From ESPN Page 2. Go to the website for the links
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=party_of_five/1105243. Accused Auburn tree-poisoner Harvey Updyke says he is innocent, that he knew the story (to call a radio station and take credit for it) only because he was told about it by a guy sitting next to him at the Iron Bowl game. On a scale of 1 to 10, how believable is this alibi?Caple: I'm not sure about on a 1-10 scale. But I'd slip it somewhere between a politician's campaign promise and a general manager saying that a manager/coach's job is safe.
Wilson: I'm gonna go with a 10. Super believable. He called a radio show and claimed credit for a devious act that no one had heard of only because he wanted to upset Auburn fans. But that same perverse joy wouldn't apply to actually doing it, I'm sure, right? Plus, he says the real culprit was a guy in his 30s, with brown hair and an Alabama pullover, which is really helpful. Matter of fact, I found a picture of some people who fit that exact description (
http://sports.ap.org/college-football/content/preview/2010/20100828/18/705754ab7fe8da0ed40e6a7067007084.jpg). That should narrow it down.
Neumann:
I'm going to say .486, which coincidentally is the combined winning percentage of Mike DuBose, Dennis Franchione, Mike Price and Mike Shula at Alabama.Philbrick: I'm going with a 10. We've all been there. Who hasn't taken credit for a crime, and then between the arrest, arraignment, the interviews and the nonapologies, things tend to be forgotten. Things like your entire alibi after you realize you might spend 10 years in jail.
Gallo:
I'd give it a 2. Not very believable. Note: On my Alabama-related believability scale, 1 -- the lowest -- is reserved for any job opening-related comments that Nick Saban makes. So I'm giving Harvey the lowest for which he is eligible.