In fairness, there were very few details provided in the original story. Most people who were dubious were simply requesting more information, not rejecting the accusation. With so little information, assuming she was raped would have been as wrong as assuming she wasn't. That he confessed, that there was a witness to the girl's condition after the assault, that there was physical evidence of the crime, that it was immediately reported, and that he was TWICE convicted of rape was crucial information nobody who originally questioned the OP had access to.
In my case, although I normally give rape victims the benefit of the doubt, I also considered that Sweden has recently hit the headlines for asserting that consensual sex without a condom is not only a "rape", but a crime so heinous it is worth of millions of Euros worth of legal wrangling and an international arrest warrant.
Anyway, for my own part, I didn't intend to play "blame the victim" at all, I just wanted enough detail to understand what happened. Now that more detail has been provided, I am completely convinced (and disgusted).