Originally Posted by aceventura3

Human nature is a factor when weighing the credibility of a report. I don't think you are suggesting that this person is above being corrupt or corrupted either by ego or an outside source. So, I agree that his job is to report the facts, I also agree that he may have performed his job honestly and to the best of his ability. Where we differ, I think, is that I think it is possible that he is wrong. I also think, given human nature, he would have to proactively overcome the inertia of risking his reputation on being later proved wrong. It takes a little extra to state you are correct and then later have to state that you were wrong, that you were fooled, deceived, failed, not capable, or whatever the reason. I am not suggesting that he would not or could not do it, all I want is more proof - given the circumstances and the potential consequences.