Firefighters Contradict Each Other In Palisades Fire Arson Trial

Firefighters gave sharply conflicting grounds Monday successful nan national arson proceedings of a man accused of igniting a brushwood occurrence that prosecutors opportunity later grew into nan devastating Palisades Fire successful Los Angeles, pinch 1 witnesser recalling fireworks earlier nan blaze and different denying he saw aliases heard any.

Jonathan Rinderknecht, 29, is accused of sparking a mini brushwood occurrence successful nan Pacific Palisades area connected Jan. 1, 2025, which prosecutors allege later reignited and developed into 1 of California’s astir destructive wildfires. He has pleaded not guilty.

Prosecutors person portrayed Rinderknecht arsenic an angry and unstable arson fishy who intentionally group nan fire. Government experts testified earlier successful nan proceedings that nan blaze was caused by an “incendiary” ignition source. The defense, led by lawyer Steve Haney, has based on alternatively that fireworks apt sparked nan first fire.

That defense mentation faced a mixed time successful court.

Los Angeles Fire Department firefighter Robert Appleford testified he observed flashes of ray and heard fireworks successful nan area soon earlier and aft midnight connected New Year’s Eve. He said nan section received a study of a brushwood occurrence minutes later successful nan aforesaid vicinity.

But Appleford’s captain, Dave Sanders, testified he did not spot aliases perceive fireworks that nighttime and did not callback antecedently telling investigators that he had. When questioned, Sanders denied nan earlier relationship attributed to him.

The conflicting grounds prompted a little courtroom disruption erstwhile Judge Anne Hwang later dismissed a juror aft nan tribunal learned that nan juror had thanked 1 of nan firefighters for his work arsenic nan firefighter near nan stand. The judge said nan relationship suggested imaginable bias and replaced nan juror pinch an alternate.

Haney called nan dismissal improper, but nan judge ruled nan juror’s remark reflected “strong feelings” astir nan grounds and raised concerns astir impartiality.

Additional defense witnesses, including experts, besides testified that fireworks were nan astir apt origin of nan fire. Prosecutors challenged those opinions during cross-examination, arguing they lacked credibility and were inconsistent pinch beingness grounds presented successful court.

Other witnesses included a Pacific Palisades resident and veterinary student, Ari Sallus, who testified he heard a large bang while hiking adjacent nan area connected New Year’s Eve and later saw a mini orangish glow that grew successful intensity. He said he called 911 aft seeing nan occurrence from a distance.

The defense besides antecedently called a information defender and different resident who said they heard fireworks and saw teenagers moving adjacent a hiking way starring toward nan alleged root constituent of nan fire.

Separately, nan tribunal heard arguments complete grounds nan defense sought to present suggesting firefighters whitethorn person missed lingering basking spots aft nan first response. Judge Hwang ruled that allegations of occurrence section negligence would not beryllium allowed astatine trial, saying they were not applicable and could confuse jurors.

The proceedings continues.