The trial surrounding the Palisades Fire may have concluded in a hung jury, but for the local residents, the real verdict has long been clear. When the blaze was declared on January 7, 2025, fingers of blame were pointed squarely at state and local officials for what many perceive as gross negligence.

In the courtroom, federal prosecutors spun a narrative easily recognized: Jonathan Rinderknecht, a 29-year-old Uber driver, was accused of sparking a blaze that ultimately destroyed the Pacific Palisades. Their tale followed the familiar script of a wayward individual using social media as a breeding ground for political extremism, prompting an act of revenge against perceived societal injustice.

Rinderknecht is painted as yet another disenfranchised youth, allegedly driven by a desire for notoriety through violent means. As one prosecutor vividly described, he “blamed the rich, felt the world was unfair, wanted relief, and sought violence.” This characterization seemed all too familiar to those following the trial.

This portrayal of Rinderknecht as a modern-day Luigi Mangioni, albeit with less charisma, fit neatly into the narrative media readily embraced following his indictment. Headlines quickly labeled him a villain before the trial could fully unravel the truth.

Yet, the storyline faced an abrupt twist on Friday. The trial of Rinderknecht collapsed into a mistrial, with a substantial majority of the jurors — ten out of twelve — firmly inclined toward acquittal. This unexpected outcome has left many questioning the initial assumptions drawn and the real culprits of the disaster.

I grew up in the Palisades and directed a documentary about the fire based on interviews with dozens of victims. And the response from the many locals I’ve talked to about the mistrial is not righteous indignation: it’s a shrug.

Many see the Rinderknecht case as a sideshow that’s been cynically played up by city and state officials to absolve themselves of blame, to redirect public attention away from their own epic failures.

“The government is trying to deflect blame to one individual –– unsuccessfully –– rather than taking responsibility for multiple massive governmental failures on so many levels,” says Alan Feld, who first spotted the fire. Local journalist Sue Pascoe thinks “the government desperately wants to blame this fire on someone and Jonathan became the scapegoat.” 

“Obviously they just wanted to put it on this guy to distract from the city’s response,” says Masha Pronicheva, who lost her house in the Alphabet Streets. 

Assume the prosecution’s case is true. In the early morning hours of January 1, 2025, Rinderknecht really did drop off some Uber passengers in the Palisades, sneak into the nearby hillside and spark dry brush with a cigarette lighter. The embers from that blaze lurked underground for six days until, on January 7, strong wings blew off the top soil and freed them to spark dry brush. 

It was profound policy failures perpetrated by state and city officials that enabled that spark to grow into an inferno that swallowed a town. Rinderknecht’s guilt wouldn’t absolve them of that responsibility. 

What’s more, the mistrial may even help Palisadians seeking justice through other means. 

There are dozens of lawsuits, totaling nearly $100 billion in possible payouts, currently aimed at the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power. They’re centered on two of those profound failures: that infamous empty reservoir, and the department’s apparent failure to follow the standard protocol of de-energizing power lines early in a wildfire, likely leading to collapsed poles and exploding transistors that sparked additional flames.

These lawsuits were already an uphill battle. State and municipal authorities are afforded broad immunity protections in natural disasters. A Rinderknecht conviction would have created an official perpetrator and perhaps relieved them of legal liability.

And these lawsuits aren’t some vanity vengeance project of the ultra-wealthy; they’re largely backed by locals who lost the bulk of their life savings. These lawsuits are their only chance to be made whole.

The transformation of the Palisades into some of the most expensive real estate in Los Angeles is a relatively recent phenomenon, as East Coast finance titans noticed it’s got better weather than the Hamptons and tech entrepreneurs noticed it’s more cozy than Beverly Hills. The Palisades of the ’80s and ’90s I grew up in had a healthy middle class — people like my next door neighbor Lou, who built movie sets, or Richard Myer, the long-time minister at Palisades Lutheran Church.

Many of these people were still living in the Palisades when the fire broke out, and when they lost their homes, which had steadily appreciated over decades, they lost a huge chunk of their wealth. 

Insurance won’t make them whole. 

California’s aggressive regulations prevented fire insurance providers from properly setting premiums to match the local risks. Most wound up simply leaving the market, cancelling over a thousand local policies. The government then filled the vacuum it itself had created with a state-sponsored option –– the “FAIR” plan –– which has notoriously skimpy benefits. 

My mom is rebuilding, and her FAIR plan payout covers less than half the cost of construction.

If Rinderknecht is truly guilty, let’s hope that’s properly proven in a retrial. But there’s a reason so many Palisadians are apathetic about Friday’s news. He’s a minor player. The real people responsible for the blaze that burned down their homes still haven’t been held to account. 

Rob Montz is CEO of Good Kid Productions and the director of “The Untold Story of the Palisades Fire.”

Alex Murdaugh’s murder case will return to court this Monday morning, following the controversy surrounding the court clerk’s actions that led to his convictions being overturned. Now, one of the nation’s most infamous defendants has a chance at a retrial.

The fallen South Carolina lawyer, initially found guilty of killing his wife and son in 2021 before those verdicts were dismissed, is anticipated to be present at a 10 a.m. session in Lexington County, South Carolina, for a hearing focused on status and scheduling matters.

This will be Murdaugh’s first court appearance concerning his possible retrial, following his sentencing in March 2023 for extensive financial crimes.

The proceedings are not anticipated to delve into the horrific details of the murders of his wife, Maggie, 52, and their son, Paul, 22, who were discovered shot dead near the kennels at the family’s Moselle hunting estate in June 2021.

Instead, the proceeding is expected to focus on scheduling, discovery and other procedural matters as prosecutors and defense attorneys begin mapping out what could become Murdaugh’s second murder trial.

But criminal defense attorney and Fox News contributor Donna Rotunno told News Media that even a procedural hearing could reveal the first major fault lines in the next phase of the case: where the trial will be held and how fast the state can bring Murdaugh back before a jury.

“I think the main thing we’re going to learn is whether or not there’s going to be a change in venue and what the trial dates are looking like,” Rotunno said.

Murdaugh’s defense team has pushed for a venue change out of the circuit, arguing that the legal circus surrounding the case and the misconduct allegations tied to the original trial make it impossible for him to get a fair retrial.

Venue changes are typically a steep climb, Rotunno said, because courts often find that wall-to-wall publicity follows a notorious defendant no matter where the case is moved.

“A change of venue is always a difficult task because the court’s position is, no matter where you live, you know about this,” she said. “You can read about it. You can watch these trials when they’re televised. So a lot of times courts will say it doesn’t matter if we change the venue.”

But Murdaugh’s case, she said, is different.

His murder convictions were overturned after the South Carolina Supreme Court found improper comments by former Colleton County Clerk of Court Rebecca “Becky” Hill, whose conduct became the basis for Murdaugh’s bid for a new trial.

“I think in this situation, it’s a little bit different, given the fact that you had a clerk in that county basically cause the whole reason we’re having a new trial,” Rotunno said. “So I do think, given the appearance of impropriety here, it would probably behoove the court to make the decision for the change of venue.”

Rotunno said keeping the case in the same county could create problems down the line if Murdaugh were convicted again.

“I think if you’re looking at the thought of appeals down the line, if he were to lose in that same county, you may open yourself up to more scrutiny,” she said.

Murdaugh, once a powerful Lowcountry lawyer from a prominent legal dynasty, was convicted in March 2023 of gunning down Maggie and Paul. Prosecutors argued at trial that Murdaugh killed them to gain sympathy and distract from a collapsing web of financial crimes, stolen client money and lies.

The case was thrown back into turmoil after allegations surfaced that Hill made improper comments to jurors during the trial. Murdaugh’s defense argued she tampered with the jury to secure a guilty verdict and boost publicity for a book.

The court found that Hill was drawn by the “siren call of celebrity” and allowed public attention to overcome her duty. Hill co-authored a book about the proceedings, “Behind the Doors of Justice: The Murdaugh Murders,” which the lawsuit says earned roughly $100,000 before being withdrawn amid plagiarism allegations.

In December 2025 Hill pleaded guilty to four charges: obstruction of justice and perjury for showing a reporter photographs that were sealed court exhibits and then lying about it, plus two counts of misconduct in office for taking bonuses and promoting a book she wrote on the trial through her public office.

The state has maintained that Murdaugh received a fair trial, but the South Carolina Supreme Court reversed the murder and weapons convictions and remanded the case for new proceedings.

South Carolina Attorney General Alan Wilson has indicated he hopes to try the case by the end of the year, previously telling News Media that he plans to try it “as quickly and expeditiously as possible.”

“Look, I’m being aspirational when I say this, but we would like to try to get this case up before January 2027. That would be our goal,” he said.

“I think that might be a little overzealous,” Rottuno said.

She said the timeline will ultimately depend on the judge and whether Murdaugh’s defense team says it can be ready.

“I know that they’re definitely exploring a lot of new defense options here, so they may want a little bit more time than that,” Rotunno said. “End of the year is only six months away, and you’re talking about holidays. I don’t see that.”

Murdaugh’s attorneys have already previewed some of the issues they want to raise before any retrial, including a motion to test unknown male DNA reportedly found under Maggie’s fingernails.

His defense team also filed a motion to have Murdaugh remain unshackled, but withdrew the motion after prosecutors fired back that the disgraced lawyer “thinks he’s special.”

“Murdaugh is not just a pre-trial detainee; he is an inmate serving a very long sentence,” the state wrote.

Prosecutors also argued that Murdaugh should not receive different treatment “simply because the crimes he allegedly committed have received media attention.”

His attorneys fired back that the state’s opposition was “without merit,” accused prosecutors of “histrionics” and argued that televised pretrial proceedings could still prejudice prospective jurors if Murdaugh is displayed in shackles.

The defense later withdrew the motion, saying Murdaugh did not want to create a distraction before the status conference and wanted the court to focus on issues more central to his defense.

“If the State wants to use that for a public spectacle, so be it,” the defense wrote. “Mr. Murdaugh will not waste the Court’s time at the upcoming status conference arguing about the optics.”

Courteney Cox once confessed to making ‘mistakes’ that led to her initial breakup with Johnny McDaid, the Snow Patrol musician. Now, it has emerged that the couple has decided to go their separate ways yet again.

According to the Mail On Sunday, the pair discreetly ended their relationship last year after spending more than ten years together. Sources have described this recent separation as ‘extremely amicable,’ underscoring the mutual respect they still hold for one another.

Courteney and Johnny’s relationship has endured its share of ups and downs since they first met in 2013. They initially split in 2015, only to reconnect a few months later. In the wake of their previous breakup, the Friends actress openly discussed the challenges they faced.

In a candid moment from 2016, Courteney revealed that she became ‘co-dependent’ on McDaid, admitting that she struggled to ‘regard love’ as he did. This openness shed light on the personal growth she underwent during their time apart.

Reflecting on their past, she mentioned, ‘We were engaged for over a year and then we broke up,’ offering insight into the complexities that love can sometimes entail.

‘He’s from Ireland. And the way he regards love is precious. We have to treat it in a different way. It’s more special — you coddle it.’

Speaking on Running Wild with Bear Grylls, Courteney added: ‘I definitely made a lot of mistakes that I see — whether it’s codependency or people-pleasing. I didn’t know how to bring it in. It was always external.’

The Mail On Sunday revealed this weekend that Courteney and Johnny ended their relationship late last year.

Courteney, best known to millions for her iconic role as Monica Geller in 90s sitcom Friends, is based in Los Angeles, while Northern Ireland-born McDaid, 49, has been mostly based in London, although the couple had tended to split their time between the US and the UK.

Confirming their separation, a friend said: ‘Johnny speaks incredibly highly of Courteney. They had a very deep relationship and they remain extremely amicable. They are great friends and care about each other very much.

‘This was not an ugly split. They had simply reached a point where they were living different lives.’

Cox and McDaid, who has become one of the world’s most successful behind-the-scenes songwriters, began dating in 2013 after being introduced through mutual friends, including Ed Sheeran. 

McDaid is one of Sheeran’s long-time friends and collaborators, and co-wrote some of his biggest hits, including Shape Of You, Photograph, Galway Girl, Bad Habits and Shivers.

He and Cox announced their engagement the following year and, despite briefly separating in late 2015, they reconciled in 2016 and had been together ever since.

Cox has said in interviews that she was ‘thankful’ for the breakup because it made their relationship even better. McDaid has also spoken of how ‘lucky’ he felt to be in a relationship with the actress.

The couple were seen last August on a double-date in Malibu, California, with Cox’s Friends co-star Jennifer Aniston and her rumoured boyfriend, wellness expert Jim Curtis.

They were last photographed together at the US Open in September.

Since the split, both Cox and McDaid are rumoured to have moved on with their lives.

McDaid is understood to be in the early stages of a new relationship.

Meanwhile, Cox was spotted in New York recently with her Shining Vale co-star Greg Kinnear, who stayed at her apartment. Although they play husband-and-wife in the satirical horror comedy, the pair have confirmed that they are just good friends.

She has also remained close to her ex-husband David Arquette, with whom she shares daughter Coco, and friends say the former couple have long been a strong and amicable co-parenting team.

Representatives for Cox and McDaid were contacted for comment.