.. and this case could very well boil down to 2 drunk folks having sex - and I emphasize "could" as opposed to "was".  The dude may indeed be a total creep, but the toxicology reports state he was very drunk, almost as drunk as she was.  All the wannabe SJW's out there act like he was stone cold sober and happened upon a passed out chick.  That's not the way it went down.  I don't think anyone knows how it started, but she was blacked out drunk and there was a witness who saw them leave together.  Did she give some kind of drunken consent that she is not aware of?  I don't think it can be proved either way.  Could it be that she passed out in the middle of the "action", and he was too drunk to assess the situation?  Seems like that could have happened.  I haven't read the court transcripts, and the reporting has not really been that detailed, but it seems like his testimony is what sank his case - he made conflicting statements or something like that?  I dunno.  If he really did have a rich daddy attorney like folks are ranting & raving about, it seems like he would have gotten completely off, as opposed to getting a light sentence.  Yeah, the guy is probably guilty, I get that - I'm just wondering about the "reasonable doubt" here.  It would seem that some people get so over the top emotional about these kind of issues that they think reasonable doubt does not apply in rape cases.  

Or maybe you think this was a simple case of "date rape" as opposed to "actual rape"???

It bothers me that some people try to parse out "consensual sex" and "non-consensual sex".   "Consensual sex" is just sex.  "Non consensual sex" is rape.  "Drunken consensual sex" is the same as "Non-consensual sex".