Are you charging him with murder or lying to the police? A weak or even shattered alibi still leaves him with a presumption of innocence which the prosecution must overcome beyond a reasonable doubt.
I mean, I'm charging him with neither - I'm not advocating for his conviction, I'm just a dude commenting on an internet forum. There's much more evidence where that came from, but that statement cuts into the central premise of Serial S1E1 (particularity of the first few minutes), which is why I picked that to start with.
The problem (and the point I'm trying to make) is that there's this sort of "Adnan was convicted by bad evidence" type of myth that the entirety of the Internet seems to believe because that's what a podcast says. In reality, a jury of his peers, after listening to the case in full, decided to convict the guy. Unanimously. I don't know if the guy is guilty or not, but it hits me as a little silly that the entire world has decided that they know better than the jury because we listened to a podcast. There's at least some reason to read that as "Serial didn't provide a totally unbiased story" not "wow, it's good that we are all so much smarter than the people who looked at the evidence in its entirety in the courtroom".
