‘We inform you that in order to improve the quality of our services and increase your security, the conversation will be recorded.” I don't think there is simply a individual in Poland who would not hear specified a message. There is no way to arrange anything in a bank, telephone or cable network operator, in ZUS or any state institution, without consenting to registry our conversation. What are these talks with the consultant, what are the issues raised in them regarding the gravity and seriousness of the evidence given in the Public Prosecutor's Office. It is so no wonder that the interrogations of both suspects and witnesses submitted to the territory Attorney's Office in Warsaw were recorded.
They were due to the fact that last year, after the change of government and after illegal changes in the authorities of the Public Prosecutor's Office, this rule was waived. Piotr Skiba, a spokesperson of the territory Attorney's Office in Warsaw, admitted during the press conference, that during the past year only 1 proceeding was recorded. ‘That's just the practice.“The prosecutor said.
According to this “practice”, the proceeding of Barbara Skrzypek, which was conducted by prosecutor Ewa Wrzosek on 12 March 2025, was not recorded either. Procurat Ewa Wrzosek announced on TVP Info a fewer months ago that "This is not the time to strictly, in a positivistic way, stick to the letters of the lawIt’s okay. ” Is there a connection between this message of prosecutor Ewa Wrzosek and the “practice” of not recording her interrogations?
I'm not connecting these events, I'm asking..
In social media, prosecutor Ewa Wrzosek wrote: “Cold – tastes the most ..revenge”. For the hearing, Barbara Skrzypek, D.A. Ewa Wrzosek, did not let the witness' attorney, considering that the witness's business did not require this. Many lawyers have said that in their many years of professional practice they have never encountered specified a situation. Whether a witness needs a proxy or not during the hearing, the witness always decided and prosecutors allowed witnesses to exercise their rights. Is there a connection between D.A. Ewa Wrzosek's entry into social media and the refusal to participate in the proceeding of Mrs. Barbara Skrzypek's attorney?
I'm not connecting these events, I'm asking..
12 March on the day of the proceeding of the patron Jacek Dubois wrote on social media: "Today the cult ‘Miss Basia’It’s okay. ” Prosecutor Ewa Wrzosek, who refused to let the witness' lawyer to be heard, allowed the victim's attorney, Mr Jacek Dubois, to attend the hearing. Is there a connection between the lawyer's quoted entry in social media and his admission to the hearing?
I'm not connecting these events, I'm asking..
On Saturday, March 15, 2025, at 9:38 p.m., a fewer hours after Barbara Skrzypek died, and just a fewer minutes after the media released this information, the territory lawyer issued a message in which she included the following threat: “The territory Attorney's Office in Warsaw informs that combining the witness's death with the fact of his interrogation and raising the direct link between these events will consequence in the territory Attorney's taking a civilian right to defend the good name of the institution and the referee of the case.”. Is the fact that this message was issued in an emergency mode, on the weekend, in late evenings, related to the procedure of the proceeding held on 12 March, which was not recorded, to which the witness's attorney, who was not even allowed to attend, was not allowed, due to the fact that prosecutor Ewa Wrzosek herself minutes the course of his hearing?
I'm not connecting these events, I'm asking..
On 18 March 2025, the territory Attorney's Office in Warsaw published a protocol from the witness' proceeding of 12 March. The proceeding lasted 4 hours and 40 minutes and the protocol has a full of 9 pages, of which little than 7 pages are the evidence of Barbara Violin. There are witness answers to questions asked by the victim's attorneys, but there are no questions asked by them. Is the size of the protocol and the shortcomings in its records related to the dimension and conduct of the hearing?
I'm not connecting these facts, I'm asking..
After the coalition took power on 13 December, prosecutor Ewa Wrzosek stated: “We live in a post-war era, where “there are gangs in the woods”, the state is inactive threatened and we request to act in a non-standard way. The D.A. is to act in a non-standard manner. The D.A. has the right to justice for himself what action is compatible with the social interest. I have the courage to do it. Those who criticize me – no. I did not break the law, at most the rules.” Is this message from prosecutor Ewa Wrzosek that Donald Tusk's government is connected to Bolesław Bierut's post-war government and she herself is connected to Julia Brystigerova,"Blood Luna"?
I'm not connecting these governments or those people, I'm asking..
I'm asking because, as far as I know, the D.A. hasn't yet banned asking questions. But if I missed something, if I'm wrong, if in modern Poland, in a fighting democracy in which you gotta act in a non-standard way, you can't even ask questions anymore, don't ask me if I wrote this column, and I won't ask if anyone has read it. Who's asking?
Mr Bogdan
If you are curious in having a book, delight make a voluntary payment to the statutory objectives of the Solidarni2010 Association and send information to the address == sync, corrected by elderman ==
Here's the account number:
67 2490 0005 0000 4520 4582 2486
The book was published by the efforts and means of members of the 2010 Solidarity Association as part of statutory activities.
