Yes, I was drawing the moderator's attention to it. I thought it would be reasonable to discuss anything that has been said in court.
I am guessing the prosecutor's odd framing arises out of the background trial procedure, rather than a followup statement by PR to police on his arrest.
To streamline trials, parties agree what matters will be in dispute, in order that the witnesses can focus on the live issues. So for example, the prosecution has lots of video of what they say is PR, his car, and libby in his car, at multiple locations. The accused is not going to deny that it is his car, and that is him, and it is libby and that he was at those locations. This means that the prosecution won't need to call any expert evidence to identify the car for example. It'll just be read in.
So I am guessing in the trial management phase, and perhaps in its pleadings in response to the indictment, the defence accepts that it was his semen, but denies rape.
How the defence intends to adduce evidence to that end I am not sure, because presumably only PR can give that version via testimony, and it is different to his statements to police and other witnesses.
This is why I suspect the defence case will tend to involve speculation by defence counsel, more than actual evidence - because no one else can put a non-rape version into evidence, and PR already gave a different statement
The defence is in huge difficulty IMO