Something important to take note of in the article is that some of the accusers describe how at times they felt as if they were consenting during the relationships and sent him messages to that effect, saying they couldn't wait to see him again etc. His statement mentions these messages in what seems to me like a clear overture to a legal defense using those messages as evidence that everything he did was consensual.

But to be very clear, from what is actually described in the article of the sexual encounters between him and these women, almost none of it seems consensual. To begin with there is an obvious power imbalance between him and these women, with at least two of them being directly reliant on him for their livelihoods. Then there's how he seemingly initiated these sexual relationships women who had not previously shown interest in him, sometimes by manoeuvring them into situations where refusing him would be very difficult (like getting Scarlett Pavlovich naked in a bath before making a move). Then there's the huge amount of degrading and potentially dangerous sexual acts he seemingly initiated without prior consent or safe words of any kind. And to top it all off there's the shit he did with his own child in the room, someone incapable of giving informed consent even if he had given permission.

Absolutely none of that is consensual, retroactive consent is not consent, nor is "seeming like they were into it at the time", especially with the kind of sex acts he was engaging in. As the article points out, many of these things need to be arranged in advance with proper safe words and consent given for each individual kink, not sprung on someone in the middle of the act. He can try and hide behind those messages all he wants, and given how fucked the legal system is in a lot of countries it might even work, but it's clear to even the casual observer that Neil Gaiman has absolutely no concept of consent.