2 Daughters Who Murdered Their Parents | True Crime Documentary

Suzanne von Richthofen was born November 3rd, 1983, in Sao Paulo, Brazil. Her parents were Manfred Albert von Richthofen, a German-born engineer and director at the state highway agency known as Dersa, and Marísia von Richthofen, a prominent Brazilian psychiatrist. The family was upper class and from a lineage that included notable German aristocrats.

Suzanne and her younger brother, Andreas, grew up in a disciplined, high-achieving environment. They both attended a strict German language immersion school called Colégio Visconde de Porto Seguro. Suzanne grew up with pomp and privilege. Her parents’ net worth was later estimated at over $11 million. To her and her brother, international holidays, new luxury cars, and various club memberships were the norm. But those close to the family say such a lifestyle also came with what, to the young Suzanne, might have felt was immense pressure.

Both her mother and father had respected and high-paying careers. As with many parents, they expected their children to stay focused on their studies and their future—a kind of expectation not unique to wealth, but one that may have been amplified to Susan by the world they were raised in. Suzanne reportedly spoke three languages by the time she was 18 and was academically successful, described as “always studying with top grades.” In later interviews, Susan described her childhood as strict and emotionally distant. She said there was very little love shown in her house, and she often buried herself in her studies to avoid conflict. With hopes of becoming a high-powered attorney, Susan enrolled in pre-law at PUC Sao Paulo.

In 1999, when she was just 16, Susan met Daniel Cravinhos after he became friends with her brother through their shared love of building model airplanes. Daniel came from a significantly more modest socioeconomic background and was also known to use marijuana regularly. Despite these differences, the two fell in love. They kept their relationship secret at first, with the teen spending much of her time at Daniel’s house. Susan later said she saw Daniel’s home as a place of comfort and freedom, once calling it a “paradise compared to the hell” she felt at her own house.

However, Daniel soon introduced Susan to cigarettes, then marijuana, and later to even stronger drugs. She also found herself paying for parts of his lifestyle, including his gym membership, car stereo, and their various trips. When her parents discovered the relationship, they initially permitted it but began having second thoughts, particularly as the teenager started coming home later and later, smelling of smoke. Her parents’ disapproval of Daniel led to frequent arguments at home. By mid-2002, when she was already 18, Susan’s parents felt it was finally time to put an end to the relationship.

In May, they forbade her from seeing Daniel, threatening to cut her off financially if she disobeyed them. Instead of accepting it, Susan pushed back strongly and later told friends she felt it was unconscionable. After this, the two became even more determined to stay together, growing increasingly desperate as the time went on. In July of 2002, while her parents were on a trip to Europe, Susan invited Daniel to stay at her house for an extended period of time. When her parents returned, they were shocked and furious, kicking him out and giving her an ultimatum: stop seeing him or risk being cut off financially. Susan tried to convince them to let her live on her own, even asking them to pay for an apartment so she could live separately, but they refused, saying she could do whatever she liked but only if she earned her own money.

Despite her parents’ opposition, Susan continued to see Daniel in secret. By October of 2002, tensions within the home had reached a breaking point. Susan began having private conversations with Daniel alongside his brother, Cristian, about what life might be like without her parents. She later admitted she sometimes thought it would be better if they were simply no longer there. By late October, Susan and the Cravinhos brothers had come up with a plan. What would be staged as a robbery gone wrong could effectively hide the true motive of the double murder of the von Richthofens.

Around midnight on October 31st, 2002, Halloween, Susan set the plan in motion. While her parents slept, she quietly went downstairs and turned off their alarm system. Then she opened the front door, letting Daniel and Cristian into the house. The brothers went up to the master bedroom, where they attacked the sleeping Manfred and Marísia, beating them to death with a heavy metal bar. After making sure her parents were dead, they set out to make the scene look like a burglary interrupted. The house was ransacked, and some of the cash and valuables were taken before they left. Susan reportedly stayed downstairs during the attack on her parents.

In an attempt to establish an alibi, Susan and Daniel went to a nearby motel and checked in as if they were on a date, while Cristian went out to get food. Early the next morning, they picked up Susan’s younger brother from an internet cafe, brought him home, and then purported to discover the crime scene and alert the authorities. The police arrived around 4:00 a.m. and found the couple dead, with their daughter Susan acting hysterical.

But investigators quickly noticed things did not add up. The forensic evidence suggested the perpetrators possessed intimate knowledge of the household and its security systems. Moreover, Susan’s behavior also raised suspicion. In the days after the murders, she appeared unusually calm, even going swimming and attending a birthday celebration just hours after her parents’ funeral. Police began watching Cristian, Daniel, and Susan more closely, and soon more evidence surfaced. Cristian was seen buying a new motorcycle with a large quantity of cash, far more than he would normally be able to afford. On November 9th, 2002, police brought the three in for questioning. As the evidence piled up, each one eventually confessed. Susan later admitted that she had opened the door and stayed downstairs while the brothers carried out the murders.

After several bureaucratic delays, Susan’s trial began on July 17th, 2006, at the Barra Funda Criminal Court, the local criminal court. Both Susan and the brothers were charged with aggravated murder. The trio’s testimonies were conflicting. Susan claimed she was just an accomplice and had been manipulated by Daniel. She said he got into her drugs, abused her financially, and would spread rumors about her father having an affair. Daniel and Cristian, however, told a very different story. They said Susan was the mastermind behind the plan. Daniel claimed that she had talked about killing her parents for a long time and that, on the night of the crime, she gave them gloves and stockings to avoid leaving evidence.

Susan’s defense argued that she acted under strong pressure from Daniel, saying she was driven by love and fear rather than true intent. The prosecutor, Roberto Tardelli, strongly disagreed. He argued that it was Susan who was the head criminal in charge, and in his closing statement, he pushed for the harshest punishment, highlighting how planned and…

…keep Sarah from him. The defense, led by attorney Robert Pangburn, argued that someone else killed the Johnsons, noting unidentified fingerprints found on the rifle scope and witness testimony that loud cars raced through the Johnsons’ neighborhood on the night of the killings. Pangburn focused on investigators’ failure to preserve as evidence a bloodstained comforter that was on the murdered couple’s bed.

 

Prosecutors have maintained a comforter had covered Diane Johnson’s head when she was killed, preventing the backsplatter of blood and brain material that ordinarily might have doused the killer. That is why they argued Sarah Johnson didn’t have any blood in her hair. But Pangburn argued that Blaine County authorities didn’t keep the comforter because it would have failed to substantiate that theory. Both prosecutors and law enforcement agents acknowledged they’d made a huge mistake by allowing the comforter to go missing.

Throughout the investigation, Sarah never admitted any involvement aside from conflicting accounts and maintained she had no part in the killings. Bruno Santos even flew in to testify and denied any involvement. The jurors deliberated for just one day, and on March 16th, 2005, they delivered a guilty verdict on both counts of first-degree murder, finding Sarah culpable for the deaths of both her parents. She was sentenced to two concurrent life terms without the possibility of parole, plus an additional 15 years under Idaho’s gun enhancement statute. Idaho law made life without parole mandatory for aggravated murder; as such, the judge imposed the maximum, declining Sarah’s attorney’s plea for leniency.

Judge Wood noted the extreme nature of a child killing her parents. He said:

“If this were a death penalty case, you would be a candidate for it.”

Judge Wood bluntly told Sarah that he could not fathom any rational explanation as to her motivations.

“It just escapes me,”

he said, pointing out the many opportunities Sarah could have taken in order to stop the senselessness before killing her father and then her mother. Looking directly at the defendant, Judge Wood said:

“You could have said, ‘My God, what did I do? I’m out of here.’ But that didn’t happen. You proceeded further. It’s undeniable you had to look him in the eyes when you shot him, and you shot him in the lungs. He had no chance of survival.”

In her chance to speak, Sarah tearfully said:

“I loved my parents and I love my family. I am deeply grieving the loss of my parents as well as the loss of my family, my home, my friends, and my community. With the guidance of the Lord and the continued support of those who believe in me, I hope to rebuild my life and prove that I can be a productive member of society.”

Shortly after sentencing, Sarah’s defense filed post-trial motions. Pangburn sought a new trial, alleging jury misconduct. He claimed that jurors were biased and that they had mingled with the victim’s family and were influenced by family members wearing photo buttons of the slain parents. Judge Wood held a hearing in May of 2005 and denied the motion, finding absolutely zero evidence of juror bias. The judge pointed out that the jury had seen graphic photos of the victims and that no isolated button could have swayed them given the weight of evidence.

Sarah then filed a direct appeal with the Idaho Supreme Court. In June of 2008, the court unanimously upheld her conviction and sentencing. As of 2026, Sarah Johnson remains incarcerated at Pocatello Women’s Correctional Center. She has exhausted her appeals, and the Idaho legislature has shown no signs of changing the mandatory sentencing law that applies to her.