Chapter 7 traces the boundaries of the plausible by invoking the implausible. This chapter examines two kinds of stories that were deemed implausible in the courts of Mandate Palestine. The first is the inter-ethnic love story, which, if not considered totally implausible, was viewed as less plausible than a story of sexual assault or of a ‘fallen woman’. Using two rape cases involving relationships between teenage Jewish girls and young Arab men, I demonstrate how the circumstances highlighted in court proceedings presented such relationships as aberrations, as lying outside the scope of normality. The second kind of implausible story is the counter-narratives secreted in legal arguments that the Mandate-era judiciary readily dismissed or undermined. Focusing on a 1933 rape case, I reconstruct hidden transcripts alluded to by Arab defence attorneys who challenged British superiority through substantive, evidentiary and procedural claims neatly tailored in accordance with the conventions of common law. Unsurprisingly, British judges rejected all such challenges. This chapter demonstrates that the concept of plausibility is relevant not only to the content of particular crime stories but also to beliefs about the essence of normal sexual or romantic relations and of the justice system.