The News of the World today denies that any of its staff - except for royal editor Clive Goodman - were involved in obtaining information through hacking into mobile phones.
In an editorial headlined No inquiries, no charges, no evidence the paper approvingly quotes Andy Hayman, the former Scotland Yard assistant commissioner who led "an exhaustive nine-month inquiry into our journalistic conduct."
He says: "As I recall the list of those targeted, which was put together from records kept by Glen Mulcaire, ran to several hundred names. Of these, there was a small number - perhaps a handful - where there was evidence that the phones had actually been tampered with."
The leader agrees that Goodman tapped into telephone voicemails and that Mulcaire, a private investigator "contracted to the paper" did the same. It goes on:
"As a result of these actions, this newspaper, in April last year, resolved a legal case brought against us by Gordon Taylor, chief executive of the professional footballers' association, after it was discovered that his voicemail had been illegally hacked into by Mulcaire."
The paper omits to mention that it resolved two other legal cases too. But its admission about the pay-out to Taylor raises a number of questions.
Who asked Mulcaire to hack into Taylor's voicemail? The royal editor? Or did Mulcaire do it of his own volition? (David Randall, in today's Independent on Sunday, raises this point too in an excellent article).
If Mulcaire acted without orders from anyone at the News of the World, why should the paper feel it necessary to pay damages to Taylor?
Does this mean that the NoW feels itself responsible for all of Mulcaire's actions during the period when the NoW was paying him £2,000 a week? (Ambulance-chasing lawyers, please note).
Since Mulcaire did not confine himself to hacking into the voicemails of members of the royal family, who urged him to broaden the field into politicians, celebrities and footballers?
Then, of course, we return to the questions that have remained unanswered since the scandal first came to light. Which executive, or executives, at the NoW were responsible for authorising payments to Mulcaire?
What did they think he was doing in return for so much money? How were his activities described on the invoices? Why did nobody raise the alarm about the level of his payments?
Furthermore, how many, and which, stories published in the paper were the result of Mulcaire's activities? (If the answer is none, except for Goodman's diary items, why was Mulcaire paid so much for so long?)
Was the editor, Andy Coulson, informed about contributors' payments? Was he aware of Mulcaire's existence and/or role? If not, was he deliberately kept in the dark?
On Friday, The Guardian also posed a series of questions for Coulson to answer. The key one, of course, relates to his competence as an editor: if he was genuinely unaware of what was happening in his newsroom, why didn't he know?
Anyway, before anyone accepts the News of the World's denials at face value, all the questions above need to be answered.
Maybe, just maybe, there are logical answers that will exonerate the paper, its staff and Coulson. If they remain unanswered, however, it will be impossible to take the denials seriously.
Perhaps members of the culture, media and sport select committee and the Press Complaints Commission would like to note down these questions.
The credibility of their inquiries depends on probing deep into the News of the World's newsroom culture in the years leading up to the arrest of Goodman and Mulcaire in August 2006.