Are there eyewitness accounts, surveillance footage, or phone records placing d4vd with Celeste Rivas?
Executive summary
Available reporting shows police and prosecutors are reviewing video and photos that allegedly place Celeste Rivas with the singer known as D4vd, and a Los Angeles grand jury has recently heard testimony from a record‑company/tour executive; authorities have identified D4vd as a suspect but he has not been charged as of these reports [1] [2] [3]. News outlets say detectives obtained images and video “that appear to show her alongside D4vd” and are examining electronic devices and other evidence while a grand jury considers the case [1] [4] [5].
1. What reporting says about eyewitnesses, footage and phone records
Multiple outlets report law‑enforcement sources say detectives have reviewed videos and photos that appear to show Celeste Rivas and D4vd together; investigators have also seized electronic devices from the singer for forensic review, and those materials are part of what the grand jury is considering [1] [4] [6]. Those accounts do not quote or publish the footage itself in public reporting; rather, they describe investigators’ possession and review of imagery and seized devices [1] [4].
2. Grand‑jury testimony and who has been questioned
Recent coverage says a grand jury in Los Angeles has heard testimony from the head of D4vd’s record label and touring company — questioning focused in part on why people connected to the singer did not notify police after the Tesla was found, according to news reports [5] [3] [7]. The executive, Robert Morgenroth by name in several pieces, appeared before the panel and was asked why authorities were not alerted earlier [5] [7].
3. What outlets say about a suspect designation and evidence status
Reporting states that law‑enforcement sources regard D4vd as a possible suspect and that detectives are still investigating the cause and timing of Celeste’s death; authorities have not publicly tied a definitive cause or a publicly released chain of evidence that places D4vd at the precise moment of death [4] [1]. Coverage underscores that no criminal charges had been announced at the times of these stories and that the DA’s office was reviewing evidence before any charging decision [4] [6].
4. What is publicly shown vs. what investigators say they possess
News articles repeatedly distinguish between materials in investigators’ possession (photos, videos, electronic devices) and public release of those materials — reporting indicates authorities obtained images and videos “that appear to show her alongside D4vd,” but those images and videos have not been disseminated in the press according to these sources [1] [2]. In other words, outlets report the existence of imagery without publishing it and cite unnamed law‑enforcement sources describing it [1] [2].
5. Conflicting accounts, gaps and journalistic caution
Sources differ on some factual details (age cited as 14 or 15, timing of her disappearance) and emphasize that the LA County Medical Examiner and LAPD have restricted release of certain forensic information; reporting warns that premature public disclosure could affect the investigation [8] [6] [1]. Several outlets also note leaked or unverified social‑media claims circulated earlier in the case, and that authorities have not confirmed all such online assertions [9] [2].
6. What the reporting does not show or confirm
Available sources do not publish the alleged surveillance footage, do not provide transcripts of any phone records linking D4vd to Celeste at specific times, and do not quote named eyewitnesses placing him with her at a critical moment; they report investigators have imagery and seized devices under forensic review and that a grand jury is weighing that evidence [1] [4] [5]. If you seek direct sight of footage, copies of phone records, or sworn eyewitness statements, those materials are not included in the cited news accounts [1] [2].
7. Why this matters and what to watch next
Grand‑jury proceedings and DA review are the mechanisms by which prosecutors decide whether available evidence supports criminal charges — recent reporting stresses that testimony (including from D4vd’s touring‑company executive) and forensic analysis of seized electronics factor into that decision [5] [3] [4]. Future public developments to watch for are formal charging announcements, public release of warrants or affidavits, or court filings that would provide direct excerpts of the evidence (not found in current reporting) [5] [4].
Limitations: this summary relies solely on the cited news reports and law‑enforcement sourcing they quote; the underlying footage, phone records and witness statements themselves have not been made public in the reporting examined here [1] [2].