I'm catching up with this whole thing now, and while I don't have a concrete opinion since I'm still catching up, I just read the phone transcript between the two and it really says a lot about how lacking most people are when it comes to knowledge about rape and consent. By law, if you're drunk you can't consent, but most people can figure that's a hard rule for courts to follow considering how much drunk sex happens with everyone, so with saying that it really brings the case to a grey area. Parker says the woman was active and engaging with them, which is probably true, and she says she doesn't remember much, which could also be true. At that point you're going off non verbal cues, and considering she's active and seems willing to participate, and that non verbal cues can count as consent too, it all makes the whole case a bit of a mess in the end; but then again, what counts as a non verbal cue can go up for debate too. So far it sounds like you really can't blame either party for what they believe went down at that point.
I"m gonna finish catching up now, I'll get to the tweets posted in the op in a bit, but it's shyt like this that makes some rape cases so fukking hard to take a side in, and a bit depressing too.