A Washington grand jury has indicted three alleged arsonists for the 2001 attack on the University of Washington horticulture center, tacking on more charges to individuals already charged in other “eco-terrorism” roundups.
The fire cost the university about $7 million, and was allegedly set in protest of genetic research at the facility.
The three individuals indicted are: “Briana Waters, 30, of Berkeley, Calif.; Justin Solondz, 26, of Jefferson County, Wash.; and William Rodgers, who killed himself in an Arizona jail after his arrest in December,” according to The Seattle Post-Intelligencer. Waters had previously been charged in the case, and Solondz is on the run.
The indictment also adds Josephine Overaker, 31, and Kevin Tubbs, 37, as co-conspirators.
Solondz is also alleged to have destroyed five acres of genetically engineered canola in Eastern Washington, 800 hybrid poplar trees at Oregon State University sites, and a wild horse and burro corral in California.
Tubbs and Overaker already have “eco-terror” charges in Oregon as well.
In cases like this it’s hard to know all the details, and what evidence, if any, the state has to bring these charges. Consider this, though: the indictments come just 10 days before the five-year statue of limitations runs out in the case.
That timing should give everyone pause. Remember that law enforcement is under a lot of pressure from industry to serve up some saboteurs. And these individuals were also named in other “eco-terrorism” roundups.
If the government had waited any longer to bring indictments, the case would be closed and forever listed as another failure by law enforcement to catch “eco-terrorists.”
In a case like this, with a mandatory minimum term of 35 years, we should be sure to give the defendants the benefit of the doubt, not the government.
UPDATE 5/18/06
Speaking of benefit of the doubt, someone pointed out that saying Solondz or anyone is “on the run” unfairly tilts the scales in the government’s favor. I completely agree. We don’t know that he is evading law enforcement, and saying so implies that he is guilty and has something to hide. Thanks for the email, and I’ll be sure to stay clear of language like that.