OP has described dissociating during the event. She froze and wasn't really there. And during that time, instead of saying "hey love, you've gone a bit glassy-eyed, are you OK?", he put his dick in her, assuming that his "I'll pull out" has been accepted without any confirmation from her.
The Freedom Programme plus my reading around the traits of predatory men and their victims tell me that he selected her for his "situationship" because she has poor boundaries, poor red flag detection, and will freeze, flop, or fawn when scared instead of fighting or fleeing.
Read what she wrote: "I froze. I didn't feel like I was really there. I was worried id piss him off."
She froze, she fawned to avoid his potential angry outburst, she disassociated. Her fawning after he'd entered her does not constitute retroactive consent to him entering her.
I'm not teling her to go to the police. In her case, I would recommend against that. A police report would cause her a pile of hassle only for the CPS to "no-case" it or a jury to acquit. As you are demonstrating with your comments, a juror uninformed about trauma would fail to recognise his selection of a traumatised woman as being deliberate. A juror would mistake his refusal of her boundaries for the counteroffer it was disguised as. A juror would fail to recognise that he should have asked her "is that OK?" and waited for her answer. A juror would hear the defence barrister saying "she said yes later on" and mistake that as being freely-given and retroactive. OP does not need that hassle and retraumatisation in her life.
I am telling OP that she needs to take steps to harden herself against this kind of man. She needs therapy for her marriage. She needs trauma therapy. She needs to take boundary training, such as the Freedom Programme.