The last statement was two-thirds true, but journalists had a distinct memory of Peters standing in front of them playing "Burning Bridges" on his cellphone in October last year.
They also recalled his claims that he knew something that the media did not know, but would not share what he knew. He also claimed Bennett's demise would soon come and National leader Simon Bridges would not be far behind her.
On the Labour case, Peters said on Monday he had not seen the evidence and could not possibly draw any conclusions until he had seen it all.
He then insisted that this evidence that he had not seen would disprove all the speculation and innuendo.
At Parliament the next day he told media he knew things they did not know but would not share what he knew.
Peters then said he believed Labour's officials when they claimed not to have known of the allegation the woman claimed to have put to them both in email and verbally. He reckoned they had been unfairly maligned.
All up, Peters came perilously close to saying he did not believe the woman alleging sexual assault's version of events.
The evidence Peters offered up for this was that age and experience meant he could judge character better than younger mortals.
Peters' age and experience is not yet one of the enshrined principles in the Evidence Act, but Peters did raise an issue Ardern could not have gone near.
The difference is that Ardern is in the Labour Party and has been outspoken about the #MeToo movement.
Questioning the truth of any elements of a report of sexual abuse is not open to her.
Peters has the liberty to claim something that Ardern could not: to actually raise the question as to whether that woman had got it wrong and to instead give the benefit of the doubt to those being accused of ignoring a serious complaint.
Just because Peters can do it does not necessarily mean Peters should do it.
That is not least because Peters acted contrary to her wish for the matter to go quiet until various reviews were completed.
It is also because Peters' stance was almost in direct contrast to her own.
It is also hard to imagine Peters himself would tolerate it if a Labour leader waded into something that was a NZ First internal problem.
No goose-gander policy applies for Peters.
While everybody else's business appears to be Peters' business, it soon became clear that Peters' own business was nobody else's business.
Despite merrily traipsing into Labour's business, Peters was less than happy when questions were asked about his hospital stay and three-week recuperation.
He refused to say what his hospital stay was for or even confirm the Prime Minister's initial statement that it was a minor procedure on a leg, which she believed related to an old rugby injury.
Even getting authorisation to disclose that must have taken negotiations akin to the Paris Agreement.
All Peters has revealed since then is that it was not knee surgery, but who knows what it was beyond that? Was it a hip?
Some MPs dropped hints, but who knew if they were accurate?
One of those was Police Minister Stuart Nash, who told Newstalk ZB he believed Peters' long recovery was because of post-operative complications after knee surgery.
But hang on – Peters had said it was not knee surgery.
Peters was so Sphinx-like about the procedure that by the time he was done, some onlookers were left thinking it had happened to someone else entirely and Peters had been with us all along.
When asked, Peters grinned. "I've got bad news for you all. I'm back and I've never been fitter."
Yes, Winston was back, just in time to take over as Acting Prime Minister while Ardern heads off to meet US President Donald Trump.
The one the news is bad for may well prove to be the Prime Minister.
