Suffolk prosecutors said images and videos showed alleged restraint, injuries and medical neglect.
RIVERHEAD, N.Y. — Digital files recovered from a Bayport woman’s phone and online accounts are at the center of the case against three relatives charged after 7-year-old Jor’Dynn Duncan died from untreated injuries, prosecutors said.
The indictment describes a case built not only on an autopsy and a 911 call, but also on evidence prosecutors said was recorded during the months before Jor’Dynn’s death. Emily Kelly, 50, had custody of the child and is charged with second-degree murder. Kelly’s mother, Barbara Renner, 75, is charged with second-degree manslaughter. Kelly’s daughter, Elyssa Seymore, 24, is charged with unlawful imprisonment. Prosecutors said the records found after Jor’Dynn died show alleged abuse, restraint and worsening injuries.
The investigation began after Kelly called 911 on Dec. 29, 2025, at about 10:30 a.m. to report that Jor’Dynn was in cardiac arrest. Paramedics arrived at the Bayport home, found the child unconscious and took her to NYU Langone Hospital-Suffolk, where she was pronounced dead. The medical examiner later found that the cause of death was a massive untreated infection from sharp force injuries. Officials said about 90 injuries were found on her body. Court documents later added more detail, describing at least 90 recent injuries, at least 20 older injuries and scars that investigators believed were caused by whipping with a cord.
The medical findings pushed detectives toward records that could show what happened before the emergency call. Prosecutors said investigators recovered extensive photo and video evidence from Kelly’s cellphone and cloud-based accounts. The material allegedly dated back to January 2025, months before Jor’Dynn died. Authorities said it documented prolonged restraint, physical injuries and a lack of medical care for those injuries. Suffolk County District Attorney Raymond A. Tierney said the recordings changed the case from a sudden death investigation into a record of prolonged abuse. “It was months of alleged systematic cruelty and sadistic abuse, meticulously documented,” Tierney said.
Authorities have not released the images or videos, and the exact number of files has not been made public. Prosecutors also have not said whether any file showed all three defendants together, whether the recordings were shared outside the home or whether any device other than Kelly’s was searched. Those details may become important as defense lawyers test the evidence. Digital records can show dates, times, locations, account ownership and edits, but they also require proof about who made them and who had access. Prosecutors have said Kelly documented the abuse. The defense has not had a trial to challenge that claim.
The household history gives the digital evidence its timeline. Prosecutors said Kelly was the fiancée of Jor’Dynn’s father and requested that the child be placed with her in December 2024. Kelly later gained full custody and guardianship in April 2025. Local reporting later said County Executive Ed Romaine disputed whether Child Protective Services placed the girl there, saying a Family Court judge made the placement. That issue remains separate from the criminal indictment, but it may shape broader questions about oversight. By prosecutors’ account, the alleged abuse shown in digital records began before Kelly received full custody and continued after it.
School records added another layer. Jor’Dynn missed about 40 school days between January and June 2025, prosecutors said. Kelly allegedly gave false reasons for the absences, including illness, deaths in the family and a trip to Walt Disney World. Prosecutors said those excuses helped hide Jor’Dynn’s condition. The Disney claim became one of the stark details in the case because officials said the trip was used not as a family plan, but as a cover story. The Bayport-Blue Point superintendent said the district was heartbroken and profoundly saddened. Officials have not publicly released the district’s attendance correspondence or any internal findings.
The charges reflect the different claims prosecutors are making about each woman. Kelly faces second-degree murder, reckless endangerment, unlawful imprisonment and child endangerment charges. Renner faces second-degree manslaughter and child endangerment charges. Prosecutors said Renner could be heard singing in the background of a video while Jor’Dynn struggled. Seymore faces first-degree unlawful imprisonment and child endangerment charges. Prosecutors said Seymore and Kelly discussed alleged attempts to cover up Jor’Dynn’s injuries. Seymore’s attorney, Katherine Fernandez, has said Seymore has no prior criminal history, denies the allegations and has not been charged in connection with the child’s death itself.
The arraignment set the first public terms of the case. Suffolk Supreme Court Justice John Collins ordered Kelly held on $5 million cash bail. Prosecutors said she faces 25 years to life if convicted of the top charge. Renner was held on $50,000 cash bail and faces five to 15 years if convicted. Seymore was held on $25,000 cash bail and faces up to four years if convicted. The next court date is June 23. Before any trial, prosecutors and defense attorneys are expected to address discovery, including the digital files, medical reports, 911 records and school absence evidence.
Jor’Dynn’s relatives have spoken publicly about memories that do not appear in the indictment. Local reports said loved ones remembered her smile and laugh, as well as a voicemail left shortly before she died. A fundraising page described her as deeply loved by her mother, Portia Duncan, her father, Derrick Dixon, her grandmother, Melinda Duncan, and other family and friends. Those family memories now stand beside the digital evidence prosecutors say will help explain what happened. The contrast has made the case especially painful in Bayport and across Suffolk County.
As of June 19, the recordings described by prosecutors remained evidence, not public exhibits. Kelly, Renner and Seymore are due back in court June 23, when the case is expected to move further into the pretrial stage.
Author note: Last updated June 19, 2026.