One thing I find unusual is the way Russell in his writting refers to himself many times not in the "first person":
When the next day the husband took the witness stand and swore that he had never used the language (and never had heard of it before) all reasonable people concluded that only an idiotic person would make such an uncomplimentary remark about himself. They concluded, too, that even an ordinary woman, seeking a charge against her husband for thirteen years, could imagine wonders and create the living and real in her own mind. This is the most charitable view possible of such an oath.
All through his defense as he is referring to the court proceedings he does this. I think this may be because it give the appearence of unbiased court reporting.