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

Doogie Kamealoha, M.D. Premieres September 8; List of a Lifetime Casts TV Stars
Hulu Renews Love, Victor for Season 3; Archer Season 12 Premieres August 25 on FXX
Antenna TV Fall 2021 Schedule; Rewind TV Launch Schedule Beginning September 1
Sitcom Stars on Talk Shows; This Week in Sitcoms (Week of August 2, 2021)
SitcomsOnline Digest: Mary Hartman, Mary Hartman Remake for TBS; Schitt's Creek Producer Hoping to Replicate Success with Son of a Critch
Fri-Yay: Ted Lasso and Mythic Quest Are Promising Comedies on Apple TV+; Paramount+ Announces Cast for The Game Revival
Sarah Silverman Hosting David Letterman Produced TBS Series; More Stars Joining And Just Like That...


New on DVD/Blu-ray (April-August)

Fuller House - The Complete Series Parks and Recreation - The Complete Series (Blu-ray) Head of the Class - The Complete Third Season Family Ties - The Complete Series (2021 Release) Hot in Cleveland - The Complete Series (2021 Release)

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)
07/07 - No Activity - Season 2
07/13 - The Unicorn - Season 2
07/20 - Head of the Class - The Complete Third Season
07/27 - Family Ties - The Complete Series (2021 Release)
07/27 - Hot in Cleveland - The Complete Series (2021 Release)
07/27 - The Neighborhood - Season Three
More TV DVD Releases / DVD Reviews Archive / SitcomsOnline Digest


Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 12-23-2010, 03:01 AM   #46
kane7474
Member
Forum Regular
 
kane7474's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 10, 2006
Posts: 763
Default

I watched the episode again and realized that they gave the childs age at two and not three. So I can see how you might not get much out of a two year old child as well I doubt the kid ever had any memories of what happened. There was blood found in the truck and Im wondering what anyone's take on that is? As well as the envelope that said I love you Diana? Do you think its possible that Mike found that envelope and it was something from another man? Then possibly he took it out there and confronted her with it? Just a thought.

Im not suprised at all about the bodies of the first couple being found at such different times. This is a heavily wooded, vast area. Hell look how long it took them to find Mike's truck and they had an aerial as well as land search going. Im just curious as to how the killer went about moving bodies around like that. Surely he wasnt dragging them through the forest.

If Diana was abducted and then later brought back then what was the reason for the abduction? Didnt they say she had not been sexually assaulted?

I think its a very interesting theory about him being killed while checking the traps and then the killer going back after Diana. But you have to wonder why a random killer would have dropped the child off and put himself at risk like this. Mike would have done that because hed be looking out for the welfare of his child. But a serial killer would have no motivation to do that and it would only bring him more risk.

Here's something to consider, The investigating officer in this case that spoke on the UM episode has more info on this then any of us. He flat out said that there is enough evidence to bring Mike in as a suspect if they could only confirm he was alive. Also if you notice in the episode, Mike's best friend seems to have his doubts as to whether Mike is dead or not. He did say that at first he assumed Mike had been killed too but now isnt too sure and that there are many questions to be answered.
kane7474 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-23-2010, 03:26 AM   #47
kane7474
Member
Forum Regular
 
kane7474's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 10, 2006
Posts: 763
Default

Hey guys here's a link to an older thread on this. There is a wealth of newspaper articles on this case. Check it out, Looks like Mike's dad did confirm that he routinely carried a pistol and the Kmart the child was found at was 30 miles from where the truck was found. Quite a distance for a random serial killer to drive to get this child to safety dont ya think?
http://www.sitcomsonline.com/boards/...d.php?t=157763
kane7474 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-23-2010, 01:53 PM   #48
TheCars1986
Proud Daddy
Forum Veteran
 
TheCars1986's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 22, 2008
Location: Maryland
Posts: 7,306
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kane7474
Hey guys here's a link to an older thread on this. There is a wealth of newspaper articles on this case. Check it out, Looks like Mike's dad did confirm that he routinely carried a pistol and the Kmart the child was found at was 30 miles from where the truck was found. Quite a distance for a random serial killer to drive to get this child to safety dont ya think?
http://www.sitcomsonline.com/boards/...d.php?t=157763
30 miles is quite the distance for a random serial killer to drive around with a child that they kidnapped after murdering her parents. But doesn't everyone say how brutally honest children are at that young age? She was asked were her parents were and she said, "Mommy's in the trees." If her father dropped her off at the Kmart, don't you think when asked about her father she would have said he took me to the store and left me? UM left out another crucial detail by not elaborating on the questioning of the little girl IMO. I'm certain someone had to have asked her where her father was, and I wonder if she said "I don't know." or if she said anything at all.

As for the note, I think that is just another red-herring. It really doesn't mean anything at all, it could simply just be a note from Riemer to Diana. Why feel the need to leave behind a love note for someone you just murdered? Why not an apology or a confession? I think you guys are missing the importance of the first couple and how similiar their cases are to Riemer and Robertson. Stephen Harkins was shot in the head while he was sleeping, (so he obviously couldn't put up much of a struggle) and his body was found in the truck (I was incorrect in my earlier posts, Harkins was found in the truck not Cooper). I can't find anything online about this case and the UM segment makes no mention as to whether or not Ruth Cooper was sexually assaulted, but that very well may have been the motive in this case. It would explain why the sock was tied around her neck, and also why her body was found a mile and a half away from where Harkins died. It is very possible that police botched the search and the discovery of Cooper two months later was just an "oversight" in the original search. But there's no doubt in my mind that whoever killed Diana Robertson was also responsible in the Cooper/Harkins slayings.

I don't think this killer abducted Diana and then brought her back to the original location and killed her there. I think he possibly took her alive with the promise of not harming her daughter, dropped the daughter off, then killed her. As for Riemer carrying around a weapon, here's another snippet from an article about the case: "Investigators did not know if the casings were associated with the case, but planned to compare them with weapons registered to Riemer. Riemer, an avid trapper, owned many weapons, according to police records." That to me would show that law enforcement did run a cross check on the weapons registered to Riemer and the ones used in the homicides and could not find a match, or else it would have been mentioned in the UM segment. Basically this case comes down to whether or not you believe Mike Riemer is a serial killer. I just don't see what motive he would have in killing Harkins and Cooper, and even Diana. Why would he kill her when they were with their daughter looking for a Christmas tree?

I've also wondered whether or not two people could have been involved in this. Since I believe an unknown killer was responsible, I think the women in each cases were the targets. The men had to be dealt with, so I think they were shot first. I think Ruth Cooper and Diana were taken against their will and killed in another location, and I think Diana put up some sort of struggle which is why she was stabbed 17 times. As for their daugther Crystal? If two peolpe were involved one could have been transporting Crystal to the shopping center while the other was either killing Diana or disposing of her body and Riemer's truck. Or perhaps there was only one killer and he attempted to kill Diana and some sort of struggle ensued and Diana attempted to make it back to Riemer's truck only to be subdued and stabbed to death, meanwhile Crystal was elsewhere and (hopefully) did not actually witness her mother's murder. I actually think that kind of makes the most sense if this were a random killer. It would explain why Diana's body was found by the truck, and since this killer would most likely have his own transportation, he wouldn't need to steal Riemers truck and he could just use his own to drop Crystal off. So many possibilities...this is one of my favorite cases to discuss.
TheCars1986 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 12-23-2010, 02:14 PM   #49
TheCars1986
Proud Daddy
Forum Veteran
 
TheCars1986's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 22, 2008
Location: Maryland
Posts: 7,306
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kane7474
Im not suprised at all about the bodies of the first couple being found at such different times. This is a heavily wooded, vast area. Hell look how long it took them to find Mike's truck and they had an aerial as well as land search going. Im just curious as to how the killer went about moving bodies around like that. Surely he wasnt dragging them through the forest.
I think in all probability the killer left the bodies where he killed them and that Riemer's body was never found and it eventually succumbed to the elements. Or maybe there was more than one person involved.

Quote:
Originally Posted by kane7474
I think its a very interesting theory about him being killed while checking the traps and then the killer going back after Diana. But you have to wonder why a random killer would have dropped the child off and put himself at risk like this. Mike would have done that because hed be looking out for the welfare of his child. But a serial killer would have no motivation to do that and it would only bring him more risk.
I think Riemer would have ran a bigger risk than an unknown assailant by leaving his daughter at the store. He would be risking everything on the fact that Crystal might tell it was Riemer who took her to the store and harmed her mother. And just how did Riemer get to the store? If Crystal said her mother was in the trees, this would imply that she saw her dead body in the woods by Riemer's truck. So it's not like Riemer transported her body or else Crystal would have said, "She's in daddy's truck." or something along those lines. The point is, since she said her mother was in the woods, why would Riemer drive his truck out of the area to drop his daughter off only to return the truck right by Diana's body implicating him even more?!
TheCars1986 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 12-23-2010, 03:14 PM   #50
cocytus
Member
Forum Regular
 
cocytus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 15, 2010
Location: NE Indiana
Posts: 779
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheCars1986
30 miles is quite the distance for a random serial killer to drive around with a child that they kidnapped after murdering her parents. But doesn't everyone say how brutally honest children are at that young age? She was asked were her parents were and she said, "Mommy's in the trees." If her father dropped her off at the Kmart, don't you think when asked about her father she would have said he took me to the store and left me? UM left out another crucial detail by not elaborating on the questioning of the little girl IMO. I'm certain someone had to have asked her where her father was, and I wonder if she said "I don't know." or if she said anything at all.

As for the note, I think that is just another red-herring. It really doesn't mean anything at all, it could simply just be a note from Riemer to Diana. Why feel the need to leave behind a love note for someone you just murdered? Why not an apology or a confession? I think you guys are missing the importance of the first couple and how similiar their cases are to Riemer and Robertson. Stephen Harkins was shot in the head while he was sleeping, (so he obviously couldn't put up much of a struggle) and his body was found in the truck (I was incorrect in my earlier posts, Harkins was found in the truck not Cooper). I can't find anything online about this case and the UM segment makes no mention as to whether or not Ruth Cooper was sexually assaulted, but that very well may have been the motive in this case. It would explain why the sock was tied around her neck, and also why her body was found a mile and a half away from where Harkins died. It is very possible that police botched the search and the discovery of Cooper two months later was just an "oversight" in the original search. But there's no doubt in my mind that whoever killed Diana Robertson was also responsible in the Cooper/Harkins slayings.

I don't think this killer abducted Diana and then brought her back to the original location and killed her there. I think he possibly took her alive with the promise of not harming her daughter, dropped the daughter off, then killed her. As for Riemer carrying around a weapon, here's another snippet from an article about the case: "Investigators did not know if the casings were associated with the case, but planned to compare them with weapons registered to Riemer. Riemer, an avid trapper, owned many weapons, according to police records." That to me would show that law enforcement did run a cross check on the weapons registered to Riemer and the ones used in the homicides and could not find a match, or else it would have been mentioned in the UM segment. Basically this case comes down to whether or not you believe Mike Riemer is a serial killer. I just don't see what motive he would have in killing Harkins and Cooper, and even Diana. Why would he kill her when they were with their daughter looking for a Christmas tree?

I've also wondered whether or not two people could have been involved in this. Since I believe an unknown killer was responsible, I think the women in each cases were the targets. The men had to be dealt with, so I think they were shot first. I think Ruth Cooper and Diana were taken against their will and killed in another location, and I think Diana put up some sort of struggle which is why she was stabbed 17 times. As for their daugther Crystal? If two peolpe were involved one could have been transporting Crystal to the shopping center while the other was either killing Diana or disposing of her body and Riemer's truck. Or perhaps there was only one killer and he attempted to kill Diana and some sort of struggle ensued and Diana attempted to make it back to Riemer's truck only to be subdued and stabbed to death, meanwhile Crystal was elsewhere and (hopefully) did not actually witness her mother's murder. I actually think that kind of makes the most sense if this were a random killer. It would explain why Diana's body was found by the truck, and since this killer would most likely have his own transportation, he wouldn't need to steal Riemers truck and he could just use his own to drop Crystal off. So many possibilities...this is one of my favorite cases to discuss.
Let see:

1) We may never know what the daughter saw. She probably wasn't questioned too thoroughly by the police and her grandmother may have shielded her from being so.

The whole episode probably resembles a bad dream to her now and she may only remember bits and pieces of it. The time to have questioned her was shortly after she was discovered, but nobody knew that a crime had occurred at that time.

2) The note was on an envelope that may have contained something (the news story hints at that) and may just have been written by Riemer out of guilt for his actions.

3) The first couple were killed near where Riemer had traplines. Maybe they freed a snared animal, maybe they complained to Riemer about the trapping, maybe Riemer blamed them for something that happened. Maybe Riemer is just a f-cking nut. Who knows?

The distance between bodies could be explained by Mrs. Harkin fleeing the scene and being hunted down by the killer. Or her being led deeper into the woods to hide her body after her murder.

To my mind, the major significance of the first couple is their killing is the only thing that doesn't make this completely appear to a domestic violence situation gone bad. If the other couple hadn't been murdered (or even found) Riemer's history of abuse would have made him the sole suspect.

Riemer didn't strike me as being overly bright (from reading the reports and watching the segment) but there is the possibility that in some limited way he planned this. His girlfriend had just allowed him back after putting a restraining order on him. He may still have been angry about that and after having killed the first two (that they have found) he considered the same fate for his girlfriend.

4) There's no telling if Riemer had weapons in his possession that weren't registered and you don't have to register long guns in Washington. At that time (I can't find any information about this) it's doubtful that you had to register handguns in most places outside of the major cities in Washington state.

Given that he worked two transient-type jobs, it's more than possible that he could have accepted a firearm in payment for a debt or as collateral for loan. He could have even traded pelts for guns.

Also, even if the police could find determine that Riemer owned a weapon in that caliber, but couldn't find the weapon, they would still have to perform ballistics testing as it may be a very common caliber.

5) The random killer doesn't make much sense to me, as why would the killer change his/her MO? He shot two people and then stabbed a third? And then used an undetermined method to possibly kill a fourth? Why not shoot everybody and be done w/ it?

Also, a random killer that operates in so small an area and yet has never struck in the same area again? That kills the woman and doesn't strip her body so that it would scavenged by animals or bury it? Or put her body in the back of the truck to delay its discovery?

There are many questions about this case, but the more you look at it, the Mike Riemer looks to be the only suspect.
cocytus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-23-2010, 05:21 PM   #51
kane7474
Member
Forum Regular
 
kane7474's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 10, 2006
Posts: 763
Default

Ok after more thought I dont think the theory of Mike being killed while checking the traps holds up because if he had been out checking traps he would have had his coat on him. Instead we find his coat still in the truck. To me that either means he was pulled out of the truck at gun point and wasnt wearing it while driving or he left the coat behind to make it seem that he was also a victim. So for Mike to have left the coat and gotten out of the truck I would think that means the killer was just sitting in this remote location waiting for someone to appear.
Then they show up, he points the gun at mike and tells him to get out. Mike takes off running and the killer shoots him while running away ( this could explain the shell casings) then goes back to get Diane. For this idea to hold up though we have to figure that just by pure coincidence Mike and Diane just happened to show up in this one particular spot in the vast area where this killer just happened to be waiting. Pretty far fetched if you ask me.

Consider the other couple that was murdered where actually camping, meaning that the killer could have stalked them and had time to track them down. However it seems that Diane was murdered shortly after arriving.

The idea of Mike being killed then Diane being abducted, then the child being left at the store also, in my opinion doesnt hold water because in that case how would the child know that her mom "was in the trees"?

Check the link I provided in the earlier post it has alot of newspaper articles about this. In one Mike's father stated that Mike did carry a 22 pistol. Consider the other couple was shot in an area where Mike was known to be trapping. Consider Mike's girlfreind whom he had a history of violence with is stabbed 17 times and the last known person with her was Mike, Consider someone was looking out for the welfare of Mike's child by dropping her off in a public area, Consider Mike has never been found and the investigators close to this case consider him the cheif suspect. All this considered I really think that the evidence strongly points to mike as being involved in all of this. Mike was a skilled outdoorsmen and a roofer.
This means he could survive in the wilderness if need be and being in the line of work of roofing means it would be very easy for him to travel and find work while remaning anonymous. This is why illegal immigrants flock to this type of work. It pays in cash and no one knows or cares who anyone is.

If you look through the articles in the link above you will also see there was alot of murders in that area or atleast alot of bodies turning up. These two are hardly isolated occurences. Though I have only read of the tube socks on the neck with these two.
kane7474 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-24-2010, 11:53 AM   #52
TheCars1986
Proud Daddy
Forum Veteran
 
TheCars1986's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 22, 2008
Location: Maryland
Posts: 7,306
Default

I find it hard to believe that if Riemer was responsible he's still alive living in the wilderness living off the land. And if Riemer is guilty, the fact that his coat was found in the truck would indicate to me that he committed suicide somewhere and that his remains were never found. I did read those articles about the bodies turning up in that area, and it seems like an odd choice to use for a dump site since it was universially known that bodies were being dumped there. I do see why it's hard for people to think of Riemer as a victim, and I'm not completely sold on the theory that he would bring his daughter along if he knew he was going to kill his girlfriend.

Let's assume for the time being that Riemer is guilty. He was by all accounts a jealous guy. Maybe he found the note for Diana which was written by another man, perhaps Diana said something that set him off, or maybe she threatened to leave him again...anything is possible when dealing with a jealous, abusive a-hole. Point being, something set him off to make him viciously stab Diana 17 times. Now since Crystal said, "Mommy's in the trees." it's safe to assume that she either saw her mother's body or even worse, witnessed her murder. So then why would Riemer drive away from the scene (which would risk someone finding the body before he returned), then drive thirty miles out his way to drop Crystal off (again risk being identified, or his truck being seen), and then drive back the thirty miles he just left to park his truck (further implicating him) by Diana's body? If Riemer is guilty he would have had to have driven his truck out of the woods to drop off his daughter (why she wasn't hysterical about her father abandoning her is another question I have about this case) and then drive it all the way back to the scene of the crime, and due to the remoteness of the location what are the odds that he would be able to locate the murder site? And why leave his jacket behind? How would this in any way cast suspicion away from him?

I think the answers to some questions would come from more analysis from the blood found in the car (if it were available today). Obviously if the blood did not match Riemer or Diana, we have a third unknown party involved. If the blood matched Riemer, that would implicate him as the murderer. If the blood were Diana's however, we wouldn't be any closer because it could easily have been transferred to either Riemer or an unknown killer who then drove the truck to the location where it was found.
TheCars1986 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 12-24-2010, 01:12 PM   #53
MegtheEgg86
Member
Forum 4K Club Member
 
MegtheEgg86's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 19, 2008
Location: The Volunteer State
Posts: 4,950
Default

I believe I may have mentioned this before, but I think it may be possible that Mike and Diana were killed by a party they knew.

1. A party intimately acquainted with Mike and Diana stood a good chance of knowing where Mike's traps were set and how isolated they were. Perhaps he/she/they had even accompanied Mike trap-checking on occasion.

2. If Mike purportedly had a hot temper with Diana, he may have turned his wrath on others as well. Perhaps this didn't set well with someone he knew, and the individual(s) reckoned with him when he/she/they knew he would be isolated and unmissed for at least several hours.

3. Crystal didn't necessarily have to witness her mother's murder or body in the woodline in order for her to say what she did. It is entirely possible she was taken from the scene of the crime before any of the violence ever transpired. Perhaps I am speculating widely, but the theory of a female accomplice (perhaps even an individual familiar to Crystal) taking the little girl for "a trip" or "a drive" or something along those lines while another individual commits the crimes is not at all a stretch to me. Perhaps after a while Crystal asked about her mother's whereabouts, and this is precisely what she was told: "Mommy is in the trees; there's nothing to worry about."
__________________
"Why is she lying?, it makes me wonder. What is she hiding?, it makes me wonder."

Go Vols!
MegtheEgg86 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-24-2010, 03:16 PM   #54
cocytus
Member
Forum Regular
 
cocytus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 15, 2010
Location: NE Indiana
Posts: 779
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MegtheEgg86
I believe I may have mentioned this before, but I think it may be possible that Mike and Diana were killed by a party they knew.

1. A party intimately acquainted with Mike and Diana stood a good chance of knowing where Mike's traps were set and how isolated they were. Perhaps he/she/they had even accompanied Mike trap-checking on occasion.

2. If Mike purportedly had a hot temper with Diana, he may have turned his wrath on others as well. Perhaps this didn't set well with someone he knew, and the individual(s) reckoned with him when he/she/they knew he would be isolated and unmissed for at least several hours.

3. Crystal didn't necessarily have to witness her mother's murder or body in the woodline in order for her to say what she did. It is entirely possible she was taken from the scene of the crime before any of the violence ever transpired. Perhaps I am speculating widely, but the theory of a female accomplice (perhaps even an individual familiar to Crystal) taking the little girl for "a trip" or "a drive" or something along those lines while another individual commits the crimes is not at all a stretch to me. Perhaps after a while Crystal asked about her mother's whereabouts, and this is precisely what she was told: "Mommy is in the trees; there's nothing to worry about."
That is a possibility.

1) While Riemer seemed to be a loner, he may have had a acquaintance or two that might have accompanied him on trapping outings. It didn't say if Mike had an ATV, so one some occasions he may have needed help taking multiple animals out of the woods.

They also showed him w/ a boat in the segment but they never explain what happened to the boat. Perhaps they never found it, but it could have been how Riemer fled the area since he left his truck behind.

2) That also may be true. A bully w/ women may also be be a bully w/ others. If Riemer knew someone that happened to be a serial killer, then his crap attitude might have enraged that person enough to kill him and Diana. Although we return to the fact that the killer shot his first two victims and then stabbed his third. If the killer had a firearm, why not simply use that?

3) I've always thought that Crystal repeated what somebody told her when she asked for her Mommy. It may have been an off-hand remark and someone may have repeated it to her to stop her from crying. That is another reason that I believe that Riemer is the killer: the distance between where they found Diana and where the daughter was left was about a 1/2 hour drive (30 miles). I can't see too many people putting up w/ crying child for that length of time that wasn't their child or a relative. Especially a sociopath or psychopathic serial killer.

If the newspaper article is correct, the daughter was dropped off at the same store that Riemer and Diana had stopped at before they went into the woods. How would the killer know that fact? He/she certainly could "tailed" them out to the woods, but after you leave the main roads, following someone becomes almost impossible.That makes me believe that Riemer was the person that dropped off his daughter.

5) It's been stated that they went w/ Riemer to also get a tree for Xmas. Assuming that it was a tree from the woods and not a lot, where's the axe/hatchet/saw that they would have used? Or the rope with which they would tied the tree up? Were they found in the vehicle? If not, then they would certainly be items that Riemer would need to survive in the woods.

BTW, did they find a tree in the rear of the truck, I wonder?
cocytus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-26-2010, 03:03 PM   #55
kane7474
Member
Forum Regular
 
kane7474's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 10, 2006
Posts: 763
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cocytus
That is a possibility.

1) While Riemer seemed to be a loner, he may have had a acquaintance or two that might have accompanied him on trapping outings. It didn't say if Mike had an ATV, so one some occasions he may have needed help taking multiple animals out of the woods.

They also showed him w/ a boat in the segment but they never explain what happened to the boat. Perhaps they never found it, but it could have been how Riemer fled the area since he left his truck behind.

2) That also may be true. A bully w/ women may also be be a bully w/ others. If Riemer knew someone that happened to be a serial killer, then his crap attitude might have enraged that person enough to kill him and Diana. Although we return to the fact that the killer shot his first two victims and then stabbed his third. If the killer had a firearm, why not simply use that?

3) I've always thought that Crystal repeated what somebody told her when she asked for her Mommy. It may have been an off-hand remark and someone may have repeated it to her to stop her from crying. That is another reason that I believe that Riemer is the killer: the distance between where they found Diana and where the daughter was left was about a 1/2 hour drive (30 miles). I can't see too many people putting up w/ crying child for that length of time that wasn't their child or a relative. Especially a sociopath or psychopathic serial killer.

If the newspaper article is correct, the daughter was dropped off at the same store that Riemer and Diana had stopped at before they went into the woods. How would the killer know that fact? He/she certainly could "tailed" them out to the woods, but after you leave the main roads, following someone becomes almost impossible.That makes me believe that Riemer was the person that dropped off his daughter.

5) It's been stated that they went w/ Riemer to also get a tree for Xmas. Assuming that it was a tree from the woods and not a lot, where's the axe/hatchet/saw that they would have used? Or the rope with which they would tied the tree up? Were they found in the vehicle? If not, then they would certainly be items that Riemer would need to survive in the woods.

BTW, did they find a tree in the rear of the truck, I wonder?
Well, Im not sure if the third party is a possibility or not being that we know there was three of them in a small truck. If another adult was with them they would have had to ride in the bed or have followed in another car.

I don't think Mike was a loner at all. First they had freinds out looking for them the next day and even had someone with a plane doing an aerial search. They also said he was an accomplished guitar player which tells me he was probably in bands and played with other people. How else would anyone know how accomplished he was if he didnt socialize? It was also mentioned that Mike would mess around on Diane with other women, again this shows he was no unabomber loner type.

I think we are all confused at just what the story is with the child. I know that for me is the most baffeling part of this whole case. If she can say "mommy is in the trees" then why can she have no recolection of how she got to the dept store? I think I may have the answer to this though.

If you have ever taken a drive with a two year old then you know what Im talking about here. Generally you you spend more then 15 minutes in the car the child will fall asleep. Its very possible that she slept through what happened as well as slept through the ride back to the parking lot where she was left. She may have awakened long enough to see her mother walking around in the forest and that may truly be all she knows.

So think about this, Mike knows full well what Crystal's vocabulary was at the time. He may have been very confident that she would not be able to communicate what had happned. Or he may know that she was sleeping while her mother was killed and cant tell anyone what happened even if she could talk well enough. A random killer would not know this. He would not know if the child could identify him or not or if she could tell what had happened. Again, also why would the random killer care enough about the safety of this child to risk being caught by bringing her in town?

Im also amazed that the people searching couldnt locate the red truck sitting in the forest directly after they went missing. While I understand that the forest is very dense and vast up there consider this, Mike's father and him had been running traps up there since Mike was a child. Im sure Mike's father as well as his friend, who searched via his airplane would know Mike's route and would know the general area he'd have been in. If he's really up there to check traps then wouldn't you assume he'd be somewhere close to them?? Yet Diane and the truck where not found for months afterwards and were only found by accident.

Now this could open up several therioes here. One being that he immediately admitted what he had done to his family and they helped him hide and get away by steering the search in other areas. This would explain how he was able to get out of this area with no car or coat. Or could it be that he wasnt up there to check traps at all but had went for the express purpose of killing Diane? If the truck was not found anywhere near where his traps where then this might explain why.
It could also be that he had not planned it at all and actually killed her near his trapping area but moved her and the truck to a more secluded area when returning from dropping off crystal.

I think the coat being left in the truck seems to point more at his guilt then anything here. If he's checking traps then he would have his coat on. If he was getting a tree then again the coat would be on. Also the blood inside the truck may be an indication that the altercation started in the truck before they got out.

You asked if a tree was in the truck? Well again this is all evidence the lead investigator has seen first hand. He also knows if there was an ax or a chainsaw in the truck. If no tree and no cutting devices where in the truck again that makes Mike look guilty. This may be why investigators consider him the number one suspect.

From what I have seen so far it looks to me like Mike killed Diane and had help from his family in getting away. I dont think he could have survived the winter in the woods. I think he made his escape and moved hundreds of miles away and started a new life. I think what helped him the most was the fact that the truck and Diane where not found for so long. I think that if she had been found the next day without him then police could have put around the clock survielance on his family and even tapped their phones to see if he made contact. Isn't it odd that Mike's father whom had been running traps in this area since before Mike was born was unable to locate the truck but some random guy walking a dog simply stumbles upon it??

With both of them being at "missing" status this allowed him plenty of time to get away and get set up with a new identity. I also think he was either responsible for the other murder of simply copycated it to make it seem that he too was killed.

Those who beileve Mike along with the other bodies found are all the victims of the same serial killer must consider something here. There where alot of bodies being found in this forest area. One thing is for sure here, who ever was doing the kiling made very little effort to hide the bodies. He left the one guy in his truck. Obviously this truck can be seen from the air and stands out much more to anyone walking or passing through. The woman with this man was simply found lying stabbed to death and again no effort to hide the body. Diane was left laying near Mike's truck. So obviously whoever put her there knew she would be found. We also have several other bodies turning up just basically dumped in the vicinity around the same time period. But now it comes to Mike Reimer and it seems the killer went to alot of trouble to conceal his remains as ofcourse no trace of him was ever found.

Last edited by kane7474; 12-26-2010 at 05:17 PM.
kane7474 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-27-2010, 04:00 PM   #56
TheCars1986
Proud Daddy
Forum Veteran
 
TheCars1986's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 22, 2008
Location: Maryland
Posts: 7,306
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kane7474
Those who beileve Mike along with the other bodies found are all the victims of the same serial killer must consider something here. There where alot of bodies being found in this forest area. One thing is for sure here, who ever was doing the kiling made very little effort to hide the bodies. He left the one guy in his truck. Obviously this truck can be seen from the air and stands out much more to anyone walking or passing through. The woman with this man was simply found lying stabbed to death and again no effort to hide the body. Diane was left laying near Mike's truck. So obviously whoever put her there knew she would be found. We also have several other bodies turning up just basically dumped in the vicinity around the same time period. But now it comes to Mike Reimer and it seems the killer went to alot of trouble to conceal his remains as ofcourse no trace of him was ever found.
I suppose the theory that Meg brought up about someone who held a grudge against Riemer could be used here. Perhaps they attempted to conceal his body to frame him for the muder of Diana and the double homicide? I also tend to think its possible that there was an accomplice who took Crystal to the store, while the murderer was "doing the deed". Riemer driving the truck out of the woods and to the store and then back to the woods and then hiking it just seems too risky, IMO. Unless of course his family was helping him. But after all of these years and no one has came forward, or even mumurs/rumors of him hiding out...I think he's dead in those woods just yet to be found.
TheCars1986 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 12-27-2010, 04:34 PM   #57
NellieBlyArmy
Member
Occasional Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 14, 2010
Posts: 42
Default

Quote:
Or he may know that she was sleeping while her mother was killed and cant tell anyone what happened even if she could talk well enough.
If he did kill the other two people, that could explain the change in MO. He might have figured that a gun shot would wake Crystal, so he stabbed Diane. I know stabbing isn't silent, but if you have to pick and can keep the victim from screaming too much then it's much less likely to wake a toddler then a gun shot is.
NellieBlyArmy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-27-2010, 05:41 PM   #58
cocytus
Member
Forum Regular
 
cocytus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 15, 2010
Location: NE Indiana
Posts: 779
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheCars1986
I find it hard to believe that if Riemer was responsible he's still alive living in the wilderness living off the land. And if Riemer is guilty, the fact that his coat was found in the truck would indicate to me that he committed suicide somewhere and that his remains were never found. I did read those articles about the bodies turning up in that area, and it seems like an odd choice to use for a dump site since it was universially known that bodies were being dumped there. I do see why it's hard for people to think of Riemer as a victim, and I'm not completely sold on the theory that he would bring his daughter along if he knew he was going to kill his girlfriend.

Let's assume for the time being that Riemer is guilty. He was by all accounts a jealous guy. Maybe he found the note for Diana which was written by another man, perhaps Diana said something that set him off, or maybe she threatened to leave him again...anything is possible when dealing with a jealous, abusive a-hole. Point being, something set him off to make him viciously stab Diana 17 times. Now since Crystal said, "Mommy's in the trees." it's safe to assume that she either saw her mother's body or even worse, witnessed her murder. So then why would Riemer drive away from the scene (which would risk someone finding the body before he returned), then drive thirty miles out his way to drop Crystal off (again risk being identified, or his truck being seen), and then drive back the thirty miles he just left to park his truck (further implicating him) by Diana's body? If Riemer is guilty he would have had to have driven his truck out of the woods to drop off his daughter (why she wasn't hysterical about her father abandoning her is another question I have about this case) and then drive it all the way back to the scene of the crime, and due to the remoteness of the location what are the odds that he would be able to locate the murder site? And why leave his jacket behind? How would this in any way cast suspicion away from him?

I think the answers to some questions would come from more analysis from the blood found in the car (if it were available today). Obviously if the blood did not match Riemer or Diana, we have a third unknown party involved. If the blood matched Riemer, that would implicate him as the murderer. If the blood were Diana's however, we wouldn't be any closer because it could easily have been transferred to either Riemer or an unknown killer who then drove the truck to the location where it was found.
Let's see:

1) Riemer may have had multiple coats. It's likely that he did as working outdoors wears clothing out pretty quickly. Also, if Riemer hitched out the area (which is likely as Diana's murder meant he would have to leave) he really wouldn't have needed a coat,although,again, I believe that he had more than one.

2) Neither the segment nor the news articles state that were Diana was found was where she was killed. If that's the case, then moving her body does make sense as any delay in finding the site of the murder can (and probably did) cripple the investigation.

3) If the store was same place that they had stopped before the went into the woods, while it may not make logical sense to return there, logic may not the first order of business after you just brutally murdered your girlfriend.

4) The blood was on the passenger side of the truck (as shown during the segment) so it could be Diana's, Riemer or anybody else's. Not sure they haven't been able to test the blood using current techniques to confirm its identity.

Like I said before, if it weren't for the first killings, this case would have been seen as a domestic abuse case that turned into a murder. The newer killing having similar hallmarks as the first (especially the sock) make this appear to be a serial killing w/ the only person not present (Riemer) as the most likely suspect.
cocytus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-28-2010, 02:25 AM   #59
kane7474
Member
Forum Regular
 
kane7474's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 10, 2006
Posts: 763
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheCars1986
I suppose the theory that Meg brought up about someone who held a grudge against Riemer could be used here. Perhaps they attempted to conceal his body to frame him for the muder of Diana and the double homicide? I also tend to think its possible that there was an accomplice who took Crystal to the store, while the murderer was "doing the deed". Riemer driving the truck out of the woods and to the store and then back to the woods and then hiking it just seems too risky, IMO. Unless of course his family was helping him. But after all of these years and no one has came forward, or even mumurs/rumors of him hiding out...I think he's dead in those woods just yet to be found.
I don't think its that far fetched that he could have driven the truck out of the woods and dropped Cyrstal off and then came back. I also don't find it odd that no one has come forward as why would they? If his family helped him hideout and get away then why rat on themselves?? For all we know there could be all kinds of rumors about his whereabouts and we have just not heard them. Its never mentioned in the segment that he was seen anywhere and the case has no updates but that doesnt mean that people arent talking.

Consider this when you wonder why Mike has never turned up..... No one is really looking for him or really put any effort into it. Is he considered a fugitive? NO. Is he wanted for murder? No. Is he on the FBI wanted list? No. There is simply been no effort put into finding Mike other then the unsolved mysteries profile and since there is no update we dont know how many leeds may have been called into the show.

It seems only the local LE is interested in him so if he moves a thousand miles away and is succesfull in creating a new identity then guess what? Hes gone folks and unless the FBI makes an all out effort to track him down then he's never gonna turn up. I can also assure you the FBI isnt going to put much effort into tracking down someone that they dont even know if is alive or not.

I noticed after watching the segment again that Mike's friend did state that he knew Mike's trapping area and he not only drove down it but also flew over it the day after they went missing and he saw nothing. Now I really wonder just how far away the location of Diane's body was from his trapping route. Does anyone know??

Also in the re-enactment it shows Mike putting a boat into the water. This seems odd to me. First off surely his traps arent in water and can you imagind how cold the water would be in December? It most likely would have been frozen anyhow. Then when they show Diane's body being found the boat is on top of the truck again. Is there any signifigance to this or is it just errors in the re-anactment?? Do they somehow know that Mike used the boat but then put it back on top of the truck??

Another thing here also, the investigator said he got chills when he was shown the sock used in the other murder because it was a match. Now does anyone know if he meant match as in just being a tube sock or match as in that it was the mate to the other sock? Because if it was an exact match then there simply is no way these killings arent related.

Last edited by kane7474; 12-28-2010 at 02:41 AM.
kane7474 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-28-2010, 02:25 AM   #60
SageSlowdive
the real hank queen
Forum Regular
 
SageSlowdive's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 10, 2010
Posts: 587
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cocytus
Let's see:

1) Riemer may have had multiple coats. It's likely that he did as working outdoors wears clothing out pretty quickly. Also, if Riemer hitched out the area (which is likely as Diana's murder meant he would have to leave) he really wouldn't have needed a coat,although,again, I believe that he had more than one.

2) Neither the segment nor the news articles state that were Diana was found was where she was killed. If that's the case, then moving her body does make sense as any delay in finding the site of the murder can (and probably did) cripple the investigation.

3) If the store was same place that they had stopped before the went into the woods, while it may not make logical sense to return there, logic may not the first order of business after you just brutally murdered your girlfriend.

4) The blood was on the passenger side of the truck (as shown during the segment) so it could be Diana's, Riemer or anybody else's. Not sure they haven't been able to test the blood using current techniques to confirm its identity.

Like I said before, if it weren't for the first killings, this case would have been seen as a domestic abuse case that turned into a murder. The newer killing having similar hallmarks as the first (especially the sock) make this appear to be a serial killing w/ the only person not present (Riemer) as the most likely suspect.
Then, why no trace of him has ever been found? Uh huh.
SageSlowdive 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 11:47 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.