At the hearing on March 1, attorney Luiza Słychan submitted a motion to determine the basis on which the experts based their claims that the child might have been under the influence of drugs before drowning.

– In their opinion, the experts indicated a small amount of the active substance in the child’s blood, namely 16 ng/ml – the attorney explained. – To date, we do not have a statutory definition of “under the influence” and “after use,” and therefore I am forced to refer to the findings made in 2014 at the National Conference of Forensic Toxicologists, where concentration levels of psychoactive substances corresponding to sobriety, “after use” and “under the influence” were adopted. The Conference established that sobriety corresponds to a concentration of up to 25 ng/ml. I am therefore interested in determining what the experts base their claim on in this case when stating that the child might have experienced any psychophysical disturbances – Słychan said.

Prosecutor Katarzyna Wójcik-Kurcio moved for the defense’s motion to be dismissed.

– I see no reason to question the opinion of the experts from the Department of Forensic Medicine in Wrocław – the prosecutor argued. – What is this supposed to achieve? An attempt to establish what would have happened if? The child died, and the drug was not absorbed. I do not understand what purpose this evidentiary motion would serve – the prosecutor objected.

The court nevertheless accepted the motion. Luiza Słychan argued that she wanted to establish the basis on which the experts had reached their conclusions that if the child had not died, and the substance had been absorbed from the stomach, it would have caused a state of intoxication.

– At this stage, I am not questioning the experts’ opinion – Słychan said. – Nevertheless, this opinion is incomplete and requires supplementation with the circumstances set out in the written evidentiary motion. Unfortunately, the experts address the question of “what would have happened if” without indicating what they base their claims on. It is necessary to establish the basis on which the experts reached such conclusions. I am setting aside the fact that it is reprehensible that a drug was found in the child’s body, but since we are at this point, we must establish what the actual influence was of the amount of drug detected in the child’s body and whether it contributed to the child ending up in the water – the attorney added.

Rafał B.’s defense attorney adds that despite submitting the motion, it must be emphasized that, from the first statements given by the child’s father, he has denied leaving the substance in a place accessible to his son.

Let us recall that information stating that the child had taken methamphetamine on the day of the drowning was provided by the District Prosecutor’s Office in Jelenia Góra in August 2020, three months after the child’s body was found. The statement acknowledged that the entire amount of substance taken by the child had not had time to be absorbed into the blood before death.

The prosecutor’s statement read as follows:

[...] It was also established that psychotropic substances in the form of methamphetamine were present in the child’s blood and stomach. According to the experts, the substances had been taken orally by the child a relatively short time before death, and psychophysical disturbances corresponding to the state after using this substance might have occurred; if the entire substance in the stomach had been absorbed into the blood (which did not happen due to the child’s death), this would have led to a state of intoxication.

statement from August 2020, District Prosecutor’s Office in Jelenia Góra