BBM - No, it doesn't, actually. Your logic is very flawed. Having knowledge of a crime does not make someone a co-conspirator. Aside from the fact that that statement may be wishful thinking on the part of LE, BG might have bragged to someone about the crime after the fact, or (more likely) LE has concluded that someone must have recognized BG from the video and audio but may be reluctant to come forward. In either case, such a person would only be a material witness. If someone knowingly gave BG a phony alibi, that person could be an accessory after the fact (or not, depending on how much the person knew) but still wouldn't be a co-conspirator. - As far as the car goes, it may have been a car shared by several people; maybe all of those people have denied using it that day. Maybe someone claimed to be driving it, but LE thinks that that person is covering for a suspect. We don't know whether LE thinks the car was driven by BG or whether they are looking for a potential witness. - As for restricting thinking, of course we need to restrict thinking somewhat--to what is supported by the evidence! That's the whole point of investigating a crime. It's called narrowing the focus. It's how crimes get solved. Wild conjecture and fantasy aren't helpful. Of course we don't know as much as LE, but we know quite a bit. We might not be able to rule out uncooperative witnesses (or even accessories after the fact), but we can absolutely rule out the possibility of a second perp.