"Significant evidence of Donziger's Fraud" seems to only be backed up by the following line from the article you cite: > showed an environmental scientist pres

"Significant evidence of Donziger's Fraud" seems to only be backed up by the following line from the article you cite: > showed an environmental scientist present at a legal strategy meeting of plaintiffs' lawyers; the same scientist was later appointed by the Ecuadorian court as an ostensibly impartial expert to write a report on technical issue So the evidence shows that one scientific expert wasn't fully independent. Contrast this with the clear evidence of conflicts of interests from the US judges, the bribing of the oil company's star witness and their eventual recantation of some of their testimony. It sure looks like there's far more evidence of fraud from Chevron than whatever the documentary crew caught.