I could understand, had the situation been an "under the influence" rape: he gets drunk and loses his inhibitions, she gets far drunker than she should be, and they go to it (she, during the act, changes her mind -- thus making it a rape...or afterward has remorse -- and tries to justify herself by claiming rape...or is too inebriated to legally give her consent, which, in some jurisdictions, is inherently rape -- I don't know about Ireland).
Here's the thing that gets me about this incident: her side of the story is that (in essence) he slipped her a Mickey. (She claimed that he insisted on buying her a shot and once she took a sip from the Black Russian he bought she began to feel unwell. She told him her mouth was on fire and she wanted a 'WKD' drink which he bought, but she did not finish it.)
Now, as far as I have read, a person who does did not take advantage of the circumstances, he would have premeditated the circumstances. I would have a hard time imagining a person doing that just once. Or doing that on a last minute spree. A person would have to premeditate such an act.
If a guy does that more than once, word will get around among the women, particularly in a small town. And in this circumstance, word would leak to the men as a result of this. In a small town, word is going to get around. I would think that such a word would be used in prosecuting a case and would inhibit such a fraternal send-off by townspeople.
So like I say, something just doesn't add up.
A few flaws:
I’ve read this as a tale of two distinct communities, where she was going out of her circle into his. As such, your notion that everyone in such a small town would have known of his behavior is a little questionable.
It could be that since he was well-known to be engaged, suddenly the well of women to have sex with dried up quickly, prompting him to change his behavior a little towards the audacious.
Suppose he’s previously gotten women to his apartment and then hit them with roofies. Such women might spread the word that he’s a jerk, but perhaps not that he’s a rapist. Now, he’s more desperate and taking bigger chances... For every event, there’s a first time.
There’s also strong evidence it wasn’t consensual: wounds consistent with having been dragged, the fact that the video shows him CARRYING her out, and, oh, yes... her testimony. Since he is impeached as a witness, and as evidence emerged, it supported her side, her testimony is more valid than simply a “scorned lover.”
At any rate, even if he is innocent, he is certainly a disgusting piece of human filth who hardly seems deserving of such condolences. Consider his side of the story: that he lied to his fiance’ about having sex with someone accusing him of sexual assault. I can see why his character witnesses didn’t sway the jury. I’m sure the jury thought the priest might have well thought, “Well, you have to understand, a man has his needs; just ask little Timmy, my altar boy.”
And what a crappy lawyer! How could you possibly let your client tell such lies without first ascertaining what physical evidence could contradict him?
I mean, seriously... he now claims he had sex with a random stranger he picked up at the bar, just two days after proposing. And he calls that woman a “wan” in court, in spite of the obvious effect that’ll have on the jury. And she still wants to marry him. Hardly indicative of emotional health.