I sure did think he was guilty. When I first read that another pregnant woman was murdered, I immediately suspected the husband. When I read, days after the murder, that all the lights were on in the house at 4AM, I was surprised, as that is inconsistent with the husband, but I set that fact aside and went with the general belief that the husband was guilty. That fact (lights on) soon disappeared from news reports, but was again mentioned during trial. I really doubt that the husband would turn on all the light in the house, and draw attention to himself, if he's pretending that he's a few hundred miles away.
The case took a strange turn when the family wanted Jason to be ruled "slayer". We now had police, the courts, the victim's family, and several people from the general public satisfied that Jason was guilty, but there was still no evidence. That strikes me as a very backwards approach to justice.
Next, we have two trials. In the first, the jury had only been deliberating for a short time and they were 8-4 for not guilty. I thought that the judge should have sent them back to work harder, but the judge could see where the jury was headed and opted to call a mistrial. That meant that the prosecution could have another shot at trying the case. I do believe that the Judge was too hasty in calling a mistrial and I have wondered if he made the decision so fast because he did not like the direction the jury was taking.
In the second trial, the Judge allowed the perceptions of a daycare employee to be presented as though those perceptions were valid, whereas I believe that a daycare employee, with no training in early childhood behaviour, has no ability to interpret child's play. Who needs experienced psychologists with a masters degree when daycare workers are capable to doing the same work? The Judge allowed his ruling about Jason's guilt (slayer) to be introduced in court. The Judge clearly had formed an opinion about the case well before hearing the case, and I think it's possible that his courtroom rulings, including the decision for mistrial, were a little biased for the prosecution.
Finally, there is the investigation itself. Police were sloppy. They imagined that there was blood on the vehicle to obtain a search warrant. They photographed blood evidence in the bathroom, but there was no scale for the size of the blood smears. That is sloppy. They failed to collect the bedding and other evidence that had blood. They failed to collect visible evidence such as a tooth. They failed to present a proper photo array for suspect identification. They coached the gas station witness. They ignored the hotel witness statements. None of that should have happened in a clean investigation.
All of that, and some, leaves me wondering whether this case would have resulted in verdict of guilty beyond a reasonable doubt if the case was handled properly.