As the federal government prepares to prosecute Jonathan Rinderknecht for one of the deadliest wildfires in California history, a series of explosive new allegations from the defense team suggests the 12 lives lost in the Palisades Fire were not the result of an arsonist’s grudge, but rather a catastrophic failure of state and local fire agencies.
Jonathan Rinderknecht, 30, stands accused of setting the initial January 1, 2025, Lachman Fire, which prosecutors claim “held over” underground before erupting into the January 7 inferno.
However, his attorney, Steve Haney Sr., has come forward with a mountain of evidence that he says proves Rinderknecht was a Good Samaritan who was the first to report the fire, only to be turned into a “scapegoat” for the Los Angeles Fire Department (LAFD) and California State Parks.
The 13 911 Calls: “A Desperate Attempt to Get Help”
While the government portrays Rinderknecht as a man fleeing the scene of a crime, Haney reveals that his client was the primary whistleblower.
According to the defense, Rinderknecht was atop the hills to watch New Year’s Eve fireworks when he witnessed a fire spark—not from his own hand, but likely from a mortar blast.
READ: Fire In The Strait: Ceasefire Teeters As Missiles Rain On UAE And US Launches ‘Project Freedom’
“When my client was on the hill that night watching the fireworks, he saw the fire start and called 911 within 30 seconds of it being detected by a nearby trail camera,” Haney said.
The defense argues that Rinderknecht’s actions in the minutes following the spark are the opposite of an arsonist’s behavior.
“Because the hill was known for bad reception, he raced down it and called 911 thirteen times to report the fire they claim he set,” Haney stated.
The defense claims the government has “absolutely no evidence” linking Rinderknecht to the ignition, while they possess “a mountain of evidence” that multiple witnesses—including a fire captain—heard a mortar blast immediately before the flames appeared.
The “Eight-Acre” Question
A central point of Haney’s argument is the scale of the original incident. The defense notes that the January 1 fire was an isolated, 8-acre brush fire that burned only protected vegetation on state park land.
“The crazy thing is that the Lachman Fire, which my client adamantly denies setting, was only an 8-acre brush fire,” Haney noted. He argues that this small, contained incident only became a tragedy because it was abandoned by the professionals tasked with putting it out.
The most damning evidence presented by the defense concerns the six-day gap between the initial small fire and the deadly January 7 catastrophe. Haney points to “extensive information detailing the incredible negligence of the LAFD and the State Parks in leaving the Lachman Burn Scar on January 2nd when it was still smoking and smoldering.”
According to court filings, LAFD crews were ordered to pull their hoses and leave the scene on a holiday weekend despite warnings from firefighters on the ground.
Firefighter Scott Pike testified in a deposition that the ground was so hot he could not place a gloved hand on it, yet his concerns were reportedly ignored.
The situation worsened on January 6, when the National Weather Service issued a Red Flag warning for hurricane-force winds.
“The day before the January 7th Palisades Fire… nobody thought to monitor the burn scar where they knew hot spots remained,” Haney said. “Less than 24 hours later, the Lachman Fire rekindled, becoming one of the worst fires in US history.”
Federal prosecutors remain focused on Rinderknecht’s personal life, his “angry” Uber passenger interactions, and digital records of his ChatGPT queries regarding “burning forests.” They allege his motive was a deep-seated resentment of the wealthy residents of Pacific Palisades.
However, Haney argues that the government’s focus on Rinderknecht’s personality is a distraction from the state’s failure to monitor a known fire hazard during an extreme wind event.
The defense intends to show that the “holdover” theory—which claims the fire stayed hidden underground—is a “fictional” narrative designed to shield the LAFD from liability in the face of 12 counts of death and massive property damage.
As the June 8 trial date looms, the case has shifted from a search for an arsonist to a broader investigation into whether the State of California is using a witness to cover up a multi-billion-dollar firefighting failure.
“My client maintains his innocence,” Haney stated. “We look forward to clearing his name at trial.”
Please make a small donation to the Tampa Free Press to help sustain independent journalism. Your contribution enables us to continue delivering high-quality, local, and national news coverage.
Sign up: Subscribe to our free newsletter for a curated selection of top stories delivered straight to your inbox
