I lack the power to read Cecil’s mind, or at least will not admit that I have such power if I do, which I don’t, especially not any that is witchcraft or sorcery-based.
However, Cecil’s responses to questions tend to be rather short and to the point and not fully expository dissertations on the subject matter.
So when asked about penis-stealing sorcerers in Africa, which is an ongoing phenomenon in Africa (and some other nations in other continents), he focused on the current aspects of the phenomenon.
On the other hand, the Malleus Maleficarum was published in 1486. While it has enjoyed many reprints through the years, this is a 500 year old book. Why mention it when you can find much more recent examples that are directly relevant to the question asked?
To liken it to a classic question reprinted recently, when Cecil was asked about whether people are injured or killed by bullets shot into the air, as in the case of celebratory gunfire, the examples were contemporaneous. I suspect some additional research may have provided some comments on the dangers of shooting one’s arquebus into the air from the 15th or 16th century, there was no real need for that.