What's intellectually lazy is that you're clearly approaching this from the assumption that Syed is guilty and demanding proof that he isn't. The American syst

What's intellectually lazy is that you're clearly approaching this from the assumption that Syed is guilty and demanding proof that he isn't. The American system is founded on the exact opposite principle: the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Syed is guilty. Syed doesn't even have to show that he is innocent, just that the State can't prove his guilt. In the case of the fingerprints, as many other posters have pointed out, he was the victim's boyfriend and so had been in her car many times. The presence of his fingerprints in her care is therefore neither surprising nor evidence of guilt. It just shows that at some point he was in her car, which already know was true many times. It's not for Syed to explain away the fingerprints, it's for the State to explain how it proves beyond a reasonable doubt that he committed the murder. Despite your numerous erroneous assertions to the contrary, the evidence presented by the State is extremely weak and circumstantial, and testimony of their key witness demonstrated to be extremely unreliable. Not to mention your assumption that it MUST be one of the listed suspects, and since their fingerprints weren't there it must be Syed. It's possible the killer was an unknown person. It's possible one of the other suspects wore gloves or some other protection against fingerprints. It's also possible Syed was the killer, but the fingerprints being in the car are not in any way proof of that because, as noted above, their presence is to be expected. Yours is precisely the kind of mindset the entire system is set up to avoid. Thankfully people who actually know the law and have gone over the evidence haven't approached this question with your attitude.