According to federal agents, the Palisades–or Lachman–fire was caused by alleged arsonist Jonathan Rinderknecht. (NBC Los Angeles reported yesterday that he threatened to torch his sister’s home and feds have urged the judge to deny bail–the bail hearing is slated for today.)
Some experts say the initial fire could have been controlled or contained, if not for the LAFD’s inaction, such as not using thermal-imaging tools and ordering firefighters to leave when the fire was not fully extinguished.
On November 11, the LA Times reported how much the LAFD did not include in its after-action Palisades fire report, which was made public. And how the LAFD kept secret its order to firefighters to leave the scene. Soon after the report, Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass requested a full investigation. She said the news is “tremendously alarming.”
Investigations by the LA Times and whistleblower intimidation claims have led to a federal grand jury issuing subpoenas to the LAFD seeking communications, text messages, and operational logs from Jan. 1–7, focusing on decisions made in the field and the accuracy of the department’s later reporting.
Timeline: Firefighter Texts, LAFD Actions and Statements
(Firefighter texts in italics)
Jan 1: Small brush fire (known as Lachman Fire) starts in Pacific Palisades, LAFD declares area contained.
“Still feels warm in spots.”
“Rock pile is hot—we should hit this again.”
“No FLIR?” (referring to thermal imaging equipment)
LAFD:
Fire “extinguished.”
Mop-up “complete.”
Jan 2: Withdrawal Order
“This is a bad idea. We shouldn’t be leaving.”
“There’s heat in the duff.”
“We didn’t run FLIR.”
LAFD:
After questioned by the LA Times, says area was “thoroughly cold-trailed,” crews determined the fire was “out,” and skipping thermal imaging was a “judgment call.”
January 3–6: Smoldering period, no crews at site despite shifting wind forecasts.
“Hope that hillside stays quiet.”
“That spot was not cold.”
“Wind forecast looks nasty.”
LAFD:
No public statements; earlier fire considered resolved.
Jan 7: Fire Reignites, Becomes Palisades Fire
Event: Strong winds; fire erupts in same burn area.
“It’s the same area—it re-lit.”
“Told them it wasn’t cold.”
“How did this get past the supervisors?”
“We left it hot. Now look.”
LAFD:
Says the new Palisades Fire is being investigated, no acknowledgment of connection to Jan. 1 fire. Emphasizes the intensity of the winds and “rapid fire spread,” not mop-up issues.
Mid-January: Leaked Texts
The LA Times publishes internal messages showing dissent and concern about unaddressed heat.
LAFD:
Acknowledges they did not use thermal-imaging cameras; states that “standard mop-up practices were followed,” claims its after-action review shows “no deviation from policy.” It declines to comment on specific firefighter messages, citing ongoing investigations. “We won’t leave a fire that has any hot spots,” says Kristin Crowley, fire chief at the time.
February: Whistleblower Steps Forward
Veteran firefighter tells reporters that supervisors ignored warnings.
“Hot spots were left. We all knew it.”
“The department didn’t want to spend more overtime on mop-up.”
“Supervisors “overrode” concerns.”
LAFD:
Claims the account is “inaccurate.”
Maintains the site “was declared cold.”
Says whistleblower is “misrepresenting operational facts.”
Spring: Independent Pressure & Federal Interest
READ MORE WILDFIRE LOSS LEGAL NEWS
Anonymous LAFD officers call internal report “unreliable.”
“Thermal cams are not optional.”
“This was avoidable.”
Federal Grand Jury subpoenas radio logs, texts, mop-up documentation.
LAFD:
“Fully cooperating,” and internal investigation “sound.”
Current: Legal Exposure Expands
LAFD:
Arson caused the fire; no negligence in mop-up; actions were “in accordance with protocol.” To date, LAFD has not publicly said whether those protocols are now under revision.
Stay Tuned: These allegations may lead to major legal action as homeowners, insurers and municipalities brace for fallout.
Source link
