Sutil will stand trial in a German court later this month

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dave B

Not particularly because (like you) I don't know the full facts. Anything I could add would only be my own opinion and conjecture and bring nothing to the debate.

---

Why bother with facts when the gutter press has all the info Baggy will ever need?

However, if you believe in the 'stars' and all that, then you have to give consideration to the rings around uranus and the fact that a mars a day must mean one looks in the telescope a lot, then Lewis did it, and Sutil was Milicent Bystander.

It seems to me that if Sutil in fact was provoked to the point of justified self defense, and it was witnessed by Lewis, then any attorney representing Sutil would have forced Lewis to be at court to testify to that fact. For that matter any decent attorny would have forced the issue if they knew Lewis was witness to anything and that his testimony would have helped their case.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by henners88

Maybe Lewis assured Adrian he would be there to support him in the beginning (it has been stated Hamilton was never contacted by the court in order to appear) but the clash between the trail and the launch of the McLaren car meant Lewis had to leave his friend out in the cold much to the dismay of Sutil and his associates? I have said this before and it is just as valid because there is little information on any of this. I do not know the personalities of Sutil or his father so I cannot comment on whether they are being over dramatic or whether they are justified in calling Lewis a coward? We have been on different sides of the Hamilton debate before which is why I get the impression that once again you are keen to focus on the more negative possibilities. I don't think it is unreasonable to suggest Sutil is rather p!ssed off that his friend was unable to support him at the trail. Now faced with a career in tatters and no options for 2012, it could well be a case of Adrian hitting out at Lewis in frustration at his unfortunate situation. Suggesting Lewis was expected to lie for him is ridiculous as is the suggestion that Lewis was lying about his involvement in the incident. Sutil was on trial and has been punished for his actions not Lewis. Had Lewis been involved in any way here, I have no doubt Lux would have been keen to prosecute Mr Hamilton along with his friend which would indeed bring him more coverage and financial gain. The fact is Lewis was a casual witness who did not attend for unknown reason's other than the admission he was never formally requested to attend. Anymore than that we do not know, and this story has gone rather cold over the past week. I think everyone apart from Sutil have better things to think about right now and this is the last thing on Hamilton's mind.

---

Thank-you , henners , for a well-reasoned explanation .

I appreciate the effort .

Never have I suggested that Lewis was in any way involved in the actual incident .
What I would suggest , though , is that the Sutil's believe that he would have been key to the defence , had he attended .

Clearly , the anger they show does not fit with simply not attending as moral support .

If Lewis was indeed lying when he said he saw nothing , it would certainly fit with the Sutil comments .
It would also fit with the fact that it would be very unlikely that a judge would summon him to the trial , as his testimony would be seen as irrelevent .

My track record of being on this side of a Hamilton debate is very similar to yours on the other side .
My thoughts that a lie might be at the centre of this are justified by having seen Hamilton in trouble over a lie before .

Initially , I thought someone must have pressured Lewis to keep him away .
I guess that would still fit , but it seems more likely , with his past indiscretions , that he may not have wanted to contradict himself on the stand .


I think we'll find out eventually , but it may take some time .

The amount of speculation and number of individuals showing a gripe with Hamilton in this thread is staggering. Nobody has a clue what Hamilton did or didn't see and the sh*t that has been written here astounds me.

Now, onto the FACTS!

Sutil has appealed the GBH sentence:

Adrian Sutil appeals GBH sentence | Formula 1 | Formula 1 news, live F1 | ESPN F1

From that link comes this :
"The appeal hearing will again take place in Munich, with Lewis Hamilton likely to be called as a witness having been unable to attend the original hearing. Hamilton's absence caused Sutil's father to brand him "pathetic" following the trial."

It's not over .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bagwan

What I would suggest , though , is that the Sutil's believe that he would have been key to the defence , had he attended .

---

Had Lewis been key to the defence he would have been summoned as a witness and subpoena'd (if I spelt that right) if he refused.

The fact that he wasn't leads to only two conclusions.

Lewis didn't see anything that could affect the judgment.

Lewis did see something that could demonstrate Sutil's innocence but his lawyer was incompetent/malicious and therefore ignored it.

If there are other options I'd love to hear them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Malbec

Had Lewis been key to the defence he would have been summoned as a witness and subpoena'd (if I spelt that right) if he refused.

The fact that he wasn't leads to only two conclusions.

Lewis didn't see anything that could affect the judgment.

Lewis did see something that could demonstrate Sutil's innocence but his lawyer was incompetent/malicious and therefore ignored it.

If there are other options I'd love to hear them.

---

Lewis stated he didn't see a thing .
As I understand it , he said this shortly before the trial .

But , it was also reported that he would be attending the trial up until that point .

If he had said he would be attending , would there have been a need to subpeona him ?

Would the judge have granted the subpeona with Hamilton having stated he saw nothing ?

Why , went confronted with questions regarding the situation , at the launch , did handlers cut off the questioning , when he could have simply re-iterated he had seen nothing , and didn't know what Adrian and his dad were on about ?

There simply must be more behind this , and I'd love to find out .

Perhaps I'm wrong about all of this .
For Hamilton's sake , I hope so .

This quote is all over the place :
"We have taken this step because we believe that the decision taken is not appropriate," the agent Manfred Zimmermann told reporters. "There were several witnesses who were not examined."

Anyone wanna bet Lewis is one of those "several" ?

With respect Bagwan, throughout this thread you have provided little but speculation and conjecture which appears to be designed solely to implicate one individual who is not, has not, and will not be on trial in connection with this matter.

Your reasons for that are your own and I simply do not understand them.