A vengeful arsonist or a convenient scapegoat? What we’ve learned from testimony in the Palisades Fire trial

A helicopter flies as smoke billows from the Palisades Fire at the Mandeville Canyon, in Los Angeles on January 11, 2025. (Shannon Stapleton/Reuters via CNN Newsource)

LOS ANGELES - After calling more than 30 witnesses over six days of testimony, federal prosecutors this week rested their case in the trial of the man accused of starting the deadly and historically destructive Palisades Fire that scorched swaths of Los Angeles in the early days of 2025.

Prosecutors worked to paint the defendant, Jonathan Rinderknecht, as someone who was angry at the world before he allegedly ignited a blaze that later erupted into the Palisades Fire, which claimed a dozen lives and thousands of homes and businesses.

Rinderknecht’s attorney has sought to undercut the government’s case, saying nobody saw his client light a fire. He has also emphasized the fact Rinderknecht called 911 multiple times when the initial blaze broke out.

After playing a recording of a 911 call during his opening statement, defence attorney Steve Haney told jurors, “The government says that’s the voice and actions of a man who started a fire … That’s the voice of a man who’s trying to stop a fire.”

Rinderknecht has been charged with one count of destruction of property by means of fire, one count of arson affecting property used in interstate commerce and one count of timber set afire. If convicted, Rinderknecht faces a minimum of five years and a maximum of 45 years in federal prison, according to the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Central District of California.

Throughout the trial so far, Rinderknecht sat calmly at the defence table and, on most days, wore a black suit and tie. He often took notes, chatted with Haney, and sometimes smiled during the proceedings.

It is unclear whether he will take the stand in his own defence.

Here’s what we learned during the prosecution’s case in chief:

The alleged origin of the Palisades Fire

During opening statements, U.S. Assistant Attorney Matt O’Brien told jurors they would hear from expert witnesses and investigators claiming Rinderknecht was the only person on a Palisades hillside clearing – known as the Hidden Buddha – in the late hours of New Year’s Eve 2024 and early hours of New Year’s Day 2025, when a fire broke out.

Prosecutors presented surveillance footage captured at nearby homes and by wildfire monitor cameras they said showed Rinderknecht’s rental car – he was working as an Uber driver that night – driving through the area before it parked near the Hidden Buddha location. Additionally, Rinderknecht told investigators he was alone when he hiked up to the Hidden Buddha clearing.

Then, in the early morning hours of Jan. 1, 2025, a fire started in the area. Firefighters responded and suppressed the fire soon after.

“Investigators examined what caused the fire on Jan. 1,” O’Brien told the jury during opening statements, and “it wasn’t an accident.”

U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives investigators later determined the blaze, dubbed the Lachman Fire, was intentionally sparked.

O’Brien argued – and an arson investigator later testified – the Lachman fire was a holdover fire that smoldered underground before heavy winds caused it to flare up again on Jan. 7, becoming the Palisades Fire.

Investigators later found a Bic grill lighter in the glove compartment of Rinderknect’s rental car they believe was used to ignite the blaze, O’Brien told the jury.

Haney, Rinderknecht’s attorney, acknowledged in his opening statement his client was at the Hidden Buddha location that night. But he argued Rinderknecht hiked up to the area to watch New Year’s Eve fireworks after dropping off Uber passengers nearby.

Rinderknecht spotted flames 12 minutes past midnight and immediately called 911 multiple times, Haney told jurors. But due to poor reception in the area, the calls could not connect until 12:17 a.m.

There is “no reliable evidence that (Rinderknecht) started that fire,” he told the court.

Uber passengers described defendant as reckless, ‘enraged’

O’Brien, the prosecutor, told the court the defendant “wanted revenge” against society and blamed it for all his troubles.

He argued Rinderknecht had been fascinated by fire for months leading up to the blaze and treated ChatGPT like a diary, asking the AI chatbot at times to create images of fire. Rinderknecht also queried ChatGPT about his ex-girlfriends, the wealthy and at one point asked, “Why am I so angry all the time?”

Prosecutors also called several witnesses who testified about their interactions with Rinderknecht while he worked as an Uber driver on Dec. 31, 2024, and Jan. 1, 2025.

Brennan White testified he and his girlfriend, Ashley Comandartore, were Rinderknecht’s Uber passengers on a ride that lasted about a half hour. The conversation with Rinderknecht started with “small talk,” he said, but the tone changed when Rinderknecht started “ranting non-stop” about the “crumbling of” humanity and his hatred for U.S. President Donald Trump.

White and Comandartore both testified Rinderknecht was very “irritable” and “enraged” and was driving recklessly fast. Both said they didn’t want to upset him for fear of their own safety.

It was “the most memorable Uber ride I ever had,” White testified.

Another passenger, Macy Miller, testified she and some friends were also Rinderknecht’s Uber passengers. The subject of Luigi Mangione – the 28-year-old accused of killing UnitedHealthcare’s CEO in Dec. 2024 – came up, Miller said, and Rinderknecht appeared to like the subject and said, “What (Mangione) did was good.” She also said Rinderknecht was driving fast and went on about “vigilantism and anti-capitalism” throughout the duration of the trip.

Miller called it a “weird and scary ride” and said she let out a deep exhale after Rinderknecht dropped her off.

Prior to the testimony by the Uber passengers, Haney told the jury they would hear about Rinderknecht’s social views but sought to cast that evidence as irrelevant to the heart of the prosecution against his client.

“This is not about whether you like him or not – the question is much narrower,” Haney argued. “Can the government prove he set that fire on Jan. 1, 2025? Evidence will show they cannot.”

Defendant discussed politics and wealth disparity with investigators

During his opening statement, Haney argued the Lachman fire was started by New Year’s Eve fireworks – and witnesses would testify they heard fireworks in the area that night.

However, government witness Michael Montevidoni, a special agent with the ATF, testified investigators followed up on every lead and “were able to disprove the firework theory.”

Kevin Miner, an explosives enforcement officer with the ATF, similarly testified after reviewing surveillance footage from the area and witness interviews, it is his opinion the fire sparked on Jan. 1 could not have been caused by fireworks.

Evidence from Rinderknecht himself, prosecutors argued, also helps disprove the fireworks theory: The jury was shown videos Rinderknecht took on his phone shortly before midnight on Jan. 1, 2025. They show a 360-degree view from his location, and no fireworks can be seen in the footage.

ATF Special Agent Matthew Beals testified that, during a Jan. 24, 2025, interview, Rinderknecht told him and a Los Angeles Police Department detective he was alone near the Hidden Buddha location and hadn’t seen or heard any fireworks.

Investigators discussed a range of topics in the more than eight-hour interview, Beals said, including Rinderknecht’s personal life, politics and wealth disparity. Rinderknecht told the investigators he was living “paycheck to paycheck” and was renting a vehicle for his gig as an Uber driver and to “deliver groceries.”

When they talked about the fire, Beals testified Rinderknecht, at times, appeared uncomfortable and said “his responses were delayed.”

Audio recordings of portions of that interview were played in court. At one point, Rinderknecht can be heard saying, “Can you remind me of the purpose of this conversation?… I’m here to help, but I feel like the dynamic is changing.”

Haney worked to undermine jurors’ confidence in the investigation by directing their attention to the Lachman Fire burn scar area. The fire sparked on Jan. 1 should have been treated as a crime scene and preserved, he said, but an arson investigation team was never dispatched until after the Palisades Fire erupted. Furthermore, he told the court, the scene remained entirely open for twelve days and was “traversed by firefighters, hikers and vehicles.”

“This is where (prosecutors) considered my client committed a crime,” Haney said.

By Jack Hannah, CNN