Suspect (1987): Did they REALLY have the right guy?

Okay, so I just finished watching 'Suspect' with Sarah and Mark, and I'm still kinda scratching my head. Liam Neeson is amazing as always, and Cher is...well, Cher. But the whole time, I kept wondering if Carl Anderson (the homeless vet) was actually guilty, even though the movie wants you to think he's innocent. Hear me out! Think about it: the movie focuses so hard on Kathleen Riley (Cher) finding evidence to exonerate him that it almost feels TOO obvious. And the whole thing with the juror, Eddie Sanger (Dennis Quaid)? It seemed like a forced romantic subplot, but maybe it was ALSO meant to distract us from the possibility that Carl really did do it. Like, what if he WAS at the secretary's apartment, and maybe he DID have a motive we just don't know about because he can't speak to defend himself? Or maybe the 'evidence' they 'found' was planted at his camp - maybe the bad guy wasn't the juror but framed him. Who FRAMES a homeless guy? No way, he was the patsy, right? I'm probably overthinking, but the ending felt a little too neatly tied up for me to buy completely. And another thing - the scene where Carl is on the run is so over the top, it makes him looks guilty. It's just a thought, but I keep thinking about it. Am I crazy, or did anyone else get the feeling that they left a tiny, little door open for Carl's guilt? Maybe they planned a sequel and wanted wiggle room? I think its a movie about a conspiracy within our legal system, and a political conspiracy, that just wants to get rid of a vulnerable person. I need to watch it again, I think! What did you guys think?