I've read the other comments, and for the most part, my estimates haven't moved. However, this remark by Psychohistorian jumped out at me:

The fact that the prosecutor is under investigation for previously using crazy psychotic hypersexual homicidal maniac theories without basis does a lot to explain how the prosecutors ended up with such a crazy theory.

Wow, I definitely missed this when I read about the case. The prosecution's theory was already setting off alarm bells. If this is true, that shaves another percentage point or two off of my estimate of guilt for K+S.

In general, I'm a bit surprised how much faith some commenters have in their causal understanding of human behavior and psychology, when that understanding seems to be derived from a process of imagining what they would do in those circumstances. I know that I would certainly try like hell to maintain a coherent account of the night's events, but taking this kind of interpersonal analogy for granted when assessing such a delicate situation strikes me as willingly throwing oneself into the arms of the typical mind fallacy.

Some commenters seem particularly focused on some of the more arcane details of the case, e.g., the toilet. How much can you really infer from this sort of thing? I get the distinct impression that people are falling back on intuitions gleaned from detective shows and mystery novels, which by construction tend to involve cases that hinge on the little things.