Horrific Autopsy Photos Stun Court in D4vd Murder Hearing

[00:00:00] Jesse Weber: A very important day in accused murderer David's preliminary hearing because not only did the deputy medical examiner testify about the cause and manner of death of 14-year-old Celeste Rivas Hernandez, but we just got an idea of what the defense may be doing, what they may argue if this case goes to trial. And I will tell you right now, it is something. Welcome to Sidebar, presented by Law & Crime, I'm Jesse Weber. Okay, day four, David's preliminary hearing. Remember, this is all to determine if there is sufficient evidence, if there is probable cause, sufficient probable cause to support the charges that he faces for this to go to trial. Remember, he's facing murder, continuous sexual abuse of a child, unlawful mutilation of human remains charges, all in connection with the death of 14-year-old Celeste Rivas Hernandez, whose decomposed, dismembered remains were allegedly found in a Tesla allegedly registered to David. So now we are going back, and today's big, because this is the testimony of the deputy medical examiner, Dr. Grant Ho. Let's talk about it. Okay, let me bring in our eyes and our ears once again, Julia Deng, NBC LA reporter who has been fantastic throughout all this. Good to see you again. There's a lot to get into here. There is a lot to get into when we talk about the deputy medical examiner's testimony. And before we even do that, we've always started by talking about David's demeanor in the courtroom. And the way that we've gone through it for the past several days, it's that he looks kind of bored, he looks like he, you know, you described the court reporter even said yesterday that he looks like he's on another plane, disengaged. So today, though, if I'm reading the notes that you sent over, a little bit different from David today, right? [00:01:47] Julia Deng: A tiny bit, Jesse. He is a little bit more animated. He came in today, you know, wearing the standard LA County jail uniform, that orange jumpsuit. He's got a shirt on underneath it, hair is kind of grown out, he looks tired, unshaven, but he did seem a little bit more animated. He sat down, had a conversation with one of his defense attorneys, and then started smiling and chit-chatting a little bit with her. And that was different. But once testimony started up again, and we were hearing from the deputy medical examiner, one of two people involved in actually performing the autopsy on Celeste after her remains were found in David's Tesla, he went back to his usual, you know, expressionless, emotionless, really motionless pose sitting at the council table. He's staring straight ahead, kind of just blinking at the witness on the stand, staring at the exhibits on that overhead monitor, and really not moving, not reacting. [00:02:59] Jesse Weber: And by the way, before we even get into the substance of the testimony, where I really think it's interesting what both this medical examiner had to say and what the defense has been saying, The photos that were shown to the whole gallery which you saw, your reporting indicates there was an audible reaction in the courtroom to those photos. Can you describe what you mean by that? [00:03:21] Julia Deng: There was an audible reaction. There was an audible reaction. There was a visceral reaction. And let me describe to you what happened, possibly by accident. Before we were actually shown the exhibits that we were supposed to see in the order that they were supposed to be presented. During this deputy medical examiner's testimony, the projector in the courtroom actually flipped through numerous autopsy photos before we were supposed to see that. So imagine, right, this overhead monitor, kind of like flipbook style, in a matter of seconds, going through probably about half a dozen photos. I'm talking on topsy photos, showing the victim's torso, open chest cavity, extremities, laid out, you know, cleaned off and laid out on a silver exam table. And there was an audible gasp, you know, a reporter sitting behind me in the courtroom. You could hear her reacting to this. You could you could see everybody reacting, I think, very viscerally. But Dr. Grant Ho, the witness on the stand right now, she's going through this methodically, step by step. For him, this is his day to day. This is just part of his job. And he's answering the questions that way. There's nothing emotional, nothing grisly or gruesome about any of this to him. [00:04:56] Jesse Weber: Makes you think about that job. I mean, my gosh. All right. I know this is a 180. I get it. But I have to call this out because I think it's really concerning. Why are so many of us still settling for earning almost nothing on our savings? Is that how you just thought banking worked? Well, this is why I got to tell you about China. So with our sponsor, China, this is America's number one choice for banking. You could earn 3.75% APY on savings. That is nine times the national average. And you only need to set it up once. Your money is going to grow automatically, even while you sleep, by the way. You can set savings goals in the app, too, for an upcoming European vacation, a new laptop or tablet, a new car, an emergency fund, you name it. There are no monthly fees or minimum balance requirements. It's just your money growing. And Chime wants you to keep more of your money and earn on it. So make the switch to Chime and go to Chime.com/sidebar. It's going to be at the top link in the description box. Or you can scan the QR code on screen. Only takes a few minutes to sign up. And make sure you go through my link to support the channel. But that is Chime.com/sidebar. Join the millions who are already banking. Be free today. Okay. So today's an important day. There has been so much about evidence about David's alleged illegal relationship with Celeste. There's been a lot of evidence and testimony regarding the potential cleanup, the dismemberment. When it comes to the actual killing, when it comes to the actual alleged murder, this is what we were waiting for. What did Dr. Grant Ho say about the cause and matter of death of Celeste Rivas Hernandez? [00:06:31] Julia Deng: There is a lot of back and forth during this cross-examination now of Dr. Grant Ho, but he repeated findings from the medical examiner's office that have already been published. This was released months ago. We have reported on this, but he walked us through with the support of visuals this time that we have not previously seen from the autopsy. He walked us through what they already found months ago. They decided the cause and manner of death of 14-year-old Celeste Rivas Hernandez was homicide, and they attributed her death to multiple penetrating injuries. Here's what's interesting, though. They did not identify what kind of weapon or tool caused those penetrating injuries, and they stopped short of actually calling it a penetrating injury caused by a sharp instrument. So they're not saying that she was definitely stabbed to death, and that's because of the advanced state of decomposition. They simply don't know for sure exactly how or what caused a lot of what they found, which we are looking at right now in the courtroom, documented in these very, very visual exhibits. [00:07:58] Jesse Weber: Let me tell you why that's so significant. You know, but our audience should know. One of the special circumstance allegations in this case that has been presented by prosecutors is that David Anthony Burke personally used a deadly and dangerous weapon, a sharp instrument, to commit this crime. And yet what you're telling us is this deputy medical examiner can't definitively say that that's the case. [00:08:21] Julia Deng: We don't know that for sure. And I think defense attorneys made a point of underscoring that several times. That is one of the elements of this first-degree felony murder charge that is interesting, that is different, right? And if he is convicted, there could be a sharp instrument enhancement. I believe in the state of California that could tag on an additional consecutive year. But those three additional special circumstances, that makes this murder case eligible for the death penalty. But here's what else the deputy medical examiner doesn't know for sure. And defense leaned really hard into all of this on PROS. They don't know which penetrating injury occurred first. There's one on the victim's abdomen, and there's one on her lateral left chest. So one is associated possibly with liver damage, the other possibly with rib damage and diaphragm damage. Deputy Emi can't say which one happened first. He can't say definitively whether or not they may have happened seconds apart. He cannot say which one caused her death. He cannot say how long it may have taken Celeste to die from either one of those injuries. There's so much we simply don't know. And that created a gap for one of the defense attorneys to ask something that we have not heard yet in this case. She asked this witness, this deputy medical examiner, if he could rule out that Celeste may have inflicted both of these stab wounds on her own. And he said, based on his findings in this autopsy, that was not something that he could definitively rule out. The reaction in the courtroom following that line of questioning, though, I turned around and I could see a couple of people, you know, glancing at each other, eyebrows raised. It looked and felt to me like people watching this line of questioning felt like it may have been bordering on the absurd. So it may not be something a jury would believe. [00:10:50] Jesse Weber: Let's map that out for a second. So in other words, and this is based on what we saw this week from the defense there. They are potentially building the argument if this goes to trial. And correct me if I'm wrong, that Celeste would have come over to his place. Something happened. She killed herself or had an overdose. David panicked and tried to get rid of her body. I mean, is that something that you see the building blocks for, even though they've tried to? Because remember, one of the most significant things I think the defense has been trying to do is saying, well, all these alleged purchases, the chainsaws, the laundry bags, the body bag was all after she allegedly died. So it's not like he planned to kill her. Am I understanding that that's maybe the building blocks of where they may go as a potential defense? [00:11:41] Julia Deng: Jesse, I don't know if that's where the defense is actively trying to go. I think this is their opportunity during this preliminary hearing to kind of test out different lines of questioning, right? See what sticks, see where the biggest openings might be for them to just create more gaps in the prosecution's case. I don't believe that line of questioning is going to go anywhere. But here's how they laid it out this morning. Marilyn Bidnarski was the one asking Dr. Grant Ho these questions. She wanted to know first, is it helpful for somebody doing an autopsy to maybe have information about whether the decedent has a mental health history? Is it helpful to know if they are suicidal? Is it helpful to know if they are habitual drug users? So to each of those questions, Dr. Ho answered potentially. So then she asked him, did you have any conversations with the decedent's relatives to explore those characteristics? He did not. So then she proceeded to ask about the injuries, right? The documented injuries, these penetrating wounds, the disruption to one of her ribs, the damage noted on her liver. And a defense wants to know, you know, can you definitively link those observations that were made during the autopsy to what you see on the overlaying skin? And do you know exactly how that occurred? Are you able to definitively report that somebody else caused those injuries? And I think the broad answer to all of this is the advanced state of decomposition precludes a lot of definitive inflammation. The deputy M.A. simply cannot say how this happened or who did this to her. I don't know if this is actually going to end up being a building block for an argument that Celeste killed herself. But it's certainly a line of questioning that I think any sharp defense attorney would explore during this opportunity, during this preliminary hearing that we've been calling kind of a mini bench trial or a rehearsal for trial, if you will. [00:14:15] Jesse Weber: And I mean, if they're trying to muddy the waters in terms of how long had she been dead for, you know, they might be suggesting, can you definitively say she died on that night in April? Well, what about this whole back and forth about a gunshot wound? [00:14:31] Julia Deng: This was interesting, too, because this was new. And Dr. Ho just clarified on the stand before we broke for lunch that his way of saying anything could have happened to inflict what he'd observed on her ribs, damage to one of her left ribs, that could have come from anything. He cannot say with certainty that it came from a knife or another sharp instrument. And the reason, again, that they attributed her death to penetrating wounds as opposed to a sharp instrument is because they cannot rule out a possible gunshot wound with an exit wound in her body. They don't know for sure what killed Celeste. [00:15:18] Jesse Weber: And there was also a discussion about the chainsaws, right? So, in other words, yesterday, in the past few days, we know that chainsaws were collected. But as far as we know, they tested negative for blood. There seems to be one chainsaw that may be missing. In terms of a chainsaw potentially being used to inflict these injuries on Celeste, whether it was in the form of, you know, her cause of death, maybe to kill her or to dismember her. What was the discussion of chainsaws today? [00:15:48] Julia Deng: So, the witness was very careful to answer that line of questioning. He noted, I think, several times that he is not an expert when it comes to tools, power tools used to dismember bodies. He did offer up some general knowledge about what might lead to the types of cuts that he noted on the victim's body. He described it as clean or smooth around the edges. That, though, I think is going to be called into question as well because the appearance of all of these wounds, right, they have changed post-mortem during decomposition. But he talked about how to cut through soft tissue or organs, you can do that with a scalpel. He talked about how to cut through bone. You might use something like a bone saw. And he said to cut through rib, you would need something essentially like hedge cutters. That's what he said on the stand. Still, he cannot definitively identify what was used to sever this victim's limbs from her body. [00:17:03] Jesse Weber: And to be clear, the prosecution hasn't laid out a specific murder weapon or what happened to a potential murder weapon? [00:17:10] Julia Deng: They have not. Not yet. We do know two of the chainsaws found in David's garage during a search about a week after the Tesla was found with the victim's remains in the front trunk. We do know those two chainsaws tested negative for blood. [00:17:26] Jesse Weber: What about the insect activity? [00:17:28] Julia Deng: That was another detail that I think got a visible reaction in the courtroom this morning. That described the beginning stages of maggots all around the victim's remains when he first got the case when he was preparing to do the autopsy. I think it was a good morning for the victim's parents, both of her parents, who have been sitting in for most of this preliminary hearing to not be in the courtroom. I walked past them in the hallway just now when I was exiting for lunch. They are here. They are in the courthouse. But they elected not to sit in there this morning for this testimony. I think that was an understandable move on their part. [00:18:18] Jesse Weber: Julia, you are as much an expert on this case as anybody I know. So I'm going to ask you this part because I think it's important. As we're recording this, we're coming. We're at the end of the morning session. You're waiting to go back in for the afternoon session over the past four days. And, you know, I you can tell me in terms of timeline whether this is going to go on into Monday or not. What how strong is the prosecution's case right now? So there's two questions, right? There's a question of do they have enough for this to go forward to trial, right? It's a lower standard. It's probable cause. It's not beyond a reasonable doubt. It's just does the prosecution have sufficient evidence to support these charges at this stage to go forward? How strong do you think the case is when it comes to first degree murder, continuous sexual abuse, lawful mutilation of human remains? And where are the gaps or what is missing right now? What is missing right now that they have yet to definitively show? [00:19:14] Julia Deng: I think they had a strong enough case for this to move forward to trial. Now, the threshold for that, as you noted, is far lower than needed for a jury to convict the defendant on all three of those felony counts. Think of probable cause as just 51 percent. I think the prosecution has that. I think Beth Silverman, the deputy DA prosecuting this case, I think she knows they have that. She seems very relaxed today. Definitely more so than yesterday. I talked about how it felt a little bit tense in the courtroom yesterday morning. Different energy today. She actually walked in and realized her phone was missing. She's got staffers looking for it. She is cool as a cucumber today. I think she knows she has a strong enough case for this to go to trial. But what's missing? We haven't seen any definitive proof yet that links David to the actual murder. We haven't seen any video that actually shows him committing that alleged act. We haven't heard from any witnesses who say they watched it happen. That is missing. We don't know what else they may present. This preliminary hearing, of course, is just one step in the process. This is not all of their evidence. These are not all of their witnesses. It's just a selection. So, like we've been saying, there's much, much more to come. [00:20:46] Jesse Weber: Have they shown any evidence about what led up to her allegedly going to his place? And then that fateful night or that alleged fateful night, have they presented any evidence about the timeline leading up to that? And what happened immediately after in the sense there was no more activity from her phone? Because I think that to me is what I haven't seen, but maybe I missed it in terms of what was the communication between the two of them leading up to her allegedly going to his house that night. And she hadn't, by all accounts, been heard from her scene again. What was, you know, not only text messages, was there an Uber receipt? Have we learned any of that yet? Because I think that's going to be a critical piece. Because if they can establish that she got to the house, and then they can establish she's moving the car, and they can establish the alleged dismemberment, that may be what they need. They don't necessarily always need an eyewitness to a murder. They don't always necessarily need surveillance footage. You look at the totality of the evidence. Have they shown any of that yet, leading up the hours, the minutes, the moments before on how she got to his house? [00:21:53] Julia Deng: You make a great point there, Jesse. A jury can absolutely convict on purely circumstantial evidence. We do not necessarily need to see surveillance video of David actually murdering Celeste for him to be found guilty. We have heard descriptions of the text message argument between David and Celeste before he sent her an Uber to pick her up in Lake Elsinore and take her to his home in the Hollywood Hills. We've heard descriptions of it. We haven't actually seen that back and forth, those text message records in courts. I imagine we will if this goes to trial. We did hear testimony yesterday about the digital evidence left behind by David's Tesla and his iPhone. We heard about the exact timing and the approximate location of where both his phone and his Tesla were tracked, leaving his home and then going up north toward Santa Barbara County. That's, of course, where he's accused of dumping evidence related to this case. But defense, right, they jumped in immediately on cross and said, you cannot prove David was actually the one in the car. You cannot prove David was actually the one using his own phone. But there was an outgoing call about an hour, maybe an hour and a half after Celeste would have been dropped off at his home in the Hollywood Hills from David's iPhone to her number. But again, like defense attorneys noted, nobody can prove just yet that David was actually the one who made that call that went to voicemail. I think prosecution brought that up as just another detail supporting their narrative that he tried to cover this up. [00:23:45] Jesse Weber: Before I let you go, because I know you have to run, I just want to ask you one more point point about this. Look, we know the medical examiner has been in the news a lot that office in terms of alleged leaks of information potentially regarding Celeste case. We know that there was this a little bit of back and forth between them and the LAPD regarding a ceiling of records for several, several months in this case. Did any of that conversation come up today? I believe I saw something about the Deputy ME being asked, why was there a delay in terms of releasing or finding out the cause of matter of death? Can you explain if anything came up about that? [00:24:23] Julia Deng: So quite a few parts to that question, Jesse. First, about LAPD and the LA County Medical Examiner's Office. Nothing specifically related to that back and forth came up today. Of course, after the ME's office did the autopsy, right, they came out with a statement saying the victim may have been in that car for quite some time. And then LAPD made a motion requesting that no additional details come out from the autopsy. And then the medical examiner issued another statement saying that they just want transparency around this case. They need that to do their jobs properly. So there was that a couple months ago. This morning, that specific back and forth was not referenced. Now, there was a question about that delay, right? Three month delay. And Dr. Grant Ho explained very clearly on the stand. It was because they had to do some ancillary testing. They were basically waiting for the toxicology testing to be done because they wanted to rule out that an overdose played a role in her death. Once they got that toxicology report back and all they found was inconclusive for methamphetamine negative, ultimately for benzos and a very, very low detection of ethanol in her liver that Dr. Ho says may have actually been produced by the body itself as it was decomposing. After they got those results back, they went ahead and attributed her death to the multiple penetrating injuries. So basically, they had to wait a couple of months so that they could rule out an overdose. [00:26:09] Jesse Weber: Julia Dang, thank you so much for coming on. As always, I know you have to get back into the courtroom. I look forward to talking to you again as this case progresses. And that's all we have for you right now here on Sidebar, everybody. Thank you so much for joining us. And as always, please subscribe on YouTube, Apple Podcasts, Spotify, wherever you should get your podcasts. You can also check us out on NBC's Peacock as well. If you want to follow me, X Instagram, my News Nation show, Jesse Weber Live, Monday through Friday, 11:00 p.m. Eastern. I'll see you next time, everybody.