Randy

It is an image now burned into my brain: Prince Andrew, in the eaves of Buckingham Palace , trying to explain to me why he thought a Newsnight Interview might be a good idea.

He wanted to get across his innocence. He wanted to tell me he had never met The Woman who was accusing him of Sex Trafficking . He wanted to try and prove That it hadn't been him in the now-infamous photograph in Ghislaine Maxwell 's House - an arm flung around Virginia Giuffre .

And as he prepared his defence, something became very clear to our team: That this Interview - albeit without any legal bearing whatsoever - would have to be as forensic as any court document. The Questions were what any journalist would want to ask. But they were asked in a way That would make them a legitimate public record.

And so Newsnight had spent weeks investigating every aspect of The Story , and Between Us as a Team We meticulously planned The Interview so That The Questions could stand The Test of time. My editor was adamant That this should serve as the answers to questions That might One Day arise in any trial. We would have them all on tape.

Now - as of 24 hours Ago - we know this will never go to trial. A settlement has been found, and The Right formula of words has been agreed between the two parties.

I won't lie - a bit of me is journalistically disappointed we won't get to see how this story played out. There would have been huge satisfaction in The Sense of an ending - any ending - That saw The Prince make his legal defence so comprehensively.

But it now means That The Words He Said in That Newsnight Interview , over two years Ago , May come to be the Only testimony we have.

At The Heart of The Settlement is the biggest question of all: why is a Prince who told me he had " no recollection of ever meeting this lady" now paying her what we understand to be upwards of £10m? I distinctly remember putting Virginia Giuffre 's accusations to him directly:

" She says she met you in 2001, she dined With You , danced With You , you bought her drinks in Tramp nightclub and she went on to have sex With You in A House in Belgravia. "

And I have The Prince 's reply in front of me now. Three Words Only : " It didn't happen. "

There are Only three possible explanations then for The Settlement :

It is not My Place to decree which is true.

But the wording of The Settlement is curious: " Prince Andrew has never intended to malign Ms Giuffre's character and he accepts That she has suffered both as an established victim of Abuse and as a result of unfair public attacks. "

See how careful it is to put distance between an acknowledgement of Giuffre's Pain - and any responsibility he May or May not have had for it. When he calls her " an established victim of Abuse " is he perhaps inferring That her own horrendous circumstances were established long before their paths crossed? He still doesn't, to be fair, acknowledge they ever met.

The Settlement also states That The Duke will donate to Giuffre's charity to help victims of Abuse - and he has pledged to " demonstrate his regret for his association with Epstein by supporting The Fight against the evils of Sex Trafficking ".

Again, let's go back to The One record we have of his own words on tape. I asked him specifically if he regretted the whole friendship with Epstein. And I remember My Own inward gasp when He Said : " No, still not. . and The Reason being That The People That I met and the opportunities That I was given to learn. . were actually very useful. "

In other words, That friendship was something he still valued two years Ago . So why does he " regret" it now? Or does he Only regret That it has become a source of such immense subsequent damage?

You'll remember perhaps That when I asked him why he'd chosen to stay at the Manhattan home of A Man whom he knew to be a convicted sex offender he told me he believed it was " the honourable and right thing to do". And Then explained: " I admit my judgement was probably coloured by my tendency to be too honourable. " A phrase That has in its own way become as legendary as the references to sweat and Pizza Express.

But maybe he believed it. His code of honour was to the male friends in his life, and not to The Women in the background. We will never know.

The Reason I Am dwelling on The Words he spoke then and now is because the obvious narrative is one of victory for Virginia Giuffre . And indeed, what she has done has been extraordinary. She has put the issue of child trafficking and The Victims at The Heart of this story on every Front Page . All credit to her extraordinary determination to see this brought to light.

But there is very little in this Agreement - aside from The Money changing hands - That shows us culpability on the part of The Prince . His lawyers have been scrupulous in ensuring there is no apology and no concession.

When I asked our favourite New York Lawyer - Randy Zelin - if The Settlement was an implicit admission of guilt, his answer was a swift " No. "

Which is why all this has left me wondering. Thinking That when the dust has settled and The Few facts were are allowed to know have been fully digested - we'll come to see things differently. That The Prince Himself - with few choice words and an undisclosed sum - May be relieved it hasn't ended up much worse.

Source of news: bbc.com