D4vd Murder Case: Body Part Images Stun Court

[00:00:00] Speaker 1: Celeste Rivas Hernandez, a teenager with her whole life in front of her, was the victim of a brutal, fatal crime. The detail so gruesome, it's difficult to imagine someone actually doing it, but it happened. And prosecutors say it was someone very close to Celeste who was responsible. Her adult boyfriend, who was also a recording artist and internet sensation known as David. [00:00:27] Speaker 2: He will be seeking to hold David to answer for three felony counts of which he has been charged. First degree murder with special circumstances, count of lewd and lascivious acts with a 13-year-old, and the count of mutilation of human remains. [00:00:44] Speaker 1: Prosecutors say David was involved in an inappropriate and illegal romantic relationship with Celeste. And when David's career started to skyrocket, he was afraid that if the public found out he was with a minor, it would destroy his career, his reputation, his fame, and his growing fortune. This is a case with a lot of forensic evidence that prosecutors say paints a picture of murder, dismemberment, and a cover-up. [00:01:13] Speaker 3: We've heard forensic evidence. We've seen digital data. We have heard testimony from detectives who searched the Tesla, where the 14-year-old's remains were found, dismembered in the front trunk. [00:01:30] Speaker 1: Celeste's remains were found in the front trunk of a Tesla. This is a Tesla, a Tesla belonging to David. It took many months to build a case, but now prosecutors are in front of a judge trying to show that there's enough evidence to take a murder case against David to trial. This is such a horrific case. Allegations of chainsaws and dismemberment of a 14-year-old teenaged girl. A girl who trusted and loved the person that prosecutors say is responsible. And why do they say he did it? He did it to get her out of the way, so he could retain his growing fame and his growing fortune. The question is, can prosecutors link him to the murder? Can they prove it? I'm Vinnie Politan. Let's investigate. So this entire case and investigation really takes off when David's Tesla is found. It's found abandoned on the side of the road. It goes to the impound. And what they find inside that car, beyond gruesome. You're talking about the remains of this young teenage girl found inside that car. And that car becomes the first crime scene. You have to examine that crime scene. How do you connect the car itself to the defendant? How do you connect the pieces of evidence and build your case from there? Because it is both the fact of where she is found, as well as what is found within this Tesla, the forensics, and what story they tell. Then there is a second crime scene, which is the house that David is renting. And the items at the house, the things that are seized, and how they can take those items that were seized and build the case. The case of murder and dismemberment. And then the forensics left at the home as well. And perhaps anything from the home that is then connected to the body of Celeste. All of that is so important in building the case against David. Something else they need to do here. And that is, when you talk about the motive, it's connecting the victim and the defendant, David and Celeste. And in this case, they are linked by ink. Tattoos that they each have. She, on her hand, has the word shh. She, on his hand, has her name on one finger. And on another finger, he has a matching shh. Think about how powerful that is. This is an adult male with a minor, an underaged girl, in this relationship. That they both know, if anyone finds out about this, he's in trouble. His career is in trouble. [00:04:53] Speaker ?: So you've got to be really quiet about it. Shh. Don't tell anyone about it. [00:05:00] Speaker 1: And that works right into the motive. Were they at a point in this relationship where Celeste was not happy that she was going to tell someone about this relationship? Someone was going to find out. And David's millions would go right down the drain. That's the motive. You also have to link him to the murder. And can prosecutors, have they linked him to the murder? How do you do that? The physical evidence from those two crime scenes. You've got to connect them to David. If you connect them to David, now you're building a case. Because this will not necessarily be a case of direct evidence. There's no confession. There's no video of the murder. This is going to be a circumstantial case. Built on those pieces of evidence that are coming in in front of this judge. As prosecutors try to demonstrate that there's enough evidence to take this man to trial for murder in this preliminary hearing that is taking place over the course of days. Because of the amount of evidence here. And Julia Dang from NBC LA has been in the courtroom for all of this. And now joins us to talk about some of the evidence presented in this case against David. [00:06:22] Speaker 3: Vinnie, what a day, what a case. We are now on day four of this preliminary hearing in the murder case against 21-year-old David Anthony Burke. Of course, that's D4, VD, TikTok famous singer known as David. We have heard mountains of evidence already. We still don't know if this is officially going to go to trial. I think everybody in that courtroom, I've talked to at least, does expect this to go to trial. The judge just needs to see that there's probable cause here. But we've heard forensic evidence. We've seen digital data. We have heard testimony from detectives who searched the Tesla, where the 14-year-old's remains were found, dismembered in the front trunk. We've heard from LAPD criminalists who were sent to search David's garage, where they found bloodstains in multiple locations. We've heard about bits of a blue inflatable pool, where the victim may have been dismembered. We've heard about bits of that pool actually being found during the autopsy. And we've also seen the cross-examination of an LAPD criminalist. She was the one who was called to process evidence found in David's garage. And that evidence included everything from trash bags to rubber floor mats to bloodstains. She was the one who tested chainsaws found in David's house. This was just about a week after the car was found in the Hollywood tow yard with the victims' remains in the front trunk, of course. So they continued with that cross-examination. And there was a lot of back and forth about the chainsaws. And here's why. Defense attorney Blair Burke noted there was no positive test indicating the possibility of blood on those chainsaws. So she kept on asking this LAPD witness for the prosecution why they didn't take those chainsaws into evidence. It sounded like she wanted to make the point that touch DNA, which they didn't test for, may have indicated something else, may have painted a more comprehensive picture of what exactly happened and who may have been involved, who else may have been involved, that is. But the criminalist was very sharp, very clear with her answers. At one point yesterday, she even brought her notes back out to make sure that she gave precisely the information that was documented during this investigation. So she said there did not appear to be any kind of forensic value to those chainsaws that were found in the garage. And that's why they were not taken in. And my big takeaway from all of this is that perhaps those were not the weapons or tools used for dismemberment, even though they were found in David's garage during this search. There was another chainsaw, a Makita brand chainsaw that we talked about the other day, that was ordered online and delivered to David's house. As far as I know from the evidence presented so far, that chainsaw was not located during this search. The two other chainsaws, and here's why the criminalist said there really was no forensic value. She testified earlier that had they been used for dismemberment, there would have been no way for blood to be cleaned up to the point where their testing did not indicate something of forensic value. So when they did that initial test on scene and there was no presumptive positive, they elected not to take those two chainsaws into evidence. But yes, there is a missing one. There is another one. We heard from another criminalist from LAPD. She did the actual forensic analysis of the inflatable pool. In addition to material that was sent to her by the L.A. County Medical Examiner's Office that was collected during the victim's autopsy. Now that includes, I mentioned her soiled clothing and bits of blue plastic found during the autopsy that were essentially embedded in her remains. So this criminalist actually pieced those bits of blue plastic in with the rest of the inflatable pool that she processed and analyzed, including work that was done under a microscope. And there were exhibits shown during court photos of how those pieces from the autopsy fit in like a puzzle with the rest of that blue inflatable pool. So there was a bit of back and forth. The prosecutor spent quite a bit of time questioning this witness, Lisa LeHentro from LAPD, about her background, her expertise, how she did this work, and what it showed. They described the linear cuts in the pool, exactly where in the pool she noted them. There were four different areas of damage, what she found on the underside of the pool, and how this all fits in with the larger picture that's being painted, which is that Celeste may have been dismembered in this pool. [00:12:09] Speaker 1: Thanks, Julia. Thanks, Julia. We're going to hear more from Julia in just a moment, but I want to go through some of these things that Julia reported. And this is, again, a circumstantial case. You're putting together all these pieces surrounding it, and you want it all to point in one direction. That's how you want to build the case. Let's start with this inflatable pool, and Lauren Wallace from LAPD, a criminalist there, talked about this inflatable pool found in David's garage. Now, just think about that for a minute. Why does he have an inflatable pool? He's renting this beautiful home that, by the way, has an in-ground pool, a heated in-ground pool. I don't see any children running around. What do you need an inflatable pool for? It was found crumpled up in a ball with a fresh laundry smell and no visible stains. Why are you cleaning your inflatable pool that you really don't need, right? Again, these are things that resonate with the jury, because a jury is told to bring your common sense into the jury room when it's time to deliberate. Common sense. Who cleans? Who cleans an inflatable pool, and what person with a beautiful in-ground pool is going out and purchasing an inflatable pool? Give me the innocent explanation for that. And there was a dryer sheet found rolled up inside. This is like amateur hour. We're going to clean up the crime scene by putting it into the washing machine and into the dryer. Now, here's the problem, right? I said amateur hour. The testing of this pool indicated the possible presence of blood. Blood in an inflatable pool that has crumbled up, that has been laundered. Tell me why, all right? That's what I'm doing as a prosecution. I said, what's the innocent explanation? There is no innocent explanation for this. There is no reason to have an inflatable pool with blood that you tried to wash away all the evidence from. Lisa Alejandro, LAPD criminalist, also examined the blue inflatable pool for trace evidence, collected evidence from the pool, including hair, noted four areas of damage to the pool, two seat areas, and two spots where you would rest your arm if the pool was inflated. Two fragments from the medical examiner's office collected during Celeste's autopsy fit into damaged areas of the pool like a jigsaw puzzle. Here you go. You're trying to put together the pieces of the case? They're literally taking pieces that are found with the murdered and dismembered victim and matching them to something found at David's home. It's fitting together. Again, give me the explanation. Why are there pieces of your inflatable pool found with the dead teenage girl? There's no innocent explanation for that. She's now connected to the pool. The pool is connected to his house. This is the type of evidence that, you know, I always talk about direct evidence versus circumstantial evidence. And sometimes, many times, circumstantial evidence is more powerful. Why? Circumstantial evidence doesn't lie. Direct evidence, you know, an eyewitness who sees something, they can lie about it or they can see something that they really don't see. Four people look at a car crash and you get four different stories of what just happened. That's all direct evidence. All right. Which person is the most accurate? You got to figure it out. How do you figure it out? From the circumstantial evidence. If somebody said they saw a green car, somebody else says they saw a red car, and there's a swatch of red paint on the car, hey, the person who saw the red car, that's the story. That's the one who's more accurate. We know why, because of the circumstantial evidence. That's why this could be so, so informative for the jury. And juries like to put things together. They like to think. They like to figure it out because they know and they're told by the judge, that's your job. You, ladies and gentlemen, you are the fact finders. You will tell us what happened. You will tell us what happened based upon the evidence that you received. That's their job. That's their job. All right. Let's get to the chainsaws. Right? This is, it's a huge headline, right? Chainsaws found. It's a case involving dismemberment. So, obviously, this is a big deal. But as you heard from Julia, like, a couple of these chainsaws didn't really provide any evidence. So, they didn't even fully test them. There was no presumptive positive on these chainsaws. By the way, what is he buying all these chainsaws for? That's the first question I think I would have as a juror. Like, are they props? Maybe they're props for one of his music videos. That's going to be the argument for all this stuff, right? Oh, the inflatable pool, that was a prop for the music video. Oh, the chainsaws. That was for another music video. They're going to, I mean, that's what they're going to say. Especially in light of some of his music involving homicide, right? So, here's from Josh Byers, LAPD detective. Two chainsaws also purchased from this Amazon account on May 1st, 2025. Byers positively identifies this product as matching the chainsaws he observed at David's residence. There you go. Now, you're matching the purchases. Now, what you're trying to do here is connect David himself to being the one purchasing these chainsaws. You can't just have chainsaws laying around, like, who's getting the chainsaws and why are they getting them? Prosecutors present photos of a Makita brand 10-inch chainsaw and a Libman brand spin mop cleanup system purchased by the defendant from Home Depot to be delivered by Postmates. We don't catch the smart ones. We don't catch the smart ones. I don't want to hear the argument from the defense. Well, if he was going to do this, why would he do it through Postmates? Because we don't catch the smart ones. That's why. Byers says he did not find this chainsaw at the Doheny Place residence. There's a missing chainsaw. Sometimes, the lack of evidence, a missing piece of evidence, can be as compelling as an actual piece of evidence. For example, Jody Arias. They were tracking her cell phone. And then when she got to Arizona, the place where she murdered Travis Alexander, all of a sudden, her phone goes dark. Her phone. There's no phone signal. Until she exits Arizona and is in another state, then all of a sudden, the cell phone is on. So they can track the cell phone everywhere except the state, city, and town where the murder took place because she shut it off. And the jury found that to be extremely compelling, that lack of evidence, this missing piece. If she was not up to wrongdoing, if she was not committing this murder, why would the phone all of a sudden be off, coincidentally, just as she is entering the place where the murder took place? Jurors can use common sense. So if there's three chainsaws that are purchased, and two are there, but the third's gone, what is the jury going to say? Well, these two have no forensic evidence on them. They weren't used. But we know she was dismembered, and there was a third chainsaw. And that's the one that's missing. We all know that a criminal defendant and accused does not have to take the witness stand. They don't have to testify in their own defense. And many times they don't. Many, many times they don't. It just so happens on Court TV, we get a few more defendants who do testify because of the types of cases and trials that we cover. But day in and day out in courtrooms across America, there are hundreds and hundreds of trials that take place, and a defendant says nothing. However, however, that doesn't mean they don't have an impact on the jury, just by being in the courtroom. A jury's job is to judge a defendant. So they're going to judge the facts, they're going to judge the evidence, but they're also going to judge the defendant themselves to see how they're acting, how they react to certain moments during the trial. It's an opportunity. There was a case involving Jason Williams, who was a NBA star, $90 million contract, et cetera, was charged with manslaughter for shooting his limo driver. He never testified. Yet afterwards, when I spoke with some of the jurors, they talked about him. They talked about his demeanor and how they liked him. Even though he never testified, there was a connection that was made. It was quite interesting from my perspective to hear that. So it kind of reaffirmed to me that jurors pay attention. They pay attention to defendants. So let's talk about this defendant. He's a performer, internet sensation, recording artist, et cetera. So someone used to being in front of people, used to performing, whether it's in front of a camera or on stage, in front of a live audience. So his demeanor inside the courtroom also will be very significant, even if he never takes the witness stand. Julia Dang, NBC LA, still with us and has a look at David's demeanor so far during this preliminary hearing. [00:22:24] Speaker 3: Vinny, I do want to spend some time talking to you about the defendant's demeanor in court. I had a conversation with the courtroom sketch artist who has a really interesting perspective, seated in the jury box area, looking right at David. She told me it looks like he's off on another plane. You know, he seems to be emotionless, expressionless. He seems to be very still. You know, there have only been a couple interactions, I've noticed, between him and his attorneys. We've only heard him speak a couple times just to say things like, yes, Your Honor, or yes, I understand. His hair has grown out a little bit. He looks unshaving. He's wearing black glasses. He looks pretty tired. It does not look like he's sleeping well behind bars. He's been wearing the orange LA County jail uniform every day. Now, he has had his handcuffs removed. That was after a motion filed by his team about a week before this started. He's not wearing handcuffs in the courtroom. That's to help facilitate the passing of notes between the defendant and his attorneys. But he does have shackles around his waist and his feet. It's really interesting to me, Vinny, how he's staring straight ahead, staring right at the projection monitor above the witness's head for a lot of this, including during disturbing, unsettling portions of testimony. When the prosecution showed the court images we hadn't seen previously, showing the victims' remains in cadaver bags that were found in the front trunk of his car, I was watching David. He was staring straight ahead at those exhibits, not visibly reacting in any kind of way. It really makes you wonder who this person is and what might be going through his head right now. [00:24:26] Speaker 1: And Julie's going to stick around. She has some more for us from the courthouse. But that demeanor, folks, that's not good. That is not good. That will not play well in front of a jury. The fact that someone you know and, you know, you can try to distance yourself from that relationship as much as you want, but between the tattoos and everything else that's coming in front of this jury, that's not going to work. You have to be impacted by the fact that someone that you spent time with, someone that at a minimum was a friend and is dismembered. And, I mean, you've got to show something. You've got to humanize yourself. Right? I mean, there's a couple different ways, like there could be outrage that you're even being charged with this, but how about some emotion for a 14-year-old girl who was murdered and dismembered? Like, that's real. Like, that's a real person. But that reaction, not going to play well. I'm telling you. I've seen it. Will not play well. Now, there's something else that came up during all this, and it's interesting because part of the backstory, with Celeste, is that she's a teenager, but she left home. She was sort of a runaway. Parents love her, obviously, but sometimes there's things that happen when a teenage girl gets rebellious and, for whatever reason, leaves the house. So there was sort of a welfare type of visit that was done to ascertain if Celeste was okay. And this goes back to February of 2024. This is a few months before all this other stuff happens, and she's murdered. So February 2024, there's a welfare check. Juan Gonzalez, senior deputy, conducted that welfare check. And there is body camera video of that welfare check. So he was assigned to check if a minor female named Celeste Rivas was at the residence. So he goes there. David answered the door by himself during the check and told him Celeste was not there and that he had not seen her since November 12, 2023, and had not spoken with her since February 13th of 2024. So right out of the box, he knows he's not supposed to be with this teenage girl. So he's creating that distance because this isn't a murder case at this point. This is a welfare check. We're trying to see where this young girl is, and he is an adult male. He knows he can't be with her. This plays into the motive now. This plays into the relationship, the nature of the relationship, his reaction to it, his knowledge of it, and how that all sort of works together to build up here for the judge, but ultimately if it goes to trial for the jury, the nature of this relationship. So the body cam of the welfare check, David is eating chips and speaking casually with deputies in the body cam. So he's not concerned. He seems to be very casual about it, eating chips, whatever you're looking for this girl. This is what David says. Just so you know, there's alcohol in the fridge. And the deputy says, all good. We're not here for that. We're not here because there's alcohol. David says he met Celeste on Discord at the end of 2021. So she's like really young. Somebody sent me a yearbook photo. She says she's 18, says David. I heard she's 13. The deputy asked David, does she look 13? So here's the whole age thing and the knowledge of the age. But David is described as very cooperative. And he told David that he was not investigating. He was just looking for a missing girl. So at this point, she's missing, still alive, but missing. But here we can see how the relationship goes all the way back to 2021 when there was some sort of a connection made. You know, it's interesting. Every time we get a new case at Court TV, and this goes back, as long as I've worked here, right? The first thing we always look at is like, what's the defense? What's the defense? We say that because we know prosecutors aren't going to charge someone if they don't have a theory, if they don't have evidence. And usually we've kind of heard about it beforehand, but the big mystery is always like, what's the defense? What's his defense? What's her defense? What's she going to say? And that's the thing we don't know and are usually most interested in as we move towards a trial. Well, that's also something that you can pick up during a preliminary hearing, right? The defense isn't here to prove anything, but you can tell by the way they attack the evidence being presented, where their focus is, where their strategy is. So we're going to go back to Julia Dang from NBCLA, again, who's been in the courtroom for all of this, for a look at some of the evidence and where the defense strategy seems to be going. [00:29:43] Speaker 3: We have already heard mountains of evidence. We have heard forensic evidence. We have seen body cam footage. We have seen digital data. And we have heard from a selection of witnesses who were involved in doing the victim's autopsy, who searched multiple locations connected to this alleged crime, including the defendant's garage, his vehicle. We've heard from criminalists who actually processed those scenes, took samples of different bloodstains, did the DNA testing. There's so much here. There's so much here. But what really struck me during a lot of this preliminary hearing was how David's defense attorneys are trying to find gaps everywhere they can. Their strategy seems to be clear. They've got a line of questioning where it looks like they're trying to question the chain of custody around critical evidence. It seems like they're asking every single witness, did you personally find and collect that piece of evidence? If not, who had it before you? Was it left unattended for any period of time? Could it have been contaminated in some kind of way? So they've asked that about evidence from the car, evidence from the garage. And this is critical evidence. You know, we're talking about trash bags where bloodstained wipes were found. We're talking about data collected from various devices that had been attributed to David. We're talking about data showing where the defendant's Tesla was driving at specific times critical to this case. Here's something that was raised yesterday during the preliminary hearing. On cross, defense attorneys asked a witness who testified about David's Tesla being driven up to Santa Barbara right after Celeste was allegedly killed and dismembered. And they asked that witness, is there anything proving the defendant was actually the one driving the car? Is there anything proving the defendant was actually the one on that iPhone that was with the car? And that witness had to say, no, there was nothing. So there's a lot of circumstantial evidence here. And it seems like there are many gaps for the defense to raise questions. Now, if that does ultimately amount to reasonable doubt in the minds of jurors, we'll see. But for now, we still have to get through more testimony from more witnesses and see if and when this actually goes to trial. [00:32:26] Speaker 1: And we'll have more from Julia in a moment. I want to talk about this defense first. Like, there's different types of defenses, but there's one that I call the fallback defense. That's the one where, eh, you know, the evidence is pretty strong on the other side. And we really don't have an alternative theory on what could have happened to Celeste. And that's the one where we have the classic, cliched, sloppy investigation and, you know, you can't meet your burden, right? That's the way our system works. Prosecutors have to meet their burden. If they don't meet their burden, the person's found not guilty, even if they did it. If you haven't met your burden of proof, okay? That's the basis of the system. I get it. But when you're talking about the truth of what happened here, and is there some other suspect? Like in Karen Reed, there was an alternative theory to the case. Like a whole other narrative of what could happen. What's the alternative narrative here? I don't know if it exists. I mean, what I'm hearing from the defense, it seems like they're going to rely upon lack of evidence. They haven't proven it. So we don't know what happened, which you're permitted to do. But, like, what does it mean? What does it mean? Like, to me, it's a much more difficult defense when you have evidence like this. And then the sloppy investigation. I mean, are you going to allege that they're trying to plant evidence? Probably not. I don't think you're going that far. But just, oh, you should have done this. You should have done that. We don't know what happened. We just have no idea. That's where the defense is going. And to me, that's the fallback defense. It's legit, but it's a fallback defense when you really have no alternative theory about what happened. Because the evidence is kind of pointing one way and one way only. Speaking of that evidence, let's talk about tracking his cell phone on the day and night of the alleged murder by David. William Rucker, LAPD, from the cellular analysis survey team, they analyzed the records for David's phone and for his Tesla. Because remember, he's in a Tesla. So you can track everything that happens in one of those cars. And they tracked it from the 23rd to the 24th. They believe the murder took place on the 23rd. Records show his phone at the residence on that night. But then the Tesla records show the vehicle moved westbound from the house on Sunset Boulevard around 11.31 p.m. late at night. The Tesla records from 11 on April 23rd through just after 4 a.m. on the 24th. Data shows the Tesla moving northwest to Santa Barbara County in a pretty desolate area off of State Road 154. Why in the middle of the night is your Tesla going up to Santa Barbara into a desolate area? Why on earth would you do that? Circumstantial evidence, folks. Big circumstantial argument coming up here as we put the pieces together. The Tesla returns to the Hollywood Hills around 7.06 a.m. on the 24th. Cell analysis shows the defendant's iPhone was moving with the Tesla. So it's not someone else driving the Tesla or it's someone else with David's phone. So he's being framed by someone or he is driving his Tesla in the middle of the night, all night long, all the way up to Santa Barbara to a desolate area, and then making an outgoing call from his phone to Celeste's phone just after midnight. Why is all of this important? Why is this trip so significant? You ready for the aha? Found on the side of the road off of State Road 154 in Santa Barbara County is the passport of the victim, Celeste Rivas. Through the years, I've covered so many cases, and sometimes what happens during the course of a trial is that the victim gets lost. The victim never becomes real inside the courtroom. And sometimes there's challenges that prosecutors have. Sometimes there's prosecutors that just aren't good at that. And then there are prosecutors who are really good and understand the importance. When you're talking about a crime, when you're talking about a murder, there's a victim. That victim cannot walk into the courtroom. That victim cannot testify. But you need to make that victim real to the jury so they understand that this is not a true crime mystery on television. This is not something that is not extremely real. And it's not to pull at emotional strings. It's to get the jury to understand this actually happened. This really happened. The loss is real. She was a teenage girl. And in this case, I don't think this jury will miss out on that fact. One, I think you have an incredible prosecutor working the case, number one. But number two, the parents. Celeste's parents will be there. Celeste's parents are here for the preliminary hearing as well. They're there. And that doesn't get lost on a jury. It doesn't get lost on anyone who's inside the courtroom. I've been in those courtrooms when you have a victim's parents or loved ones in the courtroom. And there is a deference that you have towards them and how you look at them and you look to them as they experience all of this horrific evidence. And they're going to be an important part of this trial, whether they testify or don't testify. Just by being there, their presence will be obvious to this jury. Julie Dang, still with us inside the courtroom for all of this and has some more information and observations of Celeste's parents inside the courtroom. [00:38:34] Speaker 3: Vinny, two other people in that courtroom I've been watching very closely are the victim's parents. Jesus, Rivas, and Mercedes. Celeste's father and mother. We had a conversation with their attorney, their wrongful death attorney, who's not actually involved in these criminal proceedings. But this civil attorney told me he was actually a little bit surprised when the two of them elected to sit through most of this preliminary hearing. There has been truly disturbing, horrifying, grisly, gruesome evidence shown and discussed during this hearing. They've sat through most of it. They've sat through most of it. Their attorney tells me they want to be there to support Celeste. They want to see justice served. But when they left the courthouse after the second day of this multi-day hearing, he told me they just want to get home. They haven't spoken publicly just yet during this preliminary hearing, but I do want to paraphrase for you a remark that the victim's mother, Mercedes, made outside the courtroom in the hallway. She said in Spanish that nobody, nobody knows what this feels like for her. [00:40:06] Speaker 1: And a big thank you to Julia Dang from NBC LA for all that incredible reporting. So with the parents in the courtroom, the question during the trial will be, will they stay in there during some of the more gruesome testimony? Will they be there in the descriptions and the images of their daughter dismembered? I want to return now to where we started all of this in this episode and go back to the first crime scene. Josh Byers, LAPD detective, was called out to a Hollywood tow yard for a death investigation after a body was found in the front trunk of the Tesla. The Tesla had received a citation on September 3rd, was then impounded on the 5th at the tow yard. The manager of the tow yard called police after noticing a strong odor, and that odor is absolutely strong. You'll recall in the trial of Casey Anthony, 12 people testified about that strong odor. Jury didn't buy it, but that's another story for another day. But the odor is, it's unique. And you know it when you smell it. Now, when the detective arrived at the front trunk of the Tesla, it was already open. Photos of the fully unzipped cadaver bag show the head and torso intact, but no arms or legs. Jury's going to see this evidence. Jury's going to see this. Head and torso, no arms or legs. The photos show the victim is face down in the cadaver bag. Two arms and legs cut into four pieces, severed at the kneecaps found in the second bag inside the front trunk. The shh tattoo on the right index finger. [00:42:18] Speaker ?: Shhh. Don't tell anyone about our relationship. Shhh. [00:42:25] Speaker 1: That shh is speaking very loudly right now. The left ring finger and left pinky finger removed and not found with the limbs. Composition and skin slippage made the face, and this is brutal. Unrecognizable. And you think about what this little girl went through. She ran away from home. She connected, allegedly, with this internet sensation, this internet star who paid attention to her. Made her feel like she was important. And in the end, she ends up dead. And severed. Inside. His Tesla. The case is continuing. Judge has to make the decision whether or not this will be a trial. That's it for now. I'm Vinnie Politan. Thank you so much for watching. And as always, please don't forget to hug the kids.