By Paul Daquilante • Staff Writer • 

Third Street Pizza fire suspect charged

Only current online subscribers may access this article and/or our N-R e-editions.

One-day subscriptions available for just $3.

For all subscription offers, click here.

Already a subscriber, please



Well we all, except the judge, know she won't show up for court. So the police will have to track her down again.


Is there a typo here?

"Chief Deputy District Attorney Kate Lynch requested at arraignment that Wiles set bail, in part, because Lynch reported she has no stable housing, has been arrested multiple times and failed to appear for previous court proceedings and should be considered a community safety risk."

The Deputy DA requested bail *because* the suspect is a transient, a repeat offender, and a community safety risk? I appreciate that the judge decided against bail, but was the DA really in favor of it?


Bonny: No. Standard procedure would simply be to cite and release, as these are all misdemeanors rather than felonies. Note the sentence: "...had Ray not become agitated during the intake process when taken to jail, she would have just been given citations for the three charges and released."
The prosecution asked that bail be set in this case due to her rather rootless lifestyle and past record of skips. However, the judge declined to depart from normal procedure.
Everyone who hopes to see her get a stiff penalty should hope she skips, as she's likely to get more time on a failure to appear, given the number of them she's piled up, than she is on the misdemeanor charges she's currently facing.
Whether she's held pending trial or not really isn't going to make much difference. These charges aren't going to net her much time.
Arson would, but it requires proof of intent. No such charge has been filed, suggesting no such charge can be sustained.
Frustrating? Indeed.
But we can't afford, either morally or financially, to be spending $50,000 a year locking up addled, addicted down-and-outers who lead messy lives sometimes endangering persons and property around them.


Thanks for confirming the article is correct but it does still seem strange, requesting bail rather than holding, specifically because a person is likely to skip out and also is a danger to the community. I guess the thing to hope for is that she continues to do crime, ideally felony-class, but doesn't hurt anyone too badly? This system is a mess.


Bonny: No-bail holds are only allowed for suspects being held for transfer to other jurisdiction to face charges there or suspects being charged with the very most serious types of heinous crime, typically homicide.
The choice was not between hold without bail or hold with bail. It was between release without bail or release with bail.
The prosecution asked that the defendant be required to post bail to secure her release, given her history of skips. The judge declined, as defendants in misdemeanor cases like hers are normally cited and released without being required to post bail and he did not feel an exception here was warranted.
The prosecution wanted to require security so she would incur a financial penalty, in addition to a legal penalty, if she skipped.
But holding people in jail is very expensive. What's more, time served pre-trial just comes off the sentence upon conviction, which just ensures the perpetrator gets back out on the streets earlier than otherwise.
It's not feasible to lock all criminals away forever. It's not a matter of whether they get back out, simply when.


So she's not as "homeless" as so many thought....

Web Design and Web Development by Buildable