Horrific clues that would lead cops to D4vd  and led to his arrest over 14-year-old girl's murder 27%

By Ben Chapman57%

4/17/2026, 3:08:16 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 28 faulty reasoning types, including Ambiguity (Equivocation), Negativity Bias, and Availability Heuristic, with Appeal to Authority as the most egregious example at 23.9% saturation with 154 hits. Analysis detected 1,393 faulty-reasoning hits from 645 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 38.1% and a BS Rank of 27% (15,680 of 21,204 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 73.90% of the article peer group.

The job began in September, when workers at an impound lot noticed a foul smell coming from a towed Tesla. 
Seven months later, it would lead to the arrest by Los Angeles cops on Thursday afternoon of singer D4vd, seven months after a runaway girl’s dismembered body was found in the trunk of the pop singer’s abandoned Tesla. 
Officers with the Los Angeles Police Department’s Robbery-Homicide Division took the Queens-born pop star, whose real name is David Burke, into custody at a home in the Hollywood hills without incident, police said. 
Burke, 21, is being held without bail. 
The case will be presented to the District Attorney’s office on Monday, when Burke’s official charges are expected to be announced. 
Speaking from the scene where Burke was arrested just hours after the cops made their collar, Robbery-Homicide’s commanding officer, Cpt. 
Scot Williams told The Post in an exclusive interview that investigators worked diligently for months to build their case. 
The source of the odor turned out to be the decomposing, and dismembered body of 14-year-old Celeste Rivas. 
“She had been dead for a long time before that, and so we were behind the eight-ball from the beginning,” Cpt. 
Scot Williams, told The Post in an exclusive interview. 
“We had to backtrack through the evidence to make a determination as to when she died and then work our way forward from there.” 
Investigators then worked diligently for months to build their case. 
The singer’s attorneys, Blair Berk, Marilyn Bednarski and Regina Peter also spoke out following the arrest. 
“Let us be clear  the actual evidence in this case will show that David Burke did not murder Celeste Rivas Hernandez and he was not the cause of her death. 
There has been no indictment returned by any grand jury in this case and no criminal complaint filed. 
David has only been detained under suspicion. 
We will vigorously defend David’s innocence,” they said in a joint statement. 
Rivas had previously been reported missing by her family in April. 
Her body was decomposed and wrapped in plastic, so it took the medical examiner extra time to determine that she was the victim of a homicide, said Williams. 
While that was happening, said Williams, officers easily traced the car to Burke, since it was registered to the pop star. 
Burke was in the midst of a world tour that would bring him to Los Angeles for a sold-out show at the Grammy Museum, but the alt R&B star canceled the remainder of his shows amid the investigation. 
From the beginning, Burke cooperated with authorities. 
“There were plenty of ways that we were able to connect her to him fairly early in the investigation,” said Williams. 
But the suspicion of foul play is not good enough.” 
Cops began talking to witnesses, collecting physical evidence and building their case against Burke. 
As the case progressed, disturbing details came to light. 
A “burn cage” incinerator that is advertised to burn at 1,600 degrees was discovered at the Hollywood Hills mansion that singer D4vd was renting at the time the body of a teen girl was found in the trunk of his Tesla, according to a private detective hired by the property’s owner. 
Investigators kept tabs on the whereabouts of the pop star, even tracing his whereabouts to Texas when he visited his family there during the investigation. 
Once cops developed probable cause to make an arrest, they collared Burke within days. 
Investigators believe he acted alone. 
More details of the case will be revealed in the coming days. 
“There was a lot of outside pressure for [investigators] to act quickly, said Williams. 
“They were able to put that aside and do the tedious, meticulous work that was needed to ensure we had an airtight case.” 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 14.7%Ben Chapman: 4.4%California Post: 4.1%Confirmation Bias14.7%This article: 3.3%Ben Chapman: 0.3%California Post: 1.4%Anchoring Bias3.3%This article: 16.6%Ben Chapman: 7.7%California Post: 4.2%Availability Heuristic16.6%This article: 3.3%Ben Chapman: 0.4%California Post: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic3.3%This article: 0.0%Ben Chapman: 0.6%California Post: 0.7%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 4.3%Ben Chapman: 2.4%California Post: 2.2%Overconfidence Bias4.3%This article: 2.8%Ben Chapman: 10.1%California Post: 10.4%Framing Effect2.8%This article: 0.0%Ben Chapman: 0.0%California Post: 0.9%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 2.8%Ben Chapman: 0.8%California Post: 0.6%Status Quo Bias2.8%This article: 0.0%Ben Chapman: 0.0%California Post: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 4.5%Ben Chapman: 2.2%California Post: 2.5%Optimism Bias4.5%This article: 4.8%Ben Chapman: 1.2%California Post: 1.5%Pessimism Bias4.8%This article: 16.7%Ben Chapman: 18.4%California Post: 16.1%Negativity Bias16.7%This article: 7.8%Ben Chapman: 1.4%California Post: 2.4%Self-Serving Bias7.8%This article: 2.2%Ben Chapman: 0.2%California Post: 1.5%Fundamental Attribution Error2.2%This article: 0.0%Ben Chapman: 0.0%California Post: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Chapman: 0.2%California Post: 1.6%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Chapman: 1.4%California Post: 1.1%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 1.1%Ben Chapman: 1.8%California Post: 3.1%Halo Effect1.1%This article: 0.0%Ben Chapman: 0.9%California Post: 0.6%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Chapman: 0.0%California Post: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 5.0%Ben Chapman: 1.3%California Post: 1.6%Recency Bias5.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Chapman: 0.4%California Post: 0.5%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Chapman: 0.0%California Post: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Chapman: 1.1%California Post: 2.6%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Chapman: 0.0%California Post: 0.5%Straw Man0.0%This article: 23.9%Ben Chapman: 5.3%California Post: 4.2%Appeal to Authority23.9%This article: 1.1%Ben Chapman: 0.3%California Post: 1.5%False Dilemma1.1%This article: 0.0%Ben Chapman: 0.4%California Post: 0.9%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Chapman: 0.2%California Post: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 3.3%Ben Chapman: 3.4%California Post: 5.5%Hasty Generalization3.3%This article: 7.9%Ben Chapman: 0.7%California Post: 0.7%Red Herring7.9%This article: 0.0%Ben Chapman: 1.7%California Post: 1.4%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 7.3%Ben Chapman: 10.1%California Post: 8.9%Appeal to Emotion7.3%This article: 8.4%Ben Chapman: 1.5%California Post: 1.1%Begging the Question8.4%This article: 11.9%Ben Chapman: 1.5%California Post: 2.7%Post Hoc (False Cause)11.9%This article: 0.0%Ben Chapman: 0.0%California Post: 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 2.8%Ben Chapman: 0.3%California Post: 0.8%Burden of Proof2.8%This article: 0.0%Ben Chapman: 0.2%California Post: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Chapman: 0.0%California Post: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Chapman: 1.8%California Post: 3.6%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 1.6%Ben Chapman: 0.1%California Post: 0.0%No True Scotsman1.6%This article: 21.7%Ben Chapman: 2.0%California Post: 2.0%Ambiguity (Equivocation)21.7%This article: 0.0%Ben Chapman: 0.0%California Post: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Chapman: 0.0%California Post: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Chapman: 0.0%California Post: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Chapman: 0.1%California Post: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Chapman: 0.0%California Post: 0.4%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 12.7%Ben Chapman: 3.4%California Post: 3.2%Unattributed Quote12.7%This article: 5.4%Ben Chapman: 3.3%California Post: 2.1%Quote-first Misdirection5.4%This article: 13.5%Ben Chapman: 15.6%California Post: 13.1%Biased Writer Voice13.5%This article: 4.8%Ben Chapman: 2.0%California Post: 1.4%Indoctrination4.8%This article: 0.0%Ben Chapman: 0.2%California Post: 0.4%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Chapman: 0.3%California Post: 3.1%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Chapman: 0.3%California Post: 6.0%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

645 words analyzed.

Speakers

3speakers33%attributed speech432writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 18 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 38 words • 0.0% coverageLos Angeles Police Department’s Robbery-Homicide Division • 33 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageScot Williams • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 100.0% coverageScot Williams • 21 words • 100.0% coverageScot Williams • 9 words • 0.0% coverageScot Williams • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWilliams • 28 words • 0.0% coverageWilliams • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 38 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWilliams • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 51 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageScot Williams • 14 words • 100.0% coverageScot Williams • 23 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Williams

100%flagged-word coverage
70 attributed words33% of attributed speech84% writer coverage
0%12.5%25.0%Biased Writer Voice-20.1 ptsWriter: 20.1%Williams: 0.0%0.0%Unattributed Quote-19.0 ptsWriter: 19.0%Williams: 0.0%0.0%Indoctrination-7.2 ptsWriter: 7.2%Williams: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.