On October 6, 2025, the remains of Celeste Rivas Hernandez, a teenager whose body was discovered months earlier in a Tesla registered to the singer D4vd, were laid to rest in a private funeral in Rowland Heights, California. As mourners and family gathered, their grief was compounded by uncertainty: what happened to Celeste? And why, despite the grisly discovery, has D4vd not been publicly named a suspect?

This investigation unravels the timeline, the demands of Celeste’s family, the official stance by law enforcement, and the compelling but unproven connections between Celeste and D4vd (born David Anthony Burke).

The Discovery: From Missing Girl to Body in Tesla

Celeste Rivas Hernandez, age 15, had been missing since April 2024, when she was approximately 13 years old. Over the intervening months, she apparently vanished without resolution. Her family and local authorities had no public breakthroughs until September 2025, when a decomposed body was discovered in the front trunk (frunk) of a Tesla that had been impounded in Hollywood Hills following complaints of a foul odor. That vehicle was registered to D4vd (David Anthony Burke).

Investigators believe the body had been in the vehicle forseveral weeks, and the medical examiner deferred a definitive cause and manner of death while awaiting further toxicology tests. The body was “severely decomposed,” making immediate conclusions difficult. On September 16, 2025, the medical examiner publicly identified the remains as those of Celeste Rivas Hernandez.

Meanwhile, law enforcement executed a search warrant at a Hollywood Hills residence where Burke (or his associates) had stayed or had ties. Computer equipment and various items were seized for forensic analysis. In response to public scrutiny, D4vd canceled remaining U.S. tour dates, and promotional support was withdrawn by some brands.

Yet despite these facts, the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) has confirmed that no suspects or persons of interest have been officially named in Celeste’s death investigation. Multiple reports emphasize that D4vd is not a suspect at this time.

The Funeral, the Family’s Anger, and the Demand for Truth

Celeste’s funeral, held quietly in early October, was closed to the public, reflecting respect for the family’s grief amid chaos. For the Rivas Hernandez family, the service represented a bittersweet milestone: closure of a physical ceremony, but not closure of truth or justice. They have repeatedly demanded answers—not only to how Celeste died, but who was responsible, and why a car in D4vd’s name played such a central role.

Her mother has stated publicly that Celeste mentioned dating someone named “David” before she disappeared. Intriguingly, Celeste had a tattoo on her finger reading “Shhh…,” which matches a tattoo that D4vd allegedly has on his finger — a connection that social media and fan sleuths have spotlighted. These coincidences have fanned public speculation of a preexisting relationship or interaction.

The family, frustrated by the slow pace of investigation, is calling on law enforcement to be transparent, show what the evidence reveals (or conceals), and name whoever may be culpable. In the context of a vulnerable community and a teenage victim, they demand more than statements; they expect accountability.

The sense of injustice is intensified by how easily the case’s narrative has become fuel for rumors. The family’s pain is compounded by seeing speculative articles, sensationalist videos, and online chatter that sometimes skirt between plausible lead and baseless conspiracy.

Why D4vd Is Not a Public Suspect (Yet)

At the heart of much debate is the puzzling question: Why, given the dramatic facts, is D4vd not considered a suspect?

Cause and Manner of Death Unknown

One central reason is that the medical examiner has not determined a cause or manner of death. Because investigators do not yet know how Celeste died—whether by homicide, accident, or natural causes—they lack the foundational basis to name someone as responsible. As LAPD stated:

It remains unclear whether there is any criminal culpability beyond the concealment of her body.”

Until further toxicology, pathology, and forensic findings emerge, law enforcement may not feel justified in naming suspects.

Legal Standards: Evidence Thresholds & Presumptions

Naming a suspect in a potential homicide is not done lightly. Authorities generally require probable cause—a credible body of evidence linking someone to the death. Mere association, circumstantial overlaps, or even suspicious circumstance do not suffice under due process norms.

In this case, while D4vd’s car is tied to the discovery and he has tangential connections (tattoo, possible social links), those are not by themselves legally conclusive. Investigators reportedly consider that multiple individuals may have had access to the vehicle.

Additionally, as one legal analyst put it, “law enforcement does not have the answers they want in order to be able to confront or question D4vd,” especially in absence of a firm autopsy result

Investigative Prudence & Strategy

Some media reports suggest investigators may withhold declaring a suspect while they explore all angles, avoid tipping off potential wrongdoers, and maintain more control over collection of evidence (especially in a high-visibility case). Public naming prematurely risks jeopardizing the integrity of the investigation, media influence, or defense challenges.

Also relevant: D4vd’s team reportedly hired a prominent defense attorney, Blair Berk, well known for handling high‑profile clients. This move suggests preparation to navigate complex legal exposure.

At present, public statements from the LAPD emphasize that the investigation is ongoing, and that D4vd is “cooperating with authorities.”But cooperation does not equal guilt—and legal strategy often includes cooperation until evidence demands otherwise.

Key Unresolved Questions & Challenges

Even with all the pieces known so far, important gaps remain. Below are some of the pressing questions investigators and the public alike still want answered:

When exactly did Celeste die? A precise timeline is essential. The decomposition and delayed discovery complicate estimating the window of death.

Who had access to the Tesla in that time frame? If others had keys or permission to use the vehicle, the circle of possible persons responsible widens.

Did forensics reveal trace evidence (DNA, fingerprints, bodily fluids, fibers)? These physical clues may be decisive. The public has not been told what forensic findings emerged from the car, from the seized computer, or from any residence raids.

What about digital records and communications? Investigators likely examine phones, social media, messages, photos, and logs to trace interactions between Celeste and D4vd, or others.

Was there prior relationship or contact? The finger tattoo “Shhh…” is a conspicuous overlap and raises the possibility of acquaintance or relationship, but coincidence is also possible. Police have not confirmed a relationship.

Why was the car abandoned, impounded, and only later discovered? The lag between abandonment and finding the body raises questions of concealment, oversight, or complicity.

Is the case being treated as a homicide, accident, or undetermined? Multiple outlets say the LAPD is engaging Robbery–Homicide Division investigators. But until the medical examiner definitively rules, classification remains open.

The Emotional Toll & Public Reaction

The Rivas family has borne agonizing uncertainty in the weeks between discovery and funeral. They have publicly expressed frustration, sorrow, and a demand for the truth—not just for closure, but for justice. The quiet funeral was not the end of their journey.

Social media has been rife with speculation. Fans, skeptics, and amateur sleuths have surged over every detail: tattoos, leaked videos, lyrical parallels, car ownership, prior livestreams, and rumors of romantic involvement. But as many legal and journalistic observers warn, speculation does not equate to proof.

The public atmosphere has grown polarized. Some defend D4vd’s innocence, citing “innocent until proven guilty.” Others demand accountability, pointing to the burden of moral responsibility. Meanwhile, public sympathy largely rests with Celeste and her grieving family, whose life was ended under unexplained and likely violent circumstances.The case also reverberates with larger themes: the vulnerability of young girls, the danger of celebrity power, the complexities of forensic science, and the tension between instant public narrative and methodical investigation.

What Happens Next: Steps to Watch

Over the next weeks and months, several developments could determine whether this story shifts from tragedy to legal reckoning:

Release of full autopsy and toxicology reports — these may establish cause/manner of death and narrow time of death.

Forensic results from seized evidence (computers, phones, residences) could yield crucial data: metadata, location logs, message trails, or forensic artifacts.

Questioning or deposing individuals with access to the vehicle or residence—as leads emerge, investigators may name persons of interest or suspects.

Public statements or testimony from D4vd or his team — whether voluntary or compelled, his stance will affect public perception.

Court proceedings or grand jury action — if suspects are named, charges may follow; otherwise the case may languish as unresolved.

Continued pressure from the family and media — the spotlight may spur law enforcement transparency or urgency.

If D4vd is ultimately cleared, the family will still demand answers. If he becomes suspect or is tried, the case may become a high-profile trial with broad implications for celebrity accountability.

Conclusion

The funeral ofCeleste Rivas Hernandez closed one chapter—but opened many more unanswered ones. Her family, mourning a beautiful young life lost, demands clarity: how she died, who is responsible, and why her remains were hidden inside a vehicle tied to a rising star.

At present, authorities have affirmed that D4vd is not a suspect, largely because key forensic and medical determinations (cause and manner of death) remain unresolved. Without them, the law constrains what investigators can publicly assert without undermining due process.