Babysitter Accused of Poisoning Baby With Antifreeze

Anna Adamo, a longtime babysitter. She's. accused of poisoning an 11-month-old. with antifreeze. And now, newly obtained. court documents suggest this might not. have been her first time. We are going. to break down what detectives uncovered. From alleged shilling evidence in her. garage to a shocking apparent history. that stretches back years, and we are. going to do it all with insight from a. former prosecutor. Welcome to Sidebar, presented by Law and Crime. I'm Jesse. Weber. This is the kind of story that makes.

every parent's stomach drop. You have. this trusted babysitter who is accused. of poisoning a baby in her care with. antifreeze. I wish I was making it up. I. wish this wasn't the title, but that is. the allegations what we're talking. about. So, according to investigators, the baby was perfectly healthy in the. morning, but by the afternoon, doctors. were fighting to keep this child alive. And now a newly obtained affidavit lays. out what detectives say happened inside. that babysitter's house and what they. found in the garage. Now, here's the.

part that's going to stop you in your. tracks. This may not be the first time. this babysitter has been involved in a. suspected poisoning incident because. buried in court documents is a reference. to another child years ago who. apparently ended up in the hospital. under eerily similar circumstances. And. I want you to wait until you hear what. investigators uncovered and how they say. that history might just be repeating. itself. Now, before we dive into what's. inside the wild affidavit, we got to. rewind and start from the top. We're. talking about 59-year-old Anna Adamo.

This longtime babysitter again out in. Okchobee, Florida. It's a small, quiet. town about 70 mi northwest of Palm. Beach. And on the morning of February. 12th, 2025, a mother had dropped off her. 11-month-old baby boy at Adamo's home at. around 9:30 a.m. Before heading out, she. breastfed him, handed over milk and baby. food for the day. And throughout the. morning, everything seemed normal. The. mom, the babysitter, Adamo, they texted. back and forth, just, you know, little. check-ins to make sure that he was okay.

And then at around 2:25 that afternoon, Adamo texted saying the baby seemed. tired and asked if she could lay him. down for a nap. The mom said, "Sure.". Right? no reason to think anything was. wrong. But about an hour later, at. around 3:30 p.m., the baby's grandmother. arrived at Adamo's house to pick him up. But something wasn't right. That little. boy was unusually sleepy. He didn't wake. up when she moved him to his car seat. He didn't lift his head. He barely. stirred. And the grandma figured maybe. he was, you know, teething or overt. tired. But over the next couple hours,

that's when things got really bad. When. this baby's mother met up with her own. mother later that afternoon, she noticed. something was wrong. Her son looked. lethargic. He was floppy. He was. unresponsive. And then while they were. driving, he suddenly started vomiting. So panic, the mom called her husband. He. told her to get the baby to the hospital. immediately. They raced to the HCA. Rollers Medical Center in Okchobee where. doctors first thought it could be a bad. flu, maybe pneumonia. But as the baby's. condition worsened, he was transferred.

to Lawnwood Medical Center in Fort. Pierce and then moved again to Nicholas. Children's Hospital in Miami where he. was placed on life support. And during. those terrifying hours, doctors ran test. after test and all of them were. negative. But then something happened. His urine test showed something rare. Oxidized crystals, which is a telltale. sign of ethylene glycol poisoning. In. plain terms, it's antifreeze poisoning. This little boy ended up suffering a.

full cardiac arrest. Doctors had to. perform CPR on him for 10 minutes. Now, here's the miracle. He survived. He. survived. Thankfully, once the hospital. made that antifreeze connection, once. they saw what was going on, that's when. they contact the local police. department. And this kicked off what. would become an 8month investigation. where detectives interviewed Adamo, her. husband, and also investigators ended up. making a chilling apparent discovery. inside Adamo's garage. We are going to.

get into those details, but after. interviewing the grandparents and making. the discovery in the garage. That is. when investigators brought in a. toxicology expert who determined that. the poisoning would have had to have. happened while the baby was in Adamo's. care. And so you fast forward eight. months, police, they track Adamo down in. Valdoa, Georgia, where she'd apparently. been staying. She was arrested on. October 3rd, extradited back to Florida. to face charges of attempted. first-degree murder, aggravated child. abuse, poisoning a child with a liquid.

substance. She was booked into the. Okchobee County Jail on a $600,000 bond, which she later posted. And now we got. to talk about what's happening now. Obviously, this is a story that we. wanted to bring to you. The reason that. we can do this is not only because of. the amazing support that we get from all. of you out there, and thank you so much. for that, but also from our incredible. sponsor, Upside. Now, this is the free. app that gets you cash back on daily. essentials like gas, groceries, food. I. pump my gas, I can use Upside. I go out. to lunch, I can use Upside. I get. something from your convenience store, I. can use Upside. And why wouldn't I want.

to get cash back when I do all these. things, right? This is actual real cash. back. It's money that appears in your. Upside app that you transfer right into. your bank account. So, once you have the. free Upside app, you claim an offer for. whatever you're buying on Upside. You. pay as usual using a debit or credit. card. You follow the steps on the app, you get paid. To find out how much you. can earn, click the link in the. description to download Upside or scan. the QR code on screen, but make sure to. use our promo code Sidebar because. you'll get an extra 25 cents back on. every gallon on your first tank of gas. All right, so we're going to break down. this affidavit. We're going to look at. what investigators determined to be. contradictions or alleged contradictions.

in Adamo story. And to help us do that, I want to bring on a special guest. We're joined once again by practice. professor of law and former prosecutor. Marian Brocha. Thank you so much for. taking the time. It's always good to see. you. Let's start here. From your. experience, what are the most critical. steps that law enforcement, prosecutors, they have to take in a case where a. child, a young child, is suspected of. being poisoned? Is it the timeline? Is. it the intent? Talk to us about it. >> Yeah, I I think the the two things that. you mentioned are super important. The. timeline, the intent, but also a major.

question in a case like this would be. access to the child. So, who was in. contact with the child? who was supposed. to be supervising the child. Who else. besides this caregiver could have. possibly had access to this child? So, those are really the questions when a. child isn't able to testify on their own. behalf to testify about their. recollections and their experiences. about what would have or could have led. to this injury. And when you have an. alleged victim who's so young, so. defenseless, so vulnerable, there's only.

limited options in terms of or or. limited counterarguments or defenses. that could be presented about what may. have happened here. When you talk about. toxicology, does this come down to a. battle of the experts at times? And I. wonder, you know, what would a defense. expert say that this wasn't um. antifreeze poisoning and suggest that it. was something else? Well, there's always the question about. um the the genetic disorder uh the auto. autoimmune disorder. I realized that the.

testing came back negative in that. regard. Um a defense expert might. question the validity of that negative. genetic testing. But I think more than. the expert testimony or the testimony. regarding the toxicology results would. be the availability of this substance to. anybody but the babysitter, anybody but. the charged defendant in this case. So, was there access to antifreeze or a. similar substance with a similar isotope. in it from anywhere else? Could the. child have gotten into this at his.

parents' home, in the grandmother's car, at, you know, some other location? And. so, really, the question is um a. reasonable doubt question. Was this. babysitter's home the only place and the. only period during which this child. could have ingested this antifreeze or. been given this antifreeze um to have. caused uh this this significant injury? >> Let's explore this a little bit. So this. affidavit and I will tell you right now. it is disturbing. Okay, but it is an. important piece of information here and.

it starts right where the investigation. did. The moment that detectives realized. that this wasn't just a medical. emergency but an alleged deliberate act. It reads, "On February 12th, 2025, Anna. Adamo did with malice and forethought. commit aggravated child abuse by. poisoning a toddler months old with. antifreeze and that the child was. provided to Anna Adamo at 9:30 a.m. in. perfect health. And at 3:30 p.m., the. child was suffering from the effects of. ethylene glycol antifreeze poisoning as. diagnosed by medical doctors. This. resulted in great bodily injury and the.

child being admitted into three. different Florida hospitals in treatment. that required life support and CPR. The. amount of damage to the child's renal. system is yet to be determined. And the. report says that the baby's mother told. detectives that her son had been healthy. that morning, that she'd left two 3 and. 1/2 ounce bottles of breast milk, both. labeled packed along with solid food. But later, Adamo texted that she'd only. fed him a 1 oz bottle at 11:00 a.m., which really doesn't make sense. The. affidavit notes this was odd as the. mother did not supply a 1oz bottle and.

according to the log the child was. asleep from 10:10 a.m. to 11:55 a.m. By. that afternoon, the affidavit states. when the child was transported from one. car seat to the next, he was lethargic, unalert, and not able to hold his head. up and described as floppy. While. traveling in the car, the child began to. vomit a clear, sticky, odd smelling. vomit. The vomit was not normal in that. it was clear, unusually smelly, and. sticky. He was rushed to the hospital. Doctors determined the presence of the.

crystals in his urine. And this is when. detectives began to turn their attention. to Adamo. According to the affidavit, a. search warrant was obtained to search. the residents of Anna Adamo at 115. Southeast 11th Street. Seized during the. search were several baby bottles, several rubber nipples for baby bottles, pediatric medication, toys, swabs, and. two jugs of antifreeze. One unopened at. 148.6 6 O, one opened at 121.8 O. Detectives then say it should be noted.

that there was about 2 and 3/4 cups of. antifreeze missing from the open jug. Now, professor, first thing I wonder is. can they prove when that was opened? You. know, maybe it was used for something. else. >> Right. Exactly. So, and I believe the. antifreeze was found in a garage, um, which is where we would anticipate. antifreeze being stored and used. Uh, so. I don't think there's any way to. ascertain when it was opened or used. I. believe there was also some forensic. testing done on the antifreeze bottles. to find DNA or fingerprints, which was.

also negative. So, um, unfortunately, I. I I think the prosecution is going to. have a tough time um, pinning the actual. use or the opening of the bottle on this. particular defendant uh, at a particular. day or at a particular time. But you can. see how that message about feeding him. and what the mother says where you where. we talked about before perhaps the the. child accidentally ingested something. The defendant's own actions and we will. get into that. The defendant's own. alleged actions statements. That's what.

makes this a case where investigators. say, "Wait a minute, this might be a. deliberate act.". >> Sure. And and of course the defendant's. statements would be admissible by the. prosecution. Any communication that the. defendant had before her arrest with the. child's parents, with the child's. grandmother, anything that she said can. of course be used against her, it's. considered a party opponent admission. I. think that the defense might be, well, the child only ingested one ounce of. breast milk. Perhaps because he was. already suffering the effects of.

antifreeze poisoning from some other. source. that I I would anticipate is the. defense that when he arrived at the. house, even though the report was that. he was in perfect health, that perhaps. the effects of antifreeze poisoning from. someone else or from some other house. hadn't quite kicked in yet and so he. wasn't able to ingest the same amount of. breast milk as would as was usual for. him or would be expected. >> So the affidavit lists these multiple. items in the home that were apparently. seized, right? The bottles, the nipples, the pediatric medication, the toys.

alongside the antifreeze. Aside from the. antifreeze, what what is the. significance of these other items? What. are what kind of testing or analysis do. you think is being done? Why are they. important? >> Sure. So, I I think swabs and and. chemical testing is being done on those. bottles as well, the bottles, the. nipples, the the the medicine, the toys. um to to see if there is the presence of. antifreeze to see if that is how. antifreeze was communicated was given to. the child. From my reading, my. understanding is that the um chemical. testing done on the bottles and the.

nipples was also negative. So, I'm not. sure that they have been able to link. any of those baby products with the. antifreeze that was found in the home. >> Here's the problem. Okay, this is where. I think again the idea of what she said, what she did allegedly, that is where I. think this becomes problematic for the. defense. So, investigators apparently. interviewed her, Adam, and she allegedly. denied ever taking the baby into the. garage where the antifreeze was. Claimed. that no other adults were in the home. that day. The problem is her husband's. statement surveillance video apparently.

told a different story. The affidavit. reads in interview Anna Adamo claims. that her husband did not come home for. lunch during the day. Mr. Adamo claims. that he did come home for lunch. It was. confirmed through the community gate. surveillance that Mr. Adamo had entered. the community around lunchtime. And. detectives also specifically noted Miss. Adamo never showed any concern for the. welfare of the child during the. investigation. Now, how significant are. these cases, professor? when you you're. talking about discrepancies in building. a case for intent um because again that.

is the key here. >> Sure. Well, if we're talking about um. the defendant's credibility that that is. a major issue for her and and there is. of course a concept of of false and one. false and all. So if she would lie or. misdate one important fact then why. wouldn't she lie or misdate other. important facts or all important facts. having to do with this case? So, there. is that theory. It is going to be a. question for the trial judge pre-trial.

as to whether or not any of the. defendants statements to the police once. she was under arrest would be admissible. because I believe she expressed a. preference to stop the interview. And. so, the question is going to be whether. any of her statements that she made. before she wanted to go off the record. or stop speaking with police would be. admissible against her. >> Now, I mentioned earlier that detectives. had consulted with an expert in this. case. This was Dr. Bruce Goldberger, professor, former chief of the division. of forensic medicine in the department.

of pathology, immunology, and laboratory. medicine in the college of medicine at. the University of Florida. Dr. Goldberger explained per the affidavit. that quote, "A lethal dose in a child is. not very large, but a tablespoon would. be intoxicating. It is metabolized by. the body and changes into oxalate, which. causes crystals in the kidneys. The. crystals are unique to this condition. If overdosed on it, it will cause. sessation of kidney function and the. child must be tested for that. The. visible effects will be fatigue, lethargy, nausea, vomiting, diarrhea.

The effects of the poison would take one. to two hours. And the time for the. effects to set in is what led Dr. Goldberger to conclude that the child. must have been poisoned the same day he. was taken to the hospital. professor, when you hear that and you're talking. about a very specific timeline, a very. specific uh metabolic pathway, um how. important is testimony like this going. to be? >> Absolutely. It's it's hugely important. and I'm not sure once again that the. defense would have any argument that.

there was this substance that was. ingested by the child. I think that the. question is going to be so how was it. administered? How was it given to the. child? How did he get access to it? How. did he manage to ingest it? Was it an. intentional administration? Was it. accidental? Was there failure to. supervise? So, that really is the. question, I think, for both the. prosecution and the defense in their. strategy moving forward. But the. timeline is of course important. I could. also envision a world where the defense. says, well, the child took that nap.

between 10 or 1010 and 11:50. So that. lethargy, that fatigue had kicked in at. that point, which means that perhaps the. administration or the ingestion of the. antifreeze was before he'd been dropped. off. So, as we've been saying, that. timeline is super important, and each. side, I think, will have a theory as to. how the timeline either helps or hurts. helps their case or hurts their. opponent's case. Now, if this was just a. complete one-off, a complete firsttime. allegation, never heard anything like.

this again, obviously that's not the. strongest case that the prosecution. could have, this is where we take a. turn, okay? Cuz the question. investigators may be asking is, was this. the first time? If they believe she did. this deliberately, was this the first. time or had it happened before? Well, this is when the report then adds a. chilling detail, something detectives. uncovered while reviewing Adamo's past. quote, "On February 28th, 2014, an OCSO. deputy arrived in reference to a DCF. complaint. The DCF report stated a. six-month-old child was taken to the. hospital for being lethargic, and it was.

later determined the child could have. been poisoned with a household cleaner. or antifreeze. The victim's mother. reported that her child was being cared. for by Anna Adamo, suspect, two days a. week. The mother stated that the suspect. was watching the child on February 24th, 2014. While Mrs. Adamo was not charged, evidence supports Mrs. Adamo used. antifreeze to poison that child in 2014. In a newly reviewed 2014 incident report. obtained by WPBF sheds even more light.

on this. The outlet reported, quote, that the responding physician did have a. slight concern that the juvenile had. been poisoned, but more tests had to be. performed outside the lab to determine. this. And after the child's condition. briefly improved, Dr. Dit in this case. discharged him, ordered blood work. But. then Dr. Dwit said after receiving the. results, his suspicion was raised even. more that the juvenile could have been. poisoned. This time, Dr. Dwit made a. report with DCF and law enforcement in. West Palm Beach. And when Adama was. asked about the prior accusations, the.

affidavit indicates she did confirm it, but she brushed it off, saying the child. was found to have some sort of disease. Professor, can prosecutors introduce. this? Well, my quintessential law. professor answer, of course, as you. know, is it depends. It will come down. to a ruling pre-trial by a judge, likely. the trial judge at Emotion and Lemonade, where the defense will argue to preclude. any mention of this prior incident from. 2014, and of course, the prosecution. will want to introduce this incident. There is one specific rule of evidence.

that that governs the admissibility of. other act evidence. Most states have the. same um numbers in their rule. So this. is really a question as to whether the. plan or intent or preparation or state. of mind of the defendant can be proved. in this case by using evidence from that. 2014 incident. The question is going to. be whether that evidence of that 2014. incident is unduly prejuditial if its. prejuditial effect substantially. outweighs its probitive value or any.

proof value that it has in the instant. case. So that is really going to be a. judge's call pre-trial. Uh and that very. well might uh dictate the direction of. the case. >> Do you think it's interesting that if. this is true, she's essentially. minimized what happened or I think. there's an argument that she minimized. what happened. Again, I think if that. statement comes in, if the if the factf. finder, if the jury is permitted to hear. that she said that or minimize that. prior um occasion, I I think that that.

goes a long way um against her. credibility and certainly perhaps even. against her likability as a defendant, as a as a client. Um but it'll be I. think another suppression issue, a. question pre-trial um whether her. statements at that point are even. admissible. So, I have to talk about something else. in this case when we talk about prior. episodes and it is really, really. alarming. Now, for most people, this. case is completely shocking. I say that, but apparently for one man, this was a a.

confirmation of sorts. Who am I talking. about? Anna Adamo's son, Aiden, now an. adult, told CBS12 he actually felt. joyous when he heard that his mother was. arrested. He described this childhood of. fear and confusion, claiming that when. he was just 10 or 11 years old, his. mother began planting dangerous items. like lighters and knives and razor. blades on him and then quote catching. him with them. And those accusations, he. says, led to involuntary therapy, hospitalizations,

uh, involuntary arrests. He told the. outlet, "Every day I woke up between the. ages of 11 and 14 just dreading the day. ahead, terrified of this woman and just. so beyond frustrated that no one would. listen to me." He reportedly even called. her a monster. Went on to say, "She. should be in prison. I am glad that. there is something in place to prevent. her from watching children until she's. convicted." And Aiden also posted about. his experience on Facebook, saying in. part, quote, "This woman is wicked, vile, manipulative, and very deserving. of all past, present, and future.

allegations, and I'm done staying quiet. about it to appease the family members. that still somehow are desperate to. defend her." And just to be clear, Adamo. is not accused of any wrongdoing, hasn't. been charged with anything related to. Aiden's allegations. But, Professor, I. do wonder, you think investigators have. interviewed him? Do you think. prosecutors have interviewed him? Will. he play a role in this or not really? I. mean, again, maybe during if she's. convicted and during sentencing, this. could come up, but I wonder if it's. going to be relevant or perhaps. prejuditial to the case at hand.

>> Yeah, I I think that it is um I think. important background information and I. think that it's information that the. investigators and the prosecutors would. be interested to have and interested to. hear. Um, again, Jesse, it's important. to note that, you know, there's that. famous line from A Few Good Men, you. know, the Tom Cruz movie. It doesn't it. doesn't matter what I know. It only. matters what I can prove. And so, the. rules of evidence and the rules of of. court conduct really do um dictate how. evidence is presented and what evidence.

is presented to a factfinder. So in this. particular case, what Adamo's son um is. expressing are uh a series of past. events, a series of um other acts. potentially um that might be deemed. unduly prejuditial and irrelevant to the. instant prosecution. So it'll come down. to a judge's ruling as to whether or not. that witness would even be permitted to. testify. It sounds to me at first blush. like it's character testimony and that. is something that we are cautious of in.

the American legal system because we. want to proceed on cases. We prosecute. cases based on the facts of individual. cases, individual events, not based on. who you are as a person. That goes. against what our whole philosophical. system is. >> 100%. Okay. disturbing allegations, but. I'm glad you kind of weeded us through. the legal the legal process and the. legal issues because uh it can get a bit. complicated and people might assume. everything might be coming in and. everything's part of the legal case when.

that might not be the situation and. obviously there are two perspectives of. this. Um but again, just disturbing and. thankfully the baby survived this. I. think that's the number one takeaway. from all of it. Uh Professor Marian. Bracha, thank you so much for taking the. time. >> Thanks Jesse. Thanks for having me. And. that is all we have for you right now. here on Sidebar. Everybody, thank you so. much for joining us. And as always, please subscribe on YouTube, Apple. Podcast, Spotify, wherever you should. get your podcast. You can follow me on X. or Instagram. I'm Jesse Weber. I'll see. you next time.

[Music].