Firefighters contradict each other in Palisades fire arson trial

Firefighters contradict each other in Palisades fire arson trial Los Angeles firefighters delivered conflicting testimony in the federal arson trial of Jonathan Rinderknecht, who is accused of starting the deadly Palisades Fire in Los Angeles - Bookmark Firefighters gave sharply conflicting testimony Monday in the federal arson trial of a man accused of igniting a brush fire that prosecutors say later grew into the devastating Palisades Fire in Los Angeles, with one witness recalling fireworks before the blaze and another denying he saw or heard any. Jonathan Rinderknecht, 29, is accused of sparking a small brush fire in the Pacific Palisades area on Jan. 1, 2025, which prosecutors allege later reignited and developed into one of California’s most destructive wildfires. He has pleaded not guilty. Prosecutors have portrayed Rinderknecht as an angry and unstable arson suspect who intentionally set the fire. Government experts testified earlier in the trial that the blaze was caused by an “incendiary” ignition source. The defense, led by attorney Steve Haney, has argued instead that fireworks likely sparked the initial fire. That defense theory faced a mixed day in court. Los Angeles Fire Department firefighter Robert Appleford testified he observed flashes of light and heard fireworks in the area shortly before and after midnight on New Year’s Eve. He said the department received a report of a brush fire minutes later in the same vicinity. But Appleford’s captain, Dave Sanders, testified he did not see or hear fireworks that night and did not recall previously telling investigators that he had. When questioned, Sanders denied the earlier account attributed to him. The conflicting testimony prompted a brief courtroom disruption when Judge Anne Hwang later dismissed a juror after the court learned that the juror had thanked one of the firefighters for his service as the firefighter left the stand. The judge said the interaction suggested potential bias and replaced the juror with an alternate. Haney called the dismissal improper, but the judge ruled the juror’s comment reflected “strong feelings” about the testimony and raised concerns about impartiality. Additional defense witnesses, including experts, also testified that fireworks were the most likely cause of the fire. Prosecutors challenged those opinions during cross-examination, arguing they lacked credibility and were inconsistent with physical evidence presented in court. Other witnesses included a Pacific Palisades resident and veterinary student, Ari Sallus, who testified he heard a loud bang while hiking near the area on New Year’s Eve and later saw a small orange glow that grew in intensity. He said he called 911 after seeing the fire from a distance. The defense also previously called a security guard and another resident who said they heard fireworks and saw teenagers running near a hiking trail leading toward the alleged origin point of the fire. Separately, the court heard arguments over evidence the defense sought to introduce suggesting firefighters may have missed lingering hot spots after the initial response. Judge Hwang ruled that allegations of fire department negligence would not be allowed at trial, saying they were not relevant and could confuse jurors. The trial continues.