It is up to the prosecution to prove their case.
If what she says is true, then the only evidence the prosecution is presenting of a crime is the testimony of a witness that admits she was too drunk to remember the incident clearly.
If she's telling the truth, there is no credible evidence of a crime.
If she's lying, she is the one committing a crime.
Still, if what she claims is true, she may have been raped.
It is POSSIBLE that she may have been raped. However, the case should have never have been brought and should be thrown out because it is not possible to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she was raped.
If this guy is convicted it is because the jury ignores the facts and rules emotionally based on the accusation of a horrible crime having been committed.
We are all responsible for our own actions, and in this case, this woman needs to accept responsibility for consuming so much alcohol that she became that drunk. It is because of her own actions that she now says she was unable to consent, and it is because of those actions that it is so much uncertainty about what happened.
He should be held accountable for his actions as well, however there is no credible evidence that his actions were illegal.
How do you know? There could be all sorts of evidence. What was their relationship? If they hated each other, it’s a pretty good bet she wouldn’t have consented no matter how drunk she was. Likewise, what did the physical examination show? If there was trauma, it is also unlikely that she had consented. No one consents to sex that is painful or injurious.
We don’t know what kind of evidence there may or may not be. Trying to prove innocence or guilt based on a newspaper account is pointless.