Sitcoms Online - Main Page / Message Boards - Main Page / News Blog / Photo Galleries / DVD Reviews / Buy TV Shows on DVD and Blu-ray

View Today's Active Threads (No Chit Chat/Chit Chat Only) / View New Posts (No Chit Chat/Chit Chat Only) / Mark All Boards Read / Chit Chat Board


Unsolved Mysteries Online Main Page / Message Board / Show History / Episode Guide (1987-2002) / Expanded Episode Guide #2 / Expanded Episode Guide #3 / Case Updates / Wiki / Official Site / Related Links / True Crime Shows Message Board / All Other Cases Message Board / Buy The Best of Unsolved Mysteries DVD / Buy Unsolved Mysteries - The Ultimate Collection DVD

Unsolved Mysteries: Original Robert Stack Episodes - The Complete First Season

Watch or Buy Unsolved Mysteries: Original Robert Stack Episodes - The Complete First Season on Amazon Instant Video
/
Season 2
/ Season 3 / Season 4 /
Season 5
/ Season 6 / Season 7 /
Season 8
/ Season 9 / Season 10 /
Season 11
/ Season 12 / Watch on YouTube

Unsolved Mysteries with Dennis Farina Episodes

Watch or Buy Unsolved Mysteries with Dennis Farina - The Complete First Season Episodes on Amazon Instant Video
/ Season 2 / Season 3 / Season 4 / Season 5 / Season 6 / Season 7 / Season 8 / Watch on YouTube


Unsolved Mysteries: UFOs

Buy Unsolved Mysteries: UFOs DVD Set
Unsolved Mysteries: Ghosts

Buy Unsolved Mysteries: Ghosts DVD Set
Unsolved Mysteries: Miracles

Buy Unsolved Mysteries: Miracles DVD Set
Unsolved Mysteries: Bizarre Murders

Buy Unsolved Mysteries: Bizarre Murders DVD Set
Unsolved Mysteries: Psychics

Buy Unsolved Mysteries: Psychics DVD Set
Unsolved Mysteries: Strange Legends

Buy Unsolved Mysteries: Strange Legends DVD Set

Sitcoms Online Message Boards - Forums  

Go Back   Sitcoms Online Message Boards - Forums > Unsolved Mysteries

Notices

SitcomsOnline.com News Blog Headlines Twitter Facebook Instagram RSS

Antenna TV Summer 2021 Schedule; The CW Fall 2021 Premiere Dates
All-Star Cast Set for Paramount+ Animated Comedy Series; Home Makeovers with Marsai Martin
Netflix's Popular Never Have I Ever Returns July 15; Peacock's Girls5eva Renewed for Season 2
Chicago Fire Finally Heads to Syndication; Peacock Picks Up New Comedy Which Takes Place at a Singing Competition
Sitcom Stars on Talk Shows; This Week in Sitcoms (Week of June 14, 2021)
SitcomsOnline Digest: Valerie Bertinelli Cast in Comedy Pilot with Demi Lovato; Broadway Version of The Nanny in the Works
Fri-Yay: Kim's Convenience Is An Underrated Streaming Sitcom; Ted Revived as Series for Peacock


New on DVD/Blu-ray (February-June)

Betty White's Pet Set - The Complete Series Happy Together - The Complete Series 'Til Death - The Complete Series Fuller House - The Complete Series Parks and Recreation - The Complete Series (Blu-ray)

02/02 - Rowan & Martin's Laugh-In - The Complete Series (2021 Retail Release)
02/16 - Fam - The Complete Series
02/23 - Betty White's Pet Set - The Complete Series
03/02 - Blue Mountain State - The Complete Series
03/02 - Happy Together - The Complete Series
03/02 - Rick and Morty - The Complete Seasons 1-4 (DVD) (Blu-ray)
04/20 - 'Til Death - The Complete Series
05/11 - Dead to Me - Season Two
06/08 - The Critic - The Complete Series
06/08 - Fuller House - The Fifth and Final Season
06/08 - Fuller House - The Complete Series
06/08 - Our Cartoon President - Season 3
06/15 - The Office - Season 1 (Blu-ray) / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5 / 6 / 7 / 8 / 9
06/15 - Parks and Recreation - The Complete Series (Blu-ray)
More TV DVD Releases / DVD Reviews Archive / SitcomsOnline Digest


Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 11-09-2010, 09:19 AM   #31
TheCars1986
Proud Daddy
Forum Veteran
 
TheCars1986's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 22, 2008
Location: Maryland
Posts: 7,272
Default

I think that was the theory from LE if it were a serial killer it was someone who was in that area stalking campers/vacationers as potential victims.
TheCars1986 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-16-2010, 06:03 PM   #32
queenofcupcakes
Strelnikov
Occasional Poster
 
queenofcupcakes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 13, 2010
Location: not where I want to live
Posts: 19
Send a message via AIM to queenofcupcakes
Default

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

I have to say the part at the end with the little girl showing the picture of her deceased mother the new things she gets got me pretty close to tears.
queenofcupcakes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-16-2010, 06:05 PM   #33
queenofcupcakes
Strelnikov
Occasional Poster
 
queenofcupcakes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 13, 2010
Location: not where I want to live
Posts: 19
Send a message via AIM to queenofcupcakes
Default

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

I have to say the part at the end with the little girl showing the picture of her deceased mother the new things she gets got me pretty close to tears.
queenofcupcakes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-17-2010, 03:55 PM   #34
TheCars1986
Proud Daddy
Forum Veteran
 
TheCars1986's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 22, 2008
Location: Maryland
Posts: 7,272
Default

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

I have to say the part at the end with the little girl showing the picture of her deceased mother the new things she gets got me pretty close to tears.
If the killer had killed Mike in a different location there wouldn't be any need to move his body. And it took two months to find Diana's body so who's to say that she wasn't moved from where she was originally killed? Nice avatar BTW.
TheCars1986 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-21-2010, 02:03 PM   #35
TheCars1986
Proud Daddy
Forum Veteran
 
TheCars1986's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 22, 2008
Location: Maryland
Posts: 7,272
Default

They just recently aired this segment on Lifetime and they failed to present any piece of evidence that implicated Riemer as a victim. His father was edited out of the segment completely, and they didn't make any mention of his coat being found in his vehicle. It was almost as if they were implying Riemer was guilty and on the run.
TheCars1986 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-21-2010, 05:00 PM   #36
Corky Kneivel
Member
Forum Regular
 
Corky Kneivel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 12, 2007
Location: Sacratomato
Posts: 535
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheCars1986
They just recently aired this segment on Lifetime and they failed to present any piece of evidence that implicated Riemer as a victim. His father was edited out of the segment completely, and they didn't make any mention of his coat being found in his vehicle. It was almost as if they were implying Riemer was guilty and on the run.


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! Well, it is Lifetime after all. Have you ever actually watched their original movies? I mean they have titles like "Shattered Vows", "My Husband, My Jailer", "She Married a Con Man Who Lied to Her", & "All Husbands Will Lie & Beat You & Rape & Murder Your Friends Because Men Are Inherently Evil".
Corky Kneivel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-21-2010, 05:53 PM   #37
Guardian
Member
Forum Regular
 
Guardian's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 19, 2010
Location: WA
Posts: 521
Default

I go back and forth on this case. In the end if it is ever solved, I wouldn't be surprised either way. I do generally tend to believe he could be a victim himself. After so long with him never turning up anywhere else, it just seems he was killed as well. Serial killers have different MOs and there have been a few other cases in the same area (i live about a half hour from the k-mart where crystal was left) where a couple had been killed and the bodies were separated for whatever reason. So I do think it is possible that there was at the time a serial killer was in the area. I will concede that to my knowledge, with the exception of the cases mention in the segment, that none of these cases involved an Orange sock. Other than that, from the info available, the MO appears on the surface to be similar. I think this is at least a possibility.
__________________
For every mystery there is someone, somewhere, who knows what happened. Perhaps... it's you...
Guardian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-21-2010, 07:04 PM   #38
dks64
Member
Frequent Poster
 
dks64's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 02, 2010
Location: California
Posts: 367
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky Kneivel
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! Well, it is Lifetime after all. Have you ever actually watched their original movies? I mean they have titles like "Shattered Vows", "My Husband, My Jailer", "She Married a Con Man Who Lied to Her", & "All Husbands Will Lie & Beat You & Rape & Murder Your Friends Because Men Are Inherently Evil".
dks64 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-21-2010, 07:06 PM   #39
dks64
Member
Frequent Poster
 
dks64's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 02, 2010
Location: California
Posts: 367
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Guardian
I go back and forth on this case. In the end if it is ever solved, I wouldn't be surprised either way. I do generally tend to believe he could be a victim himself. After so long with him never turning up anywhere else, it just seems he was killed as well. Serial killers have different MOs and there have been a few other cases in the same area (i live about a half hour from the k-mart where crystal was left) where a couple had been killed and the bodies were separated for whatever reason. So I do think it is possible that there was at the time a serial killer was in the area. I will concede that to my knowledge, with the exception of the cases mention in the segment, that none of these cases involved an Orange sock. Other than that, from the info available, the MO appears on the surface to be similar. I think this is at least a possibility.
This.
dks64 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-22-2010, 01:22 AM   #40
cocytus
Member
Forum Regular
 
cocytus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 15, 2010
Location: NE Indiana
Posts: 779
Default

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

Here's why:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And finally,

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

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

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

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


I have many more reasons, but I think that this long list is a good place to start.
cocytus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-22-2010, 02:36 AM   #41
kane7474
Member
Forum Regular
 
kane7474's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 10, 2006
Posts: 758
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cocytus
Just finished watching the episode and I think.....wait for it...that Mike Riemer is a serial killer that is on the loose.

Here's why:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And finally,

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

Think about this, if it was a serial killer then we know he killed her with a knife and strangled her with the sock. Now Mike was a big ole dude with a hot temper and as stated may have been armed with a gun to finish off animals he trapped. So what was Mike doing while she was stabbed and strangled?? Standing there waiting to be next?? Could it be that Mike was shot and then taken somewhere else? How else can you explain one killer doing in two people with a knife?? And being able to cart Mike's body off to where it was never found?? Was any of Mike's blood found at the scene?? I never heard it was so how could he have died in the same way and left no blood or sign of struggle?? If it was a serial killer he didnt go to much trouble to hide her body so why go to all the effort to hide Mike?? Why drop the child (potential withness) off at a store? I really think most of the info we have points to his guilt.
kane7474 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-22-2010, 02:39 PM   #42
TheCars1986
Proud Daddy
Forum Veteran
 
TheCars1986's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 22, 2008
Location: Maryland
Posts: 7,272
Default

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

I just don't see what motive Riemer would have in blowing away a couple on a camping trip (that he didn't know). The earlier couple (Stephen Harkins and Ruth Cooper) were both shot, but Harkins was found first and THEN Cooper was found two months later (in another location from where Harkins was found) in their truck. That kind of leads me to believe that since both Cooper and Diana Robertson were found months after they disappeared, whoever did this abducted them and then brought their bodies back after he murdered them. The fact that Harkins was found first in his sleeping bag tells me that Riemer was probably shot and killed first and then the killer targeted Diana.
TheCars1986 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-22-2010, 03:16 PM   #43
cocytus
Member
Forum Regular
 
cocytus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 15, 2010
Location: NE Indiana
Posts: 779
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheCars1986
Actually the segment does mention several rifle casing being found in the area that Diana's body was found. This was the clincher for me thinking that Riemer was innocent. Since the man in the other couple was shot and found in his sleeping bag (and the woman was found in the truck), I think Riemer was shot and killed and his body possibly hidden (or if it was a remote location has yet to be found) and then the killer targeted Diana. The tube sock is the definitive connection in both cases. Both were almost certainly carried out by the same individual. I think if Riemer had owned a gun, LE would have performed ballistics or made a mention of some sort of test done on the spent shells to see if he ever owned a gun. The fact that the LE official didn't mention a connection between Riemer and a gun kind of tells me that they have no solid proof of Riemer actually owning a gun, and that's why they're on the fence about if he was responsible or not.

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Riemer may have died or committed suicide later, but I don't think that he was killed when Diana was killed. I also think that most of the evidence points to him being the perpetrator of all of the crimes.
cocytus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-22-2010, 04:12 PM   #44
TheCars1986
Proud Daddy
Forum Veteran
 
TheCars1986's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 22, 2008
Location: Maryland
Posts: 7,272
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cocytus
Let's see:

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Riemer may have died or committed suicide later, but I don't think that he was killed when Diana was killed. I also think that most of the evidence points to him being the perpetrator of all of the crimes.
1) The fact that if Riemer owned a gun would have been checked with the Harkins/Cooper homicide, since Riemer was a suspect at that point in both the Robertson murder and the double homicide. The fact that police were still uncertain as to whether or not he was a victim shows that LE could not connect Riemer to a weapon involved.

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

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

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

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

I will admit that it's possible that Riemer killed Diana in some sort of jealous rage and then tied a sock around her neck to try and cast suspicion on whoever was responsible for the Harkins/Cooper murders. But what are the odds that he would know the same type of knot used on the sock? With the passage of time it gets more and more likley that Riemer is dead. Hopefully his remains (or if he in fact is responsible, Riemer himself) will be found so we'll know for sure what happened.
TheCars1986 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-22-2010, 09:24 PM   #45
cocytus
Member
Forum Regular
 
cocytus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 15, 2010
Location: NE Indiana
Posts: 779
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheCars1986
1) The fact that if Riemer owned a gun would have been checked with the Harkins/Cooper homicide, since Riemer was a suspect at that point in both the Robertson murder and the double homicide. The fact that police were still uncertain as to whether or not he was a victim shows that LE could not connect Riemer to a weapon involved.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:54 AM.


Frequently Asked Questions

1) How do I contact Unsolved Mysteries with information on segments?

If you any information on cases, you can contact them via:

Website: www.unsolved.com

Contact form on official Unsolved Mysteries site

Please note that their old mailing address and 1-800 phone number no longer work.


2) Where can I watch Unsolved Mysteries?

Unsolved Mysteries is available for streaming on Amazon Instant Video, YouTube and Hulu.


Although the administrators and moderators of the Sitcoms Online Message Boards will attempt to keep all objectionable messages off this forum, it is impossible for us to review all messages. All messages express the views of the author, and neither the owners of the Sitcoms Online Message Boards, nor vBulletin Solutions Inc. (developers of vBulletin) will be held responsible for the content of any message. The owners of the Sitcoms Online Message Boards reserve the right to remove, edit, move or close any thread for any reason.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions Inc.