More than a year after a catastrophic wildfire obliterated parts of the iconic Pacific Palisades neighbourhood in Los Angeles, federal prosecutors are building their case against the man they allege started it all. Jonathan Rinderknecht, a 29-year-old former resident and occasional Uber driver, faces three felony charges for a blaze that began small but resurrected days later with devastating consequences.
The Spark and the Inferno
According to a federal complaint, Rinderknecht was in Pacific Palisades in the early hours of New Year's Day 2025. Prosecutors claim he used an open flame, likely a lighter, to ignite a small fire that grew to approximately eight acres before the Los Angeles Fire Department (LAFD) arrived and declared it extinguished. This initial incident was named the Lachman fire.
Just five days later, on 7 January 2025, hurricane-force winds of up to 100mph whipped the smouldering embers back into a frenzy. Fed by tinder-dry conditions, the fire exploded, becoming the most destructive wildfire in Los Angeles history. Known as a "holdover" or "zombie" fire, this phenomenon is becoming increasingly common in a warming climate. The Palisades fire resulted in the deaths of 12 people and the loss of an estimated 7,000 structures.
A Battle Over Blame and Foreseeability
The central legal question, according to experts, is one of foreseeability. Should Rinderknecht have anticipated that his actions could lead to such a catastrophe? Or does responsibility lie with the firefighting authorities who failed to fully suppress the initial blaze?
Aya Gruber, a criminal law professor at the University of Southern California, explained that the trial will hinge on whether the jury deems Rinderknecht responsible for the ultimate destruction. "Even if [the initial Lachman fire] was a modest fire, was it foreseeable that this turn of events would happen?" she posed. The continuity of the burning and the predictability of its rekindling will be crucial.
This debate has intensified following investigations by the Los Angeles Times, which revealed that firefighters had expressed concerns the Lachman fire was not fully contained before they were ordered to leave. The paper also found the LAFD's official after-action report was heavily edited across seven drafts to soften criticism of leadership. LAFD Chief Jaime Moore later admitted these allegations were true.
Rinderknecht's defence attorney, Steven Haney, has positioned his client as a scapegoat, arguing the duty to extinguish the fire rested solely with the LAFD. He notes Rinderknecht called 911 multiple times to report the initial fire and even offered to help firefighters. Prosecutors, however, suggest these actions were an attempt to create an "innocent explanation" for the blaze.
Building the Case: From Embers to Evidence
Federal investigators spent months piecing together the evidence. Retired ATF special agent Wayne Miller explained that arson teams meticulously examine burn patterns to pinpoint an origin, sometimes to an area of just a few feet. In this case, 24-hour cameras and wildfire sensors in the area aided the investigation.
The complaint systematically ruled out other causes: no lightning, no electrical faults, no fireworks, and refraction from glass was impossible as it was night-time. Smoking was also discounted due to the weather conditions.
Prosecutors have also compiled a narrative of Rinderknecht's state of mind. Uber passengers described him as "agitated and angry" that night. Cell phone data shows he listened to a song by French rapper Josman about "despair and bitterness" moments before the fire started; its music video features a character lighting fires. Furthermore, digital records revealed that months prior, Rinderknecht used ChatGPT to generate images of burning cities and forests, with prompts describing wealthy elites "watching the world burn down."
Jonathan Rinderknecht has pleaded not guilty to all charges and is scheduled to go to trial on 21 April 2026. He faces a potential prison sentence of between five and 45 years if convicted. The outcome will not only decide one man's fate but could also set a legal precedent for accountability in an era where climate change is increasing the risk of small sparks leading to unimaginable disaster.
