Yeah: Even though liability already has been established, his intent still is at issue, at least arguably for punitive damages. So he, in theory, should be allowed to testify how his answers to reporters' ("affirmative") questions show he didn't have (for example) a malicious intent.
This is a bad idea, of course, because he'll probably be a poor witness, and could even walk into some perjury traps.
But he and his counsel aren't bringing their best.
And, of course, much isn't isn't for the primary audience (the factfinder), but rather for the cheap seats.