He posited a series of scenarios which questioned the boundary of what should be considered rape. He then said "regardless of whether Alice is guilty of raping Bob" ... "should Bob be faulted for putting him into a situation where he was so drunk". In my view that "regardless" quite clearly shows he did not think that just being drunk would imply it wasn't rape. So he's saying that perhaps Bob should be faulted EVEN IF Alice is clearly a criminal rapist, not that Alice's actions would always be justified if Bob is drunk.

Considering the above, I think your "How do you differentiate" question and court references are at least partly off the mark. As far as I can see, nobody has suggested that a rapist should not be convicted just because the victim was drunk; saying that you may bear some responsiblity for becoming the victim of a crime if you intentionally incapacitate yourself does not imply accepting the actions of the criminal.