This is in response to the person who discounted this documentary (and The Innocence Project, in general, I guess) entirely because ex-O.J. Defense Atty. Barry Scheck is the cofounder and Director of The Project. Here's what a lot of observers, me included, think about that. This doc series is about how unreliable certain forensic evidence (e.g., bite-mark analysis) and eyewitness testimony is, and how innocent people have been wrongly convicted as a result. Now Scheck is justly (in)famous for popularizing the phrase "cesspool of contamination" to describe the Crime Lab in L.A., and thereby helping O.J. (who the majority of people, me included, still think was guilty of 1st Degree Murder) be acquitted. Assuming these opinions are true, that essentially means Scheck used the unreliability of certain forensic evidence to help acquit a guilty person. But some of us believe he started The Innocence Project to use some of the same legal (and scientific) arguments to go back in history and get truly (and as some watching this doc, including me, would say, OBVIOUSLY) innocent people released from long prison sentences, incl. on Death Row. Also part of this, the theory would be, is that Scheck may still feel some guilt over his role in the Simpson acquittal, and this is a way to atone, at least in part. Does this lessen the relevance or impact or validity of the points made in The Innocence Files documentary? I'd submit o you: No. It doesn't. So watch it and judge for yourself it's significance. As for me, I'd give it a solid 8 out of 10!
