‘Incendiary,’ a Documentary About Willingham Case — Review - NYTimes.com

href="http://movies.nytimes.com/2011/10/07/movies/incendiary-a-documentary-about-willingham-case-review.html">‘Incendiary,’ a Documentary About Willingham Case — Review - NYTimes.com

"“Incendiary: The Willingham Case” covers a man’s execution in Texas for the murder of his children by arson. But this involving documentary, while sympathetic to opponents of the death penalty, isn’t focused on sorting out the ethical rights and wrongs of the practice. It centers instead on whether we understand or respect evolving standards of scientific evidence.

The much-reported case, in short: In 1991 two fire investigators in Corsicana, Tex., found evidence of arson that led to the execution of Cameron Todd Willingham in 2004. Years later, when nationally recognized experts examined the trial, that evidence was largely debunked. Even Texas standards had changed, suggesting that the forensic findings in the case were based more on folklore than on science.

Yet the state judicial system and oversight panels did not accept those new conclusions. Where “Incendiary” will most capture attention, though it does so soberly and professionally (no Michael Moore-style hyperbole here), is in its examination of the political role in that process. Specifically, it examines whether Gov. Rick Perry, who is now seeking the Republican presidential nomination, and his appointees — particularly John Bradley, the prosecutor who from 2009 to earlier this year led the scientists on the recently formed Texas Forensic Science Commission — interfered with the hearing of re-examined forensics because it would have prevented a faithful assurance that no mistakes had been made.

The Innocence Project, including one of its founders, Barry Scheck, became involved in the case, making for some of the film’s most combative scenes. For contrast, Mr. Willingham’s original court-appointed lawyer, David Martin, is interviewed outdoors, where his remarks are interrupted by the crows of roosters. He calls his client a psychopath and a sociopath; says later scientific findings go against his common sense and personal experience; and hints that attorney-client privilege prevents him from saying more.

Mr. Martin is confident in his convictions. The filmmakers are confident about their science. Justice, this strong documentary asserts, is at risk in the division."