Mr.Carson was still laying stress on the article in _The Chameleon_ and scattered passages in "Dorian Gray"; on Oscar's letters to Lord Alfred Douglas and Lord Alfred Douglas' poems in _The Chameleon_.

He must see, I thought, that all this was extremely weak.
Sir Edward Clarke could be trusted to tear all such arguments, founded on literary work, to shreds.

There was room for more than reasonable doubt about all such things.
Why had not Mr.Carson put some of the young men he spoke of in the box?
Would he be able to do that?
He talked of Taylor as "the pivot of the case," and gibed at the prosecution for not putting Taylor in the box.

Would he put Taylor in the box?
And why, if he had such witnesses at his beck and call, should he lay stress on the flimsy, weak evidence to be drawn from passages in books and poems and letters?
One thing was clear: if he was able to put any of the young men in the box about whom he had examined Oscar, Oscar was ruined.

Even if he rested his defence on the letters and poems he'd win and Oscar would be discredited, for already it was clear that no jury would give Oscar Wilde a verdict against a father trying to protect his son.