Town Square

Post a New Topic

Pleasanton arsonist faces three years in prison

Original post made on Mar 12, 2012

The woman charged with torching her East Angela Street home in 2008 is in custody awaiting sentencing in May.

Read the full story here Web Link posted Monday, March 12, 2012, 4:10 PM

Comments (6)

Posted by Truth, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Mar 12, 2012 at 9:12 pm

Great work PPD!......again.


Posted by Huh, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Mar 12, 2012 at 9:57 pm

So, after reading this article several times, I'm still wondering why the grand jury would uphold the original charges of arson and possession of flammable materials, yet drop the charge of intent to set a fire...? Or is that part of the article just poorly written and vague?


Posted by PW Reader, a resident of Birdland
on Mar 13, 2012 at 11:30 am

Huh, it looks like the grand jury only dropped the forgery charge, not the charge of intent to set a fire.


Posted by Huh, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Mar 13, 2012 at 12:25 pm

"Although she was initially charged with arson, possession of flammable material with intent to set fire, and forgery, a grand jury indictment in January brought in two charges: arson and possession of flammable liquids."

@PW Reader: thanks for attempting to clarify; I did see that the forgery charge was dropped, but was unclear whether legally speaking, "possession of flammable material with intent to set fire" was different than simply "possession of flammable liquids".

It seemed to me that anyone could be "in possession of flammable liquids" since most of us have gasoline on hand for our mowers, or paint thinner in our garage.


Posted by Angus, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Mar 14, 2012 at 8:51 am

The important word is "intent". The lady used the flammables to torch her home, she planned the act. Mere possesion of such fluids is, of course, quite benign and legal. Using them to cause deliberate damage or harm is crossing the line. As to her sentence of three years? Seems a bit short for having placed her neighbors, and their homes, safety, and property in jeopardy.


Posted by lynn, a resident of Carlton Oaks
on Mar 15, 2012 at 8:48 pm

This sentence is way too light. Do you have any idea how many people she could have killed with this stunt? What about the first responder's who risked their lives? What about the neighbors whose homes were damaged. I would have thought she'd see at least a decade for what she did.

And yes, good job PPD and LPFD.


If you were a member and logged in you could track comments from this story.

Post a comment

Posting an item on Town Square is simple and requires no registration. Just complete this form and hit "submit" and your topic will appear online. Please be respectful and truthful in your postings so Town Square will continue to be a thoughtful gathering place for sharing community information and opinion. All postings are subject to our TERMS OF USE, and may be deleted if deemed inappropriate by our staff.

We prefer that you use your real name, but you may use any "member" name you wish.

Name: *

Select your neighborhood or school community: *

Comment: *

Verification code: *
Enter the verification code exactly as shown, using capital and lowercase letters, in the multi-colored box.

*Required Fields

Understanding Early Decision in College Admissions
By Elizabeth LaScala | 1 comment | 2,051 views

New heights for NIMBYs
By Tim Hunt | 29 comments | 1,346 views

When those covering the news become the news
By Gina Channell-Allen | 1 comment | 936 views

Earthquake Insurance
By Roz Rogoff | 2 comments | 753 views