I agree that most coroners would recognise a ciggy burn. Elsewhere on this forum, someone was arguing with me that it is the coroner's job to say what caused injuries. I said it was not the coroner's job to say what caused the injuries - only to examine the body and record the injuries. I believe that I am correct... however, I think if the coroner could SEE what caused the injuries, then he would be obliged to say so. i.e. he might describe small burns, give the dimensions of them and the locality and state that they were "consistent with" cigarette burns.
I know Quincy goes the extra mile to solve the case, but I don't think that most coroners are like Quincy
Maybe I'm wrong in this, but this is my understanding.