Thanks
@JB1510
I know we don't know what Herr Wolters knows but I'm struggling to see any parallels between the clearly planned assault/rape by CB of *3 adult women in their apartments and the disappearance of a 3yr old child from an apartment that showed no signs or evidence of a break in.
Any thoughts, anyone, on what these alleged parallels might be?
(*alleged, for the present, in the case of HaB and the unknown older woman on the charge sheet since CB has not been convicted of these assaults.)
We've discussed this before at length so won't go into all the detail too much
As a general rule MO or 'similar fact' evidence isn't probative from one case to the next unless there is a unique signature. I'd argue that exists between the current HB trial and the rape he is convicted for, and the evidence reported from the lost video tape - indeed the Court held as much last time around.
Also - evidence that he routinely broke into holiday apartments could be relevant in any MM trial. e.g CP claiming he had all the stolen passports. The alleged SIM card found at the factory.
Where this is all unconvincing to me is that in the MM case, as far as we know, we don't have any particular signature. So for example if it's a 'burglary gone wrong" theory, the fact that CB is a burglar, and rapist, doesn't make it any more likely he did this 'burglary'. It's a form of logical fallacy that
@Janosch has pointed out a couple of times i.e. a profile is not evidence
What you need is evidence that more directly ties him in, and then evidence of previous convictions/misconduct could come in to play
The other thing here, is that CB is already convicted of rape, and you already have the CP evidence, the alleged SIM card etc. So why do you need to do a another trial first? You have all this evidence already.
So I don't really buy into complicated stepping stone ideas - I think they are just trying to take him down with the strongest evidence they have right now.