Just want to repeat what I said toward the end of the previous thread, with a new emphasis: if LE has CLEARED someone, that is different from LE saying that person is "not a suspect." I can't recall when a "cleared" individual, publicly cleared, has then morphed into a someone charged with the crime unless LE finds out something was wrong with the info they used to clear the person, e.g., it turns out the alibi witness lied, the time stamp on a receipt was incorrect, etc. The fact that the individual under discussion was physically elsewhere, verifiably, was no doubt one factor in CLEARING that person. The only remaining question would be: What was he cleared of? And if that answer is "any involvement in the abduction of Ms. Cornwell," then it is time to look elsewhere.
It is, I suppose, possible for LE to publicly state that someone is "cleared," when they don't mean it, but that would cause lots of credibility issues for LE with ordinary citizens and the innocent families of victims. There needs to be some category by which innocent people can be eliminated, publicly, in order not to punish everyone with whom the victim has a connection. It is easier for LE to say of the potentially guilty "not a suspect," which really only means "not a suspect we can charge" or "not a suspect until we have all the evidence" or "not a suspect so far."
If he's been cleared by LE, that's that, for now at least.
