Were you also not totally convinced of David Westerfield's guilt?
Not that it's germane to this case or anything, but I wans't entirely convinced at first, but eventually came around... but, just as in that case, I'll wait for the actual trial and those pesky 'due process' and 'evidence' thingies etc... before I make a determination...
As some of you may recall, I was totally convinced of David Westerfield's guilt. But it was after hearing of the hair, fiber and blood evidence. When I heard early on about his meandering trip to the desert that weekend, it seemed to me that this is probably the guy who did it, but that there wasn't enough to convict yet. It took some physical evidence tying him to the crime--a weird set of circumstances wasn't quite enough.
Where we are with Peterson, I believe, is where we were with Westerfield when all we knew was he took a weird desert trip. Peterson took an odd trip to the very bay where Laci's body showed up later, and that may be enough for probable cause to charge him with the crime, and to believe that he probably is the guy who did it.
It's not enough, without more, I believe, to convict him, and when his defense brings in the facts that there were burglars, the dog found wandering with the leash attached, the guy who said he saw a pregnant lady walking a dog on December 24 AFTER Scott left for his trip, it will generate reasonable doubt pretty easily. Anyone could have dumped the body in the bay after reading that the police suspected the husband, and he had been fishing in the bay.
To convict, I think the police are going to need to tie something on the bodies or at the bottom of the bay with Scott--duct tape match, fingerprint on the tape, concrete block from Scott's business, blood splatters in the boat that match Laci, something like that. Otherwise, right now, there's no way you can convict him. But that's just my opinion.