The Death of April Tucker

 

This case is a prime example of a case where investigators have tunnel vision and refuse to clearly look at and examine all of the evidence of a case. Some reports say it is also a case of clear prosecutorial misconduct but in my opinion, and I do not say this likely, despite never seeing it stated in my research, it is also a case of ineffective counsel.

In the early afternoon of January 4, 1989 in Emory Texas, about an hour east of Dallas, Debbie Tucker Loveless and her common-law husband, John Miller had realized that Debbie's four year old daughter, April Tucker had wandered off. They began looking for her and would find her in a wooded area near a barn on their property. April was on her stomach and nearly naked but awake it seems at that point. The couple reached the child and she seemed to have several scratches but otherwise fine, that is until they turned her over. She had an extremely large “gash” on her right thigh. Debbie ran back to the home to get the keys to their vehicle and to go to a neighbors home to call for an ambulance. In the meantime John had taken April's pants, that were said to have been around one of her ankles, and used them much like a tourniquet for her leg and had taken her to the house. When Debbie returned home she found April in the kitchen with the tourniquet and a rag on her wound. She put a blanket around April who was also very cold from being outside nearly unclothed.

The couple stated that April had told them that she had been mauled by dogs. Some reports stated that the family had two dogs of their own and that a neighbor also had a dog and the three roamed the properties. It also stated that April had often played with the dogs. One report I found stated that after arriving at the hospital that April had also stated “the dogs did it” but I am unclear on the certainty of that, nor am I completely clear just how alert April was not only by the time she reached the hospital, but also when paramedics arrived at her home. The “gash” would later be described as a “gaping hole on the inside of her right thigh that measured four by six inches.” “A large chunk of thigh muscles, the femoral artery, blood vessels, and skin-- was simply gone.” It is unclear when these measurements were taken and in my opinion that is important, you will later see why. Keep in mind also that from the beginning Debbie Loveless and John Miller stated that they had found her near a fence and they believed that she had “fallen off or into” a fence, which could have caused some of the injuries also.

The sheriff, Richard Wilson had also gone to the scene with the paramedics. He would later say that he encountered two friendly dogs at the scene. While Debbie rode in the ambulance with April to the point in which it met a helicopter to fly April to a hospital in Tyler Texas, John had allegedly stated he was putting the dogs in a pen and would drive to the hospital and meet Debbie there. Once at the hospital April was rushed into surgery but due to substantial blood loss she died while on the operating table. The doctor would state that he did not believe that this injury had been caused by an animal and the medical pathologist, who conducted the autopsy the following day agreed. In fact, the pathologist would claim that the cause of death was child abuse.

Later in the evening of January 4^th Sheriff Richard Wilson was contacted about April's death and instructed to begin an investigation. He took a team back out to the home where he claimed the dogs were still roaming free, but friendly. Debbie Loveless and John Miller would return home and tell their story again to investigators. There was never a report that either of them ever changed their story or told stories that did not match each other. John would take investigators to the area in which he and Debbie had found April. It was later said by Wilson that he never believed the story that Debbie and John told. He would even later testify that the reason he did not believe the story is that every time he had gone to the home the dogs were extremely friendly and he did not believe they would have done the damage that was done to April. I will get more into Wilson here in a bit.

During the second search not only was the property searched but so was the home. One thing that investigators were looking for was a large pool of blood somewhere. Medical experts had claimed that with the gash, that had severed her femoral artery there should have been a massive amount of blood. Investigators did not find a large pool of blood where John told them that they had found April. It was unclear whether they found a “pool of blood” anywhere, including the kitchen floor where she was when paramedics had arrived. Investigators had found a curling iron “in a hamper” underneath some clothes and they would take possession of that. They also took a hunting knife that John had just received for Christmas.

I will get into more of the specifics of things in a bit, but for now I will leave it with the fact that apparently no one believed the dog mauling story and on January 17, 1989, just thirteen days after April had died, Debbie and John were arrested and charged with felony injury to a child. This was later upgraded to murder charges. Before I go into the shared trial that was conducted in November of 1989, I want to point out that nothing in my research ever indicated that a) there had never been any suspicions or allegations against the couple prior to April's death that would have indicated there was abuse in the home and b) that there were any reports from a doctor or the autopsy that may have indicated prior injuries April may have suffered that would have indicated prior abuse.

Debbie and John were tried together at a trial that began on October 31^st. I can say that at least Debbie's attorney's had attempted to have separate trials but that had been denied. The prosecution led by Alwin “Al” Smith and Franklin Long argued that this was a case of child abuse and that there had never been a dog mauling as had been indicated. Although, I must be fair in saying that my research stated that defense attorney's “did not raise the dog attack theory and only called two witnesses.” I was quite confused when I saw that statement. I am unsure how if that is what Debbie and John had always stated had happened how the defense attorney's did not argue that at all. I mean, in my opinion, it was either the dog attack or child abuse as the prosecution had claimed and if you're refuting child abuse, how else do you explain finding your child with these injuries that killed her and claim that she stated it was from the dogs. This was one of my first signs that it appeared that neither Debbie, nor John, had adequate representation.

The prosecution would call Dr. Gonzalez to the stand. He was the medical examiner/pathologist who had conducted the autopsy on April. He would testify that he saw no bite marks related to animals on April's body. But, his biggest argument was that the “gash” in her leg was not jagged but smooth indicating that it had come not from teeth of any kind or even a serrated knife but from one consistent to the one investigators had taken from John Miller. He also testified that he believed that April had been beaten with the curling iron and that had created the scratches and bruises he found on the body. However, it does seem that the defense was able to get him to admit that he had never measured anything with the curling iron (I get the impression it was more of a curling brush.... women will understand what I mean) and compared it to the scratches found on April's body.

Sheriff Richard Wilson would also testify about how he had never believed the dog story and did not believe that the dogs he saw were capable of attacking “anyone.” He claimed that every time he had been to the property they were friendly and often wagged their tails in excitement while never indicating any kind of violence.

From my understanding there may have been other witnesses to testify for the prosecution but Gonzalez and Wilson were to the two main witnesses. As I pointed out the defense did bring up the issue of the curling iron to point out it had not been compared and later they would present a witness that argued there was no blood on the knife that Gonzalez had alleged he believed was likely the weapon. Up until that point it was said that both the curling iron and the knife had been sent to be tested for blood and while the curling iron had come back clean the knife contained two “microscopic spots” that investigators had said “might be blood.”

However immediately when I was conducting my research and saw that Gonzalez had talked about the smooth edges of the gash in April's leg I was taken aback. In my mind I was thinking, “Of course they were smooth.” One of the first things a doctor will do when treating a would is smooth out the jagged areas. Now, I agree that the artery itself would have been first priority and I realize that April died on the operating table but I still immediately believed that the smooth edges had likely come from surgery. It would be more than four years before this revelation would be made.

When it came to Richard Wilson's testimony I discovered something else quite interesting that pointed once again to the fact that the defense was inadequate. The defense had subpoenaed a woman by the name of Ann Oliver but then for whatever reason they chose not to call her to testify. Oliver was described as a Child Protective Services “specialist.” It was said that she had agreed to feed Debbie and John's dogs after their arrest. Apparently she went the day following their arrests and she took April's sister Amy with her. Richard Wilson was also present. According to what Oliver would later say, and presumably was expected to say on the stand at the trial, on the day she was there with Wilson “without provocation” one of the dogs attacked Amy and “after he was called off, he attacked her again.” She claims that she told Wilson that the dogs should be penned up and impressions of teeth and claws made but that was not done. Now, of course for one, her testimony would have given the jury at least the question of whom to believe about the dogs considering her testimony would have been in stark contrast to what Wilson had testified. For two, her testimony would have also showed that as a professional she had asked or at least recommended that impressions be taken from the dogs after what she had witnessed and even she had been obviously discarded. But, then again, the jury never heard her testimony either.

As I stated the defense only called two witnesses. Keep in mind that this was not a normal defense. This was two defendants with two different sets of attorney's. By the sound of things both witnesses that testified likely came from John's defense as one was the person I mentioned earlier that testified about there not being blood on the knife and the other was said to have been John's ex-wife.

I do want to point out one more thing before I get to the verdict in the trial. I must be fair in saying that I am unsure if this was presented as evidence at the trial or if it was discovered later, but there had been a notes made from the doctor at the hospital. I assume that this was an admitting doctor and not likely the surgeon but I cannot say for sure. At any rate the notes mentioned “puncture wounds, ragged bite marks, abrasions, contusions, lacerations and bruises.” Although there were things later that were discovered that were alleged to have not been given to the defense or presented as evidence my research was not specific when it came to these notes by the doctor. But again, regardless of when these notes were discovered it still seemed very clear to me that the “smooth” edges that Gonzalez talked about had occurred during surgery. If it was actually presented to the defense, or as evidence at trial, again it points to inadequate counsel. As I mentioned before I had immediately considered that the smooth edge came from surgery, even before I saw this notation, but this showed that when April entered the hospital there were “ragged bite marks” which in my opinion indicated it was a jagged cut.

At any rate on November 5, 1989 both Debbie Loveless and John Miller were found guilty. They were both sentenced to life in prison. I cannot say for certain about any appeal that may have been made on John's behalf but I found a 1990 appeal made by Debbie's attorney's. They argued there was insufficient evidence to convict, the refusal to separate the trial from John, and prosecutorial misconduct when a mistrial was not called after the prosecution commented to the jury Debbie's failure to testify. I was actually dumbfounded to discover that they did not also argue ineffective counsel. That is almost a staple in all appeals but it would have been one of the few times I would have had to agree. However, the courts did not and they upheld the conviction.

In 1993 a woman named Laura Ardis visited Debbie in prison. Laura was a legal assistant to her husband, Robert who was appointed to represent it seems both Debbie and John after their trial. Laura and Robert Ardis began looking at the case and found something quite interesting. They had found thirty eight pictures that had allegedly never been presented to the defense that had been taken after the accident and some after her death, taken at the autopsy. One particular picture apparently clearly showed bruises on April's back that were in the shape of paw prints. It was also said that there was massive dog hair on her body. Robert Ardis showed these pictures to doctors and animal experts and all agreed that it was clearly a case of a dog mauling. When faced with the accusation that he had not provided those pictures to defense attorney's in 1989 prosecutor, Al Smith disagreed. The couple faced a judge with the new evidence and it gets a little confusing here for me.

The judge admonished Prosecutor Smith and it was said that he “recommended” the couple receive a new trial. The wording several articles at this time seemed a bit confusing. I have never seen a judge “recommend” anything. It is my opinion that more in the lines of what happened is that the judge overturned the convictions and granted them the right to a new trial but that the state appealed that ruling. But, in late 1993 the Texas Court of Appeals agreed with the judge. On December 23, 1993 Debbie Loveless and John Miller were released from prison. On May 2, 1994 the charges against there were officially dismissed.

The couple, who were no longer a couple at that time filed a civil lawsuit in 1995 against prosecutors, Smith and Long and Sheriff Wilson. It was settled in 2001 for an undisclosed amount.

Two people lost four years of their lives, and nearly many more, based on people refusing to believe the truth. Their other children grew up without a parent for that time. It seems that no one in this case …. from the Sheriff, to the medical examiner, to the prosecutors and to the defense did their job adequately. They were so determined to make this tragic accident be a crime that they distorted facts and prosecuted two innocent people.