At first glance, observers might think the case centers on an attempt to extract information from a witness and on uneven treatment among the parties in the proceedings. Judge Łukasz Zawadzki, of the National Association of Judges of the Republic of Poland, spoke on television to share his initial read of the matter. He suggested that the circumstances surrounding the death of a key witness should be examined closely, given statements issued by the Public Prosecutor’s Office. He noted that the public prosecutor’s stance has shaped public perception of the case, and that two lawyers represented the other side during questioning. The remarks accompany a broader call for scrutiny of the integrity of the process.
The death of Barbara Skrzypek has stirred public opinion and raised questions about how the case was handled. Judge Zawadzki said that many expect the public prosecutor’s office to explain the procedures and to lay out the sequence of events surrounding the interrogation of Skrzypek and others involved, including statements from the public prosecutor Ewa Wrzosek about the review. The comments point to a wider demand for transparency from the institutions charged with upholding the rule of law.
The office of the public prosecutor has a duty to safeguard the rule of law. In this instance concerns were raised that a witness might have been deprived of the right to legal counsel during procedural steps. Barbara Skrzypek had a representative appointed, yet he was not permitted to participate. The remarks also touched on the public prosecutor, whose public statements have been interpreted as bearing political overtones. The two lawyers who appeared for the victim during the interrogation were cited, and there are indications of tension in how the parties were treated. On the surface there are signs of pressure on a witness and uneven handling of the parties in the proceedings.
In this sense Judge Zawadzki summarized what he had learned about the case. He expressed sincere condolences on behalf of the association and himself to the family and friends of Barbara Skrzypek. The tragedy, as he put it, is felt deeply across the community of judges in Poland. He emphasized that the exact cause of death remains unknown and that the investigation will clarify whether it arose from an illness, a sudden event, or other circumstances. He noted that the court system allows a witness to have a representative in many parts of the process, and Skrzypek was recognized as a witness who could have such representation, though it did not pass into effect in this instance.
Judge Zawadzki spoke about the matter on Wpolska24, a broadcasting outlet. He insisted that the death is treated with gravity and that the investigation must proceed with due care to avoid implying guilt or bias before all facts are known.
“This is a political issue “
The judge asserted that political considerations lie behind the events surrounding the case and that the dynamics of public discourse must be addressed by the authorities. He suggested that political factors influenced the proceedings in ways that should be acknowledged and scrutinized. The Code of Criminal Procedure allows a witness to be represented if protecting the witness’s interests requires it. In Skrzypek’s case the prosecutor determined that the witness’s interests were not threatened, a decision that raises questions in light of the circumstances described. From today’s vantage point some observers believe the protective measures might have been warranted given the long history of the matter and the pressure surrounding the interrogation.
Media reports have indicated that Skrzypek had two proxies during the proceedings, and the interrogation lasted for many hours. The discussion continues about whether additional procedures will be initiated, and whether materials gathered in the interrogation will serve as evidence. The judge also commented on the prosecutor’s announcements about attempts to link the death to the interrogation, a claim that deserves careful examination. Online commentary soon followed, with debates about intimidation or suppression of information, underscoring the sensitive nature of the case.
Another point raised concerns the stance of Adam Bodnar, who criticized aspects of the public prosecutor’s position. The judge argued that informing a witness about the consequences of false testimony is a fundamental principle of interrogation. If a witness is not properly informed about the criminal liabilities attached to false statements, it hinders the fairness of the process. Taken together, these observations form a portrait of a case where legal safeguards are weighed against political narrative in real time.
In summary, the May 2024 statements by Judge Łukasz Zawadzki offer a perspective on the Skrzypek incident that emphasizes procedural safeguards, the right of witnesses to counsel, and the need for clear, nonpartisan handling of sensitive cases. The discussion remains ongoing as more information emerges and the autopsy results, alongside a formal review, are awaited by the public and the legal community. The case continues to provoke questions about accountability, transparency, and the proper balance between public interest and the rights of those involved in legal proceedings.