From what I recall, he did state his innocence at the beginning, through his council. I fully recall DP stating that his client is 100 percent innocent, and it was announced publicly by council for both defendants that they would be pleading not guilty, so to say that they did not proclaim their innocence until now is an exaggeration.
You say that anything said after numerous opportunities to tell his story is detrimental and viewed negatively, but what is the optimal number of opportunities when one should speak out? Somewhere in between instantly giving the police words that they will use against you and the time when the public must think you're a liar for waiting too long? There must be some sweet number of opportunities that hits the marker for being sincere and believable, since surely protesting too much or too quickly is also a marker of guilt just as protesting too late is.
Now I hear you say 'why now?', but I seem to recall many people here saying 'why not now?' all along. People wanted to hear his words, for DM himself to say he didn't do it, but now that he has obliged everyone and said it, now everyone wants him to have said it months earlier from what it seems to me.
I'm not sure how we can classify one interview by DM as showing an ego. MS said almost as much during the interview with Molly Hayes where he didn't talk; he also gets visits from him mom and misses his GF, he even talked about how people recognize his name in jail from what I recall. That to me shows more ego than the words DM was quoted as saying in his interview.
I think the ego you are attributing to DM is really just the fact that the media has written articles about everything from his childhood to his grandparents to publishing photos of his ex, and yet MSM have no interest in any stories about MS from what I have seen. That has nothing to do with either man's ego from what I can tell, since it's not like DM is planting the stories in the media about himself. And I doubt it is part of either of their strategies, unless MS's close relative who was named as one of the 'top 30 under 30 in media' recently is using her connections to ensure plenty of negative DM stories in the media and no MS stories at all.
Just my opinions and observations.
Any uninvolved/innocent person would be able, via his own "story" or thru his counsel, be able to convince the Crown, when benchmarked against evidence.
Not only has that not happened, but neither has bail been requested.
In an average case about an average crime(from jaywalking to homicide) there could be, upon investigation, several likely suspects, justifications, etc.
However, to keep the example simple, understandable and manageable, lets use 4 suspects.
When doing the legwork, research,alibi, witness and suspect interviews it weeds out 2.
The other two begin to look more likely as perps as interviews continue and more evidence is compared. At a point it becomes clear that one of the two isn't the right person and is released. Now we are down to one, and as more evidence comes in, it indicates his involvement.
He says he didn't do it, the evidence says he did, he pleads not guilty.
He can have a bail hearing but if he does present a case for bond, it may implicate him. So his lawyer has an initial strategy to "sit tight" a few weeks/months and let's see what the Crown has, thinking it won't be much if anything and we can get you dismissed as a suspect or bail or until pretrial and a Judge "sees" they have the wrong man and sets you free.
Unfortunately for the suspect, evidence is stronger and now the only hope is "we get a soft jury."
There is a huge difference in an innocent man accused of a crime and a man involved, hoping to be found not guilty in a court of law.
I know how hard it can be dealing with the DA/Crown on a case like this. They usually won't take ifs and buts, and evidence has to be strong just to convince the DA/Crown to arraign.
Also "his story" has been "told" many times by now in several judicial venues, surely someone beside him and DP would buy in to his innocence eh?