Lee Evans would have fun describing someone walking through that curtain....... ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by CNR
Printable View
Lee Evans would have fun describing someone walking through that curtain....... ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by CNR
I'm sure it is. So a witness made a statement to the court in the original trial and Sutil's lawyers want that witness to appear at the appeal.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bagwan
How does that "directly contradict" Hamilton's assertion that he saw nothing :confused: :crazy:
Based on what is known as fact at this point, I don't see any evidence that Lewis saw anything. If I grab your arm and you end up cutting me while "defending" this action, it could take place in seconds. To me personally this is not evidence of anything. IF the video proved that Lewis saw the act in question I would imagine he would be facing charges of some sort for obstruction of justice or whatever is appropriate in their legal system, and in that case rightly so IMO. It could be that Lewis did not see the act in question, but the court wants to clarify what he did see, as he might be able to shed light on the actions of Lux and how aggressive or passive he was before the incident.Quote:
Originally Posted by ArrowsFA1
Since we seem to be dealing with a lot of speculation, I will say not that if flying monkeys poo on our cars I will be upset. And if I find out that Lewis is breeding those flying monkeys he may face legal consequences. :D
A written statement was not acceptable , so Hamilton's testimony wasn't heard .Quote:
Originally Posted by ArrowsFA1
Does the word "witness" not imply he saw something ?
Nice to see you back Traz man .Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Alcatraz
Adam Cooper confirms that Lewis was , indeed , sitting next to Adrian .
Lewis didn't see anything , despite this animated discussion happening "over" him ?
As Airshifter points out :
"IF the video proved that Lewis saw the act in question I would imagine he would be facing charges of some sort for obstruction of justice or whatever is appropriate in their legal system, and in that case rightly so IMO."
He was excused at the original trial because he had other obligations , and presumably because he had stated he saw nothing .
What really happened to make him change his mind about attending ?
Witness could be character witness (as airshifter is implying above in post 238), not eye witness (as you seem to be assuming).Quote:
Originally Posted by Bagwan
Would a "character witness" not be referred to as such , not just as "witness" ?Quote:
Originally Posted by Firstgear
Zimmerman seems to imply that Hamilton is more than just a "character witness" , does he not ?
No idea - none of us was there, and there is insufficient information in the public domain to be able to draw any form of reliable confusion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bagwan
When it is all over, and everything is in the open, you can tell us all what happened and how then. Mind you, you might get accused of teaching granny to suck eggs at that point.......
Actually (and I'm not trying to be a pain here) I was thinking the exact opposite. If the video shows that he saw something (facing Sutil/Lux at the time, not having his back turned or speaking to someone else) wouldn't he be called as an eye-witnees, instead of just a witness?Quote:
Originally Posted by Bagwan
Where is notw when you really need them? :)Quote:
Originally Posted by SGWilko