Wow. There are two stories.
HE SAYS: The maid was in the room. He didn't know it. He walked out of the shower, all nekkid and pasty white 62 year old dough boy. The maid, seeing him, was overwhelmed by his physical beauty, and demanded that they couple, immediately, on the nearest available horizontal surface.
SHE SAYS: He came out of the shower, she didn't know he was in the room. She tried to ignore him. He pursued her, caught her, and raped her, in spite of her protests and resistance.
WHAT IS KNOWN FOR SURE: They were both in the room. Sex was had, because there is ... let's call it "DNA" ... from DSK. And it was all up in the part of the woman where "DNA" would be if they had sex.
THE VERDICT: These are two implausible stories. His is just silly. But it turns out that the maid has a history of lying and associating with very sketchy characters. Since both stories are implausible, we look to the presumption. In a criminal case, the strong presumption is innocence on the part of the accused.
DUKE LACROSSE: Not even close. There, no sex was had. Except with six other (non-lacrosse, non-Duke) guys, before and after. (EWWWWW!) But there was never any evidence that any of the students had sex with CM. None. Zero. In the DSK case, he DEFINITELY DID have sex with the woman, according to his own story and the DNA evidence. The question is whether it was consensual. Sounds like DSK walks.
STILL: The lacrosse players at Duke were innocent. DSK is "not guilty." There's a big difference.