Two criminal lawyers who assisted the prosecution in the Leandro Lo case have detailed significant concerns about how the eight-time Brazilian jiu-jitsu world champion’s case concluded with an acquittal despite what they describe as overwhelming evidence pointing to guilt.
Attorneys Adriano Vanni and Rosele Soglio, who worked pro bono for the family of Leandro Lo, explained to journalists Fabio Diamante and Robinson Cerantula how Lieutenant Henrique Veloso of the São Paulo Military Police was acquitted in a jury trial more than three years after the August 7, 2022 incident at Club Sírio. The defense successfully convinced jurors that Veloso acted in self-defense.
“The defense managed to construct a figure that wasn’t Leandro’s. Leandro was a young man who was loved by everyone who knew him. He was turned into a pit boy.”
The attorneys noted that jiu-jitsu athletes carry prejudice from the 1980s and 90s despite Lo being a celebrated athlete who represented Brazil internationally.
The prosecution’s case centered on testimony from multiple witnesses who described how Veloso, positioned on an elevated mezzanine with a clear view, repeatedly approached Lo’s table in the lower section. After a minor disagreement over a bottle, Lo performed a double leg takedown move, restraining Veloso on the ground before releasing him. Lo then returned to his table, dismissing the confrontation as finished.
“If Leandro wanted to, Leandro would punch, kick, and elbow him in the face. No, he simply immobilized him and restrained him.”
Moments later, Veloso ended Lo’s life from 4.9 ft (1.5 m) away.
The forensic evidence contradicts the self-defense claim according to the attorneys. The autopsy showed the projectile entered Lo’s forehead and lodged in the posterior part of his head, indicating he was standing upright and not in an double leg position.
“If Leandro had ducked down, leaned forward, as he’s saying, the (trajectory) would never have been at this angle.”
Additionally, the medical examiner found no scorching zone on Lo’s body, which only occurs with close-range. The report clearly stated the wound came from a distance, contradicting Veloso’s testimony that Lo was charging at him during his final moments.
Following the incident, Veloso fled the scene turned himself in 24 hours later.
“An official member of the Military Police claims he acted in self-defense when he turned himself in, and that it wasn’t out of remorse.”
The attorneys cited multiple procedural irregularities during the three-day trial, including a juror who spoke publicly on the first day, violating incommunicability rules.
Multiple witnesses who saw everything expressed fear about testifying against a military police officer, with some telling prosecutors: “I’m not going to testify. He is a military police officer; there are more than 80,000 military police officers in São Paulo. I’m scared.”
One juror later stated she voted incorrectly due to confusion with the ballot question’s wording (“do you acquit?”) and cried profusely after the verdict was announced, saying she misunderstood whether “yes” meant to acquit or not to acquit.
After the verdict, one juror stated she had voted incorrectly due to confusion about the ballot question, saying a reversal would have changed the result from acquittal to conviction.
“The only possible explanation is that either the juror wasn’t paying attention or the juror was afraid.”
Soglio suggested fear of a military police officer may have influenced deliberations. The attorneys emphasized that eyewitnesses frequently expressed reluctance to testify against a police officer.
The prosecution team is now pursuing appeals to secure a new trial. They argue the evidence shows not self-defense but a deliberate act inside the club witnessed by approximately 1,500 people. Lo’s autopsy revealed he hadn’t even been drinking while Veloso admitted to drinking that evening.
Veloso was unanimously dismissed from the Military Police for conduct incompatible with an officer though he is currently appealing that decision. The Military Court found his behavior violated standards for police conduct.
The attorneys took the case without compensation after his son, who trained with Lo, called from the United States pleading for help.
“And whoever ended his life was someone who should protect us, not harm us.”
