Yet the article says she is not being charged with "arson." Does anyone know why if the fire was set "willfully" that she is not being charged with "arson?"
I've talked to a former firefighter who tells me the charge of arson is very hard to prove in that "intent" comes into play and it's hard to prove a person's intent.
The grand jury, however, could very well come back with a charge of arson.
She's still looking at 10-20 years in the slammer and as mad as people are, it's hard to believe she wouldn't get the maximum if found guilty of the present charges.
I just hope that the limp-wristed liberals, like the guy who posted this article, don't prevail in her sentencing.