Sutil will stand trial in a German court later this month

[CNR]

Sutil to stand trial over Lux 'attack' | Planet F1 | Formula One | News, Standings, Results, Features, Video (http://www.planet-f1.com/driver/18227/7426012/Sutil-to-stand-trial-over-Lux-attack)-
Adrian Sutil will stand trial in a German court later this month after officially being charged with causing grievous bodily harm.

Sutil will face the courts later this month and could be sentenced to a year in prison if found guilty.

[The Black Knight]

Saw that. I'd wager that if he is found guilty that it could be the end of his F1 career. It'll be hard for him to find a seat again. I doubt he'll get a jail sentence but you'd never know.

I am quite surprised that a German court had jurisdiction for something that happened in China though whether he be a German citizen or not.

[gloomyDAY]

I am quite surprised that a German court had jurisdiction for something that happened in China though whether he be a German citizen or not.Yeah. Is this real?

[Mia 01]

IF he glassed Lux in the neck he deserves some time off.

[ioan]

So we might finally learn the truth about what happened last year.

[wedge]

Sutil’s manager Manfred Zimmerman has said that the incident was not as it appears and that having had a drink spilled over him, Sutil was intending to do the same to Lux when the glass accidentally made contact with Lux’s neck

Sutil to stand trial for wounding Lotus Renault boss in nightclub brawlJames Allen on F1 (http://www.jamesallenonf1.com/2012/01/sutil-to-stand-trial-for-wounding-lotus-renault-boss-in-nightclub-brawl/)

Hamilton might turn up as a witness. I wonder whether if it is a good idea if he turned up in court covered in bandages? :D

[Robinho]

why is he being tried in Germany for an "attack" on a french guy in China, one a member of an Anglo/french team, one a member of a Anglo/indian team?

still, for this to have reached a court case there must be a decent amount of evidence or they would not waste the time or money of the case. Perhaps this hanging over Sutil is the reason why FI were happy to drop him and he hasn't walked into another of the vacant seats.

[markabilly]

why is he being tried in Germany for an "attack" on a french guy in China, one a member of an Anglo/french team, one a member of a Anglo/indian team?

.

that i do not understand either

[BDunnell]

Can anyone with a legal background enlighten us?

[Malbec]

Can anyone with a legal background enlighten us?

Not legally minded myself but I believe Germany has laws where German nationals can be prosecuted at home for crimes they commit abroad.

IIRC Britain has a similar system for highly specific cases, for example paedophilia where it does not matter where the crime is committed, a British national will be prosecuted on arrival in the UK.

[jens]

After the end of the season we have been discussing about Sutil deserving to stay in F1, but I guess a potential criminal conviction has made it really difficult for the teams to commit to him. And from that point of view it can be understood, why he will probably be left jobless.

[SGWilko]

Ordinarily, one would expect that if you glass someone in a public place, wherever you may be, you'll end up in a cell at the local nick while the circumstances are investigated. Given that he wasn't, and that Mr Lux has only just gotten round to bringing charges at the end of one/start of a new season, suggests the intention is to ruin a career. We will see if the case gets thrown out.

[Roamy]

Saw that. I'd wager that if he is found guilty that it could be the end of his F1 career. It'll be hard for him to find a seat again. I doubt he'll get a jail sentence but you'd never know.

I am quite surprised that a German court had jurisdiction for something that happened in China though whether he be a German citizen or not.

Yes the legal systems worldwide are quite frighting - But nonetheless this guy is fcked.

[Robinho]

although if your rumour is true, Roamy, he should do well in prison...now, where's that bar of soap?....

[Garry Walker]

Ordinarily, one would expect that if you glass someone in a public place, wherever you may be, you'll end up in a cell at the local nick while the circumstances are investigated. Given that he wasn't, and that Mr Lux has only just gotten round to bringing charges at the end of one/start of a new season, suggests the intention is to ruin a career. We will see if the case gets thrown out.

Court proceedings take time, it doesnt take one day. There is no intention to ruin career, but of course he wants The Slasher punished. I am sure Sutil will be found guilty, but he won't do any time.

[CNR]

F1 : Hamilton summoned to Munich bar room brawl trial of Formula 1 racer Sutil (http://www.f1sa.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=32494:f1--hamilton-summoned-to-munich-bar-room-brawl-trial-of-formula-1-racer-sutil&catid=1:f1&Itemid=157)

"We have a video where it can be seen clearly that this was not Adrian attacking or intentionally hurting someone," he said.

"We expect an acquittal, or at worst a conviction for negligent injury. But that would not jeopardise his career," insisted Zimmermann.

[Nikki Katz]

I hope this goes well for him.

Incidentally, I completely missed the Verstappen sent to prison story - what did he do this time?!?

[CNR]

I hope this goes well for him.

Incidentally, I completely missed the Verstappen sent to prison story - what did he do this time?!?

Verstappen arrested, charged with attempted murder | F1 News | Jan 2012 | Crash.Net (http://www.crash.net/f1/news/175863/1/verstappen_arrested_charged_with_attempted_murder. html)

Verstappen has been charged with attempted murder following an altercation with an ex-girlfriend
reports claim that he struck a 24-year old ex-girlfriend with his car, leaving her with 'heavy bruises and abrasions', before fleeing the scene.

[CNR]

Lewis Hamilton unable testify in trial of Adrian Sutil on Jan 30 - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/motorsport/formulaone/9034398/Lewis-Hamilton-unable-testify-in-trial-of-Adrian-Sutil-on-Jan-30.html)

Hamilton never received a formal request to testify and that his lawyer voluntarily contacted the judge in question to say that, while Hamilton was happy to co-operate, he had other engagements in the run-up to the launch of McLaren’s new challenger on Feb 1.

[gm99]

I think the relevant provision is § 7 (2) of the German penal code, which gives Germany jurisdiction if a punishable offence has been committed by a German citizen abroad, if said offence is also punishable in the country where it has been committed.

The reason for this is that Germany does not usually extradite its citizens to other countries.

[The Black Knight]

Sutil is "extremely sorry"

Adrian Sutil 'extremely sorry' after Lux incident | Formula 1 | Formula 1 news, live F1 | ESPN F1 (http://en.espnf1.com/f1/motorsport/story/68871.html)

[BDunnell]

Sutil is "extremely sorry"

Adrian Sutil 'extremely sorry' after Lux incident | Formula 1 | Formula 1 news, live F1 | ESPN F1 (http://en.espnf1.com/f1/motorsport/story/68871.html)

Not only is he 'extremely sorry', nor does he deny anything. I don't mean to suggest any guilt on his part, but I do find it interesting.

[donKey jote]

apparently he wanted to pour his champagne in Lux's face after they both got loud at eachother, but he missed and glassed him instead :-/

Rennfahrer Sutil vor Gericht: "Ich wollte nicht, dass das passiert" - SPIEGEL ONLINE - Nachrichten - Sport (http://www.spiegel.de/sport/formel1/0,1518,812236,00.html)

Bei dem Versuch, Lux Champagner ins Gesicht zu schütten, habe Sutil ihn mit dem Glas am Hals getroffen. Die Wunde unterhalb des linken Ohres musste mit mehreren Stichen genäht werden. Lux hat eine Narbe am Hals zurückbehalten. "Es sind da zwei Alphamännchen aneinandergeraten, die sich verbal beharkt haben", sagte Sutils Anwalt Jürgen Wessing, der auf Freispruch plädieren wird.

[CNR]

F1 drives apologises in court for glass attack - ABC Grandstand Sport (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-01-31/f1-drives-apologises-in-court-for-glass-attack/3801888?section=sport)



Sutil said Lux rejected his overtures but that they had discussed an out-of-court settlement in which the driver said Lux had made "strange offers" involving "a lot of money" and a hiatus from Formula One.
"He threatened me with 'destroying' me and ensuring that I go to prison for a long time," Sutil said.
Lux denied seeking advantage for Renault from the incident.

Q :s o what do you make of this ?

[The Black Knight]

Not only is he 'extremely sorry', nor does he deny anything. I don't mean to suggest any guilt on his part, but I do find it interesting.

Well, it is hard to imagine a F1 driver risking his career by trying to glass someone. I just can't imagine what would cause him to do that. Saying that, I find Sutil's version of events to be very implausible but, again, from a clip in a newspaper article it just is impossible to judge what really happened. We will probably not get all of the facts. Plus, if a trip to Luxembourg and a face to face apology woudl have sorted this all out, it makes one wonder why Sutil simply didn't do that. If he did, he'd probably have a drive for this season instead of now facing a year on the sidelines, unless he gets the final HRT seat or perhaps Trulli's Caterham seat, both which would be a serious step backwards in his F1 career.

[The Black Knight]

F1 drives apologises in court for glass attack - ABC Grandstand Sport (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-01-31/f1-drives-apologises-in-court-for-glass-attack/3801888?section=sport)



Q :s o what do you make of this ?

Nicely worded article. Denying seeking an advantage for Renault from the incident is not at all the same as denying threatening to destroy Sutil's career, prison time or get him to take a hiatus from F1. It really wouldnt' surprise me if all the above was true. F1 is a business full of egos.

[Robinho]

BBC are reporting an 18 month suspended sentence has been given to Sutil

[CNR]

Sutil gets 18-month suspended sentence for brawl - Yahoo! Eurosport (http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/31012012/2/sutil-gets-18-month-suspended-sentence-brawl.html)

Former Force India (http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/formula-1/force-india.html)Formula One driver Adrian Sutil (http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/formula-1/adrian-sutil.html) was found guilty of bodily harm by a Munich court on Tuesday and given an 18-month suspended sentence and 200,000 euro fine for a night club brawl in China last year.

[The Black Knight]

I figured that he would avoid time in prison. Good for him. Now he can get back to concentrating on his dwindling racing career.

[Dave B]

UPDATE 1-Motor racing-Sutil handed 18-month suspended sentence (http://in.mobile.reuters.com/article/idINL4E8CV5RO20120131?irpc=932)

Another source if you want it.

[ArrowsFA1]

Interesting to see the reaction of @adamcooperf1 (https://twitter.com/#!/adamcooperf1) and @BasLeinders (https://twitter.com/#!/BasLeinders) on Twitter.

[BDunnell]

Interesting to see the reaction of @adamcooperf1 (https://twitter.com/#!/adamcooperf1) and @BasLeinders (https://twitter.com/#!/BasLeinders) on Twitter.

Yes, curious.

[ShiftingGears]

I would like to see the CCTV footage, but to be honest, it appears from the outside that Sutil was telling the truth, that the glassing was an accident trying to splash his drink on the guy. Hence, there would be no need for denial, which seems to be a point of contention in this thread.

[The Black Knight]

Interesting to see the reaction of @adamcooperf1 (https://twitter.com/#!/adamcooperf1) and @BasLeinders (https://twitter.com/#!/BasLeinders) on Twitter.

I would really love to see that CCTV. If you attack someone first you really need to be willing to take the consequences of your actions.

[Nikki Katz]

It's good that he escaped prison, but RIP his career :(

[anthonyvop]

why is he being tried in Germany for an "attack" on a french guy in China, one a member of an Anglo/french team, one a member of a Anglo/indian team?

Eric Lux is from Luxemburg not France


still, for this to have reached a court case there must be a decent amount of evidence or they would not waste the time or money of the case. Perhaps this hanging over Sutil is the reason why FI were happy to drop him and he hasn't walked into another of the vacant seats.

One big issue Sutil will have is International Travel. Many Countries are Loathe to hand out Visas to people convicted of crimes like Assault. The U.S. is one of them

[BDunnell]

I would really love to see that CCTV. If you attack someone first you really need to be willing to take the consequences of your actions.

How, one wonders, has Adam Cooper come to see it?

[Zico]

I would really love to see that CCTV. If you attack someone first you really need to be willing to take the consequences of your actions.

I did a search for it earlier and found a link, a cctv clip appeared before my Anti-virus issued a warning and promptly disconnected me... most unusual!

[CNR]

F1 : Angry Formula 1 driver Sutil labels former friend Lewis Hamilton a coward (http://www.f1sa.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=32570:f1--angry-formula-1-driver-sutil-labels-former-friend-lewis-hamilton-a-coward&catid=1:f1&Itemid=157)

"I don't want to be friends with someone like that. If you ask me he's not a man as even his father sent me a text message, wishing me the best of luck for the hearing.

"From Lewis, nothing. He even changed his number so I couldn't reach him," he added.


is it just me or is this starting to get weird

[Dave B]

These accident claim sites are cropping up everywhere! - Unlap Blog (http://blog.unlap.co.uk/these-accident-claim-sites-are-cropping-up-ev)

[Bagwan]

F1 : Angry Formula 1 driver Sutil labels former friend Lewis Hamilton a coward (http://www.f1sa.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=32570:f1--angry-formula-1-driver-sutil-labels-former-friend-lewis-hamilton-a-coward&catid=1:f1&Itemid=157)


is it just me or is this starting to get weird

Not just you .

Sutil is upset with Lewis .
This must mean that he feels that the testimony would have helped his case .
This begs the question as to why Lewis , his friend , formerly , didn't attend .
Clearly , planes fly fast enough that Lewis would have been able to attend both the trial and the new car launch , so , why wasn't he there ?

Lewis's father sent a message , but Lewis , himself , went so far as to change his number .
Dad , seemingly , was not "in the loop" .
This is very curious , as Sutil calls him out as "not a man" in the quote , perhaps alluding to some kind of pressure from someone or somewhere to not show up .

Earlier reports about the upcoming trial stated that Lewis would be there , so they were either false , or something changed Lewis's mind .
From Sutil's tone , it seems to have been at the last minute .

So , who's pulling the Lewis strings , and what is providing the pressure point that made him abandon his friend ?

[Malbec]

Sutil is upset with Lewis .
This must mean that he feels that the testimony would have helped his case .
This begs the question as to why Lewis , his friend , formerly , didn't attend .

So , who's pulling the Lewis strings , and what is providing the pressure point that made him abandon his friend ?

I'm not surprised at all Lewis didn't attend and put distance between himself and his 'friend'.

Anyone famous needs to be associated with someone accused of stabbing another in the neck like a hole in the head. It would have been PR suicide for Lewis or anyone else with a reputation that could be damaged to have been involved.

Its not nice, its not pleasant but there's a level in society above which friendship won't survive one of the parties being accused of a violent crime. In this case Lewis was advised well.

Having said all that I do get the feeling that after the court case we the public know little more than we did before it.

[Bagwan]

Now , I just read that Hamilton , at the launch , was asked about Sutil's words , and was interrupted by a "handler" , who said he shouldn't answer , as the case could come under appeal .

So , as presumably Lewis was there in support of Sutil , who was convicted of the offence , what could the reason be to not react to the comments ?
Surely , cowardice implies that it must have been more than being afraid to stand before a judge .

It must mean one of two things .
Could it be that Lewis was going to lie about the situation to the judge ?
Or , could it be that Lewis was being pressured by someone to not attend ?

If it was pressure , who from ?
Clearly , Sutil believes he knows which one it was .
And , clearly , he would not be bringing up the subject if it was about Lewis lying , as this would not help in any appeal .

Lewis was also asked about this being his year to renew his contract , and spoke about how he expected to have talks around two or three races into the season , to clear things up .
Sutil's comments coming at him during the new car launch can't feel good .

Somehow , I don't think this will remain as quiet as some wish it would .

[Bagwan]

I'm not surprised at all Lewis didn't attend and put distance between himself and his 'friend'.

Anyone famous needs to be associated with someone accused of stabbing another in the neck like a hole in the head. It would have been PR suicide for Lewis or anyone else with a reputation that could be damaged to have been involved.

Its not nice, its not pleasant but there's a level in society above which friendship won't survive one of the parties being accused of a violent crime. In this case Lewis was advised well.

Having said all that I do get the feeling that after the court case we the public know little more than we did before it.

Good PR would have , and did have , up until we had this turn-around , Lewis looking good , supporting his friend in this "accidental event" .

Now he is branded a "coward" and not reacting to the moniker .
Sure , you don't show up for OJ , but not for your friend ?
And , not just to be able to say it was , in your view , an accidental occurance ?

How would this put you in a bad light ?
Sutil was there to celebrate the Lewis victory .

There's more to this , and they are afraid , it's seems true , that it will stick to Lewis .
I believe they will summon Lewis to the appeal with a more mandatory tone .

[Bagwan]

I don't think Lewis was ever going to be put in a position where he would feel obliged to lie to a judge. He said at the time this incident happened that he didn't actually see the incident so it makes you wonder what else he could add to the case other than to supply the jury with a character witness. The worrying thing here is the fact Lewis appears to be getting more coverage in this case than the convicted man which I think is unacceptable. The story concerning Lewis only broke today so its natural he was asked not to comment as he may not know the full details behind it. Its all abit over the top really and something that really shouldn't be aimed at Lewis IMO.

I don't think he was going to lie either , but why is Sutil so upset if he was only to be a character witness ?
Surely , Lewis could have supplied that much with a statement .

Sutil seemed angry enough that he felt that Lewis being there would have made all the difference .
His choice of the word "coward" says he was wronged , and that Lewis was not brave enough to testify .

My question is , "why" ?

[ArrowsFA1]

Oh good. Another opportunity to have a dig at Hamilton :rolleyes: There's nothing new under the sun.

[Bagwan]

Oh good. Another opportunity to have a dig at Hamilton :rolleyes: There's nothing new under the sun.

If your comment was directed at me , just let me say that I would be interested in finding out why Adrian is so mad , even if it was Jacques instead of Lewis who had backed out of testifying .

And , if it wasn't , I apologise , and ask why you might think Sutil was calling out a coward here .

Rather than roll your eyes , why not contribute in a more constructive way ?

[Bagwan]

I don't think it was a case of Lewis being afraid to testify. It wouldn't be the first time Lewis has found himself infront of a judge and I don't think he feared it. I doubt we'll find out the reasons Sutil is angry with Lewis unless he reveals more about it to the press, but then again Lewis is a busy man and doesn't need to get involved in this right now. I think Adrian was annoyed at the verdict of an incident he didn't intend to go the way it did and Lewis not being there may have given him an avenue to vent his frustration. It will be sad if their friendship is ended because of this, but we don't know the background leading up to this as yet.

Your interpretation here certainly points to Sutil being the loose cannon that the trial paints him as .

But Adam Cooper , having seen the CCTV footage seems to paint it as Sutil being "rail-roaded" .
And , Sutil seems rather more than mad about his friend abandoning him because it didn't go the way he wanted .
He seems to be saying , from the intensity , the Hamilton testimony could have been crucial .

Am I bashing here ?

[Nikki Katz]

This case really is getting strange. I really don't know which side to believe - did Hamilton not witness it or is he just trying to save bad publicity and drop his friend right in it? How on earth did Sutil end up bottling a Genii exec anyway???

I'm not a Hamilton-basher by the way, he's certainly no saint but I think he's come in for more flack over various things than he was really due. But whatever Sutil did that night, something doesn't sound right about him avoiding the court!

[CNR]

OK i hope this is not another liegate for lewis


Sutil bats off Lux questions, 'concentrating on the racing' | Page 2 | F1 News | May 2011 | Crash.Net (http://www.crash.net/f1/news/169358/2/sutil_bats_off_lux_questions_concentrating_on_the_ racing.html)
It has also been revealed that McLaren-Mercedes star Lewis Hamilton (http://www.crash.net/f1/racer_bio/15/lewis_hamilton.html) – who was similarly present in the nightclub as he celebrated his Chinese Grand Prix victory, his first of the F1 2011 campaign – could be summoned by the prosecution to give evidence in an eventual trial. The Briton would concede only that 'I've been advised not to say anything'.




F1 driver Sutil brands Hamilton a coward (http://wwos.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=8412577)

former world champion Hamilton did not give evidence in the trial on Monday and Tuesday. Instead, the Briton provided a written statement to say he did not see the incident.

[ArrowsFA1]

If your comment was directed at me , just let me say that I would be interested in finding out why Adrian is so mad , even if it was Jacques instead of Lewis who had backed out of testifying .

And , if it wasn't , I apologise , and ask why you might think Sutil was calling out a coward here .

Rather than roll your eyes , why not contribute in a more constructive way ?
It wasn't directed at you Bagwan. I'm just generally weary of this kind of thing and have no interest in why Sutil is reportedly "mad". That's between him and Hamilton, and as we do not know the details any speculation is irrelevant and no more than tabloid-type gossip.

Hence, the only contribution I felt suitable was :rolleyes:

[BDunnell]

Reading an article in the Telegraph it seems Hamilton was never formally contacted in order to appear as a witness despite several media outlets publishing stories claiming he was. Hamilton's lawyer took it upon himself after reading media stories, to contact the judge suggesting Lewis was more than happy to cooperate in the inquiry/case but had other engagements around the date of the trial. It makes me wonder whether a statement was requested of Lewis at all? If Sutil required support from Lewis, then why did his lawyer not contact Mr Hamilton if this story is correct? It's obvious the full details of this saga have not been made public and from the outside the trial seems incredibly disorganised. I think we can put the knives away regarding Lewis and the disparaging stories can be treated as rumour for now until the correct details have been made public.

Given that there is CCTV footage, one wonders why it would be so important for any such witness to actually appear in front of a court, rather than making a written statement.

[Bagwan]

From James Allen :
I’m not taking sides in this one. But factually – Lux showed me the photos of him in the Shanghai hospital on his Blackberry when we were at Monaco. The wound looked horrendous. His biggest gripe was not so much how it happened but that they walked off and left him like that. If it was “an accident”, surely all the more reason to help, regardless of the row that preceded the injury?

Is this , perhaps , what Lewis wanted to avoid , having "walked off and left him like that" ?

Or , was it to do with the "row that preceded the injury" ?

[Bagwan]

I've now just read that Lewis was sitting right beside Sutil in the club .

Hard to imagine him not seeing anything from there .

This is all just too weird .

[F1boat]

For me Sutil sounds desperate...

[ArrowsFA1]

From James Allen :
I’m not taking sides in this one. But factually – Lux showed me the photos of him in the Shanghai hospital on his Blackberry when we were at Monaco. The wound looked horrendous. His biggest gripe was not so much how it happened but that they walked off and left him like that. If it was “an accident”, surely all the more reason to help, regardless of the row that preceded the injury?

Is this , perhaps , what Lewis wanted to avoid , having "walked off and left him like that" ?

Or , was it to do with the "row that preceded the injury" ?
Bagwan, you have edited Allen's words. He actually said, in response to comments on his blog (http://www.jamesallenonf1.com/2012/02/hamilton-wants-to-focus-on-racing-but-gets-a-pelter-from-sutil/):
His biggest gripe was not so much how it happened but that Sutil’s group walked off and left him like that.
Rather unnecessary when copying and pasting I would have thought.

[wedge]

Clearly Lux now has his ego healed.

[The Black Knight]

Bagwan, you have edited Allen's words. He actually said, in response to comments on his blog (http://www.jamesallenonf1.com/2012/02/hamilton-wants-to-focus-on-racing-but-gets-a-pelter-from-sutil/):
Rather unnecessary when copying and pasting I would have thought.

From what I can tell, if it is true that he attacked Sutil first, then he got his ass handed to him and he couldn't take it. To be honest, once a person attacks me then it's no holds barred off as far as I'm concerned. If he got hurt in the process after initiating it then that's tough and it would be ridiculous for Sutil to get convicted of GBH if it was all self defense.

Again this is all speculation on my part. I really, really want to view that CCTV footage.

I see no reason to presume any involvement or to start Hamilton bashing over this. If he said he didn't see it then he didn't. He might have been sitting beside him with his back turned. There are plenty of reasons as to why he may not have seen the incident in question. With loud night club music something like this could be over before you even realisit has happened.

[ArrowsFA1]

Hmmm why change the wording I wonder? The word 'they' does not indicate who is involved other than Sutil, but 'Sutils group' almost puts a spin to suggest Hamilton is part of it. Did bagwan get this quote from a third party or straight from the official blog?
Fair point :up: Might have come 2nd or 3rd hand.

[Bagwan]

Bagwan, you have edited Allen's words. He actually said, in response to comments on his blog (http://www.jamesallenonf1.com/2012/02/hamilton-wants-to-focus-on-racing-but-gets-a-pelter-from-sutil/):
Rather unnecessary when copying and pasting I would have thought.

I copied it directly from Allen's blog . I did not edit in any way .

Has he altered it since I quoted him ?
This is weird

[Bagwan]

Hmmm why change the wording I wonder? The word 'they' does not indicate who is involved other than Sutil, but 'Sutils group' almost puts a spin to suggest Hamilton is part of it. Did bagwan get this quote from a third party or straight from the official blog?

Sent from my HTC Incredible S using Tapatalk

Like I said , direct quote , unaltered .

[Bagwan]

Here it is again :
From James Allen :
"I’m not taking sides in this one. But factually – Lux showed me the photos of him in the Shanghai hospital on his Blackberry when we were at Monaco. The wound looked horrendous. His biggest gripe was not so much how it happened but that Sutil’s group walked off and left him like that. If it was “an accident”, surely all the more reason to help, regardless of the row that preceded the injury?"

I did exactly as I did earlier today , and clearly , you're right , Arrows . The quote is different .

The only explanation for this must be that Mr. Allen changed the word "they" to "Sutil's group" , because I did not .

This seems pretty curious , as it doesn't really say that Lewis wasn't there , in the group , but does seem to distance him somewhat .
"They" sounded more like it was referring more specifically to Lewis and Adrian .

[BDunnell]

For me Sutil sounds desperate...

Wouldn't you be if you were in his shoes?

[Nikki Katz]

Hamilton grew up a few miles from where I live, and he was expelled from his school (or at least the school and his father agreed it would be best if he left) due to witnessing a kid being kicked into a coma and not trying to stop it (he wasn't involved himself). Sounds weirdly familiar...

[DexDexter]

Hamilton grew up a few miles from where I live, and he was expelled from his school (or at least the school and his father agreed it would be best if he left) due to witnessing a kid being kicked into a coma and not trying to stop it (he wasn't involved himself). Sounds weirdly familiar...

Not knowing the facts but surely A small (not tall) boy like Hamilton was not in a position to stop a violent act, he would have just been beaten as well. Come on.

[The Black Knight]

Not knowing the facts but surely A small (not tall) boy like Hamilton was not in a position to stop a violent act, he would have just been beaten as well. Come on.

Agreed totally. Lews is not the police. If anyone is to blame it is the school for allowing this to happen on their property. Note there are no details here of how many people he'd have had to take on in order to stop the fight or anything. Like every story it has gathered wings and legs and then some.

[Mia 01]

A friend is someone to trust in wet and dry.

[ArrowsFA1]

Oh dear, now we have Hamilton's schooldays being dragged into this!

Bottom line - the incident has been investigated. Sutil, no-one else, was charged. Sutil has been given a suspended sentence and fine.

Roll on the start of the season.

[The Black Knight]

Oh dear, now we have Hamilton's schooldays being dragged into this!

Bottom line - the incident has been investigated. Sutil, no-one else, was charged. Sutil has been given a suspended sentence and fine.

Roll on the start of the season.

Bingo! That just sums it all up.

[Knock-on]

I have never heard a story about Lewis being threatened with expulsion for not intervening in a dispute. In fact, it ranks as highly improbable as children are told not to get involved in disputes at school but to let teachers sort it out otherwise they might be implicated. I don't know where you herd this story but suggest you may have been duped.

As for the Sutil incident, it seems that Sutil glassed someone either by accident or on purpose. As a consequence, he has been given a suspended sentence. Hamilton says he didn't say it and nobody has claimed otherwise. His solicitor communicated this to the judge and offered his services if required. As it was, a statement was sent to the Court saying what Hamilton witnessed which I would suggest was corroborated by the CCTV footage.

I don't know what all this is about Sutil claiming Lewis was a coward but it all seems a bit strange given the fats, doesn't it.

End of story.

[Dave B]

Forgive me for cherry-picking one line from your post, but everybody would do well to take note:



Again this is all speculation on my part.

That applies to us all, unless you were party to the incident.

[SGWilko]

Not knowing the facts but surely A small (not tall) boy like Hamilton was not in a position to stop a violent act, he would have just been beaten as well. Come on.

Who was that chap (a father of 2 I think) that was knifed to death while trying to disperse thugs......

In this country, where it is doubtful you'd notice if the police went on a 24 day strike, you tend not to get involved where violence is concerned because the law is no longer a deterrant to the detritus of society.

[SGWilko]

A friend is someone to trust in wet and dry.

Glasspaper is more efficient in the dry........

[SGWilko]

Hamilton grew up a few miles from where I live, and he was expelled from his school (or at least the school and his father agreed it would be best if he left) due to witnessing a kid being kicked into a coma and not trying to stop it (he wasn't involved himself). Sounds weirdly familiar...

How do you stop a kid being kicked into a coma, put your own head in the way to take the moral high ground and appease the forum wallahs?

[Bagwan]

Could be that dad simply didn't want his kid in a school where children kick other children into comas ?

It would be reason enough for me .

But the question remains . Why is Lewis a coward in Sutil's eyes ?
If nobody can come up with a reasonable answer , then there clearly is more to this story we don't know .

So , we must not have the real answer to why he didn't show up at the trial .

[ArrowsFA1]

Ask Adrian Sutil. They're his words. He's the only one who can answer your question.

[ioan]

Its not nice, its not pleasant but there's a level in society above which friendship won't survive one of the parties being accused of a violent crime. In this case Lewis was advised well.

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

[ioan]

Oh good. Another opportunity to have a dig at Hamilton :rolleyes: There's nothing new under the sun.

Just as good an opportunity for you to try to brush his bad deeds under the carpet, again. People in glass houses and all the rest...

[ioan]

This case really is getting strange. I really don't know which side to believe - did Hamilton not witness it or is he just trying to save bad publicity and drop his friend right in it?

Wouldn't be the first time for him.

[ioan]

For me Sutil sounds desperate...

Cause you would have been all flowers and kisses if you were to be convicted of assault?!

[ioan]

Ask Adrian Sutil. They're his words. He's the only one who can answer your question.

Why the hell are you so aggressive?

[ArrowsFA1]

Why the hell are you so aggressive?
:laugh: I do apologise ioan. Perhaps I could have worded it better.

I'd suggest, Bagwan, that you ask Adrian Sutil because they're his words. He's the only one who can answer your question.

[CNR]

FORMULA ONE - F1: Hamilton 'Pathetic' Says Sutil's Angry Father (http://formula-one.speedtv.com/article/f1-lewis-hamilton-pathetic-says-adrian-sutils-angry-father/)
(We need to see the video)"lewis liegate 2 ?"


Sutil's father.

As for Hamilton's role in the affair, having sat alongside Sutil in the Shanghai nightclub at the time of the alleged assault, Jorge Sutil is blunt.

"It's really pathetic," he said.

"Lewis Hamilton moved to Monaco and didn't tell Adrian his new phone number. But he often called him if he had personal problems.

"His father sent my son a message that he hopes everything goes well with the hearing. And Lewis Hamilton, the cause of the discussion, didn't do anything.

"I think my son chose the wrong friend," Sutil's father added.

[F1boat]

Cause you would have been all flowers and kisses if you were to be convicted of assault?!

But there's the catch, I haven't hurt anyone ;)

[DexDexter]

But there's the catch, I haven't hurt anyone ;)

That's the bottom line. Sutil obviously threw something at Lux, and he was punished for that. I'd understand some sort of "wrestling" but once a guy starts to throw glass or something at another person, that's actually quite serious.

[ArrowsFA1]

We need to see the video
Why? The court has. The court has also seen the witnesses it decided it needed to. It has examined the evidence and delivered a verdict.

[jens]

Regarding the alleged situation of Hamilton's schooldays. Well, had he joined the fight, it may well have escalated - also depending, how he would have done that. But a school student can certainly search for outside help from teachers/grown ups/security officer (if there is one at school). It is better to do something instead of nothing at all. But this is not aimed at criticising Hamilton, because I haven't seen the situations.

[CNR]

having sat alongside Sutil in the Shanghai nightclub at the time of the alleged assault the video will show whether or not he committed perjury




perjury


Criminal law the offence committed by a witness
in judicial proceedings who, having been lawfully sworn or having affirmed,
wilfully gives false evidence

[F1boat]

That's the bottom line. Sutil obviously threw something at Lux, and he was punished for that. I'd understand some sort of "wrestling" but once a guy starts to throw glass or something at another person, that's actually quite serious.

James Allen claims that he has seen the wound and described it as "nasty".

[Bagwan]

FORMULA ONE - F1: Hamilton 'Pathetic' Says Sutil's Angry Father (http://formula-one.speedtv.com/article/f1-lewis-hamilton-pathetic-says-adrian-sutils-angry-father/)
(We need to see the video)"lewis liegate 2 ?"

What ?
Now he's a "pathetic coward" ?

We know as fact , that Hamilton was sitting right beside Sutil during this event .
Lewis says he saw nothing .

My read on this , since he's been called out , is that Lewis should have , from his close proximity to the event , been able to give some corroboration to Adrian about the amount of aggression shown by Lux prior to the problem .
Reported before the trial , we had heard that Sutil made an aggressive move , meant to toss a drink .

So , we know the pair were sitting down , and that Sutil was the aggressor .
But , exactly how long are Sutil's arms ?
If you think about the scenario , Lux must have been pretty close to have been in the range of the glass that cut him .

"You know I'm an F1 driver , don't you ?"(or something close to that) were Sutil's words just before the incident .
"You know I'm an F1 team owner , don't you ?"(or , again , something close) were Lux's words .

Short moments later , we had Lux in range to be cut on the neck , so there must have been a lunge forwards and down towards Sutil that accompanied the words in response .

Following that scenario , the seemingly most logical read on it , we should be able to conclude that Lewis would have been the only one other than Adrian himself , who could give an account of those final moments before the incident occurred .

Even in a crowded , loud nightclub , he should have been able to hear Lux's words , being that he was seated beside Adrian , and that Lux must have moved in close enough to have been struck in the neck .

But , Lewis says he saw nothing . Did he hear nothing as well ?


From the reactions of Sutil and his dad , he perhaps was the only one who could have testified as to exactly how aggressive Lux really was in the event .
If true , I understand the reactionary words "coward" and "pathetic" .

[SGWilko]

What ?
Now he's a "pathetic coward" ?

We know as fact , that Hamilton was sitting right beside Sutil during this event .
Lewis says he saw nothing .

My read on this , since he's been called out , is that Lewis should have , from his close proximity to the event , been able to give some corroboration to Adrian about the amount of aggression shown by Lux prior to the problem .
Reported before the trial , we had heard that Sutil made an aggressive move , meant to toss a drink .

So , we know the pair were sitting down , and that Sutil was the aggressor .
But , exactly how long are Sutil's arms ?
If you think about the scenario , Lux must have been pretty close to have been in the range of the glass that cut him .

"You know I'm an F1 driver , don't you ?"(or something close to that) were Sutil's words just before the incident .
"You know I'm an F1 team owner , don't you ?"(or , again , something close) were Lux's words .

Short moments later , we had Lux in range to be cut on the neck , so there must have been a lunge forwards and down towards Sutil that accompanied the words in response .

Following that scenario , the seemingly most logical read on it , we should be able to conclude that Lewis would have been the only one other than Adrian himself , who could give an account of those final moments before the incident occurred .

Even in a crowded , loud nightclub , he should have been able to hear Lux's words , being that he was seated beside Adrian , and that Lux must have moved in close enough to have been struck in the neck .

But , Lewis says he saw nothing . Did he hear nothing as well ?


From the reactions of Sutil and his dad , he perhaps was the only one who could have testified as to exactly how aggressive Lux really was in the event .
If true , I understand the reactionary words "coward" and "pathetic" .

The only things we know for sure are;

Sutil caused an injury to Lux.

Hamilton was in the same nightclub.

There is video footage.

Sutil Jnr & Snr are annoyed.

Anything else, without having been there or seen the video is mere speculation/press hype.

I don't think I'll lose any sleep over this 'brownian motion in a petri dish'

[Jag_Warrior]

It's too bad that Sutil and Hamilton have now fallen out. But if Lewis felt that the only way he could help his "friend" was by lying for him, then maybe that's why he got out of appearing. Maybe if he had appeared and told the truth, that would have made it even worse (and we all know that Lewis can't tell a good lie to save his life). I don't know. But someone, who was a friend of mine, asked me to appear for him in court and I wouldn't do it. Why? Because the truth was, he was as guilty as sin. And I wasn't going to lie about what I knew. I don't know about the court where Sutil appeared, but here, you can easily wind up in jail for perjury. And I'm no longer friends with this individual either... for that and other reasons - but some people get bent out of shape if you're not willing to go down the tubes with them. Screw that!

Too bad for Sutil though. I rather liked him.

[F1boat]

It's too bad that Sutil and Hamilton have now fallen out. But if Lewis felt that the only way he could help his "friend" was by lying for him, then maybe that's why he got out of appearing. Maybe if he had appeared and told the truth, that would have made it even worse (and we all know that Lewis can't tell a good lie to save his life). I don't know.

This.

[Bagwan]

This.

This ?

He said he saw nothing .
Isn't it more likely that was the lie , and that appearing would have brought that to the attention of the press ?

Think about it .
Why would Sutil and his father call him a coward if the reasoning behind it was because he wouldn't commit perjury ?

And , having been called "pathetic" , and a "coward" , why would Hamilton not just come out and say it was because he would have been forced to lie to the court , and , therefore , didn't show ?
After all , the friendship is over .

Why not come clean ?

Still widely reported is that they were sitting beside each other , and a "war of words " was in full swing .
Perhaps this was really the issue that Lewis didn't want to face ; being caught in another lie .

[ioan]

Why? The court has. The court has also seen the witnesses it decided it needed to. It has examined the evidence and delivered a verdict.

Maybe, just maybe, some people have an opinion of their own, like you sometimes like to profess in the Chit Chat forum.

[ioan]

This ?

He said he saw nothing .
Isn't it more likely that was the lie , and that appearing would have brought that to the attention of the press ?

He didn't see Trulli either a few years back, nor did he see Massa on a few occasions last season, why would he see some less important stuff like too people havin' a fight right beside him?
Oh wait, he already threw some people under the bus in the past. :s

[The Black Knight]

He didn't see Trulli either a few years back, nor did he see Massa on a few occasions last season, why would he see some less important stuff like too people havin' a fight right beside him?
Oh wait, he already threw some people under the bus in the past. :s

http://cdn.head-fi.org/6/61/61fde76a_attachment.jpeg

[ArrowsFA1]

Maybe, just maybe, some people have an opinion of their own, like you sometimes like to profess in the Chit Chat forum.
By all means have an opinion, but the facts of the matter have been judged by a court.

[BDunnell]

He didn't see Trulli either a few years back, nor did he see Massa on a few occasions last season, why would he see some less important stuff like too people havin' a fight right beside him?

ioan, were you there? Have you seen the CCTV footage? If not, how can you make such a statement?

I've said it before and I'll say it again — many of your remarks on the F1 forum make you look rather foolish, something you are emphatically not.

[F1boat]

This ?

He said he saw nothing .
Isn't it more likely that was the lie , and that appearing would have brought that to the attention of the press ?

Think about it .
Why would Sutil and his father call him a coward if the reasoning behind it was because he wouldn't commit perjury ?

And , having been called "pathetic" , and a "coward" , why would Hamilton not just come out and say it was because he would have been forced to lie to the court , and , therefore , didn't show ?
After all , the friendship is over .

Why not come clean ?

Still widely reported is that they were sitting beside each other , and a "war of words " was in full swing .
Perhaps this was really the issue that Lewis didn't want to face ; being caught in another lie .

Or maybe because he was advised that he should avoid more controversy. You may note that Sutil is the only man who whines for help from Hamilton, the Renault guy remains silent - his ugly wound is evidence enough for his case. What should have Lewis said to please his haters - "Yeah, the Renault boy behaved badly and that's why my great friend Adrian tried to slice his throat, which is a chivalrous thing to do!". And BTW everybody here knows that I am by no means fan of Hamilton, au contraire, I can't stand his driving style which leaves damaged cars on the whole track, neither I am fan of his "I am the new Ayrton Senna" behavior. But enough is enough. Sutil let himself to be provoked and committed a dangerous act, which could have hurt the Renault guy very seriously. The court obviously took in consideration the fact that he didn't do it on purpose and that he was provoked, and that's why Adrian is not in prison. Lewis has nothing to do with his stupidity.

[jens]

I've said it before and I'll say it again — many of your remarks on the F1 forum make you look rather foolish, something you are emphatically not.

So what is the solution? The only way to 'improve' others is to show good gentlemanly behaviour by ourselves instead of shooting them down and going with personal attacks. :) I know you like to comment on Ioan, but it can certainly be done from different points of view - in a positive and thus inspiring fashion.

[BDunnell]

So what is the solution? The only way to 'improve' others is to show good gentlemanly behaviour by ourselves instead of shooting them down and going with personal attacks. :) I know you like to comment on Ioan, but it can certainly be done from different points of view - in a positive and thus inspiring fashion.

I think my reference to him being far from a fool is suitably positive and inspiring.

[The Black Knight]

When the police attended the incident when it first happened, they would have got statements off everyone who witnessed the attack. Lewis offered a statement to the court when his lawyer contacted them after not actually being formally contacted by Sutil's lawyer, so I would say he offered as much information as he was obliged to do. I can't really see what is being debated here as we don't know fully what happened in the nightclub, or what Adrian is unhappy about? I also don't understand why this thread has gone in down the avenue of analysing Hamilton's part in all this? Pedro de la Rosa was also present with Lewis and Adrian and like Lewis he also declined to appear in court. I can understand there is some upset from Sutil because Lewis is his friend but in the context of this debate where some are trying to predict the events, then why not give Pedro abit of consideration too? Asking Lewis to 'come clean' regarding events which are unclear to us fans is abit silly IMO. He's preparing for a new season and doesn't need this distraction and I don't blame him for not explaining things that don't concern him at what is a very busy time for any driver on the grid.

To answer your question: A thread is not a REAL thread until there is some proper Lewis bashing. You go through all the threads here and any opportunity the Lewis haters have they jump on it aside from one or two people whom are offering an objective opinion on it. Lewis has done nothing wrong but you'll always have those that will get on his case. This is the same with all great drivers of the past. People used to try to get on Schumacher's case too. It's just another thing Lewis has in common with the greats - he's the most talked about and controversial driver amongst fans :s mokin:

[The Black Knight]

He didn't see Trulli either a few years back, nor did he see Massa on a few occasions last season, why would he see some less important stuff like too people havin' a fight right beside him?
Oh wait, he already threw some people under the bus in the past. :s

Schumacher didn't see Villeneuve in 97, Hill in 94 or Montoya in Imola 04... and the list goes on.

[F1boat]

Schumacher didn't see Villeneuve in 97, Hill in 94 or Montoya in Imola 04... and the list goes on.

View your previous post, dear Sir.

[The Black Knight]

View your previous post, dear Sir.

I'm aware of the inherent contradiction but I'm actually a big Schumacher fan. I'm not bashing him, I'm trying to point out ioan's bias to him and open his eyes a little so he can see that plenty of drivers, including Schuey, have used the "I didn't see him" excuse and sometimes it is just that, they didn't see.

[Bagwan]

When the police attended the incident when it first happened, they would have got statements off everyone who witnessed the attack. Lewis offered a statement to the court when his lawyer contacted them after not actually being formally contacted by Sutil's lawyer, so I would say he offered as much information as he was obliged to do. I can't really see what is being debated here as we don't know fully what happened in the nightclub, or what Adrian is unhappy about? I also don't understand why this thread has gone in down the avenue of analysing Hamilton's part in all this? Pedro de la Rosa was also present with Lewis and Adrian and like Lewis he also declined to appear in court. I can understand there is some upset from Sutil because Lewis is his friend but in the context of this debate where some are trying to predict the events, then why not give Pedro abit of consideration too? Asking Lewis to 'come clean' regarding events which are unclear to us fans is abit silly IMO. He's preparing for a new season and doesn't need this distraction and I don't blame him for not explaining things that don't concern him at what is a very busy time for any driver on the grid.

Sutil and his dad aren't angry with Pedro , so perhaps he didn't see it happen . I haven't seen any reports of him being seated beside Adrian , as Lewis was .
Your scenario with the police getting statements actually fits perfectly with the premise that Lewis may have lied in these initial interviews .

It would be reason enough to dump a friend in it , so as not to perjure himself .
It would be good reason to call him a coward , from the Sutils's point of view .

[SGWilko]

Sutil and his dad aren't angry with Pedro , so perhaps he didn't see it happen . I haven't seen any reports of him being seated beside Adrian , as Lewis was .
Your scenario with the police getting statements actually fits perfectly with the premise that Lewis may have lied in these initial interviews .

It would be reason enough to dump a friend in it , so as not to perjure himself .
It would be good reason to call him a coward , from the Sutils's point of view .

Perhaps it's because he is ............................................

[Bagwan]

I wouldn't expect anything other than a list of negative assumptions from yourself bagwan and I can't understand why you didn't just say that in the first place rather than hinting and attempting to dress it up as a reasonable debate. You appear to have made you mind up here regardless of whether there is any evidence to support it or not. I feel offering less sinister explanations is rather pointless now.

Sent from my HTC Incredible S using Tapatalk

We have been on opposite sides in Hamilton debate before , and it would seem fair to say the very opposite about your argument here .

Your assertion that they would have recorded statements from those involved prompted my last remark .
I had previously understood the the "Sutil group" had left the scene , and would , therefore , have been un-available for statement at that time .

I am perfectly willing to accept a "less sinister" explanation .

Simply , the situation does not seem to fit with the amount of malice the the Sutils are showing , if it's just a matter of Adrian being mad that Lewis wouldn't hold his hand during the trial .

Explain to me why Lewis was branded a "coward" here .
Why would not showing up be "pathetic" or make him "not a man" ?
Those are strong words , and rather more than one would expect used towards one not attending a friend's trial , if moral support was all he was asking for .

Make sense of it for me .

[Dave B]

My goodness I've rarely seen such supposition and conjecture outside of the Daily Mail website :s

[SGWilko]

My goodness I've rarely seen such supposition and conjecture outside of the Daily Mail website :s

You never read the Sunday Sport then?

[Bagwan]

My goodness I've rarely seen such supposition and conjecture outside of the Daily Mail website :s

Would you like to contribute to the debate , Dave ?

[SGWilko]

Would you like to contribute to the debate , Dave ?

Open the pod bay doors........

[Bagwan]

You never read the Sunday Sport then?

Would you like to contribute to it , too ?

[F1boat]

I'm aware of the inherent contradiction but I'm actually a big Schumacher fan. I'm not bashing him, I'm trying to point out ioan's bias to him and open his eyes a little so he can see that plenty of drivers, including Schuey, have used the "I didn't see him" excuse and sometimes it is just that, they didn't see.

Ioan always likes to play the devil's advocate, to put it mildly. ;) BTW I remember that in 2004, after the San Marino GP, Montoya was very angry at Michael for his "I didn't see him" answer at the press conference after the race and accused him of being "blind or stupid". :D

[SGWilko]

and accused him of being "blind or stupid". :D

I'm over here, Michael........

[SGWilko]

Would you like to contribute to it , too ?

Is there a suggested donation?

[Bagwan]

Is there a suggested donation?

Try supplying a well-reasoned explanation as to why the Sutils are so upset .

[SGWilko]

Try supplying a well-reasoned explanation as to why the Sutils are so upset .

Errrrr, cos he got a suspended sentence and is looking for someone, anyone, to have a pop at - it's everyone elses fault but his........

Hamilton is a coward, apparently, for not appearing even though the court did not request his presence.

Mmmmm, ya, that makes sense, init tho?

[Dave B]

Would you like to contribute to the debate , Dave ?

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.

[SGWilko]

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?

[SGWilko]

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.

[airshifter]

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.

[Bagwan]

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 Black Knight]

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 (http://en.espnf1.com/f1/motorsport/story/69829.html)

[Bagwan]

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 .

[Malbec]

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.

[Bagwan]

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 .

[Bagwan]

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" ?

[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.

[SGWilko]

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'!!!!!

[Bagwan]

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 ?

[ArrowsFA1]

As I said, speculation and conjecture.

[Malbec]

"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.

[SGWilko]

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

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

[Bagwan]

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 .

[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 Black Knight]

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.



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.

[BDunnell]

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?

[Malbec]

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.


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

Quite. Some of the speculations are quite bizarre really.

[SGWilko]

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.

[Bagwan]

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."

[Bagwan]

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 ?

[Garry Walker]

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


FORMULA ONE - F1: Hamilton 'Pathetic' Says Sutil's Angry Father (http://formula-one.speedtv.com/article/f1-lewis-hamilton-pathetic-says-adrian-sutils-angry-father/)
(We need to see the video)"lewis liegate 2 ?" Maybe Sutil tried to hit on Hamilton?


You never read the Sunday Sport then?
Or the guardian

[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.

[SGWilko]

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.......

[Bagwan]

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 .

[Bagwan]

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" .

[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 .

[SGWilko]

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?

[Malbec]

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.

[ArrowsFA1]

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.

[BDunnell]

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.

[Bagwan]

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."

[BDunnell]

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.

[Bagwan]

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 .

[Bagwan]

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 .

[CNR]

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

[Malbec]

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.

[Bagwan]

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 ?

[ArrowsFA1]

This must mean...
This begs the question...


So , as presumably...
Surely , cowardice implies...
It must mean one of two things...
Could it be...
If it was pressure...


He seems to be saying...?


Is this , perhaps...
Or , was it...


Hard to imagine...


This seems pretty curious...


My read on this...
...the seemingly most logical read on it , we should be able to conclude...


Isn't it more likely...
Perhaps this was really the issue...


There simply must be more behind this...


To speculate further...


You know , this is all just a theory...
:s mokin:

[Dave B]

Exactly, Arrows.

[Bagwan]

Impressive , Arrows .
That must have taken some time .

Good to know you passionately support your countryman .

[SGWilko]

:s mokin:

I would speculate that the conclusion one might draw from such a theory is that whilst, maybe, he may have been indecisive, now it appears, on the face of it, that a case of simply not being sure is afoot......

Perhaps. ;)

[Bagwan]

Pile on , boys .
I can take it .

You can call it officially over if Hamilton isn't called in to testify for his former friend .

[SGWilko]

Pile on , boys .
I can take it .

You can call it officially over if Hamilton isn't called in to testify for his former friend .

I'm quite sure he'll be called again, and if he is officially sommonsed [sic] he will be required to attend.

I thought that the Sutils were sure their case was solid given the CCTV footage. And if the CCTV was so conclusive, you'd hazard a guess that it'd show where witnesses were in relation to the 'event'..........

Perhaps their interpretation of events, and that of the judge, differed?????

[ArrowsFA1]

Good to know you passionately support your countryman.
Nothing to do with supporting anyone Bagwan, least of all a countryman. Last time I checked a Welshman isn't involved :p :

On a fundamental point of justice I simply disagree with a fabricated theory being concocted on the basis of 'this is what we know but what if...' in order to implicate someone.

[SGWilko]

Nothing to do with supporting anyone Bagwan, least of all a countryman. Last time I checked a Welshman isn't involved :p :

On a fundamental point of justice I simply disagree with a fabricated theory being concocted on the basis of 'this is what we know but what if...' in order to implicate someone.

Aaahh, so, you're Welsh then, is it?

Tidy!

Stereotyping a speciality.

[ArrowsFA1]

:D

[Bagwan]

I'm quite sure he'll be called again, and if he is officially sommonsed [sic] he will be required to attend.

I thought that the Sutils were sure their case was solid given the CCTV footage. And if the CCTV was so conclusive, you'd hazard a guess that it'd show where witnesses were in relation to the 'event'..........

Perhaps their interpretation of events, and that of the judge, differed?????

All entirely plausable .

We'll see .

[Bagwan]

Nothing to do with supporting anyone Bagwan, least of all a countryman. Last time I checked a Welshman isn't involved :p :

On a fundamental point of justice I simply disagree with a fabricated theory being concocted on the basis of 'this is what we know but what if...' in order to implicate someone.

You all look alike to me . Hee hee .
Sorry for the unintentional fox-paw , calling you English , of all things .

I should have worded it "neighbouring countryman" .


I happen to think that a small lie in the wrong place might be at the bottom of why the comments from two individuals don't seem to match with the situation .
I simply have explained why the theory fits the scenario present .

We should find out soon if he will present , and if he is , maybe we'll find out why he wasn't there , or indeed , whether his testimony will have any bearing at all .

[CNR]

so it will come back to bite him
Renault F1 owner suing Adrian Sutil over Shanghai nightclub brawl (http://www.autoblog.com/2011/05/18/renault-f1-owner-suing-adrian-sutil-over-shanghai-nightclub-braw/)

Adrian Sutil can kiss his chances of ever driving for the Renault (http://www.autoblog.com/category/renault) F1 team goodbye. Lewis Hamilton too, from the looks of things. At least as long as its owned by Genii Capital.

pitpass - Rumours swirl around Sutil nightclub brawl (http://www.pitpass.com/fes_php/pitpass_news_item.php?fes_art_id=43573)

Sutil regrets altercation in Chinese nightclub (http://www.thef1times.com/news/display/03306)

Hamilton wasn't involved in the altercation and was rushed from the scene by his bodyguard. Sutil shortly followed.

Motor Racing Formula One driver Sutil accused of assault - Channel NewsAsia (http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/afp_sports/view/1129506/1/.html)

Mr Lux reserves the right to pursue others indirectly involved in the incident at a later date.
2+2 = lewis

[ArrowsFA1]

Nice links CNR. All from May 2011 :p

[CNR]

Nice links CNR. All from May 2011 :p
more chance of it being true not long after it happened

[ArrowsFA1]

more chance of it being true not long after it happened
Of what being true? Given that there has already been a court case, what fresh allegation are you making?

[CNR]

Of what being true? Given that there has already been a court case, what fresh allegation are you making?

Mr Lux reserves the right to pursue others indirectly involved in the incident at a later date.

[Bagwan]

Of what being true? Given that there has already been a court case, what fresh allegation are you making?

Hold on , Arrows .
Would this be a source of the pressure that Lewis may have been under to not show up ?

Could this explain the choice of the words used by the Sutils , in reference to Lewis being afraid of speaking up so as not to upset Lux further , ending up with a law suit , himself ?

This theory does seem to fit as well , as not wanting to stand up to Lux could evoke the same sort of response .
It fits with the reported conversation that they had before the incident , where Lux was seemingly "pulling rank" on Sutil , with his retort "Don't you know I'm an F1 team owner " .

With a fresh contract in the works , neither the lie theory , or this pressure theory , should be written off entirely .
Either could be the answer .

[ArrowsFA1]

...neither the lie theory , or this pressure theory , should be written off entirely.
Good luck with that :s mokin:

[f1bettings]

I am confused. I read Sutil did attack or is there video to suggest this didn't happen? This is the first I read otherwise but it would explain why the case is dragging on so long and not being handled swiftly.

[Bagwan]

Thanks .

[BDunnell]

more chance of it being true not long after it happened

I hope you never end up on a jury. Come to think of it, I hope an awful lot of people never end up on a jury.

[BDunnell]

Hold on , Arrows .
Would this be a source of the pressure that Lewis may have been under to not show up ?

Could this explain the choice of the words used by the Sutils , in reference to Lewis being afraid of speaking up so as not to upset Lux further , ending up with a law suit , himself ?

This theory does seem to fit as well , as not wanting to stand up to Lux could evoke the same sort of response .
It fits with the reported conversation that they had before the incident , where Lux was seemingly "pulling rank" on Sutil , with his retort "Don't you know I'm an F1 team owner " .

With a fresh contract in the works , neither the lie theory , or this pressure theory , should be written off entirely .
Either could be the answer .

And why do you care?

[Bagwan]

And why do you care?

I'm interested in what makes all these guys tick , as they say .

Does it matter why ?
I've followed this sport for a long time now .
The drama that goes on in the background often finds it's way onto the track , and it's good to know some of those details when watching these guys race .


At the centre of this is the extreme difference between the bravery of an F1 driver of Lewis's calibre(ie-HIGH) , and the word he was called .
It doesn't fit .
It's a mystery at this point .

I like a good mystery .
At this point in the story , I happen to think the butler was innocent .


Why do you care why I care ?

[ArrowsFA1]

I'm interested in what makes all these guys tick...
Really? More than 40 posts written in a thread about Adrian Sutil's trial and you have shown little or no interest in Adrian Sutil, his actions or responsibility for what happened.

[Bagwan]

Really? More than 40 posts written in a thread about Adrian Sutil's trial and you have shown little or no interest in Adrian Sutil, his actions or responsibility for what happened.

Yeah , really .

This is all about his responsibility for what happened .
It's what the appeal is about .

It's not about whether he did it .
It's about whether the punishment fits the crime .

Like I've stated earlier in this thread , I don't think Adrian's arms are long enough for him to have been the only aggressor in the incident .

Adam Cooper , having seen the CCTV footage , didn't feel the punishment fit the crime either .

The Sutils being as upset as they seem doesn't fit either .

2+2 = ?

[wedge]

I'm interested in what makes all these guys tick , as they say .

Does it matter why ?
I've followed this sport for a long time now .
The drama that goes on in the background often finds it's way onto the track , and it's good to know some of those details when watching these guys race .


At the centre of this is the extreme difference between the bravery of an F1 driver of Lewis's calibre(ie-HIGH) , and the word he was called .
It doesn't fit .
It's a mystery at this point .

I like a good mystery .
At this point in the story , I happen to think the butler was innocent .


Why do you care why I care ?

OK, OK, the cat's out the bag.

It was the impending end of a bro-mance with Sutil that was Hammy's downfall last year. And it was all of Lady Macbeth/Nicole's fault!

[Bagwan]

OK, OK, the cat's out the bag.

It was the impending end of a bro-mance with Sutil that was Hammy's downfall last year. And it was all of Lady Macbeth/Nicole's fault!

So , that must mean that he and Nicole are getting married the day of the appeal that he's booked in to testify , and that's why he can't appear !

How on earth did you find this out , Wedge ?


By the way , I have three black cats , and all of them are in right now , just for the record .

[ioan]

Let's say I'm impressed how Hamilton's die hard fans are against him being seen as fishy after what he previously did both on and off the track.
I'm also pretty sure Hamy will shoot himself in the foot again pretty soon and all his die hard fans will have another opportunity to show their dedication to cleaning his image.

Meanwhile I find it difficult to digest that people care less about having someone on the brink of having his life destroyed then the image of a guy with Lewis' record vs truth.
Just my opinion, you can shoot now. :D

PS: All I care about is to have the justice served with full knowledge of all the events from all those involved.

[BDunnell]

Let's say I'm impressed how Hamilton's die hard fans are against him being seen as fishy after what he previously did both on and off the track.
I'm also pretty sure Hamy will shoot himself in the foot again pretty soon and all his die hard fans will have another opportunity to show their dedication to cleaning his image.

Meanwhile I find it difficult to digest that people care less about having someone on the brink of having his life destroyed then the image of a guy with Lewis' record vs truth.
Just my opinion, you can shoot now. :D

PS: All I care about is to have the justice served with full knowledge of all the events from all those involved.

Leave out the sanctimonious claptrap, ioan. You have no knowledge of what happened; therefore, why insinuate that someone was involved who may very well not have been? Unless you are privy to information withheld from the rest of us, you are as utterly ignorant on the matter as anyone else who didn't see the incident. In no way can you suggest otherwise.

[ArrowsFA1]

All I care about is to have the justice served with full knowledge of all the events from all those involved.
The rest of your post makes that crystal clear :p

[Tazio]

I'm late to this conversation but here is my two cents:
Before the hearing everything I read said that Sutil was going to get a one year suspended sentence. He ended up getting one and a half. None of us know what Hamilton saw or didn't see. I don't know how these things work in Germany, but in the US if a material witness is given a summons and in advance replies that he can't make it on that date the court will grant a continuance. If he just refuses to show up without getting permission he is held in contemt of court. I refuse to take the scenario any further than that. I am just as far in the dark as everyone else.

[ioan]

Leave out the sanctimonious claptrap, ioan. You have no knowledge of what happened;

That's two of us then, at least.

[ioan]

I think considering the lack of information here I would say this debate has been pretty civil. You may laugh at Hamilton fans defending him and the lengths 'we' go to, but are you not doing the same with the little info you have in order to make false negative suggestions? Hmmm. It never fails to amuse me how you continually use some of Hamilton's less appealing incidents in the past when attempting to justify a weak suggestion, but on the other hand support argueably the most unsporting driver the sport has ever seen yourself. Just my opinion me old fruit.


Sent from my HTC Incredible S using Tapatalk

Did I imply anything else then Lewis having a murky past? Do you disagree on me saying that he didn't always walk the line?
I never said that the Sutil case was handled right or wrong, just that it is not as obvious as the Hamy brigade wants to paint it.

Even journo's who claim to have seen the evidence are having divided opinions on this case, so why can't we also have different opinions.
I don't think that falling into one extreme or the other is the way to go, why not try to see a bit of both sides?

[Tazio]

Welcome back ;)
Thanks Bro. :cool:

[CNR]

please explain?
if lewis was not that close to the see the attack glassing fight or whatever you would like to call it
WHY THIS ? Hamilton wasn't involved in the altercation and was rushed from the scene by his bodyguard. Sutil shortly followed.

[pino]

please explain?
if lewis was not that close to the see the attack glassing fight or whatever you would like to call it
WHY THIS ? Hamilton wasn't involved in the altercation and was rushed from the scene by his bodyguard. Sutil shortly followed.

Please stop using bold letters thank you !

[Tazio]

please explain?
if lewis was not that close to the see the attack glassing fight or whatever you would like to call it
WHY THIS ? Hamilton wasn't involved in the altercation and was rushed from the scene by his bodyguard. Sutil shortly followed.
The first thing that comes to mind is to get the hell out of their before the paparazzi show up. Being rushed out of the joint means what? It is a little vague. Did they sprint, trot, Jog, or just walk away leaving expeditiously? Are you suggesting Hamilton wouldn't be able to get up and walk away without his body guard? I wasn't there so I can only offer the simplest opinion. It may come down to Lewis just being plain pissed off that his friend ruined an otherwise enjoyable celebration for which he was the guest of honor by not being able to hold his liquor. We don’t know. The members on this forum know I'm a Ferrari guy that has huge respect for Alonso, but my appreciation of F1s pilots is not mutually exclusive, in fact I admire almost all of them. That is not the type of scene I'd want to hang out at if I was a high profile athlete. It's would just be worse publicity than I would want, especially if there would be nothing accomplished by staying. All I have offered is a possible scenario. As I already stated I’m not in any position to speak with authority about the specifics earlier in this thread.

What do you think it means? You are certainly entitled to your opinion.

[Mia 01]

Was it not so that Lewis sat right beside Sutil when the matter happened?

[ioan]

I agree Lewis does not have a squeaky clean past in all aspects but that has little relevance in this instance. I have also not read any articles from journalists who have seen evidence that suggest Lewis was involved or had seen anything. Adam Cooper tweeted that he had seen the CCTV footage and that Mr Lux was not as innocent as had been portrayed but he didn't suggest Lewis was involved or a key witness. Lewis was removed from the scene by bodyguards which is understandable due to the nature of the incident. With a volatile atmosphere in the club I think maybe a few others were maybe ushered away too. I'm not suggesting Lewis saw nothing and I'm not suggesting he did, as I don't know, but we have his word at the moment. Sutil hasn't claimed Lewis saw anything either and the details are all a bit vague. Of course you're entitled to your opinion, but I can't help but think you have made your mind up before any evidence has surfaced. I have to admire your consistency though.


Sent from my HTC Incredible S using Tapatalk

Who said Lewis was involved?
All we said is that he was present and would like to hear his version of the events instead of a stern 'didn't see it'.

[ArrowsFA1]

All we said is that he was present and would like to hear his version of the events instead of a stern 'didn't see it'.
Have you read the statement made to the court? If, as I think it's safe to assume, not how do you know its content let alone its tone?

[Mia 01]

Do you have a credible source that can confirm that because I have only read that on forums?
No I´m sorry. I read on some forum that Sutils father statet that Lewis sat beside him when the matter occured. There should be a wideo that proves the statement. If he was directly involved in the matter I don´t know, but he was Sutils best friend at the time.

[Bagwan]

This is from the Guardian :
"Adrian Sutil and the prosecuting attorney at the trial of his recent assault case have both appealed against the initial verdict. Sutil was given an 18-month suspended sentence and fined €200,000 (£167,000) after being found guilty of causing grievous bodily harm by the Munich district court judge Christiane Thiemann on 31 January.

That followed an incident in a nightclub in Shanghai after the Chinese Grand Prix in April last year in which Sutil injured Eric Lux, chief executive of the Lotus team owner Genii Capital. The former Force India driver struck Lux with a champagne glass, causing a wound in his neck that required 24 stitches.

Confirming the appeal, Sutil's manager, Manfred Zimmermann, said: "We have decided on this step because we are convinced this judge must not oppose, especially the video tapes which from our point of view are quite obvious and have not been properly considered."

Speaking to the German newspaper Bild, Zimmermann added: "Not asking one of the witnesses to court and other important circumstances have not been considered as well."

However, the district court has confirmed the prosecuting attorney Nicole Selzam has also appealed. Selzam is known to be pushing for a stiffer sentence that was demanded at the initial trial, namely 21 months suspended and a €300,000 fine.

Should there now be a retrial, it remains to be seen if Lewis Hamilton, who was with Sutil on the night in question following his grand prix victory in Shanghai that day, will attend.

Following representations made by his solicitor, Hamilton did not appear last month on the grounds of his commitments to McLaren, and instead his statement was read out in court.

The 27-year-old's failure to attend outraged Sutil who accused him of being "a coward", "not a man", insisting they were no longer friends.

As with the first case, it is understood that Hamilton will attend any retrial, but again providing it does not clash with his commitments."





"Not asking one of the witnesses to court and other important circumstances have not been considered as well."
So , now we have a direct contradiction of Hamilton's assertion that he saw nothing , as he is the only one to have been excused from attending , and is described here as a "witness" .

[ArrowsFA1]

So , now we have a direct contradiction of Hamilton's assertion that he saw nothing...
Where in your post, which repeats what is already known, is there "a direct contradiction" :confused:

[Mia 01]

Lewis sat beside Sutil as I know, ofcourse he knows something. Or is it so that Sutil is protecting Lewis, was protecting Lewis. Lewis that for know stand silent.

[Bagwan]

Where in your post, which repeats what is already known, is there "a direct contradiction" :confused:

"Not asking one of the witnesses to court..." .

With this quote in mind , I would hazard a guess that this is Lewis of whom they are speaking .
Is that too far a stretch for you ?

After all , he is the only one we know was asked and excused from appearing .
Sutil's manager clearly states "one" witness did not appear .

Does this not leave us to fill in the blank with Hamilton's name ?

He , if we can now assume that it was Lewis , is called a "witness" .
A "witness" might be expected to have heard or seen something , rather than nothing .

Those "other important circumstances" are ones that might fit with certain theories .


The Sutils are upset with the sentence , and it is because they must believe that Lux was more of an aggressor in the incident than was portrayed in the trial .
Zimmerman believes that the testimony provided by the witness that missed the first trial is crucial to making the judge understand the situation .

This is what I have alleged all along .

If it's not Lewis that's called , then I'm wrong for sure .

Maybe I'm wrong .

[Tazio]

The Sutils are upset with the sentence , and it is because they must believe that Lux was more of an aggressor in the incident than was portrayed in the trial .
Zimmerman believes that the testimony provided by the witness that missed the first trial is crucial to making the judge understand the situation .

Hey Bags long time bro :cool:
Here is a little grit for your bristle:


By: Adam Cooper on 1/31/2012

Security-camera footage viewed by Autoweek showed Sutil sitting next to Hamilton, with Lux standing over them, and a discussion apparently taking place. Lux then grabbed Sutil's left arm suddenly and tried to pull him out of the chair. As Sutil tried to defend himself and push Lux away with his free right hand--in which he was still holding a glass—Lux suffered a neck injury.

Given that most people viewing the footage would regard what happened as an instinctive act of self-defense—though it resulted in an unfortunate injury—the sentence seems heavy-handed at best.


Read more: Formula One: Adrian Sutil receives suspended sentence in assault - Autoweek (http://www.autoweek.com/article/20120131/F1/120139969#ixzz1mOcUgsOG)
If this account is accurate how could there be such a miscarriage of justice with or without Hamilton’s testimony :confused:
Something is very wrong about this whole shootin' match!

[Tazio]

Upon further consideration, and this is all hypothetical I suspect that Lux, and his legal team have asserted that Sutil was really hammered and wasn't able to use good judgment. Maybe everybody that has a stake in Hamilton “The Brand” which includes all sponsors was trying to avoid the bad press. They may fear upon cross examination, and or more likely witnesses for the prosecution saying something like Hamilton was also drunk as a skunk. If that is the case Hamilton may have to say he was too sh!tfaced to see anything, or at least answer to that assertion. That would be a lose lose situation for Lewis. He is going to have to face the music, which to me is just a case of a guy getting sauced after a victory and having the bad fortune of an event like this happening. Personally I believe Hamilton has the god given right to get plowed in a nightclub after a race. I guess we’re just going to have to wait and see how the appeal shakes out.
On a separate note I wonder if Mr. Lux wife’s fist name is Dee. :D

[CNR]

please explain?
if lewis was not that close to the see the attack glassing fight or whatever you would like to call it
WHY THIS ? Hamilton wasn't involved in the altercation and was rushed from the scene by his bodyguard. Sutil shortly followed.
have a look at the private rooms there is no way lewis would not have seen it
http://www.m1ntglobal.com/sites/default/files/Lounge-R.swf

[CNR]

Please stop using bold letters thank you !
OK

[SGWilko]

Hey Bags long time bro :cool:
Here is a little grit for your bristle:


If this account is accurate how could there be such a miscarriage of justice with or without Hamilton’s testimony :confused:
Something is very wrong about this whole shootin' match!

If only the footage could be 'leaked' onto youtube. If true, it'd blow Lux's case out the water.......

[SGWilko]

have a look at the private rooms there is no way lewis would not have seen it
http://www.m1ntglobal.com/sites/default/files/Lounge-R.swf

Lee Evans would have fun describing someone walking through that curtain....... ;)

[ArrowsFA1]

"Not asking one of the witnesses to court..." .

With this quote in mind , I would hazard a guess that this is Lewis of whom they are speaking .
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.

How does that "directly contradict" Hamilton's assertion that he saw nothing :confused: :crazy:

[airshifter]

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.

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.


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

[Bagwan]

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.

How does that "directly contradict" Hamilton's assertion that he saw nothing :confused: :crazy:

A written statement was not acceptable , so Hamilton's testimony wasn't heard .

Does the word "witness" not imply he saw something ?

[Bagwan]

Hey Bags long time bro :cool:
Here is a little grit for your bristle:


If this account is accurate how could there be such a miscarriage of justice with or without Hamilton’s testimony :confused:
Something is very wrong about this whole shootin' match!

Nice to see you back Traz man .
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 ?

[Firstgear]

A written statement was not acceptable , so Hamilton's testimony wasn't heard .

Does the word "witness" not imply he saw something ?
Witness could be character witness (as airshifter is implying above in post 238), not eye witness (as you seem to be assuming).

[Bagwan]

Witness could be character witness (as airshifter is implying above in post 238), not eye witness (as you seem to be assuming).

Would a "character witness" not be referred to as such , not just as "witness" ?

Zimmerman seems to imply that Hamilton is more than just a "character witness" , does he not ?

[SGWilko]

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.

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.......

[Firstgear]

Would a "character witness" not be referred to as such , not just as "witness" ?

Zimmerman seems to imply that Hamilton is more than just a "character witness" , does he not ?
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?

[Tazio]

If only the footage could be 'leaked' onto youtube. If true, it'd blow Lux's case out the water.......
Where is notw when you really need them? :)

[I am evil Homer]

I'm going to jump in here...most of this thread baffles me TBH. Actually some of it is hilarious and some of it potentially libellous. "I read a source" - of course you did...

But as, i'm guessing, the only qualified lawyer commenting I will say the term "witness" does not necessarily mean that Lewis Hamilton saw or 'witnessed' anything of the assault as has been mentioned.

In legal parlance it means he was named by someone as being in the building where the assault took place at the time it happened, who could offer information about the events of the evening. That someone could have been Lux, or Sutil or the cloakroom assistant for all we know. 'Events' could cover who he saw in the same building, how much he saw people drinking etc.

Lewis Hamilton was asked if he could appear, he stated he could not and offered a written statement. All perfectly normal and happens every day in cases far more serious than this. He was never legally obliged or obligated to go to court.

What is slightly odd in this case is that it seems the entire judgement is based on the CCTV footage. That may well show the assalt, what it won't reveal is what is said. If Lewis Hamilton didn't actually hear the conversation, or only parts of it (is there a record for example of what language it was in??) then there's little point in him being asked to repeat what his written statement says.

[Bagwan]

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?

Fair enough . Could be .

[Bagwan]

I'm going to jump in here...most of this thread baffles me TBH. Actually some of it is hilarious and some of it potentially libellous. "I read a source" - of course you did...

But as, i'm guessing, the only qualified lawyer commenting I will say the term "witness" does not necessarily mean that Lewis Hamilton saw or 'witnessed' anything of the assault as has been mentioned.

In legal parlance it means he was named by someone as being in the building where the assault took place at the time it happened, who could offer information about the events of the evening. That someone could have been Lux, or Sutil or the cloakroom assistant for all we know. 'Events' could cover who he saw in the same building, how much he saw people drinking etc.

Lewis Hamilton was asked if he could appear, he stated he could not and offered a written statement. All perfectly normal and happens every day in cases far more serious than this. He was never legally obliged or obligated to go to court.

What is slightly odd in this case is that it seems the entire judgement is based on the CCTV footage. That may well show the assalt, what it won't reveal is what is said. If Lewis Hamilton didn't actually hear the conversation, or only parts of it (is there a record for example of what language it was in??) then there's little point in him being asked to repeat what his written statement says.

Earlier in the thread , I quoted a court spokesperson as saying that a written statement was inadmissable .

He was formally asked to appear .
This is why it was necessary to formally ask to be excused .

Since you are a lawyer , can you enlighten us on what the consequences might be for Lewis if he was , in fact , a witness to this incident ?
If it is found that the evidence he might have given at the trial was key , and could have changed the outcome , and/or the sentence , could he be possibly be found to have interfered with the outcome ?

[AndyL]

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.

If I've learnt anything from 13 pages of this thread, it's that the only reliable thing here is confusion...
:)

[Bagwan]

We also have the claim from Hamilton's lawyer that they contacted the court and offered a statement as they were not contacted in writing prior to reading articles in the media. Maybe they were written to shortly before the start of the trial which is why at late notice they were unable to attend?

That is entirely possible , but it doesn't seem to fit with the comments from Sutil's manager .

He seems to think that the combination of the testimony and the CCTV footage should put a whole different light on it .
Does that not fit with the idea of Hamilton's attendance being crucial to begin with , in the trial ?
Does it not fit with why the Sutils are angry he didn't show ?

I guess it would be possible that there was no formal request by the court until the last minute if the attendance was assumed .
A call for last minute confirmation from the Sutil lawyer might have prompted the official request at the last minute , if Lewis declined to show at that point .

The part that doesn't seem to fit is that Lewis was actually excused for the trial , yet Zimmerman seems to place a lot of weight on his testimony being necessary for the judge to understand and correct the judgement and sentence .

Perhaps the testimony was downplayed as a late add to the list ?
Doesn't seem plausable that any given lawyer wouldn't be able to argue against exclusion for a key witness for that reason alone .

Doesn't that point to the inclusion of the "didn't see anything" from Lewis , being the real reason , rather than just work ?

[Bagwan]

I'm not a legal person but I hope it is common practise for a court to 'write' to a person if they expect them to attend a trial for the purpose of being a witness. Assuming they will attend is unprofessional and sloppy IMO but then again the German legal system may be very different for the British one with regards to how trials are handled. Requesting someone in writing should be the first thing that is carried out once a date has been set for a trial and it seems the court or Sutil's lawyer did not do this in good time if you believe Hamilton's legal team. Relying on the media to publish stories to inform potential witnesses of their requirements should not be an option.

Assuming incompetence on the part of Sutil's lawyers should be tempered with the likelyhood that his team would likely be pretty "high end" as well .
Some articles I have read have mentioned figures in the "tens of millions" , referring to what was offered to Lux as settlement before the trial .

While paying a load of money for a lawyer does not absolutely guarantee a perfect one , it perhaps makes it a little less likely it is so cut and dried as to suggest "sloppy and unprofessional" as a likelyhood .

It does seem a bit strange that it apparently came late , but more strange is how he was excused , given his seeming importance now .



On a parallel note , given that they knew full well the trial date , and the potential for thier driver to be called as a witness , why did his team schedule the launch when they did ?

[airshifter]

Earlier in the thread , I quoted a court spokesperson as saying that a written statement was inadmissable .

He was formally asked to appear .
This is why it was necessary to formally ask to be excused .

Since you are a lawyer , can you enlighten us on what the consequences might be for Lewis if he was , in fact , a witness to this incident ?
If it is found that the evidence he might have given at the trial was key , and could have changed the outcome , and/or the sentence , could he be possibly be found to have interfered with the outcome ?

Disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer. :D

Here in the US if you were not summoned or subpeona'd by the court then you have no legal obligation to show up, regardless of the information you have available to you. If a court does issue a subpeona it is delivered usually in person by a clerk of the court, most often through the local sheriffs department. Depending on the type of subpeona you are required to furnish a written statement or appear in person in court.

Once again, here in the US failure to comply will result in charges against the person in most cases. In my opinion if Lewis had done anything against the courts will they would not be requesting he attend, they would be demanding he attend.

If it was found he gave false information or intentionally misleading information in a written statement or when talking to an officer of the court, that would be another issue and might result in other charges.

My personal opinion is that Lewis has done nothing wrong in the eyes of the court, but the court thinks that he might have information pertianing to who was the one (between Lux and Sutil) being aggressive and starting the altercation. There is a huge difference in legal terms between intentional and unprovoked assualt and accidentally cutting someone due to trying to block a punch while holding a glass. They could also be asking Lewis general questions about the evening before the event took place, to see if either of the people involved made misleading statements which might bring their integrity into question.

[SGWilko]

He was formally asked to appear .


Sorry, confused here. Are you suggesting he WAS subpoena'd, or asked to perhaps be a character witness for Sutil? If no subpoena, then he is not REQUIRED to attend.


This is why it was necessary to formally ask to be excused .


I don't think it was a formal request to be excused, it was more courtesy to say that he was unavailable on the hearing dates. Had he been subpoena'd, he'd HAVE to attend, or be in contempt.

As he was not held in contempt, we can rule that chestnut out, can't we.

We've even had the benefit of a qualified lawyer telling us how it works, but still you appear to know better.

Talk about a budding Vincent Laguardia Gambini......

[Bagwan]

“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.”


Whether it was a subpeona , a summons , or some other tool which is supplied to the German authorities , I cannot say , but this seems rather obvious he was asked in some way , and that "sufficient reason" was required to get out of appearing .



He wasn't charged with contempt , because he was excused .

[ArrowsFA1]

He wasn't charged with contempt , because he was excused .
There is no issue here as has already been explained:
Lewis Hamilton was asked if he could appear, he stated he could not and offered a written statement. All perfectly normal and happens every day in cases far more serious than this. He was never legally obliged or obligated to go to court.
I fail to see any reason to even raise the issue of being "charged with contempt" :dozey:

[Bagwan]

There is no issue here as has already been explained:
I fail to see any reason to even raise the issue of being "charged with contempt" :dozey:

Explain that to Wilco .
He brought it up .

[SGWilko]

Explain that to Wilco .
He brought it up .

Who's Wilco Bigone?

[Bagwan]

Sorry .
I forgot you didn't like being called that , SGWilco .

[Bagwan]

What's the word for your accusation regarding Lewis withholding information then?

Sent from my HTC Incredible S using Tapatalk

I have asked our lawyer what the consequences would be if this is the case .
I have not "accused" anyone .

I would think that the word to which you refer would be "contempt" , but I'm sure he would be able to shed proper light on it .
Mind you , going by his flag , he's not a German lawyer , but this is not to say he wouldn't know .

[Knock-on]

Man, this is a load of BS!

Sutil has his knickers in a twist about something and starts slandering Lewis. AFAIK, Lewis has not dignified a response or lowered himself to Sutil's level.

Lewis has complied with the Courts, has submitted a written statement but was not required to attend. If he had of been required, he would have done but the court obviously thinks there is nothing to be gained from him being there. They probably viewed the tape and concluded he wouldn't have been any help otherwise would have required his pressence.

The only person that has done anything wrong as I can see it is Sutil who has been convicted of a serious crime yet a certain member seems detirmined to spin something negative about Lewis from this where he appears from all the information at hand to be entirely innocent of any wrongdoing.

It's getting really quite embarrassing the lengths people will go to in order to find any piece of crap that they can chuck at Lewis. Pretty sad really.

[SGWilko]

Sorry .
I forgot you didn't like being called that , SGWilco .

Maybe you genuinely are not able to read my forum name, but there is no c, it is a k.

Should you have gone to specsavers?

However, once you learn to differenciate a c from a k, then Wilko will be fine and dandy..

Roger, Wilko & out.......

[ArrowsFA1]

I have not "accused" anyone .
I'm not saying you have Bagwan, but the list of your "speculation" designed to implicate Hamilton is extensive:


Could it be that Lewis was going to lie about the situation to the judge ? Or , could it be that Lewis was being pressured by someone to not attend ?

we must not have the real answer to why he didn't show up at the trial .

He said he saw nothing . Isn't it more likely that was the lie

However , if he is summoned to the appeal , it will fit nicely with my theory that he may have lied .

[SGWilko]

'SGWilko' with a 'k'. Just look at his name tab.

Rather than insinuating things without using the correct terminology and doing a U-turn when people suggest your suspicions, what is your gut instinct bagwan? I'm not against you having an opinion but what do you think Lewis really did in this situation. Your asking the questions so naturally I think you are suspicious of Hamiltons motives.


Sent from my HTC Incredible S using Tapatalk

[Ridiculous sarcasm mode]Well, he is one of them, so he has to be guilty of something, right?[/Ridiculous sarcasm mode]

[SGWilko]

I have asked our lawyer .

I asked mine too, but he would not furnish me with an answer until;

I'd bought him lunch at an expensive restaurant (which he will bill me for later no doubt)
I pay a stupid sum of money

;)

[Bagwan]

'SGWilko' with a 'k'. Just look at his name tab.

Rather than insinuating things without using the correct terminology and doing a U-turn when people suggest your suspicions, what is your gut instinct bagwan? I'm not against you having an opinion but what do you think Lewis really did in this situation. Your asking the questions so naturally I think you are suspicious of Hamiltons motives.


Sent from my HTC Incredible S using Tapatalk

Sorry , SGWilko . So concerned with getting the "SG" in there , apparently , I couldn't read .

"Accusation" was the word with which I had an issue .

I am , indeed , suspicious of Hamilton's stated motive for not appearing at the trial as it doesn't fit with the amount of ferocity in the statements from the Sutils .
One possible reason is that the statement that he saw nothing could be contradicted in court .
Another possibility is that he was pressured by someone to not appear .

He was reported to be one of four who were to attend . He was the only one to not appear .
Adrian's manager says he's crucial to making the judge understand .

It could be that the Sutil lawyers only now think that his testimony is crucial , but something would have had to have happened to prompt such action . Maybe they were surprised at the judge not taking the CCTV footage more seriously ?
It could be that they were surprised at the court not allowing a written statement . That could be a possibilty that would explain almost everything .
But , if that was the case wouldn't the Sutils have directed thier anger at the court , rather than at Lewis ?

[SGWilko]

Sorry , SGWilko . So concerned with getting the "SG" in there , apparently , I couldn't read .



Fine, thank you.

[Bagwan]

I'm not saying you have Bagwan, but the list of your "speculation" designed to implicate Hamilton is extensive:

You did say I accused him .

I've asked if he lied . It shows this in your quotes .
I don't believe that prior commitments to his team are the only reason he didn't show up .

We'll see soon what he brings to the appeal .

[ArrowsFA1]

You did say I accused him .
No I did and have not. To repeat - I'm not saying you have ["accused" anyone] Bagwan, but the list of your "speculation" designed to implicate Hamilton is extensive and is there for all to see.

I used "speculation" to encompass the speculative conjecture that I have referred to before and which I find baffling or, in Knock-On's words, "a load of BS!"

[Bagwan]

No I did and have not. To repeat - I'm not saying you have ["accused" anyone] Bagwan, but the list of your "speculation" designed to implicate Hamilton is extensive and is there for all to see.

I used "speculation" to encompass the speculative conjecture that I have referred to before and which I find baffling or, in Knock-On's words, "a load of BS!"

You're right .
I apologise for saying you used the word "accuse" .

Henners used the word , not you .


This "load of BS" is just speculation , you know .

You Hamilton supporters happen to side with the German courts .

I believe there's got to be something more to the story .

[Tazio]

I am leaning to the belief that Sutils camp got out-lawyered but don't have any hard evidence to back it up.
I also would not be surprised if we read that the appeal has been dropped after the parties reached an out of court agreement. Unless:


I have read have mentioned figures in the "tens of millions", referring to what was offered to Lux as settlement before the trial
Bags do you have a link to this assertion, I would very much like to read it (I’m not suggesting it is untrue)?
I read that Lux is giving the fine to charity. This strikes me as being a little odd, because this is a criminal case not a civil suit (maybe it's a hybrid?) :confused: , and the money goes "to the people".
I do know that there is a president in the US, as it is my understanding that there are awards given in criminal actions in the Commonwealth of Virginia USA, and not just for attorney fees.
I also question the propriety of only sending in a written statement.
Unless this was only a preliminary hearing, how can the prosecution cross-examine the witness?

[ArrowsFA1]

You're right .
I apologise for saying you used the word "accuse" .
Appreciated. Thanks :cool: :)


This "load of BS" is just speculation , you know ...I believe there's got to be something more to the story .
It is just speculation. Unfounded and unnecessary IMHO, but each to their own.

[Bagwan]

I am leaning to the belief that Sutils camp got out-lawyered but don't have any hard evidence to back it up.
I also would not be surprised if we read that the appeal has been dropped after the parties reached an out of court agreement. Unless:
Bags do you have a link to this assertion, I would very much like to read it (I’m not suggesting it is untrue)?
I read that Lux is giving the fine to charity. This strikes me as being a little odd, because this is a criminal case not a civil suit (maybe it's a hybrid?) :confused: , and the money goes "to the people".
I do know that there is a president in the US, as it is my understanding that there are awards given in criminal actions in the Commonwealth of Virginia USA, and not just for attorney fees.
I also question the propriety of only sending in a written statement.
Unless this was only a preliminary hearing, how can the prosecution cross-examine the witness?

This is from Sky news :
"Formula One driver Adrian Sutil has been handed an 18-month suspended sentence following a nightclub brawl with Renault chief executive Eric Lux.
The ex-Force India driver was charged with grievous bodily harm after a fight in Shanghai following Lewis Hamilton's victory at the China Grand Prix on April 17.

Lux required 24 stitches after being cut in the neck by broken glass during the confrontation.

29-year-old Sutil told Munich district court that he'd "tried everything" to settle the case, including an offer of "tens of millions" and a charitable donation which was turned down.

The German driver, who lost his seat at Force India in December and is still without a drive, claimed he had only intended on spilling his drink on the former Lotus part team owner and says the injuries were an "unintentional accident"."

Perhaps the issue of cross-examination was the reason that a written statement was not acceptable .

I don't think any "out of court settlement" could deal with the fact that the Sutils are of the belief that the original conviction and sentence were too harsh .
They'd have to go to court in an appeal to get things changed in any way , wouldn't they ?

[Tazio]

This is from Sky news :
"Formula One driver Adrian Sutil has been handed an 18-month suspended sentence following a nightclub brawl with Renault chief executive Eric Lux.
The ex-Force India driver was charged with grievous bodily harm after a fight in Shanghai following Lewis Hamilton's victory at the China Grand Prix on April 17.

Lux required 24 stitches after being cut in the neck by broken glass during the confrontation.

29-year-old Sutil told Munich district court that he'd "tried everything" to settle the case, including an offer of "tens of millions" and a charitable donation which was turned down.

The German driver, who lost his seat at Force India in December and is still without a drive, claimed he had only intended on spilling his drink on the former Lotus part team owner and says the injuries were an "unintentional accident"."

Perhaps the issue of cross-examination was the reason that a written statement was not acceptable .

I don't think any "out of court settlement" could deal with the fact that the Sutils are of the belief that the original conviction and sentence were too harsh .
They'd have to go to court in an appeal to get things changed in any way , wouldn't they ?
Thank you Sir.
I've been surfing through some more articles and they are largely based on the same AP account with the damning evidence being:

Sutil claimed he had only intended on spilling his drink on the former Lotus part team owner and says the injuries were an "unintentional accident"." Lux must be a real tool because he has been quoted as saying in testimony that the reason he didn't accept Sutils apology was that Sutil didn't come to Luxemburg and apologies in person. I would think that upon getting the offer of tons of money, if the real reason for following through with the trial was that he wanted a personal apology, I doubt that AS would have refused, plus his charities would make good use of the funds. He probably could have gotten the personal apology and some big bucks for his charities. I understand why Hamilton didn't want to attend, because this Lux character sounds like he might get a kick out of character assassination. I actually feel badly for Hamilton because he is going to get his dick dragged through the dirt in the appeal over what sounds like something that he had no hand in. If the Sutils wanted him there that badly they should have subpoenaed him. If Hamilton (actually his Lawyers) managed to get permission not to attend, when it came time for the trial Sutil could have asked for, and gotten a continuance.
Stick a fork in me; I'm done speculating about this barbeque! :wave:

[ioan]

How does that "directly contradict" Hamilton's assertion that he saw nothing :confused: :crazy:

Don't jump the gun, just wait and see.

[ioan]

Man, this is a load of BS!

Sutil has his knickers in a twist about something and starts slandering Lewis. AFAIK, Lewis has not dignified a response or lowered himself to Sutil's level.

I was wondering where were you hiding all this time, then you come up with this BS bomb! :laugh: