Deceptive Epilogue? Spoilers* Spoilers* Spoilers*

Caution...spoilers follow.

In the epilogue, the film accurately states that at the time Kuklinski died in prison, he was scheduled to testify against a Gambino family underboss, and that foul play was suspected. Fine. What they failed to include was the fact that the Kuklinski family had the world renown forensic pathologist Michael Baden examine the results of Kuklinski's autopsy to determine if there was evidence of poisoning and that Baden concluded he died of natural causes. My opinion is that omitting this information is a bit deceptive on the part of the film maker. Am I too picky or does this bug anybody else? I realize trivial facts sometimes need to be altered a bit to "translate the story to the screen and make a better movie", but I am bothered when directors abuse this.