I grew up in the Pacific Northwest and never remember hearing about this; granted, I was born four years after it happened, but I don't even remember seeing this segment until I happened upon it on one of the DVD rips I have.

It was the case of Mike Riemer and Diana Robertson, who went into the woods outside Mineral, WA in December 1985 to get a Christmas tree and check on Mike's animal traps in the area. They had with them their 2 year old daughter, Crystal. Later that night, Crystal was found standing alone outside a Kmart about 30 miles north in Spanaway near Tacoma. She was too young to tell police anything, except that her "mommy was in the trees."

They found Diana's body along with Riemer's truck a couple months later; she'd been stabbed 17 times, and had a tube sock tied around her neck. A note on the truck's dashboard said "I love you, Diana," and blood was found inside the truck, though it was never determined who that blood belonged to. The case had initially been linked to another double murder of Steven Harkins and his girlfriend, Ruth Cooper, in August—police believed there was a connection given the proximity, and that Ruth Cooper was found with a tube sock around her neck—both she and Steven had bee shot to death. Steven had been found first, shot in his sleeping bag at their campsite, and the couple's dog had also been killed. They found Ruth in October, about a month and a half before Mike and Diana disappeared.

It seems like Mike was responsible for Diana's murder given the weird note in the truck, but I've read different interpretations; some suggest it could have been written when the two were being held hostage or in their last moments together.

In 2011, Mike Riemer's skull was found about 1 mile from where Diana's body had been discovered 20 years earlier; given the condition of the skull, police ruled out a gunshot to the head as a possible cause of death.

Reasons I think Mike may have been responsible:
*He and Diana had had domestic disputes in the past, and he'd been charged for domestic assault against her. The two had reconciled some time before Christmas, hence them going to get the tree together.
*Crystal was spared; though not impossible, it would be a bit unusual for a serial killer to spare a victim in that situation, unless they had some a moral obligation against murdering children (seems it would be unlikely in a murderer, but who knows)
*The "I love you, Diana" note could be read as some sort of suicide letter to the woman he had just killed.

Things that remain puzzling:
*If Riemer were responsible, the suggestion is that he was also responsible for the murders of Ruth Cooper and Steven Harkins, given the tube sock connection and Riemer's familiarity with the area—but if he did kill them, why? Was he a serial killer? I can't recall, but I don't believe he knew them (correct me if I'm wrong).
*If Riemer killed Diana (and Harkins and Cooper), there is no accounting for his disappearance or a timeline of when exactly he died. The general conclusion would be that after killing Diana and abandoning his daughter, he committed suicide; yet the condition of his skull shows that he did not shoot himself in the head, which is the most typical way one would commit suicide (it has been noted by Riemer's family that he carried a .22 caliber pistol). This does not entirely discount the suicide theory, but it does complicate it—if he didn't himself (in the head, at least), how did he die?
*What would the timeline look like then if Riemer had killed Diana? They headed to the remote area some time in the early morning, and Crystal was found wandering around the Kmart store around 5pm that night. The only logical conclusion would be that he killed Diana, then drove the forty-some minutes toward Tacoma, dropped her off, and then returned to the crime scene.
*It is impossible to discern where Riemer died given the time span that has passed. His skull was found 1 mile from where Diana's body was found, but that doesn't mean much over a course of 25 years; animals would have gotten his to body early on, and his remains could have been scattered throughout the forest. What is known is that he didn't die in the nearby vicinity of where Diana and the truck were found, otherwise searchers would have likely discovered his body then (unless of course he died after February 1986, which seems unlikely given the winter weather conditions).

Similar unsolved murders, some possibly connected:
*In March 1985, about five months before the disappearances of Ruth Cooper and Steve Harkins, and seven months before that of Mike Riemer and Diana Robertson, Edward Smith and Kimberly Diane La Vine were abducted in Kent, WA, a suburb of Tacoma. Smith's body was found shortly after the couple's disappearance in a gravel pit in Vantage, WA, about 3 hours east; his throat had been slashed and his hands bound. Kimberly's body was found several months later in a field several miles south of Vantage. Police initially pondered a connection between the Harkins/Cooper slayings and the Smith/La Vine slayings, but the causes of death are different, and the tube sock element is missing.
*In November 1987, Jay Cook and his girlfriend Tanya Van Cuylenborg of British Columbia, took a ferry to Seattle and from there planned on a camping trip. Tanya's body was found on a rural road in Skagit County, WA, about three hours north of Tacoma; she had been bound, raped, and shot to death. Jay's body was found in Monroe, WA, about an hour from Tacoma; the couple's van was discovered in Bellingham, closer to where Tanya was found. In the years after their murders, the families of the victims received letters purportedly from the killer taunting them, but they were traced by DNA to a mentally unstable, elderly transient who was cleared of the killings; his DNA did not match any found at the crime scenes.
*In July 2005, Steven Haugen and his girlfriend Jeannette Baumann, were shot to death while camping in the Willamette National Forest. Their murders are still unsolved, though there was a suspect in the case, Israel Keyes, who had admitted to killing eight people between 2001 and 2012. Keyes committed suicide in jail; probably not connected
*In 2006, Mary Cooper and her daughter, Susanna Stodden, both teachers from Seattle, were shot to death while camping in Granite Falls, WA, about 90 minutes north of Tacoma. Possibly connected to Keyes, but unsolved.

I doubt the 2005/2006 killings are related and believe Keyes is probably responsible, but I threw them in just for the hell of it because butchering campers seems to be a Northwest tradition.

As far as Riemer/Robertson and Elkins/Cooper, it's a really puzzling case. Four people dead, one probably(?) the killer, but there's not enough there to make any conclusion.

Anyone have any theories? It's a case that doesn't seem to have captured much attention (I had never even seen it until yesterday on an old VHS rip, and I'm a diehard UM fan), and it doesn't have much discussion on the internet. I'm absolutely fascinated by it; very frustrating and compelling.

I grew up in the Pacific Northwest and never remember hearing about this; granted, I was born four years after it happened, but I don't even remember seeing this segment until I happened upon it on one of the DVD rips I have.

It was the case of Mike Riemer and Diana Robertson, who went into the woods outside Mineral, WA in December 1985 to get a Christmas tree and check on Mike's animal traps in the area. They had with them their 2 year old daughter, Crystal. Later that night, Crystal was found standing alone outside a Kmart about 30 miles north in Spanaway near Tacoma. She was too young to tell police anything, except that her "mommy was in the trees."

They found Diana's body along with Riemer's truck a couple months later; she'd been stabbed 17 times, and had a tube sock tied around her neck. A note on the truck's dashboard said "I love you, Diana," and blood was found inside the truck, though it was never determined who that blood belonged to. The case had initially been linked to another double murder of Steven Harkins and his girlfriend, Ruth Cooper, in August—police believed there was a connection given the proximity, and that Ruth Cooper was found with a tube sock around her neck—both she and Steven had bee shot to death. Steven had been found first, shot in his sleeping bag at their campsite, and the couple's dog had also been killed. They found Ruth in October, about a month and a half before Mike and Diana disappeared.

It seems like Mike was responsible for Diana's murder given the weird note in the truck, but I've read different interpretations; some suggest it could have been written when the two were being held hostage or in their last moments together.

In 2011, Mike Riemer's skull was found about 1 mile from where Diana's body had been discovered 20 years earlier; given the condition of the skull, police ruled out a gunshot to the head as a possible cause of death.

Reasons I think Mike may have been responsible:
*He and Diana had had domestic disputes in the past, and he'd been charged for domestic assault against her. The two had reconciled some time before Christmas, hence them going to get the tree together.
*Crystal was spared; though not impossible, it would be a bit unusual for a serial killer to spare a victim in that situation, unless they had some a moral obligation against murdering children (seems it would be unlikely in a murderer, but who knows)
*The "I love you, Diana" note could be read as some sort of suicide letter to the woman he had just killed.

Things that remain puzzling:
*If Riemer were responsible, the suggestion is that he was also responsible for the murders of Ruth Cooper and Steven Harkins, given the tube sock connection and Riemer's familiarity with the area—but if he did kill them, why? Was he a serial killer? I can't recall, but I don't believe he knew them (correct me if I'm wrong).
*If Riemer killed Diana (and Harkins and Cooper), there is no accounting for his disappearance or a timeline of when exactly he died. The general conclusion would be that after killing Diana and abandoning his daughter, he committed suicide; yet the condition of his skull shows that he did not shoot himself in the head, which is the most typical way one would commit suicide (it has been noted by Riemer's family that he carried a .22 caliber pistol). This does not entirely discount the suicide theory, but it does complicate it—if he didn't himself (in the head, at least), how did he die?
*What would the timeline look like then if Riemer had killed Diana? They headed to the remote area some time in the early morning, and Crystal was found wandering around the Kmart store around 5pm that night. The only logical conclusion would be that he killed Diana, then drove the forty-some minutes toward Tacoma, dropped her off, and then returned to the crime scene.
*It is impossible to discern where Riemer died given the time span that has passed. His skull was found 1 mile from where Diana's body was found, but that doesn't mean much over a course of 25 years; animals would have gotten his to body early on, and his remains could have been scattered throughout the forest. What is known is that he didn't die in the nearby vicinity of where Diana and the truck were found, otherwise searchers would have likely discovered his body then (unless of course he died after February 1986, which seems unlikely given the winter weather conditions).

Similar unsolved murders, some possibly connected:
*In March 1985, about five months before the disappearances of Ruth Cooper and Steve Harkins, and seven months before that of Mike Riemer and Diana Robertson, Edward Smith and Kimberly Diane La Vine were abducted in Kent, WA, a suburb of Tacoma. Smith's body was found shortly after the couple's disappearance in a gravel pit in Vantage, WA, about 3 hours east; his throat had been slashed and his hands bound. Kimberly's body was found several months later in a field several miles south of Vantage. Police initially pondered a connection between the Harkins/Cooper slayings and the Smith/La Vine slayings, but the causes of death are different, and the tube sock element is missing.
*In November 1987, Jay Cook and his girlfriend Tanya Van Cuylenborg of British Columbia, took a ferry to Seattle and from there planned on a camping trip. Tanya's body was found on a rural road in Skagit County, WA, about three hours north of Tacoma; she had been bound, raped, and shot to death. Jay's body was found in Monroe, WA, about an hour from Tacoma; the couple's van was discovered in Bellingham, closer to where Tanya was found. In the years after their murders, the families of the victims received letters purportedly from the killer taunting them, but they were traced by DNA to a mentally unstable, elderly transient who was cleared of the killings; his DNA did not match any found at the crime scenes.
*In July 2005, Steven Haugen and his girlfriend Jeannette Baumann, were shot to death while camping in the Willamette National Forest. Their murders are still unsolved, though there was a suspect in the case, Israel Keyes, who had admitted to killing eight people between 2001 and 2012. Keyes committed suicide in jail; probably not connected
*In 2006, Mary Cooper and her daughter, Susanna Stodden, both teachers from Seattle, were shot to death while camping in Granite Falls, WA, about 90 minutes north of Tacoma. Possibly connected to Keyes, but unsolved.

I doubt the 2005/2006 killings are related and believe Keyes is probably responsible, but I threw them in just for the hell of it because butchering campers seems to be a Northwest tradition.

As far as Riemer/Robertson and Elkins/Cooper, it's a really puzzling case. Four people dead, one probably(?) the killer, but there's not enough there to make any conclusion.

Anyone have any theories? It's a case that doesn't seem to have captured much attention (I had never even seen it until yesterday on an old VHS rip, and I'm a diehard UM fan), and it doesn't have much discussion on the internet. I'm absolutely fascinated by it; very frustrating and compelling.


nice summary. several comments:

1. In the litany of missing/killed in the forests of the Pacific Northwest, you forgot Leah Roberts who disappeared in 2000 near Mount Baker leaving behind a semi-wrecked car.

2. I do not think animals would have scattered Reimer's remains over a great distance so he died not far from Diana. Once again a poor search! {the body of evidence from UM and other cases are that initial searches often fail to find nearby bodies or evidence so that is clearly possible)

3. I think that it would be unlikely that if Reimer killed Diana, he would have then driven into town to drop the little girl off then returned to die nearby. So I tend to think it was someone else.

4. I'd contend the socks around the neck was the "signature" of one killer. Signature is an often exaggerated feature of a small portion of serial killers where they do something not essential to their crimes either to link them together or to leave their mark.

5. Mary Cooper and Susanna Stodden were not camping. They were day hiking along a popular trail when they were suddenly murdered.

Sure seems to be a lot of crimes out there. could it be one guy like Keyes. Keyes seems to get a lot of credit these days but given his age he could only have done crimes after about 1996. I tend to think he may have done one or two of the later cases cited but not all of them. Just a lot of bad guys who take advantage of the vast forest tracts. This isn't just the NW. there seems to be more than a few murders or disappearances along the Appalachian Trail as well.

nice summary. several comments:

1. In the litany of missing/killed in the forests of the Pacific Northwest, you forgot Leah Roberts who disappeared in 2000 near Mount Baker leaving behind a semi-wrecked car.

2. I do not think animals would have scattered Reimer's remains over a great distance so he died not far from Diana. Once again a poor search! {the body of evidence from UM and other cases are that initial searches often fail to find nearby bodies or evidence so that is clearly possible)

3. I think that it would be unlikely that if Reimer killed Diana, he would have then driven into town to drop the little girl off then returned to die nearby. So I tend to think it was someone else.

4. I'd contend the socks around the neck was the "signature" of one killer. Signature is an often exaggerated feature of a small portion of serial killers where they do something not essential to their crimes either to link them together or to leave their mark.

5. Mary Cooper and Susanna Stodden were not camping. They were day hiking along a popular trail when they were suddenly murdered.

Sure seems to be a lot of crimes out there. could it be one guy like Keyes. Keyes seems to get a lot of credit these days but given his age he could only have done crimes after about 1996. I tend to think he may have done one or two of the later cases cited but not all of them. Just a lot of bad guys who take advantage of the vast forest tracts. This isn't just the NW. there seems to be more than a few murders or disappearances along the Appalachian Trail as well.


I totally forgot about the Leah Roberts case—that's another UM episode that always bothered me.

Your third point is one that I feel the same way about; it seems bizarre for him to have taken his daughter almost an hour away, dropped her off, then went back out to the woods (which by then would have been nightfall) just to kill himself. It would make sense maybe if Diana's body had been found buried—he could've gone back to cover up the crime—but that wasn't the case. She was found lying on the ground in plain sight (albeit under some snow, since she wasn't found until February).

It's such a bizarre case.

I totally forgot about the Leah Roberts case—that's another UM episode that always bothered me.

Your third point is one that I feel the same way about; it seems bizarre for him to have taken his daughter almost an hour away, dropped her off, then went back out to the woods (which by then would have been nightfall) just to kill himself. It would make sense maybe if Diana's body had been found buried—he could've gone back to cover up the crime—but that wasn't the case. She was found lying on the ground in plain sight (albeit under some snow, since she wasn't found until February).

It's such a bizarre case.
Look at the killer Joseph Henry burgess. He killed a couple in Canada just north or Washington. He was a religious freak which is why he would spare the child. He was also a survivalist which would account for how he could be in the wooded area lurking. He was not found for many years later when he was killed by police again in the wilderness

I totally forgot about the Leah Roberts case—that's another UM episode that always bothered me.

Your third point is one that I feel the same way about; it seems bizarre for him to have taken his daughter almost an hour away, dropped her off, then went back out to the woods (which by then would have been nightfall) just to kill himself. It would make sense maybe if Diana's body had been found buried—he could've gone back to cover up the crime—but that wasn't the case. She was found lying on the ground in plain sight (albeit under some snow, since she wasn't found until February).

It's such a bizarre case.
Look at the killer Joseph Henry burgess. He killed a couple in Canada just north or Washington. He was a religious freak which is why he would spare the child. He was also a survivalist which would account for how he could be in the wooded area lurking. He was not found for many years later when he was killed by police again in the wilderness

Bumping this--I'm still very fascinated by this case and it doesn't seem to get a lot of talk. I'm wondering if other people have perspectives on it.

Bumping this--I'm still very fascinated by this case and it doesn't seem to get a lot of talk. I'm wondering if other people have perspectives on it.

I feel like I'm probably in the minority but I think Mike killed Diana and also the couple. I haven't done a ton of research on this case and just trying to remember from the UM segment but Mike had a reason to be in those woods as he had traps in the area. He could have happened upon the couple and it angered him for whatever reason. Remember he seemed to have a volatile temper. Perhaps he thought they were going to steal the animals from the traps or caught them in a compromising position and it angered him for whatever reason. The tube socks are strange indeed but it's really hard to logically explain them in any scenario. I definitely think Mike killed Diana. He had a history of being abusive to her (according to her family). They had just gotten back together and I think they got in an argument for whatever reason in the woods and he killed her. I also think its a point to Mike having murdered Diana that Crystal was left unharmed. I think Mike dropped Crystal off at the store and went back to the woods. A serial killer lurking in the woods isn't going to care whether a child is taken to safety or not, they would just kill her as well. I think Mike then drove the truck back and either committed suicide out of guilt or went into hiding in the woods, eventually dying of exposure possibly. Just my theory but I think it makes more sense then some serial killer hiding out in the deep woods.

I also think its a point to Mike having murdered Diana that Crystal was left unharmed. I think Mike dropped Crystal off at the store and went back to the woods. A serial killer lurking in the woods isn't going to care whether a child is taken to safety or not, they would just kill her as well.

I can't get behind this line of thinking at all. Even murderers, or even serial killers, have certain lines they will not cross. I know of dozens of examples of an adult victim being raped and/or killed inside of a home while their child was left completely unharmed just one room away. Sometimes even in the same room. Just to name a few UM related examples, Eric and Pam Ellender. They were brutally murdered and had all kinds of heinous things done to them postmortem, yet their child was in the house and not a single hair on her head was harmed. Also, EAR/ONS. He physically and psychologically tortured plenty of adults that had children in the house and he never so much as laid a hand on the children and even made it a point to try and make them unaware of what was happening. In one case he locked a child in a bathroom just so they wouldn't walk in on the attack. In another case, a little girl started to backtalk him and he ended up retreating in the attack and left the house whereas any time an adult would mouth off to him, he would pistol whip them, smack them, punch them, etc. until they complied. EAR/ONS is about the sickest, most deranged criminal of the last 50 years and even he wouldn't harm a small child.

Those are just what I can think of off the top of my head. I know I've seen at least a half dozen Forensic Files episodes that had unharmed children inside of a home where either one or both of their parents were killed. I think just because their daughter was unharmed doesn't point the finger of guilt any more or any less towards Mike. Why would an outside killer go to the trouble of dropping her off in a safe place though? Easy. They were so deep inside of the woods that leaving her out there would have been even worse than killing her on the spot. She would have died a much slower and more agonizing death due to starvation, dehydration or exposure being so deep and alone in those woods. If he were the kind of killer that doesn't hurt children like the previous examples, then he might have felt that he had to drop her off in a populated area otherwise he'd still be killing her as well. Or, if you simply refuse to give a murderer any kind of moral credit at all, then perhaps he spared her and drove her to safety in an attempt to point the finger of suspicion at Mike.

Either way, as I stated before, I don't think the fact that the daughter was spared and driven to safety should point the finger of guilt any more or any less towards Mike. Personally, based on all of the evidence we have available, I'd say that there was a much greater chance of Mike also being a victim in this crime. If you (or anybody else) feels the opposite, that's cool. But if the daughter being spared is the main reason you feel that way, then I just cannot get on board with that.

Good analysis by Drown Soda. It made me think of things I hadn't thought of before. You did a more in depth analysis than the cops that investigated this case it seems like, especially that one detective from Lewis Co Sheriff with that horrible comb over. I am not saying Mike Reimer didn't do it, and I don't think we ever will truly know. Since Reimer's skull was found about a mile away from where Diana's body was found and where his truck was abandoned it makes sense that he was dead almost from the beginning. I tend to think the skull has probably been there from the day it was left there but since Diana's body was not found until two or three months after the murder it would make sense that animals had drug it around and apart during that time.

It is possible that Reimer killed Diana, brought Crystal back into town, then drove back and killed himself out in the woods. However for that to happen would put himself at considerable risk of being detected and why would he if he did that, then put the envelope in prominent view? The envelope being there, if it was Mike's writing than maybe it had just been left in the cab of the truck? Or it could be a red herring. The fact it was displayed though has always thrown me off.

Since we know for sure now that Mike is dead there are only really two possibilities. That Mike either killed Diana and then kill himself. Or that an unknown third party killed Mike and Diana. I tend to with Mike being found dead actually subscribe more to the theory of a third party. Not all serial killers are the same. Some would have killed Crystal. However this serial killer, whether it was Mike or an unidentified third party I don't think would 'get off' on killing a child. He was clearly a couple killer and I think the killer could also tell the child was too young to really be able to identify him.

I do find the statement interesting that 'Mommy is in the trees' that came from Crystal. No mention of Daddy. But yet she didn't indicate in any way that her father was the one that left her at the store and I think she would have had he done that. I just tend to think also that if it had been Mike that was the killer that he wouldn't have committed suicide but would have went out on the run.

At this point it makes the most sense to me that it was more likely than not an unidentified third party that at least killed Mike Reimer and Diana Robertson and very likely the other couple in the area too. Serial killings for some reason have always been rampant in Washington State.

I think Mike's skull wasn't found earlier because I think the Sheriff's Office went in with a pre conceived notion of the case and though they say 'a massive search' if Mike's body had been tore apart by scavengers it isn't that surprising his body would have been missed in a general search as it could blend in with the natural habitat.

Good analysis by Drown Soda. It made me think of things I hadn't thought of before. You did a more in depth analysis than the cops that investigated this case it seems like, especially that one detective from Lewis Co Sheriff with that horrible comb over. I am not saying Mike Reimer didn't do it, and I don't think we ever will truly know. Since Reimer's skull was found about a mile away from where Diana's body was found and where his truck was abandoned it makes sense that he was dead almost from the beginning. I tend to think the skull has probably been there from the day it was left there but since Diana's body was not found until two or three months after the murder it would make sense that animals had drug it around and apart during that time.

It is possible that Reimer killed Diana, brought Crystal back into town, then drove back and killed himself out in the woods. However for that to happen would put himself at considerable risk of being detected and why would he if he did that, then put the envelope in prominent view? The envelope being there, if it was Mike's writing than maybe it had just been left in the cab of the truck? Or it could be a red herring. The fact it was displayed though has always thrown me off.

Since we know for sure now that Mike is dead there are only really two possibilities. That Mike either killed Diana and then kill himself. Or that an unknown third party killed Mike and Diana. I tend to with Mike being found dead actually subscribe more to the theory of a third party. Not all serial killers are the same. Some would have killed Crystal. However this serial killer, whether it was Mike or an unidentified third party I don't think would 'get off' on killing a child. He was clearly a couple killer and I think the killer could also tell the child was too young to really be able to identify him.

I do find the statement interesting that 'Mommy is in the trees' that came from Crystal. No mention of Daddy. But yet she didn't indicate in any way that her father was the one that left her at the store and I think she would have had he done that. I just tend to think also that if it had been Mike that was the killer that he wouldn't have committed suicide but would have went out on the run.

At this point it makes the most sense to me that it was more likely than not an unidentified third party that at least killed Mike Reimer and Diana Robertson and very likely the other couple in the area too. Serial killings for some reason have always been rampant in Washington State.

I think Mike's skull wasn't found earlier because I think the Sheriff's Office went in with a pre conceived notion of the case and though they say 'a massive search' if Mike's body had been tore apart by scavengers it isn't that surprising his body would have been missed in a general search as it could blend in with the natural habitat.

The varying perspectives on this are truly fascinating. Part of me thinks the most logical conclusion would be that Reimer was responsible and at some point committed suicide after murdering his wife. However, as you point out, his bringing Crystal into town and leaving her in a very public place would be odd; the envelope in the truck is another puzzle piece that I still can't really decipher. As the poster above noted, the odds of a psychopath lurking in the woods do seem remote. It's almost too horror movie-ish.

What I also find somewhat odd is that there were no witnesses who saw Crystal being dropped off. She was left at the K-mart during prime shopping hours in the middle of the evening. Keeping in mind that this was less than two week before Christmas, I'd assume there were a considerable number of people shopping in the store, so I'm surprised nobody actually saw her being dropped off or left there (I can't recall if she was found inside the store or outside—I think I've read conflicting accounts). If there had been a witness who could confirm that it was Reimer who left her at the store, then that would essentially answer everything. But alas, we'll probably never know.

One thing very interesting to remember too is the manner of death. Stephen Harkins was shot as was his dog, Ruth Cooper was shot as well. Yet the tube socks on both Ruth and Diana are just very interesting, especially the way they were tied.

Diana Robertson was stabbed 17 times. The stabbing to me is very interesting because it indicates a very personal type of killing. There are serial killers that stab too so I am not saying a serial killer couldn't have changed the method of killing. I know some news sources have claimed Reimer's skull had a bullet hole in it while others have said it did not.

But if the serial killer hated women it would make more sense that the killing of the women would be more brutal and not the just shoot them in the head and be done with it kind of killing of the men. It is interesting the man who actually found Reimer's skull says it had a 'bullet hole' in it, yet the Sheriff's Office denies that the skull had said hole. The skull though only part of it was recovered along with part of his jawbone. So basically the Sheriff said they couldn't rule out that he was shot in the head but couldn't say he for sure was either because not enough of the skull was found.

The biggest problem I have with Mike Reimer having done this is, well the daughter being left alive and more so, how did she get to the store? They were a couple miles deep into the woods, it isn't an area you would really stumble on unless you were familiar with that area. The daughter couldn't get out of that area by herself I don't think. So if Reimer did it, he would have had to have done the killing, driven his daughter the 30 miles or so to the store, then driven back to the scene, then did himself in.

While that area of Washington State has grown significantly since the mid 1980's the woods are still the woods they were then. Very rural and very disorientating I am sure if you were not familiar with them.

This is another case that's always fascinated me. For a while after seeing it, I subscribed to the theory that a kook--like Joseph Henry Burgess--could've done it. Anymore though, I'm not so sure.

I do think that Mike killed Diana (based on the number of times she was stabbed), dropped Crystal off and then went back and killed himself in a murder/suicide scenario. It's not improbable that someone else could've killed both him and Diana but to me, two things come to mind....

1) Unless I mistakenly missed something, their deaths have little if anything in common with the other deaths that occurred in the same region & timeframe. Barring any overt incompetence on the part of the investigators, I would think if it was a serial killer - there would be something more substantial than a tube sock to link Michael/Diana to other murders - if not in that area, then somewhere in greater WA State *(Again, it's not out of the realm of possibility, but I'd personally find it hard to believe there would be that many people out there in that timeframe who get off on killing for the random thrill of it)

2) This is more nitpicky, but if a serial/thrill killer is responsible, why go to the trouble of taking Crystal into town and dropping her at a store? I would think someone like this would've either killed her along with her parents, or just let her be in the woods.

Wow, I have been reading all the info out there about these murders that happened in 1985. Pretty spooky if you ask me.

1) Ambush vs Stalker: I do not believe that these killings were the result of an ambush in the forest. Who would sit and wait in the woods in the middle of Winter for someone to drive along just so that you could murder them? I think both sets of murders were the result of stalking. The killer may have spotted these couples back in Tacoma, Puyallup or possibly somewhere along highway 7. (Maybe K-Mart in Spanaway) which is right on highway 7. Both sets of murders happened just to the south of highway 7.

2)Crystal Robertson: She was a surprise to the killer: In his efforts to hunt down Diana Robertson and Mike Riemer the killer overlooked Crystal. By the time he had killed Diana and Mike he thought better about killing a child so he returned her to the K-Mart in Spanaway. (Possibly where he had first spotted them).

Questions: I believe that Mike was in the truck with Crystal when Diana was killed. The killer could have disabled Mike or incapacitated him to where all he could do was write the note on the envelope. So why was there no blood on the envelope? and where was the blood on the seat? driver or passenger
Side.

Roddogaway

Wow, I have been reading all the info out there about these murders that happened in 1985. Pretty spooky if you ask me.

1) Ambush vs Stalker: I do not believe that these killings were the result of an ambush in the forest. Who would sit and wait in the woods in the middle of Winter for someone to drive along just so that you could murder them? I think both sets of murders were the result of stalking. The killer may have spotted these couples back in Tacoma, Puyallup or possibly somewhere along highway 7. (Maybe K-Mart in Spanaway) which is right on highway 7. Both sets of murders happened just to the south of highway 7.

2)Crystal Robertson: She was a surprise to the killer: In his efforts to hunt down Diana Robertson and Mike Riemer the killer overlooked Crystal. By the time he had killed Diana and Mike he thought better about killing a child so he returned her to the K-Mart in Spanaway. (Possibly where he had first spotted them).

Questions: I believe that Mike was in the truck with Crystal when Diana was killed. The killer could have disabled Mike or incapacitated him to where all he could do was write the note on the envelope. So why was there no blood on the envelope? and where was the blood on the seat? driver or passenger
Side.

Roddogaway

Welcome! :wave:

I think Mike killed Diana, and then committed suicide. However, I wonder if she was killed before they went into the woods? I wonder if she was killed at home/elsewhere, dragged into the car, Mike dropped Crystal off at K-mart, and then drove into the woods where he opened the passenger's door to look at Diana and then killed himself.

How/why would a complete stranger write that note to Diana? I feel like Mike messed up/abused her again, brought her the card, she didn't accept his apology and he killed her in a blind rage.

I'm just trying to put myself into Mike Riemers position. If you are planning to go into the woods with the mindset that your going to kill your spouse and then go commit suicide. Would you take your 2 year old daughter with you? Would you then kill your spouse and drive almost an hour back to Spanaway to drop your daughter off? (I live close to Spanaway, WA. and I certainly wouldn't leave my daughters there). And then what? Drive another hour back to Mineral to commit suicide in the woods? Why would you do this?

Roddogaway

I'm just trying to put myself into Mike Riemers position. If you are planning to go into the woods with the mindset that your going to kill your spouse and then go commit suicide. Would you take your 2 year old daughter with you? Would you then kill your spouse and drive almost an hour back to Spanaway to drop your daughter off? (I live close to Spanaway, WA. and I certainly wouldn't leave my daughters there). And then what? Drive another hour back to Mineral to commit suicide in the woods? Why would you do this?

Roddogaway

If he did kill her, then I believe he killed her before they arrived in the woods. I believe that Crystal was dropped off at K-Mart BEFORE they reached the woods. This makes more sense. I believe he killed her at home, or in the car on the way. He dropped Crystal off knowing he was at the point of no return.

It is possible that he killed her in the woods, and fled the scene without the intent of suicide. While driving he gets a guilty conscious, drops Crystal off, and goes back to Diana's dead body in the woods and then kills himself.

If you are planning to go into the woods with the mindset that your going to kill your spouse and then go commit suicide. Would you take your 2 year old daughter with you?

Who says that was his intent? You have to remember that Mike was abusive, controlling, and jealous, meaning he was unpredictable. Men like Mike are sporadic, and can pop off in a second without warning. Diana was also stabbed 18 times, so this seemed more like a crime of passion, rather than a planned murder.

Having Crystal with them is why I believe that Diana was killed at home, or en route to the woods, not IN the woods, it was random. I don't believe that Crystal was actually ever in the woods, or witnessed the murder. She was at K-mart BEFORE this happened. This is how you can explain how she mysteriously got there from the desolate woods. She was never there.

It wouldn't surprise me if Diana was killed at home. Mike freaks out and takes Crystal to K-mart, then goes back to get Diana and drives off to the woods.

If he did kill her, then I believe he killed her before they arrived in the woods. I believe that Crystal was dropped off at K-Mart BEFORE they reached the woods. This makes more sense. I believe he killed her at home, or in the car on the way. He dropped Crystal off knowing he was at the point of no return.

It is possible that he killed her in the woods, and fled the scene without the intent of suicide. While driving he gets a guilty conscious, drops Crystal off, and goes back to Diana's dead body in the woods and then kills himself.



Who says that was his intent? You have to remember that Mike was abusive, controlling, and jealous, meaning he was unpredictable. Men like Mike are sporadic, and can pop off in a second without warning. Diana was also stabbed 18 times, so this seemed more like a crime of passion, rather than a planned murder.

Having Crystal with them is why I believe that Diana was killed at home, or en route to the woods, not IN the woods, it was random. I don't believe that Crystal was actually ever in the woods, or witnessed the murder. She was at K-mart BEFORE this happened. This is how you can explain how she mysteriously got there from the desolate woods. She was never there.

It wouldn't surprise me if Diana was killed at home. Mike freaks out and takes Crystal to K-mart, then goes back to get Diana and drives off to the woods.
OK, I suppose he could have committed suicide; however, this provides no explanation as to the Harkins / Cooper case. As far as I can tell there has never been a connection between the two couples other than the murders and the tube socks. I don't believe that Diana was murdered at home and then taken with the daughter in the truck to Spanaway and then he drove out near Mineral, deep into the forest to dump her body and then commit suicide. Crystals words were "Mommy's in the trees". I think that this clearly tells us that she was in the forest that day with her mother. In addition, on the Unsolved Mysteries site (and others) it states "The cases still remain unsolved, however. Police have since ruled him out as a suspect in the double murder, and authorities now believe that an unknown serial killer may be responsible for the Harkins/Cooper and Robertson/Riemer murders. Now do you know something that the police don't know, or maybe the police know something that we don't know?

Roddogaway

I don't believe that Diana was murdered at home and then taken with the daughter in the truck to Spanaway and then he drove out near Mineral, deep into the forest to dump her body and then commit suicide. Crystals words were "Mommy's in the trees". I think that this clearly tells us that she was in the forest that day with her mother.

Roddogaway

Crystal saying "mommy's in the trees" doesn't necessarily indicate that she was in the forest, but it could mean that someone told her that. "Where's mommy?" "Mommy's in the trees, honey".

I don't know how a child could watch a brutal slaying of their mother and the only thing they could say is "mommy's in the trees". I feel like a child who witnessed that would say "Mommy's hurt" or something to that effect, not "in the trees". It sounded like someone (Mike) told her that Diana was in the trees to evade telling her where she really was.

....You know what? I wonder if Crystal was coached that "Mommy is in the trees" line? It was reported that when she was first found that she was completely silent and didn't say anything. After spending time with her grandmother she then told police that "Mommy is in the trees". I wonder if she was coached to say that, or that was a scapegoat answer given to her by her grandmother?

I do believe that Crystal was left in K-mart before the woods incident. In fact, I wonder if the stab wounds came later? I wonder if they were at home, and had gotten into a fight? I wonder if Mike had hit/choked/knocked her out and killed her by accident? Knowing of the incident beforehand, he put the sock on Diana to mimic the other crime in the area. He then stabbed her body several times, and had the intent of leaving her body in the area to link it to the other tube sock murders. Upon getting out there he haves a change of heart and shoots himself. Some people believe that Mike was being framed because of his "I love you, Diana" card, but what if Mike was attempting to frame the tube sock murderer for Diana's death?

I really wonder if Diana was killed in an argument in the house, and he rushed to drop Crystal off at K-mart while he thought of a plan to not seem guilty? (This is where the "in the trees" comment could've came from. Mike had Crystal by herself in the car on the way to K-mart, and when asked where her mother was, Mike said "in the trees" when she could've actually been hidden in the house or somewhere else). After dropping Crystal off he goes back home, ties the sock around Diana, stabs the body multiple times, and drives to the woods where he intended to leave her but decided to commit suicide instead?

Granted, he could've killed her in the woods, dropped Crystal off, and drove back.

Police have since ruled him out as a suspect in the double murder, and authorities now believe that an unknown serial killer may be responsible for the Harkins/Cooper and Robertson/Riemer murders. Now do you know something that the police don't know, or maybe the police know something that we don't know?

Roddogaway

Police make mistakes too. Police have been wrong numerous times. This is nothing more than them finding his skull and ruling him out. He still could've committed suicide.

Yes, you are right. Police do make mistakes. I don't think that Mike Riemer killed Diana at home because I have read that they were seen as a family when they left their Puyallup residence, and this is the last time they were seen alive.
This was on the morning of December 15th, 1985. So what happened between the morning when they left for the woods and the afternoon then Crystal was found at the Spanaway Kmart?

Roddogaway

Yes, you are right. Police do make mistakes. I don't think that Mike Riemer killed Diana at home because I have read that they were seen as a family when they left their Puyallup residence, and this is the last time they were seen alive.
This was on the morning of December 15th, 1985. So what happened between the morning when they left for the woods and the afternoon then Crystal was found at the Spanaway Kmart?

Roddogaway

Where's the sources they were seen as a family leaving the day of the crime? I've never heard of this. Could someone be mistaken about the date?

But to answer your question, and if the above claim is true, then Mike killed Diana near/in the woods. If I read correctly then blood covered the seats of the truck. Mike could've assaulted her before they reached the destination. Crystal could've been asleep during the fiasco, and when they parked in the woods, Mike could've pulled Diana out of the car and onto the ground, and Crystal woke up and saw Diana on the ground.

Maybe he stabbed her in the car after a heated argument, or just merely assaulted her causing her to bleed. He decides to flee the area because it was a heat of the moment crime. He quickly leaves the area, and drop Crystal off at K-mart. He then returns with the orange sock, and hand-written note. Maybe his intent was to frame the first murderer, but he later decides to just kill himself.

I don't think anyone wrote that note but Mike. It's very run of the mill for abusive men. Constant "I'm sorries". I fully believe he either gave her that card the morning of, or he brought it with him later.

Additional information: "a man hiking in the woods within a mile of her (Diana's)murder scene happened upon an abandoned vacuum cleaner cover. His curiosity piqued, he flipped over the cover to reveal what appeared to be an oddly shaped rock; it was only after he nudged the object with his foot that he realized the ivory orb was in fact a human skull. Michael Lloyd Riemer had at last been found.

A further search of the area unearthed only a tooth-bedecked jawbone and a pair of rubber boots; with such scant remains it was impossible to determine
Michael’s cause or date of death, although suicide appeared unlikely—according to witnesses the skull sported a gaping hole, yet no firearm was found nearby. Had the scores of searchers missed Mike’s remains in the dense underbrush lo those many years ago? Or had his body been moved by his killer? As always, questions swirled around the tube-sock murders, but a principal mystery had at last been solved—Michael Riemer was not a murderer but a murder victim.

The once-cold case was suddenly piping hot; items found at both crime scenes were retested and foreign
DNA discovered, though the genetic material has yet to be matched to a suspect."

The police suspected Mike Riemer killed Diana from the time her body was found until the time when Mike Riemers skull and jawbone were found. Since that time the police believe it was a serial killer that committed these crimes. Not Mike Riemer. Could be that the police know something that we don't.

Roddogaway

Additional information: "a man hiking in the woods within a mile of her (Diana's)murder scene happened upon an abandoned vacuum cleaner cover. His curiosity piqued, he flipped over the cover to reveal what appeared to be an oddly shaped rock; it was only after he nudged the object with his foot that he realized the ivory orb was in fact a human skull. Michael Lloyd Riemer had at last been found.

A further search of the area unearthed only a tooth-bedecked jawbone and a pair of rubber boots; with such scant remains it was impossible to determine
Michael’s cause or date of death, although suicide appeared unlikely—according to witnesses the skull sported a gaping hole, yet no firearm was found nearby. Had the scores of searchers missed Mike’s remains in the dense underbrush lo those many years ago? Or had his body been moved by his killer? As always, questions swirled around the tube-sock murders, but a principal mystery had at last been solved—Michael Riemer was not a murderer but a murder victim.

The once-cold case was suddenly piping hot; items found at both crime scenes were retested and foreign
DNA discovered, though the genetic material has yet to be matched to a suspect."

The police suspected Mike Riemer killed Diana from the time her body was found until the time when Mike Riemers skull and jawbone were found. Since that time the police believe it was a serial killer that committed these crimes. Not Mike Riemer. Could be that the police know something that we don't.

Roddogaway

This literally says nothing. The hole in the skull could be a self-inflicted gunshot wound. It's been over 20 years, of course no gun was found, they couldn't even find the rest of his remains. It's completely possible that the searchers missed his body when they first looked depending on where he died.

All that they found was a skull with a hole on the side. This does not mean that Mike didn't commit suicide. Until further concrete evidence comes out that definitely says that Mike didn't commit suicide, then I don't believe it. That article is full of "maybes" and "we don't know's". How are they able to say that Mike wasn't Diana's killer and didn't commit suicide? They're obviously jumping the gun because they found his skull, "we found his skull near Diana. No way he committed suicide". Seriously? This is nothing but fluff.

I do not think that Mike did it, if only because Crystal would have said something like "Daddy put Mommy in the trees", "Daddy hurt Mommy", or "I was with Daddy" when she was found.

Children can instinctively tell when a parent is hurting the other. They will even scream or get between them to make them stop. That she mentioned nothing of the kind is telling that Mike had nothing to do with that.

I do not think that Mike did it, if only because Crystal would have said something like "Daddy put Mommy in the trees", "Daddy hurt Mommy", or "I was with Daddy" when she was found.

Children can instinctively tell when a parent is hurting the other. They will even scream or get between them to make them stop. That she mentioned nothing of the kind is telling that Mike had nothing to do with that.

Not if she was sleeping. It's also possible that he could've knocked, or choked Diana out in the car on the way there while Crystal was sleeping, and pulled her out the car and came back to stab her after dropping Crystal off. I really think Mike tried to make it look like the orange sock murder. I'm curious to know if she was dead before they reached the forest.

Maybe it was someone else, but I don't have a homicidal nomad who lives off the land killing two people for no reason, but then having the conscious to drop their child off at K-mart. I really see Mike doing this. A reported abusive man who kills his wife in a rage, and then drops his daughter off at K-mart before returning and killing himself. This is the simplest explanation to me. Anything else is digging too hard for a mystery.

And I don't think a random serial killer is going to psychically know the age difference between the two. One couple shot, while Diana was stabbed 17 times, and Mike had a bullet hole in his skull. That says all you need to know about this case.

We most probably will never know the true fate of these couples and what really happened with their murders. I believe they were murdered by a male who was probably a trapper, hunter, camper or even a fisherman. I think he may have been a casual acquaintance with both Steven Harkins and Mike Riemer. He at least knew of them. I think he spotted these couples either in Tacoma, Puyallup or even the Kmart in Spanaway, WA. I live near the Kmart in Spanaway and it was a pretty happening place back in 1985. It was before Walmart out that way and it was a great place to stop and do a last minute shopping for supplies on the way out to the woods. Kmart had a pretty good camping section with most of the essentials like camping fuel, lanterns, sleeping bags etc... I believe this male tracked both couples into the woods and then killed the men and tortured the women to their deaths. Mike Riemer left the note in the window of the truck when he knew Diana was going to die. The killers big mistake was not noticing the little girl in the truck sitting between Mike Riemer and Diana Robertson. The little girl was not part of the fantasy for this guy so he risked being noticed at the Kmart. He must have had blood on him. After that this person drove back into Tacoma or possibly Puyallup where he most likely lived.

Prove me wrong?

Roddogaway

Mike Riemer left the note in the window of the truck when he knew Diana was going to die. The killers big mistake was not noticing the little girl in the truck sitting between Mike Riemer and Diana Robertson. The little girl was not part of the fantasy for this guy so he risked being noticed at the Kmart. He must have had blood on him. After that this person drove back into Tacoma or possibly Puyallup where he most likely lived.

Prove me wrong?

Roddogaway

I'll gladly prove you wrong, because you never proved me wrong that Mike was the killer.

You literally make no sense, and you're digging all of this up from your imagination. Let me get this straight. Mike after being attacked, was still alive to witness Diana dying (since he knew she was going to die???) took his time to write a note and leave it on the WINDOW of the car, where she CAN'T see it, because she's dying after being attacked? He was attacked too (in your narrative) so instead of taking the energy of trying to leave, or save his daughter, he wrote a note? Why isn't blood on the note? Why would the killer give Mike time to write a note? What if Mike was attacked first?

The killer didn't notice Crystal and didn't kill or leave her, because it wasn't part of his "fantasy", so he takes her miles away to a K-mart covered in blood where he would risk being caught for a child that wasn't his, and who's parents he just killed?

Yeah, no. Don't argue for the sake for arguing. Argue because you have logical points that make sense. Nothing you said makes sense, and it's clear you're only still arguing because I keep shooting holes in your logic and you can't stand losing. Your logic has jumped the shark like a show that has been on for too long.

Mike Riemer left the note in the window of the truck when he knew Diana was going to die.

I do want to touch on this note, though.

Mike left that note before he killed himself, or it was given to her prior for one of his abusive "outburst". I don't believe anyone tried to frame Mike with that note, I believe Mike wrote it. That note is an essentially "I'm sorry". That can either be for killing her, or abusing her, or both. But it's ridiculous to think that an unknown serial killer would make Mike write that when there wasn't a note left at the other murder.

In fact, let me nail something home. Everyone says that it's weird for the killer to drop Crystal off. I agree. But you know what isn't weird? Her father dropping her off. Add the note, and you have a remorseful husband/father who's rage grew out of hand. I don't know if Mike killed the other couple, but if he didn't then I'm sure he tried to make Diana's murder look like it. I wonder if he was going to K-mart to get some supplies for Diana's murder, but just left instead? If you think about it his suicide seemed like an afterthought.

It seemed like he was going to flee (dropping Crystal off), and was going to frame the other murderer, but had a change of heart, and drove back to the area where he killed himself. He left the note when arriving back to the area as an "I'm sorry, bye Diana" sort of memento. He then dug a shallow grave and then shot himself in the head. Maybe he didn't want to be known as her murderer, even in his death, so he framed the orange sock murderer.

It'd be interesting if K-mart found an open pack of orange socks with one missing.

Good Luck

Good Luck
:lol: :wave:

You too????

You keep saying you're from the area, were you aware of this case around the time it happened? Do you know anyone involved in this case? Typically I'm not fast to believe random posters on this board, but i'm curious to know what you know.

I'm trying to remember, whixh season is this from?

I'm trying to remember, whixh season is this from?

Season 1

I live just to the south of Tacoma and at the time of these tube sock cases I had heard about them in the news but everyone including myself was caught up in the Green River killings. I will be back up in Mineral on the 14th and will be doing some research on exactly where Mike Riemer and Diana Robertson were found on the logging road. I don't know how many people up at Mineral remember the deaths and if they will be able to provide and clues?

Roddogaway

The discovery of Riemer's skull some years back effectively eliminates him as a suspect. There was no evidence in the vicinity to suggest suicide and very strong circumstantial evidence (albeit no DNA link that I know of) to suggest that the same person killed Harkins/Cooper as Robertson/Reimer.

In both cases the men and women's bodies were separated and the killer likely had their own vehicle. In both cases, identical knots around the women, the details of which hadn't been made public so a copycat would have had no knowledge.

It's not far-fetched at all to think that a serial killer would stalk or prowl around these remote locations where couples could be caught off-guard.

I have a strong suspicion that a number of these unsolved killings in Washington (the four from 1985 and the Cook/Van Cuylenberg case from 1987) were from the same perpetrator.

Look into Joseph Henry Burgess

http://www.foxnews.com/story/2009/07/24/christian-drifter-may-have-killed-two-couples-in-separate-beach-murders-police.html

http://www.truecrimediary.com/index.cfm?page=cases&id=17

The discovery of Reimer's skull some years back effectively eliminates him as a suspect. There was no evidence in the vicinity to suggest suicide and very strong circumstantial evidence (albeit no DNA link that I know of) to suggest that the same person killed Harkins/Cooper as Robertson/Reimer.

In both cases the men and women's bodies were separated and the killer likely had their own vehicle. In both cases, identical knots around the women, the details of which hadn't been made public so a copycat would have had no knowledge.

It's not far-fetched at all to think that a serial killer would stalk or prowl around these remote locations where couples could be off-guard.

I have a strong suspicion that a number of these unsolved killings in Washington (the four from 1985 and the Cook/Van Cuylenberg case from 1987) were from the same perpetrator.

No, the discovery of Mike's skull does not eliminate suicide. There's no evidence to support suicide, or a murder as the skull had been found years later. From what I recall there was a hole on the side of the skull with could be a self-inflicted gun wound.

You also forgot that Mike had frequently set up traps in the area, so he wasn't foreign to the area whatsoever. Mike could've easily killed the other couple, tied the sock around Diana's mouth to mimic the other murder (he was native to the area, I'm sure he knew about the murder), or the sock could've been his trademark.

I'm not 100% that he killed the other couple, but I'm pretty set on that he killed Diana. The card, plus Crystal being found at a store leads me to believe that Mike is responsible for her death. I wonder if he wrote the note after dropping Crystal off, and the note was an "I'm sorry" for killing you?

EDIT: Actually, Mike's the only person who's body was never found despite a lengthy search. I wonder if he put himself in a ditch?

It's odd that every person was found except for Mike.

No, the discovery of Mike's skull does not eliminate suicide. There's no evidence to support suicide, or a murder as the skull had been found years later. From what I recall there was a hole on the side of the skull with could be a self-inflicted gun wound.

You also forgot that Mike had frequently set up traps in the area, so he wasn't foreign to the area whatsoever. Mike could've easily killed the other couple, tied the sock around Diana's mouth to mimic the other murder (he was native to the area, I'm sure he knew about the murder), or the sock could've been his trademark.

I'm not 100% that he killed the other couple, but I'm pretty set on that he killed Diana. The card, plus Crystal being found at a store leads me to believe that Mike is responsible for her death. I wonder if he wrote the note after dropping Crystal off, and the note was an "I'm sorry" for killing you?

His skull was actually found underneath some other debris (vacuum cleaner cover) and thus appeared to have been deliberately concealed there. That and the fact that the authorities actually apparently DID rule out a gunshot wound to the head as the cause of death makes suicide extremely unlikely. To the point where it doesn't feel statistically plausible enough to seriously discuss anymore.

Crystal being found alone at the Kmart in Spanaway actually makes the murder/suicide theory even more improbable. Mike would have had to have driven her there and then driven back to the murder scene, on a dark and cold evening in a blood tainted truck much less, then inexplicably would have had to leave the truck there with Diana's body and walked some distance into the forest to kill himself. If Mike was planning on killing himself, then why the obfuscation and subterfuge? Why go back to the scene of the crime and then move some distance to off yourself?

Furthermore, why on Earth would he drop his daughter off there at a Kmart rather than with his friends or family who were nearby? There was no guarantee that his daughter would be safe there alone at a random store, and if he planned on killing Diana and himself all along then I'm not sure why he'd even want to bring his daughter along to Mineral for that. It seemed very apparent from the location of his skull that the killer didn't want it to be quickly found. Again, if Mike was just planning to die anyways, why does he care whether or not his body is found? He also wouldn't care if people connected him back to the crime. That really doesn't fit the nature of murder/suicide cases.

The note seems like a red herring. The couple had recently reconciled and I would imagine that it could have just as much connection to that as it would have to the crime scene. Its placement there could very well just be incidental. Either way, hard to make anything really incriminating from it.

His skull was actually found underneath some other debris (vacuum cleaner cover) and thus appeared to have been deliberately concealed there. That and the fact that the authorities actually apparently DID rule out a gunshot wound to the head as the cause of death makes suicide extremely unlikely. To the point where it doesn't feel statistically plausible enough to seriously discuss anymore.

First off, anyone could've concealed his skull. Why kill him and just hide his skull? Someone could've coincidentally placed the lid over the skull without realizing it. It sat there for years. What made them rule it out? Even if they ruled out a gunshot wound to the skull, he still could've committed suicide, and the hole could've been put into the skull via natural causes; animals, weather, etc etc. So no, it's completely plausible to talk about suicide.


Crystal being found alone at the Kmart in Spanaway actually makes the murder/suicide theory even more improbable. Mike would have had to have driven her there and then driven back to the murder scene, on a dark and cold evening in a blood tainted truck much less, then inexplicably would have had to leave the truck there with Diana's body and walked some distance into the forest to kill himself. If Mike was planning on killing himself, then why the obfuscation and subterfuge? Why go back to the scene of the crime and then move some distance to off yourself?

Incorrect. Despite popular opinion, dropping Crystal off at K-mart actually shows some level of thought. Yes, she could've been taken by someone else, but it's better than her dying alone in the woods. You're thinking of this case in a rational manner from a keyboard, so Mike dropping Crystal off at K-Mart seems crazy. However, you have to look at this case differently. What if Mike killed Diana en route to the woods, or arriving there, and fled the scene with Crystal. Leaving the scene he decided that he doesn't want to run, so he drops Crystal off at K-mart and goes back to kill himself? You have to think about this case from the mind of an abusive boyfriend who just possibly killed his girlfriend in a fit of rage. Everything adds up.

Furthermore, why on Earth would he drop his daughter off there at a Kmart rather than with his friends or family who were nearby? There was no guarantee that his daughter would be safe there alone at a random store, and if he planned on killing Diana and himself all along then I'm not sure why he'd even want to bring his daughter along to Mineral for that. It seemed very apparent from the location of his skull that the killer didn't want it to be quickly found. Again, if Mike was just planning to die anyways, why does he care whether or not his body is found? He also wouldn't care if people connected him back to the crime. That really doesn't fit the nature of murder/suicide cases.

Touche about dropping Crystal off at K-Mart, but if he was to drop her off at a relative's wouldn't they ask a bunch of questions and maybe try to follow him? Maybe he panicked and just dropped her off at the first big store that he saw. And to answer your question about him planning to have killed himself and Diana all along who says that's the case? If anything, and which makes sense given everything that we know, it seemed like a sudden, heat of the moment murder. They had a volatile and heated relationship. There was numerous accounts of Mike beating Diana, perhaps this was one of those times. They're driving and get into a fight and Mike kills her.

note seems like a red herring. The couple had recently reconciled and I would imagine that it could have just as much connection to that as it would have to the crime scene. Its placement there could very well just be incidental. Either way, hard to make anything really incriminating from it.

My problem with the note being a red herring, is why would a random killer put that there? Why would a random killer brutally murder Diana, and somehow know their names to write a note, or force Mike to write it? That seems excessive. I don't see a crazed killer sitting there writing a note in the forest in the middle of nowhere. If it was someone they knew it would make sense, given their stormy relationship, but why would a random killer know that? And Diana's mother said it was Mike's handwriting. I like how brutal and cold this killer is, but he also has the time to write notes and drop children off.

Actually thinking about it, what if her stab wounds were a cover-up from how she actually died? What if she wasn't actually dead the first time, but just knocked out? There was blood in the front seat but what if it came from Mike hitting her? What if they got into a fight en route to the woods and in the fight Mike hits her. He busts her nose (the blood found in the front seat) and knocks her out? He drives to the woods and ties her up, and thinking she's dead flees the scene with Crystal. He's going to run but has a change of heart, so he drops Crystal off and drive back. He returns and then stabs Diana, and then kills himself?

First off, anyone could've concealed his skull. Why kill him and just hide his skull? Someone could've coincidentally placed the lid over the skull without realizing it. It sat there for years. What made them rule it out? Even if they ruled out a gunshot wound to the skull, he still could've committed suicide, and the hole could've been put into the skull via natural causes; animals, weather, etc etc. So no, it's completely plausible to talk about suicide.


Again, the evidence quite strongly suggested that it was purposefully hidden. Serial killers often dump/conceal bodies and since Riemer was initially the main suspect in this case there may have been extra incentive to hide it (perhaps even well after the fact). Why would anyone besides the killer conceal a human skull on purpose? And the odds of someone randomly happening to come along on a remote logging road to dump a vacuum cleaner cover on the very spot where his skull happened to be located are too remote to entertain seriously. I would lay off the devil's advocacy....

Incorrect. Despite popular opinion, dropping Crystal off at K-mart actually shows some level of thought. Yes, she could've been taken by someone else, but it's better than her dying alone in the woods. You're thinking of this case in a rational manner from a keyboard, so Mike dropping Crystal off at K-Mart seems crazy. However, you have to look at this case differently. What if Mike killed Diana en route to the woods, or arriving there, and fled the scene with Crystal. Leaving the scene he decided that he doesn't want to run, so he drops Crystal off at K-mart and goes back to kill himself? You have to think about this case from the mind of an abusive boyfriend who just possibly killed his girlfriend in a fit of rage. Everything adds up.

If he had decided not to run and simply give up, then him abandoning his daughter and then muddling his involvement in the crime would be quite inconsistent with such a theory. His friends were pretty insistent that he wouldn't have abandoned his daughter anywhere under any circumstances. And it's probably about a 60 minute drive from the crime scene to the Kmart. It's not a supreme matter of convenience to get from A to B. What evidence that did exist suggested that Diana had been killed at or very near the location where her body was located. Not moved there after the fact. The tube sock placement around her neck also doesn't quite match this "fit of rage/spontaneous crime of passion" theory. It appeared far more calculated and meticulous on the part of the killer. Mike's jacket was also left behind in the truck, implying the couple was caught off-guard and separated suddenly.

Touche about dropping Crystal off at K-Mart, but if he was to drop her off at a relative's wouldn't they ask a bunch of questions and maybe try to follow him? Maybe he panicked and just dropped her off at the first big store that he saw. And to answer your question about him planning to have killed himself and Diana all along who says that's the case? If anything, and which makes sense given everything that we know, it seemed like a sudden, heat of the moment murder. They had a volatile and heated relationship. There was numerous accounts of Mike beating Diana, perhaps this was one of those times. They're driving and get into a fight and Mike kills her.

Why would Riemer care at that point what his relatives (or anyone else) thought if he were despondent, suicidal, and ready to give up? I certainly don't think he'd care enough to go so far as to drive all the way back to the murder scene, walk a mile in the snow without a jacket, and kill himself by methods unknown in a "dumping spot" where he wouldn't be found so it could look like a murder.

And in 1985, the Spanaway Kmart was the first big store/busy area along Highway 7 on the way back from Mineral into suburban Pierce County. It would have made strategic sense for the killer to leave her there, being that it was a given both that she would be found there and that it would also be busy enough for him to be fairly inconspicuous and slip off undetected.

My problem with the note being a red herring, is why would a random killer put that there? Why would a random killer brutally murder Diana, and somehow know their names to write a note, or force Mike to write it? That seems excessive. I don't see a crazed killer sitting there writing a note in the forest in the middle of nowhere. If it was someone they knew it would make sense, given their stormy relationship, but why would a random killer know that? And Diana's mother said it was Mike's handwriting. I like how brutal and cold this killer is, but he also has the time to write notes and drop children off.

I don't believe a random killer put it there. My point is that Mike likely indeed wrote it and that it didn't necessarily have any connection with the crime itself. They had very recently reconciled (court order was issued Nov. 26, 1985 and they disappeared Dec. 12, 1985) and there is no telling when the note was written in proximity to the murder or how long it had been in the truck beforehand. Given that fact, its existence isn't particularly incriminating to Mike, IMO.

Again, the evidence quite strongly suggested that it was purposefully hidden. Serial killers often dump/conceal bodies and since Riemer was initially the main suspect in this case there may have been extra incentive to hide it (perhaps even well after the fact). Why would anyone besides the killer conceal a human skull on purpose? And the odds of someone randomly happening to come along on a remote logging road to dump a vacuum cleaner cover on the very spot where his skull happened to be located are too remote to entertain seriously. I would lay off the devil's advocacy....

And I would lay off of the smart retorts until you provide solid logic. You're speaking in absolutes when you know nothing of the case. His skull hasn't been found for well over 20 years, someone completely innocent in the area could've come across his skull and put a cover over it to hide it out of sight. Someone indeed could've purposefully hidden it, but it didn't have to be the killer. So the killer hides his skull with a vacuum cover, but does what with the body? Ruth's skull and body was found, and her skull wasn't hidden under anything. Why not take the whole body if they he had extra incentive to hide Mike?

would Riemer care at that point what his relatives (or anyone else) thought if he were despondent, suicidal, and ready to give up? I certainly don't think he'd care enough to go so far as to drive all the way back to the murder scene, walk a mile in the snow without a jacket, and kill himself by methods unknown in a "dumping spot" where he wouldn't be found so it could look like a murder.

Who said he was despondent and suicidal at that point? Him fleeing the scene with Crystal would be the opposite. Him dropping her off at a friends/family could lead to potential questioning and following if he was deciding to jolt out of the area. Logically, to him, dropping her off at K-Mart real quick and having a change of heart to go back to the scene makes sense. If I just possibly committed a murder the last thing I want to see is family/friends if I'm freaking out. How do you know if he'd care enough to not drive back to the scene of his dead girlfriend? Again, you cannot say what someone would/wouldn't do in a time like this. It's possible he went back to the scene to cover her body up, but in getting there he felt hopeless and killed himself.

The tube sock placement around her neck also doesn't quite match this "fit of rage/spontaneous crime of passion" theory. It appeared far more calculated and meticulous on the part of the killer.

It does fit that of a copycat/cover up crime. Mike could've came back and tied the sock around her neck to frame the other killer if he wasn't initially planning to commit suicide, but had a change of heart.

And I would lay off of the smart retorts until you provide solid logic. You're speaking in absolutes when you know nothing of the case. His skull hasn't been found for well over 20 years, someone completely innocent in the area could've come across his skull and put a cover over it to hide it out of sight. Someone indeed could've purposefully hidden it, but it didn't have to be the killer. So the killer hides his skull with a vacuum cover, but does what with the body? Ruth's skull and body was found, and her skull wasn't hidden under anything. Why not take the whole body if they he had extra incentive to hide Mike?

You want to talk about solid logic and then you try to surmise that a random innocent bystander could have concealed a human skull simply to "put it out of sight". Seriously? That doesn't compute and frankly it sounds completely ridiculous.

Ruth Cooper, FWIW, was decapitated, and her body was found a mere two and a half months after her disappearance. Riemer may well have been decapitated as well, given the singularity of the skull and the lack of evidence of bullet damage to the head, and unlike Cooper there was over 25 years for elements to have an impact in the rest of his skeleton being found. That's quite a difference.

Sorry, but if I know nothing of the case then you apparently know less than nothing. I'd say I've clearly done a little more research than you have.


Who said he was despondent and suicidal at that point? Him fleeing the scene with Crystal would be the opposite. Him dropping her off at a friends/family could lead to potential questioning and following if he was deciding to jolt out of the area. Logically, to him, dropping her off at K-Mart real quick and having a change of heart to go back to the scene makes sense. If I just possibly committed a murder the last thing I want to see is family/friends if I'm freaking out. How do you know if he'd care enough to not drive back to the scene with his dead girlfriend? Again, you cannot say what someone would/wouldn't do in a time like this. It's possible he went back to the scene to cover her body up, but in getting there he felt hopeless and killed himself.

You do, since you're the one concluding that he must have intentionally killed himself. One would need to be at least a little despondent and suicidal to do that, you would think.

You're now clinging precariously to this murder/suicide theory and relying increasingly on fairly baseless conjecture and devil's advocacy. You're entitled to think what you want but there's a pretty strong litany of evidence to suggest that that theory is, at best, considerably unlikely. You're also free to ignore it if you choose, but I don't have the time to argue with you if you do.

It does fit that of a copycat/cover up crime. Mike could've came back and tied the sock around her neck to frame the other killer if he wasn't initially planning to commit suicide, but had a change of heart.

The detail of the tube sock and the knot was not made public, so only the Cooper/Harkins killer would have known. And why would Mike make the last-ditch effort to frame someone else when he planned on killing himself anyways?

You're now clinging precariously to this murder/suicide theory and relying increasingly on fairly baseless conjecture and devil's advocacy. You're entitled to think what you want but there's a pretty strong litany of evidence to suggest that that theory is, at best, considerably unlikely. You're also free to ignore it if you choose, but I don't have the time to argue with you if you do.

You're also relying on baseless conjecture, and absolutes because you haven't proven that Mike didn't do it. Your logic is simply "Why would Mike drive back?", and the "Police said so". Also this uppity attitude you have, when you haven't provided any new insights is hilarious.

I'm relying on devil's advocacy because I believe that an extremely abusive man might have killed his wife in an argument? No. Fact is you haven't proven anything. All you've done is question what I've said without backing up anything but someone leaving a vacuum cover.

I'll entertain your pretentious attitude more seriously when you actually bring up solid points, and not "but but why would he drop Crystal off at K-mart". No one can disprove Mike did it without baseless conjecture. Yeah it's weird he dropped her off at K-mart, and drove back. What else do you have? Yes, a random person could've put a vacuum cover over a skull. What evidence that they didn't? No? Okay.

You want to talk about solid logic and then you try to surmise that a random innocent bystander could have concealed a human skull simply to "put it out of sight". Seriously? That doesn't compute and frankly it sounds completely ridiculous.

Ruth Cooper, FWIW, was decapitated, and her body was found a mere two and a half months after her disappearance. Riemer may well have been decapitated as well, given the singularity of the skull and the lack of evidence of bullet damage to the head, and unlike Cooper there was over 25 years for elements to have an impact in the rest of his skeleton being found. That's quite a difference.

Do you have solid evidence that an innocent person didn't put a vacuum over the skull? Why doesn't it compute? Or are you working on baseless conjecture? What if a family was out there and someone saw it and placed a cover over it so someone else couldn't see it? It's strange that for 25 years, even after they searched for Mike that that cover went undisturbed, so who's to say it wasn't put on later?

I'll wait until more evidence/information surfaces before I write off the hole not being from a bullet. I want more information as to why they think it's not. Mike possibly was decapitated, that's a huge possibility. It's also possible that his skull had become separated from his body from animals, nature etc.


The detail of the tube sock and the knot was not made public, so only the Cooper/Harkins killer would have known. And why would Mike make the last-ditch effort to frame someone else when he planned on killing himself anyways?

And it's possible that he was the Cooper/Harkins killer. Mike had traps in the area so it's possible that an officer told Mike the details if Mike was in the area. Mike could've planned on framing the tube sock murderer, and maybe his suicide wasn't an immediate decision, but he came to that conclusion later.

You're also relying on baseless conjecture, and absolutes because you haven't proven that Mike didn't do it. Your logic is simply "Why would Mike drive back?", and the "Police said so". Also this uppity attitude you have, when you haven't provided any new insights is hilarious.

I'm relying on devil's advocacy because I believe that an extremely abusive man might have killed his wife in an argument? No. Fact is you haven't proven anything. All you've done is question what I've said without backing up anything but someone leaving a vacuum cover.

I'll entertain your pretentious attitude more seriously when you actually bring up solid points, and not "but but why would he drop Crystal off at K-mart". No one can disprove Mike did it without baseless conjecture. Yeah it's weird he dropped her off at K-mart, and drove back. What else do you have? Yes, a random person could've put a vacuum cover over a skull. What evidence that they didn't? No? Okay.

I'm glad you think you know more about this case than the local police do :lol:

You should tell them your random innocent bystander theory about the vacuum cover.

Do you have solid evidence that an innocent person didn't put a vacuum over the skull? Why doesn't it compute? Or are you working on baseless conjecture? What if a family was out there and someone saw it and placed a cover over it so someone else couldn't see it? It's strange that for 25 years, even after they searched for Mike that that cover went undisturbed, so who's to say it wasn't put on later?

What if Mike had actually gotten killed in those woods by a combination of Sasquatch, D.B. Cooper, and genetically modified wild boars? Because that sounds about as plausible a theory. Maybe we should also discuss it?

Mike's skull was found almost a mile from where Diana's body was, I believe. And in thick, hilly brush off an old logging road that wasn't in active use. It's very believable to think that it wouldn't have been discovered right away, bodies or body parts often go undiscovered for years or decades in rugged terrain like that.

I'll wait until more evidence/information surfaces before I write off the hole not being from a bullet. I want more information as to why they think it's not. Mike possibly was decapitated, that's a huge possibility. It's also possible that his skull had become separated from his body from animals, nature etc.


Sorry, but that's silly. We have a direct source verification from LE, that should be all that you need

http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2011/apr/12/remains-those-tacoma-man-missing-1985/

The fully intact skull of Michael Lloyd Riemer, 36, was found by a hiker on March 26.

“At least we can rule out a gunshot wound to the head,” Stacy Brown, a chief deputy with the sheriff’s office, said.


And it's possible that he was the Cooper/Harkins killer. Mike had traps in the area so it's possible that an officer told Mike the details if Mike was in the area. Mike could've planned on framing the tube sock murderer, and maybe his suicide wasn't an immediate decision, but he came to that conclusion later.

It's possible that Mike was terminally ill and died from that, too.

Again, these are empty conjectures. Not a great basis for a reasonable discussion or investigation. Sorry.

I'm glad you think you know more about this case than the local police do :lol:

You should tell them your random innocent bystander theory about the vacuum cover.

Oh, because police are never wrong. I will. Also tell them about the killer placing his skull under a vacuum cover 25 years ago that was oddly never moved by weather, or anyone until a random hiker came along. :lol: :lol:

Again, these are empty conjectures. Not a great basis for a reasonable discussion or investigation. Sorry.

You're doing the exact same thing you're accusing me of, empty conjectures. You have no evidence, or concrete proof that someone else killed Mike/Diana. You're just copying/pasting what you heard from the segment. I'm not 100% set on Mike being the killer, however, I entertain the idea. You're constantly replying back but you're not defending your point. You can keep picking at my post, but you're offering nothing concrete defending your stance. You're just replying just to reply at this point, but you're not proving anything.

What's your big argument? Someone else couldn't have put the cover over the skull? Again, how do you know and why not? Even if it's illogical are you 100% certain that they didn't? Are you 100% certain it wasn't coincidence?

If you don't have any evidence or concrete proof to counter-argue my claims other than the boogeyman killing Mike, then I'm not convinced.

Sorry, but that's silly. We have a direct source verification from LE, that should be all that you need

http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2011/apr/12/remains-those-tacoma-man-missing-1985/

The fully intact skull of Michael Lloyd Riemer, 36, was found by a hiker on March 26.

“At least we can rule out a gunshot wound to the head,” Stacy Brown, a chief deputy with the sheriff’s office, said.

Speak for yourself. I'm not easily impressed with blank statements from the police. Why is a gunshot wound ruled out? How big was the hole? I'm not saying their wrong, but I'd like more information before lapping up what they put down.

You're doing the exact same thing you're accusing me of, empty conjectures. You have no evidence, or concrete proof that someone else killed Mike/Diana. You're just copying/pasting what you heard from the segment. I'm not 100% set on Mike being the killer, however, I entertain the idea. You're constantly replying back but you're not defending your point. You can keep picking at my post, but you're offering nothing concrete defending your stance. You're just replying just to reply at this point, but you're not proving anything.

What's your big argument? Someone else couldn't have put the cover over the skull? Again, how do you know and why not? Even if it's illogical are you 100% certain that they didn't? Are you 100% certain it wasn't coincidence?

If you don't have any evidence or concrete proof to counter-argue my claims other than the boogeyman killing Mike, then I'm not convinced.

Uh well I've defended my position as thoroughly as I need to, if you choose not to accept it then that's your thing. I think the plethora of other people in these discos now agreeing that Riemer was a victim also speaks to the ridiculously remote likelihood of murder/suicide being the explanation. You can think what you want in the face of reasonably strong evidence.

And sadly until the actual killer is outed and linked to the crime via incontrovertible physical evidence, we can continue to go around and around about "concrete proof".

Uh well I've defended my position as thoroughly as I need to, if you choose not to accept it then that's your thing. I think the plethora of other people in these discos now agreeing that Riemer was a victim also speaks to the ridiculously remote likelihood of murder/suicide being the explanation. You can think what you want in the face of reasonably strong evidence.

And sadly until the actual killer is outed and linked to the crime via incontrovertible physical evidence, we can continue to go around and around about "concrete proof".

Holla @ me when new evidence comes to light.

Speak for yourself. I'm not easily impressed with blank statements from the police. Why is a gunshot wound ruled out? How big was the hole? I'm not saying their wrong, but I'd like more information before lapping up what they put down.


Totally silly, like I said. It actually sounds like a conclusive statement from someone who totally has access to legitimate first-hand information, unlike you or I. And if you want to doubt the official version of events and rely on endless presumptions, then go ahead, just don't expect it to make for a convincing argument.

Totally silly, like I said. It actually sounds like a conclusive statement from someone who totally has access to legitimate first-hand information, unlike you or I. And if you want to doubt the official version of events and rely on endless presumptions, then go ahead, just don't expect it to make for a convincing argument.

It's totally silly that I want more information before I come to a conclusion? Otay. :wave:

It's totally silly that I want more information before I come to a conclusion? Otay. :wave:

Yes, I know what you mean. I would personally like some more information about water being wet before I agree with the scientists.

Yes, I know what you mean. I would personally like some more information about water being wet before I agree with the scientists.

You're not even funny at this point. Stop trying so hard. I love the fact that you're arguing to "win" without actually arguing anything (hence you keep replying by not saying anything). My point is if the hole was caused by external forces (natures, animals, etc) then that can still hold a suicide theory.

I know you want to have the last word, but dear lord man.

I know i'm all over the place regarding this one, and I honestly don't know which side i'm firmly on, but if they were murdered then I wonder if it was by someone they knew?

Diana was stabbed 17 times, and Crystal was spared (I know serial killers would do this), but I wonder Diana/Mike had a scorned lover? It was said that they just recently got back together, so I'm wondering while they were broken up if one of them dated someone else?

Perhaps Diana was seeing someone else while she was broken up with Mike but dumped the other guy when her and Mike got back together? It's possible he knew of their trip and followed/met them there.

I really don't know.

You're not even funny at this point. Stop trying so hard. I love the fact that you're arguing to "win" without actually arguing anything (hence you keep replying by not saying anything). My point is if the hole was caused by external forces (natures, animals, etc) then that can still hold a suicide theory.

I know you want to have the last word, but dear lord man.

Last word? Couldn't care less. But you are doing a pretty good job of discrediting yourself by pulling increasingly wild theories out of your you-know-what. I'm not sure what you're trying to convey at this point, since it's obvious that you don't have any new insight to offer.

I know i'm all over the place regarding this one, and I honestly don't know which side i'm firmly on, but if they were murdered then I wonder if it was by someone they knew?

Diana was stabbed 17 times, and Crystal was spared (I know serial killers would do this), but I wonder Diana/Mike had a scorned lover? It was said that they just recently got back together, so I'm wondering while they were broken up if one of them dated someone else?

Perhaps Diana was seeing someone else while she was broken up with Mike but dumped the other guy when her and Mike got back together? It's possible he knew of their trip and followed/met them there.

I really don't know.

It's possible and would certainly explain some things, but the striking similarities to the Harkins/Cooper killings make that theory less likely in my view, since serial killers rarely kill victims they closely know. I would imagine investigators also scoured through Diana's personal life as much as possible at the time to find out if there were other men in her life.

delete

You keep mentioning that I have no new insight, or nothing worth discussing so I'm puzzled as to why you keep replying to me then? It's obvious you want the last word. If I thought someone's theory wasn't worth discussing since I'm so set on mine, then I wouldn't keep responding.

You're not really disproving my points at all. You just keep repeating the same thing over and over about some vacuum over that you can't prove. Brash, and pretentious talk is only impressive when you're proving a point. Not when you clearly have nothing to add but you just want to be heard.

LOL, why are you still replying?

I've pretty much debunked your theories here and you can't really handle it, so you need to take something away from this in order to preserve your fragile ego.

delete

delete

Switching subject. ...


Why was the poor dog killed?

Switching subject. ...


Why was the poor dog killed?

Same reasons why the others were killed....senseless murder.

I guess I'm back and forth on my opinions on this. NewMedalz is correct in that they have seemed to have shared the same serial killer in both murders. Stephen and the dog were just shot, while Ruth was decapitated. Diana was also brutally murdered but the motives of Diana, and Ruth seemed different. Ruth's was brutal and cold, while Diana's seemed to have been a crime of passion....

I also deeply apologize to NewMedalz for how aggressive I got and for the name calling.

Same reasons why the others were killed....senseless murder.

I guess I'm back and forth on my opinions on this. NewMedalz is correct in that they have seemed to have shared the same serial killer in both murders. Stephen and the dog were just shot, while Ruth was decapitated. Diana was also brutally murdered but the motives of Diana, and Ruth seemed different. Ruth's was brutal and cold, while Diana's seemed to have been a crime of passion....

I also deeply apologize to NewMedalz for how aggressive and I got and for the name calling.


No worries, I apologize for any rudeness on my part as well.

It's a deeply confounding case for sure and being that I live just a couple counties away, it's one that I really want to see get solved some day.

Even before Riemer's skull was found, I always thought he was a victim. I also thought that it was remotely possible that Riemer could've killed Diana and then committed suicide, and that the knots were just a bizarre coincidence. But I couldn't envision Riemer abandoning his daughter at a store, if he knew he was going to go back into the woods to commit suicide. Riemer just as well could've dropped his daughter off with relatives or friends, and then hightailed it back to the woods to kill himself.

Someone claiming to be Crystal posted a comment on the UM write up of the case. Another person asked how she got to the store and she replied, "Someone dropped me there. It was a few miles from the crime scene. I couldnt have made that journey on my own, at that age, during that time of year." That's the other issue I have with believing Riemer is guilty. Her only words were "mommy is in the trees" when asked about her parents. If she was verbal enough at 2 to say that, she surely would have been able to tell people if her father was the one who dropped her off at the store, or to even mention him at all. The fact that she didn't mention Riemer makes me think he was killed elsewhere first, and then the killer targeted Diana.

Even before Riemer's skull was found, I always thought he was a victim. I also thought that it was remotely possible that Riemer could've killed Diana and then committed suicide, and that the knots were just a bizarre coincidence. But I couldn't envision Riemer abandoning his daughter at a store, if he knew he was going to go back into the woods to commit suicide. Riemer just as well could've dropped his daughter off with relatives or friends, and then hightailed it back to the woods to kill himself.

Someone claiming to be Crystal posted a comment on the UM write up of the case. Another person asked how she got to the store and she replied, "Someone dropped me there. It was a few miles from the crime scene. I couldnt have made that journey on my own, at that age, during that time of year." That's the other issue I have with believing Riemer is guilty. Her only words were "mommy is in the trees" when asked about her parents. If she was verbal enough at 2 to say that, she surely would have been able to tell people if her father was the one who dropped her off at the store, or to even mention him at all. The fact that she didn't mention Riemer makes me think he was killed elsewhere first, and then the killer targeted Diana.

Hmm...while I agree that Mike was less likely the killer, him dropping her off at K-Mart isn't that much of a clincher. If he did drop her off, it could've been the fear of having a family/friend ask questions when he needed to make a run for it. Then on top of that, we can't conclude that his intent was suicide after dropping Crystal off. He could've went back to tamper with the scene but committed suicide in the last second. What if he dropped her off, but planned on coming back after visiting the scene? Maybe he didn't want friends/family questioning him so he left her there and planned on coming back, but committed suicide instead?

Would she really remember at 2 though? If we assumed that she saw Diana being attacked/dead then it's possible that she suppressed the memory due to shock. Also apparently she didn't say anything at first. A couple of months later when she was with her grandmother she had said "mommy is in the trees".

But my main point is she said nothing about "daddy being is in the trees". No mention of him at all. Is that because he drove her there? Maybe she didn't mention her father was because she couldn't. If Mike dropped her off but kept going, then what could she say? I always found it odd that she never said "daddy is hurt" or anything to that effect if she could remember so vividly.

Another thing that bothers me in the difference between Diana/Ruth murders. Ruth's seemed to have been swift and brutal. While Diana's was a crime of passion. Why would the same killer decapitate one victim, but waste time stabbing Diana 17 times? It's obvious that this killer hated women, but could that mean Mike killed the other couple?

A 3rd party killer makes more sense, I agree, but there were no more murders after Mike and Diana. Also was this killer just chilling in the area when they rolled up?

Hmm...while I agree that Mike was less likely the killer, him dropping her off at K-Mart isn't that much of a clincher. If he did drop her off, it could've been the fear of having a family/friend ask questions when he needed to make a run for it. Then on top of that, we can't conclude that his intent was suicide after dropping Crystal off. He could've went back to tamper with the scene but committed suicide in the last second. What if he dropped her off, but planned on coming back after visiting the scene? Maybe he didn't want friends/family questioning him so he left her there and planned on coming back, but committed suicide instead?

All he had to do was leave her on a friend or relatives doorstep and then leave.

Would she really remember at 2 though? If we assumed that she saw Diana being attacked/dead then it's possible that she suppressed the memory due to shock. Also apparently she didn't say anything at first. A couple of months later when she was with her grandmother she had said "mommy is in the trees".

She was verbal enough to know where Diana was, so I believe she was advanced at her age. She certainly knew who "daddy" was, and I'm sure the police and her relatives asked her.

But my main point is she said nothing about "daddy being is in the trees". No mention of him at all. Is that because he drove her there? Maybe she didn't mention her father was because she couldn't. If Mike dropped her off but kept going, then what could she say? I always found it odd that she never said "daddy is hurt" or anything to that effect if she could remember so vividly.

I think her lack of mentioning her father at all is further proof that she had no idea what happened to him. She probably didn't see his body like she did Diana's. And if she could articulate "mommy's in the trees", I think she would have been able to say "daddy dropped me off", or "daddy hurt mommy".

All he had to do was leave her on a friend or relatives doorstep and then leave.

True. However, if he did drop her off we don't know how rationally he was thinking. It's easy to say "this person should've done this", but if you just killed your girlfriend how rational would you really be thinking? Maybe he didn't want to risk being seen, or having the cops called immediately, especially if some family/friends knew where he was going to be.


She was verbal enough to know where Diana was, so I believe she was advanced at her age. She certainly knew who "daddy" was, and I'm sure the police and her relatives asked her.

I have no doubt she knew who daddy was, but she never mentioned him. Granted, the grandmother could've coached her on what to say if she thought Mike was guilty, and knew where the family went that day. Remember Crystal didn't say anything period until she got with her grandmother.


I think her lack of mentioning her father at all is further proof that she had no idea what happened to him. She probably didn't see his body like she did Diana's. And if she could articulate "mommy's in the trees", I think she would have been able to say "daddy dropped me off", or "daddy hurt mommy".

Then she would also be able to articulate "Where's daddy?" or is "Daddy okay?" if she was so advanced for a 2 year old. We don't have proof of either, so her not mentioning Mike could mean that he dropped her off, or that she didn't see him being attacked. It's 50/50.

Another thing that bothers me in the difference between Diana/Ruth murders. Ruth's seemed to have been swift and brutal. While Diana's was a crime of passion. Why would the same killer decapitate one victim, but waste time stabbing Diana 17 times? It's obvious that this killer hated women, but could that mean Mike killed the other couple?

A 3rd party killer makes more sense, I agree, but there were no more murders after Mike and Diana. Also was this killer just chilling in the area when they rolled up?

No more murders that I'm aware of in that vicinity which involved the tube-sock M.O. but there have been plenty of other mysterious killings in WA over the years, including the UM profiled Jay Cook/Tanya Van Cuylenborg case in 1987 which bares some similarities as well.

Whoever committed the four 1985 killings was almost certainly familiar with the back-roads of western WA. I would imagine that they likely stalked and picked out their victims and had their own separate transportation.