He wouldn't need to cover himself if he had proof. He said he had no proof, because he had no proof. If he had had proof, or as he puts it, if the information had been verified to a reasonable degree of certainty, he'd have acted on it. It wasn't, and he didn't.
LeGrand also stated under cross-examination that 'his investigation of John Branca and Tommy Motolla had yielded no evidence of wrongdoing at that time.'
Here's what we've got: a vague concern that Branca might have been involved in shenanigans to let Sony get control of Sony/ATV. And seperately an off-shore account associated with Branca's firm that Sony paid money into. The two aren't necessarily linked. We already know Branca's firm did some work for Sony. Taking the fact that Sony paid money to Branca's firm and suggesting that was for those particular shenanigans instead of for the rather more obvious purpose of paying them for legitimate work, or transferring money for the purpose of doing that work, is a bit weak to say the least.
And looking at that testimony, no, Branca couldn't have sued for slander. What could he have sued for? Because someone said under oath they had concerns? Not strong enough to be grounds for slander.
What we really know from all that is that this investigation didn't find any evidence that Branca was involved in shenanigans to let Sony get MJ's share of Sony/ATV.
Everything else is all innuendo and speculation. Generally, some people seem to be interpreting 'indicated' as if it means 'proved', and 'concerned' as if it means 'knowing'. People did (and still do) the same thing to MJ. I hate to see it, whoever it's targeted at.
Okay, this is what happened
Someone, possibly in Sony, tipped Michael and his lawyers that Sony had set up an offshore account for the benefit of Branca
Michael expresses concern and Konitzer discusses this with LeGranda.
Legrand check out the source and the source seems credible, because you don't waste money digging more if the source is not credible
LeGrand and his lawfirm partners meet, discuss and decide to investigate this further AND also everyone around Michael
LeGRand hires a very reputable and able investigative organization INTERFOR, whose employees have been members of British secret service, CIA, FBI, DEA and Israel intelligence services
The employees are specialists in different fields that clients may need to investigate, domestically and internationally.
They use their knowledge, experience in investigating and also connections, to obtain info.
The company investigates and even though LeGrand had not asked them to investigate Mottola, the company comes back with a report, which is what they are employed to do. The report indicates that Branca and Mottola are involved in an offshore account. They also trace a wire transfer by Sony to that account
Of course it would be silly for Branca to be a signatory to such an account. But the investigation uncovers that he is a beneficiary.
Around teh same time or before the report, Konitzer and his colleague happen to find out that they are being investigated and the manipulate Michael into signing a document terminating LeGrand's services.
So LeGrand never gets to present this report to Michael, till the trial when defence subpoena records from him concerning the whole Bashir thing as he was in charge of coordinating the lawsuit against Granada and had aslo been in contact with Dickerman till July 2003.
When they subpoena Michael's file, of course the report from INTERFOR is in there.
Now, interfor were not enagaging in innuendo and speculation. The reason LeGrand says he has no proof is that he only has the report from INTERFOR
But INTERFOR drew up the report based on their tracing a wire transfer and possible money movement to beneficiaries
Just like an intelligence organization, some things are sensitive and as you see CIA, FBI and others often fight to prevent disclosure of certain classified information in court as it would compromise their sources.
INTERFOR has sources and contacts i believe in several of this offshore banks and all other levels in government and corporate companies. They can access records without authorisation, or cleverly circumventing processes and see what is happening.
When they draw up such a report, you are then informed and it's upto you to take measures. For instance, you could sue Sony and subpoena wire transfers to offshore accounts and VOILA! there will be your evidence.
What this people give you is backdoor information to work with so that you don't go out on one foot if you choose to confront someone or a company over fraud, dealing and so forth.
The thing is we all know Michael was not into confrontational lawsuits but if this was another businessman with this report in their hand and knowing a business partner and his lawyer were colluding against him, he would have sued Sony, subpoenaed documents, depositioned those involved and won the lawsuit.
But Michael may have felt that since Mottola was fired, all was well. It was not. Mottola was CEO but still working for his bosses' interests who wanted the catalogue.
INTERFOR can provide proof of the wire transfer and everything else they based the report on, but it would be up to them to decide whether such action would compromise their sources.
Think of interfor's work in this matter like this. Police want to raid someone they think is dealing drugs as they have been tipped off by a credible source but they do not want to go and hit a miss. So they get an informer who is able to access info that they would not be able to legally access. The informer tells them about drugs, where they are stored, and cash transfers done by the dealers, the beneficiaries.
The informer has done his job and is reliable. Now all the police have to do is use legal means to storm the place, seize the drugs and cash and secure a conviction.
Police can turn around and do nothing based on the informer's report or even say they have no concrete proof, just an informer's report.
Well, the informer has his paperwork that he based the report on and he may wish to protect fellow informers, that doesn't reduce his credibility as an informer because the police choose not to take action based on his findings and report.
