So they have this wonderful new imaging method that can show something unseen until now... and they have no pictures with the article.

Seriously?!

BBC news article: Last Updated: Monday, 16 February 2004, 15:31 GMT
Over 6 years old, slow day slashdot?

Poor guy, he never deserved this! *stifles a laugh* Karma baby!

Of course they'll say he was unbiased. If he was biased in this case they'll have to review ALL the previous cases to make sure that he wasn't influenced for those.It was the only call they could make.

Now I might not agree with their decision but I expect they also know it has a good chance of going forward at appeal and so therefore do not need to address this now.

I've seen many sites change the headers/version replies for various reasons. Hell, anyone using mod security for Apache will default to a different version if they use the community ruleset.One website I know will respond with:
Server: Apache/2.2.0 - However, I know for a fact it is running 2.2.11

That can easily be changed in the mod security ruleset to be anything. Like this: Server: Myfakehttpdtakesovertheworld/1.9

I'd bet it is just apache.

If she refuses to change the number, put an automated answering service on the number which instructs people about the fraud or if they really want to talk to the little old lady to press 1. That way the angry people will get told its all being spoofed and wont make the threats. You can do this fairly easily with Asterisk too. Cost wise, Asterisk is free, the pc is the main cost if there isn't an existing one and you can get the required Asterisk hardware (pstn -> pci card) from Digium.

If the govt won't help then this is the best solution without changing the number.