles away from Harkins tells me that she was the target somehow. Let's assume their killer did get into a heated argument and it wasn't a planned attack. If Harkins/Cooper did/said something to set this guy off, he would have just shot both of them dead at point blank range. The fact that Harkins was shot in his sleeeping bag tells me the killer snuck up on the couple, killed Harkins, and then took Cooper (at gunpoint presumably) to the spot where she was found and killed her. For all we know something similiar could have happened to Riemer and Diana.

Sooo..a person that knew one (or both) of the parent's and had a deep enough grudge or was just psycho enough to kill two adults was compassionate enough to take their daughter who might recognize him/her out of the woods? And drop that daughter off at a K-Mart , risking being seen by others? Instead of simply killing her or leaving her to die in the forest?

That same logic can be applied to Riemer. Riemer would also risk being seen by others, and there was no guarantee that Crystal wouldn't tell authorities that Riemer was the one who dropped her off. If Crystal didn't witness the actual crime (and let's hope to God she didn't), is it that illogical that a killer would spare her life?

That some logic can be applied to Riemer. Riemer would also risk being seen by others, and there was no guarantee that Crystal wouldn't tell authorities that Riemer was the one who dropped her off. If Crystal didn't witness the actual crime (and let's hope to God she didn't), is it that illogical that a killer would spare her life?

Yes, it was illogical for the killer to spare her life, whether it was Riemer or an unnamed third party. While Crystal didn't give details of what happened, she easily could have. And that fact would have to be on the mind of whoever killed her mother.Of the two potential killers in the case, IMO, only Riemer had a reason to allow the child to live and only Riemer would have expended the time and resources (as well as taken the risk) to have transported the girl away from the crime scene.

That some logic can be applied to Riemer. Riemer would also risk being seen by others, and there was no guarantee that Crystal wouldn't tell authorities that Riemer was the one who dropped her off. If Crystal didn't witness the actual crime (and let's hope to God she didn't), is it that illogical that a killer would spare her life?
Could it be that Reimer knew that Crystal had very little vocabulary and would not be able to tell anyone he had dropped her off?

Could it be that Reimer knew that Crystal had very little vocabulary and would not be able to tell anyone he had dropped her off?

While that is possible, what if Crystal suddenly remembered being dropped off by Riemer when she got older? The silence about Riemer from Crystal tells me she simlpy didn't know where he was.

While that is possible, what if Crystal suddenly remembered being dropped off by Riemer when she got older? The silence about Riemer from Crystal tells me she simlpy didn't know where he was.

To be fair, we don't know what Crystal might have said. Without knowing her vocabulary (sophisticated enough to say "Mommy is in the trees" at least), it's still hard to imagine she wouldn't be able to say something about WHO dropped her off, unless she was traumatized, drugged, etc..

Given the nature of memory, I would not expect Crystal today to remember anything at all from when she was 2.

Could it be that Reimer knew that Crystal had very little vocabulary and would not be able to tell anyone he had dropped her off?

That's certainly a plausible theory.

To be fair, we don't know what Crystal might have said. Without knowing her vocabulary (sophisticated enough to say "Mommy is in the trees" at least), it's still hard to imagine she wouldn't be able to say something about WHO dropped her off, unless she was traumatized, drugged, etc..

Given the nature of memory, I would not expect Crystal today to remember anything at all from when she was 2.

Maybe not now, but at the time being abandoned by your own parent would be traumatizing enough. The fact that she accurately stated where her mother was (despite her limited vocabulary), shows she was bright for her age.

Changing the subject for a minute: Does anybody have the GPS coordinates of the site where they found the truck? Or does anybody have any Google Maps sat photos of the area?

Changing the subject for a minute: Does anybody have the GPS coordinates of the site where they found the truck? Or does anybody have any Google Maps sat photos of the area?

I've searched on google looking up Elbe, WA to get a general area of where the truck was found. Then I searched Puyallup and Spanaway as well just to see how far everything apart was from each other. Elbe is very close to Mount Ranier National Park and it seems like the area is surrounded by many national parks and forests. Looking at the map, IMHO, show how vast the forests are in the area and the odds that someone's remains could not be found for years are quite high.

I've searched on google looking up Elbe, WA to get a general area of where the truck was found. Then I searched Puyallup and Spanaway as well just to see how far everything apart was from each other. Elbe is very close to Mount Ranier National Park and it seems like the area is surrounded by many national parks and forests. Looking at the map, IMHO, show how vast the forests are in the area and the odds that someone's remains could not be found for years are quite high.
Well then why is it that so many people's remains have been found up there?

Changing the subject for a minute: Does anybody have the GPS coordinates of the site where they found the truck? Or does anybody have any Google Maps sat photos of the area?
This goes back to the fact that there is so little info about this case available. I beileve it was said they where near the Pierrce/lewis county line and south of Elbe. So without requesting police reports thats about as close as you can get.

I've searched on google looking up Elbe, WA to get a general area of where the truck was found. Then I searched Puyallup and Spanaway as well just to see how far everything apart was from each other. Elbe is very close to Mount Ranier National Park and it seems like the area is surrounded by many national parks and forests. Looking at the map, IMHO, show how vast the forests are in the area and the odds that someone's remains could not be found for years are quite high.

There's that. My interest is how far the location of the truck is from a major road or a main highway. Whether or not Riemer was actually the killer or it was some unknown third party, there's a question of how that person left the area after abandoning the truck and Diana's body.

Did they have a vehicle parked in that area? Did they carry a smaller wheeled vehicle in the truck and use that that? Did they use a horse? Did they use the boat that was shown in the segment?

If they hiked out on foot, a sat map of the area might help determine exactly how they did it and where they might have caught a ride. If it was more than a few miles from a main road, then you have to ask if that person camped in the area after abandoning the truck, as walking through a rough heavily wooded area would take far longer than walking in an urban area.

I think that this also could be used in the first two murders. Their killer would have to had a reason to be in the area and the means to get there and leave, since he/she apparently didn't steal the campers vehicle.

There's that. My interest is how far the location of the truck is from a major road or a main highway. Whether or not Riemer was actually the killer or it was some unknown third party, there's a question of how that person left the area after abandoning the truck and Diana's body.

Did they have a vehicle parked in that area? Did they carry a smaller wheeled vehicle in the truck and use that that? Did they use a horse? Did they use the boat that was shown in the segment?

If they hiked out on foot, a sat map of the area might help determine exactly how they did it and where they might have caught a ride. If it was more than a few miles from a main road, then you have to ask if that person camped in the area after abandoning the truck, as walking through a rough heavily wooded area would take far longer than walking in an urban area.

I think that this also could be used in the first two murders. Their killer would have to had a reason to be in the area and the means to get there and leave, since he/she apparently didn't steal the campers vehicle.
Diana and the truck where found by a man who had stopped off a main road to let his dog get out and run around. So from that Id say its pretty close to a main road. The way they present the story of him finding the body doesn't seem to indicate that he had went on a long hike.

Diana and the truck where found by a man who had stopped off a main road to let his dog get out and run around. So from that Id say its pretty close to a main road. The way they present the story of him finding the body doesn't seem to indicate that he had went on a long hike.

That was the reason that I wanted to look at a Google Map of the area where the truck was found. Although it's probably changed a lot in the 26 years since then, it still sounded (and from the segment appeared) to be a remote area. If it's near a main road or highway, then that would explain how the killer was able to not walk miles to leave the area.

After the killer abandoned Riemer's vehicle he/she essentially had few choices: Leave the area on foot and hitch a ride; leave the area in/on another vehicle or hike out of the area on foot. A third party killer would likely have had another vehicle, because being seen leaving the area might have divulged his identity and (according to the narrative) he was armed. An armed hitchhiker would probably have experienced serious difficulties w/ the police while hitching.

A knife might not cause any issues; A firearm almost certainly would.

That was the reason that I wanted to look at a Google Map of the area where the truck was found. Although it's probably changed a lot in the 26 years since then, it still sounded (and from the segment appeared) to be a remote area. If it's near a main road or highway, then that would explain how the killer was able to not walk miles to leave the area.

After the killer abandoned Riemer's vehicle he/she essentially had few choices: Leave the area on foot and hitch a ride; leave the area in/on another vehicle or hike out of the area on foot. A third party killer would likely have had another vehicle, because being seen leaving the area might have divulged his identity and (according to the narrative) he was armed. An armed hitchhiker would probably have experienced serious difficulties w/ the police while hitching.

A knife might not cause any issues; A firearm almost certainly would.

I personally think the killer/killers dropped Crystal off and kept going. Don't think they went back to the site where the truck and Diana were ultimately found. It certainly would be more logical to continue north after dropping Crystal off, instead of going back south towards Elbe.

Well then why is it that so many people's remains have been found up there?

Personally I think when these hikers and campers stumble upon bodies (as shown countless times on UM), it's just a matter of happenstance.