Well, absolutely any verdict can be reduced to some stupid caricature to support an existing viewpoint.
While I'm sure there IS a loud minority of people whose default assumption is "women just make up rape allegations for fun", I think there's a far larger section of the population that's inclined to automatically sympathize with a woman who claims to have been raped. That's obviously not inherently a bad thing, but in this case it just so happens that it was.
Of course, a really thoughtful and nuanced interpretation of this case must, necessarily, get into the flaws in our justice system itself -- first of all, the racial biases that would lead to a situation where a lawyer actually says "Look, they're gonna convict you with or without evidence so you'd better just cop a plea"; second, the sheer horror of what it can mean to be branded a sex offender; and third, the ramifications of trying juveniles as adults, and the dilemma that poses even in the case of serious violent crimes.
And fourth, the mess that passes for the American mental health system. Because if that article describes the accuser accurately, then armchair-psychologist Thad thinks that maybe she should be evaluated for a medical diagnosis that's somewhat more specific than "oblivious".
