I've seen those articles. However whether or not the police botched the investigation, or intentionally covered up fearing it might be true doesn't change the underlying facts that when you get down to it the evidence doesn't support a rape charge.
This is a more thorough look at the evidence than is presented in either the slate or deadspin articles.
And
Here is another
It seems there is a lot of bias in articles based on who wrote them and if they had an agenda, so lets boil this down to the facts and debate from there shall we?
There is no dispute they had sex. The only dispute is whether or not it was consensual.
Essentially, her story is that she was "drugged" or "incapacitated" somehow and ended up with Winston. A position not supported by toxicology results showing she was well below the legal limit of being "legally drunk" for driving purposes, and tested negative for drugs. Her physical examination doesn't support that she was held down. Further, she states she didn't know how she got in the cab, but one of her friends that she was there with showed her a text message and was told by that friend "Ok you can go". Winston's friends contradict her story that one of them tried to "stop Winston" and testify that the sexual encounter was consensual - backing Winston's side of events.
So, in short,
Her story is contradicted by her friends, Winston's friends, toxicology results, and physical examination. And her story is the only "evidence" if you will that a rape occurred.
Do you care to dispute any of that?