No, you are mixing concepts.
The law has been wrong multiple times, and my rationale is that what the law says may or may not be true, which is fully reasonable given the history.
Couple that with the fact that Neal was acquitted after multiple witnesses, including friends of the victim, testified against the victim, gives reasonable grounds that Neal was indeed innocent.
Kobe, on the other hand, did not go through trial after people found out about the iden y of the victim, she received death threats from lunatics, refused to testify, and had the issue settled out of court. Did he rape? It's tough to say, maybe Kobe genuinely thought he didn't, but Faber insisted she said "no" multiple times, and Kobe insisted. Even Kobe's version included some variations of it. This, by definition, is rape.