What actually happened to Adrianna? 

Adrianna's death was determined by first responders, Amanda, and experts to be the result of accidental drowning. We recognize that AJ's recollections were likely impacted by the trauma of losing his sister and influenced by the beliefs of law enforcement and his step-grandfather Chuck Burns, which may have affected the interpretation of events surrounding her death.

How was Chuck Burns involved? 

Chuck Burns played a significant role in the events surrounding Adrianna's death and its aftermath. He was Amanda's stepfather and AJ's step-grandfather. Prior to marrying Amanda's mother, Brenda, Amanda alleges that Chuck sexually assaulted her. When she disclosed this to her mother, Brenda did not believe her, leading to strained relations within the family. Immediately after Adrianna's death, AJ spent an hour alone with Chuck, which could have influenced his subsequent statements. Chuck and Brenda were the ones who took AJ to the sheriff's office to provide a statement 2.5 hours after Adrianna's passing. Within 48 hours of the incident, Chuck began corresponding with the sheriff's office, suggesting a level of involvement and influence in the investigation.

Amanda has expressed concerns that Chuck's preconceived ideas about her prior to Adrianna's death likely influenced AJ's testimony. She believes that AJ's statement may have been a form of retaliation orchestrated by Chuck. This suggests a complex interplay of familial dynamics and potential biases that could have impacted the narrative surrounding Adrianna's death and its investigation.

Who was at the house during the incident?

Amanda, her six-year-old son A.J., her fourteen-year-old stepson Alan Jr., and Adrianna were all at the house during the incident. Amanda, who worked night shifts as a CNA, took a nap into the early afternoon after arriving home, while her children played and Alan Jr. was gaming in his room.

Who testified on Dr. Siebert’s autopsy report? Why is that problematic? 

The testimony on Dr. Siebert's autopsy report during Amanda's trial raises significant concerns due to the lack of direct involvement and expertise from the individuals presenting the findings. Dr. Siebert himself did not attend the trial, leaving his interim replacement, Dr. Andrea Minyard, and administrative assistant, Lesa Ruckman, to testify on his behalf. Ruckman, who lacked medical qualifications, had merely attended the autopsy and was convicted of perjury in a prior case. Dr. Minyard, who did not participate in the autopsy or consult with Dr. Siebert, provided testimony without direct knowledge of the examination process. This absence of an authoritative voice from the original examiner raises doubts about the reliability and accuracy of the autopsy report's interpretation presented in court.

Furthermore, our inquiry in February 2024 revealed additional doubts about Dr. Siebert's autopsy report. Dr. Minyard disclosed concerns about its viability and indicated reservations about going on record with these doubts, citing potential repercussions for questioning the state attorney's stance. This reluctance to openly discuss misgivings highlights potential pressures within the legal and medical systems, suggesting that critical perspectives on forensic evidence may be suppressed or undermined in pursuit of prosecutorial objectives. Such revelations underscore the need for comprehensive and impartial evaluations of forensic evidence to ensure justice and accuracy in legal proceedings.

Has Amanda’s story ever changed? 

Amanda's account of the events surrounding Adrianna's death has remained consistent and unchanged over time. During initial interviews, Amanda was unaware of AJ's allegations, yet her testimony remained steadfast and consistent throughout subsequent questioning. Notably, Amanda underwent a formal interview with a polygraph test, which she unequivocally passed, further affirming her account's credibility. Despite the passage of years since the incident, Amanda's narrative has remained unchanged and consistent in its details.

Moreover, Amanda's steadfastness in maintaining her innocence is evidenced by her refusal of a plea deal that would have secured her release in 2018. This decision underscores her unwavering belief in the truthfulness of her account and her commitment to proving her innocence rather than accepting a compromise that would suggest otherwise. Amanda's consistent story over the years serves as a compelling testament to her unwavering stance and the integrity of her narrative regarding the events leading to Adrianna's tragic death.

Why did Amanda have a six-person jury? 

Amanda's defense counsel opted for a six-person jury to avoid the possibility of facing the death penalty, as smaller juries are typically used for non-capital cases. However, this decision also meant that Amanda would lose the support of the six-person state-appointed legal team typically assigned to death penalty cases. This trade-off was a strategic choice to mitigate the severity of potential sentencing outcomes but came with the consequence of reduced legal resources and support for Amanda's defense during the trial.

What were some issues with the jury? 

The use of a six-person jury in Amanda's trial raised significant concerns regarding the effectiveness and fairness of the jury deliberation process. Smaller juries are known to exhibit less effective group deliberation, leading to a higher likelihood of error due to jurors' reluctance to contribute and the increased risk of biases going unchallenged. This can result in less accurate and more variable verdicts, raising the risk of convicting innocent individuals in criminal cases. Additionally, smaller juries may lack diversity and representation of minority viewpoints, further compromising the fairness and integrity of the trial process.

In Amanda's case, the selection of jurors from a small town of 350 people where the incident occurred and had received local news coverage posed a significant challenge. The potential for preconceived opinions among the jurors due to prior exposure to the case could have impacted the trial's fairness. Moreover, the loss of two jurors during the three-day trial, which Defense Attorney Walter Smith noted as unprecedented, created additional challenges for the defense. Replacing these jurors was particularly difficult given the limited number of juror objections available to the defense, potentially affecting the balance and diversity of perspectives within the jury.

Overall, the issues with the jury selection and composition in Amanda's trial highlighted the risks associated with smaller juries, especially in cases involving complex and emotionally charged circumstances. The challenges faced, including potential juror biases and the unforeseen loss of jurors during the trial, underscored the importance of ensuring fair and impartial jury selection and deliberation processes to uphold the principles of justice and fairness in legal proceedings.

What was wrong is AJ’s initial interview with the police?

​​AJ's initial interview with the police was marred by several critical issues that compromised its reliability and validity. Firstly, the interview was conducted without the presence of child protective services, which is essential for ensuring a neutral and child-centered environment during such sensitive discussions. Furthermore, the presence of AJ's grandmother, Brenda, and step-grandfather, Chuck, in addition to two police officers, likely exerted undue influence on AJ to please the adults in the room, potentially shaping his responses. Chuck's preexisting negative views or suspicions about Amanda could have further pressured AJ into providing statements that aligned with those perceptions.

Moreover, the interview process was characterized by leading questions that may have shaped AJ's narrative. The fabrication of a story involving an incident with Windex on the television, allegedly motivating Amanda to harm Adrianna, appears to be entirely concocted under the guidance of suggestive questioning. Expert evaluation and testimony support the belief that this narrative was shaped to fit a predetermined motive sought by the interviewers. Testimony from Amanda, Alan Carnley, and physical evidence refutes the validity of this supposed motive, as the Windex incident occurred days prior to Adrianna's death.

Child interviewing expert Dr. Kamala London's insights highlight the challenges children face in recalling events accurately, particularly when multiple days' incidents can blend together under the weight of trauma. AJ's conflicting testimonies about his whereabouts at the time of Adrianna's death, ranging from being by the pool with her to being in various other locations, are indicative of this confusion and should be expected in a young witness under such circumstances. These inconsistencies underscore the need for careful and unbiased interview techniques when dealing with child witnesses to ensure the accuracy and reliability of their statements.

What was the relationship between Prosecutor Larry Basford and AJ? 

The relationship between Prosecutor Larry Basford and AJ was characterized by multiple meetings and interactions prior to the trial. Basford met with AJ on several occasions before the trial, including a visit to Adrianna's grave to encourage AJ to discuss the incident. Although Amanda and her defense attorney, Walter Smith, were aware of these meetings, the full nature and extent of the interactions were not disclosed to them. In February 2024, Prosecutor Basford revealed that he encountered AJ again at a local restaurant during AJ's high school years and maintained a friendly relationship with AJ and his adoptive family. This ongoing relationship raises questions about the nature of influence and familiarity between the prosecutor and a key witness in the case.

Did Adrianna have any medical conditions? 

Yes, Adrianna had medical conditions. She was diagnosed with neurodevelopmental disorders, autism, and ADHD. Amanda recalls the difficulty of leaving Adrianna for overnight medical evaluations, but it was required for better treatment plans. To manage her ADHD, she was prescribed Focalin. Amanda communicated frequently with Adrianna’s teachers to help manage and support her autism and ADHD.   

What happened to Amanda’s first son David?  

Amanda's first son, David, tragically passed away at 16 months old due to hypoxia resulting from a seizure disorder, as determined by the autopsy. Prior to David's death, Amanda had sought medical attention for him multiple times due to concerns about his health, but her concerns were unfortunately dismissed by medical professionals. The circumstances surrounding David's death were deeply distressing for Amanda, compounded by the emotional impact of losing a child and the lack of validation for her concerns before the tragic event. The knowledge of David's death became known to many potential jurors during Amanda's trial, particularly in the small-town setting where the trial took place. This information likely influenced perceptions and judgments, potentially leading some jurors to draw unjustified connections or biases in their assessment of Amanda's guilt. 

Where is AJ now? 

AJ, now 23 years old, resides in Graceville, Florida, just 10 miles west of Esto where the tragic incident involving his sister occurred. He works as a firefighter, a career path he was inspired to pursue after witnessing his sister's death and the efforts to revive her. AJ is also engaged and remains committed to supporting efforts to uncover the truth surrounding his sister's death. Despite his belief in his mother's guilt, AJ maintains a stance of openness and support for investigations aimed at seeking justice and understanding the circumstances of Adrianna's passing.

Where is Amanda now? 

Amanda is currently serving a life sentence without parole at Lowell Correctional Facility, having spent 16 years incarcerated. She lacks legal representation and has exhausted her appeals, filing several on her own and one with attorney Phil Patterson, who has since retired. Grounds for appeal included claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, such as failure to seek a change of venue, challenge the sufficiency of evidence, present expert testimony on child testimony reliability, and investigate mitigating factors. Amanda's situation is further complicated by the lack of ongoing legal representation and pending appeals.

The opportunity for another appeal is sought, particularly exploring the reliability of the autopsy report, considering the circumstances surrounding medical examiner Charles Siebert's involvement. Siebert had a history of misconduct and was dismissed immediately after Amanda's case. Although his administrative assistant and an interim medical examiner testified on his report, Siebert himself was never cross-examined. Finding legal representation is crucial for Amanda, especially given these potential avenues for challenging the validity of key forensic evidence.

Despite her circumstances, Amanda maintains her innocence and continues to hold hope for exoneration and freedom. She remains devoted to her children and harbors no ill feelings towards AJ, recognizing the difficult position he was placed in by law enforcement and other adults involved in the case. Amanda's unwavering belief in her innocence underscores the urgency and importance of finding legal assistance to navigate her complex legal situation and pursue avenues for potential relief.