Replies

Let me offer some theoretical answers to these questions, since someone made so much effort to formulate them, and I have nothing better to do at the moment:

1. Does that sound like a "minor car accident"? - perhaps, or perhaps not. Tiger was not seriously wounded, but his car was somewhat banged up.

2. Why did the Florida Highway Patrol wait 11 1/2 hours to report anything about the incident to the public? - They are not a newspaper, and they are not under obligation to publish anything.

3. why did TMZ.com report that Woods' wife scratched his face and smashed his SUV in an apparent fit of rage over the Enquirer's report? - that would be not the first ever case of a spouse being upset by something that is untrue.

4. Why are Woods and Nordegren stll refusing to formally talk to police about the accident? - because they are smart, that's why. Good for them. Talking to the police can only result in someone being arrested, and as a guess that would be bad for the marriage.

5. Why didn't Woods and/or his legal team issue a formal denial of the affair - sometimes denials do just the opposite.

6. If the attorney felt so strongly about Woods being falsely accused, why didn't he attach his name to the denial? - he hasn't received his check yet, probably.

7. If Uchitel does file a defamation lawsuit against the Enquirer, is that a good or bad thing for Woods? - neither, on the "good" side. He is not a party to that lawsuit.

8. Does Uchitel's strong denial of the affair make the public more likely to believe that nothing between her and Woods took place? - certainly, compared to full confession and videotapes. Why to even ask?

9. why has the Florida Highway Patrol since announced that it is not investigating the incident as a domestic disturbance of any kind? - they can look at several aspects of the case, starting from the car accident. They don't have to attach labels, their work is not affected. In fact, they would like to investigate in peace, instead of feeding rumors.

10. could he still face DUI charges? - likely not, even if he was DUI, if his use of car was necessary to save his life. I can't imagine a jury convicting anyone of DUI if they just drive a block or two to escape death.

11. Where was Woods going at 2:30 a.m.? - to 7-11, they are open 24/7.

12. With the kind of noise the mishap generated, how could there be no witnesses? - at 2:30am? Maybe, you know, everyone was sound asleep?

13. Why was New York City resident Uchitel seen checking in to the same hotel as Woods in Melbourne the week of the Australian Masters? - a good hotel, perhaps?

14. Why would Ashley Samson, who the Enquirer called Uchitel's "friend," go on the record in detailing an affair between Woods and Uchitel? - fishing for some money from a rich sportsman? That is hardly unique.

15. Uchitel said she's never had a relationship with Woods, but confirmed that she's met him twice. So it's complete coincidence that she's met Woods on more than one occasion? - she may have been following him, but that doesn't mean that he was following her or even knowing her. Anyone can follow Tiger and live in the same hotel, he can't control that.

16. Woods' first scheduled press conference for his personal golf tournament outside of Los Angeles next week is Tuesday. Will he show? - doesn't it depend on his recovery by that day?

17. What can Woods say now that will satisfy his endorsement partners going forward? - "Well, guys, you were clamoring for a controversy around me, so here you are. It will cost you a bit more, of course, now that my name is again in all news."

18. If Woods' injuries do not look consistent with his vehicular mishap, will police consider charging his wife with domestic abuse? - they might, if they have enough evidence. However with everyone being mum on the subject they won't get far.

19. Since Woods and Nordegren may not speak publicly before the 911 call is released Sunday, does that indicate they are confident the call contains no information contrary to their version of events that night? - the "may" never "does" anything.

20. CAN YOU BELIEVE THIS? - no need to believe or disbelieve, especially when lacking essential facts.

"because they are smart, that's why. Good for them. Talking to the police can only result in someone being arrested, and as a guess that would be bad for the marriage."

"likely not, even if he was DUI, if his use of car was necessary to save his life. I can't imagine a jury convicting anyone of DUI if they just drive a block or two to escape death."

Your two answers above, although accurate, do raise additional questions. First, while it's smart not to speak to the police about the incident, it's not necessarily without peril for Woods' driver's license. Most states, including Florida, have something called "implied consent" with respect to traffic accidents. While you may not be compelled to speak to police about your collision (Fifth Amendment, and all that), they state may use your silence as a reason to strip you of you operator's license. They would for any other motorist in a similar circumstance. It will be interesting if they do so for Woods.

You may also be right about the DUI conviction. OTOH, at the risk of sounding like Obama, the police have acted stupidly in this regard. How can any competent investigator rule out drugs or alcohol in an accident that is so incredibly suspicious - the near destruction of an SUV, a fire hydrant and a tree, all within 40 yards of the driver's front door, and a single vehicle accident to boot. It screams impaired driver. A blood draw should have been required. It was an injury accident, after all.

And, if Tiger's defense is "I was running for my life", then he's implicating his wife in DV case. Again, if this were any other perpetrator/victim, people would be at the station house awaiting the arrival of their attorney. There's no spousal privilege in DV cases. Tiger would be forced to testify against his wife. It happens ALL THE TIME in DV cases all across the country, every day.