Frequently Asked Questions

What actually happened?

  • 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.

  • Adrianna's death was not initially ruled a homicide. The initial police report, testimony from first responders, and trial testimony from those who were first on the scene all concluded that Adrianna's death was likely due to accidental drowning. Factors such as Amanda's distress during the emergency call, the absence of wet clothing on Amanda, the absence of signs of resistance, and the lack of reports from nearby individuals all contributed to this determination of accidental drowning.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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's then-boyfriend, Alan Carnley, provided critical insights into the incident surrounding Adrianna's death. Alan was interviewed shortly after AJ disclosed information about the incident. During the event, Alan was on the phone with Amanda when AJ informed her that Adrianna was in the pool, and he remained connected as Amanda found Adrianna and initiated resuscitation efforts. The police have a record of this phone call, which underscores Alan's firsthand account of the immediate aftermath of Adrianna's discovery in the pool. Throughout the trial and subsequent interviews, Alan consistently asserted Amanda's innocence, emphasizing that while Amanda disciplined the children at times, she would never intentionally harm them. His unwavering support and firsthand witness account provide compelling testimony regarding Amanda's actions and demeanor during the critical moments surrounding Adrianna's tragic death.

Medical

  • 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.   

  • 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. 

  • The autopsy report indicated vaginal abrasions on Adrianna, which some interpreted as signs of sexual assault. However, interviews and medical records established that these abrasions were caused by a catheter inserted upon Adrianna's arrival at Bay Medical Hospital in Panama City, FL. Medical personnel confirmed this information, clarifying that the abrasions were not indicative of sexual assault but rather a procedural result during medical care. This evidence dispels misconceptions about the nature of the abrasions documented in the autopsy report.

The Trial

  • Brenda likely testified against Amanda due to the influence and beliefs of her husband Chuck, who had a strained relationship with Amanda. Chuck's prior sexual assault on Amanda may have shaped Brenda's perspective during the trial. However, since the trial concluded, Brenda has had a change of heart and now believes that Amanda is innocent.

  • 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.

Jury Concerns

  • 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.

  • 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.

AJ

  • 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.

Where are they 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.

  • Dr. Charles Siebert, performed Adrianna’s autopsy, but was not present in trial. Dr. Siebert was a medical examiner appointed by Governor Jeb Bush in Florida. Dr. Siebert faced significant scrutiny after a high-profile case involving the death of a teenager at a police-run boot camp. Initially attributing the death to sickle cell, it was later discovered to be the result of a beating by officers. During the investigation, Dr. Siebert was found to have corresponded with Bay County Sheriff Frank McKeithen. Moreover, he had a history of failing to adhere to basic autopsy procedures. Consequently, in 2007, the Florida State Medical Examiners Commission unanimously decided to remove Dr. Siebert from his position. Following the revocation of his medical examiner license, Dr. Siebert transitioned to running a children's entertainment company, operating under the name Dr. Funny Bones. Presently, he resides in New Jersey, where he continues to entertain and offer private autopsy services.