On the face of it, a pathology report should be reliable. But how can you guarantee that it is? Professionals can be got at, compromised or induced. People probably thought Harold Shipman was a reliable source of medical information.. for a good while anyway. His example may be extreme, however, it is food for thought.
Saw a recent doc on Shipman.
One thing Shipman didn't know about was computer detectives.
Shipman was sometimes updating his patient death records days before killing them.
A computer detective was able to find out the dates entries were being made onto the computer. Which would be different to the date of deaths Shipman entered on his patients databases.
As Bamber is aware, everyone slips up.
