This is what he said, "Although I truly believe this encounter between us was consensual, I recognize now that she did not and does not view this incident the same way I did." I don't consider this mindblowing. I think its something kids in high school and college, as well as young and maybe even older adults, experience and confront frequently.
I don't want to make this about my or anyone else's personal experiences, but I certainly understand and have experienced situations where one person woke up the next morning and thought, "I'm not sure I really wanted that to go in the direction it went. That's not what I wanted or intended to happen." I think this could be that type of situation, but who knows? I trust that she felt in good faith that she was raped, and he believed she consented. That's my belief based on what I've read.
Third, the idea of consent in sexual assault cases is more complex than most of us realize. I don't think your comment, "If you think it's consensual and the woman doesn't, that's non-consensual" is necessarily correct under the law. Maybe
@Ditkaless Wonders or others can give an opinion on this. The discussion I recall from law school essentially asks the the question, how can you convict someone of engaging in a non-consensual act when, in that person's mind, the act was 100% consensual at all times? This is why these cases are often very difficult to prove. I don't think the juries in these cases are instructed to focus only on the victim's intent and the victim's view of whether or not there was consent, but I could be wrong on that.