Former BOR Chief, Marian Janicki, to testify in the Tomasz Arabski’s trial
Published: May 25, 2017
The former Chief of the Polish Bureau for Protection of Government Officials (BOR) Gen. Marian Janicki is scheduled to testify in the case of Tomasz Arabski who served as Chief of Prime Minister Donald Tusk’s Chancery at the time of the Smolensk crash. The case was brought by some families of the Smolensk victims for failure to perform his duty in connection with the organization of the visit of President Lech Kaczynski in Katyn in 2010.
The District Court in Warsaw held that testimony of the former chief of BOR, like previous testimonies of BOR witnesses, will be closed to the public. The trial will take place in a secured courtroom, inaccessible to reporters. It is illegal to report on a non-public trial, and breaching the regulation carries a fine, restriction of liberty, or a prison sentence up to two years.
BOR witnesses have already been interviewed, and, apart from Janicki, there is one more witness to testify. Paweł Bielawny, BOR's former deputy chief, will testify on June 5, 2017. He previously received a 1.5 suspended prison sentence for irregularities in assuring security during April 7, 2010 visit of Donald Tusk to Katyn and April 10, 2010 visit of Lech Kaczyński to Katyn.
The courts held twice already that Bielawny failed to ensure that an appropriate security check was conducted accounting for the foreign nature of the security risk; allowed for an appointment of inappropriate staff to form the patrol team; failed to order BOR officers to conduct a reconnaissance mission before April 7, 2010 with the participation of the Russian team that guards the landing airport; failed to ensure that vital information was gathered regarding the security provided by the Russians during the two visits and regarding rules for cooperation with the host country; and approved an underrated level of threat for the two visits.
An indictment has been filed against Arabski and others back in 2014, after the civil prosecution decided to close the investigation into the 2010 organisation of President’s and Prime Minister’s flights to Smolensk. The plaintiffs are families of several dozens of Smolensk crash victims, e.g. Anna Walentynowicz, Janusz Kochanowski, Andrzej Przewoźnik, Władysław Stasiak, Sławomir Skrzypek and Zbigniew Wassermann. The case is handled by two prosecutors, and the defendants deny all charges.
The remaining defendants are government officials: Monika B. and Miłosław K. (both from the Office of Prime Minister Tusk), Justyna G. and Grzegorz C. from the Polish Embassy in Moscow. They face up to three years imprisonment.
On April 10, 2010, the Smolensk crash claimed the lives of 96 people, including Lech Kaczyński’s and his wife’s. The investigation was initially conducted by the Military Prosecution in Warsaw. The prosecutors charged two Russian air traffic controllers from the Smolensk airport (to this day they have not been presented with the charges) and two officers from 36th Special Aviation Regiment, which was in charge of transport for key Polish government’s officials, and was dissolved after the crash. On April 4, 2016, the investigation was taken over by a new investigative unit of the National Public Prosecutor’s Office, which later expanded the charges for three air traffic controllers from the Smolensk airport. The Russian side conducts its own investigation, claiming that the Tu-154 wreckage and black boxes cannot be returned to Poland until the Russian investigation is concluded.
Click on the thumbnails below to view screen dumps from the detectors used to examine the wreckage and seats from the Polish president's plane crash in Smolensk. An "X" denotes the presence of the detected explosive substance and its type. The underlined Polish word "Probka" or "probka" in the screen dump 1 and 2, means "Sample"
Why did they all fly on the same plane?
Synopsis: January 12, 2013, Toronto, Canada. The wife of the late Deputy-Minister of Culture Tomasz Merta: "What I am about to tell you now, are suspicions - and not even my own - but, rather the [suspicions of the] individuals in the inner-circles of the [Polish] military... I heard a statement that was made - but, I am not taking any responsibility for how credible, or not credible it is. [I heard that] had the generals and journalists' not been re-assigned to different aircraft, it wouldn't have been the Tupolev [Tu-154M], but rather the Casa [transport aircraft] that would have been taken out.
Because the Generals were no longer onboard the Casa, there was no reason for it to get airborne. And for this reason it was the Yak[-40] that flew off to Smolensk. This Casa [transport aircraft] was never examined in any way. It was not subject to any examination. Aside from a single note in the deposition given to the military, no one was interested why this aircraft didn't fly [to Smolensk]. Perhaps, this is someones crazy phantasy, but perhaps it isn't.
Some [Polish] military personnel had suggested, that it [the Casa] had to stay behind at the Okecie military [tarmack], so that the explosives could be removed from it - because they were no longer needed [...] I am only repeating what I was told."
"Disarming" Explosives ...
It is worth for us to retrace the entire process of "disarming" the case of explosive substances at the crash site. It all started with the publication of Cezary Gmyz in "Rzeczpospolita" on October 30, 2012, and information that the detectors, which were used by experts in Smolensk (in late September and October) showed traces of TNT and nitroglycerine.
As it turned out, the journalist was also reporting about the indication of Hexogen. The storm broke. The prosecution denied the publication, and ultimately, the editor-in-chief of "Rzeczpospolita," Cezary Gmyz and two other journalists lost their jobs. The entire editorial staff of one of Poland’s most popular weeklies, "Uważam Rze", was also silenced.
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed herein are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views the SmolenskCrashNews.com. All information is provided on an as-is basis, and all data and information provided on this site is for informational purposes only. The Smolensk Crash News DOT COM makes no representations as to accuracy, completeness, currentness, suitability, or validity of any information on this site and will not be liable for any errors, omissions, or delays in this information or any losses, injuries, or damages arising from its display or use.
