Mike Riemer - Sitcoms Online Message Boards

Bazorro · 11-02-2005, 02:28 PM

Any infomation on this case? I saw this today and this is a very interesting UM.

Im curious to know if he committed those murders or was a victim himself.

DarkDante · 11-02-2005, 08:14 PM

No idea - It is interesting to note however that THE DOE NETWORK doesn't list Mike as a missing person (I've tried several spellings of his last name as well)

ddelta · 11-18-2005, 10:29 AM

This case freaks me out. I cannot for the life of me figure out if Mike was involved in his wife's murder or was a victim himself. I just can't imagine killing two other incident victims to make it seem there is another murderer. Especially if my plan was to disappear.

However, it could be mike because the daughter was found alone at a store and that would be something a father would do and not harm the little girl. I can't see a serial killer making sure to bring a little girl to a store to make sure she was not harmed.

So who knows. I also thought it was strange that if this case took place 25 years ago, how there has never been a sighting of this guy? Especially after UM aired the show.

I wonder if this will ever be solved.

angiev · 11-18-2005, 10:52 AM

Can you explain this case I can't remember it?

crystaldawn · 11-18-2005, 10:55 AM

I admit this is one of the more intriguing cases UM has profiled. Plus the segment the way its filmed is creepy and is a perfect example of how the old ones are leaps and bounds better than the more recent ones. I definitely think Mike killed his wife. The envelope that stated "I Love You Diana" could be construed as an eerie goodbye after he killed her. Also Mike appeared to be a good sized guy and like was mentioned on the segment why would the killer leave the much smaller woman's body there and take the much larger guy somewhere else. I'm not sure if I would classify Mike as a serial killer, I'm not even sure what the true definition of one is, but remember the couple that was murdered was found in the vicinity of where Mike had some of his traps and he was known to have an explosive temper. There could have been some sort of altercation with them and he could have killed them. The only thing that could point to him possibly being a serial killer are the socks tied around the victim's necks. Surely, if Mike indeed did kill the 3 of them, he would know that he would be a suspect in Diana's murder and the fact that both crime scenes had victims with a sock tied around their necks he had to have known that would definitely link the three. Another scenario could be that Mike heard of the couple being slain and the sock around the neck and figured that would be a way of killing his wife and making it look like it was at the hands of a serial killer who killed the young couple whether it was or not. He could have taken her out in the general vicinity of where they were found (under the false pretense of getting a Christmas tree) killed her and tied a sock around her neck making the authorities think there was a serial killer on the loose. Just some thoughts on the case.

Also in my opinion one of the saddest moments on UM is at the end of this segment where Diana's mother has a picture of her by her bedside and says the little girl talks to her mothers pictures and whenever she gets a new toy or anything will go in there and show it to her mother.

mattc · 09-19-2009, 08:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by crystaldawn

I admit this is one of the more intriguing cases UM has profiled. Plus the segment the way its filmed is creepy and is a perfect example of how the old ones are leaps and bounds better than the more recent ones. I definitely think Mike killed his wife. The envelope that stated "I Love You Diana" could be construed as an eerie goodbye after he killed her. Also Mike appeared to be a good sized guy and like was mentioned on the segment why would the killer leave the much smaller woman's body there and take the much larger guy somewhere else. I'm not sure if I would classify Mike as a serial killer, I'm not even sure what the true definition of one is, but remember the couple that was murdered was found in the vicinity of where Mike had some of his traps and he was known to have an explosive temper. There could have been some sort of altercation with them and he could have killed them. The only thing that could point to him possibly being a serial killer are the socks tied around the victim's necks. Surely, if Mike indeed did kill the 3 of them, he would know that he would be a suspect in Diana's murder and the fact that both crime scenes had victims with a sock tied around their necks he had to have known that would definitely link the three. Another scenario could be that Mike heard of the couple being slain and the sock around the neck and figured that would be a way of killing his wife and making it look like it was at the hands of a serial killer who killed the young couple whether it was or not. He could have taken her out in the general vicinity of where they were found (under the false pretense of getting a Christmas tree) killed her and tied a sock around her neck making the authorities think there was a serial killer on the loose. Just some thoughts on the case.

Also in my opinion one of the saddest moments on UM is at the end of this segment where Diana's mother has a picture of her by her bedside and says the little girl talks to her mothers pictures and whenever she gets a new toy or anything will go in there and show it to her mother.

CrystalDawn... I know this was a post you wrote a long time ago, but I wanted to comment on it because 1) I just rewatched the segment, and 2) I thought your analysis was brilliant. I never thought that perhaps Mike had heard about the couple being killed (although it makes sense, as I'm sure that would be widely covered in the local news/press). Then, he wrapped a sock around his wife to throw off the police. I do think Mike killed his wife, but I don't know about the other couple.

On thing though: Didn't the UM segment imply that the SAME sock was wrapped around the couple and his wife, or was it simply that the socks were similar in terms of how they were tied? I guess I need to go back and rewatch it. That would make a major difference.

Talk about reminding me of the orange sock killing (another of the great, early segments)! Thanks.

mattc · 09-19-2009, 08:22 PM

Just to add... Apparently the two socks WERE the same socks, according to the UM segment. This makes me convinced that Mike killed all three people.

MegtheEgg86 · 09-20-2009, 10:57 AM

This is one of my favorite cases--probably because, as I've said many times before, I'm always on the fence about it. For some reason, I'm not ready to say that Mike Riemer killed Diana Robertson. There is, admittedly, a lot of circumstantial evidence to suggest that he in fact did, but there's a lingering doubt in my mind nonetheless.

Why:

1. Mike Riemer reportedly had anger and jealousy problems, but that isn't necessarily proof that he's a killer--let alone a serial killer trolling the western Washington woods for victims. If Riemer's anger/jealousy towards his girlfriend is apparently the "fuel" propelling his murderous actions, why would he not just kill Diana and leave it at that? There's really no need to kill a random couple, nor is that behavior necessarily consistent with someone fitting Riemer's profile (as far as we can tell from the segment, news article, and so forth). And if Riemer truly is a serial killer, surely in 24 years he would've claimed at least one or two additional victims. The chances of him actually having the particular homicidal tendencies commonly noted in serial killers are, in reality, slim.

2. There hasn't been a single sighting of Mike Riemer since the incident. I understand this is the case with many killers, but one would think after 24 years someone would recognize him.

3. As far as I know, it was never determined if those socks belonged to Mike or Diana. (Aside: It was determined that they were definitely alike, however. Perhaps my memory fails me, but if the sock was used in the same way in both murders [that is, not necessarily as a strangulation device, but perhaps as a "calling card"], I think that would be an extremely important factor.)

4. Again, as far as I know, no one actually placed Mike Riemer--supposedly checking his trap line or the like--in the woods of Pierce County where the other couple was killed around the time of that murder.

5. As I've always said, Riemer's father has a point. Mike would not have left his jacket in the truck in Washington state in the middle of December, especially if he needed to walk out of the forest to reach a road. If he killed Diana outdoors, chances are he would probably be wearing it. (I'm completely speculating here, please understand.) Why leave behind a jacket riddled with evidence?

6. An individual murdering Diana, and then abducting Mike and Crystal cannot be ruled out. Again, really speculating--but suppose Mike begged his hypothetical abductor to let his daughter alone. The abductor obliges, and this is how we find Crystal at K-Mart. The chances are rather slim, but it's a possibility nonetheless.

I also believe the note on the dashboard was overplayed in the segment. As I've said, my husband frequently leaves me little notes very much like that around the house, for me to find upon waking and that sort of thing. It's an anecdotal deduction, but I honestly don't think it's much of a stretch to imagine Mike doing the same for Diana.

Of course, I realize there are many unanswered questions. I always love and never tire of discussing this case. Thanks for the bump, mattc.

kadrmas15 · 09-21-2009, 01:04 AM

Hmm, Meg the Egg, interesting analysis. I am inclined to believe that Mike Riemer probably did kill not only Diana but the other couple a few months prior. However it is possible that he did not. Basically, I will say, if Mike killed Diana, than he would have had to have a way to get out of the woods, jacket or not. I have a hard time believing he would hitch hike all the way to town where his daughter was left. So, there are a couple of possibilities with this. One, Riemer somehow had another car or vehicle at the scene. Two, Riemer had an accomplice pick him up and drop his daughter off at the store while Riemer went to an undisclosed location and disappeared. Three, Riemer started hitchhiking with his daughter, acting like his car had broken down or he was lost or something and getting a ride from a passerby. However what bothers me about that possibility is that no one ever came forward to report this.

Clearly the truck was very deep in the woods, so much so it was not found until about two months after the actual killing if I remember right. Obviously critical evidence degraded over that time and clearly Riemer had not been back to tamper with the crime scene. That is something else that always bothered me. I would think if Riemer did this, he would be monitoring the investigation somehow. So if he was doing this, eventually he would have become aware that the cops had no idea where the truck was. So why not go back and get the note, and things like that?

However that said, this was a very remote area of Pierce County. So much so that it seems you would have had to know the area to get around. So clearly the killer, whether it was Mike or an unidentified third party knew the area. Gary Ridgeway and Robert Yates were both free and both in the area at that time however these killings do not match either of their M.O.'s and while I cannot say for sure it was not them, I do not think either of them were involved.

Another serial killer that was on the lose at the time was Charles Sinclair who was also in the area. He is a strong suspect in the killing of Jay and Tanya in 1987 who were featured in another UM segment. Sinclair is considered a strong suspect in the killings of no fewer than 5 people in Washington State alone during the mid to late 1980s and was/is also a suspect in killings in California and New Mexico among other places. Sinclair's M.O. was more to leave the bodies, fully clothed. Unlike Ridgeway and if I remember right Yates too (they both killed I believe only women) Sinclair killed both men and women and enjoyed killing couples especially. I think it it was the thrill and the challenge of it that led him to enjoy killing couples.

However, the question does remain, why would the killer dispose of only Mike's body but leave Diana's body there? Sure it could be to throw the police off the track. However it makes more sense that Mike would be the killer in this scenario since his body is not there. I also do not think only one person alone could have disposed of Mike's body. To me that is probably the most troubling thing is how only Mike's body 'went missing' it does not make sense. Yes it can be argued the 'killer' disposed of Mike's body to make it look like Mike had done it and then fled. However again, if this was the case, who helped dispose of the body? This case reminds me of the Dub Wackerhaugen case, where Dub and his son 'went missing' when in my opinion they are probably both still alive.

ddelta · 09-21-2009, 12:55 PM

My feeling is that Mike killed his wife in a fit of rage and then took his daughter to the K-Mart and then went back to where he killed his wife, walked into the woods and killed himself. Reasons:
1. There has not been one sighting of him really.
2. The daughter was dropped off makes me think this is not the work of a random serial killer but a father who did not want harm to come to his daughter.
3 Why would a serial killer leave Diana out in the open but hide Mikes body?
4. Mike left his jacket and this happened during a very cold time a year and his car was still there which would make it pretty hard to leave the area.

I am not sold on the fact that mike killed the other couple either. Just seems no point to it if he committed suicide or if he had a plan to disappear after killing Diana. Mike would still be the main suspect until he or his body were found.

So many questions to this one....

MegtheEgg86 · 09-21-2009, 04:47 PM

All great and valid points, kadrmas (I'd never thought to think of Charles Sinclair--extremely interesting; thanks for bringing that up) and ddelta.

Just got to thinking of something today. Young Crystal's declaration "Mommy is in the trees" poses multiple questions leading me to come to two conclusions on what possibly occurred:

1. Crystal was actually there with Mike and Diana in the woods when her mother was killed (and possibly witnessed her father doing so

).

2. She was merely told her mother was in the forest by Mike or whomever before she was dropped off at the K-Mart. Perhaps she never actually went into the woods with her mother and father, as she was left at the store before Diana's murder transpired.

It seems that the latter would be a bit more likely, as Diana's body and the truck were found in a remote location. However, Molly Koch, the K-Mart manager interviewed in the segment, did report Crystal walking around in a daze--perhaps as if she'd been traumatized in some way. Any thoughts on that?

crystaldawn · 09-22-2009, 05:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mattc

CrystalDawn... I know this was a post you wrote a long time ago, but I wanted to comment on it because 1) I just rewatched the segment, and 2) I thought your analysis was brilliant. I never thought that perhaps Mike had heard about the couple being killed (although it makes sense, as I'm sure that would be widely covered in the local news/press). Then, he wrapped a sock around his wife to throw off the police. I do think Mike killed his wife, but I don't know about the other couple.

On thing though: Didn't the UM segment imply that the SAME sock was wrapped around the couple and his wife, or was it simply that the socks were similar in terms of how they were tied? I guess I need to go back and rewatch it. That would make a major difference.

Talk about reminding me of the orange sock killing (another of the great, early segments)! Thanks.

Thanks Mattc! Its a really baffling case. Personally I have no doubt that Mike killed Diana. I've been thinking recently and I wonder if he had an accomplice after the fact. He left his truck there and given his occupation I could see him just living in the woods so as not to be caught, but how did his daughter get to the store? I wonder if Mike called a friend or acquaintance and asked them to pick her up. But if so you would think he would care enough about his daughter to have them drop her off at a relatives house (unless he figured at the store they would figure out who she was and put her with a relative). He clearly wasn't thinking about the welfare of his child, just didn't want to have to be on the run with a small child. I'm assuming the little girl was quite traumatized but at the age of 5 I would think she could at least give them some info. Like who drove her into town and if daddy was the one who hurt mommy. Maybe she has said more and UM just didn't tell us.

I'm not sure if it was the exact same type of sock but it was tied in the same distinctive fashion because the detective said it made the hair stand up on the back of his head. Hey that really makes you think that Mike is the serial killer. I'm sure the distinctive knot on the sock found on the couple wasn't published so how would Mike have known that to copy it unless he killed the couple? That makes me lean towards him being a serial killer. This would make a great book. I'm curious as to the early years of Mike Reimer and whether or not he has killed before.

MegtheEgg86 · 09-22-2009, 08:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by crystaldawn

This would make a great book. I'm curious as to the early years of Mike Reimer and whether or not he has killed before.

I agree on the book; it'd be fascinating. Mike Riemer's background would be a decisive piece of information for me. In fact, that'd probably make my final determination. I wonder if Mike's friend has changed his mind about what happened since then.

Mastermind · 09-23-2009, 12:33 PM

Quote:

2. She was merely told her mother was in the forest by Mike or whomever before she was dropped off at the K-Mart. Perhaps she never actually went into the woods with her mother and father, as she was left at the store before Diana's murder transpired.

I think the fact that she says her mother is in "the trees" points to the little girl have witnessed seeing her mother's body lying there.

If Mike had told her about her mother laying in the forest, I don't think he would have said she was laying in the forest. In fact I don't think he would have said anything except that, "Mommy is fine. or Mom's going away for a while."

Her weird behavior also kind of points to some type of 'shock" which would go with her witnessing her mother's murder.

kadrmas15 · 09-23-2009, 09:12 PM

Here is one, I have kind of considered. I am not sure if Megtheegg brought it up although she made some very good and interesting points. However, has anyone ever considered that Mike actually murdered Diana BEFORE they even got to the woods? Or even if the murder did happen in the woods, that Mike took their daughter back to town, left her at the store, and then drove back to the woods and from there disappeared? Obviously the daughter was 2, so she did not understand the concept of death or the concept of murder. However she did seem to be in shock at having seen something traumatizing. However she never mentioned anything about her dad, now this is only a two year olds testimony, but clearly she knew that her dad was not in the trees which leads me to believe she knew her dad was alive.

11-02-2005, 02:28 PM	#1
Bazorro Member Occasional Poster Join Date: Sep 05, 2005 Posts: 41	Mike Riemer Any infomation on this case? I saw this today and this is a very interesting UM. Im curious to know if he committed those murders or was a victim himself.

09-20-2009, 10:57 AM	#8
MegtheEgg86 Member Forum Veteran Join Date: Jun 19, 2008 Location: The Volunteer State Posts: 5,156	This is one of my favorite cases--probably because, as I've said many times before, I'm always on the fence about it. For some reason, I'm not ready to say that Mike Riemer killed Diana Robertson. There is, admittedly, a lot of circumstantial evidence to suggest that he in fact did, but there's a lingering doubt in my mind nonetheless. Why: 1. Mike Riemer reportedly had anger and jealousy problems, but that isn't necessarily proof that he's a killer--let alone a serial killer trolling the western Washington woods for victims. If Riemer's anger/jealousy towards his girlfriend is apparently the "fuel" propelling his murderous actions, why would he not just kill Diana and leave it at that? There's really no need to kill a random couple, nor is that behavior necessarily consistent with someone fitting Riemer's profile (as far as we can tell from the segment, news article, and so forth). And if Riemer truly is a serial killer, surely in 24 years he would've claimed at least one or two additional victims. The chances of him actually having the particular homicidal tendencies commonly noted in serial killers are, in reality, slim. 2. There hasn't been a single sighting of Mike Riemer since the incident. I understand this is the case with many killers, but one would think after 24 years someone would recognize him. 3. As far as I know, it was never determined if those socks belonged to Mike or Diana. (Aside: It was determined that they were definitely alike, however. Perhaps my memory fails me, but if the sock was used in the same way in both murders [that is, not necessarily as a strangulation device, but perhaps as a "calling card"], I think that would be an extremely important factor.) 4. Again, as far as I know, no one actually placed Mike Riemer--supposedly checking his trap line or the like--in the woods of Pierce County where the other couple was killed around the time of that murder. 5. As I've always said, Riemer's father has a point. Mike would not have left his jacket in the truck in Washington state in the middle of December, especially if he needed to walk out of the forest to reach a road. If he killed Diana outdoors, chances are he would probably be wearing it. (I'm completely speculating here, please understand.) Why leave behind a jacket riddled with evidence? 6. An individual murdering Diana, and then abducting Mike and Crystal cannot be ruled out. Again, really speculating--but suppose Mike begged his hypothetical abductor to let his daughter alone. The abductor obliges, and this is how we find Crystal at K-Mart. The chances are rather slim, but it's a possibility nonetheless. I also believe the note on the dashboard was overplayed in the segment. As I've said, my husband frequently leaves me little notes very much like that around the house, for me to find upon waking and that sort of thing. It's an anecdotal deduction, but I honestly don't think it's much of a stretch to imagine Mike doing the same for Diana. Of course, I realize there are many unanswered questions. I always love and never tire of discussing this case. Thanks for the bump, mattc.
	__________________ "Why is she lying?, it makes me wonder. What is she hiding?, it makes me wonder." Go Vols!

11-02-2005, 08:14 PM	#2
DarkDante Member Senior Member Join Date: Jul 27, 2002 Posts: 1,569	No idea - It is interesting to note however that THE DOE NETWORK doesn't list Mike as a missing person (I've tried several spellings of his last name as well)

11-18-2005, 10:29 AM	#3
ddelta Member Frequent Poster Join Date: Nov 07, 2003 Posts: 218	This case freaks me out. I cannot for the life of me figure out if Mike was involved in his wife's murder or was a victim himself. I just can't imagine killing two other incident victims to make it seem there is another murderer. Especially if my plan was to disappear. However, it could be mike because the daughter was found alone at a store and that would be something a father would do and not harm the little girl. I can't see a serial killer making sure to bring a little girl to a store to make sure she was not harmed. So who knows. I also thought it was strange that if this case took place 25 years ago, how there has never been a sighting of this guy? Especially after UM aired the show. I wonder if this will ever be solved.

11-18-2005, 10:52 AM	#4
angiev Member Occasional Poster Join Date: Jul 28, 2003 Location: Utah Posts: 23	Can you explain this case I can't remember it?

11-18-2005, 10:55 AM	#5
crystaldawn Member Forum 4000 Club Member Join Date: Dec 17, 2002 Location: Illinois Posts: 4,261	I admit this is one of the more intriguing cases UM has profiled. Plus the segment the way its filmed is creepy and is a perfect example of how the old ones are leaps and bounds better than the more recent ones. I definitely think Mike killed his wife. The envelope that stated "I Love You Diana" could be construed as an eerie goodbye after he killed her. Also Mike appeared to be a good sized guy and like was mentioned on the segment why would the killer leave the much smaller woman's body there and take the much larger guy somewhere else. I'm not sure if I would classify Mike as a serial killer, I'm not even sure what the true definition of one is, but remember the couple that was murdered was found in the vicinity of where Mike had some of his traps and he was known to have an explosive temper. There could have been some sort of altercation with them and he could have killed them. The only thing that could point to him possibly being a serial killer are the socks tied around the victim's necks. Surely, if Mike indeed did kill the 3 of them, he would know that he would be a suspect in Diana's murder and the fact that both crime scenes had victims with a sock tied around their necks he had to have known that would definitely link the three. Another scenario could be that Mike heard of the couple being slain and the sock around the neck and figured that would be a way of killing his wife and making it look like it was at the hands of a serial killer who killed the young couple whether it was or not. He could have taken her out in the general vicinity of where they were found (under the false pretense of getting a Christmas tree) killed her and tied a sock around her neck making the authorities think there was a serial killer on the loose. Just some thoughts on the case. Also in my opinion one of the saddest moments on UM is at the end of this segment where Diana's mother has a picture of her by her bedside and says the little girl talks to her mothers pictures and whenever she gets a new toy or anything will go in there and show it to her mother.

09-19-2009, 08:22 PM	#7
mattc Member Frequent Poster Join Date: Nov 16, 2008 Location: Virginia Posts: 273	Just to add... Apparently the two socks WERE the same socks, according to the UM segment. This makes me convinced that Mike killed all three people.

09-21-2009, 01:04 AM	#9
kadrmas15 Retired from Board 03/03/11 Senior Member Join Date: Mar 11, 2006 Location: Minnesota Posts: 1,910	Hmm, Meg the Egg, interesting analysis. I am inclined to believe that Mike Riemer probably did kill not only Diana but the other couple a few months prior. However it is possible that he did not. Basically, I will say, if Mike killed Diana, than he would have had to have a way to get out of the woods, jacket or not. I have a hard time believing he would hitch hike all the way to town where his daughter was left. So, there are a couple of possibilities with this. One, Riemer somehow had another car or vehicle at the scene. Two, Riemer had an accomplice pick him up and drop his daughter off at the store while Riemer went to an undisclosed location and disappeared. Three, Riemer started hitchhiking with his daughter, acting like his car had broken down or he was lost or something and getting a ride from a passerby. However what bothers me about that possibility is that no one ever came forward to report this. Clearly the truck was very deep in the woods, so much so it was not found until about two months after the actual killing if I remember right. Obviously critical evidence degraded over that time and clearly Riemer had not been back to tamper with the crime scene. That is something else that always bothered me. I would think if Riemer did this, he would be monitoring the investigation somehow. So if he was doing this, eventually he would have become aware that the cops had no idea where the truck was. So why not go back and get the note, and things like that? However that said, this was a very remote area of Pierce County. So much so that it seems you would have had to know the area to get around. So clearly the killer, whether it was Mike or an unidentified third party knew the area. Gary Ridgeway and Robert Yates were both free and both in the area at that time however these killings do not match either of their M.O.'s and while I cannot say for sure it was not them, I do not think either of them were involved. Another serial killer that was on the lose at the time was Charles Sinclair who was also in the area. He is a strong suspect in the killing of Jay and Tanya in 1987 who were featured in another UM segment. Sinclair is considered a strong suspect in the killings of no fewer than 5 people in Washington State alone during the mid to late 1980s and was/is also a suspect in killings in California and New Mexico among other places. Sinclair's M.O. was more to leave the bodies, fully clothed. Unlike Ridgeway and if I remember right Yates too (they both killed I believe only women) Sinclair killed both men and women and enjoyed killing couples especially. I think it it was the thrill and the challenge of it that led him to enjoy killing couples. However, the question does remain, why would the killer dispose of only Mike's body but leave Diana's body there? Sure it could be to throw the police off the track. However it makes more sense that Mike would be the killer in this scenario since his body is not there. I also do not think only one person alone could have disposed of Mike's body. To me that is probably the most troubling thing is how only Mike's body 'went missing' it does not make sense. Yes it can be argued the 'killer' disposed of Mike's body to make it look like Mike had done it and then fled. However again, if this was the case, who helped dispose of the body? This case reminds me of the Dub Wackerhaugen case, where Dub and his son 'went missing' when in my opinion they are probably both still alive.

09-21-2009, 12:55 PM	#10
ddelta Member Frequent Poster Join Date: Nov 07, 2003 Posts: 218	My feeling is that Mike killed his wife in a fit of rage and then took his daughter to the K-Mart and then went back to where he killed his wife, walked into the woods and killed himself. Reasons: 1. There has not been one sighting of him really. 2. The daughter was dropped off makes me think this is not the work of a random serial killer but a father who did not want harm to come to his daughter. 3 Why would a serial killer leave Diana out in the open but hide Mikes body? 4. Mike left his jacket and this happened during a very cold time a year and his car was still there which would make it pretty hard to leave the area. I am not sold on the fact that mike killed the other couple either. Just seems no point to it if he committed suicide or if he had a plan to disappear after killing Diana. Mike would still be the main suspect until he or his body were found. So many questions to this one....

09-21-2009, 04:47 PM	#11
MegtheEgg86 Member Forum Veteran Join Date: Jun 19, 2008 Location: The Volunteer State Posts: 5,156	All great and valid points, kadrmas (I'd never thought to think of Charles Sinclair--extremely interesting; thanks for bringing that up) and ddelta. Just got to thinking of something today. Young Crystal's declaration "Mommy is in the trees" poses multiple questions leading me to come to two conclusions on what possibly occurred: 1. Crystal was actually there with Mike and Diana in the woods when her mother was killed (and possibly witnessed her father doing so ). 2. She was merely told her mother was in the forest by Mike or whomever before she was dropped off at the K-Mart. Perhaps she never actually went into the woods with her mother and father, as she was left at the store before Diana's murder transpired. It seems that the latter would be a bit more likely, as Diana's body and the truck were found in a remote location. However, Molly Koch, the K-Mart manager interviewed in the segment, did report Crystal walking around in a daze--perhaps as if she'd been traumatized in some way. Any thoughts on that?

09-23-2009, 09:12 PM	#15
kadrmas15 Retired from Board 03/03/11 Senior Member Join Date: Mar 11, 2006 Location: Minnesota Posts: 1,910	Here is one, I have kind of considered. I am not sure if Megtheegg brought it up although she made some very good and interesting points. However, has anyone ever considered that Mike actually murdered Diana BEFORE they even got to the woods? Or even if the murder did happen in the woods, that Mike took their daughter back to town, left her at the store, and then drove back to the woods and from there disappeared? Obviously the daughter was 2, so she did not understand the concept of death or the concept of murder. However she did seem to be in shock at having seen something traumatizing. However she never mentioned anything about her dad, now this is only a two year olds testimony, but clearly she knew that her dad was not in the trees which leads me to believe she knew her dad was alive.