No, I just really don't see how - from the published accounts of the evidence presented - they've not found him guilty of rape but have found him guilty of something else. LL has suggested it might be because of something in Carroll's testimony and specific definitions of rape in NY law, which would make some sense but even then I think its a bit of a stretch.
Cool, keep pedantically picking through evidence and testimony that isn't available to you and look for ways to disagree, it's a fantastic use of your time