GUILTY SD - Sioux Falls, WhtMale, UP17189, Newborn, born alive, Feb'81 *ARREST in 2019* - Baby Andrew

[lisette]

My daughter and i questioned this statement because newborns don't have tears when they cry...that comes between 1 and 3 months. Could've been some other moisture I guess.

 

[MsFacetious]

In South Dakota in February there would have been plenty of moisture. It's entirely possible that it was snowing and melting as it landed on him. Then froze as he slowly froze.

 

[lisette]

In South Dakota in February there would have been plenty of moisture. It's entirely possible that it was snowing and melting as it landed on him. Then froze as he slowly froze.

That’s more likely than tears, I think. But terribly sad nevertheless.

 

[MsFacetious]

That’s more likely than tears, I think. But terribly sad nevertheless.

I think it might be worse than tears, actually. Because if that's what it is, it's going to made it so very clear for a jury exactly what happened.

That this tiny boy slowly and painfully froze to death abandoned on the side of the road.

 

[Rocco]

Heartbreaking all around. How did she feel, carrying, delivering, raising her later children?

A crime, certainly, but Mom has suffered, I think.

Leave any unwanted babies with a responsible placing agency, please!

JMHO

Compared to the baby she killed, she hasn't suffered at all.

She wouldn't even have had to leave him with an agency. She could have left him any place warm that had people around---a restaurant, a grocery store, a hospital bathroom, a department store, etc., besides the obvious places like a police or fire station. There weren't cameras all over the place back then so she wouldn't have had to worry about being caught But instead, she chose to leave him in a freezing ditch where no one would find him and he would die.

She had plenty of time to think about what she was going to do when the baby was born and she chose to kill him by placing him in a freezing ditch as her best option?

I hope she doesn't get off with "I was young and scared and didn't know what to do', so slap on the wrist, a little community service, and move on.

The cruel baby killer needs to do some serious prison time IMO.

 

[MsFacetious]

My typical AND disabled daughter both knew at age 10 that you don't leave a baby outside alone. Much less on the side of the road in the winter. They wouldn't have done that with one of their dolls!

In fact, they were even aware of the Safe Haven Laws at that age. There was an episode of Little House on the Prairie. (Unwed teen mother but back then.)

My girls watched it and we discussed Safe Haven Laws and all of those options. They were made aware that if they ever had a friend in this situation the friend could come to us as well. We would take them to a Safe Haven location happily.

"I was young" is never a good excuse. I had both my girls by 19. Young does not mean stupid.

 

[Niner]

Tuesday, Sept. 3rd:
*Trial set to begin (@ am CT) – SD – Andrew John Doe (Litz) (newborn, found Feb. 28, 1981, Sioux Falls, lying in a icy ditch) - *Theresa Rose Bentaas (57/19 @ time of crime) arrested (3/8/19), charged (3/11/19) & arraigned (3/11/19) with 1st degree murder, 2nd degree murder & 1st degree manslaughter. Plead not guilty. $250K Cash only bond changed (4/30/19) to $250K cash or Surety bond. Out on bond w/GPS ankle monitor.
Parabon NanoLabs GEDMatch
Trial to start on 9/3/19
5/20/19: Bentaas was released from jail on bond Monday & will be required to wear a GPS ankle monitor, hand over her passport, check in at her attorney's office once a week and live with a family member. Article said trial is in Sept.
6/10/19 Update: Trial was scheduled to begin today, has been postponed to Sept. 3, 2019.

 

[Pennysmom1]

Trial in 1981 infant death postponed to April

Jury selection in Theresa Bentaas’ trial was scheduled to begin Tuesday, but the trial has now been moved to April. The Minnehaha County State’s Attorney’s Office says the trial has been delayed because all parties are trying to find a time when witnesses are all available.

 

[Niner]

Thank you Pennysmom for the update!

 

[Niner]

For some reason the court site won't let me in today....

Circuit Court

If anyone can access and see if there is another court date set up yet? TIA!

all I have is Minnehaha County

 

[Niner]

Bumping for @PommyMommy - can you access the site - ref. post 50 for any "new" information?

TIA!

 

[PommyMommy]

Bumping for @PommyMommy - can you access the site - ref. post 50 for any "new" information?

TIA!

I can't figure it out. I tried your link and followed a number of others.

SD Law Help - Record Search
Record Search
South Dakota has a statewide record search program. CRIMINAL cases are available, unless sealed, on the UJS system from 1989 to present...

[...]

CRIMINAL and PROTECTION ORDER searches are available on the Public Access Record Search (PARS) system at: ujspars.sd.gov (For a credit card payment search, use the Search as Guest option).

[...]

Perform a UJS Public Record Search (PARS)

When I go there ^^^, they want my credit card and email address:

Guest Search

 

[Niner]

@PommyMommy - it won't let me open it - so I don't know where you need to go...

I'll try later today.

 

[Niner]

@PommyMommy - can I ask you to look up when the next court hearing is , please? It won't open for me.... TIA!

 

[PommyMommy]

@PommyMommy - can I ask you to look up when the next court hearing is , please? It won't open for me.... TIA!

I would love to, Niner, but I think it must have changed to a fee-based subscription. When I try to login as a guest user, this is the first thing I see:

Name Search
There will be a $20.00 fee for any search submitted. The fee is charged when the search is submitted and applies regardless of whether the search returns any records found for the requested search.

They want email, credit card, billing information, and the whole shebang.

Sorry.

 

[Niner]

Oh darn - I hate those kind of court site.

But thank you for trying to check for me!

 

[Niner]

Bumping up for little Andrew - any new news on this case? It has been awhile....
TIA!

 

[PommyMommy]

Bumping up for little Andrew - any new news on this case? It has been awhile....
TIA!

The most recent thing I can find is the Sept 3 AP article (post #48) about the trial being moved to April. And so, we wait... MOO

 

[Niner]

Attorneys for Theresa Bentaas look to suppress DNA evidence in Baby Andrew case

Feb 14, 2020
Attorneys for a woman charged with murder in a 1981 former cold case involving the death of a baby want to suppress DNA evidence police obtained from her trash, saying doing so violated her rights.
[.....]
Bentaas' privately retained attorney, Clint Sargent, on Friday filed a motion to suppress DNA extraction, testing, sequencing and profile evidence. He also filed more than 30 pages in briefs supporting the motion.

Sargent and co-counsel Raleigh Hansman requested the following evidence be excluded from trial, saying it violated her Fourth Amendment rights:

Laboratory reports, interviews of Theresa and her husband Dirk Bentaas and buccal swabs of Theresa and Dirk Bentaas.
[.....]
If a Fourth Amendment violation is brought up in a case, the defendant must establish a factual connection between the alleged constitutional violation and the challenged evidence.
[.....]
The state's "failure to obtain a search warrant to extract, test and sequence the DNA on the items submitted to the SD Forensic Lab violated Bentaas' Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable search and seizure," the brief states.

The state had not filed a response as of Friday.
[.....]
Bentaas' trial is scheduled for April. Her next court appearance is scheduled in March.

 

[PommyMommy]

Attorneys for Theresa Bentaas look to suppress DNA evidence in Baby Andrew case

Feb 14, 2020
Attorneys for a woman charged with murder in a 1981 former cold case involving the death of a baby want to suppress DNA evidence police obtained from her trash, saying doing so violated her rights.
[.....]
Bentaas' privately retained attorney, Clint Sargent, on Friday filed a motion to suppress DNA extraction, testing, sequencing and profile evidence. He also filed more than 30 pages in briefs supporting the motion.

Sargent and co-counsel Raleigh Hansman requested the following evidence be excluded from trial, saying it violated her Fourth Amendment rights:

Laboratory reports, interviews of Theresa and her husband Dirk Bentaas and buccal swabs of Theresa and Dirk Bentaas.
[.....]
If a Fourth Amendment violation is brought up in a case, the defendant must establish a factual connection between the alleged constitutional violation and the challenged evidence.
[.....]
The state's "failure to obtain a search warrant to extract, test and sequence the DNA on the items submitted to the SD Forensic Lab violated Bentaas' Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable search and seizure," the brief states.

The state had not filed a response as of Friday.
[.....]
Bentaas' trial is scheduled for April. Her next court appearance is scheduled in March.

Grrrrrrr. MOO

"Pulling the trash was lawful under both South Dakota and federal law, but extracting the DNA from the items from that trash pull is a "separate invasion of privacy...that must be considered a separate search under the Fourth Amendment," the brief states."