The Investor Murders

Part Two: Trials & Tribulations

On September 10th, 1984 - two years after Alaska's largest unsolved murder - authorities announced that they had a suspect in custody. However, the case presented by state prosecutors over the next several years would leave behind several questions, which remain unanswered today…

Listen to "The Investor Murders (Part Two: Trials & Tribulations)" on Spreaker.

On the afternoon of September 7th, 1982, a small group of fishermen docked in a small, isolated Alaskan town named Craig noticed smoke coming from a harbor about one mile away. Residents began to look upon the fire in the distance as a couple of ships went out to investigate, eventually learning that the smoke came from a 58-foot fishing vessel named the Investor, which had left Craig's port a little over one day prior.

Having anchored in a quiet cove near Fish Egg Island, the Investor had been uncomfortably silent since leaving the small town. It was believed that all four crew members - as well as the family of the ship's owner - were still on board, but a full accounting would take weeks to conduct, due to the damage that had already been done by the time emergency crews responded that evening and managed to quell the flames.

In total, eight people had perished in the tragedy; of whom, only four would be positively identified (shipowner Mark Coulthurst, his pregnant wife Irene, their 5-year-old daughter Kimberly, and Mark's cousin/deckhand Mike Stewart). Another deckhand (Jerome Keown) would be identified through partial dental records, but the other three assumed dead in the blaze (deckhands Chris Heyman and Dean Moon, as well as Mark and Irene's 4-year-old John) were assumed dead. Investigators theorized that the blaze, which had raged for the better part of an entire afternoon and evening, had destroyed their remains almost entirely - leaving behind nothing to be identified.

Investigators were stumped in the aftermath of this senseless crime, learning that at least two of the victims, Mark and Irene Coulthurst, had been shot in the head prior to the fire (the only two victims whose cause-of-death could be determined). Because Irene was still wearing the dress that she had been wearing at dinner from the night of the alleged murder (September 5th), it was believed that the victims had been killed shortly after returning to their ship; perhaps the killer had waited for each of the victims to return to the Investor, killing them in small groups throughout the night. However, because the fire had successfully destroyed most of the evidence left aboard the ship (as well as the ship itself), there was very little for investigators to piece together.

Over the next two years, the investigative body overseeing this case - the Alaska State Troopers - would continue to follow up on this case, following leads as far away as Washington; specifically, in the Bellingham area, where most of the victims had been from. This was an area that was rife with other commercial fishermen and women; those that were involved in the same social circles as the victims, many of whom had been in the region of Craig on the night of the murders. This would eventually lead to the arrest of a suspect in September of 1984: 24-year-old John Kenneth Peel, who lived in the Bellingham region, had been in Craig on the night of the murders and had personal connections to many of the victims.

Even though the arrest of John Peel came with a lot of pomp and circumstance - with detectives and prosecutors hailing their "three-pronged" case as airtight - it came just days after the two-year anniversary of the crime, and just weeks after authorities had stated they were narrowing down their investigation to a single suspect but had no physical evidence to pursue the case.

Nonetheless, the arrest would make headlines nationwide, as it seemed like resolution was close-at-hand for the largest murder case in Alaskan history, but the case presented by prosecutors over the next several years would reveal large gaps in the narrative they were weaving... leaving behind several questions, which remain unanswered to this day.

This is part two of the Investor murders.

Despite ruling him out as a suspect early on, investigators had begun to circle around John Peel months later, when two separate phone calls had been received. Calling into the tipline established by authorities, at least two individuals told police that Peel should be investigated as a suspect in the eight murders; due not only to him matching the suspect sketch, but him having a troubled history with the Investor's owner, Mark Coulthurst.

John Peel had been identified by at least four witnesses, who claim to have seen him on the Investor's skiff, traveling to and from the craft in the days around the murder. This included individuals from the Casino, the troller that first noticed the fire aboard the Investor, and raced out to try and stop it. If you recall from the last episode, they had interacted with a young man heading to Craig aboard the Investor's skiff. Another witness would claim that Peel was the young man seen purchasing gasoline the day before the fire, who it was reported left Craig's dock aboard the same skiff.

However, these witness sightings weren't alone in building the case against John Peel. His prior relationship with the Coulthurst family - in particular, Mark Coulthurst, the owner and skipper of the Investor - was reported upon heavily in the weeks after his arrest. In addition to once dating Mark's sister (a tumultuous relationship that carried off and on for approximately three years), Peel had been a prior crewmember for Mark on another ship that he captained prior to the Investor but had reportedly been fired the year prior (for alleged alcohol and drug abuse), which was said to have permanently soured the relationship between John and Mark.

Peel's lawyers would argue that he had not been fired from Mark's crew, but rather, decided to work aboard another ship the following year. They would argue that the two men had remained friendly in the year since, which was seemingly validated by many of the Coulthursts’ family members, who recalled Mark and Irene purchasing a wedding gift for John Peel after his assumed dismissal from the crew.

The relationship between the two men would remain a point of contention moving forward, but prosecutors alleged that Peel held a grudge against Mark for having been fired, which reached a tipping point on the evening of September 5th, 1982. That night, a witness recalled seeing John Peel talking to the Coulthurst family while they attended Mark's birthday dinner at Ruth Ann's Restaurant in Craig, claiming that he was speaking to Mark and Irene for the better part of ten minutes. Peel had another alleged run-in with two members of Mark's crew that evening, reportedly selling them weed (which Peel denied to authorities when questioned).

While all of this information seemed to implicate Peel in the murders - or at least, supplied the motive and opportunity needed to have committed the crime - it did very little to address some of the conflicting statements released by authorities in the past, or the gaps in the narrative that remained unexplained even after his arrest.

For starters, John Peel had no prior criminal history; nothing that indicated the ability for such careless violence, nor any kind of impulsive criminal behavior (which this murder indicated). In fact, until his arrest, Peel had been a law-abiding citizen with no real character concerns. He had married his wife the year prior to the murders, and she had given birth to their first child, a son, roughly one year before Peel's arrest. By all indications, he was just a young man hoping to start a family, who had shown no sign of having been a vicious killer to anyone that knew him.

To add on to this, several friends and family members said that it was impossible for Peel to have been the killer; this included many members of the Coulthurst family, who described him as a friendly, outgoing guy with a good sense of humor, who always seemed to get along well with Mark Coulthurst and his crew. One of Mark's family members even described him as a "real pleasant guy".

Bret Randmel, one of John Peel's friends, told reporters in the wake of his arrest:

"Why, he didn't even have the nerve to punch anyone. I'd believe (the Investor killer) was my mother before I'd believe it was him."

Additionally, despite some witnesses identifying John Peel as the suspicious man they had seen in Craig at around the time of the murders (the still-unknown man in the Investor's skiff), just as many chose not to identify him as this individual, despite having multiple opportunities to do so. One of the men - who had seen the young man from the skiff, and originally told police about his sighting - said that he had previously known John Peel and that the man from the skiff was definitely not him. Another man that encountered the man from the skiff was shown John Peel in a photo lineup and responded:

"Oh, that's John Peel. No. I know him."

Other witnesses were less decisive about their conclusion, stating that while Peel could have been the guy from the skiff, they weren't sure since most of the young men in the area looked pretty similar (including Peel). A man and a woman, who had been among the first responders - racing their boat out to the flaming Investor - had been unable to pick out Peel as the suspect, despite having spoken to the man from the skiff as they raced out to the burning ship.

During preliminary hearings, following Peel's extradition to Alaska, his lawyer Phillip Weidner would allege that prosecutors had intimidated multiple witnesses into testifying in front of the grand jury. This allegation - that authorities were leaning on witnesses, perhaps illegally - would come up again and again during these early hearings, causing at least two of the twenty-four witnesses to plead the fifth, claiming that they now had doubts about the testimony they had presented in front of the grand jury. This allowed these witnesses to avoid potential perjury charges - should it come to light that they had fabricated any part of their statements - but also began to put doubt into the minds of many that followed along with the story in the media.

Peel's lawyers would also bring to light a discrepancy with the transcription of one of Peel's police interviews, which had been incredibly valuable in obtaining the grand jury indictment. The transcription - submitted to the grand jury instead of the actual audio - stated that Peel told investigators:

"I'm scared man, I'm scared. I can't believe the things I did in there."

However, Peel's lawyers alleged that Peel actually stated during the interview:

"I'm scared man, I'm scared. I can't believe you all think I did that."

The differences between the two were striking and could have possibly influenced the grand jury into pursuing charges against Peel.

Another discrepancy came in the form of a witness sighting seeming to oppose the scientific foundation of the case, which would become another hot-button issue. While John Peel had been identified as the young man getting two-and-a-half gallons of gas on the morning of the Investor fire, the prosecution had failed to mention to the grand jury that only white gas residue had been found at the crime scene, which only hinted at the killer using an accelerant to start the fire - likely not gasoline, which would have left behind regular gas residue. White gas residue would have likely been left behind if the killer had used kerosene or some other kind of similar accelerant, which seemed to punch a hole right in the middle of the prosecution's case.

All of this information was going to be taken into account by both the defense and the prosecution as John Peel's arrest quickly became a thing of the past, and his first court date continued to loom larger and larger on the horizon.

During almost all of John Peel's court proceedings, he would wear a mask or an elaborate disguise - such as a fake mustache, wigs, glasses, etc. - in order to mask his appearance. His lawyers cited their client's safety, believing that his privacy was at risk of being permanently violated because of the high-profile nature of the case, and would petition for Peel to be able to avoid being photographed by members of the press. They would even call for police to avoid talking to him as he was transferred between buildings and jurisdictions, in order to avoid tampering the jury pool for the upcoming trial.

The trial itself was scheduled to begin in January of 1986 and was expected to run for more than two months, so that the jury could hear all of the evidence for and against Peel's guilt, in what had become the state's largest mass murder case to-date. However, before that could happen, preliminary hearings were held to determine what evidence could be presented in the trial and to establish the limits of Peel's bail (the circumstances surrounding that could become an episode of its own).

During these hearings, Peel's lawyers filed several motions that alleged misconduct on behalf of the prosecution. As I hinted at just a few moments ago, it was alleged that prosecutors had intimidated witnesses - or misconstrued their statements - to influence jurors and convince them to file an indictment against Peel. In at least one case, Peel's lawyers argued, prosecutors had straight-up falsified evidence. They were hoping to get the trial dismissed with prejudice, which would permanently bring an end to charges against Peel but would prove unsuccessful in that endeavor.

Peel's lawyers would also ask the judge presiding over the case to resurface the now-sunk Investor, which had sunk about six miles away from Craig while being towed back to Washington (state) for refitting. They argued that the state allowing the hull to sink was akin to destroying the crime scene, as they were now unable to test for bullet holes, ballistics, etc. (all of which could lead more conclusively to a second suspect). Phillip Weidner, Peel's main attorney, argued that:

"...the defense is now in the posture of having to search the bottom of the ocean for the scene of the alleged crime."

In August of 1985, during these preliminary hearings, it became apparent that the allegations from the defense were finally beginning to lead somewhere when Ketchikan Superior Court Judge Thomas Schulz chastised prosecutors for failing to present potentially-absolving evidence to the grand jury (that had originally indicted John Peel). He stated that the grand jury might have carefully weighed this evidence against the incriminating evidence presented by the prosecution, but never had the chance because prosecutors had withheld it from them; instead, presenting only one side of the argument, leading to Peel's indictment. It was later learned that this potentially-absolving evidence included numerous eyewitness statements from people that had seen the suspicious man on the skiff leaving the crime scene but had purposefully chosen not to identify John Peel as their guy immediately after the crime was reported (when their memories were fresh).

Railing against the prosecutors for presenting only one side of the argument against Peel, Judge Schulz proclaimed in court:

"What the hell conclusion am I supposed to draw? On those facts, do you know of any other conclusion a lay person would draw?... It's like leading a bull through a barn door with a ring in his nose... it's a nice tight inference... that was suggested very clearly to the grand jury."

Towards the end of that summer - the end of August 1985 - Judge Thomas Schulz agreed to dismiss the charges against John Peel without prejudice, meaning that he could be tried again for the same charges but not under the current set of circumstances. Prosecutors would have to refile charges and start back from square one. Judge Schulz stated about the prosecution's decision to withhold evidence from the grand jury:

"It was a hell of a mistake. They're going to have to go back and reindict him if they can."

Despite deciding to dismiss the current case against Peel, Judge Schulz would refuse to cancel his $1.1 million bond, which had been met after a group of his friends and family put together a real estate package of over a million dollars and held fundraisers in their local community to raise enough money to pay his $100,000 retainer. Similarly, Judge Schulz refused to validate the defense's position that prosecutors had intimidated witnesses, stating that there wasn't enough evidence to support it.

While this decision was an overall legal victory for John Peel and his defense, it was anything but permanent, with officials quickly putting together a second round of charges against him. That October, John Peel was indicted by a second grand jury, and a new trial was ordered (set to begin on the same date that his original trial had been scheduled for). Peel would again plead innocent to all of the charges filed against him and began to dig in alongside his lawyers, preparing for the extended legal battle that was still just months away.

Despite attempts by John Peel's lawyers to buy more time to prepare for their defense, the trial to decide his guilt was scheduled to start on January 13th, 1986.

Even though the trial was expected to last upwards of two months, Judge Thomas Schulz told jurors to prepare for at least four months, due to the large amount of evidence that was lined up to be presented; namely, witnesses, many of whom lived out-of-state and would have to be transported to the remote area of Ketchikan by boat or plane. In time, this would result in the trial becoming the most expensive in state history (up to this point).

Before the trial started, the defense and prosecutors began posturing in opposing measures. Peel's lawyer, Phillip Weidner - who would end up representing Peel for free because he viewed the state's case as preposterous - would tell reporters:

"Of the many cases that I've encountered in my career, I've never seen such serious charges brought on the basis of the weak evidence reflected by the record in this case. Although it's unfortunate that there even has to be a trial, I and Mr. Peel are looking forward to an opportunity to point out to a jury the lack of evidence and the unreliability of the state's witnesses."

Prosecutors, meanwhile, were much more withholding in public statements, having had their original case dismissed before it got to trial due to their own oversights. After that public embarrassment, they vowed not to try the case in the media.

As the trial began, the prosecution began to paint a picture of an employee seeking revenge against the man that had fired him from his lucrative position. They began to portray John Peel as someone that had worked with Mark Coulthurst in the past but had been fired after the 1981 fishing season for drug and alcohol abuse. However, a year later, he ended up in the same remote town as the Coulthurst family and decided to come aboard the Investor on the night of the murders. While there, prosecutors argued, he had likely gotten into an argument with his former friend and boss, which escalated into violence at some point that evening. After shooting and killing Mark Coulthurst and his wife, Irene, Peel had then gone on to murder the couple's two children and Mark's four crewmen - fearing that any of them would be able to identify him as the killer. He had then gone through the extensive process of attempting to scuttle the ship, but due to his unfamiliarity with the expensive new fishing vessel, he had then resorted to fire to destroy the crime scene. Afterward, he had continued to lie low with his crew, eventually returning to Washington state at the end of that fishing season and seeking a new career opportunity that would keep him in-state for the foreseeable future.

At least, that's the argument that prosecutors made through their extensive (and expensive) calling of witnesses throughout the trial. Some of these witnesses claimed that Peel had exhibited bizarre behavior both before and after the murders, and seemed to express knowledge about the crime that was not common knowledge. Some of these witnesses claimed that Peel had known about the victims being shot-to-death before September 9th, 1982, when that information was publicly released by authorities for the first time.

Among these witnesses were a couple of fishing captains, who claimed to have seen odd happenings around the crime scene at the time the murders were believed to have happened. This included one captain that claims to have suddenly remembered details about the night of the murders more than a month after they happened, later on in 1982.

Jeff Pfundi, who was the captain of the Sheila Ryan, had been in Craig on the night of the murders and had not recalled anything seeming out-of-the-ordinary until a month or so later. He was at his home when he heard gunshots in the distance (someone target-shooting), and claims that his recollection was kickstarted by the mere sound. He would tell the court that he suddenly remembered hearing a loud argument aboard the Investor on the evening of September 5th, 1982, explaining:

"Then I believe I heard shots, six or eight shots, then a scream. Then I believe there were more shots. It went on for quite some time."

Pfundi would admit to drinking alcohol on the evening in question - and believed he had not been dreaming - but wasn't 100% positive. Peel's lawyers would call into question his sudden recollection of these events, weeks after the fact, and disputed their validity.

The other skipper brought to the witness stand was Larry Demmert Jr., the captain of the ship that John Peel was working on at the time of the murders, Libby 8. Demmert was able to provide a much more convincing argument against Peel, someone that he had employed and worked with, and had known for over a decade when the victims aboard the Investor had been killed.

Demmert would tell the court that on the evening of September 6th, 1982, at around 2:00, he was awoken:

"I think I heard a woman scream. Immediately after that I heard popping sounds - like a generator backfiring. I wasn't sure. I was real scared. I had never been that scared in my life. It was like there was danger in the air, evil in the air. It was real thick... I saw John Peel standing on the dock. It looked like he might have had a rifle in his hand."

Larry Demmert said that he identified John Peel because this ominous figure was wearing the same sweatshirt and hat that Peel often wore, and said that the only gun Peel had available to him - which was usually locked up aboard the Libby 8 - had an identifiable scope on it. Demmert would then testify that Peel had decided to fly home to Bellingham instead of riding back aboard their ship.

John Peel's lawyers would argue that Demmert was only testifying for the prosecution to avoid getting out of separate drug charges that he was facing (an accusation I cannot confirm), and was grilled extensively about his prescription to Valium - which, they alleged, may have impaired his memory at the time of his testimony.

Alice Irons, a waitress at Ruth Ann's Restaurant in Craig, Alaska, had been one of the last people to see the entire Coulthurst family alive on the night of the supposed murder. She testified that she had seen the entire family with John Peel just hours before they were murdered, claiming that Peel had spoken to Mark for roughly ten minutes at some point between 8:00 and 9:00 PM. However, when she was questioned by the defense weeks later, Irons was unable to rebut claims that she might have been confusing this encounter with another from a few months prior to that hearing, where she had encountered John Peel meeting with his lawyers at another restaurant she was working at.

This back-and-forth between witnesses would carry on for several months, with the prosecution finally resting their case in late June - four months after the trial had started - allowing the defense to take over and present their side.

The defense of John Peel took on many of the same tactics as the prosecution, calling numerous witnesses of their own that seemed to dispute many of the prosecution's witnesses. These witnesses would cast doubt on John Peel being the man from the skiff, who had been seen by multiple witnesses - not all of whom agreed upon John Peel being the guy.

Joseph Weyhmiller, a commercial fisherman who had been in Craig in September of 1982, told the court that John Peel was not the man that he had seen, whom he had told police about shortly after authorities began responding to the fire aboard the Investor. Weyhmiller claimed that the man he had seen was middle-aged and stocky, perhaps of Native American origin; none of which could be used to describe John Peel, who was a tall and lanky young white man.

Several of the eyewitnesses that had spoken to police in the wake of the murders - many of whom had seen the alleged man from the skiff - claimed that investigators had excessively used photos of John Peel in their photo lineups; with it being reported that 8 out of the 29 photos presented to witnesses were just different photos of John Peel. It was believed that this might have tainted the witness pool, making them more predisposed to pick out Peel as their suspect. In 7/8 photos, Peel had been wearing a baseball cap (which fit the description of the man from the skiff, who was wearing a dark baseball cap), and 3/8 were mugshot photos taken from the interrogation room in the Bellingham Police Department. A psychology professor from the University of Washington, Elizabeth Loftus - who had been called upon by numerous law enforcement agencies to testify in criminal trials - would state about this stacked photo lineup:

"I would hold this up as probably one of the worst examples of a photographic test. This is not a fair test."

While the prosecution had tried to paint a picture of a wronged employee, the defense pushed back against that, presenting numerous witnesses who claimed that John Peel and Mark Coulthurst had been on good terms at the time of the murders; and that they had actually gotten along and were friendly with each other leading up to the date of the murders. After all, Peel and Coulthurst lived close to one another and belonged to the same large friend group, often interacting with each other and their families during social outings.

Peel's main attorney, Phillip Weidner, would argue that prosecutors had built a "house of cards" based on nothing but speculation and inferences - which, he claimed, didn't hold up to scrutiny.

Peel's lawyers would float a theory during the trial that the murders might have been committed by a professional hitman; someone hired to carry out a hit on any of the eight victims. When Phillip Weidner had the opportunity to question Sergeant Chuck Miller of the Alaska State Troopers, he would ask about a witness who had heard explosive sounds approximately once an hour for several hours early on the morning of September 6th:

"Isn't that consistent with someone holding the crew and executing them one by one, trying to get something from Mark Coulthurst?"

Additionally, Weidner would claim that investigators had not looked into allegations that the Investor's owner and captain, Mark Coulthurst, might have been involved in international drug shipping; which, he argued, included a potentially large amount of cocaine, which had allegedly been transferred from the Investor to another ship within 24 hours of the murders unfolded. This drug angle seemed to conflate with the possibility of an assassin carrying out the crime; two angles that the defense leaned on during the course of presenting their arguments.

Peel's legal team would also point to additional evidence that investigators had seemingly ignored, which related to one of the Investor's crewmen. Dean Moon had been one of the two crewmen who were presumed dead aboard the burned ship, but who had not been identified through any forensic link. Weidner would argue that two witnesses had reported seeing Dean Moon in San Francisco after the murders, as recently as 1983, including one witness that was previously familiar with the presumed-dead deckhand.

One of the other arguments presented by the defense were the allegations that Mark Coulthurst, the deceased captain of the Investor, had a reputation for flying into fits of rage whilst drinking. This argument was bolstered by the fact that Alaska's medical examiner, Donald Rogers, had noted during his examinations of Mark and Irene Coulthurst's bodies that they had high blood alcohol levels pointing to impairment at the time of their deaths (but couldn't say that definitively because of the damage done to their bodies by the flames).

Mark had been known to become slightly-argumentative while drinking and was known to have a fiery temper at times (as many sailors do), and this was provided into the record by defense attorneys - who argued that there was just as much proof incriminating Mark Coulthurst in the murders as there was John Peel. This wasn't meant to be a derogatory statement aimed at Mark Coulthurst specifically - one of the eight victims of this crime - but was meant to highlight the state's overwhelming lack of physical evidence (of which there was basically none).

John Peel's lawyers would continue to petition the court to dismiss the charges because of alleged evidence that prosecutors had leaned on witnesses to testify in exchange for favors. This included the allegations of two witnesses from Bellingham, who had reportedly asked a local attorney to step in and help protect them from overreaching prosecutors but did little to sway the judge in charge of this case.

The defense would finally rest their case in August of 1986, after six weeks of refuting the state's case and pointing the blame at other potential suspects.

Eleven women and five men had been selected to the jury pool in January of 1986 and were told from the get-go that four among them would be eliminated during the trial, before reaching the deliberation phase. Eventually, the jury would be comprised of nine women and three men; none of whom were sequestered throughout the trial but encouraged to refrain from discussing the case with anyone.

These jurors would spend the better part of 1986 observing the trial, not breaking to deliberate until late August - nearly seven months after the trial had started. Over the span of roughly 25 weeks, they had viewed more than 800 pieces of evidence, including more than 150 witnesses (all of whom had to be flown or shipped to the remote location of the trial, at the state's expense). The total cost of the trial was estimated to be upwards of $2 million, which is a steep price to pay for justice... justice that would never quite arrive.

On Thursday, August 28th, 1986 - following six days of deliberation - the jury informed Judge Thomas Schulz that they had been unable to come to a consensus regarding John Peel's fate. The jury had re-listened to several dozen hours of testimony during this span, but none of it had helped clear up their points of contention.

A juror would later tell reporters that they had been leaning in favor of acquittal (primarily being split 7-5 in favor of a not guilty verdict, but leaning towards 9-3 on certain counts), but had been unable to come to a consensus after nearly an entire week of deliberating, resulting in a hung jury.

This would bring the longest and most expensive trial in Alaska state history to an end, but did nothing to clear up the fate of John Peel, who had been 22 at the time of the murders, 24 at the time of his arrest, and was now 26 - approaching 27 - and had yet to be found guilty or not guilty in Alaska's most notorious mass murder. The first indictment had been dismissed before trial and the most recent attempt had resulted in a mistrial; neither of which allowed the case to be dismissed outright.

The case was again punted back to the state, who weighed whether or not to pursue charges against John Peel for the third time - after spending nearly four years and several million dollars doing just that. They would spend several weeks contemplating that decision, before deciding in October of 1986 to bring Peel to trial yet again.

While the second trial of John Peel was originally scheduled to begin in the early months of 1987, that timetable would come into question when Ketchikan Superior Court Judge Thomas Schulz was removed from the case (after it came to light that one of his law clerks had struck up a post-trial relationship with one of Peel's lawyers, creating a conflict-of-interest). This would ultimately lead to several delays throughout the year, and the trial was not officially scheduled to make way until mid-November, more than five years after the murders themselves... and more than three years after John Peel had been originally arrested.

In order to help save on the extravagant costs seen in the first trial (approximately $2 million), the trial was moved from Ketchikan to Alaska's capital, Juneau. There, preliminary hearings and jury selection would begin that November, but the prosecution wouldn't start presenting their case until January of 1988, in what was sure to be another lengthy endeavor, due to a brand-new jury having to hear the case - and all of its witnesses - for the first time.

The state's case in Peel's retrial would unfold very similarly to how it had in his first trial, with the prosecution presenting an argument built around numerous witness statements; almost all of which put Peel in or around the crime scene and the victims in the time period that the murders were reportedly carried out. This included statements from several people that had spoken to Peel in the weeks surrounding the crime, testifying again to his bizarre behavior and statements made; which, when read out during court hearings, seemed to indicate his guilt.

Homicide and arson investigator James Stogsdill, who was a sergeant for the Alaska State Troopers, was one of the prosecution's standout witnesses in the retrial. Having worked on the case over a period of years, Stogsdill was able to detail how the suspect profile had been created by law enforcement, which ultimately led them to identify Peel as their potential killer - who not only matched the physical description of the suspect but was personally familiar with the victims. Stogsdill claimed that this might have compelled Peel to murder everyone aboard the Investor, including the children, because (in his words):

"... they might be able to ID the murderer."

Sergeant Stogsdill also claimed that Peel would have known how to handle the ship, quietly sailing out into the harbor near Fish Egg Island and attempting to scuttle it, before eventually setting it on fire. He also claimed that Peel's prior relationship with Mark Coulthurst and his sailing experience would have led to him being able to effortlessly commandeer the Investor's skiff for his own use that week.

"Everyone says he was driving the skiff like he knew how."

The defense would push back against this assertion, stating that most people in Craig had similar knowledge of how to pilot ships and skiffs, and reiterated that John Peel had not worked on the Investor, which Mark Coulthurst had just purchased earlier that year, but his prior ship.

Two brothers from Sitka, Walter and Charles Samuelson, were called to the stand to testify that John Peel had confessed to the killings while playing cribbage with them months later. According to Charles Samuelson:

"John looked at me and said, 'I did it. I killed them.' He kind of had a weird smile."

However, his brother Walter would admit to Peel's lawyers during cross-examination that he thought Peel was joking during this alleged confession. The defense would also push back against the validity of these two witnesses, claiming that the state had agreed to drop unrelated drug charges against one of the brothers in exchange for their combined testimony; a claim that had become a trend throughout both trials.

While the prosecution and defense had exchanged several jabs throughout the entire process of the first trial, this confrontational attitude would reach new heights in Peel's retrial. Throughout it, both sides seemed to express antagonistic scorn towards one another, having to be constantly quieted by Judge Walter Carpeneti, who would dismiss several motions by Peel's lawyers for the case to be dismissed outright. In these motions, Phillip Weidner claimed that prosecutors were asking misleading questions that could end up biasing the jury, in order to throw the case, which - he alleged - they were "losing".

The trial continued on through April of 1988, lasting significantly shorter than the first trial, but still consuming several months; during which time, only the prosecution chose to present witnesses. After they had rested their case - allowing the defense to do the same - John Peel's lawyers decided not to present any of their own, claiming that the burden of prosecution was on the state, and they had failed to prove Peel's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt in their own presenting of the case. As such, no defense was needed.

During closing statements, Alaska state prosecutor Mary Anne Henry would admit that investigators had been unable to determine John Peel's motive in committing these murders - and had failed to obtain fingerprint matches or find the murder weapon - but that ultimately, they didn't need to.

"The state can't tell you why the first shot was fired. The state doesn't have to prove why. The state also doesn't have to prove how he did it."

In their own closing arguments, Peel's lawyers would use the prosecution's case against them, claiming that the state had no motive, no murder weapon, and - more importantly - no physical evidence; only speculation and hearsay, which had encouraged Peel's lawyers to make a last-minute play and not present any witnesses for their own side. They would also claim that the state had failed to address how Peel, a rather-slight young man (who was even smaller at the time of the murders, when he was just 22), could have overpowered five men and killed all eight of the victims aboard the Investor... a question that had not been adequately explained throughout the trial (and remains unexplained today).

Phillip Weidner, Peel's attorney, would tell the court that:

"The absence of motive can raise a reasonable doubt, and it does about this innocent man, John Kenneth Peel."

After making their closing statements, the case was submitted to the 12-member jury that April, who were all instructed by the judge to either acquit Peel entirely or find him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. It was all-or-nothing for the prosecution, who had spent several years and millions of taxpayers' dollars to reach this point.

By that weekend, it was announced that a decision had been made, and John K. Peel - now 27 years old, having been held in house arrest for nearly four years - was acquitted of all of the charges filed against him. In the aftermath of this decision, Peel was advised not to answer any of the media's questions, but would release a brief statement in which he said:

"It's terrible being an innocent man accused of a crime. I just thank God it's over. Justice did work this time."

Phillip Weidner, Peel's lawyer whose risky decision not to present any witnesses in the retrial had paid off, was much more thorough in his own statement to the press:

"From the moment it was issued, I have always said the indictment was not worth the paper it was written on. I didn't put a case on because there was no need to dignify this case by putting on witnesses... The prosecutors put an innocent man and his family through this ordeal for four years."

Weider would then hint at legal restitution for Peel and his family, who had exhausted almost all of their savings and put up their own property to procure the man's freedom over nearly half-a-decade... a gambit of their own that had paid off, but at an incredible cost.

While the end of John Peel's second trial provided a happy ending for him and his loved ones, it was much less satisfying for the family members and friends of the Investor's eight victims, who were still left without answers nearly a decade after the crime... long after what was left of their loved ones' charred remains had been laid to rest.

Even though the state's case had proven unsuccessful, the state insisted that they had technically solved the case, but were unable to prove it in court. Mary Anne Henry, the prosecutor in the state's case, would tell reporters in the weeks after Peel's acquittal:

"Our system is built on the theory that it is better to let nine guilty persons go free than convict one innocent man. In this case, John Peel is going free for nine crimes... I can say that it's the state's view that we know who the killer is. It's just apparent that the state was not able to convince the jury that there was sufficient evidence of that."

The prosecutor seemed to put the onus for the case's unsolved nature onto the juries, which had failed to come to a decision in John Peel's first trial and had ultimately decided to acquit him in the second trial. However, in doing so, she failed to address the state's overwhelming lack of evidence - anything tangible or physical - which, unfortunately, might have just been due to the case itself. After all, the crime scene was a burned-out ship that had been scuttled before the trial and was sitting on the floor of the Pacific Ocean when John Peel was acquitted. But, the lack of evidence wasn't evidence itself - especially when proving someone guilty of mass murder - and it had become clear over two-and-a-half trials that the state didn't have enough evidence to prove Peel's guilt, and the results were a mistrial and acquittal.

In the years that would follow this decision, the case of the Investor murders was placed on the national (and even regional) back-burner, becoming overshadowed by more explosive and modern crime cases. However, the now-acquitted John Peel would eventually move forward with his planned lawsuit, filing it in April of 1990, almost two years to the day of his acquittal. In this suit, Peel and his lawyers were seeking more than $150 million in damages, which would be paid out to Peel, his wife, his son, and his family, who had had to put up their own property as collateral in order to obtain Peel's bail years prior, and had nearly bankrupted themselves taking care of him during his house arrest (having been ordered by the court to supervise him day and night during the multi-year trial process).

In this lawsuit, Peel also asked the state to continue their investigation, which had been centered around him for years now. However, this plea would fall on deaf ears, as state officials continued to assert that he was the killer and they had no plans to move from that position (at least, not publicly). By September of 1992, the 10-year anniversary of the case, authorities stated that they continued to receive tips in the case but nothing they learned was enough to sway them from the path they had committed to back in 1984 (when they chose to pursue charges against John Peel).

John Peel's lawsuit would eventually be settled in 1997, after years of back-and-forth between both sides (and rulings in federal court, who had to decide whether the state of Alaska had violated Peel's civil rights during his detainment). The settlement was for $900,000, which was less than 1% of Peel's original asking price... but it was something, at least.

Nearly forty years after this heinous crime took place, it remains just as unsolved as ever, with the investigation seeming to have come to a standstill decades ago. While officials have reiterated their belief that John Peel was the lone killer in this case, his acquittal in 1988 remains unimpeachable; a constant reminder that even if he did commit the crime, there's nothing that authorities can do to bring him to justice.

Prosecutors in the case have long blamed investigators in this case for bungling the early hours of the case, blaming them for allowing the Investor to burn for several years - and with it, almost all of the evidence. However, it seems like there was very little that authorities could have done to prevent that, barring some kind of miracle. By the time they arrived at the scene, the fire had already been burning out of control for hours, and it's hard to think of what anyone could have done differently... especially since authorities didn't know that there were bodies aboard until the flames had originally been contained.

It seems to me like everyone involved with the case - at least, on the side of law enforcement - seems to have been playing a game of "what if?" for decades now, wishing that they could go back in time and do things the "right" way, but that's just not how life works. In cases like this, you only get one shot to pursue justice, and officials decided to try John Peel twice for the murders... and both times, they came up empty, not having enough evidence to convince a jury even when the defense chose not to present a case of their own.

But if John Peel did not commit this crime - and prosecutors wasted years (and millions of dollars) pursuing the wrong man - then that leaves behind an even scarier proposition. Perhaps the killer was never identified correctly by law enforcement. Hell, for all we know, this might not have even been a single killer, but rather, a group of killers, who acted in-tandem to murder all eight of the victims aboard the Investor at once.

In the decades since, some have theorized that drugs might have played a larger part in this story than originally theorized, based primarily upon statements made by the defense throughout the first trial. Peel's lawyers argued that the Investor's owner, Mark Coulthurst, might have been involved in drug smuggling to help pay for his $800,000 shipping vessel, and may or may not have transferred a large shipment of cocaine to another ship the day before the murders. While there has been nothing to confirm these rumors in the decades since - again, they are just rumors - they continue to linger to this day. To me, at least, that seems more likely than a single deckhand managing to murder all eight victims in one fell swoop, based on little more than a half-baked revenge motive.

In my research for this story, I discovered at least one unique individual that lived in Craig at the time, who I am not floating as a potential killer, but rather a possibility that law enforcement may have overlooked.

Jim Leroy Robinson was the owner of Craig Auto at the time of the Investor murders, who had been one of the witnesses who had identified John Peel as the man in the skiff, claiming that he had purchased gasoline on the morning of the fire. During Peel's trials, Robinson was picked by the prosecution to testify and would become one of their most convincing witnesses, claiming that it was (definitively) John Peel who had purchased the accelerant that morning. However, it came to light after Peel's second trial that Robinson was not who he said he was.

Jim Leroy Robinson was actually Kenneth Harvey Robertson, a convicted arsonist with a history of violent crime, who had been wanted in the state of Arizona since June of 1981 when he escaped from a halfway house with more than four years remaining in his sentence for burning an unoccupied structure. After fleeing Arizona, Robertson had ended up settling in the area of Craig, Alaska, away from prying eyes, and ended up adopting the name of Jim Robinson as a pseudonym. While living there, he would become embroiled in the entire Investor saga, becoming a star witness for the prosecution. His true identity would not be learned until years later after the defense began asking questions about the validity of each witness - and realizing that Robertson's backstory was rather void of any substance.

It was learned then that Kenneth Harvey Robertson, as he was legally known, also had a history of making violent threats against women in his life; some of whom he had threatened to kill with firearms and explosives, and whose vehicles he had torched in the past. At one point, it was learned, he had threatened to kill his wife's entire family with a shotgun, which he had illegally sawed the barrel off of.

In the years after the acquittal of John Peel, Robertson would become involved in operating a shipping business, chartering twelve vehicles to Exxon so that they could clean up after its disastrous oil spill from 1989. One of those ships, the Red Jacket, had faced a tragedy of its own, dropping off two crewmen on an island, who were never found alive. This story ultimately led to the disclosure of Robertson's true identity, and this story making headlines in 1991.

Like I said: I'm not trying to implicate Robertson at all in this case. However, he was just one of the hundreds of people in Craig, Alaska at the time of the murders. If law enforcement managed to overlook him as a suspect - someone with a history of physical violence, threatening behavior, and arson - deciding to make him one of their star witnesses... then who else might they have overlooked?

Unfortunately, this story has not received any substantial updates in several years.

As I mentioned earlier, Alaskan authorities have considered this case closed for decades, dating back to their unsuccessful prosecution of John Peel. While they were unable to prove his guilt, they continue to believe that he was the lone killer of all eight victims. As recently as 2017, a spokesman for the Alaska Department of Public Safety would state that:

"The case is closed."

However, eight lives were lost in September of 1982, and to date, no one has been held accountable for that. Despite authorities stating that they continue to believe that John Peel was the killer, he was acquitted in a court of law, and years later, was paid a settlement by the state of Alaska - proving, once and for all, that his arrest and detainment were unjustified.

What we do know about this tragic and senseless crime is that at least five people died aboard the Investor: the ship's owner Mark Coulthurst, his wife Irene and daughter Kimberly, as well as two of his crewmen, Mike Stewart and Jerome Keown (who was only identified through partial dental records). Two other crewmen, Chris Heyman and Dean Moon, have never been confirmed to have been among the deceased, but it is believed that they too, perished aboard the Investor; as did Mark and Irene Coulthursts's four-year-old son John, whose remains were never found (but were similarly believed to have been consumed by the fire).

In recent years, it has been theorized that four-year-old John Coulthurst might have survived the fire - perhaps being kidnapped by the person(s) responsible for the murders - but there has been no proof of that in the decades since.

A man was seen by multiple witnesses using the Investor's skiff in the days surrounding the murder (Sept. 6th and 7th). This man spoke to several people in Craig during that span but would disappear into the chaos of the situation, never to be seen again. Despite authorities insisting that this man was John Peel, that has never been proven in a court of law; meaning that, legally, he is not guilty of this crime, and no evidence released in the years since his acquittal has changed that... especially since authorities have failed to reconsider their options, and have not been thoroughly investigating this case since the mid-1980s.

Until they do, the stories of Mark, Irene, Kimberly, and John Coulthurst - as well as those of Michael Stewart, Jerome Keown, Dean Moon, and Chris Heyman - will remain unresolved.

Episode Information

Researched, written, hosted, and produced by Micheal Whelan

Published on September 27th, 2020

Producers: Roberta Janson, Ben Krokum, Gabriella Bromley, Peggy Belarde, Quil Carter, Laura Hannan, Damion Moore, Brittany Norris, Amy Hampton, Steven Wilson, Scott Meesey, Marie Vanglund, Scott Patzold, Astrid Kneier, Aimee McGregor, Sydney Scotton, Sara Moscaritolo, Sue Kirk, Travis Scsepko, Thomas Ahearn, Seth Morgan, Marion Welsh, Patrick Laakso, Alyssa Lawton, Jo Wong, Meadow Landry, Rebecca Miller, Tatum Bautista, Teunia Elzinga, Jacinda B., Ryan Green, Stephanie Joyner, and Dawn Kellar