Singer D4vd named as ‘target’ in murder probe after dismembered body of 14-year-old girl was found in his Tesla

American singer-songwriter, D4vd, has been confirmed as a suspect in the murd£r of 14-year-old girl, Celeste Rivas.

Newly unsealed court documents in Texas, where D4vd  born David Anthony Burke is from, refer to him as a ‘target’ as per ABC News.

The documents, which include petitions for his parents to come and testify in front of a grand jury in Los Angeles, state, ‘Target may be involved in having committed the following criminal offenses…: One Count of Murder.

The petition also states, ‘Target may be involved in the death of 14-year-old victim Celeste Rivas Hernandez, who may have been a victim of foul play.’

Rivas’s remains were discovered late last year inside a Tesla registered to D4vd, 20, which had been parked in a Hollywood tow lot.

The documents also stated that Rivas’s decomposing body had been dismemb£red, and parts were found in two separate bags in a front storage compartment.

Meanwhile, D4vd’s parents are still battling the court order to testify in Los Angeles, their attorney told ABC News, as they believe their due process rights are being violated.

Rivas’s body was found on September 8, but her family said she was last seen in the spring of 2024, when she left home to see a movie with D4vd and never returned.

The Los Angeles Police Department has been investigating her suspicious death and named D4vd as a ‘person of interest,’ although no official charges have been filed.

Grand jury proceedings began in the fall, but have been closed to the public.

Earlier this month, court filings obtained by the Los Angeles Times revealed that D4vd’s family was subpoenaed to testify in the case.

His parents, Dawud and Colleen, and his brother, Caleb, were reportedly summoned to testify before the grand jury.

However, the family filed three petitions in a Texas appeals court, where they currently reside, arguing they weren’t given due process because the affidavits they saw were redacted.

Their lawyers claimed that because they weren’t given the full affidavits, they didn’t have the opportunity to understand why they would be considered material witnesses.