The judge's comment about his 'eloquence' is pretty damning. But I also think there's an implication (for which the solicitor may be partly to blame) that he simply doesn't understand - perhaps even can't understand, because it is so far outside his experience - where Harriet's coming from. I can't help suspecting that a less experienced man with a less well-known man, but who could bolster his arguments with appreciation of Harriet and Boyes' environment, might have been more convincing, or asked the right questions of the solicitors that got the helpful answers out of H.

Though in fairness, he does get the first undecided verdict - it isn't nothing.