Accused tree-poisoner Harvey Updyke has rejected a plea deal that would have sent him to prison for 13 years and -- maybe more importantly where Updyke is concerned -- prohibited him from ever attending another Alabama sporting event. NOTE: Great idea, but how would this be enforceable??? ESPN's Mark Schlabach reported Friday that Updyke declined the plea deal "earlier this month." Updyke is scheduled to go to trial for poisoning Auburn's beloved Toomer's Corner oak trees in the Lee County (Ala.) Circuit Court March 5, but current Updyke attorney Everett Wess has requested a delay in the trial, a change of venue, and a recusal from the presiding judge. Wess is asking that the trial be moved out of Auburn and that judge Jacob Walker III step down over his participation in an Auburn season ticket pool. Updyke was indicted last May on two felony counts of criminal mischief, two misdemeanor counts of desecrating a venerable object and two more felony counts of an Alabama law that prohibits vandalizing or stealing any property on or from an animal or crop facility. Updyke could face as much as 42 years in prison if convicted on all counts. Though Updyke has maintained his innocence, he has also admitted to being "Al from Dadeville," the Paul Finebaum radio show caller who boasted he had poisoned the oaks in late December 2010. Updyke has since called into the show multiple times to apologize for his actions, leading to a break with his fourth attorney, Glennon Threatt. The oaks are not expected to survive, forcing Auburn to search for options to keep the traditional rolling of Toomer's Corner intact. The most likely approach, as recommended this week by the Committee to Determine the Future of Rolling Toomer’s Corner, will be for the oaks to be replaced by similar-sized trees once the chosen saplings have grown large enough, and for a temporary object or objects -- like some kind of wire structure -- to be used as a temporary solution until the trees are ready.
Per CBS
Got 13? Tracing the roots of Harvey Updyke’s supposed plea dealWritten by John Carvalho Jan 23, 2012It’s a standard rule with a standard concept of “professional respect.” When one of the so-called “big boys” runs an article, and a smaller outlet provides good information that contradicts, the “big boy” at least acknowledges it.Not when the “big boy” is ESPN, apparently. Let’s trace this one.First, Friday evening, Mark Schlabach of ESPN posted an article that claimed that alleged tree poisoner Harvey Updyke had turned down a plea bargain where he would have served 13 years and agreed never to attend another Alabama sporting event. The article quoted an anonymous “source close to the case.”Let’s stop here. Thirteen years? Serious? On a plea bargain? Updyke would probably get a better deal with a trial. And as for not attending any Alabama athletic events, um, I suppose that carries some weight anticipating that Updyke would get time off for good behavior.But wait? On Saturday morning, in its print edition (remember those?), Ed Enoch of the Opelika-Auburn News quoted Updyke’s defense attorney, Everett Weiss, as saying that prosecutors have offered no such deal. A named source disputed an anonymous source.Oh, wait — Schlabach quotes Charles Barkley, who was in town this weekend. Big name. Great quote. But not a central figure in the case.As I write this, it is Sunday evening. And Schlabach’s piece remains on ESPN.com, unedited since Friday. Information from a colleague has not been acknowledged. Why not?There is one good explanation, offered by one of my Twitter followers, Lesley (@Mrs_EDO). She wondered if ESPN were aware of the article, but considered it pregame jockeying by the defense attorney. It’s a possible scenario, but even in that case, shouldn’t it be up to the reader to determine that?Two other possible scenarios were offered by Kenny Smith— Samford journalism faculty, frequent blogger, TWER assistant editor and overall smart sports media guy. One is that it was an honest oversight, though it is a continued honest oversight. The other is a lack of commitment to the piece. It’s done, and Schlabach has moved on. For both Kenny and myself, neither scenario will make it into a “how it’s done” lecture.Whatever the scenario, the result is still the same: ESPN.com has an article on its Web site that lacks credible information. At some point, the article should be updated.And at least on this Web site, in this article, let’s give Enoch some credit for doing some good news gathering on this situation. Schlabach and ESPN.com might be tacitly dismissing a colleague. I’ll acknowledge it and say “job well done.”
6 Replies
838 Views