TORONTO — A top English pathologist yesterday accused Dr. Charles Smith - an Ontario pathologist at the centre of a botched autopsy scandal - of giving trial testimony that was unbalanced, prejudicial and "disingenuous, if not totally misleading," in the case of a seven-year-old girl who died in a 1997 dog attack.

The witness, Christopher Milroy, told the Goudge commission that anyone with a passing understanding of puncture wounds would have known right away that a vicious dog - not a pair of scissors - caused 80 wounds to the child, identified only as Sharon.

Unmistakable signs of a dog attack included claw abrasions near many of the tooth marks and the fact that girl's scalp was torn off, said Dr. Milroy, who conducted a review of the Sharon case for the Ontario Office of the Chief Coroner

"When one looks closely at the injuries, they are just not stabbing injuries," he testified. "I have never seen a scalp torn off in an attack with a weapon. It does happen, however, with dog attacks. This is patently a tearing injury - it is not cut off with a pair of scissors."

Dr. Milroy was also irate about testimony during a trial proceeding for Sharon's mother - who was charged with murder in her death - in which Dr. Smith ridiculed the notion of a dog attack and said it was equally likely that a polar bear attacked the child.

"I find that evidence emotive and prejudicial," Dr. Milroy said, adding: "Subsequently, it was conceded by Dr. Smith that some of the injuries were dog wounds."

The Sharon case was just one of four in which Dr. Smith's work was severely criticized yesterday by Dr. Milroy and two other case reviewers - Irish pathologist Jack Crane, and B.C. pathologist John Butt.

Dr. Milroy said that in the case of a two-year-old child, Jenna, who died in the care of her babysitter, Dr. Smith made "inconceivable" mistakes that led to the loss of valuable evidence and murder charges against her mother.

Dr. Milroy said that any competent pathologist would have narrowed the time Jenna was injured to no more than six hours before her death - in contrast to the 24-28 hour period that Dr. Smith concluded. He said that this would have ruled out Jenna's mother as a suspect and pointed at the only possible suspect - a 14-year-old babysitter who pleaded guilty to the killing many years later.

The babysitter's explanation for burns and abrasions to Jenna's face and brain and internal injuries was clearly false, Dr. Milroy added. "Just one look at this history, as it was provided, would immediately sound alarm bells," he said. "This was patently an overtly abused child."

Dr. Milroy also expressed astonishment that Dr. Smith kept a pubic hair that was inexplicably found near the child's body. "I just find it impossible that this could occur in our system," he said. "There is no way it wouldn't be seen as important. There is no way it wouldn't be seized. There is just no way it would end up in a pathologist's drawer, and forgotten about."

Equally unforgivable, Dr. Milroy said, was Dr. Smith's failure to take anal and vaginal swabs in a case where a sexual assault was entirely possible.

In a third case raised yesterday at the commission - involving a dead child named Joshua - Dr. Crane said that Dr. Smith provided testimony at the mother's murder trial that was rambling, misleading, "unscientific and speculative."

Dr. Crane singled out an excerpt in which Dr. Smith used the phrase: "If I was a betting man," to speculate about the cause of death.

"This is not a day at the races," Dr. Crane said drily. "Dr. Smith is not there to say how he would bet. My own view is that was a totally inappropriate phrase."

As for Dr. Smith's speculation that Joshua's killer was right-handed, Dr. Crane said: "There is no science to it at all. I think he just made it up."

"This is sometimes known as the Sherlock Holmes approach to pathology," Dr. Milroy interjected.