cross-contamination theory was "highly improbable". lee later published a book called blood evidence: how dna is revolutionizing the way we solve crimes and describes why none of dr. gerdes claims were credible. bundy crime scene a total of nine blood stains were collected from the bundy crime scene. the defense only contested the incriminating five blood drops that matched simpson - items 48–52. gerdes testified that those stains are all contaminates. he then admitted there was no direct evidence of contamination for any of those evidences samples except for item 52. coincidentally, item 52 had the lowest probability of error with the chances being only 1-in-9.7 billion. gerdes claimed that yamauchi "handled" simpson's reference vial prior to testing that evidence sample but admitted afterwards that he actually handled a sterile control swatch first after the reference vial and that tested negative for contamination but he claimed it was a "false negative". gerdes then admitted that if the evidence sample contained the "real killer(s)" blood and was contaminated with simpson's blood the result should be a mixture of both blood types but claimed that 100% of the real killers blood had "vanished" from the evidence samples after being stored in the evidence van without being refrigerated. he then admitted that the serology results that matheson provided, which don't rely on dna, proved it wasn't a contaminate because they also matched simpson and only showed a single persons blood was present. bundy back gate a total of three dna evidence samples were collected from the bundy back gate. two were collected on june 13, 1994, while the third was collected on july 3, 1994. gerdes claimed that the two collected on june 13 were contaminates. he admitted there was no direct evidence that cross-contamination had occurred from the reference vials to the evidence samples and conceded that the serology results matched the dna results, proving they weren't contaminates. he admitted that the sample collected on july 3 could not be a contaminate as well because the volume of dna was too high but the defense claimed that sample was planted by the police. simpson's bronco a total of eleven dna samples were collected from the bronco. eight were collected by the lapd crime lab on june 13 and three were collected by the state department crime lab on july 29. both collections returned matches to simpson, brown and goldman. gerdes only contested the incriminating matches to the victims blood in the bronco and claimed those results were due to cross-contamination from the reference vials. when prosecutors responded that the matches from the second collection by the state department validated the ones by the lapd because they were the same and collected from the same spot in the bronco, gerdes claimed that the second collection results can't be trusted allegedly because the "bronco had been broken into" in which case judge ito interjected and stated "no it hasn't". ito then ordered gerdes to admit that the results form the second collection prove the results from the original one were valid and that both victims blood was in the bronco which was very significant because ron goldman never had an opportunity within his lifetime to be in simpson's bronco. simpson's bedroom sock a total of six dna samples were collected from the socks in simpson's bedroom with matches to simpson and brown found. only brown's blood was incriminating and gerdes admitted that the volume of dna on that sample was too high to be attributed to contamination but the defense claimed that blood was planted by the police. rockingham glove a total of ten dna samples were collected from the glove found on simpson's property with matches to simpson, brown, and goldman. the victims blood on that glove wasn't incriminating but simpson's blood on that glove was so the defense only disputed that sample. gerdes claimed it was also due to cross-contamination from the reference vial. yamauchi conceded that when he opened simpson's reference vial to withdraw a blood sample for testing purposes that he observed some aerosolized blood on the tissue paper he placed over the stopper when he opened the vial and noticed that some had gotten on his gloves which is why he changed them afterwards. the last thing he did after testing was put his initials on the wrist area of the glove where simpson's dna was found. however, yamauchi maintains unequivocally that he did change his gloves after handling the reference vial which is standard policy. it's also untenable that only the last spot on the glove would be where simpson's blood was found since yamauchi touched at least nine other spots on the glove first prior to the wrist area and none of the other spots on the glove had simpson's dna. lastly, simpson's blood on the glove did not contain any traceable amounts of edta, which proves it did not come from the reference vial. police conspiracy allegations the defense conspiracy allegation of planted evidence primarily focused on three exhibits initially: the blood on the bundy back gate, the blood on the sock from simpson's bedroom and the glove found at his rockingham estate. however, by the end of the trial the defense would eventually claim that virtually all of the blood evidence was planted by the police. barry scheck was the principle attorney who made all of the blood planting claims. fredric rieders dr. fredric rieders, a forensic toxicologist, testified on july 24, 1995, and again on august 14, 1995. during direct examination, he testified that the results reported by fbi agent roger martz showed that edta was found in simpson's blood drop on the back gate at nicole brown's home and brown's blood drop on the sock in simpson's bedroom. using a reference article from the epa, he testified that because the amount of edta in that blood is measured in "parts-per-million" (ppm) and the reference article states normally edta in the blood should only be detectable in "parts-per-billion" (ppb), the evidence blood contains a thousand times more edta than it should. because edta is used as a preservative in purple top tubes for lab draws, he stated the blood could have come from their reference vials. during cross-examination the claim was immediately debunked when the prosecution gave rieders a fax copy of the epa article he referenced during his testimony and had him read it out loud to the jury demonstrating he misread it and it does say "parts-per-million" of edta is normally found in blood. rieders then claimed it was a typo, but the prosecution produced a certified copy directly from the epa, confirming the ppm units of measure. the defense called rieders again on august 14. during redirect he clung to his claim the edta came from the reference vials, denied that ppm of edta could be found in unpreserved blood and denied that it was still used in food. during re-cross examination, the claim was debunked again. this time, agent martz tested his own unpreserved blood and found ppm of edta, disproving rieders' claim. then dr. rieders admitted that the edta results from martz's unpreserved blood were similar to the evidence blood drops in question and not even close to levels from martz's persevered blood from a purple top tube, which had more than a hundred times more edta than the evidence samples. the prosecution also produced an article from the fda showing that not only is edta still used in food (which rieders denied), it is found in the french fries and big mac that simpson ate approximately one hour before the murders. he admitted agent martz was correct that he could not identify edta from a presumptive test and the identification test was inconclusive, meaning this could not even be edta at all. rieders also admitted that another witness was hired by the defense to conduct another identification test of the samples for edta, dr. kevin ballard, to confirm the defenses claim but then declined to have him testify to what the results were. dr. rieders would testify to the same claim at the civil trial on december 20, 1996, but admitted during cross-examination "this might not be blood from a purple top tube" and that the results could be false positives as martz would later demonstrate. the claim of edta on the sock coming from nicole brown's reference vial was conclusively disproved by dr. cotton who showed the dna in the reference vial was more degraded than the dna on the sock, proving it could not have come from that vial. roger martz fbi special agent roger martz testified on july 25 and july 26, 1995. the defense called agent martz because dr. rieders had used his data during his testimony. during direct examination he initially testified the blood samples "responded like edta responded" and "was consistent with the presence of edta" but then stated that he could not identify edta in the evidence samples this apparent turnaround during direct examination stunned the defense and when they accused martz of changing his demeanor during the lunch break he admitted he had because he realized he was not being entirely truthful in his testimony before because he was only giving "yes" and "no" answers. during cross examination, martz narrated his answers and stated edta is also used in food and detergents and not just blood test tubes. martz demonstrated this by testing some of nicole brown's clothing that did not have blood on it and found edta was present. martz then tested his own unpreserved blood and found edta was present there as well. martz then compared edta levels in his own unpreserved blood to the evidence samples and showed they were similar. he then compared both of those results to his preserved blood in a blood test tube and showed they were not even close. martz said that environmental conditions would not affect edta because it is a stable substance (one evidence sample was outside on the back gate at brown's home) and demonstrated this by testing some preserved blood that was over a year old and showed the edta level was still the same as his own preserved blood taken only a few days prior. martz also stated that, although the presumptive test mentioned by dr. rieders was positive, the identification test for edta was inconclusive, meaning he could not positively identify edta was present. henry lee dr. henry lee, director of the connecticut state forensics science laboratory, testified on august 23–25 and august 28. dr. lee did not support the defense's claim of police fraud, but several of his answers gave the appearance he did. he testified that bloodstains on the console of the bronco were consistent with a smearing motion which the defense said was evidence it was planted there by police. lee also said he agreed with blood spatter expert herbert macdonell that the blood splatter on sock suggested the blood soaked through while no one was wearing it which the defense claimed was evidence the blood was planted on the sock. the defense implied that lee's statement "something's wrong" with the dna evidence item 47 due to a wet transfer stain in the case meant lee supported their allegations that the police had "tampered" or planted it. during cross-examination lee admitted that the smearing stain does not prove that blood stain was planted. he also admitted that the transfer stain on the socks could also be produced if simpson had touched the socks or during the swab for the phenolphthalein test for blood. lee also admitted that the item 47 doesn't incriminate simpson because it belongs to brown and was found at the crime scene and admitted the claim the police "tampered" with it or planted it to frame simpson was nonsensical. fbi shoe-print expert william j. bodziak testified on september 15 that what lee thought were a second set of shoe prints were actually just impressions left in the concrete from when it was poured. dr. henry lee testified again during the civil trial but stated clearly "i never meant to imply there was scientific fact to show that any la police officer planted or did anything, cheating, with any evidence when i said 'somethings wrong'. i did not testify to that." bundy crime scene scheck implied that vannatter could