Suzane von Richthofen, who was convicted of murdering her parents in 2002, says a prosecutor fell in love with her while she was imprisoned and made plans for a relationship outside the penitentiary. She also says he arranged for a McDonald’s meal to be brought to her despite the prison’s restrictions. Her account appears in the Netflix documentary *Suzane von Richthofen: What Time Does Not Erase*, released Wednesday, Nov. 11.
The prosecutor named in her account is Eliseu José Berardo Gonçalves, who worked in Ribeirão Preto, in the interior of São Paulo state. His responsibilities included inspecting prisons. The allegations are not new: Suzane had described alleged signs of romantic interest from him in 2007. She said he offered help and played romantic music during meetings in his office, which she said she visited twice.
The documentary revisits one of those encounters, which Suzane said took place about six months after she arrived at prison. She described having difficulty adjusting to the institution’s routine and said Gonçalves invited her to speak about the conditions there. In her telling, the meeting began as a discussion about prison life but shifted after she arrived at the prosecutor’s office.
“When he sees the reality [of the prison], he asks me, ‘Would you be willing to go to the Public Prosecutor’s Office and talk about the reality you’re living here?’ And I said yes. I go to the prosecutor’s office and he says, ‘Look, today I have several serious matters to discuss with you, but first I wanted your help,’” Suzane said in the documentary.
She said the prosecutor then began reciting poetry and expressing romantic feelings. Suzane described the behavior as unexpected, particularly because she regarded him as someone with a serious demeanor. “And then the man starts reading a lot of poetry. The guy starts declaring himself: ‘I never forgot you, I can’t stop thinking about you,’” she recounted.
According to Suzane, Gonçalves also spoke about what a relationship might look like after she moved to a less restrictive prison regime. She said he imagined the two of them going out together and described domestic scenes. “I’m a prosecutor; soon you’ll be in semi-open [regime]. I already imagine us walking around the mall, holding hands. I imagine myself bringing you orange juice in bed to wake you up in the morning,” she said.
The semi-open regime she mentioned is a stage of imprisonment that, in general terms, is less restrictive than closed custody. Suzane’s account presents the prosecutor as referring to a possible future change in her prison status; it does not mean that such a change had occurred at the time of the conversation. In her telling, he spoke as if anticipating a period when they could spend time together outside the prison.
Another incident described in the documentary concerns a meal that Suzane said Gonçalves arranged to have delivered while she was incarcerated. She said the food reached her despite restrictions at the penitentiary. In her recollection, a person entered during a meeting and addressed the prosecutor before handing over the meal.
“Then a man comes in and says, ‘Doctor, excuse me.’ And he says, ‘No, come in.’ Then he [the prosecutor] says, ‘This is for you. I bought it and had it brought to you; I know you love it.’ It was a McDonald’s meal. I ate it. I love McDonald’s, and I couldn’t eat it there [in prison],” she said, laughing.
The meal is presented in the documentary as a detail of Suzane’s account, rather than as an independently established finding. Her description of the incident is one part of a broader allegation that the prosecutor treated her with personal interest while he had an official role that included prison oversight.
In September 2010, Gonçalves received a 22-day suspension from the Office of the Inspector General of the São Paulo Public Prosecutor’s Office for failure to comply with a duty of office. The article does not state that the suspension was imposed because of Suzane’s allegations. Gonçalves denied the accusations she made against him.
The distinction between Suzane’s claims and the disciplinary measure is important to the account. The claims concern what she says happened during contacts with the prosecutor, including the alleged declarations, plans for a relationship, and delivery of food. The reported suspension is a separate fact described as a penalty for failure to comply with a professional duty. The information presented does not establish that the two matters were connected.
The documentary returns to allegations that had already become public years earlier and gives Suzane an opportunity to recount them again. Her statements are presented as her own version of events. The prosecutor’s denial is also part of the account, and the material does not provide an independent confirmation of the specific conversations or the meal delivery.
Suzane’s story, as presented in the production, therefore rests on a sequence of alleged encounters: an invitation to discuss prison conditions, a meeting at the prosecutor’s office, declarations she says she did not expect, comments about a possible future outside prison, and a food delivery she said she was unable to receive through ordinary means at the penitentiary. The documentary uses her recollection to revisit the episode, while the reported denial leaves the allegations contested.
