Some posters here have suggested and continue to suggest that Dale has not cooperated with the police and I have no knowledge, even by media reports, that this is in fact true, correct me if I am wrong. However, let me, for the sake of an argument, assume that some of it is true.
Since we know that DS had been interviewed by the police and we know that in fact it had answered questions, a fact that at least indicates a degree of cooperation, then I think the theory goes that at some point he did not (cooperate), and therefore that is an indication of guilt, then the question must be "at what point did he not cooperate and why", since we clearly do not know the particulars here, let's envision a plausible scenario:
DS is in an interrogation room and he is represented by his attorney, the proceedings are on the record. The police have one-sided or otherwise unverifiable accounts of him having threatened the life of MP at some point in the past, and ask him the following question:
Q. Have you at any time in the past threaten to kill or to otherwise cause severe bodily injuries to Michelle Parker?"
At this point I think there are 3 main scenarios here:
1. A. Yes I have, but I did not mean it, it was just a fight and I would never hurt MP, bla bla bla.
In this case DS has just entered into evidence his own admission of having threatened to kill MP, (regardless of him being innocent or guilty) a factor that might very well contribute to his conviction.
2. A. I have never threatened to kill Michelle Parker, NEVER!!
In this case a juror that might wonder if DS had actually threatened to kill MP is also likely to consider that DS is lying about it as well. Yet another factor that might contribute to his conviction.
3. Dale follows the advice of his counsel and does not answer the question, which leaves the prosecution with the burden to prove this particular allegation behind a reasonable doubt.
Now, in this hypothetical situation is Dale not cooperating in answering the question a sign of guilt or just the action of a possible defendant protecting his life and liberty? What would any reasonable person do in DS position? And please consider that some decisions are easier to make when their consequences do not involve the possibility of you being strapped to a gurney as a perfect stranger injects doses of lethal chemicals into your veins.
