C
The language of criminal charges are already set by law, they're not written for each particular case. That's why there's so many and/ors. There are (sealed) details to the particular case, setting out the facts that lead to this charge being made.
You are correct. I AM suggesting that the (sealed) details of this case support the charges that CD "did... willfully conceal human remains, KNOWING that said remains were about to be produced, used and/or discovered as evidence in a felony proceeding".
Part of the charging statement specifically "charges" that CD KNEW that said remains were "about to be produced, used, or discovered". This I think, could be meaningful. In essence, they are charging that CD KNEW that the discovery of "said remains" was IMMINENT. He had to hurry. How would he come to KNOW this?
If he didn't KNOW this (the location of the remains and the fact that they would soon be discovered), why is there language in the charging statement (whether "set by law" or otherwise) that specifically asserts that he did? The fact that there might be more detailed and more revealing info buried somewhere in sealed supporting details doesn't make it less true, it actually validates it.
I think this "qualifier" phrase ("KNOWING...") possibly is a big deal. First, it implies that at some earlier date (earlier than their final concealment at CD's house), "human remains" already existed - at some location other than at CD's house (unless we are to believe he simply kept them "unconcealed" there at that location until just eventually deciding to "willfully conceal" them).
If the "human remains" first existed "elsewhere", it means that the kids were killed "elsewhere". The charging statement says CD knew where "elsewhere" was, and that he intentionally removed the remains from "elsewhere" just before they would have otherwise been produced, used, or discovered. (Nov 26?)
I am not an atty, but I was surprised to see this added qualifier included in the charges: "KNOWING that said remains were about to be produced, used, or discovered as evidence in a felony". It just seems an unnecessary phrase, and could possibly even give Chad an out (again, I'm no atty). That part of the statement though only seems to qualify the real (more serious) charges that CD "did willfully destroy, alter, and/or conceal human remains".
After all, why would it be more of a crime to move remains that you have just learned are about to be discovered by LE vs. moving remains that you still believed were successfully hidden?
Could CD possibly claim that he is innocent of "the charges" if he can successfully refute claims that he KNEW the remains were "about to be produced, used, or discovered as evidence of a felony"? Just curious. Why add that? Maybe prosecutors included the phrase to make it easier to later add conspiracy charges, idk.
But it does make one wonder (even more) about what CD and AC were doing outside the town homes on Nov 26. Chad, first mumbling to LE that he barely knew Lori and then finally telling them he saw JJ in Oct and giving them Lori's phone number, and AC, insisting to LE that JJ was at his grandmothers house.
CD in his black Equinox. AC probably in the black truck that witnesses saw him packing.. How close was that?
Just speculating.
Well he also snuck into a temple to seal himself to his murdery spouse after telling people he is the prophet. I figure they don't check you at the door for a current membership and he isn't above doing it anyway. 
