The jury voted to forgive her culpable homicide conviction, and her sentence was erased entirely.
No coração de um dos casos criminais mais acompanhados do Brasil, a morte de uma criança continua a reverberar através das instâncias da justiça. O julgamento de Jairinho e Monique pelo assassinato do pequeno Henry Borel produziu um veredicto que, em vez de encerrar o sofrimento coletivo, abriu novas fraturas: uma advogada se retira, um perdão judicial é contestado, e múltiplos recursos ameaçam redesenhar o que o júri decidiu. A busca por responsabilização segue seu curso tortuoso, lembrando que a justiça raramente chega em linha reta.
- A advogada Florence Rosa deixou a defesa de Monique após desentendimentos estratégicos com um colega recém-chegado, expondo a instabilidade que persiste mesmo após onze dias de julgamento.
- O perdão judicial concedido a Monique — que extinguiu sua pena de um ano e quatro meses por omissão na tortura do filho — tornou-se o epicentro de uma disputa técnica sobre como as perguntas ao júri foram formuladas.
- O Ministério Público argumenta que uma reformulação de quesito permitiu rebaixar a culpabilidade de Monique de homicídio doloso para culposo, abrindo caminho indevido para o perdão.
- A defesa de Jairinho, condenado a mais de 43 anos, ataca por outro flanco: alega parcialidade da juíza Elizabeth Louro e pede a anulação integral do julgamento.
- O caso, que mobilizou o país por anos, agora se fragmenta em múltiplos recursos que podem reescrever ou desfazer o veredicto nas instâncias superiores.
Florence Rosa anunciou nas redes sociais sua saída da equipe de defesa de Monique, atribuindo a decisão a uma incompatibilidade estratégica com um advogado que chegou ao caso após o encerramento do julgamento de onze dias. A brevidade da nota contrastou com o peso do momento: o caso Henry Borel nunca deixou de ser um dos mais observados da história criminal recente do Brasil.
O julgamento produziu resultados distintos para os dois réus. Jairinho — o ex-vereador Jairo Souza Santos Júnior — foi condenado por homicídio qualificado, tortura e coação, com pena de 43 anos, 9 meses e 20 dias. Monique, mãe de Henry, foi reconhecida culpada por omissão na tortura do filho e sentenciada a um ano e quatro meses. Em seguida, o júri votou pelo perdão judicial em relação à condenação por homicídio culposo, extinguindo sua pena por completo.
Esse perdão tornou-se o centro de uma contestação técnica movida pelo promotor Fábio Vieira. Para a acusação, a reformulação de um quesito durante o julgamento permitiu que os jurados reclassificassem a conduta de Monique — de omissão dolosa para culposa —, o que viabilizou o perdão de forma incompatível com o voto original do júri.
Por outro lado, a defesa de Jairinho apresentou recurso separado, alegando que a juíza Elizabeth Louro conduziu o processo com parcialidade e pedindo a anulação da condenação. O caso, portanto, chega às instâncias superiores fragmentado em frentes opostas, com o destino de ambos os réus ainda em aberto. A saída de Rosa é, ela mesma, um sinal de que o terreno sob esse processo continua se movendo.
Florence Rosa stepped away from Monique's defense team this week, citing an irreconcilable clash over legal strategy with a newly arrived colleague. The announcement came via social media, a brief statement that masked the turbulence roiling what was already one of Brazil's most scrutinized criminal cases. Rosa had been present throughout the eleven-day jury trial, but the arrival of fresh counsel and fundamental disagreement about how to proceed made continued collaboration impossible.
The timing of her departure underscores just how unsettled the verdict remains. Jairinho—the former city councilman Jairo Souza Santos Júnior—was convicted of aggravated homicide, torture, and coercion during trial, receiving a sentence of 43 years, 9 months, and 20 days. Monique, Henry's mother, faced a different outcome. The jury found her guilty of omission in the torture of her son, recognizing that she had failed to intervene as he was beaten. She was sentenced to one year and four months in detention. But then came the judicial pardon: the jury voted to forgive her culpable homicide conviction, and her sentence was erased entirely.
That pardon has become the flashpoint for a cascade of appeals that threaten to unravel the entire verdict. The prosecution, led by promoter Fábio Vieira, has challenged the decision on technical grounds. Vieira argues that the jury was asked a contradictory question—that the way one of the key questions was formulated and then reframed allowed the jurors to downgrade Monique's culpability from intentional homicide to culpable homicide, which in turn opened the door to the pardon. According to the prosecution's reading, the original vote pointed toward deliberate omission, which would have been incompatible with judicial forgiveness. The reframing, Vieira contends, changed everything.
Meanwhile, Jairinho's own legal team has filed a separate appeal, but with a different target. His lawyers claim that Judge Elizabeth Louro presided over the trial with bias, and they are seeking to have his conviction annulled entirely on those grounds. The case, which has consumed public attention for years, now faces the prospect of being relitigated at the appellate level, with multiple parties pulling in different directions.
What began as a jury's attempt to render justice has fractured into competing legal challenges, each one threatening to overturn or fundamentally alter the outcome. The question of whether Monique's pardon will stand, whether Jairinho's conviction will survive scrutiny, and whether the trial itself was conducted fairly now rests with higher courts. Rosa's exit signals that even those closest to the case recognize the ground has shifted beneath them.
Notable Quotes
With the arrival of a new colleague to the defense, and given a legitimate incompatibility of defensive strategies, we decided, in mutual agreement, to end our work on the case.— Florence Rosa, defense lawyer
The change in how the jury question was presented allowed the downgrade from intentional homicide to culpable homicide, opening the path to the pardon.— Promoter Fábio Vieira, prosecution argument
The Hearth Conversation Another angle on the story
Why would a defense lawyer walk away mid-case, especially one this high-profile?
Because strategy matters more than loyalty. Rosa had been there for eleven days of testimony, but when a new lawyer arrived with a different vision of how to defend Monique, they couldn't reconcile it. Sometimes that incompatibility is more damaging than splitting up.
The jury gave Monique a pardon. Isn't that the end of it?
That's what you'd think. But the prosecution is saying the jury was asked the wrong question in the wrong way—that a reframed question let them downgrade her crime and hand her the pardon. It's a technical argument, but if it holds, the whole verdict could collapse.
So the prosecution thinks the jury got confused?
Not confused exactly. More like the rules of the game shifted mid-play. The original question seemed to point toward intentional omission. The reframed one allowed for negligence. Those are different crimes with different consequences.
And Jairinho's team is appealing too?
Yes, but they're not arguing about the jury's logic. They're saying the judge herself was biased. It's a different attack on the same verdict.
What happens now?
Everything goes to appellate court. Multiple judges will review whether the jury questions were fair, whether the judge was impartial, whether the pardon should have been granted. The verdict that took eleven days to reach could be months or years away from being final.