What A Shocker
As a music enthusiast, I—along with virtually everyone else on the internet—was stunned to learn that the artist whose songs carried me through quarantine was under suspicion in a murder case. When the Los Angeles Police Department confirmed that a body had been discovered in a vehicle registered to the musician known as d4vd, headlines spread faster than the facts. Within hours, timelines filled with fans offering their speculation, theories, and defenses. In the court of law, a person remains innocent until proven guilty; in the court of public opinion, guilt often arrives with the first trending hashtag.
This growing divide between the legal presumption of innocence and the social presumption of guilt sits at the center of d4vd’s worsening controversy. The questions I have to ask stretch far beyond the immediate investigation: What does ownership mean when property becomes evidence? And to what extent does digital culture blur the lines between accountability and speculation?
As the investigation develops, these questions expose not only the fragility of reputation but also the uneasy intersection of law and media in the age of virality.
So, What Happened?
On September 8, Los Angeles police discovered a body inside an impounded Tesla registered under d4vd’s actual name, David Anthony Burke. Days later, the corpse was identified as 15-year-old Celeste Rivas Hernandez, who had been reported missing in April of 2024. Celeste had likely been dead for several weeks before discovery. Her remains were heavily decomposed and placed in the front truck. As stated by LAPD Captain Scot Williams, “We know for sure that Celeste Rivas Hernandez died and was then placed in the front truck area of David Burke’s Tesla.”
Let’s Talk About the Car
If we take a pause here in the timeline of his controversy, a few major points arise. In law, ownership establishes proximity, not culpability. However, in public perception, the distinction often dissipates. With that being said, what legal implications are there of the car being registered to d4vd?
Firstly, ownership of a vehicle doesn’t necessarily mean ownership of everything that happens to it, but it contributes as a factor in legal investigations. Undeniably, law enforcement will begin by identifying the owner of the vehicle involved. Depending on the jurisdiction and the specific circumstances, vehicle owners can sometimes be held vicariously liable for the actions of others using their car, especially in cases like this where the vehicle was not properly maintained—hence the impoundment. Additionally, the fact that the car is tied to a public figure like d4vd draws attention and fuels speculation, leading to premature judgments.
And so, while the legal framework aims to differentiate between ownership and direct responsibility, the reality, particularly for public figures, involves a situation where ownership can be a contributing factor both legally and in the broader context of public scrutiny.
What Did the Public Have to Say?
Unsurprisingly, the public had an overwhelmingly negative opinion of the situation. From the early stages of the investigation to the eventual declaration that he was not a suspect, the media and its consumers have been relentlessly critical of both the police’s handling of the case and David himself. This duality of such critiques, both legal and individualistic, creates room for questioning the inherent risks of defamation involved when the media asserts guilt without sufficient proof.
Beyond the immediate fall from stardom and retraction of his fanbase, the legal risks are substantial. For David, the damage to his reputation may prove to be irreversible. So far, Crocs and Hollister have both removed him from their campaigns, the remainder of his U.S. tour has been canceled, some European tour dates have also been canceled, and his album promotion has been rescinded. Future repercussions could consist of the loss of endorsement deals, canceled projects, and a lasting public stigma.
For media outlets, the rush to judgment without due diligence can result in costly defamation lawsuits, tarnishing their credibility and potentially leading to significant financial penalties. The legal ramifications can extend to a loss of public trust in their journalistic integrity, a dangerous precedent for the broader media landscape. This situation underscores the critical importance of journalistic ethics, responsible reporting, and the fundamental principle of “innocent until proven guilty.”
At The End of the Day
On the note of being “innocent until proven guilty,” what legal standard is needed before someone is formally a suspect or charged with a crime? Complementarily, how are public/fan/alleged evidence treated vs what’s admissible in court? Many people were stumped as to how David was officially disregarded as a non-suspect. To put it bluntly, it hasn’t even been proven that Rivas was murdered. When her death certificate was released, the medical examiner deferred her cause of death. What may seem obvious to the public has yet to be proven by authorities. In fact, as of this writing, the medical examiner is reportedly still waiting on toxicology results and is working with police to find out exactly how she died. Investigators searched the vehicle and traced it to a home in Hollywood Hills, where d4vd once stayed.
Over the past few weeks, internet sleuths have uncovered various connections between d4vd and Rivas. Rivas’ mother confirmed her daughter dated a man named David and that they shared the same tattoo. Notably, fans have found old livestreams showing them together and even a leaked d4vd song titled “Celeste,” with lyrics like “Oh Celeste / The girl with my name tattooed on her chest / I hear her voice each time I take a breath / I’m obsessed,” being reported by TMZ. However, despite these alleged connections to the 15-year-old, there is currently no evidence linking d4vd to her death.
Wrapping Things Up
With the news being dropped that David Burke is in fact not a suspect, concerns regarding the protection of minors have stirred. As the investigation unfolds, the tension between allegations and the accused continues to define how audiences, brands, and the legal system navigate the legacy of artists under scrutiny.