Law&Crime Sidebar - D4vd Murder Case: DNA, Decomposition, & Tesla Data

Episode Date: August 13, 2026

New hearing transcripts offer a rare, behind-the-scenes look into the prosecution's damning physical and digital evidence against 21-year-old musician David Anthony Burke, professionally known as D4vd. The young artist faces severe charges following the alleged murder and dismemberment of 14-year-old Celeste Rivas Hernandez, whose remains were discovered in the trunk of D4vd's Tesla. Law&Crime's Jesse Weber walks us through key expert witness testimony detailing phone tracking, forensic DNA matches, and chilling medical examiner findings from the Hollywood Hills crime scene.PLEASE SUPPORT THE SHOW: Get premium frozen drinks at a practical price when you go to http://chefman.com and use code SIDEBAR for 40% off.HOST:Jesse Weber: https://twitter.com/jessecordweberLAW&CRIME SIDEBAR PRODUCTION:YouTube Management - Bobby SzokeVideo Editing - Michael Deininger, Christina O'Shea, & Jay CruzScript Writing & Producing - Savannah Williamson, Heather Berzak & Juliana BattagliaGuest Booking - Alyssa Fisher & Diane KayeSocial Media Management - Vanessa BeinSTAY UP-TO-DATE WITH THE LAW&CRIME NETWORK:Watch Law&Crime Network on YouTubeTV: https://bit.ly/3td2e3yWhere To Watch Law&Crime Network: https://bit.ly/3akxLK5Sign Up For Law&Crime's Daily Newsletter: https://bit.ly/LawandCrimeNewsletterRead Fascinating Articles From Law&Crime Network: https://bit.ly/3td2IqoLAW&CRIME NETWORK SOCIAL MEDIA:Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/lawandcrimeTwitter: https://twitter.com/LawCrimeNetworkFacebook: https://www.facebook.com/lawandcrimeTwitch: https://www.twitch.tv/lawandcrimenetworkTikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@lawandcrimeSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Chainsaws, a cut up pool, stains, fake blood, soaked clothing, digital tracking, and the beginnings of heartbreaking testimony from the medical examiner. We just got our hands on the transcript from another key day of David's preliminary hearing, the man accused of murdering a 14-year-old girl. Welcome to Sidebar, presented by Law and Crime. I'm Jesse Weber. All right, not to take away from this in any way, but we have a really great sponsor that helps support what we do here. And I think you're really going to love it. Because look, we're right in the middle of the summer, right in the middle of August. It's hot outside.

Nothing better than cooling down with an ice cold frozen drink, right? So now you can make them right at home with the Chefman Slush EZMAX. Okay, this machine gives you that premium frozen drink shop experience right on your countertop without the premium price tag. With a 64 ounce capacity, smart presets, easy touch controls and a built-in compressor, it freezes your favorite drinks without ice. It makes slushies, frozen cocktails, fraps, shakes, all that more right at home. So beat the August heat with the Chefman slush-Ease-Max, save 25% off with code sidebar at Chefman.com.

That's 25% off with code sidebar at chefman.com. So we just got the transcripts for a very important day in this David preliminary hearing. This is the closest that we are getting to a front row view of some of the key evidence in this case. Since there are no cameras, there's no recording devices in the courtroom. And I want to show you what happened on this day. This is featuring testimony from the medical examiner, testing of red stains, chainsaws, how the singer turned accused murderer, was possibly tracked using digital data. We're talking about David Anthony Burke, by the way.

David, 21-year-old musician who prosecutors allege met teen Celeste Rivas Hernandez and began engaging in a sexual relationship with her when she was just 13 years old. This is while he was reportedly 18. They say he brought her to his home or lured her to his home in the Hollywood Hills. This is the allegation. After calling her an Uber, this happened allegedly on April 23rd, 2025, and prosecutors claim he stabbed her to death after she allegedly threatened to expose their relationship, that he would lose it all, right, that he would lose his career, his money, all of it.

He's also accused, by the way, of dismembering her. Her remains were found in an impound lot in a Tesla allegedly registered to him, back in September of last year. And after a multi-day preliminary hearing, a judge ruled that there's enough evidence for him to stand trial on charges of first-degree murder with special circumstances, continuous sexual abuse of a child under 14, and unlawful mutilation of human remains. He's pleaded not guilty to all charges. There hasn't even been an official announcement if the death penalty will be on the table,

but it is a possibility. Oh, and by the way, let me call this out. If you want to see the transcripts, if you want to see all the documents in this case, go to the Long Crime Plus app and then go to the case file section. We have everything on this case up there. It's under the David case file. It's really what's interesting about it. Look, on Sidebar, we break down all these major cases, these major trials. I know our audience wants the key pieces of evidence to see for themselves. And sometimes we're kind of limited in how much we can show you here on the shelf. So what you do is you go to the case files on the Long Crime Plus app.

We're opening up the evidence vault so you can inspect the rock body cam footage, the 911 phone calls, the crime scene photos, the full trial tapes firsthand. And, by the way, you get ad-free streaming of all your favorite long crime and court TV shows. So head on over to longcrimeplus.com, enter the promo code sidebar, and you can start exploring today. Okay, let me get back to this. So I want to get into the testimony from July 23, 2026. And it starts with the cross-examination of Lauren Wallace, a criminalist with the LAPD. Now, she had testified that she had found what appeared to be blood stains on these rubber mats on the floor of the garage at David's residence in the Hollywood Hills, that there was also what appeared to be slits seemingly from a sharp object on the mats.

There was also testimony during this preliminary hearing that chainsaws were recovered in the garage. If you recall, prosecutors claim that after David allegedly killed Celeste, he purchased all this stuff to be delivered to this house. Chainsaws, a mop system, cadaver bags, laundry bags, a shovel, a blue inflatable pool, which we'll talk about. And Wallace had testified that she sprayed the floor mats in the home with a chemical to show the possible presence of blood, and it lit up. She also testified that there was possibly blood evidence on garbage bags and cleaning wipes and a rowing machine in the garage. And by the way, we're going to get into that later because we learned who that was allegedly forensically tied to. But all of this is relevant to establishing the allegation that David, again, allegedly dismembered Celeste's body in the house, right? That's the main idea. So here's the

cross-examination by defense attorney Blair Burke on this day. Wallace testifies, quote, I remember discussing that we tested the chainsaws and the results of those tests, and it was decided that they were not a forensic value question. And it was decided that no swabs of the handles of either of those garage chainsaws testing them for touch DNA would be taken. That's correct. The chainsaws did not appear to have been used and they tested phenonegative. Therefore, we determined to not collect them. And no swabs of those saw blades or the teeth of the chains for touch DNA was collected or tested? No, not for testing. There's no test to do for touch DNA. We did swab the blades of the chainsaws and we did the phenophyllate test and that was negative. Was it your decision or somebody else's

decision ultimately whether to collect those garage chainsaws? It's a collaborative decision. We provide the forensic expertise. At the end of the day, it's the detectives case and we discuss with them what we feel is forensically valuable and we come to the conclusion whether or not one of us is going to collect the item. And would it be fair to say that in this situation it was the detectives who ultimately made that decision? At the end of the day, it's their decision. However, we can provide expertise, and if there's an item that we feel needs to be collected, we will collect it. Questioning goes on. During your search of 1368 Doheny Place, this is David's residence, you also found a third electric saw at the residence.

Is that right? That is correct. And that was found by you or someone else. Answer, it was found by somebody else who was searching the interior of the residence. And who was that? I don't know who first observe the item. It was located in a storage closet. However, I was made aware of it and it was tested with phenothelene and that tested negative. That's correct. And did you collect that third saw for subsequent testing for DNA? No, because it tested phenonegative. Once again, we determined that it was not forensically valuable. And that third saw was not collected for any subsequent testing for toolmark analysis or comparisons. And then there's an objection and then the court will allow it. The witness says, no, this item was not collected. So few things here, okay, what the defense is trying to go with in my mind.

It goes to the idea, again, in my opinion, not a thorough investigation, right? Not a thorough investigation by the detectives. Failure to properly process and collect material. But also, you can't find blood or forensic material on the chainsaws, meaning they weren't used in the killing or dismemberment. Is that a hole in your case prosecution? What do you claim exactly, David used? Trying to prove this case beyond the reasonable doubt. You can't say definitively that there was dismemberment here, let alone a killing. So that's the way I look at it. And then this was interesting, another Q&A.

Question. And I think you noted in your field notes at the search that there was some kind of musical merchandise that was being made in the garage area using fake blood. Is that correct? We were aware that there were items that had been made using the fake blood, and we observed fake blood jugs and trays in the garage. And did you, at any time, collect any of that fake blood? blood for analysis. We do not collect it for analysis. We did test it with the fetofaline and it was negative.

So that seems to me to set up an argument that all this stuff that David allegedly purchased or had at this residence wasn't to dismember Celeste and cover up a crime, but maybe it was for a music video. I think that's what you're kind of seeing there. Then again, the counterargument to that would be the timing of the purchases after she allegedly came to his home and was never heard from again, that would make it suspect, right? I think that's what the prosecution would argue. I mean, there's apparently no activity from her phone after she allegedly arrived to his place. So you buy all these supplies for a music video right after this. Again, I think that might make that argument tough. I think the argument from the prosecution would be that Celeste died and that this was a cover-up.

But you're seeing the semblance of what the defense may argue. Now, real quick, prosecutor Beth Silverman asked a few follow-up questions on redirect? Question, yes, briefly, when you go out to a crime scene, do you automatically collect every piece of property at a location? No, why not? We only take things that are forensically valuable, meaning we believe that later on they could be processed analytically for DNA or some other forensic discipline. So if you have an item that appears to have been unused, that would not be an item you would collect because there wouldn't be any forensic value to bring back to the lab. That's correct. So in other words, it seems to me what the prosecution is trying to

suggest law enforcement investigators, they didn't do anything wrong here. Okay, so up next is Lisa LeHendro, another criminalist from the LAPD. And this is what she says about that blue inflatable pool. And I will say, and I'm going to explain it in a minute, to me, this is some of the most crucial testimony that we heard during this entire preliminary hearing. Question, let's first talk about a blue inflatable pool. Is that an item that you examined that was recovered from the defendant's home during a search warrant on September 17th of 2025? Yes. Question. All right. Did you also know whether or not there was any damage to that particular inflatable pool? Yes, I did. Now, in terms of these, the damage to the pool, I think you described them as cuts. There are damaged areas where

there are straight like linear cuts. And the edges, you said, are there a mixture of scalloped and straight. And were some of those edges irregular? Yes. Question. All right. Now, in terms of the physical fit analysis, what did that entail here? Well, I was requested to look at some material fragments that were collected by the medical examiner and then to compare those fragments to the damaged areas of the pool. Okay, and what did you find with respect to this fragment that came from the medical examiner's office? That it formed a physical fit with the pool in the area, specifically B. So the fragment A fit into the missing piece where there was damage or a cut,

Correct. In other words, the blue fragments that were recovered from Celeste's body by the medical examiner's office during her autopsy allegedly matched the missing pieces from the inflatable pool that was reportedly found at David's place. So the prosecution is trying to establish a direct link to David for the dismemberment. Questioning goes on. Okay, let's move on to the photograph in the right, please, the darker blue color. Tell us what we see here, please. This is similar to fragment A. In the center, you have fragment E indicated by the arrow,

and then on either side and above is the pool, item 6 through 8. And you see that it aligns along three different edges with the pool. And is that the, if we look at the edges of that piece there, is that the scalloped edge that you previously described? Yes. Question. And once again, is this a photograph that you took using the same magnification as the one on the left

on this one, February 12th, between 10 and 20 times? Yes. In terms of the magnification, correct. Okay, so again, this was a piece that originally came from the corner, but originally was a piece of the pool. Correct. And they also said this was true of another fragment too. And there was another part of this testimony that I have to call out that I will just tell you is disturbing, it is upsetting, and it is chilling. Question, I want to move on to another area. In this case, did you also examine other items that came from the medical examiner's office? Yes. And what was that? The victim's clothing, specifically the leggings. Starting with the photograph on the top left, can you go through all of

these items and describe for us what you observed? Yes. On the top left, it's a pair of socks, the Skechers brand socks. To the right of that is a pair of thong underwear, Victoria's Secret brand. On the bottom left is a tube top, Forever 21 brand, and to the right is a pair of leggings. able to identify the brand. Okay. And why was that? Because there was no tag on the item. Okay. Now you told us that you specifically examined the leggings. What did you note when you examine the leggings or the items that we see here in the bottom right corner? All of them were heavily soiled and had numerous insects. What else did you notice about the items? There was a very strong smell to them that they were still very wet and they were in poor condition. It's just really sad

thinking about the state of Celeste clothing, the conditions that she was found in, the composition, the dismemberment, even the clothing. It humanizes Celeste, this 14-year-old girl. And it all is important about how long she might have been in that Tesla for. Now, here's a bit of cross-examination by defense attorney Blair Burke, kind of gives you an example. You describe scallop tears in the pool, correct? Cuts, not tears. Scallop cuts and then linear cuts, linear and irregular edges. Did you at any time, perform any toolmark analysis on the plastic pool? No, I did not. Did you refer it out for any toolmark analysis? No. My opinion, the argument is, how do you know exactly what happened with the pool? How do you know that this was maybe used for dismemberment? Now I want to go to the next witness that

day, William Rocker. So LAPD detective, cellular analyst. So this was about how digital evidence was used to potentially track David's movements after he allegedly killed Celeste on April 23rd at this home on Duhini. Question. So tell us what you've mapped out here at this particular time. So there's three towers that have timing advanced measurements, and those timing advanced measurements range from 11.01 p.m. to about 11.11 p.m. and during this time period, does it place the defendant or his cell phone within the vicinity of his residence at 1368, Duhini? Yes, that is consistent with the device being in the area of 1368, Duhin. any place. Okay, then moving on to page eight of your exhibit, tell us what we're looking at here.

So again, this is for that Tesla device ending in 9025 and from April 23rd, 2025. I analyzed records from 1130 p.m. to 1136 p.m. and there was two transactions during that time. One over here associated with this cell phone tower at 1131 p.m. And then by tower number two over here at 1135 p.m. Okay, so what does that show? It shows that the device moved away from the area of 1368 Doheny Place, and it looks like from what I reviewed, it's going westbound, possibly on Sunset Boulevard. Okay, so at this point on the night of April 23rd at around 1135, the defendant's vehicle has left the house and it is traveling, you said, towards sunset. Yeah, I would say 1131. It's definitely not near the residence anymore.

Question continues. Okay, how about page nine? What did you depict here? So again, this is for that Tesla ending in 9025. and I analyzed these records from April 23, 2025, from 1130 p.m. to April 24, 2025 at about 404 a.m. We still have that residence that was 1368 Doheny Place, and then it looks orange here, but there's evidence recovered with the latitude and longitude that I marked on the map right over here in the center of the screen, and this is, I made this map to show travel from the area of 1368 Doheny Place up to, I think that area up north, Santa Maria.

So we're talking about Santa Barbara County? Yes. So in the night of April 23rd of 2025, the defendant left the Tahini place and went to Santa Barbara County. Then there's an objection about misstating the evidence. The court sustained it. Then about a clarification. Well, did you track not just the Tesla, but also the defendant's cell phone? Yes. So that's going to be on other slides as well. Okay. So did both of those items travel, not just the Tesla, but again, the defendant's cell phone, we talked about those two phone numbers at the beginning. Did you track that travel for both of these items? Yes, is that what this depicts?

This one depicts the Tesla, and as we go to the other slides, we'll see the 346 number up in the area as well. And you mentioned that you also identified a location where evidence was found with this orange square. Is that right? That is correct. What is that area? From the map, it looks like just a small road with a pre-desolate area. Is this an area off the 154? Yes, it is.

Okay. And was that an area that the detectives informed you that CHP had recovered evidence from that location? There's an objection. It's overruled. You may answer. The witness says that is correct. Okay. And then after that, does the path continue north of there?

Yes. Okay. Showing you page 10 of your exhibit, tell us what you tracked here. So again, that's where that Tesla device ending in 9025, this is on April 24th from about 403 a.m. to 707 a.m. So I marked all the way here at the time. the top left, utilizing the cell phone tower at 403 a.m. all the way up here. And then at about 706 a.m., the device ended in the area of the Oh, De Hini Place. Okay, so it went up north,

and then by 707 a.m. it returned? Yes. So this supports the idea that after allegedly killing Celeste, David made these trips to the Santa Barbara area. Apparently, a California Highway Patrol officer would testify that a state employee merely doing traffic control along Highway 154, north of Santa Barbara, found Celeste's passport ID card that was discarded in a dirt patch off the road. So we're talking 85 miles away from L.A. So David allegedly got rid of evidence. That's the argument here. And the prosecution also notes that he texted and called Celeste after the alleged killing for alibi purposes.

That's their other argument. Question. So again, as I asked previously, it appears that the vehicle and the cell phone are traveling together. Yes, there was a phone call. made at around the same time the vehicle and activity in that area as well. And did you look at the records pertaining to that particular call? Yes, I did. And is this during the time that the vehicle is traveling north? Correct. And the outgoing, it's an outgoing call that was made? Yes. At 12.04.m., the 0571 number made an outgoing call. To who? To a 951-5-463161 number? 951, 5463161.

And did the detectives identify for you who that phone number belonged to or was registered to? Yes, they advised me it belonged to the victim in this case. And when the defendant made a phone call at 1204 in the morning, so now we're talking about it's after midnight, we're talking about April 24th, correct, of 2025? April 24th of 2025, that's correct. When the defendant's device made an outgoing call to the victim's cell phone at the 3161 number at 1204, what was the result? The call went through.

Okay. And did someone answer? Or from the records, what happened with that call? It did. That call appeared to have gone to voicemail. And then there's an indication that the phone was not reachable at that time. So this slide has the Tesla device in the 9025 and the cell phone number in 0571. This is similar to the last one we saw.

This was from May 9, 2025 between 150 a.m. and 152. There are three transactions utilizing this cell phone tower here, one at approximately 150 a.m. from the Tesla and then one at approximately 151 a.m. from the number ending in 0.571. And there's another Tesla transaction at about 151 a.m. And did the defendant, his vehicle, and his phone also travel up to this same area third time? Answer, it's roughly a little farther south, but yes, it goes north of here. Yes. So you're seeing the digital data. But let me also call this out. This is significant. It wasn't just the cell phone data and the Tesla data. It was also the charging station data for a Tesla that was used to. Question. And did you also review documentation

from the defendant's Tesla infotainment system that contain locations in Santa Barbara County? Answer, I believe the charging records, right? Yes. And did that include from the infotainment system? Did it include the area titled Lake Kuchuma? I did see that, yes. And did then with respect to the charging records containing a Tesla charging station off the 154 identified as station 2621? Yes, I did see that on the charging records from Tesla. So in this case, did the defendant's cellular data corroborate his Tesla data? Yes. And there's an objection. It's overruled. It appeared that the devices were traveling in unison. Digital forensics. It really is a fascinating study in criminal cases. Okay, now let's go to Samantha Tosh, another LAPD criminalist. So remember the stains that I talked about,

possible blood stains found on key pieces of evidence? Who does that allegedly link up to? Here you go. I want to begin by talking about DNA samples that were collected from a Tesla by Chelsea Maria. And this pertains to stains, red stains from inside the trunk, lower compartment also identified as PID items 15 and 16. Are you aware of what I'm referring to? Yes. And let's start with the item 3 to 16 or 431 PID 15. What was the result of the analysis of that particular blood stain?

For that item, it was determined to be a single source. profile consistent with one female and Celeste Revis was included in that profile. And was there a statistic that was generated in order to explain the significance of that inclusion? Yes. And what was that? The statistic associated is the DNA profile matches the DNA profile obtained from Celeste Revis. A DNA profile is at least one septillion times more likely to occur if it originated from Celeste Revis than if it originated from an unknown individual. Question it continues. All right, let's talk about the other sample from that lower compartment of the trunk, which is item 317, or referred to as item LIMS 421, which was identified as PID-16. What was the result with respect to that blood stain? That stain was also consistent with a single source DNA profile from a female Celeste Revis is included in that profile. And once again, was some sort of a statistic generated to let us understand the significance of that math? Yes. And what was that? It was the same conclusion. and statistical analysis, as I just stated for item 431.

Okay, let's talk about some evidence that was collected in the garage during a search warrant of 1368 Doheny Place by Lauren Wallace. I want to begin by talking about a blood stain on a black rubber mat that was covering the garage floor identified as PID1 or LAPD item number 4.1, also LIMS number 111. Do you have that information in front of you? Yes. And what was the result of the testing as a result of that bloodstance?

That stain is also single source DNA profile consistent with one female. Celeste Revis is included in that profile. The partial DNA profile is consistent with the DNA profile from Celeste Revis. Okay. And what was the result of the testing on that blood stain from the rowing machine? That profile is also consistent with one contributor, one female contributor. Celeste Revis is included in that DNA profile. Okay. Next, I want to move on to a blood stain on a Tesla charger plug, PID3, LAPD item 43, LIMS-131. Do you have the results for that testing? Yes, what was that?

It is also consistent with a single source profile from one female Celeste Rivas is included in that profile. All right, let's move on to the next bloodstain. This is a blood stain on a green tarp, PID11, LAPD item 45, LIMS number 151. What was the result of that analysis on that bloodstain? I'm referring to my report to refresh my memory. That one is also consistent with a single source profile from one female. Celeste Rivas is included in that profile.

And what was the statistic with respect to that match? It's also the DNA profile is at least one septillion times more likely to occur if it originated from Celeste Rivas than if it originated from an unknown individual. Just a couple more items, one being a swab of a black trash bag. This is the outer trash bag identified as LAPD item number 64, LIMS 941. one, what was the result of that analysis? I'm also referring to my notes to refresh my recollection. For that item, it was consistent with a mixture of DNA,

consistent with four contributors, including at least two males. David Burke was included in that profile, and Celeste Revis was excluded from that profile. So the defendant's DNA was found on the outside of this particular item, this trash bag. There's an objection, mistakes of the evidence overruled. You may clarify on cross. Prosecutor Silverman says, is that correct?

David Burke was included in that mixture profile. The next one, last one, a cutting from a blood stain on hand wipes inside of a trash bag. This is LAPD item 65, LAMS 9521, a cutting. Was this screened? This was an item that screened positive for phenothelene, positive for blood? Yes. And what was the result? Referring to my notes for that item, it is consistent with a single source DNA profile from one female,

Celeste Revis is included in that profile. David Burke is excluded from that profile. Again, all crucial evidence for the alleged dismemberment. However, does it necessarily prove murder? We've talked about this before. The defense can point to manslaughter, self-defense, a self-inflicted injury, may be tough for them, considering the alleged timing of Celeste purportedly arriving at the home when David is accused of sending her a text message, what, 20 minutes after she arrives, then allegedly ordering all the items. But they can make the argument that he panicked and dismembered her and covered up the remains. But at the same time, you could see how it's key evidence for one charge or one argument, but is it necessarily strong for the murder charge, first degree murder?

I mean, you know, it's interesting because the prosecution will make the argument. You expect us to believe that he acted in self-defense or she did something to herself and he panicked and thought so quickly to send this text message to do all this. Prosecution will probably jump on all that. The bottom line is this evidence is key, but it doesn't necessarily point to first-degree murder per se, in my opinion. But definitely can help for sure. Now, here's a portion of the cross by the defense. Ms. Tosh, you were not the analyst in the laboratory for this examination of the samples in this case, correct? That is correct.

The actual analyst who did the laboratory work and analysis was somebody named Mr. Zepeda. Mr. Zepeda authored the report. However, the actual DNA processing work was done by multiple other people as well. But none of those people were you, correct? I would have to dig further in there. I may have had a piece, but I'm not sure, but no, off the top of my head, I don't know. And would it be true that you've always, when you've testified in court, testified on behalf of the prosecution. I may have testified for the defense once, but I can't recall

if it ended up going if the district attorney ended up calling me first, but I have been subpoenaed by the defense before and was more than willing to testify. Now, when DNA is detected on an item of evidence, are there certain well-known inherent limitations as to what an analyst, any analyst, can say about that DNA? Can you clarify the question? Yes, well, you can't say when DNA got on a particular item, correct? That's correct. Okay, and you can't say, how? along the DNA may have been on the item of evidence. That's correct. And you can't even say how the mechanism are activity level transferred. That's correct. Questioning credibility, questioning conclusions. Okay, real quick, I want to finish up with the first part of Dr. Grant-ho's testimony. He's the

deputy medical examiner for Los Angeles County Medical Examiner's Office. And I just want you to listen to some of the start of his testimony. What do you have to say? Because it is so heartbreaking, okay and did you determine based on the records that you receive the date of birth yes for this particular decedent yes what was that that was september 7th 2010 and was she also measured and weighed for height and weight yes and what was the weight it was 70 now when you first went to conduct your examination on this particular decedent what were your initial observations so the first thing that i observed was the body is markedly decomposed which would interfere with essentially our autopsy examination the other things i noted were that there were trauma to the body with consisting of dismemberment,

particularly the extremities. Did you also notice if there was any type of hardware in the oral cavity? Yes, they were essentially braces. I just wanted to highlight that because it reflects a few things, maybe the state of her body, the defense will have an opportunity to question cause of death, but it reflects how young Celeste was, how small she was, what her state of body was like. I mean, this is just so chilling, so sad, so distilled. so disturbing. And on a legal front, I was thinking in terms of, you know, how small she was,

if David were to mount a defense argument, a self-defense argument, look, he's not a big guy, but I wonder if prosecutors would say, this small girl was a physical threat to you? I don't know. Spitballing here, something I thought about. I just wanted you to see some of this transcript testimony, understand what happened on this really key day in the preliminary hearing. 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. podcast, Spotify, wherever you should get your podcast. You can also check us out on NBC's Peacock as well. If you want to follow me, ex-instagram, my News Nation show, Jesse Weber Live, Monday

the Friday, 11 p.m. Eastern. See you next time, everybody.