it looks like hunt really is a bit of a hunt after all.
If the feds have little evidence, acting dumb is by far the best policy. There may be some jurors who have some sympathy. If you act dumb you don't come across as an arrogant twonk.
I've tried to investigate a problem when I had little information of a factual nature and it's hard work if the "defendant" keeps his gob shut. The best chance of a conviction is to find out that someone is lying and thus credibility is reduced in the eyes of jurors. If you say nothing you can't be caught out lying.
Personally I would put anyone in prison who acts stupid in the face of the blindingly obvious. If you are innocent, then why do you not explain why?
The above is an example. Everyone knows what I mean when I call mr hunt a hunt, but there is no evidence that I have been rude.
Same thoughts Tony. The B****888