I remember that presser clearly, they said they had found his remains, the remains had been burned, and made the "totality of the evidence" statement. They said they were "convinced" by the totality of the evidence that it was TB.
IMO you have raised an extremely important point - an essential point, in fact. The phrase "totality of the evidence" is not just a catch phrase but it has clear and specific meaning. If you seek out its definition on the web you'll find that the phrase usually refers to aspects of scientific research, most usually in the chemical and biological fields. IE We fed 10 rats poison and the other 10 rats gummy bears. The first 10 rats promptly died. The other 10 rats did not. Without going into letter and verse, we are convinced, on the totality of the evidence that the first 10 rats died because they were poisoned. The totality of the evidence does not, however, confirm that gummy bears increase the anticipated life span of rats.
When "totality of the evidence" is used in the courts, it must present a most interesting challenge, imo. For instance, is the following statement logical? A man is missing. We have found an unidentifiable dead man. Therefore the dead man we have found is the one who was missing. Can this logical fallacy be corrected by rephrasing with "Therefore, the totality of the evidence confirms that the dead man we have found is the one who was missing."
Obviously, of course not. The premise is still inaccurate.
Only the specifics of the evidence can possibly confirm, firstly, that TB is dead and secondly, that the victim found is TB and not somebody else. Those are reasons why the forensics are essential to this case, imo.
When it is confirmed that the body found was that of TB with absolute forensic certainty, prosecutors will then face the considerable challenge of proving that a) TB was murdered and b) DM planned and executed TB's kidnap and murder.
IMO, MHO, MOO et al, etc and ad infinitum.
