"TT: You’ve very deliberately made a movie about forensic science rather than the death penalty.
Mims: The death penalty is a component of the film, but we always knew it wasn’t the focus. For us, the real story was about science and the law and the astonishing way they don’t mix so well, even in 2010. Texas is a scientific powerhouse in many areas — economically, science is valued. The use of it in defense of Willingham or in his exoneration is somehow controversial. The film illustrates that to a degree rarely seen............
TT: What reaction are you trying to elicit from people?
Mims: That due process in cases like this one requires objective science. And that science can’t be politicized.
REPORTER EVAN SMITH; THE TEXAS TRIBUNE;
SEE THE EXCERPT ON THE TEXAS TRIBUNE SITE:
http://www.texastribune.org/texas-dept-criminal-justice/cameron-todd-willingham/an-early-look-at-the-new-willingham-documentary/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BACKGROUND: (Wikipedia); Cameron Todd Willingham (January 9, 1968 – February 17, 2004), born in Carter County, Oklahoma, was sentenced to death by the state of Texas for murdering his three daughters—two year old Amber Louise Kuykendall, and one year old twins Karmon Diane Willingham and Kameron Marie Willingham— by setting his house on fire. The fire occurred on December 23, 1991 in Corsicana, Texas. Lighter fluid was kept on the front porch of Willingham’s house as evidenced by a melted container found there. Some of this fluid may have entered the front doorway of the house carried along by fire hose water. It was alleged this fluid was deliberately poured to start the fire and that Willingham chose this entrance way so as to impede rescue attempts. The prosecution also used other arson theories that have since been brought into question. In addition to the arson evidence, a jailhouse informant claimed Willingham confessed that he set the fire to hide his wife's physical abuse of the girls, although the girls showed no other injuries besides those caused by the fire. Neighbors also testified that Willingham did not try hard enough to save his children. They allege he "crouched down" in his front yard and watched the house burn for a period of time without attempting to enter the home or go to neighbors for help or request they call firefighters. He claimed that he tried to go back into the house but it was "too hot". As firefighters arrived, however, he rushed towards the garage and pushed his car away from the burning building, requesting firefighters do the same rather than put out the fire. After the fire, Willingham showed no emotion at the death of his children and spent the next day sorting through the debris, laughing and playing music. He expressed anger after finding his dartboard burned in the fire. Firefighters and other witnesses were suspicious of how he reacted during and after the fire. Willingham was charged with murder on January 8, 1992. During his trial in August 1992, he was offered a life term in exchange for a guilty plea, which he turned down insisting he was innocent. After his conviction, he and his wife divorced. She later stated that she believed that Willingham was guilty. Prosecutors alleged this was part of a pattern of behavior intended to rid himself of his children. Willingham had a history of committing crimes, including burglary, grand larceny and car theft. There was also an incident when he beat his pregnant wife over the stomach with a telephone to induce a miscarriage. When asked if he had a final statement, Willingham said: "Yeah. The only statement I want to make is that I am an innocent man - convicted of a crime I did not commit. I have been persecuted for 12 years for something I did not do. From God's dust I came and to dust I will return - so the earth shall become my throne. I gotta go, road dog. I love you Gabby." However, his final words were directed at his ex-wife, Stacy Willingham. He turned to her and said "I hope you rot in hell, bitch" several times while attempting to extend his middle finger in an obscene gesture. His ex-wife did not show any reaction to this. He was executed by lethal injection on February 17, 2004. Subsequent to that date, persistent questions have been raised as to the accuracy of the forensic evidence used in the conviction, specifically, whether it can be proven that an accelerant (such as the lighter fluid mentioned above) was used to start the fatal fire. Fire investigator Gerald L. Hurst reviewed the case documents including the trial transcriptions and an hour-long videotape of the aftermath of the fire scene. Hurst said, "There's nothing to suggest to any reasonable arson investigator that this was an arson fire. It was just a fire. Legendary "Innocence" lawyer Barry Scheck asked participants at a conference of the National Association of Criminal Defence Lawyers held in Toronto in August, 2010, how Willingham, who had lost his family to the fire, must have felt to hear the horrific allegations made against him on the basis of the bogus evidence, "and nobody pays any attention to it as he gets executed." "It's the Dreyfus Affair, and you all know what that is," Scheck continued. "It's the Dreyfus AffaIr of the United States. Luke Power's music video "Texas Death Row Blues," can be found at:
http://smithforensic.blogspot.com/2010/09/cameron-todd-willingham-texas-death-row_02.html
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"As you're reading this, Steve Mims and Joe Bailey Jr. are putting the finishing touches on Incendiary, a new documentary about the Cameron Todd Willingham case that focuses almost entirely on forensics — on the science behind arson investigations like the one that led to the Corsicana man's arrest, conviction and execution following the death of his three small children in a 1991 house fire," the Texas Tribune story by reporter Evan Smith published on December 28, 2010 uncer the heading, "An exclusive excerpt from "Incendiary," a forthcoming documentary about the Cameron Todd Willingham case."
"Mims and Bailey aren't political activists; the former lectures in the University of Texas' Department of Radio-Television-Film, while the latter is a graduate of UT's law school," the story continues.
"But they were so moved by an article about the Willingham case in The New Yorker that they decided to tackle one of the most controversial topics in the modern era of state's criminal justice system.
Featured in the film are two arson science experts, Gerald Hurst and John Lentini, talking about the case and about forensics in general. Willingham's original defense attorney, David Martin, also gets a lot of screen time — although, given his skepticism about any wrongdoing by the authorities, he could easily be mistaken for a prosecutor. Barry Scheck, co-director of the New York-based Innocence Project (and best known as a member of O.J. Simpson's criminal defense team), plays a leading role as well.
But the breakout performance is that of Williamson County District Attorney John Bradley, who was appointed by Rick Perry to chair the Texas Forensic Science Commission just as the commission and its previous chair were inconveniently set to weigh in on the Willingham case during the gubernatorial campaign. Bradley is combative, bordering on hostile, from the moment he appears in Incendiary, both in his dealings with the press and with his fellow commissioners.
Early this month, Mims and Bailey were kind enough to show me a rough cut of the film. Even more kind, well in advance of its release, they agreed to carve an excerpt of about eight minutes to be posted exclusively on the Tribune site. A brief Q&A will the filmmakers follows.
--------------------------------------------
TT: As filmmakers, what about the Willingham case appealed to you?
Mims: The story is interesting on so many levels. It’s a murder mystery that connects law, science and politics in a way that’s completely contemporary. It has everything.
Bailey: Big, interesting questions were being animated in a series of real-time public struggles: the right to uphold forensic standards, the wrestling over a dead man’s reputation, the seeming unwillingness of public officials to allow for a more thorough, transparent analysis of the evidence. Once we recognized the opportunity to document this, we couldn’t live with letting it pass.
TT: You’ve very deliberately made a movie about forensic science rather than the death penalty.
Mims: The death penalty is a component of the film, but we always knew it wasn’t the focus. For us, the real story was about science and the law and the astonishing way they don’t mix so well, even in 2010. Texas is a scientific powerhouse in many areas — economically, science is valued. The use of it in defense of Willingham or in his exoneration is somehow controversial. The film illustrates that to a degree rarely seen.
Bailey: We were completely uninterested in making a movie that we had already seen, or that would resonate only as an “issue” film.
TT: What reaction are you trying to elicit from people?
Mims: That due process in cases like this one requires objective science. And that science can’t be politicized.
Bailey: I hope people will ask tough questions of our institutions and celebrate the fact that we live in a society where we’re encouraged to do that. If we don’t exercise that political muscle, it will atrophy. In Texas, I’m afraid, that has happened.
TT: Was there anyone you wanted to interview who wouldn’t agree to talk to you?
Mims: We got everyone we wanted except [John] Jackson, the D.A. in the case [and now a Navarro County judge]. He wouldn’t call Joe back.
Bailey: I would have liked to have talked to the Texas fire marshal. Of course, a direct interview with Gov. Perry’s office would have been interesting.
TT: Who’s paying for the production?
Mims: We own our own gear, and over the course of the year we absorbed the costs of travel and editing.
Bailey: We got a $3,000 Texas Filmmakers’ Production Fund grant from the Austin Film Society. We were really honored to receive that — it was a nice vote of confidence for the film early on.
TT: Now that the film is finished, what happens? Where will we be able to see it?
Mims: We’re screening it in festivals in 2011. Beyond that, it’s one step at a time.
Bailey: We’re hoping for as broad a distribution as possible. One of the biggest thrills I’ve had since we locked the picture was showing the first 20 minutes to Dr. Hurst and his saying that he had never seen scientific principles illustrated so vividly — that the film will save lives and needs to be shown to every new fire investigator. That would really be an honor for us as filmmakers.""
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The story can be found at:
http://www.texastribune.org/texas-dept-criminal-justice/cameron-todd-willingham/an-early-look-at-the-new-willingham-documentary/
PUBLISHER'S NOTE: The Toronto Star, my previous employer for more than twenty incredible years, has put considerable effort into exposing the harm caused by Dr. Charles Smith and his protectors - and into pushing for reform of Ontario's forensic pediatric pathology system. The Star has a "topic" section which focuses on recent stories related to Dr. Charles Smith. It can be accessed at:
http://www.thestar.com/topic/charlessmith
For a breakdown of some of the cases, issues and controversies this Blog is currently following, please turn to:
http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=120008354894645705&postID=8369513443994476774
Harold Levy: Publisher; The Charles Smith Blog; hlevy15@gmail.com;