The long-running investigation into the experimental Tesla vehicle involved in the high-profile crash that seriously injured musician and internet star D4vd has taken a dramatic turn. A key witness—identified in internal documents only as Witness 14B”—failed to appear for a scheduled deposition last week, throwing the already-controversial case into further uncertainty and raising new questions about whether crucial evidence may be slipping out of reach.

According to multiple individuals familiar with the proceedings, the witness was expected to provide testimony that could clarify the moments leading up to the collision between a prototype Tesla self-driving vehicle and a rental sedan carrying D4vd and two members of his team. The witness’s disappearance has fueled speculation about pressure, fear, and potentially deeper conflicts of interest affecting the investigation.

A Case Already Shrouded in Confusion

The incident in question occurred six months ago on a late evening in rural Nevada, where Tesla has quietly conducted off-road and high-speed autonomous testing for several years. At approximately 9:47 p.m., a matte-black, sensor-heavy vehicle—later confirmed to be part of a confidential testing fleet—allegedly drifted across the center line, striking D4vd’s sedan on the driver’s side.

D4vd, known for songs such as Here With Me andRomantic Homicide, sustained multiple injuries that forced him to cancel most public appearances for several months. His label initially described the collision as a “random roadway accident,” but subsequent leaks revealed the involvement of an unregistered Tesla test vehicle and undisclosed sensor hardware not found in any commercial model.

The revelation triggered investigations by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), the Nevada State Patrol, and Tesla’s own internal review board. But as documents, testimonies, and corporate statements piled up, one detail repeatedly surfaced: Witness 14B was there. And they saw everything.

Who Is Witness 14B?

Publicly, very little is known. Privately, sources involved in the inquiry describe Witness 14B as a contract technician who worked on Tesla’s autonomous vehicle data-collection division. They were reportedly stationed less than 200 meters from the crash site, monitoring weather and road-surface sensor accuracy for a separate test vehicle.

Witness 14B allegedly contacted investigators within 48 hours of the accident, claiming to have observed “operational anomalies” in the prototype’s lane-tracking system shortly before the impact. One preliminary email summarizing their input suggested the prototype’s lidar array “misclassified low-light road boundaries,” potentially causing the vehicle to drift.

Although Tesla’s spokesperson denied that sensor malfunction significantly contributed to the crash, the company acknowledged the prototype was “not operating under full supervisory control”—a statement critics say is intentionally vague.

Witness 14B was expected to clarify those inconsistencies during a formal deposition scheduled for last Tuesday. Instead, they didn’t appear. Their attorney offered no explanation, and investigators were unable to reach them by phone or email.

A Vanishing Act With Consequences

The witness’s failure to appear has immediate implications. NHTSA, which had anticipated using the testimony to determine whether the prototype violated federal autonomous-vehicle safety guidelines, must now delay a crucial phase of the investigation. Without 14B’s account, analysts lack context for a 14-second block of corrupted sensor data retrieved from the prototype’s onboard computer—data Tesla engineers initially labeled a “logging glitch.”

One investigator described the witness’s disappearance as “a blow we were not prepared for.”

We have a window of time where the vehicle’s systems fail to record lane positioning, obstacle detection, or even steering-wheel torque,” the investigator said. “Witness 14B was one of the only individuals who saw the prototype’s behavior during those exact moments.”

A second source noted that without 14B’s deposition, regulators may be unable to determine whether the malfunction was accidental, systemic, or—according to some allegations—deliberately concealed.

Internal emails reviewed by this reporter suggest that at least two Tesla engineers raised concerns about data integrity weeks before the crash. One email warned that certain test units were “dropping packets under low-ambient-light conditions,” though it is unclear whether the prototype that struck D4vd was among the vehicles affected.

Possible Motives for the No-Show

Why would a witness central to the case suddenly withdraw? Experts and insiders offer several theories:

Legal Pressure

Multiple attorneys familiar with corporate liability cases note that large companies often encourage employees or contractors to limit direct testimony to avoid legal exposure. While there is no evidence of wrongdoing, the sudden silence has raised eyebrows among regulators.

Fear of Retaliation

Sources close to the witness previously stated that 14B expressed concern about speaking publicly against Tesla. Given the company’s history of aggressively defending its technology, such fears are not unprecedented.

Personal Safety Concerns

A person claiming to be a friend of the witness told reporters that 14B felt “followed” in the weeks before the deposition. This claim is unverified, and investigators have not commented on it.

Voluntary Withdrawal

Some speculate that the witness may have decided the scrutiny and legal responsibilities were more than they were willing to handle, especially if they believed their testimony could implicate colleagues or jeopardize their career.

Tesla’s Response

Tesla issued a brief statement saying the company “respects all ongoing investigative processes” and has “no role in determining the attendance or participation of external witnesses.” The company reiterated that initial findings show no conclusive evidence of a system failure, adding that autonomous testing in Nevada “meets or exceeds all regulatory requirements.”

Critics, however, accuse Tesla of downplaying the seriousness of the incident. They point to the damaged sedan, the corrupted sensor logs, and now the missing witness as signs of a broader lack of transparency.

If this were any other company, there would be far more accountability already,” said a former NHTSA official. “Tesla’s ecosystem of secrecy makes it especially difficult to separate technological mishaps from potential cover-ups.”

Impact on D4vd and His Team

D4vd has remained mostly silent on the matter, focusing instead on physical therapy and returning to the studio. A representative from his management team said the artist is “cooperating fully with investigators and hopes for a clear and accurate resolution.”

Privately, however, individuals close to D4vd say the singer is frustrated by the pace and opacity of the investigation, particularly as rumors swirl on social media blaming everything from extraterrestrial technology to government conspiracies. The disappearance of Witness 14B is only likely to fuel more speculation.

What Happens Next?

Investigators are now attempting to contact the witness through alternative channels while reviewing subpoena options. If located, 14B could still provide testimony—though regulators now worry that the delay will weaken the overall evidence chain.

NHTSA is also re-examining raw sensor extracts and traffic-camera footage from the night of the crash. Some analysts are pushing to inspect two additional prototype vehicles believed to share a similar autonomous-driving firmware version, though Tesla has not yet confirmed whether those vehicles are available for review.

As for the corrupted 14-second data block, engineers remain divided. Some believe the logging failure was benign—a buffer overload triggered by fast-changing driving conditions. Others suspect the glitch could indicate a more fundamental flaw in Tesla’s latest neural-network-based driving model, particularly in low-visibility scenarios.A Pivotal Moment for Autonomous Vehicles

The disappearance of a single witness may seem like a footnote in a long and complex case, but experts say it could have broader implications for the future of autonomous-vehicle regulation.

If regulators cannot rely on critical testimony—especially from insiders—we risk creating an environment where accountability collapses,” said a transportation-safety analyst. “This investigation is not just about one crash. It’s about whether companies pushing the boundaries of autonomous technology will be held to the standards the public deserves.”

For now, the D4vd Tesla investigation remains unresolved, with key questions unanswered and a crucial voice suddenly silent.

Whether the truth emerges may depend on one missing witness—and whether they choose to speak before the window closes.