It is inherently not reasonable to expect someone who is a suspect in an investigation, who was set up in a sting effort to link her to a murder-for-hire plot, whose marriage was ended because her husband took the baby and left after LE gave him "information," and who is being pilloried in the news media and on the internet to "cooperate" with LE.
TH may be responsible for Kyron's disappearance and she would of course NOT be cooperative, for the obvious reason. However, a person in her situation could be, could possibly be, innocent and still decline to participate in LE efforts to gather evidence to indict and convict her. So "cooperating" has its limits when someone is obviously the target of an investigation; for us to use "cooperation" as an indicator of guilt or innocence is to fall into a logical black hole. If an innocent person tells LE what she knows or does not know, and LE does not believe her, "cooperation" is not only a waste of time, it's stupid and dangerous. If LE has evidence, bring an indictment and take the case to court. Then the public will see the evidence and a jury can decide. But reading
the "cooperation" tea leaves is not looking at evidence, because the guilty can cooperate and lie and the innocent can cooperate and not be believed. That's where EVIDENCE and INVESTIGATION come in.
LE can define "cooperation" as "telling us what we think we know is true." There are lots of people in prison convicted because LE got tunnel vision. Now, TH may well be the guilty party here, but let's see some evidence. The murder-for-hire plot seems straightforward enough. Bring an indictment on that and see what happens. That the prosecutor went to a grand jury and didn't indict on murder-for-hire, at least, worries me.