I'm going to re-iterate something I said elsewhere:

We understand the criminal law standard. The fact is that the doubts raised here were so far-fetched as to no longer be reasonable.

The taxi driver required a translator to testify - making it highly unlikely that he would be able to ask for, and recieve, consent from a highly inebriated person. The woman had peed herself PRIOR to the assault, evidenced by the fact that her pants/underwear was soaked - making it highly unlikely that she was conscious at the time of the assault itself (most people who wet themselves while drunk do so because they are unconscious).

The defense is asking us to believe that this woman peed herself while conscious, consented to a sexual encounter in a way that magically surpassed a severe language barrier, then happened to pass out after. "Proof beyond a reasonable doubt" does not mean "float any theory, no matter how far-fetched, and we'll let you off".