THE EXACT whereabouts of Mr Jonathan Aitken remained a mystery yesterday, following the collapse of his libel action against the Guardian newspaper and Granada TV on Friday.
While one report said he was in the US preparing to write his memoirs, his mother, Lady Aitken, embarked upon a damage limitation exercise, claiming that her son had lied in court only to protect his wife.
Mr Aitken has not been seen in public since last Thursday, the day before his counsel announced that he was dropping his case in the High Court challenging claims that he had lied about who had paid his hotel bill at the Ritz in Paris, in 1993. This question was central to the allegations - made by the Guardian and Granada TV - that he breached ministerial guidelines when a Saudi Arabian business associate paid the Ritz bill. He was also accused of arranging prostitutes for Arab businessmen.
Clearly angered by the intense media coverage of her son's downfall, Lady Aitken nevertheless chose to answer his critics in an interview with the Mail on Sunday newspaper. She said the Aitken family would be sticking by her son, "like steel glue", and that his decision to press ahead with ever more elaborate lies was prompted by duty to his wife, Lolicia.
Mr Aitken and his wife, who announced their separation last week, had been "virtually separated for years", Lady Aitken admitted. However, she said: "Years ago, Lolicia made a statement to say that she had paid the bill, so, even though nobody remembered what happened, Jonathan felt he had to stand by her."
And while Mr Aitken remained at arm's length, the Guardian and Granada TV put "flesh on the bones" of the extent to which an amicable settlement had been sought by the two parties. The editor of the Guardian, Mr Alan Rusbridger, revealed yesterday that Mr Aitken had been given two opportunities to drop the libel action, but that on both occasions he had refused.
Mr Rusbridger claimed that on one occasion last year, and just days before the general election this year, Mr Aitken approached the Guardian, with the advertising tycoon Lord Saatchi acting as intermediary. Mr Rusbridger said: "We wouldn't offer to pay a penny to him, but we were offering a face saving formula."
The formula is understood to have involved both sides covering their own costs, but with neither side admitting guilt. A short statement in the newspaper would have announced an amicable settlement, but the deal was rejected by Mr Aitken.