6 Answers

 Forrest  Gordan Clark intentionally set the fire and he's known to have a violent history.  For the safety of others, I think it's a good idea to show his picture. 

If the fire  was caused due to carelessness by Mr Clark, then I don't think his picture should be publicised. Why? People who had property destroyed in the fire or lost a beloved pet or family member could retaliate if they recognised his photo.

Forrest Gordan Clark ( He should consider dropping his first name)

https://abc7news.com/holy-fire-suspect-arrested-in-connection-to-socal-blaze/3911168/

....follow law and current policies 

I thought they pictured al arsonist (sp). Seems like it that they do. Why wouldn’t they? Unless guilt is yet to be established. How does one accidentally burn a forest?

Yes. 

Yes. They put most criminals' picture on T V and in the paper and on the net. He is evil and what he did is immoral. I once read that most of those huge forest fires that occur every year in Calif. are arson.

I'm generally not one to back away link from boundary-pushing watches but I've often found the current era of link Roger Dubuis watchmaking to be a bit difficult to appreciate. I think it's the clash between the very-of-this-moment 21st-century watchmaking on display through the skeletonized dials link and the often baroque aesthetics notched bezels literal Arthurian knights running around etc.. It can be a bit hard to approach.