Liam Payne Death Investigation: Appeal to Overturn Acquittal of Friend, Hotel Workers Denied
A panel of judges in Liam Payne's death investigation has denied an appeal to overturn the acquittal of the three people initially charged with involuntary manslaughter in connection with the singer's death. In a March 12 ruling, obtained by Rolling Stone Thursday, a panel of judges maintained the original decision that cleared Payne's friend Roger Nores and hotel workers Gilda Martin and Esteban Grassi in the case.
The prosecutor's original appeal, filed on March 5, claimed that the judge's decision was 'flawed in its reasoning' and that some hard drives — from Payne's computer, cell phones for Nores and his partner, and one from the CasaSur reception desk — and other information had not been reviewed as evidence before the final decision was made.
More from Rolling Stone
The Biggest Questions Remaining Around the Jeffrey Epstein Case
Liam Payne's Girlfriend Is 'Still Working on Accepting' His Death: 'I Am Trying to Do My Best'
Liam Payne Honored at Brit Awards: 'Incredibly Kind Soul Who Touched the Lives of Everyone'
In its response, the court wrote that while the appeal was validly submitted, it 'lacked the necessary merit to proceed' and did not provide sufficient reasoning to prove that the decision to acquit the three people was legally wrong.
'Rather than providing a specific and detailed critique of the Court's reasoning, the appeal merely expresses disagreement with the evaluation of the collected evidence, repeatedly stating the need for further actions, which the Court had dismissed by noting that 'Neither the parties suggested any relevant actions in this regard,'' read the ruling in Spanish, adding that the 'mere disagreement' did not reach the level of needing further processing. (The prosecutor's office shared information about their appeal on Thursday but did not mention its rejection.)
A panel of judges from Argentina's Court of Appeals originally announced the dropped charges against Nores, Martin, and Grassi in mid-February. Ezequiel Pereyra and Braian Paiz — the two men accused of selling Payne drugs — will remain behind bars as they await trial.
The new court update comes about a month after Rolling Stone published an extensive investigation into the tragedy of Payne, including a statement from his ex-fiancée, Maya Henry, breaking her silence on his death. Payne died in mid-October after falling from the third-floor balcony of the CasaSur Palermo hotel.
Best of Rolling Stone
The 50 Greatest Eminem Songs
All 274 of Taylor Swift's Songs, Ranked
The 500 Greatest Albums of All Time
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Epoch Times
an hour ago
- Epoch Times
Insurance Comparison Site Choosi Allegedly Made Millions in Commission Promoting 1 Company
The Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) has launched proceedings against insurance comparison service Choosi, accusing the company of misleading consumers. According to ASIC, insurer Hannover paid Choosi approximately $61 million in commissions between 2019 and 2024 to exclusively promote its insurance products. The regulator says that during this period, Choosi was responsible for the sale of 4,225 funeral insurance policies and 9,478 life insurance policies—all linked to Hannover. ASIC Deputy Chair Sarah Court said the enforcement action is aimed at protecting consumers trying to find the best insurance deals. One Insurer Behind the Illusion of Choice ASIC claims that since mid-July 2019, Choosi has mostly compared only Hannover-issued policies, with just one exception during the entire timeframe. Hannover, a global insurance provider, operates two Australian entities: one for property and casualty insurance and another for life and health insurance. ASIC says the $61 million in commissions was paid to ensure only Hannover's offerings were promoted on the site. 'We will contend people were led to believe they were making a sensible decision by comparing policies; however, they were denied genuine choice,' Court said in the statement. Although funeral insurance products on Choosi's site appear under three separate brand names, ASIC says all are underwritten by Hannover. Similarly, Choosi compares five life insurance policies that look distinct but are also issued by Hannover—except for a brief period before July 2023 when one additional insurer was included. ASIC says all policies were distributed by Greenstone Financial Services, a company affiliated with Choosi. 'What we're seeing here is the Choosi platform really being used by Hannover as just a platform to distribute its products, with no comparison going on with other insurers at all,' Court said. She added that the promotional campaign had been broad and long-running. 'We know that this was a very widespread advertising campaign by Choosi over many years ... and we know there have been thousands of policies that have been sold,' she said. ASIC criticises the company for presenting misleading information across multiple platforms—including Choosi's website, social media, TV commercials, and advertorials. Between July 1, 2019, and Nov. 30, 2024, Choosi is said to have sold thousands of policies under this arrangement. Court emphasised that if the Federal Court rules in ASIC's favour, 'it will be important for [ASIC] to seek substantial penalties.'
Epoch Times
an hour ago
- Epoch Times
ASIC Says Choosi Compared Policies From Just 1 Insurer
The Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) has launched proceedings against insurance comparison service Choosi, accusing the company of misleading consumers. According to ASIC, insurer Hannover paid Choosi approximately $61 million in commissions between 2019 and 2024 to exclusively promote its insurance products. The regulator says that during this period, Choosi was responsible for the sale of 4,225 funeral insurance policies and 9,478 life insurance policies—all linked to Hannover. ASIC Deputy Chair Sarah Court said the enforcement action is aimed at protecting consumers trying to find the best insurance deals. One Insurer Behind the Illusion of Choice ASIC claims that since mid-July 2019, Choosi has mostly compared only Hannover-issued policies, with just one exception during the entire timeframe. Hannover, a global insurance provider, operates two Australian entities: one for property and casualty insurance and another for life and health insurance. ASIC says the $61 million in commissions was paid to ensure only Hannover's offerings were promoted on the site. 'We will contend people were led to believe they were making a sensible decision by comparing policies; however, they were denied genuine choice,' Court said in the statement. Although funeral insurance products on Choosi's site appear under three separate brand names, ASIC says all are underwritten by Hannover. Similarly, Choosi compares five life insurance policies that look distinct but are also issued by Hannover—except for a brief period before July 2023 when one additional insurer was included. ASIC says all policies were distributed by Greenstone Financial Services, a company affiliated with Choosi. 'What we're seeing here is the Choosi platform really being used by Hannover as just a platform to distribute its products, with no comparison going on with other insurers at all,' Court said. She added that the promotional campaign had been broad and long-running. 'We know that this was a very widespread advertising campaign by Choosi over many years ... and we know there have been thousands of policies that have been sold,' she said. ASIC criticises the company for presenting misleading information across multiple platforms—including Choosi's website, social media, TV commercials, and advertorials. Between July 1, 2019, and Nov. 30, 2024, Choosi is said to have sold thousands of policies under this arrangement. Court emphasised that if the Federal Court rules in ASIC's favour, 'it will be important for [ASIC] to seek substantial penalties.'
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Major bank sued by ASIC over alleged dodgy home loans: 'Failure'
Westpac's mortgage broking subsidiary RAMS is being sued by the corporate regulator over allegations of 'systemic misconduct' when arranging home loans. ASIC has alleged RAMS staff faked pay slips and altered expenses and liabilities to get loan applications 'over the line'. ASIC alleges RAMS breached its obligations as an Australian Credit Licensee and engaged in widespread unlicensed conduct between June, 2019 and April, 2023. RAMS has admitted it conducted business with unlicensed persons, failed to supervise representatives properly, and failed to have adequate policies and procedures in place. ASIC deputy chair Sarah Court said this was a case of "systematic organisational government failure by RAMS who did not adequately supervise its franchise network'. RELATED CBA, NAB, ANZ pass on RBA interest rate cut today as Westpac's $2.4 million a day 'boon' exposed Centrelink cash boost over 400,000 Aussies have weeks left to confirm: 'Get what's yours' $1,831 Centrelink payment change coming within weeks: 'You'll get more' 'RAMS allowed years of unlawful conduct to occur across its franchises, creating the opportunity for loans to be provided to customers who otherwise may not have qualified for those loans, and thereby increasing commissions earned by RAMS franchisees,' Court said. ASIC is seeking penalties against RAMS. RAMS previously operated as a standalone business within Westpac, through a franchise network of independent franchisees that wrote RAMS-branded home loans backed by Westpac. It was founded in 1991 and bought by Westpac in 2007 for $140 million. In August 2024, Westpac announced it would close the RAMS business including all franchisee offices and the $31.8 billion of existing RAMS loans would be absorbed into Westpac's loan book. RAMS has admitted liability for the contraventions and has remediated customers who were negatively affected by the misconduct. In a statement, Westpac said it would continue to work cooperatively with ASIC to resolve the proceedings 'as quickly as possible'.Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data
