I don't know, 'cause I haven't been there. But I think in today's climate--especially in the post-Orenthal era--the prosecutor usually has a pretty high degree of confidence in his case before he commits to trial.
Look at the JonBenet case. Even though the most prominent theory has Patsy Ramsay doing her own kid in, there's still no indictment.
This guy'll have his day in court and thank God we have the system we do have, flaws and all. But I have a hunch he's guilty, and he's goin' down for it.
That doesn't mean that Van Dam Mere et Pere aren't creeps, but they're probably not murderers.
Of course you are welcome to your hunch, but frankly, I don't put much faith in someone else's hunches (you know what they say about hunches, they're like armpits--everyone's got one, and everyone thinks everyone else's smells). On the other hand, if you read up on the case, study the transcripts, read the past articles on it, and figure out who's bs'ing who, then I might give your posts some credence. Until then, they're just more opinions--which, in a way are a lot like hunches and armpits.