Look. The show might have worked had it committed to being a psychological study. There is an interesting germ of an idea here: a story of whether the friends and family of a psychopath "should have known," or what happens after you do know. It's certainly not a new idea; the series was basically We Need to Talk About Kevin, but with a killer husband, or The Good Wife, except way more stabby.
But David Kelley tried to dress it up as a murder whodunnit, and one with terrible and nonsensical plotting that partly depends on domestic chores involving dishwashers and dry cleaners. He could even had completely subverted the murder whodunnit genre. This would have entailed, say, making Jonathan's guilt absolutely clear by Ep 2 or 3 (e.g., via an objective flashback to Jonathan actually committing the murder), and spending the rest of the series tracking how Grace and Henry struggled with this understanding, her dilemma about how best to protect her son from his monster father, etc.. In this version of the show, I might even have been able to overlook or forgive the courtroom shenanigans that Kelley has always loved ("What if the wife testifies, seemingly for the husband, and then, PLOT TWIST!?!?"). But no. Kelley had to stretch the whodunnit over five episodes, filling the story with stupid red herrings ("What if we make the entire Fraser family end up outside Elena's house?"), lots of gratuitous violence ("Let's show our embodiment of the Dead Girl Trope getting bludgeoned over and over!"), and only cramming the We Need to Talk About Jonathan denouncement into an episode.
I guess at least I got to gaze upon Edgar Ramirez's marvellous hair. #FollicularGoals