The expert witnesses said that a review would concentrate on cases in which individuals were convicted of criminal charges based on findings by pathologists other than Charles Smith - 10-20 cases per year.
"I think it's a reasonable thing to do," said John Butt, one of three renowned forensic pathologists who conducted a detailed review last year of 43 autopsies Dr. Smith performed between 1991 and 2004. "I endorse it ... I think there is a perception that needs to be adjusted - and I'll leave it at that."
The call comes after two weeks of revelations at the inquiry about substandard practices and a discredited "think dirty" philosophy that prevailed in the Office of the Chief Coroner during the 1990s. A taint that was previously confined to Dr. Smith's work has now spread over the entire coroner's system.
"It might be quite an undertaking and require very considerable resources to do it," Dr. Crane said. "But if there are concerns ... to enhance confidence in pediatric pathology, it might be necessary."
James Lockyer, a lawyer for eight people who say they have been wrongly convicted of killing their children in cases involving Dr. Smith, has signalled that he will urge Mr. Justice Stephen Goudge to recommend a full autopsy review.
On another topic yesterday, Mr. Lockyer asked Dr. Butt, Dr. Crane, and a third reviewer - Dr. Christopher Milroy - to address why defence lawyers, prosecutors and Dr. Smith's fellow pathologists could not bring themselves to blow the whistle on his shortcomings or failed to notice them.
Dr. Butt said that doctors are notoriously unwilling to testify against their brethren. "I don't know how to overcome it," he said. "It is an issue of culture. It is an issue of intimidation. There is a certain revering of figures that starts in medical school."
Pathologists such as Dr. Smith are also accorded so much respect within the court system that they become comfortable testifying about medical matters that go far beyond their knowledge and training, Dr. Butt said.
"The more the doctor is encouraged to answer questions that he may not know the answer to - and gets away with it - the more the cult of personality grows," he told Judge Goudge.
Dr. Crane said that a high-profile forensic pathologist can turn into such an iconic figure that even defence lawyers become afraid to confront his opinions.
