LOS ANGELES (AP) — Following the conclusion of a mistrial on Friday, the individual charged with inciting the fatal Palisades Fire last year will face a new trial this autumn.
In the previous trial, 10 out of 12 jurors believed Jonathan Rinderknecht, 29, was not guilty. Consequently, Judge Anne Hwang promptly scheduled a retrial for October 19th and mandated that he remain in custody until that time.
Rinderknecht has maintained his innocence regarding the ignition of one of California’s most devastating wildfires. His defense attorney, Steve Haney, emphasized the jury’s skepticism, noting that many members felt the prosecution lacked compelling evidence for a conviction.
Despite the jury’s uncertainty, First Assistant U.S. Attorney Bill Essayli asserted that their evidence is robust and expressed confidence in securing a conviction in the forthcoming trial.
According to prosecutors, on January 1, 2025, Rinderknecht allegedly used a barbecue lighter to start a fire. This blaze smoldered unnoticed within root systems before re-emerging on January 7, resulting in the deaths of 12 individuals and the destruction of entire neighborhoods in Los Angeles and Malibu. Since then, only 17 homes in Pacific Palisades have been rebuilt and deemed habitable.
Prosecutors never provided direct evidence that Rinderknecht started the earlier blaze. They showed jurors he was in the area when it began and presented a digital trail to indicate he was motivated by a desire to take revenge on society.
His defense said fireworks were the likely cause and that investigators had zeroed in too quickly on Rinderknecht without clear proof.
“This is a big victory, and it feels so unfair that, given the circumstances, the government maintains my son in jail,” said his father, Joel Rinderknecht.
Digital records revealed Rinderknecht’s state of mind
The trial featured a trove of digital records and eight days of testimony from investigators, experts and witnesses.
Security camera recordings helped determine where the Jan. 1 fire is believed to have started: a mountainside spot off a trail in a neighborhood familiar to Rinderknecht. He dropped off his last Uber passenger in the same neighborhood, shortly before midnight, and later called 911 more than a dozen times. His phone’s geolocation data showed him at the clearing and walking down the trail as he reported the fire.
Jurors saw records from his phone, email, Uber, social media accounts and OpenAI. Thousands of comments showed he regularly consulted ChatGPT.
“Why am I so angry all the time?” he said in one exchange.
He vented over wealth inequality and global warming
Rinderknecht inquired about Luigi Mangione, who was charged with the murder of United Healthcare’s CEO, and on Reddit he searched “lets kill all the billionaires.” He looked up the address of DoorDash CEO Tony Xu, asking if he had children or surveillance cameras at home.
He vented about his rejection by a woman he contacted to see if she had New Year’s Eve plans. When she turned him down, he sent her angry and vile messages from another phone.
Rinderknecht also recorded videos of firefighters battling the blaze, pausing to ask ChatGPT if someone would be responsible for a fire accidentally started by a cigarette. And he screen-recorded both the 911 calls and his ChatGPT prompt, which prosecutors said showed he was trying to mislead investigators.
On January 6, a day before powerful Santa Ana winds rekindled smoldering roots into a conflagration, he recorded a selfie video saying he was having a mental breakdown.
Investigators interviewed him weeks after fire
Rinderknecht also spoke for roughly eight hours with a Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives agent in late January, before he was a suspect.
ATF agent Matthew Beals drove with him to the site, so that Rinderknecht could identify his movements as the fire started — an account that conflicted with the place and time of his 911 calls, the agent testified.
Rinderknecht became “agitated” when asked for details, at one point accusing Beals of interrogating him as a suspect, the agent said. He repeatedly expressed dismay about political matters, and speculated that someone frustrated by inequality might hypothetically start a fire in the wealthy neighborhood.
All such behavior is consistent with that of a “societal revenge motivated” arsonist, testified Kevin Kelm, an expert in arsonist behavior.
His defense blamed fireworks
Haney said investigators never found any searches about arson, the best way to start a fire, or purchases of fire-starting materials. And while his DNA was found on a barbecue lighter in his car, they couldn’t prove a lighter sparked the blaze — only that it began with an “open flame,” he said.
Fireworks were the most likely cause that New Year’s Eve, the defense argued. One firefighter recalled hearing fireworks in the area shortly before and after midnight. And two residents and a security guard testified they either saw flashes of light or heard fireworks. Two saw a group of teenagers running down the trail afterward.
Former LA fire investigator Ed Nordskog accused the investigators of confirmation bias, noting that he often responded to dozens of fires on New Year’s Eve, most of them started by fireworks.
“They’re choosing to look at information in a very sinister way when they should be a little more open about it,” Nordskog said.
Defense witnesses also noted that the fire scene could have been compromised because access was not closed off until Jan. 14, nearly two weeks after the first blaze started.
“Can you convict a man based on a crime scene that was destroyed? Stripped of all evidence? Evidence that could’ve proved his innocence?” Haney asked jurors during closing arguments.
Juror explains why she voted against conviction
Juror No. 4, who identified herself as Syrena and wouldn’t share her last name, said she voted not-guilty.
“There’s just not enough proof,” she said. And even if he did start the Jan. 1 fire, she said he shouldn’t be considered responsible for the entire disaster given the negligence of other parties.
“Shouldn’t the firemen, shouldn’t they have known?” she said.
Rinderknecht’s attorney wanted to argue that the Los Angeles Fire Department had been negligent, but the judge ruled he couldn’t make that case in court.
Juror No. 4 said there wasn’t enough evidence to make her believe the prosecution’s assertion that Rinderknecht was alone in the area before it started.
As for his use of ChatGPT, she said he was “just being human” that that she talks to ChatGPT frequently as well.
“It made me angry that they were putting his character down,” she said.
___