The testimony of the late Barbara Skrzypek will continue to be used by prosecutor Ewa Wrzosek in the “Two Towers” investigation. “The testimony of a deceased witness is part of the evidence material,” stated Piotr A. Skiba, spokesperson for the Warsaw District Prosecutor’s Office, in response to a question from Niezalezna.pl. However, the circumstances of Skrzypek’s interrogation and the content of the protocol have raised concerns among experts.
“It is unacceptable for the examiner to have a lengthy conversation with the witness before drafting the protocol. This document should faithfully reflect the witness’s words, not be an altered version prepared by the prosecutor. These are crucial matters in judicial proceedings,” explained former Minister of Justice Barbara Piwnik.
Prosecutor Ewa Wrzosek was reassigned to the Warsaw District Prosecutor’s Office in early February 2025, where she immediately took charge of the politically charged “Two Towers” investigation, seen as an opportunity to attack the opposition leader.
On March 12, Wrzosek interrogated Barbara Skrzypek, a longtime associate of PiS leader Jarosław Kaczyński, in the presence of two attorneys representing the alleged victim. However, she denied Skrzypek’s lawyer the right to participate, despite concerns about her health. The interrogation was not recorded.
Three days later, Barbara Skrzypek passed away due to a massive heart attack.
On March 18, the Warsaw District Prosecutor’s Office released the interrogation protocol, drafted by Wrzosek instead of a stenographer. Rather than resolving doubts, the document further fueled concerns.
“A Document Must Faithfully Reflect the Witness’s Words”
Former Minister of Justice Barbara Piwnik expressed reservations about the protocol’s credibility in an interview with “GPC”:
“The quality of the protocol is questionable. There is no justification for the absence of a stenographer. The interrogation was pre-planned; the witness had been summoned—this was not an emergency situation. In my view, the presence of a stenographer, who would have properly documented the proceedings, was essential. In my own experience, there have often been disputes over what exactly a witness said during the pre-trial phase. Reading out the testimony and asking the witness to sign it does not provide a full opportunity for verification, which can lead to inaccuracies and misunderstandings,” she said.
Piwnik further criticized the protocol’s content:
“A witness’s words should be recorded in real-time, exactly as spoken. It is unacceptable for the interrogator to first hold a long conversation with the witness and then draft the protocol afterward. The document should reflect the witness’s words verbatim, not an altered version created by the prosecutor. This is critical in court proceedings,” she added.
Legal Irregularities Highlighted
Dominik Tarczyński, a PiS MEP, identified ten legal violations in the interrogation process under the Polish Code of Criminal Procedure (Kpk), including:
- Failure to inform the witness of their rights before interrogation (violation of Article 300 §3 Kpk).
- Failure to inform the witness of the right to refuse to answer (violation of Article 183 Kpk).
- Denying the witness’s lawyer access without sufficient justification, violating their right to legal representation.
- Lack of recording, undermining transparency.
- An incomplete protocol, omitting details such as a nearly five-hour break.
- Chronological and grammatical errors, raising concerns about manipulation or incompetence.
- Procedural pressure: two attorneys for the alleged victim were present, while the witness’s lawyer was excluded.
- Ignoring the witness’s health condition, violating humane legal procedures.
- Failure to provide written justification for denying the lawyer’s presence.
- Use of a non-standard protocol format.
Prosecutor’s Office: Testimony Will Remain in Evidence
Given these irregularities and the fact that Skrzypek’s testimony cannot be supplemented or continued, Niezalezna.pl inquired whether it would still be considered evidence in the “Two Towers” investigation.
“The testimony of a deceased witness is part of the evidence material and cannot be removed from the case files. Such testimony can be verified against the overall body of evidence, including other witness statements, documents, and forensic analyses. It also holds legal significance in establishing the factual circumstances of the case,” said Prosecutor Piotr A. Skiba.
When asked whether the testimony could lead to further legal actions, he responded:
“At this stage, there is no basis to comment on potential legal steps regarding the future of the investigation, including any formal charges. The collection of evidence, including further witness interrogations, is ongoing.”