"Likewise, the justification for her to demand this as part of a settlement, if Kobe truly was guilty, is no different from Kobe's justification for agreeing to make the statement:

So she can just move on with her life, and avoid a nasty trial that she could ultimately lose, while being dragged to hell and back along the way."

My point is that the statement itself doesn't lend itself to any reading other than as a requirement for a settlement. It shouldn't be a hang up for anyone, lending credence or question to any particular conclusion.

The logic we would apply in examining why she wouldn't just lock him up, is the same logic we would apply to examining why an innocent man with means would pay up and give such an apology for a crime he did not commit.

If someone thinks he's guilty, the apology would be the worst possible reason.