Mother who drowned baby in bathtub sentenced to over 30 years in prison
A 21-year-old woman who drowned her baby in a Bloomington hotel bathtub before throwing his body in a dumpster has been sentenced to over 30 years in prison.
Esperanza Harding has been sentenced to 32 years (384 months) in prison after she was convicted on one count of 2nd-degree intentional murder in the death of eight-month-old Mateo Harding.
The sentence is an upward departure from the presumptive sentence under the Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines, according to the Hennepin County Attorney's Office. Harding previously entered a guilty plea on Dec. 20, 2024.
Harding has 366 days of credit for time served.
Harding's co-defendant in the case, 19-year-old Edwin Trudeau, also entered a guilty plea to aiding an offender, accomplice after the fact on Feb. 24. He's scheduled to be sentenced in early May.
After initially claiming to police that her child died at Children's Hospital in Minneapolis, Harding later admitted the baby died at the hotel on Feb. 28, 2024, according to a criminal complaint.
In a subsequent interview with Bloomington police, Harding said she was dating Trudeau, "who did not like her child" and wanted her to give him up for adoption.
After she had drowned the child, she texted Trudeau, describing herself as "a monster for what she had done" and asking him "how to get away with it."
Per the court documents, Harding told investigators that she packed the body in a backpack and threw him into a dumpster in the hotel parking lot.
"My thoughts are with Mateo's family today," Hennepin County Attorney Mary Moriarty said.
"This was a heartbreaking case and while Ms. Harding is being held accountable, it does not return Mateo to his family or offer him the life he should have had the chance to live."
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
13 hours ago
- Yahoo
Christine Van Geyn: Do police have the right to peer at you in your car with a drone?
Can police use a drone with a zoom lens to peer into the interior of vehicles stopped at red lights? Can police enter a home's private driveway and look in the windows of vehicles? Can the government track the cellphone location data of millions of Canadians to track their movements? And can a private foreign company scour the internet collecting photos of Canadians for use in facial recognition technology that is sold to police? These questions are not hypotheticals; they are real live issues in Canadian law. We are living in the mass surveillance era. But many Canadians do not have a thorough understanding of how far surveillance goes, or what the limits on it are, or whether our legal protections are adequate. The police in Kingston, Ont., are ticketing drivers at red lights for merely touching or holding their cellphones based on evidence collected by a drone. The Supreme Court recently heard a case about police entering a private driveway and not just looking in a truck window, but opening the door and collecting evidence — all without a warrant. The Alberta Court of Kings Bench just considered a case involving the facial recognition technology of Clearview AI. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the Canadian government was tracking the cellphone location data of 33 million Canadians. After the Trudeau government invoked the Emergencies Act, the government ordered the freezing of bank accounts of a police-compiled 'blacklist' of demonstrators, which was distributed by the government to a variety of financial institutions and even lobby groups. What these cases are demonstrating is that we have entered the era of mass surveillance, and Canada's legal protections are inadequate. First, Canada's privacy legislation is outdated. Privacy Commissioner Philippe Dufresne has said we are at a 'pivotal time' for privacy rights in Canada. Former Ontario Privacy Commissioner Dr. Ann Cavoukian has also called for updates to Canadian privacy laws, 'so they apply to all data, including anonymized data.' Much has changed since the current federal privacy legislation was drafted in the early 2000s, but efforts to modernize this law died when Parliament was prorogued. Second, when it comes to state intrusions, the concept of privacy may be inadequate. Section 8 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the right to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures, and the Supreme Court has interpreted this right to mean the protection of a person's 'reasonable expectations of privacy' against state intrusions. The notion of 'reasonable expectations of privacy' has become a mantra in Section 8 jurisprudence. But some academics have said that in the era of mass surveillance, this guiding principle is an inadequate gatekeeper. In a lecture for the Canadian Constitution Foundation's new free course on privacy rights, Osgoode Hall Law professor François Tanguay-Renaud proposes a thought experiment that reveals the inadequacy of 'privacy' as an organizing principle. What if the police were recording people on the street, with drones following people and recording their movements as they went about their day, zooming in on their cellphones and recording their conversations? In such a scenario, where people are in plain view, privacy is an inadequate concept to limit what we all see intuitively as oppressive state conduct. At one time, this hypothetical might have been considered far-fetched. Today it is eerily similar to the Kingston police drone scenario. In Kingston, police are using a drone to take aerial images peering into cars and zooming in on cellphones. Those drivers do have reasonable expectations of privacy inside their cars, but what would limit this police conduct if they surveilled citizens on sidewalks or parks, where they were in plain view without those privacy expectations? A principled line must be drawn between things done in plain sight that police can view and constant surveillance using enhanced technology. It may not be possible to draw that line on the basis of the existence or not of 'reasonable expectations of privacy.' There are other values that could serve as guiding or informing principles for Section 8. There is nothing in the text of Section 8 that mandates the gatekeeper of the right be 'reasonable expectations of privacy' rather than another interest, like dignity, liberty, security, anonymity, public confidence in the administration of justice, and many more. Indeed, American jurisprudence has been moving away from the concept of 'reasonable expectations of privacy' as the sole guiding principle for their 4th Amendment. To meet the challenges of the surveillance era, it is well past time for Parliament and the provincial legislatures to update privacy laws. But as recent police conduct shows, it's time for our Section 8 jurisprudence to be revisited as well, to meet the emerging challenges of the surveillance state. National Post Christine Van Geyn is the litigation director for the Canadian Constitutional Foundation. Canadians who want to learn more about their privacy rights in Canada can sign up for the Canadian Constitution Foundation's free course at Opinion: In 2020 the world shut down, and Canadians lost their privacy rights Facial recognition tool used by RCMP deemed illegal mass surveillance of unwitting Canadians
Yahoo
5 days ago
- Yahoo
Police: Fatal Golden Valley crash not road rage, but charges still pending
Police: Fatal Golden Valley crash not road rage, but charges still pending originally appeared on Bring Me The News. Homicide charges are pending against a driver accused of fatally striking a man as he exited his vehicle in Golden Valley late Friday, according to authorities. The Golden Valley Police Department's investigative unit has submitted the case to the Hennepin County Attorney's Office for consideration of criminal vehicular homicide charges, Asst. Police Chief Rudy Perez confirmed Monday afternoon. The fatal incident happened shortly before midnight Friday on Highway 100 and escalated on Duluth Street, police said. While initially described by police as a "road rage incident," Perez said the investigation is not considered a road rage investigation and "road rage" was only used in the police statement because of the initial call officers received. Perez confirmed the victim was struck by a driver as he exited his vehicle and all parties involved in the incident knew each other. Multiple suspects were detained in connection with the incident and taken to North Memorial Hospital for evaluation and treatment, along with witnesses, police said. According to the Star Tribune, family has identified the victim as 42-year-old Michael Lawver. His sister, Carrie Remiarz, wrote on GoFundMe that her brother appeared to be driving erratically before he got out of his vehicle because he was "getting punched in the face by the guy in the truck with him." Remiarz alleges her brother was purposely hit and run over by the driver who is now jailed in connection with criminal vehicular homicide. Lawver was "full of life and he finally got his life right" before his death, she wrote. "I still can't comprehend the fact that my brother is gone." This story was originally reported by Bring Me The News on Jun 2, 2025, where it first appeared.
Business Wire
6 days ago
- Business Wire
Scam Summer: Experts Warn Price Caps May Fuel £100 Million in Ticket Fraud
LONDON--(BUSINESS WIRE)--With the UK heading into its biggest summer of live events in years, experts are warning that the Government's plans to cap the resale price of tickets could backfire - dramatically increasing fraud, pushing fans into the hands of scammers and triggering a financial backlash for both banks and consumers. Experts warn that price caps may fuel £100 million in ticket fraud. Share While the move to strengthen regulation is welcome, the proposal to restrict the price of resold tickets is raising serious concerns. In response to the Government's recent consultation on ticket resale regulation, which includes proposals to restrict the price of resold tickets, We Fight Fraud (WFF) - supported by one of the UK's leading fintechs, Revolut - is sounding the alarm: price caps won't protect fans - they'll expose them. Data from the National Fraud Intelligence Bureau, Action Fraud and the National Crime Agency shows that the cost of reported ticket fraud for England and Wales was £70 million last year. Yet this pales into insignificance with how much consumers would lose in the event of a mooted price cap being introduced. New figures from Bradshaw Advisory, backed by independent research from We Fight Fraud, suggest that number would quadruple as ticket resales migrate from the regulated secondary market to social media. This would mean consumers being hit in the pocket to the tune of £280 million a year – with £100 million of that falling in the peak summer months alone. Dr Nicola Harding, CEO of We Fight Fraud, a specialist unit made up of ex-police, intelligence officers, cyber experts, and financial crime investigators, said: 'Capping resale prices may sound fan-friendly - but in practice, it pushes buyers into unregulated, risky spaces where criminals operate freely. We've tested this market. We've seen what happens. Price caps don't stop fraud - they multiply it and we could see live event fans defrauded to the tune of £100 million this summer.' As part of its investigation, We Fight Fraud conducted a covert ticket-buying operation at a Premier League match in March between Liverpool and Southampton. The results were stark: Three out of four tickets purchased via social media in test cases were either fake or never arrived. Two out of five tickets were outright scams. Two others were obtained illegally via hijacked memberships. Buyers were asked to pay bogus 'name change' fees and transfer money to money mule accounts. All scams were orchestrated via social media platforms and encrypted messaging apps. 'These aren't opportunistic chancers,' said Harding. 'They're organised criminal networks exploiting fans who've been shut out of safe, legitimate resale routes. 'The more you limit legitimate access, the more you push desperate fans into the shadows - and that's exactly where scammers lie in wait.' While We Fight Fraud's research* focused on the UK, international data tells a worrying story. In Ireland and Victoria, Australia - where ticket resale caps are in place - fraud has surged. Bradshaw Advisory's research found that in Ireland, 13.6% of fans reported being scammed, over three times the UK's 3.8% rate. Independent research shows fraud has risen in step with these restrictions. Since October 2024, UK banks have been required to reimburse victims of Authorised Push Payment (APP) fraud, which includes most ticket scams. With resale restrictions forcing more buyers onto risky channels, the financial burden is now spreading from fans to banks - and eventually to the wider economy. Revolut saw ticket scams increase by 40% in the run-up to Taylor Swift concerts in London in August 2024. "We know that highly anticipated events, like concerts and sports matches, can become a target for unscrupulous criminals preying on enthusiastic fans,' said Dave Eborne, Head of Fraud Operations at Revolut. 'Especially with sought-after tickets, fraudsters leverage both the fear of missing out on a unique opportunity and a sense of urgency due to scarcity and high demand. The idea that a potential ticket could disappear quickly encourages people to act fast without thinking – but it's vital that consumers look for tell-tale warning signs before handing over their hard-earned cash. As Dr. Harding's research shows, banning or capping resale doesn't stop these scams; it simply provides another platform for them to thrive, costing fans and the wider economy through increased fraud. Smart, transparent regulation of the resale market, and robust consumer education on the warning signs of ticket scams, are the only real solutions to protect fans." For further information please contact contact@ or call us on +44(0)20 3633 0996 NOTES TO EDITORS About Revolut: Revolut is one of the UK's leading fintechs, helping people get more from their money. In 2015, Revolut launched in the UK offering money transfer and exchange. Today, more than 50 million customers around the world use dozens of Revolut's innovative products to make more than half a billion transactions a month. Across our personal and business accounts, we give customers more control over their finances and connect people seamlessly across the world. We Fight Fraud ( is a testing and research consultancy that specialises in identifying vulnerabilities related to financial crime. The independent research by WFF was commissioned by viagogo. Reinforcing We Fight Fraud's findings, Lloyds Bank recently issued a warning following a surge in scams linked to Oasis reunion tickets. Their analysis revealed that over two-thirds of all ticket scams now originate on social media, with Facebook responsible for 90% of those cases. Victims lost an average of £436, contributing to an estimated £2 million in total ticket scam losses over the past year. The scams typically involved convincing but fake listings, pressure to act quickly, and bogus charges like 'admin' or 'name change' fees - tactics that mirror those uncovered in We Fight Fraud's own investigations. REPORTING FRAUD: If you suspect fraud, report it to your bank and to Action Fraud at or if you prefer, on 0300 123 2040. If you're in Scotland, call Police Scotland on 101. About the data: Action fraud data from the NFIB dashboard shows the cost of ticket fraud for England and Wales is around £9.8m across the last 12 months. When you factor in that 86% of fraud goes unreported (Action Fraud and National Crime Agency), the more realistic figure is likely to be £70m across the last 12 months. If we regulate that with price caps, that figure will balloon to £280m (based on Bradshaw advisory research that shows level of fraud in markets with price caps is four times that of the UK). WFF's research at a Premier League football match investigation shows three in four tickets purchased were scams.
