Not caught up on the last few pages but my take on the whole thing is that I think it's all very suspicious.
First of all, I don't buy for one second this "accidentally pressed the accelerator" idea. That holds no water at all. There isn't a car in existance (other than 100 year old vintage thing) that doesn't have a dirty great big middle pedal which is the brake and the accelerator to the right of it. No-one other than 90 year old drivers with dementia, press the accelerator instead of the break by accident. And even if he did (which is pretty much impossible), it's even more impossible to imagine that he accidentally kept pressing it for several seconds before he reached 80-odd mph and then lost control. An elite sports professional, doubtless with decent or better than decent reaction times? It's nonsense.
So why was he continuing to press that accelerator? I can think of a number of possibilities, and there's probably others:
- He was just being a dick and driving wrecklessly
- He was trying to kill himself
- It was road rage and something happened where he was chasing after someone
- It was road rage and something happened where he was trying to get away from someone
- He was messing with the auto-pilot & radar-controlled cruise control in a strange car perhaps - just messing about perhaps and set it to say 100mph and he was seeing if it would slow for bends etc and it went horribly wrong.
Who knows what it was, but "accidentally pressed the accelerator" is not it. Of course he says he remembers nothing. Perhaps that is true, but equally, he would say that wouldn't he. He's hardly likely to say he had road rage and was chasing another driver, for example.
Second, the police letting him off. Of course the police are going to say their hands are tied. They can hardly say "well if it was anyone else, we'd have prosecuted him, but as it's Tiger, we're letting him off". So what the police say/didn't say is a bit irrelevant. What matters is what is the law in California, and the threshold for criminal prosecution. It may be true that without witnesses, the polices' hand are indeed tied. I don't know, I have not read the statute books. But it strikes me as odd. The quotes I've seen use words like "it's complex". Seems to me that like in the UK, they could gather forensic evidence about the speed of the vehicle if they wanted to. It doesn't even have to be skid marks - apparently you can determine the speed by the nature of tyre marks on the road - how much was the edge of the tyre vs the centre, radius of turning marks etc - what the speed was. Also, seems odd to me that the police did not choose to check Woods' phone record to see whether he was on the phone at the time. GIven the speed he was travelling at, and the fact there was a very serious accident which ensued, I would have thought they would check that as a matter of course.
Anyway, who knows. But it all seems a bit iffy to me.