The name D4vd (real nameDavid Anthony Burke) was already trending in music circles as a rising star. But in September 2025, he became the center of a darker storm: a decomposed body discovered in a Tesla registered to him, intensifying rumors, conspiracy theories, and allegations that his phone gallery may hold hidden evidence. Claims are circulating that “he recorded everything” — but how much of that is rumor, and how much might hold up under scrutiny?

The Incident That Changed Everything

On September 8, 2025, authorities in Los Angeles discovered a foul odor emanating from a Tesla impounded at a Hollywood tow yard. Inside the car’s front trunk (“frunk”), they found a badly decomposed and dismembered body.

The vehicle was reportedly registered to D4vd. The body was later identified asCeleste Rivas, a 15‑year‑old girl who had been missing for over a year.

D4vd’s team has claimed he is cooperating with the investigation. In response to the case, promotional activities have been suspended: his deluxe album release was pulled, tour dates canceled, and his label froze marketing efforts.

While authorities have not (as of this writing) charged Burke (D4vd) with homicide, the scene is under active investigation.

The Rumor Mill: “He Recorded Everything”

In the wake of the tragedy, rumors have circulated online that D4vd’s phone gallery contains recordings, photographs, videos — possibly of the victim, interactions, or incriminating content. The idea is: if the Tesla car held the physical body, perhaps the digital traces (on his phone) are even more revealing.

But what is the evidence supporting this idea?

Leaked Video of “Confession” Lyrics

A video from a 2023 concert resurfaced showing D4vd performing an unreleased song whose lyrics appear to refer to lawbreaking. In social media commentary, some interpret the lines as a kind of open confession:

I don’t care about law when I’m with you, ’cause I be breaking it all the time”

Some fans have interpreted this as a hint that darker secrets (potentially recorded) exist in his personal archives. But the lyrics could also be artistic metaphor. The line between performance art and real life is blurred.

Speculation About a “Livestream Confrontation”

Another resurfaced video supposedly shows Celeste confronting D4vd in a livestream, making serious allegations (including references to child abuse). In it, D4vd allegedly orders moderators to delete the footage.

If authentic, this video would be a powerful piece of digital evidence. But at this time, I have not located a verified original source or chain of custody for that clip.

Video & Imagery in His Music Work

Observers have noted unsettling parallels in D4vd’s visuals and music videos. For example, he released a video for “One More Dance” that shows him dragging a body toward a car trunk — imagery some see as eerily echoing what later happened in reality.

Critics question whether such symbolism points to foreknowledge, metaphor, or simply provocative artistry. Without proof of intent or time alignment, it’s speculative.

The “Phone Gallery” Claim as Internet Amplification

The rumor that he “recorded everything” probably gains traction because of pattern recognition: when a celebrity becomes the subject of a sensational crime, people assume they must have digital incriminating data. Social media amplifies such ideas into narratives regardless of verification.

So far, I have found no credible public report confirming that investigators have obtained, leaked, or confirmed use of D4vd’s phone contents as evidence.

What We Do Know — From Official Sources

To assess the plausibility of the “phone gallery” hypothesis, here is what is documented:

The car was registered to D4vd.

Authorities have conducted a search warrant at Burke’s residence, apparently seeking blood evidence and other materials tied to the case.

The audio, video, or data contents of D4vd’s phone havenot been publicly confirmed as having been accessed or displayed in any news report or court document so far.

The deluxe edition of his album (Withered: Marcescence) was pulled amid the investigation.

He canceled remaining U.S. tour dates, and promotions have been halted.

So while official sources confirm a forensic investigation, they have not confirmed that his phone is (or was) a piece of public evidence — at least not at this stage.

Investigative Questions That Must Be Asked

To transform rumor into verifiable journalism, the following lines of inquiry are essential:

Has law enforcement obtained a search warrant for his phone or digital devices?
Investigators often obtain warrants for phones, cloud backups, and connected devices. Has D4vd’s phone been seized and forensically examined?

Were any photos, videos, or notes from the victim in his device backups?
Metadata, timestamps, file locations, deletion records — all could confirm or deny whether recordings existed.

Are there witnesses or third‑party sources who claim they saw or were shown content?
Former friends, collaborators, or insiders might claim they saw images or heard files. Their testimony could corroborate or refute the rumors.

Has any data been leaked or published by credible news outlets?
If investigators released redacted evidence, or if legal filings reference digital evidence, that would be strong confirmation.

Timeline alignment: when were the files allegedly recorded relative to events?
If recordings exist, when were they made? Before or after her disappearance? Do they map to her last known communications?

Digital forensics hidden deletions or wipes
Experts can recover deleted files or fragments; if Burke attempted to wipe files, forensic traces might remain.

Legal and privacy constraints
Even if phone evidence exists, legal battles over privacy, privilege, encryption, and suppression motions may delay public disclosure.

Risks, Speculation, and Ethical Pitfalls

Investigating a live homicide case — especially one involving a minor — requires caution:

Wrongful accusations can ruin lives. Without confirmed evidence, alleging phone recording is dangerous.

Innocent until proven guilty” remains fundamental. No public evidence currently establishes D4vd’s guilt.

Rumor amplification on social media can promote disinformation, taint jury pools, and impede due process.

Journalistic responsibility requires clear labeling of what is fact, what is claim, and what remains unverified.

What Journalists & the Public Should Watch For

Court filings or affidavits referencing D4vd’s devices or “digital evidence.”

Search warrant attachments or redacted exhibits submitted by LAPD or DA’s office.

Media leaks or whistleblowers who were involved in forensic extraction or legal teams.

Statements from defense or prosecution attorneys about phone contents, chain of custody, or motions to suppress.

Forensic experts’ commentary on whether the rumors are technically plausible (e.g., file recovery after deletion).

Public records of digital logs or backup sync behavior (iCloud, Google Photos, etc.) that might show what files have been stored or removed.

Conclusion

The idea that D4vd’s phone gallery is “nasty” and that “he recorded everything” is a sensational claim — one that has captured public imagination amid a tragic and high‑profile case. Yet as of now, it remains a rumor rather than an established fact.

What we do know is that a body was found in a Tesla registered to him, authorities are investigating intimately, and promotional and legal disruptions are underway. But there is no confirmed public evidence that his phone contents have been accessed, leaked, or used in the case — at least in sources I could verify.