Deverson José Ríos Caicedo, known as DJ Dever, disappeared along with two members of his team, identified as Leonardo Rodríguez and Anthony (or Anthony García), after traveling from Cartagena to the Barranquilla area for a private event the night of February 10–11, 2026. All sources agree that he performed at or was hired for a private party near or in Barranquilla, sent a final message to his wife warning that the event felt “suspicious,” and then ceased communication; his phone went unresponsive and relatives reported him missing on February 11. His white Toyota Fortuner was later found abandoned and undamaged in Barranquilla (specifically the Paz sector, according to some reports), showing no visible signs of violence, and as of the latest coverage neither the DJ nor his two collaborators have been located. Family, friends, and colleagues are organizing public vigils and appeals, including a gathering in the Torices neighborhood of Cartagena set for the evening of February 12 to demand their safe return.

Across outlets, the disappearance is framed within the broader context of security concerns around private events and artistic gigs in the Atlántico region, along with established institutional procedures for missing-persons and possible kidnapping cases. Media on both sides note that the circumstances — the “suspicious” party, the abandoned vehicle, and the sudden silence — have prompted authorities to activate formal search protocols, including specialized lines of investigation related to kidnapping and extortion. Coverage emphasizes the involvement of the police and investigative bodies, the reliance on official channels for tracing the last known movements of the victims, and the role of family testimony (especially that of Dever’s wife) as key input for the investigation. There is broad agreement that, pending concrete evidence, the case remains an open investigation rather than a confirmed crime scenario, and that community pressure through vigils and public appeals is unfolding in parallel with institutional efforts.

Points of Contention

Framing of the event and risk. Opposition-aligned outlets frame the private party as inherently “strange” or “suspicious,” stressing that Dever felt uneasy and was allegedly stripped and tied up by organizers, thereby implying a high-probability criminal setup from the outset. Government-aligned coverage, while acknowledging his message about a suspicious event, avoids detailing alleged abuse at the venue and instead emphasizes uncertainty about what actually happened after the show. As a result, opposition pieces lean into a narrative of clear danger and premeditated wrongdoing, whereas government-aligned reports present the party mainly as the last known location, treating the risk scenario as one hypothesis among several.

Institutional response and competence. Opposition sources highlight family and community mobilization, such as vigils and public pleas, and implicitly contrast this with what they portray as limited or slow official results, giving more voice to relatives’ frustration and calls for urgent action. Government-aligned outlets foreground the police perspective, stressing that search, kidnapping, and extortion protocols have been formally activated, projecting an image of a state responding methodically and within established procedures. In practice, opposition coverage makes institutional gaps and perceived inaction more visible, while government-aligned coverage works to reassure audiences that security forces are engaged and following protocol.

Use of emotional narratives. Opposition media center the anguish of the family and the artistic community, repeatedly quoting Dever’s last “suspicious” message, stressing that the team has denied any marketing stunt, and portraying Cartagena “crying out” for his liberation to build a sense of collective alarm and indignation. Government-aligned outlets also use emotional elements, but focus more on the wife’s desperate messages and fears within a framework that still circles back to official investigation lines, tempering speculation with calls for patience. Thus, opposition reporting channels emotion toward pressure on authorities and suspicion of foul play, while government-aligned reporting uses it to humanize the case without strongly challenging institutional narratives.

Interpretation of possible motives. Opposition coverage implies that kidnapping, extortion, or an organized criminal setup linked to the private event are the most plausible explanations, with the detail about him being stripped and tied at the party serving to reinforce this angle and downplaying alternative scenarios. Government-aligned coverage explicitly notes that kidnapping and extortion protocols are activated but treats them as precautionary, carefully avoiding stating a preferred motive and leaving room for other explanations. Consequently, opposition outlets narrow the interpretive frame toward deliberate criminal victimization, whereas government-aligned outlets maintain a more guarded, procedural stance on what might have happened.

In summary, opposition coverage tends to foreground suspicion of serious criminal wrongdoing, emotional community pressure, and implied shortcomings in the state’s protection of artists and workers, while government-aligned coverage tends to highlight formal police procedures, avoid graphic or unverified claims, and keep the range of possible motives more open and institutionally framed.