Agreed. He really didn't, for the most part, know what he was doing - although some of his motions were pretty good. But his line of questioning, phrasing of questions, arguments during motions, ridiculous opening argument, all of that was horrible.
I don't think he was folksy either. He came across as very oily, very phony and extremely dirty. Yet, 12 people loved him. He resorted to parlor tricks in lieu of actual lawyering and it worked. Shockingly, it worked.
And the fact that it did points to some real problems with our system. Finding 12 people plus alternates, ALL of whom fell for his scummy parlor tricks, and simpering demeanor, was not a fluke. It shows that the pool of those willing and/or able to sit on juries is often not the best. We need to do better.