Don’t get your panties in a twist. Pulling in speculation about drugs out of thin air offers insights into your defensiveness only.
Nót really. Competency is an important legal concept and these exact scenarios are a familiar topic in crim law. Tort too. Bottom line, its about consent. If a person can’t or won’t give consent, for any reason, its rape. Drugs and alcohol are well known to impair judgement, and without capacity for ordinary good judgment, you can’t assign consent. This is true even if the impairment is just being a little too young. You can have a fully aware person who actually wants to participate, but the law will deem their judgment impaired by their youth, making consent a legal impossibility. Statutory rape. So this is why the defense was trying to find some point on the drunkenness spectrum where he could claim she was not yet impaired. He needed that to get consent. Apparently that strategy was unsuccessful.
The use of drugs is not speculation pulled out of then air.
They even know who sold the drugs, they know this same crime has been pulled before and they know of other victims.
Because they did not have “proof” they chose to characterize the girl as “drunk”. She was drugged and had she not vomitted several times it might have been fatal.
What was revealed at the trial is a small fraction of what actually happened.
A truly despicable cast of characters.