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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bagwan

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

---

If he had been required to attend but didn't, then he'd have been subpoena'd. If there is video evidence, you'd imagine a judge would be able to determine whether or not those in proximity would be useful as witnesses.

I guess we ought to take the judges word in this case. Of course, the Sutil's see it differently - there's a thing, eh?

So now we have an appeal from the Sutil's in the blue corner, and an appeal from the fuzz in the red corner who feel the sentence was too lenient.

Maybe we should pass this on to TV Burp and let Harry Hill be the judge....... 'FIGHT'!!!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ArrowsFA1

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.

---

"one individual who is not, has not, and will not be on trial in connection with this matter."

If , in fact , Hamilton's original statement was not the truth , then I would suggest he will indeed be involved deeper than he wishes .
If my speculation is true , then he may encounter a trial of his own .

To speculate further , since several witnesses , and not just one , are expected to be called , will we see someone else contradict Hailton's assertion that he saw nothing ?

As I said, speculation and conjecture.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bagwan

"one individual who is not, has not, and will not be on trial in connection with this matter."

If , in fact , Hamilton's original statement was not the truth , then I would suggest he will indeed be involved deeper than he wishes .
If my speculation is true , then he may encounter a trial of his own .

To speculate further , since several witnesses , and not just one , are expected to be called , will we see someone else contradict Hailton's assertion that he saw nothing ?

---

You need to drop this 'he said she said' F1 soap opera nonsense.

I'm sure you know how the real world works.

This is a criminal court case. If the judge, defense or prosecution feel that any witness has something of value to say, they will be called to give evidence. Whether that person thinks they have anything interesting to say is irrelevant.

If he wasn't called to the court case then the judge, defense and prosecution felt Lewis didn't see anything of value and therefore a cross-examination was unnecessary.

Frankly at your age I really don't think you need to have this explained to you.

Yeah, but, you know, Lewis must've lied because, well, you know, he's............

PS - that's ironic, sarcastic humour..........

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Malbec

You need to drop this 'he said she said' F1 soap opera nonsense.

I'm sure you know how the real world works.

This is a criminal court case. If the judge, defense or prosecution feel that any witness has something of value to say, they will be called to give evidence. Whether that person thinks they have anything interesting to say is irrelevant.

If he wasn't called to the court case then the judge, defense and prosecution felt Lewis didn't see anything of value and therefore a cross-examination was unnecessary.

Frankly at your age I really don't think you need to have this explained to you.

---

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 .

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.

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 .

---

I'd imagine it's the same or similar reason that you use to get up on his case every chance you get, whatever that may be.

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.

---

Since Hamilton is not a German citizen I'm not 100% certain that he is legally required to comply with any subpoena German courts might issue him but there may be some EU law covering it.

This is without doubt the worst thread I've read since I started posting here.

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 .

---

Tell me — why on earth do you care to this extent? Obsession with celebrity, perhaps?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Black Knight

Since Hamilton is not a German citizen I'm not 100% certain that he is legally required to comply with any subpoena German courts might issue him but there may be some EU law covering it.

---

Lewis is IIRC a Swiss resident and Germany does have a treaty with them allowing for them to subpoena people. I also think witnesses can be forced to testify across the EU states if they have been requested to do so.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Black Knight

This is without doubt the worst thread I've read since I started posting here.

---

Quite. Some of the speculations are quite bizarre really.

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SGWilko

Now, exactly how do you conclude from Lewis being unavailable,

---

Actually Lewis claiming to be unavailable is irrelevant. If the court thought his testimony valuable they would have forced him to make himself available. That is what a subpoena does.

This is what makes the claim that Lewis saw something that could prove Sutil innocent utterly laughable.

Just a reminder...this case is about the actions of Adrian Sutil who has been tried and convicted of causing grievous bodily harm. He has been given an 18mth suspended sentence and ordered to pay a 200,000 euro fine.

He has appealed.

Those are the facts.

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 .

---

Please answer my previous question. Why on earth do you care?

I don't think this has been a good debate at all, for what it's worth. A good debate does not, to me, involve one person indulging in a load of wild speculation, to which others respond with the basic facts. No debate there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by henners88

No he was NOT summoned.

---

A quick search gave me this , from Forumula1.com :

"A Munich criminal court has excused Lewis Hamilton after he declined to appear as a witness next week in the assault trial of his friend Adrian Sutil. It emerged this week that, despite being asked to attend on the opening day on Monday, the McLaren driver’s lawyer told the judge he will be engaged in Britain as the Woking based team prepares to launch its 2012 car.

“Through his lawyer, Mr Hamilton has given a sufficient reason to the judge,” a court spokeswoman is quoted by the Kolner Express newspaper. “The judge has excused him for Monday.”

Also through a spokeswoman, McLaren said the 27-year-old is due at the team’s headquarters on Monday and Tuesday – the days of the Sutil trial – for photos and filming ahead of the MP4-27 reveal the following day.

“On Monday, the other four witnesses will be heard,” the court spokeswoman revealed.

It is believed former Virgin driver Jerome d’Ambrosio is one of these witnesses.

“After the two days of the hearing the judge will consider whether and when Mr Hamilton must appear at a second appointment. The process can be interrupted for ten days,” she said.

Ten days after 31 January, McLaren will be in the midst of its crucial winter test programme for its 2012 car.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bagwan

A quick search gave me this , from Forumula1.com :

"A Munich criminal court has excused Lewis Hamilton after he declined to appear as a witness next week in the assault trial of his friend Adrian Sutil. It emerged this week that, despite being asked to attend on the opening day on Monday, the McLaren driver’s lawyer told the judge he will be engaged in Britain as the Woking based team prepares to launch its 2012 car.

“Through his lawyer, Mr Hamilton has given a sufficient reason to the judge,” a court spokeswoman is quoted by the Kolner Express newspaper. “The judge has excused him for Monday.”

Also through a spokeswoman, McLaren said the 27-year-old is due at the team’s headquarters on Monday and Tuesday – the days of the Sutil trial – for photos and filming ahead of the MP4-27 reveal the following day.

“On Monday, the other four witnesses will be heard,” the court spokeswoman revealed.

It is believed former Virgin driver Jerome d’Ambrosio is one of these witnesses.

“After the two days of the hearing the judge will consider whether and when Mr Hamilton must appear at a second appointment. The process can be interrupted for ten days,” she said.

Ten days after 31 January, McLaren will be in the midst of its crucial winter test programme for its 2012 car.

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

---

Are you aware of what a summons is? It would be a very serious matter were he to have ignored a summons. Nowhere in the bit you quote above is the word 'summons' mentioned.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

Please answer my previous question. Why on earth do you care?

I don't think this has been a good debate at all, for what it's worth. A good debate does not, to me, involve one person indulging in a load of wild speculation, to which others respond with the basic facts. No debate there.

---

I find the background of these individuals in these fine cars to be as fascinating as the race , itself .
To understand a Senna , you need to understand his headspace .
To understand a Schumacher , you need to know from where he came .

The measure of a man is in his history .

Lewis is a cool guy to watch , and , yes , even I will root for the lad if he's about to make a great pass , believe it or not .
He's a great driver .
One of the greats .

But , he has his flaws , just like all the rest .

As to there being "No debate there" , I disagree .
But , i do suppose that is debatable .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

Are you aware of what a summons is? It would be a very serious matter were he to have ignored a summons. Nowhere in the bit you quote above is the word 'summons' mentioned.

---

Are you aware I wrote "summon" , not "summons" . Sorry to have confused you .

He was "asked to attend" , and was "excused" .

Is that really a whole lot different ?

Nowhere has it been mentioned at all that he ignored anything .
Other than , perhaps Adrian , when giving out his new phone number .

may last year 'I've been advised not to say anything'.
this year the Briton provided a written statement to say he did not see the incident.
(somebody should go down for witness tampering)

why was 'I've been advised not to say anything'. not did not see the incident. in the first place

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bagwan

Are you aware I wrote "summon" , not "summons" . Sorry to have confused you .

He was "asked to attend" , and was "excused" .

Is that really a whole lot different ?

---

Are you serious? You don't understand the difference?

Do you really think in a criminal case a key witness would be 'excused' from attending? Court cases can be adjourned (suspended) indefinitely if a key witness is unable to attend until the time that they can or are forced to. The fact that the case carried on regardless of Lewis attending should tell you how 'important' he was to the case.

We'll see soon if he's called on again to appear .

Hamilton's lawyers convinced the judge , presumably with the "I didn't see a thing" statement , to excuse Lewis's attendance .
With the information he had , that Lewis was saying he was not a witness , presumably , the judge would have dropped the status of his testimony to one of mere character witness only .

Since there was no written statement , Hamilton's testimony was not entered into the court documents .

Since the Sutils are upset , and an appeal , said to include certain witnesses that didn't appear at the first trial is set , I conclude that one of them will be Lewis .


If I'm right , and Lewis was excused on this basis , and was found to have lied to the judge , what would the consequence be for him ?