Is there not a distinction between whether his statements to the GJ were "accurate" and whether or not he intentionally mislead the GJ?
Not really. Though they do have to be shown to be knowingly inaccurate.
The Fitzpatrick legal team did not just wing it. They have crafted a case that they know will be hard to undo. The defense will try to undo it, but that won't be a trivial matter and it won't hinge on some revelation document in Fitzpatrick's possession. His team went through all those documents. They know what is in them and they know they will not interest a jury.
They may interest a judge. A judge might be willing to make a call that there was no underlying crime to investigate, but judges are also reluctant to undo the work of a GJ.
Bottom line: the current flurry of stories will be of zero interest to a jury if and when the case gets to them. At that point there will be a different defense. Any attempt by the defense to tell the jury there was no crime will be quashed by the judge of the trial, saying that the jury is not to consider any such thing and that the case is about a very strict and narrow matter.