Daniel Morgan’s private eye business partner has denied any involvement in his killing and dismissed claims that police corruption impeded investigations.
An independent inquiry published a scathing report last week, which accused the Met of "a form of institutional corruption" for concealing or denying failings over the unsolved 1987 Sydenham murder.
The panel also found that Jonathan Rees, who worked alongside Morgan at Southern Investigations, drank in pubs with officers close to the investigation, even after he became a suspect in the case.
When asked by the BBC whether he killed Mr Morgan, he said: "No. For what motive?"
"Danny was my friend... he taught me a lot and earned the firm a lot of money.
“It was a partnership. And so, the more he brings in, the more I bring in, the more profits we get to share at the end of the year. And it worked well.
"So, him dying caused me a massive amount of grief, financially and business-wise, because the partnership ceased to exist."
Daniel Morgan, 37, was found dead in the car park of the Golden Lion, having been attacked with an axe.
Mr Rees was acquitted of murder in 2011 after the case against him collapsed, one of five failed investigations into the killing.
The panel found clear links between Mr Rees and Sid Fillery, a Metropolitan Police detective, who was considered a friend, among other officers.
Mr Rees has not denied that he drank with officers but claimed that these relationships did not amount to corruption.
He told the BBC: “Relationships between a journalist or private investigator with officers in the case, and lawyers and barristers exchanging information, I don't see that as corrupt.
"It's up to the individual officers and people involved to make sure that they don't break the law, they don't get involved in serious illegal activities."
Mr Rees also addressed claims that his decision to give Mr Fillery a job at South Investigations following Mr Morgan’s murder was evidence of a motive.
He said this was "nearly two years" after Daniel Morgan's murder, and not part of a plan to fill a "dead man's shoes".
The panel concluded that Mr Rees had a "very close and unprofessional relationship with Det Sgt Fillery".
Mr Rees has argued that the case against him collapsed was not because of police corruption, but because of a lack of evidence.
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules here