Often for strategic reasons law enforcement agencies will chose not to arrest an individual that is suspected of committing a crime. Usually, the officers use the time between development of a suspect and arrest to "build" a case. Persons under investigation mistakenly believe that by cooperating they can convince police or prosecutors of their innocence. Another wrong belief is that police will forget about a case or get too busy to pursue a suspect.
On many occasions, I have seen people attempt to talk their way out of an arrest only to succeed in strengthening the government's case against them. Police agencies are collectively very good at what they do. Pre-arrest they are largely unconstrained in the limits to which they may go to pursue evidence of a crime. Pre-arrest an individual does not have an absolute right to an attorney. The playing field for police investigating a target does not start to balance toward the individual until he is arrested. After arrest attorneys can use the courts to shield their clients from the police.
Persons under suspicion often foolishly believe that they can outmaneuver hundreds of years of proven police strategy and millions of dollars of governmental resources. Amateurish attempts to "throw [police] off of your trail " inevitably backfire.
Sometimes police don't have enough information to charge a suspect. In those instances a suspect's statements to police can be the final evidence necessary to seal a conviction. In other scenarios, police have adequate information to charge a suspect. There conviction is inevitable and cooperation may be the only way for a suspect to avoid lengthy incarceration. The difference between these two situations is crucial. An experienced criminal defense attorney will recognize that difference.
I aggressively defend my clients rights during an investigation. My years of experience leave me with an ability to assess the strength of an investigation as it progresses. Targeted individuals need qualified counsel.