I don't know whether it's me but I'm struggling to get context from your posts.
Which part of the story do you disagree with, exactly? She said she speaks no Lithuanian and talked to the local police/ambulance. She can't have talked to anyone right away because she was barely conscious for a long period. She thinks that someone might have spiked the drinks she was given at a sleazy meet and greet arranged by a now-fired staffer and potentially also by a proud racist associate. It feels as though the parties and sleaze are all widely acknowledged as real, so it doesn't sound even slightly implausible to me that some people who attend those parties might end up having a less than great experience.
It doesn't really matter who she is or why she might make choices she made. She's trying to warn other girls not to get caught up in sleazy parties, not get something out of it herself. She even said the show itself would be great to attend, just not the sleazy backstage stuff. Till is a powerful guy, not an underdog in need of mindless support. I don't see what's in it for her by lying about having had a bad night, so I'm strongly inclined to believe her. As for who caused the bad night, that's for the investigation and the band to figure out. But when so many people over a period of time have reported questionable behaviour, I think 'innocent until proven guilty' is no reason to discredit the latest report. She's 'innocent until proven guilty' too, remember?
So what part of the story is contentious? Even if she proactively signed up to sleep with the guy (which it doesn't sound as though she did), she's allowed to back out if she wants to at any point. At what point does the established reality swerve into being too implausible?
I'm not going to burn my Rammstein collection but I believe her.
R