I am not in the legal profession either, but I rather agree with you. Perhaps the intent of the defense is to steer the case away from “spoofing” as the evidence appears to be overwhelming?
Then, as you infer, the plaintiffs will be burdened with proving that the defendants planned or meant to do harm.
Lawyers don’t make meaningless statements like, “…we just had no idea it would affect the NWBO stock price;” I believe that statement is designed to frame the tone of the case as well as quell the expected public’s outrage.