The Times has a rule imposed on all reporting that until a person is convicted by a court of law, they are described as an “alleged” perpetrator. This prevents libel suits against the paper and is consistent with the Constitutional presumption of innocence.
I have not followed this kidnapping case closely and I have no idea whether the alleged perpetrator in this case is “obviously” guilty… he may be. But consider the Central Park Five case in New York in which five teenagers all confessed and were sent to jail, only later to be cleared by DNA evidence. Totally different case of course, but a case that makes one leery of confessions until all the facts are considered.
