Sutil will stand trial in a German court later this month

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bagwan

In the real world , there is going to be an appeal .

So , this "soap opera nonsense" will continue , whether you like it or not .

I believe that Lewis will be one of the witnesses called .
It was Sutil's management that was quoted , and the appeal should be registered soon .
Then we shall see whether Lewis is on the list .


You know , this is all just a theory .
But , it's a theory that is seemingly starting to fit , more and more .



You guys sure are getting upset with my speculation .
That's too bad , as it's not my intent to upset anyone .
But , I'm told to stop , and I'm told I'm not acting my age .

Water off a duck's back , kids .
Just want some answers , and doing a little speculating while I wait .

I'd like you all to notice that not once have I called Lewis a "coward" , or "pathetic" , or , "not a man" .

But others have .
And I'd like to know why .

---

You conveniently ommitted to mention that the prosecution are also appealing. They feel there are grounds for a stiffer sentence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by airshifter

I suspect that flying pigs will poo all over yoru speculation. :)

I'm rather curious why if Sutils lawyers thought that anyone had evidence that would be pertinent, they did not at least get a sworn deposition as to the events. I'm assuming every country has something that has the same effect, even if they don't call it a deposition.

---

"The court spokeswoman said it will not be acceptable for Hamilton to submit a written statement."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SGWilko

You conveniently ommitted to mention that the prosecution are also appealing. They feel there are grounds for a stiffer sentence.

---

And , how would that be "convenient" , given that I'm most interested in seeing an appeal happen ?

They wanted a stiffer sentence in the first place , so it's no surprise .


He was excused in the first trial , though summoned , when his management told the court he would be busy .
Obviously , he wasn't seen at the time to have had relevent testimony , and this would fit well with him having stated at the same time that he had seen nothing .

However , if he is summoned to the appeal , it will fit nicely with my theory that he may have lied .
Let's not forget that he has a history of doing so when under pressure .


If I'm correct in all this , will this thread turn from being the "worst thread" to "without a doubt" something else ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ioan

What the hell happened with the desire for truth, friendship and common sense in modern society?!

---

Liberals

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CNR

FORMULA ONE - F1: Hamilton 'Pathetic' Says Sutil's Angry Father
(We need to see the video)"lewis liegate 2 ?"

---

Maybe Sutil tried to hit on Hamilton?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SGWilko

You never read the Sunday Sport then?

---

Or the guardian

I've learned one thing reading thru this thread: Bagwan's speculation about things that most probably didn't, or will never happen, are much more entertaining when they involve JV.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Firstgear

I've learned one thing reading thru this thread: Bagwan's speculation about things that most probably didn't, or will never happen, are much more entertaining when they involve JV.

---

Shoot - you done it now - a long diatribe on its way about the benefits of a JV testimony.......

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Firstgear

I've learned one thing reading thru this thread: Bagwan's speculation about things that most probably didn't, or will never happen, are much more entertaining when they involve JV.

---

Sorry about that .
I'll try to add a little flourish to make more entertainment for you .

I'm happy about helping you learn something , though .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SGWilko

Shoot - you done it now - a long diatribe on its way about the benefits of a JV testimony.......

---

JV , for sure , would have stuck to his word and attended his friend's trial .

Sorry to disappoint , at it not being a "long diatribe" .

I want to thank all you guys for writing in this thread .
Despite being called the "worst thread ever" , it's actually been some good debate .

Many of you didn't much like what I had to say , and I can understand that .
If I'm wrong about all this , you'll see to it I'm put in my place .
I'm cool with that .


Try to consider for a moment , the thought that I'm correct about my theory .
What would it mean for Lewis ?
You don't have to believe it to speculate about it .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bagwan

I want to thank all you guys for writing in this thread .
Despite being called the "worst thread ever" , it's actually been some good debate .

Many of you didn't much like what I had to say , and I can understand that .
If I'm wrong about all this , you'll see to it I'm put in my place .
I'm cool with that .


Try to consider for a moment , the thought that I'm correct about my theory .
What would it mean for Lewis ?
You don't have to believe it to speculate about it .

---

The point is that Lewis was not available. His lawyer said that he'd help when he is available. Lewis cannot dictate the court date.

Apparently, Lewis' father dropped the Sutils' a line. Perhaps that was meant to be from 'the Hamiltons'? Who knows? None of us do.

The Sutils felt Lewis should have been there. Fair enough. But what did Lewis see? Who knows? None of us do.

Lewis clearly made a statement. What does it state? Who knows? None of us do.

Now, exactly how do you conclude from Lewis being unavailable, and the Sutils being pissed, that Lewis has lied?