News

Los Angeles authorities are investigating musician D4vd, whose real name is David Burke, as a potential suspect in the death of 14-year-old Celeste Rivas Hernandez, whose remains were discovered in the front trunk of his Tesla. The case, which began unfolding months ago, has escalated with the unsealing of court documents revealing Burke is listed as “Target David Burke” in a grand jury subpoena.

The investigation centers around the discovery of Hernandez’s dismembered body in September 2023, after the vehicle was towed from a Hollywood street. The grim find prompted a months-long investigation, and prosecutors began presenting evidence to a grand jury in November, according to Rolling Stone. The case has drawn significant attention, particularly given D4vd’s rising musical profile before the investigation halted his career trajectory.

Details from the Subpoena

According to the subpoena, obtained as part of a legal challenge by Burke’s family in Texas, Los Angeles police found a “black cadaver bag covered with insects and a strong odor of decay” when they searched the Tesla on September 8th. Investigators partially unzipped the bag and discovered “a decomposed head, and torso.” Further examination revealed the victim’s arms and legs had been severed, and were found in a second black bag. Los Angeles County Deputy District Attorney Beth Silverman issued the subpoenas on January 15th, and Superior Court Judge Craig Richman approved them.

The subpoenas sought testimony from Burke’s father, Dawud, mother, Colleen, and brother, Caleb. The First Court of Appeals in Texas denied petitions from the family to avoid testifying, according to court documents. The court specifically referenced “The People of the State of California v. David Burke” as the underlying case, pending in the 506th District Court of Waller County, Texas, with Judge Gary W. Chaney presiding, though no public record of such a case currently exists.

Timeline of Events and Investigation

Authorities located the Tesla abandoned on Bluebird Avenue in the Hollywood Hills, where it had reportedly been parked since late July, around the time D4vd began a national tour. NBC News reports that Celeste Rivas Hernandez was reported missing by her family prior to the discovery of her remains, and was identified the day after she would have turned 15. L.A. Police Captain Scot Williams, who leads the Robbery-Homicide Division, stated the victim had been deceased for “at least several weeks,” and clarified reports that the body had not been decapitated or frozen.

While the Los Angeles Police Department has not officially characterized Hernandez’s death as a homicide, a detective referred to it as a murder investigation in a court filing. Neo Langston, a friend of D4vd, was arrested in Montana after initially refusing to comply with a subpoena and has since been compelled to testify in Los Angeles.

Family Involvement and Legal Challenges

Lawyers for Burke’s family could not be reached for comment. The family has been actively contesting the subpoenas, arguing against their enforcement in Texas courts. The legal battle underscores the seriousness of the allegations and the potential for criminal charges. The investigation has also focused on the relationship between D4vd and Celeste Rivas Hernandez, though the nature of that relationship remains unclear.

D4vd’s national tour was canceled following the widespread media attention surrounding the investigation. His music, which gained popularity through platforms like TikTok, had been rapidly ascending the charts before the allegations surfaced.

As of now, no arrests have been made in connection with the case. The grand jury continues to hear evidence, and authorities are pursuing all available leads. The investigation remains active and ongoing, with the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office carefully considering the evidence presented. The next steps will likely involve further witness testimony and forensic analysis.

This is a developing story. We will continue to provide updates as more information becomes available. Share your thoughts in the comments below, and please share this article with others.

Berlin – A German court has temporarily blocked the country’s domestic intelligence agency, the Bundesverfassungsschutz (BfV), from officially classifying the far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) party as a “confirmed extremist” organization. The ruling, delivered today, stems from a legal challenge brought by the AfD itself, and throws into question the government’s efforts to monitor the party’s activities. The decision doesn’t preclude future classification, but requires the BfV to first address procedural concerns raised by the court.

The classification, if upheld, would have subjected the AfD to increased surveillance, restricted its access to government funding, and potentially limited the employment opportunities of its members in the public sector. The BfV initially placed the AfD under observation in March 2021, citing concerns about the party’s anti-constitutional rhetoric and its connections to extremist groups. The agency formally moved to classify the party as “confirmed extremist” in February 2024, a move the AfD immediately contested. This legal battle centers on whether the BfV adequately justified its assessment with concrete evidence.

Court Cites Procedural Flaws in BfV’s Assessment

The Administrative Court in Cologne determined that the BfV’s reasoning for the classification was insufficient, specifically regarding the evaluation of materials produced by the AfD’s youth wing, the Jugendorganisation (Junge Alternative). According to reports, the court found that the agency did not adequately demonstrate how specific statements and actions of the AfD and its youth organization posed a concrete threat to the constitutional order. The court did not rule on the substance of the BfV’s concerns, only on the process used to reach its conclusion. Tagesschau.de reports the court emphasized the need for a more detailed and transparent justification.

The AfD has consistently denounced the BfV’s monitoring as politically motivated, arguing that it is an attempt to delegitimize the party and suppress dissenting political views. Following the court’s decision, the AfD in Hamburg celebrated the ruling, calling it a “victory for democracy.” The party’s leaders have vowed to continue fighting against what they perceive as unwarranted government interference.

Impact on Domestic Intelligence and Political Landscape

The court’s decision represents a significant setback for the BfV and the German government’s efforts to counter right-wing extremism. The agency now faces the task of re-evaluating its evidence and presenting a more robust justification for classifying the AfD. This process could seize considerable time, potentially delaying any formal classification for months or even years. The BfV has stated it is reviewing the court’s decision and will determine its next steps accordingly.

The AfD has been gaining increasing support in recent years, particularly in eastern Germany. In the 2023 European Parliament elections, the party secured 15.9% of the vote, becoming the second-strongest force in the German delegation. This electoral success has raised concerns about the party’s growing influence and its potential to further normalize extremist ideologies within the political mainstream. The debate surrounding the AfD’s classification is therefore not merely a legal matter, but also a crucial test of Germany’s commitment to defending its democratic values.

The situation is further complicated by internal divisions within the BfV itself. Reports have emerged of disagreements among intelligence officials regarding the extent of the AfD’s extremist tendencies and the appropriate level of surveillance. These internal conflicts have raised questions about the agency’s impartiality and its ability to effectively monitor right-wing extremism.

What to Watch Next

The BfV is expected to announce its next steps in the coming weeks, outlining how it intends to address the court’s concerns and potentially re-submit its request for classifying the AfD as a confirmed extremist organization. The agency will likely need to provide more detailed evidence linking the party’s rhetoric and actions to concrete threats to the constitutional order. The court’s decision will also likely prompt a broader debate about the criteria used to assess political extremism and the balance between security concerns and civil liberties. The ongoing legal and political battle over the AfD’s classification underscores the challenges facing Germany as it grapples with the rise of far-right populism and the threat of extremism.

What are your thoughts on the court’s decision? Share your perspective in the comments below.