I think both sides were content to leave the previous settlements as a big question mark. The prosecution simply wanted it known that there were previous settlements, which leaves an implication of guilt. Once they had that implication of guilt, they didn't want to give the defense the opportunity to explain it away. The defense didn't really want to go there because it wasn't really relevant to the current case, and they didn't want to open the door to any additional 1108 evidence. For both sides it was advantageous to float various unsubstantiated possibilities and let the chips fall where they may.