Thanks for the new thread ... bringing my comment from the other thread over as I would like to hear how others interpret this list
I don't think there is absolute proof that Jason was or was not involved. What I see is a prosecution theory where all sorts of circumstantial points have been strung together to reinforce the theory that Jason is guilty.
What has the proseuction presented:
- an unplugged camera that cannot be connected to Jason
- a questionable gas attendant witness that added new information to her testimony after she admittedly didn't remember anything about the customer in her store
- prints in places that should match Jason, but don't
- a theory about medicine with nothing to connect the medicine to Jason or the child (no evidence she was drugged)
- two pair of shoes but no explanation why Jason would wear size 10 shoes to commit a strangulation murder
- a motive of millions of dollars but at the same time Jason knew that as a suspect he could not claim the millions
- allegations of a prior murder attempt and an accident investigator that attended the scene stating that everyone was wearing a seatbelt, that it was an accident in a place where accidents had happened before
- adultery
- dishonesty about the adultery
- sexual dysfunction in the marriage
- two people that participate in loud verbal disagreements in public
- an unhappy marriage
- a missing shirt, missing worn out hush puppy shoes, missing size 10 shoes
- a husband that was advised not to speak to police because he was immediately considered a suspect
- some investigation into possible suspects at a nearby trailer park that did not produce any leads
- vehicles seen at the property from 3:30 or 4 AM until about 6 AM.
- porch and driveway lights on (could have been left on the from the night before)
- missing items but no insurance claim for those missing items
- a poor planner that fails to calculate the amount of gas required to make the 510 mile trip but plans other details such as two pair of shoes for a strangulation murder
- an unfaithful husband that was in contact with his mistress before and after the murder, making no attempt to hide his frequent contact with his mistress
- no video surveillance on the 10 cameras at the hotel showing all of Jason's movements (morning activity)
- an unplugged camera
- no murder weapon
- a child that acts out the murder with play figures and identifies the mother figure, but not the figure that is "spanking" the mother figure for "biting" (she was familiar enough with both parents to identify both of them if the father was involved)
Did I miss anything? I don't see the above as proof of murder. It appears to be the case that investigators assumed that Jason was guilty and that they looked for circumstances that would support their theory.