By SWAIT Staff

On January 7th, 2025, Los Angeles was struck by one of the most devastating firestorms in the history of Southern California. The Palisades Fire erupted amid once-in-a-lifetime hurricane-force winds and, within 36 hours, obliterated more than 6,800 structures—most of which were family homes—erasing them from the face of the earth. At least 12 fatalities were attributed to this event.

Within days of the fire, numerous wild theories arose regarding its cause, the most popular being electrical utilities, despite there being no utilities in the area where the fire originated. Soon, highly charged politics began to dominate the Origin and Cause inquiries, with some blaming the homeless, others faulting policies from the Mayor, the Governor, and even presidential administrations. A few voices pointed accusatory fingers at local and state fire agencies.

Very shortly, however, “evidence” began to emerge in the form of credible eyewitness accounts, footage from local camera systems and university cameras designed to monitor wildfire activity, as well as satellite imagery. Within the fire scene investigation community, this is known as “data.” The gathering of all available (credible) data is the hallmark of the Scientific Method of Inquiry, which forms the basis for all fire origin and cause investigations.

Within a couple of weeks, enough credible data was found to narrow the Palisades Fire’s origin to a small area, practically within the burn scar of a much smaller brush fire that had occurred six days earlier on New Year’s Day. This smaller brush fire, covering 8 acres, was known as the Lachman Fire. Even LAFD radio traffic for the first engines responding to the Palisades Fire indicated it was near the origin of the prior Lachman Fire.

The Lachman Fire was first observed at 12:12 a.m. on January 1st and was originally believed to have been ignited by fireworks in the area. Shortly after the public learned of the previous Lachman Fire, news agencies began asking numerous arson experts if there was a possibility that the Palisades Fire could have been caused by smoldering materials leftover from the Lachman Fire. Multiple members of the SWAIT staff were contacted and provided their preliminary opinions based on video and other evidence.

The consensus among the SWAIT staff and several other wildland experts was that the possibility existed that the Palisades Fire could have been caused by the reignition of latent (hidden) materials from the earlier Lachman Fire. To arrive at this preliminary opinion, the experts considered data including smoke columns within the Lachman burn scar just hours prior to the start of the Palisades Fire. Other data included two views from university cameras showing the first flames observed from both fires (six days apart) appearing in a near-identical location.

There were also statements and cell phone video from local hikers showing smoke seeping from the ground within the Lachman burn scar days prior to the Palisades Fire. Additionally, the following facts were taken into consideration: there were no roads, no vehicle access, no utilities, and no indication of homeless activity anywhere near the origins of either fire. All data pointed to the possibility of the Palisades Fire being a “holdover” or rekindle of the earlier Lachman Fire.

Of course, these were merely preliminary opinions. A detailed Origin and Cause investigation conducted in the proper manner would eventually reveal the truth.

However, politics played a larger role here than in most fire events. The moment anyone even suggested that this could be the result of a rekindle or holdover fire, they were met with instantaneous scorn and criticism. In the linked video, a senior LAFD chief told a large public gathering that the “fire was dead out,” and that if that was found to be true, it would be “a phenomenon.” In a Fox LA news article, an LAFD whistleblower told Fox LA the fire was not completely out and that standard protocols for fighting the fire were not followed. Additionally, civil litigators, seeking to assign blame to the utility companies, publicly dismissed the rekindle theory, doubling down on their claims that this event was “absolutely caused by utility issues.” Still others were “100% sure” this was caused by homeless activity.

All this should be muffled background noise to fire scene investigators. Our job is to ignore politics, wild theories, agendas, conjecture, speculation, and the need to protect the image of a fire agency. Our job is to seek the truth through science-based inquiries, no matter what other parties want. The ATF did that. They brought in their National Response Team and worked alongside professional investigators from local, state, and federal agencies in an exhaustive nine-month investigation. Through science-based methodology, countless interviews, hypothesis testing, and assessment of digital imagery, they arrived at the conclusion that, yes, the horribly destructive Palisades Fire was in fact a “holdover fire” from the previous Lachman Fire (see below).

**Excerpt from the Affidavit submitted in October 2025 by the ATF for the Lachman Fire investigation (agent’s name redacted).**

The report from the ATF names a suspect for the Lachman Fire, and he was subsequently arrested and charged with arson. That opens an entirely different story and legal battle for the future.

In the end, the lesson here is clear. Professional fire investigators are tasked with determining the truth of the event, no matter the local politics, agency wishes, client wishes, or the rhetoric of people in positions of power. We do this through data and methodical investigations.

The SWAIT staff will be following these events closely in the coming months.

SWAIT Experts:

Terry Taylor

Joe Konefal

Ed Nordskog

Scott Fischer

External Links

LA Fire Chief

Citizen video of Lachman Fire smoking days before Palisades Fire

Whistleblower FOXLA story