Unanswered questions abound over arson suspect, tactics in Palisades fire

Federal prosecutors this week revealed extensive details about the cause of a Jan. 1 fire in Pacific Palisades that six days later roared to life as the Palisades fire.

There were two major findings from the federal investigation:

• Uber driver Jonathan Rinderknecht, 29, allegedly set the fire after dropping off passengers late on Dec. 31 in the Palisades.
• Fire crews thought they had extinguished the fire on Jan. 1, called the Lachman fire, but in fact it was still smoldering.

Still, there are many unanswered questions that are likely to come into focus in the coming days and weeks. One question is Rinderknecht’s alleged motive and how he actually started the fire. The second is whether there was more firefighters could have done to prevent the Jan. 1 fire from rekindling on Jan. 7.

“The arsonist set the first fire, but the fire department proactively has a duty to do certain things,” said Ed Nordskog, a former leader of the L.A. County Sheriff’s arson unit and arson profiler.

Here is a look at what we know and don’t know:

What evidence have federal authorities provided?

The court papers offer a slew of evidence that prosecutors say show that Rinderknecht was on the hiking trail in the early morning hours of New Year’s Day when the fire started. They include:

• Video footage of him dropping off passengers in the area and parking his car at the Skull Rock Trailhead.
• Photos and videos from his phone showing the early minutes of the fire on Jan. 1.
• A witness who placed him at the scene just after the fire began.
• Phone logs showing him call 911 after the fire began.
• GPS data from his phone showed he was standing in the clearing where the fire occurred when he first called 911.

What about the motive for setting the fire?

Federal prosecutors made a point of not listing a formal motive. But both at a press conference and in court documents, they shared several details about his behavior just before and immediately after the fire began.

• They noted that he listened to a French rap song that they claimed included themes of despair and bitterness. The song’s music video shows a trash can on fire.
• Among the evidence collected from Rinderknecht’s digital devices was an image he generated on ChatGPT depicting a burning city.
• While on the phone with 911, Rinderknecht allegedly typed a question into ChatGPT: “Are you at fault if a fire is [lit] because of your cigarettes,” according to the affidavit.
• The court records don’t provide evidence of him explicitly planning to start a fire.

Prosecutors plan to present their evidence to a grand jury and said more details — and charges— could be revealed then.

“They still haven’t gotten a grand jury indictment, so they can add charges. The complaint is just to arrest him and get him to L.A.,” said Neama Rahmani, a former federal prosecutor.

What don’t we know?

A clear motive is one thing. But another is exactly how he set the fire.

• In the court documents, officials said Rinderknecht started the fire with an open flame — “likely a lighter” that set fire to combustible material like vegetation or paper, according to an affidavit by an agent with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.
• Authorities say his own video shows the glove box of his car opened. Authorities said when they later searched the car, they found a barbecue lighter inside the glove box. The suspect later told investigators he brought a lighter to the trail that night but could not remember what type, the court filing says.
• While witnesses to the Jan. 1 fire said they heard fireworks, authorities said pyrotechnics were not the cause. They also don’t believe a cigarette could have caused it given the weather conditions in the area at the time the fire started and the blaze’s rapid growth.

What about the fire response?

The federal report said that L.A. firefighters thought they had put out the Jan. 1 fire. But when heavy winds hit on Jan. 7, the fire picked back up and roared into Pacific Palisades.

There has been criticism from some residents over why fire officials did not snuff out the initial blaze and their reasons for not pre-deploying engines to the area ahead of strong winds forecasted on Jan. 7.

ATF Special Agent in Charge Kenny Cooper put the blame squarely on Rinderknecht.

“L.A. city fire initially responded and put that out, and then that fire burned deep within the ground, in roots and in structure, and remained active for several days. Once the catastrophic winds occurred, fire needs fuel, oxygen, and heat,” he said.

“The person who started this fire is solely to blame. I will never blame our brave firefighters when we know how this fire started,” he added.

But some experts say more scrutiny is needed on firefighter tactics.

“This affidavit puts the responsibility on the fire department. There needs to be a commission examining why this rekindled fire was allowed to reignite,” Nordskog said.

The ATF offered a modest narrative of how the fire department battled the Jan. 1. But it did not include many details about what the department did or didn’t do to make sure the fire was actually out.

Fires rekindling days or weeks after a wildfire has been put out is not something that frequently occurs. More often, a rekindling will happen when firefighters are still on scene mopping up, allowing them to get control of it quickly, a fire expert told The Times in January. There are steps that firefighters can do to prevent them.

https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2025-10-09/la-palisades-twist-fire