Can't say that I'm surprised. It's a bit difficult to say that you are being dishonest if you receive gifts but you think the gifts are being given because the donor has a guilty secret, though, in fact, you would never tell anyone of it anyway. That is really the line that the defence took. Some reports suggested that the women were using the threat of publicity as a weapon so that Nigella Lawson didn't report theft ,or ostensibly consented to the taking when that consent was not true consent, not freely given. If the jury thought that, then the defence would fail.
What the prosecution appeared to be ignoring was the question line "How much was your salary?" "Were you happy with that?" "It was not £170,000 a year for the two of you was it, £85,000 each p.a.?" " So there's a big difference in what you were earning and what you were taking, wasn't there?" "So for what reason, do you think, did Nigella Lawson decide that your salary ought to be £85k more than it was?"