Post by Bonobo on Jan 4, 2022 16:58:22 GMT 1
wiadomosci.onet.pl/tylko-w-onecie/dwie-dekady-klamstw-sprawa-krzysztofa-olewnika/mtjt7rf
MATEUSZ BACZYŃSKI
Onet journalist
This is one of the most mysterious and shocking cases in the history of the Third Polish Republic. This year - 20 years after the start of the investigation - the prosecution brought an indictment to the court. Was his best friend actually behind the abduction and murder of Krzysztof Olewnik? The answer to this question is not simple.
Krzysztof Olewnik was abducted on the night of October 26-27, 2001 from his home on the outskirts of Drobin in the Płock poviat. It happened right after the party he organized. He was 25 years old, the son of Włodzimierz Olewnik, a wealthy entrepreneur from Płock dealing with meat processing. At first, everyone was convinced that kidnapping was an extortionate ransom attempt.
However, even though the kidnappers asked for the money, they refused to collect it for months. At that time, Krzysztof Olewnik was going through hell. He was held in a concrete well two meters deep and covered with a metal lid. The kidnappers fixed a chain around his neck. They stuffed him with psychotropic drugs and tortured him all the time.
ADVERTISEMENT
Ransom in the amount of 300 thousand. the euro was not transferred until two years after the abduction. This did not, however, make the young businessman return home. In September 2003, the kidnappers murdered Krzysztof Olewnik and buried his body. The police found them only in 2006.
A year later, investigators accused a total of 13 people of participating in the abduction and murder. Including the direct organizer of the kidnapping - gangster Wojciech Franiewski and his assistants - Sławomir Kościuk and Robert Pazik. Soon after, all three were found dead in their cells. According to the findings of the prosecutor's office, they had committed suicide. Franiewski did not even live to see the trial.
Now it turns out that, according to the investigators, they had one more principal over them. It was supposed to be Jacek Krupiński - a longtime friend of Krzysztof Olewnik and his business partner. However, he pleads not guilty. He also agreed to provide his full details.
Krupiński was arrested in 2009 and spent six months in custody, after which he was released by a court decision. Two years ago, he received compensation due to the length of the proceedings.
In addition to him, four more men will sit on the accused, including a local politician from Płock, Grzegorz K., who, according to the prosecutor's office, extorted 160,000 from Włodzimierz Olewnik. PLN for - as it turned out - false information about the son's whereabouts.
The charges were also heard by Eugeniusz D. (participation in the armed group that kidnapped Krzysztof Olewnik), Mikołaj B. (extorting money from Włodzimierz Olewnik) and Andrzej Ł. (Extorting money from Włodzimierz Olewnik).
According to the prosecutor's office, the most important person in the puzzle was Jacek Krupiński. However, the indictment does not show direct evidence of his involvement in the kidnapping, but merely mentions an "unbroken chain of circumstantial evidence."
What can we understand by this? We explain and present the most important facts on this matter.
1.
Krzysztof Olewnik and Jacek Krupiński were the owners of the Krup-Stal company dealing in steel trade. Investigators show that in 2001 the company was in a poor financial condition. According to the prosecutor's office - it resulted from bad business decisions made by Krupiński, who "taking advantage of his partner's credulity, was to continue cooperation with companies to which he continued to sell steel despite his large debt to Krup-Stal". The owners of these companies were to be friends with Krupiński.
ADVERTISEMENT
According to the prosecutor's office, the lack of financial liquidity meant that "the company was refused to sell steel and it had a problem with repaying loans taken from banks". Włodzimierz Olewnik suspected that Krup-Stal traded in steel of unknown origin and that the company's documentation was not kept diligently. On the other hand, Jacek Krupiński was to keep the surplus from undocumented steel trade for himself.
Against this background, quarrels between the partners were supposed to arise. According to the prosecutor's office, Krzysztof Olewnik also planned to start a company trading in agricultural machinery, without Krupiński's participation, which further worsened the relations between them.
The situation in Krup-Stal also worried Włodzimierz Olewnik, who provided money for its activities and guaranteed the loans. Therefore, he decided to conduct an inspection of the company, which was to take place on October 27 and 28. This, according to investigators, was to become a driving force for the further actions of my friend Krzysztof.
"Jacek Krupiński [...] commissioned Wojciech Franiewski and the other members of the organized crime group he managed to take Krzysztof Olewnik as a hostage and to keep him hostage, assuming that Włodzimierz Olewnik would focus his attention on the issues related to saving his son and freeing him by paying the ransom , but at the same time it will cover the debts of the Krup-Stal company, as he will see Jacek K.'s broad commitment to saving his son ”.
Jacek Krupiński himself during the explanations submitted to the prosecutor's office argued that the company was developing very well, and Włodzimierz Olewnik shared his enthusiasm for the activities of Krup-Stal. Everything they did with Krzysztof Olewnik complied with the regulations, and he never looked for "left" money.
Krupiński also assured that he had never argued with Krzysztof, and their cooperation was exemplary. In the context of the planned inspection, he explained that no specific date had been set. He also claimed that already in June 2001, accountants from Włodzimierz Olewnik's company appeared in Krup-Stal, who had an insight into the company's financial situation.
ADVERTISEMENT
He also confirmed his testimony in a statement sent to Onet.
“The Krup-Stal company was closely supervised, from the very moment of its inception, by Włodzimierz Olewnik, who was the sponsor of our first business venture. The software, accountants and the statutory auditor were imposed on us precisely so that Włodzimierz Olewnik had control over the company and financial matters. The Krup-Stal company was subject to tax inspections, and no significant irregularities were ever found in it, ”emphasizes Jacek Krupiński.
2.
According to the prosecutor's office, the version of the events was as follows: in 2001, Krupiński provided Wojciech Franiewski with information about the security of Krzysztof Olewnik's property. After the event, which took place on October 26, at the young businessman's house, he had to unnoticeably open the balcony door on the side of the pool, allowing the perpetrators to enter the house easily and silently.
In the documents, the policemen noted: “There is an entrance door to the outside of the building from the indoor swimming pool room. During the inspection, the door is ajar. These doors, both the glass and the frame, were sprinkled with argentorate powder, revealing no traces that could be identified ”.
In turn, the visual material from the scene shows that the mentioned door did not have a handle from the outside and it could only be opened from the inside. There were also no traces of the break-in on them. This version was confirmed by one of the hijackers, who testified that Wojciech Franiewski immediately headed towards the door from the pool side and entered without any problems.
There are many indications that the door could actually have been ajar earlier. According to investigators, out of all participants of the event, only Jacek Krupiński had the (economic) motive to do so.
The accused, however, firmly denies that he left the door ajar. He also explained that during the event, no one used this exit. He emphasized that these doors always had to be closed, because there were flowers in the pool that required a constant temperature, therefore Krzysztof always made sure that they were tight.
ADVERTISEMENT
3.
It was Jacek Krupiński who first appeared at Krzysztof Olewnik's house the day after the party and discovered that his partner had been kidnapped. Earlier, worried Włodzimierz Olewnik called him and informed him that his son was not answering the phone. Krupiński arrived at the place around 9.00 (in the indictment we read that on 9.04 he informed Włodzimierz Olewnik by phone about the situation he found at Krzysztof's house).
However, the testimony of one of the witnesses shows that at around 6.00 am he saw a BMW Cabrio car in front of the young businessman's house. It is true that it belonged to Krzysztof Olewnik, but it was then used by Jacek Krupiński.
The latter, however, vehemently denied that it was his car. He claimed that at At 6.00 he was still asleep. In his opinion, it could have been a BMW belonging to Krzysztof W. ps. The panel that was supposed to come to Olewnik's house at that time. He also took into account that the witness might have mistaken the days when he actually saw his car in front of Krzysztof's house.
4.
On the day of the event, Jacek Krupiński left the BMW Cabrio in front of his house and arrived at Krzysztof's house in a BMW Coupe. This car was later used by the perpetrators during a hijacking, then abandoned and burned. It also raised investigators' doubts.
The mentioned BMW Coupe had a complicated anti-theft protection system. "The security features were in three places, which had to be touched simultaneously with the key in the ignition switch with your bare hand in order to close the electric circuit," we read in the prosecutor's documents.
Meanwhile - according to the testimony of one of the hijackers - Wojciech Franiewski started the car without any problem.
5.
Another controversy concerned Jacek Krupiński's visit to a gas station. Two witnesses testified that they saw him there together with Wojciech K. (a police officer and a close friend of the Olewnik family) on October 28 between 7.00 and 9.00.
Meanwhile, Krupiński testified that he left the house around 8.00 a.m., he showed up in Krzysztof's apartment around 9.00 a.m., and after Włodzimierz Olewnik's arrival, he got in the car and went to Zawidz Kościelny for Wojciech K.
ADVERTISEMENT
Only on the way back, the men were to stop at the aforementioned gas station. According to the accused, it was between 9.30 am and 10.15 am. However, in the opinion of the prosecutor's office it is impossible, because at 9.55 Krupiński was already interrogated by the police in Krzysztof Olewnik's house, and at the same time he claimed that his car had broken down on the way.
Investigators were also questioned by Krupiński's account of the failure of his BMW Cabrio. The defendant testified that someone had come to fetch him then, gave him another car, and the broken BMW was towed to the premises of the "K. Olewnik Farm". But he couldn't remember exactly who had arrived and by what car. Wojciech K., staying with him, confirmed this version, but also could not recall the details of the situation.
In addition, the recordings from the scene show that the BMW Cabrio was on that day from 11.00 to 13.00 on the property of Krzysztof Olewnik (and not on the farm).
6.
On December 2, 2001, Krzysztof Olewnik contacted his family and informed that the kidnappers had a telephone number for Jacek Krupiński and he was to transfer the money. He did not explain why he had been selected for the role. Later, Krupiński traveled with the ransom many times. To this day, it arouses suspicions among the family and prosecutors.
During the subsequent analysis of the billings, the investigators also found that shortly after activating one of the phones by the hijackers, they were contacted (initiating the call) by Jacek Krupiński's phone. It took place on December 5, 2001, when the Olewnik family did not know the new number of the perpetrators yet.
Krupiński explained that he had activated the phone from which he had called, at the behest of the kidnappers in December 2001 (he was to receive the SIM card in the letter), who at the same time ordered him not to tell anyone about it.
Investigators did not believe this version, as they received information from the operator that the said phone (SIM card) had already been activated on September 17, 2001.
Exhumation of Krzysztof Olewnik's body. January 26, 2010Photo: Dominik Dzieciinny / Agencja Wyborcza.pl
Exhumation of Krzysztof Olewnik's body. January 26, 2010
7.
Prosecutors point out in the indictment that the kidnappers often knew what movements the Olewnik family was going to make, which may suggest that someone from their immediate vicinity informed them about it. According to the investigators, it was Jacek Krupiński.
As one of the examples, they mentioned the situation when Krupiński and his then wife Iwona were to go with the ransom. She did not want to agree to it. Danuta Olewnik then suggested that she would become similar to Iwona and would go instead of her.
Soon after, the Olewnik family received a recording with Krzysztof's voice warning: "Danusia, no fancy dress."
Jacek Krupiński argued that he was not the source of the leaks. He emphasized that in the first months after the kidnapping, there were a lot of people in the Olewnik house, and the factories of Włodzimierz Olewnik were buzzing with information.
8.
When Jacek Krupiński was arrested in February 2009, the policemen thoroughly searched his house in Płock, where they secured, among others , notebooks (office calendars) from 2000-2008.
Their attention was particularly drawn to the note of November 24, 2001, with the following content: Węgrów-Sokołów Pod (hereinafter poorly legible, probably "Podlaski") around Siedlec (then an illegible sign) with the transport Go (illegible word). Morning (word not legible) - Węgrów Grochów Szlachecki (two words are illegible ) Yesterday - Skrzerzów - sick + fever (yesterday deep in the basement) .
This is important as Krzysztof Olewnik was to be detained from November 2001 to July or August 2003 within the boundaries of the town called Skrzeszew. According to the investigators, Krupiński received such information from the kidnappers, but incorrectly changed the name of the place and therefore wrote "Skrzeszów" in the notebook. The second town of the same name is located on the national road No. 62 running m.in . by the town of Węgrów, which also appears in the records.
The accused explained that he had obtained this information from a clairvoyant who was contacted by Anna Olewnik-Mikołajewska and that it was discussed hotly with the Olewnik family. Hence the laconic notes in the notebook. He also added that he did not keep his calendar entries chronologically.
The family did not confirm this version.
9.
In November 2001, Jacek Krupiński obtained a duplicate SIM card of Krzysztof Olewnik (the phone was registered to their joint company). He activated it several times, but did not inform anyone about it.
According to investigators, there could be two reasons. First of all, controlling the information (in particular text messages) that could have been sent to Krzysztof's phone. Secondly, to authenticate the thesis that self-abduction took place (since the abductee's phone was active at a few moments).
On this point, Jacek Krupiński changed his testimony several times. First, he said that he did not remember asking for a duplicate SIM card of Krzysztof Olewnik. He later explained that the duplicate was being made when Krzysztof fell into the drainage well and wet the phone (two weeks before the kidnapping). During the next interrogation, he stated that he might have made a duplicate at the request of one of the policemen from Płock in order to check the SMSes that came to Krzysztof's phone.
10.
One of the key witnesses in the case concerning Wojciech Franiewski's group was Piotr Skwarski, pseud. Skwara, who was in close contact with Sławomir Kościuk, one of the kidnappers. Skwarski died before the indictment was filed against the group, but his testimony turned out to be fundamental for the investigators.
In November 2005, Skwarski recognized Jacek Krupiński on the review board as a man who met Sławomir Kościuk at the West Railway Station at the turn of July and August 2005. A few days later, he withdrew from these testimonies, explaining that he had seen him at the CBŚ headquarters, where "he was shown to another witness with him". However, in April 2006 he testified again that Krupiński met Sławomir Kościuk and Wojciech Franiewski at the Western Railway Station. The conversation was to concern Jacek Krupiński's purchase of steel from the kidnappers.
The accused firmly denies that such a situation took place. He also emphasized that he did not know Wojciech Franiewski and had never been to the Western Railway Station in Warsaw.
11.
The next testimony cited by the prosecutor's office comes from Bogdan K., who in 2006 in the Barczewo prison was supposed to talk to persons arrested in the case of Krzysztof Olewnik: Eugeniusz D., Ireneusz Piotrowski, and Sławomir Kościuk.
Piotrowski was to tell him about the details of the detention of Krzysztof Olewnik. Kościuk, on the other hand, was to tell him about the course of the abduction itself and state that the kidnapping was ordered by Krzysztof Olewnik's closest friend and accomplice, who with time began to be suspected by his family.
12.
Investigators established that the direct organizer of the kidnapping, Wojciech Franiewski, was closely related to the well-known Warsaw gangster Krzysztof M. ps. Fragles, a member of the Mutant Gang. Wojciech G., who is in close contact with Jacek Krupiński, also admitted to being acquainted with Fragles. Moreover, in one of the secured notebooks of the accused, an entry was found that read "Krzysztof M. (here full name) Fragles".
Moreover, the crown witness Jarosław S. ps. Masa testified that Iwona (Jacek Krupiński's ex-wife) also knew "Fragles". He also claimed that the woman had very extensive contacts among gangsters from Pruszków and Warsaw. According to the prosecutor's office, this could facilitate Jacek Krupiński's contact with criminals while planning the abduction of Krzysztof Olewnik.
Krupiński himself admitted that he was actually looking for contact with "Fragles", but it was already after the kidnapping of Krzysztof and it resulted from the fact that his wife's friend Dorota G. told him that "Fragles" may have important information about the kidnapping. Jacek Krupiński together with Dorota G. searched unsuccessfully for "Fragles" in summer houses, a marina and in a disco near the Zegrze Reservoir.
However, he stressed that he had never spoken to Fragles in person or on the phone.
CBŚ officers during a search in the house of the OlewniksPhoto: Dominik Dzieciinny / Agencja Wyborcza.pl
CBŚ officers during a search in the house of the Olewniks
13.
According to investigators, Jacek Krupiński achieved his goal. The kidnapping of Krzysztof Olewnik caused not only that the planned control in Krup-Stal did not take place, but also inhibited the interest in Włodzimierz Olewnik's company for a long time and the need to repay the liabilities.
According to calculations by Włodzimierz Olewnik, Krupiński gained no less than PLN 600,000 on the failure to settle his debts. zlotys (which corresponded to the size of his share). Until mid-April 2003 Włodzimierz Olewnik paid off his financial liabilities towards banks due to loans.
“The involvement of Włodzimierz Olewnik in the case of his son meant that he focused his attention on the abduction. The above-mentioned situation was used by Jacek Krupiński, who sold Krup-Stal steel for a song, ”we read in the indictment.
However, the accused claims something else.
"Neither before the kidnapping of Krzysztof, nor afterwards, any shortcomings of the Krup-Stal company were found, which allegedly were the basis for the order to kidnap Krzysztof. There was not even one evidence that I had committed the acts that I was accused of, despite the fact that Włodzimierz Olewnik had full access to the company's files, its bank accounts, and from some point he declared war on me and blamed me for the death of his son "- we read in a statement sent to editorial office.
"With full books of accounts, commercial contracts, unlimited financial possibilities and being determined to take unjustified (and articulated directly in front of a witness) revenge against me, I have never been even summoned for questioning as a witness in connection with any irregularities at Krup -Stal, ”he continues.
“At that time, I was a fast-growing entrepreneur, our business with Krzysztof brought a lot of money for those years, and in the short - and most importantly - real perspective, we aimed to earn money that could set us up for life. We were young, we had great cars, houses, we enjoyed all the fun of life. Amounts in the order of several hundred thousand zlotys were our everyday life, they were not in the sphere of dreams, and they certainly could not tempt us to commit such a crime "- emphasizes the defendant.
14.
As already mentioned, Jacek Krupiński was arrested for the first time in February 2009 and spent six months in detention. Although the prosecutor's office requested its extension, the court did not consent to it.
- The evidence collected in the proceedings allows us to conclude that there is a high probability of Jacek Krupiński's relationship with the kidnapping case and with the people behind him - judge Dariusz Wysocki from the District Court in Warsaw justified. - But what was the relationship? To what extent was Jacek Krupiński involved in the planning of the kidnapping and the abduction itself? At the moment, based on the evidence at the disposal of the prosecutor's office, it is difficult to assess it as categorically as it does, he explained.
The decision of the SO in Warsaw was also upheld by the Court of Appeal. - There is no such evidence that would make the guilt of Jacek Krupiński much more probable, and such a probability must be almost certain - argued judge Małgorzata Mojkowska.
We compared the motion of the Gdańsk prosecutor's office (then conducting the investigation) to extend the detention in 2009 with the indictment filed this year by the Małopolska National Prosecutor's Office. The argument is almost identical. This means that the investigators for 12 years did not collect virtually any new evidence against Jacek Krupiński.
This, in turn, raises an important question: since the collected evidence turned out to be insufficient in 2009 to extend Jacek Krupiński's arrest, will the same material prove sufficient to convict him?
15.
There is no doubt that the investigation into the abduction and murder of Krzysztof Olewnik was scandalous. The police carried out a disastrous inspection of the scene, many traces were not secured, incompetent prosecutors were assigned to the case at the initial stage, some evidence, such as surveillance recordings, was hidden.
To this day, no one has explained why many important documents from the investigation (including four volumes of files) were lost, why the police did not detain the hijackers during the transfer of the ransom, or why so many criminals involved in the abduction and murder of Krzysztof Olewnik committed suicide in their cells.
Prosecutors do not make any reference to this in the indictment. They do not indicate what role Jacek Krupiński played in this and how he was to influence the course of the investigation, the work of policemen and prosecutors. And yet it was he - adopting the prosecution's version - as the main organizer of the kidnapping, who had to pull the strings in this case and cover his tracks.
Investigators completely omit other threads in the indictment, including the one related to the person of the late Maciej Książkiewicz, the former head of the Płock police, and then the deputy commander of Mazovia. Although no hard evidence has ever been collected, it was him that for years was suspected by both the investigators, the media and the family of taking part in the kidnapping of Krzysztof.
Włodzimierz Olewnik spoke about it many times, claiming that Książkiewicz wanted to bankrupt him and take over his plants.
“He was with me with a proposal to buy meat plants from Płock and Służewiec for peanuts. He said he would help me acquire these plants very cheaply. It was very suspicious and I did not enter into such arrangements "- Włodzimierz Olewnik told journalists of" Supervisor ".
According to the testimony of some witnesses, Książkiewicz was to be very irritated by the fact that Olewnik rejected the offer of interests in which the commandant was to be a silent partner. There were also voices that he would want revenge. "He did not say it directly to me, but I heard such voices that I may regret it," said Włodzimierz Olewnik.
Prosecutors in the indictment completely ignore this thread. They also do not indicate any connections between Książkiewicz and Krupiński.
16.
Marek Biernacki, who in 2009-2011 chaired the parliamentary investigative committee to investigate the circumstances of the kidnapping and murder of Krzysztof Olewnik, is skeptical about the main theses contained in the indictment.
- Jacek Krupiński could somehow participate in it, know about it. On the other hand, he would not be able to change prosecutors to throw things around like a rotten egg, steal a case file or influence the work of the police to such an extent. He was too "small" for that, explains Marek Biernacki in an interview with Onet.
He lists in one breath the irregularities that have not been clarified until today:
- How did it happen that they gave such a serious case at the beginning to district prosecutors, who had never conducted such investigations in their life and were at best involved in the theft of bicycles? Why was the prosecutor who started this case in the way a professional should do, at some point, after discovering the direct perpetrators, was removed?
Biernacki also mentions materials that were almost lost in this case in series. In 2008, it even happened that 231 material evidence kept in the warehouse of the Provincial Police Headquarters in Olsztyn was flooded with faeces from a broken pipe. Another "coincidence".
- Nobody has ever verified Wojciech Franiewski's biography until the end. It was only we in the committee that we started to drill down and there were many indications that before 1989 he had collaborated with the services. Because who would attempt to rob the car of the minister of the environment in the times of the Polish People's Republic? Certainly not an ordinary thief. Franiewski also had no problems obtaining a passport at that time, which was a phenomenon in the case of a criminal. And when he ended up in a prison in Płock, everyone treated him as an "ear" (an associate of the police / services - ed.) - lists Biernacki.
- In addition to presenting the report on the work of the commission, based on the experience related to this case, we decided to introduce some changes to the provisions on the operational work of the police, witness protection or procedures related to the activities of law enforcement agencies in kidnappings. When I became the minister of justice, I implemented many of these laws myself. I think this is the only positive effect of this story - he emphasizes.
- It is also important that the direct murderers of Krzysztof Olewnik have been detected. But who inspired it and how it happened… we don't know, and it's hard to say if we'll ever find out, concludes Marek Biernacki.
17.
Włodzimierz Olewnik is convinced today that Jacek Krupiński played an important role in this matter. - I believe that he took part in the kidnapping of Krzysztof. He didn't have to be the principal, but he might have been in the kidnapper group. He knew about them - he said in an interview with Onet.
He admits that the motive for his actions could actually be shared interests with his son. - It could also have been about depriving me of the meat factories and then taking them over. So that I would be bankrupt - he emphasized.
In the trial, which is scheduled to start in January 2022, Włodzimierz Olewnik will act as an auxiliary prosecutor.
In a statement sent to Onet, Jacek Krupiński assures that he has nothing to hide and will fight for his good name until the end:
"I am ready to look everyone in the eyes with my head raised. Because I am Jacek Krupiński and I am a true friend of Krzysztof Olewnik.
The anniversary of Krzysztof's abduction will be the basis for the re-enactment of events related to his tragic fate, as well as public interest in me as well. However, the mere fact of pending criminal proceedings cannot be used to deduce and prejudge anyone's guilt. Therefore, as part of the trial, I will prove and prove my innocence.
I want to say clearly - my only but very strong relationship with Krzysztof's case is that it concerns the tragedy of my best friend and me personally. It is because of the memory of Krzysiek that everyone should care about explaining this matter as soon as possible. "
Source: Onet
Date Created: October 27, 2021 05:55 AM
MATEUSZ BACZYŃSKI
Onet journalist
MATEUSZ BACZYŃSKI
Onet journalist
This is one of the most mysterious and shocking cases in the history of the Third Polish Republic. This year - 20 years after the start of the investigation - the prosecution brought an indictment to the court. Was his best friend actually behind the abduction and murder of Krzysztof Olewnik? The answer to this question is not simple.
Krzysztof Olewnik was abducted on the night of October 26-27, 2001 from his home on the outskirts of Drobin in the Płock poviat. It happened right after the party he organized. He was 25 years old, the son of Włodzimierz Olewnik, a wealthy entrepreneur from Płock dealing with meat processing. At first, everyone was convinced that kidnapping was an extortionate ransom attempt.
However, even though the kidnappers asked for the money, they refused to collect it for months. At that time, Krzysztof Olewnik was going through hell. He was held in a concrete well two meters deep and covered with a metal lid. The kidnappers fixed a chain around his neck. They stuffed him with psychotropic drugs and tortured him all the time.
ADVERTISEMENT
Ransom in the amount of 300 thousand. the euro was not transferred until two years after the abduction. This did not, however, make the young businessman return home. In September 2003, the kidnappers murdered Krzysztof Olewnik and buried his body. The police found them only in 2006.
A year later, investigators accused a total of 13 people of participating in the abduction and murder. Including the direct organizer of the kidnapping - gangster Wojciech Franiewski and his assistants - Sławomir Kościuk and Robert Pazik. Soon after, all three were found dead in their cells. According to the findings of the prosecutor's office, they had committed suicide. Franiewski did not even live to see the trial.
Now it turns out that, according to the investigators, they had one more principal over them. It was supposed to be Jacek Krupiński - a longtime friend of Krzysztof Olewnik and his business partner. However, he pleads not guilty. He also agreed to provide his full details.
Krupiński was arrested in 2009 and spent six months in custody, after which he was released by a court decision. Two years ago, he received compensation due to the length of the proceedings.
In addition to him, four more men will sit on the accused, including a local politician from Płock, Grzegorz K., who, according to the prosecutor's office, extorted 160,000 from Włodzimierz Olewnik. PLN for - as it turned out - false information about the son's whereabouts.
The charges were also heard by Eugeniusz D. (participation in the armed group that kidnapped Krzysztof Olewnik), Mikołaj B. (extorting money from Włodzimierz Olewnik) and Andrzej Ł. (Extorting money from Włodzimierz Olewnik).
According to the prosecutor's office, the most important person in the puzzle was Jacek Krupiński. However, the indictment does not show direct evidence of his involvement in the kidnapping, but merely mentions an "unbroken chain of circumstantial evidence."
What can we understand by this? We explain and present the most important facts on this matter.
1.
Krzysztof Olewnik and Jacek Krupiński were the owners of the Krup-Stal company dealing in steel trade. Investigators show that in 2001 the company was in a poor financial condition. According to the prosecutor's office - it resulted from bad business decisions made by Krupiński, who "taking advantage of his partner's credulity, was to continue cooperation with companies to which he continued to sell steel despite his large debt to Krup-Stal". The owners of these companies were to be friends with Krupiński.
ADVERTISEMENT
According to the prosecutor's office, the lack of financial liquidity meant that "the company was refused to sell steel and it had a problem with repaying loans taken from banks". Włodzimierz Olewnik suspected that Krup-Stal traded in steel of unknown origin and that the company's documentation was not kept diligently. On the other hand, Jacek Krupiński was to keep the surplus from undocumented steel trade for himself.
Against this background, quarrels between the partners were supposed to arise. According to the prosecutor's office, Krzysztof Olewnik also planned to start a company trading in agricultural machinery, without Krupiński's participation, which further worsened the relations between them.
The situation in Krup-Stal also worried Włodzimierz Olewnik, who provided money for its activities and guaranteed the loans. Therefore, he decided to conduct an inspection of the company, which was to take place on October 27 and 28. This, according to investigators, was to become a driving force for the further actions of my friend Krzysztof.
"Jacek Krupiński [...] commissioned Wojciech Franiewski and the other members of the organized crime group he managed to take Krzysztof Olewnik as a hostage and to keep him hostage, assuming that Włodzimierz Olewnik would focus his attention on the issues related to saving his son and freeing him by paying the ransom , but at the same time it will cover the debts of the Krup-Stal company, as he will see Jacek K.'s broad commitment to saving his son ”.
Jacek Krupiński himself during the explanations submitted to the prosecutor's office argued that the company was developing very well, and Włodzimierz Olewnik shared his enthusiasm for the activities of Krup-Stal. Everything they did with Krzysztof Olewnik complied with the regulations, and he never looked for "left" money.
Krupiński also assured that he had never argued with Krzysztof, and their cooperation was exemplary. In the context of the planned inspection, he explained that no specific date had been set. He also claimed that already in June 2001, accountants from Włodzimierz Olewnik's company appeared in Krup-Stal, who had an insight into the company's financial situation.
ADVERTISEMENT
He also confirmed his testimony in a statement sent to Onet.
“The Krup-Stal company was closely supervised, from the very moment of its inception, by Włodzimierz Olewnik, who was the sponsor of our first business venture. The software, accountants and the statutory auditor were imposed on us precisely so that Włodzimierz Olewnik had control over the company and financial matters. The Krup-Stal company was subject to tax inspections, and no significant irregularities were ever found in it, ”emphasizes Jacek Krupiński.
2.
According to the prosecutor's office, the version of the events was as follows: in 2001, Krupiński provided Wojciech Franiewski with information about the security of Krzysztof Olewnik's property. After the event, which took place on October 26, at the young businessman's house, he had to unnoticeably open the balcony door on the side of the pool, allowing the perpetrators to enter the house easily and silently.
In the documents, the policemen noted: “There is an entrance door to the outside of the building from the indoor swimming pool room. During the inspection, the door is ajar. These doors, both the glass and the frame, were sprinkled with argentorate powder, revealing no traces that could be identified ”.
In turn, the visual material from the scene shows that the mentioned door did not have a handle from the outside and it could only be opened from the inside. There were also no traces of the break-in on them. This version was confirmed by one of the hijackers, who testified that Wojciech Franiewski immediately headed towards the door from the pool side and entered without any problems.
There are many indications that the door could actually have been ajar earlier. According to investigators, out of all participants of the event, only Jacek Krupiński had the (economic) motive to do so.
The accused, however, firmly denies that he left the door ajar. He also explained that during the event, no one used this exit. He emphasized that these doors always had to be closed, because there were flowers in the pool that required a constant temperature, therefore Krzysztof always made sure that they were tight.
ADVERTISEMENT
3.
It was Jacek Krupiński who first appeared at Krzysztof Olewnik's house the day after the party and discovered that his partner had been kidnapped. Earlier, worried Włodzimierz Olewnik called him and informed him that his son was not answering the phone. Krupiński arrived at the place around 9.00 (in the indictment we read that on 9.04 he informed Włodzimierz Olewnik by phone about the situation he found at Krzysztof's house).
However, the testimony of one of the witnesses shows that at around 6.00 am he saw a BMW Cabrio car in front of the young businessman's house. It is true that it belonged to Krzysztof Olewnik, but it was then used by Jacek Krupiński.
The latter, however, vehemently denied that it was his car. He claimed that at At 6.00 he was still asleep. In his opinion, it could have been a BMW belonging to Krzysztof W. ps. The panel that was supposed to come to Olewnik's house at that time. He also took into account that the witness might have mistaken the days when he actually saw his car in front of Krzysztof's house.
4.
On the day of the event, Jacek Krupiński left the BMW Cabrio in front of his house and arrived at Krzysztof's house in a BMW Coupe. This car was later used by the perpetrators during a hijacking, then abandoned and burned. It also raised investigators' doubts.
The mentioned BMW Coupe had a complicated anti-theft protection system. "The security features were in three places, which had to be touched simultaneously with the key in the ignition switch with your bare hand in order to close the electric circuit," we read in the prosecutor's documents.
Meanwhile - according to the testimony of one of the hijackers - Wojciech Franiewski started the car without any problem.
5.
Another controversy concerned Jacek Krupiński's visit to a gas station. Two witnesses testified that they saw him there together with Wojciech K. (a police officer and a close friend of the Olewnik family) on October 28 between 7.00 and 9.00.
Meanwhile, Krupiński testified that he left the house around 8.00 a.m., he showed up in Krzysztof's apartment around 9.00 a.m., and after Włodzimierz Olewnik's arrival, he got in the car and went to Zawidz Kościelny for Wojciech K.
ADVERTISEMENT
Only on the way back, the men were to stop at the aforementioned gas station. According to the accused, it was between 9.30 am and 10.15 am. However, in the opinion of the prosecutor's office it is impossible, because at 9.55 Krupiński was already interrogated by the police in Krzysztof Olewnik's house, and at the same time he claimed that his car had broken down on the way.
Investigators were also questioned by Krupiński's account of the failure of his BMW Cabrio. The defendant testified that someone had come to fetch him then, gave him another car, and the broken BMW was towed to the premises of the "K. Olewnik Farm". But he couldn't remember exactly who had arrived and by what car. Wojciech K., staying with him, confirmed this version, but also could not recall the details of the situation.
In addition, the recordings from the scene show that the BMW Cabrio was on that day from 11.00 to 13.00 on the property of Krzysztof Olewnik (and not on the farm).
6.
On December 2, 2001, Krzysztof Olewnik contacted his family and informed that the kidnappers had a telephone number for Jacek Krupiński and he was to transfer the money. He did not explain why he had been selected for the role. Later, Krupiński traveled with the ransom many times. To this day, it arouses suspicions among the family and prosecutors.
During the subsequent analysis of the billings, the investigators also found that shortly after activating one of the phones by the hijackers, they were contacted (initiating the call) by Jacek Krupiński's phone. It took place on December 5, 2001, when the Olewnik family did not know the new number of the perpetrators yet.
Krupiński explained that he had activated the phone from which he had called, at the behest of the kidnappers in December 2001 (he was to receive the SIM card in the letter), who at the same time ordered him not to tell anyone about it.
Investigators did not believe this version, as they received information from the operator that the said phone (SIM card) had already been activated on September 17, 2001.
Exhumation of Krzysztof Olewnik's body. January 26, 2010Photo: Dominik Dzieciinny / Agencja Wyborcza.pl
Exhumation of Krzysztof Olewnik's body. January 26, 2010
7.
Prosecutors point out in the indictment that the kidnappers often knew what movements the Olewnik family was going to make, which may suggest that someone from their immediate vicinity informed them about it. According to the investigators, it was Jacek Krupiński.
As one of the examples, they mentioned the situation when Krupiński and his then wife Iwona were to go with the ransom. She did not want to agree to it. Danuta Olewnik then suggested that she would become similar to Iwona and would go instead of her.
Soon after, the Olewnik family received a recording with Krzysztof's voice warning: "Danusia, no fancy dress."
Jacek Krupiński argued that he was not the source of the leaks. He emphasized that in the first months after the kidnapping, there were a lot of people in the Olewnik house, and the factories of Włodzimierz Olewnik were buzzing with information.
8.
When Jacek Krupiński was arrested in February 2009, the policemen thoroughly searched his house in Płock, where they secured, among others , notebooks (office calendars) from 2000-2008.
Their attention was particularly drawn to the note of November 24, 2001, with the following content: Węgrów-Sokołów Pod (hereinafter poorly legible, probably "Podlaski") around Siedlec (then an illegible sign) with the transport Go (illegible word). Morning (word not legible) - Węgrów Grochów Szlachecki (two words are illegible ) Yesterday - Skrzerzów - sick + fever (yesterday deep in the basement) .
This is important as Krzysztof Olewnik was to be detained from November 2001 to July or August 2003 within the boundaries of the town called Skrzeszew. According to the investigators, Krupiński received such information from the kidnappers, but incorrectly changed the name of the place and therefore wrote "Skrzeszów" in the notebook. The second town of the same name is located on the national road No. 62 running m.in . by the town of Węgrów, which also appears in the records.
The accused explained that he had obtained this information from a clairvoyant who was contacted by Anna Olewnik-Mikołajewska and that it was discussed hotly with the Olewnik family. Hence the laconic notes in the notebook. He also added that he did not keep his calendar entries chronologically.
The family did not confirm this version.
9.
In November 2001, Jacek Krupiński obtained a duplicate SIM card of Krzysztof Olewnik (the phone was registered to their joint company). He activated it several times, but did not inform anyone about it.
According to investigators, there could be two reasons. First of all, controlling the information (in particular text messages) that could have been sent to Krzysztof's phone. Secondly, to authenticate the thesis that self-abduction took place (since the abductee's phone was active at a few moments).
On this point, Jacek Krupiński changed his testimony several times. First, he said that he did not remember asking for a duplicate SIM card of Krzysztof Olewnik. He later explained that the duplicate was being made when Krzysztof fell into the drainage well and wet the phone (two weeks before the kidnapping). During the next interrogation, he stated that he might have made a duplicate at the request of one of the policemen from Płock in order to check the SMSes that came to Krzysztof's phone.
10.
One of the key witnesses in the case concerning Wojciech Franiewski's group was Piotr Skwarski, pseud. Skwara, who was in close contact with Sławomir Kościuk, one of the kidnappers. Skwarski died before the indictment was filed against the group, but his testimony turned out to be fundamental for the investigators.
In November 2005, Skwarski recognized Jacek Krupiński on the review board as a man who met Sławomir Kościuk at the West Railway Station at the turn of July and August 2005. A few days later, he withdrew from these testimonies, explaining that he had seen him at the CBŚ headquarters, where "he was shown to another witness with him". However, in April 2006 he testified again that Krupiński met Sławomir Kościuk and Wojciech Franiewski at the Western Railway Station. The conversation was to concern Jacek Krupiński's purchase of steel from the kidnappers.
The accused firmly denies that such a situation took place. He also emphasized that he did not know Wojciech Franiewski and had never been to the Western Railway Station in Warsaw.
11.
The next testimony cited by the prosecutor's office comes from Bogdan K., who in 2006 in the Barczewo prison was supposed to talk to persons arrested in the case of Krzysztof Olewnik: Eugeniusz D., Ireneusz Piotrowski, and Sławomir Kościuk.
Piotrowski was to tell him about the details of the detention of Krzysztof Olewnik. Kościuk, on the other hand, was to tell him about the course of the abduction itself and state that the kidnapping was ordered by Krzysztof Olewnik's closest friend and accomplice, who with time began to be suspected by his family.
12.
Investigators established that the direct organizer of the kidnapping, Wojciech Franiewski, was closely related to the well-known Warsaw gangster Krzysztof M. ps. Fragles, a member of the Mutant Gang. Wojciech G., who is in close contact with Jacek Krupiński, also admitted to being acquainted with Fragles. Moreover, in one of the secured notebooks of the accused, an entry was found that read "Krzysztof M. (here full name) Fragles".
Moreover, the crown witness Jarosław S. ps. Masa testified that Iwona (Jacek Krupiński's ex-wife) also knew "Fragles". He also claimed that the woman had very extensive contacts among gangsters from Pruszków and Warsaw. According to the prosecutor's office, this could facilitate Jacek Krupiński's contact with criminals while planning the abduction of Krzysztof Olewnik.
Krupiński himself admitted that he was actually looking for contact with "Fragles", but it was already after the kidnapping of Krzysztof and it resulted from the fact that his wife's friend Dorota G. told him that "Fragles" may have important information about the kidnapping. Jacek Krupiński together with Dorota G. searched unsuccessfully for "Fragles" in summer houses, a marina and in a disco near the Zegrze Reservoir.
However, he stressed that he had never spoken to Fragles in person or on the phone.
CBŚ officers during a search in the house of the OlewniksPhoto: Dominik Dzieciinny / Agencja Wyborcza.pl
CBŚ officers during a search in the house of the Olewniks
13.
According to investigators, Jacek Krupiński achieved his goal. The kidnapping of Krzysztof Olewnik caused not only that the planned control in Krup-Stal did not take place, but also inhibited the interest in Włodzimierz Olewnik's company for a long time and the need to repay the liabilities.
According to calculations by Włodzimierz Olewnik, Krupiński gained no less than PLN 600,000 on the failure to settle his debts. zlotys (which corresponded to the size of his share). Until mid-April 2003 Włodzimierz Olewnik paid off his financial liabilities towards banks due to loans.
“The involvement of Włodzimierz Olewnik in the case of his son meant that he focused his attention on the abduction. The above-mentioned situation was used by Jacek Krupiński, who sold Krup-Stal steel for a song, ”we read in the indictment.
However, the accused claims something else.
"Neither before the kidnapping of Krzysztof, nor afterwards, any shortcomings of the Krup-Stal company were found, which allegedly were the basis for the order to kidnap Krzysztof. There was not even one evidence that I had committed the acts that I was accused of, despite the fact that Włodzimierz Olewnik had full access to the company's files, its bank accounts, and from some point he declared war on me and blamed me for the death of his son "- we read in a statement sent to editorial office.
"With full books of accounts, commercial contracts, unlimited financial possibilities and being determined to take unjustified (and articulated directly in front of a witness) revenge against me, I have never been even summoned for questioning as a witness in connection with any irregularities at Krup -Stal, ”he continues.
“At that time, I was a fast-growing entrepreneur, our business with Krzysztof brought a lot of money for those years, and in the short - and most importantly - real perspective, we aimed to earn money that could set us up for life. We were young, we had great cars, houses, we enjoyed all the fun of life. Amounts in the order of several hundred thousand zlotys were our everyday life, they were not in the sphere of dreams, and they certainly could not tempt us to commit such a crime "- emphasizes the defendant.
14.
As already mentioned, Jacek Krupiński was arrested for the first time in February 2009 and spent six months in detention. Although the prosecutor's office requested its extension, the court did not consent to it.
- The evidence collected in the proceedings allows us to conclude that there is a high probability of Jacek Krupiński's relationship with the kidnapping case and with the people behind him - judge Dariusz Wysocki from the District Court in Warsaw justified. - But what was the relationship? To what extent was Jacek Krupiński involved in the planning of the kidnapping and the abduction itself? At the moment, based on the evidence at the disposal of the prosecutor's office, it is difficult to assess it as categorically as it does, he explained.
The decision of the SO in Warsaw was also upheld by the Court of Appeal. - There is no such evidence that would make the guilt of Jacek Krupiński much more probable, and such a probability must be almost certain - argued judge Małgorzata Mojkowska.
We compared the motion of the Gdańsk prosecutor's office (then conducting the investigation) to extend the detention in 2009 with the indictment filed this year by the Małopolska National Prosecutor's Office. The argument is almost identical. This means that the investigators for 12 years did not collect virtually any new evidence against Jacek Krupiński.
This, in turn, raises an important question: since the collected evidence turned out to be insufficient in 2009 to extend Jacek Krupiński's arrest, will the same material prove sufficient to convict him?
15.
There is no doubt that the investigation into the abduction and murder of Krzysztof Olewnik was scandalous. The police carried out a disastrous inspection of the scene, many traces were not secured, incompetent prosecutors were assigned to the case at the initial stage, some evidence, such as surveillance recordings, was hidden.
To this day, no one has explained why many important documents from the investigation (including four volumes of files) were lost, why the police did not detain the hijackers during the transfer of the ransom, or why so many criminals involved in the abduction and murder of Krzysztof Olewnik committed suicide in their cells.
Prosecutors do not make any reference to this in the indictment. They do not indicate what role Jacek Krupiński played in this and how he was to influence the course of the investigation, the work of policemen and prosecutors. And yet it was he - adopting the prosecution's version - as the main organizer of the kidnapping, who had to pull the strings in this case and cover his tracks.
Investigators completely omit other threads in the indictment, including the one related to the person of the late Maciej Książkiewicz, the former head of the Płock police, and then the deputy commander of Mazovia. Although no hard evidence has ever been collected, it was him that for years was suspected by both the investigators, the media and the family of taking part in the kidnapping of Krzysztof.
Włodzimierz Olewnik spoke about it many times, claiming that Książkiewicz wanted to bankrupt him and take over his plants.
“He was with me with a proposal to buy meat plants from Płock and Służewiec for peanuts. He said he would help me acquire these plants very cheaply. It was very suspicious and I did not enter into such arrangements "- Włodzimierz Olewnik told journalists of" Supervisor ".
According to the testimony of some witnesses, Książkiewicz was to be very irritated by the fact that Olewnik rejected the offer of interests in which the commandant was to be a silent partner. There were also voices that he would want revenge. "He did not say it directly to me, but I heard such voices that I may regret it," said Włodzimierz Olewnik.
Prosecutors in the indictment completely ignore this thread. They also do not indicate any connections between Książkiewicz and Krupiński.
16.
Marek Biernacki, who in 2009-2011 chaired the parliamentary investigative committee to investigate the circumstances of the kidnapping and murder of Krzysztof Olewnik, is skeptical about the main theses contained in the indictment.
- Jacek Krupiński could somehow participate in it, know about it. On the other hand, he would not be able to change prosecutors to throw things around like a rotten egg, steal a case file or influence the work of the police to such an extent. He was too "small" for that, explains Marek Biernacki in an interview with Onet.
He lists in one breath the irregularities that have not been clarified until today:
- How did it happen that they gave such a serious case at the beginning to district prosecutors, who had never conducted such investigations in their life and were at best involved in the theft of bicycles? Why was the prosecutor who started this case in the way a professional should do, at some point, after discovering the direct perpetrators, was removed?
Biernacki also mentions materials that were almost lost in this case in series. In 2008, it even happened that 231 material evidence kept in the warehouse of the Provincial Police Headquarters in Olsztyn was flooded with faeces from a broken pipe. Another "coincidence".
- Nobody has ever verified Wojciech Franiewski's biography until the end. It was only we in the committee that we started to drill down and there were many indications that before 1989 he had collaborated with the services. Because who would attempt to rob the car of the minister of the environment in the times of the Polish People's Republic? Certainly not an ordinary thief. Franiewski also had no problems obtaining a passport at that time, which was a phenomenon in the case of a criminal. And when he ended up in a prison in Płock, everyone treated him as an "ear" (an associate of the police / services - ed.) - lists Biernacki.
- In addition to presenting the report on the work of the commission, based on the experience related to this case, we decided to introduce some changes to the provisions on the operational work of the police, witness protection or procedures related to the activities of law enforcement agencies in kidnappings. When I became the minister of justice, I implemented many of these laws myself. I think this is the only positive effect of this story - he emphasizes.
- It is also important that the direct murderers of Krzysztof Olewnik have been detected. But who inspired it and how it happened… we don't know, and it's hard to say if we'll ever find out, concludes Marek Biernacki.
17.
Włodzimierz Olewnik is convinced today that Jacek Krupiński played an important role in this matter. - I believe that he took part in the kidnapping of Krzysztof. He didn't have to be the principal, but he might have been in the kidnapper group. He knew about them - he said in an interview with Onet.
He admits that the motive for his actions could actually be shared interests with his son. - It could also have been about depriving me of the meat factories and then taking them over. So that I would be bankrupt - he emphasized.
In the trial, which is scheduled to start in January 2022, Włodzimierz Olewnik will act as an auxiliary prosecutor.
In a statement sent to Onet, Jacek Krupiński assures that he has nothing to hide and will fight for his good name until the end:
"I am ready to look everyone in the eyes with my head raised. Because I am Jacek Krupiński and I am a true friend of Krzysztof Olewnik.
The anniversary of Krzysztof's abduction will be the basis for the re-enactment of events related to his tragic fate, as well as public interest in me as well. However, the mere fact of pending criminal proceedings cannot be used to deduce and prejudge anyone's guilt. Therefore, as part of the trial, I will prove and prove my innocence.
I want to say clearly - my only but very strong relationship with Krzysztof's case is that it concerns the tragedy of my best friend and me personally. It is because of the memory of Krzysiek that everyone should care about explaining this matter as soon as possible. "
Source: Onet
Date Created: October 27, 2021 05:55 AM
MATEUSZ BACZYŃSKI
Onet journalist
