Posted on 11/29/2009 2:21:57 PM PST by Steelfish
Tiger Woods On Accident: 'Situation Is My Fault' ; Lawyer Mark NeJame Tells Police That Today's Interview Is Canceled
Sara K. Clarke and Susan Jacobson November 29, 2009
For the third day in row, professional golfer Tiger Woods will not be talking to investigators about the early-morning crash that sent him to the hospital.
A spokeswoman for Florida Highway Patrol said the agency was contacted at about 1 p.m. from prominent local attorney Mark NeJame, who said he is now representing Woods. NeJame told FHP that its interview with Woods scheduled for today was canceled.
It's the third day in a row that Woods has declined to talk to investigators. On Friday, Woods' wife, Elin Nordegren Woods, told troopers seeking to interview Woods that he was sleeping. They agreed to return the next day, but that appointment postponed shortly beforehand by Woods' agent, Mark Steinberg of IMG. Troopers were asked to return Sunday, said FHP spokeswoman Sgt. Kim Montes.
Woods is not obligated to speak to investigators; only to provide his drivers license, registration and proof of insurance, Montes said.
FHP also released the 911 call dispatchers received from a neighbor after Woods drove his Cadillac Escalade into a tree.
"My neighbor, he hit the tree," the unidentified caller said. "I see him, and he's laying down."
The caller said he couldn't tell if Woods was breathing. After dispatchers asked the caller if he was near Woods, the caller said "I'm with him right now." When they asked again how he was breathing, the line went dead.
"His phone must have gone out of range," one dispatcher said.
Earlier today Woods broke his public silence about the accident and posted a statement on his website, tigerwoods.com, claiming responsibility for the accident and denouncing rumors that have surfaced about the incident:
(Excerpt) Read more at orlandosentinel.com ...
Uh, honey, you were the one who brought up the Fuzzster.....
Nothing in his statement is inconsistent with the TMZ version (fights with wife over affair; he leaves; she smashes rear window causing him to crash; she freaks out and snaps out of it).
And I could probably make nothing inconsistent with a statement about what you've been doing the last few days and an allegation that you've been a peeping tom over at your neighbor's house, either... LOL...
I've asked again and again and again........where is the evidence of alcohol? GIVE US THE EVIDENCE! WHO CLAIMS IT? WHO PROVED IT?
YOU DONT NEED ALCOHOL FOR A DUI. HE ADMITTED TO BEING ON PAIN PILLS. HE OPERATED A MOTOR VEHICLE IN A RECKLESS AND DANGEROUS MATTER. IMPLIED CONSENT NEGATES A REFUSAL TO CONSENT FOR TESTING.
WHY ARENT THE COPS DOING THEIR JOBS?
Because he’s Tiger?
That’s right I did and then you had to go into your drama queen mode.
Personally, I’m enjoying the fact that Tiger is getting some comeuppance. Now maybe he won’t be quite so critical of others when they screw up.
LOL!
The wee lad was a runnin awa frae his dill clubbed wifie?
Was it a five iron or a putter?
Or maybe she no longer fancies his putter and wants a driver the now?
Tis a wicked woman who forever wants a hole in one.
( Stuck in Scots)
A nibblick don’tchaknow.
>> I’ve asked again and again and again........where is the evidence of alcohol? GIVE US THE EVIDENCE! WHO CLAIMS IT? WHO PROVED IT?
I’m interested in *your* theory as to how a guy could trash a fire hydrant and his Escalade into a tree twenty feet from his driveway.
Ideas?
If Tiger backed the Cad into the tree why did Erin have to break out the back window. My question all along is how many other windows in the SUV did she break and was one of them the drivers window. My theory has always been he was being assaulted by a enraged wife with a lethal weapon in her hands...
>> My theory has always been he was being assaulted by a enraged wife with a lethal weapon in her hands...
Hell hath no Fury like a woman scorned... and sure, a Fury is a Chrysler product, but if I’m not mistaken the concept applies to Caddies too.
Not always though. I will have you know that a tree once hit my car and it wasn't my fault.
It was the fault of the guy who didn't strap down his Christmas tree properly.
But it did make for an interesting insurance claim.
Police Officer: Mr. Woods, have you been drinking?
Tiger: No.
Police Officer: OK, great. Thanks.
Why do people get off on this rumor stuff? Unless it is a democrat I could care less. He should retire. The press needs him more then he needs them.
But it did make for an interesting insurance claim.
Yes indeed... :-)
Why do people get off on this rumor stuff?
When it comes to celebrities, apparently a lot of people either want to say, "See, he's not better than me!" and/or "My god! Look at what they get away with!"....
When you analyze and look at the situation, actually the little people get away with a whole lot more and these celebrities do no more than normal people do anyway (except for some of them having a lot more money to do it with... LOL...).
You have undoubtedly hit the nail on the head.
What I meant was, his statement was very carefully written, and doesn't actually clear up--or even deny--any of the stuff people were saying. In your example, my statement wouldn't sound like Tiger's, it would be more like "The allegations that I was a peeping tom, ever, anywhere, are false." Then I'd sue for defamation!
Has to be the first time a professional golfer ever hit a tree and didn’t blame the Caddy..
Glad he is not hurt.
The allegations that I was a peeping tom, ever, anywhere, are false." Then I'd sue for defamation!
Well, then people would say about your statement... "Yeah, just like Clinton said, 'But I want to say one thing to the American people. I want you to listen to me. I'm going to say this again: I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky.'"
"Yep, he's denying it just like Clinton, what do you expect?! LOL" (that's what they would say about your "direct denial" -- along with "Methinks he doth protest too much!"
And it's precisely because of that kind of "trap" that these statements are carefully worded and avoid bringing up the issue that is rumor-mongoring and gossip (just like Clinton addressed it directly, which was a big mistake!).
And then you said you would sue, but then again, who do you sue? A newspaper reports correctly (quoting the people) what was stated to them, that neighbors have seen you around the windows of the neighbor's house (but then, you know you were looking for your cat... :-) ..., but the neighbors know that you shouldn't have been over in the next-door neighbor's yard, next to the windows).
And the paper reports correctly that others in the neighborhood have gotten wind of you being a peeping tom, and now the paper reports correctly that the neighborhood women are afraid of you and wish you did not live in the neighborhood. The neighborhood women are openly stating this and they are getting together a committe to "get the peeping tom out of our neighborhood".
That would be all correct reporting...
And there you have it. If you issue a statement, you don't bring up the issue directly that is "rumor-mongered" and "gossipped" about... :-) That's dignifying those statements. You "deny the malicious rumors..."... you see...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.