Mineral, Washington "Tube Sock killings"

[Drown Soda]

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.

[jjmcgr]

Originally Posted by Drown Soda

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.

[Drown Soda]

Originally Posted by jjmcgr

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.

[kane7474]

Originally Posted by Drown Soda

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

[kane7474]

Originally Posted by Drown Soda

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

[Drown Soda]

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.

[crystaldawn]

Originally Posted by Drown Soda

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.

[Hot Jock]

Originally Posted by crystaldawn

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.

[kadrmaskb]

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.

[Drown Soda]

Originally Posted by kadrmaskb

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.

[kadrmaskb]

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.

[Huskerz85]

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.

[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

[LooksLikeCRicci]

Originally Posted by 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!

[freakbook]

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.