He insisted the elderly homeowner was exaggerating the dispute to obtain more money.
He described the sergeant's conduct as an unfortunate personal decision.
And he maintained that the company had never authorized evidence planting.
Those statements would need to be evaluated against the records.
The board's attorneys reviewed the title file.
They discovered that the recorded easement had been treated as final despite questions raised by internal staff.
They found correspondence from the elderly homeowner refusing the proposed agreement.
And they identified gaps in the documentation surrounding the purported signature.
One junior employee had made a note months earlier.
Original executed instrument not located.
Another had written:
Homeowner disputes authorization. Further verification required.
Those warnings had not been resolved before the easement was used in project materials.
The directors became concerned.
The issue wasn't merely whether the company had a viable alternative drainage design.
It was whether senior executives had knowingly relied on questionable property documents.
Then the company's legal department received information about the stolen watch.
The item had been loaned to the historical society by someone connected to the developer.
The representative who collected it afterward worked within the land acquisition operation.
And communications involving that office were under investigation.
The board acted.
The land acquisition director was placed on leave.
Certain project approvals were suspended.
And the company agreed to preserve and provide relevant records through the applicable legal processes.
The developer was furious.
But for the first time, he faced limits imposed by people who didn't depend entirely on his approval.
The board wanted accurate information.
The investors wanted clarity concerning the project's property rights.
And the lenders wanted assurance that the development could proceed lawfully.
The elderly homeowner had asked for those things from the beginning.
Now the most powerful people connected to the project were asking the same questions.
The next major discovery concerned a draft email.
It was recovered during a review of the development company's land acquisition files.
The message had been written several months before the sergeant's confrontation with the elderly homeowner.
It discussed the unresolved easement.
The costs of redesigning part of the stormwater system.
And the possibility that the family would pursue a formal legal challenge.
Near the bottom, one executive had written:
If the homeowner cannot be persuaded, we need another way to neutralize his objections before the financing review.
The phrase troubled investigators.