I was shocked and saddened to see my friend Lu was murdered in Brazil. Here's an update on what happened.
He had a daughter with a woman in Rio in 2012. The family wanted him to give up custody and he refused. So the family arranged for him to be murdered. They've caught two of the people involved so far. My guess is the US Gov has been following up with Brazil to make sure this happens, so whoever is doing that, thank you. Lu was a very good guy and didn't deserve this.
Sources:
Crime matou o americano Leuvis Manuel Olivero Ramos em outubro de 2021
www.cnnbrasil.com.br
The complaint filed by the Public Prosecutor's Office states that the defendant THAIS NEVES FERREIRA BRIGAGÃO and the victim, the American LEUVIS MANUEL OLIVERO RAMOS, maintained a romantic relationship for approximately 2 (two) years and, as a result of this relationship, had a daughter in 2012, who, after the relationship ended (the following year), was the subject of a legal dispute over custody, visitation and child support for the child. After years of trying unsuccessfully to make the victim lose her rights over her daughter, the defendant THAIS NEVES FERREIRA BRIGAGÃO made a plan with her mother, the defendant MÁRCIA CRISTINA NEVES, and with her partner, the defendant RICARDO VICENTE NASCIMENTO, to permanently deprive the victim of her rights over her daughter, deciding to hire a third party to kill her. As it was found, the defendants chose the moment when the victim would return her daughter to her maternal grandmother, after another weekend of visitation, to carry out the criminal plan, an opportunity at which LEUVIS would be alone and unprotected. Following the criminal plan, on October 10, 2021, at approximately 7:22 p.m., on a public street, in front of No. 55, Rua Gonzaga Bastos, in the Vila Isabel neighborhood, in this district, the defendants MÁRCIA and RICARDO went there, where they would meet the victim, having arrived nearby at approximately 6:00 p.m., the time when the grandmother usually picked up her granddaughter. However, after arriving at the location, MÁRCIA sent a message to LEUVIS to say that she had not yet arrived, in order to postpone the meeting until everything was ready for the crime to be committed between them and the perpetrator. At approximately 7:06 p.m., the perpetrator arrived at the crime scene and parked his car (a black Hyundai HB20 Sedan) in front of the "Miro Ferragens" store (Rua Gonzaga Bastos, no. 376-D, in the Vila Isabel neighborhood) to wait for RICARDO to arrive at the scene. Approximately 3 (three) minutes later, the defendants MÁRCIA and RICARDO approached the crime scene in the "silver VW Virtus" car, and the latter got out and went to meet the perpetrator, while she parked the vehicle in the place where she would wait for the victim to arrive with her granddaughter (Rua Barão de Mesquita, no. 380, in the Vila Isabel neighborhood). One minute after meeting the perpetrator, RICARDO returns to MÁRCIA's vehicle to authorize the start of the crime, at which point, at approximately 7:10 p.m., she sends a message to the victim, saying that she was already at the agreed location to pick up her granddaughter. Soon after, RICARDO goes back to meet the perpetrator and waits inside the victim's car for the victim to approach, in order to point out the target. As soon as the victim passes by the car with her daughter, heading towards MÁRCIA, RICARDO points out the target to the perpetrator and leaves the vehicle at approximately 7:19 p.m. After handing over her daughter to MÁRCIA, the victim made her way back, passing by the perpetrator's car again,opportunity when he, at around 7:22 p.m., went after her with the car and, already in front of number 55 on the street, jumped out of the vehicle and approached LEUVIS, already firing shots. Even with the victim fallen, the perpetrator fired more shots and, only after, returned to his vehicle and fled the scene.
1.1) The murder was committed in exchange for payment or promise of reward, since the execution was delegated to a third party, who did not even know the victim.
1.2) The homicide was committed for a futile reason, due to family disagreements and conflicts.
1.3) The crime was also committed by means of an ambush, since the defendants had devised a plan to lure the victim to the place where they had placed his tormentor in wait. A cursory analysis, possible in the context of habeas corpus, does not reveal any illegality in the decision that ordered pre-trial detention, nor in the decision, in the context of the Custody Hearing, that maintained it, since they were based on concrete and sufficiently substantiated elements, in accordance with art.
93 ,
IX , of the
CR/88 and art.
315 of the
CPP . As can be seen, the requirements authorizing the exceptional measure set out in article 312 of the
CPP are present , namely, the guarantee of public order, the convenience of the criminal investigation and to ensure the application of the criminal law. It is true that the abstract gravity of the crime cannot serve as a basis for ordering the extreme measure. However, the judge may use the specific narrative of the alleged facts to conclude on the risk that the patient's freedom could entail, exactly as occurred in the case at hand. It should also be noted that the modus operandi, in theory, demonstrates the dangerousness of the agents and the serious risk to their freedoms. The fumus comissi delicti is present, embodied in the very situation in which the arrest took place. The periculum libertatis, in turn, is embodied in the need to protect the social environment, in order to prevent society from being harmed again by the same conduct allegedly committed, as well as to ensure that witnesses and/or informants can give their statements with greater security and tranquility. It should also not be forgotten that preventive detention does not violate the principle of the presumption of innocence, if imposed in a reasoned manner, as is the case in the present case. Furthermore, the principle in dubio pro societate prevails at this stage of the proceedings. The claim of lack of contemporaneity is unfounded, given that as soon as the investigations were concluded, on 03/06/2023 (doc. 297 - original case no.
XXXXX-97.2021.8.19.0001 ), the Complaint was filed (03/28/2023) and preventive detention was ordered on 05/02/2023, with the reasons that led to its imposition remaining valid. It should be noted that the contemporaneity of the measure does not fall exclusively on a possible temporal factor, but also, and mainly, on the effective guarantee of the rights protected by it. The permanence of the risks that the extreme measure seeks to avoid, notably in cases where the crime is serious, triple-qualified homicide motivated by family disagreements and conflicts, committed against the patient's ex-son-in-law, father of her granddaughter, a minor, justify the imposition and maintenance of the precautionary ergastulo.
Undemonstrated illegal constraint .
ORDER KNOWN AND DENIED.
Archive:
https://archive.is/fMWst
