CONCEALMENT OF THE WHEREABOUTS OF HUMAN REMAINS (RE-VISITED)[i]

(The follow up to the original article of 3 Nov 2025 with updates and objectives)

Thousands of you visited the first article on LinkedIn and hundreds read the full article on our web site at www.missinginaustralia.com.au  In response, I am extremely grateful for your interest in this very important subject.

This is not just about ‘no-body, no-parole’, that is already in place and often does not work.  This is focussed more on those remorseless apathetic types who have the knowledge of where someone’s loved one is and for whatever reason will not reveal where. Those selfish cruel individuals who have freedom to carry on life in ignorant bliss and yet allow the families of the missing to suffer ongoing unimaginable psychological trauma.

The comments and other feedback on the original article were by far noncritical of the proposal.  However, one valuable comment did raise the risk of what happens if an innocent person is wrongfully convicted.  The comment related to where a person is perhaps wrongfully convicted of homicide.  In this case I agree the person would not be able to disclose the whereabouts of a missing person/murdered if they did not commit the murder. 

However, I reiterate this is not just about ‘no body, no parole’ type cases.  It is more about those on the periphery of a missing person/murder case, where it is intended to create a high degree of competitive tension or self-interest to disclose information, rather than remain silent.

The related point is that an offence of failure to disclose knowledge of or concealment concerning the whereabouts of human remains, being a knowledge or intent based offence, would require the highest standard of proof and the highest quality of investigation in order to acquire a conviction. Consequently, I am sure any not-guilty plea would be rigorously contested.

In conclusion, if we did not progress on a point of law just because of the slim chance of a wrongful conviction then nobody would be convicted and nobody would be in our prisons.  That is why the burden of proof in these matters must always be ‘beyond reasonable doubt’.

Another argument, put forward by the Victorian Law Institute, which was in response to a ‘No body no Release’ law proposed by a Member of Parliament, was that it was against a basic tenet of the law in that the offender could be charged twice, i.e. for the principal offence, such as murder and then punished for the secondary matter of not disclosing the whereabouts of the victim.  Again, as raised in my first article, ‘this is nonsense’.  Firstly, the offender could be charged with any number of associated offences connected with a murder, so what is the difference.  Secondly, my proposal is that the concealment of knowledge, whilst it could be applied to the principal offender, is primarily designed for those on the periphery, and is not to be confused with no-body, no-parole legislation.

I should also point out that certainly not all lawyers are opposed to the proposal, as there were members of the legal profession who totally supported the proposition that a person who had knowledge of the whereabouts of human remains should be legally obliged to disclose that knowledge to authorities.  I think that this conflict of opinion within the law fraternity of ethics and morality vs. the law is clearly seen in the case of US vs. Robert Garrow, which is mentioned later on.

Concealment of knowledge law in other jurisdictions

In the US:

There are a number of US states where it is an offence to fail to disclose knowledge concerning the whereabouts of human remains.  However, for this article I have only selected two states, Georgia and North Carolina.

Georgia - To be convicted of concealing the death of another in Georgia, the State must demonstrate that the accused is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. This involves showing that the suspect actually concealed the death and that their doing so delayed or otherwise hindered the discovery that the death was an unlawful one. Nazario v. State, 293 Ga. 480, (2013).

If convicted of concealing the death of another in Georgia, the accused will be guilty of a felony. The penalties will include a prison term between one and ten years, a fine between $1,000 and $5,000, or both. For an example of Georgia Law on this matter (See Foot Note Ref)^[ii]

North Carolina  - Under North Carolina Criminal Law Chapter 14-401.22^[iii], the crime of concealment of death is defined as the intentional concealment… by failing to notify law enforcement of a person’s death, secretly burying a dead human body or secretly disposing of a dead human body.  The penalties for this offense increase if the victim is less than 16 years of age.

The penalties under North Carolina vary depending upon the circumstances and can range from 24 months (2 years) to 204 months (17 years) imprisonment.

Australia -        In Australia there is one state, South Australia that has a recently enacted law regarding disposition or concealment of human remains, which is under.

Part 2—Amendment of Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 at section 177^[iv]…Offence to destroy etc. human remains to pervert course of justice (1) A person who knowingly— (a) destroys, removes, conceals or alters human remains; or (b) performs any other act or omission intended or likely to result in human remains being less likely to be found (whether by a police officer or otherwise) …

A person guilty of an offence; Maximum penalty: Imprisonment for 15 years.

Comment on the law -  The US Law seems to go one step closer to the proposition than the South Australian Legislation, which falls short in that it is clearly focussed on persons who perform some overt act of concealment of the whereabouts of human remains, rather than remain silent as to the provision of their knowledge of their location, which is what I am proposing.

It is interesting to note that under the South Australian Law a person who having found human remains, or a thing that the person reasonably suspects may be human remains must immediately report the matter to a police officer.  Whereas the police officer on being notified of the finding of human remains must then, immediately notify the State Coroner of that fact and of any information relating to the matter of which the police officer is aware.  This section states that a person who, having found…human remains, conceals the human remains or thing is guilty of an offence. Maximum penalty: Imprisonment for 5 years.

The above paragraph is interesting as the penalty of 5 years seems to be directed towards the citizen, yet the obligation on the police officer to immediately report the matter to the Coroner is absolute.  So, we have a section of the South Australian law which makes it mandatory for police officers to report their knowledge concerning the whereabouts of human remains to the Coroner.  However, the law is silent or at the least ambiguous on any demand for citizens at law to report their knowledge to the police.

An infamous case – Robert Garrow, New York, Murderer (1970’s)

Probably the most infamous case I have come across in relation to a failure to disclose the whereabouts of human remains is that relating to the crimes of Robert Garrow a convicted murderer in Syracuse, New York, U.S.A in the 1970’s. 

Whilst on trial for the murder of a man named Domblewski it became apparent that Garrow had many months earlier disclosed to the two lawyers representing him, the locations of the remains of two young women whom he had also murdered, who were unrelated to the murder of Domblewski.

Not only had Garrow disclosed the locations of the young women’s bodies to his lawyers, but also at least one of the lawyers had visited the deposition site, photographed and disturbed at least one of the bodies, and at no time had the lawyers notified the authorities of what they knew.

The lawyers had cited client confidentiality as their justification for not revealing their knowledge to authorities prior to Garrow releasing them of that obligation in a later comment in a court hearing.

The lawyers in this case were ultimately investigated by a Grand Jury, which resulted in no action against one.  However, the other lawyer was indicted for various offences relating to the failure to report the death of a person.  His attorneys moved a motion to dismiss on the grounds of the confidential privileged communication that existed between him and Garrow, his client.  After much deliberation, which weighed up the laws of privilege and various US precedents the matter was also dismissed^[v].

Comments on this case:  The articles and papers on this case are well worth reading as they are still being debated today, with the pendulum constantly swinging between ethics and the law.  It is interesting to note the argument shift when the question is asked as to what would have been the views on the lawyer’s actions, had the women been held captive and still been alive?  Then it has been said their obligations of confidentiality would have been set aside by their moral and ethical need to value another human’s life. 

The above paragraph is about victimology; human harm being considered.  What this argument is showing is that whilst those that raise it are to be praised for their care for victims, i.e. those abducted, what is not shown is knowledge of the extreme trauma suffered by the families of those who are missing, regardless of whether the missing persons are dead or alive.  The on-going injury suffered by the direct family members of the missing is extreme, therefore a failure to disclose is an act of knowingly contributing to the injury of others.

Conclusion – Where to from here?

I have raised the proposition, and you have considered it.  Now we start the lobbying for change, to make it happen.  Every time there is a case where it is obvious or most likely that someone knows where the missing person is and is withholding that information we need to trot out the proposition for changing the law, we need to get this proposition before the decision makers.  My first target in this direction will be the Parliament of New South Wales – Committee of inquiry into unsolved murders and long-term missing person cases in New South Wales between 1965 and 2010, which is currently taking submissions until April 2026^[vi].

As I said in the first article on this matter.

‘Take a minute to think of cases where someone is missing, presumed murdered and those responsible, or others, will not reveal the location of the body so that it can be returned to loved ones and the pain of forever wondering can end.’

Lobby your parliamentarians, use your media.  Let us get some decision makers on side and make it ‘An Offence to Conceal the Whereabouts of Human Remains and/or Fail to Notify the Police of the Whereabouts of Human Remains’. 

Written by Valentine Smith APM (Co-founder of Footprints in the Wilderness/Missing In Australia)

www.missinginaustralia.com.au – January 2026

^[i] This is the update/sequel to the original article titled ‘Concealment of the Whereabouts of Human Remains’ published on www.missinginaustralia.com.au on October 18, 2025.

^[ii] James v. State, 274 Ga. App. 498, (2005

^[iii] North Carolina Criminal Law Chapter 14-401.22

^[iv] Criminal Law Consolidation (Human Remains) Amendment Act 2022

^[v] People V. Belge N.Y. Cnty Crt 1975 372 N.Y.S 2d 798 Decided Aug 1, 1975

^[vi] Parliament of New South Wales – Committee of inquiry into unsolved murders and long-term missing person cases in New South Wales between 1965 and 2010. (Chair) Hon Jeremy Buckingham MLC