I read a rather exhaustive book on the incident a number of years back. It had quite a few different possible scenarios and the reasons why they could have occurred.
One such possible scenario had him leaving the car after the local cop saw his car go by with only one person visible in it. Without it's lights on as I recall.
You can use your imagination about why she wasn't visible.
It had him exiting the area so he wouldn't be discovered with her. And she drove off the tiny bridge on the curve with no headlights on. A road he was familiar with, but she wasn't.
The next morning, drunk and stupid, he was informed of what happened and then began to scramble for a cover story with his advisers. Witnesses at the time were puzzled by his story because they were sure he was genuinely surprised about the accident initially.
I'm quite sure we will never know the truth and the fat ass old imbecile will take it to his grave with him.
Interesting theory, except for the missing little factoid that he admits he drove off the bridge, and that she was with him...
?
Where the heck did some liberal idiot come up with THAT idea?
If he (Ted) was not in the car when it went off the bridge, and did NOT know about theincident until the next morning, how come his clothes were wet (due to swiming out of the car that night)?
Get a life, and quit accepting (liberal/socialist) lies.