Crossing the witness on the theme that the book by Trumpie wasn’t by Trumpie is lame. Haberman’s bottom post though, the defense doesn’t have to present “an alternative narrative”. They don’t have to “narrate” at all. They can sit there with their eyes ahut as the defendant does so much. They can just “knock” the prosecution’s case if they want to. It’s called the reasonable doubt defense and keeps your options open. Reasonable doubt defenses, essentially whatever evidence the prosecution presents it’s not enough, were the most difficult defenses for me, when a prosecutor, to overcome.