[EnderWiggins]

"The newspapers are very imprecise when reporting whether an individual is chief administrator of a medical department or alternatively chief administrator of the entire hospital, yet you continue to play this up as if it proves anything."

Nonsense. The newspapers are very precise in each and every article cited and do not vary. They use one title, "Chief Administrator." There is no ambiguity there, and you can point out no variation or imprecision.

You are grasping at straws that are not even there.

"Two individuals can simultaneously be "chief administrator" with one being of a department and the other of the entire hospital. They can also change roles."

There is no doubt here that there was a role change. Othigo was the CA first, and Maganga became the CA later... four months too late for Smith's forged BC.

[Seizethecarp]

“There is no doubt here that there was a role change. Othigo was the CA first, and Maganga became the CA later... four months too late for Smith’s forged BC.”

You have reasonable suspicions about conflicting details, but you persist in falsely claiming that your personal suspicions regarding newspaper discrepancies that go both ways “prove” something. Your suspicions about mere discrepancies for which there are alternate exculpatory explanations prove nothing, in my opinion.