I'm not denying she considered herself raped. I've taken it as a given that she did.
What you don't seem to understand is that it's legally possible to have a rape victim without a rapist. Given their stupidity in not having a safe word he had no way of knowing he was crossing the line. No criminal intent, the jury was right to say not guilty.
the bolded is you making shit up again. You have no idea whatsoever if they "had a safe word" or not because he hit her over the head, bound and gagged her!
She was raped, now you acknowledge, yet you are still excusing her rapist. Moreover, "criminal" intent has nothing to do with it. His act was rape because he did not have consent.
And finally, contrary to your claim up there, the jury found him not guilty because in that time period they didn't believe a man could rape his wife. It had nothing to do with your fantasy scenario of misunderstanding about safe words.