I think he did a pretty fair job.
In my opinion his goal (or strategy) is to redefine (in the jury's mind) the standard of proof the prosecution is expected to meet. He keeps repeated loaded language and phrases that, while technically correct semantically, are deliberately deceptive.
The recap he is offering, coupled with the narrative above, is designed to allow him to hammer this fallacy home. Further, while some here find it laughable, I believe that his charts have been well employed. When he removed all the images on the one side of the who smelled what chart, the couple pictures remaining looked mighty lonely. It was nonsense of course, but crafty nonsense.
The guy is smart. He is doing a lot with the little that he has. That's his JOB.
Fortunately I do not believe that it will be enough. The prosecution is going to have a the final word, and it is going to be devistating.