Then you clearly don't understand them.
You think the defendants would have him as a defense expert, if his book was fatally flawed?
Sure, since court arguments are based on what *sounds* good (i.e., what can sway the jury), not on what might actually be valid, true, or logically correct.
Remember "if the glove does not fit, you must acquit", and countless other courtroom ploys that were used (and worked) despite their flaws which would have been obvious to anyone who took the time to actually think about them?
Fortunately for this case, it's a bench trial instead of a jury trial. From what I've read of the orders he has issued, the judge seems more than competent enough to see through whatever smokescreens the defense puts up.