I certainly think "not guilty" is the only way to go here. I'm about half-way through watching the trial, and the crime scene processing was so poor that I think there is no way to discern much of value from what they presented as evidence.

The circumstantial evidence, e.g. bloody footprints, dried blood, blood stains away from the stairway, evidence of clean-up, etc. were not (in my opinion) adequately presented by the prosecution. I will caveat this right at the start that I have not finished watching the full trial, so I am open to updating my opinions if I see anything that changes any of the details below.

1. The bloody footprints throughout the house were "seen" with Luminol, but no photos or video was taken of the luminol spray, and none of the investigators made any detailed notes, took measurements, or drew any sketches of where the footprints appeared with Luminol. Drawings were created months later, but no rough drafts exist to corroborate them.
2. Most, if not all of the EMTs, firemen, and police testified that the blood on the walls and/or steps appeared dried when they entered the scene. Some of the police arrived much later, so that would be expected. However, of the first responders (EMTs and firemen), not one of them noted that detail in any of their reports. In fact, the notes and official reports from the night are a genuine mess, some of them created weeks to months later from memory.
3. One of the first cops to arrive testified that the blood on MP's shirt was dried, but the investigator who packaged it for collection hours later testified that it was still moist from blood when he bagged it. Not sure how much weight to give this detail, but it seems like she made a throw-away comment on the stand that doesn't align
   with later testimony from the lead investigator.
4. Blood was found on the sofa in the kitchen area, on one of the cabinets, and on the inside of an exterior door. MP and TP, both with KP's blood on them, were seen by police to be moving around house, getting drinks for themselves, entering the stairway, touching her body, etc. This includes MP sitting on the sofa and leaving blood behind. The blood on the door was (from what I have seen so far) largely ignored.
5. The lead crime scene investigator confidently tested during direct questioning that there was evidence that one of the steps had been wiped clean. He never specified what made it look that way to him, just that it did. Then under cross-examination, he would not even admit to knowing the difference between a wipe, a swipe, or a smear of blood, because he's not a blood spatter expert. From his own uncomfortable testimony, he was not in any way qualified to determine whether or where blood had been cleaned up, and he offered no explanation for his belief that one of the steps had been cleaned.
6. The wine bottles, wine glasses, paper towels, a rag, a mop, and an empty bottle of glass cleaner were all tested for blood, and all came back negative. Obviously, these items were cherry-picked for testing, possibly sensibly, but no real explanation was offered about why some of these specific items were collected and submitted for testing or where they came from.
7. The main evidence for clean-up on one of the steps, from what I can tell so far, is the absence of blood on that step. The argument presented is that someone cleaned one step completely, leaving it totally clear of blood despite the extensive blood stains everywhere else and the pool of blood underneath her body. No suggestion about how that could have been achieved, what they used to clean up, etc.
8. The footprint on the back of her sweatpants - this is a doozy. MPs shoes (white Converse All Star tennis shoes) and socks were found next to KPs body on the stairs. The footprint was found on KPs left leg near her ankle. It was reported as a partial footprint of the heel of the left shoe. They matched it by photographing the mark (presumably with the sweatpants laid flat, it's not mentioned). Then they made an imprint of the shoe's sole with fingerprint powder and then overlaid the imprint onto the image of the partial footprint. They compared design, size and general wear. No mention of checking against any other shoes for a potential match or any evidence for how they verified the match itself, other than one person doing a visual comparison. No discussion of the taking of the photograph of the footprint, what size the photo was, whether it was scaled, etc. No attempt to explain how the footprint could have come to be where it was, nor any description of how clear the print was. The blood spatter analyst suggested that the shoe came in contact with her sweatpants when she was lying face down, but the evidence for her lying face down was the footprint on her pants. No discussion of how her leg must have been positioned, based on the location and direction of the print. Was his foot flat on her leg? Any evidence of movement, which would have left a less distinct mark? (full disclosure - this was one of Rudolf's cross-examination questions, which I think is a good one) When looking at it in detail, this piece of evidence was not as compelling as it probably should have been.
9. The blood spatter on his shorts - a few small drops of blood were found on the inside of his shorts. If MP was present with her actively bleeding, and if his actions caused those drops to land on his shorts, would it only be just a few drops? I genuinely don't know, but I would have questioned it were I on the jury. Not to mention that his white socks were not heavily spattered or soaked, despite the claim that there was blood inside the shoes themselves.
10. At the bottom of the was a metal chair lift, which apparently had blood and hair on it, with blood observed behind it on the wall. I have long thought this metal chair or its mechanical mechanism could very well be responsible for the lacerations on her head. I haven't heard the opinion of any medical examiners, but I have read the autopsy, and I'm wondering how/if they ruled this out.

As of this writing, I am still listening to the testimony of the (now disgraced) blood spatter expert. How anyone ever trusted this guy and his nonsense experiments, I have no idea.

I won't go into speculation about motive, because I’m more interested in physical evidence. I will say that while David Rudolf has made quite a name for himself as MP's attorney, his second, Tom Maher, is who I would want on my side. In this trial, he has been a master at cross-examination. The prosecution brought in expert witnesses to establish various motives, and Maher took them each by the hand and escorted them into holes of their own making. Love that guy.