Yeah, I get your point.
But what I meant isn't that my example is logic-proof, being a cheater and being a mutant cheater are two different things, but what it means for the jury.
I don't know if Noa's argument, provided all the convoluted stuff about a student cheating for no clear reason, will convince the jury enough. And that is the point, an alleged mutant playing sport is a case of moral panic.
It's been told again and again that the Jury isn't rational, that even disregarded opinions or false testimonies might remain in their mind. Honestly, Noa's plan looks very good, but she might tunnelvisioning a bit.