Did I Miss Something Here?

I was under the impression that Gorgias was trying to defend Helen in what seemed like a court of law. Yet, while he started out well enough, giving Helen ethos and building up sympathetic pathos, I was expecting a lot more logos for an appeal to a court room. He is obviously a skilled rhetorician, but his argument didn't seem to hold much merit when actually analyzed. She was obviously involved in some love affair, and his reason that she is innocent is that she is an innocent girl overcome by a goddess. I wonder if a similar argument would work for someone who murdered someone else. Were they overcome by Ares? Or someone who stole, were they influenced by Hermes? This piece was very aptly named as an “Encomium” is a speech of praise, not one of argument. In my opinion the speech was talking about Helen, not her innocence, but maybe I am just missing an important argument he makes. Does anyone think they can clarify for me?

Anyway, I have quite a few humorous experiences with rhetoric but one that applies the best is probably the time I was babysitting for a little boy and his sister. The boy wanted to do something he wasn't supposed to but he didn’t want to get in trouble by himself. I don't remember exactly what the intended “crime” was, but let's say it was taking another cookie for simplicity’s sake. So as I am sitting right by them he leans over and in a loud whisper says to his sister, "hey let's take a cookie." She protested. "C'mon! It will be fun and we won't get in trouble. Trust me." Then they both look at me guiltily as they start to do whatever it was they weren't supposed to do. I was amazed at how fast this little boy won over his sister. At that moment he was a master rhetorician; he knew his audience wanted a cookie also, he got her emotionally compromised, and he established his ethos by claiming to be trustworthy. However, like Gorgias’ speech, his argument was not very sound; especially since I heard every word.