As the trial progressed, it looked like his chances were improving, despite, or perhaps because, of his decision to represent himself. That gave him great leeway in Court, which a legally qualified individual would not have had to say, what shouldn't be said.
Clearly he lied, and the full extent of the back-story, and some of the unreported elements are starting to appear as I type, all of which seem to raise more questions about risks he took and the sheer scale of lies he told.
How he was guilty and Gail was not, is a matter for the prosecution, but they seemed to have not wanted to split the jury between husband and wife.
That's the end of him as a serious politician; the end of his legal career; but I suspect that we will see him reappear in an advocacy and lobbying role for future social campaigns.
He will undoubtedly remain a totem for his supporters and a monster to his opponents, and the questions of "What could have been?", will remain unanswered.