According to investigative journalist Wojciech Sumliński, Andrzej Lepper did not commit suicide – he was murdered, and the main motive was his knowledge of the 'gas scam of the century' and his attempt to free himself from the influence of Ukrainian services.
2
Sumliński and Budzyński's books ('The Dangerous Liaisons of Andrzej Lepper' and '...of Sławomir Petelicki') and the film 'Return to Jedwabne' contain evidence that the official versions of the deaths of leading figures are false, and the massacre in Jedwabne was from start to finish a German crime, not a Polish one.
3
YouTube twice removed Sumliński's channel without warning – once after the publication of 'Return to Jedwabne' (3.5 million viewers in 3 weeks), the second time after placing stones commemorating the true history of Jedwabne, which shows the mechanism of censoring inconvenient truth.
4
Sumliński describes the ubiquitous mechanism of negative selection in Polish politics and the continuity of networks since the PRL era (FOZ scandal), which lead to politicians from various options blocking the clarification of the Lepper, Petelicki, and Popiełuszko cases.
Protocols
Concrete recipes — what, when, how much, and why
2 items
Ask the investigative question: who gained?
WhatWhen analyzing geopolitical or criminal events, always ask: who gained, wanted to gain, or could have gained. The answer to this question points to the potential perpetrator.
WhenDuring independent analysis of information, especially when suspecting provocation, attacks, or hidden interests.
For whomAnyone who wants to independently analyze media messages and not be manipulated.
WhyAccording to Sumliński, this is a universal investigative tool of his mentor, prosecutor Andrzej Witkowski, which allows connecting seemingly unrelated facts and revealing the true motives of actions, as in the case of Hamas/Israel, the WTC attack, or the Gleiwitz provocation.
CaveatsIt is not proof, but a working hypothesis – it requires verification with concrete facts. Sumliński emphasizes that he says this in the realm of speculation when hard evidence is lacking.
Prosecutor Witkowski developed a rule for himself to always seek the answer to the question of gain, because even if there is no direct evidence, it indicates the direction of the investigation. Sumliński applies it to contemporary events: since Israel gained a pretext to remove Palestinians, it is worth investigating whether it had knowledge of or participation in Hamas's preparations. Similarly, in the case of the WTC attack – after the attack, 70% of Americans supported the invasion of Iraq, which completely reversed previous sentiments and brought benefit to those who sought to overthrow Hussein's regime. He does not claim to have proof, but logic indicates that events are rarely accidental.
Mechanism
The method originates from investigative practice: identifying the beneficiary of an event allows narrowing the circle of suspects and directing further investigation. Sumliński cites examples: Germany before 1939 (Gleiwitz provocation), Russia before the Chechen war (apartment bombings by the FSB), and Israel in the context of the Hamas attack.
Personal experience
Sumliński recounts that Witkowski was his mentor and taught him this very principle, which repeatedly helped him in his journalistic investigations.
As an investigator, I look for the answer to the question: who gained, wanted to gain, or could have gained? Once I get an answer to one of these three questions, I already know where to look for the perpetrator.
Also said
“Undoubtedly, Israel gained from Hamas's attack on Israel – it gained a pretext for a total crackdown on Palestine.”— An example of applying the question to a current conflict.
Defending the truth despite persecution: Sumliński's model of conduct
WhatPersisting with the truth, even when faced with state repression, hate, channel destruction, and court trials – treating each day as a gift and determination to speak the facts.
WhenWhen you are an investigative journalist or a witness to abuses and have access to evidence; in the case of attacks and attempts to silence you.
For whomFor journalists and whistleblowers encountering systemic oppression.
WhySumliński believes that truth has power, and fear is a tool of enemies. He survived a suicide attempt (after the destruction of him and his family by the services in 2008) and since then lives 'on borrowed time', no longer afraid of anything.
CaveatsIt requires enormous mental resilience and support. Sumliński himself suffered a breakdown and thought about suicide – now he emphasizes that he received this time as a gift.
In 2008, after publishing materials about the marshal scandal (related to Bronisław Komorowski), Sumliński was subjected to a media and family smear campaign. The ABW harassed him and his wife, children stopped going to school due to hate. He fell into a deep depression and planned suicide to protect his family. After three months in the hospital, he came out with a resolve to fight with the truth. Since then, he has won 33 out of 37 trials, and treats each day as a bonus. His story serves as an example that even in the face of total destruction, one can rise and not be intimidated.
Mechanism
After a traumatic experience (destruction of his family by the ABW, media hate), he concluded that since he was supposed to die anyway, he has nothing left to lose – this frees him from fear and allows him to act uncompromisingly.
Personal experience
Sumliński details how the state destroyed him and his family, and he thought about suicide as the only way out. After leaving the hospital, he decided that he would defend himself with the truth regardless of the consequences.
I was supposed to die then, I didn't die. I got a second chance. (…) I treat this remaining time as a gift. (…) What is there to be afraid of?
Also said
“When a devilish vision appeared before me that I would go to prison, my wife would be destroyed, the children would be left alone – the devil suggests a solution: if you're gone, they'll leave them alone.”— Description of an extreme moment of breakdown and pressure.
“I came out determined to defend myself on the principle of come what may, but I will defend myself with the truth.”— Declaration of life philosophy after trauma.
What's new
Personal practice updates, fresh positions, predictions
5 items
Challenging Andrzej Lepper's suicide as murder
Andrzej Lepper did not commit suicide – he was murdered, and the investigation was faked from the beginning to hide his knowledge of the gas contract and his attempts to break away from the influence of Ukrainian services.
Why this matters: The common narrative of mainstream media and the prosecutor's investigation maintains that Lepper took his own life. Sumliński presents concrete evidence (wiretaps, accounts of ABW officers, analysis of the crime scene) undermining this version.
Background
Andrzej Lepper, leader of Samoobrona and deputy prime minister, publicly threatened to reveal 'dirt' on politicians just before his death. Officially, it was determined that the reason for the suicide was debts, his son's illness, and sex scandals. Sumliński, however, emphasizes from the beginning that many elements do not fit suicide, and the investigation was closed before it really began.
Sumliński, together with former head of the ABW delegation Tomasz Budzyński, gained access to wiretaps of Lepper from the period when he was deputy prime minister. The recordings show that Lepper showed no suicidal tendencies and had a detailed plan to get out of his problems (including using knowledge of the gas contract in a conversation with Jarosław Kaczyński through Tomasz Sakiewicz). Key technical evidence: Lepper's fingerprints were not found on the weapon from which he allegedly shot, and a police expert opinion excludes the possibility of suicide without leaving traces. Moreover, at the same time, attorney Ryszard Kuchciński, lawyer and confidant of Lepper's secrets, died – who, as Sumliński established, was acting under the control of the services. All circumstances point to a planned political execution, and the prosecutor's office (including prosecutor Korneluk) implied that reopening the investigation depends 'on those higher up'.
Personal experience
Sumliński recounts that prosecutor Korneluk (currently the face of the national prosecutor's office) interrogated him after the book's publication and implied that if it were up to him, he would initiate an investigation, but the decision lies higher. He also describes how Tomasz Sekielski – a skeptical journalist – after thorough research changed his mind and publicly stated in Gazeta Wyborcza: 'I have not the slightest doubt that Lepper was murdered'.
Andrzej Lepper did not commit suicide, he was murdered.
Also said
“He [prosecutor Korneluk] would initiate an investigation in this case, but he implied that it depends on those higher up.”— Shows that even in the prosecutor's office there are people who see the need for an investigation but are blocked.
“Tomek Budzyński, head of the ABW delegation in Lublin, who at the time monitored the activities of Andrzej Lepper (…) there was nothing that even touched upon any theses regarding suicide.”— Confirms that the wiretaps showed no suicidal intentions.
“An interesting thing is that almost at the same moment, one of Andrzej Lepper's closest friends, Ryszard Kuchciński, died.”— Points to the broader context of eliminating witnesses.
The role of Ukrainian services in surveillance and blackmailing Polish politicians
Ukrainian services (SBU) controlled dozens of escort agencies and hotels in Poland, especially in Podkarpacie and the Tatras, recording politicians and creating blackmail material on an unprecedented scale in Europe.
Why this matters: Sumliński directly links this practice to the Lepper case and the Podkarpacie scandal, pointing to deep penetration of Poland by Ukrainian intelligence, which can control politicians and businessmen.
Background
The Podkarpacie scandal of 2019 concerned compromising recordings from brothels. Sumliński claims this is just the tip of the iceberg – ABW officers confirm that no European service uses the sexual sphere as intensively as the Ukrainian one.
According to Sumliński, Ukrainian special services, including the Order of the Knights of Michael the Archangel (in reality an intelligence cover), through front companies bought several dozen hotels in Poland (e.g., Telimena, Biały Potok) and dozens of escort agencies. All these places were monitored audio-video, and the recordings were used for blackmail and building influence. The practice concerned people like Lepper, who was provided with women, filmed, and then attempts were made to force cooperation. Sumliński emphasizes that Ukraine does this on a scale that no one else in Europe does, which is confirmed by numerous sources in the ABW, although not all can reveal their faces.
Personal experience
Sumliński cites the accounts of Tomasz Budzyński and other ABW officers, whom he reached personally during journalistic investigations. He also describes his own visits to Ukraine after the outbreak of war, where he got to know the SBU environment and, following the trail of ABW colleagues, discovered the mechanisms of operation.
Ukrainians controlled dozens of escort agencies in the Podkarpacie region. This is a fact beyond dispute.
Also said
“No European special service does this on such a scale as the Ukrainians. Meaning that this sexual sphere is used by Ukrainian services to an extent unmatched by any other service in Europe.”— Confirms the uniqueness of SBU methods on a European scale.
The gas scam of the century – the contract with Russia
Poland, under the contract concluded with Russia, bought more gas than it needed, at a higher price than other countries, without the possibility of resale, while simultaneously forgiving the Russians a billion dollars. Lepper knew the details and wanted to reveal them.
Why this matters: This is one of the biggest financial scandals of the Third Polish Republic, in which the highest authorities were allegedly involved. Lepper possessed knowledge, among others, from meetings with the head of Gazprom at Lake Svityaz in Ukraine, which gave him a strong bargaining chip.
Background
The gas contract with Russia had been criticized for years, but the scale of irregularities came to light only years later. Lepper had access to knowledge allowing him to prove the corrupt nature of the agreement, which he used in attempts to negotiate with Kaczyński before his death.
Sumliński details that the contract assumed the obligation to receive more gas than Poland could consume, without the right to re-export – surpluses could only be stored. The price was worse than for other recipients, and additionally, the Russians received a billion dollars, which was de facto a donation. Lepper, meeting with the head of Gazprom in Ukraine, learned the details of this arrangement. He planned to use this information as an element of negotiations with Kaczyński, whom he wanted to gain as an ally (through Tomasz Sakiewicz). Lepper's death interrupted this plan, and the gas scam remained unexplained.
We bought more gas, which we couldn't even resell. (…) more than needed, more expensive than needed, without the possibility of reselling, while simultaneously forgiving those we overpaid a billion dollars.
Also said
“Andrzej Lepper had knowledge about this gas. He had knowledge. He traveled to Ukraine, to Lake Svityaz, where he met with the head of Gazprom.”— Indicates where Lepper got his information about the scandal.
“One of the elements of this plan [Lepper's] was to use this knowledge he had in a conversation with Jarosław Kaczyński.”— Shows that Lepper actively tried to use the contract for a political game.
The death of General Sławomir Petelicki versus suicide
General Petelicki, the founder of GROM, also could not have committed suicide – analysis of the investigation files (obtained by Sumliński) shows a lack of fingerprints on the weapon, two shots, and the absurdity of the circumstances (lunch break for spring water).
Why this matters: After the Smolensk tragedy, Petelicki revealed Tusk's text messages and became an enemy of his former circle. Sumliński suggests he was murdered, and the investigation was deliberately left in the suicide version to avoid revealing connections.
Background
Officially, General Petelicki shot himself in 2012. The widow, Agnieszka Petelicka, asked Sumliński and Budzyński for a journalistic investigation, providing them with consent to access the files. The prosecutor's office initially refused, and after the intervention of Deputy Prosecutor General Waldemar Puławski (a friend of Sumliński), files full of irregularities were disclosed.
The files show that there were no fingerprints of the general on the weapon, which is impossible in a suicide – the police stated it was as if someone wiped the weapon after the shot. There were two bullets, and the event took place during a lunch break, when the general went down for spring water in slippers, while the family was waiting. According to witnesses, Petelicki showed no signs of depression, quite the opposite – after Smolensk, he broke with his former circle and became a 'very brave' critic of the government. Sumliński emphasizes that, similarly to the Lepper and Popiełuszko cases, politicians of various options remain silent, because this investigation could reveal inconvenient truths about Poland's recent history.
Personal experience
Sumliński describes how Petelicki's wife hesitated to ask for an investigation, but ultimately gave the green light. He himself, with his friend Puławski, used influence to obtain the files, which he then published in the book.
Police expert opinions rule out that he could have pulled the trigger and not left fingerprints on the weapon. And the prosecutor's office persists in the suicide version.
Also said
“There are so many elements that do not fit the suicide thesis. It is already clear from these files that it could not have been suicide.”— Emphasizes that the prosecutor's documentation itself refutes suicide.
The actual role of Poland in Jedwabne – a German crime, not a Polish one
The massacre in Jedwabne in 1941 was carried out by Germans from a Schaper commando, not by Polish neighbors. This thesis is based on new documents, witness accounts, and the first exhumation by Prof. Małgorzata Grupa, and Gross's book used false witnesses.
Why this matters: Sumliński presents evidence gathered in the film and book 'Return to Jedwabne', which are supposed to once and for all debunk the myth of Polish guilt – however, they met with censorship, and exhumation is blocked due to political consequences.
Background
Since 2001, the dominant narrative (based on Jan Tomasz Gross's book) maintains that Poles burned their Jewish neighbors in a barn. Sumliński claims that Gross relied on testimonies of witnesses who were either dead at the time of the crime or were in Siberia. Real German and Canadian documents point to the exclusive guilt of the Germans.
Sumliński and his team analyzed photos, documents from Germany, Canada, and the USA, reached five living witnesses and Prof. Małgorzata Grupa, who in 2001 conducted the first exhumation and found German bullets. She was forbidden to publish the results. The film 'Return to Jedwabne' garnered 3.5 million views in 3.5 weeks, after which the channel was permanently removed for 'anti-Semitism'. Sumliński later placed stones with the true history of Jedwabne – the channel was also removed for this. He claims that Jewish Halacha law mandates transferring remains to the Holy Land, but exhumation is blocked because it would debunk the myth of Polish perpetration and reveal German bullets, undermining the foundation of financial claims against Poland.
From start to finish, it was a German crime. (…) One must speak the truth, not succumb to liars, not succumb to pressure.
Also said
“One simply needs to conduct an exhumation. Polish law mandates it. Jewish Halacha law says the remains must be moved. It is not done because a myth was built and if an exhumation were conducted, this myth would burst like a soap bubble.”— Explains the mechanism of avoiding exhumation for fear of losing the narrative.
“Jan Tomasz Gross writes a book citing witnesses who were either dead at the time, or were not at the scene, or were even in Siberia.”— Undermines the credibility of the source Gross relied on.
Disclosed sponsorships2speaker disclosed
The Dangerous Liaisons of Andrzej Lepper
Book Sponsored · disclosed
The book documents the investigation debunking the official version of Andrzej Lepper's suicide and reveals the behind-the-scenes of his death, including the role of Ukrainian services.
DisclosureThe authors are Wojciech Sumliński and Tomasz Budzyński – the podcast guest is a co-author.
Sumliński mentions that the book was created after a months-long investigation, which used, among others, ABW wiretaps from the period of Lepper's deputy premiership and accounts of direct witnesses. It also contains the story of Lepper's meetings with the head of Gazprom in Ukraine and plans to use knowledge of the gas contract. After publication, prosecutor Korneluk (today the face of the national prosecutor's office) interrogated the authors and admitted that if it were up to him, he would initiate an investigation, but the decision lies higher. The book became the basis for changing the position of Tomasz Sekielski, who, after verifying the facts, publicly declared that Lepper was murdered.
vs alternatives
In contrast to media reports based on prosecutor's leaks, the book is based on investigation files and intelligence sources unavailable to the public.
Personal experience
Sumliński describes how, together with Budzyński, he reached out to policemen, analyzed wiretaps, and was interrogated by prosecutor Korneluk. The result of the book was also establishing contact with the widow of General Petelicki.
I was interrogated in this case by the prosecutor's office (…) prosecutor Korneluk made it clear to us that if it were up to him, he would initiate an investigation in this case, but he implied that it depends on those higher up.
Also said
“You wrote a book about Lepper, that he was killed there. To me, it's a fairy tale, but will you agree to a confrontation? [T. Sekielski]. Then after research: 'I have not the slightest doubt that Lepper was murdered'.”— Shows how the book convinced even a skeptic.
The book reveals the complete prosecutor's files regarding the death of General Petelicki and proves that suicide was technically impossible (lack of fingerprints, two shots).
DisclosureCo-author Wojciech Sumliński.
Sumliński recounts how, after the publication about Lepper, Agnieszka Petelicka contacted him, asking him to investigate her husband's case. Initially, she had doubts and asked to stop, but ultimately gave the green light. The prosecutor's office refused to provide the files, claiming to protect the family's welfare, despite the widow's written consent. Only the intervention of Waldemar Puławski (then Deputy Prosecutor General, a friend of Sumliński) enabled access to the documents, which were then fully included in the book. The files show that Petelicki could not have killed himself, which is confirmed by police expert opinions. The book shows how the prosecutor's office deliberately blocked the clarification of the case.
vs alternatives
Official statements spoke of suicide; the book is the only one presenting the raw investigation documents, which themselves refute this version.
Personal experience
Sumliński details the process of obtaining the files, visits to the widow, and the role of a personal friend in breaking the prosecutor's office's resistance.
We were the first to receive the complete files regarding the so-called suicide of General Petelicki, which we included in the book. (…) It is already clear from these files that it could not have been suicide.
Also said
“The Warsaw Police Headquarters and the National Police Headquarters issue an expert opinion, from which it is clear that it is impossible for a person shooting themselves not to leave fingerprints on the weapon.”— Concrete evidence from the prosecutor's files.
Reading is free for everyone. A free account adds the personal layer: save protocols, follow experts, and see how the other experts weigh in on this same topic.
Educational summary of the cited expert source — not medical advice. Open the source recording linked above and consult a qualified physician before acting on any protocol.