According to Paula Jones' account, on May 8, 1991,
Got to cut you off right there, buddy.
Paula Jones claimed that Clinton's male member had a "distinguishing characteristic". Testimony by both Clinton's doctors and other women who had relationships with him said no such thing was true.
Paula Jones was a liar.
So why did Clinton dish out $850,000 if he wasn't guilty of rape?
First, even if everything Paula Jones said was true, it wasn't "rape". It was at best, sexual harassment, but even that's questionable because Clinton wasn't her boss or in a direct supervisory role to her.
Secondly, you left out a few steps there.
A Federal Judge had dismissed Jones' lawsuit as being without merit. She had not suffered any direct retaliation from her refusal to have sex, therefore it wasn't harrassment under the Federal statue.
Jones dropped the amount she was asking for from 2.5 million to $850,000, and any insistence that Clinton admit wrongdoing. This made it cheaper than continuing to litigate the appeals to Judge Weber-Wright's ruling. It also cut the legs out of any impeachment charges, since the case was now over.