After ten months, the preliminary hearing in the case of Scott Peterson, accused of murdering his pregnant wife Laci and the couple's unborn child, begins today.

Voluminous court filings have provided glimpses of the evidence that defense attorneys will try to prevent prosecutors from presenting: DNA analysis of Mrs. Peterson's hair found on pliers in Mr. Peterson's boat, bloodhounds used to pick up the scent of Mrs. Peterson in the boat or at a storage warehouse that her husband rented, and wiretaps and global-positioning systems used to monitor and track Mr. Peterson.

The prosecution is expected to unveil previously undisclosed evidence today. But, the question is, will it merely relate to Scott Peterson's character or will it link him to the crime?

Yes, there is some circumstantial evidence: He was a bad husband, had a mistress -- which may have given him a motive -- but what evidence do you have that links him to the crime?" asked [Ruth] Jones, the criminal law professor. "What evidence do you have that links him to the date, time and place and perhaps manner of the killing?"

We're not expecting fireworks. Given the relaxed evidentiary rules and resulting prevalence of hearsay at preliminary hearings, as well as the ultra-low burden of proof (probable cause is like "Is there a reason to believe?") the case will be bound over. The defense can be considered successful if it shows some significant inconsistencies in the prosecution's evidence and testimony of its star witnesses, and leaves the media and public wondering, "Is that all there is?"