As someone who suffered the unsubstantiated opinion of a self-proclaimed "expert" in forensic pathology in another province I am struck by the abundance of repetitious medical jargon and technical verbal camouflage found throughout the opinions of Ontario forensic pathologist Charles Smith. Sadly it is the very same language found throughout the opinion and testimony which sent me to prison. They are also, in many instances, the exact same words used to wrongly convict others in other jurisdictions in this country and elsewhere.

At first blush one is tempted to receive the august findings of experts with a certain degree of awe and respect and, to our collective dismay, the utterances of such individuals have historically been imbued with a veneer of authority. As we are painfully witnessing at the Goudge Inquiry, that veneer is sometimes merely a thin cosmetic coating deflecting our intelligence away from the fact the emperor has no clothes. Dr. Smith is but one extreme example of a problem long overlooked by our criminal justice system and the self-governing medical bodies which are supposed to be providing the necessary checks and balances on unbridled medical authority. In hindsight, even Dr. Smith now concedes his lack of training, inexperience, and gross over interpretation.

While hardly forgivable it is flawed human nature for an unrestrained overactive ego to run amok, unfortunately, with tragic consequences for those of us directly affected. The larger issue is our societal failure to establish adequate training for those we entrust with the almost limitless influence we accord experts in the criminal justice system. Likewise the demonstrated inability of the self-governing medical bodies to protect societal interests reflects a fundamental structural weakness in our overall social system.

The individual failings of Dr. Smith and others of his ilk bring home in vivid detail the horrible consequences of wrongful convictions and expose an unhealthy systemic inertia when faced with correcting such wrongs.

In the recently much-publicized cases of Steven Truscott and William Mullins-Johnson we see the unwarranted arrogance of Dr. Smith mirrored on the legal side of the equation. In each of those blatant wrongful convictions the Crown stubbornly resisted efforts to achieve long-overdue justice in the face of overwhelming evidence of innocence. Here again the self-governing legal profession appears to value a rigid adherence to the finality of the criminal legal process over the inherent right to freedom we all theoretically enjoy.

The cases under review at the Goudge Inquiry exemplify how supposedly impartial witnesses become co-opted into a prosecutorial mindset which values winning at the expense of reaching a truthful and just verdict. Dr. Smith admitted he often abandoned impartiality and acted as a tool of the prosecution - the fear is that he was the rule rather than the exception. All too often Crown experts feel an obligation to please which goes far beyond the bounds of impartiality and professionalism - they sometimes want to play a starring "Dr. Quincy" style role.

Given the disastrous consequences of unrestrained expert opinion, the lack of medical or judicial oversight, and the intransigent Crown culture in respect to correcting its own mistakes, the system needs to be changed. Commissioner Stephen Goudge will undoubtedly address some of those issues regarding his review of the Charles Smith debacle but we must demand further systemic change in light of the broader lessons. In particular Canada should have an independent body with the authority to review claims of wrongful conviction and address the permanent damages such horrible systemic mistakes inflict on individuals, as well as to our collective confidence in the integrity of our justice system.

Ron Dalton spent more than eight years behind bars after being wrongfully convicted of murder. He was acquitted after a new trial in 2000. He writes on behalf of the Association in Defence of the Wrongly Convicted (www.aidwyc.org).