Personally I don't see it as a stupid question. He was asked whether his client tells him that he had nothing to do with MM's disappearance. That's not the same as murder, which is the charge they are pressing for. FF spoke about suspecting HB being the key witness well before anything was mentioned about him in the media, how did he know about that? I suspect because CB told him.
The client maintains his innocence. Asking about the discussions between lawyer and client is inappropriate and of course would not normally happen because we would not be conducting the trial on television the way Herr Wolters seems intent on doing.
I mean this is absurd - a TV programme where the prosecutor accuses the client of murder and the lawyer defends?
Farcical.
Let me ask you a question, if your client was in CBs position and you were aware of an apparent confession he had made, would you not ask him about it? In order to prepare a defence you would surely want to know what he may have said and to whom, correct? Assuming FF has had that conversation with CB, it would make no sense for CB to deny all knowledge if he knows damn well he has said something to someone.
That would be routine defence work. You go through the evidence that will be presented against your client and find opportunities to either actively rebut it, or passively cast doubt on it.
But of course, seeing as CB is not charged with anything, he has no real need to put a version out right now, given he has not see the evidence against him.
Of course, we don't know what CB will have told FF about it. He might claim it was just a joke. But then, HCW and BKA have spoke of him saying something only the abductor could know. And there's the possibility of a video in existence, which if true, CB would know about. He may therefore have admitted to some knoweldge or involvement of the abduction but not of the murder. It may be that if police do proceed with a charge, he and FF plan deny the murder but admit to a lesser charge to do with her abduction. We just don't know at this stage.
Also, don't forget, his original lawyers prior to FF quit with no real explanation as to why. It could well be to do with what you say and that during their conversations with CB it became clear he was in fact guilty and that's why they could no loger represent him if he planned to deny it anyway. In any case, being in the law profession, I'm sure you are more than aware of how unscrupulous many lawyers are and they would not care about knowing their client is guilty but plans to plead not guilty.
I just found it odd that he has been asked the same question before and given an emphatic answer that CB denies all involvement. He could have easily repeated that (just like HCW has done on the video question) but instead he paused for a very long time, then chose a carefully worded answer that deliberately avoided saying whether CB denies any involvement in the disappearance.
I think we are trying to read far too much into wording choices where there are clear technical and procedural reasons for the answer.
What would normally be happening, is the police would bring CB into the frame as a "person helping with inquiries" or maybe a suspect and appeal for info. In such a case, CB might refuse any public statement, but he might also going public - not uncommon. But CB is in jail and we have this very strange media shadow dance between prosecutor and defence lawyer in a TV programme. Especially where the lawyer doesn't have a prepared statement approved by the client, it he is my view extremely limited in what he can say about CBs views/acts
What he can do is use what CB has told him, to cast doubt on potential evidence.
IMO FF's strategy is to pressure the prosecutor by highlighting lack of charges, despite such heavy accusations.
It is Herr Wolters who has gone out on the limb here.
