Mother of Three Is in Prison. Expert: The Thief Seen on the CCTV Is Not Her

The mother of three, Edyta Jadach, has insisted from the beginning that she was not the person who stole perfume from the Rossmann drugstore in Lubań. However, the court ruled that the woman visible on the CCTV was indeed her.

The defense asked for an expert to be appointed to professionally compare Edyta’s face and figure with those of the woman in the recording. The court ruled, however, that an expert was unnecessary. Now, such a specialist has been privately hired by attorney Angelika Posacka. The result is completely different from the conclusion adopted by the courts.

Expert: this is not Edyta

The expert report was prepared by Amanda Krać-Batyra, MA, a specialist in anthropology. She analyzed 16 Rossmann CCTV recordings, as well as photographs of Edyta Jadach and another woman identified by internet users—N.W. (these are her initials).

The conclusion concerning Edyta is very strong. The expert wrote that it should be “categorically excluded” that the woman seen on the CCTV is Edyta Jadach.

The anthropologist compared, among other things, the figure, leg structure, forehead, hair, nose, chin, and ankle area. The woman seen on the CCTV has characteristic swelling around the ankles. Edyta does not have this feature. The structure of the nose, chin, and figure also differs.

Photographs of another woman, N.W., were also included in the expert report. She was identified after Edyta posted a CCTV still online and asked whether anyone recognized the woman visible in it. The expert also compared N.W. with the woman seen at Rossmann. Her conclusion was: with a high degree of probability, the woman seen on the CCTV and N.W. are the same person.

This is not yet a 100-percent identification. The expert notes that the quality of the recording does not allow an opinion approaching certainty. However, in N.W.’s case, she found many significant features in common and no differences that would rule out her being the woman seen on the CCTV.

The court did not want an expert

During Edyta’s trial, her defense asked the court to appoint an expert in identifying people in recordings. The District Court in Lubań did not do so. Instead, it compared Edyta’s appearance with that of the woman on the CCTV itself. In its reasoning, the court even wrote about phone filters, artificial intelligence, and automatic photo enhancement.

The court ruled that photographs of Edyta taken with a phone could alter her appearance and therefore placed greater trust in the CCTV image. The Regional Court later upheld this assessment. It found that since the judge had seen Edyta in the courtroom, the judge could independently assess whether she was the person in the recording. No expert was appointed again.

Today, we have technologies capable of comparing faces

It is 2026. Specialized systems exist for image analysis, facial recognition, and comparing body features. There are also experts who know how to examine such materials and which tools to use. Yet in this case, the question of whether the woman on the CCTV was Edyta was decided primarily through the judge’s visual assessment.

In our view, this was a serious error. Especially since the specialist report now reaches the opposite conclusion. The expert explicitly emphasizes that resemblance visible “to the naked eye” is not enough to reliably identify a person. Specific facial and bodily features must be compared. And it was precisely after such a comparison that Edyta was categorically ruled out.

Edyta is serving 15 days in detention, while the court has been silent for three months

The worst part is that Edyta was detained and is currently serving 15 days of substitute detention. The sentence stems from an earlier judgment concerning one of two thefts committed on the same day. Edyta claims that she did not commit that theft either.

On June 3, we sent questions concerning the case to the District Court in Lubań. Among other things, we asked why no expert had been appointed and on what basis the court concluded that Edyta Jadach was the person seen on the CCTV.

Three months have passed, and we still have not received a reply. The judge is currently on vacation, while Edyta is sitting in detention.

The first penal order judgment, dated August 8, 2023, was issued by Judge Bartosz Gajewski. That judgment—40 hours of community service—became final because no effective objection was filed (Edyta did not receive the document containing the penal order judgment). In the second trial, Edyta Jadach was convicted by Judge Tuliusz Stabryn in a judgment dated January 31, 2025, and sentenced to one month of restriction of liberty (30 hours of community service). The appeal proceedings were heard by Judge Andrzej Tekieli of the Regional Court in Jelenia Góra. On July 2, 2025, he upheld the District Court’s judgment convicting Edyta Jadach.