Forensic Files - Season 6, Episode 4 - Hand Delivered - Full Episode | Forensic Files

IN 1989, A 4-YEAR-OLD GIRL WAS RUSHED TO A TEXAS HOSPITAL. AN ARTERY IN HER LEG WAS COMPLETELY SEVERED.
THE LITTLE GIRL DIED SHORTLY AFTER ARRIVAL. MEDICAL INVESTIGATORS BELIEVED THE LEG WOUND WAS NO ACCIDENT.
EMORY, TEXAS, IS A SMALL FARMING COMMUNITY ABOUT 90 MILES EAST OF DALLAS. WITH A POPULATION OF LESS THAN A THOUSAND,
LIFE IS SIMPLE HERE... PEACEFUL AND QUIET. IN 1988, DEBBIE LOVELESS AND HER TWO DAUGHTERS FROM A PREVIOUS MARRIAGE, AMY AND APRIL,
MOVED IN WITH JOHN MILLER. HE, TOO, WAS DIVORCED, AND WORKED IN THE CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY.
Loveless: MY MARRIAGE WITH JOHN WAS GOOD. HE WAS A VERY GOOD MAN. TOOK CARE OF ME AND THE KIDS REAL WELL,
AND WE HAD A HAPPY HOME LIFE. WE HAD A LOT OF FUN TOGETHER. THE CHILDREN--WE DID A LOT OF THINGS WITH THE CHILDREN.
WE DIDN'T LEAVE THEM HOME WHEN WE WENT SOMEWHERES. WE TOOK THEM WITH US, AND HAD A FAMILY,
A VERY CLOSE-KNIT FAMILY, REALLY. Narrator: JOHN, DEBBIE, AND THE TWO GIRLS MOVED ONTO A 5-ACRE FARM
JUST A FEW MILES OUTSIDE OF TOWN. IT WAS COMPLETE WITH A HOUSE, BARN, HORSES, AND FAMILY PETS.
AND FOR THE CHILDREN, FREEDOM TO ROAM AND PLAY AMONG THE BEAUTIES OF NATURE. 4-YEAR-OLD APRIL LOVED LIVING ON A FARM.
Loveless: SHE LOVED TO PLAY OUTSIDE, SHE LOVED, YOU KNOW, BEING OUTSIDE, AND SHE LIKED TO CLIMB TREES A LOT.
SO I HAD A TIME KEEPING HER OUT OF TREES. SHE WAS JUST BUBBLY. I MEAN, SHE WAS JUST FULL OF LIFE.
SHE JUST GOT INTO EVERYTHING. SHE WAS ALWAYS RUNNING. I DON'T THINK SHE KNEW HOW TO WALK.
SHE JUST RAN EVERYWHERES, JUST A BUNDLE OF FUN. Narrator: JUST AFTER CHRISTMAS, ON JANUARY 4, 1989,
THE COUPLE'S OLDER DAUGHTER, AMY, HEADED FOR SCHOOL. APRIL WENT OUTSIDE TO PLAY.
DEBBIE DID HER CHORES. JOHN WAS WORKING ON AN OLD BUILDING ON THE CORNER OF THE PROPERTY.
AROUND NOON, DEBBIE CALLED FOR APRIL TO COME HOME FOR LUNCH. BUT THERE WAS NO RESPONSE.
THEN JOHN CAME RUNNING TOWARDS THE HOUSE, CARRYING APRIL, WHO WAS BLEEDING PROFUSELY FROM A SEVERE LEG WOUND.
Loveless: SHE DIDN'T HAVE ANY CLOTHES ON, AND I COULDN'T DO ANYTHING BUT SCREAM.
I WAS HYSTERICAL. I MEAN, I WAS JUST... BECAUSE SHE WAS JUST BLACK AND BLUE ALL OVER,
AND I COULD SEE IT AT A DISTANCE, YOU KNOW, AND IT WAS JUST... IT WAS HORRIBLE. [SIREN]
Miller: HER RIGHT LEG FELL OPEN, AND THERE WAS A LARGE GASH IN IT ALL THE WAY TO THE BONE.
I KNEW THAT THIS WAS A SERIOUS, VERY SERIOUS WOUND. WHEN SHE HAD ALREADY BLED OUT, SHE HAS A VERY SMALL AMOUNT OF TIME
IN WHICH TO GET HELP AND SURVIVE. Narrator: EVEN THOUGH JOHN WAS A TRAINED PARAMEDIC,
THERE WAS LITTLE HE COULD DO. APRIL HAD LOST TOO MUCH BLOOD. THE 4 BY 6 INCH GASH IN APRIL'S LEG
HAD TORN AWAY A LARGE PORTION OF HER FEMORAL ARTERY. Loveless: IT WAS JUST... IT WAS LIKE THAT WHOLE SECTION OF HER LEG WAS JUST GONE.
IT WAS JUST LIKE IT HAD BEEN RIPPED OUT. Narrator: DOCTORS DID EVERYTHING THEY COULD TO SAVE APRIL'S LIFE.
BUT THE DAMAGE WAS JUST TOO GREAT. AND IT WAS JUST... SHE HAD WENT THROUGH TOO MUCH, AND SHE WENT INTO A SECOND SHOCK.
AND... SHE JUST COULDN'T MAKE IT. Narrator: 4-YEAR-OLD APRIL DIED ON THE OPERATING ROOM TABLE.
JOHN TOLD POLICE THAT HE FOUND HIS STEPDAUGHTER NUDE, UNDER A TREE, AND BLEEDING PROFUSELY FROM A LEG WOUND.
ACCORDING TO JOHN, APRIL SAID, "THE DOGS DID IT." THE SHERIFF ORDERED AN AUTOPSY.
THE SUSPICION WAS MURDER. Narrator: JOHN MILLER SAID HIS DAUGHTER APRIL, BEFORE HER DEATH,
TOLD HIM THAT THE DOG CAUSED HER FATAL LEG WOUND. THE LOCAL SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT SUSPECTED FOUL PLAY.
JOURNALIST DAVID HANNERS COVERED THIS STORY FOR THE DALLAS MORNING NEWS. Hanners: THEY HAD A DEAD CHILD ON THEIR HANDS,
SO THEY NEEDED TO INVESTIGATE IT, AND I THINK THEIR IMMEDIATE THINKING WAS SOMEONE KILLED HER.
Narrator: DURING THE AUTOPSY, THE PATHOLOGIST NOTICED LONG VERTICAL MARKS AND PUNCTURE WOUNDS ALL OVER APRIL'S BODY,
WHICH HE BELIEVED WERE INDICATIVE OF SOME FORM OF ABUSE. AND HE SAW NO INDICATION THAT APRIL'S LEG WOUND
WAS CAUSED BY A DOG, SINCE THE WOUND DID NOT HAVE THE JAGGED EDGES OFTEN SEEN IN ANIMAL BITES.
THE WOUND WAS CLEANLY CUT, AND THE PATHOLOGIST CONCLUDED IT HAD BEEN MADE BY A KNIFE.
HIS FINDING WAS THAT APRIL HAD BEEN MURDERED. AS JOHN AND DEBBIE RETURNED FROM APRIL'S FUNERAL SERVICE,
THEY FACED A FULL-SCALE INVESTIGATION. Loveless: THE POLICE WERE EVERYWHERE. I DON'T--I DON'T KNOW EXACTLY HOW MANY,
BUT THERE WAS PEOPLE EVERYWHERE, WALKING EVERYWHERE, AND GOING THROUGH THE HOUSE, AND WALKING EVERYWHERE OUTSIDE.
I SAID, YOU KNOW, "WHAT'S GOING ON? WHAT ARE YOU DOING?" AND THEY TOLD ME THEN THAT IT WAS AN INVESTIGATION,
YOU KNOW, INTO THE DEATH OF APRIL. Loveless: THEY FELT LIKE DOGS COULDN'T HAVE DONE THAT TO HER.
IT WAS VERY SCARY. I COULDN'T FIGURE IT, I COULDN'T UNDERSTAND HOW SOMEBODY COULD HAVE COME AND DONE THAT.
Narrator: POLICE FOUND APRIL'S BLOOD ON A FENCE POST AND SOME LEAVES, BUT FOUND NO OTHER OUTWARD SIGNS OF ANY DOG ATTACK.
THERE WERE 3 DOGS ON THE PROPERTY. TWO BELONGED TO THE FAMILY; THE THIRD BELONGED TO A NEIGHBOR.
NONE OF THE DOGS HAD SHOWN ANY HINT OF VIOLENCE BEFORE. IN THE COUPLE'S HOME, INVESTIGATORS FOUND PARAPHERNALIA
ALLEGEDLY LINKING THE COUPLE TO THE OCCULT. Miller: THEY THOUGHT MAYBE THE CUTTING OF APRIL'S LEG
WAS A BLOODLETTING CEREMONY FOR A CULT, AND THAT THAT'S WHY SHE DIED, OR THAT'S WHY THIS WAS DONE.
AND THAT WAS ONE THEORY THAT THEY INVESTIGATED HEAVILY. Narrator: POLICE ALSO COLLECTED AN ELECTRIC CURLING IRON,
THUMBTACKS, AND PUSHPINS, ITEMS SUSPECTED OF CAUSING THE SCRATCH MARKS AND PUNCTURE WOUNDS ON APRIL'S BODY.
NEXT, THEY ASKED THE COUPLE REPEATEDLY FOR THE KNIFE. WE WERE GRILLED FOR HOURS ABOUT THE KNIFE THAT SUPPOSEDLY HAD MADE THE CUT ON HER LEG.
DID I HAVE THE KNIFE? WHERE WAS IT? Narrator: JOHN'S HUNTING KNIFE WAS CONFISCATED,
AND ALL OF THE ITEMS WERE SENT TO THE CRIME LAB FOR ANALYSIS. A PRESUMPTIVE TEST SHOWED POSSIBLE SIGNS OF BLOOD ON THE KNIFE,
AND WITH THAT FINDING, JOHN MILLER AND DEBBIE LOVELESS WERE CHARGED WITH MURDER.
Hanners: THE VISIONS THAT IT EVOKED ARE JUST HORRENDOUS: OF THEM HOLDING THIS LITTLE GIRL DOWN,
GASHING HER LEG WITH THIS KNIFE, CUTTING OUT A LARGE CHUNK OF SKIN AND ARTERY WITH THIS KNIFE,
AND THEN WHACKING HER REPEATEDLY WITH THIS CURLING IRON, AND THEN STICKING LITTLE PUSHPINS IN HER.
Narrator: JOHN AND DEBBIE WERE BOTH GIVEN LIE DETECTOR TESTS. DEBBIE PASSED, BUT JOHN DID NOT.
Miller: THE STATE POLICE AND LOCAL POLICE HELD THE POLYGRAPH AGAINST US, SAYING, "WELL, YOU FLUNKED IT, SO YOU MUST HAVE DONE IT."
HE HAD FAILED IT, AND I COULDN'T UNDERSTAND. I'D NEVER SEEN ANY KIND OF VIOLENCE,
ANY KIND OF ANYTHING OUT OF JOHN, AND THESE POLICE OFFICERS WERE TELLING ME THAT HE DID THIS.
I COULDN'T UNDERSTAND IT. IT MADE NO SENSE TO ME. SO THEN I DID QUESTION, YOU KNOW,
AND TRIED TO FIGURE OUT WHY. Narrator: AT THE TRIAL, JOHN AND DEBBIE WERE REPRESENTED BY COURT-APPOINTED ATTORNEYS.
ONE OF THE LAWYERS DID NOT WANT TO USE THE DOG-ATTACK STORY AS A DEFENSE. Miller: THE OTHER LAWYER CAME IN AND SAID, "LOOK, WE CAN'T PURSUE THE DOG ATTACK."
HE SAID, "THE D.A. THREATENED US THAT HE COULD JUST BLOW US OUT OF THE WATER, "THERE'S NOTHING THERE TO SHOW DOG ATTACK,
SO BASICALLY, I HAVE NOTHING TO FIGHT WITH." Narrator: PROSECUTORS PORTRAYED JOHN AS THE ENRAGED STEPFATHER
WHO GOT ANGRY WITH APRIL, LOST HIS TEMPER, AND ABUSED AND MURDERED HER. DEBBIE WAS PORTRAYED AS A BATTERED WIFE,
TOO AFRAID OF HER HUSBAND TO DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT. SUBMITTED INTO EVIDENCE WAS THE AUTOPSY REPORT
THAT APRIL HAD BEEN MURDERED, AND THE ITEMS FROM THE COUPLE'S HOME WHICH WERE SUSPECTED OF CAUSING THE WOUNDS.
Hanners: IF YOU'RE SITTING THERE LISTENING TO THEM LAY OUT THIS THEORY OF HOW THEY THINK THIS CRIME OCCURRED,
I MEAN, IT'S A HORRENDOUS CASE. IT'S HORRIBLE TO THINK OF THEM, YOU KNOW, HOLDING THIS LITTLE GIRL DOWN AND DOING THIS STUFF TO HER.
Narrator: JOHN'S COURT-APPOINTED ATTORNEY, PAUL CHITWOOD, ASKED THE JUDGE FOR MORE TIME TO INTERVIEW PROSECUTION WITNESSES,
AND HE ALSO REQUESTED FUNDS TO HIRE HIS OWN FORENSIC EXPERT. BOTH REQUESTS WERE DENIED.
A DEFENSE CHEMIST TESTIFIED THAT THE ORIGINAL TEST ON JOHN'S HUNTING KNIFE, WHICH FOUND BLOOD, WAS PRESUMPTIVE.
FURTHER TESTING ON THE KNIFE SHOWED IT WASN'T HUMAN BLOOD. AND NO BLOOD WAS FOUND ON THE CURLING IRON, THE PUSHPINS, OR THUMBTACKS.
THE POSSIBILITY OF A DOG ATTACK WAS NEVER PRESENTED TO THE JURY. Hanners: IN FINAL ARGUMENTS, ONE OF THE DEFENSE LAWYERS
ADMITS IT WAS MURDER, ADMITS THAT APRIL WAS MURDERED BY SOMEONE, SAYS, YOU KNOW, "SHE WAS MURDERED.
I DON'T KNOW WHO DID IT, BUT THE STATE HASN'T PROVED MY CLIENT IS THE ONE WHO DID IT."
Narrator: THE JURY FOUND BOTH JOHN AND DEBBIE GUILTY OF MURDER AND SENTENCED THEM TO LIFE IN PRISON.
Miller: THE FIRST TIME THAT STEEL DOOR CLANGED BEHIND ME-- THERE IS NO SOUND THAT YOU'VE EVER HEARD THAT SOUNDS LIKE THAT.
IT HAS A DISTINCT SOUND THAT WILL JUST MAKE YOUR HAIR STAND ON END, AND YOU KNOW THAT'S NOT GONNA OPEN AGAIN.
Loveless: I COULDN'T CLOSE MY EYES AND SEE ANYTHING, EXCEPT FOR... THE WAY SHE WAS WHEN WE FOUND HER, AND THE WAY SHE LOOKED WHEN SHE DIED.
I DIDN'T SLEEP FOR A LONG TIME. I THOUGHT I WAS GONNA BE THERE FOR THE REST OF MY LIFE.
Miller: I HAD STARTED FIGHTING THE DAY I GOT IN. I HAD ALREADY WRITTEN TO CENTURION MINISTRIES,
I'D WRITTEN TO THE GOVERNOR, I'D WRITTEN TO THE LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR, I'D WRITTEN TO CONGRESSMEN.
YOU KNOW, I SPENT MORE MONEY ON STAMPS... I PROBABLY COULD'VE HAD A PRETTY GOOD MEAL ON IT.
WHEN YOU'RE PUT IN THAT POSITION, AND YOU'RE CONVICTED OF SOMETHING THAT YOU DIDN'T DO,
YOU JUST...I JUST LOST ALL HOPE OF ANYTHING GOOD EVER COMING FROM IT, YOU KNOW, FOR IT EVER TO BE TURNED AROUND.
I KNEW I WAS INNOCENT. I KNEW DEBBIE WAS INNOCENT. AND I WAS NOT GOING TO STOP FIGHTING UNTIL I GOT SOMEBODY
TO PROVE WE WERE INNOCENT. Narrator: AS THE YEARS PASSED IN PRISON, DEBBIE LOVELESS AND JOHN MILLER'S FIRST CONCERN
WAS FOR THEIR OLDER DAUGHTER, AMY, WHO WAS LIVING IN FOSTER CARE. THE OTHER CONCERN WAS FINDING A WAY TO PROVE THEIR INNOCENCE.
Loveless: YOU KNOW, I NEVER KNEW INNOCENT PEOPLE WENT TO PRISON. OR WERE CONVICTED FOR SOMETHING THEY DIDN'T DO.
AND I JUST--I GUESS I WAS NAIVE AND STUPID THINKING THAT IT DIDN'T HAPPEN. AND THEN WHEN IT DID, I WAS JUST--I COULDN'T BELIEVE IT,
BECAUSE I WAS INNOCENT, AND THEY WERE SAYING I WAS GUILTY. Narrator: JOHN AND DEBBIE MAINTAINED THAT APRIL WAS PLAYING OUTSIDE
AND WAS UNCLOTHED BECAUSE IT WAS A WARM DAY. THEY BELIEVE THAT ONE OF THE DOGS ATTACKED APRIL WHILE SHE WAS PLAYING.
[SCREAMS] AT LUNCHTIME, WHEN THEY WERE LOOKING FOR APRIL, THEY SAW THE DOGS WERE AGITATED.
WHEN JOHN FOLLOWED THEM INTO THE WOODS, HE FOUND APRIL BLEEDING PROFUSELY FROM A LEG WOUND.
JOHN SAID APRIL TOLD HIM THAT "THE DOGS DID IT" BEFORE SHE LAPSED INTO UNCONSCIOUSNESS.
BUT THE PATHOLOGIST WHO PERFORMED THE AUTOPSY RULED THE DEATH A HOMICIDE. ATTORNEY ROBERT ARDIS WAS ASSIGNED
TO HANDLE THE COUPLE'S APPEAL. Hanners: ROBERT ARDIS IS ONE OF THOSE ATTORNEYS THAT RENEWS YOUR FAITH IN THE LEGAL PROFESSION.
HE HAS A GOOD HEART. HE WON'T STOP DIGGING UNTIL HE... GETS WHERE HE THINKS HE OUGHT TO BE.
Narrator: WHILE IN THE COURTHOUSE, SIFTING THROUGH THE EVIDENCE, ARDIS FOUND A BOX CONTAINING HUNDREDS OF PHOTOGRAPHS OF APRIL'S WOUNDS.
MOST WERE AUTOPSY PHOTOS WHICH HAD BEEN SHOWN TO THE JURY AT THE TRIAL. BUT HE ALSO FOUND ANOTHER SET OF PHOTOS
TAKEN JUST AFTER APRIL ENTERED THE EMERGENCY ROOM. THESE WERE PHOTOS THAT HAD NOT BEEN SHOWN TO THE JURY,
AND IT WASN'T CLEAR WHETHER JOHN AND DEBBIE'S ORIGINAL DEFENSE LAWYERS HAD EVEN SEEN THEM.
WHEN ARDIS COMPARED THE TWO SETS OF PICTURES, HE MADE A STARTLING DISCOVERY: THE PICTURES OF APRIL'S LEG WOUND WERE DIFFERENT.
THE PICTURES LOOKED LIKE THE DOG HAD BEEN INVOLVED IN THIS DEATH. Narrator: ARDIS SENT THE PHOTOS TO A FORENSIC PATHOLOGIST
AT THE SOUTHWESTERN INSTITUTE OF FORENSIC SCIENCE IN DALLAS. AFTER STUDYING THE PHOTOS,
HE SAID THAT THIS CHILD HAD BEEN ATTACKED BY A DOG. Ardis: HE SAID, "I CAN TELL YOU, YEAH,
IT WAS SOMETHING WITH CANINE TEETH." WHAT WE WERE ABLE TO SHOW-- HOW A DOG'S TEETH
WOULD JUST OVERLAY EXACTLY ON THE PUNCTURE WOUNDS AROUND WHERE THE PLACE HAD BEEN TAKEN OUT OF HER LEG.
Narrator: DR. DENNIS ASEN IS A FORENSIC ODONTOLOGIST AND AGREES THAT ANIMAL BITES ARE OFTEN DIFFICULT TO IDENTIFY.
HE SAYS THAT MANY ANIMAL BITES DON'T LOOK LIKE BITE WOUNDS AT ALL, BECAUSE ANIMALS OFTEN TEAR THE FLESH, RATHER THAN BITING IT.
Asen: WHEN YOU HAVE AN INJURY PATTERN TO DETERMINE WHETHER IT'S A BITE MARK OR NOT,
YOU NEED TO LOOK AT THE ENTIRE SITUATION TO SEE WHAT OTHER CLUES AND EVIDENCE THERE MIGHT BE.
IS THIS TRULY A BITE MARK OR NOT? Narrator: BUT IF DOGS HAD CAUSED APRIL'S LEG WOUND,
WHY DIDN'T THE ORIGINAL PATHOLOGIST SEE THIS? THE ANSWER WAS OBVIOUS. THE WOUND LOOKED DIFFERENT AT THE AUTOPSY BECAUSE
IT HAD BEEN CLEANED AND TRIMMED WITH A SCALPEL WHILE THE SURGEON ATTEMPTED TO REPAIR THE WOUND
AND SAVE APRIL'S LIFE. Ardis: WHEN YOU GO INTO SURGERY, THE WOUND IN THIS PARTICULAR INSTANCE
WAS VERY JAGGED, VERY UNEVEN, AND THE SURGEON, USING THE SCALPEL, WILL GO IN AND CLEAN THE WOUND UP,
AND THEY WILL PEEL BACK, AND GET BACK INTO FRESH TISSUE THERE. Narrator: AND THE NEW TEAM OF PATHOLOGISTS NOTED
THAT MANY OF THE SCRATCH MARKS ON APRIL'S BACK CONSISTED OF 4 PARALLEL LINES-- LINES CORRESPONDING WITH THE 4 NAILS OF A DOG'S FOREFEET.
Ardis: HERE WAS A PAW PRINT. HERE WAS ANOTHER PAW PRINT. AND I'M TOLD THAT AS LONG AS THE PERSON IS ALIVE,
THOSE PARTICULAR BRUISES THAT HAD THE PRINT OF A PAW THERE WOULD NOT SHOW UP. BUT WHEN SHE WAS ON HER BACK IN THE OPERATING ROOM
AND DIED ON THE OPERATING TABLE, THEN THE BLOOD PUDDLED IN THOSE PLACES AND IT MADE IT VERY APPARENT WHEN YOU LOOKED AT THEM
THAT HERE WAS A PAW PRINT. Narrator: THERE WAS NOW HOPE FOR A NEW TRIAL. Narrator: AFTER SPENDING 5 YEARS IN PRISON
FOR THE MURDER OF THEIR DAUGHTER APRIL, JOHN MILLER AND DEBBIE LOVELESS FINALLY HAD FORENSIC EVIDENCE
TO CORROBORATE THEIR STORY: THAT ONE OF THE DOGS ON THEIR PROPERTY HAD ATTACKED AND KILLED APRIL.
THEIR NEW ATTORNEY, ROBERT ARDIS, ALSO UNCOVERED A WRITTEN DEPOSITION FROM A WOMAN
WHO HAD WITNESSED THE DOGS ON JOHN AND DEBBIE'S FARM ATTACK 3 DIFFERENT PEOPLE ON 3 SEPARATE OCCASIONS.
SHE POINTED THIS OUT TO THE SHERIFF, SO THE SHERIFF SAID, "OH, THEY WERE JUST PLAYING."
Narrator: BUT THE WOMAN WASN'T CALLED TO TESTIFY AT THE ORIGINAL TRIAL. ARMED WITH THIS NEW EVIDENCE, ARDIS REQUESTED A NEW TRIAL.
HIS ARGUMENT: THAT JOHN MILLER AND DEBBIE LOVELESS DID NOT HAVE ADEQUATE COUNSEL
AT THEIR ORIGINAL TRIAL. IRONICALLY, JOHN MILLER'S ORIGINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY, PAUL CHITWOOD, AGREED.
WELL, HE WAS PISSED OFF. NOBODY LIKES TO BE TOLD THAT THEY DID A BAD JOB, OFFICIALLY,
AND INEFFECTIVENESS OF COUNSEL BASICALLY SAYS THAT. Narrator: ALTHOUGH PAUL CHITWOOD IS NOW DECEASED,
HE TESTIFIED ON BEHALF OF JOHN AND DEBBIE AT A PRETRAIL HEARING, REMINDING THE COURT HE REQUESTED AND WAS DENIED ACCESS
TO THE PROSECUTION WITNESSES BEFORE THE TRIAL, AND WAS DENIED FUNDS TO HIRE AN INDEPENDENT FORENSIC EXPERT
TO ANALYZE THE EVIDENCE. Chitwood: HE HAD ALWAYS FELT THAT THEY WERE NOT GUILTY OF THE CRIME THEY WERE CHARGED WITH.
Narrator: THE PROSECUTOR'S OFFICE WOULD NOT COMMENT ON THE ALLEGATION THAT SOME OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS IN THIS CASE MIGHT HAVE BEEN WITHHELD
FROM THE ORIGINAL DEFENSE TEAM. IN 1993, A JUDGE DISMISSED THE CASE AGAINST JOHN MILLER AND DEBBIE LOVELESS,
CITING OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE IN THE COUPLE'S FAVOR. AFTER 5 LONG YEARS, THEY WERE FINALLY RELEASED FROM PRISON.
Hanners: IT WAS A VERY POOR INVESTIGATION BY LAW ENFORCEMENT. THEY DIDN'T BUY THE DOG ATTACK THEORY,
THEY DIDN'T LOOK INTO IT. I COULDN'T BELIEVE IT. I JUST-- IT WAS JUST--IT WAS SCARY,
BECAUSE I HAD BEEN IN THIS PLACE FOR ALMOST 5 YEARS, YOU KNOW, AND...I JUST-- I CAN'T EVEN EXPLAIN IT.
I DON'T THINK THERE'S WORDS. HAPPINESS THAT I WAS GOING HOME, AND I WAS GOING TO SEE AMY.
Narrator: THE STRESS AND STRAINS OF INCARCERATION TOOK ITS TOLL. AFTER THEY WERE RELEASED FROM PRISON, DEBBIE AND JOHN SEPARATED.
Miller: I LOST 5 YEARS WITH MY SON, AND WITH AMY, AND WITH DEBBIE. YOU KNOW, THEY WERE GONE.
DEBBIE WAS GONE. SHE'D FOUND SOMEBODY ELSE, YOU KNOW, BECAUSE OF TRYING TO GET HELP,
AND SHE WAS GONE. SO, YES, I WAS WALKING OUT OF PRISON, BUT MY LIFE HAD BASICALLY BEEN DESTROYED ALREADY.
Hanners: A BAD INVESTIGATION AIDED BY BAD SCIENCE REALLY WAS KIND OF FRIGHTENING TO ME.
THIS COULD HAVE HAPPENED TO, YOU KNOW, ANY OF US. JUST THE INJUSTICE OF EVERYTHING THAT WAS DONE.
YOU KNOW, HOW THEY CRUCIFIED US FOR SOMETHING THAT WE DIDN'T DO. AND, UH... I JUST...
AND I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY THEY DID IT.

In 1995, police in San Diego, CA, are baffled by a pair of hands found in a dumpster. Through further investigation, they determine that the hands are those of missing person Don Hardin.

Forensic Files is the longest-running true crime series in television history. Evidence and interviews with experts help solve real crimes, disease outbreaks and accidents around the world.

Brief Summary

The episode recounts the wrongful conviction of John Miller and Debbie Loveless for the murder of April, their daughter, later revealed to be caused by a dog attack.

Key points

The Tragic Death of April. A 4-year-old girl dies after a severe leg wound, leading to a murder investigation.
The Investigation Begins. Medical investigators suspect foul play after April's death, raising questions about her injury.
New Evidence Emerges. After years in prison, new forensic evidence suggests a dog attack caused April's death.

Episode highlights

Episode quotes

I was just... because she was just black and blue all over.

Debbie Loveless describes the moment she saw her daughter April after the injury.

3:09WatchNov 18, 2021

Tension

85/ 100High tension

More from Forensic Files

Solve the Crime

Read a real case one clue at a time, then see how your call held up against the investigators.