The dismissal came at a hearing in Biddeford District Court on Jan. 11.
The two other boys charged with arson in the case are scheduled to appear in court for adjudicatory hearings, one on Feb. 15 and one on March 1, according to court clerks.
All three of the boys admitted to one count of misdemeanor criminal mischief in separate hearings late last year and each of them were sentenced to serve one year of probation.
“This was a mistake that took a very bad turn,” said Lisa Chmelecki, who represents one of the boys, following a hearing in November. “These boys meant to start a fire, but they didn’t mean to burn a building.”
Both prosecutors and defense counsel for the boys have said that the purpose of juvenile court is rehabilitation and accountability. The boys have and will continue to undergo counseling and abide by a host of other conditions, as part of their probation.
In general terms, conditions may include constant supervision, counseling for the boys and their parents or guardians and could include involvement in the restorative justice process.
One of the boys was 12 years old, the other two were 13 when fire swept through the long-vacant mill building.
The boys were taken into custody on June 25 and remained at Long Creek Youth Development Center until a detention hearing July 5, when they were released to the custody of their parents.
Firefighters from 26 communities fought the blaze that broke out in the rear tower of the five-story structure just before 7 p.m. June 23.
Sanford officials are facing the prospect of demolishing at least the rear portion of the structure and are looking to federal environmental officials to help.
While the city council has previously indicated they would like to see the entire building come down, some think the front tower might be suitable for development.
— Senior Staff Writer Tammy Wells can be contacted at 324-4444 (local call in Sanford) or 282-1535, ext. 327 or twells@journaltribune.com.
Comments are not available on this story. Read more about why we allow commenting on some stories and not on others.
We believe it's important to offer commenting on certain stories as a benefit to our readers. At its best, our comments sections can be a productive platform for readers to engage with our journalism, offer thoughts on coverage and issues, and drive conversation in a respectful, solutions-based way. It's a form of open discourse that can be useful to our community, public officials, journalists and others.
We do not enable comments on everything — exceptions include most crime stories, and coverage involving personal tragedy or sensitive issues that invite personal attacks instead of thoughtful discussion.
You can read more here about our commenting policy and terms of use. More information is also found on our FAQs.
Show less