I was a paralegal for over five years for a defense attorney, and he represented the gamut of accusations over those years in front of me (all except rape; he wouldn't take those). So this surprises me not at all. Although, the general consensus is, if you have strong evidence, you don't have to go for emotion (case in point - a defense attorney will NEVER put their client on the stand in a criminal trial unless they're pretty sure they're going to lose otherwise; any lawyer you see do this as a matter of course or in the face of weak evidence isn't very competent. The only reason to put the accused on the stand is to sway the jury with emotion in the face of strong evidence of guilt).

Possibly the prosecution thought it had plenty of strong evidence? Or, perhaps more likely, they figured the media coverage had done their "emotional" job for them with weak evidence?

Court is theater - pure and simple. It doesn't matter if you're trying to get out of a traffic ticket or a murder rap. Some judges and juries don't respond to bullshitting, but some do.