July 10, 2026 • 32 mins
Roger Behle responds to the Jonathan Rinderknecht mistrial
Audio from Juror #4 in the Jonathan Rinderknecht trial
Jonathan Rinderknecht’s defense attorney Steve Haney interview
1st Asst. US Attorney Bill Essayli responds to Jonathan Rinderknecht mistrial
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Listen
Watch
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:01):
AM six forty.
Speaker 2 (00:02):
You're listening to the John Cobelt Podcast on the iHeartRadio
app AM six forty Live everywhere on the iHeartRadio app.
Speaker 1 (00:10):
It's the John Cobelt Show.
Speaker 2 (00:12):
We are on from three to six every day and
then after six o'clock John Cobelt Show on demand on
the iHeart app.
Speaker 1 (00:18):
Follow us at John Cobelt Radio.
Speaker 2 (00:20):
Go to YouTube YouTube dot com slash at John Cobelt's
show to subscribe and become a member. So the jury
did well. They finally announced a verdict. Let's us hanging,
and it turned out to be a no verdict. It
was a hung jury. It was ten to two though
in favor of not guilty, which I find absolutely astonishing.
(00:44):
Let's talk to Roger Bailey first. Roger Bailey is the
one of the lead attorneys in the civil lawsuit that
the Palisades homeowners have made against all of LA government,
and he's been watching this trial pretty closely to see
what he could learn. Eventually, you know, his case is
going to go to trial or head towards some kind
(01:07):
of settlement. And Roger, how are you?
Speaker 3 (01:11):
I'm doing good?
Speaker 4 (01:11):
John? How you doing?
Speaker 1 (01:13):
I'm doing good?
Speaker 2 (01:15):
Does it tend to to split in the jury.
Speaker 1 (01:19):
Does that surprise you at all?
Speaker 4 (01:23):
Well, you know, you'll remember the first time we spoke
about the Arson trial, I had gone in through opening
statements and I spoke with you that day and said,
I don't think the government has a solid case. And
you saw that echoed today in the hung jury. And
as of this morning, it was actually eleven to one
(01:46):
not guilty. In this morning one of the jurors switched
over to guilty, but still ten to two sends a
pretty strong message that the government's case was weak, and
it really was. And I'll give you a further thought
on it, because at least one of the jurors has
spoken publicly about it. This whole notion that there was
only one fire and this thing burned underground undetected for
(02:11):
six days just didn't square with reality. You know, Smoke
was coming out of the ground for six days. Hikers
are up there, you know, filming it. You know, we
had state park representatives up there seeing smoke not reporting it.
So the jury, I think the government overcharged this case.
(02:32):
I mean, it's one thing to go in there and
say this kid started the eight acre brush fire on
January one. It's quite a different stretch to say this
kid burned down the Palisades. It just didn't square with reality.
Speaker 2 (02:49):
But they charged him with starting the original fire. Right,
I'm reading from Bill Salley, the first assistant US Attorney.
He says, the evidence is strong that render Kinesh is
responsible for igniting the fire in January first, which eventually
became the Palisades Fire. I mean, there was only one
fire that was ignited, so he's responsible for that.
Speaker 5 (03:12):
Now.
Speaker 2 (03:12):
I agree with you obviously that the LA Fire Department
and everybody else failed miserably in putting it out completely
when it had a chance, and then it kicked up again.
But he still, my view, ignited the original and isn't
he responsible for that for starting the chain of events?
Speaker 4 (03:34):
No, first of all, again you and I are going
to disagree on this. I think the evidence that they
had of him being up there and him hating the world,
and you know, everybody wants to be able to point
to someone. It's a year to blame. But with all
the witnesses that came in and said they saw fireworks
and then seconds later saw fire right after the fireworks
(03:57):
fell from the sky, and then there was you know,
witness chest cemony of four young people running down the
hill at the same time. There was so much that
was left open, even for the Lockman fire, that you
had at least ten of these jurors and said no,
you didn't prove it. And then one step further is
(04:17):
even if he had started the Lockman fire, the judge
prohibited the defense from bringing in evidence of the failures
by LAFD or the state park, the employees that were
up there and saw the smoke and did nothing about it.
The judge prohibited all of that. So you can't say,
(04:37):
even if you start an aacre brush fire that the
six days of failures by government somehow land in your
lap and you're responsible for, you know, killing twelve and
burning down seven thousand homes.
Speaker 1 (04:50):
So he say responsible for nothing, then well.
Speaker 4 (04:54):
I mean, right now, it's nothing. I mean, you know,
at at most, Yeah, I think the evidence on him
starting that was weak on eight acres of brush. You
burn eight acres of brush, because.
Speaker 2 (05:06):
If I was going to design you a crazy person
who's likely to start a fire, he would have most
of the characteristics based on what we know, you know,
driving around Definitely, I mean, I mean it's hard for
me to believe that, Oh, this guy did absolutely nothing.
He was screaming about you know, wealthy people. He's angry
at the world. He goes all the way up into
(05:27):
the hills there and fire breaks out. He's right near it.
I mean they got they got double proof of that. Right,
He's on surveillance video and his his GPS hits on
the cell tower. It's not like he was in in
Downey that night. Somebody had to start. It's somebody made
the ignition. Well, who's the other suspect here, who's the
(05:50):
other candidate?
Speaker 4 (05:53):
Well, so again, the evidence of trial was he was
definitely there, and there was eyewitness testimony of four young
people running down the hill at the same time. Who
they were, we don't know. One of the jurors said.
By the way, this was apparently an effective point. The
only cell reception that the government had access to was
(06:17):
not Verizon, and so anybody that had a Verizon phone,
even if you were up there, you're not going to
see them. So you know, this GPS data wasn't fool proof.
It wasn't as though the government had access to all
the cell phone data of all the people that were
up there and could see who was up there. This well,
(06:38):
you know, I don't know. I mean, it might be
because the cell towers aren't close enough. I mean, I
don't know. You know who your carrier is. But sometimes,
you know, I'll get a great cell signal and my
kids will say I got nothing, and that's because we
have different carriers. So you know, I don't know. But
they only had his cell because he called nine to
one one sixteen times and they at him up there.
(07:00):
They could pinpoint exactly where he was. So again, you know,
I'm I'm I'm watching the same thing you are. And
for our case, it really you know, what happened on
January one doesn't legally affect our case because that case
is the aftermath of that and all the failures of
the government that burned down the palace.
Speaker 2 (07:21):
Yeah, I understand, but you know it could considering they
found you know, his chet GPT attempts, and he wanted
to create I guess some kind of fake photograph for
cartoon or something showing a fiery dystopia.
Speaker 1 (07:40):
I mean, what are the odds, what are the odds?
Speaker 4 (07:46):
Yeah, well, you know we'll see in the retrial, because
the Feds have already come out and said they're going
to spend more of our taxpayer money to retry this case. Again,
what can they do differently?
Speaker 1 (07:57):
What can they do differently?
Speaker 4 (08:00):
Well, I mean they're going to be limited to the
same evidence. That's the thing that's fascinating is they think
on the same evidence, they're going to pull in another
panel and they're going to get a different result. Now,
I'll tell you if it was if it was eleven
to one guilty or ten to two guilty, then I'd say, well, geez,
you got a couple of holdouts, but you had the
(08:22):
pendulum swung so far the other direction. You know, I
don't know. I don't know who's over there thinking this
is a good use of our tax money. Because remember
something else. A conviction of this guy does zero for
Palisades fire victims, does absolutely nothing to help a single
person that died or that lost their home. It does zero.
(08:44):
So you know, but they want to go spend our
money to retry this guy where you've got a ten
to two not guilty hung jury. You know, far be
it for me to second guess them, but it seems
odd to me.
Speaker 2 (09:00):
All Right, thanks very much Roger Banley for coming on.
John all Right, one of the lead attorneys in the
civil case that the homeowners are making against the City
of Los Angeles and the DWP and all the rest
of the government agencies that failed them. We come back.
I got some clips to play of one of the jurors.
(09:20):
He's She's identified by two different names by two different
media outlets, and I'm not sure which one is correct.
But wait till you listen to her thought process. She
voted not guilty.
Speaker 6 (09:33):
You're listening to John Cobelt on demand from KFI AM
six forty.
Speaker 2 (09:40):
I Am six forty more stimulating talk radio John Cobelt's show.
So you may have heard hung jury in the case
against Jonathan rinderkinest for the for starting the Palisades fire.
We're going to have his defense attorney come on after
Debra's three thirty news, Steve Haney. He's going to be
our guest over the phone in just a few minutes.
(10:01):
Before we get to him, I wanted to play you
a couple of clips from during number four jurre number four,
who is identified by the Los Angeles Times as Serena
and by the California Post as.
Speaker 1 (10:18):
As I want.
Speaker 2 (10:19):
To Brianna, Yes, Serena in the LA Times, Brianna in
the California Post. Now there is a Brianna who the
time says is an alternate juror, so I don't know.
I guess we'll call her Serena for now, but she
could be Brianna. And I'm going to play you a
(10:41):
clip in just a moment, but before I do, I
want to read this to you. I mentioned to Roger
Bailey in the last segment, It's like, what are the
odds that a guy is going on chat ept and
asking for images of a dystopian of a dystopian world
with fires and people running. You may wonder where where'd
(11:03):
you get that?
Speaker 5 (11:04):
From?
Speaker 2 (11:05):
Corney of the BBC report July of twenty twenty four,
and this was part of the trial. Five months before
he set the fire rinder, Kanesh asked chat ChiPT to
create an image of a dystopian painting that includes a
burning forest and a crowd of people running away from
a fire. He prompts the AI tool to include the
text in the middle of the painting, hundreds of thousands
(11:27):
of people in poverty are trying to get past a
gigantic gate with a big dollar sign on it. On
the other side of the gate, and the entire wall
is a conglomerate of the richest people. They are chilling,
watching the world burn down and watching the people struggle.
They are laughing, enjoying themselves and dancing. Rinder Kanesh also
put a prompt into chat CHPT a month before the
(11:50):
fire that included I literally burnt the Bible that I had.
It felt amazing. I felt so liberated. All right, that's
the context here, So listen to this genius Serena cut
number eight.
Speaker 7 (12:12):
And when we got everything all that information, he's a
normal Like I'll be the first to say this is embarrassing.
I use chat GPT. So I got really like sad
and like I talked to CHATJPT all the time, So
that was like, I made me angry that they were
like putting his character down for just being human. And yes,
(12:34):
maybe we all have problems, but why are you putting
his character down to that we're trying to prove a fire.
Speaker 8 (12:42):
Well, John chat GPT is your best buddy too, so
that is one thing you can't fall.
Speaker 2 (12:52):
Why are they putting his character down because they think
he started the fire? Right, you want to prove he's
capable of starting a fire, Well, it looks like he
was fantasy, fantasizing about starting a fire because he was
angry with the rich people, and oh, Palisades just happens
(13:14):
to have lots and lots of rich people down the hills.
She took it personally. The steury system no good and
it's getting worse. Why because people are coming out by
(13:38):
the millions, the graduating high school every year completely uneducated,
incapable of doing critical thinking. When just for example, LAUSD
graduates more than half of its students who can't read
at a proficient level and three quarters of its students
(13:58):
can't do math at a proficient level. Well, what do
you think you're gonna get ten twenty thirty years later
when they become yours? Play that again, cut number eight.
Speaker 7 (14:10):
And when we got everything all that information, he's.
Speaker 1 (14:15):
A normal.
Speaker 7 (14:15):
Like I'll be the first to say this is embarrassing.
I use chat GPT, so I got really like sad,
and like I talked to chat GPT all the time,
So that was like, I made me angry that they
were like putting his character down for just being human.
And yes, maybe we all have problems, but why are
you putting his character down to that we're trying to
(14:37):
prove a fire.
Speaker 2 (14:39):
I think the point is what is he talking to
chat GPT about. You can go at chat GPT and say, hey,
give me a really good recipe for.
Speaker 1 (14:52):
Lemon soup fle.
Speaker 2 (14:56):
Or you could go to chat GPT and say, hey,
draw a painting where you got a forest on fire
and rich people are laughing and the poor people are
running terrified.
Speaker 1 (15:10):
All right, well, we're going to talk to.
Speaker 2 (15:14):
Jonathan Rinder, Kanesh's defense attorney, Stephen Haney.
Speaker 6 (15:17):
Next, you're listening to John Cobelts on demand from KFI
AM six forty.
Speaker 2 (15:25):
KIM six forty live everywhere on the iHeartRadio app John
Cobelts Show. We continued covering the well the non verdict
in the Palisades Arson fire case. Jonathan Rider kinesh it
was a hungury, it's ten to two in favor of
not guilty, and the prosecution, Federal prosecution Bill A. Saley,
(15:48):
the first assistant US Attorney, said they will retry the case.
We just talked with the civil attorney, Roger Bailey, who
is pursuing the civil case against the city and the
d WP and all the other government entities. And now
we're going to talk to the defense attorney here in
the criminal case. Yes, it's Jonathan Rinderkinesh's attorney, Stephen Hainey.
(16:10):
Steven Welcome, how are.
Speaker 3 (16:12):
You John, great? Thanks for having me.
Speaker 2 (16:14):
On last segment, I went through taking from the BBC
the evidence about Jonathan Rinderkanesh asking chat GPT to create
an image of a dystopian painting burning forrest, a crowd
of people running away from the fire. In the middle
(16:35):
of the painting, hundreds of thousands of people in poverty
are trying to get past the gigantic gate with a
big dollar sign on it, and on the other side
of the gate in the wall is a conglomerate of
the richest people who are laughing watching the people struggle.
They're dancing. And he also wrote, I literally burnt the
Bible that I had. It was amazing. I felt so liberated.
(16:55):
I know, you know all this evidence. I'm just trying
to catch up the audience on this. It is hard
for me to believe considering he was in the location
of the fire and he had written all this stuff
in advance, that he couldn't that he's not the guy who.
Speaker 1 (17:11):
Started the fire.
Speaker 2 (17:13):
I mean, you talk about a mindset and you talk
about the exact location. That's astonishing to me.
Speaker 3 (17:21):
Yeah, you know, the state of mind evidence was overwhelming,
and that was the strategy that the government had, was
to bring in as much character evidence as they could
find for two and a half weeks. And you know,
it's a good move, a good tactic, especially when they
had a mountain of it that you've noted. But when
you just focus on character evidence, you just beat up
on that guy for weeks and assassinate his character. But
(17:44):
then you don't show any physical evidence of how the
fire started. When the fire started an open flame theory
where they ruled out cigarettes because it was too cold
that night and the conditions weren't right for cigarettes. Five
hundred cigarette tests, But then they didn't do any lighter tests,
and why not? Why didn't you try to see if
(18:04):
the lighter could like the vegetation on fire. So you know,
I agree with you.
Speaker 4 (18:09):
There was just a mountain.
Speaker 3 (18:11):
Of character evidence. And when I took the case, I
thought it might almost be indefensible based on exactly what
you're saying. But then as I dug a little deeper,
it became clear to me I had a lot to
work with in terms of potential reasonable doubt and Jerry agreed.
Speaker 2 (18:25):
Right, So it was just spontaneous combustion, even though you
had the guy there at the scene with these bizarre
fire starting fantasies and just by magic it blew up
there that Well, I mean, what are the odds, What
are the odds that this was the guy standing next
to the fire?
Speaker 3 (18:46):
Hey, you talking to a defense lawyer. I got my
job as to create doubt. And you know, you had witnesses,
multiple witnesses that don't know each other, that heard fireworks,
that heard loud explosions and bangs going off on those
hills right around on midnight, and then they saw four
kids running down the mountain right after the fire started.
And a real big problem at trial was the government
(19:09):
of AHTF admitted that they got out a preservation letter
too late to Verizon, so they're unable to get tower
dump cell data for several hundred, if not thousands, of
cell phones it would have been in that area that
night to identify who else could have been in that area.
So this whole notion that he was the only one
there is ridiculous. They didn't get the phone records.
Speaker 1 (19:32):
Cell phone data isn't saved by Horizon.
Speaker 3 (19:36):
Well that's the thing now, and I didn't. I made
it clear. I'm not blaming AHS. I don't think ATF
is a bad guy here. The national call out for
the fire, the Palisades fire didn't happen until till the
tenth of January. The lock of the fire was on
January first. Verizon only keeps their phone records for five
days with respect to a tower dump. So by the
(19:56):
time the ATF got the preservation letter out to Verizon
and respond and said, hey, sorry, we don't have any information.
So now you have a whole class of the rising
users that could have been in that area where fireworks
were hurt right at midnight, John, and you see four
kids running off the hill. Now, if I'm on a jury,
I'm thinking, well, maybe those four kids did it, and
(20:18):
maybe the Horizon phones and we don't know who they are.
So when you're talking about putting somebody in prison for
fifty years, you got to look at that a little
carefully before you make that decision. That's a big burden.
When you're gonna send a thirty year okay to prison,
he'll probably not come out all right.
Speaker 2 (20:34):
So what's wrong with me that I'm not buying any
of this because I can do two plus two is four.
Speaker 1 (20:42):
Okay.
Speaker 2 (20:43):
I got a guy at the scene, most certainly, and
I got a guy with extensive fire fantasies that I
don't think is rap too tight. And then you're trying
to tell me, well, it's kids with fireworks. I mean, well,
you look at the weight of the probability.
Speaker 1 (21:00):
It's not even close.
Speaker 3 (21:02):
Well a fire fantasy. No, none of that came out
of at trial. You were there, now, the fire fantasy there?
All right, I'm gonna tell you it was there and
what it was. And look, I don't agree with his politics,
don't misunderstand, and you know I've been attacked and all.
This guy must be a liberal. I've never voted for
a Democrat president, so you know, my my politics don't
(21:25):
matter whether I like his or not. But his creation
of those images was with respect to climate change and
what if we don't change things, this is what the
future is going to look like. He was trying to
create images of what he didn't want the world to
look like in the future, not what he was foreshadowing
seven months before when he did those images in July. Okay,
(21:46):
so you know, I yeah, you're you're making you know
good points. You used to like the prosecutor here, But
at the end of the day, tend to two John,
you know, is an overwhelming uh A message sent by
that And you know what they did. They were tended
to within thirty minutes. It wasn't ten two that you
had a bunch of people struggling and they came around
(22:08):
to find the d No, they were tended to on
the first boat within thirty minutes. You had two holdouts.
Other well, otherwise that kid who had been acquitted today.
Speaker 1 (22:17):
Yeah, I know.
Speaker 2 (22:18):
I don't have a high opinion of the jury system
or the kind of people who went up on jury's.
You know, I know more than half the people graduating
LA's L A, U, S. D. Cannot read and three
quarters can't do math. So god knows what you get
on jury's. They're not smart enough to get out of
jury duty.
Speaker 1 (22:35):
But you know something I don't.
Speaker 3 (22:37):
I don't disagree with anything you're saying. And you know
I'm a big fan of ors rights and I are
really closed. No, I mean it. I love you now.
When you said I was that lawyer out in the
trailer in Arizona, I call Roger right away and I
say what's that guy talking about? Man, you call your
guy John to tell him I don't have a trailer
in Arizona.
Speaker 2 (22:55):
I don't even remember why I said that. All right,
But here's the thing, and you know this formed right
after the oj trial, I realized what attorney defense attorneys
do is you can have ten pieces of evidence and
come up with ten different excuses or ten different alternate
interpretations and the evidence and maybe for one of them
(23:16):
or two of them it's plausible. But what are the
odds that all ten pieces have alternative explanations?
Speaker 5 (23:24):
Ed?
Speaker 3 (23:24):
Well, look, I used to be I'm going to former
attorney general and a prosecutor. So I've not been a
slimy defense lawyer of my whole life. I've been on
both sides of the table. And I didn't lose much
when I was a prosecutor because I knew what to
try and what not to try. So what I'm telling
you this is not a case they should have charged. Okay,
they're not going to get a conviction in the second trial.
(23:46):
They're not. They can try this case fifty more times
and they're not going to get a conviction. That's my
strong belief, because you can't prosecute cases of fragments of things.
You can't take a chance ept excerpt here in a
recorded interview here and then not see the bigger picture
of the problems and the holes that you have and
the reasonable doubt that any decent defense lawyer is going
(24:07):
to go and present to a jury, you know, reasonable
without the high burden. And you're right, a lot of
the jurors. I'm not gonna, you know, criticize jurors, but
a lot of them don't necessarily understand sometimes what reasonable
that is. It's a very vague definition. I don't think
anybody would if you saw the jury instruction. So I
don't have much confidence.
Speaker 2 (24:27):
I find so many people unreasonable. I don't know how
they could have reasonable doubt.
Speaker 3 (24:32):
There you go.
Speaker 1 (24:33):
All right, Well, thank you very much for coming on, Steve.
Speaker 3 (24:37):
Okay, John, take care, all right, love the show.
Speaker 1 (24:39):
Thank you.
Speaker 5 (24:40):
Okay, that's a first.
Speaker 2 (24:42):
I know, Steve Haney, defense attorney for the guy I
think started the fire, Jonathan Rinderkanneesh.
Speaker 8 (24:49):
But you guys had a very calm and respectful discussion.
Speaker 1 (24:54):
Yes we did.
Speaker 8 (24:55):
You can do that sometimes with people you don't agree with.
Speaker 2 (24:58):
H I'm a calm, reasonable person, off the air. We've
never had We've never had a dispute.
Speaker 8 (25:05):
We have not once twenty years, I know, over twenty years,
not once, not once.
Speaker 6 (25:10):
All right, you're listening to John Cobels on demand from
KFI AM six forty.
Speaker 2 (25:18):
Km six forty more stimulating talk radio. The first assistant
US Attorney for the Central District, the federal Prosecutor, Bill Sale,
is coming on. It was his office was who brought
the case against Jonathan rinderkinest federal court. And the jury
said by a ten to two verdict, Well, it's a
hung jury. Ten out of the twelve said not guilty,
(25:39):
two said guilty. Sale has said they're going to do
a retrial, but he hasn't said anything else that I
know of until now. He's coming on here.
Speaker 3 (25:46):
Bill.
Speaker 1 (25:47):
How are you hey, John?
Speaker 5 (25:49):
I'm good. We usually we don't like to try these
cases in the public domain. We like time in court.
But between that juror speaking out and the defense attorney
and your last guest, I think it's important that we've
push back. People are just not articulating what the say
of the law is correct at all. He is charged
with arson. He is charged with igniting the fire that
(26:10):
ultimately turned into the Palisades fire. Arson is a very
serious charge because you cannot control the outcome of the
fire once you ignite it. And in this trial there
was extensive litigation. He wanted to put the LA Department,
the LA Fire Department on trial and their negligence, and
the judge said that it is not relevant to his guilt.
It is not relevant because unless it is a superseding
(26:32):
or intervening event, meaning that they did something to actually
spark the source of the fire for the Palistaates fire,
it does not relieve him of his guilt. So regardless
of how competent or negligent LA Fire was and responding,
it does not absolve his guilt in starting the initial fire.
This case is whether or not he is the ignition
point for the fire that eventually burned down the Palisades.
(26:56):
The fact that people want to talk about giving him
a pass to punt La is nonsense and it's not
going to punish him. It's going to give this guy
a pass who started this fire. The evidence is overwhelming.
You know you've gone over it. I know you talked
to the defense attorney. It is overwhelming. He started this fire.
And based on the statements that jurors made today. They
violated their oath. They considered the things they were not
(27:19):
supposed to consider. Negligence was not part of this case.
And that's what that juror was talking about today. We
have people in society now, John that they don't want
to follow the rules, They don't want to follow the law.
Everyone wants to do what they want to do. This
is not what this is about. This is a court
of law. We have to follow the law, and we
have to follow the evidence, and we will redo this
trial and hopefully we get better jurors.
Speaker 2 (27:39):
What do you do in the next trial with trying
to get your message that you just articulated across to
a new set of jurors, because clearly this first set
didn't get it.
Speaker 5 (27:53):
You know, jury selection in federal court is very tough.
We don't get a lot of time to take the jurors.
And state court you could spend days or weeks picking
a jur Unfortunately, federal court they don't give us that leeway.
I mean often you pick a jury in a day,
so a lot of times it's kind of a crapshoot
on the quality of the jurors that you get. So
we will probably be more aggressive in trying to eliminate
(28:15):
or screen people who are not going to follow the
law or follow the evidence. So we'll do our best,
but a lot of it's in the hands of the judge,
and in this case, she has a lot of power
over you know, who ultimately ends up on the jury.
We get a limited number of strikes. That's how it
works in federal court. But the judge was right in
this case. She excluded the evidence about the response of
(28:36):
the La Fire Department because she said, unless it's an
intervening or superseding cause of the policy's fire, it's not relevant.
And so none of that was part of this case.
None of that was injected into this trial, and none
of that was supposed to be considered by the jurors.
They're only supposed to consider whether he was the ignition point,
whether he was the source of the fire. And it
does not absolve the city of La from anything if
(28:58):
he's convicted.
Speaker 2 (29:00):
So so he was he was charged with start with,
with arson because I don't know what the exact wording
of the charge was. Was he uh blamed more specifically, yes,
specifically for the Palisades fire. Well, there were the Lockman fire.
Speaker 5 (29:17):
Yeah, the way the case, it doesn't just a charge
doesn't say Lochman fire, palicy fire. He's charged with Wilfley
and maliciously starting a fire, and we charged him with
burning specific uh areas of land that we have federal
jurisdiction on. It's a little technical. We don't have to
get into it.
Speaker 2 (29:33):
Okay, But but you know what I I but I
think I understand where this went awry that they said, oh,
he's being charged with starting the Palisades fire. Well, the
LA Fire Department had a lot to do with that,
and so they didn't want to hang the whole thing
on him.
Speaker 5 (29:47):
Yes, although that wasn't part of the trials. That was
not that that was not part of the trial, and
no evidence came in about the quality and response from
the LA Fire Department. And you know, and a lot
of these civil attorneys, like I get it. I'm very
sympathetic the victims of this case. They have not been
properly compensated. I agree, But they want to hold, they
want to pocket. You know, civil lawyers, they tell you
(30:08):
in law school the first thing you learn, who do
you sue John the person with the deepest pocket. That's
how you decide who they sue, right, and so I
think they're worried that if this guy's convicted, it's somehow
gonna make it harder for them to hold, you know,
others accountable. But both things can be true. This guy
could have started the fire and the response could have
been subpar.
Speaker 2 (30:29):
Yeah, that I think is accurate, And I think some
of the jurors, because you can't avoid obviously all the
news coverage from the last year and a half, have
decided in their heads, well, it was the LA Fire
Department responsible for the Palisades fire. Totally forgetting that. The
case here was either either rinder Kandesh started it or
he did not and he started the original fire. According
to the evidence you presented.
Speaker 5 (30:52):
People should read the ATF report. We spent months studying
this event. Remember, nobody understood how this fire started. No
one had a clue. The ATF did a phenomenal job.
They spent months. We had national experts flying in. We
replicated we started the fire to re to reset the
condition so we could understand it. It is a comprehensive report.
(31:13):
This fire was started with an ignition source by mister
winder Connect That's how it started. He brought something of
a flame to start the fire, most likely a lighter.
That's the only way this fire could have started. It
did not start with the fireworks, and it did not
start with a cigarette. And he's the only person who
is there. Is that, you know, a little after midnight
(31:34):
on New Year's Eve. There's no one else there, there's
no evidence that there was any fireworks there, and he's
the only person on the world who could have set
this fire on that night.
Speaker 1 (31:44):
Well, I agree with you.
Speaker 2 (31:46):
We'll talk again and I'm looking forward to the second trial.
Speaker 1 (31:50):
Thank you for coming on.
Speaker 5 (31:51):
Thanks John, Thanks Bill.
Speaker 1 (31:53):
Sandler, first Assistant US Attorney.
Speaker 2 (31:55):
All Right, Debra Mark is live in the KFI twenty
four hour newsroom. I'm listening to the John Cobelt Show podcast.
You can always hear the show live on KFI AM
six forty from three to six pm every Monday through Friday,
and of course anytime on demand on the iHeartRadio.
Speaker 6 (32:11):
App KFI AM six four six. More stimulating talk
AM six forty.
Speaker 2 (00:02):
You're listening to the John Cobelt Podcast on the iHeartRadio
app AM six forty Live everywhere on the iHeartRadio app.
Speaker 1 (00:10):
It's the John Cobelt Show.
Speaker 2 (00:12):
We are on from three to six every day and
then after six o'clock John Cobelt Show on demand on
the iHeart app.
Speaker 1 (00:18):
Follow us at John Cobelt Radio.
Speaker 2 (00:20):
Go to YouTube YouTube dot com slash at John Cobelt's
show to subscribe and become a member. So the jury
did well. They finally announced a verdict. Let's us hanging,
and it turned out to be a no verdict. It
was a hung jury. It was ten to two though
in favor of not guilty, which I find absolutely astonishing.
(00:44):
Let's talk to Roger Bailey first. Roger Bailey is the
one of the lead attorneys in the civil lawsuit that
the Palisades homeowners have made against all of LA government,
and he's been watching this trial pretty closely to see
what he could learn. Eventually, you know, his case is
going to go to trial or head towards some kind
(01:07):
of settlement. And Roger, how are you?
Speaker 3 (01:11):
I'm doing good?
Speaker 4 (01:11):
John? How you doing?
Speaker 1 (01:13):
I'm doing good?
Speaker 2 (01:15):
Does it tend to to split in the jury.
Speaker 1 (01:19):
Does that surprise you at all?
Speaker 4 (01:23):
Well, you know, you'll remember the first time we spoke
about the Arson trial, I had gone in through opening
statements and I spoke with you that day and said,
I don't think the government has a solid case. And
you saw that echoed today in the hung jury. And
as of this morning, it was actually eleven to one
(01:46):
not guilty. In this morning one of the jurors switched
over to guilty, but still ten to two sends a
pretty strong message that the government's case was weak, and
it really was. And I'll give you a further thought
on it, because at least one of the jurors has
spoken publicly about it. This whole notion that there was
only one fire and this thing burned underground undetected for
(02:11):
six days just didn't square with reality. You know, Smoke
was coming out of the ground for six days. Hikers
are up there, you know, filming it. You know, we
had state park representatives up there seeing smoke not reporting it.
So the jury, I think the government overcharged this case.
(02:32):
I mean, it's one thing to go in there and
say this kid started the eight acre brush fire on
January one. It's quite a different stretch to say this
kid burned down the Palisades. It just didn't square with reality.
Speaker 2 (02:49):
But they charged him with starting the original fire. Right,
I'm reading from Bill Salley, the first assistant US Attorney.
He says, the evidence is strong that render Kinesh is
responsible for igniting the fire in January first, which eventually
became the Palisades Fire. I mean, there was only one
fire that was ignited, so he's responsible for that.
Speaker 5 (03:12):
Now.
Speaker 2 (03:12):
I agree with you obviously that the LA Fire Department
and everybody else failed miserably in putting it out completely
when it had a chance, and then it kicked up again.
But he still, my view, ignited the original and isn't
he responsible for that for starting the chain of events?
Speaker 4 (03:34):
No, first of all, again you and I are going
to disagree on this. I think the evidence that they
had of him being up there and him hating the world,
and you know, everybody wants to be able to point
to someone. It's a year to blame. But with all
the witnesses that came in and said they saw fireworks
and then seconds later saw fire right after the fireworks
(03:57):
fell from the sky, and then there was you know,
witness chest cemony of four young people running down the
hill at the same time. There was so much that
was left open, even for the Lockman fire, that you
had at least ten of these jurors and said no,
you didn't prove it. And then one step further is
(04:17):
even if he had started the Lockman fire, the judge
prohibited the defense from bringing in evidence of the failures
by LAFD or the state park, the employees that were
up there and saw the smoke and did nothing about it.
The judge prohibited all of that. So you can't say,
(04:37):
even if you start an aacre brush fire that the
six days of failures by government somehow land in your
lap and you're responsible for, you know, killing twelve and
burning down seven thousand homes.
Speaker 1 (04:50):
So he say responsible for nothing, then well.
Speaker 4 (04:54):
I mean, right now, it's nothing. I mean, you know,
at at most, Yeah, I think the evidence on him
starting that was weak on eight acres of brush. You
burn eight acres of brush, because.
Speaker 2 (05:06):
If I was going to design you a crazy person
who's likely to start a fire, he would have most
of the characteristics based on what we know, you know,
driving around Definitely, I mean, I mean it's hard for
me to believe that, Oh, this guy did absolutely nothing.
He was screaming about you know, wealthy people. He's angry
at the world. He goes all the way up into
(05:27):
the hills there and fire breaks out. He's right near it.
I mean they got they got double proof of that. Right,
He's on surveillance video and his his GPS hits on
the cell tower. It's not like he was in in
Downey that night. Somebody had to start. It's somebody made
the ignition. Well, who's the other suspect here, who's the
(05:50):
other candidate?
Speaker 4 (05:53):
Well, so again, the evidence of trial was he was
definitely there, and there was eyewitness testimony of four young
people running down the hill at the same time. Who
they were, we don't know. One of the jurors said.
By the way, this was apparently an effective point. The
only cell reception that the government had access to was
(06:17):
not Verizon, and so anybody that had a Verizon phone,
even if you were up there, you're not going to
see them. So you know, this GPS data wasn't fool proof.
It wasn't as though the government had access to all
the cell phone data of all the people that were
up there and could see who was up there. This well,
(06:38):
you know, I don't know. I mean, it might be
because the cell towers aren't close enough. I mean, I
don't know. You know who your carrier is. But sometimes,
you know, I'll get a great cell signal and my
kids will say I got nothing, and that's because we
have different carriers. So you know, I don't know. But
they only had his cell because he called nine to
one one sixteen times and they at him up there.
(07:00):
They could pinpoint exactly where he was. So again, you know,
I'm I'm I'm watching the same thing you are. And
for our case, it really you know, what happened on
January one doesn't legally affect our case because that case
is the aftermath of that and all the failures of
the government that burned down the palace.
Speaker 2 (07:21):
Yeah, I understand, but you know it could considering they
found you know, his chet GPT attempts, and he wanted
to create I guess some kind of fake photograph for
cartoon or something showing a fiery dystopia.
Speaker 1 (07:40):
I mean, what are the odds, what are the odds?
Speaker 4 (07:46):
Yeah, well, you know we'll see in the retrial, because
the Feds have already come out and said they're going
to spend more of our taxpayer money to retry this case. Again,
what can they do differently?
Speaker 1 (07:57):
What can they do differently?
Speaker 4 (08:00):
Well, I mean they're going to be limited to the
same evidence. That's the thing that's fascinating is they think
on the same evidence, they're going to pull in another
panel and they're going to get a different result. Now,
I'll tell you if it was if it was eleven
to one guilty or ten to two guilty, then I'd say, well, geez,
you got a couple of holdouts, but you had the
(08:22):
pendulum swung so far the other direction. You know, I
don't know. I don't know who's over there thinking this
is a good use of our tax money. Because remember
something else. A conviction of this guy does zero for
Palisades fire victims, does absolutely nothing to help a single
person that died or that lost their home. It does zero.
(08:44):
So you know, but they want to go spend our
money to retry this guy where you've got a ten
to two not guilty hung jury. You know, far be
it for me to second guess them, but it seems
odd to me.
Speaker 2 (09:00):
All Right, thanks very much Roger Banley for coming on.
John all Right, one of the lead attorneys in the
civil case that the homeowners are making against the City
of Los Angeles and the DWP and all the rest
of the government agencies that failed them. We come back.
I got some clips to play of one of the jurors.
(09:20):
He's She's identified by two different names by two different
media outlets, and I'm not sure which one is correct.
But wait till you listen to her thought process. She
voted not guilty.
Speaker 6 (09:33):
You're listening to John Cobelt on demand from KFI AM
six forty.
Speaker 2 (09:40):
I Am six forty more stimulating talk radio John Cobelt's show.
So you may have heard hung jury in the case
against Jonathan rinderkinest for the for starting the Palisades fire.
We're going to have his defense attorney come on after
Debra's three thirty news, Steve Haney. He's going to be
our guest over the phone in just a few minutes.
(10:01):
Before we get to him, I wanted to play you
a couple of clips from during number four jurre number four,
who is identified by the Los Angeles Times as Serena
and by the California Post as.
Speaker 1 (10:18):
As I want.
Speaker 2 (10:19):
To Brianna, Yes, Serena in the LA Times, Brianna in
the California Post. Now there is a Brianna who the
time says is an alternate juror, so I don't know.
I guess we'll call her Serena for now, but she
could be Brianna. And I'm going to play you a
(10:41):
clip in just a moment, but before I do, I
want to read this to you. I mentioned to Roger
Bailey in the last segment, It's like, what are the
odds that a guy is going on chat ept and
asking for images of a dystopian of a dystopian world
with fires and people running. You may wonder where where'd
(11:03):
you get that?
Speaker 5 (11:04):
From?
Speaker 2 (11:05):
Corney of the BBC report July of twenty twenty four,
and this was part of the trial. Five months before
he set the fire rinder, Kanesh asked chat ChiPT to
create an image of a dystopian painting that includes a
burning forest and a crowd of people running away from
a fire. He prompts the AI tool to include the
text in the middle of the painting, hundreds of thousands
(11:27):
of people in poverty are trying to get past a
gigantic gate with a big dollar sign on it. On
the other side of the gate, and the entire wall
is a conglomerate of the richest people. They are chilling,
watching the world burn down and watching the people struggle.
They are laughing, enjoying themselves and dancing. Rinder Kanesh also
put a prompt into chat CHPT a month before the
(11:50):
fire that included I literally burnt the Bible that I had.
It felt amazing. I felt so liberated. All right, that's
the context here, So listen to this genius Serena cut
number eight.
Speaker 7 (12:12):
And when we got everything all that information, he's a
normal Like I'll be the first to say this is embarrassing.
I use chat GPT. So I got really like sad
and like I talked to CHATJPT all the time, So
that was like, I made me angry that they were
like putting his character down for just being human. And yes,
(12:34):
maybe we all have problems, but why are you putting
his character down to that we're trying to prove a fire.
Speaker 8 (12:42):
Well, John chat GPT is your best buddy too, so
that is one thing you can't fall.
Speaker 2 (12:52):
Why are they putting his character down because they think
he started the fire? Right, you want to prove he's
capable of starting a fire, Well, it looks like he
was fantasy, fantasizing about starting a fire because he was
angry with the rich people, and oh, Palisades just happens
(13:14):
to have lots and lots of rich people down the hills.
She took it personally. The steury system no good and
it's getting worse. Why because people are coming out by
(13:38):
the millions, the graduating high school every year completely uneducated,
incapable of doing critical thinking. When just for example, LAUSD
graduates more than half of its students who can't read
at a proficient level and three quarters of its students
(13:58):
can't do math at a proficient level. Well, what do
you think you're gonna get ten twenty thirty years later
when they become yours? Play that again, cut number eight.
Speaker 7 (14:10):
And when we got everything all that information, he's.
Speaker 1 (14:15):
A normal.
Speaker 7 (14:15):
Like I'll be the first to say this is embarrassing.
I use chat GPT, so I got really like sad,
and like I talked to chat GPT all the time,
So that was like, I made me angry that they
were like putting his character down for just being human.
And yes, maybe we all have problems, but why are
you putting his character down to that we're trying to
(14:37):
prove a fire.
Speaker 2 (14:39):
I think the point is what is he talking to
chat GPT about. You can go at chat GPT and say, hey,
give me a really good recipe for.
Speaker 1 (14:52):
Lemon soup fle.
Speaker 2 (14:56):
Or you could go to chat GPT and say, hey,
draw a painting where you got a forest on fire
and rich people are laughing and the poor people are
running terrified.
Speaker 1 (15:10):
All right, well, we're going to talk to.
Speaker 2 (15:14):
Jonathan Rinder, Kanesh's defense attorney, Stephen Haney.
Speaker 6 (15:17):
Next, you're listening to John Cobelts on demand from KFI
AM six forty.
Speaker 2 (15:25):
KIM six forty live everywhere on the iHeartRadio app John
Cobelts Show. We continued covering the well the non verdict
in the Palisades Arson fire case. Jonathan Rider kinesh it
was a hungury, it's ten to two in favor of
not guilty, and the prosecution, Federal prosecution Bill A. Saley,
(15:48):
the first assistant US Attorney, said they will retry the case.
We just talked with the civil attorney, Roger Bailey, who
is pursuing the civil case against the city and the
d WP and all the other government entities. And now
we're going to talk to the defense attorney here in
the criminal case. Yes, it's Jonathan Rinderkinesh's attorney, Stephen Hainey.
(16:10):
Steven Welcome, how are.
Speaker 3 (16:12):
You John, great? Thanks for having me.
Speaker 2 (16:14):
On last segment, I went through taking from the BBC
the evidence about Jonathan Rinderkanesh asking chat GPT to create
an image of a dystopian painting burning forrest, a crowd
of people running away from the fire. In the middle
(16:35):
of the painting, hundreds of thousands of people in poverty
are trying to get past the gigantic gate with a
big dollar sign on it, and on the other side
of the gate in the wall is a conglomerate of
the richest people who are laughing watching the people struggle.
They're dancing. And he also wrote, I literally burnt the
Bible that I had. It was amazing. I felt so liberated.
(16:55):
I know, you know all this evidence. I'm just trying
to catch up the audience on this. It is hard
for me to believe considering he was in the location
of the fire and he had written all this stuff
in advance, that he couldn't that he's not the guy who.
Speaker 1 (17:11):
Started the fire.
Speaker 2 (17:13):
I mean, you talk about a mindset and you talk
about the exact location. That's astonishing to me.
Speaker 3 (17:21):
Yeah, you know, the state of mind evidence was overwhelming,
and that was the strategy that the government had, was
to bring in as much character evidence as they could
find for two and a half weeks. And you know,
it's a good move, a good tactic, especially when they
had a mountain of it that you've noted. But when
you just focus on character evidence, you just beat up
on that guy for weeks and assassinate his character. But
(17:44):
then you don't show any physical evidence of how the
fire started. When the fire started an open flame theory
where they ruled out cigarettes because it was too cold
that night and the conditions weren't right for cigarettes. Five
hundred cigarette tests, But then they didn't do any lighter tests,
and why not? Why didn't you try to see if
(18:04):
the lighter could like the vegetation on fire. So you know,
I agree with you.
Speaker 4 (18:09):
There was just a mountain.
Speaker 3 (18:11):
Of character evidence. And when I took the case, I
thought it might almost be indefensible based on exactly what
you're saying. But then as I dug a little deeper,
it became clear to me I had a lot to
work with in terms of potential reasonable doubt and Jerry agreed.
Speaker 2 (18:25):
Right, So it was just spontaneous combustion, even though you
had the guy there at the scene with these bizarre
fire starting fantasies and just by magic it blew up
there that Well, I mean, what are the odds, What
are the odds that this was the guy standing next
to the fire?
Speaker 3 (18:46):
Hey, you talking to a defense lawyer. I got my
job as to create doubt. And you know, you had witnesses,
multiple witnesses that don't know each other, that heard fireworks,
that heard loud explosions and bangs going off on those
hills right around on midnight, and then they saw four
kids running down the mountain right after the fire started.
And a real big problem at trial was the government
(19:09):
of AHTF admitted that they got out a preservation letter
too late to Verizon, so they're unable to get tower
dump cell data for several hundred, if not thousands, of
cell phones it would have been in that area that
night to identify who else could have been in that area.
So this whole notion that he was the only one
there is ridiculous. They didn't get the phone records.
Speaker 1 (19:32):
Cell phone data isn't saved by Horizon.
Speaker 3 (19:36):
Well that's the thing now, and I didn't. I made
it clear. I'm not blaming AHS. I don't think ATF
is a bad guy here. The national call out for
the fire, the Palisades fire didn't happen until till the
tenth of January. The lock of the fire was on
January first. Verizon only keeps their phone records for five
days with respect to a tower dump. So by the
(19:56):
time the ATF got the preservation letter out to Verizon
and respond and said, hey, sorry, we don't have any information.
So now you have a whole class of the rising
users that could have been in that area where fireworks
were hurt right at midnight, John, and you see four
kids running off the hill. Now, if I'm on a jury,
I'm thinking, well, maybe those four kids did it, and
(20:18):
maybe the Horizon phones and we don't know who they are.
So when you're talking about putting somebody in prison for
fifty years, you got to look at that a little
carefully before you make that decision. That's a big burden.
When you're gonna send a thirty year okay to prison,
he'll probably not come out all right.
Speaker 2 (20:34):
So what's wrong with me that I'm not buying any
of this because I can do two plus two is four.
Speaker 1 (20:42):
Okay.
Speaker 2 (20:43):
I got a guy at the scene, most certainly, and
I got a guy with extensive fire fantasies that I
don't think is rap too tight. And then you're trying
to tell me, well, it's kids with fireworks. I mean, well,
you look at the weight of the probability.
Speaker 1 (21:00):
It's not even close.
Speaker 3 (21:02):
Well a fire fantasy. No, none of that came out
of at trial. You were there, now, the fire fantasy there?
All right, I'm gonna tell you it was there and
what it was. And look, I don't agree with his politics,
don't misunderstand, and you know I've been attacked and all.
This guy must be a liberal. I've never voted for
a Democrat president, so you know, my my politics don't
(21:25):
matter whether I like his or not. But his creation
of those images was with respect to climate change and
what if we don't change things, this is what the
future is going to look like. He was trying to
create images of what he didn't want the world to
look like in the future, not what he was foreshadowing
seven months before when he did those images in July. Okay,
(21:46):
so you know, I yeah, you're you're making you know
good points. You used to like the prosecutor here, But
at the end of the day, tend to two John,
you know, is an overwhelming uh A message sent by
that And you know what they did. They were tended
to within thirty minutes. It wasn't ten two that you
had a bunch of people struggling and they came around
(22:08):
to find the d No, they were tended to on
the first boat within thirty minutes. You had two holdouts.
Other well, otherwise that kid who had been acquitted today.
Speaker 1 (22:17):
Yeah, I know.
Speaker 2 (22:18):
I don't have a high opinion of the jury system
or the kind of people who went up on jury's.
You know, I know more than half the people graduating
LA's L A, U, S. D. Cannot read and three
quarters can't do math. So god knows what you get
on jury's. They're not smart enough to get out of
jury duty.
Speaker 1 (22:35):
But you know something I don't.
Speaker 3 (22:37):
I don't disagree with anything you're saying. And you know
I'm a big fan of ors rights and I are
really closed. No, I mean it. I love you now.
When you said I was that lawyer out in the
trailer in Arizona, I call Roger right away and I
say what's that guy talking about? Man, you call your
guy John to tell him I don't have a trailer
in Arizona.
Speaker 2 (22:55):
I don't even remember why I said that. All right,
But here's the thing, and you know this formed right
after the oj trial, I realized what attorney defense attorneys
do is you can have ten pieces of evidence and
come up with ten different excuses or ten different alternate
interpretations and the evidence and maybe for one of them
(23:16):
or two of them it's plausible. But what are the
odds that all ten pieces have alternative explanations?
Speaker 5 (23:24):
Ed?
Speaker 3 (23:24):
Well, look, I used to be I'm going to former
attorney general and a prosecutor. So I've not been a
slimy defense lawyer of my whole life. I've been on
both sides of the table. And I didn't lose much
when I was a prosecutor because I knew what to
try and what not to try. So what I'm telling
you this is not a case they should have charged. Okay,
they're not going to get a conviction in the second trial.
(23:46):
They're not. They can try this case fifty more times
and they're not going to get a conviction. That's my
strong belief, because you can't prosecute cases of fragments of things.
You can't take a chance ept excerpt here in a
recorded interview here and then not see the bigger picture
of the problems and the holes that you have and
the reasonable doubt that any decent defense lawyer is going
(24:07):
to go and present to a jury, you know, reasonable
without the high burden. And you're right, a lot of
the jurors. I'm not gonna, you know, criticize jurors, but
a lot of them don't necessarily understand sometimes what reasonable
that is. It's a very vague definition. I don't think
anybody would if you saw the jury instruction. So I
don't have much confidence.
Speaker 2 (24:27):
I find so many people unreasonable. I don't know how
they could have reasonable doubt.
Speaker 3 (24:32):
There you go.
Speaker 1 (24:33):
All right, Well, thank you very much for coming on, Steve.
Speaker 3 (24:37):
Okay, John, take care, all right, love the show.
Speaker 1 (24:39):
Thank you.
Speaker 5 (24:40):
Okay, that's a first.
Speaker 2 (24:42):
I know, Steve Haney, defense attorney for the guy I
think started the fire, Jonathan Rinderkanneesh.
Speaker 8 (24:49):
But you guys had a very calm and respectful discussion.
Speaker 1 (24:54):
Yes we did.
Speaker 8 (24:55):
You can do that sometimes with people you don't agree with.
Speaker 2 (24:58):
H I'm a calm, reasonable person, off the air. We've
never had We've never had a dispute.
Speaker 8 (25:05):
We have not once twenty years, I know, over twenty years,
not once, not once.
Speaker 6 (25:10):
All right, you're listening to John Cobels on demand from
KFI AM six forty.
Speaker 2 (25:18):
Km six forty more stimulating talk radio. The first assistant
US Attorney for the Central District, the federal Prosecutor, Bill Sale,
is coming on. It was his office was who brought
the case against Jonathan rinderkinest federal court. And the jury
said by a ten to two verdict, Well, it's a
hung jury. Ten out of the twelve said not guilty,
(25:39):
two said guilty. Sale has said they're going to do
a retrial, but he hasn't said anything else that I
know of until now. He's coming on here.
Speaker 3 (25:46):
Bill.
Speaker 1 (25:47):
How are you hey, John?
Speaker 5 (25:49):
I'm good. We usually we don't like to try these
cases in the public domain. We like time in court.
But between that juror speaking out and the defense attorney
and your last guest, I think it's important that we've
push back. People are just not articulating what the say
of the law is correct at all. He is charged
with arson. He is charged with igniting the fire that
(26:10):
ultimately turned into the Palisades fire. Arson is a very
serious charge because you cannot control the outcome of the
fire once you ignite it. And in this trial there
was extensive litigation. He wanted to put the LA Department,
the LA Fire Department on trial and their negligence, and
the judge said that it is not relevant to his guilt.
It is not relevant because unless it is a superseding
(26:32):
or intervening event, meaning that they did something to actually
spark the source of the fire for the Palistaates fire,
it does not relieve him of his guilt. So regardless
of how competent or negligent LA Fire was and responding,
it does not absolve his guilt in starting the initial fire.
This case is whether or not he is the ignition
point for the fire that eventually burned down the Palisades.
(26:56):
The fact that people want to talk about giving him
a pass to punt La is nonsense and it's not
going to punish him. It's going to give this guy
a pass who started this fire. The evidence is overwhelming.
You know you've gone over it. I know you talked
to the defense attorney. It is overwhelming. He started this fire.
And based on the statements that jurors made today. They
violated their oath. They considered the things they were not
(27:19):
supposed to consider. Negligence was not part of this case.
And that's what that juror was talking about today. We
have people in society now, John that they don't want
to follow the rules, They don't want to follow the law.
Everyone wants to do what they want to do. This
is not what this is about. This is a court
of law. We have to follow the law, and we
have to follow the evidence, and we will redo this
trial and hopefully we get better jurors.
Speaker 2 (27:39):
What do you do in the next trial with trying
to get your message that you just articulated across to
a new set of jurors, because clearly this first set
didn't get it.
Speaker 5 (27:53):
You know, jury selection in federal court is very tough.
We don't get a lot of time to take the jurors.
And state court you could spend days or weeks picking
a jur Unfortunately, federal court they don't give us that leeway.
I mean often you pick a jury in a day,
so a lot of times it's kind of a crapshoot
on the quality of the jurors that you get. So
we will probably be more aggressive in trying to eliminate
(28:15):
or screen people who are not going to follow the
law or follow the evidence. So we'll do our best,
but a lot of it's in the hands of the judge,
and in this case, she has a lot of power
over you know, who ultimately ends up on the jury.
We get a limited number of strikes. That's how it
works in federal court. But the judge was right in
this case. She excluded the evidence about the response of
(28:36):
the La Fire Department because she said, unless it's an
intervening or superseding cause of the policy's fire, it's not relevant.
And so none of that was part of this case.
None of that was injected into this trial, and none
of that was supposed to be considered by the jurors.
They're only supposed to consider whether he was the ignition point,
whether he was the source of the fire. And it
does not absolve the city of La from anything if
(28:58):
he's convicted.
Speaker 2 (29:00):
So so he was he was charged with start with,
with arson because I don't know what the exact wording
of the charge was. Was he uh blamed more specifically, yes,
specifically for the Palisades fire. Well, there were the Lockman fire.
Speaker 5 (29:17):
Yeah, the way the case, it doesn't just a charge
doesn't say Lochman fire, palicy fire. He's charged with Wilfley
and maliciously starting a fire, and we charged him with
burning specific uh areas of land that we have federal
jurisdiction on. It's a little technical. We don't have to
get into it.
Speaker 2 (29:33):
Okay, But but you know what I I but I
think I understand where this went awry that they said, oh,
he's being charged with starting the Palisades fire. Well, the
LA Fire Department had a lot to do with that,
and so they didn't want to hang the whole thing
on him.
Speaker 5 (29:47):
Yes, although that wasn't part of the trials. That was
not that that was not part of the trial, and
no evidence came in about the quality and response from
the LA Fire Department. And you know, and a lot
of these civil attorneys, like I get it. I'm very
sympathetic the victims of this case. They have not been
properly compensated. I agree, But they want to hold, they
want to pocket. You know, civil lawyers, they tell you
(30:08):
in law school the first thing you learn, who do
you sue John the person with the deepest pocket. That's
how you decide who they sue, right, and so I
think they're worried that if this guy's convicted, it's somehow
gonna make it harder for them to hold, you know,
others accountable. But both things can be true. This guy
could have started the fire and the response could have
been subpar.
Speaker 2 (30:29):
Yeah, that I think is accurate, And I think some
of the jurors, because you can't avoid obviously all the
news coverage from the last year and a half, have
decided in their heads, well, it was the LA Fire
Department responsible for the Palisades fire. Totally forgetting that. The
case here was either either rinder Kandesh started it or
he did not and he started the original fire. According
to the evidence you presented.
Speaker 5 (30:52):
People should read the ATF report. We spent months studying
this event. Remember, nobody understood how this fire started. No
one had a clue. The ATF did a phenomenal job.
They spent months. We had national experts flying in. We
replicated we started the fire to re to reset the
condition so we could understand it. It is a comprehensive report.
(31:13):
This fire was started with an ignition source by mister
winder Connect That's how it started. He brought something of
a flame to start the fire, most likely a lighter.
That's the only way this fire could have started. It
did not start with the fireworks, and it did not
start with a cigarette. And he's the only person who
is there. Is that, you know, a little after midnight
(31:34):
on New Year's Eve. There's no one else there, there's
no evidence that there was any fireworks there, and he's
the only person on the world who could have set
this fire on that night.
Speaker 1 (31:44):
Well, I agree with you.
Speaker 2 (31:46):
We'll talk again and I'm looking forward to the second trial.
Speaker 1 (31:50):
Thank you for coming on.
Speaker 5 (31:51):
Thanks John, Thanks Bill.
Speaker 1 (31:53):
Sandler, first Assistant US Attorney.
Speaker 2 (31:55):
All Right, Debra Mark is live in the KFI twenty
four hour newsroom. I'm listening to the John Cobelt Show podcast.
You can always hear the show live on KFI AM
six forty from three to six pm every Monday through Friday,
and of course anytime on demand on the iHeartRadio.
Speaker 6 (32:11):
App KFI AM six four six. More stimulating talk
The John Kobylt Show News
Host
John Kobylt
Popular Podcasts
Betrayal Weekly
Betrayal Weekly is back for a new season. Every Thursday, Betrayal Weekly shares first-hand accounts of broken trust, shocking deceptions, and the trail of destruction they leave behind. Hosted by Andrea Gunning, this weekly ongoing series digs into real-life stories of betrayal and the aftermath. From stories of double lives to dark discoveries, these are cautionary tales and accounts of resilience against all odds. From the producers of the critically acclaimed Betrayal series, Betrayal Weekly drops new episodes every Thursday. If you would like to share your story, you can reach out to the Betrayal Team by emailing them at betrayalpod@gmail.com and follow us on Instagram at @betrayalpod and @glasspodcasts. Please join our Substack for additional exclusive content, curated book recommendations, and community discussions. Sign up FREE by clicking this link Beyond Betrayal Substack. Join our community dedicated to truth, resilience, and healing. Your voice matters! Be a part of our Betrayal journey on Substack.
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by Audiochuck Media Company.
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.