A judge has "finally" ruled that there is probable cause in this case and that Scott Peterson is to stand trial for double homicide.  I think the evidence, although circumstantial is pretty overwhelming...but is it a "slam dunk", the way the DA thinks it is?   Normally, I do see the forest from the trees, and what is fairly obvious is fairly obvious, but that's not always the case.

A personal friend of mine, and colleague, was under suspicion in a similar scenario, and things did not look good for him, until another suspect with more convincing data emerged.  The Grand Jury did not indict, due to the unshakeable new evidence, so he was never brought to trial.  Still, his professional life and reputation had been ruined in the process of myopic police investigation.   I wonder if a similar path is emerging in this case, though all roads seem to be pointing to Scott. 

Your thoughts on this, are greatly appreciated, and I would be open to discuss the other case as well; it is public record, and I am confident my friend is innocent, but there is always this lingering "haunt", so to speak.

Gene