A person under sedatives couldn't carry a child or perform CPR
Defense claims Monique was medicated by her boyfriend on the day of the crime and seeks pharmacy records from health authorities. Prosecutor dismisses drugging hypothesis, arguing a sedated person couldn't perform CPR and other actions Monique demonstrated that day.
- Henry Borel, 4 years old, died March 8 in Barra da Tijuca, Rio de Janeiro
- Monique Medeiros and Dr. Jairinho held in custody since April 8 on obstruction and witness intimidation charges
- Defense requested pharmacy records from Anvisa and state regulatory body on April 26
Monique Medeiros' defense team requests medical records from councilman Dr. Jairinho to investigate potential drugging on the day of 4-year-old Henry Borel's death in Rio de Janeiro.
On the afternoon of April 26, 2021, Monique Medeiros' legal team walked into the Barra police station with a request that cut to the heart of their defense strategy: they wanted pharmacy records. Specifically, they wanted documentation of any prescriptions written by Dr. Jairinho, a city councilman and Monique's boyfriend, in the days surrounding March 8—the morning four-year-old Henry Borel was found dead in the family's apartment in Barra da Tijuca, a neighborhood in Rio de Janeiro's west zone.
The defense theory was straightforward, if desperate: Monique had been medicated by Jairinho on the day of the crime. She said so herself in a letter delivered to investigators. If that was true, if she had been given something to impair her judgment or her consciousness, it might explain gaps in her account of what happened to her son. The lawyers asked police to contact both Anvisa, the federal health surveillance agency, and the state regulatory body to pull any records of prescriptions Jairinho had issued to Monique.
But the prosecution saw it differently. Marcos Kac, the prosecutor handling the case, dismissed the drugging theory with clinical precision. A person under the influence of sedatives, he reasoned, would not have the motor control to carry a child, drive a car, perform mouth-to-mouth resuscitation, or give a coherent statement to hospital staff. The hypothesis, he said, was remote and improbable. The physical facts of what Monique had done that morning seemed to contradict the idea that she was incapacitated.
Monique and Jairinho had been in custody since April 8, held on suspicion of obstructing the investigation and intimidating witnesses. The case had already drawn intense scrutiny in Rio. A child was dead. The people closest to him were in jail. And the investigation, now weeks old, still contained contradictions that troubled the defense team.
In a formal statement signed by three attorneys—Thiago Minagé, Hugo Novais, and Thaise Assad—the defense made a broader argument: the police inquiry could not be closed while internal contradictions remained. Witnesses had been called back multiple times, and some had changed their stories between interviews. If that was true for others, the lawyers argued, it should certainly be true for Monique herself. She deserved to be heard again.
Jairinho's own attorney, Braz Sant'Anna, responded by calling the defense letter a work of fiction. The characterization was sharp and dismissive, offering no engagement with the substance of the request.
At the station, Monique's team made clear they were prepared to escalate. If police refused to re-interview her, they said they would appeal to the state prosecutor's office. Minagé, one of her lawyers, framed it as a matter of procedure and diligence. "We're waiting and trusting that police will do their job properly," he said. "Not based on guesswork or hasty conclusions, but on what we're presenting." He added: "We believe the police authority won't be negligent enough to refuse to hear her."
Criminal law experts noted that police were not technically obligated to re-interview Monique if investigators already had enough evidence to proceed with charges. She would have her chance to defend herself in court. Still, many believed a new statement could help clarify what happened in that apartment on March 8. The investigation remained open, the contradictions unresolved, and the question of what happened to Henry Borel still hung over the case.
Notable Quotes
A person under the influence of sedatives would not have the motor control to carry a child, drive a car, perform mouth-to-mouth resuscitation, or give a coherent statement to hospital staff.— Prosecutor Marcos Kac, dismissing the drugging hypothesis
An inquiry cannot be closed while internal contradictions remain. If witnesses were called back and changed their stories, the same standard should apply to Monique.— Monique's defense team, in formal statement
The Hearth Conversation Another angle on the story
Why does the defense think medical records matter if the prosecutor has already dismissed the drugging theory?
Because if they can show Jairinho prescribed something to Monique that day, it shifts the narrative from her being a willing participant to being compromised. It's not about proving she was unconscious—it's about creating reasonable doubt about her state of mind and her culpability.
But the prosecutor's logic seems sound. A sedated person couldn't do what she did.
True, but the defense isn't arguing she was knocked out. They're saying she was medicated in a way that might have affected her judgment or memory. There's a difference between being unable to function and being impaired enough to make poor decisions or have gaps in what you remember.
Why are they threatening to go to the state prosecutors if police won't re-interview her?
Because they sense the investigation is moving toward closure, and they want a record that they asked for this and were refused. It protects them later in court—they can argue the investigation was incomplete, that police didn't pursue leads the defense offered.
Does the fact that witnesses changed their stories help Monique's case?
It helps her argument that the investigation is messy and incomplete. If other people's accounts shifted, why shouldn't hers be revisited? It's a procedural argument more than a factual one, but in criminal defense, procedure can matter as much as facts.
What does Jairinho's lawyer calling it "fiction" actually accomplish?
It's a rhetorical move—dismissal without engagement. He's signaling to the court and media that the defense is grasping, making things up. Whether it's true or not, it frames the defense as desperate rather than thorough.