The Krakow court acquitted Robert J., overturning his previous life sentence for the brutal murder of Katarzyna Z., a young student whose case had haunted Poland since the late 1990s. Known under the case name “Skóra” (Polish for “skin”), the gruesome mystery captivated public attention and became one of the most challenging and perplexing cases in Polish criminal history.
Robert J., detained since 2017, had been convicted in 2022 by the district court for the murder, with evidence suggesting his involvement in the horrifying crime. However, after an extensive appeal process, the Krakow court ruled on Thursday in his favor, citing a lack of conclusive evidence as per procedural law requirements. The decision immediately secured Robert J.’s release, setting off a cascade of emotions and debates around the legal system, justice, and closure for the victim’s family.
In delivering the verdict, Judge Długosz acknowledged the inherent uncertainty surrounding Robert J.’s involvement. “We cannot be absolutely convinced of the defendant’s guilt,” he stated. Following the principle of in dubio pro reo—which dictates that any reasonable doubt must benefit the defendant—the court ruled that Robert J. had not been proven beyond a doubt to have committed the crime.
This case traces back to the late 1990s when fragments of human skin and body parts, later identified as belonging to Katarzyna Z., were discovered in the Vistula River. Investigators launched a full-scale inquiry into what became known as the “Skóra” case, deploying forensic and criminal experts in an attempt to understand and close the horrifying chapter. For years, the case sat dormant, unsolved, with only scattered leads and mounting frustration. Almost two decades later, it wasn’t until 2017 that Robert J. was taken into custody as a suspect, finally bringing a sense of progress.
The trial, laden with emotional testimonies, forensic findings, and heated exchanges between the defense and prosecution, concluded in 2022 with a life sentence for Robert J. However, His defense team remained steadfast, arguing that the evidence was insufficient and unreliable, emphasizing that forensic science and investigatory methods had progressed since the crime was first discovered. They urged the court to consider whether evidence from two decades prior could truly justify a conviction. The prosecution, nonetheless, remained firm, contending that collected materials were substantial enough to implicate Robert J. and requested the court to uphold the initial sentence.