This story began with two perfume thefts that took place on February 27, 2023, in Lubań. The first occurred at 4:06 p.m. at the Rossmann on Zgorzelecka Street. The second, 33 minutes later, at the drugstore on Szarych Szeregów Square. A woman can be seen on the surveillance footage. The police concluded that the same person had committed both thefts. Edyta Jadach, who at the time used the surname Szylar, was identified as the perpetrator. The problem is that Edyta herself has said from the beginning: it wasn't me.
Two thefts, two separate proceedings
The cases were not joined. Two separate proceedings were opened: II W 433/23 concerning the theft at 4:06 p.m. and II W 377/23 concerning the theft at 4:39 p.m. According to the case files, Edyta Jadach was questioned by the police only once. The record of that questioning was then used in both proceedings.
In both cases, the court initially issued penalty orders, meaning decisions made without a regular hearing attended by the accused. In one of them, case II W 377/23, Edyta successfully filed an objection. As a result, the penalty order lost its force and a regular trial was held.
The II W 433/23 case took a different course. On August 8, 2023, the District Court in Lubań found Edyta guilty of stealing perfume worth PLN 174.99 and sentenced her to one month of restricted liberty—40 hours of community service.
The case files show that the judgment was sent to her address and the delivery notice was left twice. Edyta maintains, however, that she never actually received it and did not know that another decision had been issued against her. She therefore did not file an objection. The judgment became final on September 6, 2023.
According to her attorney, Angelika Posacka, Edyta learned about the final judgment only later—from a court probation officer. That is the judgment that still hangs over her today.
The second case went to a regular trial
In the case concerning the second theft, Edyta had the opportunity to defend herself before the court. She pleaded not guilty. She said that at the time of the theft she was about 10 kilometers from Lubań, at a relative's home. SMS messages and a photo taken by phone at 4:36 p.m.—three minutes before the theft, which according to the charge was to have occurred at 4:39 p.m.—were presented.
The court did not find this alibi convincing, however. It did find that the person on the surveillance footage was Edyta Jadach.
One of the most important pieces of evidence was the testimony of police officer Rafał D. He had previously been at Edyta's home during activities connected with the “Blue Card” procedure. When the policewoman handling the theft case showed officers the surveillance material, Rafał recognized Edyta. This procedure was not, however, a formal identification.
Policewoman Marta S. later testified before the court that she might have shown the officers a recording, a still image, or posted a fragment of the material in a police group on a messenger. She no longer remembered exactly how the recognition had taken place.
In court, she said something significant: if Rafał had not been one hundred percent certain at the time, she would have closed the case as undetected because, as she explained, she did not want to “hurt anyone.” The second police officer, Tomasz Ch., was no longer one hundred percent convinced before the court that the woman on the surveillance footage was Edyta.
The defense wanted an expert. The court decided it could assess the face itself
This is probably the most important point in the entire case. Attorney Angelika Posacka requested the appointment of an expert in identifying people based on video recordings. The expert was to compare the morphological features of the head, primarily the face, as well as the body shape of the person recorded by the surveillance system with Edyta Jadach's appearance. The District Court did not admit this evidence.
What is more, it carried out its own technical assessment of the photographs. In its reasoning, it stated, among other things, that photographs of Edyta taken with a modern phone might have been automatically “beautified” by algorithms that smooth the skin, slim the face, or remove moles. The court contrasted this with images from industrial cameras, which, it said, do not have filters, AI, or HDR technology.
In the appeal, the defense argued that the court had thereby assumed the role of an image-technology specialist, even though it had previously refused to appoint an expert in precisely that field. The Regional Court did not accept this argument.
In the reasoning of the judgment, it wrote that the District Court judge had seen Edyta in person several times and was entitled to assess independently whether she was the woman on the surveillance footage. The Regional Court judge also saw Edyta at the hearing and shared this assessment. At the same time, the court noted that since the incident Edyta had “lost a significant amount of weight.” In this situation, the Regional Court concluded, an expert was unnecessary.
The earlier judgment appeared in the reasoning
There is another element that raises questions. In the reasoning of the judgment in the second case, the District Court stated that Edyta had already been finally punished for an earlier perfume theft at Rossmann on the same day. The court also wrote that the image of the perpetrator from that surveillance footage was identical to Edyta's image in the present case. It described this as a fact known to the court officially.
The defense argued that this was inadmissible. In that case, there had been no regular trial—the penalty order had been issued, and Edyta did not object to it because, as she maintains, she did not know about it. The Regional Court agreed with the defense on one principle: the earlier judgment could not serve as the basis for establishing guilt in another case. It nevertheless held that the District Court had merely recorded the fact of the earlier final punishment. The Regional Court itself requested the files from the first case and disclosed them during the appellate proceedings. The conviction in the second case was upheld.
A new lead has emerged
Recently, Edyta Jadach—who had never had any dealings with the justice system before this case and had never previously been convicted—published a still image from the surveillance footage on social media and asked whether anyone recognized the woman shown in it. Someone responded and identified a specific person.
According to information provided to the editorial team, the identified person may resemble the woman recorded by the surveillance system. At this stage, however, there is no independent confirmation that she was the one who committed the theft. We will therefore not publish her details or prejudge her responsibility. It is nevertheless another lead that should be professionally verified.
We also viewed the surveillance footage
The istotne.pl editorial team has the surveillance recording. It shows a woman committing the theft. After watching the material repeatedly, however, we are unable to state that it is Edyta Jadach. Our doubts concern both the face and the body shape. The woman on the surveillance footage appears to have a different figure, including different leg proportions, from Edyta in photographs from that period.
This is, of course, not an expert opinion. We do wonder why the court considered a specialist analysis unnecessary.
The editorial team also conducted an auxiliary facial comparison using an artificial-intelligence-based tool. The system did not indicate similarity between Edyta's face and the face of the woman recorded by the surveillance system. It did, however, show a match with the face of the woman whose image Edyta had located.
This result is also not courtroom evidence and cannot replace an expert opinion. It does show, however, that the identification is not as obvious as the court's reasoning suggests.
It is all the more difficult to understand why, in a case whose essence was a single question—“is this the same woman?”—the court did not appoint an expert who could answer it using scientific methods.
15 days in custody for the first judgment
The first penalty order—the one Edyta says she learned about only after it became final—did not disappear. Because she did not perform the ordered community service, the District Court converted the sentence into 15 days of substitute detention in May 2025. The Regional Court upheld that decision.
The defense tried to suspend enforcement of the sentence. Without success.
On Friday, August 28, 2026, Edyta Jadach was detained during a police check. According to information provided to our editorial team, she was placed in a police detention room in connection with enforcement of the 15-day sentence.
The woman who has claimed for more than three years that she did not steal the perfume and that someone else is in the recording has therefore effectively been deprived of her liberty.
We asked the court. 87 days without a response
On June 3, 2026, the istotne.pl editorial team contacted the District Court in Lubań with questions about the case. We asked, among other things, why an expert opinion on identifying people had not been admitted, what evidence had been decisive in concluding that Edyta was the person seen on the surveillance footage, and whether any specialist expertise had been used in the identification.
By August 29—87 days later—we had received no response. We do not know whether the message was overlooked or whether the court decided not to reply. We also received no information that the court was refusing to answer.
In a case that ended today with a person actually being deprived of her liberty, silence lasting almost three months is nevertheless difficult to regard as satisfactory.
Was there a mistake?
We cannot say today that Edyta Jadach was certainly wrongfully punished. That can ultimately be decided only by the competent court on the basis of reliably obtained evidence. We can, however, say something else.
There are real doubts in this case. The identification began with an informal recognition by police officers. One of them was no longer one hundred percent certain in court. The defense presented an alibi. It requested a specialist analysis of the recording. No expert was appointed. The court compared the faces itself and commented itself on the operation of photographic algorithms. The earlier penalty order, which Edyta says she did not know about, subsequently appeared in the reasoning of the second case.
A lead has also recently emerged suggesting that someone else may be the woman on the surveillance footage. If this proves true, we will not be dealing with a minor mistake concerning perfume worth a few hundred zlotys. We will be dealing with a situation in which the wrong person was identified as the perpetrator of two thefts, finally convicted, and then deprived of her liberty.
And that is precisely why this case requires another, very thorough examination.
In case II W 433/23, the first penalty order, dated August 8, 2023, was issued by Judge Bartosz Gajewski. This judgment (40 hours of community service) became final because no effective objection was filed.
In case II W 377/23, however, after a regular trial, Edyta Jadach was convicted by Judge Tuliusz Stabryn in a judgment dated January 31, 2025, and sentenced to one month of restricted liberty (30 hours of community service).
Interestingly, the earlier penalty order in case II W 377/23, dated July 12, 2023, was also issued by Bartosz Gajewski, but it was subsequently challenged by an objection, so the case proceeded to a regular hearing and ultimately Judge Stabryn adjudicated it.
In the appellate proceedings in case VI Ka 264/25, Judge Andrzej Tekieli of the Regional Court in Jelenia Góra presided. On July 2, 2025, he upheld the District Court's judgment convicting Edyta Jadach.