Mike Riemer ...Still Think He's Guilty?

[Stratego]

Originally Posted by TheCars1986

Not necessarily. There were no visible gunshot wounds found on Riemer's remains. He could have been stabbed to death like Diana. What's weird to me is that the detective is saying that Riemer could have been injured where Diana was found and he could have walked the distance to where his remains were found "easily". Knowing that Diana was bound with her hands behind her back and had a tube sock tied around her neck, if the working theory is that Riemer killed Diana in a fit of rage, who would have been able to mortally wound him at the site where Diana was found? And if he dropped Crystal off at the K-Mart, and then drove back to where he killed Diana to commit suicide, why wander away from her body?

But why didn't he defend himself with his gun? And why would the killer even choose to attack anyone with a gun?

Don't you think the detective made that remark thinking of the possibility that a third person may have attacked Diana and Mike together, after which Mike wandered off?

Like I said to freakbook, I think it's possible he did not want to take responsibility for her death. Or even may have gotten the idea to try and hide after he went back to the crime scene.

[freakbook]

Originally Posted by Stratego

And why would the killer even choose to attack anyone with a gun?

Why was Stephen shot in the head, Ruth shot in the abdomen and the dog shot as well?

Because of a sick bastard.

Originally Posted by Stratego

Like I said to freakbook, I think it's possible he did not want to take responsibility for her death. Or even may have gotten the idea to try and hide after he went back to the crime scene.

One of your theories is that Mike went into hiding because he didn't want anyone thinking he committed the crime and that he succumbed to hypothermia while hiding from the police.

If that is true, then why didn't he simply take his jacket that was laying in the back of the truck? It would've been bizarre to hide in a obscure area in the winter with your jacket laying in your truck a mile away.

[Stratego]

Well, if the unknown killer is so screwed up to risk his life trying to stab a man who's carrying a gun, I think Mike could've been so distressed he left his jacket. Or maybe he was wearing a different jacket. Perhaps he went back thinking he could stage the scene and then he got paranoid and wandered off. No theory seems to cover everything and that's probably why it's such a strange case.

I think it's weird he wasn't wearing his jacket regardless.

[freakbook]

Originally Posted by Stratego

Well, if the unknown killer is so screwed up to risk his life trying to stab a man who's carrying a gun, I think Mike could've been so distressed he left his jacket. Or maybe he was wearing a different jacket. Perhaps he went back thinking he could stage the scene and then he got paranoid and wandered off. No theory seems to cover everything and that's probably why it's such a strange case.

I think it's weird he wasn't wearing his jacket regardless.

It's possible that Mike's gun was on his side when he was attacked. It's also possible that he was shot in the back while being unaware the perp was there.

This is a strange case, and any theory could go either way. I do think Mike is the most likely suspect due to the circumstances of the murder, but it just doesn't fit with the evidence.

If he killed himself then a weapon should've been found where his skull was. Also the knife that was used to kill Diana should've also been found

[Stratego]

It's possible the killer shot Mike in his back, but in that case I don't think it was necessary for the killer to take Mike's gun and use it to threaten Diana, for example

Mike could've dumped the knife when he left to drop off Crystal. I'm not convinced Mike shot himself, but there was so little left of his remains, maybe an animal took of with it as well. Who knows.

I think Mike being the killer explains a lot, but just like any other theory, it still leaves unanswered questions. It's really a shame Mike wasn't found much earlier.

[freakbook]

Originally Posted by Stratego

It's possible the killer shot Mike in his back, but in that case I don't think it was necessary for the killer to take Mike's gun and use it to threaten Diana, for example

I don't know if he threatened her or not with the gun, but I'm sure he took it. If you're out there killing people the last thing you want to do is leave a gun around so it could be used against you.

Also to note, this is the first time we disagreed, and the first time me and Cars agreed. What a wacky turn of events

[Stratego]

Well, if he shot Mike dead, the gun wouldn't really be a problem anymore.

Originally Posted by freakbook

Also to note, this is the first time we disagreed, and the first time me and Cars agreed. What a wacky turn of events

[freakbook]

Originally Posted by Stratego

Well, if he shot Mike dead, the gun wouldn't really be a problem anymore.

Haha.

And I mean't someone else, not Riemer. Like the killer didn't want to leave to chance that someone else took the gun.

Or like Cars said, could've used it to intimidate. He could've used the gun to have intimidated Diana to take her top off.

[Stratego]

Originally Posted by freakbook

Haha.

And I mean't someone else, not Riemer. Like the killer didn't want to leave to chance that someone else took the gun.

Or like Cars said, could've used it to intimidate. He could've used the gun to have intimidated Diana to take her top off.

Not sure how reasonable it would be for the killer to fear some stranger would just come along and take the gun from Mike's body or car while he was still in the process of committing these murders.

But that's what I meant before, if the killer had a gun himself to shoot Mike with, he wouldn't need Mike's gun to intimidate Diana.

[freakbook]

Originally Posted by Stratego

Not sure how reasonable it would be for the killer to fear some stranger would just come along and take the gun from Mike's body or car while he was still in the process of committing these murders.

But that's what I meant before, if the killer had a gun himself to shoot Mike with, he wouldn't need Mike's gun to intimidate Diana.

He could've just took the gun for the hell of it. I think it's more logical that the perp took the gun for whatever reason, than Mike killing Diana and himself with no weapons being found anywhere

[Stratego]

Originally Posted by freakbook

He could've just took the gun for the hell of it. I think it's more logical that the perp took the gun for whatever reason, than Mike killing Diana and himself with no weapons being found anywhere

There was so little found of his remains, that I don't think it really means anything. It's also info that came from his father. You know, if Mike died from hypothermia, it's possible he dropped or just left the gun somewhere else in the woods when he started to feel unwell.

I'd like to know more about what the police think, but I can't find all that much. I'm also confused about how much was found of Mike, since articles from 2011 mention that nothing else besides the partial skull was found. There are also reports that all they found during a later search was a mandible, if true it's not inconceivable that an animal took away his entire head not long after his death and the rest of his body is somewhere else. I got the impression his remains were found near some kind of dumping ground, so maybe his gun was already found by someone a long time ago.

I'm also not convinced Mike was not shot through the head. It was only a partial skull that actually had a big hole in it, so I don't see why they ruled that out. Even if he was murdered, I think it's possible.

I also read they're testing for DNA, so hopefully that will resolve the case for good. Fingers crossed.

[TheCars1986]

Originally Posted by Stratego

I'm also not convinced Mike was not shot through the head. It was only a partial skull that actually had a big hole in it, so I don't see why they ruled that out. Even if he was murdered, I think it's possible.

It was a fully intact skull.

Originally Posted by Det. Beall

But now when you go out and you map it and I'm looking at the map right now, from where the vehicle was found to where he is sitting or laying down, or the majority of his bones, were is by the way a crow flies around 1500 feet. Not very far, you know, it's very easy to walk if you're injured or whatever. Now we know he didn't shoot himself in the head because the skull is intact. You know, there's no bullet trauma or whatever in the skull. So, you know, we'll, I don't think we'll ever know how he died.

Also from The Washed Away Podcast, a direct quote from the host:

So it sounds like law enforcement has had their eye on Mike as the suspect in Diana's murder since 1985, But what if he was a victim himself and these murders were committed by an unknown serial killer? That’s been my theory all of these years and I know I’m not alone. In fact, when his skull was found in 2011, it was reported that he was no longer being looked at as a suspect but after talking to Detective Beall, it should be clear that that isn't true. Surprisingly though, this might be the year that that changes.

The cops still think it's Riemer. They kind of have to at this point because back in 1985, they focused everything on him and even put a warrant out for his arrest. Having the DNA come back to an unknown male gets egg all over their faces because their sole focus over the years (and continues to be) Riemer as the murderer. Det. Beall admits as much:

Originally Posted by Det. Beall

Let's say hypothetically, and we're working on this, hypothetically, it doesn't match up with that male DNA profile on that ligature and bra you go, Oh ****. Now you've got a problem, right? Now you could come in and it could be associated with the other case, because some stranger's out there killing people, but you want to eliminate one first. But if it comes back where it's not Riemer’s, I mean, that's our theory. Then we go to the next step, which would be really getting in with Pierce County and checking with their people. You know what I'm saying? Working closer than we already have. Cause I know they have some stuff at the lab on their case also, but they're probably having the same problem that we have - is they’re cold cases. And they have a low priority, you know, as far as getting processed.

They have never taken the serial killer theory as seriously as they should have and are banking on this DNA test matching Riemer.

[Stratego]

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

With Mike still gone, I think it was difficult to make any progress in the case back in the 80s. Maybe the DNA confirms their suspicions, but if it doesn't, at least it's one step closer to resolving the case.

[TheCars1986]

Originally Posted by Stratego

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

With Mike still gone, I think it was difficult to make any progress in the case back in the 80s. Maybe the DNA confirms their suspicions, but if it doesn't, at least it's one step closer to resolving the case.

Okay, here's another:

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.

Another:

The skull fragment was positively identified as belonging to Riemer, and a subsequent search revealed a jawbone, minus the teeth, alongside a pair of rubber boots that may or may not have been linked.

No other remains were found, meaning that there was no chance of identifying a cause of death, which may have shed some light on the events of 1985.

All a coroner could say was the skull hadn't suffered trauma such as a gunshot wound as what happened in Steven Harkins’s death.

[Stratego]

Originally Posted by TheCars1986

Okay, here's another:

Another:

The first link is the one I already mentioned, which states that no other bones were found, contradicting what Beall said. The second one actually describes it as a "skull FRAGMENT". The coronor didn't find a bullet hole, but that doesn't mean there couldn't have been one in a part of the skull that's missing. See what I mean? The info is all so vague and inconsistent. To take one thing as fact over the other, feels too much like cherrypicking. All I can say is that I don't necessarily think Mike would've shot himself through the head, but I don't feel comfortable enough to rule it out either.