I think I see the argument. It is not a perfectly straight line between what he said and an admission of rape, the crime, I suppose.
He seemed to be saying that while he now recognizes she didn’t consent, he didn’t know it at the time, and thus did not have the criminal intent to commit the crime of rape.
It’s a lawyerly response. And a semantic argument. At a minimum even taking his distinction seriously, he was reckless about whether had consent.
And all irrelevant because he is full of shit. The notion that while was she was being violently assaulted, without, he now admits, consent, she didn’t at least once manifest her lack of consent, is dumb.
tl/dr — his statement makes clear he raped her