So the DM were right, the prosecutor's have appealed the decision to drop the charges against Roger and the two hotel managers.
"The prosecutor and the investigating prosecutor are seeking to overturn two rulings that acquitted the alleged manager of the deceased, the hotel manager, and the security guard of the charges of "culpable homicide" and—in the case of the former—also of "providing and supplying narcotics." Furthermore, the Prosecutor's Assistance Unit before the National Court of Cassation in Criminal and Correctional Matters successfully obtained confirmation from that court of the denial of release for one of the defendants."
I'll try to sum it up but you can read the full report here:
www.fiscales.gob.ar
- The main grounds for the appeals is outstanding evidence. Allegedly Liam's laptop, witness testimonies, the hard drives seized from the hotel, and the phones of Roger, Roger's girlfriend and an acquaintance (someone they'd stayed with in Argentina) haven't been analysed. The "acquaintance" is allegedly mentioned in a message ordering drugs.
- Regarding the hotel managers: the attorney general used the same argument as before - they shouldn't have left Liam alone in his room knowing he was vulnerable. They used the 911 transcript where the balcony was mentioned as evidence of this. The appeals court rejected this appeal on Wednesday. An appeal against the dismissal of this appeal can now be submitted to a higher court.
- Regarding Roger: the prosecutors argue he could have "prevented the outcome" because he was responsible for and authorised all of Liam's payments, as well his movements during their trip. He was also present, as witnessed by cleaning staff, whilst Liam was "inhaling a little dust". Because of this, the prosecutors argue the lack of contract between Roger and Liam in terms of duty of care is irrelevant (I'm paraphrasing here). Roger still knew Liam was vulnerable, shouldn't have left him alone whilst he was in a vulnerable state, and shouldn't have given him money when he knew he was spending it on alcohol (knowing about the contraindication with sertraline) and drugs.
- On 26th February charges against Roger for facilitating and supplying drugs to Liam were dismissed due to insufficient evidence. On 6th March prosecutors appealed against this stating key evidence hasn't been analysed (again, the phones, laptop, hard drives, etc.) and Roger had gaven Liam money to buy the drugs from the two dealers (i.e. facilitated his drug use).
- On Wednesday, Braian Paiz was denied a pretrial release from prison as he's deemed a flight risk. The other dealer also remains in prison.
The fact that some of the main evidence hasn't been analysed is frankly ridiculous. The Justice For Liam stans are going to have a field day with this. God help us, and more importantly Liam's family, if the appeals are successful. I can hear the "we told you so" already...
"The prosecutor and the investigating prosecutor are seeking to overturn two rulings that acquitted the alleged manager of the deceased, the hotel manager, and the security guard of the charges of "culpable homicide" and—in the case of the former—also of "providing and supplying narcotics." Furthermore, the Prosecutor's Assistance Unit before the National Court of Cassation in Criminal and Correctional Matters successfully obtained confirmation from that court of the denial of release for one of the defendants."
I'll try to sum it up but you can read the full report here:
Caso Liam Payne: el MPF recurrió en distintas instancias los sobreseimientos de tres imputados
El fiscal cámara y el fiscal de instrucción intentan revertir dos fallos que sobreseyeron al presunto manager del fallecido, a la gerenta del hotel y al encargado de seguridad por los delitos de “homicidio culposo” y -en el caso del primero de los nombrados-, también por “facilitación y...
- The main grounds for the appeals is outstanding evidence. Allegedly Liam's laptop, witness testimonies, the hard drives seized from the hotel, and the phones of Roger, Roger's girlfriend and an acquaintance (someone they'd stayed with in Argentina) haven't been analysed. The "acquaintance" is allegedly mentioned in a message ordering drugs.
- Regarding the hotel managers: the attorney general used the same argument as before - they shouldn't have left Liam alone in his room knowing he was vulnerable. They used the 911 transcript where the balcony was mentioned as evidence of this. The appeals court rejected this appeal on Wednesday. An appeal against the dismissal of this appeal can now be submitted to a higher court.
- Regarding Roger: the prosecutors argue he could have "prevented the outcome" because he was responsible for and authorised all of Liam's payments, as well his movements during their trip. He was also present, as witnessed by cleaning staff, whilst Liam was "inhaling a little dust". Because of this, the prosecutors argue the lack of contract between Roger and Liam in terms of duty of care is irrelevant (I'm paraphrasing here). Roger still knew Liam was vulnerable, shouldn't have left him alone whilst he was in a vulnerable state, and shouldn't have given him money when he knew he was spending it on alcohol (knowing about the contraindication with sertraline) and drugs.
- On 26th February charges against Roger for facilitating and supplying drugs to Liam were dismissed due to insufficient evidence. On 6th March prosecutors appealed against this stating key evidence hasn't been analysed (again, the phones, laptop, hard drives, etc.) and Roger had gaven Liam money to buy the drugs from the two dealers (i.e. facilitated his drug use).
- On Wednesday, Braian Paiz was denied a pretrial release from prison as he's deemed a flight risk. The other dealer also remains in prison.
The fact that some of the main evidence hasn't been analysed is frankly ridiculous. The Justice For Liam stans are going to have a field day with this. God help us, and more importantly Liam's family, if the appeals are successful. I can hear the "we told you so" already...
