Real tragedy in this case how the justice system can be so easily manipulated by the media.
I spent some time looking into this case as well and came to the conclusion that there is simply not enough information to definitively conclude anything, and that people seem too eager to take several leaps of faith to assume he’s guilty. He very well may be, but it isn’t close to being proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Every piece of evidence used to convict him is sketchy in some way.
Not sure how you believe people are too eager to see him as guilty when the only reason anyone knows about him is a campaign to free him.
It is absolutely ridiculous to claim the fingerprints have significance. Fingerprints on a weapon, or her clothes, or even the trunk or door handles are evidence. Fingerprints on a map are meaningless when he had probably been in her car dozens of times before as her boyfriend.
The real significance of the finger prints isn't that Syed's were there, but that they were there and no other suspects were. Someone with murderous intent was in that car, and the evidence shows that Syed was at least recently in car while all other suspects have no evidence that they were.
The thing is that the evidence is not compelling at all. It relies on sketchy cell phone evidence and the witness of a guy who told three entirely different versions of his story.
The cell phone evidence is so bad that the expert who testified for the prosecution retracted his analysis during the appeal. Prosecutors presented location for incoming calls as evidence, even though the AT&T call log made it clear that incoming calls did not have valid location info. The police mistakenly placed one of the towers in Patapsco State park, and the first version of Jay’s story had them driving through there. The police fixed their map and the second version of his story does not have them going to that park. That seems pretty clear that he was being coached, which puts the claim that “he knew where the car was” in doubt.
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.